Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Klouda Refused To Take Position at SWBTS

Recent publication of documents over at SBC Outpost (thanks for all that research, guys) reveal that SWBTS offered Dr. Sheri Klouda an ongoing position working in Roberts Library with no reduction in salary or benefits. Klouda rejected the offer and announced that she was going to take a position at Taylor University.

Of course, that is Dr. Klouda's prerogative. She wants to teach; therefore, she chose to take an available teaching job over a job directing the writing center at Roberts Library. I don't blame her for that.

Nevertheless, the revelation does significantly change things. Previous anti-Patterson, anti-SWBTS spin now falls pretty flat:

  1. Klouda's alleged reduction in income, change in health benefits for her husband, and necessity of selling a house in the DFW area are now clearly shown to be a result of her own decision. The administration at SWBTS gave her an opportunity to avoid any and all of those inconveniences, which she declined of her own free will.
  2. Funds were solicited to meet the resultant financial hardship, all upon the pretext that Dr. Klouda had been forced to move and take a lower salary against her will. That now appears not to have been the case. She was apparently required not to teach Hebrew at SWBTS and not to serve on the faculty of the School of Theology, but it does not appear that anyone at SWBTS required her to suffer any loss of income or benefits, nor that anyone required her to change residences.
  3. The position offered to Dr. Klouda is admittedly a much less prestigious position than her former professorship. Nobody will characterize this as a step up (or even a lateral move). Angered at the loss of her professorship, perhaps Dr. Klouda didn't want the seminary's help. It's an emotion that we've all probably harbored at some point or another, and with which we all can likely sympathize to some degree. Many would perhaps swallow pride if the livelihood of the family were at stake.
  4. But the fact that SWBTS employed Dr. Klouda for two additional years and then offered her another ongoing position certainly reflects that the seminary administration made extensive good-faith efforts to deal compassionately with Dr. Klouda in the aftermath of their theological disagreements. Anyone who has served in a leadership or supervisory capacity can also sympathize with the difficulty of giving bad news to someone, of trying to soften the blow and extend every courtesy in light of the circumstances, and yet encountering someone so angry over the state of affairs as to reject offered kindnesses and lash out.
  5. Dr. Blaising apparently labored to help Dr. Klouda find another teaching position. From all that we've read from many in the blog world, Dr. Klouda is an exemplary academic and a teacher par excellence. Since we also know that our Southern Baptist seminaries are among the lowest paying jobs in Christian academics, can't we have some optimism that a highly qualified scholar will soon be earning far more than she earned in Fort Worth? A degree in Hebrew is not nearly as parochial as my Baptist History credentials.

All of that simply to show that the seminary has not imposed any financial hardship upon Dr. Klouda. Now I know…many of you out there have theological and ideological objections to the events surrounding Dr. Klouda at SWBTS. The seminary has opined that those training pastors ought to be capable of serving as pastors. Dr. Klouda disagrees. So do a number of blogging brethren. It is a theological disagreement.

I respect your right to hold your theological views. I respect Dr. Klouda's right to hold hers. I respect Dr. Patterson's right to hold his, and Dr. Blaising's right to hold his. I respect the right of the trustees of SWBTS to form seminary policy according to their theological convictions as guided by the study of scripture and the will of the convention expressed in the history of our institutions, our statement of faith, and the practice of sister entities.

What I do not acknowledge or respect is the right of the United States Government even to hold a theological viewpoint, much less to adjudicate it.

127 comments:

matt said...

1. If SWBTS sincerely believes it is wrong for women to teach Hebrew to men, then why would Blaising try to help Klouda find another job? If it's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of whether the school is SBC or not.

2. You are accepting Blaising's statements in his affidavit as fact without having seen Klouda's response. Her version of the story might be different than Blaising's.

3. There is nothing in Blaising's affidavit that indicates that the job offer was for an ongoing position. It just says she was offered a job but is silent as to whether the offer was for a permanent position or just a temporary job for the next academic year.

4. Even accepting Blaising's claims as true, I think your emphasis on the job offer is overblown. If God Dr. Klouda to be a Hebrew teacher, why should we expect her to accpet a job doing something else? If your church no longer wanted you as pastor but offered to keep you on as the janitor (with the same salary and benefits) instead of the pastor, would you accept?

matt said...

I left out "called" between "God" and "Dr. Klouda" in my last comment.

Jonathon said...

Great post....I am not smart enough to keep up most times, but it is fun to read.

Bob Cleveland said...

Bart,

What if you were a pastor of a church , and they came to you and said you couldn't preach any more, but could tend the library for the pastor. And continue your pay. Wouldn't you go preach somewhere else, instead?

I've heard you preach; I figure God called you to that. I doubt you'd become a librarian.

Ron P. said...

Gee, I guess that SBC Outpost has continued to not give the whole truth as some blindly claim. Is anybody surprised or shocked by this?

It is clear that she left of her own volition. I agree, that I would probably not want to stay either, until I had gainful employment. I have been in that situation in a secular job and you are correct Bart, it is hard to swallow one's pride and work in that situation, but my family needed me to, so I did.

Thank you for sharing. And I agree, with you that within our circles here, we have the right to address the theology of this. The United States government does not!

Ron P.

Bart Barber said...

Matt,

1. Because, contrary to the allegations of her harsher critics, SWBTS is able to work charitably with those of differing convictions so long as she does not have to compromise her own. I have a friend who has become a pedobaptist. I could and would willingly and earnestly recommend him to a Methodist church, knowing his character and the great capacity of his heart. I could not employ him as a part of our pastoral staff here. No contradiction at all.

2. If it proves to be wrong, I guess that'll be what I get for depending upon SBC Outpost for information.

3. In any event, she left of her own volition when she left, and she refused to avail herself of all of the assistance that the seminary offered her.

4. I hope that I would do so before I would hurl recriminations against brethren and, contrary to the clear and direct teachings of the Bible, launch a lawsuit against them.

Bart Barber said...

Jonathon,

Here at PGBB we exist for your entertainment.

;-)

Bart Barber said...

Bob,

See my last reply to Matt.

Bro. Robin said...

Bro. Bob

I know you asked Bart this question, but I would like to respond.

I would tend the Library until the Lord moved me somewhere else in a ministry that would provide for all the needs of my family. I believe He is powerful enough to do that.

I would also serve joyfully knowing that God is sovereign and there is a purpose for me in tending another pastor's library.

Ministry is not thinking I deserve a better position, it is trusting that the Lord will put me where he wants me. After seminary I served in a bivocational ministry driving a school bus and then being a security guard. Mind you, I had a successful management career before I went to Seminary. It was only by the Grace of God that I was able to serve in that position. I don't pat myself on the back, I only praise God that I was able to serve.

Ultimately, if He doesn't want me tending a library, then so be it. I trust He will do what is necessary to get me to where He wants me. Then trust He will keep me there until He wants me moved again.

BTW, the position offered was not tending a pastor's library, it was being an integral part of one of the largest evangelical libraries of the world. Even if I did have a PhD. I would consider it an honor.

matt said...

Bart,

2. Outpost made no claim that the information in the affidavit was accurate. You did that. Outpost simply posted the affidavit.

3. Your response warrants a retraction of your claim in the original post that Klouda was offered an "ongoing position."

4. I'll accept your view of Scripture (I assume you're referring to 1 Cor. 6) for the sake of argument. Your comments show that you are naive about how lawsuits actually work. The one filing the lawsuit is not 100% responsible for the suit's existence.

It is extremely rare for any person to file a lawsuit as a first attempt to resolve a disagreement with another party. Lawsuits are filed as a last resort. Wade Burleson has documented that Dr. Klouda and her attorneys attempted to resolve these issues with Dr. Patterson and SWBTS without going to court.

When the plantiff has attempted to resolve disagreements before filing a lawsuit, then the lawsuit's subsequent existence is just as much due to the defendant's actions/omissions as it is to the plaintiff's act of filing.

Let's apply this idea to the current situation under the assumption that your 1 Cor. 6 interpretation is correct. It would seem that you believe it is better to be willing to be wronged than to be involved in a lawsuit with another believer (1 Cor. 6:7). But this principle cuts both ways.

Dr. Klouda could have said, "I would rather be wronged than be involved in a lawsuit with another believer. Therefore I will not file the suit." Such an action would have resulted in no suit existing.

Dr. Patterson could have said, "I would rather be wronged than be involved in a lawsuit with another believer. Therefore I will accept Dr. Klouda's proposal to meet and if necessary pay her whatever she thinks I should pay. I believe she's wrong, but I'd rather be wronged myself than be involved in a lawsuit with another believer." If he had done this, no lawsuit would now exist.

BOTH PARTIES believe they are right and the other person is wrong. Either party could have prevented the filing of this lawsuit. So if your interpretation of 1 Cor. 6 is correct, then Patterson is just as much in violation of it as is Dr. Klouda.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Robin: Would this be before or after you were dismissed from your dutes because of your gender?

Anonymous said...

Benjamin Cole Says:
March 5th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
McClain’s memory is incomplete.
Elizabeth Barnes was elected to teach theology at SEBTS in the late 1980s. She was elected by a 1 vote margin.
BSC

irene Says:
March 5th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Elizabeth Barnes speaker for
VBWIM dinner

http://www.baptistwomeninministry.org/vol_6_2.pdf

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=24012040

7/31/2001
Elizabeth Barnes has retired as professor of theology at Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond.

Bro. Robin said...

Debbie

Please reread my comment. No matter what my gender is, God is sovereign.

BTW, the issue of Bart's post is that Klouda left on her own terms to a job that did not meet her family needs. Dr. Patterson and SWBTS has been painted as kicking Dr. Klouda, her disabled husband, and her children to the curb without compassion. Bart has shown and Dr. Blaising's affidavit has shown that SWBTS acted with compassion by allowing Dr. Klouda to stay on board and even offering her a job so that her family would not have to make a traumatic move.

