A federal judge on Thursday dismissed all allegations made by a female professor who sued Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and its president, claiming the school had removed her for gender reasons.
Judge John McBryde of the U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, granted the seminary's motion for "summary judgment" and ruled that alleged causes of action made by Sheri L. Klouda should be dismissed.
A motion for summary judgment contends that all necessary factual issues are resolved or need not be tried because they are so one-sided.
Klouda filed the lawsuit last year, alleging breach of contract, fraud and defamation. She had taught Hebrew, an Old Testament language, at the theological seminary since 2002 until her contract was terminated in December 2006. She was the only female to teach at the School of Theology, as stated in her allegations.
Seminary president Paige Patterson has said that instruction of future pastors is limited to men, although women do teach music and other classes at the school.
Klouda had been hired for the tenure-track position when Ken Hemphill was president of the seminary. Hemphill told Dallas Morning News that at that time, "there was not a policy where [women] would not be able to teach church history or the [biblical] languages." Patterson became president in 2003 after Hemphill resigned.
Klouda, who now teaches at Taylor University in Upland, Ind., claimed Patterson assured her "personally" that her tenure-track position was secure. She alleged that termination of her employment was based upon Patterson's "social and/or personal beliefs" and that she was removed without any cause other than gender.
The defendants' attorneys argued that the court had no jurisdiction because Klouda's tenure denial was on constitutionally protected religious grounds, as reported by Baptist Press.
The federal judge agreed and determined that the case was a religious matter. In his ruling, McBryde wrote that seminary faculty are "hired, assigned, advanced, tenured, evaluated, and terminated on predominantly religious criteria."
After Thursday's ruling, Patterson released a statement praising the judge's decision.
"My response is simply one of gratitude to God and to a host of people. The decision of the court has implications for all of our institutions and churches. Americans everywhere may still rejoice in freedom of faith and the ordering of their churches and institutions accordingly," he said.
Some Southern Baptist pastors have shown support for Klouda, collecting donations to help Klouda and her family during financial hardships. Southwestern trustee chairman Van McClain, however, said the seminary offered her financial support and a position as associate director of the writing center on campus with no reduction in pay or benefits before she took a position at Taylor University.
The judge on Thursday also ordered Klouda to cover the plaintiffs' court costs.
Klouda's attorney, Gary Richardson, said they may appeal the court decision.
Comments
Chris,
Sorry but I forgot to addd that this was a gathering of the church for worship like a Sunday service today. A seminary is a different setting and the question becomes would the 2 different settings be treated the same if they were both available then as they are today? When someone is preaching from the word, the authority is assumed and commanded to be listened to and obeyed throughout Scripture (barring the obvious heresies and the like) whereas the seminary/college classroom is not a place of absolute authority of the proclaimed word. Classes are the place for exploration, playing "Devils' advocate", questioning the prevailing understandings in light of Scripture itself, occasion for writing and other factors. Although I had and still have the utmost respect for my profs at college, their word were never deemed to be speaking for God through His word as a preacher's words are to be considered. The jobs are different and expectations should be different also.
Grace and Peace,
Jim
Chris 333,
Good questions. If we read the whole letter at one time, Paul writes specifically about some specific ladies doing just that, usurping authority. And Paul elsewhere in the letter speaks of men having problems within the church too. As to why specifically Paul doesn't use the word for usurped authority with the men, we don't know because of the fact that we only know of a small glimpse of what was happening at that particular church. We don't have any letter from the church to Paul asking specific questions, etc. But we do know that men are supposed to be the spiritual leaders in the church and in the home so maybe the issue of usurping authority within the church wasn't as prevalent with the men at that church.
As for the quietness in demeanor Paul wrote about; although there is no absolute way to say for sure (for any position on the matter) the women were considered counter-cultural in that day by just being in the room to learn, not in the kitchen making food. Most likely, Paul waswriting in reference to the need to learn (counter-cultural) but not be "in-your-face" (for the day and culture) about it and act like the men of the times (think the Jewish tradition of Talmud study and argument). Women who would do such things would be a huge shock to the men and women of the day. It is hard to understand that today because of the role of women being vastly different in our culture but the shock would be too much for the people most likely. Just like God revealing His plans to us incrementally (progressively), people and cultures can only take so much change at one time without a chaotic feeling and happenings.
Grace and Peace,
Jim
(also I agree that Paul did not mean absolute silence that much is clear)
oldstudent,
Interesting position. I would find at least one challenge to it though. When Pauls says that women are to be silent in the Church, he does qualify it stating that if they have any questions they should ask their husbands at home. Why would Paul say this if he only meant to be "quiet in demeanor"?
A second consideration is why Paul says that he forbids women to "usurp" a position of authority, and he does not give the same admonition to men. Certainly it would be wrong for men to usurp positions of power as well. I am not sure if this is what you meant or not, just asking on this point.
unfortunately the 1 Tim passage is not as cut and dry as it appears in English. The word used has the connnotation of usurped and independent authority. Here is a good note from the a very reliable source for the original languages;
According to BDAG 150 s.v. αὐθεντέω this Greek verb means “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to” (cf. JB “tell a man what to do”).
In other words, women are not to teach outside of the authority of the men in the church. This doesn't rule out teaching in church gatherings or classroom situations. Then when we look at the term "quiet" combined with the term for usurped or independent authority the Greek most likely means "quiet demeanor" not absolute silence. Again the Greek is not absolute:
tn Grk “but to be in quietness.” The phrase ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ (en Jhsucia) is used in Greek literature either of absolute silence or of a quiet demeanor.
Although the seminary has the authority and authority to do what they did, and I will not argue that, the traditional understanding doesn't line up especially well with the Greek language. Her bringing this matter to a court of unbelievers certainly does bring her judgment into question though...
Grace and Peace,
Jim
I must agree with Doc and Hawk.
Scripture is clear on the matter. It is also an added proof for her to NOT be in her position of education in that she brought he fellow Christians into a worldly court instead of following scripture- as Hawk pointed out.
But how many families (men) have their wives working outside of the home or outside of their husbands authority? This is all another problem which stems from the failure of Men to follow our Biblical calling of leadership.
I recommend the book "Family Man, Family Leader" by Phil Lancaster. It addresses some of those key issues which would help solve some of these problems.
doc;
you hit the nail on the head. 1Tim2 is very specific regarding God's will on this matter. To top it off, the governance within the church belongs to the church and this case should never have been taken to the state for the decision and inviting the state to have jurisdiction over what is supposed to be a soverign entity of the church.
C'mon pgc! You must know better! Jesus and the disciples obeyed the Law. They wouldn't have allowed her to teach.
Just because she was inappropriately promised a position does not mean that it cannot be corrected by the next guy who might have a more biblical perspective. Do you honestly think it bad that he isbeing obedient to the Scripture? What a concept for a Theological Seminary! Biblical truth!
You don't like that doctrine? Take it up with the Author!
God help the SBC. God is not happy with how people are being trashed there. The issue to me is not with the courts. It could have gone either way. It appears they try to avoid interfering in church matters. The issue that she lost the position she had and desired just because she is a women is dreadful. No other concessions the school made makes up for the the fact that she was told that her position was safe then was taken from her just because she is female. If the leaders that did this think that God is pleased with that they are most deceived. Any unmarried woman that is a part of the SBC ought to run away from there as fast as they can. Of course the married women have no say because they cannot 'teach' men. What a disgusting doctrine. Jesus and the Apostles would never have done or condoned such a thing.