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.

Fridays are for…Newspaper Articles

By now, you know the drill.  This is my already-published weekly column from the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian, used by permission:

                      “Stunting Your Growth”            

When I was a kid, my parents warned me against smoking or chewing tobacco, saying that both would stunt my physical growth.  I took them very seriously, because, at that point in life, my dream was to get a college athletic scholarship in football.           

So, with the exception of the briefest childhood experimentation with both—and only because some cool older boy peer pressured me into trying them—I steered clear, because I definitely did not want my physical growth stunted.  And, I guess it worked.  I grew up to be 6’1” and grew out to be 235 pounds—when I was playing football at Mississippi College.           

Sadly, there are other dimensions of life in which growth can also be stunted.  For example, many people stop learning the moment they get out of school, having hated the classroom setting.  When that happens, the result is being educationally stunted and, in most cases, intellectually stunted.  The only exceptions are those who take the time to learn through the avenue of doing a great deal of reading on their own in a number of wider areas.           

Other people become stunted in their social and relational growth.  Perhaps they felt shy or awkward as children.  Or, in many cases, a person will have something traumatic or tragic take place, which causes him or her to more or less withdraw from other people.  You see, while it is painful for that person to be alone, it is even more painful for them to come out from behind their protective defense mechanism and be with other people in anything beyond the most surface way.  As a result, they never develop the social or relational skills needed to get along among other people.  They just hold everybody else at an arm’s length throughout life, emerging from their fearful avoidance of others only when absolutely necessary.           

Yes, there are some truly sad reasons why the growth in various areas of life is stunted for certain people.  But, in the big picture of life and eternity, I think the saddest—and also perhaps the most subtle—is the case of those whose spiritual growth is stunted.           

What do I mean?  Here’s what happens way too often.  A person becomes a Christian through simple faith in Jesus Christ’s work on the Cross to pay for his or her sins (John 3:16; Acts 16:31).  Then, in the excitement of their new faith, he or she begins to grow spiritually—exactly as it is supposed to be.  The spiritual “milk” related to the Bible that is needed for a new spiritual baby to grow is provided through the church (1 Corinthians 3:1-2; Hebrews 5:12-14; 1 Peter 2:2).  But, then, that new believer does not ever get past that stage.           

Why?  He or she never learns to study the Bible for themselves.  They never get interested in learning deeper spiritual truth.  They never get serious about applying the Bible to the way they live every day.  As a result, for all their newborn spiritual enthusiasm, they quickly run out of gas in sustaining spiritual growth.           

What has happened?  Their spiritual growth is stunted.  And, who did this to them?  Was it the church in general?  Or, was some specific leader or teacher in the church responsible for stunting their growth?           

No.  And, that is the hard part.  Often, those whose spiritual growth has been stunted want to blame the church, or those in leadership.  Sometimes they will even say things like “Everything was so good until…” and seek to shirk all personal responsibility for their own spiritual stunting.

But, what really happened?  Just like a physical toddler must learn to feed himself or herself or be dependent on other people the rest of his or her life, the same thing is true spiritually.  “Toddler” Christians must learn to feed themselves spiritually from the Bible or they will become spiritually stunted.  It is just as simple—and just as difficult—as that.

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (XIV): “Recyled Wine in Old Wineskins”

A number of years ago now, a friend and I had a not entirely friendly ”discussion” about the relationship between the political and theological aspects in what is now widely referred to as the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.  I argued that it was a political means to a theological end.  My friend argued that it was a theological means to a political end.

Who was right?  For a very long time, I flatly maintained that I was.  However, as things have clarified more and more over time, I’ve had to “eat crow” and admit that he was probably closer to the truth than I was.

Why do I say that?  My contention was that Paige Patterson et al were only playing the political game (actually, beating the liberals then in control at their own game) in order for a spiritual atmosphere informed by biblical inerrancy to take hold in the SBC.  My friend’s contention was that inerrancy was merely a brilliant rallying cry that was being used to provide Patterson and those around him with the unrivaled power to make the SBC into whatever they wanted it to be.

