Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Sheri Klouda: Gender Discrimination, Federal Law and the Law of Christ in the SBC and SWBTS

Dr. Sheri Klouda, Professor of Hebrew, The School of Theology, Southwestern Theological Seminary, 2002-2006.
Dr. Klouda pictured at the seminary's convocation, August 29, 2002 affirming her adherence to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message

"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought." J. Rawls

"For [it is] time for judgment to begin with the household of God" (I Peter 4:17).

It is essential for Southern Baptists to speak out when there is an injustice within our convention. This post is written for the purpose of drawing attention to a brilliant theologian who served Southern Baptists as a professor of Hebrew at Southwestern Theological for a total of seven and a half years, three and a half as an adjunct professor and four as full time elected faculty, establishing impeccable credentials and an extraordinary track record, only to be forced out from the job of her dreams for solely one reason --- her gender.

A Bright Light in the SBC

Dr. Sheri Klouda joined the faculty of Southwestern in April, 2002, as assistant professor of Old Testament languages. She received her Ph.D. from Southwestern in May, 2002. She had previously been conferred her bachelor's and master's degrees from Criswell College in Dallas, and as already stated, she served three and a half years as adjunct professor at Southwestern prior to joining the faculty as professor. In the summer of 2001, Sheri served as assistant professor of biblical Hebrew at Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Alabama.

Her conservative credentials are unquestionable. During the same trustee meeting at which she was hired, the SWBTS trustees passed a resolution thanking fellow trustee Ralph Pulley for his 22 years of service as a SWBTS trustee. One can rest assured that all eight faculty hired that day, including Dr. Klouda, were solid, evangelical conservatives who possessed a record of unashamedly defending the authority, sufficiency and inerrancy of God’s Word. Ralph Pulley and his fellow trustees would have guaranteed that to be the case.

Dr. Klouda was an exemplary employee of Southwestern and a tremendous representative of the Southern Baptist Convention to the evangelical world at large. She excelled in the classroom, building a strong reputation as both a scholar and teacher. Her classes were frequently full, and her students testified often of their admiration for Dr. Klouda. Donald Moore, a theological student at Southwestern who was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma during his tenure, expressed his appreciation for Dr.Klouda in an article published by the school's journal. “I was taking first-year Hebrew with Dr. Klouda at the same time I was going through my first round of chemo,” Donald Moore said. “I thank God for (her) grace and good teaching and patience.”

Sheri Klouda gained the respect of the evangelical academic world. She served on the editorial committee and as a regular contributor to the Southwestern Journal of Theology. Klouda also contributed to The Bulletin for Biblical Research, a journal specializing in ancient Near East and biblical studies. Sheri also was a guest lecturer at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania in 2005, and the 58th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington DC, in 2006. She also served as guest lecturer at SBL in 2006. In March of 2006, Sheri received a grant from The Association of Theological Schools, the prestigious Lilly Grant for Theological Scholars to partially fund her work entitled Building a Biblical Theology for Today: The Theology of Intertextuality.

A Sad Story

Paige Patterson was a hired as President of Southwestern Theological Seminary on June 24, 2003, a little over a year after trustees had hired Klouda. The trustees voted voted unanimously to hire Dr. Patterson just as they had Dr. Klouda a year earlier.

Some of the faculty at Southwestern were concerned about the hiring of Paige Patterson. Paige was asked during a June 24, 2003 press conference following his appointment if he would hire women in the school of theology. He responded that “Dorothy serves on the theology faculty at Southeastern”, and that “ provides somewhat of an answer.” Then he added, “there are ample numbers of men who are well-qualified for those positions.” Patterson said he planned to build the faculty with “God-called men.”

Patterson’s philosophical perspective on the roles of women in theological education prevented him from feeling comfortable about women teaching biblical studies or theology to men. In September of 2003, two months after his appointment as President of Southwestern and a one month before his official inauguration, Paige met privately with all staff and faculty . David Allen, the 2003 chairman of the board of trustees responsible for hiring Dr. Patterson, and who himself would be hired by Patterson in 2004 to serve as dean for the SWBTS School of Theology, said of that private meeting with faculty and staff, "While some speculate about Patterson's compatibility with our faculty, I have high hopes that our excellent faculty will work well with Dr. Patterson."

At that closed door meeting in September 2003, Paige gave personal assurances to faculty that their jobs were safe, regardless of gender. Sheri acknowledges her concern at the time, but after the faculty meeting, and the personal assurance by Dr. Patterson that her job was secure, she relaxed and continued in her commitment to invest her life and service in the school she loved. A few days after Patterson's inauguration, four professors resigned unexpectedly, including Dr. Bruce Corley, however, Klouda placed her focus on serving her school and being loyal to President Patterson and the constituency that hired her.

Sheri is the primary provider for her family due to several illnesses which have plagued her husband over the years. In July of 2003 William and Sheri purchased a home in Arlington, in order to be closer to the seminary so that she could spend more time at the school and with her family than on the highway commuting.

A little over a year after Sheri received the personal assurance that her job was secure, she was called to attend a meeting in June, 2004, where she was informed that she would not be granted tenure because 'she was a woman.' Ironically, Dorothy Patterson was serving as Professor of Theology in Women's Studies, but unlike Sheri, Dorothy 'only taught women’. Though it was often said by Paige and Dorothy that Dorothy worked ‘officially’ under the auspices of the School of Education at Southwestern, she was listed on the school’s web site as teaching in the School of Theology. As of January 2007, Dorothy Patterson’s name continues to be listed on Southwestern’s official web site as teaching in the School of Theology.

In that June, 2004, precisely a year after Patterson had been appointed President of the school, Sheri was told that it was ‘the President’ who would never recommend her for tenure. Why? It had nothing to do with her professional performance or collegiality, but simply her gender. She would not be given tenure by the President, because she was the only female teaching biblical studies in the school of theology, and that was not the proper place for a woman. There were many qualified men that could fill that position and it was the President's desire to replace her. Southwestern would give her two to three years to find another position at a reputable school, but she was to do her best to find another position as quickly as possible.

Sheri was stunned. In her mind she had the job of her dreams. While the issues surrounding tenure do not guarantee that a professor will retain his or her position at an institution, she saw herself as working towards tenure at Southwestern. She had invested her life, her family, and all her energy to be close to the school she loved. There was not one thing she had done to discredit her school. Rather, she was well liked by the students, had been loyal to administration and faculty, and had done her best to bring excellence to the school of theology in evangelical circles.

She was being forced out because she was a woman.

The Dark Ages of 21st Century SBC Life

If one wonders what goes on in the psyche of a man (or woman) who does not believe a woman should teach men Hebrew or teach men to properly exegete the Scripture through the study of the languages, one only has to read the words of Paige and Dorothy Patterson.

On October 25, 2004, just one year after Paige was inaugurated, and four months after Sheri was told to look for another job, Paige Patterson gave an interview with Baptist Press. He addressed the rumors that circulated a year earlier, just prior to his inauguration, that women would not be allowed to take classes with men at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and “the rumor that women would be drummed out of the theology school altogether."

Patterson said he knew at the time that he would have to speak to the rumors one day, “But I sort of enjoyed watching the rumor mill work for a year," the Texas seminary president said. "Every once in awhile I've been known to feed one and watch how far it goes.” {Editorial comment: I am surprised at Paige's confession here and wonder if the content of some of the rumors he 'fed' will one day be revealed.}

According to the October 25, 2004 Baptist Press article entitled 'Women are Treasured by God.' Patterson said he purposefully scheduled a discussion of the issue of women in ministry because others often misrepresent his views on the subject, calling such misrepresentation a “diatribe and lie of the left.” Of the many attempts to explain what the Apostle Paul meant when he wrote the passage about the submission and silence of women (I Timothy 2:12), Patterson said, “Oftentimes, the answer of the evangelical world is that a woman cannot serve as a senior pastor.”

”Would somebody please find that in the text?” Paige asked. “It is not in the text. That is not said. There is no mention of occupation in this text at all. This is not a question of occupation. It is a question of an assignment from God, in this case that a woman not be involved in a teaching or ruling capacity over men.” Patterson concluded by saying "It is a prohibition of a woman teaching or ruling over a man . . . ."

There it is. Patterson's narrow interpretation of I Timothy 2:12 says it all and should cause our convention some serious concern. Paige is saying that this verse is not just addressing 'women pastors', but rather no woman shall have 'authority' over a man - period. No woman shall teach a man - period. No woman shall have 'authority' over a man - period. Dr. Klouda needed to be replaced as a professor because she was a woman.

Dr. Klouda was not a pastor of a church. Dr. Klouda was a professor at Southwestern. Dr. Klouda was not performing 'ministerial' services and was not 'ordained' or 'licensed' as a pastor. Dr. Klouda had been trained to teach Hebrew; in fact, Dr. Klouda had been trained to teach Hebrew at Southwestern Theological Seminary. Dr. Klouda was unanimously voted to be professor of Hebrew by the trustees of Southwestern in 2002. It cannot be argued that the institution had religious convictions that a woman cannot teach men - the institution's ultimate authority (the trustees) hired Dr. Klouda. It cannot be argued that the institution had religious convictions against a woman being in a position of 'authority' over a man -the institution's ultimate authority hired Dr. Klouda.

It can be argued that, in violation of federal law, Dr. Klouda was discriminated against because of gender.

It is critical to understand that Dr. Patterson replaced Sheri Klouda with a male on the basis of an interpretative application of I Timothy 2:12 which, according to Patterson himself, goes far beyond a prohibition of women pastors. According to his rigid and narrow understanding of this Pauline text, Patterson believes that it is God's will for a woman to not serve in any position of ‘authority’ over a man. Understanding his thinking answers several questions that have been raised in my own mind over the last two years:

(1). Why would Keith Eitel and Paige Patterson write a 'White Paper' and 'cover letter' respectively, taking to task the International Mission Board for women serving overseas as strategy coordinators with the International Mission Board?

(2). Why would the North American Mission Board no longer endorse women as military chaplains, particularly when the military is facing a shortage of women chaplains for ministry to women soldiers?

(3). Why would Dorothy Patterson only 'teach' women in Southwestern's School of Theology?

(4). Why would trustees serving any Southern Baptist Convention agency have a problem with a competent administrator of an SBC agency simply because she was a woman?

(5).Why would Dr. Sheri Klouda, one of the finest Hebrew professors our convention has ever produced, be forced out due to her gender?

Dr. Patterson closes out his October 2004 interview by giving us a concise answer to the above questions: “Ladies, the highest and noblest calling of God is mother and grandmother. Write it in bold letters with a big magic marker . . . (even) though it runs counter to an American culture that drives women to succeed in business and other endeavors."

Obviously, there are many of us who would oppose any philosophy that minimizes and marginalizes the role of women far beyond that of pastor in a local church, but when people in our convention are hurt by the application of that philosophy, then it is time for us to do something.

The Law of Christ and the Law of the Land

Sheri Klouda did not want to leave her job at Southwestern Theological Seminary. She had outstanding job performance evaluations, a student body that appreciated her, and an academic world that respected her. She was at the job of her dreams. Her family established themselves in Arlington, and her daughter was active in high school there. Dr. Klouda was focused on giving her best efforts to the service of the school. When she was told that she would not be given tenure because she 'was a woman' in a man's position, she was troubled. Her confidence in the adminstration was shaken. She and her family operated under the assurances of Dr. Patterson, given in September, 2003, and as a result took on the responsibilities of a more expensive home in order to be closer to the seminary, relying on her hospital benefits to meet William’s medical needs.

Through a series of broken promises that eventually led to Patterson quietly not assigning her teaching responsibilities for the fall of 2006 because of her gender, and then seeking to terminate her contract and benefits in December by 2006 (the middle of an academic cycle, and the worst possible time for an academician to find a job), this popular Hebrew professor found herself being phased out. Only because of the prestigious Lilly grant, which required seminary support of Dr. Klouda’s research, Paige agreed to find a way to pay Sheri until the spring of 2007. However, in the summer of 2006, Sheri was graciously elected to a professorship at Taylor University in Indiana, where she is appreciated for her work and for the contributions she is making to the academic community there.

The Klouda's house has not yet sold the Fort Worth metroplex, causing unnecessary hardship for the family, since the salary levels for professors differ greatly among institutions. When asked why she said nothing about her situation in 2004 when she was told she would have to leave because of her gender, she said she did not want to jeopardize her family by saying something that would cause the seminary to sever her salary while she was looking for a new job. In addition, she did not want to bring reproach on the seminary or on those who had effected her appointment to the faculty, hoping to make a quiet transition without publicity and conflict. Her husband's health has not improved, and he is currently having difficulty finding regular work in central Indiana, an area known for its economic struggles in recent years.

Our church has helped the Kloudas from our benevolence fund and I have personally given money to help support them. However, this post is not designed to draw out sympathy for the Kloudas. Sheri herself speaks highly of God's providence, and though she struggles to, she has expressed to me her solid belief that God is gracious and that he will bless her in whatever place of service she finds herself.

What bothers me is the extraordinarily restrictive views of certain leaders in our convention regarding women. This is not about 'being a pastor’' of a church. This is not a BFM 2000 issue. This is all about the belief among some that women should not have authority over men, whether it be in the home, the church, a business, or society in general.

The United States federal law forbids discrimination of employment based upon gender:


SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It is argued that churches and religious institutions do not follow under the authority of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines (EEOC), but my good friend, Gary Richardson has given me some great counsel in the past regarding the law and Christians. He told me that every good principle that forms the basis for government protecting her citizens is a principle that can be found in the Word of God.

For our convention to treat in such a poor and humiliating manner a Christian who is as gifted and competent as Sheri Klouda – just because she is a woman- is a very poor witness to the love of Christ in us, a sense of His justice over us, and an appreciation of the equality He brings to us all.

If there is not a change in the way we as the Southern Baptist Convention view, treat, and appreciate women, there will be more lights that go out in our beloved convention than the shining luminary known as Sheri Klouda.

For those who say, “But Scripture demands that ‘a woman should not teach or have authority over a man’!” (I Timothy 2:12), I would respond that I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as much as anyone, and that word ‘authority’ is used just this once in Scripture. A clear meaning cannot be found in any place where Greek is used. It is not in the Septuagint, nor in classical Greek, nor any other literature of the day.

Some have surmised the only way to understand is as a slang word used to describe how the priestesses of the Temple of Diana tried to control and dominate men in that particular mystery religion popular in Ephesus. Could it be that some of those women were converted but were having problems staying away from the habit of using their sexuality and feminine charm to manipulate men, just as the people in Corinth were having a problem staying away from drunkeness which was part of the worship of Aphrodite in their mystery religion? Whatever the case, to interpret that text to teach that a woman cannot teach Hebrew or theology to a man, but at the same time grant doctorates to women in theology and the languages is at best illogical, and at worst chauvanisitc.

For those who say it is nobody’s business what goes on among the faculty of Southwestern, I would gently disagree. This is a Southern Baptist institution, and it is our duty to insure that things are done ethically, judicially, and biblically. The poor treatment of Sheri Klouda leads us to ask several pertinent questions regarding the direction of Southwestern and the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole.

(1). First, will our Southern Baptist seminaries eventually move to bar women from obtaining theological and doctoral degrees? If not, then why would an institution confer a doctorate in theology or the languages but at the same time forbid that woman from being hired in the professional jobs that require such a doctorate.

(2). Why would trustees unanimously hire a woman professor of Hebrew, affirm administration’s excellent job reviews of her, only to then allow her to be dismissed for being a woman? Does no SWBTS trustee comprehend that nothing changed but the President of their institution and his differing views of women?

