SBCOutpost

While i finalize my convention reflections and a post entitled, “Exit Strategy,” I thought it would be helpful for our readers to see an excerpt from Louis Moore’s new book, Witness to the Truth. The following quote can be found on pages 173-174:

While the party of the establishment tried to collect itself in the wake of the unsettling victory, precious news time was wasted waiting for Rogers’ first press conference. I took the initiative and began querying Pressler and Dorothy Patterson about arranging a private interview for me with Rogers. By this point I had observed that Dorothy Patterson was much, much more than “the little woman behind the scenes” as some try erroneously to portray the wives of SBC conservative leaders. While Smith College grad Nancy Pressler functioned as the epitome of well-heeled wife who hostessed in the skybox with the grace and skills of an uppercrust Houston Junior Leaguer, Dorothy Patterson was more of a behind-the-scenes, can-do, take-charge, nuts-and-bolts political strategist. One of my most perplexing memories of the 1979 SBC meeting occurred on Wednesday morning when Paige Patterson slept late — much to the disdain of just about everyone in the skybox — while Dorothy Patterson seemed, in the absence of her husband, to literally function as an equal partner with Pressler.

In a recent blog post Tom Ascol opines about the controversial nature of reform movements, remembering that for decades the Conservative Resurgence was, itself, a reform movement. He writes:

My editorial in this issue of the FJ [Founder’s Journal] looks at the “Calvinistic Resurgence” in light of the “Conservative Resurgence” and makes two points. First, the latter did not occur without significant controversy, which makes the makes the castigations against the doctrines of grace and those who believe them as being “controversial” lose their force (especially when they come from the very controversialists who led the charge in the 1st CR). Second, despite all of the good that was done in the 1st CR, by and large, the Southern Baptist Convention is in need of dramatic renewal in our day. Arguably, our churches are worse off today than they were in 1979.

If you want to know why he thinks so, order your copy of the Founder’s Journal today.

“Please do not think that you can exterminate the evil in the world by your activity and your own personal exertions.  After all, that evil is within you yourselves.  This is not some human resistance that you must break down; rather it is the power of the great adversary which is at work in what is happening and intervening here.  You are not fighting against “flesh and blood,” but against the secret ruler of this world.

This is the tragedy of all social reformers and moralists; they want to root out vice, drinking, smoking, free love.  And as they set out in grim earnest on their virtuous crusades these good people are quite oblivious of the fact that the devil has hung himself about their necks.  Why is it that as a rule we find it so hard to endure these do-gooders and reformers?  Why do they make us feel so uncomfortable?  Because we sense something Pharisaic and superior in them, because the very vice upon which they are making a front attack is at the same time in their own hearts, like a partisan army fighting in their rear.  The fanatical reformers do precisely what the servants in our parable wanted to do.  They want to exterminate the tares with force and will power, failing to remember that their own wills are filled with weeds.  Not to see this is their Pharisaical error; and to see this is the royal realism of Jesus Christ.”

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 »

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.

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.

J. Shelby Sharpe, Esq., represents Defendant Paige Patterson in the Klouda lawsuit. In recent days, I’ve enjoyed becoming pen pals with Mr. Sharpe, who has taken issue with my insistence that his client has difficulty remembering the whole truth — or telling the whole truth — or both.

Speaking of lies, I’ve been directed to a Dallas Morning News article from 1986 where Mr. Sharpe is reported to have told a jury that sometimes — in certain circumstances — lying is legally permissible.

This, from the “Get To Know Your Lawyer” file:

Dallas Morning News
October 7, 1986

ABORTION CENTER JURY HEARS CLOSING PLEAS: Defense lawyer says not all lies illegal

FORT WORTH — The jury considering deception charges against a pregnancy center will have a “tremendous historical’ impact on the nation, a defense attorney said Monday.

Shelby Sharpe, in his closing statement to the jury, said the verdict could be a precedent-setting victory for free speech or become a national embarrassment like an 1850 Supreme Court ruling that denied citizenship to slaves.

“Your decision is going to make tremendous history,’ Sharpe said. “Either it will be a very good day, or a very sad day in our history, like the Dred Scott decision.’

Eliot Shavin, an assistant Texas Attorney General handling the lawsuit against the anti-abortion Problem Pregnancy Center of Fort Worth, urged the jury to reject a “right to lie’ and asked for fines and fees of about $100,000.

Shavin said center volunteers and president Chuck Pelletier use deception and misleading advertising to lure women seeking abortions to the center, then subject them to a a graphic anti-abortion film and confrontational counseling.

Ten women testified that they were tricked by advertisements and statements from volunteers into thinking the Problem Pregnancy Center was an abortion clinic.

“These lies are unlawful,’ Shavin said.

But Sharpe, telling jurors that the center has the free speech right to present its views on abortion in a manner of its choosing, acknowledged the possibility that a volunteer might have lied, which he said would be immoral, but defended its legality.

“God doesn’t approve of lying,’ Sharpe said. “It happens, but not every lie is unlawful.’

Pelletier has testified that center employees are instructed to avoid answering some direct questions, such as whether the center performs abortions, but are never instructed to lie.

The jury, which has heard five days of testimony, met behind closed doors for only a few minutes of deliberation Monday before deciding to resume work Tuesday morning.