"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

The Sheri Klouda Issue Will Not Go Away Quietly

McClain Says, "A Momentary Lax of Parameters:" I Say, "Another Step In The Narrowing Of Parameters"

Aristotle and other Greek philosophers contributed the idea that all equals should be treated equally - or if unequally, then fairly based on some standard that is defensible. According to Santa Clara University's Markkla Center for Applied Ethics, "we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equal. We pay people more based on their harder work or the greater amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But (if) there is a debate over CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others, (it is because) many ask whether the huge disparity is based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and hence is unfair" (emphasis mine).

One would be hard pressed to find a person within the Southern Baptist Convention who would publicly claim that women are not equal to men. Many of us are willing to give Paige Patterson the benefit of a doubt that he was joking when he responded to a reporter's question, "What do you think about women?" by quipping, "I think everybody should own at least one" (The Atlanta Journal Constitution, “Wake Forest to open Moderate Seminary," May 4, 1997, Section A, Page 14).

There can be no doubt, however, that women are treated in an unequal manner, compared to men, by certain leaders within our Southern Baptist Convention. The Sheri Klouda issue is a clear example of the inequality of treatment between male and female professors at Southwestern Theological Seminary. Sheri Klouda herself told The Dallas Morning News, "I don't think it was right to hire me to do this job, to put me in the position where I, in good faith, assumed that I was working toward tenure, and then suddenly remove me without any cause other than gender."

One might say with a fair bit of confidence that there has been no male professor in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention, at any institution of higher learning, who has been denied tenure for being a male.

Frank J. Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theological Society, and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies at Baylor University, is one of the brightest philosophers and theologians of the modern era. In an online essay entitled "What Evangelicals Can Learn from John Paul II," this conservative intellectual commends John Paul II for believing that "human beings have intrinsic dignity because they are made in the image of God and that we ought to treat each other justly, and that this affirmation and obligation, grounded in the nature that God gave us, ought to be reflected in our laws so that the state may advance the public good. Although he (John Paul II) believes we can find these truths in Scripture, he also believes that these truths may be found in natural moral law, accessible to—and therefore binding upon—all human beings, even those unacquainted with the Christian Bible or its teachings.

Though there are some who would seek to defend the unequal treatment of female professors at Southern Baptist higher institutions of higher learning, but I believe it will be virtually impossible to successfully do so, particularly since professors are not 'pastors,' and to forbid a woman from teaching a man the Bible would be a violation of Scripture, Baptist history and the BFM 2000, so says the very committee who wrote our convention's official statement of faith. It would be quite unfortunate for those of us in the Southern Baptist Convention -- who have the privilege of knowing and cherishing the higher revelation of Scripture (which explicitly teaches the equality of men and women in Christ) -- to find ourselves being corrected by those who have no understanding of the Bible, but pay attention to their own sense of natural law for the public good.

I remind everyone, again, that the Klouda issue is NOT about 'women pastors,' which would violate our convention's official confession of faith, the 2000 BFM. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is not a church. Sheri Klouda is not a pastor. SWBTS is an institution of higher learning. Sheri Klouda teaches Hebrew and the theology. Nowhere does the Bible, the convention, or our official confession forbid this from happening. Some are of the opinion that a woman should not be in the position of professor in a school of theology, but when we let the opinions of a few select men become policy or dogma for the entire convention, then the fabric of our cooperation is ripped to shreds.

The Two Reasons I Chose To Make the Klouda Issue Public

For over a year I have attempted, through this blog, to point out the problem of the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation within the Southern Baptist Convention. That is a phrase which I have chosen intentionally. I became concerned in 2005 that this convention, known for cooperation and mutual love for Christ and the Word of God, was finding herself torn apart by the intentional removal of good, conservative inerrantists who would not conform to the narrow interpretations (or opinions) of a few key leaders.

Baptist theologian, Roger Olson, offers a useful analysis of theological categories that might be helpful to understand what I mean. Dr. Olson, in his book The Story of Christian Theology, says Christian beliefs through the years can be grouped into three levels:
(1) Dogmasthe great essential Christian convictions about the trinity, incarnation, creation, sola scriptura, et.al. These define the essence of Christian belief and are worthy of serious and heated defense.
(2) Doctrinesdenominational distinctives such as the immersion of believers, eternal security, etc . . .
(3) Opinions
such as details of events surrounding the second coming of Christ, worship styles, the exact nature of angels, and dates for creation. Protestant reformers labeled this category adiaphora, from a latin term for "things that don’t matter very much."

Regardless if we use Roger Olson's theological categories or Al Mohler's theological triage, the problem in our convention is especially clear to me, and is the first reason I chose to make the Klouda issue public:

Some of our Southern Baptist leaders are demanding that everyone in the Southern Baptist Convention conform to their opinions of Scripture, and those who do not conform are removed from leadership or ministry.

This is what I call the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation. Again, it is simply the demand by some leaders that their opinion be considered dogma, and then there is exclusion or removal for those who do not treat those opinions as dogma. What may even be worse, is the inability of some leaders to admit that what they believe could be classified as opinions -- to them everything they believe is dogma -- even those things the reformers said 'didn't matter.' As Al Mohler states, "The error of Fundamentalism is that third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided."

(1). It is the opinion of some that those Southern Baptist with a private prayer language should not serve as missionaries, and some go as far to say that if you only believe in the continuation of the gifts (without practicing them), then you ought not be given a faculty position. It would be difficult to add the number of Southern Baptists who feel called to the mission field who have been disqualified because of a demand that the entire convention, through the demands of just a few, conform to this opinion.

(2). It is the opinion of some that those who have been baptized by immersion, after having come to faith in Christ, and are currently members of a Southern Baptist Church who has received the baptism as biblical, should be rebaptized in order to be qualified for mission field service. If one is not willing to conform to this opinion, then attempts are made to remove that person from service.

(3). It is the opinion of some that women should not be professors in Southern Baptists schools of theology, even though some of the brightest theologians, linguists and academicians Southern Baptist institutions are conferring theologial degrees upon are female.

(4). It is the opinion of some that women should not serve as overseas strategy coordinators with the International Mission Board, and that opinion has been actively promoted and shared with trustees, with attempts by some to bring all others into conformity with that opinion.

There are more illustrations that I could give, but I have simply chosen to point out those issues that have already been made public. Too many Southern Baptists in the past have not spoken out when opinions have been raised to first order dogma, and as a resulty, many Southern Baptists have been hurt, and some have been removed from service.

It's fascinating to me that Van McClain, the chairman of the Southwestern Theological Seminary's Board of Trustees, told The Dallas Morning Newsthat Dr. Klouda's hiring was "momentary lax of the parameters." I would respectfully disagree. Dr. Klouda's removal was yet an additional step in the continuing narrowing of the parameters within the SBC, and I believe it is essential that the entire convention be aware of what is taking place.

The second reason I decided to post the Klouda issue is because of vow I made a year ago:

If I ever became aware of a Southern Baptist treated unjustly, or run over by a political machine for either standing up for what they believe, or excluded from ministry or service by people who were forcing others to comply with their 'opinions' that exceeded the BFM 2000, I would do everything in my power to both correct the injustice and protect the person. I believe Dr. Klouda qualifed on all counts. For the above two reasons I posted the Klouda issue.

In His Grace,



Bill Scott said...

I commented on your Dad's blog about spritual despotism and it's negative effects on our denomination. Spirtual depotism does perpetuate dogma and spiritual arrogance that is antithetical to the cause of Christ.

I was affiliated with another denomination when I was in college. My junior and senior years I was involved in campus ministry with this denomination. This particular fellowship was (and is) extremely narrow minded about second and third tier issues. I grew up thinking and believing that way. Do you know what changed me? It was the love that I received from my Baptist brothers and sisters at the BSU on that campus. I learned more about tolerance and focusing on the things that really matter. I thank God that he lifted the scales from my eyes. He did it through the love I received at the BSU.

I pray that these trends don't trickle down to the BSU's and other outreach programs. Dogma, spirtual arrogance and prima donna attitudes will NOT further the Gospel.

Bill scott

wadeburleson.org said...

Amen Bill.

Thanks for your comment.

Alycelee said...

Wade, this story has opened up a "whole can of worms" I never saw this coming and frankly never knew it existed, certainly not to this extent and not within God's people.

I had no idea things were this bad concerning an unscriptural prejudice against women and I'm female! Perhaps because my husband and my local church don't behave this way.
First I read this story, I was surprised, perplexed and saddened.
Next I see on a blog, where a pastor tells a female blogger, he regrets that she felt it necessary to become involved in the comment thread. I'm shocked. That's much more than dogma or even spiritual arrogance. I can't even communicate how I felt when I read that. It wasn't directed to me, but I felt terrible that a pastor would even make that statement to someone, anyone, a sister. I just wanted to cry. I still do.

A 10-40 Window Missionary said...


Is this a variation on a very old "song" by some associated with the conservative resurgence? What I mean is their way of covering of their "gluteus maximus" with obfuscating words. It was said of that Baptist statesman, Herschel Hobbs that he had been "duped." Now we hear "A Momentary Lax of Parameters" It all seems like smoke and mirrors, to me in an effort to rationalize less than Christlike behavior.

Over 5000 of us are serving our Lord to bring light to a dying world. Now we are hearing, "Bring a Southern Baptist Light to that world." One of my many questions would be, "Is this type of action what we really want the world to learn?"

wadeburleson.org said...


I would suggest that you continue to let your voice be heard. You are making a difference. One of the reasons some of the bizarre views regarding women in the SBC are allowed to foster is because nobody challenges them, or the men who hold them. You have, and it is making a difference.

wadeburleson.org said...

10/40 Missionary,

I find it amusing that 'the momentary lax of parameters' was a reference to the hiring of Sheri Klouda in the first place.

I could think of a view phrases that would be a better description of the event than 'momentary lapse,' particlarly since the interview process for faculty is exhausting, the professor in question (Klouda) taught for almost 8 years and the trustees voted unanimously to hire her.