Ron P. said...

Robin,

You are spot on! There clearly was no economic harm done to Dr. Klouda by SWBTS, as she left on her own, despite what we have been hearing endlessly by the Enid Coalition.

Bart also makes a great point about SBC professors. They make next to nothing. A Ph.D at an SBC seminary that I know, makes less than one of his M.A. students who teaches at a Junior College. How is it possible for someone to go somewhere else and make less money?

Ron P.

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

According to Dr. Klouda, the assertion you make that she was 'offered' another full time job at SWBTS is patently false. Had the 'offer' actually been made, she would have jumped at it -jumped with a capital J - to accept it because of her husband's medical condition (his specialist was in the metroplex), her daughter's schooling (she loved her school), and the situation with the Klouda's house (they had just bought it).

Dr. Klouda, due to family considerations, would have been a custodian at SWBTS in order to stay in the metroplex. I am sure this descrepancy in alleged 'offeres for employment' will be adjudicated at some point. When it comes to a 'he said,' 'she said,' disagreemnt the scales of justice will tilt toward the person with the most believablity. I can assure you that Klouda tells a gripping and compelling story that will cause anyone who hears it to not question for a moment her veracity. On the other hand, it would seem to some that authorities at SWBTS would have every reason to cover the institution's proverbial backside by alleging she was 'offered' another position.

It would be interesting to know who at SWBTS would swear under oath that they were present when this 'offer' was made to Dr. Klouda. In addition, if there is any 'documentation' that the offer was actually made to Dr. Klouda, it would be interesting to track down the author (or typist) and ask one simple question:

When did you type the document that contained the offer to Dr. Klouda and was it post dated? Or, If the date on the document is correct, do you know for a fact it was ever presented to Dr. Klouda?

Again, those questions assume documentation exists. In SWBTS very thick appendix to their motion for summary judgment there are all kinds of documents that verify SWBTS arguments - but not one email, one note, one letter that supports the alleged job 'offer.' I don't know that any of us knows the truth of this situation, but we can be assured that discovery, adjudication, and an independent jury of peers will help bring about a just resolution. Once the jury (or judge) decides a proper verdict, whatever they decide, nobody should complain.

In His Grace,

Wade

Tim Guthrie said...

Bart,
Once again you have clearly stated the facts minus the spin of the attackers of SWBTS.

Ron P. said...

Wade,

I would find it difficult to believe someone who is violating Scripture by bringing an un-Biblical lawsuit. It is equally difficult to believe someone who actively supports this un-Biblical lawsuit.

Ron P.

Wade Burleson said...

Ron,

It is not unbiblical to submit yourself to the secular authorities, particularly after there there are closed doors in terms of mediation.

Paul requested to appear before the secular courts when his appeals to the religious tribunal was rejected.

And of course, Romans 12, speaks quite clearly that judges and civil authorities are 'ordained' ministers of God. I'm fully aware your comment is a strike at the character of any Christian who does not see a civil suit as 'sin.' I regret that you cannot separate disagreement over this issue from judgements on character.

Blessings,

Wade

Anonymous said...

Bart,

I adore the dilemma Matt pitched at you: "Either party could have prevented the filing of this lawsuit... [Dr.] Patterson is just as much in violation of it as is Dr. Klouda."

Unfortunately for Dr. Patterson, the only way he could "prevent the filing" is to "pay her whatever she thinks [he] should pay". That's pure justice as anyone can tell.

Nor would Dr. Patterson be admitting guilt for anything he did. No one would dare think such, we are all so confident.

In fact, I'd bet Matt, Outpost and Enid would publish posts on how humble, righteous and loving Dr. Patterson was to "pay her whatever she thinks [he] should pay" and never mention his assumed guilt for crimes against a female professor because, after all, he forked over the doe. "If he was not guilty, why did he pay?" would never be a question on Matt, Outpost or Enid's lips to be asked about him, we are equally sure.

Yes, my Brother Bart. Matt's dilemma ironed your shirt really stiff.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Tim Guthrie said...

Peter,
That was a classic response.

Wade,
In your opinion only was there no other course. Maybe that is not the whole picture. What tribunal did Dr. Kloudia go before?

peter lumpkins said...

Wade,

Seems I recall the last time you attempted to argue 'governing authorities' trumping Paul's advice on lawsuits, Colin tied you in knots. Perhaps we can copy/paste some of that dialog here from your blog.

As for you conspiracy cover-up by SWBTS about the 'offer' to and 'documentation' of about Dr. Klouda, would you by any chance happen to have some evidence for offering such? That would be nice.

With that, I am...

Peter

Ron P. said...

Peter,

You beat me to it. :)

Ron P.

Dave Miller said...

This is difficult to follow. It is beginning to be clear that the issue here is either integrity or memory. Bart gives one perspective and it seems reasonable. Wade gives another reasonable explanation.

Either Dr. Klouda is not being fortright, or someone at Southwestern is not giving us the whole story.

I don't have enough facts to figure out who is telling the truth.

Thank you, Bart. I wish the congenial spirit with which you wrote your post was reflected in the comments of a few others. You write with grace toward those with whom you disagree.

May your tribe increase.

Wade Burleson said...

Peter,

Your ability to understand whether or not someone is tied in knots is probably comparable to your ability to communicate accurately and truthfully that you are under contract to write a book. I was surprised to discover tonight that, in actuality, you have no contract to write a book. I was told by a fellow blogger that there was no such contact, but that you simply had agreed to help a friend edit a book he was writing. I did not read your retraction for myself, but was told I should. Unfortunately, you have deleted all posts related to what seems to be glaring faux pas. When you copy and paste the posts that interest you, I would request the same favor and ask you to repost the your what seems to have gone missing from your blog. Rehashing old comments and posts might be enlightening for us all.

Peter, now I am writing to you seriously (as opposed to the above paragraph which is illustrative as you will see as you read on). I have no interest in reading anything you have written about a proposed book. I wrote the above paragraph to show you that it is very easy to make public statements and 'judgements' about a person (Colin tied you in knots) that prejudice the reader against someone before anything substantive is ever even offered or said. If you feel that the above paragraph is prejudicial toward you, I would simply point out that the first paragraph above sounds to me to contain the tone of precisely how you write. Let me offer a proposed paragraph that could have written that might get to the heart of your request without inflammatory or prejudicial statements:

Wade, I seem to remember that you and Colin had a conversation about Scripture and the appropriateness of Christians going to court. Can you direct me to where I might read the conversation, or is it possible to reproduce it here for our benefit. I think the discussion would be productive.

I think everyone is healthier when we can dialogue without shame.

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Peter,

The 'proof' that you request that verifies Dr. Klouda's statements will be offered, I am sure, by counsel in front of an independent jury of Dr. Klouda's peers. I trust that we as Southern Baptists can rest in the belief that a sovereign God will ensure a righteous decision, and judgment, shall be forthcoming - however it turns out.

Dave Miller said...

Question: Is there any evidence that will move the supporters of Dr. Klouda to believe that the seminary was within its rights to let her go?

Is there any evidence that could be brought forward to make the supporters of Dr. Patterson believe that he was doing the wrong thing?

We are like the Dems and Reps. To Hillary and Barack, nothing Bush does is every good in any way.

To conservatives, every move of Hillary or Barack is calculated to ruin our great nation.

We pick our sides, choose our evidence and refuse to see anything that contradicts what we believe.

Wade Burleson said...

Dave,

If a judge or jury determines Southwestern was within its rights to breach contract by not granting tenure review for Dr. Klouda on the basis of gender, then I think we should accept the decision as from the Lord - and vice versa.

Dave Miller said...

Works for me.

I doubt that everyone will accept the verdict of a "secular" court here.

However, since there are two clearly opposing versions of the truth, a court decision may be the only way to figure things out.

Ron P. said...

Dave,

I am one who does not believe that a woman should teach men Scripture and theology. There are many who believe SWBTS was wrong to hire a woman for this position in the first place. It is a deeply held belief that we hold to be Biblical. I am also convinced that Scripture has clearly barred believers from suing other believers. Even if Dr. Klouda was wrongly terminated, which I do not believe, there is never justification for a believer to sue another believer. The use of Paul submitting himself (and only himself) to civil authorities, notwithstanding. He did not sue another believer. Scripture is quite clear on the ban of believers suing one another.

Let me also state that as Bart and others have ably pointed out, that those supporting this lawsuit are willing to allow the courts to decide a clearly religious and theological issue. This smacks of one willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, just to get Paige Patterson. I do not think that they will be so supportive when a disgruntled church member files suit against their church.

You are correct that I will never accept that a court or any government entity has any jurisdiction in any matters of faith and practice of a church or religious institution. I hold to that for both Biblical and Constitutional reason.

Ron P.

Tim Guthrie said...

Ron P,
Well said in your last comment. The whole issue of this mess leads to far reaching issues that I feel few are understanding. It is dangerous indeed.

Wade Burleson said...

It is NOT religious belief. For heaven's sake - Klouda SIGNED THE BFM 2000.

It is breach of contract that is in question. Period. A breach that may have occurred because of a desire to implement personal theological views that EXCEED the BFM 2000.

Anonymous said...

Ron P or Wade,

Who hired Elizabeth Barnes who was elected to teach theology at SEBTS in the late 1980s. She was elected by a 1 vote margin?

Ron P. said...

Wade,

Your protestations aside, this is a theological issue and only a theological issue. Whether she signed the BFM or not is not the issue. It has nothing to do with this issue. Though it has been debated ad nasuem, the BFM is not a maximal doctrinal guideline. It is a minimal doctrinal guideline.

Ron P.

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Wade,

As for my allegedly being "under contract to write a book" my good Wade, that simply demonstrates your consistency in abuse of sources that so often plagues your writings.

No mention was ever made about a book deal at any time. Ever. The post is in your reader--or someone else's you know surely. Produce my statement about being "under contract to write a book" I'd love to see it. So much for your little lesson, not to mention the reliability level of your source.

