Dr. Sheri Klouda: Hearing Her Lament, Honoring Her Lord

UPDATE AT END OF POST*

   This post may constitute the most careful post I've penned in the almost two years now I have been blogging. It surely possesses the most potential for provocation. As it opens up, the reader will see precisely why.

Mr. Wade Burleson currently posts what's entitled "An Email From Dr. Klouda Revealing Her Feelings". It stands a moving note of gratitude to Mr. Burleson and Mr. Cole for the "continued support" they afforded her. Indeed she openly confesses "If it were not for both of you, the real facts would never be known..."

Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, Oklahoma, where Mr. Burleson serves as Senior Pastor and Mr. Cole serves as an Associate Pastor, has, for quite some time now, supported The Kloudas financially as well as promoted an offering fund for their benefit. From Mr. Burleson's words, one could rightly presume the offering has been overwhelmingly supported nationwide and perhaps even worldwide.

No one can question the goodness of assisting others in time of need and Emmanuel Baptist Church should be considered an exemplar model for Churches to follow in other worthy benevolences.  Further, no secret exists that Mr. Burleson has, from the beginning, supported Dr. Klouda and her lawsuit against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and its President, Dr. Paige Patterson.

Recently, after many months of agonizing depositions, collection of evidences and arguments from defense teams before the Court, United States District Judge, The Honorable John McBryde ruled

“The court ORDERS, ADJUDGES and DECREES that plaintiff, Dr. Sheri L. Klouda have and recover nothing from defendants…and that all of her alleged causes against defendants be, and are hereby dismissed. The court further ORDERS, ADJUDGES and DECREES that defendants have and recover from plaintiff costs of court incurred by them.”

It is in light of this that Dr. Klouda could pen her deepest gratitude to Mr. Burleson and Mr. Cole:

“I have so much more to say, and yet, I cannot find the words yet. But others are finding the words for me as I seek to deal with the discouragement and what this decision means for our family. I am touched by the willingness of others to take over and carry the message on my behalf.”

I have never been in a lawsuit so I have no personal feelings or impressionable experiences to gauge precisely what Dr. Klouda is presently feeling. Obviously, it is overwhelming. As for me, I hope she can move on with her life, her service and I trust her to be blessed by our merciful Lord.

Nonetheless, I hear in her words an apparent struggle to come to grips with her decision to file suit in the first place:

“I am not sure whether the lawsuit was a wise move with regard to my professional career. Oftentimes a charge of discrimination against a former employer follows a woman's career for life.” 

In this lament, Dr. Klouda is correct. Anytime lawsuits are not only threatened, but, as in this particular case, pursued, future opportunities may prove to be dead-end streets leading to nowhere. Compounding the dark rain clouds hovering over her professional career now stands the glaring fact that she decisively lost her case due to woefully insufficient evidence.

For some reason, I cannot help but think that somewhere along the way, in her journey to the lawsuit, she received unwise counsel to pursue it. Besides her doubting lament above concerning the professional broadside she may have received, the very ones she most explicitly thanked for helping her, stood, as it were, safely on the shore, nothing to lose and everything in popularity to gain, whistling…cheering…even predicting her valiant victory. Here is the prediction of one of the men she thanked so expressly:

“(4). After declining an offer by Sheri Klouda in 2007 to settle for future lost wages, Southwestern Seminary will make an offer to settle in June 2008 when it is realized that the Klouda case is actually going to trial - only to discover, too late, that Sheri Klouda will ultimately allow a jury of peers to declare the verdict and judgment. (5). The Klouda jury judgment in the summer of 2008 will be over eight figures.”

From my perspective—and mine alone—these types of reckless comments concerning what can only be identified as naïve, carefree presumption about our justice system, afford at least a comparable case--if not a better case--for prosecution, than the case that was tried but definitively failed against Dr. Klouda’s former employer.  You may call such hyperbole if you so wish. 

Nor was that the only giddy remark made. Here is a sampling from which many more could be offered, that represents, at least from my view, a total absence of reason, wisdom, sound judgment and sober expectations. While Dr. Klouda no doubt feels some assisted her in her legal pursuit, it very well may be, in the long run, the future burden upon her outweighs the present benevolence to her.