(3). Do we really desire for just a few to dictate and determine policy that affects people throughout the entire Southern Baptist Convention, including some of the brightest missionaries and educators in our convention, particularly when the interpretive view that excludes people from service far exceeds the BFM 2000?

(4). Is there a conflict of interest when the chairman of the board of trustees, David Alan, adamantly supports Dr. Klouda’s hiring, but then just a year later, as an employee of that same institution, find himself being in a position where he could not object to her removal because of her gender? Or more precisely, how can an institution make decisions that place our convention in possible violation of federal law and nobody say anything?

(5). If someone says, “It is the President’s prerogative to do as he pleases,” then the question becomes, “Do trustees, administrative employees, and others not have the courage to speak out regarding an unjust action?”

The treatment of Dr. Klouda is indefensible biblically, ethically and morally.

I emailed Paige Patterson and Sheri Klouda prior to this posting to alert them and give them an opportunity to respond if they desired. Sheri Klouda preferred not to go on the record. I did not hear from Paige via email so I called Paige before this post went up to speak with him personally. He has not returned my call. I have gone to great lengths to insure that every fact in this post is accurate.

This post will be taken by some as a strike against Dr. Patterson's. It is not. I hope this post is a very strong rebuke against the belief by some in our convention regarding women. The unbiblical, narrow and unjust view of women is at the heart of what I believe to be a growing problem in our convention is putting us all in danger. I will do my best to convince everyone that the continued minimization and marginalization of women is detrimental to the SBC. I repeat: this issue is not about women pastors. It is about spreading a distorted view of women, allegedly based upon Scripture, but contradictory to the true meaning of God's word, not to mention the spirit and power of the New Covenant established by Christ Himself.

It would be consistent with a publicly confessed propensity for feeding rumors that false things might be said about Dr. Klouda in order to justify her removal from Southwestern for reasons other than gender, but those who know Dr. Klouda recognize the foolishness of taking such an approach. In fact, true Christians will seek to address the issues raised through the treatment of Dr. Klouda rather than attack the characters of those involved.

I am grateful for Paige Patterson and his contributions to Southern Baptists. I gladly call him my brother in Christ and I desire nothing but the Lord's blessings upon him. My love for Dr. Patterson, however, does not negate my desire to correct a very distorted view of women that places our agencies in general, and Southwestern Theological Seminary specifically, in grave jeopardy both morally and legally.

I close with the words of Sheri Klouda herself:

"Abraham's willingness to relinquish Isaac expresses his dependence on the Lord himself, not just on the divine promise alone. Abraham recognizes his son Isaac as a gift ultimately belonging to God, and the fulfillment of the Lord's covenant promises as a privilege, not a right." A. Boyd Luter and Sheri L. Klouda, "Isaac," DOTP 448.

Our convention belongs to God. It's time we gave it back to Him.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 379 of 379
RM said...

I have been a Southern Baptist pastor for 41 years and I've never enjoyed anything more than this blog (not too many of the others though). I especially enjoy watching Ben and Tim joust with each other. Be careful boys, don't wound each other since we are all on the same side.

Wade, if you could find the email address of the Chairman of the SWBT Board of Trustees I guarantee there are plenty of us who would write him. If you can't find it, surely someone can help us out...

Anonymous said...

Brother Wade,

Thanks for mentioning this. As a layperson, it hurts me to know that my tithes offered to God support this sort of conduct.

I've always been under the impression that Baptist seminaries are FAR less expensive to the student due to cooperative giving. (Oddly enough, the giving of people who have never been to seminaries) I always have thought that Baptists today are underwriting the education of tomorrow's pastors. I don't like the idea of paying for students to learn to treat any person, men, women or whoever, in this way.

Firing someone for having the wrong genitals doesn't seem Christlike to me.

Anonymous said...

Tim Rogers,
What do you mean by "now after 3 years you find it repugnant and should be exposed?"
According to Wade's blog:
"Through a series of broken promises that eventually led to Patterson quietly not assigning her teaching responsibilities for the fall of 2006 because of her gender, and then seeking to terminate her contract and benefits in December by 2006 (the middle of an academic cycle, and the worst possible time for an academician to find a job), this popular Hebrew professor found herself being phased out."
Exactly how did Wade know this 3 years ago if it hadn't happened yet?

Kevin Bussey said...


What is the record for the # of posts.

BTW, I'm praying that you get no snow so your dad can come preach Sunday at our church! said...

Tim, I say this gently. You have a tendency to write before you know the facts. Dr. Klouda has only been gone from Southwestern since last fall. She was planning to teach until she saw she was not scheduled to teach. There was a big fanfare when she was hired --- nothing said when she departed. I wonder why? She did not seek me out. I and my church found out about her need and we have helped. One of these days I will tell you how I found out. It is far too personal for Sheri right now, and I have promised not to share it. I can say it had nothing to do with Ben Cole. In fact, my article was written before I ever even talked to Ben. Tim, in closing, I would encourage you to financially help Dr. Klouda yourself. I can give you instructions as to how. said...

This will cross 300 hundred Kevin.

The post I will put up tomorrow may push that. said...

Thanks Elizabeth. I was on the phone when I typed the previous comment and you beat me to it. Well said.

Kevin Bussey said...

I love it a teaser! :)

Anonymous said...

Great, Wade! I love name changes.

By the way, what's the "S" for?

David Phillips said...


If you wanted to go to wordpress, I know a guy who could help. His code name is WD-40 and I have his number in my cell phone. said...

There are a couple of things everyone should ask:

(1). Did the trustees know Dr. Klouda was requested to leave for her gender?

(2). Were the trustees aware that the Provost simply directed that no classes be scheduled for Dr. Klouda in the fall of 2006?

(3). Is it possible that a view that 'a woman should not teach a man the Bible (or Hebrew)' is a view not supported by either those trustees, the BFM 2000 and the Bible itself? (see my post tomorrow regarding this one).

(4). When anonymous people attempt to impugn the theology, sholarship and person of Dr. Sheri Klouda, what is really happening?

When there is an injustice in our convention, it is far better for history to record that SBC people spoke out in opposition to the injustice first, rather than for history to record outside authorities stepped in first to correct the problem. said...




in a good way. said...

David Phillips,

I, again, may request your help.

I'm not very astute on these things and if I could get a unique logo and heading I would switch in a heartbeat. By the way, Bryan Riley, your new blog looks A number one fantastic!

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

Email me with those instructions.

Also, did I miss a date? You said that it was a year after Dr. Patterson came that he instructed her she needed to find other employment. Here is your comment; "she was called to attend a meeting in June, 2004, where she was informed that she would not be granted tenure because 'she was a woman.' How do you arrive at this statement: "You have a tendency to write before you know the facts." I am only going by what you said. While you are correct, I do not have first hand information, I can read.

Have a Nice Day,
Tim said...


They gave her three years to find a new job. After one year they came back and said she had 'six months.' She talked them out of that because of the prestigious grant she had won which required her on staff. Then, they simply did NOT schedule her to teach in the fall of 06, she learned this in the spring of 05. She found a job in the summer of 06. That's why it has been less than six months ago, not three years.

Anonymous said...


Having finally chunked the last shard of ice from the keyboard of my computer, I have (impatiently... sigh) waded through almost two hundred replies to your compelling post concerning the unchristian treatment of Sheri Klouda. In spite of the plethora of red herring and strawman arguments being strewn about in this thread, it becomes increasingly curious that those who are critical of your position regarding the facts of Ms. Klouda's dismissal have not offered one iota of reasoning which would justify Paige Patterson's actions concerning same.

Furthermore, in this Okie's opinion, the recent anonymous post, which attempted to deflect your suggestion (that all agencies of the SBC publish a contact information list of all Trustees who serve at the behest of the SBC), countered by saying that every SBC church should do the same, further obfuscating the issue. As has already been pointed out without any specific refutation, Dr. Patterson and his Trustees (Sadly, they appear to be his Trustees increasingly, as this dialog continues.) serve at the pleasure of the SBC and its churches; and, should be accountable to all Southern Baptists in those churches.

While it can be argued that the members of individual SBC churches should have access to similar information about their local leadership, (This Okie is confident that the Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid subscribes to this policy.) this does not, in any way, diminish the travesty or (to this date), the lack of accountability in the arbtrary actions of Dr. Patterson and company to the SBC and its membership, regarding his unilateral dismissal of Sheri Klouda.

It is readily apparent that women teachers at SWBTS have no right to instruct male students enrolled there unless and until it is decreed by President Patterson, himself. By the way (and apologies in advance for the rabbit trail), thanks to the link recently provided by our illustrious resident gadfly, B.S.C., the Patterson Palace Christmas Tour befittingly illustrates that the "parsonage" of the President is totally in keeping with the legacy of his persona. (Drat and double drat. . .did I just blow any chance of being invited to dinner at one of the TWO dining rooms?)

In the meantime, does anyone have any spare rock salt?

T. D. Webb

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...

I do not feel that I can answer your question since I have not heard anything other than what you have written.

I would ask:
1. When were you aware of this?
2. Who did you contact and when?
3. Why is this coming out only now?
4. How can anyone respond without knowing both sides of the issue?
5. Why is the Professor not speaking out?

Alycelee said...

While the blood of Sheri Klouda's ministry and profession runs red, amazingly men everywhere want to draw swords. Notice these swords are drawn not to defend her and the one's who caused her pain. shushhhh let's not talk about this. It isn't proper.

Let me ask any man here. If it were your wife. Would it be proper then? Your daughter? It is Gods daughter. It is proper?

Tim wants decency, But do you really just want Wade to hush?

Les wants to retreat to the arms of the Joshua Convergence. The only thing I heard there was Brad-talk about how horrible women dress. Sinful, sinful women. Is that where you would have me run?

Volfan tells us the scripture is plain and simple, there is no other way to see things, but his way.

Others want to talk with deep, theological voices about such things as "authority" and "proper systems"... in fact if your voice is NOT seminary trained, it could not possibly carry much weight.

meanwhile the blood of Sheri Klauda ministry and profession run.

While some men of faith do nothing?

Thank you Wade and others, who are doing something. You are indeed men of faith AND action.
I have no stars in my eyes. But I would like to personally thank Wade, Ben, Bryan, Paul (who's post on authority and women needs to be a must read), David, Bob, Marty, Bill (Sarg), Alan, CB, and last but NOT least among you Debbie, who I have the greatest respect for. ( hope I didn't miss anyone)
Thank you all for keeping me posted. Thank you for showing me grace. Thank you for caring about someone that obviously on one else cared about.
May your tribe increase and may I be counted among them. said...


You are welcome.

Thanks you for your comment.

Bill Scott said...

My heart goes out to Dr. Klouda and her family. I believe however when we finally run out of earthly solutions to earthly problems that God is able to provide infinite, eternal blessings that could never be imagined while we are self sustaining.
An injustice was done. Period. However God is still sovereign! He will see her through. I am sure of it.
Bill Scott said...


(1). I knew Dr. Klouda was gone last year, did not know the specific circumstances until last week.

(2). Who I contacted was Dr. Klouda and Paige Patterson and other faculty who do not desire to be named.

(3). It is only coming out now because I very well may be the only person who knows the full story and has the willingness to do something about it.

(4). There are no 'sides' to this.

(5). He will - eventually -- because he will be told he must.

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...


"Tim wants decency, But do you really just want Wade to hush?"

This is not about politics to me and it never has been. My comments are not part of some plan in a political game. I do not have any information about the Professor other than what Wade has posted. I am curious as to why deal with it here and not deal with it according to SBC guidelines - the Trustee system? I believe this is an honest question and very much tied to the post.

Then you said "While some men of faith do nothing?"

Did they do it when happened? Why just now? Why not then? Did they do it properly? Did they go to the Trustees?

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...


Thank you for your answers. I still do not understand why this was not dealt with by the Trustees (you going to them)? Why here before them?

As much as I do not desire anyone to be dealt with wrong, I also do not think it is appropriate for us to not go to the ones who could do something about it in the first place.

It appears you want to muster strength and support and force action. It appears political though it may not be.

I think we should follow the structure before airing out something publically. Two wrongs do not make it right.

Alycelee said...

Tim, I would like to ask you a question.
You say this isn't about politics.
Please consider the question and answer.
Do you trust Wade? Do you think that this post is political and the facts are not accurate?
If you will honestly answer that question, I think we can dialog

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...


"When there is an injustice in our convention, it is far better for history to record that SBC people spoke out in opposition to the injustice first, rather than for history to record outside authorities stepped in first to correct the problem."

How about it is important for history to record that we handled the situation biblically and God was glorified. I would be concerned if history records of
speaking out in opposition via the wrong way!

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...


You said in your reply that you found out last week - what about this:
"Benjamin S. Cole said...
I just spoke to Les on the phone, and I told him exactly what I have written. I told you about the Klouda thing months ago."

Liam Madden said...


You've got to be kidding. Just dealing with it behind closed doors is not the solution in a case like this. It's this whole atmosphere of cliquishness and backroom dealing that is lending the SBC a bad name in many circles. Don't you see that an open culture that that is comfortable with dissent and in which all potential parties to an issue have access to the details is the only way to go forward? This issue is not just about Dr. Klouda and Southwestern, it touches almost everyone, certainly, all women in Southern Baptist life from the youngest to the oldest.

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...


I question the post when i read the following:

""Benjamin S. Cole said...
I just spoke to Les on the phone, and I told him exactly what I have written. I told you about the Klouda thing months ago."

Are we now putting criteria on dialogue? I am asking a simple set of questions that are troubling to me. The above statement deeply troubles me.

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...


We are not talking about closed doors. We are talking about dealing with issues properly. If I have a problem with something at SWBTS and the President does not respond, then I should go to the Trustees before doing anything else.

To do so otherwise is creating dissention and sowing seeds of discord. We do not have both sides of this issue. We should not speculate period. Agreeing or disagreeing to this post about an employee without the whole issue is nothing more than speculation.

D. Toole said...

Perhaps some conservative should finally own up to the Patterson ideal and insist that we rename the "Lottie Moon Christmas Offering."

The SBC would certainly not appoint her today. Perhaps we can name it after a man; how does the "Page Patterson Christmas Offering" sound?

Marty Duren said...

Thank you for your kind words. Pray that I may live up to them.

Alycelee said...

You came to the party late Tim.
You obviously didn't read the entire POST
or the entire comment. Else you would have already known the answer to that question.
What is obvious is you DONT trust WADE and you have unwavering trust in trustees and Paige Patterson and "the system"
Therein lies my problem.
Read William-just above your last post.
Hidden agendas must be stopped now!
If anyone thinks they can go along with hidden agendas and unconfessed sin, read any newspaper in the country, NOT BP news. It's out there, everywhere. If we don't expose it ourselves. GOD WILL .
"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."

Again I ask, where is your indignation for Sheri Klouda? said...


I don't know why it is hard for you to understand something so simple. Read again what I have written.

(1). I knew Dr. Klouda was gone last year (this is to what Ben refers as 'months ago'), I did not know the specific circumstances until last week.

I hope this clarifies. Take a look at your picture in this comment string. It appears often. :)

How many times have you expressed concern for Dr. Klouda?

I think that is the issue of the post.



Anonymous said...


I did tell Wade about the Klouda thing...the same time I told everybody else. In a footnote on my blog.

I mentioned that she was terminated, and anybody who wanted to know about it should contact her.

That is what Wade did.

