PRINT
EMAIL
DISCUSSPutting Women in Their Place
03/23/2008By John Bloom
Sheri Klouda’s lawsuit against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth was dismissed by a federal judge on Friday, and the news coverage made it sound like she was a disgruntled ex-employee filing a nuisance suit. The facts are a little bit more inconvenient for the seminary and for Dr. Paige Patterson, the president, and they’ve been extensively parsed on the blogosphere over the past year so that there’s little doubt about what happened:
In 2002 Dr. Klouda, a graduate of Criswell Bible College in Dallas, was hired to teach Hebrew in the Department of Theology. She was told this was a tenure-track position.
In 2003 Dr. Patterson became president. She went to him to ask him whether she should be worried about his well known opposition to women in the ministry. He said she had “nothing to worry about.” She pointed out that she had freely signed all Baptist faith statements, including the parts about women, and that she didn’t regard this teaching position as a pastorate—did he? He said no, he did not.
In 2005 it was time for her to be considered for tenure. The administration wouldn’t allow any tenure review to take place.
In 2006 her teaching contract was not renewed. The reason given was that they interpreted a verse in 1 Timothy to mean that no woman can be in any position of authority over a man, and therefore there’s no way for a woman to teach in the Department of Theology because almost all of the students are male.
In 2007 she suffered a series of financial setbacks related to her having to move herself, her invalid husband and their three children to a small college in Indiana while being unable to sell their house in Fort Worth.
She reluctantly filed the lawsuit, and only at the urging of many Baptist pastors. She was not surprised when it was thrown out by the judge, who cited the university’s right to use Biblical reasons to hire and fire faculty.
This still doesn’t answer the moral questions:
- Why did they hire her if she was precluded from working there by a scripture that had existed for 1,850 years prior to her hiring?
- Why did they tell her it was tenure track if it wasn’t?
- Did they lie when they said she was not fired, simply “denied tenure”? You can’t really be denied tenure if there’s no tenure review in the first place. I mean, if you’re gonna fire her because of 1 Timothy, then fire her because of 1 Timothy, don’t make up some b.s. reason later.
Normally our policy here at The Door is to avoid quoting scripture, because the practice is so subject to abuse, especially when the purpose of the quotation is to justify some opinion. But since Paige Patterson is currently the highest-ranking Southern Baptist scholar in the world, this situation calls for some Talmudic dispute, don’t you think?
Paige Patterson once gave me a Bible, by the way, and he wrote on the flyleaf, “Lean not on your own arm of understanding.” Let that be our motto as I say this to Dr. Patterson, brother in the faith:
1 Timothy 2:12 says that a woman should not “usurp authority over a man.” This is the scripture you’ve used to deny this woman a place in the lecture halls of the seminary. But let’s go to the complete passage:
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”
This is not the voice of God, as in Leviticus. This is the voice of a man called “Paul” by the writer, but we don’t really know who it is. Scholars are 100 percent agreed—even the male scholars—that it’s not Paul who wrote this, because the letter has been dated no earlier than the year 120. Therefore, even though it’s written to Timothy, it can’t be the same Timothy who traveled with Paul, for he, too, is dead by 120. In the first collection of Paul’s letters, in the year 200, these so-called “pastoral epistles” (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus) are nowhere to be found, and their relevance, not to mention their authenticity, is still being debated throughout the 3rd century. Thirty-six percent of the words in them appear nowhere else in the letters of Paul, and more than half of those words appear nowhere else in the New Testament. (For example, this is the only place you find eusebeia, the Greek and Roman word for “proper religious behavior” toward the gods, instead of what Paul would have undoubtedly used—faith.) So this letter is obviously written for a particular purpose, and it’s intended to preclude women from teaching the Bible in a particular situation, and later on—at least two centuries later—it’s finally approved by the church fathers as scripture.