This may account for some of the confusion she still seems to bear: “I am waiting to hear whether Mr. Richardson considers an appeal a wise course of action.” 

Some may suggest that describing Dr. Klouda as possessing confusion offers only a callous, loveless attack. Know it is not. My heart hurts as I read her painful letter. Nor is it in my wildest dreams to rise up and condemn her now for what she has done. Toward whom would benefit flow were such blame to be dispersed?

Recall, however, she is the one who questions the wisdom of the lawsuit in the first place: “I am not sure whether the lawsuit was a wise move…”  And now to ponder whether the legal team who failed her—not to mention some of her sincere, but over-jealous supporters who presumptuously predicted a positive cash take in excess of “eight figures”—should bring her news of another strike against the allegedly depraved empire, cannot fail, at least from my view, to constitute confusion.

Dr. Klouda rightly thinks her integrity at stake in this affair. It was. Let it also be said, so was the integrity of one of Southern Baptists’ finest institutions. Let it further be said the integrity of Dr. Paige Patterson was also at stake along with the entire Administration at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Know this: no one walks away from a grueling duel like this without bleeding wounds and permanent scars. It is impossible I fear.

For that reason, I personally see no real moral move forward to continue on as if nothing was decided. Granted the decisions came.  But note the costly price tag. Setting aside the money issues, Dr. Klouda has conceded the threat to her professional career this lawsuit poses. I only beg her to consider that—even if nothing else—consider that as she waits for “wisdom” from her legal counsel.

It stands more than clear Dr. Klouda possesses a passion to both teach and a caring heart for her students to learn.  And, though I am no one to make judgments about what academia may or may not decide, I trust she will not take, at face value, any counsel from some of her over-jealous cheerleaders who, sincerely but presumptuously, may give her a positive but false sense that she may step right back into the pool of Southern Baptist life as an educator.

I am not saying it won’t happen. Nor am I suggesting that I am even opposed to it. What I am saying is that it is simply unlikely to transpire. That’s reality no matter how we accept it.

I am encouraged that Dr. Klouda has not stripped herself of her Baptist convictions. She writes: “I am still Baptist, which demonstrates my commitment and the integrity of my beliefs.”  How easy to broad brush and equate bad experiences with wrong sources. For me, I am glad she has chosen to remain true to her Baptist convictions.

It nonetheless confuses some that she apparently chose to join a non-Baptist faith family when she moved to her new position. Understand: I am seeking no explanation. Dr. Klouda, from my view, needs to pursue that to which she believes God pursues for her. Yet, it is flags raised with these colors that so often throw more confusing fuel on the flame. More significantly, perhaps she now has united with a Baptist family.  I hope so. 

Finally, I offer my deepest, sincere and heartfelt prayer for The Kloudas. I wish only our Lord’s grace and mercy head her way. I furthermore gently but truly admonish her to move on from this tragic scene.  Consequently, such expressions of gratitude that “Dr. Patterson's actual words have been published publicly” and “thank[ing] you both [Mr. Burleson and Mr. Cole] for your initiative and your activism, for your concern and your desire to see righteousness among our Baptist leaders…” offer the least hope in making peace in this carnage.

May I remind those who may not recall, Dr. Patterson and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, from the beginning of this legal nightmare, have been tried, convicted and sentenced to a painful, lethal injection in the public square, primarily by the very ones Dr. Klouda continues to offer her thanksgiving. This circus-type atmosphere, where preposterous claims of guilt toward the accused ruled the show, from my view, stands as an indelible blotch on sober reason and Christ-like behavior. What, in heaven’s name, were they thinking? That no one would remember their gig? 

And, now, even after our legal system has definitively weighed in the balance of justice Professor Klouda’s case against Dr. Patterson and our esteemed institution, finding them innocent and dismissing every evidential stick from the plaintiff’s woodpile, the side-show continues in reeling out one sorry film after another that, like the Cretans about whom Paul alluded, Dr. Patterson, the administration and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary are all liars.  The justice system is broken.  Liars go free. 

