Dr. Klouda Sues
Mar 9th, 2007 | By art rogers | Category: SBCUpdate:
Official document: Klouda Suit
I’ve been waiting for the story to break, but I heard last night that a suit was filed on behalf of Dr. Sheri Klouda. Sam Hodges has documented it for the Dallas Morning News: Former Professor Sues SWBTS Over Departure.
The official case is:
Sheri Klouda
vs.
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
4-07-CV-161-A
I look for the document this afternoon, which I will post here.
As I understand it, the defendants named are: SWBTS, Dr. Paige Patterson and Dr. Van McClain. [Correction: Dr. McClain is NOT a defendant in the suit, but is mentioned repeatedly. I'll have the document soon, and you can read it for yourselves.] The charges are Fraud, Defamation and Breach of Contract.
If you will allow me to state the obvious, this is a very serious matter.
The scary thing is that I know of many, on all “sides” of our convention, even those who don’t think she should have been on faculty, who feel that Dr. Klouda was mistreated. It is a hard thing to defend within the SBC. It is going to be nearly impossible to defend before a courtroom.
I grieve for the position our alma mater and our convention is now facing. By the way, “sole ownership” now makes the SBC vulnerable in a lawsuit. Not that I think Dr. Klouda would do such a thing. I don’t. I am only saying that Dr. Kelley at NOBTS had a point.
You can expect PPL to move way out of the spotlight of things dominating the minds that focus on SWBTS. I expect Dr. McClain to stop talking to the media about Dwight McKissic. If there can be a peace made there, I would look for it.
Fighting two battles at once is hard and places the odds of your winning either of them at a minimum.
Some might expect the heat to go up around Dwight McKissic as a diversionary tactic, but that will not divert the attention of anyone from the very real lawsuit now filed, as well as a complaint to the EEOC.
Also, Dwight, as a Trustee, is a defendant in this lawsuit. It forces all concerned to seek peace.
I talked to a member of the Committee on Nominations today. I counseled him to seek, and encourage the Committee to recommend, neutral, non-partisan servants for all positions, but especially the Trustees at SWBTS. The Trustees there are very loyal to Dr. Patterson, and loyalty is a good thing. However, if their loyalty causes them to attempt to protect Dr. Patterson against any legitimate evidence of wrong doing, they will be putting the institution and the convention in dire straights for the sake of loyalty.
This is going to be a defining moment for a generation of YSBC (Young SBC) and what roles women are allowed within the confines of our Convention.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Tragic no matter how you look at it. I wish this wasn’t going to court. I just don’t think it brings honor to God.
I had a long, rambling phone conversation last spring with Augie Boto (the SBC ExComm’s legal eagle) about the interconnectedness of the SBC’s various entities. I thought he told me each entity was somehow legally separated from the others so if one (SWBTS, for example) were sued the others wouldn’t be at risk.
Did I misunderstand? Or, has something changed in the past year?
Not that the other institutions would be at risk, but that the SBC may bear some culpability. That is my speculation, and she is not suing the SBC. I think, though, it may be possible.
Art
Brother Art,
This is plain wrong. Dr. Klouda, who says she believes the scripture, is violating a clear teaching of scripture.
Brother Bowden,
I do not know law. I do know that when Dr. Kelley presented this at the SBC, the EC Lawyer repeatedly assured the convention that Sole Membership would not expose the convention to litigation any more than we are already exposed without Sole Membership.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I appreciate your position. However, if you were lied to, defamed in public, and as a result was on the verge of bankruptcy or loosing everything you have because of the lack of integrity by someone, especially if it was a Christian, then something must be done. If SWBTS and Dr. Patterson will not agree to mediation, then there may be no other recourse to survive.
I would like to say that would never happen to me or that if it did I would be able to do something different. However, I’m not in that position and don’t know how I would react.
Would your response be the same if a christian beat another christian within an inch of their life, to the point they were disabled? Should the “beatee” press charges against the “beater” in criminal court? What if the “beatee”, because of the disability status, could not pay their bills, their church could not help them in any way, and so the “beatee” became homeless? Should he not attempt to receive some kind of judgment just to survive or should we let him waste away on the street and die because he did not take the “beater” to court?
I know I’m pushing this out a little, but to say in every instance a person should not seek justice and restitution through the court system because it’s christian vs christian is difficult.
Should a wife who was beaten by her husband, both Christians, not press charges or seek alimony if a divorce occurs?
It’s different if the issue is just “your fence is on my property”. I would completely agree with you there. However, I think there needs to be cautious thought given before absolutes are made. Please know that I’m struggling with this lawsuit as well on Biblical terms. But because I don’t know all that is involved, I’m not ready to pronouce her “Sinner”.
Concerning sole membership, I would say that the lawyers Dr. Kelley were advised by saw things differently than the EC lawyers. I don’t think we would really know something until it was tested in court.
Is there the possibility that a legal ruling on this situation will have implications for the SBC stance against women pastors?
I’m a little worried about a precedent being set here being applied to the pulpits.
Am I off base?
KBH
Tim,
I appreciate where you are coming from, but I don’t think you can say that she is in violation of “clear teaching of Scripture.” The Bible doesn’t say, “You can’t sue institutions.”
Let me take this a step further. In the New Testament, the situations addressing conflict between Christians were addressing a small group of people in one local city where there was one church. The ultimate end of the redress is to take the issue to the elders of the church. Dr. Klouda is not in a local congregation with Dr. P. and certainly can’t be in one with the BOT or the institution. What else can she do?
I admit, that I am troubled by the Scripture’s admonition in 1 Cor 6:7b, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?”
On the other hand, we are also ignoring the following verses: 1 Cor 6:8 “On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.” We can’t forget, either, that there is responsibility for the wrongdoer.
This portion of Scripture is often used by those who do wrong to their brothers and sisters, but don’t want to be held accountable. The fact is, nobody was being held accountable and there is no other way for them to be held accountable. Rather, when Southern Baptists asked for the documentation concerning this issue, they were denied access by the very Board that had a fiduciary responsibility to safeguard the institution from just this kind of thing. Rather than being forth coming, it smacked of hiding something.
Frankly, I am broken hearted over this, and I am not happy about it.
That doesn’t mean that Dr. Klouda is the one who is WRONG. She is the one who is WRONGED. Big difference. Pointing the finger at her is a mistake. The fault originated in the halls and boardroom of SWBTS.
KBH,
This potentially has all kinds of implications. While I don’t think it will in regard to autonomous churches, there could be some issues in regards to institutions. Religious liberty could be tested. I’m not a lawyer or son of one so I don’t presume to know what I’m talking about. It might depend on what the constitution and bylaws of the institution have, as well as any policies and procedures. It may be one thing to not hire a women, but it may be another to fire someone already in place just because she’s a women.
Kevin H.,
That would go against our Religious Liberty, guaranteed in the first amendment to the Constitution. In fact, had they handled this situation appropriately, they could have adopted such a policy and then removed her under more gracious circumstances. She wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on.
The lawsuit doesn’t allege anything about theology, as I understand it. It says she had her contract broken, they defrauded her and that they defamed her.
I don’t think that our convictions about women pastors are in jeopardy.
Ok, I bow to the most honorable Arthur! Good words Art. Since I didn’t know all the details or what I’m talking about I should have kept mouth shut.
Good work!
I don’t fault her. It is just tragic. Does this mean our CP $ goes to pay the legal expenses?
