Here in Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood it seems that many have taken me to task on how I interpret the law. It appears that before long there is a Judge in Texas that will issue a decision in the Klouda vs. Southwestern case. I am not sure of the outcome, but if the judge is true to the law, I believe Southwestern and Dr. Patterson will receive a Summary Judgment. Why? It seems this case was all about the President of a seminary allowing the Bible to drive his beliefs. I mean, we still live in America where we do have a freedom of religion held constitutionally as a basic right of each individual. This case had nothing to do with contract law, but all to do with the theological convictions and the freedom to follow those convictions.
A couple of questions and then I will leave you until the summary is made public. Where are the papers, copied and place in .pdf format for all to see, of this decision? It seems that information in the past has been given before anyone else had it and made available on the internet. Why are those that made this available in the past not so quick to point out that this decision is coming. After all, one editor contributor at another collaborative blog has made it known that he has visited Judge McBryde’s office and even got to know some of his staff.
But, we will wait to see what the verdict is in this summary.
Tim,
This might explain the snippy and brusque attitude of a certain blogger towards you and others that I have observed within the past 24 hours.
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — March 20, 2008 @ 1;13 pm
tim and ron,
hummmmmmmm.
david
Comment by volfan007 — March 20, 2008 @ 1;21 pm
Tim,
If I may add… Let us join Enid in recognizing the righteous judgment of the court in this matter, as it was Enid that has clearly, repeatedly and unequivocally stated that whatever the judge rules, it should be accepted by all as the Sovereign will of God. Though, that is not my theology, it is Enid’s, and I hope that Enid practices what it preaches, and accepts this ruling as the Sovereign will of God.
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — March 20, 2008 @ 1;24 pm
Well…..anything to be right huh Tim? No matter who gets hurt in the process. Yes, I am snippy toward such an attitude.
Comment by Debbie Kaufman — March 20, 2008 @ 1;26 pm
Tim,
As I said yesterday; No matter what a judge or the judicial system says or does, (has now done) what happened to Dr. Sheri Klouda is still wrong.
It was, is and always will be wrong. We should all be ashamed. We should all weep, not necessarily for Dr. Klouda, for God will lift her up. We should weep for ourselves and for Dr. Patterson for what we have all become. We are astray and it seems many are proud of it.
cb
Comment by cb scott — March 20, 2008 @ 1;33 pm
Brother Tim,
I don’t think this is a surprise. The courts have historically never touched this type of stuff. These types of cases are simply a humiliation to the ones that are engaged in the fight. The judge was not able to bring “unity” to this no matter the decision. The court was simply protecting the precedent set forth in this country, which is a good one by the way when defended with the right motive.
I am still hopeful that Matthew 18 can begin with these two individuals who claim to be Christians. God will be glorified, and I am hopeful to see if Patterson and Klouda ever respond to that obedience.
What we have experienced so far is Religious Liberty at the expense of Gospel Unity.
Blessings,
Chris
Comment by Chris Johnson — March 20, 2008 @ 2;31 pm
CB,
I must take exception to your statement here and elsewhere that what was done was wrong and that we should be ashamed. I and many others hold the same view that Dr. Patterson does about women teaching men. This is not a new belief, it is a Biblical NT view that has been held for about two thousand years. Dr. Patterson has always been consistent in his views regarding this. No SBC seminary, that I am aware, before this, had hired a woman to be an OT Professor. Her title, according to the court documents was Professor of OT in the Theology Department. Not professor of Hebrew. SWBTS was wrong to hire her for that position in the first place. Dr. Patterson and the BOTs, in full agreement with each other moved to correct this.
As we now finally know, but have been led otherwise to believe, Dr. Klouda had more than two years to find another job. SWBTS went out of their way to accommodate Dr. Klouda and her family. They clearly did not have to. Again, according to Dr. Klouda’s own complaint, as affirmed in the faculty manual, even those with tenure are contracted only year to year. Accordingly, they could have chosen to not renew her contract the following year. Instead, we see that great effort was made to help her find employment, and that another position of equal pay and benefits was also offered. Of her own volition, she resigned, after finding another job.