Some once believed reform was wed to those who blew the certain horn of corrupt Baptist leadership.  Now those once seen as seeking justice in the SBC are exposed as simple jesters...clowns in a free-fall movement which every day comes barely a foot shy of moral antinomianism.  I hope with all my hoping it comes to nothing.  If the future of Southern Baptists rests with that failed effort, God help us all.         

I can only hope Dr. Klouda will send word to the producers of this political porn it is past time to cut the tape, close the shop and be Kingdom men and women.

Come, Lord Jesus.  Come.

With that, I am…

Peter

*It appears Mr. Burleson continues to salvage a sinking raft by frantically employing duct tape.  His latest post spins the Klouda ruling to fit his own fancy.  He writes:

"The judge simply ruled that discrimination based upon gender is protected by the First Amendment which separates church and state. In other words, a church can discriminate against women because of 'religious beliefs' and the courts cannot, according to the judge's interpretation of the United States Constitution, punish the church. That is the judge's ruling and I accept it."

It should be noted on various occasions, Mr. Burleson made it very clear once the court decided the Klouda case, we were to move on.  Now, however, Mr. Burleson argues the Judge only rules not to interfere.

While Burleson did not quote the ruling, but only gave a vague interpretation of on part of the ruling, here are the actual words of Judge McBryde.  The reader can weigh their understanding over against Burleson's:

Concerning The Breach of Contract:

   "The court has concluded that no reasonable fact finder would conclude that Seminary entered into an employment contract with plaintiff that was breached by the employment decision that caused her to resign." (Pt. p.22, bold underlined mine)

Concerning Fraud:

    "There is simply no evidence in the summary judgment record from which a reasonable finder of fact could find that either of the defendants engaged in any fraudulent conduct toward the plaintiff." (Ibid, bold underlined mine) 

Concerning Defamation:

    "...there is no suggestion in the record that the "mistake" statement, if it was made, was published by anyone other than plaintiff to any third party." (Pt. 2, p.23)

Conclusion and Order:

    "For the reasons given above, the court concludes that defendants' motion for summary judgment  should be granted.  'The pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant [s] [are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law'...Therefore, The  court ORDERS that all causes of action asserted by plaintiff in the above captioned-action be , and are hereby, dismissed." (Pt. 2, p.24-25, bold underlined mine)

It seems no amount of factual evidence can stem the vendettas Enid must pursue against Southern Baptists.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Wes Kenney]

Well said, sir.

[Tim G]

Peter,
You do indeed have a grasp on this situation and have been gifted with the word formation to describe it.

[volfan007]

peter,

incredible insight.

david

[Jim]

Peter, you so eloquently expressed the lament of 98% of the people who have been following this train wreck.

[Big Daddy Weave]

If you read the e-mail, Klouda stated that she hopes to return someday to Baptist life and teach in a Baptist college or a Baptist seminary.

You don't sue a Southern Baptist seminary and hope to return one day to Southern Baptist life. Point taken. But Klouda may very well have the opportunity to return to Baptist life to teaching in a Baptist college or a Baptist seminary. There are numerous schools here in Texas who without question will likely have job opportunities available in the upcoming years that Klouda is qualified to fill. Her chances of returning to a Baptist college seem bright to this fella who grew up in the world of Baptist Higher Education.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: If things would change I'm sure she would come back.

She went to where she could earn a living, that wasn't exactly in the Baptist life, unfortunately, and we are the poorer for it, not Dr. Klouda.

A lawsuit against one of the most powerful denominations is scary. I would be scared. You can't fight city hall also includes Southern Baptists as a denomination.

You just managed to take an email from the heart and twist it's meaning entirely. Surprising? No.

[peter lumpkins]

Brothers Wes, Tim, David, Jim

Your words are meaningful and supportive. Thank you...

BDW,

Thank you for logging on. I do not share your optimism of numerous Baptist schools lined up itching to offer Dr. Klouda a position.

Not because she is unqualified. Rather because of the very reason she herself stated--lawsuit. Even in your moderate circles, BDW, business is business.