David,
[blushing]
Kevin B.,
Not only legal expenses, but any judgment. Unless, as is often the case, there is a defense fund set up whereby concerned parties can donate. Noting Dr. P’s fundraising prowess in the past, it could happen. Frankly, I hope it does. Those loyal to him can defend him and the CP, and SWBTS’ portion thereof, don’t have to bear the burden.
Wow…just wow. I have no idea how this is going to turn out, but it is going to get ugly, that’s for sure. If SWBTS has any notion of peace and love between believers, they will settle this, and I mean now. Redress the wrong done here – This woman needs her family securely taken care of and SWBTS should cough up some money to make that happen, plain and simple. I think we can rest assured that Sheri Klouda is not in this for greed or anything; she needs help. No Christian institution should leave one of its faculty high and dry like that – it is just wrong. I agree, the only blame for the courts being involved belongs to the seminary because they refused to deal with the situation in a Christ-like manner. Shame on us. I will be praying for a speedy end to this lawsuit.
In Christ,
Tim Cook
this is really sad. and, just think of all the cp dollars being thrown to the lawyers and the courts. how sad. the sbc is truly getting a huge black eye from all of this fiasco.
david
Volfan, et al:
Oh…now you’re worried about wasted CP dollars? Where were you when dead animals were being stuffed and thousands of dollars of fine china were being purchased?
First, SWBTS has insurance that covers lawsuits. Most damages awarded to Klouda will, in all likelihood, be covered by insurance. Second, SWBTS has just signed a lease to drill for natural gas under the campus, so royalties might go to Klouda instead of a new chapel. Third, SWBTS might be forced to pinch some pennies to pay a settlement, but I think they should be pinching pennies anyway.
BSC
Art:
Excellent plan re: the Save Paige Patterson fund. I think Bill and Hillary made out pretty good with a similar approach. If Patterson plays his cards right, he’ll be able to keep his Cadillac Escalade, and his travel budget.
Or maybe Patmos Evangelistic Association could belly up some bucks to help Klouda out. One year’s travel to Africa alone could pay her salary.
BSC
Ben,
Interesting parallel between the Clinton’s and Dr. P.
Of course, the Escalade is paid for, as is everything else. Whatever pennies get pinched at SWBTS, that stuff isn’t going to be sold off, and we all know it.
I just think it is fit for those who defend him publicly to put their money where there mouth is.
i am not defending dr. p. i dont even know the man. i dont know anything about fine china, nor do i know anything about stuffing animals. but, i do know that i dont like for cp dollars to be wasted and extravagantly spent, nor do i like for lawyers and the courts to get the money that we send to the sbc for missions and education, etc.
it’s a sad day in the sbc when we have come to this, and there seems to be some people who cheer it on.
david
Ra-Ra-Ree
Kick ‘em in the knee…
Ra-Ra-Rocket
Kick ‘em in the pocket…
Ra-Ra-Rass
Kick ‘em in the other pocket…
cheering? Whose cheering? Even with insurance this will cost the SBC $ because insurance rates will go up.
[In a deep, fatherly, warning tone] Ben…
[In a high-pitched, lisped, whine] Sowwy….
Ben-
Stop mimicking CB.
For anyone reading, I have received qualified clarification that sole membership does not open the SBC to lawsuits. In fact, apparently, although the SBC has occasionally been sued, when relationships between the SBC and institutions is explained, they have, thus far, been dropped from the suit.
So everyone knows.
See the link: http://www.tsbvi.edu/policy/daa.htm (and under “religious discrimination”).
Might it be countered that the free exercise of Dr. Klouda’s religion/religious practices in the work place could adversely affect the operation of the seminary, and for that reason termination due to gender was justified? I’m just wondering.
Any labor law experts out there?
All:
This will be a fascinating case to follow; of course, I’m a 49 year veteran in this end of the insurance industry so know some stuff that most wouldn’t.
One thing that’ll make it fascinating is the fact that such insurance policies as would cover this, that I’m aware of, give the Insurer the right to settle a claim. But they normally, where reputations are involved in a professional sense, also have a clause giving the customer, the insured, the right to refuse to consent to the settlement. In that case, the policy will cap the Insurer’s liability at the amount for which it could have been settled, and if the customer loses the case, they’re responsibile for any judgment in excess of that figure.
Like I said, this will be very interesting. I’ll let you know if it makes the Insurance Journals.
Art,
I too am no lawyer, though I have watched Andy Griffith for years. One interesting aspect of this case might occur during the discovery stage of the trial. I know that in some cases surrounding allegations of unjust denial of tenure, faculty who have had their tenure denied will demand access to personnel files and will compare their work to the work of others who were awarded tenure. Klouda might subpoena records relating to other tenure cases in SWBTS’ School of Theology. I imagine that depositions will be taken of many administrators. Many rocks will be looked under during this process. I wonder what else her lawyers might turn up during discovery??
Now, who are the sparrows suppose to sue when their feathers start running low?
As for the YSBC, I believe you are exactly correct- that this is a defining moment. Maybe not necessarily this case, but the circumstances as a whole. For those who level the charge that logically and prudently it is unwise for women theology profs, and want to make a charge that those who advocate such a position tote a more moderate view of Scripture, they will no longer have look carefully. For if denying 1 Corinthians can be dealt with by reason of pragmatics, revenge, or the denial of God’s provision, which Scriptures are truly binding?
But, alas, if we can find some scholars who claim to be conservative in, say, Canada to agree with us, well heck…les git r done!
Wow, Colin. Great straw man argument. Not really dealing with the issues at all, are we?
Sparrows have never had their feathers taken from them wrongfully by people who promised to watch over them. Ridiculous.
No one is denying Scripture and you prove yourself as either unwilling to actually listen and engage the points raised or, well, I won’t bother with the other option. It’s insulting and it seems clear to me you just want ignore what I actually said.
Like the fact that I struggle with verse 7b, “Why not rather be wronged?”
Moreover, you continue to push it all off on Dr. Klouda, as if any of this would have happened had she not actually had her contract broken, been defrauded and, apparently, defamed. Point your finger there also, if you are going to point your finger at her.
Something else that I said. People often hide behind 1 Cor 6 when they do wrong and don’t want to deal with the consequences. Pretty evident how you are using it.
again, let me ask a question about all of this, if i may. and, understand that i’m not that big fan of tenure to begin with….if someone is hired to teach, then they should be hired….they shouldnt have to go thru a “try out” period. i think the whole tenure thing should go out the door. but anyway, was not dr. klouda denied tenure….she was not fired? right? and, were there not others who have been denied tenure during dr. patterson’s presidency? in fact, i believe that i remember hearing that there werent too many who received tenure under his leadership. so, why is this denying of tenure so much more distasteful to some of you than all the other ones? and, if dr. p can show a history of denying tenure often, then wont that make this case have less of a bite to it?
david
Please, Art, don’t hold back. What points do you wish me to address? I just went back and read your comment on 7b. I think that this text to be binding only when both parties are members of one congregation is reading an awful lot into the text. Perhaps that may behind the text, but not in it. In it, Paul gives no recourse for those who have wronged but are not held to account by their overseers. Does that then mean the default is to sue? Must there be justice on this earth by our hands? I think the related point Paul is tending toward is that God is the avenger of the wronged, always. Man, not always, but can always look to God. Is your argument that Paul is suggesting brothers must always be brought to justice this side of eternity? And at that, through federal court, justifying it as suing an institution?
If SWBTS loses this case it will have nothing to do with a policy that does not allow women to teach in the theology department. The courts will uphold the rights of the institution (and by extension the local church) to determine the religious qualifications for employment, including gender, so no one is going to be required to allow for women pastors or women theology professors. If SWBTS loses this case it will be because they acted outside any written policy – or actually the lack of a written policy altogether. If SWBTS made a critical error that was it. They should have known to cover their bases beforehand.
