Star-Telegram | 02/12/2007 | ‘To teach or exercise authority over a man’
This article appears today in the Ft. Worth Star*Telegram. It is written by Dr. Sheri Klouda herself and deals substantively with the issue of the claim that she was hired under “relaxed parameters.”
Some tough questions asked by Dr. Klouda in the article:
What is belief? Webster’s defines belief as the “conviction that certain things are true.” Belief assumes the existence of objective truth, truth that is unchangeable. I am not a philosopher, but the broader evangelical world, and Southern Baptists in particular, agree on the existence of objective truth.
How could Southwestern’s trustees and the seminary’s then-president, as representatives of the Southern Baptist constituency, elect me to the seminary faculty if they didn’t “believe” that my election was consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, a document that I signed proudly and publicly?
—-
Board President Van McClain notes that Southwestern returned to its “traditional, confessional, and biblical position” concerning women teaching theology to men, suggesting that the “biblical position” on the issue was either misunderstood or misinterpreted by the same faculty members and many of the same administrators and trustees who serve at Southwestern today.
Are “objective truth” and a “biblical position” inconsistent with one another?
—-
Families are important to Southern Baptists, and I would never ask someone to defend me if it meant jeopardizing that person’s family’s livelihood or welfare. But the needs of my family — the medical needs, the pressures of changing positions, moving away, uprooting my daughter from high school — apparently did not matter to those who made administrative decisions.
How could they, in good conscience, lose sight of my family while caring so deeply for their own?
—-
What about fairness, equity and justice — biblical principles that characterize the faithful?
Is it not fair and right to allow a female professor, hired under the same terms as other faculty members, to undergo the same tenure evaluation process and receive objective affirmation or denial on the basis of her teaching abilities, professional development, scholarly achievements and publications, collegiality and service to the students?
Or does another standard exist, applying only to those women who inadvertently find themselves serving teaching roles in biblical studies?
—-
And if the trustees, faculty and administration truly made a mistake in judgment hiring me, or “relaxed well defined parameters of objective truth” that reflect the majority position on women and the Baptist academy, why did they want me to leave unobtrusively, as if my departure were my own idea?
—-
Why didn’t someone acknowledge the tremendous financial and emotional burden placed on my family through no fault of my own? Why not, as the Scriptures teach, make right the wrong? After seven years of dedicated service, shouldn’t I at least receive an apology?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Tim Sweatman
on Feb 12th, 2007
@ 6:12 pm:
Art,
If you thought our posts on this topic were similar, you should have seen my first draft! The material I blockquoted in it was nearly identical to what you have here. Apparently we both agree that Dr. Klouda’s questions are so strong that they don’t require a lot of commentary. What they do deserve are answers from the trustees and administration.
Tim Rogers
on Feb 12th, 2007
@ 6:26 pm:
Brother Art,
While Dr. K has, what appears to be legitimate questions for the BoT, I failed to see where Dr. Patterson promised her that the position was safe.
Blessings,
Tim
cb scott
on Feb 12th, 2007
@ 6:49 pm:
Then, Tim, I guess you just fail on this one.
cb
Kevin Bussey
on Feb 12th, 2007
@ 7:04 pm:
Who cares what Dr. P said Tim. This is just plain wrong!
Art Rogers
on Feb 12th, 2007
@ 7:21 pm:
Tim S,
Amazing.
Tim R.,
I never said that the particular piece of info was in this article.
You can find it, however, in this article – quoted previously here:
Sheri Klouda surprised at fallout from her ‘removal’ at Southwestern
In that article, you will find this quote…
Bill Bowman
on Feb 12th, 2007
@ 7:35 pm:
Dr. Klouda’s own words say more than anyone else could. Although I personally disagree, someone’s interpretation of Scripture that a seminary is a local church, a called-out seminary, and that an instructor of languages is a pastor, it is certainly a tertiary level matter, adiaphora. What is unquestionably sin, of which there is no indication of repentance is IF HE DID DO SO, Paige Patterson telling Dr. Klouda that her job was safe. And beyond cavil, the lack of basic integrity. If the trustees and administration, the majority of whom are still at SWBTS, they should have the honesty and decency to admit the error, not try to get Dr. Klouda to leave quietly in the night and leave her in dire financial straits. I am a business person, not a theologian. Most of the people I interact with in the secular world are not Christians, at least not as I understand the term as an evangelical. Yet, the majority of lost business executives have more integrity.
Jeff Richard Young
on Feb 12th, 2007
@ 8:30 pm:
Dear Brother Art,
Thanks for following this story. Once again I find myself in agreement with Dr. P as to position, but in disagreement with him as to method for getting there. If any employee of the seminary was perfectly suitable to the previous BOT and president, but unsuitable to the new ones, he/she should have been helped very graciously to leave, with full explanations, generous severance packages, etc. This has not, however, been the M.O. of the C.S. in general. I hope the attention given to Dr. K’s case will help with other cases in the future.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Jeff Richard Young
on Feb 12th, 2007
@ 8:32 pm:
P.S. Make that the C.R., not the C.S. :)
Tim Rogers
on Feb 13th, 2007
@ 4:35 am:
Brother Art,
Thanks for the link.