I too can sympathize with Dr. Klouda’s family situation, just as it is clear that Dr. Patterson and SWBTS did. But, now that the rest of the story has come out, we know that SWBTS and Dr. Patterson went above what any other institution would have done while trying to maintain their Biblical views and responsibilities. For trying to maintain the balance of doctrinal integrity and yet be compassionate towards Dr. Klouda and her family, I commend them.
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — March 20, 2008 @ 2;50 pm
Ron P,
The rest of this story will never come out.
SWBTS was not and is not a church.
I am as theological sound and conservative (or more so; frankly, more so and actually know why) as you or Dr. Patterson and know full well what the NT teaching has been for two thousand years.
I would hope you are in no way saying I am less knowledgeable than you in that regard. That would be another whole can of worms entirely.
Sheri Klouda was done wrong and that is all there is to it.
Ron, do you believe SWBTS is a local church? Do you actually believe that?
Chris Johnson has been right about this all along. We have replaced the authority and sufficiency of the Bible with the judicial system and used a ploy to define a seminary as a local church to gain our desired results at the expense of righteousness. For that we should all be ashamed.
cb
Comment by cb scott — March 20, 2008 @ 3;18 pm
Brother CB,
As you know, I do not believe that SWBTS is a church. As you also know, it is operating as a church under the doctrines of law. While the church you pastor is not a business, you operate under sound business principles. Brother Ron P has never argued that SWBTS is a church. However for legal reasons, the courts have said time and again, it is a church.
As to Dr. Klouda and her position. The handbook states specifically that faculty serve as ministers. Churches employ ladies that are Ministers of _________ you fill in the blank. However, they are not ordained and they do not operate in the area of proclaiming God’s word or training pastors. Dr. Klouda was in a position that she trained Pastors. Dr. Klouda’s position was not an open position. She was severely restricted by the BoT when Dr. Hemphill was President. This was done to appease BoT that were sitting in that position when Dr. Hemphill wanted her hired. Dr. Patterson became President and was approached by BoT members and now the rest is history. That is something that is brought out in the Judge’s ruling that we have been told otherwise. It seems that some painted this as Dr. Patterson getting up one day and deciding he did not need to have a woman serving in the Theology Department.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 20, 2008 @ 3;38 pm
CB,
You make my point. This is a Biblical view that has been held for quite some time. I also believe you to be quite conservative. No, I do not believe a seminary is a church, in the Biblical sense. I do believe it should be treated as such in the legal and constitutional sense.
My point is to merely note that Dr. Patterson is and has always consistently applied this belief, unless he changed after he left Criswell and before coming to SWBTS. Further, he has always believed that in order to teach men to be pastors, that the persons teaching them must meet the Biblical qualifications to be a Pastor. I personally know of people that Dr. Patterson has not hired because they could not meet that qualification. They were extremely qualified in their field of study, but were not qualified to be a Pastor, therefore he did not hire them for that reason alone. Unless, we change our beliefs, Dr. Klouda is not Biblically qualified to be a Pastor.
Which brings me full circle to the fact that Dr. Patterson and SWBTS, while trying to maintain doctrinal integrity, acted most compassionately towards Dr. Klouda and her family for well over two years.
The real shame of this whole situation, is that Dr. Patterson and SWBTS have been crucified most publicly in the blogsphere for kicking a woman and her disabled husband and family to the curb, which we now know to be patently false as has other “facts” that have been blogged about for quite some time.
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — March 20, 2008 @ 3;54 pm
Tim,
You and I both know we are never going to agree on this matter other than to say we both wish it had never happened.
There are no winners here. There would have been no winners had Dr. Klouda won her case. This thing was always a lose-lose proposition. We have agreed to that more than once over this year.