Hopefully they will do the right thing and settle this before it ever goes to court.
Random other thought: when a couple divorces one is “suing” the other for divorce, correct? With so many of our Baptist folks divorced do we make a public outcry that they are violating 1 Cor. 6? Why not?
Volfan,
Concerning tenure (speaking as one who has it):
There is a difference between being denied tenure and not being reviewed for tenure. At Murray State University (where I teach) there are clear guidelines for what it means to be hired for a tenure-track position (even though technically we are all on one year contracts). Part of that is that the appropriate tenure committees will meet, at the appropriate times and evaluate your work for tenure. Usually this occurs during your 6th year at the institution. For people hired from other institutions that clock can be shortened.
It is very, very, rare, and must be documented quite well to give someone a terminal contract prior to their formal, 6th year evaluation for tenure. You would need clear evidence on a lack of performance over a time period with no evidence that the person will change. Now, people certainly leave without going up for tenure because they understand they will not receive tenure, but firing a tenure track faculty prior to formal tenure review is very, very rare.
I don’t know the details of this case, but it appear that Dr. Klouda had a scholarship and teaching record worthy of tenure and was denied the opportunity to go through the tenure process. It may be true that the President was moving away from tenure, which is his right, however for those hired on the tenure track it is unjust, and likely illegal, to change the rules mid-game.
As far as EOE, SWBTS can do anything it wants gender wise so long as it doesn’t take any Federal money. However, Federal money would likely include things such as guaranteed student loans, Federal grant programs, and VA benefits. There are a small number of schools who don’t take any federal money so they don’t have to comply with federal guidelines.
David W,
Dr. Klouda was denied tenure specifically because of her gender. Her performance reviews and reputation as an instructor were excellent. When someone denies tenure, they have to prove that the instructor was not qualified to instruct because of their skills. Those were the rules that Southwestern had in place. If they had adopted a policy that a woman could not teach as a part of religious conviction, and they could have, then they would have had every legal right to deny her tenure on these grounds. Paul Littleton is exactly correct in his assessment.
As to whether or not Dr. P. has ever done this before, that would not be a benefit for him. If he denied tenure on the basis of gender without a supporting policy, it would just open him up to more lawsuits.
Colin,
Again, I said that I struggle with 7b. Why not rather be wronged? That verse makes me wonder as to whether or not we should sue at all. I am unsure.
My argument is that it is not as “clear” as some would make it out to be. That’s all. I also agree that the application is to parties under the authority of the same congregation. I referred to this earlier in the same thread.
David E,
Thanks for the insight.
Let me go on the record as saying that I believe the treatment of Dr. Klouda was reprehensible and unChristian. Nevertheless, I do not think she should be suing.
I’m not condemning her, by the way. But I do think it is contrary to 1 Cor. 6.
Judge not lest ye be not judged or something like that. Some want to say that Dr. Klouda is a sinner- fine by me. I would not take a Christian or a Christian agency to court. I just wouldn’t. That’s my judgment of me. I am sure that Dr. Klouda is very thankful that I am not her judge. It ain’t my job and I ain’t doing it.
But let us read 1Cor 6 again- Art already told us to move on to vs 8. I say, look at 2-5! Anybody done that yet? It appears that when someone does go to court Paul indicates that we should be ashamed. Art says that he is and so am I. Why? Because Dr. Klouda could not take it like a man? NO! That is not what it says. We should all be ashamed because in an institution the size of SWBTS with an experienced President and countless administrators, a trustee board of more than forty ‘godly’ men, all of whom go to churches with pastors, who are in a convention of milliions NO ONE was found to judge this situation and meet out justice. Why? I will not point a finger at Dr. Klouda and say that she has brought us all to shame. No my friends, we did that to ourselves already. Before Wade ever put anything on his blog this story was in the local press and the whole world has already seen that Southern Baptist will not defend the helpless, will not stand up for those who are wronged, and will do everything they can to use the Holy Scriptures to opress women and anyone else who gets in their way.
Yes Paul, I am ashamed.
Art, just for the record, you read me wrong- I disagree it is binding only to members of the same congregation.
Colin,
My bad. To what spiritual authorities are we to take issues when brothers and sisters are not in the same congregation?
If there is none, it frees up “brothers” of less integrity to feel free to grieve more mature Christians, knowing that they have no recourse in the body and that they will not take recourse in the legal system.
If it is to go to the congregation of the offender, what if they don’t receive you? They may have loyalties to one they know over one they do not.
Again, it is just not crystal clear.
Sorry Art, it appears I can’t express all my thoughts in one comment. I simply want to add that SWBTS is not the innocent party here that is being wronged. In the end I do believe the apostle Paul and God and the rest of us are interested in justice. In that vein, now that the suit has been filed, I hope Dr. Klouda is vindicated in court, though I would prefer that SWBTS do the right thing before it ever gets to court.
Caveat – It is late, I have been busy preparing for a friend’s wedding tomorrow, and I don’t have my attorney brain on at full strength.
Considering I Cor. 6:5 and the question about a wise man among you to judge. And v.4 … set them to judge. Is this an ecclesial court system that we have neglected to establish? Should Baptist’s have a formal version of alternative dispute resolution that would be internal so as not to go to the secular courts, but at the same time be more equitable than one Christian using this passage as the right to stomp on another Christian and then simply say “ha ha, you can’t do anything about it, cause the Bible says you have to turn the other cheek, so there …” Okay, I know I put that in childish terminology, but it seems to me this Corinthians passage assumes that both parties are willing to go to a neutral mediator of some sort.
And simply put, from what I can tell is we have two choices right now in Southern Baptist life “put up and shut up” or go to the civil courts. Perhaps why this verse is so confusing is because we have been so hung up on the verses that say “judge not” that we don’t know what to do with a simple verse in Corinthians: “If then ye have judgments pertaining to this life” (justice in the here and now), “set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.” Who would this be on an institutional / denominational level, how would they be selected, and what would the system look like?
We can argue back and forth about whether or not a Christian should file suit in civil courts. But perhaps it is not the fault of those who are wronged and seek redress of those wrongs, but rather the fault of the rest of us who have not been diligent to work out what this verse means beyond Christian=doormat.
Excellent posts Dorcas and Strider.
Dorcas:
“be more equitable than one Christian using this passage as the right to stomp on another Christian and then simply say “ha ha, you can’t do anything about it, cause the Bible says you have to turn the other cheek, so there …”
Yes, I think this is a correct simplification. But the issue is the one little word you use, equitable. How do we get to the point in our theology and in our churches where we expect equity? We should be striving to do for others better than ourselves. This is how marraiges work, churches work, fellowship works. Our spiritual gifts are given to others, not ourselves; we are to bear up under the pain if unjust suffering. Why? Because we are concious of God. Now what the heck does that mean? Doesn’t He know its not fair?
The point is He will ultimately judge. And yes, when one person is willing to take advantage of another, rub the misused “judge not” verse and treat us as a doormat, what do we do? Paul says the recourse is not to take the person to civil court. This, he says, is already defeat, and should shame us. God will judge; He is our avenger. But, then, we might be tempted to banish this person from our presence so as not to be taken advantage of. But the one person who came knowing we all continually, everyday, take advantage of Him, that He would die for our sins while we mocked Him, that we would then receive His forgiveness and be saved, and yet continue to take advantage of Him…what was His advice about those who continue to treat us unequitably? Forgive them…seventy times seven.