Now, as for my comment, you evidently misread that too. I asked you to produce the evidence for your conspiracy theory that SWBTS was covering up and you point me to Dr. Klouda's lawyers. You're the one, Wade, that insinuated the cover-up. So, once again: do you possess any evidence or is this another one of your consistent abuses of sources? I think it would be good to know.

With that, I am...

Peter

Scott R said...

It is interesting that when the pro-Klouda group can't make any progress with the theological argument, that switch tracks. "It is not about theology, it is a breach of contract"(paraphrase).
The public can only see the information that has been made public. Thus far, affidavits tell us:
1. Klouda was not fired.
2. Klouda quit of her own volition
3. She was offered some type of position without loss of pay or benefits.
4. We have not seen any evidence that she had a contract that was breeched.

Wade has no counter to this public evidence other than to hold out hope that there is some private evidence that will come out at some future time. That is possible. But, until that time we have to go with what we do know, not what we might know.

Jonathon said...

Dr. Barber,

How in the world can I get this many comments on my posts....what is the secret.

Loving it....

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

You said;

It is NOT religious belief. For heaven's sake - Klouda SIGNED THE BFM 2000.

It is breach of contract that is in question. Period. A breach that may have occurred because of a desire to implement personal theological views that EXCEED the BFM 2000.


That is the only nail that the Lawyer that you put together with Dr. Klouda can hang their proverbial hat on. So let us look at the basis for a breech of contract. You say that Dr. Klouda was fired. It seems that Dr. Blaising can produce a resignation letter--one was referred to as evidence in his affidavit. How can a breech of contract occur when one resigns.

I do not think Texas law is that much different than NC law. Texas is a "right to work" state as is NC. In NC I do not have to give any reason at all for not allowing anyone to work any longer. I can come in this morning and tell my Associate that he has to go. No reason at all is needed. My wife was not allowed to be interviewed for a position at Duke University back some years ago. The EEOC said she had a case. We refused to accept it because we believed the Scripture of 1 Corinthians as we do. Problem here is that we have people that do not accept the sufficiency of Scripture and the Federal Government has said there is no case. If I remember correctly the EEOC has said there is no case. Thus the ones that could not get the government to fight for them has not refused to heed scripture and is now bring this to trial as a civil case.

There is no violation of any contract especially when a person was given two years to find another position and offered a position making the same pay and benefits. The person placed their financial hardship on their own family.

Blessings,
Tim

Anonymous said...

Scott,

You suggested Wade appears to "hold out hope that there is some private evidence that will come out at some future time." This, in part, is the question concerning evidence I inquired to our Wade Burleson twice now. In his first answer, he ignored it and switched subjects: Me.

I asked again only for Wade to remain silent. Evidently, his conspiracy projection upon SWBTS' Executive team--not to mention the support staff--to deceitfully cover-up their failed moral integrity, lacks any real teeth.

My hope for us is that, barring hard evidence to the contrary, we SBs would cease this horrid, godless rampage of indicting people and institutions alike at our own personal judgement bar.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Ron P. said...

Wade,

One more thing. Your eisegesis of the Scripture is troubling. Based on your logic and reasoning the ministers of God sitting on the Supreme Court rightly decided that abortion is legal. I do not buy that anymore than I believe that Hitler was acting as a minister of God when he instigated the Holocaust. Just because one is in government, or a judge, does not mean that we "should accept the decision as from the Lord". That is utterly senseless. Do not misunderstand, I do believe that God uses governments and sometimes He uses them to bring judgment. But when they contradict the Word of God, then they are not acting righteously, and then we have an obligation to obey God rather than men.

Ron P.

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Your last paragraph is well said.

If the legal process in America were controlled and directed by personal vendettas and passionate feelings only, then Dr. Klouda may well have a case. However, the court system in America is designed to operate apart from these two subjective influences. The reality is that this case will be decided not on how passionate Wade and friends are to, in their eyes, see Dr. Klouda vindicated (or to see Dr. Patterson discredited and dismissed). This case will be decided based upon case law and the facts presented. Some of you skeptics are already saying that the “facts” will not be presented, only a cloudy estimation of what is purported to be fact. Sorry guys, you need to get a life and quit making it all about a personal vendetta against SWBTS and Dr. Patterson. When you look at what Bart has presented, and if this is correct that Dr. Klouda was offered another position with no reduction in benefits, this case will not go far and Dr. Klouda is spinning her wheels. Perhaps this should have been considered by those who sought to use her as a means to accomplish their devious goal of bringing down Dr. Patterson and doing as much harm to SWBTS as they can along the way. Perhaps those who have this motivation to defame and destroy God’s men and His institutions should forget about the secular courts and be more focused on the judgment to come when standing before God! Now that’s a sobering thought.

Bart, thank you for the post.

Byron McWilliams

GUNNY said...

Thanks for the update on this saga.

I concur with much that has been said.

I would be tender, mad, and generally hacked if I got told I couldn't preach anymore, but could stay on as the church water boy at the same pay, etc.

If unhappy in that position, however, I would assume the good Lord would call me somewhere else if He's called me to use my gifts.

When I left, however, I wouldn't sue the school. I think that's the issue.

It's not like they re-assigned Dr. Klouda because they didn't like her. It's not a personal issue, but a theological conviction the school either came to as of late or decided it needed to act upon.

That being said, if Wade's right in Dr. Klouda's patent denial of such an offer, then you've got somebody lying ... and that ain't cool.

In such a case, we have either a sister and/or brothers who need to be held accountable by the church.

From the standpoint of a loving, caring family, how do we do that?

I think the lawsuit route was sought because there was/is no ecclesiastical authority to intervene in this instance.

Perhaps there should be.

Luke said...

Bart,
Liked the post. In spite of what is recorded by you here, others seem intent on suggesting that what you offer is not "just the facts". It is factual that Patterson and Blaising both agreed that their statements were true and truth. Now, it is hinted that they must not be telling the truth just to cover someone's tail.

My question: Irregardless of how this all turns out in court, unless one side or the other admits to fabricating parts of this story, is there any hope for resolution if both parties continue to state opposing opinions? This would be one time that I wish the Urim and the Thummin were still in use today.

Gunny, perhaps we do need a Southern Baptist Court. But would the court legislate or uphold legislation when hearing litigation?

Blessings on PGBB.

Luke

Dave Miller said...

There seem to be two ways this thing can go.

1) If this is a theological issue, the courts should not (and most likely will not) intervene.

A denomination in America should have the right to set its parameters of fellowship and standards for hiring based on the Word.

If this is simply theological, it shouldn't get past summary judgment.

2) This is a breach of contract lawsuit - which should probably be settled by the justice system.

None of us really knows what went on. Wade believes Dr. Klouda's side of it, because he knows her and believes in her. Others take Dr. Patterson's side, because they believe in him.

It would probably take an independent arbiter to figure that out.

So, if this is a theological issue, I agree with Bart. The courts should stay away. If it is a breach of contract issue, it probably has to go to the courts for resolution.

So, I would raise these issues:

1) None of us probably KNOWS as much as we believe. We are making our decisions based largely on whom we believe in.

I am interested in a couple of questions. Does a professor on tenure track have an expectation of being granted tenure? Is it a breach of contract NOT to grant tenure? Did Dr. Klouda actually resign or was she fired? What exactly did her contract offer?

Everyone is an expert now. I am guessing a lot of us think we know more than we actually know.

I'm waiting to get some questions answered.

2) There is, to my knowledge, no denominational position on women teaching in seminaries. If this were a pastoral position (as some indicate it is) there would be no question. If Dr. Klouda was advocating WIM or preaching in churches, the issue would be clear.

The thing that struck me as I read her evaluation is how often her supervisor mentioned carefully that she was supportive of and acting in line with the BF&M.

So, again, this is evidence to me that we are on the safest ground when we let the BF&M guide us and on the shakiest ground with the leadership uses their own standards as authoritative.

3) Whatever we believe SHOULD be, this is now a court case and will be decided there. I imagine I will be retired when all the appeals are exhaused.

GUNNY said...

Great question, Luke.

We've got all kinds of trustees and committees and committees on committees and likely trustees on trustees, surely we could come up with some sort of SBC Supreme Court.

I wholly believe in the autonomy of the local church, but it's also clear we don't believe in the autonomy of the SBC organization.

In such a litigious society, it seems to me that we'd be pro-active as SBCers to set up some way to police ourselves so that we aren't tempted to go to "the man," whereby we look silly to the world ... instead of giving 'em a little Matthew 5:16.

It would probably need to be a body not already in existence, I would think. Something where people could be appointed by _________ and serve 2 years (or some such).

The thing would be as some sort of Ombudsman or court of appeals.

I'm in no way saying I think SWBTS did anything wrong, but it's not inconceivable to me that a seminary could do wrong to one of the sheep. If so, what's the recourse for the good of all involved?

Luke said...

Gunny,

I think the key here would be that this "court" would not be involved in legislation of anything Southern Baptist at all, but rather, a place that appeals can be made before a neutral body so that secular courts do not have to be involved. Simply a place where one can present a case of wrong and a judgment can be made. That also brings about another question. How do you "ENFORCE" the verdict? No SB police for me!

Well, it is interesting to discuss but I think we've thread-jacked Bart enough. I am willing though to discuss this on a thread just for such.

Luke

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Ron P,

I think you are right to say that this unfortunate situation is theologically based. Yet it appears to be based merely upon the “theory”, and not the practice of theology. Let me try to explain.

This situation could have been averted (and still can be ended biblically) or at a minimum the courts would have already made its separation if SWBTS were a church that is practicing the doctrines set forth in scripture. In a church setting there is no need for contracts as remunerators among its members. In fact, all things are bought, sold, exchanged and used for the benefit of its members and the furtherance of the Gospel. So anyone can and may receive money, yet contracts (although being in and of themselves are not evil) are never necessary in a church environment. Contracts are provided for convenience internally and used externally for services rendered by outside agencies.

