From over at SBC Outpost we have had some information released to the general public. This information is open to the public now because it is part of a law suit that Dr. Sherri Klouda has filed against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminay and her President Dr. Paige Patterson.
This information has been released in an effort to place Dr. Patterson in a bad position. Now the latest information is released to try and paint Dr. Craig Blaising as some mindless lackey employed to carry out Dr. Patterson’s endless fundamentalist desires. However, it seems that this little venture of the bombastic one has now enlightened everyone to what people have been saying all along. Dr. Bart Barber has more clearly stated it than I can, but it seems that we are now finding out that SWBTS and Dr. Patterson have not kicked anyone in the street. If you do not believe me, read it for yourself.
patterson-affidavit.pdf
blaising-affidavit.pdf
A couple of items that will reveal some discrepancies in the facts as told by the Dark Side. These “facts” that some would have you to believe are clearly spelled out in these two different affidavits. Let me give you just two examples.
First, we were told from the beginning that all of a sudden in the spring of 2006 Dr. Klouda was relieved from her position with no place to go and a sick husband to look after. You can see the position stated in this post, but to whet your appetite, here is the money quote; Through a series of broken promises that eventually led to Patterson quietly not assigning her teaching responsibilities for the fall of 2006 because of her gender, and then seeking to terminate her contract and benefits in December by 2006 (the middle of an academic cycle, and the worst possible time for an academician to find a job), this popular Hebrew professor found herself being phased out. According to both, Dr. Patterson and Dr. Blaising, she was not forced out and was given a position with the same pay and the same benefits. Dr. Klouda willingly resigned in July, 2006 to take a position at Taylors University. Some have tried to point to a reduction in position as being equivelant to a Pastor being asked to stop preaching and keep employed at the church as the janitor. This is not even close to what is being presented in Dr. Blaisings affidavit. The pastor is called to the position he holds and he is called to influence people through the pulpit ministry. Dr. Klouda expressed her call was to influence people through teaching and writing. Would one not agree that the position of Associate Director of Writing would not be within the parameters of her calling?
Second, we have been told that Dr. Patterson promised Dr. Klouda in a private meeting that she would retain her position as she was on a tenured track. Also, according to this comment, there was a plan in place to bring legal action months before it was exposed to the public through the web blogs. Also, if you look at Dr. Patterson’s affidavit, you will see that he never promised Dr. Klouda her position was guaranteed. He says in paragraph #18, “I did not give her assurance of future employment.” How much clearer can one be?
It does appear that this case is going to come down to contract law. Did Dr. Patterson promise Dr. Klouda that her position was secured? He says no and he holds to scriptural authority for his guide. She says he did, but feels free to violate scripture in order to line her pockets along with her lawyers. I think I am going to believe the one that holds to Scripture in all he does.
Here in Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood it seems that many have taken me to task on how I interpret the law. It appears that before long there is a Judge in Texas that will issue a decision in the Klouda vs. Southwestern case. I am not sure of the outcome, but if the judge is true to the law, I believe Southwestern and Dr. Patterson will receive a Summary Judgment. Why? It seems this case was all about the President of a seminary allowing the Bible to drive his beliefs. I mean, we still live in America where we do have a freedom of religion held constitutionally as a basic right of each individual. This case had nothing to do with contract law, but all to do with the theological convictions and the freedom to follow those convictions.