From how I saw things at that point, my friend’s viewpoint seemed worldly and cynical.  Frankly, at the time, I could not bear to allow myself to even seriously consider what he was saying.  But, over time, my eyes have been opened and I have been forced to come around and face what appears now to be very clear reality.

What changed my view, you might ask?  It was that, in recent years, I have noticed two very distressing overall trends: 1) Inerrancy has now been shown to be very little more than a political slogan by the shameful lack of, or at least, highly inconsistent application of Scripture by those who claim to believe in inerrancy the most theologically; and 2) The consolidated political power that was gained by the Resurgence leaders in wresting Convention control back from the liberal power bloc remains at least as concentrated in the hands of a few as it was before the Resurgence and, when they choose to do so, that powerful elite wield their power just as arrogantly and, occasionally, brutally (with the circumstances of Dr. Sheri Klouda’s firing at Southwestern Seminary a classic recent example of both).  

What was the first significant clue that finally breached my denial on this topic?  It was that I kept hearing variations on the theme “To the victor belong the spoils!” in the aftermath of the eventual total Resurgence victory.  In other words, because Patterson and his closest allies “won the war,” now they can do whatever they want to do and all the rest of us are allowed to do is be grateful and let them do their thing. 

What a spiritual tragedy!  I honestly remember nobody declaring “What a glorious victory for God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit who gave us our inspired Bible, so that we can now apply it!”  Instead, what I do remember hearing from the mouths of many was “How clever of Patterson and Pressler to organize around the concept of inerrancy to gain their great victory, so that conservatives will never lose power again!”

What we see here appears to me to be some kind of bizarre reverse spin on Jesus’s well-known parable in Matthew 9:17: “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins.  Otherwise, the skins burst, the wine spills out, and the skins are ruined.  But they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved” (HCSB). 

Why do I refer to this parable in this context of this discussion?  Because the Conservative Resurgence, with its bold proclamation of the cruciality of biblical inerrancy, should have proven to be been nothing less of a compelling spiritual influence than “new wine” for the SBC, in stark contrast to their more liberal, and thus presumably much less spiritual, predecessors.  And, because it was poured back into the “old wineskins” of the exact same way, politically and organizationally, that their predecessors did things, those “wineskins” should have burst long ago.  Or, at least Jesus’ parable about the power of the New Covenant through the work of the Holy Spirit certainly implies that!

But, the Conservative Resurgence has been in full control of the SBC for about a decade and a half now.  And, for the most part, both the “official” (i.e., Constitution and Bylaws mandated) and “unofficial” (i.e., the way things get done behind closed doors, out of the view of the Convention at large) power structure remains virtually the same–change the names, despite the expected huge spiritual differences that conservative theology should have made.  In fact, the only major difference–and, admittedly, it is a significant difference–is that the power structure is now “ruled” by conservatives, not Moderatives/Liberals (whichever you prefer).

What is the “heart” of the problem?  In my carefully considered opinion, it is nothing other than the heart–the fact that, while several of our most significant leaders give every indication of being theological and political giants, at the same time, they appear to be little more than spiritual dwarfs. 

What do I mean by that?  Let me try to be as clear as possible: The problem is certainly not that the men in question do not know the Bible and solid evangelical theology and believe every bit of it.  Nor is it that they do not know how to get a hearing in the corridors of Congress or even at the White House.  Rather, it is that their behavior everywhere other than in front of the spotlight–where they do photo ops very well!–is much more in keeping with “the works of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19-21) than it is “the fruit of the Spirit” (5:22-23). 

Thus, for all their obvious theological knowledge and political savvy, it still must be concluded that they are, when push gets to shove, people of the flesh, not the Spirit.  And, what is worse than that is that a huge proportion of the SBC does not seem to care even one little bit.

Why?  Largely because the SBC at large has become progressively de-sensitized spiritually.  We have become so used to people saying the right thing theologically, then not requiring the practical proof of any behavioral reality in the lives of the speakers, that we have come to think that such a massive disconnect between proper interpretation and life-transforming application is, well, ”normal.” 