I do hope Klouda gets a generous settlement from SWBTS. Her story is indeed sad and definitely not the first of its kind and likely won’t be the last.
On a side note, did anyone notice that Klouda’s lead attorney is Gary Richardson, personal friend and counsel to Wade Burleson?
Colin -
You referred to the fact that God will ultimately judge all. I do not dispute this point. However, there must be something to verse 4 … “if then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life”. It seems clear to me that God didn’t intend for us in all instances to say “well God will just sort it out in the end.” But rather to some extent, we are to seek resolution in the here and now.
All -
What seems odd to me is that we do not lack wise men, or those able to judge. I think it is a general consensus amongst the majority of those who have commented on this issue, on whichever side of the women teaching men issue one might fall, that Dr. Klouda could have been treated with greater dignity and financial care in this process.
The problem is notwithstanding all the wise men amongst us that can see this truth, there seems no way to do anything about it to solve the problem.
As a Christian attorney, this idea of alternative dispute resolution within the church intrigues me. I’ll have to look into it more. We have no system today, no database of volunteer Christian attorneys and ministers who are appointed Baptist mediators that can be called upon to hold “court” and judge as I Corinthians 6:4 seems to indicate (assuming for argument’s sake the more general application, I am still mulling over Art’s premise that it is more specific to the local body than on an institutional scale).
And this is not the only situation in the past year and a half where such a system would have come in helpful. Yet an official Baptist court could be just as full of favoritism, cronyism, and nepotism as any other Baptist entity, so I’m not really suggesting something so formal on a grand scale. Just a database of attorneys and ministers with trusted references who could be called upon to mediate and who would first have to be neutral to whatever issue would be at stake and not closely connected to the people involved. To have a listing of the “least esteemed in the church” — odd though that sounds, to take these type matters to.
Just a nebulous thought for the future, so not of much help to Dr. Klouda with her present situation.
Dorcas and Strider nailed it, in my opinion. Perhaps the Executive Committee could serve in this function, just as Wade suggested with the IMB fiasco. Absent any ecclesial panel, Dr. Klouda had no choice but to go to the civil authorities, as distasteful as that is. Matthew 18 says that when a brother sins against you go and show him his wrong. If he will not listen, get two or more to go with you. If he still will not listen, take it to the church. If he still will not listen, treat him as a tax collector or sinner. Dr. Klouda is exercising church discipline on Dr. Patterson and SWBTS, but there is no one to listen. There is no authority over them because they are all “autonomous,” just like the IMB Board of Trustees is autonomous.
This whole argument of “don’t take a brother to court thing” is hogwash in this circumstance. “Brothers” have set up a situation where there is NO accountability, either though the Klouda situation, the Burleson or McKissic Incidents, or the IMB policies. We are creating accountability, which should have been there in the first place, and people are calling foul. Just once, I wish those people would call foul on Dr. Patterson, SWBTS, the IMB Trustees, Van McClain, or anyone else involved, and maybe, just maybe someone will listen to you. Otherwise, they should see things for how they really are and stop it with their relativistic arguments. We are reaping the results of a broken system that has been constructed by men who thought that they could do whatever they wanted. They are now seeing that it doesn’t work that way.
If there was any ecclesial recourse, I would advocate that. But, there is not. Matthew 18 is null and void here, because NO ONE will hold Dr. Patterson or SWBTS accountible. The trustees are untrustworthy and there is no outside source to judge. Our system of autonomy doesn’t always work. Perhaps, she should just be wronged, but Matthew 18 does not advocate that. It says to go deal with it. She has.
I guess this explains Wade’s post from the other day. :)
another thing that concerns me in this whole issue is that we are going to have courts deciding about our theology….about our beliefs and practice. we are gonna have a court…the government….decide about a theological issue in our seminary. this sends chills down my spine.
most of yall know that i believe that a woman should not be teaching men the bible in a public setting where the woman is in authority over the man…due to 1 timothy 2. many, many more feel the same way as i do. so, we viewed dr. klouda not being given tenure as the right thing to do….theologically. i agree that it was probably not handled right. maybe swbts should have bought her house in the dallas area. maybe they should have given her some kind of severance pay due to the circumstances. but still, having the govt., courts, decide on our beliefs as southern baptists is not a good thing.
david
Alan Cross,
You hit the nail exactly on the head. The board of trustees upon hearing of Dr Klouda’s termination should have done the RIGHT thing. They are Dr Patterson’s supervisor. Dr Patterson did WRONG. He should have been called on the carpet and reprimanded or terminated. Dr Klouda should be compensated for her stress and financial loss. That is the RIGHT thing to do…..gender does not matter in this case. An institution that is “christian” in name only did wrong. Belly up to the bar and pay the tab. Make sure it doesn’t happen again. That will show that we are truly Christian.
Volfan…
You really don’t seem to get some pretty important things. The Courts in the United States don’t decide theology for anybody. They don’t normally adjudicate on matters of religious preference, unless it has involved smoking peyote, sacrificing chickens, or marrying your wife’s sister.
They are not going to consider arguments about Southern Baptist beliefs as legitimate or illegitimate. If there is a jury trial, the Court’s charge to the jury will specifically instruct the jury that their agreement and/or disagreement with Southern Baptist confessional statements — or Paige Pattersons personal theology for that matter — is not germane to deciding the case.
I feel like Jim Guenther felt in 2004 when he had to advise the convention regarding sole membership after Chuck Kelley’s memorable sermon on Louisiana civil law tradition. Guenther said, in essence:
“I do not wish to argue the law with Dr. Chuck Kelley. I am a lawyer. He is a theologian. I’ll not instruct you in matters of theology, if Dr. Kelley won’t instruct you in matters of the law.”
Remarkable thing, here, Volfan, is that I have considerable training in theology, and quite a bit of experience and training in the law.
So I guess I’ll not instruct you how to rebuild a transmission.
BSC
David W,
Ben is right. The only thing the court will decide, should it go that far, is whether or not SWBTS and Dr. P. acted according to their word (breach of contract), whether they took something due to Dr. K. away (fraud), and whether they hurt her reputation (defamation).
Our theology is not on trial and can’t be. The Constitution protects us from the government doing so:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Take a hot bath and thaw the chill from your spine. Our faith can’t be governed.
Dorcas,
Good thoughts. Seeking a mediator would have been beneficial, but to do that, both parties have to submit to mediation. The offending party doesn’t have to do anything about that, if they so choose. They still hold the cards.
Of course, we can’t force people to submit to ecclesiastical mediation. Autonomy.
As for my statement that the Scripture refers to those under one local church’s authority, I am just pointing out the context. I am not saying principles can’t be extrapolated from that and applied to our lives. There, however, it steps away from being “clear teaching,” in my mind.
Not much debate about drunkenness, for instance. The context is a universal one applied to all Christians. No one debates that.
What bothers me is the constant claim that people are denying Scripture if they don’t read complex issues the same way as another person.
That dog just won’t hunt.
Any Scripture can be denied by calling it complex. Any text seems to be up to interpretation as long as you can find someone somewhere to defend your perception of the correct interpretation. Post modernity got it right when the questioned the validity of placing the foundation of meaning in historicity. But they got it wrong when they relegated meaning to the reader.
Dorcas, that is exactly my point. Paul gives guidelines for reconciliation, but what happens when one refuses? Nothing. Don’t sue. Oh NO! But who is going to be the accountability police?