If I told my wife "I'll take out the trash in a momen" and I waited eight years I think she would call me a liar. :)

I think if I called a unanimous vote of my church a 'lapse' in judgment, they ought to lack me up. :)

So, I don't have a clue what Van meant.

Anonymous said...

I became interested in SBC issues a year ago (after a lifetime of ignoring denominational politics) because my daughter, now a senior at OSU, looked at the IMB's policy changes and wondered if there was a place for her to serve as a SBC missionary.

All she has talked about since junior high was a belief that God has called her to missions. Yes, she could serve with another agency, but why? She's SBC and her father is a SBC minister... why go elsewhere.

While I still have hope the SBC can change (and by change I mean stay consistent with our agreed upon statement of belief and not re-interpret it at will), I'm no longer encouraging my daughter to stay within the SBC. I'll stay, but why should she?

Bill Scott said...

This narrowing of cooperation is a direct result of the membership being asleep in the back seat. We exercise our membership in our churches and convention like we exercise our citzenship in this great land. We don't.

We will be the first to whine and moan when something goes afoul. What action do we take? Do we pray as we ought? Do we ask questions as we should? Do we think on our own and discern for ourselves with the help of the Holy Spirit through His Word and prayer what is right and wrong? Do we seek Godly solutions or do we devise schemes in our own wisdom?

If we as Southern Baptist don't do the right things by staying involved and engaged then we really don't need to complain about the current situation. Are we part of the problem through indifference and complacency? Or are we part of the solution through informed engagement of the issues at hand?

wadeburleson.org said...


She should stay because people like you are helping to change the convention.

And you will ultimately succeed.


Rex Ray said...

Brad Reynolds posted my Saturday’s Dallas Morning News of “Southern Baptist in a row over female teacher’s exit” on his blog and he asked me the question below and I replied, but my reply probably won’t show up for a couple of days. It is below:

You asked, “How has Southwestern behaved differently from our other seminaries and if it has not then why single it out? The answer seems obvious.”

The obvious answer is some people with a prejudice mind cannot see facts.

1. Sheri Klouda was hired unanimously by Southwestern trustee board when Hemphill was president who stated: “There was not a policy where [women] would not be able to teach church history or the languages.”
2. The trustees in hiring Sheri did not violate any policy of the school.
3. The trustees never voted to change school policy that would prohibit Sheri from being hired.
4. Patterson told Sheri to find a job elsewhere.
5. Who will take responsibility for her dismissal?
6. Patterson won’t talk or reply to anyone.
7. Chairman of the trustee board tried to take the heat off Patterson, “Dr. Klouda’s hiring…represented a momentary lax of the parameters.”

“Momentary lax of the parameters”? Is that temporary insanity?

The question arises: Is Patterson an employee of the board, or is the board an employee of the man that gave them their jobs?

I don’t recall any other seminaries being in mess after mess as Southwestern. No wonder under the guidance of Patterson the school has dropped from #1 to #3.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...


I'll stay because I'm old(er) and male and I think conflict is a good sign (iron sharpening iron). But a 21-year-old? I'm not encouraging young adults to leave the SBC... I'm just not sure encouraging them to stay is the smart move.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Bowden: I was going to say the same as Wade. If there were more men like you, Wade, Ben, Marty, Art and so many more I could name, there would be a different SBC. I am also glad for the Dorcas Hawkers, the Karen Scott's, the Alyce Lee's. I believe God is working and it begins with showing the problems as tough as they are to deal with and see. This is where we look up to God and not at the circumstances. I see all the things that are coming to light as a good thing, though difficult to hear.

Marty Duren said...

It won't go away "quietly" either.

I also thought that was a strange way to explain things. Was the hiring of other female profs to be explained the same way? Was the hiring of Dorothy Patterson a "momentary lax of parameters"?

Bob Cleveland said...

Can anyone tell me how this process ... that of opinions becoming dogma ... is different from what the Pharisees did? In my book, it's the same thing, and is reflective of human nature and the fact that power corrupts.

This same manifestation, set in the landscape of the Israel of 2000 years ago, produced the crucifixion of Jesus. I see no reason to be more optimistic about what's happening now, and its eventual outcome.

Frankly, as I've read what happened at SWBTS, and the reaction from the perpetrators, I'm amazed at the civility of this and the other blogs I read, over this matter.

Whether the SBC deals with this justly and promptly and openly may well determine whether God has already turned His back on the institution of the SBC.

I think He has. Enough good men ARE ALREADY doing nothing.

Anonymous said...

Seminaries are run by families. The Trustees cannot think. The Bible is to be used not followed. Just move further and watch the "Leaders" dismantle the WMU! Why--for the cause of Missions!!

Political battles are on all fronts and SBC must make sure Men and Like-Men control. Good luck with your efforts...wayne, from Alabama

For His Glory said...

The following scenario may not apply to Bowden's daughter...

But what if the next "Jerry Rankin" be they male or female, is waiting in the wings at OSU or Southern or Southwest Baptist... how long can he or she stay in the SBC?

If the cessationist policy in the IMB is not changed, how long can they wait.

OKpreacher said...

I need to add my voice to this discussion. I graduated from SWBTS recently and I had the honor of taking Hebrew from Dr. Klouda. I also took a hebrew class from another Hebrew professor who is male and still at SWBTS. I know that Dr. Klouda was the best Hebrew teacher SWBTS had and one of the best teachers I have ever had in seminary.

While taking her class many of us as students would talk about when the school would let her go since she was a woman. The move to fire or let go of all of the women in the Theology area of SWBTS has been going on since Paige got there.

I'm surprised she lasted this long. Others didn't. I'm glad this issue is coming to the forefront because it needs to be dealt with, but as for Dr. Klouda, SWBTS lost one of it's best teachers.


wadeburleson.org said...

Rex Ray,

Could not have said it better.

wadeburleson.org said...


The worst nightmare of blogger Marty. Late at night, spell check complete, and misspelled the title.



wadeburleson.org said...

Gents and Ladies,

I am gone all day today.

In my absence Bob Cleveland and Alycelee are guest moderators and defenders of the faith once delivered to the saints. :)

Let's play nice, particularly those who feel compelled to blog anonymously.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the presidential tailor at SWBTS has had to "momentarily lax the parameters?"


Anonymous said...

Bowden, I think you ask a legitimate question. The answer can only be found in your daughter seeking where God is leading her. Our loyalty is to God, not to an institution of humanity (perhaps I should say man given the views of some). :)

Anonymous said...

Looking at the pictures on your website... well... Ben ... one can definitely see why you are weighing in on this subject.

Bryan Riley

IMBLITS said...

Just think what a busy fellow Wade would be if his "vow" were retroactive!

Rex Ray said...

Thanks for the reply. Here is another comment that may show up on Brad Reynolds’ blog.

You may find this as another ‘attack’ on you or you may find it as ‘a wake up call.’

We all seem to delight in pointing out the speck in the other guy’s eye, but what are we doing for the lost world?

I have Scott in mind. Here’s a man that’s going to hell and taking who knows how many with him unless they have put their faith in Christ and are not trying to get to heaven by their works. He has made 5 comments consisting of 3,038 words in spreading his theology.

Jim, Selahv, Volfan, and I have made 11 comments to convince him otherwise. I’ve made 2,483 words alone.

Brad, you’ve given us no praise, but you say “Excellent observation” to JLG in his attack against Wade.

You’ve made 3 ‘critical’ comments to Wade and zero words to Scott.

Do you have some explanation?

In a way this Scripture applies to all of us if we ignore a lost world,

“Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die. Don’t try to disclaim responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it. For God, who knows all hearts, knows yours, and he knows you knew! And he will reward everyone according to his deeds.” (Proverbs 24:11-12)

Scott, you may find our words silly and laugh, but by your own beliefs, you won’t get another chance once you leave this world for you’ve had the opportunity to understand the words you’ve read in the Bible.

I continue to ask prayers for my twin brother. He refused admittance to a hospital until a doctor told him he didn’t realize how close he was to death. This doctor told him after 3 months of valley fever he should be better but he was worse and they would look for something else. I’m going to be with him in Phoenix, Arizona.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...


I do not understand why you argue that you are a Baptist Conservative. By all measures you speak from a Moderate Baptist position, and very well I might add. The issue of inerrancy does not make one conservative. You can say all day long that you are conservative but your views on baptist doctrine and polity are moderate, not liberal, moderate. I do not understand why you fight against admitting it. There are wonderful people who are moderate baptists and do not try to argue against that fact. Clearly your views on women in ministry, use of alcohol, baptist creeds, baptist cooperation, etc. have more in common with the moderate baptist position than the conservative perspective so why continue to deny it? It seems strange to me that you fight so hard to not be moderate yet agree in every point with the moderate baptist perspective. Be strong in your conviction and what you believe, let your voice be heard, but do not try to label your self as something that contradicts your message, that only hurts your credibility with both moderates and conservative baptists. Be moderate and do not be ashamed of it. Continue to speak out for what you believe with authencity. Moderates are not bad people so why do you distance yourself from them?

A fellow Oklahoma pastor.

Rev. said...

Dr. Klouda is exactly right when she states, "I don't think it was right to hire me to do this job, to put me in the position where I, in good faith, assumed that I was working toward tenure, and then suddenly remove me without any cause other than gender." For the response of the trustees to be simply that they had a "momentary lax" of the "parameters" is ludicrous. This is more ludicrous in light of the fact that they had a similar "moment" when they hired Dr. Karen Bullock. No excuses... this was wrong.

Unknown said...


"when we let the opinions of a few select men become policy or dogma for the entire convention, then the fabric of our cooperation is ripped to shreds."

This is what I was trying to say on the earlier post... If this is not addressed, and soon, the convention will simply dissolve into so many little kingdoms and the CP will be no more...

Grace to all,

Alycelee said...

