SBCOutpost

Readers of SBCOutpost.com who might be interested in hosting ERLC President Richard Land for an event should feel free to contact his booking agent at the All American Talent and Celebrity Network.

Folks, we could not make this stuff up if we tried.

**UPDATE**

As of a few moments ago, the All American Talent and Celebrity Network website will not allow access to Richard Land’s biography or booking information.  In fact, it appears that Richard Land has been removed from their network altogether.

Thank you, Google Cache, for all the memories.

Not sure why, but this was recently posted on YouTube.

Your good, green friends at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission have joined together with historian (no snickering please) David Barton, the ever lovely Janet Parshall, an apparently less family-focused James Dobson, a few organizations supported by oil money, a handful of Southern Baptist theologians like Russell Moore and Daniel Akin, Singer Pat Boone — who apparently got off the the Crazy Train in time to sign — and Oklahoma’s entire Senatorial delegation

Ergun “Butch” Caner apparently did not sign this declaration either.

Go check out the We Get It campaign as it rolls out of Nashville coming to a convention near you.

In 2004 Jimmy Draper sensed the graying of the SBC. He called leaders to take an initiative to engage and encourage young leaders. Intent to do as he suggested Draper planned a Road Trip stopping in a number of cities to share a conversation with those who would. Paul and I attended one of these “listening sessions” at the First Baptist Church, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Unsure of what constituted “young” in “young leader,” we found the conversations interesting to say the least. There is little doubt some things encouraged Dr. Draper while others confirmed his concern.

Several years ago I was invited to preach out our State Pastor’s Conference. I was the “young” preacher. I caught the early session, the one before the big hitters show up. I stayed for the meeting and told a couple of our staff members that if we continued as we were, it would not be long before our Pastor’s Conference became extinct. The issue was not the preaching. Rather the event illustrated the same statistics offered by Lifeway regarding the age of SBC Annual Meeting messengers/attendees. The number of “young” pastors/preachers may have scraped 15% of those in attendance. [I want to be quick to note, we have great fellowship and some solid preaching at our Pastor’s Conferences. My comments are not intended to denigrate our efforts at bringing challenging speakers to our events. Instead, the intent is to illustrate the dearth of young pastors in terms of percentage of attendance.] That is how I was introduced to the changing world of SBC denominational debate.

Recently, the ACP report indicated a membership decline. Several days after everyone seemed to agree there was a problem, few would disagree we are losing many young leaders, and most agree we need a plan for unity, Paige Patterson shows up with a long, rambling, analysis, swinging at everyone. (Is this the longest First Person ever, coming in at over 1800 words?)

Pay careful attention to the word games. Up to this point few would run from CR as Conservative Resurgence. Dr. Patterson chooses to recast the conversation in terms of a “Conservative Renaissance.” Not enough to quibble for most but a definite attempt to seize the conversation. Four “culprits” take the blame for the “decline” that is really not a decline. Occasionally willing to note direct correlations cannot be made, Dr. Patterson implies he has a handle on the declining numbers.

One of the more amusing moments is when Dr. Patterson takes a swipe at Dr. Frank Page. Frank is quoted in the Associated Press saying Baptists are often seen as mean spirited. (Does anyone really disagree with this????) A Google Search revealed only Dr. Frank Page is quoted describing the SBC as often seen as “mean-spirited.” Here at the Outpost are surprised Will Hall of Baptist Press and his boss Morris Chapman would allow the President of one of our seminaries to attack the President of the SBC in this manner. We believe such an action should merit an apology and a retraction. After all, it was agreed our entity heads would not attack one another.

Paige Patterson responds:
Is it also “mean-spirited” to make broad imprecise allegations of “mean-spiritedness”? Are some who make these charges guilty themselves?

Did he just say, “I’m rubber, your glue?” to Frank Page?

Nice.

Patterson objects to the loss of young leaders, asking if they were really ever “of us?” Are we to assume, since Patterson cites 1 John 2:19, that he believes people like Andy Stanley (and many many others) have left the faith—that they are not “of us.” I hope not. And, should we assume here that he is refuting the claims and emphases of men like Stetzer, Draper, and others. Again, I hope not.

Evidently we have a case of, “He said, He said.”

So who wins the day? Some will immediately defer to Dr. Patterson. After all, we owe him a debt for saving the SBC that is not in decline. We owe those who form the inner circle of the SBC a measure of respect for the blood on their swords to rid the SBC of those liberals.

Except in the same day BP is releasing the First Person piece by Patterson we also find Johnny Hunt will be nominated to be President of the SBC in Indianapolis. Ted Traylor will nominate Hunt. Two of the three reasons Traylor outlined for nominating Hunt turned on the issue of young leaders and unity. Evidently Traylor and others believe young leaders are indeed disinterested, if not leaving the SBC. And, rather than looking for gremlins and ghosts, some believe there is a need to unify around the Gospel, that there really is division in the SBC. (Can anyone guess where at least some of that division originates?)

So, you see, it is a, “He said, He said,” matter. Either Dr. Patterson’s analysis is correct, or Stetzer, Draper, Traylor, Page, Hunt, Aikin, Rainer, George, Dockery among others see the recent news as a clarion call not to call ghostbusters, but to face the facts. As with all things Baptist – you get to be the judge.

Yesterday, Criswell College trustees voted to reject a proposal whereby the Dallas school would be subsumed into Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Developing . . .

Read it here:  Patterson on his firing from Criswell College, on SNAP, on his “every man ought to own one” comment to the Atlanta paper, and on much, much more.  Over the next few weeks, we will dissect different aspects of this bizarre, convoluted testimony.  For now, just absorb in full the eccentricities of a Southern Baptist leader gone Coo-Coo for Cocoa Puffs.

Patterson Deposition Part-1

Patterson Deposition Part-2

Patterson Deposition Part-3

Patterson Deposition Part-4

Patterson Deposition Part-5

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.

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.”