SBCOutpost

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

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.”

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 »