Posting anonymously is pretty conservative, wouldn't you say :)
On a serious note, I wonder why we insist on designating labels to one another, or ourselves for that matter.
To one, a third tier doctrine view is conservative.
To another, that same doctrine is liberal, verging on heresy.
These are just ways to divide, IMHO.

Liam Madden said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Liam Madden said...


I have to agree with Alyce. That old saw of labeling someone liberal or moderate is not what's needed right now. Wade is an inerrantist, and I know he's a true conservative because I've discussed many issues with him on this blog. About alcohol, Wade believes abstinence is best, and doesn't support women in the pastorate, so you shouldn't imply that he's moderate on those issues when he's not.

What's troubling is that so many people, like yourself, seem to want to make Wade the issue, and by doing so, turn attention away from efforts to correct genuine wrongdoings and problems that are eating the SBC like a cancer.

Why not adopt Wade's approach and keep the focus on the issues. This discussion thread is supposed to be about what happened to Dr. Klouda. That's the real issue. Do you think she was treated fairly or unfairly? And if the answer is unfairly, then what action do you think the Southwestern Seminary trustees should take in correcting the situation?

Anonymous said...

I have a question. Why would a well-trained and educated man such as Ken Hemphill leave SWBTS and take on the EKG? The issue does not seem to begin with this professor. The convention issue seems to go much "higher" or should I say "lower." I rooted for the convergence of years past. I am concerned that we will continue until we destroy ourselves.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone asked why a well trained, educated and godly man such as Ken Hemphill leave SWBTS and take on the great EKG? The problems we spreak of seem to have other roots.

This issue is not just about a female prof. It is about issues that good pastors do not dirty their hands with, power.

Did anyone not question this when a seminary president ran for president of the SBC?

Anonymous said...

This issue will not go away...period.
If your position wins the day...I would not consider the SBC a Bible based organization!
2).I propose that we as a convention adopt the Danvers statement: equal in value and worth,distinction in roles.
BTW--discrimmination happens al the time in society and employment. I work for a company that routinely applies Affirmative Action principles in the workplace. They opportunities for women are much easier then men! I understand and live with that position.
P.S here is a good article to read if you think Page was evil.
The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women(1558) John Knox http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

Labels are not necesarily a negative thing. Without labels we would not be informed. A crude analogy is what we see in our everyday products we consume. Labels help us become more informed about what the product contains. I can observe what is in a box without the label, but there are things contained that are not obvious from looking at it and so the label informs me of other substances contained. The idea that we can just put away labels is not realistic. The truth is label do not divide. Labels only point out the division that is already present due to ideas and perspectives. The problem is that we label things incorrectly but that does not me we avoid them all together. This is where my question comes into view. Why does Wade avoid the label that best describes his point of view as something sinful? Being moderate is not a sin, but to say you are one thing and argue another is nothing more than double speak. I can argue all day long that I am the president of the United States but that does not make it so. I am labeled as an average american citizen and so to argue that I am president only brings confusion to the obvious label. Yes labels can be used for ill will and personal attacks but that is not my goal in this post. My question is about clarity and sincerity. I love and respect Wade and his opinion very much, but my concern is with the inconsistency between his message and how he labels himself.

As far as the anonymous posting, I do not have a web log and my name would not give any more information about myself than the title anonymous because I am an average Joe.

A fellow Oklahoma baptist.

Anonymous said...

I apologize for the duplication of a response. There seems to have been a glitch when I pushed the infamous button. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

We've already adopted a statement: it's the BF&M. In that statement we say that women should not serve as (senior) pastor. The move by SWBTS is to twist the BF&M into saying something it doesn't say... and then claim the "majority" of Southern Baptists believe it. Not true. If the majority believed it, it would already be a part of our statement of beliefs.

Alycelee said...

Anon-Im not trying to be contentious with you here, but you can sign your name at the bottom of your post. Also, it's easy to set up a "fake blog" in order to get a blog id/name.

What about this? And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat: for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able: for you are yet carnal. For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal and walk you not according to man? For while one saith: I indeed am of Paul: and another: I am of Apollo: are you not men? What then is Apollo and what is Paul? LABELS

John Moeller said...

Roger et al,

Let me answer your question, I knew Ken Hemphill when he was a wee little pastor at First Baptist, Norfolk. The church exploded because of his powerful teaching, his enthusiasm of the Gospel and his ability to lead large groups of Christians into the same enthusiasm. I have so many great stories to tell of his years there…..

Ken is not a president, he is gifted to teach, motivate, and lead Christians into the life Jesus wanted all of us to have. Thus his book.

Ken did the right thing by hiring females; it’s too bad that Paige was the replacement…

Anonymous said...

Let's open the SBC up enough to let T.D. Jakes speak at a SBC Church conference - is that broad enough?? I know the Church can do what it will because it is autonomous, but when is enough enough?

Anonymous said...


You do not know me so please do not characterize me as "so many people, like yourself, seem to want to make Wade the issue." That is out of line and uncalled for. My question was not for you it was for Wade, hence it is about Wade and needs a response only from Wade.

And when did this comment stream ever specifially be about certain issues. In the past year that I have been reading Wade's blog I have never once seen a restriction upon others in only commenting on the issue for the day so to impose that upon me is strange.

Also I never accused Wade of being a baptist liberal. Baptist liberals by definition are inclusive in their soteriology and attack the authencity of the scripture, none of which Wade affirms and I never accused him of such.

Obviously there is an unwelcomed spirit to anyone who would pose a question that does not fit into the norm of this blog.

This has been the first time in the last year of reading this blog that I have posted a comment and because of the unfair accusations it will be my last.

I would sincerely as Wade use a web log entry some day to address the issue of conservative and moderate baptist ideology since it is referred to often but never clarified.

Fellow Oklahoma baptist pastor

Anonymous said...

Bowden Mcelroy....Yes I think the Danvers statement on this issue is better. As a MK from a mission society that is much older then the SBC, I find the Baptist Faith and Message a rather broad document. The result is this conflict.
The Position that Wade and Marty are pumping is the egalitarian position. Its also the position of the CBF...unless you can convince me from Scripture. LEAVE
It is not a civil rights issue....it is a Scriptural issue.
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

Dear Fellow Right Wing Inerrantist, Premil, Pretrib, Sandy Creek Conservative Bible Believing Hell Charging Fundamentalist Oklahoma Baptist Pastor,

You didn't, per chance, take New Testament classes at Oklahoma Baptist University under the teaching of Dr. Rowena Strickland, did you?

Hmmmm? Hmmmm?

Anonymous said...

Labels are lazy and a way to stereotype people. However, we are all guilty of falling into their use at many levels. Even Wade makes a point to call himself conservative, which is why Anonymous took time to question that label and place a different one on Wade.

I agree that labels often mischaracterize and are abused and that we should throw them around less. And, they definitely can be used to divide and not unite.

Anonymous said...

How does telling a brother in Christ to LEAVE accomplish how you sign off, Robert Masters? Soli Deo Gloria? Really? It sounds as if you are saying glory be to me because I have a monopoly on understanding exactly what scripture says on every issue. Wade has not pumped egalitarianism. He has pumped a return to Soli Deo Gloria, God alone, Scripture alone, and a repentance from a worship of tradition and humanity and human wisdom to a worship of God alone.

In his humanity he won't get it all right, but that is part of his point. Neither will you and neither will I. God will and we can praise Him together in that. TOGETHER. not apart.

Anonymous said...

could someone tell me how to pronounce Klouda?

J. Stuart

Anonymous said...

Robert Masters,
You have stated that Wade and Marty are "pumping up" a position that is the same as the CBF. They have both (Wade and Marty) stated that they believe the Scripture is clear that women SHOULD NOT be pastors. I do not think this is in line with CBF.
I do hope that this is just an error on your part and you are not intentionally making these kind of erroneous statements.

Anonymous said...

Robert Masters,
If you think the Danvers position is better, then by all means strive to have the BF&M changed to reflect that.

One of the things that offends me about this situation is the way people claim to speak for the majority of Southern Baptists. The BF&M is a reasonable representation of what the majority believes. I think the statement about the family is quite clear and scriptural... and does not preclude women from serving in teaching positions at seminaries.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Anonymous: It's not about anything other than treating all people, women, children, men etc and those we disagree with like human beings. Fairly, justly with kindness.readiness to see justice done.(2 Cor. 7:11) Treating people with the same grace that God showed to us. That I believe is Christianity.

For His Glory said...

I may be wrong on this, but I believe the egalitarian position applies to women serving as the senior pastor teacher, not necessarily a woman teaching theology at a seminary.

I too have to chuckle a bit (with sadness) when I read ...."LEAVE" followed by Soli Deo Gloria

Darren Casper

Anonymous said...

etc etc

all of the above I have called others and been called all of these at one time or another

Then I discovered other descriptive labels like:


This was a little better...then I met people on both sides that claimed to believe the Bible (some did, some did not...at least that is what their lives reflected IMHO)

I served churches in Texas, SC, and Virginia and the meaning of these labels vary from place to place as well.

I knew SBC pastors and leaders in SC that were labeled fundies. Yet, in Texas they would be consider liberals...go figure.

Then I have traveled/ministered out of the Bible belt and overseas..

Even then "Baptist" carries various connotations depending on area(some good...some not so good)

So we would use the term "evangelical"

When I talked to people on a one to one basis...we did not use any of those terms...we just talk about Jesus and what the Bible says (means)

Underneath the great umbrella called world Christianity...even the most liberal Southern Baptist is considered a fundamentalist

Why? because most of us attempt to take "Jesus" and the "Bible" seriously....though we may disagree on interpretation/application

Labels may have some use when we are talking to each other in our own little corner of the Kingdom...while ignoring the rest of the world

We appear to be fiddling while Rome burns


Unknown said...

David R. Mills,

No one is talking about “opening up the SBC”… So Let’s everyone get that straight up front… (That dog will not hunt.)

What is being discussed is the “the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation” based upon “the opinions of a few select men” which go far beyond what is expressed in the BFM2000.

Grace to all,

Anonymous said...