You know I have said I would feel bad if it went the other way. You know that is true.
You know all of my arguments so there is no reason for me to go over them again here.
I believe there was a far better way and I have spoken to you often about that.
I also believe there are people other than Dr. Patterson who could have done much to see this thing be resolved far better than it has been.
I will always contend that what happened to the woman was wrong. Maybe that is because her husband is so sick. Maybe I see too much from that perspective. Maybe that is a flaw in me. But, I remember Dr. Patterson always said to err on the side of mercy. Maybe I expect too much, but I did expect “better than this from people I know are better than this.” That is my “gut” on the matter, Tim.
But, know this; When I see you again I will buy you a cup of coffee and I hope we can talk of better things. I don’t know of any two people who have fought over this thing both privately and publicly more than we have. Yet, I want you to know I hold no malice toward you. I have not thought ill of you in this whole thing. It is just a thing we see from very different positions. I also want you to know my only agenda has been that I saw a situation where I truly believed (and still do) a weaker person was run over by a stronger one and by nature I seem to always join that fight no matter if its “root, hog, or die.” I cannot answer for any one else; just me.
cb
Comment by cb scott — March 20, 2008 @ 4;20 pm
Men, (and women if your listening)
One thing needs to be “extremely” clear. The church is not a religious institution. But, some unfortunately understand its power and function in that design. The church by its very nature is the “called out” ones by God alone to be His representative body in the world. A religious institution are ones that are “called out by men” to perform religious or ecclesiastical functions. There is a huge, and even a diametrically opposed function that is carried forward by the church as opposed to an ordained religious institution. The United States of America has, as a form of its governing authority, recognized that a religious institution formed inside its laws and land may exercise certain rights. When you step outside of the jurisdiction of the laws and land of the United States you lose sovereignty. The sovereignty of the church is distinct and different than a religious institution and the two shall never be the same. There is no power to defeat the churches sovereignty. The church is bound by heavenly sovereignty not religious liberty.
SWBTS has not advanced the kingdom of heaven one bit by reinforcing religious liberty. It has helped build consensus to the law of Religious Liberty that was birthed for good reason by the United States long ago. But religious liberty does not preserve the church.
How men of God respond to the gift of Religious Liberty is contingent upon its understanding of the church and her higher commitments to love one another.
Lets not be so naïve to expect the church to be a religious institution.
Blessings,
Chris
Comment by Chris Johnson — March 20, 2008 @ 4;22 pm
Ron P,
I know men Dr. Patterson has hired to teach pastoral disciplines who were no more qualified than a goat or a monkey. We are not talking about consistency here. This really is an issue of inconsistency. Dr. Patterson has hired women to teach who are still teaching today.
As far as Dr. Patterson being “crucified” I want you to give me one name of a person who has openly defended him over as many things in posts and comment threads as have I.
The bottom line is right is right and wrong is wrong. Wade B. said we need to examine the “grey” areas. Well, I don’t think that is correct either. Most things can really be divided into “black” and “white” and it is not really all that hard to see it.
Ron, I don’t know you and you don’t know me other than we exchange comments here and there from time to time so I guess I need to tell you it is really hard for someone to spit on my head and tell me its raining. So if you are going to tell me no one did Sheri Klouda wrong it just ain’t gonna fly ’cause I know the difference between spit and rain.
cb
Comment by cb scott — March 20, 2008 @ 4;40 pm
Chris,
One thing (and maybe the only thing) blogging is good for is to meet people one finds fascinating. My email is cb5512@charter.net. I would like to talk to you. Would you email me your phone number?
cb
Comment by cb scott — March 20, 2008 @ 4;45 pm
CB,
I know not of the men you speak. I do know of the men that I am referring to. I agree that you have staunchly defended Dr. Patterson numerous times. What troubles me, and you even alluded to in your comment to Tim, is that you may be judging THIS situation on the basis of genuine feelings of compassion towards Dr. Klouda, while ignoring the dilemma that Dr. Patterson and SWBTS were in to try and correct it. What I have been trying to say, and maybe not good enough, is that SWBTS did show her mercy and compassion, while trying to maintain their doctrinal integrity. Sometimes, that is not an easy row to hoe.
