SBCOutpost

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 »

Question (Roland Johnson): What about Dr. (David) Allen? Did you ever meet or talk with Dr. Allen about anything related to your claims or any of the terms and conditions of your employment?

Answer (Sheri Klouda): I remember a conversation, but I cannot date it.

Question: Okay.

Answer: When I sat down with him and I was talking to him about Dr. Patterson’s perspective, his view of this — this issue and he expressed to me or he had said to me that when I was — that not everybody believes the same way that Dr. Patterson does. He also said that he spoke on my behalf at my election. And since I was not there to witness any of this, I don’t know what actually happened and so I only know what I’m told. He said that he spoke on my behalf at my election when he was chairman of the board of trustees, but that if I ever told anybody, he’d deny it.

Question (Roland Johnson): Okay. Now what — so after learning that, your — some period of time you believe in the fall of ‘04, you were asking him to reconsider his position on that those that taught men to be pastors ought to be pastor-qualified themselves and looking for an option other than that?

Answer (Sheri Klouda): Other — yeah, either that or realizing, you know, if he wouldn’t grant an exception in my case, then perhaps — perhaps he would — you know, would be able to find another place of service for me at the institution. I was very — I was in a different situation from the typical woman, things were reversed in so many ways as God’s hand was in it, so — but I will say this.

I also in several instances attempted to try and, you know, make overtures to Mrs. Patterson, is there anything that I might be able to do to help with the women’s program, if there are any of my skills that would be important there. She dismissed me summarily right away and I was sort of surprised that she didn’t make any kind of overture to me or try to build any sort of bridge with me with regard to perhaps using my skills and abilities in some way with the women because I would have been open to that and I’ve expressed openness to that. I did not know her and I would have liked to have gotten aquainted with her and understanding, of course, that she has constraints that are part of being the wife of the president of the seminary and a very busy woman. Still as of — a woman who had been educated at Southwestern Seminary, I thought perhaps I could make a contribution and I couldn’t seem to get to square one with her.

The SBTS website noted the successful surgery of Dr. Mohler. We pray the pathology report comes back with more good news. Pray for him, his family and Southern Seminary.

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.”

In June 2001, Tammi Reed Ledbetter published an article in Baptist Press entitled, ‘60 Minutes’ segment on Anne Graham Lotz muddied SBC stance on women in ministry.

To get a balanced perspective on Southern Baptists’ views about women in teaching roles, Ledbetter went to her old mentor, Dr. Dorothy Kelley-Patterson. When asked about Anne Graham Lotz’s apparent views concerning the BFM2000, Dr. Kelley-Patterson had this to say:

Praising Lotz’s ability as “a gifted expositor,” Patterson agreed that the conditions set forth in the Baptist Faith and Message were misrepresented to the popular Bible teacher. “The Baptist Faith and Message addresses what Scripture addresses. It is a confessional statement and we are not trying to address 50 situations,” Patterson explained. She said she does not believe the directives about women teaching or “ruling over men” cited in 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11 or 1 Corinthians 14 address para-church organizations like seminaries, evangelistic organizations, or other ministries outside the church. “They are talking about church order.”

Does Dr. Kelley-Patterson hold a different view than that of her husband, who apparently believes that those precise passages do, in fact, address seminaries? Kelley-Patterson goes on to clarify that her own personal view does not allow her to teach men except on rare occasions, though she is careful to distinguish her personal view from the view adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in the BFM2000.

I have forwarded the above quote to Klouda’s attorneys.

Shelby Sharpe has apparently taken it upon himself — with no direction whatsoever from his client, Defendant Paige Patterson, who is completely truthful in his every word and honorable in his every deed — to correspond with one of our SBCOutpost.com contributors.

Shelby Sharpe letter to Benjamin Cole — March 12, 2008

And the response below:

March 14, 2008

Mr. Shelby Sharpe
Sharpe, Tillman, & Melton
6100 Western Place
Suite 1000
Fort Worth, Texas 76107

Dear Mr. Sharpe:

First, allow me to note that your letters to me (2-27-08 and 3-12-08) have both contained errors which are most evidently attributed to inadvertent secretarial oversight rather than your own carelessness. In both letters you reference a blog dated “February 27, 2007.” I’m certain that you must mean 2008 rather than 2007. I appreciate your referencing the title of the blog, “Breaking News: Patterson won’t take oath . . .,” so that I was able to discern what you meant to write.

Second, your most recent letter of March 12, 2008, represents that you intended to enclose copies of the first two pages of Paige Patterson’s deposition. Your office failed, however, to include the deposition pages. Perhaps this too is due to secretarial oversight rather than carelessness on your part. I have enclosed with this letter a self-addressed stamped envelope for you to send the deposition pages you reference. I would not want to ever fear that Cooperative Program dollars will be allocated for additional postage costs on account of your office’s error.

Third, you seem very concerned that I have accused your client of untruthfulness. Honestly, it would be better for him had he not provided assurance that his testimony in the deposition was “the truth and nothing but the truth.” In time – when the entirety of his deposition is in the public domain – I intend to demonstrate the great number of falsehoods, half-truths, inconsistencies, and feigned memory losses that your client has demonstrated in the course of this lawsuit. For now, however, I will wait to see if the case goes to trial.

Fourth, if your client has not instructed you to address these matters with me – but rather a “friend” has directed you to SBCOutpost.com – then I would encourage you to determine whether or not your client desires for you to get mired down in correspondence with me when more pressing issues of his defense are at hand. And if the pool of potential clients for Sharpe, Tillman, & Mellon has dwindled to the point that you must carve a niche practice for your firm by engaging bloggers, then by all means proceed.