Moderate or even Liberal Administrators/Deans, etc possess the same, self-protective reservations as the stiffest Conservative--Lawsuits scorch everybody in rock's throw. And that, even under the most just circumstances...

Ms. Kaufman,

Nor am I surprised at your conclusion. Yet, I trust grace is yours today.

With that, I am...

Peter

[jasonk]

Dr. Klouda will have no problem finding jobs in the future, provided the administration at the institution follows both the law of the land, and reasonably decent human behavior, which refuses to discriminate against another human being, simply because they happen to be a woman.

I was thinking too, about Peter's eloquence, incredible insight, and his gifted word formation, as I read terms like "over-jealous" and "political porn."

[Chris]

Peter,
Well stated and grace and truth filled. What happened to Enid's claim of accepting victory or defeat as God's will? The continual rant comes dangerously close to crossing the line, if indeed it hasn't already, of accusing God of making a mistake in His appointing the government, the subsequent outcome, and His inability to handle his presumably unruly SBC heads of entities. I tremble at that.

[volfan007]

i would not recommend that dr. klouda try to get on at baylor. it seems that that president is denying tenure to a lot of professors there. it seems that a woman prof. named dr. rene massengale was denied tenure even though she had a million dollar grant for her studies. and, the baylor powers that be arent giving the baylor prof's two years, but only one year, to find somewhere else to go.

why dont we hear from big daddy and the enid crowd about baylor? where's the outcry about baylor denying tenure to women prof's?

david

[Bart Barber]

Baylor might actually be a good fit for her. The President there, you know, was an elder at his Presbyterian church for many years when he was hired. Suddenly, at just that moment, God happened to call him back into the Baptist church.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother David,

You sure know how to stir the pot.:>) It seems that Baylor will get a pass on this. BP is the only news organization that has picked this up. It seems that APB and Ethics Daily, do not consider it, either newsworthy, or a violation of rights. So, my question would be a simple one. If these scholars are denied tenure after passing muster in all of their reviews and are recommended for tenure, is the President saying they are not scholarly enough?

Blessings,
Tim

[Chris]

Jason,
Go and re-read what I posted. The evidence in is the actions. As for your question to me: I did not read that, but if indeed true, yes that crosses the line.

[peter]

Jason

The insinuation apparently toward Chris alleging he called for Wade to be murdered is dispicably subChristian. Write courteously or don't write here period.

With that, I am...

Peter

[JIm Champion]

One slight difference in the Baylor situation and SWBTS. The proffs at Baylor were at least allowed to o through the published tenure process. I personally would not have a problem with Dr Klouda being denied tenure had she been allowed to go through the process.

Jim Champion

[peter]

Guys,

Interesting about Baylor and one Big Daddy Weave might want to stick in his pipe and puff awhile in a post on his blog. I can smell the scent of fine, Moderate tobacco right now...:^)

Grace, guys. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Jim,

Funny you should say such. If I slaved myself through a grueling process only to realize naught awaited me on the other side, I feel confident I'd fully understand myself to be getting a fair shake. No time wasted whatsoever. Yes sir. I'd feel just swell.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Scott Gordon]

Peter,

Thank you for this non-acerbic, non-vendetta laden post regarding this issue. You have provided an excellent example of forthright thinking in my estimation.

May we all pray that this mess can be placed behind us and focus on those issues to which we as Southern Baptists have been called...proclaiming the Gospel and the consistency of all biblical truth that we may be able to present everyone to whom we minister complete in Christ.

Sola Gratia!

[Ron P.]

Peter,

Excellent!

If I were Dr. Klouda, I would not be thanking Enid at all. Quite the opposite! I would feel rather used by them. Used to advance their political agenda and personal vendetta. If I were her, I would be wondering why they gave such horribly bad advice, and questioning if it was not colored by their hatred. But, that is what I would be asking if I were in her shoes.

Ron P.

[Jim Champion]

Cute Peter

No my assumption is that a proff going through the tenure process would be told what they needed to do to be granted tenure. Not fired for the crime of teaching a certain subject while being a woman - dont think Baylor is doing that.

