SBCOutpost

Among the extracurriculars that keep Defendant Paige Patterson occupied beyond the campus of Southwestern Seminary is his service on the Board of Trustees for Cedarville University of Ohio.

Cedarville, of course, is in the news quite a bit lately on account of the recent firings of two tenured professors. The national media is covering the blowup, and SBCOutpost is interested to note the connection of Defendant Patterson to yet another series of faculty dismissals. Secret recordings have now been produced to raise questions about the Cedarville administration’s integrity and transparency in this matter. What’s good for the goose and all . . .

I wonder, however, if the administration of Cedarville has kept university trustees apprised of this situation. I wonder if lawsuits will be filed. I wonder if Cedarville University is also a church for purposes of legal classification. I wonder if Defendant Patterson’s recent legal troubles will become a factor in this case. I wonder if Defendant Patterson has been keeping his “ear to the ground” about the trouble at Cedarville.

I wonder….

Tomorrow we will resume our posting of Defendant Patterson’s sworn deposition testimony and links to documentation that serves to impeach that testimony.

Denominations become self-perpetuating. They exist to exist. To survive. But as we’ve all seen from the TV show Survivor, once everyone gets into survival mode things start getting ugly.

When denominations and denominational entities begin to exist for themselves, for their own preservation, the denomination is in decline. When denominational leaders (the ones we used to call “servants”) begin acting in self-preserving ways the denomination is in decline. Some people will tell you that the problem begins with the denominational entities and flows down to the churches. Others will counter that unhealthy churches make up unhealthy denominations.  Reality is that the relationship flows both ways.

The Southern Baptist Convention is in decline. It hardly matters that “membership” is up if every other indicator is down - including weekly attendance, baptisms and the percentages given to maintain the denomination and its ministries. Can it turn around and will it?

I am, by nature, an optimist. The glass is almost always half full. In fact, I often wish I was a postmillennialist. But it will probably come as little surprise to know that I am not very hopeful when it comes to the future of the SBC.

I think we are too institutionalized. Adrian Rogers once called the Cooperative Program our sacred cow. If it was a sacred cow then it has nearly become a fourth person in the Trinity today.

Some of our leaders share in concerns about what we are becoming and have become, but most are too invested to do anything that would lead to substantive change. If the structure of our denomination were to radically change then their jobs might change with it, so there is often too much at stake for them.

Some of my blogging friends do not believe the SBC can change apart from those leaders taking the lead. They also believe that it won’t happen, so they have left blogging about “Baptist” stuff altogether. I don’t particularly blame them.

But if things continue as they have been for the past 25 or so years what will become of the SBC? What follows are some of my thoughts. I’m not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I think I can follow some trends and perhaps draw some reasonable conclusions from them.

Let me begin with the implications I see in the dwindling attendance numbers at annual conventions and other SBC events. If the denomination continues to decline the Baptist Identity folks will win/maintain control of the convention because they will be the only ones left who care about it enough to hang around. Of course, if the convention continues to dwindle they may be left with very little to hold on to, but have it they will, nonetheless.

If that happens we can probably expect to see much of what we’ve seen for the last 30 or so years. The same old same old evangelism conferences, the same old same old pastor’s conferences, and the same old same old programs. They will likely continue their present effectiveness as well. I don’t think the SBC will thrive with thinking that says we need to keep doing what we’re doing (or go back to doing it the way we used to), but to try harder. Honestly, that is what we are already doing - or at least trying to preach ourselves into doing - witness more, baptize more, learn more theology. Do what we do, just do more of it and with more passion and energy. I don’t know. Maybe that will work. It hasn’t in my lifetime, but perhaps things will change. I’m not hopeful. But the SBC has a long history of revivalist thinking, so I may well be in the minority (just keep doing what we do and pray for a mighty outpouring of the Spirit in revival and we’ll be back in business).

Meanwhile there are churches needing assistance in other ways and they aren’t getting it because we’ve allocated all of our resources to maintaining what we already do. If we quit doing it this way there are a number of older folks who are used to it this way (and who typically give most of the money and are the majority of those who even show up) who will complain about it. Go ahead. Just try to do something radically different with your state’s evangelism conference. Or skip it one year for a completely different approach. You’ll be able to hear the wails and cries and complaints from a thousand miles away.

Our state conventions can’t all afford their own Catalyst conference, or Q Conference, or Desiring God conference. So we’ll just line up the same speakers we had at our evangelism conference/pastor’s conference three years ago and have another go at it. Meanwhile, all of the attendees laugh at Junior Hill’s jokes and get excited by Herb Revis’s fiery presentation and homespun stories, and return to our churches where attendance, baptisms and giving continue largely to decline (and those that are growing are almost exclusively doing so at the expense of the dying Methodist church or the troubled Baptist church down the street).

