thirtyoneblog

I was reading a blog post by my friend Stephen the other day. He was talking about how he had heard a radio ad for Six Flags that was quite disturbing. Basically the ad was about a discussion between a couple about season passes to Six Flags and the man’s excuses about why he had yet to buy them. The woman (wife? we don’t know) responded that if he didn’t get the season fun passes then he wouldn’t be enjoying any other kind of fun “if you know what I mean.”

Now while I think that is pretty crass (and what does the whole thing have to do with Six Flags anyway?), I was actually not quite as disturbed by it as Stephen was. Then again, the ad came on the radio while he was in the car with his child, which will make you notice this stuff all the more. I would have probably said, “good grief, that is pretty ridiculous” and then gone on about my day. That being said, it’s clearly, well, inappropriate.

But what I really got to thinking about was how I have not heard a peep about this ad campaign around my church, or in the news, or really any talk about it at all. If I had not read Stephen’s blog I would have had no idea.

Meanwhile, of course, Six Flags has obtained a permit to sell alcohol in the park. To hear some talk you would think this was a sign of the apocalypse. People spoke at the hearings. Letters were written to the newspaper and to local politicians. Churches drafted petitions (Mine did – I declined to sign it). Now I do want to say that I don’t have any particular interest in consuming alcohol at Six Flags. That’s not to say I don’t drink, because I do, but I can’t imagine having interest in drinking at that particular venue. However, I fail to see how this is such a tragedy and apparently the end of a “family” environment. Beer is sold at the State Fair. How is that different? It is sold at numerous restaurants. Do these people not take their families to eat there? As one comment to the newspaper said, “I drink beer at home. Is that not a family environment?” Well said.

I have to wonder why no one in the church-going community has gone on a rampage against Six Flags for their innuendo-driven advertising. If you ask me, casual attitudes about sex are a far greater danger to our children than observing someone having a drink that happens to contain alcohol. It’s just so remarkable how the church gets up in arms about certain issues (notably alcohol) but is silent on others that are so much more important.

So I was reading in the newspaper that Southwestern Seminary had requested that Sheri Klouda’s lawsuit against the school be dismissed, and their motion was denied yesterday. I think that judge did the right thing.

This whole issue fascinates me, and for reasons having very little to do with Baptist theology. In case you have been under a rock (or more likely, in case you have had better things to do than follow this whole saga), Sheri Klouda taught Hebrew at Southwestern until last year. At that time, she was dismissed because the new administration believed that her position was in direct contradiction to their interpretation of Scripture. Notice I said “their interpretation.” They think, as do most fundamantal Baptists, that women should not teach men in matters of theology. Whether that is right or not, I’ll save for another conversation. I have some other beefs with the whole matter.

She was hired by the same school that fired her. Why would they hire her to a tenure-track position only to dismiss her later? Am I to believe that Baptists under Paige Patterson all of a sudden believe something different than they did in 2002? Southwestern has always been very fundamentalist, very old-school Baptist. Patterson is the grandaddy of all fundamentalists, but at the same time I hardly think that he turned the seminary on its ear. Why did this all of a sudden become an issue with only one possible solution?

She came to the school to accept a well-paying, tenured position as a professor of Hebrew. Her husband is disabled and unable to work. That means she’s the breadwinner. She took this job intending on its supporting her family. They bought a house in the DFW area, a nice house commensurate with her salary. Nothing wrong with that; I don’t think that seminary professors (or pastors, or anyone else related to the ministry) must take a vow of poverty. She was fired without any severance, or any help financially. She now has a different job in a different city, to which they moved. They can’t sell the first house. Her family is in financial crisis, all because of this. That, people, is just wrong. How Christian is that, to turn your back on someone that way?

I also have to wonder that, even if in fact God intended for women not to teach men the Bible, how teaching Hebrew constitutes teaching the Bible. Hebrew is a language, not theology. It’s related in some ways, yes, but I don’t think it’s the same thing. Sheri Klouda was teaching a language, not teaching her interpretation of God’s word. That’s sort of a digression, but I have pondered this for a while now.

I would love to read the transcript of that hearing. From what I have been able to gather, the seminary made every argument under the sun for the dismissal, including separation of church and state. I fail to see the connection.

I’ll probably continue to follow this issue and see what becomes of it. People need to be held accountable. You have to pay the fiddler if you want to dance.