Alan,
Why did Dr. Klouda have “no choice”? Why was she forced to do this, specifically?
That’ll learn the SBC to ignore The Angry Young Women of the SBC at Baptist Identity III.
Is there a prohibition against the use of civil courts for pagans, as mentioned in Matthew 18:17 (in the event that the alleged malefactor will not “…listen even to the church…” in which case you are to “,treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector”)?
Re: Alan Cross’s statement “‘Brothers’ have set up a situation where there is NO accountability, either though the Klouda situation, the Burleson or McKissic Incidents, or the IMB policies.”
NO accountability = There is accountability, but I disagree with the decisions of those who exercise it.
Several things will come to light as this case goes forward.
1. We’ll continue to see those who favor the most narrow interpretation of I Tim. 2: 12 (meaning no woman should teach theology in any seminary; this is not held by a majority of SBs, though the number who accept it is not small) cry foul over this lawsuit. They are strangely silent in the case of conservatives in Missouri suing the breakaway 5. Inconsistency will continue.
2. Paige Patterson now will have to not only remain silent by virtue of his personal preference (he is quite good at refusing to answer criticism; it is usually someone close to him or those who support him with blind allegiance who respond to criticisms of PP), but out of necessity. A lawsuit makes anything he says open to use by the plaintiff in the case. Dr. Patterson’s silence changes if this goes to trial. PP, if called to testify, will not be able to remain silent. And the process of discovery will bring much to light as this goes forward. Personal correspondence, including emails, will likely be supoened. This will probably tilt the case fully to the plaintiff.
3. Van McClain’s claim that the election of Dr. Klouda to the faculty was not unanimous will come under complete scrutiny. His claims in the Dallas Morning News are part of the plaintiff’s complaint against SWBTS. The minutes of that trustee meeting will be entered into evidence.
4. All too many people outside of God’s Kingdom will look at the whole thing, and all Southern Baptists will have a black eye. We will not have a black eye because of the lawsuit. The lost will look at the actions of the saved (especially PP and SWBTS) and see much hypocrisy.
5. SWBTS, which at present is an accredited institution, could well lose it’s accredidation because of the Patteron administration’s actions, not the lawsuit.
6. SWBTS FTE will drop even further. Sad that.
Let Dr. Patterson publicly advocate Open Theism, and then let’s see if he is without accountability. How long do you think he would last? Not a semester.
What goads so many people is that they can’t simply personalize this into a single man and successfully demonize him. The plain, simple fact is that the decisions of Southern Baptist messengers and Southern Baptist trustees for thirty years have demonstrated widespread agreement with Dr. Patterson, too widespread to be explained by largesse, nepotism, or charisma. Indeed, if there is to be a lawsuit (which there should not be), it ought to mention the SBC, for Dr. Patterson’s ideology apparently does not differ from that of any of our other seminaries at this point, and there is no tangible evidence to suggest that the actions of our seminaries is at variance with the beliefs of the messengers at our convention meetings.
Colin,
Wow. So it has to be saying only what you think it says or we are denying Scripture? It seems to me that you are just as guilty of defining the passage as the Postmodernity you criticize. Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating Postmodern theological existentialism.
I am trying to deal honestly with the text. Amazing how I do that, come to almost the exact same conclusion as you, but you imply that I deny Scripture.
Bart,
To advocate your position, one would have to know that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the ones assigned accountability hold their fiduciary responsibilities higher than their loyalty to Dr. P. That is called into question when considering the fact that these same folks approved her election to faculty, and a tenure track, not long before Dr. Patterson arrived. If loyalty is higher than responsibilities, there is no accountability. Clearly, while it may be settled in your mind, it is not in the minds of others.
Also, and you know this, the lawsuit is not about the Seminary having the right to elect only men to faculty. They will have that right when they pass it as specific policy. They don’t want to do that, because the SBC, despite your claims to the contrary, is not settled squarely behind Dr. Patterson’s theology at this point.
tlinasia,
My only comment to you is that Wade posted not long ago that he had confirmation from the minutes that the vote was, actually, unanimous. That means that when Van McClain was asked to substantiate the claim, made in the media, that Wade’s post on Dr. Klouda was “full of inaccuracies,” he actually had absolutely no inaccuracies to which he could point.
Loyalty over responsibility = no accountability.
Art,
So, what you are suggesting to me is that you are not certain that the trustees would remove Dr. Patterson if he: (a) espoused Open Theism, (b) was caught purchasing cocaine from a homosexual prostitute, (c) spoke in tongues at the next chapel session, or (d) began sprinkling infants and calling it baptism?
Or, would you conclude with me that the trustees would quickly and forcefully exercise accountability upon Dr. Patterson if he happened to do something with which they actually disagreed?
Colin wrote: “Any Scripture can be denied by calling it complex.” One question, Colin: Do you have both hands and eyes? (Matthew 5:29-30)
Bart,
To be sure, those instances would get him removed.
I am saying, however, their unanimous election of Dr. Klouda to faculty just prior to Dr. Patterson’s arrival shows that they already “actually disagreed” with him, but were willing to change their public stance after his arrival.
Clearly there is a difference between the two instances in their mind, but I don’t think you can assign “actual agreement” as the reason they are separate.
Bart:
Have you not considered that you, as an employee of SWBTS being paid to teach extension courses in Little Rock, AR, are also a possible witness in this case? Have you considered that your public comments regarding Klouda could become evidence in a federal court?
Do you not think it is a wiser course for you to remain silent, since the institution you now serve adjunctively is a defendant in a federal lawsuit?
BSC
Sometimes I wish I were as smart or witty as Paul Littleton.
[quaking in terror]Oh, Ben…I hadn’t thought of that!
Everyone please excuse me while I go take a Xanax.
But, thinking the matter over, I believe I would rather be “justly fired” than remain silent.
Among a dozen explanations I can imagine, perhaps the change simply means that there are new trustees on the board now—trustees who hold a different view and are persuasively eloquent. The reason that business meetings meet rather than simply have voters mail in their votes is to allow advocacy of a point of view to try to persuade those who are voting to one position or another. Persuasion does not equal abdication of responsibility.
Honestly, Bart, I think that is a stretch, especially in Van McClain’s case. Also, there is a lot of assumption in that interpretation.
Art, I offered it not as the explanation of these events, but as demonstration that your conclusions are not inevitable.
Honestly, I think your explanation leaves an awful lot of unanswered questions hanging out there. If these trustees are mere sycophants for Dr. Patterson, what happened to their sycophancy when they hired Dr. Klouda? Or was there some foregoing era of a “kinder, gentler” Dr. Patterson that I missed somewhere? Or can he only dominate a board of trustees if he is actually president of that particular institution? (In which case, I guess all those allegations of manipulation of the IMB board of trustees will have to be retracted) What became of his omnipotence when the SWBTS board hired Dr. Klouda?
Here’s what we know: The SWBTS board hired her. Now they support her removal from the faculty. Either the different makeup of the board is responsible, or some persuasive factor is present now that was not present then.
Or are you arguing that Dr. Patterson had no influence over the SWBTS board of trustees before he became president of the institution?
Big Daddy Weave,
Those who have read my blog for the last year recognize that I stand by what I write. In addition, I have no problem saying in public what I say in private because they never contradict. Gary Richardson has been a longtime friend and I have stated that on my own blog. Sheri Klouda requested help and I connected her with him. Her decision to file a cause of action is completely hers and her counsel’s decision. In fact, when Gary and I play golf I make a specific point of never mentioning Dr. Klouda because I do not believe it is any of my business. The only thing I find strange is your curiosity about the connection. Dr. Klouda will tell you that there was a big fanfare when she was hired, but I was the only Southern Baptist that reached out to help her when she was unjustly removed.
