More excerpts from Defendant Patterson’s deposition — 2/25/08
Topic: Paige Patterson, Quotes| Written by: Benjamin Cole|
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.
Q. Giving her own conclusions?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes, I’m sorry.
Q. Yet, you had no evidence of that, right?
A. Only student testimony.
Q. It would have been quite easy for you to have confirmed whether or not such was true, would it not have been, had you chosen to, right?
A. Easy, I doubt.
Q. Do you think Dr. Klouda would have been truthful with you if you had asked her the question?
A. I have no idea. I can’t speak for Dr. Klouda.
Q. Do you have any experience with Dr. Klouda that would cause you to believe that she wouldn’t be truthful with you if you asked her the question?
A. Yes, as a matter of fact.
Q. And what is that experience?
A. That experience has to do with the fact that we’re here today?
Q. So it’s your position that Dr. Klouda is lying about things that bring us here today?
A. I can’t read her heart. I don’t know whether she’s lying about them or whether she doesn’t understand them.
Q. Well, she certainly would have understood the question had she been asked, if she was violating the stipulations set before her as a professor; would she not? She would have understood that question, wouldn’t she?
A. She would have understood that question.
Q. And do you have any reason to believe that she would not have given you an honest answer?
A. I don’t have any reason to believe that she wouldn’t have given me an answer that she thought was honest.
Q. And why didn’t you go ask her?
A. I had not –
Q. If, in fact, these students came to you that you say came to you?
A. Uh-huh. Because there was a ecclesiological concern that outweighed everything else. And I did not believe that she should be in that position theologically.
Q. Did you ever go to the board of trustees and tell them that you had students come before you and tell you that she had or was violating the stipulations the trustees put her under?
A. There were trustees that were aware of this, yes.
Q. That wasn’t my question. Did you ever go before the board of trustees and tell them that you had reason — evidence from students that Dr. Klouda was violating the stipulation she had been placed under as a professor.
A. I discussed with some trustees this accusation.
Q. Did you ever go before the board, Dr. Patterson, and present to them the fact that you believed you had evidence?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. I’m not required to actually by the bylaws of the school.
Q. What are you required to do if you — if anything, if you believe that you have a professor, whether it’s Dr. Klouda or some other professor, that’s violating the boundaries of their position as a professor?
A. As chief of administrative officer of the institution, I’m expected by the board of trustees in consultation with the provost and academic vice president to deal with this.
Q. And did you go - who was the provost at the time?
A. Dr. Craig Blaising.
Q. And who is the academic –
A. He is also the academic vice president.
Q. Do you know of any action taken on Dr. Blaising’s part regarding the issue of whether or not Dr. Klouda was violating stipulations under which she was hired –
A. I do not.
Q. — elected?
A. I do not.
Q. How many discussions do you claim that you had with him on that subject?
A. I have no idea.
Q. I have to tell you that in all the reading that I’ve done, and all of the documents I looked at, I have never seen anything that claimed that Dr. Klouda had violated the stipulations of her position as a professor until you sat down here today under oath and started telling me what you told me. I’m surprised. Do you think I should be?
Mr. (Roland) Johnson: Objection; form.
Mr. (Shelby) Sharpe: Objection; form.
A. I can’t speak for you, sir.
Q. (By Mr. Richardson) And, again, you’re not aware of any document where it’s been documented that any allegation has been made that Dr. Klouda violated the stipulations put on her as a professor, correct?
A. That is correct.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 am
A Youtube clip from A Few Good Men would be appropriate here.
We can’t handle the truth.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 am
Speaking as a wholly disinterested party to this, I’ve been amazed at how little Dr Patterson remembers, his failure to document, and his (to me) evasive statements.
I would hope to see better from the president of a seminary.
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 am
Most of us can smell Operation C.Y.A. when we see it. Oh, for a readout of his attorneys’ blood pressure when they heard him taking off on this tangent!
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 am
LOL.
I hope that the writers of Scripture were granted of the Holy Spirit better recall than Patterson has or inerrancy is dead.
Or perhaps they were just prevented by the Spirit from wilful forgetfulness.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 am
So legally-speaking, a seminary administrator may give testimony as evasive and/or scant as the above and a termination of employment be considered by the court to be a “matter of ecclesiology” in which it will not entangle itself?
That would suggest seminary faculty members serving anywhere (at least in Texas) should become very, very familiar with the specifics of their employment contracts.
Dr. P’s personal interpretation of Scripture–which is not supported directly by the Bible itself, by the BF&M (any year’s version), or probably SWBTS’s bylaws (until recently?)–is the sole basis for what essentially was a termination? Now, that’s “at will employment”!
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 am
David:
Wow. You’ve anticipated the next excerpt. Stay tuned.
BSC
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:26 am
Having worked in an academic setting for sometime (support - not faculty), I have had to dismiss folks on occasion.
I had to scrupulously keep records of what I said, what they said, what others said throughout the entire process. The worker in question had monthly ‘performance evaluations and progress checks’ through the entire ordeal.