SWBTS, with its people being made up by the church, and these people are members under the authority of Christ in other assemblies throughout the area, do not practice or obey the model that Paul has given for order in the New Testament church. The seminary may teach the practice, it may try to mimic it for examples to its trainees, but it does not exercise, nor is it demonstrating the authority in practice. If it was ordered as a church, it would not be in the circumstance it is today and its leadership would be held to a more strict accountability. The last sentence may be Patterson’s entire argument.

In matters of theological instruction in scripture, a woman teaching a man has never been an issue for the people that make up the churches. Many people try to take 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians to defend this premise. Much like Paul’s instruction to Timothy’s context, the problems at Corinth surface concerning order, counterfeit doctrine and abusive teaching, not the act of teaching alone. It is very instructive for women to be silent in churches where they are jumping up and counterfeiting tongues for sport.

God, through Luke on the other hand gave a great example of how the people of God behave in the midst of the church, now seen in contrast to abusive events in the Corinthian letter, but now Luke instructs us in practical theology for the sake of teaching correct doctrine. Acts 18 is one of the best instructions for the church of how to engage in ministry. Paul, teaching and working with Priscilla and Aquila. Priscilla and Aquila teaching and working with Apollos. Apollos learning the proper meaning from his Hebrew text by way of Priscilla and Aquila. This is the model of unity. This model does not infringe in any way on the order and authority of the church. In fact, it reinforces God’s order and unity for his people. Paul’s instruction to Timothy concerning women (1 Timothy 2) is not cancelled out by Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos, it actually reinforces the instruction that the order of the church is not in jeopardy. Look at Paul’s warning to Timothy beginning in Chapter 1 and following. He is obviously continuing to repair problems in the church from abuse. He worked with Priscilla and Aquila differently because they were doing the will of God, not counterfeiting.

So yes, this situation is no different at SWBTS. The question is,…will the doctrine of scripture be practiced or merely theorized. Someone may have a conviction, but obviously one view is not according to scripture.

Convictions for convictions sake are not good enough.

Blessings,
Chris

Wade Burleson said...

Peter,

Your concern over horrid, godless behavior in the SBC is duly noted. Your ability to see such horrid, godless behavior in the lives of others is unusually keen.

I think you should realize, Peter, that if I have a choice of giving you such 'requested' information to relieve your heartburn over godlessness in the SBC, or protecting the integrity of Dr. Klouda's legal representation in court, I will always choose to protect the latter. I hear grape juice is a great cure for heartburn.

Grin.

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Dave Miller,

Unlike others in this stream who do not know how to ask questions without attacking character, your comment hits the nail on the proverbial head. We may not agree on everything, but I can definitely agree with your assessment of this situation.

Ron P. said...

Wade,

The hypocrisy dripping from your keyboard is sad. You have continually attacked the character of men like Dr. Mohler, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Floyd, several of your fellow Trustees when you served, Dr. Lumpkins, and so on. Yet if one agrees with you on your attacks of the SBC, they then get your praise. Here again we see that for one to be irenic they must agree with you. If one dares question the great Wade Burleson, we are then accused of attacking your character. We have questioned your methods, your theology; pointed out your hypocrisy and inconsistency, but we have not questioned your character. You just don't like the questions because we do not agree with you regarding certain SBC issues such as this one.

Ron P.

Wade Burleson said...

Ron,

You write,

The hypocrisy dripping from your keyboard is sad

But, we have not questioned your character . . .

Uh, Ron, thanks, I think.

Smiling.

Wade

Dave Miller said...

Ron,

You should look at the spirit and tone with which Bart Barber writes. He states a point without the sarcasm and invective that you use against Wade.

If you want to engage Wade, you ought to learn a little from Bart.

It is the exchange of ideas, not the exchange of insults that will bring us where we need to be.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Chris, Ron P, Bunny, and others,

While we are arguing that this case centers around "contract law" we are forgetting that one government entity has ruled. The EEOC has said there is not discrimination concerning this case. The EEOC has looked at the case and has passed on it.

What we have is a civil case. In a civil case one only has to present a reasonable amount of evidence to hold true the claim. The problem will come when the question asked would be one pertaining to tenure. Dr. Patterson has always said and went to SWBTS from SEBTS where he did away with tenure for faculty. A reasonable person would understand that Dr. Patterson does not believe in tenure for faculty. Also, Dr. Patterson came to SWBTS from SEBTS where there were no women Prof. teaching men in the theology department. A reasonable person would understand that he would not allow that to happen at SWBTS.

This case is in civil courts for two reasons. First, the EEOC said there was no discrimination. Second, civil courts are not as strict when it comes to law.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Dave Miller,

You write; So, again, this is evidence to me that we are on the safest ground when we let the BF&M guide us and on the shakiest ground with the leadership uses their own standards as authoritative.

To which Brother Wade responds; We may not agree on everything, but I can definitely agree with your assessment of this situation.

I must agree with your assessment and Brother Wade's agreement. It seems that we are on safe ground. Dr. Patterson is interpreting the BF&M as it concerns the entity that he leads. If a pastor is not to be a woman then logically it follows that a woman should not be training men how to be pastors.

Of course, now that it is being revealed that she resigned you will never convince others. You see Brother Wade has already been given a prestigious award from the CBE. The reason for that award? Here is the quote; In early 2007 Wade used his blog to raise awareness of the firing of Dr. Sheri Klouda, Professor of Hebrew at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for holding a 'position reserved for a man' (as stated by the President of the Seminary.) I wonder if they will ask for the award back once they find out it was presented under what appears to be false assumption on the part of the receiver?

Blessings,
Tim

Anonymous said...

Bart,
In your opinion are there any similarities between Dr. P’s refusing the offer of Vice-Chancellor of Criswell College when he was being demoted as President and Dr. K’s offer from Dr. Blazing ?

Rick

Dave Miller said...

Tim,

I am interested. Can you footnote that the EEOC has looked at this case and passed?

I have never heard that. Is that documented?

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Gunny,

I am extremely sorry. My fingers typed a "B" when it was supposed to type a "G". Man, have I royally messed up, I have called a Marine a Bunny. Please forgive me and don't kill me.

:>)

Blessings,
Tim

Debbie Kaufman said...

Yes, we have a civil case gentlemen. I believe strongly it is God ordained. It's time that laws not be broken again in the name of Christianity that are truly not in the name of either the Bible or Christianity.. That to me is a worse offense than bringing any civil lawsuit. No longer will people be treated as if they do not matter. I hope this lawsuit shows the days of that happening are over.

Debbie Kaufman said...

What's interesting is that the cries of separation of church and state are being heard. Even with a chapel, SWBTS is not a church in my view. But my point is this, there are these cries, yet some were willing to promote Mitt Romney as President. We mix politics(secular) with the Convention every year. Look at the speakers: President Bush and the years before that. We can't have it both ways when it suits us.

Bart Barber said...

I see a rousing discussion ongoing. I can't comment at length. I'm at the VA home in Bonham, TX, visiting the old soldiers. MAN, the stories I've heard today!

I will opine briefly:

1. Matt's "dual responsibility" theory is laughable. There's a reason that lawsuits have complaintants and respondents: One and only one party is responsible for bringing the suit. The other is responding.

2. If every other avenue has been exhausted, then why have we heard not a single word about this at the SBC annual meeting?

3. As Dave noted above, someone is clearly lying now. Ben Cole recently quoted as contrarian a figure as Joel Gregory saying that he could count on Dr. Patterson to tell the truth, just not always the whole truth. Gregory is no friend of Patterson, and means his statement as an insult. Nevertheless, even Gregory is saying that Dr. Patterson is not someone given to baldfaced lies to somebody's face. If Patterson and Blaising did not offer Klouda a position in the library, then they are not merely omitting part of the truth (as the master of which-side-will-hire-me-today has asserted), they are fabricating a lie. I trust that these gentlemen are not lying. Bring us two or three witnesses with credible evidence, and I'm willing to rebuke them in the presence of all if they have been lying to us (1 Tim 5:19-20).

4. I wasn't aware of the story regarding Dr. Patterson's departure from Criswell (and still do not consider blog forum gossip to have made me reliably aware of anything). Can you tell me when and in which court Dr. Patterson filed suit against Criswell? And if he did not do so, then I am proud to see that he has served as an example of how a Christian behaves in situations of career disappointment.

Now, I'll learn a little more about real soldiers who fought real battles with real honor.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Dave Miller,

I am looking and will get it to you once I can find it through all of my searches. However, in the meantime, Sister Debbie has confirmed what I have said. If the EEOC had not passed on it this would be a criminal case. They passed and thus it was taken up as a civil case.

One other thing. Remember that this issue was given to ATS and SACS and we have not heard anything back from them? Wonder why? Probably because they looked into it and have determined that there was no violation either.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim Guthrie said...

Tim R,
Great point about the ruling by EEOC. I had forgotten about that one.

Debbie,
The fact that this is occuring and the consequences that loom should the judge continue with the case should concern every Pastor and every College and Seminary. The speakers at meetings and conventions has nothing to with a court determining what a college or seminary can believe and practice. A person supporting a political candadate has nothing to do with this either. Debbie, this is serious stuff that goes way beyond the issue of he said she said.

Anonymous said...

Bart,

Didn't we discuss in the beginning that Dr. Klouda had been guaranteed another year of compensation though she was not assigned classes? She quit before that academic year began and never gave SWBTS an opportunity to offer more time to find a job. Because of that simple fact, I never understood the "outrage" over the compensation issue. She quit and isn't owed any settlement whatsoever. I suspect that we will discover that she never asked for anything until others learned her story and encouraged her to. This has never really been about Dr Klouda's compensation. It is about whether Dr. Patterson is justified in exercising his prerogative to employ only "Pastorally qualified men" in the theology department.

Tim B

Bart Barber said...