I guess my question to you would be: If you just became the Pastor at a new church, and you inherited a situation with a staff member, that you were convinced was not Scriptural for him/her to serve. However, you wanted to be merciful and compassionate for the sake of the family, yet maintaining your doctrinal integrity. How would you have acted differently than Dr. Patterson and SWBTS? Would you fire the church staff member immediately? Would you give the staff member time to find other work?
I do not know you either CB. Hope to meet you someday. But realize, there is no spitting here. This is a no spit zone.
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — March 20, 2008 @ 5;06 pm
Ron,
The question you have asked of me is a fair question although the answer will make me appear to be a hypocrite.
The situation you present is one I have faced twice. I fired the guys both times; one with severance, the other with nothing except a head start out of town as fast as he could go and he is not in ministry anywhere today.
Ron, The situations I dealt with were easily identifiable as Scriptural reasons while one was also a criminal matter.
Ron, If you have read many of the comments I have made relating to the Klouda matter you know I do not believe she was serving in a way contrary to the Scripture due to the fact SWBTS is not a local church and all the passages of female prohibition are for the governance of the local church of which I totally agree.
Women are forbidden by Scriptural mandate from serving as pastors or deacons in the local church. Teaching Hebrew in a seminary is a far cry from a local church.
cb
cb
Comment by cb scott — March 20, 2008 @ 5;54 pm
I hope we can all see the implications here. To those who believe that Dr. Klouda was rightfully removed from her position, if follows that you believe:
1. Dr. Klouda was in sin while teaching Hebrew.
2. The university administration was in sin while employing Dr. Klouda.
3. All who sat under her teaching were in sin.
4. Thus, for the years that Dr. Klouda taught, tshe, he University administration, trustees, faculty, staff and students were, to varying degrees, complicit in this sin.
Comment by Bill — March 20, 2008 @ 6;17 pm
CB,
Fair enough! I do not consider that hypocritical at all. I understand your argument, though I do not agree with it. It is an area where we can amicably part. I do think that an OT Professor, in an SBC school, should be able to meet the qualifications of a Pastor, as even the faculty handbook states professors serve as ministers.
I only seek to emphasize, that based on what has been revealed in the last few days, Dr. Patterson and SWBTS, did not treat Dr. Klouda shamefully. It does appear that much that has been blogged about has been embellished by certain bloggers (NOT YOU) with an agenda to hurt Dr. Patterson. We instead find out that Dr. Patterson and SWBTS have tried to be merciful and compassionate in giving her an extraordinary amount of time to find gainful employment elsewhere, while working to maintain fidelity to their view Biblically on the matter.
Hope you have a great Lord’s Day this Easter!
Ron P.
Comment by Ron P. — March 20, 2008 @ 6;20 pm
bill,
that’s a far, far stretch in a strange direction.
david
Comment by volfan007 — March 20, 2008 @ 6;55 pm
David: If a woman teaching a foreign language to men is forbidden by the bible, then it is certainly a sin. Surely hiring someone to do something sinful is itself sin. Surely participating and affirming someone in a sinful practice (being taught by a female) is itself sin. Where am I wrong?
My point is that if what Dr. Klouda did in the seminary was sinful, then many others are complicit in her sin. But she seems to be the only one punished.
Comment by Bill — March 20, 2008 @ 7;20 pm
Sorry, but for work-related reasons, I must post anonymously.