I wasn't aware that dim was a spiritual gift, Tim.

I'll be sure and pencil it in...

But I'll make you a promise...if you don't like the public approach to dealing with institutional corruption, then get ahold of your gut and buckle your seatbelt.

You're going to have a tough ride to San Antonio.


Alycelee said...

Ben, careful with all that eloquence. We might all get starry eyed :)

CB Scott said...


Please don't get on the wrong side of this one. This one is not about theory, motives or sour grapes. This one is a righteous thing. Abuse has occurred. Some of us have been slow to speak to it because of Dr. Klouda's financial jeopardy. Wade has done no wrong here.

Call me.

cb said...


Please don't misunderstand.

I am happy for you to ask questions. You know by now that I am a guy who shoots straight.

Any agenda I have is articulated quite forcefully in the post. There is no further explanation needed.

It is an honor to stand up for a woman who has been the victim of a huge injustice, facing financial hardship, and is fearful of her professional future.

I would hope you would stand with me, and if you feel I have chosen the wrong path to correct an injustice, then I would be happy to be corrected by your own example. Send me the letter you have written to the trustees. Show me your concern by letting me know their responses, and I will rejoice with you when you accomplish your goal.



P.S. Also, let us allow a woman, Alycelee, to teach us both a few things with her comments. :) said...

William Madden,

Well said. I know a couple of other Williams who deeply appreciate your words, one in Oklahoma and the other in Indiana.

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...


You are asking me to accept one side of something without the whole. I cannot do that. I try to never do that. You state I do not trust Wade - how would you know?

I have grown tired of politics and blogging seems to be the new tool. We have a Trustee structure that has been given oversight. They should be first to hear of this.

If a worng was done - I will be upset. I however, will not take a side because someone says something. That is a dangerous game. I will not violate the structure of the SBC - that is dnagerous. It is not blind trust. It is following the structure to lead by example so problems can be dealt with. It is doing things without appearance of political positioning.

I would be very frustrated and hurt if this is indeed the fact. I would be equally hurt and frustrated if it could have been handled the right way and was not.

Months later and not going to the Trustees is wrong!

Marty Duren said...

I've never seen so much straining at gnats and swallowing blue whales in one place in my life.

Do we really want scripture?? "You have omitted the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy and faith: these you ought to have done and not leave the others undone."

Let's ignore reality and worry about who knew what when where and how.

When did you hear that JFK got shot? Why didn't you blog about it? Did you know Lee Harvey Oswald? Why didn't you call the FBI? Were you one of those guys holding an umbrella on the Zepruder film? Fess up now, boy. I know you sat on it until it was politically expedient. Did someone offer to put you on the Warren Commission? Hmm?

Are you a transvestite? Isn't your wife taller than you? Don't you really want Jerry Rankin's job? Do you smoke cigars like B. H. Carroll and Charles Spurgeon?

Feel free to delete this comment if you want to.

Anonymous said...

LOL, Marty N. Duren, for the cross, amen.

Bryan Riley

Anonymous said...

Wade is a transvestite?

From Transylvania?


I'm going to have to bump some posts to get this one into my blog line up.

Marty, do you have pictures?

And here I've been thinking Tim Guthrie, er, Currie was the star of Rocky Horror. said...


I tried to delete it but I was laughing too hard and missed the delete button.


Anonymous said...

This Okie is befuddled how some of us strain at the gnat of Wade posting this episode without first taking his concerns about Professor Klouda's unjust treatment directly to the SWBTS Trustees. . .then, taking nonchalant gulp at the fact that President Patterson neither notified Prof. Klouda prior to her being assigned no classes, nor keeping his word that she would be afforded reasonable time to find another position. This stinkin' series of events couldn't even pass the sniff test of olfactory challenged employees at a pig farm. How anyone could justify the deception, collusion, deliberate harm, hypocrisy, illegal discrimination and callous treatment of Professor Klouda is beyond troubling.

Nevertheless, Wade, this Okie is most grateful for your graciousness and transparency in discussing this shameful treatment of Professor Klouda.

In His Grace and Peace, said...


Once again, your logic is impeccable. You make me proud to be an Oklahoman.

Alycelee said...

Tim, in fact accepting one side is exactly what you ARE doing.
READ WADES POST. Follow the articles and press releases. Read them all. They will lead you to make your own conclusions.
But you chose to believe Paige Patterson, even when he FREELY ADMITS what he has done. FIRE WOMEN WHO TEACH MEN Tim, follow the post You just don't want to see this. I've been reading your blog. You and Steve taking pot shots at Wade, singing your melodies to one another. Take it to the trustees you say? Do the trustees agree with Patterson that every man should own at least one woman? Do you? He had an opportunity to respond prior to this post-he did not.
Wade ask a question you have still failed to answer. I ask you a question you failed to answer. Where is your indignation for Sheri Klouda?
All I've heard from you is about systems and proper channels. If we really believed that, we would all still be catholic with a CAPITAL "C"
Yes, as per your blog post-I too am for reformation. I've been long looking for some to stand up and speak for those who are under the weight of those who have long weilded policial power in a kingdom where there should be no politics.
Systems? no thanks-I will take my stand in a kingdom where Jesus upset systems in favor of people, many of them women.

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...


Where did I say I believe PP? I have read or heard of nothing. You are obviously making assumptions about my position. I will look this up. In the mean time, I would greatly appreciate the reading of what I said versus reading something into it. Read my last post. It is clear.

I just love it when the pot calls the kettle black!

As for not wanting to see something - you really like assuming upon my motives and intent don't you.

Let's remember that falsly accusing is also wrong!

Even if the guy types with mispelled words :)

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...

Marty and Ben,

I guess that could be considered funny by some.

Glad I am giving you a good laugh - I would hate to think of you guys not having something to laugh at.

I will keep trying - next!

Unknown said...


Thank you for exposing the ugly and unchristian conduct of Paige Patterson… I am one Southern Baptist Pastor who is both embarrassed and disgusted!

Wade, if what you have reported is true (and I have not read one thing that would cause me to believe it is not) then; Dr. Sheri Klouda deserved a better seminary president than Paige Patterson, SWBTS deserves a better seminary president than Paige Patterson, and all Southern Baptist deserves a better seminary president than Paige Patterson.


Do these men “Rule by decree”? Are their opinions now equated as Gods Law in the SBC? Are we so far down the road to Rome that we cannot see where we are headed… I am sorry, but this is very SCARY stuff!


Sorry the system is broken, and you need to know that most SBC pastors have lost all confidence in a system that is so blatant in its abuses (board chairmen hiring presidents who then in turn hire them)… Sorry Tim it all stinks to high heaven!

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...

g alford,
"Sorry the system is broken, and you need to know that most SBC pastors have lost all confidence in a system that is so blatant in its abuses (board chairmen hiring presidents who then in turn hire them)… Sorry Tim it all stinks to high heaven!"

I did not you knew all of them. Wow I am impressed. I did know the system ws broken when no one goes through the Trustees anymore. Hope these guys don't find their church members doing that. I do not think they would like it.

I done on this one - still looking for the articles etc. on this - have found none. Email me if you have them

Rob Ayers said...

To all -

This is a travesty - and it needs to be visited, if not by the trustees, by the convention - at least it needs public debate and public processing to reach a decision on what would be the best thing to be done.

At the same time, just where exactly have you guys been? Seminary Presidents have had this unbridled power to fire faculty at whim since the beginning of time - and they have used it. ALL of them - irregardless of ideology. Non-tenured faculty or staff have no recourse - irregardless of who hired them. Dr. Patterson (if the story is as described accurate - and I have no reason to disregard it as innacurate currently) is just the latest "victim" of absolute power - power is no good if you don't break a few heads every once in a while to show you have the power (thanks Jerry Grace).

I weep for Dr. Klouda. I pray that Southern Baptists will do will by here since now we know. What really needs to happen is not only the removal of power hungry executives - but a complete overhaul of a system that has corrupted many a good man. Southern Baptist need to return to a congregationalist polity that seeks the will of God - not a system that encourages power hungry men and women (and that is all of us!) to advocate a political system in order to placate a hunger for prestige.


Wade - this is a good spear tip - yet I wonder if there are other capable handlers out there willing to take the lead? said...

Name one Rob. said...

Take care Tim.

volfan007 said...

if God does not intervene in the sbc, then its gone. if we dont experience revival..real revival, then the sbc is in big trouble. we have five pointers wanting the sbc to be five point calvinist. we have charismatics wanting the sbc to be more charismatic. we have feminists wanting the sbc to be more feministic. we have arminians wanting the sbc to be more arminian. where is all this gonna end? are we seeing the dismantling of the sbc in its infant stages?

btw, i said that women can teach men hebrew, greek, spanish, or algebra. thats not what the passage is about. but, teaching men the bible in an authoritative position as a preacher/teacher is another thing.

i would be against anne graham lotz or beth moore preaching and teaching at the sbc, and i really dont care who disagrees with that.

maybe things could have been handled differently with dr. klouda. i dont know. i wasnt there. maybe things could have been handled better...more wisely. maybe so. i dont know.

its amazing to me that i express a difference of opinion, and anyone who expresses a difference of opinion with wade and his disciples are ridiculed...called names....and treated harshly. sounds to me like yall are doing exactly what you dont like about pp and some other conservatives.


Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...



Politics is a strange thing - it willblind you and make everything look political - even if convictions are the real motive.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Volfan: Where has anyone done any of the things you have just mentioned? A link? Any proof will do.

Tim Guthrie: Why would you say this? I would also ask you for proof of what your accusation. Any link or any proof will do. said...


My post tomorrow will address your bizarre view that a woman cannot teach a man the Bible, or Hebrew, or theology. The BFM 2000 prohibits a woman from serving in the office of pastor. Nobody is talking about a woman serving as a pastor.

Your view of women being prohibited from proclaiming the gospel to men is contrary to the BFM 2000, Baptist history, and the Bible itself. You have every right to believe what you believe, and I call you a brother in Christ, but don't you dare force your view on me or others in the SBC.



Unknown said...


Now I am in a state of confusion… (but my wife tells me I own waterfront property there  )

You said;

“just where exactly have you guys been? Seminary Presidents have had this unbridled power to fire faculty at whim since the beginning of time - and they have used it. ALL of them - irregardless of ideology. Non-tenured faculty or staff have no recourse - irregardless of who hired them.”

I am sure I read somewhere way back up in Wades original post that the BOT hired Dr. Sheri Klouda… and now you are telling me that the Seminary President has unbridled power to fire those that the BOT has hired and that the faculty has no recourse with the BOT?

The system is more broken than I originally thought! said...

Tim must have had a conscience pang Debbie, because it looks as if he deleted the comment you challenged him on. I thought he was through commenting based upon his last comment, but I guess he couldn't stay away. :)

No problem. Tim, you are always welcome.

No matter your motives. :)

volfan007 said...


in this post and comment thread, people who beleive that women should not teach men the bible have been called islamic fundamentalists, narrow, warped, shady, and there have been many ridiculing jokes thrown at us. i have seen many on this comment thread that i would call ridiculing...some were aimed at tim guthrie....some at me...some at others.

please dont bury your head in the sand and think that all is the high road in wade's camelot.

wade did apologize to me for the comparisons to islamic fundies and being ridiculed and laughed at. i didnt see the posts taken down, and many were allowed to take potshots at tim without being whipped for it.


volfan007 said...

oh, and bryan,

its really ironic that this post came along. i just got thru preaching on the role of the woman in the home, in society, and in the church a few sundays ago. and, i preached on men the next sunday. i tried my best to just preach the Word of God concerning these, and God blessed it.

volfan007 said...

Good point g alford.

By the way, I won't answer for anyone else, but I will say something of where I have been.

Minding my own business.

Pastoring my church.

Loving my family.

Until 2005 when I was asked (never sought it) to serve as a trustee of the IMB.

I vowed, after what happened to me in January of 2006, that I would never let a person in the SBC be treated unjustly. Having experienced what I have experienced (which to this day I have never shared publicly), and knowing what I now know about how things operate in the SBC (and continue to learn by the hundreds of emails I receive monthly) I will not be quiet anymore.

I wasn't around for Karen Bullock.

I wasn't around for Ken Hemphill.

I wasn't around for the forced termination of missionaries.

I wasn't around for many other things I am now hearing about.

I wasn't around from 1998 - 2005.

I am around now. For better or for worse.

Anonymous said...

I go to southern to write for two weeks, look at the blog and WOOOOOWWW!

Do we even have a Baptist Press? No it is Baptist Propaganda. The blog is the only real journalism that takes place in baptist life.

After reading all this, I have come to the conclusion that I am losing my desire to be associated with SB? Will somebody please stop this madness........................

volfan007 said...


get your facts straight and really read what i said. i didnt say that a woman couldnt teach men hebrew....or greek...or spanish..or algebra...or cursive writing. i said bible...doctrine.

also, a woman can share the gospel with a lost man....she can sit around the table and help a new convert understand the aquilla and priscilla did with apollos. but, when you talk about a woman having the authoritative position of teacher over a group where men are present...then there's the problem. that goes against the bible.

again, if a woman wants to teach hebrew...then more power to her. but, to have an authoritative position as teacher over men concenrning the BIBLE.....DOCTRINE....then thats what paul was talking about in timothy. and, i think that you will find that many bible scholars agree with me and bart barber and a host of others on this issue.


Glen Alan Woods said...

Hi volfan007,

I sure do appreciate your participation in this comment section, as I do all the others as well. I learn a lot from all of you. If you don't mind, I have a question for you specifically since you have been quite vocal in your assertions.

How can a professor of biblical Hebrew NOT teach the Bible? In my experience with Hebrew I was taught the language within the context of its biblical milieu. Translation and interpretation walked hand in hand with the daily process of learning the language. In essence I was learning Old Testament theology and application of principles to my daily life, especially in the more advanced courses. Your thoughts?


Glen Woods

Rob Ayers said...

G. Alford.

Yes, they do. I could name names and cases but why take away from your journey? You need to do some research. At least the stuff that has seen the light of day. I worked for SWBTS during 1992-1994 - there were a few bodies buried back then - some for cause, most for not but a whim or revenge with the files buried and the minutes redacted. FYI: Dr Patterson was not the President then.


Moses needed a Joshua to hold up his arms. The burden is not on me to choose, but on the Spirit to lead. He has never to produce His leadership and has never failed has He?


Anonymous said...

Volfan, do you question my (and others') faith because we are uncertain that 1 Timothy 2 means what you say it means?

Also, I was not referring to your position on women in the ministry when I asked you my last question about the paper, which you didn't answer (and that's fine, it was somewhat rhetorical); I was referring to your tone and attitude. And, I will admit that this comment string has definitely challenged my own, and I am sorry that I have been fleshy at times in my thoughts as I have been flabbergasted by much of what has been written. Those thoughts and my flesh may have poured over into my written expression, and I do regret that. I do hope that all we do as brothers and sisters in Christ bring glory to Him. When it doesn't, I also hope that other brothers and sisters will gently and compassionately, graciously and lovingly point us back to Jesus.

Anonymous said...

Tim Guthrie and Volfan007 are the same person.:)

RM said...

Ok folks, here's the information on the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for SWBTS:

Dr. Van McClain
Mid-America Baptist Theological Sem.
2810 Curry Road
Schenectady, NY 12303


Perhaps he should hear from all of us...

Anonymous said...

Surely that isn't true given the fact that Tim "amen"-ed Volfan.


Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...

I do not even know Volfan. Sorry you guess missed another assumption.

Keep trying!

Anonymous said...