Bart,
I remind you, again, that if no wrong has occurred, no contract violated, no fraud perpetrated, or no institutional policy violated, then SWBTS should not be concerned. If those things have occurred (notice the word ‘if’), then SWBTS should be worried. To say that the courts of our land are unavailable to correct abuses perpetrated by Christian insititutions seems very odd to me and totally contrary to verses that teach that secular authority is ‘ordained’ by God to punish evil doers.
I continue to be amazed that everyone wishes to argue the appropriateness of Dr. Klouda filing a cause of action and nobody wishes to discuss the appropriateness of the action to remove her from her position, contrary to both promises and institutional policy, simply because she was a woman and a new President — not necessarily a new trustee board — wanted her gone.
Bart,
I accepted your remark as a possible explanation. However, it is the best possible, from a certain point of view, and it still lacks.
I didn’t explain anything, but made an observation that two things happened.
Responding to your questions, Dr. Klouda was hired prior to Dr. Patterson’s arrival. Whatever influence he wielded, I have never claimed omnipotence nor have I ever claimed that Trustees were sycophants. Straw man argument, that, and not up to par. Further, whatever influence he wielded at SEBTS over any trustee at SWBTS, it was certainly greater when he became their president.
Are you asking me to prove that, while at SEBTS, Dr. Patterson had the trustees at SWBTS so under his control that he is responsible for all they did – such as organize Ken Hemphill’s exit so that he could move in? I can’t prove it, and have, therefore, never claimed it.
You have two fallacies at work: one, false claims about what has actually been said; and two, the apparent need to place everything into absolutes. For you I must say that Dr. Patterson had no influence or total influence, the trustees are either sycophants or completely independent.
One other observation: There has been some Trustee turnover, but nothing near a complete overhaul. That leaves a persuasive influence of almost the same group of people, coinciding with the arrival of Dr. P.
Wade,
Thanks for the clarification.
Also, not everyone is only interested in her filing a lawsuit to the exclusion of those responsible for putting her in that situation. :)
Dr. Klouda will tell you that there was a big fanfare when she was hired, but I was the only Southern Baptist that reached out to help her when she was unjustly removed.
Which is, unfortunately, not unusual.
Art,
Agree, I should have used the word ‘many’ rather than everyone. Thanks.
Maybe if the church had really reached out to help her in the financial and career difficulties brought about allegedly by the actions of SWBTS, there would be no need for Dr. Klouda’s action. Personally, I think criticism of her action should be limited to people who reached out and helped her with those difficulties.
Wade,
That’s odd. I seem to recall a rather wide-ranging and vigorous disucssion particularly over the morality and legality of that decision—one that lasted most of the month of January and in which you participated frequently. Yet you would say that nobody wants to hold that disucssion? That is a difficult position to defend, I think.
Art,
To claim that there is no accountability because the trustees have abandoned their fiduciary responsibility in favor of their personal loyalty is somehow different from claiming that the trustees are sycophants? And I thought I was finished with school. I guess I need to go back and study English again.
Ben,
I thought, as a humble citizen, I would point out that Wade is cutting and pasting. He did it over at Bart’s blog. :)
dwmiii
I have to admit, I’m none to happy with my last comment over there, but I’ll let it stand.
dwmiii
Bart,
Discussing the issue of Klouda’s removal in the blogosphere does not put food on Dr. Klouda’s table. Discussing it with those who could do something to rectify it does. But they would not.
Giving her job back or compensating her for violating insititutional policy does put food on her table. Now, those responsible for her removal will be forced to discuss it.
Wade,
I guess it was the parallel usage with the concept of everyone who “wishes to argue the appropriateness of Dr. Klouda filing a cause of action” (“cause of action” = euphemism for “lawsuit”) that led me to believe that you were actually suggesting that we were all somehow craftily turning the subject matter away from a discussion that we don’t want to have and toward a subject matter that we would prefer to discuss. But instead I now understand that by “discussion” you didn’t mean discussion at all, but instead meant “negotiation.” So, since nobody in this forum (as far as I know) has any authority to negotiate any of this, I now understand that you weren’t talking about any of the people who wish “to argue the appropriateness of Dr. Klouda filing a cause of action.” All clear now. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Art,
My apologies for the hijack-in-the-making.
Bart,
First, the xanax comment got filtered into moderation and I just approved it. The Akismet spam filter in my WordPress software pulls comments that use the names of prescription drugs. Just to let you know that I hadn’t deleted it.
Now, if I claimed there is absolutely no accountability under any circumstances – as per your previous examples, then I would have to call them sycophants. Maybe you should brush up. ;)
Bart,
We were typing at the same time, I suppose. The discussion with Wade is relevant, as far as I can see. I have been busy most of the last few hours or I would comment, I’m sure. I need to read it thoroughly as I don’t really understand your last comment. Unfortunately, I’m being sent for dog food and other misc. items of questionable value from Wal-Mart. Why can’t they understand how vital this stuff is to the world spinning on its axis? :)
Gotcha, so they aren’t total sycophants…just part-time sycophants? :-)
Ummm. Let me see. It seems that I have said this before, but I’ll just try again. They are loyalists, but that, obviously, has a limit. Clearly the limit is somewhere past standing up for a faculty member that they had unanimously hired.
A part-time sycophant? That would be a schizophrenic, wouldn’t it?
Bob Cleveland,
You always make sense.
Bart, Bob suggested those who criticize Sheri Klouda’s cause of action should be limited to those Southern Baptists who have actually reached out in a tangible and meaningful way to help Dr. Klouda, Pinky and their daughter.
Bob has done just that. I promise you, I would listen very, very carefully to any criticism that Bob Cleveland might offer regarding Dr. Klouda and my specific efforts to help of her.
A final comment and I will leave Art’s site for the evening.
Art is dead on in his thoughts and comments in this string. I think the one thing that may have slipped past Art in his excellent responses to Bart is the possibility that the SWBTS trustees were not even informed of Klouda’s removal from tenure track and her inability to be in the process of tenure review and defense. If they were uninformed, that becomes very problematic because that would be a violation of policy.
Wade,
You don’t have to butter me up to correct me. Bart doesn’t. :)
Art,
See…through all our wrestling we come to agreement. We may use different words to spin one way or the other, but the underlying reality is the same.
I would say that the trustees do indeed hold Dr. Patterson accountable. If and when he does something with which they actually substantively disagree, they will act to penalize him. Thus, as you say, there are limits. Those limits begin at the point where Dr. Patterson does something with which the trustees substantively disagree with him. Below that threshold, they do not penalize him.
The point of difference between you and the trustees is therefore the location of the threshold, I think. Do we agree about that? Thus, it is not that the trustees lack the will to do their jobs, but that they hold a different opinion of the matter than you do. The trustee system isn’t broken; the trustees just don’t agree with you.
In which case it is perfectly appropriate for you to declare at the top of your lungs that you disagree with them.
are people in here really concerned that swbts didnt hold to policy, nor had a policy about women teaching in pastoral classes? or, are they really against the teaching of 1 timothy 2 and other verses about women teaching men the bible in an authoritative, public setting? and, are they really against dr. patterson?
i also wonder how many are really for dr. klouda instead of just being against dr. patterson?
this is sad and getting sadder.
david
Bart,
We are not in agreement, and I don’t think the Trustees are with themselves, if not also Dr. P. They approved her with great “fanfare,” but didn’t stand up for her shortly thereafter when she was shuffled off for no other reason that Dr. Patterson didn’t agree with them.