[Bart Barber]

Jim,

No, Baylor is simply firing them for embracing the vision of a Christian university.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Jim,

You say; "The proffs at Baylor were at least allowed to o through the published tenure process. I personally would not have a problem with Dr Klouda being denied tenure had she been allowed to go through the process. Are you serious?

It seems that had she gone through the process, then you and others would have gripped about Dr. Patterson's power and sway he holds over the trustees. However, Dr. Lilley denies tenure to 9 profs that were recommended by the Tenure Review Committee. Do you realize that 20 profs were recommended and 9 were told no? What is the difference. These 9 believe a Baptist School should be Christian in their purpose.

Brother, (tongue firmly planted in my cheek) that is a great call for religious freedom. :>)

Blessings,
Tim

[Tim G]

So what happens to the Profs who were denied? Where they fired? Or did they get the incredible grace of being offered another position at the same pay scale and benefits? Should we be planning a fund to support them?

[Wayne Smith]

Peter,
Do Baylor and SWBTS have something in common?.

Nothing Devious and Sinful as what happened from the time Dr, Patterson hired until the removal of from Dr. Sheri Klouda. Why wasn’t Dr, Patterson honest up front rather than Sinning all that time by being Devious.

In His Name
Wayne

[Jim Champion]

Tim, O brother where art thou? Or brother from a different mother as it were (I started typing this before you edited out a somewhat condescending statement to me), I actually agree with the Judge - I dont think he could have ruled any differently from a constitional perspective. I still think what Patterson did from a Christian perspective is wrong - and his depo is revealing of his true thoughts. But, there is no parallel to Baylor and SWBTS. there have been several who have been allowed to go through the process and be denied at SWBTS. There is a reason we do not hear a hue and cry about them - they were allowed to go through the process. No new Baptist "distinctive" had to be created to deny them - merely a lack of scholarship etc.

Tim G - most likely they were given a year to find a new position after being denied tenure - I know that is what SWBTS policy has been in the past (and from what I have heard a most institutions. YOu might also be suprised that I found two years of pay to be generous, although from what I have read, the postion in the library was temporary not permanent. What I really wish had happened was that the day that Patterson was hired, that he would have come right out and told women faculty that there postions were short lived and for goodness sake dont go out and buy a house. But he had to be a bit coy with his answers when asked. At the time, I thought it was because he wanted to get rid of Dr Bullock but keep Klouda. Klouda thought that she was one of them and was told essentially that. she was educated at Criswell and SWBTS under Patterson, and Hemphill, hired by Hemphill Blaising and the very conservative BOT at SWBTS. I think we would have all assumed that we were safe in those circumstances

[Big Daddy Weave]

Business is Business. You are correct. However, my bet is that Klouda would have an easier time getting a position at a Baptist school than a non-Baptist school. non-Baptist schools will find out about the lawsuit and say no thanks. But a small Baptist school here in Texas would be understanding of her situation and due to their dislike of Patterson will be sympathetic and take a serious look at her application.

But Volfan, BU might not be her best fit. Tidwell likely won't hire anyone with a degree from SWBTS. That ain't tier one. :-)

I suspect as more details trickle out (and they will), ABP will cover the situation here. BP covered the story so that Dembski could hate on Baylor. He's always outrageous.

Bart,

It seems you have bought Dembski's lies. All of the candidates up for tenure were hired by Robert Sloan (including my dad) and embraced the tenets of Baylor 2012. Otherwise, they would not have been hired in the first place. So, Dembski's claims that those who were denied tenure did not embrace "the vision of a Christian university" is just a lie. I'm not sure anyone knows exactly WHY the 12 were denied tenure. After the appeals process, I suspect we'll find out WHY or at least more details. I must add that my dad was part of the 60% that did receive tenure.

[Wayne Smith]

Peter,
Food for Thought,

New American Standard Bible

32For the devious are an abomination to the LORD;
But He is intimate with the upright.
33The curse of the LORD is on the house of the wicked,
But He blesses the dwelling of the righteous.
34Though He scoffs at the scoffers,
Yet He gives grace to the afflicted.
35The wise will inherit honor,
But fools display dishonor.