Just kidding Timbo, check the ":)"

Anonymous said...

I want to know where I can get one of those poignant baseball cards of Tim know like the pic on his posts? Isn't Volfan007 a computer virus or something?

Rex Ray said...

“He is risen!”

Was that the Bible? Was that the gospel? Was that preaching?

Who did Christ choose to first announce the greatest message on Earth?

Was it a bunch of scared men in hiding, or someone brave enough to look for Jesus amongst his enemies?

Get off your high horse and stop telling God what he can’t do.

If He can use rocks to cry out his message; if He can use a donkey to teach a man, He can use ANYONE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE—gutter or pulpit without permission from you are anyone else.
Rex Ray

Stephen Pruett said...

Volfan, I don't want to pile on, because you are clearly getting plenty of responses to your comments. However, you keep saying that Wade called you an Islamic fundie, and that simply is not true. Re-read the post, please!! I don't recall anyone laughing at you or making fun of you either. I disagree with you, but I am not laughing.

On another point, you mentioned that the justification given for 1Tim 2:12 (creation of Adam first then Eve) that this cannot be culturally influenced and must be literal. There is just one small problem. The same justification is given in 1Corintians 11:8 for requring women to have long hair and head coverings in church and men to have short hair. Do you require this in your church? If not, why not? It is just as clear as 1Tim. 2:12, and the same eternal justification from Genesis is used. Obviously, we interpret 1 Corinthians as culturally influnced and do not believe the literal application is relevant any longer in our culture. No one has explained to me why the same cannot be true of 1Tim. 2:12. If we interpret two passages differently (one culturally influenced, one absolutley literal) and they are given the same eternal justification by Paul and we can articulate no reason for the difference in interpretation, we have a real problem. Our interpretation lacks integrity and must be suspect.

One other thought. In 1 Corinthians 11, we are told that women should have a head covering when they pray or prophesy in church. Isn't prophesying bringing a fresh word from God? I don't really understand how anyone can prophesy without teaching. Also, Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 tells us it is a shame for women to speak in church. But wait, he said in chapter 11 that women could pray and prophesy in church. I don't believe the Bible contains errors and I don't believe Paul was an idiot. Thus, one or both of these statements must have been conditional and not universal. Otherwise we would have Paul telling women to pray and prophesy in church and also not to speak at all in church. They both can't be universal and eternal comands, can they? If so, tell me how!

This is just one reason I cannot understand how people can be comfortable firing someone or prohibiting them from service, etc. based on these scriptures. People can say as often as they want that there is only one way to interpret it and it is absolutely clear, etc. etc., but that is simply not the case. If you can answer all the points I made above and the questions I asked, I would be glad to concede the point. If you can't answer them, how in the world can you be so certain that you are right about this. I am not laughing or being sarcastic or anything else, I would really like to understand where you are coming from on this. I'm relying on the Bible and trying to approach it objectively without any preconceptions or prejudices, either feminist or traditionalist, or legalist. When I do that I cannot come to a definitive conclusion that women should be prohibited from teaching in church eternally and universally. If you can, please tell me how you reconcile the problems I have mentioned here (there are several other problems, by the way, but this post is already too long).

Anonymous said...

I suppose that if a seminary president were to hire a self proclaimed liberal scholar without any input from the trustees, then it would be equally wrong for anyone not serving as a trustee to publicly comment on the hiring? Since the proper channels haven't been followed in going to the trustees first?

Ironically, I wonder if any trustee at SWBTS were to comment on this injustice, that trustee would find themselves branded as a "troublemaker" or "liberal" or whatever smear is trendy in our convention in a similar way that Brother Wade has?

In business or health care administration, "the proper channels" tends to be a euphemism for "rubber stamping the earlier decision". I don't have much confidence in the trustees to do anything other than circle the wagons around the guy working as president at southwestern.

I have the nagging suspicion that if less money, power or prestige were involved in our convention, there would be much less fighting. Maybe it's time to defund the seminaries from the cooperative program? Maybe ministers should be no different from the rest of us and pay for their own education. I'm ashamed and I'm bothered that decision makers aren't.

sherrill said...

I made a comment in love about something that interested me. I try to read and learn. I save my opinion about people for myself. I make one staement in a long comment about anger and someone blows up. I will read but save my comments in the future for those in my life that will listen and help me learn. I am sorry to offend anyone and will no longer comment on this blog or any that will not let all comment with out trying to make themselves feel better by negitive comments about others. I thunk that Wade has some good ideas about many things but I will keep my thoughts to myself. I will ask him personally from now on through e-mail. It seems that others out here will continue to be offensive.

thanks for the bruises.


Rex Ray said...

Here is an email I sent to:

Dr. Van McClain,
I’m a concerned Southern Baptist who is worried about the reason why SWBTS is shrinking in numbers and prestige. I’m a deacon in the church where I was a charter member in 1944.

This letter is not about me, but about the ‘attitude’ of preachers coming from SWBTS and wondering if it’s a reflection of the school?
One such student was the pastor of Colleyville where he changed the bylaws to make himself a king. Before he was asked to leave, he had removed from the church four prominent members who would not bow to him. One was a trustee of the church and a trustee of Dallas Baptist University. Another was chosen as citizen of the year of 2006.

What I’m saying is the preachers seem to act in the way of Page Patterson in running over people. With a reputation like that, what student would want to attend a seminary where Christian ethics are broken by the leader of the school?

The way that Dr. Sheri Klouda was removed from the school may be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Is there any way you and the other trustees can remedy the situation?


Rex Ray said...


I would prefer that you post comments. Emails are too time consuming. And, we could all benefit from your insight.

My only encouragement to you is to not take things too personal.

I've learned that people's bark is way worse than their bite.


We all need tough skin to accomplish things.

Tim Sweatman said...

Regardless of one's view on whether women can teach men theology or doctrine or anything related to biblical scholarship either in or outside of a church setting, the fact remains that if the events surrounding Sheri Klouda's departure happened in the manner described by Wade then she was treated in an unethical, non-Christlike manner. This is THE point.

And for those who criticize Wade for not going through the system to address this problem, we have a much bigger problem in that trustees and convention leaders circumvent the system to impose their own doctrinal interpretations on our entities.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
volfan007 said...

alright, lets see.....i dont remember Jesus sitting at the foot of a woman to be taught the bible...not as a grown man. i dont remember a woman being chosen as an teach Gods truth to the write the nt, even though there were many women around who followed the Lord Jesus who could have been included. i dont remember any deacons being chosen that were women....and, i am talking about the official office of deacon, and not just being called a servant. i dont remember any women teaching men in the a group setting where she would be the authority on bible teaching...on doctrine. of course, a woman can share the about the bible, etc. with men....good grief...thats not anything close to being an authority on bible doctrine over men.

i guess i will just stick with the clear teachings of the bible on this matter.

bryan, i didnt say that you nor anyone else was not saved because you hold to this wrong view espoused by wade. this is not an essential doctrine. this is a minor doctrine, but an important one if we want to obey the Lord.

i love all of yall,


Anonymous said...

Some wonder if Hebrews was written by Priscilla. Just a thought. We don't know and I'm not saying it was.

Given the subject of all of this... wouldn't that be interesting.

Bryan Riley

Unknown said...

Rob Ayers,

You said that I “need to do some research” and you “could name names and cases but why take away from your journey?”

Actually, I thought you and I were on the same side of this issue? And, seeing that the BP only prints the “Talking Points” for the current administration, if you can point me in the correct direction to actually get the facts on what our leadership is doing “behind those closed doors” I would be happy to do some research.

Are you defending the Actions of Dr. Patterson, the unlimited power of all seminary presidents, or the way BOTs are selected and operate? From what I read of your post I was under the impression that you thought there was a definite “abuse of power” going on, with no recourse for those who were abused and mistreated?

So you see I am still camping in the state of confusion… (insert smile)

Tim Sweatman,

Said; “ we have a much bigger problem in that trustees and convention leaders circumvent the system to impose their own doctrinal interpretations on our entities.”

AMEN TIM !!! For these leaders there is no, No, NO ACCOUNTABALITY or loyalty to the one document that was written to draw the doctrinal boundaries within the Southern Baptist Convention… Why do we even have a confession of faith if our leaders are just going to ignore it and do what they want anyway?

The King has no cloths…

A. Lin said...

Great blog. Thanks for alerting us to this issue

Anonymous said...

I wanted to be scathing here, but will refrain.

Gender has NOTHING to do with the understanding of scripture or doctrine.

It saddens me when someone who has a wonderful grasp of these things is forced out and replaced with someone who does not have as good an understanding.

If God did not mean for me, a woman, to teach and preach, then why would God give me these gifts and graces? Was God WRONG?

I would prefer to thing that humans are wrong, rather than God.

I am so glad not to be a Baptist -- I am so glad that the Baptists forced me out of the denomination long ago because I would be ashamed to be one now.

Pastor Anonymous

Rob Ayers said...

Brother Alford,

It was not my intent to confuse you. I indeed consider it an abuse of power. I am having trouble in understanding the delayed hysterics. Where was everybody when Southern's librarian was fired six months before his retirement? This is just one example - past presidents of every agency have done this sort of thing. During my time, Dr. Dilday did it - and this was mentioned in that super secret trustee meeting that forced his termination as to one of the reasons they decided to do so. One of the persons he summarily fired was hired as part of the interim administration at the time. And while at the time (and still have) I had reservations as to Dr. Dilday's termination, at least it was done by consensus of the Trustees - and not arbitrarily by an executive.

I am not defending the actions of the executive in stating "they all have done it." I am pointing out the obvious that the system as now so constructed is too tempting to not use adversely. Trustees need to be directly accountable to the body of the convention and not merely appointed. Business should be conducted in the open air - not in executive session. Staff and faculty should be given an ability to appeal and seek greviances against the executive - particularly if the Trustees affirmed them for service.
All of this stuff needs to see the light of day, and has been needed for years.

My purpose here was to cojole us out of the notion that this issue is singularly the fault of Dr. Patterson as if he has been the only one who could be accused of abusing power. And if the system does not go through a radical transformation, then he will not be the last.


Unknown said...


AMEN My Brother!

Perhaps if we had blogs back then these abuses (all of them) would have been exposed and dealt with at that time… When we find ourselves in any position of authority; how we treat those who disagree with us speaks volumes about our own character and integrity (or lack of it!)

Perhaps it would be a good idea for the SBC to form a special commission to address each case (all of them) that has even an hint of Impropriety over the last twenty years and, even at this late hour, do what is right by each former empoyee.

One thing is sure “abuses of power” have taken place, and the current system is broken and in desperate need of repair.

Cheryl Schatz said...


Your godly character has shone through on your posts and your answers. You have a wonderful attitude and I would be honored to call you a brother in Christ. Thank you for bringing out the information in your blog instead of sweeping it under the rug. It is helpful for even those who are not part of the SBC.

It is also a very helpful thing to think about God’s meaning for 1 Timothy 2:12. Does God have a law that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men? Did you know that if he does, then it is a law that is not verified by any other scripture? It would be a unique law one that is completely different from every other law of God. How is it different?

1. There is no corresponding law in the Old Testament that forbids women from teaching the bible to men. If the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a general law for all women, then it is a law that has no Old Testament backing and no one in Paul’s time could be a Berean and “check out” the unique law against the only scripture available at the time - the Old Testament.

2. All of God’s laws are repeated in scripture so that none of them is ever stated only once. Paul said that repetition is for our safety (Philippians 3:1) and the repetition of God’s laws make his commands clear and understandable and verifiable by a second witness. The “law” that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men has no second witness and is never repeated in any form in the New Testament or the Old Testament.

3. There is also no other law that takes a godly work of teaching God’s word and makes it an evil thing merely by the one doing the work. If we take the passage in context, it is false teaching and false teachers that Paul is stopping (1 Timothy 1:3) not godly teachers and godly doctrine. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a “law” that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men, then it is the only “law” of God where He calls a good work (teaching the bible) as an evil work because it would be forbidden.

4. All of God’s laws require God Himself commanding mankind. The unique “law” of 1 Timothy 2:12 has a man commanding. Is this a universal “law” that forbids a good work of teaching the Bible? If it is then it is a unique law worded as the commands of a man and not God Himself.

5. It also would be the only “law” of God that Satan agrees with. Satan loves it when men and women teach false doctrine, but he hates it when anyone teaches correct biblical doctrine because the teaching of correct biblical doctrine thwarts his purpose to infiltrate the church with false doctrine. Satan loves it when godly Christian women are forbidden to teach correct biblical doctrine.

Wade, I would like to offer you a review copy of my 4 DVD series on the hard passages of scripture called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” I think you will enjoy the irenic tone throughout the series and it may open your eyes to some things that you have never before considered. A free preview of the series as well as the reviews that we have received can be found at

Please let me know if you are willing to receive a preview copy.

Blessings to you for such a gentle spirit towards those whom you disagree with!


Unknown said...

Pastor Anonymous,

Sorry but you need to read the post of the SBC “Women” who have posted here… this post is not about changing the SBC policy on the role of women in the Church…

At least we both agree that God is never wrong…

Anonymous said...

I am first:
a woman, created and saved by the blood of Jesus Christ
called to preach and teach the Gospel
educated in a conservative seminary (I will not tell you which one, but trust me... it was not Southern Baptist)
three courses and a defense away from my Ph.D
pursuing my call with the full support, encouragement and love of my husband, children and church
sixth: OUTRAGED that a woman as gifted in teaching is being excluded from doing so in a place where she has demonstrated continual expertise and the blessing of the Lord.

The SBC and SWBTS trustees will answer to God for their misogyny in the name of "inerrancy". I pray for His Mercy not Judgment on their souls.


Bob Cleveland said...


Excellent comment. But I do NOT see Paul commanding that women not be allowed to teach. He said HE did not.

Noticeable in its absence is instruction to Timothy that HE should not allow a woman to teach. Is Paul similarly vague in other instructions to folks on what they should or should not do, or allow?

Not that I know of.

I figure there's a reason why Paul worded it exactly as he did. And why he didn't word it any other way.

Cheryl Schatz said...


You are right in that Paul worded his comments in the exact way he did for a reason. It was a letter to an individual, and Timothy would have understood what Paul meant. Of course it goes without saying that Paul nowhere ever stopped godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine. Paul loved women and commended them for their hard work in the gospel. He did not stand over them in case they might be teaching a man.

My question would be, why is the church often quick to believe that Paul was giving a universal prohibition when the test of his words being a universal prohibition proves this "law" to be completely unlike every proven prohibition of God's?

Test everything. Hold fast to that which is good.


volfan007 said...


are you saying that you feel called to be a pastor...a minister?

volfan007 said...


Thanks for your kind words.

I can truthfully I have learned some wonderful truth from your comments.



Anonymous said...

Why do all the SBC seminaries hold to this position? The complimentarian position
I think you are a little naive on some of the facts about the authors whom you quoted!
This from someone who grew up in Irian Jaya(From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya by Ruth Tucker).I see many here are cheering you on but Iam convinced you are on the wrong side of God with this issue.
Enough of the postmodernist nonsense!

Volfan: As a five point calvinist I stand steadfast with you. As do other Calvinist leaders like John Piper, Mark Dever , John MacAurthur
see this article about another seminary
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters said...

Robert I Masters,

Uh, thanks for your opinion. :)

I am not thinking in terms of sides, I concerned with our convention treating people justly and mercifully.



Stephen Pruett said...