I have read the salient “finding of facts” portions of the Klouda judgment as well as the actual judgment itself. At the risk of being castigated by those who supported Dr. Klouda in her lawsuit as mean-spirited and uncaring, I must say, the resulting judgment seems like a “no-brainer” to me. I am no lawyer, nor am I in any way associated with SWBTS. I have no reason to believe that Dr. Klouda is not a well-trained, able teacher. In fact, I should add that I do not personally have a strong conviction that a woman should not teach Hebrew in a seminary, as far as that goes, although I do see how some, including Dr. Patterson, might legitimately have that conviction.
But after reading the established facts of the case (rather that the exaggerated comments, innuendoes, and presumptions coming from both sides of the issue in some parts of the blogosphere) it seems to me that Dr. Patterson and the seminary handled the case about as well as they could have. I know that will raise the ire of some who feel that Dr. Klouda was mistreated. But I must ask, “Why?” She admitted that the knew Dr. Patterson and some BOT members considered her job one that included pastoral duties for which they considered her unqualified based on their convictions. They readily admitted they had been mistaken in giving her the position in the first place and made no personal attacks against her as a person, employee, or teacher. Their motivation was one of conviction (although I disagree with that conviction) and not some vendetta against a helpless and innocent woman just because they could get away with it. She was offered a temporary position with no financial loss, even though (we now know) the seminary was well within its legal rights to fire her without doing so. She was able to find another job as a professor and did not lose one days pay in the process. So my question is, “Other than holding a religious conviction that Dr. Klouda and many others (including myself) do not hold, what “evil, heartless, unloving, unchristian” act has Dr. Patterson and the BOT perpetuated upon Dr. Klouda?”
In hindsight, it seems to me that Dr. Klouda enjoyed several years holding a position which she was (according to SWBTS doctrinal beliefs) not qualified to hold. Wasn’t she the first and only woman to hold such a position at SWBTS? Even if I disagree with his conviction in this matter, Dr. Patterson, as the President of the seminary, and the BOT as the representatives of the seminary have every right to hold their religious views and to make hiring and firing (even though they never fired Dr. Klouda) decisions. At least until Southern Baptists who disagree with their convictions remove Dr. Patterson and the BOT and replace them with people sympathetic with Dr. Klouda’s views.
It seems that some people are upset because the disagree strongly with Dr. Patterson and are unwilling to allow him to hold his convictions and act upon those convictions in his duties as President of SWTBS. That is the crux of the matter, it seems to me.
I believe Dr.Patterson and the BOT were well within their legal (and moral) rights and responsibilities to do what they did. While I do have sympathy for Dr. Klouda’s personal situation and her sick husband, I believe she erred by suing in the first place. Those who disagree with Patterson are certainly free to do so, but I believe those who have painted him as an ogre have done more wrong to him than he ever did to Dr. Klouda
Comment by anonymous reader — March 20, 2008 @ 8;23 pm
annon reader,
I totally agree with you. You have stated the whole of the perspective well!
Comment by Tim G — March 20, 2008 @ 9;19 pm
Anonymous,
I certainly agree with you that a lawsuit was not the best way to expose the tension of the conviction held by Dr. Patterson. One must admit that Dr. Patterson and others on the board were successful in changing the minds of men who had changed their minds before and will probably change their minds again in the future on this same matter. I appreciate the manner in which you have approached the post.
What I hope does not get lost in this Religious Liberty win, is the clear distinction between the living church and a manmade religious institution. One thing that this awful situation has clearly exposed is the inability of two individuals to live out Matthew 18 as expected in the church. No one should kid themselves….this matter is far from a Godly resolution. In fact it has not been addressed in that way by either. I pray it will.
Blessings,
Chris
Comment by Chris Johnson — March 20, 2008 @ 10;17 pm
Bill,
You write: “…To those who believe that Dr. Klouda was rightfully removed from her position, if follows that you believe:…for the years that Dr. Klouda taught, tshe, he [sic] University administration, trustees, faculty, staff and students were, to varying degrees, complicit in this sin.”
