In 2006, Professor Klouda's contract was not renewed (which is a polite way of firing someone in academia) with the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. She was a Hebrew teacher, and the official position for her dismissal was because she's a woman.
No other official position has been stated to my knowledge. Although I really hope there were other reasons that will come to light.
The Wittenburg Door has a write-up about this situation. Here are the main excerpts:
Sheri Klouda’s lawsuit against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth was dismissed by a federal judge on Friday, and the news coverage made it sound like she was a disgruntled ex-employee filing a nuisance suit. The facts are a little bit more inconvenient for the seminary and for Dr. Paige Patterson, the president, and they’ve been extensively parsed on the blogosphere over the past year so that there’s little doubt about what happened:In 2002 Dr. Klouda, a graduate of Criswell Bible College in Dallas, was hired to teach Hebrew in the Department of Theology. She was told this was a tenure-track position.
In 2003 Dr. Patterson became president. She went to him to ask him whether she should be worried about his well known opposition to women in the ministry. He said she had “nothing to worry about.” She pointed out that she had freely signed all Baptist faith statements, including the parts about women, and that she didn’t regard this teaching position as a pastorate—did he? He said no, he did not.
In 2005 it was time for her to be considered for tenure. The administration wouldn’t allow any tenure review to take place.
In 2006 her teaching contract was not renewed. The reason given was that they interpreted a verse in 1 Timothy to mean that no woman can be in any position of authority over a man, and therefore there’s no way for a woman to teach in the Department of Theology because almost all of the students are male.
In 2007 she suffered a series of financial setbacks related to her having to move herself, her invalid husband and their three children to a small college in Indiana while being unable to sell their house in Fort Worth.
(As a side note, I attended that "small college in Indiana") The Door continues with a response to Dr. Patterson:
1 Timothy 2:12 says that a woman should not “usurp authority over a man.” This is the scripture you’ve used to deny this woman a place in the lecture halls of the seminary. But let’s go to the complete passage:“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”
...
And as to usurping authority over the man: A teacher is a servant, Paige. She puts herself at the service of all those theology students. You would see this better if you would observe a first-grade class, but I can assure you the principle is the same at the graduate level. Sheri Klouda was usurping no authority by her tutelage.
Our typical Wittenburg Door disclaimer applies here: they're a primarily a satire magazine so anticipate a healthy dose of snarkiness.
Thoughts on this? Any SBCers want to weigh in?
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (19)
I went to a (Conservative) Baptist seminary and learned from women professors much smarter than myself. And that was over 20 years ago! If Dr. Patterson cannot distinguish between the church and academia, what in the world is this man doing running the seminary? You don't have to become egalitarian to apply some common sense, historical context, and cultural exegesis to the Scriptures to make room for intelligent, qualified women. Whether this kind of hyper-theological nonsense is coming from a Fundamentalist or a Reformed movement within the SBC, this is not what Jesus would do.
"Scholars are 100 percent agreed—even the male scholars—that it’s not Paul who wrote [1Timothy, 2Tim and Titus]". Really? Interesting. A few scholars I know might disagree with that.
Gotta love this quote: "Now let’s look at my book, Galatians. When you read one of the authentic letters of Paul, what do you feel?"
The sheer audacity of undeniably insinuating that Galatians is "authentic" and Timothy is therefore inauthentic! The "Wittenburg Door Authentic Bible" might sell well though - quite a bit lighter, and faster read. (forgive snark)
"Normally our policy here at The Door is to avoid quoting scripture" - I'd advise them to stick to that policy for the time being. If you're gonna abuse it, don't use it.
"Patterson has stated that the seminary's policy prohibiting women from teaching theology to men is drawn from its desire to "model the local church." The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, adopted by a majority of messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention that year, states that the role of senior pastor in local churches is limited to men. Patterson, according to the suit, believes the same standard applies to the seminary."
In a prior BP story covering this (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.a..., the following was stated:
"[...] Sheri Klouda was given a tenure-track position to teach Hebrew in Southwestern’s school of theology when she received her Ph.D. at the Fort Worth, Texas, campus in 2002, according to the newspaper report.