Volfan, What about Junia, the Apostle, Phoebe the deacon, Priscilla who taught Apollos, the several women in whose houses churches met, the prominent Greek women, who from the tobe of the passage, had considerable influence in the church? In the OT there was Deborah the Judge. As far as we know, the Judges were chosen directly by God. Did He make a mistake by putting a woman in the highest position of authority in Israel?

Also, I did not notice that you answered the very specific and straightforward objections and questions I raised about your interpretation of 1Timohy 2:12. I would be interested to read your responses.

Anonymous said...

No one elected you to be the minister of justice and mercy for the Southern Baptist Convention. I do believe you have a personal command and church duty to do this as a pastor but not a convention wide tasking.

Why dont you answer my questions re this issue especially concerning other well known evangelical leaders.
At least you must acknowlege that view that Volfan holds is not strange when you consider the larger body of evangelical groups.

BTW--As a MK whose father was killed by cannibals in 1968 i think you would find my own mothers views on this issue interesting especially regarding teaching and authority.
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

youngandcollared said...

While my tradition does allow women to teach, as well as pastor a church, far be it from me to tell other denominations how to interpret scripture. The Klouda family will be in my prayers. The fact that she is suddenly not fit to teach because of her gender is illogical. What happens to all the men that she has taught in the past? Must they now enroll in a "real" Hebrew course taught by a man??

Anonymous said...

The root of this discussion is why when someone asks if I am "a Baptist" I typically reply that I am a Christian that presently attends a Baptist Church.

Someday those who are driving people away from the gospel in the name of "protecting" the gospel will have to answer for their actions.

I weep for those who will never know Christ because some modern-day Pharisees have driven people called God out of the mission fields because of a "private prayer language."

I despair for those called by God to ministry who choose not to attend seminary because the opinion of man about minor points of theology is being allowed to trump the clear instructions of the Great Commission.

It is sad to see those who claim to be fishers of men turn inward and instead become keepers of the aquarium.

It is time to make a whip and drive Paige and his ilk out of the temple. said...

Mr. Masters,

I have no illusions about being the convention's conscience.

I do well to listen to my own.



Rex Ray said...

Thanks to your posts in the last week or so, I have learned two great truths that I had not realized before:

1. The curse put upon mankind included the struggle between husband and wife who would rule over the other. (I had not read the 2004 New Living Bile that says Genesis 3:16, “…you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” And through the Holy Spirit, that curse is void, and partnership rules.

2. As pointed out by Sheryl Schatz, the sin of Eve was from being deceived, while the sin of Adam was not being deceived but was from defiance which is a far ‘worse’ sin. And 1 Timothy 2:12 does not hold water compared to the rest of the Bible. (Well, I sort of had that idea already.)

Ben Cole,
I like your idea of a u-hall trailer, but it would be more Christian to ask restitution for Sheri Klouda. We could write letters and emails, but SWBTS has big waste-baskets.
Marches have been successful since Jericho. I helped build a house for a missionary in Japan as the result of women marching around a lot 7 times a day for weeks until the ‘powers’ changed their minds to buy it.

What about a march for Sheri? I can think of no better place than 7 times around the campus or whatever of SWTBS. How many days?—until the walls of prejudice crumble. It could be one day a week or 7 days a week, but it should be consistent. How many people would it take? Jesus said two or more; He would be there. If He is in the march, that’s good enough for me.

Will it hurt the Baptist imagine? Maybe at first, but in the long run, people will see that Baptist principles are held by Baptist people if not by ‘Baptist rulers.’

I drove 2,000 miles to vote for the president of the SBC; I would surely drive 200 for Sheryl.
Rex Ray

volfan007 said...


what about junia? i dont remember this person being mentioned as an apostle. i remember matthew john, james, and paul, but i dont remember a junia.

also, phoebe was not a deacon. she was a great servant in the church, but she was not an official deacon. notice that when the first deacons were picked out in acts....not a single one was a female. plus, the requirements of a deacon in timothy would rule out a woman being picked out as a deacon. but, according to some, we shouldnt let that pesky little bible thing keep us from picking women.

stephen, if you want to get a correct view of 1 dr. a.t. robertsons word pictures of the nt. that will help you immensely. also, get dr. john mcarthurs commentaries, or dr. j. vernon mcgee's commentaries. these are men who know the greek language, and are true bible scholars.


volfan007 said...


another thing.....deborah was a great judge. she was a govt. leader in israel. i have never said that a woman couldnt be president, or governor, etc.

also, if you will read what i write before making comments, dear bro., i never said that a woman couldnt discuss the bible with priscilla and aquilla sitting around a kitchen table helping the young apollos. i never said that women couldnt be prominent members of the church, or even have the church meet in thier houses.
women are the backbone of many churches. if it werent for the women, a lot of churches wouldnt be able to do half 0f what they are doing.

but, God has ordained certain roles for men and for women. a woman is not to teach over men in a position of a public setting.....where she would be seen as the authority in the room. that's just the way it is. i didnt write timothy. thats just the way it is....whether our modern day womens lib society likes it or not.

i am not in this to please man.


volfan007 said...

btw, again, i feel sorry for sheri klouda. i am truly sorry that she had to go thru such an experience. that does not change what the bible teaches though.


Anonymous said...

I think the institution does put itself at great legal risk. If they want to say that women can't teach men there, great. But the problem is that Klouda was HIRED AND ALREADY TEACHING men. So it becomes difficult to make the case that women can't teach men there, when that very thing has already happened.

In addition, certain representations were made to Klouda about her position, including the fact that she could become tenured. On the basis of those representations she went to work there (rather than at some other seminary), purchased a house, established her daughter in a school, and no doubt made other decisions that had financial and non-financial implications.

Whether Klouda would have a civil rights case, I don't know. But she certainly would have a case for wrongful termination. What the seminary did in effect was to change the rules of employment AFTER she was employed. If they want to do that, fine -- but the professor should not have to bear the costs of that decision. At a MINIMUM she should have been offered a generous severance package that fully compensated her for her financial costs and for the inconvenience to her family and her career. To do any less is disgraceful.

Anonymous said...

Paige Paterson is my president and is an influential figure in the life of SB convention (those of you who are not baptists, PP was the prominent figure behind the baptist resurgence by reclaiming the authority of Scripture and dispelling liberal teaching in our milieu). The problem (s) is , however, Paige is misusing his presidential power to advance his personal agenda. Having said, in speaking about the current issues within swbts - whether it is Paterson's decision to let Dr. Klouda go or his prohibtion on speaking in tongues/ a private language are endorsed by the majority of swbts faculty. Why is that? Well, most faculty at swbts did/do not speak against these issues for many reasons. (1) They are afraid of losing their jobs (if you know anything about the current state of the School of Theology at swbts, most of our faculty are relatively recent PhD graduates and have less than 7 years of teaching Masters' level students. Recently, many doctoral students have left the school of theology and transferred elsewhere because of lack of supervisional experience among the staff. Remember what happened shortly after Paige was inaugurated as swbts' presedent. The School of Theology has lost his best New Testament scholar and other prominent scholars resigned. (2)It is really difficult to get a teaching job outside sbc when you received a phd from a southern baptist school. The fact that the majority of our professors teaching at swbts receveid their doctoral degree from a sbc's seminary therefore will not risk their jobs in speaking against what they know to be "scriptural misinterpretation and abuse."

Let me get speaking from personal experience. Last semester, I was enrolled in a class at swbts. The professor was addressing certain issues that he believes are contrary to our president's position. He was very careful on how he articulated the issue and ultimately said to the class " I want this to stay between us and don't take it outside the class." Anothe incident that, I was in another class- the pertaining issues were tongue-speaking and women in leadership position. The Senior professor said this in this manner, "I respect Paige Paterson and his presidential authority at SWBTS, however I think his interpretation and position is wrong(See Wade's exegesis), to preventing a woman from teaching men theology is. He made a similar comment for the issue of speaking in tongues or a private language.

Those of you who are earnest to know my identity. It is very unfortunate I choose not to reveal it at this point but I can assure you I will in due time.As I have stated before, I am currently a student at SWBTS. If you know anything about the current state of swbt's leadership. You would grieve over it and pray that God to redirect and renew the leadership of both sbc and swbts.

I am a southern baptist at core but am very worried about the future of our convention. I hate to say that, if we, as baptists ( whether you are a pastor, lay person, professor, or in a leadership position within sbc) do not take a stand and speak against that. Our precious convention will be "a history." It will not be remembered for how the Lord has used us in the past but for the way we treat people.

I received my B.A., M.Div. degrees from sbc schools and am currently pursuing a Th.M. degree at swbts. Again, I want to protect myself, my family and study at this point and choose not to reveal my identity. It is not hypocritical. It is the fact that, I want to graduate in may. The fact that I am a minority people will not believe me as well.

Blessings in Christ,


Anonymous said...

I apologize for lack of clarity and some inconveniences in my previous statement. I was rushing to write the post. For I will soon leave to go to the library. I will be happy to clarify some issues upon request.

Blessings in Christ,


Anonymous said...

I'm very late to this blogging party, but I just have to say that this whole thing saddens me greatly.

As a Class of 2000 SEBTS alumnus and one who has had much respect for Paige Patterson, the more I learn of some of his actions the more disappointed I become.

I believe the Conservative Resurgence was absolutely necessary. But when will it stop! It seems we have moved beyond a fight for essentials into the realm of "if you don't agree with me you're a compromising liberal."

What happened to Dr. Sheri Klouda is a shameful act of injustice. To paraphrase Ricky Ricardo, "Someone has some 'splaining to do." Maybe repenting is more in order.

God help the SBC.

Anonymous said...


Would you respond to 2 Kings 22-23 about the book found in the Temple (Scripture?)? Josiah, the king, the one in authority told the priests (Hilkiah and others) to inquire of the Lord about the words of the book (22:13). They went to the woman prophetess Huldah in order to inquire of the Lord. She spoke the word from the Lord to them using the same introductory formula that male prophets (like Isaiah) use "Thus says the LORD God of Israel". Apparently the priests considered her to be an authoritative source for inquiring of the Lord. Apparently Josiah accepted her "word" as authoritative since he responded with the reform movement. She apparently revealed the will of the Lord to these men. That is an authoritative speaking. She was asked about the words of the book. Is that authoritative teaching? Do we want to say that prophets do not teach?

Also, the verb in Acts 18:26 with Priscilla and Aquila and Apollos is a plural (thus including Priscilla) and it means "expound, explain" not merely discuss (around the kitchen table, as you say). Priscilla was involved in explaining doctrine to a man.

Also, Phoebe (Rom. 16:1) was a diakonos (interesting to note that the term is a masculine gender noun, and thus likely indicative of the term being a description of an office) of the church at Cenchrea not merely a generic servant of Christ (if she was a generic servant of Christ she would have been more likely to have been called "a servant of Christ"). Contextually the implication was that she held an official position at the church and there is good reason to think that she is the one who delivered the letter to the Romans. As a letter deliverer she was to be given honor.

I can't see how your interpretation of the Timothy passage doesn't contradict the ones about Huldah and Priscilla.

Please explain.

volfan007 said...


of course there were prophetesses that the Lord used to speak to His people. this is not the same as being a preacher/teacher over a group of men. God spoke thru prophets and prophetesses many times in the ot, and in the nt until the bible was finished, or completed.

of course, i dont believe that we find any women teaching in the synagogues in ot times, do we? or, do we see any women teaching in the assemblies in nt times? i think not.

i never said that men and women couldnt sit around a table and discuss the bible, and/or help a young convert understand the bible. of course, we can sit around and discuss the and women. but, a woman should not be the authority in a assembly of people where men are present in the area of teaching the bible.

also, phoebe was not put into the office of deacon. she was a servant in the church. she was not a part of the deacon body. do you think that the bible would go against itself? 1 timothy teaches that a man is to be a deacon. are you saying that the bible would contradict itself? or have errors in it?

phoebe was a true servant in the are many wonderful women in the churches all across our land. thank God for the women and for the role that they have.


Lo said...

So much discussion for what should be such a simple issue.
1. The scripture used to support this particular (but certainly not isolated) act of misogyny by the Christian religion,,,,,is a quote by Paul. Are you followers of Paul or of Jesus?

2. Not only is it fundamentally wrong to treat 1/2 of the human race with such impunity, but it is AGAINST THE LAW.

3. You do not have to wonder if the SBC are losing souls for Christ, AND members of their own organization, you just have to wonder how MANY thousands....

LoReacy Moses
A Female Former Southern Baptist (FFSB)

Glen Alan Woods said...

Romans 16:1 Interesting that the greek work diakonon, which is the feminine accusative singular form of diakonos is used to refer to Phoebe. Just a thought.

Hey volfan, care to reply to my question above about Hebrew language instructors teaching the Bible? Specifically I asked how can a teacher of biblical Hebrew NOT teach the Bible. I really am interested in learning from your perspective based on your Hebrew language background. Perhaps in the flood of comments mine was lost. Thanks!


Glen Woods

volfan007 said...


first of all, the sbc is a growing denomination. we are not losing people by the thousands. in fact, not only are we growing, but we are reacing out to the world and seeing thousands and thousands of people get saved in other countries.


someone can teach hebrew just as i was taught spanish by a woman. its a language. now, i understand what you are saying in regards to a seminary. it would be difficult for a woman to teach hebrew without also teaching the bible. so, i guess that women should not have hired to do this in the first place.


Glen Alan Woods said...


Thanks for answering my question. While I disagree with your theological perspective, I appreciate the opportunity to interact with you and others so we can understand each other. Thanks!


Glen Woods

P M Prescott said...

Coming to you by way of Mainstream Baptists.
Question, if no woman is to ever exercise authority or teach a man -- does that include our MOTHERS? Does that mean as soon as you are thirteen years of age (the biblical and Judaic age for adulthood) Mother's are to start obeying their sons, and can no longer teach them?
If you find this question absurd it is not more absurd than the thoughts of all those who commented supporting this immoral, unethical and unchristian treatment of a child of God.

Anonymous said...


You said that I Timothy 3 precludes women from service in the "official" office of deacon. I may be able to agree with you but I would like to see just how do you come to that conclusion.

JLH in TN (btw not-a-vol-fan)

Lo said...


Your logic is flawed on both counts;

1. It does not follow that because SBC numbers are growing that... you are therefore not losing members. Example: A person might leave SBC for their deliberate misogyny and discrimination towards 1/2 of the human race, but SBC might gain members in a country where women's choices are limited.

2. It does not follow that because Paul expressed his dislike of women in a letter that.... therefore it is an edict from GOD

Your bias against women shines through every posting you have made. Didn't your Mother TEACH you better?


volfan007 said...


are you a christian? and, if you are, do you believe the bible to be Gods Word?


ps. btw, paul didnt hate women. i dont hate women either. i love my momma. i love my wife. i love my daughter. i respect all of them in a great way.


well, lets see...deacons are to be the husband of one also, they are to lead thier households well...which is a mans job according to scripture. qualifications are given for thier wives....thier wife....a woman....thus, i believe that its very clear that we are talking about men here.


Lo said...


Do you get to judge whether I am Christian or not? "Judge not, lest you be judged"

btw... you can love individual women and still be a misogynist


Debbie Kaufman said...

LoReacy: I do not think Volfan hates women, I think he has been taught what I had been taught in another church I was in as well. This view is predominant in many churches and while others such as myself took a turn in our lives to read and study passages such as this, putting it next to other scripture and changed views, some still believe what they have been taught but I don't belive it is about hating women. I just think it's not realizing even our(women's) freedom in Christ.