But, when you read the New Testament with anything remotely resembling a heart seeking after what God intends the Christian life to actually be like, you quickly are convicted by the realization that such going through the motions life in the flesh is the exact opposite of ”normal” (i.e., abnormal) in God’s eyes.  Instead, it is nothing more or less than a self-centered abomination before Him!

Now, I will not dispute at all that such a fleshly life is very much the “average” in much of the spiritually desensitized SBC.  But, that does not make it any less ”abnormal” in the Lord’s eyes.

No!  The “normal” Christian life is lived under the control of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18), which transforms all our major relationships–marriages, parenting and the workplace–into Spirit-filled relationships, as the unfolding structure of Ephesians 5:18-6:9 makes clear.  All those relationships–and everything else we do, for that matter–are to reflect “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23, HCSB).

If you do not see these “fruit” in the life of a leader, but instead see (or hear from trustworthy people) evidence of the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21), why would you just stick your head in the sand and give them a “pass?”  You see, this is very serious stuff spiritually!  If any leader in the SBC is just pulling it off by confidence in the flesh, what they are doing is the very same thing as building with “wood, hay and stubble” (1 Corinthians 3:12). 

I freely admit that the average onlooker may not always be able to tell the difference (1 Corinthians 4:5).  However, do we not care enough to at least let those leaders know that we really desire their best spiritually, now and eternally?

But, do the masses really care?  In one sense, yes; in another, apparently not.  They “care” in the sense of “idolizing” these leaders.  They are on a pedestal as “the Lord’s anointed” and, in the minds of most of the rank and file of the Resurgence, completely unassailable and unaccountable.

That is where a huge facet of the problem comes into play.  Because these leaders have been almost totally without accountability for a long time, surrounded by yes-men and virtually worshiped by their adoring followers, no one is honest enough to tell them that, like all the rest of us, they still sin (1 John 1:8, 10) and that their fleshly confidence in their highly impressive resumes is actually “dung” or “garbage” (Greek skubala; Philippians 3:8) from God’s perspective.

As I prepare to close, I would ask you to think about one cameo that illustrates very well how the flesh has short-circuited the great potential that the Resurgence’s theological gains could have produced spiritually in the SBC.  Let us look together through spiritual lenses at the Convention meeting in San Antonio in June.

On the one hand, President Frank Page was attempting to lead the Convention in the direction of humble repentance and true spiritual revival.  His stated theme was “Lord, Send Your Holy Spirit” and his theme verse for the meeting was 2 Chronicles 7:14: “If my people who are called by My name humble themselves, pray and seek My face, and turn from their evil ways, then I will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land.”  Now, just exactly how effective was Page’s godly plea from a spiritual perspective?

Through no fault of Frank Page, who reflected the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) as he presided, especially in some tense moments, the works of the flesh (5:19-21) were close at hand to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19).  How could Page’s desire for humble repentance and the moving of the Spirit in true biblical revival get off the ground when, in close proximity time-wise, we had to watch some of our most powerful leaders totally flaunt the flesh?  I’m recalling, notably, Paige Patterson and Richard Land, who paraded for all there to see (note the Apostle Paul’s word “obivous” in Galatians 5:19, HCSB) their arrogant fleshly “selfish ambitions” (Galatians 5:20) and Al Mohler, who issued a classic fleshly “outburst of anger” (5:20)? 

So, with that sort of fleshly undermining of the Spirit going on even in our most public meetings, my dearly beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, it appears to me that we have little hope of at least several of the SBC’s entities doing other than continuing in a fleshly direction unless/until at least the following three things happen: 1) the bare theological slogan of “biblical inerrancy” finally is allowed to progress forward to its biblically intended spiritual outcome of the transformation of lives through rigorous application; 2) the current habit of just ignoring, or creatively explaining away, the fleshly leadership among us gives way to the refusal to tolerate other than truly Spirit-led leaders; and 3) the shamefully entrenched pattern of admiring arrogance as a strength of certain SBC leaders, instead of as the heinous biblical character flaw that it is (Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:5-6), gives way to an acceptance of only humble leaders.