Actually I studied New Testament under Dr. Robert Stein, Dr. John Polhill, Dr. Thomas Schriener, Dr. William Cook, and Dr. Robert Plummer.

Fellow Oklahoma baptist pastor.

Anonymous said...

I do think that the SBC is too vague on this issue!
Three examples in my own life.
1. In about 1998 0r 1999 Beth Moore was speaking in the Sunday evening service at First Baptist Fort lauderdale...I walked out.Larry Thompson said she was under his authority.
2. Two Rivers Baptist Church here in Nashville had as its largest Sunday School class a class taught by a women. Iam no longer a member of that Church.
3. Some members of my own family do stand on different positions then what I consider Biblical.
I think that we all must guard are hearts for idolatry including making the women in our lives more important then God.
Please that was a general comment not directed at anyone!
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

There is an old Talmudic saying: "We do not see the world the way it is; we see the world the way we are."
With all due respect to all fair and just-minded Baptists, especially Wade Burleson, you are seeing your Christianity the way you are, not the way it is (and historically has always been, e.g. see the Crusades). You remind me of those Muslims who argue that their religion is a religion of peace while their Koran advocates killing infidels. You also remind me of those orthodox Jews who pray the words of the Torah for peace while they prepare for and indulge in war. The Talmud, Torah, Old and New Testaments, and the Koran have been and continue to be used as authoritative sources for abuse, murder, and violence against others, especially women. This is especially so by men who lust for power in this world.
You did not find justice and fairness in the Christian bible but in your own sense of goodness, fairness and reason.

John Moeller said...


Please re-read last week’s posts and comments. I think the debate over women in ministry was exhausted last week. This is a not that debate anymore.

We will differ in beliefs, that’s reality.

The subject is; does the removal of a female professor align with the BF&M. If not, then why was it done?

Let's keep to the subject.

Anonymous said...

I think we all must guard our hearts against pride.

Anonymous said...

Broad picture/agenda:
Wade is striving to prevent the "narrowing down" of paramenters. He believes that No women pastors is good!
Rob says no teaching to adult males and no authority in a Scriptural context.Sheri Klouda taught Hebrew...I dont think you used Hebrew today at the Grocery store. I call that Semper Reformanda.
Also the CBF in theory accepts women pastors but in praxis they are not much different then other liberals...please see Al Mohlers article on this.
Bryan.....for a better understanding of how this position reflects Gods Glory rather then robs him of it please read John Piper or Wayne Grudem.
BTW.....Rick Warren robs God of His Glory in a different manner. the Purpose Driven Life is ..Soli Deo Anthropos
Also Iam not a Fundamentalist and not an evangelical...Iam Reformed Baptist who attends a Doctrines of Grace Southern Baptist Church. I personally like the 1689 London Confession!It is very clear on this issue.
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

John Moeller,

Thank you for bringing the conversation back on point. For me, the issue is not one of "narrowing cooperation" or "widening the tent", the central issue is one of Southern Baptist identity.

The BF&M, while not a creed, is a representation of our denominational identity. When a board of trustees, whether it is the IMB or the SWBTS board, re-defines what it means to be Southern Baptist, then our identity has been hijacked by a minority.

If Van McClain or anyone else wants to proclaim to the world what Southern Baptists believe, let them work at persuading the majority of Messengers to change our statement of belief (our identity) through the convention structure and not by fiat.

I can already hear some trotting out the argument that trustees of an entity are duly elected and therefore anything they decide is a properly constituted decision. I think that's a weak argument and one that I'm not buying.

Anonymous said...

In the grand cosmic adventure, the hiring of Dr. Klouda was most certainly NOT "a momentary lax of parameters". Rather, it should be made clear that the hiring of Dr. Patterson was a monumental lapse of parameters!

The evidence is in. . .Wade's charges regarding the actions of President Patterson have been verified and documented. Notwithstanding the spin of Van McClain, Dr. Patterson has been caught in the mesh of his own words and deeds.

Moreover, the genie is out of the bottle and neither Dr. Patterson nor his defenders can refute the facts of these deplorable actions. My, my. . .they won't even concede that, once again, fact is imitating fiction . . . and the emperor has no clothes!

In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb

Anonymous said...

I didn't realize God could be robbed of His Glory.

Anonymous said...

Yes God will not be robbed of His Glory but history is replete with mans vain attempts to do such a thing.Dare I say even here!..I still will sleep soundly knowing God is Soveriegn.
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

Robert, I look to no man (although I do find a lot of wisdom in reading Piper). I look to Jesus. And He sent the Comforter to me and all other saved souls, through whom I receive assurance of my eternal security. Are you trusting God for your salvation or a method or means of man? I'd ask you to look inside and see if you have faith in the grace of God or in the works of man. Thank you for participating in this discussion and may it bring us to Him.

Anonymous said...

I understand there is sometimes much disagreement on here. I would like to think that through all of this, we come away sharpened and are continually being driven back to His Word. BUT, no matter how sharp the disagreement becomes, I would never venture to say that anyone on this blog is attempting to rob God of His Glory!

Anonymous said...

Robert, please understand what I was referring to was the attitude displayed by your comment (whether you actually held the attitude that was perceived) and your pronouncement that people who disagree with you should LEAVE. I wasn't alone in chuckling at that. That is no way to treat someone to whom you belong. Romans 12:4-5. I wasn't speaking to your opinion regarding an interpretation of scripture.

And, I am sorry if my last comment came across as questioning your salvation. It was intended to question whether what you were teaching was directing a faith in God or a faith in something less than that. We all would do well to ask ourselves that question often.

Anonymous said...

For those advicating the Davers Statement, please note that the Davers Statement says, in part, "In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men"

Notice is says "some" and "in the church" - not "all" or "everywhere". SWBTS is not a church, and, by all acounts, Dr. Klouda is an excellent teacher. What are we (SBC'rs) doing?

Gene,SBC'r in Montana

Anonymous said...

I did not mean to communicate that Wade or anyone on here knowingly attempted to rob God of His Glory.
God still punished Uzzah for catching the Ark. God is a jealose God
Also see Malachi 3: 6-15 .....Yet you are robbing Me.
Bryan....what have I
said that makes you think that I am not a believer or regenerated? I will be glad to share my testimony with you!
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure that the verses you referenced in Malachi is talking about tithes and offerings, NOT God's Glory. Yet, I am glad to hear that you do not think that we are attempting to rob God of His Glory just because we don't agree with your interpretation.

John Fariss said...

Will the Sheri Klouda issue "go away"? Maybe, maybe not; much of that will depend on (1) how widespread the issue becomes known among justice-loving, grass-roots Southern Baptists, (2) how effectively Dr. Patterson's supporters-at-all-costs-and-regardless-of-the-details people are at politicing to bury or redirect it, and (3) how much time and energy Southern Baptist blogers are willing to invest in it. But even if it is buried and forgotten, other issues will crop up, other fires will flare up. Why? Because many in leadership positions from the resurgence dating to back in the 1970s and 80s mounted campaigns based on misinformation, misdirection, and guilt by association. (Note: this is not judging whether there was either a liberal error in the convention, or a good-ole-boy network which should have been eleminated--only with the methods adopted.) It worked; but as most any counselor will tell you, behavior based on such methods becomes the standard; it becomes deysunctional behavior rather then healthy behavior (read in I Samuel about King Saul's behavior).

Many a good Christian has so engaged in dysfunctional ways of relating to others. It does not mean they are less saved for it, or less scholarly, or less smart; it means they are dysfunctional, that they have adopted emotionally unhealthy ways of relating. And like behavior in any family, dysfunctional behavior is transmitted to others in the family, and newer members of the family.

This dysfunctional way of relating is the common thread uniting the "fire storms" that have errupted in the executive levels of the NAMB, with the trustees of the IMB over several issues (baptism and PPL to name a couple), and at SWBTS, first involving Dr. McKissic & PPL and now the "release" of Dr. Klouda. Her issue may be forgotten, but as long as the dysfunctionalism exists, other firestorms will errupt, and will so so as long as we Southern Baptists allow it to happen--which is to say as long as we are unwilling to expend the time, energy, and resources to change it.

Jesus said, "Let your 'yes' be 'yes,' and your 'no,' 'no;' anything beyound this comes from the evil one." (Matthew 5:37) THAT is the Master's clarion call for healthy relationships. It is where we must make our stand.

Anonymous said...

Iam getting frustrated now!. maybe it is because i come from a reformed worldview and not a pietist,anabaptist worldview but giving tithes and offerings are part of the larger commandment to worship God. The people were not worshipping because they were keeping what was Gods all along.God is the Lord over everything.
My father was killed by cannibals in 1968, I cannot say to God .."Why did you take my Father". He did it for His Glory and I can tell you a million ways He has been glorified.
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

Marty Duren said...


Hello, Robert. Can you please tell me where the words "egalitarianism" and "complimentarianism" are use in scripture?

If not, can you tell me how a woman teaching Hebrew in a seminary is "egalitarianism"?

Can you tell me how I personally have promoted "egalitarianism"?

You stated that you left Two Rivers because a woman was teaching in a coed class. Did you attend that class?

Would you listen to a person teach who did not tithe?

Would you listen to a person teach that went to an occasional R-rated movie?

That listens to secular music?

That drinks alcohol in moderation?

Finally, when you were a child in Irian Jaya, did your Mom ever have occasion to teach the Bible to older teenage boys or to men?

Doctrines of Grace Southern Baptist Church?

Your remarks toward Rick Warren bear anything but grace, my brother.


Marty Duren said...

I'm glad that you brought up your Dad's death. I was just looking for my copy of Lord's of the Earth to refresh my memory of his story, which is yours by extension. I believe that I have told you that the story of his death, alongside Stan Dale, have moved me many, many times in my Christian walk.

And yes, of course God is glorified through the death of your Dad and has demonstrated His power over the evil that felled him. But this conversation is about whether different orthodox interpretations of scripture are allowed (on non-essential doctrines) or is everyone who disagrees with you an apostate?

Anonymous said...

Robert, I think Marty probably understands why I asked you the question I did. I also think, by your response, that you probably hadn't read my second comment before writing your own, even though it preceded it. Finally, after reading Marty's comment, does it make more sense? I hope I don't add to your frustration. I'm just another sinner, saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, who is trusting God to finish the work He began in me.

Anonymous said...

I apologize, because I certainly didn't mean to lead you to frustration.
May we all live our lives in a manner that pleases the Father everyday. Thanks for the conversation.
Have a blessed day.

Unknown said...

t.d. Webb,

I am glad to see that at least one other bloger has the courage to say "the emperor has no clothes!"

The rest of your post was “Spot on” as the Brits say…

Alycelee said...

Before I was a believer, it was my association with the practical prejudices of Christians (typically racial) that kept me from desiring to join them.
Then I meet some people who not only talked like believers, but walked that way.
Later, I met people who talked about Calvinism. They attempted to pursuade me that these doctrines were true and if I were indeed spiritual, I would eventually see things only this way. What was puzzling to me was this-for those who seemed to say they understood the "doctrines of grace" they seemed to exhibit very little of it.
Then I meet someone who actually lived that way.
His name was Wade Burleson. We began to ask him questions about Reformed Theology. Rather than try and convince us, he simply told us that no man can bring someone to the doctrines of grace. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. That made us inquisitive, for we saw someone who believed it AND walked in it.
We now reside in the reformed tent. I seldom sign with "sola" don't try and convince people they should sign up and try and remember exactly who is the author of grace and what my responsibility is to extend the same.
We may become many things as we travel this road with God through His work of santification. But sometimes, our fundamental "slip" still shows.

Bob Cleveland said...

In addition to Paul telling Timothy that HE did not allow a woman to teach, Paul also said:

"Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (KJV)

I am not aware of Paul ever telling women they must not teach, nor do I recall instructions to others not to allow women to teach, either. Yet we adopt a dogmatic instruction that no woman must teach where men are present.

Then we ignore Paul's other statement that there's neither "male nor female" in Christ Jesus.

I'd think that Paul's instructions that women should never teach men would be crystal clear, were it important enough to him for folks 2000 years later to do to Dr. Klouda's family, what was done.

But what do I know? I'm just a guy in a pew.

Unknown said...

John Fariss,

Thanks for your excellent diagnoses of the SBC… “Dysfunctional!” Now, that is the best definition I have heard yet…

Anonymous said...

Let me work my way backwards. First the post I started with... Iam getting frustrated.... was narrowly directed to Elizabeth! I was refering to the fact that she said giving tithes and offerings was Not the same as Glorifying God. The earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof.
2. You will not find Doctrines of Grace Southern Baptist Church but I dont want to give the name out because the I speak individually here. BTW ...a few members are fairly well positioned in the Convention and my views are not in opposition to what they believe!
It is a growing Church in the Southern Baptist Geneva!
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

Steve said...

Rocks can hide a whole bunch of mess until some country boy kicks 'em over. Keep yer boots on, Brother Wade. How dare some weak men make places where we grow in Christ into dens of thieves!

Anonymous said...

And we continue to fiddle away...

gender issues
etc etc

I am not saying that these things should not be discussed...but they continue to miss the point.

Is what happened to Dr. Klouda wrong?

Was it sinful? illegal?

I am not asking if she should have been allowed to teach.

If she was hired by the trustees to teach Hebrew and was doing the job with excellence...

If she taught within the bounds of the BF&M...

If she was removed from her post as a professor the way it has been described on this blog (due only to gender)

Was SWBTS(i.e Patterson/trustees) wrong?

If SWBTS was wrong....and the convention does nothing...the convention is wrong...if the convention is wrong...and Southern Baptist churches and individuals do nothing...then we are wrong.

If we are wrong...what must we do?"

Oh wait maybe...it is easier to argue doctrine rather than do something in the face of possible sin/hurt/injustice!!!!

Instead of seeking to discover the truth and do what is right at all cost...the fiddling continues and Rome continues to burn (I believe there were PEOPLE in the city as it burned)


Alycelee said...

RMS, on the last post on Sheri Klouda a blogger noted that Baptist are great about talking but not so great about marching.
Was that you?

Alycelee said...

BP News just posted something on Sheri Klouda
"according to Dallas Morning News"

Anonymous said...

Helloooo... I would like to know how to pronounce "Klouda". Don't mean to be a bore, but I would really like to be able to pronounce her name correctly when speaking about her.

J. Stuart

Anonymous said...

Here's a quote worthing of quoting!

Oh wait maybe...it is easier to argue doctrine rather than do something in the face of possible sin/hurt/injustice!!!!

Good words RMS!

James Hunt said...


I appreciate specifically your interest in the welfare of the convention and the welfare of individuals within the convention.

I've written a post in honor of you, Marty D. and Ben C. See at the following: http://jesussatisfies.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Scot McKnight has brought his readers' attention to this issue over at www.jesuscreed.org. He does not cite this blog; rather, he points to the Dallas Morning News; however, two of the earlier commenters there point people here. Scot does a good job of discussing the issue in his post and you might enjoy the read, discussion, and take two cents over there, too.

Bob Cleveland said...

I think I'm finally getting it. I've heard the term "spiritual warfare" for YEARS, but I always assumed it would be conducted against non-believers.

That's what I get for assuming.

Anonymous said...

Jim Hamilton has weighed in
I think he is an SBTS graduate and a SWBTS faculty member.

Anonymous said...

J. Stuart,


wadeburleson.org said...


Thanks for the heads up! I have linked you in my list of bloggers.


Anonymous said...

Hi Bob Cleveland,
Your eisegesis of Gal is interesting because
for the longest time "Christians for Biblical Equality"had that verse on their homepage.
That verse is speaking to the the fact that at the foot of the cross we bring nothing to the work of Christ.
Context, context, context
I think everyone on here can agree that I dont come to Him accept thru His Grace. Thus
Paul was not saying anything about the issue of gender equality or roles.
Here is the page where it is at now!
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

wadeburleson.org said...

Alycelee and Bob Cleveland,

Kudos to you both. You kept people on point and did a great job in your comments.

wadeburleson.org said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
wadeburleson.org said...

Gene, the SBCer in Montana,

I always appreciate people who contribute to a discussion by providing relevant facts that not only teach me something, but do it in a way that does not denigrate those who believe differently.

Well done. I appreciate the information on Danvers Statement.

wadeburleson.org said...

William Madden,

You said,

Why not adopt Wade's approach and keep the focus on the issues. This discussion thread is supposed to be about what happened to Dr. Klouda. That's the real issue.

Well said, my friend. I have chosen to post your comment as my response to RI Masters and Anonymous posts about me.

The issue is about Dr. Klouda.

Let's keep on track.

wadeburleson.org said...


Great insight. Thanks.

wadeburleson.org said...

Off to watch my youngest son play basketball.

Spent the day with 25 pastors and a professor of New Testament from Southern Seminary. An interesting discussion on several fronts.


Anonymous said...

Q...Can you please tell me where the words "egalitarianism" and "complimentarianism" are use in scripture?
A---Nowhere in Scripture are those words found but nowhere is the word "trinity" found so I hope you still teach the doctrine of the Trinity.
The principle of complimentarity is taught in many places starting in Genesis
Jerry Sutton already beat you to that question?
Q...If not, can you tell me how a woman teaching Hebrew in a seminary is "egalitarianism"?
A---Volfan and others have answered this question ad nauseum....(Volfan)i believe the verse has to do with women teaching men the bible in a public setting....where they would be seen as the authoritative figure over men. thats wrong....according to 1 timothy 2, and really in other places as well that talk about the roles of men and women. whether its in a church building or not is not really the issue. its about women having a place of authority over men in teaching the bible.....
Q...Can you tell me how I personally have promoted "egalitarianism"?
A---This was just a general statement. Through your " Tag team " approach to agreeing with Wade on both of the blogs.
Q...You stated that you left Two Rivers because a woman was teaching in a coed class. Did you attend that class?
A--Correction...she was teaching it period!No
I would Never.
Also that was not the only reason...actually the issue of the Doctrines of Grace was much more central to my departure.
Q...Would you listen to a person teach who did not tithe?
A---I do not know how you would know this unles they stated it.Usually people that state that position end up leaving because their position conflicts with the pastors teaching or Covenant of the Church. Yes I would and have at Two Rivers.
Q...Would you listen to a person teach that went to an occasional R-rated movie?

That listens to secular music?

That drinks alcohol in moderation?
A---Yes to all of these teachers
Marty---I consider Rick Warren Apostate,
graceless or the truth? I would like to see him leave the SBC. Maybe God will reform him...I pray for that daily.

wadeburleson.org said...



It might be time to begin your own blog so people can have the pleasure of commenting on about your posts which may be slightly more than the pleasure of reading your comments about my posts.


Anonymous said...

So you can have your "Amen section" to quote
Pat Buchanan?

Anonymous said...


This weekend the article about Dr. Klouda hit the San Antonio paper, where I live. It "was news to me". Not good news, I might add. The story never quotes Dr. Patterson and I have not found any response or comments from him elsewhere regarding the action taken by Southwestern. So, with only half the story, readers are faced with what appears to be an unjust treatment of an employee. I would be less than honest if I didn't admit that it appears to be gender-based discrimination. How can a consciensious Southern Baptist defend such an action with only half the story? Or, how can a thoughtful Southern Baptist respond to a discriminatory act without the executive responsible being in the conversation? All we have is the attempt made by the chairperson of the board of trustees (by the way, are any of those trustees female?). Based on the chairperson's response this act of Southwestern was despicable. Until Dr. Patterson assumes or denies responsibility for Dr. Klouda's termination based on gender, Southern Baptists will have to wonder if our institutions are indeed "for men only". Women should not be concerned about this since it seems they are not to "usurp authority over a man" and apparently context doesn't matter, either biblical or institutional.

Anonymous said...

Did y'all win tonight?

volfan007 said...

would yall like to hear what john gill and john calvin thought about this? well, here's what they said.....

Ver. 11. Let the woman learn in silence,.... The apostle goes on to give some other instructions to women, how they should behave themselves in public worship, in the church of God; he would have them be learners and not teachers, sit and hear, and learn more of Christ, and of the truth of the Gospel, and to maintain good works; and he would have them learn in silence, and not offer to rise and speak, under a pretence of having a word from the Lord, or of being under an impulse of the Spirit of the Lord, as some frantic women have done; and if they should meet with anything, under the ministry of the word, they did not understand, or they had an objection to, they were not to speak in public, but ask their own husbands at home; see 1Co 14:34. And thus, they were to behave….
Ver. 12. But I suffer not a woman to teach….They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Pr 1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church…” (John Gill)

11. Let a woman learn in quietness….After having spoken of dress, he now adds with what modesty women ought to conduct themselves in the holy assembly. And he first bids them learn quietly…this he immediately explains more clearly, by forbidding them to teach.” (John Calvin)


Brian R. Giaquinto said...

I find it fascinating that in the passage regarding the godly wife, Proverbs 31:26, says:

She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

I'm not sure if this applies to the discussion at hand; however, I can think of no other faithful instruction than the Word of God. The word is "instruction", not "discussion"; and it does not discriminate the "where" and to "whom."

Anonymous said...

The I Timothy passage that has occasioned so much discussion over the last few days is one I have personally had to do battle with. As a college student I attended a BSM conference where one speaker encouraged the young women to pursue careers and family—the “you can have it all” mentality. A subsequent speaker said that women who wanted careers were selfish and we should all devote ourselves to discipling our children. The same year the BFM 2000 was approved I had a ministry professor at my Baptist university encourage the women in our class not to exclude the pastorate from the range of ministries we might consider. Is it any wonder so many of us are confused?

As I began studying, I found essentially two camps of thought, neither one of which I was fully comfortable with. One calls for freedom for women in the church, taking chiefly as their text Gal 3:28. Paul’s more restrictive comments on women are dismissed one way or another, often by claiming they are not original to the text (or else by claiming that Paul was a male chauvinist pig who is no longer relevant on certain social issues). Needless to say, I had problems with this line of thinking.

Then there were those who favored a more traditional approach, with varying degrees of strictness. This view does have the advantage of a high regard for Scripture. Still, advocates of this viewpoint also find themselves in the position of having to “get around” other sets of Scriptures; namely, those which describe the many occasions in which God uses women in public ministry and leadership positions. This viewpoint is also weak when it comes to application, which tends to degenerate to semantic hair splitting. I was once in the dubious position of being told that I could “devotionalize” but I could not “preach.” Those in this camp while (generously) arguing that a woman can have a writing ministry, claim that though a man could read her book, she could not teach him a course over the same material. To me, this seems absurd.

Where I have come down finally is a position much like that which Wade has articulated: examining the relevant Scriptures in light of their cultural context. Without repeating his arguments, I think it suffices to say that in my view Paul calls women to adopt culturally modest and acceptable roles in the church. In modern Western culture, those culturally acceptable and modest roles may well involve teaching. Yes, I think men are generally called to be the leaders of the church, but I do not find anything in Scripture that restricts women from having a teaching ministry—in home, school, church, or SBC seminary.

Brothers, please understand this. I, and I think most of my colleagues, are not here to prove anything or push for some new feminist agenda. I determined a long time ago not to go through my ministry with a chip on my shoulder. What I want is simply the freedom to do what God has called me to do, and to use the gifts he has given me. Yes, God has given me teaching gifts and that has been affirmed by the church. God has also given me a certain facility with biblical languages. The best way I see for me to use these particular gifts is by teaching. And in our present situation the best places for me to do that are in colleges or (dare I suggest it) seminaries. For those of you who think God would not lead me to such a conclusion, I’d welcome any other suggestions you might have.

I hope that this issue does not “go away quietly.” Dr. Klouda deserves justice. And conservative, Baptist, female Bible scholars deserve our place in Baptist life.

Rex Ray said...

Roger Lee,
You asked an interesting question why Hemphill would leave SWBTS.
Your own words give the answer by rearranging them. He did not leave the school to take on the KGB; he was forced out so a ‘hatchet’ man could become the KGB.

Bryan Riley, you say, “Good words RMS.”

Alycelee you wondered if RMS was the blogger that noted Baptist had rather talk than march…say, you’re pretty observant. You almost nailed him as he’s my pastor and we agree on the subject. Amen preacher; don’t step on toes, aim at hearts.

Robert Masters,
You walked out of church when a woman spoke from the pulpit. You left a church that had a woman teaching a SS class. I assume you’re proud of your actions.

Do you remember the man who thanked God he was not like a certain sinner? Have you thanked God you’re not a woman?

You worry about making women more important than God, when in reality, you should worry about “…teaching as doctrines the commands of man.” (Matthew 15:9)
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Where on the slippery slope of inequality do you stop? Either women are full human beings, created in the image of God, saved by Jesus Christ and expected to serve Him and follow where He leads, or women are lesser creatures. Southern Baptists went through this with the race issue, from advocating slavery to the point where now I doubt you could find many who say people who are not white of northern European ancestry are inferior. But apparently shape of skin is different from color of skin. :-)

I could argue and exegete Scripture at length, everything from women being the first sent to proclaim the messsage of the Resurrection to the male disciples (who didn't believe them)(Luke 24:10-11) to whether it's ok for a woman to pray and prophesy as long as she covers her head (I Cor. 11:6) but why bother. Few will be convinced by these arguments that haven't been already. And anyway, since I'm a woman my words count for less. (!)

It doesn't much matter to me where you draw the line, but if you do. If you think there is a difference important enough to consider any human being/Christian a lesser creature and thus unworthy to serve God in certain ways, then you will draw the line somewhere. If you draw the line at all, whether at "senior pastor" (are there "junior pastors"?) or at utter silence and submission you are making two classes of human beings, when God made both in the divine image.

I do not write of different gifts and abilities that vary from one individual to another. But to say that certain ministries/services can only be done by half the human race deprives God of half the potential workers for the Gospel.

If it were not so wrong I would find it amusing to see how people who draw this line quibble over where to draw it. It's ok (or not) for women to teach Biblical languages but not theology (don't they realize translation is interpretation?). It's ok for women to teach little boys (not many men want to deal with toddlers still in diapers), but at some age (what?) it is no longer ok for women to teach males. One hears about the messages of great hymns, but will the new Baptist Hymnal just starting in process omit all hymns written by women to avoid their teaching?

Enough. Are women fully human in the image of God, or not? It's that simple. All the rest is drawing a shifting line in the sand that's hard to justify just where.


Anonymous said...

Where on the slippery slope of inequality do you stop? Either women are full human beings, created in the image of God, saved by Jesus Christ and expected to serve Him and follow where He leads, or women are lesser creatures. Southern Baptists went through this with the race issue, from advocating slavery to the point where now I doubt you could find many who say people who are not white of northern European ancestry are inferior. But apparently shape of skin is different from color of skin. :-)

I could argue and exegete Scripture at length, everything from women being the first sent to proclaim the messsage of the Resurrection to the male disciples (who didn't believe them)(Luke 24:10-11) to whether it's ok for a woman to pray and prophesy as long as she covers her head (I Cor. 11:6) but why bother. Few will be convinced by these arguments that haven't been already. And anyway, since I'm a woman my words count for less. (!)

It doesn't much matter to me where you draw the line, but if you do. If you think there is a difference important enough to consider any human being/Christian a lesser creature and thus unworthy to serve God in certain ways, then you will draw the line somewhere. If you draw the line at all, whether at "senior pastor" (are there "junior pastors"?) or at utter silence and submission you are making two classes of human beings, when God made both in the divine image.

I do not write of different gifts and abilities that vary from one individual to another. But to say that certain ministries/services can only be done by half the human race deprives God of half the potential workers for the Gospel.

If it were not so wrong I would find it amusing to see how people who draw this line quibble over where to draw it. It's ok (or not) for women to teach Biblical languages but not theology (don't they realize translation is interpretation?). It's ok for women to teach little boys (not many men want to deal with toddlers still in diapers), but at some age (what?) it is no longer ok for women to teach males. One hears about the messages of great hymns, but will the new Baptist Hymnal just starting in process omit all hymns written by women to avoid their teaching?

Enough. Are women fully human in the image of God, or not? It's that simple. All the rest is drawing a shifting line in the sand that's hard to justify just where.


Alycelee said...

Rex and RMS,
I try and keep up, but I wasn't about to go back through those 280 comments and check :)

I also agree Rex, so settle down now, I recently wrote a post about the church "doing nothing" during pressing historical times only to repent later. Too often, it seems we see too late and repent after the fact.

In the case of Sheri Klouda, I do believe we need to get all the fact first. The process for that seems to have started. I pray, along with you that we will see this to the end, so that women of God and others will never have to go through what she has gone through at the hands of those who seem only to care about being "in authority" and care nothing about those in the chain of command.

Anonymous said...

Leigh Ann Powers, good post, but you're characterizations of the two readings of the scripture confuse me a little because I don't understand why one cannot take a high view of Scripture and still come to the conclusion that a woman can serve in any role to which God has called her. You admit that those who teach that a woman must remain silent in the church must "get around" other biblical passages, but you only give those who are complementarian in nature the nod for taking a high view of scripture. That doesn't jive in this reader's simple mind.

I am like you in that I have read arguments from both sides that leave something to be desired, but all that really demonstrates is that it is a difficult issue, unclear, and certainly not something to use as a basis for separation or for an employment decision.

Stephen Pruett said...

Robert Masters, As a reformed Baptist, it seems to me that you hold a minority position in the SBC (I cannot be completely sure of that, but it is definitely the case in my little corner of the SBC). So, how would you like it if the next project was to get rid of Doctrines of Grace Baptists? Farfetched? Let's see, the list now includes people who practice a PPL, people baptized by a non-Southern Baptist, and women teaching in a seminary. So, it is not outrageous to suggest that you might be in the next group asked to leave or made to feel distinctly unwelcom.

