The CBE Scroll

Comment by Kathryn

January 25, 2007 @ 3:51 pm

Great questions. I would ask another: Apart from the issue of gender equality, would you make a promise-any promise-to someone, as apparently was the case here, and then casually break that promise? There is an issue of integrity at stake.

Comment by PS

January 25, 2007 @ 5:12 pm

Undoubtedly there are some students who will disagree enough to leave the school, which would leave the agree-ers in a higher number.

I read that she either taught there two years or that she taught two years after this decision was made. So where is the consistancy? Does that mean that the students she taught have their credits removed from their transcripts?

Another example of a female-teaching possibility: Women are teaching Vacation Bible School in church. A father comes to pick up his child early, enters the room and listens. Do the women have to stop teaching?

Comment by sally

January 29, 2007 @ 2:23 am

This is the whole trouble with this line of argument. You end up in legalistic nit-picking. Can she do this? Well, yes, in these circumstances and no in these other ones. Perhaps she’d just better shut up altogether - it’s better than flouting God’s ordained order and profaning men’s ears.

What if a man hears something she teaches, thinks it’s pretty good or profound, and it ends up changing his life for the better…? Is he allowed to take something on board she teaches him, as his own personal choice?

I’m really sick of it.

Comment by Sarah H

January 29, 2007 @ 9:20 pm

“…according to his interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, it is never proper under any circumstances for a woman to teach or have authority over a man.” (emphasis mine, of course)

It is my understanding from the article that there are, in fact, women teaching in this institution, only they are now excluded from teaching theology and Biblical languages.

Frankly, this is worse than an across-the-board prohibition; it shows a terrible degree of inconsistency and I, for one, would like to know how they exegete 1 Tim 2:12 to imply that it’s okay for a woman to teach music but not Hebrew. As a woman working towards my a Masters degree in theology with an eye towards teaching, it makes me nervous to think that a tenure-track position can be taken away seemingly so easily.

Comment by Lori Buckle

January 31, 2007 @ 4:27 am

Frankly, this is worse than an across-the-board prohibition; it shows a terrible degree of inconsistency and I, for one, would like to know how they exegete 1 Tim 2:12 to imply that it’s okay for a woman to teach music but not Hebrew.

I was thinking along those same lines, Sarah. I studied Russian in college, and my teacher was a woman. There were numerous men in the class along with the women. So it’s ok for a woman to teach men a language, as long as it’s not a biblical language? So a woman having authority over a man only becomes a problem if she mentions God? Maybe you can make this distinction for women teaching at secular colleges, but I don’t think it would be easy to do at a seminary or Bible college, where God is supposed to be the focus of every class. I remember years ago a recruiter for our denomination’s Bible college came to speak to my church youth group. The girl enthused about how wonderful it was to have professors who prayed in the classroom before giving out a test and could talk openly about God. So what about the women teaching at Southwestern? Is a woman music teacher allowed to talk about God? Wouldn’t that be hard to avoid since presumably you’d be focusing mainly on sacred music? What about a woman Spanish teacher? Can she not pray in the classroom? If she’s praying that her class do well before a test, is she a “priest” excercising spiritual authority the way men are supposed to do for their households? Wouldn’t that be a violation of the Bible’s teachings? Sally put it very well: trying to maintain this argument leads to all kind of legalistic nit-picking.

Comment by Lainie Petersen

January 31, 2007 @ 2:32 pm

Part of me finds this whole situation depressing. Another part of me, though, is somewhat glad to see such a public expose’ of the kind of foolishness that religious gender hierarchy leads to. After all, if they want to be consistent, eventually they will have to eliminate women from their faculty entirely, or simply establish a female-only school.

Comment by Mary Knaeply

February 4, 2007 @ 3:09 pm

Oh Puhleeese! Dr. Patterson seems to have some kind of ax to grind. It’s clear he’s off base with this decision. It doesn’t hold water.