OK, I'm all the way back now.

Tim B, You're right on the money.

We're preparing to be in the grip of a winter storm here in the DFW area, so I may be in and out this afternoon.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Dave Miller,

Here are some other things that should have been done if Dr. Klouda truly felt she was discriminated against and that her contract was violated. I have received this information from just searching legal blogs.

Make a verbal complaint to your superiors. It does not seem there has been any verbal complaint filed by her. Also, have you noticed a time line here? It was in Oct, 2006 that we had the leak about the moving of $90 Mil in funds and in March, 2007 one of the top civil Lawyers in the country takes up a lawsuit against SWBTS. Is it me, or is that just a huge coincident?

Memorialize the conversation. That means, within a week, follow up with a written letter that recounts the conversation. No documents have been presented that this was done. It seems that Dr. Klouda was heading out of SWBTS on her own decision as they informed her in 2004 that she was not going to continue teaching in the Theology Department.

Keep a diary. Keep a written account of events. Make sure you date the events. Also, realize that everything you write will be read by your employer some day, should you end up in court. The process called “discovery” will require your attorney to turn over that diary. If this diary is not presented in discovery a question should be raised. Where are her lawyers getting their evidence--from her memory? It seems that SWBTS has documented proof about what Dr. Patterson and Dr. Blaising have affirmed under penalty of perjury. Now, we have one desiring to question post dating of documents? How preposterous! Where would one get an idea that something like that could be done? Unless the one suggesting it.... Naw, I would hope not.

Blessings,
Tim

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Tim,

I think you have made good and valid points,….which still leads me to believe that this issue can be dealt with separate from the government making the decision.

From what you have said, Patterson is consistent. I really believe he is convinced he understands a woman’s role in the church, and I for one do not think he has been ambiguous to bring about his understanding the best way he knows how. IMHO, Patterson’s reaction to Klouda’s teaching is not scripturally supported. Again, IMHO, his understanding of the difference in the roles of men and women appear to be more based upon conviction than based upon the context of the scriptures related to this subject in the letters to Timothy and the Corinthians compared to the work of the church in Acts. The context of Paul’s letters argue for submission and the definition of authority in the church in the context of abuse,….where men are placed in the God given roles of servant-leadership. Acts demonstrates woman by name and action, precisely Priscilla (with Aquila) as being able to teach and instruct for the unity of the church. Either Paul, changed his mind about women by the time he wrote the Corinthian letter, or he had a reason for writing what he wrote without affecting the work of Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos.

But nevertheless, the results of Patterson’s decisions are what they are…..and again, he is convinced he is right. That I cannot dispute. Klouda is not off the hook here by any means. The problem is this though; it is becoming very apparent that someone is lying or at a minimum grossly misunderstood. If the pastor of the “church” or “organization” can’t bring this to a biblical solution without the aid of the government, then there are probably larger issues looming.

It seems from the depositions that I have read,…that Patterson is in some sense depending upon the separation of church and state to validate his understanding of scripture. I guess we will see the wisdom surface, but it seems to be an unnecessary risk to depend upon the government to set the direction. It’s amazing that attorneys are talking to attorneys but it appears Matthew 18 is a foregone pastime. Maybe this problem is too big for the church and nobody wants to get their hands dirty.

Blessings,
Chris

GUNNY said...

Bart, that is some yucky weather out there, is it not?!

Tim Rogers ... "Bunny?!"

This may be T.M.I., but I call my wife, "Bunny." Or perhaps Bunnery Sergeant.

If you'll give me 20 push ups, Marine push ups that is, we can all be friends again.

Debbie Kaufman wrote:
"We mix politics(secular) with the Convention every year."

That's a good point. Different folks would like to mix those two in various and sundry ways.

Whenever those two ingredients start to get mixed I get as nervous as an Armadillo hitchhiking along Highway 6.

Dave Miller said...

Bart,

As an Iowan, I am required to laugh at you and belittle your "winter storm." It is in our contract.

Bart Barber said...

Dave,

In Iowa, when you run off the road, how do you know? I mean, you know, except for during corn season.

Dave Miller said...

I'd be hurt if I hadn't started it.

Here's a question, Bart. I see you are an adjunct professor, so maybe you will have the knowledge.

Tim talked up above about how to file discrimination grievances, etc, and it started me wondering.

Is a professor an employee of the seminary, or an independent contractor, or under some kind of special contract situation.

If a simple employee, she could have gone through EEOC channels. But if her relationship with the seminary is contractual, does that change her status?

Anonymous said...

Caelan DOES NOT have cancer!!!

PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!

Bart Barber said...

Dave,

Dr. Klouda was not an adjunct like me. She was a member of the faculty. As such, she was an employee of the seminary.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Chris,

You know, you and I have agreed on many items and I do find it difficult when we are in disagreement. I do want to agree with you, but I simply cannot agree with your take on Aquila and Priscilla. While Paul certainly commends this couple to the churches and even the church at Rome, I am not able to make the leap that it was Priscilla teaching Apollos. Your argument is one from silence. If it was just Priscilla doing the teaching, then why would Paul include Aquila's name in his recommendation to the church at Rome? If it was only Priscilla that taught Apollos why did Luke include Aquila?

What am I saying. I am saying that you have two different authors and neither refer to Priscilla as the primary teacher. They are always referenced together. It seems to me for it to be referenced that Priscilla was the primary teacher, it would be an argument from silence.

Blessings,
Tim

Ron P. said...

Dave,

Regarding your comments to me: Where is your condemnation for those articulating incessant attacks upon the integrity and character of so many in our convention? I commend you that you actually do condemn the actions of Ben Cole, but what of Wade and the others? Though none have been as egregious as Ben, several have been most vicious in their smearing of so many who are in leadership and ministry within the SBC - with Wade leading the pack! I have only been reading the blogs for about a year or so. Others have put up with the vociferous attacks for much longer. That is why I speak out and will not let such specious behavior go unchecked.

As I have with Wade, I will call you on being hypocritical in this instance. Without any evidence or proof, Wade in this comment stream has insinuated Drs. Patterson and Blaising of providing false testimony and that they would fabricate documents. That's a very serious insinuation. Where is your condemnation of such personal attacks? He attacks Peter Lumpkins here - where is your condemnation?

This is one of the serious inconsistencies of the reform movement that I have observed this past year or so. There are several "reformers" who attack and denigrate Trustees, entity heads, entity employees, professors, wives, dogs, or anyone who even remotely agrees with Dr. Patterson. If anyone dares criticize such behavior, challenges their reasoning, we then get blasted for not engaging in only the issues. There is now one who is altering comments made on another blog and attributing said alterations to the person who originally made the comment. Yet, the one's to whom this has been done to, have been dismissed as not having proof and asked what does it gain to bring it up. Again, no one can criticize any of the "irenic ones" without being attacked. Yet when the attacks come from the "irenic ones", the silence is deafening. Where is the consistency?

Ron P.

Dave Miller said...

Ron, you obviously don't know me and haven't followed my comments. Ben Cole has taken to deleting my comments because I have relentlessly criticized him.

I have grown disgusted with the level of discourse in our denomination. I cannot see how we can ask God to bless us when we talk to each other the way we do.

I have seen your argument over and over again, and I find it petty. Ben Cole's sinful speech does not justify anyone else's.

We have to rise above it.

Ron P. said...

Dave,

That is the problem! You only see it in Ben Cole, and IGNORE Wade's and others who agree with him. But you criticize me and others for condemning such from them. Again, why have you not condemned Wade for his comments in this stream?

Ron P.

Dave Miller said...

By the way, I don't know where I fit any more.

I can no longer call myself part of any reform movement, after the way many of the leaders of that movement embraced the NBCC. Neither can I join those who want to be unqualified cheerleaders for Dr. Patterson and others. I think there are problems that need to be addressed.

But I have come to believe that the biggest problem we have is a startling lack of love and grace in our conversations ON ALL SIDES. I have had to apologize for things I have said. But I am flabbergasted at what I have read on Baptist blogs.

(NOTE: none of this criticism is directed at this blog or its writer - he is, in my estimation, an example of how we should converse.)

Until we demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit in our conversation, we cannot ask God to bless either side.

And we have to stop the "well, the other side does it, too."

Dave Miller said...

Ron, in my opinion, in this comment stream, Wade and Bart had a fairly reasonable dialogue going, until you and especially Peter jumped in with the sarcasm and derogation.

You are angry at Wade. Fine, sometimes he annoys me, too. I probably annoy him, sometimes (hard for me to believe - I am such a nice guy).

But man's anger does not accomplish the purposes of God. Your angry screeds will not accomplish those purposes either.

Every person claims, "I am courageously standing up for principle against those who would attack."

It is amazing to me how often "standing up for principle" looks like petty bickering and name-calling.

Ideas, not insults. Conversation, not condemnation. The spirit of grace not the spirit of anger.

Bart Barber said...

Dave,

I have high hopes for our convention. The high frenzy of attack over at SBC Outpost comes alongside the death of a movement (I think an ill-advised one) to change the course plotted for the SBC by the messengers over the past thirty years. Its last gasps will be the most pungent.

Here's the thing: I am a reformer. I've proposed a number of ways that I think the SBC ought to be reformed. If you're unaware of these, I'll be glad to direct you to the posts in question. They just line up not-at-all with the abandonment Baptist identity in favor of lowest-common-denominator "networks."

Lawsuits, attacks of personal defamation, arrogant and accusatory declarations, and the like—these are the vehicles that some people believe engender reform. I believe that these things have halted any helpful conversation. They only rally people to battle.

Bart Barber said...

Dave,

Re-reading my last comment, it is not complete until I add this.

I'd prefer the invitation to conversation rather than the rally cry to battle. But I will earnestly contend for the faith. And I will do so trying, even if often failing, to live up to 1 Corinthians 16:10-14. There Paul commanded the Corinthian believers to see to it that no one despised Timothy upon his coming, to make sure that he had no cause to be afraid, and to send him on his way in peace. Doing so, they were to act like men and be strong. Yet, they were to do all that they did in love.