So please bring whatever suit you wish. As it is, I have no desire to continue correspondence with you concerning threats of lawsuits that neither you nor your client intends to file.

Now, Mr. Sharpe, I do not make pretense to be an expert of the law. Neither can I claim to be uninformed or ill equipped to engage you in an argument concerning the law. You have an impressive resume of cases argued and won that involve basic constitutional guarantees. You have a long and distinguished career as a member of the bar. Please reconsider whether or not it is the wisest dispensation of your energies to become a pen pal to bloggers whose silly little satirical posts seem to frustrate your efforts to represent Leighton Paige Patterson.

I would only remind you of this, sir: Your client is a rather notorious public figure with decades of print and electronic media written about him. If he has not retained you to run down the authors and editors of various print and electronic media to correct perceived mischaracterizations of him, then I am at a loss to understand why you would have done just that. Nevertheless, if that is the nature of your work for Mr. Patterson, then I am confident you will have plenty of billable hours in the days ahead.

Should I receive another letter from you about this matter, I will not respond in kind. Rather, I will understand that letter to be an invitation to become pen pals, and I will begin forwarding to you monthly letters of a personal nature much like I would send my grandfather. In the meantime, let’s try to avoid fruitless banter. I’m confident your Sunday School teacher can help you locate the biblical support for such a proposal.

Sincerely,

Benjamin S. Cole

CC: Defendant Paige Patterson
Mr. Gary Richardson

**********

In related news, it seems that Shelby Sharpe likes to write letters about defamation.

SBCOutpost is having a splendidly good time covering the Klouda lawsuit. With unapologetic schadenfreude, I have learned of some interesting ties between Defendant Paige Patterson, Southwestern Seminary, Broadway Baptist Church, and the Catholic pedophile clergy scandal.

Most Southern Baptist observers are already aware of the fomenting scandal at Fort Worth’s Broadway Baptist Church, where pastor Brett Younger has recently survived an ouster vote. The boys over at SBC Toady have commented extensively about the “liberal left wing” theology of the church. Baptist Press has weighed in with considerable print on the issue.

What Southern Baptists might not know is that Defendant Paige Patterson has recently notified remaining faculty who are members of Broadway Baptist that the school will not long suffer them to remain in fellowship with the church. Defendant Patterson tolerates little compromise when it comes to such issues. Convention dollars should not, Patterson believes, be used to pay the salaries of men and women who maintain membership in churches that are not in compliance with Article III Section 1 of the SBC Constitution.

But he’s quite comfortable, it seems, with paying attorney’s fees to legal counsel whose theological persuasions are similarly compromised.

Mr. Roland Johnson has been retained to represent Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the Klouda lawsuit. According to his firm’s website Mr. Johnson is not only a proud member of Broadway Baptist Church, but he served as Chairman of Deacons at the church and twice as Pastor Search Committee Chairman. But perhaps I’m the only one who finds it interesting that a man who’s a committed leader in a church known for supporting women who serve in clergy roles is now in the odd position of defending Southwestern Seminary for opposing that very thing.

Among Mr. Johnson’s clients there are some interesting personalities. In short, Mr. Johnson has a history of representing SWBTS during an earlier wrongful termination suit brought by former professor Farrar Patterson (858 S.W.2d 602). And when the Catholic sex scandal boiled over in Tarrant County, Mr. Johnson represented six priests accused of molestation by arguing that information about their histories and crimes should remain private.

Add to that the fact that Mr. Johnson, who is currently running for President Elect of the State Bar of Texas, credits Albert Schweitzer with his life commitment.

Can anybody say conundrum?

More on Farrar Patterson and other developments on the SWBTS legal team forthcoming . . .

In the ongoing discussion of the case between Dr. Klouda and Dr. Patterson/SWBTS one point that seems regularly to arise is whether or not it is Biblically appropriate for a believer to take another believer to court.

I’m not convinced that the apostle Paul had a “new law” in mind when he gave his instructions in 1 Corinthians 6. That simply means that I am inclined to a position that these sort of lawsuits are inappropriate, or at least ill advised, while maintaining an openness that there may be circumstances (such as upholding Biblical justice) where the general rule may not be what Paul had in mind. How do I view the Klouda lawsuit? To be honest, I don’t know. I do believe that she may well have been treated unjustly, and if so I am not opposed to a secular court granting her justice if the church refuses to do so.

Regardless of all of that, here we are. The case has been filed and is now ongoing. Since I disagree with Dr. Patterson’s theological approach to this issue it won’t bother me at all if Dr. Klouda wins her case (because I think the courts can so rule without having to mediate theological matters). My cards are on the table.

There is a question that comes to mind in light of 1 Cor. 6, though, and especially verse seven. Verse seven reads: “To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?” In a case like this one, does this verse apply only to Dr. Klouda, or does it apply to Dr. Patterson as well? Dr. Patterson believes that it is wrong to take a brother/sister to court. That it is better to be wronged than to have these matters mediated before unbelievers. But would that not mean that he should allow himself to be wronged or defrauded in order to avoid a spectacle in the secular courts? Would it not be better for him to settle the matter out of court even if it means there is a wrongful price to pay? Does all of the burden of being wronged rest in the lap of Sheri Klouda?

For those who have been concerned about this case in light of 1 Cor. 6 would it not be better, more Biblical, for Dr. Patterson to settle this out of court? After all, he has a means of avoiding the pagan courts just as Dr. Klouda does (my apologies to judge McBryde if he is a believer). And what if the judge is a believer? If that is the case, then isn’t Dr. Klouda avoiding the warnings that the apostle Paul was giving in 1 Cor. 6?