Saturday, March 22, 2008

The Practical Implications of the Klouda Ruling

It is interesting to note that Judge McBryde, in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment in the Klouda case, ruled that faculty at Southern Baptist seminaries are historically considered ministers by the courts, and as such, the federal government cannot apply federal laws of discrimination (a link to Judge McBryde's opinion is here).

Ironically, there is not a Southern Baptist in the nation who would consider a woman who teaches Hebrew a minister in terms of any Biblical definition. There is no church or ekklesia which she shepherds, no ordinances which she administers, and no title which she assumes (pastor, shephered, bishop, etc . . ). Yet, when it comes to this woman's removal from the classroom because she is a 'woman in a position reserved for men,' then those who chose to remove her praise the court's wisdom - a wisdom which is based upon the the legal precedent that professors at seminaries are considered 'ministers' by the courts of the land.

Therefore, you have the strange situation of federal courts calling seminary professors 'ministers' and the very people who led the effort to change the BFM 2000 to forbid women from being 'Senior Pastors' praising the courts for their ruling. If consistent application of this legal ruling were made throughout the Southern Baptist Convention then there would be no 'women' professors at any of our seminaries - period.

In the long run, I believe people of the Southern Baptist Convention will realize that there are two ideologies causing tension within our Convention - one ideology would wish to relegate all women to a position of subordination to men, while the other seeks to acknowledge the Biblical view of equality between men and women - with the only official denominational 'exception' to that equality being the prohibition in the BFM 2000 for women to serve as 'Senior Pastors.' I personally have no desire to overturn that BFM prohibition, though I think it unwise to have placed it there in the first place. However, I do have a strong desire, and will do everything in my power to see it happen, to prevent Southern Baptists from pushing the prohibition of women ministering to others areas than that of Senior Pastor. And, if the courts cannot intervene because of First Amendment reasons, then it is up to us Southern Baptists to correct any warped application of the BFM 2000 restriction on women.

In His Grace,



believer333 said...

Not being legally informed, I'm wondering how the judge felt it applicable for the courts to make a religious ruling. The determination of who is or is not a "minister" according to Scripture would seem to be only applicable to individual denominational interpretation. Yet this judge decided for us. Does that mean that all Christian denominations are bound by this judge's determination. ???

Lin said...

I have thought all along that this was only another step in narrowing the parameters of the BFM by individual interpretation.

I really think the convention needs to know this is how it is being interpreted.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Are Judge John McBryde's own words linked anywhere on the web so that we can read what he wrote? said...

r.l. vaughn, you can read the rulings at SBC Outpost. said...

The link to the Judge's ruling is here

R. L. Vaughn said...


Bryan Riley said...

The decision is only applicable in the N.D. of Texas at this point and would be limited to the facts of the case as found by the judge. I haven't read the opinion but it was likely his finding that the professors at SWBTS were ministers (I wonder if all are ordained as such) and that a federal court shouldn't be in the business of defining who is or isn't a proper minister of religion.

Dave Miller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bryan Riley said...

I think odder is that he found the seminary to be a church. But, I have to say that if we desire to keep government out of religious organizations, the decision is supportive of that. And that is good. I have to say that the legal issues involved are decided in a way that is protective of faith institutions.

What is bad is that an institution that claims to be following the Way of Jesus promotes such injustice.

Dave Miller said...

Believer, I am not sure that I read the ruling the same way you did. I think that the judge's primary ruling was, in essence, that this was a matter of internal theology and doctrine in which he should not interfere.

Granted, I did not scour the ruling, but I do not think he made any kind of definitive ruling that seminary professors are ministers, just that Dr. Patterson's and the BoT's views were theological and that it was within their right to institute those doctrines.

Of course, that doesn't make it right, but that is how I understood the ruling. said...


Read pages 33-35 of McBryde's ruling.

John Daly said...

So my French teacher can teach me French but my Hebrew teacher can't teach me Hebrew?

shadrach said...

I'm not saying that I agree Dr. Patterson and I definitely think all of this has been very shady, but Wade is inaccurate in saying that there are NO SB ministers who would consider a woman teaching Hebrew a minister. This is obviously wrong just from the fact that all of this went to court, but even more so, I see Dr. Patterson's opinions reflected all over the place in fundamentalists' opinions.