Comment by Francine

February 10, 2007 @ 4:40 pm

I just got done teaching a two day class at a small local Bible College on First Timothy chapters one and two. Believe me the studying part of it was an eye-opener. I had to do an indept study of that time period. Now I know when someone says the Bible says that women cannot teach men they are simply holding on to tranditions and how they were taught. They themselves have not done a very through study and a proper exegesis of I Timothy. It a shame really.
By the way I need to thank CBE for some of their articles.

Comment by Heidi

February 18, 2007 @ 2:05 pm

Wow, this truthfully sickens me. As a Christian ministries major with a heart for the church, I desire to serve in a church leadership position. I have been trained by an incredible evangelical university to serve and love others yet technically, I may not be allowed to merely because of the fact that I am a female? I don’t understand why contemporary Christianity is the culprit and cause of this complementarian views… However, I am thankful that women are stepping up and fulfilling the roles in which they are gifted. I am also thankful that Dr. Klouda is at Taylor and blessing the students and faculty here.

Comment by Jon Trott

February 26, 2007 @ 3:36 pm

I wish I was surprised by anything the Southern Baptists do. I frankly am not at all surprised. They are nothing if not consistent. (Reminds me of someone else in a high place that too many evangelicals — argh! — helped put there.)

Yes, it is madness. The single most astonishing thing to me about the present course of the S. B. is that it seems sure to end in one of two ways. Either the denomination will eventually fragment over the increasingly rigid framework of reality currently being forced upon members and pastors, or the denomination will begin to shrink in both power and numbers.

Women will be heard, will teach, will exercise their gifts. Why? Because the Holy Spirit is not stifled by the works of men… and because the Church needs its leaders and teachers and servants regardless of gender.

I hope this sounds less testy than I feel.

Comment by Patrice Bolton

March 20, 2007 @ 12:38 pm

Praise the Lord! This forum was so on time for me. I have been called to the ministry to teach the young adults in my church and was recently objected by my first lady stating that her son “didn’t” want to participate because women aren’t supposed to teach him and he prefered to have a man teaching them. I realized that she also was taking the scripture out of context to prove a point versus considering the time and audience of which Paul was speaking to Timothy. I am saddened that folks like Dr. Patterson spend so much energy in the areas of gender versus true ministry and reaching the unsaved and embrassing the saved. We just need keep him and like-minded folks lifted in prayer~ Be Blessed All

Comment by Cynthia Gee

April 5, 2007 @ 8:09 am

Sheesh.
I’d say that Dr. Klouda has legitimate grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Such a lawsuit could open a really big can of worms regarding separation of Church and state. Does a religious group have the right to discriminate against women based on belief?

On the one hand, if they do not, what’s to prevent practicing homosexuals or atheists from demanding that religious institutions hire them?

On the other hand, if Christian institutions CAN legally discriminate against women, what shall we say to Islamic groups (and IslamoChristian theonomist groups a’la Gary North) who see nothing wrong with the “honor killings” of girls who are found to be “impure before marriage”?

And another thing….according to this article, SWBTS President Paige Patterson is justifying his dismissal of Dr. Klouda based on a misinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 which he takes to mean that a woman is forbidden by God to teach any thing at any time to a man.
In essence this line of reasoning would also forbid a woman from holding any sort of job which brings her into contact with men, lest she impart some sort of information and thereby “teach” a man; women would also be discouraged from learning to read and write, since men could inadvertantly glean information from something written by a woman; in its strictest interpretation this idea would forbid women from even speaking to men, including their own sons and husbands.

That’s a pretty far-fetched scenario, admittedly, but then, who would have predicted in, say, 1960, that in 2007 there would exist in the United States of America churches where a woman is prohibited from speaking to introduce her own father, discouraged from voting, denied higher education, and taught via homeschool propaganda to believe that the South was the Good Guy in the Civil War? There ARE a such churches, and their numbers are growing: http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/the-search-for-the-perfect-church/

You want a slippery slope?
Hope you brought your ski poles…

Comment by Jamarcus C.

March 2, 2008 @ 1:40 am

The only reason I would take up jogging is so that I could hear heavy breathing again.