You are right that I disagree with Dr. P on this issue.
David,
That last sentence should tell you, that I don’t agree that the application of this Scripture disallows women from teaching Hebrew. Pretty much the same thing that Danny Akin said about it.
As to caring about Dr. Klouda, perhaps the contact information that I provided and the call for people to send her family financial aid might inform your opinion.
Well, individual trustees may hold differing views. I am not the one who has claimed unanimity of the trustees at any point here. I’m merely talking about the trustees as a body. The majority of the trustees. Heaven help me for trying so hard to understand. Let me pose one last question: Supposing that the trustees would fire Dr. Patterson if he were to hire Molly Marshall to teach anything at SWBTS, but that they would not fire him for dismissing Sheri Klouda, what do you think makes the difference between those two cases to render two different outcomes from the trustees?
art,
have you not seen people give money to some cause just so that they can appear righteous before men? or, to be able to say that they care because they gave? and still, they just really used the cause to further thier agenda? i saw a man come into a senior citizens center one time and make a big deal over giving them a hundred dollar bill at this fund raising dinner. everybody ooohed and awwwed. the man never did anything else for seniors through out the year though. but, in public, he did score a lot of points for his name and reputation and business dealings in the future. i dont remember seeing him in the hospitals visiting these seniors,nor did i see him in the nursing homes. i never saw him actually helping set up the tables and cook the food, etc. but, he really cared. he gave a hundred dollars in a public way so that all would know that he gave it.
now, i’m not saying that anyone in here has done this, but lets not get into a “i’m right, and i have the ability to speak to this issue, because, after all, i gave and you didnt” kind of mentality. when someone starts using thier gifts to help promote thier arguement….it makes me wonder.
david
Since I have to go pretty soon, I’ll go ahead and pose an answer to my own question. The trustees are indeed loyalists. The best trustees are loyal to Christ, the scriptures, and a conservative vision for the SBC that honors both and keeps the SBC rooted in both. If and when Dr. Patterson acts contrary to those loyalties, he will pay the price.
Bart,
He may well, but he will have go to the extreme to receive that from this group, I believe.
David,
I am not sure if you are trying to imply that I encouraged people to help Dr. Klouda for personal benefit or if you just went off on a tangent. No one else here has promoted their own generosity.
Dear Brothers Arthur and Bartholomew,
You guys are definitely NOT hitting the nail on the head as far as I am concerned.
Here’s the nail: Did Dr. P really assure Dr. K that she would have no cause to worry about her job, then fire her the next year?
If you guys who love to beat on nails could beat that one in, we could go on to hitting other nails. Until we beat that one in, I think we’re just hitting each other’s thumbs.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
This Minister of Education says: Everyone remember to “spring forward” 1 hour tonight–to be in Bible study on time tomorrow morning! Blessings, despite it all!!
art,
i wasnt implying anything about you, bro.
david
Jeff,
Dr. Patterson has never denied that (although now he couldn’t possibly publicly do so now that a suit is filed), but Dr. Klouda has affirmed it in a couple of newspaper articles.
Beyond that, there is nothing else we can do.
David T,
Thanks.
David W,
Thank you for clarifying.
Art,
I like you because everytime you respond its like I said somehting revolutionary or way over the top. Your use of exclamations keeps me coming back. The response seems futile at this hour, but I can’t be on the PC all day. I will respond nonetheless.
You think the 1 Cor 6 text applies to some Christians. I think it applies to all. That is not the same position.
On PoMo, the move this past year has been to bring validity to a whole host of interpretations through obscure theologues and interpretators of varying stripes in order to justify their inclusiveness. I think that at some point, we must realize that asking, “What does this text mean?” and “What does this text mean to you?” are different questions. It has also been pointed out the obvious and overt tendency toward situational ethics as of late, and the curious backpeddling and/or silence of those who were before claiming dogmatically that suits were wrong, but seemingly not in this case.
I was not calling you post modern, but I would like to know where we agree and what your position on this issues is given your “trouble” verses.
Colin,
Seriously? When have I made an EXCLAMATION!!!???? *sigh*
You are wrong. I think 1 Cor applies to all Christians. For you to say that about me implies that I deny Scripture. That’s liberalism and it is no exaggeration.
I seek to find what Scripture means. I am no existentialist.
I thought I had said this, but it may have been on Bart’s blog. I wouldn’t sue. I think Dr. Klouda was done terribly and she should have been treated much better. Also, much like Danny Akin, I don’t have a problem with her teaching Hebrew. I don’t know where you stand on that.
I also think the lawsuits in MO are wrong. For all the same reasons.
Art,
What!!! I am wrong? I thought that was just my interpetation of your view. Isn’t it just as valid? ;)
Art, you said the text to be binding only to members of the same congregation. So two Christians who are not tied by the local church can sue, but two others in the same congregation can’t (this would qualify as the “some”).
I think all lawsuits prosecuted by a professing believer toward another professing believer (non-excommunicated) are wrong. I agree whole-heartedly with Dr. Mohler’s stance on women teaching theology (which includes the languages- my Greek class now is the theological engagement of the biblical language). It is illogical to do other than what you are training pastors to do.
As for the text, taking strickly the biblical canon, holding fast to Sola Scriptura, I do not see how anyone with the plain, literal reading of 1 Corinthians 6 can conclude it is ok for Christians to file suit against their fellow redeemed. From Bart’s blog (which I just found out went ballistic as well) I gained insight into your position. Why did you feel the need to attack if you agreed?
Colin!
You are the first person to be the 100th commentor on my blog – on any stream. Congratulations.
I thought I had said that the context of the New Testament church was one where there was only one church in the city and brothers from other cities were not likely to sue each other as commerce wasn’t what it is today. 1 Cor., this text, was written to people who were suing each other within their own congregation.
I am only saying that we need to deal with the complexities of the text and not just snap off a “you’re wrong, you deny Scripture because you don’t see things the same way I do.”
As for what I have done here, I didn’t attack, but responded to Tim.
Sweet!
Now what do I win?
Question: What do you think the Holy Spirit desired every Christian from the time of Paul to derive from this text? Like I said before, is the meaning behind the text, with the events surrounding cities in that time? Or is the meaning in the text irregardless of what happened outside what the Spirit revealed din the canon of Scripture?
I agree that the text applies to all Christians. I believe that the Holy Spirit intended us not to sue each other.
All I was saying was that we can’t bully folks who don’t see the exact same things in Scripture that we do. That’s it.
Sweet Art,
May I say that Dorcas has said something well worth taking into account:
that the lawsuit should be withdrawn and mediation from within the SBC be initiated.
Oh and don’t tell me you don’t have SBC appointed mediators…I am certain they already exist.
And, I’m afraid that you’ve won it already… Congratulations. Sorry.
I’m gone to bed. Good night all, and good Lord’s Day, tomorrow.
Steve,
If I certainly agree that mediation is the Scriptural way to go and would be ideal. If Dr. P and SWBTS trustees would submit to binding arbitration, then I would guess that they could have it. Do you think they would?
I don’t have anything in the SBC. I serve as Vice Chair on an Associational Committee. That’s it. Maybe you know of something I don’t, as far as mediators are concerned. I would hazard a guess that the Executive Committee would be glad to provide its own counsel or maybe even pay for outside mediation. That, however is purely speculation on my part.
Now I really am off to bed. Good night.
PS – My wife’s nickname for me sounds so much better coming from her.