With our Brother David, it seems obvious you have seriously stretched your reach in moral implication. I’d like to see you tease those logical connections out if you think they morally follow. Personally, I believe the connections would break a link very quickly.
Nor should we accept that this is a moral dilemna concerning those for whom the court positively decided as you subtley imply. The question is, was there sufficiently viable evidence to sustain the legal suit that either SWBTS or Dr. Patterson acted in a way that breached trust between employer/employee relationship? The case for the plaintiff was thrown completely out of court, not to mention that the Judge ruled the plaintiff now owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to the falsely accused.
To now argue but “they were wrong anyway” or attempt to place the ones declared innocent into a moral dilemna as you appear to do stands indicative, at least from my view, of calloused conclusions that refuse to acknowledge that someone strongly felt to be guilty was actually innocent–and proven so.
It’s really time for those so sure SWBTS conspired to obstruct justice as well as bet all their chips that Dr. Patterson would loose his rear in this lawsuit, to lay down the sword on this one, calling it quits. Instead they can look for another fight if they insist on swinging their bloody blades at Southern Baptist leadership. At least it would not appear disingenuious.
It’s over, my brother Bill. Dr. Klouda definitively lost the case. Period. Let us move on.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Comment by peter lumpkins — March 20, 2008 @ 10;25 pm
Peter: As usual, you use many words to say little. Is a woman teaching a man Hebrew a sin? If so, then those who hired her to do this, were also in sin.
Now the claim is, Dr. Patterson believes it is a sin, and that’s all that matters. Fair enough. So here’s another question: How long was Dr. Klouda allowed to teach men after Dr. Patterson took over? In other words, how long was this sinful situation allowed to continue?
I think the court probably made the right decision, but what is legally right is not morally right. If Dr. Patterson had come to the seminary and found a polygamist teaching Hebrew, he would have fired him, or at least removed him from teaching. Why not fire or remove Dr. Klouda, if he has the deep seated conviction that it is sinful for women to teach men Hebrew?
Everyone is touting Dr. Patterson’s generosity in letting Dr. Klouda teach for awhile while looking for another job, but if he really thought what was going on was sinful, why didn’t he stop it right away? Are we called upon to look the other way when open, unrepentant sin is in the camp?
This isn’t about Dr. Klouda anymore. Who’s next?
Comment by Bill — March 21, 2008 @ 8;09 am
Peter: My first sentence to you sounds a bit harsher than I mean it to. Your great love for words sometimes obscures the message you are trying to convey.
In other words, I get that you think I’m wrong. I just don’t think you’ve demonstrated how I am wrong.
Comment by Bill — March 21, 2008 @ 9;59 am
I see that this issue has stirred the pot among grassroots Southern Baptists. I am glad that the lawsuit was not successful–had SWBTS lost the lawsuit, the seminary would have been damaged.
I just hope that grassroots conservative Southern Baptists are as concerned about evolution being taught in the Science Departments in our Baptist colleges, about humanistic approaches to counseling in our Psychology departments, and a secular worldview in many areas of academics.
We have men who will go to the wall over issues like a woman teaching Hebrew, but care not about those who teach contrary to the Word of God in Baptist colleges.
Comment by John Killian — March 21, 2008 @ 9;08 pm
Brother CB,
I am sorry that I overlooked your comment. I will strive to answer it as I am back from purchasing my Easter attire for Sunday. :>)
You said; “I also believe there are people other than Dr. Patterson who could have done much to see this thing be resolved far better than it has been. I honestly believe the issues were exaggerated because of the people other than Dr. Patterson involving themselves in this matter.
You also say; “But, I remember Dr. Patterson always said to err on the side of mercy. ” It has been revealed that Dr. Patterson never said she was a mistake, and it is also revealed that Dr. Patterson gave her 2 years and then she would have had a job. There is only one more thing that Dr. Patterson could have done to show mercy and that was to go against his conviction.
