Thoughts & Actions

Commit your actions to the Lord, and your thoughts will be established… Proverbs 16:3

Sheri Klouda Loses In Court

Back in April 12, 2007, I heard about my former Hebrews professor, Dr. Sheri Klouda, suing SWBTS for dismissing her based on her sex. In that past blog article and in the comments under the article, I expressed that from a conservative Reformed standpoint on the biblical role of manhood and womanhood, SWBTS’s decision was correct and that Dr. Klouda’s actions for taking SWBTS to secular court was biblically wrong.

According to a Christian Post article yesterday, the presiding Fort Worth judge dismissed Klouda’s case in favor of SWBTS. The 3-part court’s decision is available below. They are also available through SBC Outpost’s blog back in March 20, 2008.

I’m joyful for SWBTS’s win, but am saddened for Dr. Klouda that she has learned the hard way that she should not have disobeyed God’s word concerning suing another Christian unless there was an immoral crime committed. And the issue of terminating Dr. Klouda due to her sex does not fit the bill of an immoral crime.

In today’s secular American society where everyone is suing everyone for everything, mostly motivated by the psychological babble of victimization or money or prestige or power, it is sad that Dr. Klouda succumbed to that worldly spirit (that she feels she has been victimized) rather than repenting to God of why she has failed to be a biblical woman who should not be teaching over men.

March 22, 2008 - Posted by Will | 2008 Archive, Christian Living, Culture, Ecclesiology, Gender Issues, Leadership, Southern Baptist Affairs, Theology | | 13 Comments

13 Comments »

  1. [...] 3/22/08 Update: And the judge’s final decision has been made, and has been posted here. [...]

    Pingback by Former SWBTS Professor Suing SBC Seminary? « Thoughts & Actions | March 22, 2008 | Reply

  2. Would you please explain why a woman teaching men Hebrew (even the Old Testament) outside of the gathered worship is unbiblical?

    Comment by Lynn | April 28, 2008 | Reply

  3. Lynn, I’m not sure what more I can say that CBMW.org doesn’t already say on the issue. I would honor your question best by deferring you to that ministry.

    Blessings…

    Comment by Will | April 30, 2008 | Reply

  4. Hi, Will. I looked at CBMW and found only one article that centered more on Wade Burleson than it did on biblical argumentation against Klouda teaching seminary students the Hebrew language.

    What was at the back of my mind was Priscilla, who along with her husband instructed a male who was already a preacher in the assembly, more correctly the way of God. IOW, she was involved in instructing a preacher in theology.

    She is spoken well of in all the Scriptures that refer to her. The clear implication from them taking him aside privately, both of them explaining to him more thoroughly the way of God, is that this was a good thing.

    Based on this inference . . .

    The argument I have is, I guess, from the greater to the lesser — ie — if the greater is true, then the lesser which has nothing of significance added to it, is also true.

    IOW — if it is OK for a woman, in a discreet manner (Pricilla and Aquila worked together) to instruct a preacher in theological matters, then I would like to know the Biblical reasoning why a woman, operating under the auspices of a male-led seminary and with her husband’s approval cannot teach sudents, who are not yet elders or preachers, Hebrew.

    So far, I cannot find the reasoning against this on CBMW, and would like to know from you which specific links to that site would refute the argument I laid above.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    As for I Corinthians 6, I’m pretty firm in my agreement with you that she shouldn’t have sued the seminary.

    Comment by Lynn | May 23, 2008 | Reply

  5. Lynn, I found one just by Googling “CBMW Priscilla”.

    Comment by Will | May 23, 2008 | Reply

  6. Thanks, Will. I Googled it. Found an article by Piper, and I think Grudem. As I expected, it combined teaching with authority, which is what I Timothy 2 does — and essentially tells me what I already believed — that women are not to teach as elders in the church.

    It does nothing to answer the argument I laid above w/respect to Klouda. Because the plain fact is that througout both testaments, women have been involved in instructing others, including men, from time to time, and at the direction of God. No, they haven’t been priests, kings, synagogue leaders, apostles, or church elders, but they have been involved in teaching nonetheless, and sometimes to men who were leaders. So there is teaching, and then there is teaching as a church elder.

    In fact, one of the preachers in my church took on I Timothy 2 this morning. He spoke of Priscilla, and other passages where women are involved in instructing others, for example Titus 2, and a couple other places. His exegesis was complementarian in nature.

    He said he was very blessed at one conference by the best speaker and preacher there — and that was Anne Graham Lotz. He said he learned from her, and the implication that in what she does in her conference speaking to both men and women is proper, but that it is not with the authority of a church elder.

    In one of her books, Anne states this. That seeking ordination as a pastor or elder of a church is something that God does not have for her because she is a woman.

