« The Deathbed of Christianity: A Sermon by E.Y. Mullins | Main | Clash of Civilation: Islam Vs. The West »

Mar 25, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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: ndrewpi@gmail.com

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

The comments to this entry are closed.