Art:
SBC arbitration. What an excellent idea.
The full board of trustees at SWBTS would have to authorize it.
Frank Page could chair the tribunal, perhaps assisted by his two officers. Except, of course, Jimmy Jackson (SBC 1st Veep) is a SWBTS trustee. So we could have Frank Page, Wiley Drake, and Barry McCarty or Allan Blume serve.
I’ll call Wiley tonight and see if he’s interested.
BSC
Somehow Mr. Cole made that sound terribly repulsive. Try a tic tac!
For the record, it seems Steve misunderstood and/or misquoted me.
I was very careful not to comment on the lawsuit at all. I did not say it should be withdrawn, nor did I give comment upon whether or not it should have been filed. I also don’t recall saying that mediation should be initiated as a replacement to the current action. As an attorney, here is my official opinion on the lawsuit itself, for the record: “No comment.”
Having said that, my comments were addressing a passage of scripture and FUTURE working of the SBC and how that might look.
Allow me a quick legal lesson … mediation and arbitration are two different things. Arbitration is one form of alternative dispute resolution.
Mediation – the parties get together and try to settle things among themselves, with a mediator to guide the process and keep things moving along. Parties can choose to do this before any other legal proceedings, or the attorneys may recommend it at some point in the process after a suit is filed, or the Court may order it as a first step before allowing a case to go to trial if the Court feels that the parties haven’t really made an attempt to sort it out before filing suit and that they could sort it out if they would talk to each other about it and not waste the Court’s time.
Arbitration – can be binding or non-binding. Non-binding arbitration is the next step after mediation where the parties usually agree that it is cheaper and wiser to go this route to settle their disputes. It is different than mediation in that a mediator just guides the negotiation, where an arbitrator actually determines the rights of the parties. The parties may agree to what the arbitrator decides even in a non-binding situation if the dispute is fairly amicable because for the most part it is less expensive than a legal proceeding, and even the losing party may decide to cut their losses. Binding arbitration is usually when the parties have agreed in some form of contract or other written document before a conflict ever arose that should a conflict arise that they would take it to arbitration rather than the courts to sort out. However, the Courts sometimes see this as subverting their authority as final arbiter of matters, so even binding arbitration cases can sometimes get to the Courts.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a broader area of the law of which arbitration is a part. It is becoming more popular as legal costs grow and expand, and many in middle class America find the Courts more inaccessible to resolve matters. Only the very poor who qualify for legal aid, and the wealthy seem to be able to afford full access to the court system. So for the most part, ADR has been developing under the idea of speed of resolution of legal issues (the Courts move slowly) as well as saving money for the citizens. An interesting area of the legal world. Will ADR eventually equal the Courts in its ability to resolve complaints with finality, or will people always eventually seek to have their say in Court?
So my comments were positing how alternative dispute resolution (in the broader sense) could work out within SBC life in the future. Looking forward to what we can learn from the past year of issues and debates, and wondering if we need a slightly more formal system in place for dealing with them. I am loathe to add another level of anything that will just cost money to maintain that won’t go to the missionaries and need yet another Board to oversee.
I know that was a long response, Art, sorry, I just don’t like it when words are put in my mouth that I didn’t say.
Art-
Congrats on a new long and on target comment thread.
Sister Dorcas,
Maybe we all should assume the lawyerly statement.
Blessings,
Tim
ps. Brother Art, I must agree with Brother Marty. Congratulations, it is not many comment streams that go this long and stay on the original thought.
Art,
An absolutely wonderful post and comment section. You’ve done well in response, guidance and fairness. I do think the various opinions are an illustration of the somewhat vague nature of this whole thing of christians suing christians in scripture. There is no doubt whatsoever that we ARE to work out personal problems as christians and, even in bigger relational issues, whatever those kinds of things are, ask/allow the church to settle such issues. We may even need to rethink how this principle fits into our litigation prone culture as a denomination.
But the kind of organizational monster we’ve created in the present day asks quesions that are not easily answered. It would seem imperative to me therefore, that we are to walk in the light we do have and that certainly entails owing no one anything except to love them. That would include the one suing, the one sued, those defending the suing and those opposed to the suing. If we can’t present a united SBC front in the right or wrong in suing, perhaps our society can be overwhelmed with our love for each other. It has happened before.
Obviously, I’m not advocating a syrupy, sloppy kind of thing, which is foreign to scripture, but a vigorous, thoughtful discussion that offers opinions, ideas, and interpretations that differ without the condescending, shaming, kind of thing that tears down the very thing we have the opportunity to present to anyone watching and listening.
I’m speaking to myself first as usual and then anyone who cares to hear it. You are helping in THAT and I’m appreciative.
This has been a difficult situation for me.
My family and our entire staff was done wrong by a previous church. There were a group that decided to cut the entire staff’s salary. Our music minister was cut by $15K and I was cut by $9K.
I had a very Godly man tell me to sue the church. I couldn’t because of 1 Corinthians 6:1-8.
Did it hurt us? Yes! It drained our savings. But it would have brought no glory to God to drag our church through the courts.
It is time for the the SBC to step in and do Dr. Klouda right and settle out of court. Dragging this through the courts will just give us one more black eye.
kevin,
i’m sorry that church treated yall that way. your story can be repeated over and over again by many others. it’s sad.
i agree with you about this issue as well. lets buy the ladies house. give her some severance pay. lets keep this out of the courts and move on.
david
Volfann,
That is exactly what I was requesting from SWBTS administration for Dr. Klouda.
My post tomorrow will illustrate that sometimes the right thing is not done until a higher authority steps in to require it.
Vol,
In this you and I are very close to total agreement. A fair settlement with Dr. Klouda is the only righteous thing. One thing should be added. Dr. Klouda should be given a public apology by those that have committed this wrongful and rude behavior toward her. They should also assure the entire SBC that conduct of such a despicable nature shall not happen again.
cb
cb and wade,
then, after all this is settled, dr. p and the bot’s at swbts need to make it a policy that women should not be teaching men in pastoral classes. :)
david
Sorry Dorcas, I apologise. I typed a : (colon) instead of a ; (semicolon).
My statement was meant to be a summary and application. (there are no quotation marks).
Again,
my apology.
Steve
I think Dorcas is on the right track. Some form of ADR would probably be a good idea in a perfect world. Since ADR is a growing trend it isn’t as high risk as litigation and allows both sides to come away with something.
In my own fleshly, cynical take, I suppose that all future sbc employees will have employment contracts submitting to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute. I would also guess the arbitrator will be selected by the sbc entity and under a favorable choice of laws clause. The end result being that the school will always win.
I don’t presume to have any authoritative take on Corinthians, but I do seem a difference in these two things.
1. Floyd supports blue carpet in the auditorium. The rennovation committee picks green carpet without a full vote of the congregation. Floyd probably shouldn’t file suit to bring the matter to a vote.
2. Floyd is beaten by deacons armed with tire tools in the parking lot after church. I would think that filing a complaint with the prosecutor would be proper.
The trouble here is that we are somewhere in the middle. In the first year of law school, students are taught that if an injury is preventable, but the injury isn’t likely and the costs of fixing it are high, then it doesn’t make sense to fix the problem. Instead, pay damages as the injuries occur and still save money in the long run. In effect, some accidents are “good” accidents. If Christians absolutely fail to file suit in every case, then every Christian injury becomes a “good” injury that isn’t cost effective to fix.
As a side note, there is probably going to be a future in SBC litigation for some enterprising young defense attorneys. I need to see that my business card gets passed around :)