And as to usurping authority over the man: A teacher is a servant, Paige. She puts herself at the service of all those theology students. You would see this better if you would observe a first-grade class, but I can assure you the principle is the same at the graduate level. Sheri Klouda was usurping no authority by her tutelage.
Bottom line: In order to read this passage as “All women are to keep their mouths shut at all times,” you’ve got to believe that Paul believed that.
So let’s look at what he said. My turn to pick a scripture. One that we are certain was written by Paul:
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then ye are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:27-29)
I don’t think I have to parse that passage. I think, in fact, that your eyes will just sort of naturally zero in on the part of it that’s pertinent to this situation. But since you’re not just a servant of the word but a student of it, we should go further.
We should ask the question: Why would the church put the name of Paul on the Pastoral Epistles? Why would they be addressed to Titus and Timothy, two deceased people who were known to be beloved associates of Paul during his lifetime? The answer seems obvious, but I’ll go ahead and say it: Because, at a certain point, two or three generations after Paul was dead, people were using the words of Paul to justify wildness, possibly even heresy.
The Pastoral Epistles were attributed to Paul so that the church could enforce discipline. Even though they’re supposedly personal letters, they read like a rule book. I don’t mean to say that they’re inauthentic, because they were eventually included in the canon, but they were not part of the early zeal of the church, and they were certainly not written by any contemporary of Jesus. They were put together in response to various out-of-control situations, some of them apparently engineered by women. This was housekeeping.
Now let’s look at my book, Galatians. When you read one of the authentic letters of Paul, what do you feel? You feel many things, but you never feel under the law. What I feel is a breaking and a “breaking loose,” a movement inward and outward at the same time. I feel the power of the verse that you penciled into my Bible, the breaking away of my stubborn arm of understanding. And one constant through these amazing passages is the presence of women. It’s a woman who greets Paul at his first church. It’s women who maintain the churches he leaves behind. It’s a woman who carries the “letter to the Romans” ... to the Romans. And in that letter to the Romans, I think you’ll also agree, Paul declares his personal hatred of rule books.
Before you answer, Paige, lean not on your own arm of understanding.
First, congrats to your kids graduating in may. My own kids are aren't there yet but I do sympathize. Mine both want to go to Notre Dame. (it's 15 min away) My Daughter is going to a summer camp at St. Mary's (Notre Dames' women's only college) and even that's expensive. I have considered switching careers to "grounds keeper" just to work at N.D. If you figure in the free tuition, over 8 yrs plus, and hopefully, grad school, I would actually come out ahead.
I loved the question. Lets look at it 3 ways, biblically, and buddha-ly, and secularly.
1st: Paul say's all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial. Paul also mentions, regarding our freedom in Christ, that whatever we do, do it in faith. While your patronage of the Buddha might be permissible, I can't imagine your doing it in "faith". Nor "giving to get" in any philosophy or religion. So, biblically, your screwed. But Jesus loves you.
2nd The Buddha would say a disciplined walk of the eight fold path will take you to enlightenment/nirvana. Your problem is the desire for money, not the lack of money. Stop craving wealth and you will attain that which you need. And your kids will be paying off loans long after you've attained enlightenment. So, buddha-ly, your screwed. But you can still be happy.
3rd Anyway, Deist, you actually are following and participating in the biggest secular Prosperity Gospel Teaching in the world (that for which the liquor store buddha statue is subservient and was placed there to begin with).
You bought a lottery ticket. So, secularly, your screwed. But the lotto just got a little bigger.
So my advice would be to live, enjoy life, show compassion to those who need it, keep bringing the smack down on those who need it and keep on trucking ( literally, as it pays the bills in your case,)
#!@%, I hate typing my name in every,#!@%ing time.
Buda, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
I am laughing and wiping tears.
By the way....I placed a quarter on the fat belly of Buda statue, and my lotto ticket was a failure. Oh well, it's back to expecting wealth from Publishers Clearing House. I may already be a winner.