Here is my position in the debate. Whenever anyone leaves an organization on their own or leaves under less than desirable circumstances, they are free to say anything they would like without fear of retribution. Why? Personnel laws prohibit employers from responding. Period!
While you may desire to further investigate and become frustrated and paint SWBTS as “stonewalling” (not your word) they are, by law, only allowed to give generic details. Details like, the person was employed, no we did not give tenure.
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
Cyle Clayton
on Feb 13th, 2007
@ 7:41 am:
Four comments: 1st, none of us know exactly what was said each time Dr. Klouda & SWBTS officials spoke. So we don’t know the level of “promise.” 2nd, if you don’t believe a woman should have teaching authority over a man in affairs regarding the Scripture, then that doesn’t matter whether it’s “in church” or out of church. Several I have read who are using the “in church” argument are also strong advocates of a missiology that says we are the church, and that church meets everywhere. So, whether it has to do with local church, or universal church . . . what’s the difference? 3rd, my wife and I worked for a university that went through two changes in administration. Each time professors left. It just happens. Dr. Klouda had to see the handwriting on the wall. 4th, I think administration should have everything possible to support Dr. Klouda’s family and employment at SWBTS, at least until her child graduated from High School. I don’t believe a woman should be teaching men in a Seminary or a Church. I also believe that the way we do business as Christians should be different than as lost people. Maybe Patterson did that. If Dr. Klouda’s questions are valid, He didn’t.
In Christ,
Cyle
perry mccall
on Feb 13th, 2007
@ 9:51 am:
I think an important point of common agreement between a lot of people centers on the way the decisions were made. I think that many people wish that the trustees a SWBTS would get a handle on the President and reign him in. However, I am also convinced that people who are trying to bring to light the wrong treatment of this professor mis-calculate how many people will agree with the basic position that she shouldn’t have been teaching in that position. Right or wrong and however embarrassing to admit for some people this is a position held by many. I would hate to see support for holding Dr. P accountable go away because the waters become too muddy with multiple issues. I am not saying that we have to simply and quietly “work” through the system to address these kind of issues. But I am painfully aware of how often the people I am trying to inform and persuade on the issues immediately discredit and reject trying to work for change when they find out about some of the tactics used by some. Right or wrong, it is the way that people are responding when they hear about lawsuits and formal complaints to accrediting agencies. I am afraid that we are going to lose the harts and minds of those who would otherwise stand in agreement that something must be done about this style of leadership in our institutions. Just a thought from my personal experience in the trenches of the “Bible Belt.”
Art Rogers
on Feb 13th, 2007
@ 10:07 am:
Tim,
You seem to imply that you think Dr. Klouda is misrepresenting the situation. Is that so?
Cyle,
Good thoughts. My response:
1. We don’t know specifics, but we know quite a bit. At the very least, we know that Dr. Klouda felt a sense of security as a result of those early conversations. I think what we know is enough to determine that Dr. Klouda interpreted two messages, a)you can stay, and b) you must go.
2. I am going to have to process this some more. If Paul is saying “in the gathering of the church for the purpose of worship, fellowship, personal discipleship, etc.” – the belief in a universal church would not trump this, I don’t think.
On the other hand, if Paul is saying “at any level within the body of Christ,” then women can’t teach men or be in authority over them in any setting. This would apply to secular universities and secular jobs as well. In essence, this would require us to condemn anything other than the wife being the raiser of children in the home – a return to the pre-rosie the riveter ideal. I don’t see how you can be internally consistent otherwise.
Now, I certainly hold that culture doesn’t inform truth, but truth informs culture. If Paul is saying that, then this is the position we should all hold. I don’t think it is what he was saying, though. My interpretation is the former and not the latter, and this is based on the illumination of other Scripture to inform this one – not the least of which is Gal. 3:27-29.
Not to belabor the point. Just my thoughts.
3. Changes in administration does produce turnover. I don’t think it is fair to lay it at Dr. Klouda’s feet to be prescient when she clearly felt assured of her position. She has clearly stated that this is the case.
4. I agree.
—
The trustees of the Seminary had the legal right to make this “unwritten rule” an official policy. They didn’t do that. I don’t think they should have, either. This goes back to the issue of whether or not entities have the right to go beyond the BFM in the theology on which they base their policies. I say, “No.”
I enjoy your blog, Cyle. Thanks for reading and interacting on mine.
Perry,
For me, this issue is one of so many in the SBC right now. Just a few of those involve Dr. Patterson. I am not addressing the man, but each individual issue in its turn.