Again, that doesn't make it right, but we must openly acknowledge where we are as a denomination if we are to correct things.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Judge McBryde's decision must be read with "legal glasses" rather than religious ones. The Judge is acknowledging that 'seminary' and 'teacher' stand in relation to law and the first amendment the same as 'church' and 'minister'. There is no decision here whether Southern Baptists (or any other Baptists) technically consider a seminary to be a church or a seminary teacher to be a minister.

believer333 said...

Dave Miller wrote: “Believer, I am not sure that I read the ruling the same way you did. I think that the judge's primary ruling was, in essence, that this was a matter of internal theology and doctrine in which he should not interfere.”

OK, found that. Thank you.
So he is ruling (found in the first ruling pdf) basically that anyone who serves in a Religious organization can be ruled a minister for the purposes of a First Amendment analysis as in the case of the secretary of the Salvation Army. They do not wish to “encroach into an area of religious freedom”. Not encroaching is good to a point. Someday, that may have to be spelled out in more detail.

So does this mean that any religious organization can break our national laws if they are not breaking their own laws. The sticky comes when our own laws are not able to be pinned down. Is this also the road to religious organizations forming their own possible kangaroo courts? With injustices like this, I wonder if more people are going to shy away from church organizations.

Anonymous said...

I would like to make a suggestion and I am prepared for the response from WB. Can we remember that this is the time set apart (albeit it should be in April to coincide with Passover) to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus? Is this what needs to be discussed at this time?


Lin said...

"Can we remember that this is the time set apart (albeit it should be in April to coincide with Passover) to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus? Is this what needs to be discussed at this time?"

We celebrate that every day!

Lin said...

"So does this mean that any religious organization can break our national laws if they are not breaking their own laws. "

This is what my brother in law pointed out to me a few days ago. What happens when the Muslims demand their right to follow Sharia law in their communities? It is already starting to happen in Canada.

Are we going to cheer for separation of church and state then? Or will we not care because it won't affect us? said...


Of course you can. Blessings to you as you write about it on your blog, and I on mine - tomorrow.

Anonymous said...


This tone of the blogs this weekend is not right at any time of the year much less the special weekend that we set aside to celebrate the resurrection of Messiah Yeshua.

The sarcasm was unnecessary. You know the point I am trying to make. Apparently you would prefer to dwell on the ruling of a court than the resurrection of our Messiah. Let's focus on the joy of our faith and not on the frailty of our humanity ... especially this weekend.


Anonymous said...


Let it be said that you never fail to ....


Only By His Grace said...


I just came online; I have not ready any comments, yet; however, I think I can make an observation that to me is clear: those who agree with the judge's decision that women who teach at SWBTS or any seminary are ministers, the judge's holds true for all who teach at a seminary with no exceptions; therefore we can conclude that Dr. Patterson's wife is a minister, too.

The judge made differentiation as to subject matter or gender of students.

Phil in Norman,

Anonymous said...

After reading the full summary judgment ruling, it is apparent that the judge relied heavily on legal precedent (as is to be expected in such a case). Of particular weight was the prior ruling (interesting, in a previous case involving SWBTS), that, for First Amendment purposes, SWBTS is considered a church and its faculty are considered ministers.

Based on that precedent, the only ways I can see (in my admittedly legally under-informed opinion) that a higher court would rule differently on appeal would be: (1) if it could be demonstrated that the precedent does not control; i.e, that the legal circumstances and/or seminary/faculty relationship in the Klouda case were substantially different than in the prior case (about which I know no more than was presented in the summary judgment), or (2) if a clear and legally binding statement were to be adopted by the Convention that, for religious, ecclesiastical, and legal purposes, the seminaries are not churches, the faculty members are not ministers, and the seminary/faculty relationship is not and has never been considered by the Convention to be a church/minister relationship. But what are the chances?

Lin said...

"The sarcasm was unnecessary. You know the point I am trying to make. Apparently you would prefer to dwell on the ruling of a court than the resurrection of our Messiah."

It was not sarcasm at all as I think celebrations of an everyday universal truth only once a year is a bit strange. But, I could have done without your insult and have chosen to forgive you in spite of your intentions toward me.

Blessings to you

Bart Barber said...