The real issues involved in the case of Sheri Klouda would have been much better served if the author of this article would have confined himself to the ethical issues involved. By venturing into hotly-contested areas of biblical studies with comments that demonstrate both woefully-inadequate scholarship and reckless disregard for the canon of Scripture, the author has diverted attention away from a proper concern for ethics in evangelical institutions of higher education and onto his own—and by extension his editor's and publisher's—questionable commitment to both biblical authority and historical honesty.
Regarding 1 Timothy, John Bloom wrote:
Anyone who has seriously studied the issue of the date and authorship of 1 Timothy knows this to be a false statement. Scholars have never been 100 percent agreed that Paul did not write it. In fact, it has only been relatively-recent (in the context of church history) liberal scholarship that has contested it, in keeping with its low view of Scripture. In his monumental New Testament Introduction, Donald Guthrie not only defended the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, but cited numerous scholarly heavyweights from recent generations who also defended it (viz., Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thörnell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremias, and Simpson, of whom Schlatter, Jeremias, and to some extent Spicq are perhaps the most well known to the American scholarly community). As a previous commenter noted, all Bloom needed to do in order to see the ridiculous nature of his position on this point was to consult the Wikipedia article on 1 Timothy, adding laziness as a researcher to the charges of theological callousness.
Bloom then wrote:
It is these comments that most significantly call into question Bloom's integrity as a researcher and writer, as well as his honesty as a journalist. If there was any debate about the authenticity of any of the Pastoral Epistles, including 1 Timothy, in the early church, knowledge of this debate has apparently eluded every biblical scholar on the planet except for the privy counsel of John Bloom. In his New International Greek Testament Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles, George W. Knight III writes, "The P[astoral] E[pistles] were known and regarded as Pauline in the early church" (page 13). In fact, as Knight points out, the only people known to reject the Pastorals were "the heretics Marcion, Basilides, and Tatian" (ibid.).
Bloom also stupendously fails to inform his readers that "first collection of Paul’s letters," which seems to be a reference to the Chester Beatty papyrus codex of Paul's epistles, is missing seven leaves which most believe were sufficient to accommodate the Pastoral Epistles. Others speculate that since the codex is also missing Philemon that it was intended as a collection of epistles that Paul wrote to churches rather than individuals. In either case, Bloom has blatantly misrepresented the facts.
Bloom further wrote:
It seems that in his exhaustive search for evidence against the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy Bloom overlooked the fact that 2 Peter uses the word eusebeia three times (2 Peter 1:6-7; 3:11). But then again, if his view of 2 Peter is also in accord with that of radical liberal scholarship, as is the case with his view of the Pastorals, then perhaps he doesn't consider 2 Peter part of the New Testament, since liberals have traditionally reject the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.
In making his bold assertions about the distinct vocabulary employed in 1 Timothy, Bloom is apparently unaware of the fact that this particular brand of linguistic scholarship—counting the number of unique words in a document and basing decisions about authorship upon that information—has fallen into disrepute in recent years, not only in biblical studies, but in literary criticism in general. Some time ago one researcher subjected Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to a computer analysis of its vocabulary and style and concluded that it was the product of 16 different authors! It is understandably difficult for real scholars to take this kind of stuff seriously. Nevertheless, Christians in the academy have been forced to deal with these kinds of challenges, and they have met them repeatedly over 1 Timothy, 2 Peter, and other works in the New Testament canon. The responses by Guthrie (pages 616-617), and Knight (pages 38-45) are excellent examples. As Guthrie has noted, differences in vocabulary between Pastorals and the rest of Paul's epistles would have been even more obvious to the original Greek-speaking readers of the New Testament than they are to us today, and yet we have no record of any ancient reader even noticing them, let alone citing them as a basis for rejecting their authenticity. Why not?
Please note: the page numbers of my citations from Guthrie's work are based on his 1970 edition. He has since come out with a revision in which the pagination may differ.
The strength of your post comes from your belief in an inerrant and infallible bible. Unfortunately this limits an exchange of ideas with many of us who enjoy studying the Jesus movement through the first and second centuries.