My own opinion is that we neither want to re-think how we do what we do, nor are we able to. And the results will continue to show as more and more choose to stay away from the things we do.

Of course, a denomination is neither sustained nor doomed based upon attendance at denominational events, but people do often vote by their absence and they are voting in the droves. Without some form of personal contact with the entities we help support how long will that support last?

Next up: what about the money?

“Please do not think that you can exterminate the evil in the world by your activity and your own personal exertions.  After all, that evil is within you yourselves.  This is not some human resistance that you must break down; rather it is the power of the great adversary which is at work in what is happening and intervening here.  You are not fighting against “flesh and blood,” but against the secret ruler of this world.

This is the tragedy of all social reformers and moralists; they want to root out vice, drinking, smoking, free love.  And as they set out in grim earnest on their virtuous crusades these good people are quite oblivious of the fact that the devil has hung himself about their necks.  Why is it that as a rule we find it so hard to endure these do-gooders and reformers?  Why do they make us feel so uncomfortable?  Because we sense something Pharisaic and superior in them, because the very vice upon which they are making a front attack is at the same time in their own hearts, like a partisan army fighting in their rear.  The fanatical reformers do precisely what the servants in our parable wanted to do.  They want to exterminate the tares with force and will power, failing to remember that their own wills are filled with weeds.  Not to see this is their Pharisaical error; and to see this is the royal realism of Jesus Christ.”

In the last five weeks we’ve had four families/individuals who have joined our church. Of those only one family came from another Baptist church. In our four years in this church over half of those who have joined, coming from another church, have come from something other than a Baptist church. Yes, we do have the word “Baptist” on our sign. Yet, this is a trend that other pastors I’ve talked to are seeing as well. Some of them do not have “Baptist” on their sign, or are in the process of having it removed.

When I arrived at this church they were not using official Southern Baptist literature in most classes. No children’s class used it, though the Middle School and Youth classes used it as well as some of our adult classes. The church did not deem the denomination’s children’s literature to be evangelistic enough. So we use a very conservative, non-denominationally published brand of literature. Most of our adult classes today use something other than LifeWay material. There was a day when that would have never happened.

We are Southern Baptists. We give to the Cooperative Program. We give to our local association. We give to Lottie Moon. We also give to a local community-based Christian organization that helps with benevolent needs and we do benevolence ministry directly as well.

For decades now the larger (mega) churches have trended away from strong cooperative giving in favor of more personal involvement in missions and ministry. A Southern Baptist mega-church may allocate as much or more to things like missions work through the local church than to missions work through denominational channels.

One even wonders how many people who are members of Saddleback church even know they are Southern Baptists. Some have questioned whether or not their pastor knows. Read the rest of this entry »

Question (Mr. Richardson): Do you know of any scriptures, Dr. Patterson, that are — were in support of Dr. Klouda’s election as a professor at Southwestern? Since you found — since you have a scripture that you say specifically is against it, do you know of any that would support it?

Answer (Defendant Patterson): First, in fairness, you recall that I said there is the one passage that’s very specific, but there is also the whole tenor of the biblical narrative is very consistent in all that is said about it. And so, in specific answer to your question, I cannot think of a passage, to my knowledge, that would support it.

Q. Was Dr. Klouda involved in church governance at all as a professor?

A. Only to the degree that she would be a participant in faculty meetings of the School of Theology.

Q. Was that in violation of anything as far as the BF&M is concerned?

A. Well, it’s not the best situation by way of example.

Q. Was it in violation of any — anything in the BF&M?

A. It could be?

Q. What?

A. It could be in violation, again, of a woman serving in a position ruling and teaching men. And she is serving as a faculty member, and therefore, conceivably voting on issues with regard to the School of Theology.

_______

Wait a minute? Did we just read that correctly? Paige Patterson believes that women voting on issues of church governance is a violation of the BF&M and/or the Scripture?

Here’s the logic:

1. The Bible prohibits women from teaching or exercising authority over men in the church.
2. The Baptist Faith & Message reflects this biblical teaching by confessing that only men may serve as church pastors.
3. Southern Baptist seminaries are obliged to implement the BF&M guidelines in their policies and procedures.
4. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, while not a church, functions as one for purposes of legal classification and practical ministry training.
5. The professors of SWBTS who train pastors must be pastor-qualified — in other words, they must meet the biblical criteria for pastoral leadership, i.e., they must be men.
6. One of the functions of a professor of theology at SWBTS is to “vote” on matters pertaining to the seminary’s curriculum, coursework, etc.
7. Voting on such matters is a form of “exercising authority” in an ecclesial context?
8. Women professors would be allowed to vote on such matters in the school of theology, if they were tolerated on the faculty.
9. Women, therefore, should not serve on the faculties of the School of Theology because of the privilege of voting that is associated with that role.
10. Sheri Klouda is a woman.