Anonymous said...

volfan007 said...


are you saying that you feel called to be a pastor...a minister?

I do not "FEEL" called. I "AM" called. I have been anointed for this ministry by the Holy Spirit and affirmed by the men and women I work with and serve.

Take it up with Him!
Pastor Anonymous

volfan007 said...

God never goes against His Word.


Anonymous said...

Dear VolFan007

I hate to admit it but I could predict your answer to my deacon question before I asked it. I've heard it before. Actually what I've heard is "you show me the woman who can be the husband of one wife and I'll ordain her". And everytime I hear it again I just roll my eyes and sigh. You know it amazes me that the same people who would require such a literal position on this text will still ordain single men. You can't really have it both ways. ONE is an exact number. It always means ONE, not one or less.

Yes this is clear to you because you are reading your interpretation into what the words literally say.

For example...the word generally translated as "wives" in I Timothy 3:11 literally means "women". To presuppose it can only mean "wives" is to read into the text what is not expressly there, and the word "their" isn't there at all. Any reasonable commentary (including the commentary from W.A. Criswell and Paige Patterson in the Baptist Study Bible) will tell you this. I realize sometimes you must find meaning in context. But when you move away from the literal words to determining context, you leave room for personal bias to become involved. None of us were there to ask exactly what Paul meant. None lived in the cultural context of the 1st century. We all rely to some extent on our own worldview when applying scripture to our daily lives. I am an inerrantist. I believe the Bible is God's Word (not mine or yours) and He did not stutter. Words mean things and I am not keen on telling God what His word says. It's His job to tell me what it means-well the Holy Spirit's job.

And in regard to being the husband of one wife...this refers to the common practice of polygamy in the culture into which the early church was born and/or the rampant practice of divorce if a woman failed to please her husband (i.e. failed to produce a male heir, burned the dinner, etc.). As women were not permitted to divorce their husbands legally (because they had NO legal rights in society-they were literally household possessions) it would follow that this part would not apply to women. She had no choice in the matter, either in who to marry or if/when a divorce should occur. If her husband wanted 3 wives she has no means of preventing it. She might not even know about it.

As for men being in charge of their home, you have a point there. God did place the burden of leadership and responsiblity on the husband. In fact the submission God directs for women is nothing compared to the selfless sacrificial love the man is to bring to the marriage. Yet in Proverbs it is clear that the wife was not to be idle. She was to conduct business, to run the household smoothly so that her husband would be honored in the gates of the city.

So where are we now? There is more than one reasonable and clear interpretation of scripture. Which one you accept will depend upon your own conviction of which is correct.

I believe Phoebe was a deaconess, not a servant but a real life deaconess. Why? Because not only is she called such in scripture, there are supporting extra-biblical writings (histories, etc) that meantion deaconesses. They were essential to the early church. They ministered to women in ways that were culturally inappropriate for men. For example, a woman who gave birth but had no mother to assist her in nursing the baby or dealing with the physical recovery from a miscarrage needed help but no man could touch her. That is where the deaconess came in.

It will probably suprise you but I do not believe we should have "women deacons" in the modern church. I think we get to caught up in titles. The "official" deacons of Acts weren't really called deacons. And, unlike in most of our churches today, they weren't a ruling body but a group of waiters-humble people who led by example-the prime example being Christ. If deacons aren't ruling the church, just serving and making sure the needs of the otherwise helpless are met, then the title is redundant don't you think? One does not need a title to serve. Ministry is the responsibilty of every member-not just those with the title Minister of ______. So I do not believe we need "women deacons" because we have "women's ministry"-women ministering to women in ways that are inappropriate for men. Should we still have male deacons? Yes, because that is what scripture directs. But they should be servants, not rulers (and I believe they should be married).

I expect you will still hold to your argument. However clear it may be to you, your interpretation is not that clear to other people who also love God and read scripture and pray daily for His guidence.


volfan007 said...

loreacy, or lomozizzle, or whatever your name is,

i never said that you werent saved. i asked you if you were a christian....did i not? did i judge you? i asked you a question.
a question that you never answered. also, do you believe that the bible is Gods Word...inerrant Word?

loreacy, i dont hate women. i respect women in the highest way.

anon in tn,

i disagree with almost everything you said and a lot of it would not jive with the bible at all. but, i dont hate you. i am not mad at you. i am not trying to fight with you either. you neither, loreacy.


Anonymous said...

Volfan, it only doesn't jive with the bible in your mind and in your interpretation, but continuing to say so doesn't make it so. That anonymous is not the only one who has shown a number of different ways to understand this text. This is just like continuing to feel compelled to say you don't hate or aren't mad at anyone doesn't make it so, and, frankly, I really don't understand why you feel compelled to say that.

You are correct God doesn't go against His Word.

clear teaching of the bible... clear teaching of the bible... clear teaching of the bible... sigh.

I have struggled with this issue much in the past six months. I always believed just as you do because that is what people I respected taught me to believe. I have since started studying the subject and the Bible specifically on this issue. Frankly, the language regarding husband of one wife is the language that I most struggle with. However, it is true that the Greek simply says "one woman man." I'm not sure what that means in the Greek in the context of Paul's time. Today, that is a phrase we are familiar with culturally, but what did it mean? I understand you would point to other verses and likely say they help make it a clear teaching of the bible that women are never meant by God, who is no respecter of persons, to be pastors. But, I think others raise legitimate questions to this allegedly clear teaching. Just as you can't understand why anyone would disagree with you about the clarity, there are many of us who cannot understand why you cannot agree that there is a lack of clarity. But, you will continue to contend on it seems, even though I'm not sure you are contending for the faith as discussed in Jude; rather, you will contend on for your particular view of scripture and will likely claim superiority of belief therefor.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Volfan said: "loreacy,

first of all, the sbc is a growing denomination. we are not losing people by the thousands. in fact, not only are we growing, but we are reacing out to the world and seeing thousands and thousands of people get saved in other countries."

Volfan: I don't see where we are growing according to the numbers we are losing many people and baptism numbers are down.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Bryan Riley said: "Frankly, the language regarding husband of one wife is the language that I most struggle with. However, it is true that the Greek simply says "one woman man." I'm not sure what that means in the Greek in the context of Paul's time."

Bryan, we can understand much better what Paul meant when we look at the religious culture of that time. The Jewish Talmud lists the rules that the Pharisees followed concerning “husband of one wife”. The Pharisees of Paul’s day allowed polygamy (one Rabbi stated that four was the maximum number allowed while another said that a Jewish man could have dozens of wives as long as he could afford to have them all). One thing that they all agreed on was that the High Priest was not allowed to be a polygamist. The High Priest was to be morally pure and he was to be the husband of one wife. The High Priest could be divorced and remarried but he could not be a polygamist. The phrase husband of one wife was only ever used in reference to polygamy as a divorced man was never said to be the husband of two wives. There were no regulations concerning polyandry in the Talmud because a woman was not allowed by law to have more than one husband. Paul only had to deal with polygamy regarding leadership because polyandry was never a problem.

In the early church it was a concern what to do with the Jewish converts who were polygamists before they came to Christ. Should they be forced to divorce all of their wives except for one to be accepted in the congregation? The decision was made that polygamists could enter into Christian life and fellowship but they could not become leaders. Women leaders did not need to be the “wife of one husband” as polyandry was never practiced. Eventually the Christian teaching that God's ideal was one man for one woman became accepted and taught in the church and spread throughout society.

I did a lot of study in the Talmud when I did my research on the book of 1 Timothy. It was fascinating in one way to see the historical connection to some of the comments by Paul (Paul had been a strict Pharisee before he came to Christ and was very against those Judaizers who held to strict Pharisaical laws) as well as the condemnation of Jesus to the Pharisees, but I was really unprepared for a lot of the moral repugnant things I read in their laws. It helped me to understand why Jesus said that they were whitewashed tombs full of dead man’s bones.

Lo said...

You are correct in your assessment of the numbers as I stated earlier. Thank you for defending Vol even when men such as he endeavor to oppress you. That is Christian love and charity.

yes my name is LoReacy, I am not afraid to post my identity unlike you. My initial point has been made by several others on this blog and related blogs. Your responses are becoming robotic and tiresome. I think I will bow out of this conversation at this point.
Good luck to you and the women in your life and those that you encounter in the future. May you treat them with respect , not only for the role you feel the Bible assigns them but for their intellect and contributions to the church.
Blessed be,

volfan007 said...


i will, and always have, respected the women in my family, and in my church. i have always appreciated greatly the women in my life and in my church. i appreciate them very much.


the sbc...the last i checked...had not lost thousands of people in the overall growth of the sbc. now, our growth has not been as great as in the past....but, its still growth. its not losing thousands and thousands of people. in fact, we have thousands of missionaries in all parts of the world leading record numbers of people to the Lord as well. that doesnt sound like thousands of people are leaving the sbc.


i always approach the internet in an anonymous fashion for many reasons. i am not afraid of you or of anyone else knowing who i am.


Anonymous said...

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons the SBC continues to increase in number is that you argue so much with each other that you don't ever remove a name from your roles. Probably a significant number of your "members" are on the roles of several of your churches.

BTW, why would any thinking woman be a Southern Baptist?

JayLee said...

I answered the last anonymous post on my blog tonight. Feel free to stop by.

I am a thinking woman (I think I am anyway). I am a Southern Baptist. I stay because it is where God has put me. I'm not saying it's perfect, but what is? I do not like that women have such a limited place in ministry in many churches. But it's just not like that in every SBC church. We tend to get to caught up on titles as humans. If a title or lack thereof would keep you from ministry then I wonder why you want to "serve" in the first place. If God has called you to teach, teach where you can, be it children or women, and let Him take care of who hears it. (Since when is it a hardship to teach women anyway?) If we are not faithful with little, can He trust us with more?

Just a thot,

Anonymous said...

One of the interesting points being raised over at Jesus Creed about the women in ministry debate and the SBC position is the inconsistency between congregational rule and no women leadership.

Anonymous said...

you finish your post by stating that the convention belongs to God and we need to give it back to Him.
What about the possibility that God is using the present leadership to keep it like He wants it.
If the changes that you are seeking
are not supported by the majority of the SBC will you stop your pursue of the convention in your
image. Othoniel a valdes sr

Anonymous said...

“Ladies, the highest and noblest calling of God is mother and grandmother. Equal to men, yes, but do what God has called you to do,” Patterson said. “Write it in bold letters with a big magic marker.”

This is from Patterson's interview. Why do so many Christians persist in this ignorance? No where will you find this idea in the Bible. Indeed, Paul says just the opposite when he says that it is better to be unmarried in order to better serve the Lord. I'm married and expecting and as happy as a lark...but I feel that whatever God chooses for me to do is my "highest calling" is not necc. rooted in my biology.

Anonymous said...

I am SO sorry for this good woman, her family, and the students she might have taught well. What I am NOT is surprised. You all watched him get rid of so very many other folks, hurt people, damage the cause of Christ. Can you imagine explaining to your child who has to move that it is because this man says that God doesn't want your parent to teach at this seminary?

He loves a fight as do all good fundementalists, and when they have finished with the moderates, is it any wonder that they start on the "home folks"? You must decide if the end has justified the means.

The Knights Notes said...

As a young adult, I remember that in the capitol city of South Carolina you could find only one pharmacy open on the Lord's Day - Taylor Street Pharmacy - and the grocery stores open on Sunday rotated so that those who absolutely had to buy groceries could have a place to shop. That was the prevailing situation, and it was not because the world was convicted or convinced that Sunday should be set aside as unto the Lord. Today, the Lord’s Day is desecrated weekly by me and other Christians sometimes with very little thought. Sports command the day for many Christians and shopping by believers is steadily on the rise according to the latest surveys. Yet the scriptural principles for keeping the Lord’s day are set out clearly in the Bible.

I’ve taken note through the years of the comments I’ve heard that were made to describe those who have sought to conscientiously keep the Lord’s Day and the adjectives used by some Christians is telling: narrow, strict, stuck in the dark ages, Pharisaical, a legalist, etc. And today, for any legislator to even suggest reverting back to such an archaic scheme of operation that prevailed for years in Columbia only thirty-seven years ago would bring a firestorm of consternation in the national press and make our state the subject of derision from Maine to California. However, a true revival would change things in that regard overnight.

In reading the Dallas Morning News article and the blog comments by Pastor Burleson, my thoughts went to the broader role of women in society at large. As a layman, I often find the commentaries of Matthew Henry, Calvin and others to be helpful. At any rate, long gone are the days when the majority of women, even Christians, are found to be primarily homemakers and to even suggest in today’s society the possibility that their being “keepers at home” might just be the Biblical mandate is to risk being labeled with some or all of the adjectives mentioned above.

John MacArthur, in his commentary on 1 Timothy, has some interesting introductory comments to his exegesis of the 1 Timothy 2 passage and speaks to the role of women in the church and the issue of their exerting authority over men:

“The role of women in the church is a topic that is hotly debated today. Unfortunately, the debate has left the pages of Scripture to find its resolution. The traditional doctrines are being swept away by the flood tides of evangelical feminism. Churches, schools, and seminaries are rapidly abandoning truths they have held since their inceptions. Dozens of books are being written defending the new 'truth' regarding the role of women. Ironically, some of the authors of those books formerly held to the traditional, biblical view. But under the pressure of feminism they have abandoned biblical accuracy in favor of the culture. The biblical passages on women's roles are being culturally reinterpreted, ignored because of the alleged antifemale bias of the biblical authors, or dismissed as the additions of later redactors.”

“Spiritual equality between the sexes did not, however, do away with the difference in their roles. There were no queens in either Israel or Judah (Athaliah was a usurper). It is true that Deborah served as a judge (Judg. 4:4–5:31). Her case, however, was unique. Dr. Robert L. Saucy comments, 'There may be instances when the regular pattern of God's order may have to be set aside due to unusual circumstances. When, for example, the husband and father is absent, the woman of the house assumes the headship of the family. So it would appear, there may be unusual circumstances when male leadership is unavailable for one reason or another. At such times God may use women to accomplish his purposes even as he used Deborah.' ('The Negative Case Against the Ordination of Women,' in Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry, eds., Perspectives on Evangelical Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979], 285).

“It is significant that Deborah declined to lead the military campaign against the Canaanites, deferring instead to a man, Barak. No women served as priests. None of the authors of the Old Testament were women. No woman had an ongoing prophetic (Speaking before people) ministry like that of Elijah, Elisha, or the other prophets. While Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), and Isaiah's wife (Isa. 8:3) are called prophetesses, none had a permanent calling to that office. Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah gave only one recorded prophecy, and Isaiah's wife none. She is called a prophetess because she gave birth to a child whose name had prophetic meaning. A fifth woman mentioned as a prophetess, Noadiah, was a false prophetess (Neh. 6:14). While God spoke through women on a few limited occasions, no woman had an ongoing role of preaching and teaching.”

We have found Dr. MacArthur's book "Different by Design" [Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1994] to be helpful when considering the distinct roles of men and women.


Cheryl Schatz said...

Kightsnotes wrote: "There may be instances when the regular pattern of God's order may have to be set aside due to unusual circumstances."

The problem with this thinking is that it would be immoral for God to set aside His own moral law. John MacArthur believes that it is unlawful for a woman to teach Christian doctrine to men and it is unlawful for her to lead men. Would God break his moral law by choosing his representative as one whom he has forbidden to lead or teach? He could not choose Deborah if He had established a law against a woman leading and teaching. It is morally impossible for God to make an exception to a law that forbids this work. If he set such laws aside, how could we ever be certain of anything? Perhaps he will change His mind on the ten commandments too?