Process Deist:
Where did I even mention my belief in an inerrant and infallible Bible? This is a classic red herring—it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues I raised in my comments. Since you can't really answer the points of my argument you attack my theological beliefs. This is not about your so-called "exchange of ideas," but about the simple matter of whether John Bloom is accurately depicting the consensus of biblical scholarship on the authorship of 1 Timothy, and, quite frankly, he's misleading people about it. He's also misleading people about the consensus of the early church on the same topic, and pawning off some shoddy scholarship of his own along the way.
Check your web site. Click on 'Statement of Faith' and read your paragraph #1. You make your theological beliefs very clear.
I alluded to my commitment to biblical authority in my comments, not to my belief in biblical inerrancy. Our web site mentions biblical inerrancy, but my comments did not. None of this should be taken to imply that I am ashamed of these commitment; I'm quite content with them. Even so, you are trying to make this into an argument about those things in order to avoid the real issues.
So you want to win an argument over peripheral issues matters than substance? Okay: you win. Happy now?
I see you are very skilled at noticing what is mentioned and avoiding what is most important. If you can't demonstrate that my main points are wrong, then you have completely wasted both of our time.
But that's what you're best at, isn't it?
Weak argument on the Timothy discourse Bloom...
Klouda herself would laugh at your liberal slant on the text. Infallibility is at the forefront of her heart as much as anyone at the seminary. Klouda would say it is a weak interpretation of the text, but she wouldn't undercut its significance like you have.
The Bible is replete with woman preachers and prophetesses. The issue is there being under the authority of a man. This is the key part of the argument. Was Klouda under the leadership of Patterson, thus fulfilling the Biblical mandate?
You weaken your stance when you take a stab at orthodoxy. If you indeed take on the whole of scripture as perfect in and of itself (2 Tim 3:16) Then let's keep the argument within the purview of scripture... It is more intelligent this way. Otherwise, you are debasing the very foundation in which you allegedly stand. And myself, and many others, will trust the veracity of the canonical text over some dudes theory about a later-day manipulation for heretical reasons..
Best...
First of all, before Albert Mohler became president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the 1990s, the school was in the control of "moderates" who questioned practically everything most Southern Baptists believe. This is why the moderates left and started their own Baptist association, of which Jimmy Carter is a member.
Second of all, where do you get off telling Southern Baptists how to interpret Scripture???? The last time I checked God allowed for different denominations. The Baptists have legitimate reasons to question the ordination of women as history shows. Re-interpreting history to fit modern predispositions makes no sense and it is precisely this sort of nonsense that led to the ordination of homosexuals in the Episcopal Church USA.
It is my understanding that SWBTS fired or got rid of all the moderate and female professors who were hired by the moderates in control of the seminary at that time. Thank God for the house cleaning.
And as for The Door? I find it amusing regarding the satire against the heresies of the health and wealth gospel. That does not, however, mean that I agree with the arrogant attitude of some here or with the theology hinted at in some of the articles.
The Door is just another magazine and those who read it should recognize it for what it is: mere satire and parody. It is the last place I would go for a serious discussion of the theological issues involving the hermeneutics and interpretation of Scripture forbidding women to be in authority over men.
The slippery slope seems to be a logical conclusion here.
May God have mercy!
Charlie
Hold on Brother. I am a moderate. Baptist General Convention of Texas. And you are trying to tell ME how to interpret Scripture?
You must be one of those GUYS who wrote the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. You must allow me "Priest Hood of the Believer" status. Tell me? Are you a 5 Point Calvinist? Why are you "Thanking God" for the house cleaning at SWBTS?
Slippery slopes are fun.
Even better when shared with a friend.
OK, I read on down. You don't believe Paul wrote those passages and you don't believe they are Holy Scripture. And you use law to condemn Paige Patterson for believing the Bible has a moral law against women in ministry. What kind of hypocrisy is that? I know.