Therefore, Sheri Klouda was usurping the authority of men by serving on the School of Theology faculty and exercising her responsibility to vote in faculty meetings.

But wait, kids, we’re left to draw certain conclusions:

1. Either Dorothy Patterson is not a woman, or she is prohibited from voting on matters as a faculty member. The first option is not something I wish to discuss, and the second would be very interesting to accreditation societies.
2. When Dorothy Patterson votes at the Southern Baptist Convention, she is usurping the authority of men.
3. When Dorothy Patterson attempted to speak at the 2006 SBC in Greensboro — hat and all — regarding the resolution on alcohol consumption, she was attempting to usurp the authority of men.
4. What does Defendant Patterson think about the women who serve on the Board of Trustees at SWBTS?

To be continued…..

In his February 25, 2008 deposition, Defendant Patterson had this to say about his relationship with ERLC President Richard Land:

Question (Mr. Richardson): Okay. Are you familiar with the Dallas Morning News article in — on May 19th, 2000 where Dr. Land made a statement about his position and belief on this issue?

Answer (Defendant Patterson): No.

[Exhibit 1 is marked]

Q. If you would, go to the last page when you get through. Go ahead and take a minute and look at it.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. It will be exhibit 1. You’ve had an opportunity now to read the document I just marked as Exhibit 1, which is the Dallas Morning News article May 19, 2000 which says “Baptists draft changes to statement of faith.” And I specifically wanted to — wanted to direct your attention to the last page of that article that says, The change — before I do that, let me ask you this. You said that Dr. Land is the president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And has been since 1988, correct?

A. I don’t recall the date.

Q. A long time?

A. Yes, a long time.

Q. And would you agree that it is obvious that the Southwestern Baptists see Richard Land as a brilliant, cultural and philosophical thinker, and as well as seen thusly by trustees and administration at Southwestern Seminary?

Mr. Sharpe: Objection, speculative.

Q. Go ahead.

A. The first thing one learns in this life is that you can’t speak for Southern Baptists. So I couldn’t speak for Southern Baptists, I’m happy to tell you that I certainly view him thusly.

Q. Well, let me narrow it down then to the trustees and administration at Southwestern Seminary and say, would you agree that they view Richard Land as a brilliant, cultural and philosophical thinker?

A. I — I’m unable to speak for my trustees, I’ve got 40 of them.

(Editorial insertion: SWBTS established the Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement on October 17, 2007.)

Q. Okay. And in the exhibit I just handed you, number one, the last page, you have it there before you, see if I read this correctly. “The change in the Faith and Message would not prohibit women from serving as seminary professors or administrative leaders,” Dr. Land said. Did I read that correctly?

A. You read that correctly.

Q. Do you agree with his statement?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And how is that consistent then with your position that women are not qualified to serve as seminary professors or administrative leaders?

A. Well, you did not state my position correctly.

Q. I — I assume you’re going to say certain seminary classes, right?

A. Certain areas of the seminary, that is correct.

Q. Okay. So you’re saying then that Dr. Land, in your opinion, is not taking into account all positions in the seminary, is that correct?

A. Sir, I can’t speak for Dr. Land.

Q. Have you ever discussed it with him?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. How often do you see Dr. Land?

A. Minimally, three times a year.

Q. And when’s the last time you saw him?

A. It would have been last week.

Q. And did you tell him you were giving your deposition this week?

A. I don’t think I mentioned it to him.

Q. And you’re testifying under oath today, Dr. Patterson, that you have never, to your recall, discussed with Dr. Land the issue of Dr. Klouda’s termination?

A. I — I don’t recall it. It’s not to say that I have not.

Q. Do you have any — and I don’t mean this to be cute, but I need to ask you, do you have any unusual disability with regards to being able to recall?

A. No, sir, I just don’t recall. I live a reasonably busy life and see a lot of people.

Now flash forward three days after Defendant Patterson’s deposition to his chapel sermon of February 28, 2008. In an exposition of Matthew 5:33-38, Defendant Patterson discussed his friendship with Dr. Land by revealing the following, which can be heard at approximate 13 minutes and 21 seconds into the message:

My dear, precious friend, Dr. Richard Land, whom I love with all my heart as you know. We don’t disagree on just about anything, but once in a while we do have a disagreement and when we do it is fun. I mean we get on the phone late at night, and I mean from 11 until 1 in the morning you wouldn’t even know we were Christians. Man, we go at each other, and we have the best time, and then we say, ’see you in the morning,’ you know. And we’re happy about it.