Sometimes I fail to rise up and act like a man in preventing someone from despising a brother. Other times I fail to do what I do in love. Sometimes, I hope, I accomplish both at the same time. It is hard work, and it is all—every bit of it—needed work at this time.

Anonymous said...

Ron P,

Please Provide Proof of one Comment Altered By Ben Cole. Ben Cole posted a Sample Comment for the Whiner Volfan007 (David Worley),



Benjamin Cole Says:
March 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am Worley:

I will try to make it easier for you to separate where the Outpost contributors “divide on things.”

Henceforth, I will delete all comments that you make on posts that I write. That way, if your comments stay for any length of time, you can be reasonably sure that it isn’t my post.

Either that, or I will edit your comments to contain the dialog excerpts from the movies “Ernest Goes to Jail” or “Blazing Saddles.”

Hope that helps.

BSC

******SAMPLE*******
volfan007 Says:
March 5th, 2008 at 11:19 am
ben,

Here I stand, the goddess of desire. Set men on fire. I have this power. Morning, noon, and night, it’s dwink and dancing. Some quick womancing. And then a shower. Stage door Johnnies constantly suwwound me. They always hound me, with one wequest. Who can satisfy their lustful habits? I’m not a wabbit.

(From Blazing Saddles, Lili Von Shtupp)

david

Dave Miller said...

I would love to see those posts.

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Tim,

I don’t think I am disagreeing with you at all. It wasn't just, it was both.

Now, some theologians try and argue that since Priska was named first that brings some importance,….others argue that it doesn’t matter. With that I am in agreement. It makes little difference to the context of Luke’s writing in Acts. He does tell us something important for the understanding of the church and unity that Paul discusses in Romans 16 and Ephesians 5 …which rests in the force of the word “they” (proslambano) – which is not ambiguous…and is not silent, and is connected to “explained” (ektithemi) which “they” did, and the results was a powerfully clear (eutonos), well articulated demonstration (ekideiknumi) of the Word of God (graphe), Hebrew writ. There are some that try to say this is silent to the ear,… but I think that to ignore the sound as “they” is reaching. God has given us both workers in the context of “they” which is connected to the effort/work of explaining. What I find interesting is that we have no other choice but to agree with Luke and the onlooker Paul evidencing that Priska was submitting to the will of God, having just traveled with Paul…clearly submitting to her husband’s full authority and God used her to teach. There is little silence in that picture and in fact it does mean that she submitted to her husband.

There is a reach to connect that scene as contextually similar as Corinth and the letter to Timothy. Paul was instructing those groups regarding abuse, and how to get to submission. He was bringing order back to those playing out of bounds. Priscilla is never seen as being corrected as in the context of Corinthians or Timothy’s assignment to the aberrant in Ephesus. She is seen submitting, teaching, and all within the order and authority of the Apostles and the church. She is always seen as the solution, and not once referenced as silent, but quite the opposite according to Luke. And Paul commends her and others for their work as he signs his Roman letter.

From where I’m from…we call that a “good thing”.

Blessings,
Chris

Anonymous said...

Dave Miller,

http://sbcoutpost.com/2008/03/04/the-affidavit-of-defendant-paige-patterson/#comments

Ron P. said...

Dave,

I'm not saying "the other side does it" to justify what I write. I am rebuking those that engage in spiteful, hateful words towards those in leadership positions within the SBC and will continue to do so. You however, only rebuke those who are not in the so called "reform" movement (except for Ben - and for that you are courageous, because you are one of the very few).

Again, my point is that you criticize those of us who stand up and defend the SBC and her historic Baptist identity and it's leaders from those hurling insults (as I have pointed out Wade's slanderous insinuations towards Drs. Patterson and Blaising). But you say nothing to him nor the one's making the insults (except Ben). I am not making specious arguments. I am standing up and admonishing those that without merit make acerbic attacks upon Godly men to advance their agenda. For that, I will stand up and call them down for it.

Ron P.

peter lumpkins said...

Wade,

Again, Wade, you side-step the concern I raised based upon your clear indictment of conspiracy at SWBTS. These are your words:

"...it would seem to some that authorities at SWBTS would have every reason to cover the institution's proverbial backside...if there is any 'documentation'... [we need] to track down the author...and ask...When did you type the document that contained the offer to Dr. Klouda and was it post dated? Or, If the date on the document is correct, do you know for a fact it was ever presented to Dr. Klouda?"

With no evidence whatsoever, you criminally indict SWBTS's Executive leadership and support staff in what would be, if true, a dispicable, wicked cover-up.

Even more, you then possess the unconscionable strength to suggest, toward a fair inquiry for any evidence of such a conspiracy, "...if I have a choice of giving...'requested' information...or protecting the integrity of Dr. Klouda's legal representation in court, I will always choose to protect the latter."

Then, how is it, Wade, if you are concerned about "protecting integrity" of Dr. Klouda, you hold no similar concern in "protecting integrity" of a Southern Baptist institution, not to mention Executive leaders and even support staff whom you simply, like a rabbit, draw out of a hat? Instead, you slander them with vague, baseless innuendos about a criminal cover-up in obstructing justice.

But wait. You are not through yet. You top it off by pretending as though it's entirely unreasonable for someone to ask of you evidence for your conspiratorial accusations against a host of Southern Baptists and their historic institution by attempting to either side-step the question, make it seem as though the Dr. Klouda's case will be compromised if you do talk about it--a pretty doggone convienient strategy, I'd say--or becoming comical with little ditties about grape juice.

I speak only for myself: I do not think God is laughing, Mr. Burleson. Not when baseless, slanderous accusations are made with an obvious, self-perceived impunity from moral accountibility.

I hope, under God, somewhere this side of Heaven, this heartless, Christless bleeding out of others' integrity just to promote one's own point of view--or "their side" of an issue--will vanish from the Church of God.

Until that takes place, there are some who will continue to hold those, including you, Mr. Burleson, fully and morally accountible for baseless, hurtful accusations such as you've made on this thread about Southern Baptists and Southern Baptist institutions--and that, not only absent evidence, but insisting evidence is not necessary for your criminal allegations you openly make. Such an ethical position is morally indefensible.

With that, I am...

Peter

Dave Miller said...

Ron, you seem convinced that your attitude and comments are godly. I am not convinced of that. Fortunately, you answer to one other than me.

Here's the question each of us should ask himself. Galatians 5:22 says, "The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." These are the attitudes produced by the Spirit that should govern our actions.

Galatians 5:19-21 define the works of the flesh: "enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy..." These are the attitudes and actions worked by sin.

Which list best describes the tone of this debate?

There are a few bright spots out there: Bart, David Rogers, a guy named "Rev.", SelahV, etc. They exhibit the fruit of the Spirit as they state their case.

Many do not.

My job is to make sure I do - in every word I write. I when I don't - to make it right.

Bart Barber said...

Dave,

With regard to me, you overstate the case.


Wade,

Peter's point is well-taken. It seems that, if you will accuse godly people of criminal conspiracy to lie (because in this context you're accusing them not only of lying but also of conspiring to commit perjury), anyone would be well within his rights to expect some offer of proof on your part.

Ron P. said...

Dave,

You have now seen fit to correct me several times, yet not one word of correction towards Wade and his slanderous insinuations towards Drs. Patterson, Blaising, and attacks of Dr. Lumpkin? Why?

Please understand, I would much rather give a gentle answer. But there is a time and place when we need to be like John the Baptist and Jesus and confront sin.

Ron P.

Bart Barber said...

Dave,

Here's one.

Bart Barber said...

Dave,

But none would be more important than this one.

selahV said...

Dave, since 2006 I've been reading blogs. Still haven't got all these things sorted out that folks are debating. When I first came on the scene, I came by way of Peter Lumpkins. He is a very very close friend of mine. Now, understand something. I did NOT understand any of these discussions. I'd never even read a blog before, much less commented on one. I was extremely intimidated by those within the blog-world. Some of the villages I entered did not have friendly natives. Now, since Peter started me off on my blog adventures because he felt sorry for me (I was in deep depression due to the loss of my 33-year-old son), he also listed me in his blogroll so I could get some folks to comment on my site. He (being a very discerning person) knew I needed friends I could write to other than him. He's the only person I knew in blogland. Lord knows that my writing would not be the firefly in the dark. So I deeply appreciated his link. And I linked him. He was my only link for a very long time.

Because I was connected to Peter by linkage, folks considered his thoughts my thoughts and my thoughts his. While Peter and I have held many of the same views, I would never be able to hold a candle to his depth of understanding in the realms of doctrine, theology or semantics. Neither will I ever possess his skills in apologetics or debate. Nor would I want them. I don't like to debate.

I'm kinda like you, Dave. I am a peacemaker. Blessed are we for we shall see God. The amazing thing in that verse is that we do see God. And we see Him in the very people with whom we may disagree. Not all people have mercy as their spiritual gift, but many do. I believe you, dear Dave, have the gift of mercy as I.

The problem with mercy is that we tend to allow more latitude and rope where we, at times, should be pulling it in. I agree that many of the conversations here in blogland have been quite meanspirited at times. I have tried to stay out of the mix. I have voiced my opinion on multiple blogs that we shouldn't give in to our baser nature. Indeed, I've written many a post regarding controlling the fingertips from which all blackness flows from our hearts.

I wish I could be as good, kind and peaceable as you have so kindly and graciously awarded me title. I pray my words honor my Lord. I am not given to a great deal of sarcasm, but boy oh boy do I have to do a LOT of deleting before I hit the publish button sometimes.

These are very tough issues. There has been a lot of innuendo, talebearing and stretching of the truth. There has been a great deal of speculation and suppositions which have led many folks to come to conclusions regarding the Truth of the matters before us.