Klouda, who also is a Criswell College graduate, now teaches at Taylor University in Indiana.
Van McClain, chairman of Southwestern’s board of trustees, told the Dallas Morning News that the seminary has returned to its "traditional, confessional and biblical position" that a woman should not instruct men in theology courses or in biblical languages.
McClain said the seminary was gracious to Klouda as she looked for a teaching position at another school. "The administration ... allowed her to teach a full two years after she was told that she would not have tenure," McClain told the newspaper, “... and the seminary even agreed to continue her support after her teaching responsibilities were over, so her family would have financial support. The seminary went far beyond anything that could be expressed as its duty or responsibility."
McClain also told the newspaper, "I do not know of any women teaching in any of the SBC seminaries presently in the area of theology or biblical languages. In my estimation all of the seminaries have sought to be more consistent with most Southern Baptists' understanding of Scripture on the matter."
Patterson declined comment on the issue, the newspaper said.
Klouda, contacted by the newspaper, said, "I don't think it was right to hire me to do this job, to put me in the position where I, in good faith, assumed that I was working toward tenure, and then suddenly remove me without any cause other than gender."
When Klouda was hired for the tenure-track position in 2002, Ken Hemphill was the seminary’s president. At that time, "There was not a policy where [women] would not be able to teach church history or the [biblical] languages," Hemphill told the newspaper. Hemphill resigned as Southwestern’s president in 2003 and Patterson was selected by the trustees as his successor.
The newspaper noted that Patterson’s wife Dorothy continues to teach in Southwestern’s school of theology, with McClain explaining that she teaches courses in women's studies that are attended only by women."
Now I do not **personally** know with Paige Patterson and cannot vouch for his motives, etc. (This is not to say I doubt his sincerity in believing he is doing the right thing.) However, I would rather address the issue at hand, which apparently The Wittenburg Door has no interest in doing, and try to avoid ad hominem attacks on either Dr. Patterson or Dr. Klouda.
Like many other Christians who believe in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures and apply the grammatical-historical approach to biblical interpretation (sometimes called, somewhat misleadingly, the "literal" reading, while I prefer the term "plain" reading), I agree with what is called the "complementarian" view of women in the church, of which Dr. Klouda's dismissal is an example.
The difference between the complementarian (sometimes called "traditional") view and the egalitarian (a.k.a. "evangelical feminist") view is in their interpretation of Scriptures, primarily Pauline epistles, when they address women's role in the home and church. The main thrust of the egalitarians is that Scriptures forbidding women to teach or have authority over men in the church, as well as establishing husband/wife roles in the home, are primarily cultural in origin and do not apply to today's world (because we are more "enlightened" today than the 1st-century church). Complementarians would object that, for instance, 1 Timothy 2:8-14 (NKJV) gives a reason why it states:
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
This reason is given in vv. 13-14:
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Therefore, for a complementarian like myself, the basis for gender roles and forbidding women to exercise authority over men (in homes and churches) goes back to God's intent with Adam and Eve and is rooted in the creation order; it is not a result of the Fall, as our egalitarian brethren would like to claim.
While I do not think this necessarily **requires** all theology and language professors at seminaries to be men (Paul certainly wasn't writing specifically about a Southern Baptist seminary :-) ), it is up to the president of SBTS to lead his seminary in the way he feels led by God. Personally I support Paige Patterson's decision to limit the scope of women teaching future pastors, as this would not be consistent with the way the church is to function; also, one could make a case that having women teach future pastors (who are grown men, by the way) puts a woman in a position of spiritual authority, as well as well-nigh a position of teacher in the church.