2 made it. 1 didn’t.
Seems that when you get to the pinnacle of an academic institution which has theological training as its purpose, you don’t have to document, or even recall, anything.
“Senator, I have no clear recollection of that conversation.”
“We” should do better. “We” should be purer. “We” should be an good example.
Sad.
Gary Skaggs
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
I’m sure Patterson didn’t document anything because he’s never been held accountable for any of his actions.
That being said, the fuzziness and lack of documentation are shocking.
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
“That would suggest seminary faculty members serving anywhere (at least in Texas) should become very, very familiar with the specifics of their employment contracts.”
David, very astute. According to the outcome of this judgement, and what I understand about the employment contract, the seminary president could make a case against many they do not like. Male or female.
That is a lot of power for someone without character or integrity.
I have to ask: What about her student evaluations? Was there anything in those complaining about her expositing scripture?
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
How much of this has been edited out? Is this word for word every question and answer of all the testimony?
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
“There is no controlling legal authority which would determine that what I did was wrong.”
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Jeff T., depositions are transcribed verbatim and the responses are submissible as evidentiary testimony.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
PP is an embarassment to the SBC. When will his apologists wake up and realize he is harming the denomination? I think the reason that people do not try to hold him accountable is they fear him and for a good reason.
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
The Dr. Patterson revealed in these excerpts is the best evidence I can think of that God is not interested in fixing what is glaringly wagon with the SBC.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I wish I could stop reading these posts - I feel like I am witnessing a train wreck that I just can’t look away from. It sickens me to hear Dr. Patterson speak with such glaring evasiveness, while preaching to us about “speaking the truth.” I was never a fan, but this deeply disturbs me.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Paige has received his reward in full (Mt. 6:2),
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
A woman “indulging in the exposition of Scripture”? How terrible!
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I assume that by some of the comments here, that you all could recall, verbatim, EVERY conversation you had three or four years ago. You all are so amazing.
The fact that most of us have to settle remembering the gist of what transpired in a conversation from last week, much less from several years ago, seems to escape your enlightened observations.
Ron P.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Is Patterson saying that the “one, true interpretation” of Scripture can only be arrived at by men?
Is a woman teaching me if I read her book and accept her interpretation?
If women can’t interpret Scripture accurately, shouldn’t they be silenced from even teaching women.
Since the age of manhood in the New Testament began at about age 13, shouldn’t we disfellowship churches who have women teaching male youths of high school age?
These are the questions that must be answered for Patterson to be consistent.
If, on the other hand, women (like Beth Moore) can accurately interpret Scripture, then why should God’s wisdom through them be limited to other women.
IMHO, Patterson has a Napoleon complex and tries to exert power by putting women in their place, and big scary beasts on his walls.
Ben Macklin
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
No Ron P, when in a leadership position, and about to fire somemone, I take very good notes.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Ron P:
PP’s actions involved a human being who by his actions were going to change her life forever. This is way too important for his memory to be so fuzzy. PP’s memory is better than what we are being led to believe. I cut him no slack for not remembering such important conversations and lack of documentation.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Ron P,
His position requires that he ask any student who approached him if they had spoken to her Dean first. From there, they should be able to produce documentation. With student names, dates, etc.
He is literally inviting students, by this deposition, to gossip and subvert the chain of command and authority he so loves. Even his Deans should not trust him after this telling testimony. I smell a divide and conquer type of leadership style.
But then, we are all assuming it happened the way he said it did…albeit vaguely. His arrogance certainly comes through.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Paige can remember verbatim conversations from 1979-1990 when he and the Judge were running the conservative political operation. When you’re dealing with sensitive tenure situations, you log meetings and dictate notes. If you’re competent.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Kergyma:
I agree with you, PP can sure recall verbatim conversations from 1979-1990. Maybe he is slipping in his capabilities. I really wonder what it is like to work at the college where he is President.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
OUTPOST,
I Think maybe they threw this Book out the Window some time ago. You can read it Here:
http://saythetruthorpaytheconsequences.blogspot.com/2008/03/church-leadership.html
In His Name
Wayne
March 24th, 2008 at 1:51 am
That trustee oversight down there is a thing of beauty, isn’t it?
March 24th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Trustees are all in thrall to Paige Patterson, who uses the “God’s Man” theory of leadership to wrap a mantle of invincibility around himself.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:23 am
One thing is clear to “me” anyway…Had this case gone to trial, I cannot believe that a jury would have let Patterson get away with this travesty. A jury would have honed in on his lack of detailed documentation in a second. Any level one human resources person would tell you that you need to document any conversation of the type Patterson referenced in total and specific detail. This is egregious would never fly in our country in a normal situation. This man is not a leader — he is a coward. How very, very sad for the Klouda family and for the future of SWBTS and our church!
March 24th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Im still waiting for PPs supporters to come on here and flame everyone like they normally do and try to convince us all that everything’s OK because the “man of God” was actually stamping out the seeds of heresy at SWBTS. Their silence is deafening.
Ron P attempted to make a point about PPs bad memory, but that was shot down quickly by a couple of reasonable responses.