Start your own liberal seminary and teach whatever sort of lies you wish. Just don't expect conservatives to let you usurp some sort of fake authority over them or hijack their seminaries.
Btw, the last time I checked it's called ad hominem to attack the academic credentials of a scholar or a seminary. Why not just deal with the issues?
Your idea that all scholars agree with your late dating of the pauline epistles is preposterous and ridiculous at best. Wait a minute. You're a comedian, right? Or was that a scholar?
May God have mercy!
Charlie
You THUG! Hypocrisy? Hijack seminaries? Ad hominem? I will talk to you straight about AD HOMINEM!
YOU ARE A PRIMITIVE BAPTIST! And before that you drifted around as a pentecostal, episcopalian, charismatic, graduate of a methodist break-away seminary, and NOW you want to tell us Baptists in Texas how to mangage our business.
If you feel unwanted: you are catching my drift.
Now, now, people. Let's just all calm down and eat a twinkie before somebody gets hurt...and stop dragging Calvin into this.
Damn, now I know how Texas Baptist roll.
People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out.
I went to the pharmacy this morning and refilled my prescription.
I ran out on Friday. My family suggested that it might not be a good idea to skip my medication over the week-end.
Skipping scrips is bad. Twinkies are good. And getting a "Remember Me" checkbox would be good too.
Hey Doug, I'm fresh out of Twinkies...how 'bout a cold beer and a good cigar? And the more we talk about Calvin the better!!!
Oh Why can’t we all just get a long (neck)
And make a toast to peace and harmony
Why, Why can’t we all just get a long (neck)
And see how good getting a long might be
---Bocephus
Don't forget about Hobbes.
Come on TCD it's totally irresponsible of you to recomend twinkies to Charlie. You know his sans a belts are to tight now.
C.J.R.- "A Reasonable Christian", hmmmm..... Methinks that the man doth take his theology too seriously. I love the use of the word "reasonable". Implies everyone who disagrees is "un-reasonably". So very evangelical of you.
"And yes some of us are secure enough in our masculinity to welcome woman as leaders and clergy within His Church."
That's got nothing to do with being "secure in masculinity." To allow a woman to pastor a church IS in direct opposition to Scripture. However, this wasn't the case with our dear sister Klouda. Don't conflate the two. That's what Paige Patterson did and look where it led...
Did I say a woman is to pastor the church? No, I said as leaders and clergy. You see, that's what Paige did that got him into trouble, was misinterpret others words and put words in others mouths that were not there in the first place, so mike, don't conflate others words.
Janine Metcalf has produced a video,"Ablaze with Love: The Living Legacy of Our Nazarene Foremothers" (Google it)in which she and some of the leadership of the Nazarene Church debunk the Fundie corruption of the verses cited from Timothy. There is one fellow in the video who attributes the decline of women as pastors from the 40's through the 90's to the creeping and creepy influence of Fundamentalism. Meanwhile, though many Nazarene congregations remain influenced - corrupted - by Fundamentalism via that American Holiness Movement influence- there seems to be a resurgence of Wesleyanism among the church leadership, and women once again are assuming their rightful and equal place in that particular church.
Hey Mikey, I like it!
I still stand my my theory that Paigey-poo is making up for his parents horrid naming abilities. Any man that stubborn is hiding something.
Goodness... let those that have their gifts serve and hinder not. Ok, enough fancy speak today.
There is no misogyny in Southern Baptist doctrine, at least no more than is commonly represented in the rest of society. As a long-time SBC member myself I can't imagine of what benefit it would be to promote misogny in any way. Unless we were just doing it for the fun of it? Darn us mean spirited conservative evangelicals!! What we have here is nothing more than the doctrine of "IF" which created the whole episode.
"IF" Mrs. Klouda was led to believe that she might get tenure? That's a mighty big "IF". We know only about this from her lawyer's briefs and subsequent media (The Door) included.