Patience has been tried. Sorely tried. I agree with you that we could do with less venom. But we must admonish as we see brothers or sisters in err.

It's been fun getting to know the personalities of folks on the blogosphere. I've been doing a great deal of study the last few weeks. I've been trying to discern the gifts of each of our blogging community. It's been a great deal of fun and truly been a blessing to see.

I admire men like Bart also. Would that you could have read Brad Reynolds of SEBTS. Most of the bloggers are new to this kind of communicating. We are all learning a great deal from it. I think we will be pioneers for our young seminarians someday. I pray we help all see the blessing in sharing ideas and rightly dividing the truth. You do realize it is truth we divide. We each share our truth as we know it and understand it. And as we do, we are blessed by one another when we receive it.

May God continue to show you the truth as He reveals to you the folks who seek it also. selahv

Dave Miller said...

Bart, good stuff. I agree with all of it.

SelahV, actually, you don't know me very well. I am NOT a particularly merciful person. I have a tendency toward the poison pen and the harsh rhetoric.

That's why I think this hits me. I realize how easy it is to start writing from the works of the flesh instead of exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit.

I am sort of on a crusade, not because I have a naturally merciful heart, but because I have a naturally nasty spirit which I realize needs to be resisted.

selahV said...

Dave, I'm sorry to hear about your heart condition. :) We all have that diagnosis when we allow the Lord to search us and show us if there be any wicked way in us. selahV

Bob Cleveland said...

I'm not much of a Soap Opera fan, but I think I'd tune in for "As The Seminary Turns".

Come to think of it, it wouldn't fly. The difference between fact and fiction is that FICTION has to be believable. This whole mess isn't.

Wade Burleson said...

Bart and Peter,

Both of you seem to miss the point I am making. If you have one sworn statement that 'another' permanent job at SWBTS - besides teaching Hebrew - was offered to Dr. Klouda, and a sworn statement from Dr. Klouda that there was no 'permanent' job offer given to her, then the burden of proof resides not upon the person who denies the job offer was made - BUT THOSE WHO ALLEGEDLY OFFERED IT.

Where is the documentation? Of all the emails, letters, etc . . . that have been filed with the court by SWBTS, there is not one filing that gives evidence that a permanent offer was made to Dr. Klouda.

I have not stated anybody at SWBTS has altered any document. I have simply asked where is it? If it were to suddenly appear, then questions would have to be asked regarding when it was written, who presented it to Dr. Klouda, etc . . . But I said IF documentation exists THEN those questions would need to be asked.

Both you men need to understand the difference between an 'allegation' and a hypothetical. I never alleged anyone falsified documents because, again, I don't know IF documents even exist. I said until 'evidence' is provided that a job offer was made, then the burden of PROOF is on you that Klouda refused to take it.

So, let me take your tactic in this stream - without calling it godless or immoral - and ask you the question you seem to deem so important:

Bart and Peter - "WHERE IS YOUR DOCUMENTATION THAT KLOUDA REFUSED TO TAKE A POSITION AT SWBTS?"

If you say an affadavit or sworn statement, then I can assure you that the affadavit and sworn statement of Dr. Klouda will say something different. Neither is proof of truth.

There is a saying in law, nursing and other important professions:

"If it is not documented, it is not done."

I'm asking you both to provide the documentation that asserts Klouda refused to take another permanent position when the person in question says that the offer never occurred. Prove it Peter. Prove it Bart.

Until you do, both of you ought to stop casting dispersions on the character of Dr. Klouda.

That is my gentle correction for the both of you.

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

One final word Bart:

You write:

You're accusing them (SWBTS) not only of lying but also of conspiring to commit perjury, anyone would be well within his rights to expect some offer of proof on your part.

I am simply saying someone is not telling the truth - as are you. Klouda's and SWBTS's versions of 'job offers' vary.

Your statement could be turned and asked of you.

You are accusing Dr. Klouda of lying. Prove it.

Do you see how absurd that is?

The burden of proof is on the person who states an action occurred. You can't prove a negative - and Klouda says it didn't occur. The burden of proof is on you and Peter.

Again.

I await your 'proof.'

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

The difference is that Dr. Klouda had not commented on the situation when I wrote my post. I did not accuse her of lying.

Now, of course, someone must be.

Bart Barber said...

In sorting it all out, I suppose it counts as some sort of evidence to know that:

1. Dr. Klouda had remained on the payroll for a full two years after learning that she would not be recommended for tenure.

2. Dr. Klouda was not, by anyone's account, ever at any time unemployed. She went directly from SWBTS to Taylor, right?

These undisputed facts seem inconsistent with the characterization of a seminary administration eager to run the woman out of town on a rail. Rather, these undisputed facts line straight up with the description of events that appears the affidavits of Drs. Patterson and Blaising.

Bart Barber said...

Well, it's after 11:00 pm. I'm to tired even to get my prepositions in the right place, and you're too tired to have me casting aspersions as I should be (rather than "dispersions").

Somehow, your attempt to accuse two men of a crime, wash your hands of the action, and then pretend that I'm off my rocker to suggest that you ought to be prepared to substantiate your charge has not surprised me enough to keep me from sleep.

Bro. Robin said...

Bart

Now, I have waited to be #100. We're even. :-D

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

Similarly, Klouda states had the 'offer' actually been made, she would have jumped at it -jumped with a capital J - to accept it because of her husband's medical condition (his specialist was in the metroplex), her daughter's schooling (she loved her school), and the situation with the Klouda's house (they had just bought it).

These facts ring consistent with her situation.

Ultimately, neither you or I will decide the truth.

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

You are beginning to sound like Peter (i.e. "your attempt to accuse two men of a crime, wash your hands of the action, and then pretend that I'm off my rocker doesn't surprise me") You do seem tired.

Allow me to offer you some extra-biblical advice. Take a little grape juice for the stomach and get a good night's rest. :)

And, remember this - the issue at SWBTS is not about running someone out on a rail - as you suggest. It is simply whether or not a narrow view of women drove an administration to breach contract by not offering a qualified, compentent professor the tenure track process due her position. A denial based upon her gender. The issue is not about women pastors, women SBC leaders, the BFM, liberalism vs. conservatism, etc . . . .

It is about a narrow ideology that exceeds the BFM 2000 (a woman should not teach a man) that drove the administration of SWBTS to breach a contract.

I trust that you will sleep well.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Dave Miller,

You asked about the EEOC and I could not find the exact document that I was looking. However, I knew that if I waited long enough the Legal System would kick in and sure enough it has. You see, when Lawyers do not have a case they do one of two things and usually they do both. They will question every action and ask for proof of that action. One example you find in this comment thread where our Brother Wade is asking for proof that Dr. Blaising actually wrote a letter, then asks for proof that the date on the letter was in fact the date that he wrote it, and then questions if Dr. Blaising knew that the letter made it to Dr. Klouda. On top of all of that questioning they snow under everyone with documents. Well over on Outpost you have an example of this tactic. In doing this, I have been able to find my evidence of the EEOC rejecting Dr. Klouda's claim of discrimination.

If you care to venture over you can find it in their latest post Klouda Responds to Patterson If you will look at the Part 2 of Klouda's Brief in Support of MSJ, you will find that they are saying the defense of EEOC dropping the case should have no bearing on this civil case.

Blessings,
Tim

Anonymous said...

Peter,

I have noticed at least a couple times now Wade has referred to grape juice, in what seems to be an attempt at humor. Rather than finding it humorous, I find it arrogant. He is teasing you merely because your solid, Biblically-based convictions regarding alcohol don’t happen to match up with his own.

Failing to respect brothers and sisters in Christ will guarantee that these conversations get absolutely nowhere.

Katie

Tim Rogers said...

Sister Katie,

What you have seen, is what we have grown to expect. :>(

Blessings,
Tim

Wade Burleson said...

Katie,

You are correct. I do intend for my two comments to be humorous. Informing me you find them both arrogant is supposed to do what? Feel free to address me in the first person. Speaking to me in the third person via someone else seems odd to me. Unlike some, I'm more than happy that you feel free to share your views with men - even if they border on instruction. Frankly, you write like someone else I know in the blogosphere. Why don't you tell us where you live and serve the Lord? We all may be surprised. Say, Georgia? Yes?

Blessings,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Tim Rogers,

I think you should grow to expect to be able to defend your views instead of assuming people should accept them because you (or others) said them.

To all. The point that needed to be made has been made. The stream is exhausted as to original content.

Thanks Bart, for the healthy discussion. I think it is evident that nobody knows the truth - YET.

But a court will soon decide.

In His Grace,

Wade

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

Views such as; "when was the date placed on the paper" are not what needs to be defended. You have created a question that is on the same level as one such as; "have you stopped beating your wife?" The problem persists in the answer to your question. You ask for proof. What in the world would you classify as proof that this document was altered in any way. You have alleged that Dr. Blaising, a man whose character is without question, has altered documents and then lied about presenting the documents. That is what you have alleged, just by asking for proof.

This type of double speak from you is exactly what I said we have grown accustomed to. Yes it is sad. :<(

Blessings,
Tim

matt said...

Bart,

I guess when you can't refute a position you just call it "laughable."

When Dr. Patterson knew that Dr. Klouda was upset about her employment situation, are there actions he could have taken that would have resulted in no lawsuit being filed? Clearly, yes. Any claim to the contrary is laughable.

Is Dr. Patterson's failure to take these actions a cause-in-fact of the lawsuit's existence? Yes, and any claim to the contrary is laughable.

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

With my best, personal George Bush, Sr. imitation:

Read my lips.

There is no document


I don't know how to make it any clearer. IF, one appears, let me say it again, IF one appears . . . for the third time, IF one appears . . . the questions I proposed should be asked.

However, for the forth time, a document has not appeared, therefore, there there is no proof that, as Bart suggests, Klouda turned down a job offer to stay at SWBTS. There is no reason to ask the questions that seem to have turned over the apple cart within you, Bart and Peter Lumpkin.