Native Vermonter,

The ruling went out of its way to cite Dr. Klouda's own opinion in writing that she was doing more than teaching Hebrew—she was training pastors to be pastors.

Only By His Grace said...

Sorry, "ready" should be "read". Fingers are old and arthritic, mind is old and cobwebbed.

If you are lucky, someday some of you will be where I am, but by then I will have a new body and a new mind while moving into a new home.

Not bad for an old broken down sinner saved Only by Grace.

Tomorrow has to be a good day. I drive three times a week, twenty-five miles round trip to pick up ten trailer park kids. In four months, not one of them has been saved. Wednesday night my Children's Minister led the key leader of the kids to the Lord Jesus with another little girl. Whit and Nicole will walk the isle tomorrow morning professing saving faith in Christ. I could say, "Mary had a little lamb..." for my sermon and it will still be a good day in Heaven and a glorious day for me.


I feel you were addressing all of on this blog.

I really disagree with you about this one. I hope you are not harboring some real dislike for Wade or anyone else. This subject of the lawsuit is fresh out of the oven and needs to be debated and discussed now while it is hot.

Phil in Norman.

Anonymous said...

Let me suggest that trying to take the court's definition of "church" or "minister" for First Amendment analysis purposes, and then using the court's definition for doctrinal discussions within the SBC is mixing things that should not be mixed, and could result in a lot of confusion.

The problem is not with the court's First Amendment analysis. I believe that we want our seminaries to have all the same protections that our local congregations have in the First Amendment realm. Some, no doubt, wish that Dr. K had some avenue of relief in the courts. But let's not make the cure worse than the disease, as they say.

There are many good legal scholars in the First Amendment/Church-State area. There are also several Christian groups and lawyers who work in these areas. I believe that they would advise us to do nothing that might muddle the First Amendment protections that we have for all of our agencies.

So, it would not be a good idea to have the SBC decide that its seminaries are not churches and that the profs are not ministers - to in essence redefine SBC life to fit a court case.

The most direct way for those who wish to choose it, is not to get caught up in the court definitions, but to address the issue of role of women in the SBC.

The BFM prohibits female pastors (I think), or something like that. Where the rub comes is how that prohibition works itself out in employment policies at agencies and the like. There is considerable discretion here based on the administrations of our agencies. I was surprised to read in one of the affidavits that was filed that none of the seminaries have women teaching in the theology departments (or something along that line - my phrasing is not exact). So, there is some uniformity here.

One thing that the CR did was to clearly state what it believed was at stake (i.e. the truthfulness and authority of scripture), and to state that clearly. Then to make resolutions, motions etc. on that point, and to recruit candidates that believed that and would make appointments of people who felt similarly.

Those who wish to either redefine or more clearly define the role of women in SBC life should get together, and come up with simple position that can be restated. The position could be put forth in resolutions, motions, and then, if necessary (depending on what was being advocated) in the BFM. Presidential candidates should also clearly state their positions on this and state that they intend to appoint people who have similar beliefs.

Such a strategy cannot be employed over night. Unlike the CR issue, there are multiple positions on this issue based on what I can tell. Some want women pastors. Some want all roles, but pastor (or elder) to be available to women. Others are somewhere in between. Having this much diversity may make it difficult to have a coherent point of view and program.

Also, most issues come with a history.

The history on women in the SBC is tied up in the CR, and that's what makes it so difficult. The moderates and liberals did not object to women in the pastorate. A part of their reasoning (at least some leaders) had to do with the belief that the scriptures (however one might interpret them) were not authoritative.

I was in college during first days of the CR on a Baptist campus. Most of the faculty and the women in the religion department at that time had the attitude that the apostle Paul was wrong, and that "Paul is not going to tell me what to do."

The CR was not about women in ministry, but it was about the attitude reflected in that statement. The liberals truly believed that's just what Paul thought, and he was wrong. The issue wasn't one for proof-texting because the Bible was not authoritative. We were supposed to decide these issues based on modern politics and culture, not what the Bible says or doesn't say.

The trustees and leaders of the SBC agencies today are basically products of the CR. So, when they look at the women's issue, that is the background they bring. They are suspicious that those who advocate a greater role for women really also have a low view of scripture. That may be true in some cases, and may not be in others.