We as Southern Baptists believe and enforce our doctrine to the glory of God and as a side benefit...for our own spiritual protection. We don't always do that perfectly and for that we are guilty of sin. But at the same time as a public relations professional I can admit that everything can't be foreseen.
I will forgive them for not enforcing the proper doctrine right out of the gate and therefore creating this opportunity for anti-misogony zealots to pontificate. I absolve you my brothers. Amen LOL
Peraps what Mr. Briggs should have written was, "100% of obejective, thinking, insightful, open-minded, true scholars agree ..." The problem seems to be, IMHO, that too many people think of the Bible as having been written bt God. It wasn't. It was written by his fallible creatures. All of which just goes to a point that Martin Luther made: Scripture contains the Word of God as the manger contained the baby Jesus - and a lot of straw.
Patterson and Southwestern are guilty of breach of contract. They promised Klouda a place on tenure track, took many of the best years of her academic life where she would have to work like crazy to earn tenure, and just as she reached the end of the six-year race, they not only pull away the carrot, they take away her job, her livelihood and leave her to find a way to support her children and disabled husband with an obviously implied tenure rejection on her resume. This is not unChristian, it is barbaric and, I believe, quite illegal.
And it is even worse than that. If, indeed, they do believe that women should not teach men, then they violated their own religious beliefs in the first place by hiring her and then again, and more egregiously, by telling her there was no problem with her teaching at the seminary when she asked.
If I were Klouda, I would appeal this case all the way to the Supreme Court. She had a contract with Southwestern and Patterson. Although it may have been oral, it still existed. Additionally, she suffered financial damage, loss of wages, and reputational damage. I believe that there is a judge out there that has the courage to do the right thing in this case. It may just take getting far away enough from Southwestern to find that judge.
I hope Klouda keeps going after these power-hungry egomaniacs.
It is quite obvious from reading Paul that he supported women in leadership in the church. A significant number of the early Christian churches were run by women. I would love to be able to see Patterson's face when he comes up for judgment and he is given the word that he stood in the way as a terminal stumbling block for many women whom God called into service and ministry. Some folks become so full of themselves that the appoint themselves as "god" and no longer pay real attention to what God may want.
Gal.3 was a good response to this stuff. As a woman, I've never had a problem with 1 Tim. I have been troubled by peoples' obsession with it over other scriptures. For example, why are so many willing to practically die, or at least split their church or fire people over this one, without, for example, obeying the verse just a couple ones prior:"I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputings" ??? Well, almost everyone's violated this one just in this dialogue. And as to praying with their hands raised up. Why aren't men kicked out of church or blackballed or not allowed to, say, teach, or have positions of authority if they don't obey Paul on this one? Oh...because they don't want to do it...men everywhere raising their hands up high every single time they pray, afterall, kind of weird... I see... they think that directive was maybe cultural... oh...now I understand...see, I'm a woman and I need this stuff explained to me.... It was cultural, like maybe how women were not used to being allowed to attend church in the same room with men in a teaching environment...how it was kinda revolutionary to even insist that women should learn.. how many women were still considered property...how most women, in that culture were not allowed to be taught to read... well, so I guess, how could women in general in that particular church be allowed to teach when they couldn't read...makes sense. And the fact that women can, often, read now, should make no difference. Okay. From now on, no more compromises. No fiddling around with "age of accountability" it's not specified directly in scripture. Men teach all Sunday School. We could use the break. Men do all mission work. Sorry gals. You only 'thought' you were called to the mission field to teach and save and often be killed. Oh, and the men who do, need to do it with their hands raised high in prayer. It's a command from Paul in scripture. You must pray that way always from now on or you are violating Scripture. (or take John's advice: So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.)
I took my initial comments on this article and worked them into a blog post for Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., titled "The Enemy of My Enemy." You can read it at http://midwestoutreach.org/blogs/84/the-enemy-of-my-enemy.
I have since produced a follow-up post titled, "Words about the Word?" which is located at http://midwestoutreach.org/blogs/93/words-about-the-word.
Post new comment