Mar 20
SWBTS accreditation review goes forward . . .
Topic: Humor, Paige Patterson, SWBTS, Sheri Klouda| Written by: SBC News|Now that the Klouda lawsuit has moved to the inactive files in the federal courts, two accreditation societies have been notified that an investigation by those agencies may proceed.
Outpost contributor and the Southern Baptist responsible for filing two formal complaints against SWBTS, Benjamin Cole, was asked to provide a statement regarding recent developments in the Klouda matter. Cole provided the following statement:
“Those who celebrate this pyrrhic victory have forgotten that more than one egg is nesting under the seminary hen. It ain’t over ’til the hat lady sings.”
March 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Wrong. The two accreditation societies (ATS & SACS) will not go against a federal court decision.
Don’t let your objectivity be jaundiced by your envious wish that others be destroyed.
Cloe Cooper
March 20th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Do you honestly think either accrediting agency will move forward with any action when a federal court has already judged this case? They would open themselves up for a lawsuit initiated by the school (remember that the accreditation agencies are not Christian organizations & don´t pretend to be so SWBTS could sue them). The last thing either agency would want to engangle themselves into would be a suit that a federal court has already acted on.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
In other news, Dr. Mohler had surgery today for his pre-cancerous tumor. The SBTS website says that all appeared to go well.
Praise God.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
your sin will find you out…
March 20th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Chris:
Who sinned?
March 20th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“…the hat lady…”
HOW FUNNY!!!
I provides a much needed laugh after spending some time lamenting and praying over at Wade’s blog.
How sad is all this going to get before HE steps in and corrects it ALL with His JUSTICE, and thankfully MERCY and GRACE!
Ya know…as an sbc mworker, I’m really concerned about what’s going on back over there, and how it’s affecting our work here. I laugh at most of it, but my heart really is breaking over the very real, and long term effects that decisions within current leadership are making.
For the sake of MILLIONS of people who don’t have access to the GOOD NEWS, unreached cities and people groups around the world, wouldn’t it be great if Dr. P and the ‘hat lady’, Dr. Klouda, Brother Floyd, well….the entire SBC, drop their weapons of both offense and defense and re-read Heb 12:14&15, then drop to our knees przing Him for His grace?
What a witness to the world, and imagine the POWER that would be released through the Holy Spirit to bring restoration and salvation!!
But in the meantime…
Thanks SBC News!!!
March 20th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
shoot….”IT”, not “I”!!!
March 20th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Take it easy on BC..it has been a rough day…really a rough few years
March 20th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Accreditation agencies, like auditors, judge what they look at by their own standards. Unlike the capriciousness of SBC agency heads and board leadership, they have a standard and actually stick to it. You could almost refer to it as a plumb line. I’m not sure even the EEOC would look at this Summary Judgment as a stopper.
March 21st, 2008 at 12:24 am
What about the new homemaking courses…will they be looking at them for accredidation or are they ‘continuing ed’?
March 21st, 2008 at 12:53 am
Well, we have had months of cheerleading and silly predictions about the lawsuit from all quarters.
Since we have all been playing lawyer for the last few months, what’s to stop us now from opining on issues affecting the accreditation of an educational institution? How about we limit the comments on predictions only to persons who know what the heck they are talking about! Anyone out there ever work for ATS or SACS? Let us here from you - please.
I am a lawyer, and wasn’t willing to make a prediction on the lawsuit (though I expressed my doubts at times). There is no way that I am going to get involved in predicting what ATS or SACS will do.
However, I do suspect that there are quite a few religiously affiliated schools (e.g. Catholic, orthodox Jewish, Muslim) that might have even tougher standards on gender issues than the SBC. Just don’t know how that will affect things.
Louis
March 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“How about we limit the comments on predictions only to persons who know what the heck they are talking about! Anyone out there ever work for ATS or SACS? Let us here from you - please.”
Hi Louis,
I have chaired committees on 5 accreditation reviews at 5 different institutions, worked for a President for 10 years who was a former VP at SACS and I was on a team that coordinated the improvement process for an institution that had 19 sanctions.
But, I am certainly no expert.
Surely there is someone else who can pass Louis’ vetting process for blog opinions?
March 21st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Sooner or later the authors of this blog are going to have to drop it and repent. Drs. Patterson are not the anti-Christ and harlot they have made them out to be in these numerous posts. While certainly there have been some difficulties in the transition into the Patterson administration at SWBTS, the extent has been dramatically overstated by this blog.
We might not enjoy the people whom God has placed over us in authority, but the NT is clear we are not to rebel sinfully (as has clearly happening here) but to pray for them and seek God’s blessing on their lives.
One might hope that a more New Testament ethic might find its way into the pages and keywords of these posts.
You are the Church!
Robert Angison
March 21st, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Robert Angison:
I’m hoping that a New Testament ethic might work its way into the SBC, particularly in the office of the President of SWBTS.
I’m curious how the firing of Russell Dilday exhibited a New Testament ethic in your mind. The problem is that the whole Fundamentalist takeover was rotten at the heart. Patterson was very much the heart of that takeover, and in the sad Klouda incident and many others we see the fruit of that heart.
I know that Ben and others are hoping that some outside entity will bring Patterson to accountability. Sadly, the SBC has refused to do so, and will never do so.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Robert, please help me understand in what respect the Pattersons have been “placed over me in authority?”
March 21st, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“We might not enjoy the people whom God has placed over us in authority, but the NT is clear we are not to rebel sinfully (as has clearly happening here) but to pray for them and seek God’s blessing on their lives.”
Robert, Spoken like a man who would’ve drunk the kool aid at Guyana. You may not have enjoyed it but you are obedient to your earthly rulers. Good man!
March 21st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Lin:
Thanks for sharing the info about your background.
I suspect that background will give you some good insights on this issue. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic. You probably will be the “go to” person on this topic.
My limited understanding is that SACS works with different types of institutions. My daughters’ school (an independent college prep school for girls in Nashville) recently had a visit from a SACS committee. I participated in a discussion session as a parent representative. It was very interesting.
What type of institutions did you work for? College prep, college, grad school? Were they non-profit, religious schools?
Again, look forward to your comments.
Louis
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 am
Louis, I only have one question related to accreditation at SWBTS that I am really curious about. Does Mrs. Patterson’s ‘doctorate’ count toward the percentage of PhD’s needed for her area of study?
I am sure SWBTS has a very good IR department that is quite able to provide SACS with the stats and massive documentation they require.
BTW, The sanctions I mentioned came from reviews of new degree programs and new courses for areas of concentration added to an existing degree program.
SACS-CASI is the accrediting body for my daughter’s Christian school, too.
If you found a SACS meeting interesting, I am very worried about you. :o)