I am not a "woman-hater," as many of those who read will probably surmise. I love my wonderful wife of five years dearly, and I believe if you asked her, she would tell you that I have not set myself up as a little "czar" in our home. With leadership and authority that God has given men in the home and church comes a greater responsibility; we are the ones God will ask, as He did Adam in the garden, "Where are you? What have you done?" I am not implying I am perfect or that I never go to either extreme of passivity or being overbearing (although I'd like to think this rarely happens, especially the latter). I have been called by God to **lovingly** lead my wife, while she is called to intelligently submit to my lead and give me the respect due the office of husband (though I may not always be deserving of that respect). We both agree on this wholeheartedly, which makes for a lot more harmony in our marriage that for those who live in "role-less" marriages.
One final word on Dr. Klouda--personally I can sympathize with her situation, especially having to deal with being the main provider in the family (if I understood correctly, her husband is disabled). I would probably feel the same way if I were her. I of course do not know what exactly she was promised by Dr. Patterson, and it may well be that he told her she was "safe," only to be convicted by God later on that she cannot remain in this position of authority. I do not think he should have just let her stay in her position because he sympathized with her--plus, in the first BP article I quoted above, it is clear that no one was "kicking her out"--in fact...
"According to court documents, Southwestern offered Klouda a position as associate director of the writing center on campus, with no reduction in pay or benefits, before she accepted her current position at Taylor University."
I myself teach college part time and am looking for a full-time position. I understand that Dr. Klouda wanted to teach what she went to school for, and she certainly has every right to do so. However, the seminary was more than generous in allowing her to continue teaching for two years after they let her know she would not be tenured, as well as offering her the above position. While it wasn't exactly what she wanted, I feel the seminary acted fairly toward her by upholding the biblical standard, but at the same time being compassionate towards her situation.
Wherever you stand on roles of women, everyone can empathize with Dr. Klouda's situation. However, I would challenge you to examine your views in light of the Scripture. An excellent resource on gender issues in the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; their web address is www.cbmw.org. I would encourage you to visit their site and think for yourself!
You quoted from the Baptist Press the following: "The newspaper noted that Patterson’s wife Dorothy continues to teach in Southwestern’s school of theology, with McClain explaining that she teaches courses in women's studies that are attended only by women."
I have to wonder, why does Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary admit women ? Why do they offer Ph.D.'s to women in subjects that will most likely lead to teaching positions ? If 1 Timothy 2:8-14 has always been a guiding principle, it seems to me that the admission of women to a seminary, would be totally forbidden.
Thank you for your response! To answer your question partially, I do not know which (or whether?) programs at SWBTS are restricted to men only. (I would guess the pastoral studies program would be, although I know some seminaries will allow the wives of prospective pastors to attend class at limited or no cost but receive no college credit for it.)
To look at why SWBTS would admit women into their programs, you have to realize that each admission decision at master's or doctorate level is made on a case-by-case basis. For instance, if a woman wants to study theology to help in her missionary work, this would not constitute "leading her on" to get a degree only to be unemployed. (As you probably know, women are "allowed" to have positions of higher authority on the mission field; there are reasons why this is so in the most complementarian denominations that I will leave outside the scope of this discussion, though I would encourage you to read http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Boo... for a complementarian treatment of this issue.)
Also, I know SWBTS has a Women's Studies program that is geared specifically to women (which Dorothy Patterson teaches in); although I am not familiar with what exactly they study and how graduates would use their education, there can be appropriate situations where a woman can reasonably expect to be able to use her gift of teaching about spiritual things.
Another point to ponder is that in Dr. Klouda's case, the seminary did not previously hold as firm a position on women teaching theology or biblical languages to future pastors, but rather a change in their stance has occurred (which I believe is consistent with Scripture). The seminary or Bible school may have a reasonable expectation that she would be able to find employment in her field. (By the way, she did not graduate from SWBTS, but rather from Criswell Bible College in Dallas.) Now if the seminary really did offer degrees to women in fields where it doesn't believe they should work (such as studies to become a senior pastor), that would amount to hypocrisy; if the seminary now no longer believes a woman should be able to study this field, they should stop admitting women to that program.
You may also want to check out this article on CBMW's website that addresses how women who are able to teach see their place in the rich tapestry of His Body: http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/...