When will the “new wine” spiritually that could/should have been the outcome of the Resurgence take the place of what has proven to be nothing more than “recycled wine” from what existed before organizationally/politically at the top of the SBC?  I have no idea.  But, I do know that things cannot possibly get very far in that direction while the most powerful leaders among us see nothing wrong with being controlled by the flesh as they exercise unaccountable power.  Whenever the flesh carries the day, the Spirit suffers defeat (Galatians 5:17) and spiritual “corruption” is the inevitable outcome (6:8, HCSB). 

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for… Newspaper Articles”

Break in series: Thoughts on the Circumstances of the Hiring of Dr. Sheri Klouda, Take Two

In this past Friday’s post, I made reference to an amazing note taken from the minutes of the Spring 2002 meeting of the trustees of Southwestern Seminary in which Dr. Sheri Klouda was hired as a professor.  Along with many other people, I had been quite interested in seeing those minutes, very curious as to why SWBTS had stonewalled all efforts to provide a copy of them for months, assuming–again, with not a few others–that it had to do with the disputed issue of whether or not Dr. Klouda was hired unanimously.  However, I believe that what I found–which will be discussed below–is much more significant.

So, why was it that SWBTS was hanging on to those minutes for dear life–at least until they were finally procured by Paul Littleton’s remarkable perseverance from a SWBTS staff member?  What was there that they–or at least someone high enough up at SWBTS to block those requests–did not want the public to see?

As I stated Friday, and have heard from several with similar opinions over the ensuing three days, all appearances are that the uneasiness at SWBTS is related to the following note related to Dr. Klouda’s position included in the minutes:

“Miles Seaborn, R. E. Smith, David Allen and Craig Blaising met to discuss the scope of this position and agreed on the following explanation: ‘This is a position teaching Hebrew and Aramaic grammar, syntax and exegesis.  It does not extend to the exposition of the Old Testament or Old Testament theology.  The purpose of the position is to help students gain facility in the handling of the Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old Testament.’”

On Friday, I offered my initial thoughts on this note.  However, over the weekend, I have reflected further and now see things somewhat differently and, I hope, more clearly.  So, as with the filming of a movie, television show or video, I am going to do a second “take” here, which I trust will be a more well-thought-out analysis of the unusual note cited above.

First key question: With what is the note dealing?  This is the carefully-crafted description for Dr. Klouda’s position in the department of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Southwestern.  What is quite unusual here is that the OT Department itself would not be left to assign courses to Dr. Klouda as needed.  Instead, she is limited to teaching languages (in this case, Hebrew and Aramaic) and introduction to the principles of OT exegesis, using these languages.  So, she would not be teaching any coursework that dealt with the exposition or theology of anything biblical material.

Second key question: Why is this note included in the minutes?  It is because of the Paige Patterson-led understanding in some Southern Baptist Convention circles that women should not be allowed to teach men the Bible or theology because of their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12.  The note is at pains to explain that Dr. Klouda would not be allowed to teach male students at SWBTS the Bible or theology, but would be completely restricted to teaching the languages of Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as the kind of exegesis courses that would be preliminary to the courses in which male students would actually study the Bible in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Bottom line here: In the course of her hiring, the four mentioned in the note, Provost Blaising and Trustees Allen, Seaborn and Smith were extremely careful to make sure that Dr. Klouda’s position could pass muster with their understanding of Dr. Patterson’s restriction in regard to women teaching men the Bible or theology.  The note reflects that they were anything but “lax” in their handling of things.

Third crucial question: In the light of these things, how should we understand Trustee Chair Van McClain’s insistence that Klouda’s hiring was “a momentary lax of the parameters?”  I definitely had to think about this one for awhile.  And, here’s the kind of thing that initially did not make sense to me:

- “Momentary” means “lasting for only a moment” and “lax” means “lacking in firmness; slack; loose.”  I thought, “How could that be?  Ken Hemphill was still President at SWBTS and presumably the hiring policies would still be the same as those under which they had hired Dr. Karen Bullock to teach church history several years earlier.”  Wrong–as I will explain below!