I appreciate John MacArthur for many things especially the way he stands firm against the cults and aberrant movements in the church. I do not agree with his view of women teaching doctrine to men. I do appreciate, though, that his organization gave me permission to document his view of women in my DVD series. I do think that many will be very surprised to hear in his own voice what he believes about women. He is a dear brother in Christ, but in this instance he has held women back with poorly held exegesis.

cyleclayton said...

Here's a thought about blogging. If you post something positive on your blog, you'll probably get two or three comments. If you post a controversy, you'll get many more. If you're the first one to get the "scoop" and you are the inaugural blogger about some controversy, some negative partisan issue, you'll become famous.

Anonymous said...

I hope you are not surprised. This type of stuff will continue to happen with fundies in charge. I invite you to try the CBF.
Rob Noland

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter what your views are on the proper role of women in the church. This is just wrong. In attempting to uphold one Scripture verse on female submission, Paige Patterson has trampled on a million other Scriptural principles concerning love, justice, and the equality of all before Christ.

By the way, I feel for Klouda's children. I know what it's like to have to move to a new city midway through high school, leave all the old friends behind and start all over from scratch. It's no fun at all.

Anonymous said...

I am a wife of a SWBTS student, I would like to remain anonymous to protect his ability to graduate. Isn't that sad. This controversy greatly disturbs me, I also find it quite illogical that the seminary even allows so many women to study at the school if they find little value in them being used by God in a place other than the home, such as the classroom. It has been very clear to me that their is a yeast of disunity and controversy working it's way through Southwestern. It gets us off track from our calling- the great commission. God is calling all of us, whether male or female to be kingdom laborers for His kingdom.
My husband had Dr. Klouda for 3 semesters and she was a well respected professor. It is absurd to discredit the call that God placed on her life to equip the saints through teaching Hebrew. Dr. Klouda was not the first female that this has happened to since Dr.Patterson came. I do not know Dr. Patterson personally, however the controversies surrounding him and the judgement calls he has made and the comments he has made makes my spirit hurt. I am deeply concerned.

Anonymous said...

Since we women can't teach men! Does that mean we can't share Christ with a man- because that would be teaching a man theology,as we explain the mystery of salvation.
Hmmmm...... Doesn't sound like a good argument to me.

Comissnd said...

Hello there

Look, this is not about the inequality of women. Were this to happen in a secular school then there would be a real problem. SWBTS, however is a Christian seminary. What this means is that it is governed by principles as they appear in Scripture. For example, within the church "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man..." This was written in a letter from a man who was taught by Jesus, to a man who was ordering the churches in Ephesus in the early to mid 60's A.D. Theology is what is taught in churches. It would be hypocritical for a Christian institution to read that sentence in the second letter to Timothy and then place a woman in a teaching and authoritative role within the School of Theology. It has to do with the belief that God's specified orderings are higher and of more value than man's sensitivities.
I have read that people are drawing extreme knee-jerk conclusions at the application of this passage. Ignorance will do that to the best of us. The school and Paige Patterson are NOT saying that women cannot teach. Again, we go back to the Biblical ordering of the church. Women are not to teach or have authority over men within the realm of the Christian church in matters pertaining to theology. The fact that the school does NOT have a problem with women teaching can be easily proven by simply going to their website and looking a the faculty. It includes women - even women who teach theology - within the Women's Studies program, one of whom is Dr. Patterson's own wife.
As a bit of further information for those who have not spent time reading the Bible, women are not regulated to a second class. They are highly esteemed and even the dimmest of readers can see this if they are not so worked up and over by their preconceived notions and biases. See Proverbs 31 - Matthew 26:13 - and the references by the same author of Timothy to Chloe, Eunice, Pricilla, ect...
As I said earlier, women are not regulated to a second class. They are however in a second position. It has nothing to do with personal worth but to order. He is a God of order and not of confusion of course. As in all things there must be an order by which to operate. This is only logical. If you had two heads on your one body what would be the outcome especially if the two were so different in mentality as are men and women? One has to be in the lead position and it only makes sense that the first shall lead. This is not evil. It is simply the same ordering that our God has used countless times in creation.
I hope that this has been received and perhaps helped ease some of the more troubled minds. There is much more depth to this issue of course and a good solid exposition of the containing books of the Bible can bring further clarification. May God bless you.


Comissnd said...

Hello there

Look, this is not about the inequality of women. Were this to happen in a secular school then there would be a real problem. SWBTS, however is a Christian seminary. What this means is that it is governed by principles as they appear in Scripture. For example, within the church "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man..." This was written in a letter from a man who was taught by Jesus, to a man who was ordering the churches in Ephesus in the early to mid 60's A.D. Theology is what is taught in churches. It would be hypocritical for a Christian institution to read that sentence in the second letter to Timothy and then place a woman in a teaching and authoritative role within the School of Theology. It has to do with the belief that God's specified orderings are higher and of more value than man's sensitivities.
I have read that people are drawing extreme knee-jerk conclusions at the application of this passage. Ignorance will do that to the best of us. The school and Paige Patterson are NOT saying that women cannot teach. Again, we go back to the Biblical ordering of the church. Women are not to teach or have authority over men within the realm of the Christian church in matters pertaining to theology. The fact that the school does NOT have a problem with women teaching can be easily proven by simply going to their website and looking a the faculty. It includes women - even women who teach theology - within the Women's Studies program, one of whom is Dr. Patterson's own wife.
As a bit of further information for those who have not spent time reading the Bible, women are not regulated to a second class. They are highly esteemed and even the dimmest of readers can see this if they are not so worked up and over by their preconceived notions and biases. See Proverbs 31 - Matthew 26:13 - and the references by the same author of Timothy to Chloe, Eunice, Pricilla, ect...
As I said earlier, women are not regulated to a second class. They are however in a second position. It has nothing to do with personal worth but to order. He is a God of order and not of confusion of course. As in all things there must be an order by which to operate. This is only logical. If you had two heads on your one body what would be the outcome especially if the two were so different in mentality as are men and women? One has to be in the lead position and it only makes sense that the first shall lead. This is not evil. It is simply the same ordering that our God has used countless times in creation.
I hope that this has been received and perhaps helped ease some of the more troubled minds. There is much more depth to this issue of course and a good solid exposition of the containing books of the Bible can bring further clarification. May God bless you.


dogscratcher said...

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Inerrant is inerrant. Literally.

Anonymous said...

Someone above wrote: "I believe the Conservative Resurgence was absolutely necessary. But when will it stop!"

The answer: It won't. It's not in the nature of the beast for it to stop.

Some of us knew that back when the Patterson-Pressler axis reared it head in the 1970s. We saw plenty of deception, manipulation, people destroyed by lies and innuendo, as well as outright firings with no cause other than, "You don't think exactly as I do, and of course, I'm right."

I was a Southern Baptist from the cradle through earning my PhD, and beyond, but I've long since found a spiritual homeplace in another tradition. (I'm glad to report that there is healing and wholeness to be found in other parts of Christ's Church.)

This blog was referenced in a mailing list somewhere else and caught my eye. It's the first thing that I've read about SBC life in years. It was sad news to read about Dr. Klouda's dismissal. It was even sadder to realize that I wasn't in the least surprised to hear this stuff is still happening.

Sadder still is that there are apparently so many who even yet just don't get it. It was the fundamentalist mindset that conceived and implemented the takeover of the SBC 30 years ago which gave rise to this. It will continue as long as the that kind of thinking continues, until the last, purist (and/or most powerful) few are left with the remains of a once-beautiful system that had served God's cause.

I grieve with you who grieve. I pray for the day when we all treat one another with dignity and justice. And I do remember and pray for Baptists (who gave me so much in my early years) at the altar every Sunday.

Anonymous said...

I write, not as an SBC member or, for that matter even as a christian, but as a Taoist; from that perspective I can only wonder at how the predominating argument against the good professor teaching Hebrew seems intimately involved with shooting oneself in the foot.

While it might be true that cutting off your hand if it offends you is a sound motive, all you're really left with is a lot of blood and one less hand. By the same token, excluding the knowledge and ability of over half the population simply because they happen to have an additional X floating around somewhere would, at least to my mind be relegating over 50% of your God's greatest gift to the rubbish bin of ignorance.

From my perspective, as a Taoist, the actions to which Pastor Burleson writes speaks to a triumph of religion and not faith and, perhaps, not a little pride. an additional note: Pastor Burleson, while I (probably) would hugely diagree with you on a huge number of spiritual, ethical and moral issues, you are a credit to your faith; may your God bless you and keep you.


Mark said...

Wade and others keep talking about this is a violation of federal law. You guys should think this through a little bit about the history of Baptists and religious freedom before you keep calling SWBTS law breakers. Look at the law Wade cited:

"(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

If you really think this law applies to SWBTS seminary's ability to hire and fire professors based on their biblical convictions, then SWBTS can be sued for "discriminating" in their hiring practices based on their "religion." That is the word right next to "sex" in the cited law. Think about it. Why don't we just have a discussion about what the BIble teaches within the Convention and within our churches, rather than claiming our institutions could be prosecuted by the government.

One more thing, Wade called Patterson's teaching a "philosophy that minimizes and marginalizes the role of women." He did so right after quoting Patterson saying the highest and noblest calling of a woman is that of mother and grandmother. Wade, it is disturbing that you think a view that exalts motherhood is minimizing and marginalizing. Sounds like the wisdom of the world to me, a little too influenced by feminism rather than the Bible: a philosophy that says humble service and submission for the good of others is a minimal marginalized position- whether it be Christ on the cross or a mother with her baby. Well, I praise God that us minimilized, marginalized Christians who serve faithfully in the roles God has designed for us, will not be minimized or marginalized when Christ returns. We will be glorified and exalted with Christ who submited and subordinated Himself to the Father (even though He is ontologically equal) and gave Himself an example we should follow after.

Anonymous said...

Bryan Riley,

If you are still reading, I wanted to comment on this statement regarding the Greek text:

However, it is true that the Greek simply says "one woman man." I'm not sure what that means in the Greek in the context of Paul's time.

"Woman" is in the genitive case = "of one wife/woman". "Men" (it is plural) is in the nominative, meaning it is the subject. So this verse does not imply "of one husband."

Anonymous said...


When I graduated from an SBC institution with my undergraduate degree and headed off for seminary, I was "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" about my prospects for a future in SBC higher education. Now that I am about to graduate with my M.Div. and headed toward a Ph.D., I have no such optimism. Unfortunately, I have come to peace with the fact that I will never be permitted to teach in the area God has called me within SBC institutions. Many days I am angry about it, but most days I am sad. I wish I could remain within the convention that nurtured me, but it is impossible in the current environment.

That said, I want to say thank you for standing up publicly, articulately, and passionately for Sherri Klouda. Again and again I have encountered these kinds of injustices on a smaller scale in my local SBC church and there has yet to be a man willing to stand up for the women involved. Often I feel like we don't have a voice, nor do we have anyone to defend our right to a voice. So, for whatever its worth, thanks.

Encouraged, but not yet healed,

a Baptist woman

Anonymous said...

If Saturday Night Live decided to record a skit which purposefully mocked Southern Baptists, their writers wouldn't need any new material...they could simply reinact the recent actions of Dr. Patterson. A lifelong Southern Baptist, I grew up a great admirer of men like Dr. Patterson, Paul Pressler, and W. A. Criswell who rescued the Convention from its slide to doctrinal irrelevance. But as Patterson has drifted from dynamic spiritual giant toward irrelavent fossil, a certain segment of the SBC has begun to feed on itself like a flesh-eating bacteria...anyone who doesn't walk like them, talk like them, or think exactly like them can't be Southern Baptist!
In response to an earlier post which stated that there was no debate on women in the church until the nineteenth century, I wonder what other types of basic rights might now be debatable because of the same excuse...women owning property, women going to college (oh yeah..we are still debating that one!), women voting, etc., etc. Oh yeah, and black people too. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed during the Civil War era largely in support of slavery, and I can think of one great pastor who, until the 1970's, sought to justify segregation because blacks were the "sons of Ham".
My post might give the impression that I am some type of liberal or feminist...I am a conservative Christian who belives that the Bible is God's Word from cover to cover, that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and that we as Christians are all equally indebted to the Glorious God who could have justifiably condemned each and every one of us to Hell. These convictions are what motivate my desire to prevent more of the same types of injustices such as those which were perpetrated against Dr. Klouda.

MikeL said...

I havent the time to read the entire blog thread; however, it is interesting that we havent heard about removing women from trustee positions. If the trustees have an accountability authority over an institution that would mean they are "over" even the institution head. I guess we ought not to baptize woman in the company of men since that baptism might convict a man and "teach" him something. This is getting ridiculous. But let's admit there are a number of areas where it is expidient for us to allow something. I believe the classroom is one such area.

Anonymous said...

I have been attending SBC churches since I was five and was saved when I was nine. Not in all my over fifty years as a SBC have I been more ashamed of my denomination. Truly the tile being circulated on the West Coast fits, we have become the Pharisees of the 21st Century......

Anonymous said...

Everyone, I am sorry if I say something that has already been said. I am late to the discussion, and I did not take the time to read all 363 comments, although I did read many of them. I read enough to know that there are many discussions going on here. I am deeply troubled by the way SWBTS treated Dr. Klouda. I am also deeply troubled by the SBC's policies of late. But it also troubles me that this issue will be decided by the state. Personally I think a broader version of Matthew 18 would have to apply to Mrs. Klouda's situation, and her case against SWBTS.

My #1 question would be, "Should the state have control over the policies and decisions of SBC seminaries?" Even if Patterson's, and Southwestern's interpretation of the Bible in regard to women (orany other issue), I am not ready to turn over authority to the state in regard to Seminary policy. Someone made a good point early on in this discussion. What about policies regarding homosexuals? Could a homosexual man (or woman) apply for a position with SWBTS as a professor, push the issue and get a meeting with Patterson (thereby getting him to clearly state that he would not hire them because of their sexual lifestyle, which would inevitably happen), and then follow the same course of action as Dr. Klouda is following (albeit reluctantly)? Could not this homosexual file the same kind of suit? If Dr. Klouda is justified in her action, would not a homosexual who had been turned down for a job based on sexual preference be justified in the same? Mr. Burleson, am I wrong? Are you, Mr. Burleson, ready to give full authority over the seminary to the federal government of the U.S.?

Me second question is, "why is anyone looking for charity, or virtue, or least of all consistency from Leighton Paige Patterson. He is nothing more (and nothing less) than a pampered, aristocratic politician. I have taken his classes. I know how inconsistent he is in all kinds of areas. I am convinced that he himself is the standard by which he judges all things. Don't look for anything consistent to come from Paige. We can only trust him to be who he is.

My last question gets back to the earlier comment (by me) regarding a broad version of Matt. 18 to be considered. Why is this matter not being settled by the SBC? If Dr. Klouda could not work it out with Patterson, and if she could not work it out with the trustees and the administration of Southwestern, then shouldn't there be some kind of undertaking by the SBTC in this case? Shouldn't there some kind of interest on the part of the SBTC to settle this, and to keep it out of the court, thereby keeping Christ's name out of the dirt of this nation's legal system (not a comment against you attorneys reading this, I love you and what you do (some of you))? I am for justice being done in regard to Dr. Klouda and her family. But I am more concerned with the name of Christ. Shouldn't we all be? Shouldn't we all be ready to be defrauded for the sake of the name (surely I don't have to quote the verse, look it up)? This case should never see the courtroom.