As I have said before, I am not intimately familiar with the details of this case, nor am I making any assumptions about why Dr. (then-Mrs.) Klouda enrolled in the Ph.D. program or why Criswell Bible College accepted her into the program. I also do not know what other opportunities there would be for Dr. Klouda to use her degree other than teaching--and I do not want to assume, as you may have, that teaching is the most likely job she would get. I am also not aware of Criswell's stance on women teaching men in theology or biblical studies. I really feel for Dr. Klouda and her situation; I am not sure there was any other God-honoring way for SWBTS to address the situation, though...
On another note, every woman (and man) should prayerfully consider what opportunities she would have for employment in her chosen occupation before committing to a graduate degree. I am not at all blaming Dr. Klouda for being short-sighted in her decision to pursue her chosen field, but rather pointing out that the student bears as much (or more) responsibility for making a choice of graduate program as does the seminary, because it is the student who should know her calling, abilities, and employment prospects. I know this probably comes off uncaring or unfeeling, and it is **not** intended this way; however, both students and seminaries do make mistakes, because we are all fallen sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. Besides, Dr. Klouda was able to find employment, although it sounds like life was quite difficult for her for a period of time.
I'd like to look at this quotation:
"According to court documents, Southwestern offered Klouda a position as associate director of the writing center on campus, with no reduction in pay or benefits, before she accepted her current position at Taylor University."
Generous, but still kind of a slap in the face don't you think? Wouldn't you find it rather insulting if an employer that had all but fired you turned around and offered you a job outside of your chosen field of study?
Also, check out Christians for Biblical Equality if you're looking into biblical views on gender issues.
Elsewhere in Timothy, we find reason to believe his faith was passed down to him from grandmother Lois and mother Eunice (2Tim 1:5). Also, Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos in the way of God (Acts 18:26). Because none of these above contexts involve marriage or church authority, there is no reason to interpret them as violations of prohibitions on female-male teaching or authority. Whether and how the situation at SBC applies is another debatable point.
Thanks for the response! I do agree that it feels that SWBTS was unfair to Dr. Klouda by giving her expectation of tenure, then going back on their promise. However, I would disagree with your characterization of this as a "lie"--that would imply malicious intent on the part of SWBTS, that they knew they were not going to hire her permanently but led her on. SWBTS underwent a change in their stance towards women teaching men in certain fields because they felt this would be most consistent with God's Word. It would have certainly been better if the seminary had never hired Dr. Klouda in the first place, creating an expectation of tenure, but at the time she was hired the school's position on this was different.
I rejoice to hear that you and your wife have been married 37 years--praise the Lord! We in the church need more people like yourselves who will "stick through it!" My wife and I have been married for less than 1/7 of that time, but I know she would agree that she has a voice and a say-so in how our lives have unfolded. Being a servant leader doesn't mean lording it over your wife; it means loving, listening, and doing what is best for the other person. Being a leader means that I would be responsible if a decision we made was wrong--I would be the first to answer to God. It doesn't mean that I must micro-manage her day, her choice of clothes (or jobs, or anything). It does mean that sometimes I must make decisions she disagrees with--but that's an exception, because generally we arrive at decisions probably in much the same way you do--by thinking, talking, praying together, and coming to an agreement. I do not have a desire for power--and in fact, I sometimes tend to be too passive and let her make decisions on her own where I should at least express my stance.
As for Jesus vs. "me, Paul, and SBC," I still believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Are Paul's writings Scripture or not? Is Romans Road or 1 Corinthians 13 Scripture, God's very words, or not? You can't have it both ways! Once you set yourself up to be judge over the Scripture, you are no longer under its authority. If you don't believe 1 Timothy 2:8-14, how do you know what else to disbelieve?
I want to challenge you, as a brother in Christ, to reconsider your position on how you interpret Scripture. Rather than pitting Paul (who wrote most of the New Testament, by the way) against Jesus, try to read these passages you disagree with or dislike with an open mind. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth, and read the actual words to try to see "whether these things are so."
Thanks again for your thoughts! I hope I have not offended you. Please take my remarks in the context of speaking in love.
Look UP from your Bibles! Jesus is there! John 5:39