    I would assume my pastor thinks Klouda teaching Hebrew at a seminary is OK, but don’t know for sure.

    And with that, I’ll leave this thread alone. Thanks for the responses.

    Comment by Lynn | May 25, 2008 | Reply

  7. Lynn, the reason why a woman should not be teaching men biblical Hebrew in a theological seminary is because the curriculum involves more than just linguistic lessons. For example, when I took French in High School, my teacher wasn’t merely teaching me the linguistic lessons of French. But SHE was instructing me French culture, customs, mannerisms, behaviors, etc. Questions I and other students would ask were, consequently, not limited to just linguistic questions, but on culture, customs, mannerisms, behaviors, etc. – all for the purpose of future application.

    Learning biblical Hebrew is not just a linguistic lesson in seminary. There involves questions that students (future pastors) will ask pertaining to applications into the pastorate. And the same is true for O.T. classes. They are not just historical and theological, but they are pastoral. And the professors that the seminary should be hiring are both experts of those respective fields they will be teaching and former pastors.

    That is the direction SWBTS’s theological department decided to go. That is the reason why Sheri Klouda was not suitable for SWBTS.

    Comment by Will | May 25, 2008 | Reply

  8. I read your comment Will. Thanks for allowing me on your blog.

    Comment by Lynn | May 26, 2008 | Reply

  9. [Moderator has deleted the first paragraph due to inflammatory personal opinion rather than factual proof. Please read the blog article, "Netiquette," for acceptable words and attitudes when posting.]

    I met one of SWBTS current Associate Professors in the UK in 1980 (or thereabouts). At that time he was still strongly advocating seperate Churches for different racial groups. I hope his thinking has moved on a little since then!! One of my daughters is married to an Asian so, taken to a logical conclusion, he would have in 1980 presumably have advocated that at least in the US they attend different Churches !!

    Interestingly another daughter and her family currently attend a Church in Germany which is affiliated to the Southern Baptists and appears to have a much more balanced outlook both on women and on race.

    Comment by Patricia | June 8, 2008 | Reply

  10. Patricia, the SBC has affiliated churches under a big theological spectrum from Arminian to Calvinist, moderately liberal to conservative, deep-Southern culture to urban culture, etc. There is much that has changed in the SBC since the 80’s theologically, culturally, politically, and ecclesiologically.

    I agree with you about the “race” issue. All churches should keep its doors open to all people, regardless of ethnic origin or race. But I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “balanced outlook” in regards to women in ministry. The SBC, as well as much conservative Calvinists, rejoice in the Complementarian roles of men and women in the church, family, and society.

    Comment by Will | June 8, 2008 | Reply

  11. Will, from another pastor who is also reformed I would encourage you to not go any further on this issue. Being reformed has nothing to do with this and your argument does not hold any water. I took Hebrew from Dr. Klouda. I was also in class with her at Criswell under Dr. Kline who later moved to SWBTS. There is a difference between academics and the local church. Dr. Klouda was caught up in Patterson’s agenda and her family was hurt. This situation did not honor God.

    Comment by claytoncoates | July 4, 2008 | Reply

  12. Will, I’m not sure I understand your argument to Lynn based on the pastoral philosophy that is taught along with the Hebrew. Does that mean that women should not teach men in, say, history at a Christian university because of the heavy application of Christian philosophy? Or are you saying that the Bible condemns only pastoral instruction by a woman(and, if so, where do you get that)?

    I have tremendous difficulty understanding the complementarian viewpoint, and I’ve been all over CBMW’s website, read Grudem and Piper, and dozens of other articles. The arguments (like the above) appear to me so very inconsistent. I don’t mean to start a string arguing this outlook (there are a million blogs out there already on this issue). But it just appears that taking the church instruction to conclusions/principles outside the church is a bit extrabiblical and inconsistent with other practice.

    Comment by Dan | July 4, 2008 | Reply

  13. I do regret that she took this to court. The idea that some secular judge could offer even a semi-informed much or less spirit-led decision on this was pretty crazy to begin with.

    With that said, i wish she had won. This was a pretty stupid move by SWBTS. With all of the women we see teaching in the Bible. Women given the title prophetess. With the fact that anything taken from one of Paul’s letters can pretty clearly be described as written about CHURCH. The gathering of a local body of believers.

    My guess is SWBTS is still way too landmark to say that the gathering at seminary…even in chapel, was the “church”

    Its not the church so they won’t baptize people or take communion. Those are ordinances of the church. But the instructions for orderly worship in the church apply to Hebrew class. So lets kick out one of the premier scholars in the field of Hebrew study in favor of a less qualified teacher [rest of paragraph deleted by moderator due to inappropriateness].

    Thats what Paul meant when he wrote 1 Timothy.

    Give me a break.

    Comment by Chris | August 24, 2008 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »