Thursday, January 18, 2007

The Strange Belief that a Woman Cannot Teach a Man the Bible

There have been one or two commentators on this blog who have defended the view of Paige Patterson that a woman cannot teach a man 'doctrine' from the Bible. Dr. Sheri Klouda was forced out of Southwestern Theological Seminary because she taught men the language of the Old Testament and how to properly exegete the Hebrew Scriptures. She was forced out of her position because she was a woman. Some have acted as if Dr. Patterson's view of women is 'Southern Baptist.' Thank God, it is not. In fact, in this post I will show that for a woman to 'preach' (proclaim the truth) or 'teach' men is not contrary to the views of the SWBTS trustees who hired Dr. Klouda in 2002, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, and the very Bible itself.

The extraordinary belief that women should be forbidden from teaching men the Bible, or 'doctrine,' is held by only a handful of Southern Baptist leaders, including at least one agency head and a few strategically placed trustees in various agencies. Unfortunately, the majority of Southern Baptists let them dictate policy for the entire convention.

Let me reiterate for those who rarely read posts and jump straight to the comment section: This post is not addressing the 'office' of pastor. The BFM 2000 does that quite clearly. This post is gently rebuking those who would justify the removal of a female Hebrew professor, as well as a female history professor in 2004, simply because they are women teaching men the Bible.

The Trustees of SWBTS

It can easily be said that the belief which leads to the forbidding of a woman professor teaching a man Hebrew, or 'biblical doctrine,' or giving that woman a 'position' of authority in the classroom over men, was not the predominate belief of the Southwestern Theological Seminary trustees in 2002. Those 2002 trustees are the ones who unanimously hired Dr. Klouda to the position of professor of Hebrew at SWBTS at the recommendation of Dr. Ken Hemphill.

It can also be said that this extraordinarily narrow belief that a woman should not teach a man Hebrew, or 'Biblical doctrine,' is the view of President Paige Patterson who was hired as President of SWBTS in 2003, after giving his promise that he had no intention of removing women from the theology faculty (see June 24, 2003 press conference and this article about a private meeting with faculty in 2003). It is obvious that Paige Patterson's narrow view of women led him to force Dr. Klouda out of her position as professor of Hebrew. Since my post went public, several people have emailed me saying that there is at least one other female on SWBTS faculty who has been forced out due to gender, but unfortunately, I do not have enough information to verify if that is the case or not. Nevertheless, Southern Baptists need to realize that just ONE unjust forced removal of an SBC employee based upon gender is ONE too many. If we don't correct the problem, the courts may correct it for us. The plea of immunity may not hold water when the forced removal based on gender is an action that is CONTRARY to the position of our convention's offical statement of doctrine.

I have said over and over for the past year that the very serious problem in the SBC is the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation by demanding conformity on very rigid doctrinal interpretations of Scripture. In other words, there are a handful of influential people in the SBC who are seeking to impose their doctrinal interpretations on the entire convention -- interpretations that go FAR beyond our BFM 2000. If we do not speak up and speak out, regarding various interpretations with which we disagree, including this view that a women cannot teach a man, then we might just find those narrow views becoming convention policy post de facto (after the act) -- after several women have been hurt by our leaders' actions.

In Dr. Klouda's case, it is possible that SWBTS trustees were never informed that Dr. Klouda was being forced out because she was a women. It is feasible that Dr. Klouda never said anything about her gender discrimination out of fear of not being able to obtain good references for future employment. The SWBTS trustees will need to answer what they did know, and what they did not know, about the circumstances related to the quiet removal of Dr. Klouda because of gender. However, it is a matter of public record that SWBTS trustees in 2002 had absolutely no problem with a woman teaching Hebrew to men or teaching men how to properly exegete the Bible (more than half the Bible is written in Hebrew). For a very successful and highly acclaimed professor to be forced out by the President because she is a woman, possibly puts SWBTS in serious legal jeopardy, not to mention accreditaion problems and the angst in the hearts of a majority of Southern Baptists who always demand that we treat our convention empoloyees in a moral, ethical and Christian manner.

The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message

The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 does not forbid a woman from 'preaching,' 'teaching,' or 'proclaiming' the gospel of Jesus Christ to men. Dr. Bill Merrill and Suzie Hawkins, two of the most conservative Southern Baptists I have ever known, have spoken publicly and on the record regarding this specific issue. Bill is the former VP of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee and Suzie Hawkins is the wife of O.S. Hawkins, President of the Annuity Board of the SBC. Suzie happened to be a member of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Committee. The following is taken directly from a Baptist Press news article dated June 7, 2001 where both Bill and Suzie respond to an interview with Ann Graham Lotz, the daughter of Billy Graham, and an alleged misunderstanding by the CBS interviewer regarding what the BFM 2000 has to say about women. The interview in question was from a broadcast on CBS Television News Program '60 Minutes.' ---

Susie Hawkins of Dallas, a member of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee, shares Lotz's desire to see women empowered for Christian service. But Hawkins suspects the characterization that there can be no women preachers in the SBC as a mistatement of the BFM 2000 (My editorial comment: Suzie uses the word "preachers" intentially instead of "pastors." 'Preach' is Gk. kerusso which means to 'proclaim' - as a rooster proclaims the rising of the sun --- preachers proclaim the risen SON). Again, to say there can be no woman preachers in the SBC is a misstatement of the SBC's doctrinal statement. Instead, she said, Article 6 of the BFM, dealing with the Church, states that "the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

Hawkins added, "Nowhere does it say that women can't proclaim the gospel. In fact, it is in this article that women are affirmed in the statement as being 'gifted for service.'" Hawkins noted that Lotz "never pressed the issue of women pastoring" in the 60 Minutes interview, but related the example of Mary Magdalene bringing the message of Christ to others.

Her suspicion seems to be confirmed in an interview of Lotz by Jim Jones of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram last year. Lotz stated that she agreed with conservatives who say a woman should not be a senior pastor. "I know Christians disagree on this issue, but I believe God has called me into the ministry where I am," she said.

Hawkins added, "In our own Southern Baptist tradition we have the obvious examples of missionaries Lottie Moon and Bertha Smith who were used greatly by God. But Mary Magdalene was not the spiritual authority for the disciples. She was their co-laborer, their partner in spreading the gospel."

From other interviews, Lotz has stated that she does not see herself as assuming an authoritative role when teaching. "I feel when I stand up in a pulpit I'm not coming from a position of authority," she said in an April 5, 1999, Christianity Today article. "Everywhere I go, I'm invited; if men have invited me [to speak], I'm under the authority of that committee. But I don't accept the fact that as a woman I can't preach to or teach men. My authority is the authority of God's Word." (WB's editorial comment: This is exactly what Suzie Hawkins and the BFM 2000 Committee say the BFM 2000 means)

Hawkins also disputed the characterization of the BFM Study Committee as "an elitist group of men that issued some decree." Instead, she reminded, the committee was appointed in 1999 by then-SBC President Paige Patterson and included theologians, ministers and laymen, with two of the participants being women. "Upon the discussion of the issue of women in ministry, I am eager for others to know that the men on the committee were more than willing to hear the women's perspective." Once the revised statement was submitted to Southern Baptist messengers meeting last June in Orlando, Fla., it was approved overwhelmingly as the new doctrinal statement for the largest non-Catholic denomination.

Bill Merrell, SBC Executive Committee vice president for convention relations, agreed that the reference to the decision by messengers to last year's convention was misapplied in the case of the 60 Minutes interview. "The Southern Baptist Convention position is plainly stated in the Baptist Faith and Message that we understand the pastoral office to be reserved to men as qualified in the Scripture. To my knowledge, Anne Graham Lotz makes no claim to be a pastor. She exhorts and teaches and does so, I think, with a high degree of excellence."


Unlike some in our convention who wish to use the BFM 2000 as a 'doctrinal' club, I affirm the right for those who forbid a woman to teach or preach the Bible to disagree with the position of the BFM 2000. I will, however, seek to hold accountable those who forcibly exclude Southern Baptists from service and employment in cooperative areas of ministry in the SBC for doctrinal reasons that go beyond the BFM 2000.

We have all kinds of examples of women teaching men in Baptist history. Spurgeon learned the doctrines of grace from his family's female cook. Lady Huntington taught many Baptist men the Scriptures in her home in the 18th century. Lottie Moon led several men to faith in Christ in China and discipled them quite vigorously. Mrs. Criswell taught men the Bible in the auditorium of FBC for years. LIFEWAY clears $750,000 every time Beth Moore holds a Bible conference in a major city, and not everyone present is of the female persuasion. Where would we be without our own mothers? I could go on, and on, and on. Some have countered these examples with a notion that a woman can teach the Bible to a 'boy' until he reaches the age of twelve, as one commentor on my blog proposed, but that absurdity reminds me more of the Pharisees of Jesus day, and many radical fundamentalists in the Middle East in our own day, than the Southern Baptists I have known and loved for the past 45 years.

Let's get it straight. Women can teach and preach the Bible. They have. They will. They shall continue. The BFM 2000 affirms this. So does the Bible.

The Holy Bible Clearly Affirms Women Teaching Men

What is really odd to me is the fact that all the passages in the New Testament which speak of women prophesying (I Corinthians 11:5), participating in the gifts on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), being equal to men (Galatians 3:28), and multiple other texts, too numerous to mention here, are all ignored to jump to I Timothy 2:12 and Paul's statement to Timothy "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man."

There are many ways to interpret this verse. The BFM 2000 Committee applies this verse, and others, to a prohibition of women serving in the office of pastor. Let me be clear, again,that this post is not an attempt to oppose the prohibition of women pastors. As stated, there are other texts that deal with that particular subject. Dr. Klouda did not desire to be a pastor. Dr. Klouda was not ordained to the ministry. Dr. Klouda AFFIRMED THE BFM 2000.

She was removed as a professor because a very narrow interpretation of this verse that says a 'woman' is forbidden to hold a position of 'authority' over a man or 'teach' a man --- period. This verse, according to those who hold this narrow view, goes far beyond the office of pastor. WOMEN SHOULD BE MOTHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS - and they should not hold a position of authority over a man, whether it be a professor, teacher, police officer, president, etc . . . and for heaven's sake, they should NEVER teach the BIBLE to a man. I wish to show this interpreation cannot be upheld by a proper exegesis of the text.

I believe every word of the Bible. I am an inerrantist. I believe every statement of I Timothy 2. But my interpretation of I Timothy 2 is consistent with the rest of the Bible and exalts women to their proper New Covenant position. The following is an exegesis of I Timothy 2 that has been graciously provided by evangelical conservative Pastor Dave Johnson and his fellow elders at The Church of the Open Door. This church, a large, conservative evangelical fellowship of believers in Minneapolis, Minnesota has reached thousands of people for Christ. I believe the following will be a help to all us Southern Baptist pastors who are trying to resist this very narrow view of women not that is creeping into the SBC, allegedly based upon I Timothy 2.

Again, this exegesis is to deal exclusively with women’s roles as they relate to I Timothy 2:9-15. Again, there is NO attempt in this post to justify women pastors. I am showing that the the narrow interpretation of I Timothy 2 which leads some to remove women as professors of Hebrew and theology because they 'teach men' the Bible cannot be justified from I Timothy 2. The first portion deals with the exegetical approach. The next section deals with the actual exegesis of I Timothy 2, and the last section provides conclusions.

Key Principles of Accurate and Effective Exegesis

1. Grammatical Integrity

This involves the use of original languages. We need to know what is really being said.

2. Historical Integrity

An understanding of the historic and cultural events that surround Apostolic letters gives insight into why certain things are being taught and exhorted. Failing to work in this arena results in incorrect or shallow application.

3. Contextual Integrity

Through the verse by verse study we do every week, we have comet o appreciate the importance of staying with the context. It helps avoid ‘eisegesis’, i.e. Philippians 4:13.

4. Distinguish Between Timeless Truth and Temporary Regulation

Timeless truth = love God/Ten Commandments/ Salvation by Grace/

Temporary Regulation = Deuteronomy 23:12-13/ Acts 15:8-11, 19-21

Exegesis of I Timothy 2:9-15

It is obvious that at first glance this passage creates some serious problems, not only as it relates to women in ministry, but also to women in general.

Verse 12

This verse seems to cement forever the role of women in the church as that of silent, behind the scenes support. Is that what Paul meant with these words?

When Paul came to Ephesus with the gospel originally, the Power of God rocked that city. Literally thousands were saved and it even effected the economy (Acts 19:17-29). You can be sure that among those saved were temple priestess prostitutes, priests, and leaders of false religions. Under Paul’s leadership, teaching was solid, and lifestyles were changed. Under Timothy’s leadership false teaching and sloppy living were eroding the work of God in the church.

Side Note #1

Historically, one of the greatest enemies to pure biblical doctrine is a phenomenon called syncretism. This is the blending of Christian doctrines with pagan doctrines so they coexist. We saw this illustrated clearly when we went through I Corinthians. It was also happening in Ephesus. Josephus records that Clement of Alexandria complained in his Memoirs that Christian groups had turned their communion services into drunken orgies. This was clear syncretism. Throughout the Greco-Roman world there were various groups who called themselves Christians that combined worship, teaching, and sexual immorality. This syncretism was part of what Timothy faced.

Side Note #2

Because I Timothy is a personal letter, some of these problems are not directly spelled out in the text. The reason for that is because both Paul and Timothy had common knowledge of the situation at Ephesus. In fact, Paul is most likely responding point by point to the issues Timothy raised to Paul in a previous letter. This again illustrates why history and context are so vital to accurate application.

Timeless Truth of Temporary Regulation

If Paul’s prohibition of women to teach or exercise authority is a timeless truth, there is a problem with other areas of scripture in which women are involved in ministry activity, and with Paul’s experience. Even the Ephesian church had been established in part by the skillful teaching of a Godly woman named Priscilla. She and her husband Aquila taught Apollos when he first came to Ephesus with an inadequate knowledge of the Gospel (Acts 18:18-28). Timothy knew all about Priscilla! Do you think Paul would consider a ban on women teaching a timeless truth that reflected the Divine order of things? I Don’t!

Grammatical Integrity

A closer look at the Greek word for authority (authenten) is helpful. This is a rare Greek verb that appears no where else in the New Testament and only on rare occasions to Greek literature. The usage in classical Greek is one of the only resources to shed light on the meaning of this word. The most basic rendering translates: ‘to thrust oneself’. It almost always carries, however, vulgar connotations of a sexual nature. Some evidence indicates that authenten involves a soliciting of sexual liaisons. St. John Chrysostem (400 A.D.) in his commentary on I Timothy, translated authenten as ‘sexual license’. In lengthy description of various tribal practices, the Byzantine Historiographer Michael Glycas uses authenten to describe women ‘who make sexual advances to men and fornicate as much as they please’.

Add the above information to what we know historically and culturally about Ephesus. It’s a center for pagan cults with immoral practices Syncretism was clearly at work and manifesting itself through false teaching. Paul had already warned the women who were not dressing modestly – literally wearing the garb of temple prostitutes (braided hair), but now he prohibited them from teaching or using sexual manipulation to gain influence in the church (as was the common temple practice). Instead, these women are to quietly learn correct doctrine and change their lifestyles.

As we come to verses 13-14 it appears to get stickier because Paul is apparently appealing to creation itself to explain why women can’t teach but must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.

More History

Related to the various cults and misguided Christian groups we’ve already discussed was the most powerful movement called Gnosticism. Among the many heresies was teaching that proposed women possessed superior intellectual and spiritual knowledge and in fact had priority in creation. They proposed further, that Eve was born before Adam and had a special knowledge that Adam did not have. These heresies were rampant in the early church era, but especially in places like cult centered Ephesus. An understanding and awareness of the active heresies help us unlock the meanings of these verses.

A Paraphrase

Women, you will not be allowed to sexually manipulate men to gain power and authority in church, the way you used to do it in the pagan temple. In fact, I do not allow you to teach at all. Instead, you need to quietly sit and receive instruction with entire submission! And while we’re on this thing, why don’t you wear decent clothes? You look like whores! Don’t try to blend pagan teaching with Christian doctrine. Eve wasn’t created first – Adam was! And Eve didn’t have any special knowledge hidden to Adam. In fact, she was the one who was first deceived. If she had so much special insight, why was she deceived at all?

Verse 15

This verse seems to indicate that women are saved or preserved by childbearing. What does this mean? Is it true? Really? How many children would be enough to preserve a woman? What about single women? Infertile women? Infertile husbands? Maybe something else is going on historically or culturally in Ephesus that will help make sense of this.

Applying the Principles

Contextual Integrity

The context of this epistle reveals that it was a personal letter from Paul to his good friend Timothy, who was the Pastor at the church in Ephesus. It is clear that Timothy was struggling in his ministry for a number of reasons. One reason is that he was a bit timid and easily intimidated. The founder of the church was Paul, and the sheer force of his bold and confrontive style had kept the wolves at bay. Those wolves, however, were moving in on Timothy.

The most obvious expression of their presence came in the form of false teaching (Gnosticism), and syncretism of pagan religions with Christianity (1:3-10). In chapter two he begins to deal with the people who were apparently using public meetings to air disputes. From those specific problems he zeros in on some inappropriate behavior among the women.

Apparently some of the women were dressing in a manner that was indiscreet and inappropriate: indeed immodest. Some work on history will help explain this.

Historical Integrity

Ephesus was the center for a number of pagan cults and religions. The most prolific was the worship of Diana and Artemis. A significant part of worship in their temples included the involvement of temple priestess prostitutes. These women, who numbered in the thousands, were more educated than the common Greek women, more cosmopolitan, and may be compared to a high class call girl.

Marriages in those days were arranged for convenience. The result was that Greek men used their wives for producing their heirs and cooking their meals, but went elsewhere for friendship, companionship, and sex. This was a common and accepted practice; that’s just the way it was. Add to this cultural reality, a religious element. Their pagan religion taught that the highest level of communion with the gods was attained through sexual intercourse. Euphoria was a sign that you had ‘made contact’.

Verse 15 still troubles, but there are legitimate possibilities. Keeping with the context, Paul may be indicating to these women that even if they have borne illegitimate children because of their participating in cultic activities, they will still be preserved if they repent in faith, and continue in love and holiness.

If that explanation is not acceptable, then we must also reject the face value idea that proposes women are somehow saved by bearing children. It simply is not true! Thousands of redeemed women have never had children! Sometimes it’s because they’re single, sometimes it’s a physical problem, sometimes it’s because of their devotion to ministry.

Michelson: “This verse seems to point to women’s role in bringing
into the world a godly posterity.”

I Corinthians 11:12 may also shed some light.


In my opinion, this passage is not a timeless truth that forever prohibits women from positions of authority and teaching. There are however, timeless truths in this text. Don’t let people without understanding teach. They should receive instruction in all submissiveness before they give instruction. Morality and purity in living is also a timeless truth that is called for here! Another timeless truth is that you confront false teaching out loud! Don’t try to coexist!

Helpful Resources for Study

Daughters of the Church; Walter Liefeld / Ruth A. Tucker

No Time for Silence; Janette Hassey

Women at the Crossroads; Karl Tojeson Malcolm

Reformed Journal; Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb;
Richard & Catherine Kroeger

Reformed Journal: May Women Teach?;
Richard & Catherine Kroeger

Women in the Church; Berkeley Michelson

My Personal Conclusions About Dr. Klouda and the SBC

There are two issues surrounding Dr. Klouda. There is the issue of broken integrity when it comes to things said, and actions done, toward Dr. Sheri Klouda by the administration of SWBTS.

But then, to me, there is even a deeper issue that faces us as a convention. We have already placed a prohibition regarding women pastors in the BFM 2000. Are there those who are now desiring that we place in our BFM 2000 a statement that no woman shall teach a man the Bible?

If so, we will be violating our own history, the examples of women teaching men in Scipture itself, and the principles of the New Covenant gospel. It's time we as Southern Baptist stopped the creeping demand for conformity in the acceptance of a very narrow and strict interpretation of texts like I Timothy 2.

It is not too late to do something.

And we owe it to the future women of the Southern Baptist Convention -- not to mention Dr. Sheri Klouda.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson


1 – 200 of 262   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Excellent. May God be glorified. Not man, not an institution, not a doctrine, not an individual, but to God alone be the glory.

I have written an email. I have been praying. I have pointed other bloggers to your site. Can you or others tell all readers what more can be done to help, if anything? I frankly am shocked that this hasn't been front page news. said...


It will be. Blogs are a much quicker medium than traditional papers. Give it a few weeks and I think you will see some substantive steps in the right direction.

Anonymous said...


Excellent post. You've really got me thinking here. I must say that I've been in the camp that did not feel that women should be teaching men, based on the 2 Tim. passage. But, I think that prohibition has more to do with authority than it does with proclamation. I've seen the other passages where women clearly were teaching men (Priscilla and her husband, Aquilla, with Apollos), and it has caused me to look at that stance in a different way. I've basically come to the perspective, that women can share with men the truths of Scripture and the insight God has given them, but they are not to be an authority over them. It sounds nuanced, perhaps to the extreme, but it seems to fit the full scope of passages. In other words, if it's being done wrongly, you kind of know it when you see it. If you don't try and balance this teaching, you end up with a situation where women cannot even share testimonies in church. Not good.

On another note, isn't the BF&M2000 an authority over us, in a sense, at least? If that is so, then doesn't the presence of Susie Hawkins and another woman on the revision committee, in essence, place them in an authoritative role to teach the men of the SBC through the words of the BF&M? If they have input into the formation of our confession of faith, then they are acting with authority, even as they advise. Every pastor knows that when he advises a committee or ministry team, he acts with authority. The same would be the case here.

It just seems like a major contradiction.

Anonymous said...

There is a reason that Dr Patterson has been president of the SBC as well as president of 2 seminaries.....many people trust him(including myself). Is he sinless? I am sure that he would be the first to say that he is not. Would he choose to rephrase some of the comments that he has made over the years? I am pretty sure he would. Does he love God? I have no doubt. Has he sacrificed himself over the years in his pursuit to help the cause of Christ within the SBC? absolutely. Many know him better than myself although I have taken a couple of courses from him during my time at SEBTS.
Does Dr Patterson have the right as President to dismiss faculty that disagree with theological convictions that he has which he deems as esssential? I believe that he does. Will everyone agree with his specific convictions? Absolutely not. He was asked to be President because people trust him and are confident in his ability as administrator/theologian/man of God. Not knowing all the details of this situation, I prefer to give him the benfit of the doubt. It seems from reading this blog that I am in the minority in this position.
Those who are ready to call for Dr Patterson's at best know only 1/2 of the story, probably less. There could have been other factors as well, but we can only speculate. I am not prepared to base such a harsh conviction of a man of God on such scant evidence as has been presented. If having Dr klouda as a Hebrew teacher violates Dr Patterson's Biblical convictions, I would be far more upset that he would choose to be politically correct in folowing other's opinions/agendas rather than personally following the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Just because we are Southern Baptists(whether pastors, SS teachers, plain old members), we do not have the right to "micro-manage" every decision made by a seminary President. As has been stated earlier, this is the purpose of the trustee system, and if that fails, the convention at large. This is not being done in this case.
Trustees have a role within the SBC and if SBC members believe this to be a matter which should be addressed by SWBTS trustees, then by all means contact them. Otherwise, what is going on here in blog world is a farce of a trial in which opinions and speculations are viewed as fact, and the guilt of Dr Patterson seems to be a presupposition....Kevin Apperson

Bill Scott said...

"Let's get it straight. Women can teach and preach the Bible. They have. They will. They shall continue. The BFM 2000 affirms this. So does the Bible." -Amen

Thank you for the exegesis of the text. I appreciate your ministry to the common soldiers on this battlefield.

I would not be who I am in Christ if it had not been for a praying mother. I would not be who I am in Christ if it had not been for a dynamic Sunday school teacher in college - a Godly woman whom I will always esteem greatly. I would not be who I am in Christ if not for my beautiful wife. There a several other women that I owe a spiritual debt.

I know that these examples don't directly correlate with seminarian political life. I do think that these influences cannot be ignored as a basis for the importance and value that women have in the body of Christ. I think that if even the most pious of Baptist males were to be honest, they would admit that they were significantly and postively influenced by a Godly woman at sometime in their walk.

In this context, what in the world is wrong with a woman of God teaching Greek to men (and women by the way?)Nothing. Period.

Bill Scott said...


Thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate your humility. said...

Kevin Apperson,

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I, too, could say many good things about Dr. Patterson.

I do believe, however, there are integrity and legal issues in the Klouda case. We'll see. My prayer is that we can address them before others force us to do so. said...

Bill Scott.

Amen to you too!


Bill Scott said...

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary over many a quaint a curious volume of doctrine spoiled rotten. While I nodded, nearly napping there came a tapping, as of someone gently rapping, rapping on my office door. "Tis my wife," I shuttered as she uttered...quothe the blog after midnight nevermore... :-)

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...

Well said! This should be a trustee issue. If it gets to the paper it will be by some bloggers who do not have all the info and that will be sad for the SBC.

Not hiding, just understanding intent of media. We must not be foolish. It does not honor Christ at all.

Praying for God to get hold of us bloggers!

Unknown said...

Looks like I missed the cut on the last post, so I will post here:

1 Corinthians 6:1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? ... 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren.

What is glaringly apparent is the ignoring of the commands of Scripture by many, especially by you, Wade. I sincerely appreciate your zeal, as did Paul that of the Jews. You are a gifted rhetorician, as demonstrated by your emotive pleas to action, and your professed love and devotion to a man on the one hand while you smite him with the other. However, I must take issue with the obvious fact that only one side of the story is being heard. If, perhaps, you as a pastor were confronted by several men who claim to have witness to unethical behavior on your part, would you expect the men to take the issue before the church prior to hearing your side? Wouldn't they owe you, as a beloved Christian brother, the decency of least?

But, O! How that pales in comparison to taking it before unbelievers and believers alike! In the verse above, why did Paul insist that all matters between believers be handled amongst believers? Although his foundation was the elevation of the redeemed to judge the world, his plea was for the sake of Christ's holy name. I do not believe it to be a stretch to apply this verse to the airing of the alleged sins of a brother with whom you have a grievance before unbelievers, as you have so effectively accomplished here. Why not rather be wronged? The dear professor obviously thought much more of the sovereignty of God than is even expressed to suffer your perceived wrongs and endure them in trust, while ignoring what our country deems right for an employer, or even wanting the story run before unbelievers in the blogoshpere. And to bring up federal law? Why not throw in the fact that we won't hire in the SBC a gifted, accomplished theologian who is homosexual, or who's religious belief denies the errancy of paedobaptism?

Who can deny that this public forum constitutes gossip? More importantly, how can you justify airing a grievance between believers to the whole world (with Scripture)? It is also interesting you claim "And believe I can support my view with the clear teaching of Scripture" but have yet to do so- though you offered another's "exegesis." So what are we left with? A seminary president who so lives out his theology that it actually has real consequences in his daily life and for others around him. A trustee who articulates a position incorporating federal law that is against the theology of the seminary president...and is against other trustees...and says the SBC will have its sky fall in if we don't do things the properly "evangelical" way... Can God not overcome? In God's providence, I will submit to any biblical leadership by God's decree and the Holy Spirit's illumination that I may be placed under in the future. Few will deny change is needed in the SBC. But I do not foresee under God's glorious heavens ever supporting a movement like this to control the direction of the SBC, especially with the negativity emanating from all things SBC at this place. Is it really that horrible?

Lord help us to seek the face of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and for unbelieving eyes not to set their gaze upon the chronicles of the grievances of the SBC.

Anonymous said...

Tim, I agree that we all must fix our eyes on Jesus and weigh all our conduct and words with a desire to glorify God and not fall short of His glory. But, I am not sure I agree with the intent of your comment.

I'm sure I'll be seen as a Wade worshiper or whatever the current term is for saying this, but Wade's posts have stated facts and done so in an objective way, without rancor, bitterness, or pride. I haven't done it often, but I have asked Wade about his words on occasion, both publically and privately, when I was concerned about the perception that might be taken of them. In this case, with this post and his comments, I'm not sure how any of it defeats the glory of Christ, although I understand that some may disagree and could potentially find something to point at somewhere upon which to base such an opinion.

Regardless, however, that cannot be said by anyone about the actions taken by Dr. Patterson with regard to Dr. Klouda, and that is the point of all of this. The shameful and harmful acts have been done, not by bloggers, but by the decision to terminate someone upon an illegal (or at least unethical) and unbiblical basis.

Anonymous said...

Your argument would also justify the Catholic churches holding in information related to child molestation, Colin. That's worked well.

Unknown said...


Nice try. I used Paul's argument, and his addresses grievances between believers. The sin you speak of would properly be put in the category of church discipline, and the law must be notified. Your name works well.

Bill Scott said...

Matthew 10:
26"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.."

This certainly applies in this tragic situation.

Robert Hutchinson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert Hutchinson said...

"Does Dr Patterson have the right as President to dismiss faculty that disagree with theological convictions that he has which he deems as esssential? I believe that he does."


president #1
"my theological conviction tells me women can teach men hebrew and bible. ladies your in."

president #2
"my theological conviction tells me women can't teach men hebrew and bible. ladies your out.

president #3
"my theological conviction tells me women can teach men hebrew and bible. ladies your in."

where is the institutional consistency and INTEGRITY?

my answer:

first it's in the hands of the trustees. and we know what their position is...they voted FOR her. if they don't make a response that will right this wrong...then...'s in the hands of the convention messengers and i would hope they would make it right.

Lord, bless every Christian woman who continues to cooperate in missions and ministry with the sbc in spite of offensive and discouraging events as these. And bless those who are now unable because of these events.

Anonymous said...

Kevin Apperson, my former classmate:

I don't think I've seen you since this picture was taken a few years ago.

Now I know you are a fair and careful Christian servant, and I know that you believe fully that Proverbs 18:17 is an inerrant text.

But Kevin you were trained in Baptist polity better than this. Patterson does not have the prerogative to terminate an elected faculty member at Southwestern. This is true for several reasons:

1. The seminary bylaws provide that only the trustees can terminate an elected faculty member, tenured or non-tenured.

2. The seminary bylaws stipulate that the president is to execute the privileges of his office "in accord with and not contrary to" the BFM2000.

3. The BFM2000 speaks clearly about the office of "senior pastor," but it says nothing about the place of a seminary professor.

4. Sheri Klouda was anatomically female when she was hired. Presumably, she was anatomically female when she was asked to leave. Nothing changed about her. The only thing that changed is the administration.

5. Which is why bylaws and trustees govern an institution, not presidents and their theological "preferences." Presidents can change overnight (ask Ken Hemphill and Russell Dilday), but an institution must have a continuity of faculty to execute the charge assigned to it by Southern Baptists.

6. Accreditation guidelines from every major accrediting agency stipulate certain protections for elected faculty. Paige Patterson has exposed SWBTS to unnecessary accreditation review, which is unwise given SWBTS's choppy accreditation history in the last fifteen years.

7. Those of us who are calling for his ouster -- and so far I think I'm the only one who's scratching that surface -- are hardly in the dark about things. In fact, you yourself know more about what's happening at SWBTS than you did yesterday just because you read Wade's blog. If he hadn't told you what he did, you'd be less than half informed. In fact, you'd be uninformed. Surely you don't think Wade has done you a disservice by alerting you to a potential injustice to a fellow Southern Baptist?

8. There is a reason that Sheri Klouda was hired to teach two Baptist seminaries, and that she received presidential scholarships from Criswell and SWBTS. There is a reason that the trustees conferred upon her the status of tenure-track faculty. They trust her. If the trustees who are alone charged with the responsibility of electing faculty trust her to teach biblical languages, is it the province of Paige Patterson to supercede their trust?

In fact, Southern Baptists trust their trustees to choose SWBTS faculty more than they do Paige Patterson. That's why they're called "trustees," don't you imagine?

9. Were you aware that the "trustees" limited the appointment powers of Ken Hemphill when he was president because they didn't "trust" the president to make long-term appointments of adjunctive faculty members without their oversight? Or perhaps you didn't want to know that half of the story, either?

10. Do you think the faculty at SWBTS, who conferred upon Sheri Klouda a PhD in Old Testament, believed that she was qualified to teach "in accord with and not contrary to" the BFM2000? What about the trustees who authorized her degree? What about the administration who signed her diploma? Is Paige Patterson the only person whose judgment is to be trusted above all of theirs?

Finally, Kevin, I assure you that I do not engage in speculative theology or politics. Disagree with my opinions, which I offer as opinions. Offer your own to balance mine. But do not assert that I am engaging in a "farce of a trial" built on "presuppositions." Facts, my good man, are much better allies in a conflict of this nature than are opinions.

Your opinion is that Paige Patterson should be trusted. Mine is that he should be awarded his watch and provided a UHAUL.

But neither of those opinions has anything to do with the FACT that a woman is now without a job, facing bankruptcy, and dealing with a termination that even her colleagues -- several with whom I have spoken this very day -- believe her departure from SWBTS to be tragically handled by the administration of Paige Patterson, Craig Blaising, and David Allen.

Oh, did you know that some trustees were adamantly opposed to hiring Sheri Klouda? Did you know that David Allen was the trustee who forced her election through and cajoled his fellow trustees to go along without opposition? Did you know that he was soon therafter elected as trustee chairman? Did you know that he was hired at SWBTS as theology dean when his term on the board of trustees expired? Did you know that he served as Sheri Klouda's supervisor in that capacity? Did you know two years after he advocated her election under the administration of Ken Hemphill that he advocated her dismissal under Paige Patterson?

These are not opinions, Kevin. These are facts confirmed by numerous sources including current and former trustees, as well as current and former faculty members.

Half truths, Kevin?

How about total fraud.


Rex Ray said...

You state, “Looks like I missed the cut on the last post, so I will post here:”

What do you mean by “cut”? At the time of your writing here, you made the last comment on yesterday’s post. The post has not gone away or closed off. There may be a hundred more comments made on it.

So what’s the deal? Why didn’t you want your comment here to be the 289 comment on yesterday’s post? Were you afraid people had become tired of reading and would not take much interest in what you had to say?

In my opinion, your comment is on topic on this post. You didn’t need an explanation. In giving an explanation in a false way shows a lack of integrity on your part. Especially when your comment is on Christian ethics or the lack of it.

You complain that only one side of the story is heard. Why is that? In my opinion, if Patterson had any good reasons he could have conveyed them to Wade by phone or email when he was asked.

It’s not even against the law for Patterson to make comments on Wade’s post. He may be reading every comment on it. In that case, as a student of SWBTS, you may be making brownie points. (Now that’s not nice to say, but you will admit what you wrote on your blog got you in trouble—so much so, you were removed from a class.)

I predict that Patterson will not defend himself of his treatment of Sheri Klouda. Why? Because every time he’s in the wrong, he lets silence answer until things blow over. I won’t rehash history.

As Baptist, we wouldn’t want to prosecute SWBTS for breaking federal law; would we? That would make Baptists look bad. Alas, we’re in the same sinful boat as Catholics.

Colin, your problem is you want to kill the messenger.
Rex Ray

CB Scott said...


When I was saved, I knew nothing of the Bible. I thought Revelation was a brand of shotguns sold at Western Auto Stores.

In the providence and grace of God I came to love a devout Christian girl and married her. She was my first Bible teacher. She also helped in teaching our sons the Bible, along with all the other boys that came through our life and home.

All of our "boys" are now "men." (according to the cb definition of men:-)

We now have two more boys in our home. This time, for the first time, along with two little girls.

My wife, again is teaching ALL the children the same Bible. I am teaching the boys the Bible also. These "boys" will become "men" (by the same cb definition) before they leave our home, by the grace of God. My wife will continue to help teach them the Bible all the time they are in our home.

It is true that my "definition" of men is no longer in line with political correctness. I loose no sleep over that. I would loose sleep if my wife did not help teach my boys the Bible. I would have lost my "way" if she had not taught me the Bible in the beginning.

I owe much to a Bible teaching girl that became a Bible teaching woman and my Bible teaching wife and Bible teaching Mother to our boys.

My boys are all men now.

(except for the two new "boys" that are down stairs lifting weights right now at 5:00a.m.:-)so they can become men according to the cb definition:-) (Don't you just love it.)

If anyone does not believe they are men, go "grab hold" of one of'em. After they are "finished" with you they will be glad to teach you from the same Bible their Momma taught them from as they were boys becoming men and afterwards.

MORAL OF THE STORY: I thank God for a Bible teaching woman in my life and as I have looked around at the offspring of some in SBC life......"WELL".... I think it may have helped if she had been able to teach some of those "boys" a little bit of Bible also:-)


Anonymous said...

Facts are critical when making serious charges, such as those flying against Dr. Patterson. Most people here are buying Wade's assertion that this woman was terminated because she is a woman. But, what are the facts supporting that assertion? Wade's case hinges on the basis that somebody apparently told her that she was being terminated because she is a woman, but we never hear who that person was. Was it Dr. Patterson? Was it someone with a grudge against Dr. Patterson? Was it the mailman? We simply do not know. Therefore, we do not know whether the statement was material to the decision not to retain her.

Some apparently want to believe the worst and are eager to attack Dr. Patterson. But, there is no solid factual basis to do so here. Surely we cannot simply accept Wade's assertion that he has ample evidence to support his charge. If he has evidence he should roll it out.

I do not know why this apparently very highly qualified woman is no longer teacing at the seminary. But, let me suggest that those ranting and raving on this blog do not know all the facts, either. It is highly irresponsible to criticize Dr. Patterson so severely without having all the facts.

Some may say, Well, Dr. Patterson should come on this forum to defend his actions. Do we really believe that he has nothing better to do- as is apparently the case with some- than to follow blogs all day? The blog world is simply not the place for an investigation. We elect trustees to handle matters such as this.

Michael Studdard

irreverend fox said...


this is just another example of why I have, since I started became a "featured guest commenter” on this blog, banged the drum that we the convention ought to pass a resolution of some kind stating that no seminary or agency of the SBC can tolerate any doctrinal position LESS than the BF&M2000 and no seminary or agency can discriminate, doctrinally, BEYOND the BF&M2000.

That needs to be a "rule" that the Convention resolves to place up her seminaries and agencies ONLY regarding doctrinal tolerance and discrimination. The Convention ought to set our doctrinal parameters...let the Convention make those parameters as WIDE or as NARROW as WE feel led.

I believe this needs to happen Wade. This story you are breaking is another example why. The BF&M2000 must be a TOOL and not just a worthless guideline.

Thanks troubler of Israel!

Anonymous said...


Jim Hamilton wrote a good paper on this subject with which you may not agree with 100%, but it is well done nonetheless.

He also talks about this issue on his blog.


Anonymous said...

Michael Studdard

Reading your comment and numerous others for this post and the prior post make it so easy to see why many people were willing to drink the koolaid in Guyana.

While working at SEBTS, I was told by various people on many different occasions that Dr. Patterson would never hire a woman as a director of a department. I had two different co-workers who applied for positions of department directors and I know for a fact that at least one of them was more qualified than the male candidate but was not considered because she was female.

Since neither position had anything whatsoever to do with teaching the Bible the only thing that can be deducted is that they may have been in a position to assign work or "instruct" a male student as to how to complete a task or "count money."

Karen Scott said...

Michael Studdard,

It seems that thoughts come to you in such a manner that you choose to post them, as is, on different bog sites. So, since this is the same comment you pasted on my friend's Marty Duren's blog, I'll copy and paste my same answerto you over there. :)

I find it humorous that you are doing to me precisely that which you accuse me of doing to Dr. Patterson. Your righteous indignation loses a little of her punch.

I would be rather stupid to publicly post what I have written if I did not know my facts to be truthful, confirmed by multiple sources.

Marty says I am stupid, but my wife says I’m brilliant.

I believe my wife :) said...


Frankly, I am tired of your argument.

It's old. It's weak. It's ineffective.

I've done everything according to Scripture. I affirm my brothers in Christ.

Only people exposed, and ashamed, launch an attack against the messenger with words like 'gossip' and 'slander.' Let's see, I'll give you sixty days before you retract it. I don't think you'll beat the record of thirty.

Southern Baptists better get used to greater accountability in areas of moral and ethical breaches.


Wade said...


Integrity is a big issue, is it not? Keeping one's word is important


jasonk said...

Colin, your comments typify what is wrong in the SBC. Hide the problem, do not deal with it, trust that every decision made by a leader in the denomination is good and just. After all, if the decision was made, there must have been a good reason for it.

As for your contention that the blog world is a public forum, not fit for discussion among believers, I would respectfully say that you are wrong. When you hold a business meeting at your church, are your words not open for all to hear? Do you speak into a vacuum? No you don't. I would assume that believers and unbelievers alike are welcome into most churches, where positions are argued and defended all the time. The blog world is just a more modern way of dealing with these issues. And more effective as well. So don't jump on Wade's case because he is airing these grievences on the internet. If unbelievers read it, all the better. That means that the leadership better clean up its act, because the world is indeed watching. When SWBTS fired Russell Dilday, I happened to be in Dallas. The Dallas Morning News covered the story, and I remember a relative of mine expressed great disdain at the way Christians treated their own. SBC leadership made a poor decision, handled it in an unchristian manner, and word got out. When it got out, it pushed a person further from the Gospel. The same thing has occurred with this professor, and rather than sweep it under the rug, hoping that no lost people will find out, it needs to be dealt with. This is a good way to deal with it, maybe the best way.

Anonymous said...


You say, "I would be rather stupid to publicly post what I have written if I did not know my facts to be truthful, confirmed by multiple sources."

You make my point for me. You claim to have facts to support your assertions and you expect others simply to accept blindly your word for it. But the fact is that the only fact you have given in support of your assertion that this fine woman was terminated because of her sex is a comment to that effect from some unnamed person.The sad thing is that many people apparently take your word without requiring you to prove what you say.

One gets the feeling that you could say that you flew to the moon this morning and many on here would line up to ask you for some cheese.

Michael Studdard

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

Allow me to say that your rules for interpreting a text are right on. You have clearly established the rules of sound exegesis. However, your application brings them more into "I"xegesis.:>)

I say that because according to my understanding of that verb "authority", which appears to be where the doctrinal hat is hung, the reason for it rarity is that it occurs in late ecclesiastical writers. It is found in the writings of Herodotus, Euripides, and Thucydides. Also it is found in 3 Maccabees (sp) 2:29. The phrase that surrounds the verb is better translated "to exercise dominion over".

Also, Moulton and Milligan's Vocabular clears up the use of this verb. It comes from "autodikeo" which was the literary for playing the master. This verb derives from two different words Which mean "a self-doer, master, autocrat."

You have done well in your studies to teach yourself the languages and I commend you on your discipline. I believe your application fails to translate accurately what the text is saying. Of course I will confess that I am not as disciplined as you in learning the original language and have to rely more on Marvin R. Vincent and A.T. Robertson

Have a Nice Day,


Paul/Mary Burleson said...


"Narrow"--To limit in size or restrict."

"Boundary"--"Something that marks or fixes a limit."

If we are seeing a narrowing of the boundaries of Southern Baptist life in this situation, a woman trained and hired by a Seminary, fired because of her gender, where the guidelines are the BF@M, which mentions the role of a woman in pastoring only, then it began at another agency where additional requirements beyond the BF@M were introduced, namely, a restriction of employment because of a belief in a private prayer language and baptism connected to the doctrine of eternal security.

Where one is paid a salary by the Convention, one may make a somewhat valid argument that the guiding document adopted by the Convention, the BF@M, is to give guidance for employment. But to arbitrarily go beyond that document because of a personal theological belief of the one who heads that SB agency or institution or even at the desire of the Board of Trustees, seems to me to be a problem that needs to be addressed.

If the BF@M in Confessional form is our agreed, albeit non-inerrant, statement of what generally constitutes a Southern Baptist, it must either be a guide to employees or not be a guide. But to say they MUST sign and support it and then narrow [see definition above] the boundaries [see definition above] which THEY were required to sign is patently unfair and perhaps unchristian.

[There are additional problems of ethics, maybe Federal law, and promises made/broken that are to be addressed in the Seminary situation, but, I'm looking at the broader picture of Southern Baptist life. If Federal law IS applicable we will need to change the way we do things, or, if scripture genuinely tells us to do something Federal law forbids, than we will be willing to obey scripture and take the consequences without rancor. But let's deal with our problems because they are problems NOT when some outside source requires it.]

Thanks for calling us to biblical principles. I know factually as one of your accountability group, you followed all pertinent biblical principles pryor to publishing your post.

This is neither to defend you nor to inform you, it is to say "thank you."

DAD said...

Michael Studdard,

Obviously, you do not know me, nor I you.

I have a track record that is easy to explore. It is people, like you and Colin, who jump to conclusions about me without 'any facts' and make statements that seek to discredit me. I'm fine with that because I have gotten used to that. :)

So, all I know to say is this: I hope you are around a few weeks from now to retract your comments.

But I doubt we will hear from you. :)

Wade said...

Dad, I sure must have received the big picture gene from you, because very view people are seeing the big picture here, and that is what drives me at this moment to be involved in the SBC.

It's the Sheri Klouda's of this world that give me fuel to continue the drive.

:) said...


Thanks for your comment. I read Robertson too. :)

He is very good, but not infallible. Sometimes, this 19th century Greek scholar becomes influenced with his environment as were the KJV translators when they translated the same word in the Greek text differently when the context spoke of a man than when in the context it referred to a woman (i.e. 'ruler' for a man and "succouror' for a woman). :)

Could it be that the Word of God is accurate in every jot and tittle, but the interpretations of men are fallible? I think so.

That's why are fellowship and boundaries ought to be the essentails of the faith and not disputable matters.

Oh well, I do appreciate the differences of interpretation you offered. My point is simply that yours goes well beyond the official doctrinal standard of the BFM 2000.


Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

I will give you that your interpretation is just different from mine. I agree that we all look at scripture through our cultural lenses. However, to question Dr. Robertson's accuracy of translating the text, to me, is akin to questioning Jonathan Edwards understanding of John Calvin's writings. I agree that Dr. Robertson is not infallible, but the accuracy of his translation I do not think I have ever seen anyone question.

Have a Nice Day,

Anonymous said...

Paul B.,

You're right on. That comment should be a post all it's own, and is the crux of this whole thing. I wonder if that would make a good resolution at the convention this year? What do ya'll think?

John Moeller said...



Best post you have ever done!

The rest of the day will be spent with people spouting off with their theology, but, I get it, the big picture, the exegesis, and the need for Baptist to back off and learn to love all Christians of every name with all of our personal convictions instead of what is being done.

I apologize to Paige for the thoughts I have had about him and pray that he will also see that there is room at the seminary for all genders of professors

Marty Duren said...

I enjoyed all 67,000 words of this post.

I must point out, I didn't call you "stupid." I called you "ugly."

There is also an interesting exegesis of the verse in question here.

IMBLITS said...

I fear I that am shallow. I came away from this post and comments chuckling as I envisioned Mrs. Criswell regulaly on Paige's case about this position or is it more likely that he did not share his views so easily when he was under the Chriswell thumb? He may refuse to learn anything Biblical from women but deep down in his psyche this maybe a way of getting back at two women with authority over him and I don't mean to imply that one of those was his mother.

Africa M said...

Thanks for addressing an issue that is causing many to miss out on some very incredible gifted women that God in His great wisdom has chosen to bless our denomination.

While I do not know Dr. Klouda I was able to sit in the classes of Dr. Karen Bullock while a student at SWBTS. It was very plain to see when the current administration arrived that she would not be around for very long and that was not due to her qualifications.

Dr. Bullock was one of the most knowledgeable persons I have ever met in regards to Christian and Baptist history, but she also had a heart and love for missions. In her class you got more than history which she excelled in teaching, but you also received a daily helping of God's heart for the nations woven into the history of God's people.

It is a very sad day when people's decisions in running our institutions not only affect the lives of women and their families, but it also affects many who might have been touched by a wonderful lady whose heart and love for God reached around the world in love for the lost. I would gladly send my sons and daughter to study under such leadership and teaching, because she truly led people closer to the heart of God. I might also add that as it stands now I would not recommend my children or any others to attend the seminary where I graduated.

volfan007 said...

yall know what blogs are starting to remind me of? the coffee shops around small towns where men go and gossip and run down the pastor and/or some staff member that they dont like, or that has led the church to do something that they dont like.

it's also reminding me of the beauty parlors in small towns where women go and gossip and run down the pastor and/or some staff member that they dont like, or that has led the church to go in a direction that they dont favor.

i wonder if the Lord Jesus is pleased with all of this and how many of these blogs take that nasty turn in the road.

again most conservative, evangelical, bible scholars would completely disagree with your opinion of 1 timothy 2. it seems so clear.....


Marty Duren said...

Name a few from the commentaries on your own library.

Marty Duren said...


Liam Madden said...

What does it mean to be in authority over someone? I think it's a mistake to say that there are no contexts in which a woman cannot be in authority over a man in a workplace involving Christian service.

When I was a journeyman in Thailand, I served under not one but two Baptist women leaders. The director of our mission school was the wife of our mission administrator. Her assistant (also in authority over me) was the wife of one of our seminary professors at the Thailand Baptist Seminary.

Both of those women were in authority over me, and they should have been. They were veteran missionaries with good theological educations who knew much more about things I needed to know in order to succeed as a missionary, such as: 1) how to work alongside Thai people, and 2) ways to share Christ with Thai people in the context of the culture, etc.

Many of the posting here seem to ignore or take little interest in the reality of missional contexts, in which cultural attitudes toward women are different from our own.

I have been told by good friends who are retired IMB missionaries who served in the Phillipines that up to 20% of church leaders in the Phillipines are women and up to 10% of church leaders in Japan are women. Often functioning in a house church setting, these women are not called pastors as such, but their ministry resembles pastoring: they teach the Bible, counsel people who have problems, visit hospitals, pray for the sick, etc. The sort of thing that has happened to Sheri Klouda and many more like her is an insult to brave new Christian women everywhere around the world who have taken up the cross at great risk and are serving Christ in the cultures where they live. Where would we be if we said to those women (as has been said to Dr. Klouda) that they cannot teach men because they are women. In some of those cultures, those first generation Christian women are the only Bible teachers that there are.

Also, it needs to be considered that it was not the early church that placed the kind of restrictions on women that ultra-conservatives wish to argue are the Biblical norm. Rather it was the medieval church that imported a significant amount of misogynistic (negative toward women) pagan philosophy about women into the life and thought of the church. For a detailed history of the importation of misogynistic (women-hating) pagan philosophy into medieval Christian thought, I strongly recommend the excellent book, "Wykked Wives and the Woes of Marriage," by University of Georgia professor Dr. Katharina Wilson.

It's quite ironic that ultra-conservative leaders of the SBC want to enforce restrictions on women that in fact do not reflect balanced Biblical attitudes, but instead have their roots in negative pagan ideas about women that got institutionalized in the dogma and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church (are we Baptists just shadows of Catholics now?) I know that there will be some posters here who will take issue with my point here and dismiss it entirely, but to you I would say, "Have you read Dr. Wilson's book?" Please check it out from a library and read it before you criticize my views.

Bill Scott said...

I wonder how Dr. Klouda, with her biblical languages expertise, would define authenten. I wish we could get her perspective on the word and on the issues at hand. I do appreciate the quandary that this would cause for her.

The obscure vulgar references were very intersting. I think that they do clarify the more accepted meanings of the word found in some other common sources of reference. All this of course is offered from a non-scholarly opinion.

Bill Scott

Dori said...

My heart hurts for what happened to Dr. Klouda. To Wade and all others who have commented to encourage her and right this wrong, I'll add my own personal "thank you". If there was such a thing in SBC life, I would nominate you to win this week's "Edification of the Saints" award.

I begin to feel the freedom to just be me, to love and serve God in the ways he has gifted me without worrying whether or not a woman should do this or that, or whether a career woman is less than being a wife and mother.

I feel blessed today, to be so encouraged by many of you, and I'll admit I am hoping I'll get to meet Dr. Klouda someday soon. said...


I am headed to OKC for meetings. I will be gone for the rest of the day. Before I left I thought I would respond to Van McClain's written email that he is sending to anyone who inquires about Dr. Klouda. It is exactly what I expected, but the good thing is I've been through this before. I am beginning to understand the 'system' a little better. :)Sorry for the length of this comment, but I needed it up in the form of a comment for people to see. Not important enough for a post of its own yet.-----

I have attempted to contact Van McClain, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Southwestern. He is on faculty at Mid-America Seminary in New York. He will not receive my call, so I have left him my private cell number for him to call me. I chuckle at those who say “Wade, you should handle this matter within the system.” Well, that may or may not work in this case, but I can guarantee you it won’t work if they system never calls you back.

It does, seem, however, that Van is willing to respond to others who write and ask him about Sheri Klouda. The following is an email he sent to Bob Cleveland and The Dallas Morning News. It is for public viewing, so I thought I would respond to it. Van’s written words are in bold, my response is italicized underneath.

Van: There are two main issues I want to address. First, Dr. Klouda was not dismissed from SWBTS.

Wade: Van, my blog says she was forced out. She had the job of her dreams. She was told to find another job. I think you are defining ‘dismissed’ as ‘terminated.’ Nobody ever said she was terminated. She was told to leave. That is my definition of being forced out.

Van: Actually she did not have tenure and, like hundreds of professors aroud the US every year, was told that she would not be awarded tenure.

Wade: Van, how many are told they are not granted tenure because they are female? Can you name one institution that has done that? Not a handful. Just one. Other than Dr. Bullock in 2004 at SWBTS :)

Van: She accepted another position while employed at SWBTS.

Wade: What in the world would you do when the Provost does not assign you classes for the fall of 2006? What would you do when your salary is about to be cut off? What would you do if you needed food on the table? It was either accept a position elsewhere or fight legally.

Van: She also requested that Wade Burleson not release the story, in part because of inaccuracies.

Wade: Uh, I’m not sure I know what you mean. First, would you please point out the inaccuracies? I’m not asking for much, just one inaccuracy. By the way, when you do, proving that I am wrong, I will be happy to change my post to correct the inaccuracy and publicly repent. I’ve been here before. I know how it works. Until then, I stand by that which I have written. Second,, your quote looks as if Sheri Klouda is for the SWBTS and your ‘official’ appraisal of her situation at SWBTS, and against Wade Burleson’s blog and his assessment of her situation at SWBTS.

How confident are you in your assessment of her feelings?

Van: Because of confidentiality concerns, I cannot comment directly upon many of the allegations that have been made about SWBTS

Wade: I have heard that one before Van. It won’t work this time.

Van: The second issue involves the desire of SWBTS to have only men teaching who are qualified to be pastors or who have been pastors in the disciplines of theology, biblical studies, homiletics, and pastoral ministries.

Wade: Van, if that is the desire of the trustees, why did you, as one of the 2002 SWBTS trustees hire Sheri Klouda? Has your view changed in the last few years? If so, why?

Van: This is in keeping, of course, with the statement of faith of the SBC that clearly says that the pastorate is reserved for men.

Wade: I am confused. Who is talking about Sheri Klouda being a pastor?

Van: It is a matter of freedom of religion in this country for a private institution to align itself with the majority views of its constituency.

Wade: Van, you have polled the majority of our constituency to see if they are opposed to a woman teaching Hebrew? I think not.

Van: None of our seminaries to my knowledge have women teaching in Theology, Biblical Studies, Homiletics or Pastoral Ministries. SWBTS is simply coming in line with the others and with our statement of faith.

Wade: Van, I expected better from you. Please show me the statement of faith to which you refer. Of course, your statement is an attempt to protect SWBTS from accreditation scrutiny and EEOC violations, and I am hopeful that you will not find yourself in trouble on both ends. By the way, are you saying your trustees, including you, violated that statement of faith in 2002 when you hired Dr. Klouda? Of course not. So what has changed?

Van, I do wish that you would receive my phone calls, and respond to my emails, but since you have chosen not to contact me about the ‘errors’ in my blog before you decided to go public, I have chosen to respond to the email you have sent to those who have inquired.

Before I close I do have a few questions for you, which I sought to ask you over the phone, but you declined to talk:

(1).Did you vote for Sheri Klouda to teach Hebrew at Southwestern Theological Seminary in 2002?
(2). Why do you now believe that she is not qualified to do so? Is it really the ‘statement of faith’ (please show me where the BFM says a woman can’t teach a man Hebrew, or theology, or doctrine), or is it the narrow views President Patterson guides you now?
(3). Van, please answer this next one with honesty. Have you had any formal or informal discussions with Dr. Patterson about joining the School of Theology, teaching in the position vacated by Dr. Klouda?
(4). Would you please, in print, tell me where I am wrong in my post? Again, I am happy to change anything I have written, but the claim of confidentiality is not a wall behind which you will be able to duck behind for long.

Finally, Van, feel free to call me, or email me. You have my private cell number. I am more than happy to discuss this with you at your convenience.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson
Friday, January 19, 2007

P.S. Anyone is free to distribute this lenthy dialoge with Van as a post, as is, on your own blog if you choose.

Anonymous said...


you say, "Southern Baptists better get used to greater accountability in areas of moral and ethical breaches." And, "Integrity is a big issue, is it not?"

How can you really believe that when one of your biggest supporters, or you his, is Ben Cole, who has openly stated that he went through some of Paige Patterson's private documents and photocopied them without permission? What's wrong for Patterson should be wrong for Cole.

Anonymous said...


You said, "The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 does not forbid a woman from 'preaching,' 'teaching,' or 'proclaiming' the gospel of Jesus Christ to men."

Wade, this has been my problem with the BF&M all along. We treat it as something other than a faith statement. Why do we hold to it as though it has the authority to allow or forbid anything? IT IS NOT SCRIPTURE. It does not teach us, it does not hold authority over us, it does not make allowances or forbid. If we are not careful, we will add it to Scripture as though it were the Talmud. Thus, my reasons for not wanting to sign it!

I realize this is a very innocent thing on your part, and I also understand that this is not the subject of your post, but I've heard and read language like this before, and I believe we are setting a dangerous precedent in just the way we are treating it with our words. But this has been my concern all along--the very reason why I am no longer on the mission field.

Please forgive my ranting--still a sensitive issue with me, and perhaps always will be as long as I see it creeping into our thoughts and discussions in this way.

I would just simply ask that you hear my heart in this matter, and please do not dismiss this so quickly. Many missionaries were acting upon their convictions over this matter and we, too, had to give up our "dream jobs" because we felt that this Convention was narrowing and moving in a direction we could not go. We were true to Scripture, and we were loyal, conservative Southern Baptists--we just didn't make very good politicians.

WTJeff said...

Wade and Tim Rogers,

Thank you for setting an example of how two men who love Jesus and believe in the inerrancy of His word can disagree without disparaging one another.

I fail to see how questioning something Dr. Patterson has done is an attack on him. It's accountability pure and simple. Too many times, those in power have had a top down interpretation of accountability. They think they're at the top and the accountability only travels downward.

As far as the interpretation of this text goes, I can see both sides, but the implications of those who advocate the "no authority over a man" position would seem to unravel the very fabric of SBC church life.

My own interpretation aside, this very issue exemplifies the point that Wade has been making along. When parameters are set that go beyond the faith statement southern baptists have chosen to accept, God called people must seek to serve outside of the SBC. Whether they be a seminary professor or a international missionary, they will find an avenue to serve God in the way He has called them. The only question remaining at this point is whether the SBC will be blessed by cooperating with them or suffer because their service is outside our "parameters". If the latter is the case, the kingdom of God marches on, it's only the SBC which will suffer.


Jeff Parsons
Amarillo, TX

volfan007 said...


have you read dr. a.t. robertsons view on this in word pictures of the nt? he states that it is clearly a prohibition of a woman teaching in a public setting!

also, dr. j. vernon mcgee and dr. h.a. ironside would strongly disagree with wade's opinion on this.

also, dr. john mcarthur would disagree with wade's sermon here.

also, matthew henry beleives as i do about women teaching over men in public.

and, the list goes on. i dont have time to look up all of them. but, i think you get the general idea.


ps. so, a.t. robertson, or wade? dr. j. vernon mcgee, or wade? dr. ironside, or wade? dr. john mcarthur, or wade? i guess i will hold with the bible's clear teaching on this. said...

Jeff Parsons,

As I walk out the door, I bestow upon you 'comment of the day.'

Bingo. Bull's eye. Dead on.

You give me hope that others can see what you have seen.


Anonymous said...

Colin, I wonder if Paul knew that his letters would be read by nonchristians when he included information about internal church disputes...

Anonymous said...

I have a question. Few women or men are as qualified to teach as Professor Klouda. But in the context of the local church, many women know as much as their male Sunday School teachers and are effective teachers.
Yet neither my OK church, not all that far from Wade's, nor any SBC church around here, will let a woman teach a Sunday School class in which men are present.

So here is the question: all of you who support Wade's theological underpinning of this - will you be encouraging women to become Sunday School teachers in your churches in classes in which men are members? If the women want to, and others object in your church, how hard will you push for your "more correct" theological interpretation?


Bart Barber said...

Re: verses 13-15

Ahhh....exegesis by paraphrase. The Living Bible method.

John Jax said...

To all - please listen carefully... This is not now about Wade vs. Paige. This is about power corrupting. PP was a hero of mine when he led, at great personal sacrifice some will say, the Conservative Resurgence. I chose, and attended classes at, SEBTS because he was the President and I knew I would be getting taught by people who believed the Bible. However, it is clear to me now, having won the battle over the bible so to speak, that PP has let the power and influence he gained corrupt his actions.

Now, please, no more talk about proper channels. There are only two of those: go to the trustees or handle it per Matthew 18. The trustees are loyal to PP for obvious reasons (see David Allen's gig as Dean of the Theology school) and Matthew 18 ultimately requires if you don't get results to peacably move on, more or less. Believe me, PP would love for Wade to shut down his blog and come to PP's office to discuss this. Then, if he couldn't intimidate Wade (he can't) or bribe Wade with a position of power in the SBC (he can't) he will simply keep it all quiet and put Wade on his "list." So, the only thing Wade can do is blog. For most of us, that would also just be ignored. However, this particular little blog gets read! Praise the Lord! And like it or not, the powers to be have to deal with it.

By the way, Wade is right about the legal ramifications. Christians are not exempt from the Federal laws unless it can be shown the exemption is based on actual convictions that are practiced. Discrimination laws based on sex or race are not laws that can be ignored. I would love to be the attorney who had that case. The problem would be proving she was fired based on her race or sex. Most employers are not stupid to tell someone they are being forced out due to race or sex. They invent other reasons. In this case it looks like PP told her it was her sex. Now, we can all agree that PP is a very intelligent man. Why then would he say and do something so stupid? Arrogance! The power and position and wealth he has accumulated by his supporters have effected his judgement. (See professional athletes and one U.S. President)

Don't expect to hear from him since he is smart enough to hire an attorney immediately and that attorney will advise him to keep his mouth shut. He will send out his henchmen and/or blindly loyal followers, to attack Wade and anyone else who dares question his actions.

This is why we have a two party system: always someone there to question and hold accountable those in power. Since no one else will do it. We have this blog.

Lord, thank you for Wade and for using him to shine the light on the abuses in our convention. Please protect him and strengthen him and give him wisdom. Amen.

Marty Duren said...

Very Good! I'm glad to see that you have an extensive library. Though it is curious to see that they all teach the EXACT same thing, when there are others (Kent Hughes, Spiros Zodhiates, W. A. Criswell for starters) who either differ slightly or totally.

Variety is the spice of life ;^)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous above asking about an allegation related to Ben Cole... Since when was any of this about Ben Cole? Why do you bring that up and why anonymously? Is that supposed to edify and bring more clarity to the issues being discussed?

art rogers said...


So the Christian Index should never have published the gross waste of CP dollars at NAMB? Why not rather be wronged?

When things are done out of conviction and integrity, there should be no shame in standing by the action.

Anonymous who attacks the character of Ben and Wade while not owning his own words,

Ben admitted to photocopying documents to which he had access, permission and a key to the room from the librarian or archivist (I forget which) at SEBTS. You have misrepresented him badly. Good thing you did it anonymously.


Do tell. How did you get to be the authoritative expert on what the majority of conservative scholars believe? Or is that just your opinion? Could it be skewed by predisposition? Or are people who disagree with Paige Patterson the only ones who have predispositions?

Anonymous said...

Volfan, you are holding with a great number of men's clear teaching of an unclear text. A whole host of people have demonstrated that but you have yet to acknowledge that.

In response to one of the questions above, it wouldn't bother me at all to sit under a woman's teaching in Sunday School. In fact, I have sat in many classes that were co-taught by husband and wife, and, if the husband were gone, then the wife wouldn't hesitate to take the lead. I don't think God's ability to gift people is limited by gender and we have seen God use people of both genders throughout time.

Anonymous said...

A simple google search on Van McLain brings up his post at Mid-America. He just happens to be the "Associate Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew"
Interesting? I wonder if his house is on the market?

John Jax said...

Congratulations fellow SBCers - we recently apologized and acknowledged we were wrong on slavery. Now, we are actually debating whether woman can be used by God to teach, evangelize and have authority over men. Awesome, I can't wait to see what the new century, the 1900's, will bring!

Oops, I need to stop blogging, my boss is coming and she might want to read what we are discussing. At least she's not my sunday school teacher and has no authority over me. Well, off to more training, she is leading a seminar of us men today. I just might try to explain to her my convictions that she should not be my boss, should not be teaching me, and has no authority over me. Who knows, since she is lost, I may even be able to get her saved and have her join my SBC church. Then, I know she will agree with me! :) (Sarcasm obvious)

Totally God's will...only said...

I am somewhat new here but I would like to make an observation. It seems to me that the real issue on this and about all other Bible arguments is we believe in the total sovereignty of God at all times in all things? Do we believe that our Creator can do what He wants, when He wants, where He Wants, with whoever He wants for eternity?

Or do we believe that our Creator must bend His will and His ways in every area of creation to please us and our interpretations and application of His word?

It seems that many think that whatever their education dictates, or their opinion dictates, or their "scholarly exegesis" dictates is the only way that God can interpret His word, or the only way God can act and the only way God can use people.

Can our Creator use a woman He created to do and to be whatever he decides He wants her to be? Or must our Creator get the SBC stamp of approval?

To get between God and any person is a very dangerous thing.

I am continually amazed how many people live their life like their is no God to answer to

Kevin Bussey said...

Did Mrs. Criswell have men in her SS class?

Anonymous said...


did you copy Paige Patterson's personal documents without his permission?

Anonymous said...

Bryan Riley and Art Rogers,

This is simply a matter of ethics and integrity that this post and this group seems to be championing.

Anonymous said...

From time to time it is appropriate for both sides of an argument to agree on the facts that neither side can deny..
Here are the facts that no one denies...
1. Wade got some information that including speaking with Dr. Klouda about her departure from SWBTS.
2. Wade says that he tried to speak and/or get an email response from Dr. Patterson about these important and sensitive matters, but never spoke with him about it.
3. Not willing to wait longer to speak with Dr. Patterson before going public, Wade also did not choose to first go to the Trustees with his concerns or info.
4. Wade posted this information in a highly public forum for everyone to see, believers and non-believers alike.

Now we also know that Scripture is clear on these points.

1. Matthew 18...Got a problem with a brother??? Go talk with them alone first. If that doesn't work take 2-3 more, etc.
2. 1 Cor. 6:1 Don't take your case before the world in a public forum as the course of action without speaking and involving the person offended and other believers.

Pretty clear...matter of fact crystal.

There is no question that because of these posts, we have non-Christians seeing all this devisive stuff and some of the trustees don't even know what is going on yet.

If and when this goes completely public with secular newspapers and maybe even the governmental laws as Wade indicates may occur, who here will be happy? Some people in this forum will, others saddened. The main question is, will God or Satan have more joy?

Anonymous said...

anonymous, you really are bringing up a red herring, but you also raise a very important issue that underlies much of the reason why Wade and some who agree with him do what they do. The issue is that we all fall short of the glory of God. That's straight from one very clear scripture. And, because of that we all really have no basis to judge, which is why there is another very clear scripture about judging other humans. The reality is (and the point that really is being made here is) that we all desperately need God: His love, mercy and grace.

You see, this all points to our humanity and God's godliness. This points to the gift that we can all obtain in Jesus through faith, and faith alone, and even that comes from God. Wow, it all comes back to God. Not us. Not our beliefs or deeds. So, although you are really off base to the specifics of this post by pointing to a speck in Ben Cole's eye, you are maknig the bigger point of the logs in all of our eyes and the depravity we all share.

That is such good news I just want to praise God for it. I can't get over it. God doesn't send us all to hell. He lovingly asks us, like he asked Adam and Eve so long ago, "Where are you?" And then He waits for us to answer. God loves us. Wow. In spite of the rotten corpse that is our morality, he loves us as gives freely a Way to intimacy with Him.

Amen!!! Praise the Lord. Thank you for commenting. You bring us all back to why we are doing this in the first place. May we unite in Jesus and the world see it and know.

Anonymous said...


An interesting post. When I was in seminary, I wrote a paper on this very topic with full exegesis of the texts you referenced. Rather than reproduce the paper here, let me just say that my conclusions were the same as yours. However, is our position the only valid view of the text? Obviously not. I personally know many wonderful men of God who hold the same view of the text as Dr. Patterson. I don't agree with them on their view of women teachers but I still work along side of them without judgment or vitriol.

Can we not extend the same courtesy to Dr. Patterson as we extend to others who sincerely differ with our interpretation of scripture? Forcing our view of the text onto someone else who sincerely disagrees sounds a bit like the charge of "narrowing of parameters" that you and so many others are making about SBC leaders.

Just something to think about.



Anonymous said...

Absolutely Les,

As long as he doesn't ruin a woman's life, career, and finances by enforcing his view which exceeds the BFM 2000

Anonymous said...

Bryan Riley,

are you suggesting we extend grace to Ben and discipline to Paige?

Anonymous said...


Why don't you ask Ben (how about privately) since you are so concerned with ethics?

Why don't you tell us your name? We know everbody else. They have the integrity and courage to tell us.

Why don't you quit trying to hijack the blog?

Anonymous said...

Karen (since no one answered your question)

I grew up in a conservative church in SC. My pastor was know as a fundamentalist leader in the state.
We had (and still do) a music/youth/education (over the years the combination has changed) who is a woman...

The largest Baptist church in SC/active in the conservative resurgence...has men and woman teachers in every adult class

I served a conservative church in VA (apart of the conservative convention). Where for the past 4-5 years every adult sunday school class has a man and women teaching (not husband and wife)

I am the pastor of a small church in NE Texas...the SS I am in when I can make it...the teacher is a woman...I enjoy having her teach!

The point is...this is not a conservative liberal issue no matter what anyone is an interpetational issue.

Many churches in the "conservative" SBC have women teaching in various capacities.


Anonymous said...


I don't remember ever saying that I went through private papers without permission?

In fact, I've never gone through Patterson's private papers without permission.

Anything I've photocopied in the past, I did with full permission of the archives custodian.

But I did break into the Watergate Hotel.

And there was that time that I removed documents from Vince Foster's office.

And there was that thing about enriched uranium....

Silly person. Drink your juice.


Anonymous said...


I don't think Wade is trying to force his view on Dr. Patterson. I think he is pointing out two things: 1)there are more than one acceptable interpretation of this issue among conservative, innerrantist Southern Baptists and 2)this is NOT an issue addressed in the BFM2000 and should not be forced as THE view at an SBC owned entity such as SWBTS.

Would you agree that these are the points Wade is making and not trying to "narrow the parameters," as you have gently asserted?

An Anonymous Baptist

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I didn't say anything about disciplining anyone or extending grace to anyone. I literally, out of the passion of my heart, praised God because he loves humanity enough to send His Son to live, die, and live again for us to give us eternal life. I was proclaiming the good news. And I was seeing how God can use things like this to proclaim that good news. It isn't about me, you (whoever you are), Paige or Ben... IT'S ABOUT GOD! AND I'M VERY THANKFUL FOR THAT! Because if it were about me we'd be toast. Burned toast. Without butter to take off the edge.

Anonymous said...


If you want to direct comments toward me, you're going to have to come out of anonymity.


Sorry, Wade. I'm not trying to tell you how to run your blog. I just have a pet peeve about those who hide behind their computer. :)


Anonymous said...

Thanks for answering my question, RMS.
Seems that there are two different things going on here.

One is that everyone agrees (including me) that Professor Klouda should not have been treated like that, presuming the facts are as presented.
(If the facts are not as presented, I am sure that Wade is reporting what he believes and has been told.)I admire his desire to stand against injustice.

The other is that Wade is ALSO leading the charge for a particular interpretation of Scripture on this issue.

Obviously that interpretation in its practical aspects is only one of many.

1) Some on this thread have no trouble with a woman teacher in SS.
2) Other people would want her husband to at least be usually present.
3) Others would never want a woman SS. teacher.
(By the way, Kevin, they would not care what Mrs. Criswell did.)
4)Some that would never want a woman SS. teacher would have no problem with a woman professor, even teaching theology, because that isn't church.
5) Some would have no trouble with a woman professor as long as she technically was not teaching theology.

And many more subcategories.

Is it possible that we differentiate between church and the rest of life in a way that Scripture does not intend? Very difficult questions for me.

Anonymous said...

I am not trying to be completely anonymous as in the last post. My name is Karen and I am a long-time member of an OK SBC church.

I simply don't have a blog.

Anonymous said...

Is Wade really leading a charge for any particular view of scripture or simply saying because this is CLEARLY an unclear issue, let's not let it be the basis upon which we separate or upon which we make employment decisions in this institution?

i only write anonymously because it is faster on my computer as this blog is being hit so much it is moving slowly.

Marty Duren said...

I'm with you there.

anony #2-
Just type your name at the end of your post and everyone will rejoice. :^)

Anonymous said...


I sympathize with your statement, but i cannot reveal my identity, lest i receive more backlash and persecution than i have already received. I'm sorry i cannot meet your request, but i'm not sure what my identity has to do with the post i directed towards you. I've been following blogs since before Wade became involved and have participated in many 'blogging' activities (but most recently anonymously). I'm not trying to bait you (or anyone) into anything. I am just enaging your previous statement and hope you will do the same towards me.

An Anonymous Baptist

Marty Duren said...

Anonymous Baptist-
Les may not concur here, but I've no problem with you needing to maintain an amount of privacy; you are using an ID that can always be referenced and you actually engage the conversation.

Drive by's with no means of keeping an idea of who is who become annoying.

John Moeller said...

Mr. Cole

If you happen to have any of that Uranium left would you mind me having a little for my Delorian so I can go back and ask Paul and Timothy what the heck he meant by writing that text and have him re-word it for us.....

volfan007 said...

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

so, does this say something to us loud and clear. i think so. i guess i will just stick with the clear teachings of the bible on this matter.


Debbie Kaufman said...

There are so many anonymous's on here that I'm getting confused. Could you at least be anonymous #1 and anonymous #2? Could you at least give us three letters of your name? Does Dick Ebersol know who you are? Oh wait, that's Carly Simon's "Your So Vain". :)

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I cannot illustrate the problem with the allegations that are being leveled against Dr. Patterson. Let me say first of all that I have never met him and have never even seen him in person.

I am a lawyer, though, and am therefore trained to look for facts. What are the facts here?

I want to look at a post by mo-scratch as an example, but I think his approach is similar to many on here. He correctly points out the obvious- that to establish sex discrimination, a woman must establish factually "that was fired based on her" He then makes a huge leap: "In this case it looks like PP told her it was her sex."

Many people on here are making the same leap. They are assuming that Dr. Patterson terminated this woman because she is a woman. Now, I don't know whether that is true or not, but I will say that, having read this and other blog on this issue, I have seen NO EVIDENCE that this is true. We only have Wade's assertion that SOMEBODY (He never says who) told her that her termination was because of her sex. I suggest that a comment from some unnamed person is evidence of nothing.

Am I the only one concerned that Dr. Patterson is being accused, tried and convicted here in this blog where there is no factual evidence for it? Are there so many folks desperate to convict this man that nobody is bothered by the lack of factual basis?

Michael Studdard

Anonymous said...


No drive-by shooter here. Just a guy who's grateful you didn't put moldy cheese on those hamburgers you were cooking this past summer when i stopped in for a night at your North Georgia mansion :)

Anonymous said...

Oops, meant to sign that last post.

An Anonymous Baptist

Unknown said...

"Frankly, I am tired of your argument.

It's old. It's weak. It's ineffective."

Interesting argument. And popular. Larry King used the same argument against Al Mohler and Joel Osteen in regards to the exclusivity of Christ. My rebuttal, probably as predictable and boring as the argument: but is it biblical?

I think my point is solid, but it is my opinion of the matter. Godspeed to you guys. May the Lord bless all your endeavors, and may He shine His mercy and grace on the SBC.



John Jax said...

Wade - I hope you will reconsider my request to you that you attend the FBC Jax Pastors Conference in a couple of weeks. PP himself will be here, as will about 6000 pastors. You can have your Matthew 18 meeting, and then when it is fruitless, I will be happy to go back as one of the 2 or 3 others you should take with you to discuss this. I know of some good restaurants I know PP and you both would enjoy, and Wade, I will even pay for yours! (I would also offer a room in my house for your accommodations if needed.)

As you know, I have differed with you on some issues (abstinence for one)but you have now "won me over" with this blog and exposed some things I have not seen based on my love and respect for the leaders of the SBC over these past many years. Keep up the good fight, brother Wade.

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...


You are not alone. I mentioned this yesterday and at great length. You see, some just do not see clearly past and idea (agenda) that drives them.

read: to see the two post I put up on this.

You are not alone.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Since when are wanting to stop injustices done to people an agenda Tim? I just don't get it. Count me as one with that agenda.

jbub said...

kevin apperson,

I think part of the point here is that the role of women in ministry is *not* an essential doctrine. People build biblical arguments for both the egalitarian position as well as the complementarian position. So I don't see how one can say this is an "essential." secondly, it is a very dangerous thing to give anyone (myself included) carte blanche on making a decision based simply on personal conviction. For example, I practice the gift of a personal prayer language. If I were president of SWBTS, should I require *all* to speak in a personal prayer language? No, I need accountability from the Body of Christ so that i do not simply impose my personal whims on others. Those who walk in truth welcome light on their actions becuase they have nothing to hide. we should not simply give carte blanche to our leaders and assume that they will always make good decisions, because they (and I) won't

art rogers said...

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

so, does this say something to us loud and clear. i think so. i guess i will just stick with the clear teachings of the bible on this matter.


Whoah! Seriously, Volfan? Your hermeneutic is to take what is absent in the Bible and call it "clear teaching?"

So Jesus never road in a car... You walking?

And at whose feet did Jesus ever sit as an adult? Male or female?

Josiah, King of Israel, in seeking to do God's will upon the discovery of the scroll, turned to whom for direction?

Are you saying it is clear that Priscilla never taught Apollos?

If you want to stick to the clear teaching of Scripture, you would be better off with a different subject.

Just for the record, I think 1 Tim teaches concerning the office of pastor, but not a SS teacher, Beth Moore, AG Lotz, etc.

Anonymous said...

As all attempt to study the cultural and historical context and biblically understand these issues, it is important to know the background of those who write commentaries. Just as a point of information, please note that in the "helpful resources" section of the Timothy exegesis from Dave Johnson, several of the authors are associated with the Christians for Biblical Equality, an egalitarian organization. Catherine Kroeger was one of the founders. Ruth Tucker and Kari Malcolm sit on the Board of Reference. They are not "objective" readers of the biblical text.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Michael: I am not a lawyer but through nursing courses and college courses was also trained to look for facts and if that is the lawyer's way of doing it, I suggest you reread the post of Wade's on this matter because your facts appear to be pretty skewed from the ones that Wade presented. I would put them here but due to space would encourage you or anyone else to reread what was given.

John Jax said...

Anonymous Attorney Michael Studdard - you got me! You are right, this matter has not been litigated, discovery has not been completed, and nothing has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, I must sit quietly until all of the above has been established in a court of law. But then there will be appeals:(

Thanks Debbie - I also thought the information Wade posted was factual, and it was clear she was dismissed based on her gender.

Kevin Bussey said...

I don't have anything to add, I just wanted to be # 100 :)

Anonymous said...

Kevin -


I almost did that, but thought ... nah ... that's silly. Now I am jealous of you. :)

Alycelee said...

Last night my husband (who I share responsibilities teaching a senior adult ss class with, teach when he is away, my pastor has no problem with this, the people in the SS class love both of us) read yesterdays entire blog. He then read all 200 something comments. When he came to bed last night, his comments to me were about how many here were "trapped" in the same system they seemed bent on protecting. He also said that he noticed how many refuse to listen to anyone's perspective but their own. His comment was "they just refuse to hear and say the same thing over and over."
He warned me about attempting to "win" people over. That's God's job. He is right.
God will judge, God will vindicate and He teaches, but only those who are willing to listen. If we aren't willing to listen to each's a pretty good indication we don't listen to Him.

Alycelee said...

Last night my husband (who I share responsibilities teaching a senior adult ss class with, teach when he is away, my pastor has no problem with this, the people in the SS class love both of us) read yesterdays entire blog. He then read all 200 something comments. When he came to bed last night, his comments to me were about how many here were "trapped" in the same system they seemed bent on protecting. He also said that he noticed how many refuse to listen to anyone's perspective but their own. His comment was "they just refuse to hear and say the same thing over and over."
He warned me about attempting to "win" people over. That's God's job. He is right.
God will judge, God will vindicate and He teaches, but only those who are willing to listen. If we aren't willing to listen to each's a pretty good indication we don't listen to Him.

Anonymous said...

Your last statement, "If we aren't willing to listen to each's a pretty good indication we don't listen to Him",
is so true.

irreverend fox said...

I just don't see why everybody...and I mean everybody with a view on this issue...can not see, at the very least, a distinction between a seminary and local church.

If you have a problem with women preaching or teaching within the context of a local church, fine. I don't completely disagree with you anyway.

But a seminary is not a local church for crying out loud. Even you fundamentalists out there should be able to see that and agree. This women was mistreated, period. Even if she had been on staff of a local church and a new pastor came in and felt that was unBiblical, fine...ask her to leave. I believe that view might be extreme but it is not without warrant or precedent and I can fellowship with a church that is that "strict". But a seminary is not a local more plainly can that be said? said...

Irreverend Fox,

Solid point my friend. said...

Back from OKC, but on my way out the door to take my wife out to dinner. She will teach me a thing or two over supper and I will willingly learn from her. :) said...

Couldn't resist. Wink

D. Toole said...

I am a former Southern Baptist. Though I am now in a Methodist church, at heart I remain a Baptist.

Women's issues and the close ties of Southern Baptists to Christian fundamentalism is why I left the SBC, though I found strength and fellowship in the Alliance of Baptists.

Women's issues will not go away in the SBC. (Nor will the close ties to fundamentalism.)God still calls women. God calls women to be whatever God wants them to be: teachers, deacons (like Phoebe), preachers, and yes, even pastors. Well, except in the SBC. The BFM expressly forbids God to do that!

(for a longer discussion on the similarities and dissimilarities of SBC leadership and Christian fundamentalism, see )

volfan007 said...


how would you answer mr. toole.

btw, mr. toole, i used to be a methodist. i left due to the liberalism that was sucking the life out of that once great denomination. as a matter of fact, many of my deacons are former methodists.


D. Toole said...

volunteer fan,

My church was the fastest growing church in Richmond, VA in 2005, and still is in the top 20 out of 280 churches in the area.

I give God the credit for that, not the church's liberalism. You can call it whatever you wish.

Steve said...

This was a truly educational, fair, and maturely written entry, Bro. Wade.

Hmm... A well-meaning man, doing his best, leading a seminary, shows a bit of inconsistency, and perhaps a lack of honesty/change of heart/poor memory. Should he be removed from such a position of power and trust?

Well, yes. Nice guys finish last every day. Good men and women get fired from institutions every day (for milder errors/failings/ inconsistencies than Dr. Patterson has demonstrated.) The trustees should reconsider their decision to put this man in this position and may simply decide that They Can Do Better.

I would hope they will take the opportunity to decide this question of women in these positions once and for all, at least as concerns SWBTS.

Also, we are in the United States. If "the Gummint" decides we don't fire based on gender, then we DON'T fire anyone based on gender, lest all who "render unto Caesar" see us as lawless and unfair. In this case, political correctness isn't the issue - U.S. Law becomes the issue. Our historic racial and gender narrowness bar us from anything less in the court of public opinion.

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...

Not to demean you honestly, but eh following quote is not scriptually backable (new word!)

"If we aren't willing to listen to each's a pretty good indication we don't listen to Him",
is so true."

I listen to man long before and often instead of people - and pray I always will!

Debbie Kaufman said...

So Tim Guthrie, what about the verses in Proverbs and elsewhere in the Bible that tells us to listen to those wiser than ourselves.

Alycelee said...

Tim, I suggest you read the Second chapter of Philippians.
And.. I said "pretty good indication" as in one can note if someones actions seem to be that of one who walks in humility, is willing to listen, "prefers others interest to his own", these are INDEED indicators from the scripture. And the scripture also speaks of a spiritual man judging all things, discerning, having his/her or practicing discernment in these matters.
My discernment says "eh" is indeed demeening, and adding honestly in front of it doesnt lessen make it less so.

Anonymous said...

Aw gee, what do we know? We are only women! :>) said...


I received an email from Van McClain, saying he would respond to me if I would write him the questions I had rather than calling.

I wrote him an email with the four questions I posted earlier on this comment string.

He responded tonight with the following sentence:

I have had neither any formal or informal discussions with Dr. Patterson about joining the School of Theology or teaching in the position vacated by Dr. Klouda. Nor am I seeking any faculty position at Southwestern.

I accept his word on this matter, and I consider it a closed subject.

Van did not answer my other three questions. I wrote him another email pointing out there were four questions, not one. I have yet to hear from him regarding the other question. If and when he answers them I will let you know.

Wade said...

By the way, if there are those who wonder why I would make my questions to Van public, as well as his responses, it is simply because the questions are raised by the public email he has sent to The Dallas Morning News and every person who inquires about Dr. Klouda.

Frankly, I find it refreshing that we are discussing the Klouda issue openly. I have always believed that true Christian ministry and true Christian conduct is never embarrassed by the light of day. Light has a way of exposing that which is true vs. that which is false.

In His Grace,


Anonymous said...

I still want one of those Whining Truce w/Timmy Guthrie baseball cards..McAfee has released a update that cleans the Volfan007 virus from your computer..

Anonymous said...

Dr. Rogers to the rescue once again. He said "it's a mighty thin pancake that does not have two sides."

Alycelee said...

I thought that was bologna :)

BTW I keep looking for APB to pick this story up-nothing yet.

Anonymous said...

I thought it was cow patties.. said...


BP and ABP may not pick it up until Dr. Klouda is ready to go public herself. For the sake of SWBTS I hope she does it soon. It will prevent any deeper holes being dug by Van through his public statements.

Anonymous said...

I am writing this message anonymously (call me John if you want) for several reasons. I am presently a student at swbts , hoping to graduate this may and receive my degree:). At any rate, Wade is correct by indicating that Dr. Klouda was forced to leave her post because of her gender. A year ago, I wanted to do a directed course study with Dr. Klouda. Unfortunately she was no longer allowed to supervise students because that will be considered "teaching)( in this case , me, a male student) theology. Here's her reply to my request:

Anynomous: ( I intentionally removed my name here)

As you might know, I am no longer teaching for the School of Theology. I will remain associated with the school
and work on research at the office while I seek another post. Unfortunately, this news means that I am not permitted to supervise any independent studies, as these are considered "teaching." The new administration, and Dr. Patterson in particular, believes that women should not teach in the theology school, and I have been asked
to make the transition to another community.

I apologize for my inability to help you.
Sheri Klouda

* Please don't ask me for my name, degree program, etc. I will not tell you. For now, I choose not to reveal my identity to protect my family, study at swbts.



Unknown said...


Point, Set, and Match!

Anonymous said...

The mail administrator at SWBTS could easily search archived email to figure out who you are if your quote is verbatim or even close.

Alycelee said...

Woman... where are your accurers?

Alycelee said...


Unknown said...

I would like to raise an issue that I do not believe has been raised yet:

If the Southern Baptist Convention degenerates into each SBC Entity becoming it’s own little kingdom with each BOTs or Seminary President defining it’s own parameters for affiliation, and each defining what is acceptable doctrine… The CP is as good as dead, as over time the various churches of the SBC will get wise to who is discriminating against there members and who is not and direct their CP dollars accordingly.

This has already started to happen in some churches, but if the SBC as a whole does not get their act together concerning our common faith, support for the CP will decline rapidly in the coming years.

We must have a common faith or the SBC will split, and split, and split… Once again I call upon all our SBC Entities to actually abide by our Southern Baptist Statement of Faith… and STOP adding to, or taking away from, the only doctrinal contract that exist between us to define our faith and govern our conduct as Southern Baptist.

Grace to all, said...


Thanks for your comment. I would not worry about people tracking you down. Dr. Patterson instructed Sheri Klouda that she was to tell students exactly what she told you when they asked her why she would not be teaching in the fall of 2006. If he wasn't ashamed of saying it then, he shouldn't be ashamed of you revealing it now. However, John, you might keep in mind that you could be of tremendous help to Sheri if at some point people slander her by saying it was not her gender that led PP to tell her to leave SWBTS.

Though I am hopeful that God's people would not do that to Sheri, I realize that some very well may be tempted to feed rumors about her once they hear her public response to my post. :)

I am praying that everyone involved will simply speak the truth about what happened, allow the chips to fall where they may, and then take steps to correct the problem.


By giving to Dr. Klouda her job back.

I have learned , however, by personal experience that if there is a possibility of public embarrassment, things are sometimes said to discredit the person who reveals the problem rather than humbly take steps to correct the problem.

Here's hoping we do the Christian thing in this matter.

In His Grace,


Anonymous said...

It is really too bad that Sam hodges article had very little depth... A wasted opportunity to right a horrific wrong...

art rogers said...


Let me hasten to say that even though I am inclined to believe "John" due to some other things I know about the situation, it boils down that he is an anonymous poster who has claimed to have something he has not produced.

There may well be a time when John is able to produce the firsthand copy of the communication, but until then proof has not actually been revealed here.

John, would you be willing to fax Wade a copy of this note? He could scan it and post it (with your name blacked out, a la the CIA) and he could post that image here.

That is a lot closer to "evidence" on which people could make their decisions.

Robert Hutchinson said...

I am praying that everyone involved will...take steps to correct the problem.


By giving to Dr. Klouda her job back.

and whether she takes the job back or not...

...she better get one outstanding, sincere and public apology from the president and administration.

and it better not be one of those, "we're sorry you were hurt" apologies.

more like, "PLEASE FORGIVE US, WE WERE WRONG." said...

Good suggestion Art.

John, email me and we'll visit.

Tim Sweatman said...

G. Alford,

Excellent point. That has been one of my biggest themes going all the way back to the adoption of the IMB policies in November 2005.



While I love your choice of sports teams, your repeated insinuations that your view on women in ministry is the only one with any biblical support strike me as being somewhat arrogant and condescending. The example given by Wade in this post makes a strong, but certainly not airtight, case for allowing women to serve in any ministry position. (For clarification, let me add that I have never known Wade to advocate the calling of women as senior pastors. I have never known him to express disagreement with the BFM 2000 on this subject.) I have seen others make a strong, but certainly not airtight, biblical argument for restricting certain positions to men. Obviously both positions cannot be right, but we are so far removed from the context of the 1st century that we cannot know with certainty the exact meaning Paul was conveying to Timothy in this passage. We should keep this in mind as we discuss and defend our position and season our argument with a good bit of humility, respect, and charity.



I will go on the record as being fully supportive of women teaching Sunday school or discipleship classes that include men. When I was discipleship director at our church in Tennessee I asked a young woman to teach an Experiencing God class. I actually took the class myself, and that class was one of the things God used when calling me into vocational ministry. On a couple of occasions when I was pastoring in Kentucky I asked my wife to lead the Wednesday night Bible study while I was away. And whenever God calls me to my next church, I will encourage gifted men AND women to serve in teaching ministries.

Rex Ray said...

I didn’t read the comments today on this post to see the subject is how to right the wrong done to Sheryl Schatz. So I will use the same comment as I did on yesterday’s post.

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

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

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

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

Wade, sorry for saying the same thing twice, but maybe Volfan will get it this time as he is a little...well, I still like him. Maybe we could get him to beat a drum in the march.
Rex Ray

Terry Hamblin said...

Wow! What an interesting debate. Thank you, Wade, for your exegesis. This has been a problem text for me for 30 years. My good friend Alec Motyer construed the verse to have a conjoint verb "teach and have authority over". In other words, a woman teaching a man was fine as long as she did it under the authority of her senior Pastor who had authority over the flock. No problem with female teachers in Sunday School or in Bible Colleges. As you say there are plenty of examples in Scripture of women teaching, though none, I think, of women having pastoral authority - unless you cite Barak giving way to a woman (sounds almost prophetic in the present context).

I guess the nub of the problem for many conservatives is the very one that you refer to in yor exegesis - syncretism. Conservatives are wary of being conformed to the ways of the world. Undoubtedly, the place of women in the world has changed in the past 30 years. That there might be a female President, as Great Britain and other countries have had female Prime Ministers would have seemed unbelievable back in the 1960s.

I can understand that your exegesis would be unacceptable to many conservatives, since it relies on contextualising the Scripture, making it refer to a particular situation in time and place rather than being a universal prescription, despite appealing to a universal (Genesis 1-3) explanation.

I must say that I felt there was a ring of truth about your translation of 'authenten' as ‘to thrust oneself’. Women in business often boast about using their sex-appeal to gain advancement. Witness the use by pharmaceutical companies of attractive young women to sell their wares to doctors. However, we should not neglect the fact that men do the same thing. Think of those TV preachers whith silver locks and tanned faces who minister to congregations mainly comprising women of a certain age.

On the matter of integrity - what a danger it is when one seeks office.

irreverend fox said...

off topic,

but Wade,

the comment by L3 missionary falls outside the bounds you have set up here...

I point this out, not to complain or tattle...but I love this blog and we all know how fast something great like this can turn ugly by name calling, mean spirited and pointed sarcasm and accusation...

so I'm calling it out and ask that L3 at the very least be admonished by you...or for you to consider take it down...

Bob Cleveland said...

One interesting thing hasn't been broached, that I've seen. Dr. Patterson, in his interview with the press upon his hiring, said, in response to a question about women as teachers;

"It would not be my purpose as a leader to do anything in the school of theology that would be something other than what I would want our churches to imitate."

Do you hear that, pastors? Dr. Patterson wants you to imitate his actions with reference to your teachers.

Does that frighten anyone else?

volfan007 said...

again, wade's view of 1 timothy 2 is not shared by some of the greatest bible scholars. dr. a.t. robertson does not agree with wade at all. dr. a.t. robertson was probably one of the greatest greek language scholars of the sbc.

also, the list that does not agree with wade is very long and speaks very loud, or it should. wade mentions a few feminists commentaries where the women had an agenda....a feminist back up his eisegesis of the verses.

the list that disagrees with wade's opinion include...dr. john mcarthur, dr. h.a. ironside, dr. j. vernon mcgee, matthew henry, and many other sound, bible believing scholars.

to try to get 1 timothy 2 to fit into what wade posted is a huge that stretches so far it breaks. that happens when we try to make the bible fit into modern day society with all its unbiblical opinions and views.

we must submit to the clear teachings of scripture if we want to please the Lord.

we receive great blessings when we do things Gods way, and not our own way. even if Gods way is hard to do, and it doesnt bring the applause of men....the worldy crowd.....the society of that day.

wade, i noticed that you didnt answer mr. toole. mr. toole, your church may be a fine, conservative, evangelical, methodist church. i hope so. but, having a crowd doesnt make it good. just look at joel osteen's church. they have a huge crowd, and they hear shallow, feel good, self help, psychological preaching every sunday. they have thier ears tickled every sunday by a false teacher. so, just having a crowd doesnt say much.

i used to be methodist. my family left the methodist church when they kept sending us preachers who didnt believe the miracles really happened....who didnt believe that it was all that important to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin....who laughed at creation but instead believed evolution.

i do pray, mr. toole, that you are in one of the few...very few...methodist churches that believe the book and preach Jesus.


Debbie Kaufman said...

volfan said: "we receive great blessings when we do things Gods way, and not our own way"

Volfan: We are blessed because we belong to Him and what Jesus did not because of what we do or don't do. We do because we are blessed. We are blesses in spite of. Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Corinthians.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Volfan also said "i used to be methodist. my family left the methodist church when they kept sending us preachers who didnt believe the miracles really happened....who didnt believe that it was all that important to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin....who laughed at creation but instead believed evolution.

i do pray, mr. toole, that you are in one of the few...very few...methodist churches that believe the book and preach Jesus."

Volfan: Calm down, no one here is laughing at this. In fact this is not being disputed but believed. However, scripture interprets scripture and look at the passages where women were used in ministry. It cannot be denied. John MacArthur is dispensation list and I disagree with him there as well. I believe Roberts is too. Look everywhere in scripture Volfan. The Bible cannot contradict itself.

Anonymous said...

I am curious... many in their attempts to villify what has been done here try to characterize this as a witch hunt against Dr. Patterson. I believe in part they do this because they aren't listening and in part they do it so that they can then attack it on other bases. Is that what this post is? I'm asking honestly.

I'm not going back and rereading this and the last post at this point, although I do think I've read just about every word in both posts and all comments, but I don't think Wade or others have been calling for Patterson's removal or otherwise making this about Patterson. We are all too often guilty about personalizing things because we believe the lie Satan teaches that it is all about me. That's not what this is about. The post is attempting to draw attention to a narrow belief, not based on scripture, that impacted wrongly a believer's life and livelihood and that it is a poor example of the love of Christ. The point of doing this is to shed light on the problem and prayerfully assist in the righting of that wrong.

Firing Dr. Patterson doesnt' heal Sheri Klouda and that isn't the call of the post. It seems to me that Wade is trying to draw people's attention to religious practices that have no basis in Christ (the Word, John 1:1), not just for Sheri Klouda, but for the Kingdom. those who oppose Wade will be much less gracious about his intent, but that is what it looks like he is trying to do from my vantage point. This means opening our eyes to the error of our ways (emphasizing religion over God's truth), humbling ourselves about our error, admitting that it was error, and correcting it, gently and lovingly.

Cash said...

It looks like a baseless, public accusation was made against Van McClain. I don't understand how this type of "open" discussion is beneficial.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone else noticed how comfortable you feel when you are around someone who is living the salvation of Jesus rather than doing the salvation of Jesus? When you are around those who may talk grace but live and expect works (as they define them), you feel compelled to hold yourself out as perfect. There are a lot of churches in this mold. They walk around like beautiful mausoleums that are whitewashed on the outside but rotting on the inside. They can't let anyone know in their system of belief that they are rotting inside, so they just keep up the veneer.

BUT, when you are around those who live the salvation of Jesus, you feel the grace and love. They are humble because they know that apart from Jesus they are just a rotting corpse. They aren't looking for trouble or trying to be unholy, but they understand who they are in Christ. Ahhh, it's wonderful.

God, give us the grace to be the ones who live (and give) your salvation, not the ones who try to do and be our own salvation, hording it from others.

Anonymous said...

Pastor Wade - Irrev Fox is right. By the way, anyone who has James White and Tom Ascol links on their blog is always right in my view :).

After I read my comments, they are indeed harsh and dramatically opinionated. I do wish Volfan would spell "received" correctly. :) And I don't understand why he is so adamant at "battling" you personally, that he, and the others mentioned, have yet to respond at all to the personal side of this as it pertains to the professor. The reality is the more they speak, the more they manifest themselves...and in my view, their motivation ain't pretty. I am more ways than one.

Anony #58

Anonymous said...

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings in Christ,


Saturday, January 20, 2007

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

Blessings in Christ,


Saturday, January 20, 2007

art rogers said...


I noticed you never answered me.

You seem to rely very much on the words of other great thinkers, but aren't quite so ready to defend your own words.

Please, tell me why it is a sound hermeneutic to build a belief over things absent in the Bible?

At whose feet did Jesus sit as an adult?

What about your claim that it is clear that no woman has ever instructed a man in Scripture? Josiah? Apollos? How are those clear?

Don't accuse Wade of dodging if you are not willing to stand by your own words and answer these simple questions.

art rogers said...


I am not anxious to know your identity. I am interested in your providing evidence of your now numerous claim.

As I said before, I tend to believe you based on some other things I know. Still, the things you have said anyone could easily say.


Stephen Pruett said...

Volfan, Please read previous posts. All of your points have been answered. Guess what? Everyone in this discussion believes the Bible and believes it is interrant; you are not the only one! Everyone here is careful about not letting our culture influence our interpretation. Have you been as careful to not let man's tradition (about the role of women) influence your interpretation? You can name conservative scholars on your side, Marty has listed several on the other side. You say there are no examples of women this or that or the other in the Bible, and others list Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, etc etc.

You have not answered any of the questions I posted about how you reconcile 1Timothy 2:12 with other passages about the role of women. I assume you have no answer. Which means you choose to believe a particular interpretation of the Bible, even though it creates contradictions with other passages and even though you do not interepret ANY other passage describing the behavior of women in church literally (no jewelry, no short hair, silence in church).

I can only conclude that you accept your interpretation of 1Tim 2:12 by faith (actually against much evidence) and that you cannot be disuaded from it. Fine, but let's recognize it for what it is. You are placing complete faith, not in God's word, but in your interpretation of it.

I am not absolutely certain that you are wrong, but all the issues raised here and elsewhere are enough to make me sure that this is not an issue that is certain enough from scripture to justify treating a believer as badly as Dr. Klouda has been treated.

art rogers said...

should be "claims"


volfan007 said...

art and stephen,

i have answered your questions over and over again. apparently, you are not reading my comments. i dont know how to be more clear than i have been. i guess there's no satisfying some people.


volfan007 said...

art and steve,

here are some comments from the other posts of wade's on this....

volfan007 said...

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

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

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


Saturday, January 20, 2007

volfan007 said...

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

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

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

i am not in this to please man.


Saturday, January 20, 2007

volfan007 said...
btw, again, i feel sorry for sheri klouda. i am truly sorry that she had to go thru such an experience. that does not change what the bible teaches though.


Saturday, January 20, 2007

art and steve,

what else would you like to know?

volfan007 said...

Irreverend Fox and L3 Missionary,

I have removed L3's comment. Though I do not always agree with Volfann or Les, or Tim, and though I do agree with the premise of your comment, I have a rule that we address issues and not attack the persons. I trust everyone will continue to abide by these rules.

Anonymous said...

This 83-year-old grannie cannot (for the life of me) understand why many of you "gents" think it's fine for a woman to teach men at church but stop short of approving that she be a pastor--even if she feels called of God to do so. Forty years ago I would have felt she should not serve as deacon or pastor, but, thank God, I am free of that bias. I prefer to believe Paul (in Galations) actually meant it when he wrote that in God's sight there is no male or female, etc. I believe that God is gender-blind when it comes to his calling. I have heard a few Methodist women pastors preach (while visiting in Florida and Oregon) and really worshiped and felt God's presence as they spoke. As a life-long Southern Baptist I am thankful to be "free and faithful." God is great and God is good--all the time.

Florence in KY
Former missionary said...


Would you say that Van McClain has made a baseless accusation that my post is full of errors?

Did he contact me with his concern before making it public?

Has he povided proof of his accusation?

What do you say about Sheri saying publicly and privately, to several people yesterday, that my post was completely factual and truthful?

I am really interested in your assessment of Van's statement.

Anonymous said...

They begged to be attacked personally by their comments. I fell for it and I'm sorry. You are justified in removing the comment.

Volfan - My prayer is that you will continue to study MacArthur. His theology is biblical.

#58 said...

No problem L3,

Thanks for your humility.

Volfann, please notice, L3 said some things about you personally and I removed his comment. You, on far more regular basis than L3, make statements about me like the following. . .

" I become more concerned about wade everytime i read another one of his posts....and about his followers.

he is looking more and more like the moderates who compromise truth to fit in, and who see nothing wrong with liberals . . ."

Volfann, I would encourage you to attempt to be a little more sensitive when you address fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I am attempting to treat you in a fair and gracious manner, and I would appreciate a similar courtesy.

Regardless, you are always welcome.

In His Grace,


Marty Duren said...

That "CIA" word is "redacted."

Just an addition to your words on Deborah: she also spoke for God to the people.

art rogers said...


Yes, I read where you had given evidence for your view.

What you have not answered were my actual questions concerning a hermeneutic from absence - which you espoused and which open us up to some sincerely liberal theology down the road - and your address of the two men who received instruction from a woman in the Bible. I bring them up to refute your claim that no woman ever instructed a man in Scripture.

I am very easy to please. All I really want is for you to even attempt to provide a sincere answer the actual questions posed.

1. Hermeneutic from absence?

2. Josiah and Apollos?

If you could point me to where you even attempted to answer these specific questions, I would be more than happy to apologize. Otherwise, just answer them.

Robert Hutchinson said...

what's it going to take for the sbc seminary faculties to become more gender balanced?

is the convention going to have to go on record as syaing, "we messengers to the 20xx sbc do hereby direct our seminaries to intentionally develop faculties with both male and female professors teaching in all departments including theology."

is that what it's going to take?

this whole ladies-you're-in/ladies-you're-out thing based on who the trustees, administration and president are demonstrates institutional inconsistency and is unfair, especially to sbc women receiving sbc phd's.

so, what's it going to take?

Anonymous said...

Art, one of the big problems with teaching all one view and not allowing thoughtful analysis or criticisms is that it creates people who can't provide a defense of their position because they don't have any answers because they haven't thought through the conclusions they have been force fed. Perhaps that explains the crickets to the tough questions. The method of apologetic often followed is just keep saying the party line over and over again and say it louder if that doesn't work.

Cash said...


No, I am referring to the comment about Van McClain possibly angling for a position at SWBTS. That claim was made without any evidence. He denied it. I don't see that exchange as the type of open communication that is needed. Unfortunately, there is no way to take back that accusation for it was made in public. Sorry that I was not clear enough the first time.

Anonymous said...

I hope someone will answer Florence from KY. That question would occur to a lot of people.

Where exactly in the NT is this position of "Senior Pastor" spelled out that it is the one and only thing that women cannot do?

I am sympathetic with that view, but I find it easier to believe in either far more restrictions as Volfan or far less restrictions as Florence than this "senior pastor" restriction.

Karen in OK

Anonymous said...

art rogers,

I am not sure how to substantiate what I wrote in my previous posts. Do you have any suggestions?



Anonymous said...

I agree with Florence, am a guy, and am a believe in the inerrancy of God's word, but this isn't the forum to do so in in a public way. Sometimes you have to take small steps. And, even by saying this much it adds fuel to the fire of those who worry, like volfan, that they are the only ones defending the TRUTH, as though God can't do that just fine.

Anonymous said...

1 Peter 3:8-9

"Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing."

Interested in how we can apply this to our lives here.


The Nameless one said...


May I ask why my question to Van McClain, Chairman of the SWBTS Board of Trustees, about conversations with Paige Patterson about a position at SWBTS is inappropriate? It was a question, and his reponse was placed in the same comment string in which the question was asked. You seem to believe that there is something sinister about such a discussion, if indeed it had occurred. I'm not so sure.

Here's why.

(1). Do see something wrong with the a Chairman of the Board of SWBTS being hired by PP for a faculty position? PP doesn't, because he has already done so on one occasion, and frankly, I believe David Allen is a very good employee of SWBTS.

(2). Do you necessarily see something wrong with Van McClain voting for Sheri Klouda as a professor at SWBTS, and then justifying the Presidents removal of her for gender just four years later? He doesn't, as is evident by his public comment to the press yesterday.

(3). Do you believe that Van McClain even knew about Sheri Klouda not being recommended for tenure, or is it possible that he, and every other trustee, just thought she left SWBTS of her own accord? I don't think he did, so there could be no collusion with PP to get rid of her, and I would suspect Van has already told his fellow trustees he had no knowledge of the reasons for Sheri's denial of tenure.

(4). Is it possible that my question of Van McClain is a legitimate question based upon Paige Patterson's hiring of David Allen, the former Chairman of the SWBTS Board of trustees when Paige himself was hired. David is now on administration faculty at SWBTS, and the fact Dr. McClain is a Hebrew professor at Mid-America, is it not possible that Paige might go to his chairman and request him for an interview? I believe that my question was legitimate question.

(5). Do you also acknowledge that I, following the injunction of Paul to 'believe all things' of those you love, take Van's word for the fact that he has had no discussion with Paige about the job.

In short, my question for you can be summarized like this:

You could only be offended with my question, if for some reason, you would think it highly inappropriate for him to discuss such a position with PP. I'm not saying that he would have been wrong had he done so. But, obviously you do.


Anonymous said...

Good point, nameless one. If you read some of the comments above you will find a few blessings, but all too often our humanity shines more than our new persons. The good news is that it brings us back to Him. We just have to confess it, in humility, and we refix our focus to the appropriate object of our focus: Jesus. Good words!

Cash said...


The question itself leads people to doubt McClain's motives in this. Even if he denies it, the thought has been put in people's heads. The question was made public. There was no evidence behind it.

I believe the idea was first suggested by Ben Cole over at SBCOutpost:Anybody wonder who will fill the vacancy in the Old Testament departed that has been created by the departed Dr. Sheri Klouda?

I’ll weigh in on that one:

Dr. T. Van McLain.

Again, it leads people to think McClain will not deal fairly with this because of backroom deals. There was no evidence of this. I can't think of a good reason to make this accusation/question public.

If you think that there is a possible conflict of interest issue here, that's fine. Make the case that employees of seminaries should not be trustees of a SBC seminary. said...


You missed my point.

I am asking YOU if there is a conflict of interest.

If you say, yes, then why did you not say something earlier when the same situation arose with the Chairman of the Search Committee and the Chairman of the Board who hired PP?

If you say, no, then why are you upset in asking the question?

I am saying that I personally am not drawing a conclusion on this, so the asking of the question is simply that -- a question asked with no intention but to get an answer.

Tell me, why you personally, believe that hiring Van would be wrong?

It's been done before.

Do you see what I am saying?

volfan007 said...


i am basing what i believe on what the bible clearly teaches in 1 timothy 2. the only point i was trying to make was that there is also the evidence that no women are mentioned in the bible as being picked to be pastors, nor deacons, nor do we have any examples of women teaching in a public setting where men are present where they would be the authority over men. do we? if this was ok in Jesus time and in the book of acts.....why do we not see it? we see men doing all these things....why not women if its ok? its not ok...thats the point. but, i was not basing everything about my thoughts on this based on the absence of it....the absence just backs up what the bible teaches concerning this issue.

also, what about josiah? what about apollos? although, i will say once again that there's no problem with men and women sitting around discussing the bible....sharing what they have learned. thats not what we are even talking about. we are talking about women teaching the men in a public setting where they would have that authority over men.
i hope this clears up what we are saying, and i hope that all of yall will not get too mad at me.


Anonymous said...

Volfan, you don't have to worry about me getting mad at you, not that you really are worried.

The only one we have to get mad at anyway is the Enemy. He's really good at tricking us. And we humans consistently demonstrate that all too well.

Anonymous said...

If it is so clear, why did Dr. Patterson apparently change his position from when this was written?

Anonymous said...

Also Volfan,
The comment on Deborah that you made here, "deborah was a great judge. she was a govt. leader in israel. i have never said that a woman couldnt be president, or governor, etc." Judges 4:4 says that Deborah was a prophetess. I believe that was someone who spoke for God.
I'm not as you say a "modern day womens libber" because I believe this. I am like you, trying to take what the Bible says and live by it.

Cash said...


There would a conflict of interest for a trustee to be involved in the removal of an employee of the organization if that trustee had had informal or formal discussions towards replacing that employee. At a minimum the trustee should recluse himself from any discussions on this. In general, it is better to avoid the potential for these conflicts.

What was your reason for asking this question of him? It seems odd to me to ask something like this if you thought it was totally unrelated to the issue at hand.

You said: "If you say, yes, then why did you not say something earlier when the same situation arose with the Chairman of the Search Committee and the Chairman of the Board who hired PP?"

I did not even know who Paige Patterson was at that point in time so I was certainly unaware of any of what went on.

Again, the question does not appear to be an innocent question.

volfan007 said...


a prophetess was not a preacher/teacher of the bible. in ot times, and in nt times, until the bible was finished....prophets and prophetesses spoke the Word of God for Gods people on certain issues.

i am you find any women teaching men in the synagogues in the ot? do you find any women teaching men in the assemblies of the nt?

elisabeth, i never said that women could not teach, btw. they can teach other women, and are commanded to do so. they can teach children, and they do.

one time, a woman approached the famous evangelist gypsy smith...i am told. she said that she felt that the Lord was calling her to preach. gypsy smith asked her how many children she had. she replied that she had 5, or 6..i cant remember. and, gypsy smith said, "well, that's wonderful. the Lord has called you to preach, and He has already given you your congregation!"

for those who dont get that...her children were the congregation that she should have.


Anonymous said...

Volfan, you claim to be speaking for and from the Word of God, but you keep going on with your own words. You claim not to be following culture and then cite to culture. I am not angry with you but I don't agree with you, and I for one believe that you are teaching something the bible does not teach with regard to women.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if, when people leave no room for disagreement, it is simply evidence of little faith. It sure seems that way. It appears that if one question is raised about what they believe they worry that all things will fall apart. It's a pride that will not allow for any error because error on their part means loss of faith (and of course requires humility). I suppose that is what happens when one places their faith more in the words of others rather than the Word. said...


Fair enough.

It was a question that I believed needed answered, based upon past hirings at SWBTS. However, I accept Van McClains answer, and consider the matter closed. I am not sure that I would be bothered if they had, but for people like you who would, it seems I have protected Van by addressing this issue forthrightly.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that you just don't have a grasp of the "essential issues" of this discussion.

Firstly, any actions or words of Dr. Patterson should not be questioned. Why? Because all of us know that the rights of those with power and authority supercede the rights of anyone who suffers from discrimination and injustice resulting from said actions.

Secondly, the speculations of those who defend Dr. Patterson always trump the evidence presented by his critics, though there is specific documentation verifying Patterson's public affirmation of his personal conviction that women should not teach men at SWBTS (contradicting a prior statement made when he was being considered for the office of President of SWBTS).

Moreover, President Patterson has not denied (despite being given repeated opportunities) Wade Burleson's specific allegations concerning President Patterson's personal involvement in Dr. Klouda's being forced out of her position at SWBTS, solely because of her gender.

All else failing, what are the defenders of Dr. Patterson left to do, but malign and discredit anyone who dares to tarnish Patterson by publicly disclosing his words and actions. Though the strategy sounds fair to me, there are some who are curious that Patterson's followers are now suddenly concerned with the "mechanics" of how the accusations were made at the expense of the truth of the charges themselves. . .all the while ignoring the facts of Patterson's tactics in ridding himself of female teachers of male students at his institution.

Therefore, just as in the IMB BoT controversy, Wade, you are "up the paddle without a creek". Hezekiah 4:2 (Living Bible Paraphrase) . . . and ALL of us are inerrantists, aren't we?

In the meantime, will someone take pity? This Okie needs to borrow a crowbar to dislodge his tongue from his cheek. ;^)

In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb

Liam Madden said...


You know I like to debate you once in awhile. You said that women deacons (that some churches have today) are not like the deacons in the Bible because the apostles chose men to assist them.

I was just thumbing through my Greek New Testament and noticed that nowhere in the passage from the Book of Acts are the men chosen actually called "deacons." By contrast, the woman, Phoebe, mentioned by Paul in Romans is specifically described by Paul as a "deacon (diakonon) of the church in Cenchrea." Paul also instructs the readers of his letter to assist Phoebe by helping her in "whatever she may require." A little bit further down in the same passage, Paul also addresses a greeting to Andronicus and Junia (a woman) whom he describes as "notable among the apostles." (All of the above references come from Romans 16:1-8).

Can't we trust the clear wording of the Bible to attest to the existence of a woman deacon and, yes, a female apostle?

In some ways, this all relates back to the autonomy of the local church. Judging from the passage above and comparing it to Timothy, one can only conclude that some churches were more comfortable with women deacons than others, even in the days of the early church. It's pretty clear that Paul left the churches some leeway to decide in this matter (perhaps because the Greco-Roman world had different attitudes about the place of women in society than what was customary in Judea), so Paul let local churches practice what seemed best for them, so shouldn't we do the same?

Kelly Reed said...

This is Kelly's wife Vicky.
I am an educated woman who has a seminary degree of my own, obtained in the halls of SWBTS. I love that seminary and consider it a huge responsibility to be an alumni of that institution. I with my husband graduated from the school of theology and yes I took preaching lab. As someone with the gift of preaching I felt it necessary to do so to enhance my skills.

I have to say that I am becoming very tired of men trying to tell me what God will and will not allow me to do based on my gender. Oh, let me say that my heart is with women's ministry and I believe that until we as women get that ministry right we have enough on our hands. However, I teach a SS class that happens to meet in our church's sanctuary for lack of space elsewhere. Many times one of our ministers, my husband being the head pastor, will come in to get things setup on the sound for the service. They sometimes hear what I say, if they happen to learn something have I done something wrong? I think not.

Let us be frank, there are different possible valid interpretations of the passage in Timothy and we do see women in Scripture teaching men, don't fool yourselves, they are teaching men, the place is irrelevant. But please remember the first churches were house churches and one met in Pricilla and Aquilla's home making their home a church, so to speak (Romans 16). Therefore, she was part of teaching Appollos in a church. The point is that teaching was taking place.

People on this blog are saying that women should not teach men in a seminary. This is a slippery slop. Let me demonstrate. With that logic I and the other women of my theology classes should either not have been allowed to even be there or not allowed to participate for fear of teaching a man something with a simple comment. Then we will have entirely segregated classes. It is ridiculous.

I love you guys so much, I loved having classes with you, but this conversation is not becoming to a child of the King. I am perfectly capable of looking at Scripture and praying to God for what He calls me to do. What if He called me to write a book that actually might teach one of you guys something? It is a slippery slope with no defined end. Can we just all do what God calls us to do.

As to the issue of Dr. Klouda I believe that was the point. She was doing what God called her, trained her and gifted her to do and someone came along and said no He didn't. What is that if not speaking for God. As a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ I beg you all to stop arguing about this and let us, all of us, do what God calls us to do. What gets hurt is the Kingdom because our piece that God calls us to is left out and that is too sad for words.

BTW, I too filled out the new student questionnaire upon entering SWBTS and admitted that I thought of myself as very conservative. Let me just say I am not just speaking from opinion, but have lived this slippery slope when my beloved childhood church split because of legalism. There it is. This is legalism.

Anonymous said...

i beg the question of how you, wade, have time left for your pastoral responsibilities after writing and estimated 4,251 word post, a mere 1,367 words less than a 24 page paper i've submitted in the easily took a good 12 hours to finally complete that...after research!

dazed and confused and not sure what christianity is really all about by the looks of this blog

Kevin Bussey said...


You are welcome to teach me as you did commenting on my site today! :)

Anonymous said...

Dazed and confused anonymous, Christianity is all about Jesus and our need for Him, which is all the more displayed by the fact that this blog, its posts, its comments, and the hearts being held in the balance all fall short of God's glory. Your daze and your confusion are just further evidence of that fact. That is why we all need to fix our eyes on Jesus. You see, even Christians continue to need and trust Jesus every day as is apparent from the strife and confusion manifest here. Apart from Him we can do nothing.

Glen Alan Woods said...

hi dazed and confused anonymous,

If you ever need a listening ear I am happy to help anyway I can. I am sure that many others would feel the same. Feel free to contact me through my blog by clicking on my name's link.


Glen Woods

Anonymous said...

Volfan why don't you share your name with us? You really have the courage of your convictions as an anonymous player in the blogosphere.

volfan007 said...

its never legalism to follow the clear teachings of Jesus and the bible, and to encourage others to do the same.


volfan007 said...

btw, d. sanders, if you wanna know who i am i will be at the identity conference at union u. in feb. i will be glad to tell you my name there. i always approach the internet in an anonymous manner.


Anonymous said...

My dear husband told me I needed to get in on this debate... he told me I needed to read the comments. I told him I didn't want to b/c they'd only make me mad. But, he left the computer with the blog up and I couldn't resist. I read many of them, but none made me mad. Sad, yes. I told my husband there was no point in me getting in on the arguments, after all, I'm only a woman. Any man who agrees with Patterson wouldn't care diddly about any argument I had to make... so what's the point?
I do wonder what the men are afraid of... and that is indeed what I read 'between the lines.'

Kelly Reed said...

If it is so clear than please speak to the issue of the slippery slope. Where does it end?

Unknown said...

Are women allowed to be “Messengers” to the SBC Conventions?

If so aren’t these women exercising real authority over the men of the convention?

What if our churches revolt and only send women to the convention this year? Hey, I’ll give up my seat to a lady this year!

Interesting… do you think a house full of Baptist Women messengers with resolutions in hand might get their attention? Trust me when you get Baptist Women riled up you are in for some interesting meetings… Does anyone remember the “Women’s Suffrage Movement?”

Anonymous said...

One thing that some of you lose sight of is that we are talking about the discrimation and firing of a Godly woman doing her job on the basis of her sex! That is a violation of the law no matter whether it is a secular institution or SWBTS. PP is not above the law nor is this institution. Dr. Klouda should be compensated for the distress and violation of her rights! Sticking his head in the sand is not going to make it go away for PP and the Board of Trustees! One man's opinion (and PP is only a man) does not change government laws! This whole thing was unfair to Dr. Klouda and her family! Someone needs to make it right and if it need to be the courts, so be it! said...

Dazed and Confused,

I appreciate your concern. Let me tell you about my day.

Today in the 7 inches of snow I have been by the hospitals, played with my kids, watched a movie with my wife, made a call on one of our members who lost her father, finalized power point for tomorrow's message, talked with our Worship Pastor about the services tomorrow and assisting in a funeral service on Thursday, made several other ministry calls, incluing with our maintenance staff regarding clearing the parking lots with bulldozers at 7:00 a.m. in the morning, and I have answered several questions via the blogs --- all on my official day off.

So, I get by in ministry, and with a great staff, our church excels. I do, however, appreciate your concern. :)

By the way, tonight I'm taking the boys tonight to the mall to see a movie. :)

Blogger friends, anonymous is a flamer. Commenting as if he is somebody that he is not.

I know, because I have his IP address in sitemeter and it corresponds to a couple of other comments -- with a name.

I will not embarass him, because as my wife says, I'm too nice.




Debbie Kaufman said...

Anonymous: That is a question that is always asked when a nerve has been hit and no more arguments are to be had, but as a member of the church Wade pastors I will tell you what I tell others who have said this(see it's not original). I invite you to come to Emmanuel where Wade preaches 3 and 4 sermons on Sunday, never repeats a sermon and hasn't in the fifteen years my husband and I have been there. Our church has over 3500 members and growing. Come early however in order to find a seat(not just a good one, but just a seat) and a parking space under a block away. :) Let me know who you are so I can introduce you around. We are people of grace despite the comment you made. :)

I will say that the others that made this same word for word comment were not anonymous but at least gave their names and took responsibility for their words.

John Jax said...

Wade - enjoy the movies with your boys. There are some good family ones out there. I was serious about the invite to Jax. One free meal (at least), and free accomodations for the duration. said...

John Jax,

Thanks. Could you give me the dates of the conference again?


Anonymous said...

I am in agreement with you on a couple of issues! :>) As I have a few kids of my own at home and I have homeschooled for 16 years now, I firmly believe my priority is teaching my children the truths of God.
I also agree that the office of pastor is reserved for men. Very few here are arguing this point.
BUT, Sheri Klouda was not preaching (or even teaching for that matter) in a local church. The seminary is an educational facility, NOT a church of any kind.
If you want to take this scripture (I Tim 2:12)out of the context of a local church, then you would have to say that a woman can NEVER, in any circumstance, be in any kind of position where she has authority over a man. No secular job, no political office, nothing.
If this verse is talking about the local church, then I would have to say that Dr. Klouda was most certainly treated unfairly. So I guess my question is this: Do you believe this verse is dealing with behavior in the local church or not?

Anonymous said...

For those of you who still have young children, and for those of you who still have a memory of young children, do you ever remember those times when your child, being childish, kept asking the same question over and over again or kept saying the same thing over and over again hoping that some how it might make a difference? I learn so much from God through my kids. Tonight, my two year old got stuck on the idea of taking a bath. "I want a bath." I want a bath; i want a bath; I heard her say this at least forty times. She has fever so I wasn't planning on giving her one. But, oh, in her childish mind, if she said something enough times it might make a difference.

Clear teaching of the bible. clear teaching of the bible. CLEAR TEACHING OF THE BIBLE. :)

Anonymous said...

And for me being childish, but having fun. #200!!!!! Woo HOOOO! Gotcha Dorcas and Kevin!

bryan riley

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 262   Newer› Newest»