SBC life is different today. I don't hear many, if any, people in SBC life making the argument that scripture is irrelevant on this topic. The issue today is how to apply scripture. But due to the history, it is very hard to approach this issue from a fresh perspective.

I truly believe that the SBC churches will never agree fully on this issue. Changes will take many, many years of political action. The rancor and resultant fallout may be high. But, if change is to come politically, it will come incrementally over a long time. And any proposed change has to be made in a way that does not raise a suspicion that the proponents really have a low view of scripture. That will doom any reform efforts before they start.

And the reform efforts have to be led by someone who is trusted by the vast rank and file of the SBC, not someone who is loved by just one faction, but is distrusted by large segments in SBC life.

Those are my thoughts.

Have a Happy Easter. He is risen!


Bob Cleveland said...

Since SWBTS is now a church, and at the same time a Southern Baptist Entity, I presume Dr. Patterson will now waive all attendance and monetary participation requirements, and be satisfied with 36% attendance and perhaps 50% of the students not even on campus, or locatable, any more.

Anonymous said...

To Amy & my fellow sisters and brothers in Christ:

I am reading these posts after serving during three Easter services today and before retiring for three more services tomorrow so the lessons of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection are very much on my mind – as well as SWBTS’ treatment of Sister Klouda.

To allow her and her family to continue to needlessly suffer violates God’s most important commandments, given to us by Christ himself:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the most important commandment. 'The second is like it: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. The whole law of Moses and all the prophets depend on these two commandments."

To sacrifice Dr. Klouda, her husband and her daughter on the altar of “The Baptist Faith & Message 2000” in selective obedience to one of Paul’s many commands to early local churches overlooks his overarching admonition “to love one another. Whoever has done this has obeyed the law. The commandments… are summed up in the one command, 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself. If you love someone you will never do (them) wrong; to love, then, is to obey the whole Law."

This command has been overlooked by too many for too long in SBC life.

My prayer is that we find a way to right the wrongs that are being done in our (and God’s) name so that the SBC can be like the shining city upon a hill Christ preached of.

Only then will the SBC’s light continue to shine before men, that they may see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven.



Thanks for the thoughtful post on this subject. -He is risen, indeed!

Anonymous said...


Thank you, and thanks for your service to the kingdom.

God bless.

Louis said...


You are articulate and convincing.


You are funny and equally convincing.

robert prince said...

Anonymous is wrong about the basis for views on women in the ministry among SBC moderates prior to the Fundamentalist Takeover (FT). Most of us who affirmed women in ministry didn't say Paul was wrong. We said look at the whole scriptural witness on this matter. I think that's what Wade has started to do.

The role of women in the church was very much a part of the FT, as it leaders were against female ministers of any kind.

The best solution would be to strike the whole statement on women senior pastors from the BFM 2000 and make women in ministry a local church matter, which it should be.

That would in turn free seminary boards to hire or not hire women for various positions.

That will never happen, though, because limiting the role of women was part of the FT to begin with.

I appreciate Wade's effort to stop the narrowing of the BFM, but that was very much the agenda of the FT, and I think it will continue.

Lin said...

"The CR was not about women in ministry, but it was about the attitude reflected in that statement. The liberals truly believed that's just what Paul thought, and he was wrong. The issue wasn't one for proof-texting because the Bible was not authoritative. We were supposed to decide these issues based on modern politics and culture, not what the Bible says or doesn't say."

Perhaps that is what YOUR Liberals thought, Louis, but I can assure you that is NOT what many conservatives think. Conservatives are concerned about building an entire religion around several proof texts that seem to contradict other scripture.

For example: there are instances Paul writes assuming women are prophesying in the same church then a few chapter later says they are to be silent. Why?

In that same chapter he actually negates the silence verse!

And where is that LAW that says they must be silent? I cannot find it in the NT or OT.

Why are they prophesying at Pentecost for the church age fulfilling prophecy and then told to be silent in 1 Tim?

There are many more examples and if we cannot study these in depth and agree there are many QUESTIONS that well read scholars cannot agree upon then we are doing the entire Body a disservice and denying the full use of gifts of the Holy Spirit to half of all Christendom.

Lin said...