I wonder how many folks actually have a problem with a woman teaching in Seminary. I suspect there are pockets of opinion. I am hard pressed to find any Southern Baptist around me who disagrees with the situation. You seem to have many who would object around you. I am not sure where the accurate estimate lies.
As for “how some go about it,” so to speak, I don’t know how anyone can expect to control the actions and words of others. I address it because of my convictions. My friends sometimes, though not at all times, agree. It doesn’t mean that the issue is invalid. If people see it that way, there is not much that we can do.
Thanks for the insights.
Art
perry mccall
on Feb 13th, 2007
@ 10:23 am:
I knew I should of clarified that I wasn’t referring to anything you were doing or writing. I was just engaging with the over all discussion. I agree that I am using anecdotal illustrations that are reflective of my context. That is why I referred to them in order to express my little pocket world. My point wasn’t to say what a majority view should or would be but rather to speak about it more pragmatic terms. Thanks for your work and response.
Art Rogers
on Feb 13th, 2007
@ 11:23 am:
Perry,
I didn’t take it that way. I was just addressing the issue in general and, of course, my perspective is about what I am doing. I didn’t take it personally. I appreciate your concern and clarification, however. Thank you for your insights.
Tim Rogers
on Feb 13th, 2007
@ 2:16 pm:
Brother Art,
As to Dr. K misrepresenting the situation, I do not mean to imply that. What I am saying deals more directly to a situation when one is not kept in a position. While Dr. K seems to be saying that Dr. P personally assured her of her position, would you not agree that it would hinge on her words against his?
From what I have seen in this entire scenario is a question as to Dr. P’s integrity as to his promise to her of one thing but then not giving her tenure. If Dr. P did indeed promise her privately then, we do have a problem. However, every where I have see pointed to as Dr. P’s promise is the news article where he told about his understanding of women teaching theology. Your link is the first I have ever seen come close to a private promise.
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
Art Rogers
on Feb 13th, 2007
@ 2:51 pm:
Tim,
Thanks for the clarification.
It is her word versus his word. To date, I have seen her say that he did offer an assurance and I have never heard him, or anyone who would know, say that there was never an assurance.
So I have Dr. Klouda saying there was a personal assurance and no one overtly and specifically denying it.
Art
Kelly Reed
on Feb 13th, 2007
@ 9:23 pm:
Art,
Maybe it’s been discussed and I missed it, but aren’t the trustees shooting their leadership in the foot when they speak of “relaxed parameters” and returning to a “traditional, confessional, and biblical position” on this issue? If they were so willing to compromise such an “important” issue how can we trust their leadership in the future? What or when else will they “relax parameters”? When else will they leave the “traditional, confessional, and biblical position”? Will they have the wisdom to “correct” their error in the future?
What if…
instead of being guilty of “relaxing parameters” they are now guilty of “over restriction of parameters”? Is that not a leaving of “traditional, confessional, and biblical position[s]”?
Does Satan really care whether your error is too liberal or too conservative? Doesn’t he really care that you are in error and the means of getting you into error is irrelevant?
If the board is admittedly guilty of “relaxing parameters”, then is not their wisdom and ability in their role as overseers of the seminary in question? Klouda’s situation is only more evidence of that, I would think. There is a great argument as to the appropriateness of her hiring. However, they have tried to fix a debatable error with a more obvious error in the manner of her dismissal. Very few are saying that the manner in which Klouda was dismissed was handled with appropriate grace and integrity. Most acknowledge that there are several levels at which this was handled poorly, wrong, or even unethical. Very few say that her dismissal was well done. Last time I checked, you shouldn’t fix an error with a bigger error.
Kelly
Debbie Kaufman
on Feb 14th, 2007
@ 1:40 am:
Well said Kelly. Very well said.
Mac McFatter
on Feb 14th, 2007
@ 9:30 am:
One question begs to be asked, discussed and thought about.
Why do we Southern Baptists ever allow women to be educated in our seminaries and even pursue post-graduate work if no woman can ever teach a man?
Is it for the money they pay to the seminaries that allows the enormous presidential salaries? Which by the way we can only speculate about.
Is it to keep the accreditation entities from shutting the seminaries down?
Is it because educating women is the right thing to do?
Is it an attempt to prove that men really are smarter in regards to spiritual matters, because they are the chosen gender?
Come on think about it, there must be an answer.
Art Rogers
on Feb 14th, 2007
@ 1:50 pm:
Mac,
I think there are some who would very much like to have all women removed from Seminaries and other post graduate work. I knew several ladies who were given a hard time at Seminary when I was there. In fact, some of the stories they told led me to question the salvation of these supposedly erstwhile fellow students who were harassing them.
I think the rest of us don’t have as much a problem with it.
cb scott
on Feb 14th, 2007
@ 10:41 pm:
Mac,
We let them attend seminary because a FTE knows no gender.
cb