The fact is that even the staunch PP supporters are embarrassed by his own words and arrogance. This is truly a case of the emperor having no clothes on and his own supporters are scared to death to say anything. Or, there’s no defense to be offered for the stuff we’re reading from the deposition.
It’s more and more obvious that PP merely did what he wanted at SWBTS on this issue. He didn’t need anyone’s approval, he’s PP. He didn’t want a “heretic” (i.e. woman) teaching at the seminary, so he thumbed his nose at the trustees (remember, he’s PP), thumbed his nose at the contract agreements, thumbed his nose at his deans and other administrators and did what he always does…which is what PP wants!
Now he’s thumbing his nose at the courts as well. Sad indeed.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:10 am
In the early days of the CR, Paige would stand out in the middle of the aisle during votes and hold his ballots up high so all his lackeys could see how to vote. He’s still doing it.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:28 am
…. leaning in toward the interviewer, wagging that finger,and red-facedly saying …. “I did not hire that woman, Ms. Klouda”….. “it depends on what your definition of ‘interpretation’ is.”
March 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Ben, there was mention of Sherri teaching conclusions she had come to from Scripture that wasn’t in line with the BF&M. Do you know what these were? In other words, what theological issues were these students suposedly complaining about?
March 24th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
That’s not the question:
The question is has the writer of this post, edited anything, selected certain parts of the testimony….
Has it?
March 24th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Robert, there was no mention of her teaching theological conclusions that were contrary to the BFM. The problem, according to Patterson, was she was actually interpreting Scripture and teaching her interpretations to men (which he thinks is contrary to the BFM). Of course, it’s absurd to think of a person teaching biblical languages who is not also, de facto, interpreting the text, at least in a minimal fashion. Anyone who has taken Greek or Hebrew knows the impossibility and absurdity of such an idea: to teach Hebrew without drawing any interpretive conclusions–that would be a feat indeed (and a remarkably boring class). Of course, that just gets to the heart of the matter as to why Patterson, et al–absurdly– thinks no woman should be teaching Hebrew or Greek at all.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Kyle,
In regard to what I said, I’m referring to the following exchange:
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.
I’m not indicating that this is the main issue at stake here. I’m curious as to what issue these students came to Dr. P with. Was it a theological stance that differs from the BF&M, or was it that a woman was instructing pastors and that paradigm is not in accordance with the BF&M (women teaching). It sounds like there were two issues at hand: 1) her theology as it corresponds to the BF&M and 2) the issue Patterson has with woman teaching men in this setting.
I’m simply asking Ben what “these matters” were. I suspect he knows and I’d like too as well.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Robert, I know you’re asking Ben, but it seems all too clear to me what “these matters” are. When Patterson says she “was teaching in a way that violated our commitment to the BFM,” it’s pretty obvious, to me anyway, what that means. She was “drawing conclusion” from the text while speaking in a position of authority over male students. God forbid. I don’t see what’s confusing about it. It doesn’t really matter what the content of her interpretations actually was. To Patterson, a woman shouldn’t be “drawing [Scriptural] conclusions” while in a position of “ecclesiastical” authority over men.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I Guess this is why Dr. Paige Patterson didn’t want to “ Swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth, So Help Me God “.
In His Name
Wayne
March 24th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
For having a faulty memory, Dr. Patterson certainly remembers enough about the Conservative Resurgence twenty years ago to have written a detailed book on it.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Debbie,
What is the title of Dr. Patterson’s book on the Conservative Resurgence?
March 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Okay, let me try this again, and Kyle I’ll accept an answer from you or Ben.
When the students came to Patterson to complain, were they complaining that a woman was expounding the text with conclusions to male students, or where they complaining about the conclusions she was drawing from the text?
March 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Robert:
We don’t really know what they complained about because there is no record.
And Defendant Patterson can’t seem to remember much.
BSC
March 24th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Robert: I don’t recall. OK Just kidding. It’s located on his personal site, the title is “Antatomy of a Reformation.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I’m sorry the above was to Barry.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Robert,
You can rest assured that the complaints, at least according the Ginkgo biloba deprived memory of the President, would have been that Dr. Klouda had the gall to indulge in attempting to draw a conclusion of the sacred text.
The complaint would not have been about the conclusions reached in Dr. Klouda’s exegesis, because in the sycophant’s minds who allegedly complained to their Master, a woman’s fault is her attempt at concluding anything from the text in terms of teaching a male.
Sheesh. Sometimes I think Southern Baptists should separate into Shiites and Sunnis
March 24th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Um, I think that happened in 1990
March 25th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Ben and Wade,
I know this post is history now, but thank you for the response. I hope my question wasn’t seen as a slam to Dr. Klouda. I just cannot fathom students complaining about a professor drawing conclusions from the text (in seminary that is what I assumed they were supposed to do)…unless those students were asked to sit in the class with an agenda. Ben, you probably know that this is a tactic taken sometimes.
Ben, except for the haughty spirit at times, I appreciate what you guys are doing.