- The relevant meaning of “parameter” here is “one of a set of measures which define a system and determine its behavior; a boundary.” Hmmm! 

I get it!  Dr. McClain is asserting that hiring policies were already in place at SWBTS which were so narrow that Dr. Klouda’s hiring, even in a manner that bent over backwards to work around 1 Timothy 2:12, was still a sort of loosening of the standards.

So, I had to ask, “Could that have been the case at SWBTS in the Spring of 2002?”  I’m afraid that the answer is Yes.  But, that answer leads to other questions that are quite troubling, as I will explain below.

How was it possible that such “parameters” had already been put in place at SWBTS while Hemphill was still President there?  Two factors add up to that conclusion: 1) The trustee board was controlled by those whose loyalty was to Patterson and his views–more on that below; and 2) Since 2001, SWBTS had had been a new Provost/Executive VP/Dean of the School of Theology, Dr. Craig Blaising.  And, the rumors were that he was hired by the trustees to, as much as anything, rein in Hemphill’s perceived softness toward the Moderate faculty who remained. 

Apparent conclusion here: If McClain’s claim is accurate, the Board of Trustees and the Provost, acting in his role as chief academic officer, prevailed in putting into force new hiring “parameters” for SWBTS faculty during 2001-2002.  And, Dr. Klouda’s hiring was unique, being a woman teaching in the School of Theology.  But, the Provost and the Trustees were convinced that they had covered the bases of the new “parameters” by limiting her job description to courses that met the 1 Timothy 2:12 criteria championed most passionately in SBC leadership circles by Paige Patterson.

Fourth Crucial Question: Are we to believe that it was coincidence that Dr. Patterson became President at SWBTS one year after this note in the trustee minutes, and that he appointed Dr. Allen, who had so recently been the chair of the trustee board, Dean of the School of Theology immediately afterward?  (By the way, it should be noted here that Patterson also appointed Dr. Denny Autrey, another very prominent trustee at the time, Director of the Havard School, SWBTS’s campus in Houston.)  Chew on the implications of that for a moment!

Now, David Allen and I were colleagues at Criswell College when he was named the new Dean of the School of Theology at SWBTS.  As a result of my service there, I was aware that Dr. Patterson and Dr. Allen were much more than passing acquaintances, given that Allen graduated from Criswell while Patterson was President there, near the beginning of the Resurgence, and that one of Allen’s best friends, Dr. Danny Akin, had long been a close Patterson lieutenant.  Thus, I remember thinking to myself, “Even if there is nothing wrong about this at all, it sure has all the appearance of a conflict of interest–of a good ole boy network ’You scratch my back (i.e., help me get the presidency at Southwestern) and I’ll scratch yours’ (i.e., get you the Deanship at the School of Theology).”  But, of course, there was nothing substantive at the time to cause me to do any more than wonder–just those two very strange hirings.

However, this note in the minutes of the SWBTS Board of Trustees in which Dr. Sheri Klouda was hired does even more than put a question mark of doubt back into play as to the wisdom or discretion of Dr. Allen’s hiring as Dean, so soon after being chairman of the trustees who hired Paige Patterson.  Very sadly, it also makes me wonder whether, in the Spring of 2002, certain trustees were already actively working behind the scenes in the affairs of Southwestern Seminary to bring Paige Patterson there as President, a year before President Hemphill had even resigned.  And, boys and girls, that’s enough to make you lose sleep at night.

In conclusion to the subject on which this post is focused overall, while I do now understand where Van McClain was coming from in making his assertion, I still do not agree with him at all.  The note in the trustee minutes cited above reflects great care and attention to detail as to job description in the hiring of Dr. Sheri Klouda–anything but “lax-ness.”  Also, clearly, in the view of the four mentioned in the minutes, as well as at least the vast majority of the other trustees–whether it was a unanimous vote or not–the vote to hire Sheri Klouda was certainly not a broadening of the existing parameters.