"And the reform efforts have to be led by someone who is trusted by the vast rank and file of the SBC, not someone who is loved by just one faction, but is distrusted by large segments in SBC life."

Louis, the early church had ONE leader: Jesus Christ and they trusted the Holy Spirit to lead them.

Anonymous said...

Robert's and Lin's comments,when juxtaposed with mine, demonstrate the considerable variance between positions on this issue, and the difficulties that can arise when discussing them.

That's why it will be very hard to address this issue to everyone's satisfaction.


Lindon said...

"That's why it will be very hard to address this issue to everyone's satisfaction."

I think that may be the point. We can't. They are local church issues.

So, what are we cooperating on? Are we cooperating on sending out men and women to make sure that no one has a PPL or to make sure that no women evangelize the lost in their countries? To make sure there will never again be another Lottie Moon?

Are we prepared to police every convert and every church plant to make sure none of this secondary stuff happens? Are we going to tell them they are not really converted if they do not believe as our leaders believe? Do you ever wonder if the underground churches in unfriendly countries even think about such secondary things?

Or, are we cooperating on sending out men and women to proclaim the Good News?

I think that fewer and fewer will want to support the former and will withdraw from the convention because of the legalism on secondary doctrines.

There was a period of time when my parents were messengers that there were upwards of 30,000 attending the annual meetings. They were totally committed to the CR, too.

What happened?

Anonymous said...

Wade, I understand that you do not wish to see the BFM statement regarding women and the probition to be a Senior Pastor overturned. However, it was a leading reason for the continued deterioration of women's roles in SBC churches. How can we guaranntee equal rights and respect if we insist on "seperate drinking fountains." It may be only one line in the BFM -but then, they were only "drinking fountains" too.

Anonymous said...

Jesus spoke of those who lord it over others and told his disciples not to be like that. Some people apparently haven't paid attention.

Power is (may I use the word?) seductive. We all crave it to some extent. Becoming a servant as Jesus taught is counter-cultural and goes against human nature.

But desire for power is behind the whole issue of what men say women can or cannot do. If women are considered equal in the sight of God then men have less power over them.

And desire for power was behind the - to use a neutral term - change in the SBC. Some people wanted to run things their way. It's become more visible all the time in the fact that they keep consolidating their power and lording it over each other. I think many issues are not about the issue spoken about but simply a new way to gain power. Divide and conquer. Find an issue and convince some people it's the most important thing going and get people riled up against those you want out of power. It has worked quite well, hasn't it?


Anonymous said...


You ask a good question.

The reason these issues are not local church issues is two-fold.

One, denominational seminaries are confessional institutions of the denomination.

Two, the denomination's confessional statement states that the NT position is that women should not be pastors.

So, the agencies and seminaries have to deal with and live with that.

I understand that you would like for this issue to be a local church only issue, but for these reaons, it is not.

The BFM could be changed, and the process for that is clear.

Or, the denomination could decide not to operate seminaries. Students could go to any seminary or divinity school they choose, and churches would call their pastors etc. (which is the way it works anyway, except that we have seminaries which produce graduates who agree with denominational mission etc.)

To address other comments made, it is just as unfair and unproductive to compare people who believe in a so-called complimentarian position with racists, as it is to call all people who believe in a so-called egalitarian position theological liberals.

I yearn for the day when these issues can be discussed frankly, but with respect. So many comments on this issue descend to unhelpful statements. And we have to be prepared to lose on some issues and continue to cooperate.

As for the lack of participation at the convention, part of that is a good sign and part is bad.

The common Baptists who had never attended any convention or had any interest in denominational affairs became very concerned about the theological situation in the SBC seminaries. They started attending the convention in droves. That's what swelled the numbers for a few years. Big issues bring big numbers. Most churches nowadays are confident (generally) in the SBC leadership, and see no need to attend the convention to affect change.

I am personally glad that we are not seeing those kind of big issues and big numbers at conventions, and I hope that we do not see that again in my lifetime.

But the small numbers also reflect a concern. I personally believe that in too many quarters Baptists have a significant cultural problem and that rather than being mainstream presence in the culture, we risk becoming viewed as a sect or ghetto.

I was in independent Baptist life for a time and noticed the same thing. Independent Baptists became very separated. So separated that they were not part of the larger culture. That can be a strategy, but it if is, you had better not lose the next generation. Independent Baptists in many quarters lost that next generation.