You know that we do disagree. I will always saucer-n-sup coffee with you. I ain’t going to that Starbucks coffee house because they neither have saucers or cups. They use that Styrofoam stuff that hurts the environment. You know the environmental tree hugger that I am, I am now concerned with my carbon print. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 21, 2008 @ 9;13 pm
Dear Bill,
Whether or not I say little with the many words I employ, my brother Bill, I’ll leave to you & others to decide. As for me, I simply try to write like I talk. And if that’s the “as usual”, I’ll be content to be consistent, I suppose.
O.K. Bill. These are your logical connections that I said probably broke down easy enough:
“To those who believe that Dr. Klouda was rightfully removed from her position, if follows that you believe:
…Dr. Klouda…The university administration…trustees, faculty, staff and students were, to varying degrees, complicit in this sin.”
First, Bill, your assumption appears to be that “rightfully removed from position” implies sin. I dispute this. There is an alternative–she was “rightfully removed” because: a) she possessed no tenure and consequently possessed no expectation of employment b) no policies–legal or institutional–were breached c) she did not fit the visionary criteria the President & Trustees wished to pursue.
Therefore, there is no need to speak of her “being in sin” as well as a whole boxcar of people “complicit in sin”.
Secondly, Bill, the weird scenario in making “complicit in her sin” everyone from President down, not to mention the students under her tutelage is fantastic. If this were true, no evangelical scholar could ever teach in a secular university because most of the faculty there are godless humanists. They would be “complicit” in their sin.
In addition, no evangelical student could sit under the teaching of anyone other than another evangelical that believed just like they did, else they’d be “complicit” in their sin. No one can live with this skewed ethic. What do you think?
Third, it’s interesting that others have seen a bit of mercy in Dr. Patterson and SWBTS in extending to Professor Klouda such a long period of time to get another position. Yet you seem to turn that around into a moral dilemma whereby instead of patience, kindness and sympathy are virtues in dealing with a hard case, it becomes an occasion for condemnation: they’re all living in sin–from first to last–because they did not immediately kick her out.
Two things in response. First, while we are called to be just and confront sin, we are also called to show mercy toward the sinner.
You, Bill, attempt to exploit the time-line suggesting that people sinned because justice was not met out sooner. Conveniently, had Dr. Patterson been abrupt and squeezed Professor Klouda out immediately, his critics would have exploited his “merciless” tactics.
Secondly, not all sin is of such weight that immediate steps must be put in place to rectify the situation. If that is so, Church Discipline would necessitate that even for the least breach, a member would be brought up on charges for dismissal for even the pettiest crimes. Again, this is an ethic that, seems to me, to be unlivable.
Whether or not I’ve “proved” your moral connections do not follow, for me, is irrelevant. What I have done, even if I’ve said little through many words, is speak what I desired to speak.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Comment by peter lumpkins — March 22, 2008 @ 8;17 pm
John Killian: Do you have proof of what you are charging? As for the case it seems that the depositions are very revealing. Very revealing. I wouldn’t get too cocky if I were you Peter, Tim etc.
Comment by Debbie Kaufman — March 23, 2008 @ 1;25 am
Sister Debbie,
Your concern for other’s cockiness is groundless. No one is getting cocky. As for Brother John Killian, he is not the kind that would say something like that just to hear his gums bump together.
As for the issue going further, I believe we will wait for the lawyers to make their assessment as to the appeals or not.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 23, 2008 @ 8;25 pm
Ms. Kaufman,
Could you please inform us the contribution of your last entry?
With that, I am…
Peter
Comment by peter lumpkins — March 23, 2008 @ 8;48 pm
[...] Southern Baptist in NC, Tim Rogers wrote prior to McBryde’s decision, “Here in Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood it seems that many have taken me to task on how I [...]
Pingback by Sheri Klouda and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary « Very Important Stuff — March 24, 2008 @ 3;18 pm