The point is that almost all of us hold some doctrinal position that is a minority position in the SBC. You may be comfortable justifying what happended to Dr. Klouda, but honestly ask yourself how you would feel if they came after you next.

I thank you for offering me the option of leaving the SBC because I disagree with you, but I will not leave, and I will not be quiet until this nonsense stops.

Anonymous said...

An interesting aside...according to a reliable source, while David Allen was the Chairman of the board of trustees, he was also the chairman of the search committee for the new Dean of Theology. I guess he "found himself." I know your hands are full with the Klouda issue. Perhaps BSC would like to handle this one?

Bob Cleveland said...

Paul said he did not allow a woman to teach, OR usurp authority over a man. Those are two different things, and they give rise to some questions in my mind.

1) Does the act of teaching constitute "authority over" the learner? I'm not sure it does, as compared to, say, preaching. When I'm teaching my class, I want and expect my members fo discuss, differ, share their views, etc. Goodness, if all this stuff was cut and dried, why not just have folks read the Bible. My task, my obligation, is to make the Bible real and authoritative and important in the minds of my members. If they come to a conclusion that's different from mine, on even an issue like women teaching, I'm happy about that. At least they're not acting like sheep.

Preaching, on the other hand, is authoritative; it's not a discussion group. I am to hear and take to heart. He is speaking for God.

2) If teaching is, indeed, exercising authority over the learner, then why did Paul redundantly say he did not permit women to usurp authority over men? He would not have had to say both ... just say they cannot have authority over men, and that would have precluded teaching.

3)If those are, then, two instructions, doesn't that prohibit women from teaching anything anywhere?

I've asked my pastor to study that matter ... he's quite knowledgeable in the original languages and I'm anxiously awaiting his observations.

This seems to be another case where folks, perhaps in fear, narrow and restrict and refine and re-define, so they won't have to make any judgment calls.

Goodness, that would require risk.

Anonymous said...


Sorry It has taken some time to respond to your question from several posts back. I just got back to my computer this morning.

That post (I had to go back and find it... which took a while! 248-wow!) is not mine.

I just had to make sure because when you are ADD like I am...you often say/write/do things "off the cuff" and then afterwards you promptly forget what you said/wrote/did!

That post belongs to Rex Ray who just happens to be a deacon in my church. Sometimes we actually think alike! (which is scary!)


Unknown said...

Stephen Pruett said,

“Robert Masters, As a reformed Baptist, it seems to me that you hold a minority position in the SBC (I cannot be completely sure of that, but it is definitely the case in my little corner of the SBC). So, how would you like it if the next project was to get rid of Doctrines of Grace Baptists? Farfetched? Let's see, the list now includes people who practice a PPL, people baptized by a non-Southern Baptist, and women teaching in a seminary. So, it is not outrageous to suggest that you might be in the next group asked to leave or made to feel distinctly unwelcom.”

Very good point Stephen… when does this all end? When does this “narrowing of the parameters of cooperation” end?

Interestingly, Dr. Patterson has already gone on record stating that he would not hire any Calvinist professors, so that puts Dr. Klouda and Robert Masters in the same boat. They are both Southern Baptist who are now banned from teaching at SWBTS.

And by the way, I am a Reformed Baptist Pastor within the SBC.

Anonymous said...

Bryan, sorry for the lack of clarity. In an attempt at brevity I'm painting with rather broad strokes here. Obviously there are those who have a high view of Scripture and yet feel that women can serve wherever God has called them. This is certainly my view. However, in the literature many who hold an egalitarian viewpoint seem to want to cut out passages they don't like. This is a weakness, and a legitimate reason for criticism. As I have said, I feel that the best approach lies in examining the relevant passages in light of their historical context--having respect for the Scripture, yet applying one of the basic principles of hermenutics. My conclusions are very similar to those Wade and others have already articulated, so I don't want to be repetitive.

WTJeff said...


I've watched you post with diligence your firm belief in your interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 since Wade began to post on Professor Klouda. You are firm in your convictions regarding this and support your position using scripture and what some of our most respected theologians have said on the issue. Although I don't agree with your conclusions, I believe you love Jesus and desire to follow Him fully. I run a ministry in Amarillo that encourages churches to plant satellite congregations in apartment communities in our association. I'd love to work with a guy with your passion.

The question I have is, would you allow yourself to work with me? That's really what's at issue here. It seems obvious to me that you aren't going to change your stance on this issue and you aren't going to change the stance of those with an opposing view. So where does that leave us?

IMHO, that's the big picture issue behind what Wade's been posting. We are going to have differing views on the infallible Word because of our own fallibility. My hope is that these issues wouldn't prevent us from cooperating in Kingdom growth.


Jeff Parsons
Amarillo, TX

Anonymous said...


Sorry Alycelee

Rex already beat me to the punch is identifying himself.

Convctions mean nothing if they do not cost us something through action.

Love hm or Hate him. Wade is doing exactly what he said he would do.

Others are doing the same.

From the great modern day theologians

Van Zant:

Don't get high on a bottle
just a little sip every now and then

And get right with a man

Fight your fights. Find your grace
in all the things you can't change

And help somebody if you can

Now granny said sonny stick to your guns
if you believe is something no matter what.
It is better to hated for who you are than beloved for who you're not

RMS :)

Tim Batchelor said...


It seems that for Dr. Pattersion this issue is not preference but a conviction. He has had a consistent record on this issue everywhere he has been. If Dr. Patterson (as the man made accountable to God and the convention for leading SWBTS) believes it would be a violation of the Scripture and a sin against God to retain a woman professor in the theology school do you think it would be right for him to keep her in that position anyway?


Alycelee said...

Tim, you're forgetting something.
First he said everyone's job is secure.
Then he fired 4.
Sheri stayed two years AFTER he came. (His convictions lapsed for 2 year?)
Next he said, find another job.
Convictions are normally consistant.

RMS-I agree in putting feet to your faith (and convictions)

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Susie, for your comments.

Florence in KY

Unknown said...

Tim Batchelor,

As Southern Baptist we have a “Doctrinal Contract” that sets the bounders of cooperation, it is the BFM2000. It was approved by an overwhelming majority of Southern Baptist Messengers.

Do you feel that it is right for the presidents, or BOTs, of our SBC entities to say “I don’t care what the convention messengers believe… I’m in control of this entity and my personal beliefs (convictions) are what this entity is going to be governed by?”

What if Dr. Patterson believed that no one who believed in the pre-wrath rapture of the church was fit to teach? Is that ok? Why, or why not?

If Dr. Patterson truly believes that women should not be allowed to teach at our SBC Seminaries then why did he not say so back in 1999 when the BFM2000 was being written? (Perhaps he did say something but his ideas did not carry the day?)

And if Dr. Patterson’s views have changed and he truly believes that women should not be allowed to teach at our SBC Seminaries at this time, then he has the right to “go through the proper channels” and seek to have the BFM amended and approved by the messengers of the convention. Anything else is simply a violation of the trust of the messengers and the churches they represent.

(Thanks to Tim Guthrie for encouraging “Everyone” to use the proper channels)

Grace to all…

wadeburleson.org said...

Stephen Pruett said to Robert Masters,

Robert Masters, As a reformed Baptist, it seems to me that you hold a minority position in the SBC (I cannot be completely sure of that, but it is definitely the case in my little corner of the SBC). So, how would you like it if the next project was to get rid of Doctrines of Grace Baptists? Farfetched? Let's see, the list now includes people who practice a PPL, people baptized by a non-Southern Baptist, and women teaching in a seminary. So, it is not outrageous to suggest that you might be in the next group asked to leave or made to feel distinctly unwelcom.

The point is that almost all of us hold some doctrinal position that is a minority position in the SBC. You may be comfortable justifying what happended to Dr. Klouda, but honestly ask yourself how you would feel if they came after you next.

I thank you for offering me the option of leaving the SBC because I disagree with you, but I will not leave, and I will not be quiet until this nonsense stops.

Well said, Stephen. Mr. Masters may not like the position I have taken, but he does not realize that, one day, I may be the very best friend he has in the SBC.


James Hunt said...

Thanks, Wade, for the link.

My 2 cents:
There is no biblical warrant for not allowing a woman to teach a man the Bible, or any other subject, outside of the official gathering of the local church. A seminary classroom does not fit this description. To be hopeful, it is a gathering of believers; however, it's not the local church. Rather, it's a place to prepare for leading in the local church. Dr Klouda should not have been "let go", "encouraged to leave", "fired", whatever, for being a woman.

The order in the family and in the church family is male leadership. It the local church this effects who may serve as an elder and / or as one who leads through corporate teaching / preaching responsibilities.

This is not to downplay the participation or the amazing contribution that women give to the cause of Christ in the home, the local church, and in missions. Rather, it's an issue of structure, order, roles.

On another note, Wade, your point is well taken about who might be next on the unseen list of undesirable SBC "minority groups."

I'm a 5-point, evangelistic Calvinist. Will they seek to draw my blood next?

Debbie Kaufman said...

James: I believe that is already being done. It's just on the back burner for now.

Anonymous said...

The looming issue here of whether or not a woman can teach in an SBC seminary is certainly worth discussing. However, as I read about this, I am wondering about something else. Dr. Klouda was hired and, I assume, signed a contract, in good faith. If there was a "momentary lax of parameters" leading to her dismissal, was she adequately compensated for the error made by the seminary administration? She likely turned down other positions, relocated to Ft. Worth and went to a lot of personal expense and trouble to accept a position that she lost in a way that she could never have anticipated.

In a world that has had a lot of practice handing out golden parachutes, I wonder if Dr. Klouda got one.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for allowing RI Masters to prove your point. Since you started blogging you have called for cooperation even if we don't agree on non-essential issues. I believe "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." As you pointed out, some deem all points of doctrine essential thereby requiring unity in all things and ignoring charity along the way. Scripture says they will know we are Christ's by the way that we love. Sigh.