[Bart Barber]

Jim Champion,

Dr. Bullock was denied tenure while Dr. Hemphill was President. An attention to the timeline might help you to sort out your rhetoric.

Big Daddy,

Brother, I was on the BAA board while the Sloan controversy was going down. Don't tell me that there isn't opposition to the Christian focus of 2012. Don't tell me that such opposition wasn't a strong factor in Sloan's dismissal. I do not represent myself as any sort of "key insider" or the like, but I heard and saw enough firsthand not to be completely ignorant of the matter.

[Bart Barber]

Wayne Smith,

The current Baylor administration repeatedly asserts its endorsement of 2012. That's not deceptive?

[Wayne Smith]

Bart,
I agree, Baylor is not being Deceptive, I was pointing to what SWBTS’s/ Dr. Patterson did to Dr. Sheri Kloudaall those years.

In His Name
Wayne

[Ron P.]

Wayne,

You repeatedly comment all over the blogs castigating those who cast aspersions. Why is it OK for you to do so?

Ron P.

[peter]

Big Daddy Weave,

To hold out hope that a small Baptist school would hire Dr. Klouda based on their retarded business savy is hard to seriously consider.

But even more incredible is your suggestion that a school would hire her firmly upon the foundation plank of hate for Dr. Patterson. Talk about insulting. Not to Dr. Patterson, mind you.

Rather insulting not only toward the school's lack of concern for academic excellence, but also the lack of confidence they possessed toward Dr. Klouda. Do you not realize you're suggesting the worst in exploitation?

With that, I am...

Peter

[Big Daddy Weave]

Bart,

Only a fool would disagree with you. But you must not have read what I wrote. I'll repeat:

"All of the candidates up for tenure were hired by Robert Sloan (including my dad) and embraced the tenets of Baylor 2012. Otherwise, they would not have been hired in the first place."

Thus, the 12 who were denied were Sloan hires who supported 2012!

Peter,

Moderate Baptist schools have done a good job in the past of taking care of those whose careers suffered at the hands of Southern Baptist fundamentalists.

[JIm Champion]

Bart

FYI - bullock was recommended for tenure under Hemphill, the hearing was postoned until after Patterson arrived. Hemphill recommended her to receive tenure - a factor that led to his demise at SWBTS. Bullock's. Bullock at least was able to go through the process which was my point.

[Rob Ayers]

My Dear Peter,

You have written a very careful essay which in most parts I certainly agree. There have been no winners from this spectacle - only losers.

The court is now allowing us once again to determine our own doctrinal stances apart from its watchful care - as it should be - I agree wholeheartedly with that. The lawsuit should never have been - and those exposing a "bombastic" agenda should be exposed - and have been. That leaves us together with the "greater" questions unanswered. Does Scripture exclude women from teaching "Hebrew" in Seminary? And from where do these decisions derive? Do doctrinal stances such as this derive from the entities or from the churches which form them in our great Convention?

I submit that the answers are probably in the realm of both complexity and contradiction. I firmly suspect that if a vote were taken today, the majority of churches (i.e. their "membership") would not believe that teaching "Hebrew" to a Seminary class is in violation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
At the same time, they would probably in the same majority trust the system that is currently in place.

Main question of today: How can we discern the will of the churches if that will is not known, and the facts are not easily disseminated except by the minority on the blogosphere? How can trust be established (or even "re-established") with Trustees and Administration is this lose/lose situation (and note here that I am not necessarily singling out as exemplary SWBTS or Dr. Patterson here)?

Rob

[peter lumpkins]

BDW,

Why you continue to avoid my replies, BDW, is obvious--at least to me...

Rob,

I appreciate your emphasis on those things about which we may agree, my brother.

Know I do not think we have all the questions answered either. And, I would welcome peace as we together attempt to find them. My deeper concern lies in the heated conflict which denies the world the Gospel as we slug it out.

Grace for this evening. With that, I am...

Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Jim Champion,

(I started typing this before you edited out a somewhat condescending statement to me) To what are you speaking?

Blessings,
Tim

[Big Daddy Weave]

You replied and I responded. Never have I avoided your REPLIES. You responded once, singular.