With much respect and concern for all involved,

Soli Deo Gloria.

Anonymous said...

I have a couple issues with the people who take 1 Tim. 2:12 and say that all women should not be teaching doctrine to men. Here are my issues:

1) This book was written to Timothy regarding ministry to the people in Ephesus. The women there had been corrupted by false teachings and were bringing those false teaching into the church. It was this issue that Paul was mentoring Timothy on. He also mentioned men bringing false teaching in 1 Tim. 1:3. He also speaks to the women's deception in verse 14. You see at the tree the woman was deceived and spoke through that deceit. But let me ask you, was Adam deceived? No, just rebellious. He was not deceived, yet ate. Who was really weaker? Those that sin out of being deceived or those that sin out of a clear mind and purpose...that is another issue all together, because the man was standing right there allowing his wife to be deceived. (Gen 3:6 "...with her...")

2)If you take verse 12 and say that women can not teach doctrine. You must take the following as well:

vs. 9 - your wife can't braid her hair, wear pearls or gold or buy expensive clothes.

or how about

vs. 12 - 'women will be saved through childbearing', tell your wife that!! I am pretty sure this is where the Mormons base their doctine on women bearing children to gain access to their husband's planet when we die. Sure is interested how we like to choose our verses. :)

Anonymous said...

I've spent all afternoon reading every one of the comments on this posting. There is no doubt that Sheri Klouda was treated disgracefully, and I thank God for Wade and others who are prepared to stand up and be counted as they speak out against this.

Some things are apparent:

Whether we like it or not, theological 'sides' are taken, and it's unlikely we will ever agree - some can't even agree to disagree in a Christ-like fashion. Adding 'I love y'all' to a comment doesn't absolve you from responsibility for how you say things, no matter how strongly you feel.

I read a lot of blogs on women in the church, and it's the SBC-based ones that show the least grace, humility and love in the tone of the comments posted, and where there is much heat and very little light. It shocks me to think that some of you are Pastors. It is possible to make honest comments and hold strong convictions and STILL be respectful, loving and graceful - something you guys could certainly learn from us women - yes LEARN.

As a Baptist, I am ashamed to share my denominational name with the SBC, and even here in the UK I find I have to dissociate my Baptist Union from yours - the repercussions of the fundamentalist, narrow and restrictive male 'domination' of the some of the leaders of the SBC bring it into disrepute and we are all tarnished, indeed it sets back the Kingdom.

I have no crystal ball, but it would be no surprise to me (and would give me no pleasure) if the SBC came to a sticky end, consumed by its own Pharasaical leagalism.

My mind turns to a poem. I have addded my own verse. The version inscribed at the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston, Massachusetts reads:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they 'came for' the women, and I didn't speak up because I was a man.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I thank God for men like Wade. You might be next...if you think differently in any way from your 'leaders', you WILL be next, and you'll wish there were more Wades.

Anonymous said...

I am the daughter of a retired Southern Baptist Preacher. He told me once, quite naively, that nobody is hurt by the way things have always been for Southern Baptists as he perceives it. Therefore “people” should just let it be and stop causing division. Dr. Klouda is one example in a long list of walking wounded women and men, including this preacher's kid who can't seem to muster up the courage to walk back into a Southern Baptist church after leaving there for the last time in tears. Theologians debate and position papers are written, and all the while people in the local churches are hurting because of it. Dr. Klouda's experience is important because people with big voices know of the injustice. God bless you for speaking out so that all might see and know, and consider and understand, that to do nothing is to perpetuate a corporate sin that is committed in the name of God.

Preacher's Kid

Anonymous said...

I have not had time to read all the comments but one thing that really stands out to me in this situation is the deceptive tactics of Paige Patterson in this situation. He should never have led all the professors to believe their jobs were secure. He deceived her.

The second thing that stands out is his lack of understanding of what this would do to her financially. Or perhaps he did not care? I am aware that Paige Patterson has few monetary worries.

So, he is a great man of God who follows scripture to the letter of the law as he interprets it, yet has to sin to do so?

Color me confused.

Anonymous said...

SWBTS needs to stop allowing women in. It is unethical for them to take tuition money from women if they believe they cannot use their education...even teaching classes in a seminary.

Anonymous said...

I know Paige well enough to know that his decision had little or nothing to do with his view of the Bible. By this, I don't mean he doesn't love the Lord, or he doesn't try to be as Biblical (in his mind) as possible. What I mean is that sometimes he lives in the past ... sees friends and people as "liberal enemies" on the battlefield when they are just as conservative as him trying to accomplish the same goals. Somewhere in his mind he was convicnced that Sheri was a threat to something, and because of his power, had her removed. Believe me, I have seen it before from him. He just doesn't realize that he's won ... the convention is conservative ... people like Sheri, Wade, me, are all conservative.
I can say for myself, even though Paige and I agree theologically on 99.9% of things, he still sees me as his enemy. I'm not. It's sad.

John L. Rothra said...

I agree with you completely. As a SWBTS PhD student, I believe the mishandling of this situation causes the school and our convention to see its light dim. It dims not because of its stand on doctrines; it dims because it enforces the doctrines badly.

I do not agree with Dr. Patterson's reading of 1 Tim 2:12. Also, I cannot see an institution which is accredited by secular organizations, is designed as an educational facility, and does not actively practice many of the standard religious practices found in Southern Baptist churches as a church or para-church. It is an institution of higher learning founded by a denomination and private donations.

There are certain questions that come to my mind:

1. Does it matter if someone is in the school of education, theology, music, or evangelism?

My response is that it does not matter unless you want to play legalistic semantical games. No matter what school you are in, as a professor, you are teaching others how to apply Scripture correctly. If you really think about it, this requires, by definition, the professor teaches some level of theology. Theology is found in music (Are the lyrics scriptural? Does the worship service glorify God?); theology is found in the education school (How did Jesus teach? What methods did Paul use to teach others?); theology is found in the evangelism school (What is the gospel? How did Jesus share it?); theology is, naturally, found in the theology school (How do you preach the Old Testament? What is the Biblical theology of Christ?). Therefore, if women cannot teach theology, then they are disqualified from teaching in any part of the seminary.

2. If SWBTS is an SBC church, why don't we offer evangelistic invitations after every chapel? Why don't we offer the Lord's Supper? Why don't we offer Sunday services for those in the community?

The answer is because there are 'churches' out there who are called to do these things. That means that that SWBTS is not a church, or else it is failing to do what it is called to do.

3. How would the school respond to other texts dealing with opulence (see the new 'chapel' that's being promoted)?

Jesus talked about storing up treasures in heaven. Therefore, the school is wanting to built a $16 million (or more) chapel that is the state of the art facility. It will house treasures of renowned pastors' libraries, ornate features, etc. All the while, the evangelism school is not getting the attention or professors I believe it deserves. The Spring Evangelism Practicum is needing more funds on a regular basis (traveling costs go up all the time). If the school is to be known for evangelism (which the President says it should be), then why focus on a glamorous chapel and not evangelism?

There are others, but I don't want this comment to go much longer than it is so far.

My point is this: while some at SWBTS may consider me a 'liberal' because I have no problem with Klouda teaching Hebrew and Hebrew exegesis, I say that this discussion is needed in the SBC. I believe Klouda's firing should serve as a catalyst to spawn greater debate. The debate should not be simply a recitation of dogma (as I've seen some of in the comments here), but a careful consideration of the various viewpoints.

anya said...

Quote from comments: "Women are not to teach or have authority over men within the realm of the Christian church in matters pertaining to theology."

Could someone PLEASE tell me what this 'authority' is? What EXACTLY does having this 'authority' mean?

(Please define this OUTSIDE of of a marriage relationship)

Be specific

Thank you.

John Winter said...

Now that this sad case is back in the news, I thought I'd put my two cents in.

1: I don't know if a woman teaching men Hebrew falls under the Biblical proscription or not, but I do know a seminary president is invested by the trustees to make decisions in these matters.

2: Dr. Patterson, having inherited a situation he felt required fixing, has mishandled the whole thing terribly. The right thing to do is compensate the lady for the wrong done to her by the institution. Regardless of which president one agrees with, Southwestern did. promise her a job which she performed more than adequately and then withdrew the promise and the job.

When an honest businessman finds he cannot live up to the contract of his word, whether sealed by signatures or a hand shake, he will make compensation to the other party. Can a Southern Baptist seminary do any less?

Southwestern needs to put this dreary matter behind it by offering just compensation, make that generous compensation, and stop dragging the faith through the courts.

Jack Winter
Clearwater, FL

Anonymous said...

Sadly I feel that the conservative movement in the SBC has taken a wrong turn somewhere. As Cal Thomas has stated it must start from the bottom-up. When one looks at the passage on a woman not having authority or to mentor a man (which is this meaning here of "to teach"), this is the priority of discipleship of men in formative stages. It is documented that boys in their teen years need to have a male role model and mentor in order to learn formative tasks. This is the same manner in which Paul is speaking lest he would be contradicting himself in other passages. Klouda was not serving in any capacity in mentoring the students not should she be. Hers was in teaching out of her expertise and knowledge of the Hebrew language.

Anonymous said...

This denomination is scarily oppressive. You're both missing the boat and not walking on water.

It's getting late; work this out in love for G-d's sake.

-some Jewish kid, observing you

Anonymous said...

It's a shame. In my Systematic II class, I was on a team in 2006 that had to defend the position of "women could not be pastors in the Southern Baptist Church" against another team defending the opposite position. In our research for our defense, we researched the issue of expecting it would be the source of a question from the other team. One of our resources to support our answer was from a video tape of a sermon preached by Paige Patterson in chapel at SWBTS sometime after he was hired and sometime before fall of 2006. He defended the very issue of women teachers at Seminary and taught that the reason that SWBTS had female professors was that SWBTS was not a church and the passage in 1 Timothy talked about teaching in "church", not a Seminary. That was Paige's public interpretation of the Scriptures to chapel that day. It's kind of dramatic turnaround in theology to teach something one month and claim the contrary is true the next. Unfortunately, I guess it might be a possibility to be allowed to serve at SWBTS and misrepresent your beliefs and what you think the Scriptures are saying because it's suits you in front of folks. I do know how God feels on that subject. Proverbs 12:22

Upon hearing this, I wouldn't be surprised if that VHS tape is no longer in existence at the time of this writing.

Anonymous said...

If anyone has Dr. Klouda's contact information, please pass this on: I would encourage her to apply at Sterling College in Sterling, KS. We are a Christian College in Sterling, KS, and we're looking for an Old Testament professor.

Rev R Marszalek said...

Hi Bryan Riley In response to your
"Are you really thinking that God's character is such that no woman anywhere may ever teach any man anywhere or anything? And, how does that comport with so many other texts in scripture?? This has been debated extensively throughout the centuries and has not been only questioned in recent history. It also has been debated extensively on the blogosphere, and I have found a great many devout men and women who have a wide variety of interpretations of these and other passages regarding the role of women in the ministry and in the world."
I am such a blogger over in England and looking into what Reform are trying to do to our churches and theological colleges based on their reading of 1 Timothy 2 11-15. You can find me here:

Anonymous said...

I remember the incident concerning Dr. Sheri Klouda at Southwestern. I believe that Southwestern has misinterpreted 1 Timothy 2:11-15. In the passage, the aposlte Paul is discussing the issue of leadership in the Church, not the seminary which is not the church, but a para-church organization. While it is true in the church men are to lead the worship, the passage is not discussing the Seminary. The bible can be intepreted in any age or culture, it is unfortunate when scholars do not understand basic principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. When properly done, there is no way someone can come up with the interpretation that women cannot serve on the faculty at the Seminary.

The problem of the lawsuit is an acute one in the courts. Religious cases usually are favored in the courts towards the religious institutions in past and recent judgments. The courts are not enthusiastic too get involved with religious matters and I think rightly so in most cases. If Southwestern wants to solve the problem, they should offer Ms. Klouda an apology to her and her family for all the pain they put through as a christian. The second solution is that they should pay her a financial settlement for wrong termination and discrimination, which clearly happened in this case. This would resolve the problem and peace can be created between two christians, Ms. Klouda and Southwestern. Other seminaries have it correct at such places as Dallas Seminary where Dr. Dorian Coover-Cox is a professor of Hebrew. This does not violate Paul's command in 1 Timothy of men teaching women. I met Dr. Klouda at a ETS conference where she was presenting a paper and highly respect her scholarship in Evangelicalism. I do pray for her and hope a solution can be found in the matter.

Anonymous said...

What is Dr Klouda's situation now? Was she ever compensated by the Christian community for what she and her family were forced to endure?

Anonymous said...

Is Paige Patterson an example of what Southern Baptist people consider to be a just and righteous person?

Anonymous said...

This makes me quite sad. I am certain that God is not pleased by this. Paige Patterson says that there is no greater calling than motherhood? Then what happens when we marry a man that cannot have children? Is our calling somehow less?

Frustrated w/SBC & Sad.

Rose said...

Great article! It is refreshing to find a man willing to stand up for woman's rights. I included you in my Hall of Praise. Here is the link:
Thank you, Wade Burleson

Oklahoma Lawyer said...

Very interesting and well spoken closing argument.

Aaron Hill said...

Wade, I took Hebrew 3 from Dr. Klouda right before she was fired. I, and many other students in that class were given a failing grade because Dr. Klouda refused to give us a grading rubric for our final 25 page Hebrew exegesis paper. She refused to give us an example paper, to discuss the basic requirements in class, or to answer basic questions about the paper. She told us to “do your best, and we can work it out later if we need to.” Because of her refusal to provide us with instructions and a grading rubric multiple students were forced to rewrite their papers after the semester was over. I was one staff at a church and had a busy schedule. After two failed meetings (one on her part, and one on mine) to discuss my paper (because she refused to provide written comments to me via email) I arrived to a third meeting with her only to be informed that 1) I would not be allowed to revise the paper, 2) she would not grade the paper “as-is,” 3) instead, she would give me a 0 for my completed 25 page paper and I would fail the class. I was not the only student to suffer this fate. This was by far the worst experience in my academic career. To be given no guidance ahead of time, only to be penalized for her refusal to provide a grading rubric with a failing grade was utterly humiliating.

Dr. Klouda’s personal life also interfered with her class time (she was late to class and/or cancelled one class because of it) and she spend valuable class time discussing her relationship with her husband, who was a truck driver. She spent more time discussing her marriage than the grading rubric for our assignments. When I asked the administration if I could file a complaint and ask for a review of her decision to fail me, I was told that I could not because the administration was in the process of reviewing her position at the school; i.e., firing her.

Dr. Klouda was by far the worst professor I had during my time at SWBTS, indeed during my entire time in school. My opinion of her as a professor has nothing to do with her gender, but is entirely due to her failures in the classroom. However, I firmly believe that the administration and Patterson fired her because she was a woman. But, aside from their awful rationale she was a bad professor. Because of her failures in the classroom she deserved at the least to be reprimanded and reviewed, and at the least fired.

Unknown said...

I'm late to this discussion (I think), but, I wanted to agree with you here. I would only add that even with my agreement, if the Seminary hired those last(which they did), and if Paige promised not to seek to make her gender an issue (which it appears he did), and this lady made significant investments in the community effecting her family (which seems pretty obvious), then this is, in my mind, more of an issue of being people of high moral integrity and keeping one's word. If assurances were made, then those assurances should be kept, or the Seminary should bear some responsibility for the predicament the Klouda family is in.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 379 of 379   Newer› Newest»