Break in series: If Southwestern Seminary is a ‘Church’…

It is intriguing that a primary defense that both President Paige Patterson and Southwestern Seminary are using in the lawsuit brought against them by Dr. Sheri Klouda is that SWBTS is “a church” and that Dr. Klouda’s role was that of “a minister” in said church.  Yes, I know that this is legalese that comes out of previous First Amendment cases, including one in which SWBTS was involved in the early 1980s.  However, for fun, it might be interesting to play out the assumption that SWBTS is a church and see where it leads us.

To guide us in our thinking of what a church is–or, doctrinally, is supposed to be–I will now cite the entire text of ‘Article VI. The Church’ from the Baptist Faith and Message 2000:

“A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Now, having laid out the Southern Baptist Convention’s authoritative wording as our theological guide, let’s break it down chunk by chunk and see how it applies to the situation that is Southwestern Seminary.  But, first, it is worth asking what the usage of “church” is that is in play here.

What do I mean?  What I’m getting at is, are we talking about the church as a denomination, the universal church or a local church? 

If SWBTS is a church in the sense of its own denomination, then we can stop sending them Cooperative Program dollars.  So, that must not be how they intend the term.  After all, they seem to be getting at least their fair share of CP support in comparison to the other seminaries.

What about as the universal church?  Well, some at SWBTS, with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell as spokesman, apparently believe that any other Christians who do not believe identically with them on at least certain non-salvific theological issues are in “unrepentant sin.”  That would seem to constitute an implicit claim that their theology represents that to be held by the universal church spoken of in these words in the BFM2000: “The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

However, even though it appears that Yarnell has every intention of sliding far enough out on his arrogant theological limb to saw himself off, the most likely understanding here of “church” is still that of a local church.  So, let’s think about what it would mean if SWBTS were, in fact, a local church that toed the line with the BFM2000.

The first concept worthy of note in the BFM2000 wording is “autonomous.”  SWBTS is certainly that, if nothing else.  Nobody else is the SBC is going to tell them what to do! 

Think about it.  SWBTS is our only seminary with a stated trustee policy against speaking in tongues and private prayer language.  Add to that the realization that their administration and trustees see themselves as so “autonomous” that they feel no need to meet SBC regulations and provide either their actual enrollment numbers for 2006-2007 or President Patterson’s pay/benefit numbers.  So, if nothing else, this consideration of SWBTS as a church has provided them with a new defense against the charge of “stonewalling.”  It’s called being “autonomous!”

The next relevant concept here is “baptized believers.”  Would this mean that SWBTS, which is actually a parachurch educational entity, should require all students from denominational backgrounds which do not hold to believer’s baptism to be re-baptized?  Since the Yarnell faction holds that those who aren’t are in “unrepentant sin,” this would seem to be a logical place for them to focus their efforts to purify the SBC in doctrine and practice.

By the way, there is much in the middle of this article for which I can commend SWBTS.  For example, they certainly are zealous for the gospel and the biblical ordinances, even if some among their faculty and leadership go beyond BFM2000 in pushing “closed” versions of both.  Also, they do care about seeing the gospel extended “to the ends of the earth,” even though the most powerful among them have absolutely no intention of allowing that to be done by a Southern Baptist who has ever spoken in tongues or exercised a private prayer language.

A further idea here worth commenting on is that, if SWBTS is to be viewed as a local church, it is under the ultimate lordship of Christ and governed by “democratic processes.”  That would require some huge changes.  First, Dr. Patterson would no longer be allowed to “lord it over” everyone, including the trustees, since that is expressly forbidden of local church leaders (1 Peter 5:3).  Second, to be truly “democratic,” the faculty and student body would have had to be allowed to vote on the questionable directions SWBTS has taken in recent years in some sort of mass congregational business meeting.  And, if votes could be taken anonymously, it is highly unlikely that a number of Patterson’s egotistical decisions would have seen the light of day.

Next, we encounter this wording about the local church: “Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.”  In applying this to SWBTS, it would be interesting to find out who is what.  But, for my purposes here, I think it is fair to assume that all faculty and teaching administrators would be in the roles of “pastors” and that the trustees would be “deacons.” 

If that is the case, then SWBTS was guilty of violations of their own stipulation against women pastors (see the discussion below) and had quite a number of “momentary lax of the paramaters” in hiring women faculty beyond just Sheri Klouda.  (Check out the faculties of the other schools at SWBTS and you will see exactly what I mean.)  The question that comes to mind here is, “If having women pastors/ministers at SWBTS is wrong, why did they just fire Klouda and not all the female faculty–including Dorothy Patterson?”

A further question is worth asking in regard to viewing the faculty and teaching administrators at SWBTS as “pastors.”  Would SWBTS be objective in its spiritual “vetting” of candidates for the faculty and, even more importantly, president?  After all, precise qualifications for local church leaders are listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Peter 5:2-3. 

If such spiritual/behavioral qualifications were honestly taken into account, should Dr. Patterson ever have been hired by the Southwestern trustees?  You see, for anyone who looks closely, it is not rocket science to conclude that he fails miserably in regard to at least the following four qualifications: “not a bully” (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7); “not greedy for money” (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 3:2); “not arrogant” (Titus 1:7); and “not lording it over those entrusted to you” (1 Peter 5:3). 

Oops!  My bad!  I was dreaming of a perfect world in which there was such a thing as trustees who are supposed to hold those with the most power in the SBC accountable for their actions actually doing their jobs.

Pardon me!  I forgot!  As SBC royalty, ”the Lord’s anointed,” Dr. P gets a total ‘turn your head and ignore it’ pass in regard to his manifest and manifold character flaws/mistakes/failures/sins (and, for those of you for whom Patterson is an idol, yes, he sins; if you don’t believe that, please–PLEASE–read 1 John 1:8, 10).

Finally, by following the word order of the BFM2000, I’ve managed to save the best for last: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” 

Isn’t it interesting that SWBTS’s contention is that, since Sheri Klouda was a ‘minister’ of their ‘church,’ she can be fired for whatever cause, like any other minister of a local church.  Can we not all agree that this is a thoroughly odd argument, given that SWBTS’s doctrinal position says in so many words: “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture”?  In other words, how could Dr. Klouda even be considered to be a “minister” (i.e., pastor) in any sense, when the group making this claim is on record as saying they would never countenance having a woman as a minister?

I guess this is why I could never be a lawyer.  This is just way too clear and common sense to actually be considered in a courtroom when there are legal smokescreens available to hind behind.