By the way, one little additional feather for your thinking cap. IF there were a document that existed that gave proof that Sheri Klouda were offered ANOTHER job in the library at SWBTS, do you not believe SHE would have it, and then know, that if she lies under oath - THE DOCUMENT WILL BE PRODUCED TO IMPEACH HER TESTIMONY?

What baffles me is why we are even having this silly discussion. She was not offered another job - period. BUT EVEN IF SHE WERE, it is a sad testimony when a femal Hebrew professor, trained in Hebrew, excelling in teaching men Hebrew, and devoted to instruction in Hebrew, is left pointing those same men to the books SHE WROTE about Herew in the library - all because she is a woman.

I, sometimes, do not understand the world in which we live.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

To the contrary, while I do not mind at all you toning down your insinuation that SWBTS conspires perjury, to attempt to now soften it, Mr. Burleson, by suggesting the burden of proof is somehow on Bart and I to produce documents about an offer to Dr. Klouda, must constitute one of the weirdest things I've read lately.

Wade, I have not once mentioned offers--positive or negative--to Dr. Klouda on this thread. If I have, produce the statements.

Rather my point was singular, which you have now evaded an answer this entire thread and keep evading by switching subjects. These are your words:

"I can assure you that Klouda tells a gripping and compelling story that will cause anyone who hears it to not question for a moment her veracity"

Immediately, you assume Dr. Klouda as telling the truth. Period. "On the other hand" SWBTS does not get the same presumption of innocence until proven guilty:

"...it would seem to some that authorities at SWBTS would have every reason to cover the institution's proverbial backside by alleging she was 'offered' another position."

Underlining your skepticism, 'offer' 'offered' and 'documentation' is in quotation marks. Why, Wade? Well it seems it's obvious since those things cannot exist in the world of an innocent Dr. Klouda as you've already presumed.

Yet you do not stop. You continue with the "who" they could find at SWBTS who'd swear about the 'offer'. Then, if this 'documentation' is there, a quest for the "author (or typist)" to produce the authenticity of it. The bleakest, most depraved assumptions lie behind everything about SWBTS.

Instead of self-perceiving such a glaring presumption of guilt on SWBTS and such an angelic like innocence for Dr. Klouda since her story is so airtight it "cause[s] anyone who hears it to not question for a moment her veracity" you shoot spitwads at Bart & I hoping we'll hurriedly run off, tails firmly tucked, because it's up to us to produce documentation we've not claimed we had.

Nor, Mr. Burleson, have I ever accused Dr. Klouda of lying. If I have done so, produce the material and I will retract. If you can't why do you say I have?

Instead, you have repeatedly assumed the Klouda good-gal-SWBT-bad-guy approach to this entire dialog, the former "no one" could believe not verifiable while to believe SWBTS, "cover[s] the institution's proverbial backside by alleging she was 'offered' another position" is surely the most reasonable position to take.

Your developed art of getting by with switching subjects when caught with your skirt up, Mr. Burleson, is beginning to show signs of massive deterioration. It just does not work as well as it use to.

I'll ask again: where is the evidence that there exists an attempt to conspire to obstruct justice present at SWBTS? If you have no evidence, you are a Biblical slanderer, whipping up discord among God's people.

With that, I am...

Peter

Wade Burleson said...

Peter,

You are funny. Seriously, I sometimes laugh when I read your comments. I learned a long time ago that shamers have a hard time listening, and it seems you prove some have a hard time reading.

There is no need for me to tone down anything I've written. You have agreed with the title of this post and have declared - Klouda refused to take position at SWBTS

When I said that, according to Klouda's sworn testimony, that it did NOT happen, you accuse me of having no evidence, and being a Biblical slanderer, whipping up discord among God's people, etc . . . and then proclaim it your job to hold me accountable.

Again, you make me laugh. You have accused Dr. Klouda of lying and now you say it is my job to prove she's not. You can't prove a negative. She said no offer occurred. You can't PROVE that. You, and others who have said she is lying, must prove that an offer did occur.

Mr. Lumpkin, prove it.

You can't. There has been no evidence presented by SWBTS. Of all the emails, all the letters, all the documents filed at the courthouse, there is not ONE letter showing a permanent job offer at the same salary for working in the library. KLOUDA WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT. She would also HAVE THE LETTER OR EMAIL that contained the offer. She would know her testimony could be impeached by SWBTS administration PRESENTING the document that contains the offer.

Mr. Lumpkin, where is it? Again, Mr. Lumpkin, where is it? Mr. Lumpkin, where is it. (It sounds like I'm creating a Peter, Paul and Mary song)

It seems the document or proof doesn't exist. If it suddenly APPEARS, then we need to ask the questions I have proposed should be asked - but there is NO NEED to ask them because THERE IS NO DOCUMENT.

Now, Mr. Lumpkin, I will gently turn the table on you without the shame.

Would you please offer proof that SWBTS offered to Dr. Klouda a permanent position on their staff or faculty, at the same salary, in a different position than teaching Hebrew in the school of theology?

It's that simple.

The burden of proof is on you.

Have a great day, and don't get too emotionally bent out of shape. It's not good for your health.

Blessings,

Wade

Anonymous said...

Mr. Burleson,

I do not live or serve the Lord in Georgia. I chose to voice my opinion about your hapless attempts at humor for the same reason anyone else voices an opinion here. I am quite confident that you could care less about my opinion; that’s why I was writing to Peter.

Katie

Wade Burleson said...

Katie,

On the contrary, please email me with your contact information and your thoughts on any issue, and I promise, I will take your words both thoughtfully and seriously. A generic 'Katie' with no way to verify idenity because there is no link to your name causes what you say to be suspect.

Blessings,

Wade

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

You said; "When I said that, according to Klouda's sworn testimony, that it did NOT happen,". Where is that affidavit? It seems that your Minister of (whatever title someone has chosen for him this week to rescue him from a sinking ship)has openly given other affidavits, but strangely enough he has not released Dr. Klouda's. And you say that you want to be open and transparent.

Produce the affidavit that is from Dr. Klouda's deposition.

Blessings,
Tim

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

Ain't nothing strange about it. At the request of counsel, that particular deposition will be published at a later date. All 200 pages.

:)

Blessings,

Wade

Colin said...

Wade,

To clarify, was it the request of Klouda's counsel to SBCOutpost not to publish the deposition online, or is there a publishing procedure that takes place in the course of legal proceedings?

Anonymous said...

Funny how the ones who play games want to accuse others of playing games. I can remember when Trish was accused of not being who she said she was. Wonder why Wade doesn't accuse Matt of not being Matt? OH! Maybe it's because Matt (whoever he/she is) agrees with Wade.

Dave Miller said...

If I have understood the discussion on this blog between Wade and Peter, what it amounts to is this"

"I'm rubber and you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

I feel like I'm back in grade school, gentlemen.

Wade Burleson said...

Dave,

Grade school were some of the finest years of my life.

:)

I'm sorry yours may not have been so enjoyable.

Blessings,

wade

Wade Burleson said...

Colin,

Unless sealed, depositions are public domain when you pay for them.

Colin said...

Wade,

Thank you for the response. You gave enough of an answer to assume that Richardson requested Cole (or yourself) to hold off on publishing Klouda's affadavit on SBCOutpost. Is this correct?

If so, I want to understand why Klouda's attorney is involving himself in the timing of the release of the legal documents on the SBCOutpost. Any indication why he requested such?

Wade Burleson said...

Colin,

Nice try.

Timing of release of legal documents is solely at the discretion of either myself or Ben Cole. I will not speak for Ben, but I will happily speak to you about my motives for not releasing her deposition.

Dr. Klouda has been through enough pain. I am uninterested in people who do not know her reading about her personal life, medical problems and family issues as a result of her move to Indiana.

Those are not just words. We have helped pay for the medical bills, rent and food bills of the Kloudas for the past several months. I am uninterested with people unconcerned with her welfare reading answers to very private questions. Her counsel, Gary Richardson, would agree as well.

Dr. Klouda's best interest is my primary concern, not your desires to read a deposition that you could pay to read yourself.

Colin said...

Wade,

Though it once may have been, trapping a brother is not my game. I have asked straightforward questions expecting straightforward answers. I have no intention of prying into Dr. Klouda's private life. I have no intention of causing anyone pain, including anyone on either side of this unfortunate episode. And since it seems I am being dragged into the valley of ridicule and unconcerned desires, I will suggest that you and Ben Cole show equal concern in your collective "timing of release of legal documents" for our Christian brothers whose depositions and counsel's letters are publicly displayed in a manner largely (or partly, degree notwithstanding) to produce public ridicule by "people unconcerned with [their] welfare." It is our duty to desire and seek to achieve the best for all parties involved, to the glory of Christ and His church.

You specifically and directly said that the affadavit was being withheld from online publishing "at the request of counsel." Now it is based "solely at the discretion of either [you] or Ben Cole." The story changed; please do not insinuate sin in my desires. I was truly and sincerely curious as to the strategy of the "counsel" interjecting in the affairs of the Outpost.

Anonymous said...

If any one wants to know what she said, let them do the same work the Ben did. Go to the courthouse and get a copy of it. :)

Just a suggestion.

Wade,

Are you only concerned with the pain that part of our convention feels, are all? How do you decide what should be put in public domain or not?

It all seems pretty subjective to me.

Do you only love part of our convention?

I'm sure you love the whole convention Wade. I'm asking the question to prove a point. Nothing more. Love Dr. Patterson Wade, it might cause you and Ben a little less greif.

And, please, don't return with, Ben loves Dr. Patterson. He has shown, without a doubt, to many in the blogospher that he is bitter towards him.


dwmiii

Anonymous said...

That should read, or all in my question above.

Wade Burleson said...

dwmii,

I love Dr. Patterson. I don't know Dr. Patterson, but I love him, as much as I don't know you but still love you dwmii.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Wade