Well, I called him up and I said, ‘Dr. Land I’m fixing to preach on this and not only that I’m fixing to appear in court, and I’ve been getting more and more under conviction about this. What do you have to say about this?’

Then he said, “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”

And so I took it that he would not hesitate to swear in court to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help him God.

But I can’t go there with Dr. Land, who may be listening today. Love you, Dr. Land, but you’re wrong again.”

Question (Mr. Richardson):  Well, I’m interested in whether or not you claim here under oath today, Dr. Patterson, that you mentioned to these two gentlemen (Blaising and Allen) any concern about her (Klouda) violating the stipulation that she was placed under?

Answer (Defendant Patterson):  Yes, I did mention it to both of them.

Q.  And what — what is it you say you said to them?

A.  I don’t recall the exact conversation, of course, but I did say to them that I felt that there was violation taking place perhaps, and furthermore, that I felt that it was inappropriate ecclesiologically for her to be in this position.

Q.  And what was the violation that you claim here today that you told them that you thought was taking place?

A.  I believe that she was indulging in the exposition of the scripture.

Read the rest of this entry »

Question (Mr. Richardson): What do you understand the stipulation or stipulations were that was placed on Dr. Klouda in her being a professor at Southwestern?

Answer (Defendant Patterson): Stipulation, as I understand it, is that she should teach only biblical language and exegesis and that she should not teach exposition of the biblical books.

Q. Of what?

A. Of the biblical books.

Q. And as far as you know, did she operate within the confinement of those stipulations?

A. I think that there is reason to question whether she did.

Q. Has there been allegations that she didn’t?

A. Yes, I had students come to me and raise that question.

Q. When?

A. A number of times, but to give you dates, I cannot.

Q. How many students do you say came to you?

A. I have no idea at this point.

Q. And what is it you’re saying they said?

A. That essentially she was actually teaching exposition in the classroom.

Q. And give me an idea of what that would be?

A. That she would not only teach the language, but that then she would draw conclusions about it from the ministry and that kind of thing.

Q. And that would violate the stipulation put on her when she was hired as a — elected as professor, correct?

A. As I understand it, it would.

Q. How — give me some idea, if you would, when it was that you say students came to you and made this comment?

A. Once again, I couldn’t give you dates. I can tell you that shortly after I came to the seminary I began to have some students come in.

Q. And telling you that she was doing that which violated the stipulations under which she was hired?

A. I don’t think most of the students had any idea about exactly what the stipulation was. I think they came with concerns about what was going on in the class.

Q. So they — they just come to see you as the president to say I’m concerned because Dr. Klouda is drawing conclusions on what she’s been teaching, is that kind of the way it happened? According to you?

A. Not — not in all cases.

Q. Well, what other — did it happen that way in some cases, some student walks in and says, Dr. Patterson, I sure need to talk to you, I have concerns about the fact that Dr. Klouda is drawing conclusions? Is that kind of the way it happened?

A. I don’t recall that that was the exact verbiage involved in it. They were concerned that Dr. Klouda was — was teaching in a way that violated our commitment to the Baptist Faith and Message, and to the fact that she was instructing pastors and future pastors in these matters.

Q. Did any of them say whether or not they had discussed that with Dr. Klouda?

A. I do not recall anybody asking that.

Q. Did you ask them?

A. I almost always do. I don’t remember the conversations in — in great detail, but almost always I ask that question.

Q. So you think you asked this student or students that came in and expressed to you that they had concerns that Dr. Klouda was violating the BFM in the method in which she was teaching?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And you asked them, well, have you talked to her about it, is that kind of the way it went?

A. That is usually what I would do. But I stress that I do not remember specific conversations at that point.

Q. And I assume that when they came, that if — the ones you say came, if they did come and say what you’re saying they said, that you automatically knew yourself that if this was happening, that that would be a violations of the stipulations placed on Dr. Klouda, correct?

A. Would you state that question –

Q. Sure

A. — one more time, please, sir.

Q. If these students did come to you, as you say they did, and say the things you’re saying they said, you automatically, knowing the stipulations placed on Dr. Klouda, would know that that would be in violation of those stipulations, correct?

A. If their testimony were correct, yes.

Q. Right. So I assume that you would have made some kind of memorandum, note, documentation, of this conversation or conversations that you say you had with students, correct?

A. Negative.

Q. I’m sorry.

A. Negative.

Read the rest of this entry »