And, btw, what is the definition of Apostate? I've looked it up in several dictionaries. But as none of them are bible dictionaries I may be missing something. What I've learned is that an apostate is someone who turns their back on or walks away from their religion. Using that definition I feel it is a grave thing to judge your brother in such a way. I would be hard pressed to see where Rick Warren has turned his back on Christianity. He has upset a few apple carts with his methods. And what has been the result? Many lives have been changed and thousands have come to Christ. That sounds more like Paul, becoming all things to all men the we may by all means save some.

Just a few thoughts,


Tim Batchelor said...

Brother Alford,

It really isn't an issue whether Dr. Patterson has the right to determine whether a woman should serve on faculty at SWBTS. The SBC constitution and Bylaws along with SWBTS's organizing documents establish the President's right to make such decisions regardless of the outrage. He is directly accountable to the trustees and to God. As best I can tell the convention never has and never will vote directly on seminary policy.

hopelesslyhuman said...

The more we learn, the more complex the web appears. I can think of at least these interrelated factors - perhaps you can add more:

1 - Theological differences (role of women in ministry, doctrines of grace, use of alcohol, baptism, ppl, etc.)
2 - Treatment of dissention (Wade Burleson, Dwight McKissic)
3 - Treatment of people (Sheri Klouda)
4 - Issues regarding agency leadership integrity (Bob Reccord at NAMB, Paige Patterson's involvment in IMB issues, commitments prior to becoming SWBTS president)
5 - Presidential and trustee authority to push/enforce his/their beliefs on an SBC entity when it goes beyond the BFM as the denominationally adopted guidelines
6 - SBC trustee system in general (how are they accountable to the SBC) and inbreeding (selection and moving from trusttee to positions in the entity they previously served as a trustee)in particular

(Perhaps Art can do some charts to help us make sense of it all!)

There are a variety of options for each. In the instance of the Sheri Klouda incident, for example, charting only two of the factors (actions of PP & the Board and beliefs about women in ministry), there are four options:
-you can agree with PP/BOT on treatment of Klouda AND PP theology on women
-you can agree w PP/BOT on treatment of Klouda but disagree on PP theology on women
-you can disagree w PP/BOT on treatment of Klouda but agree w PP on theology on women
-you can disagree w PP/BOT on treatment of Klouda and disagree w PP on theology women

Assuming we have all the facts and what has been presented is accurate, I think the average SBC person in the pew would strongly disagree with how SWBTS president and BOT treated Sheri Klouda regardless of what they believe about women in ministry.

You can be sure, however, this is not how those who want to narrow the parameters will frame the issue. (Malcolm Yarnell's post on SWBTS website is a good example of the kind of "framing" of the issues I noting here.

How do we work to frame the issues so others can accurately see our true underlying concerns through the mischaracterization of others?

Brian R. Giaquinto said...

A Word from Romans 14:1

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

These disputable matters regarded food, namely meat - clean or unclean. Obviously, there were various interpretations of Peter's vision in Acts. (There still are today - Messianic Jews). Don't forget, this was a major dividing line in the early church. Paul addressed it almost all of his letters.

If the "big tent" of the early church could have multiple interpretations on issues that were deemed "disputable" and still be called to maintin unity, why can't the SBC? The BFM2000 establishes the core of what we need to agree upon; but beyond that, let's use Paul's wisdom found in the rest of the chapter. Applying verses 13-18 to our circumstance. . . An egalitarian and a complementarian shouldn't flaunt their positions over those who (by conviction) disagree. There will always be congregations (of which we can worship, minister, and serve) that share our interpretations of "disutable matters."

I think the SWBTS issue opens up another can of worms. Patterson said, at the Greensboro Pastor's conference, that a Calvinistic pastor shouldn't hide his theology or his intentions to a search committee. Did Patterson make it clear that he held a narrow view of the disputed Timothy passage? Further, did he make it clear - before being accepted to office - that his intention was to fire anyone who did not hold to his interpretation? Is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black?

It's a fallacy to say that an entity of the SBC can pick and choose an extra-BFM2000 interpretation that will guide its theological and employment practices. If more than one interpretation is commonly held by the representative churches, shouldn't the entity reflect the diverse opinions as well?

Snoofy said...

Greg Hicks,

Perhaps another issue is that of Dr. Patterson calling Dr. Klouda into his office to tell her she was not going to get tenure two or more years before her tenure trial process was completed. I don't believe Dr. Patterson had the authority to tell her that. There is a committee at the end of her six year trial period that makes an evaluation. Then she is voted on by the trustees. It's not clear to me what role Dr. Patterson is supposed to play. But surely he does not have the authority to pre-judge her performance before her tenure committee evaluates her. This seems to me to be an ethical breach and an accreditation issue.

Anonymous said...

Volfan - I am barely able to type as I am overjoyed. It took this painful and sorrowful issue to get the job started, but you are on your way!!! Volfan expressing admiration for MacArthur?!!!...Quoting Gill and Calvin?!!!...WOW! Right theology is on the horizon my friend...so please don't stop at this one issue as you quote them here to your liking. Read on bro. and see what these great theologians had to say about other issues of theology as well. I once ran into these "tradition busters" and "theology makers" as well and I have been giving God ALL the glory ever since!

Anonymous said...

I am becoming increasingly convinced that your stated goals of making our convention better are really a facade for meddling in other's business and causing division and strife.

By all accounts, Dr. Klouda is smart, articulate and is intelligent enough to utilize every platform at her disposal to tell her story, if that was her desire. At some point, If a person is wronged and has the freedom and ability to bring that information to light it is their responsibility to do so. Furthermore, their silence on the issue may indicate that there is really more to the story than what can be perceived by outsiders.

I find it incredible that you have the time and energy to be at the center of so many controversies that cover such a wide range of organizations, entities and institutions; most of which have self-governing policies, boards etc. I really hope all of this is "for the Kingdom".

Unknown said...

Brother Tim Batchelor,

You are mistaken… The SBC is the “Sole Proprietor” of each and every one of “our” seminaries, including SWBTS. The convention has intervened and voted directly on seminary policy in the not to distant past, directing SWBTS to carry out the will (convictions) of the convention and not the will (convictions) of the BOT or the President.

You said that “He (PP) is directly accountable to the trustees and to God.” Yes and he is directly accountable to the “share holders” – the Churches of the Southern Baptist Convention which pay his salary.

Grace to all,

RM said...

I agree totally with everything Wade has said but we need to always remember that Paige Patterson basically hand selected all the trustees and I guarantee you that they will not overrule him. He has more power in the SBC than you can even begin to imagine. I have watched him make and break many a Baptist preacher...

Snoofy said...


You are wrong that victims of abuse typically take on the power structure that abused them. In this case, Dr. Klouda rightfully has her career in teaching to think about first. It is in her interest to let it all pass and not ruffle any feathers. It IS in the interest of pastors and laypeople of the SBC to make sure their institutions are not abusing employees. For this reason we must be proactive.

wadeburleson.org said...


Thanks for your concerns. I receive them, though they would be far more effective if you identified yourself.



Anonymous said...

I would disagree with the contention that Dr. Klouda had the ability to utilize every platform at her disposal to tell her story. I seriously doubt that ability exists for any employee of any SBC denominational agency or institution in this day and age.

Anonymous said...


I disagree that Dr. Klouda could not adequately defend herself in today's age of technology and communication. In fact, if she has been so grossly wronged and abused (though I would argue that abuse is an awfully powerful term), I think that there are number of different baptistic schools that would welcome someone of her credentials with open arms ESPECIALLY because she was mistreated. Much has been made over Dr. Patterson's reach in the SBC but I would not be easily persuaded to believe that he would influence Bill Brown or David Dockery's decision to hire Dr. Klouda if their respective institutions if they were in a need of such a position.

Additonally, just like in athletics, professors (coaches) are denied tenure or contracts are not renewed for a myriad of reasons. Often it is not because they are not qualified; rather, there may be somebody out there who is MORE qualified or simply fits better within the institution. Please note that I am not saying Dr. Klouda is not qualified, nor am I saying that is the reason she was let go -- I am simply making the observation that there are SEVERAL reasons why a professor may be denied tenure and there are plenty of professors every semester who have done nothing illegal, immoral or unethical who are denied tenure. Denying someone tenure is not an act that any academic administration should be called to defend.

I am not necessarily issuing a blanket support of everything that has transpired at SWBTS. I am simply concerned that we have become somewhat crisis co-dependent. If you look as hard and as passionate with as many people who seem predisposed to find dysfunction and imperfection in any of our churches, businesses or organizations - I garauntee much would be revealed.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Being that she is no longer an employee of SWBTS or any denominational agency - what restricts her from starting a website, blog or going to the DMN or Star?

CB Scott said...

I wish these blogs had been around 03.03.2004.


Anonymous said...

The attacks and slanders and labels have been the primary way of operation since before 1979. After 79 it was the only way. Does anyone remember what they did to Kieth Parks and the liesand half truths they spread about him? How about the hack and slander job they did on Richard Jackson? There have been thousands of lives destroyed in the name of defeating liberalism.

During my seminary days the right (now wrong) destroyed our school. There were no liberals. The incoming leaders stripped all faculty of all benifits (health insurance etc) for a 3-4 day period just to prove they could. Then they started forcing resignations and early retirements. Then they demanded the profs who retired to sign a gag order and forbid them to speak.

I will never forget the President telling one of the older profs (in a smart aleck tone) " let's see, doesn't your wife have some pre existing medical problems? You might have a tough time getting her insurance if you loose this.

One student challenged the Pres and his boys to a public debate on theology. The student demanded that they have every student to bring their own video camera. Of course the Pres wouldn't do that 'cause he couldn't control the propaganda comng from the debate so he called off the debate.

I am surprised that so many have
been in the dark while this has been going on for over 30 years.

These blogs have a lot to do with knowledge now.

"fight the good fight"