Dislike and Hate have two separate meanings. I used the former while you chose the latter. Hate is your word not mine. And a poor word choice.

Similarly, the word "due" in the sentence with the phrase "due to their dislike of Patterson" was a poor word choice. No school, Baptist or non-Baptist, would take a serious look at Klouda's application unless her resume indicated that she was capable, competent and qualified. I was simply stating that her suffering at the hands of fundamentalists is a positive in the Baptist world. Of course she would never get the job unless she was qualified. But, moderates do understand that folks like Paige Patterson have been ruining the careers of Baptist scholars for decades now. That bit of life experience doesn't hurt her application. Like I said, moderate Baptists have in the past taken care of quality teachers who have suffered at the hands of Southern Baptist fundamentalists.

Now, that might not be the answer you wanted to hear. But it was a response to your response and an on-point response at that.

[Bart Barber]

BDW is right. Crawford H. Toy got kicked out of Southern and wound up with a lifelong career at Harvard! Being rejected by Southern Baptists as heretical is a great resume entry for an academic.

[selahV]

Bart: would you think that Toy would consider the Sovereignty of God a plus in his situation with Southern, given he went to Harvard? Or do you think he would credit himself?

I wonder what is the motivating factor in some people that brings them to the place they are in at times. I find myself in quite a mess when I look back on what my heart's desires were along the way. selahV

[Nancy Drew]

Hey Tim Rogers, who gave you the 411 on the Baylor info? That's impressive. Could you pass the 411 on to Scott?

Peter,

I'm constantly intrigued by your fascination with Wade Burleson. That's impressive, indeed.

Nancy Drew email: [email protected]

[peter]

Dear Ms. Drew,

Unfortunately, the answers to questions you seek while available, I'm quite sure, it remains uncertain your geniune level of interest in hearing an honest answer.

May our Lord assist us all in service to Him.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Nancy Drew?

Who is Scott?

Blessings,
Tim

[Jim Champion]

Tim

O brother o pal

I appreciate the apology - oh wait, I'm still waiting. Have you questioned any one elses salvation lately?

Or are you going to deny quesitoning if I am a brother in Christ on this thread

Jim Champion

[Ron P.]

Peter,

RE: Your update. I find it interesting that Wade attacks you in his post, basically for succinctly pointing out the the written ruling of the Court. You have in the update, provided further elucidation that you are indeed correct in your analysis of the plainly written words of Judge McBryer.

We see several things here by Wade in his post you refer to:

A blatant distortion of Judge McBryer's ruling.

Hypocrisy for not accepting the "minister of God's" legal opinion.

Hypocrisy for not accepting this as the sovereign will of God.

I have been waiting for nine days for him to post multiple sermons on the need for ALL Southern Baptists to accept the "minister of God's" ruling as the sovereign will of God. Heaven knows he proclaimed it often enough before the ruling. I wonder how long we have to wait for it?

Finally, and I do not say this lightly, but I have to wonder if we are seeing in public, just a small dose of his what his fellow IMB Trustees had to continually endure in private.

Great work Peter.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[wwburleson]

That is the judge's ruling and I accept it.

Mr. Ron P.

I'm not sure which one of the six one syllable words and three two syllable words in the above sentence you do not understand? I would do what I could to assist your understanding, but frankly, I remain uninterested in any dialogue with people who have a pattern of personal attacks and are unable to refrain from such, which seems to include both yourself and Mr. Lumpkin.

[peter lumpkins]

Mr. Burleson,

If you can please demonstrate which statement in the update to which Ron alluded I presented a pattern of personal attack rather than quote the Judge's ruling, I'd really be interested.

If not, then I suppose you are still caught with your skirt up significantly skewing the judge's ruling. And that, sir, is a horrid shame.

With that, I am...

Peter

[wwburleson]

One need only read your comment.

[Chris]

I see no attacks. what happened to all the need for thick skin?

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Mr. Burleson,

I presume that means you possess no visible pattern of personal attack you suggested to Ron was in my update.

May I suggest a better way to engage one is to offer evidence, not assertion.

With that, I am...

Peter