The SBC is in great danger of that happening. There are many reasons, and it would take too much time to go into them. Some of it is natural as the general culture around us becomes less and less Christian.

But some of the lack of cultural engagement is due, in my opinion, to a lack of awareness and frankly, true concern and love for other people.

I believe that starts really at the local church door, and is not a denominational program that can be run out of Nashville.

I was talking to a business leader here in Nashville a few weeks ago. He recalled a mission trip in 1977 with his local church that had so inspired him.

He said that two years later,1979, his pastor started preaching about denominational politics. The pastor talked about that incessantly for the next 13 years -every Sunday. It ruined his spirit and the spirit of the church. My friend said that you could not have conversation with the pastor without the pastor bringing up the topic and getting red faced.

All of these issues that we discuss are important, but I hope we can all keep the main thing the main thing.

Otherwise we risk becoming known for what we fight over, and not the Gospel.


Anonymous said...

Over a decade ago I left eh SBC and joined the Evangelical Presbyterian Church because I had grown so weary of these types of battles and the ungraciousness with which they were handled. "In the essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love." Is the teaching of hebrew by a qualified woman considered an essential of the faith? If it is a non-essential, then, is there a reason to treat her in a non-Christlike manner and take away her manner of making a living? Are the men preparing for minsitry within the SBC so insecure in their ability to spriitually lead that the can not learn Hebrew grammar and sytax from an intelligent woman?

Corrie said...

I guess that Mrs. Patterson is also a minister according to the eyes of the law. From her blog:

"Dr. Patterson is a widely used free-lance writer and speaker. Currently she is Professor of Theology in Woman's Studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. She is the author of The Family, BeAttitudes For Women, A Woman Seeking God, A Handbook for Parents in Ministry, and A Handbook for Minister's Wives published by Broadman Press and Where's Mom?, published by Crossway books. She is also the General Editor for The Woman's Study Bible, published by Thomas Nelson. She regularly contributes chapters and articles to books, journals, and periodicals."

Lin said...

" understand that you would like for this issue to be a local church only issue, but for these reaons, it is not. "

Louis, Once again, it is not about what I would wish. It is about what people THINK the BFM encompasses. Can you say with total assurance that most SBC members would agree that a female hebrew professor is now considered a pastor and is not allowed under the BFM? I think they would be shocked to find that any of the seminaries think that way. Even if they have not had women profs before.

I think they need to know it is being interpreted that way. If they decide Patterson and Mohler are right in their Patriarchal beliefs about women, then I will leave the SBC.

" Big issues bring big numbers. Most churches nowadays are confident (generally) in the SBC leadership, and see no need to attend the convention to affect change. "

Most do not have a clue what is going on. And I think that is purposeful. The message was sent: We took care of it...just send money.

I do not know how old you are but I cannot even begin to tell you how many people went to annual conventions as messengers because they were INVOLVED in the process and were part of the priesthood. They took it seriously.

What has changed? Thirty years of this teaching: 'We are in authority and are your earthly priests now. You must obey your authorities because we are professional clergy and you are stupid laity'. People believed it. They were never taught they were part of a Holy Priesthood. Thirty years is almost a whole generation!

But talk to some seniors at many SBC churches and they will tell you it used to be very different. Many supported the CR, too and then saw that some things never change. (Incidently, I have been amazed at how many seniors in my SBC now designate their offerings to the local church only. They get it)

"Otherwise we risk becoming known for what we fight over, and not the Gospel."

The Gospel? As in it being a sin for a woman to witness to and teach a man the Gospel of our wonderful Savior?

The Gospel as in the Holy Priesthood and all believers have anointing and are ministers?

That Gospel?

We really do need to differentiate which one we are talking about because the one being espoused by the leaders today only include me as a spectator and not a witness or part of the holy priesthood.

Anonymous said...


I do agree that there are many Southern Baptists who do not believe and had no idea that the BFM language on women would be interpreted by the seminaries as it is.

The only way to address this that I can think of is for someone to propose official action at the convention.

My statement about the Gospel being central is not mean in any way to diminish this matter.


Anonymous said...

I believe that the IRS considers seminary professors as clergy for the sake of tax purposes.