Donna L. Carlaw

Cheryl, I’ll see you on the Bayly blog. Until then, I wish you all the best as you seek to understand these issues better.

God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw

You know what part of the problem I see is, if I may say a word or two. There is much reflexion on who said what to whom, when, and where – and what they meant and who they are. This comes from both sides. In that we are equal.

We do too little real reflective thinking. We are too quick to ask others questions, and too slow to ask ourselves our own questions.

We do not reflect, we react.

…and I do mean WE…

So, what I have suggested to myself and to others is to stay in your communities and discuss these things of common interest.

What do I look like when I come on an egalitarian group? You answer that question.

What do you look like when you come on a complementarian board? You answer that question.

What is helpful is to be able to read what one another is saying. that is helpful to make one think, to make one reflect.

So, just FYI. The experiments at trying to dialogue are failures – total and utter failures.

So, you read what I am reflecting on if you wish, and I will read what you are reflecting on if I wish.

Thinking through these issues is important.

So, thank you Cheryl, for allowing me to say something. I think that it is a total waste of time to discuss these issues together, but it is not a waste of time to read and think.

Maybe I suggest the reflections of a very thoughtful women? If you have not read Dorothy L. Sayers’ Letters to a Diminished Church?

It is not so much what she concludes, but rather how she arrives at her conclusions that is so lovely to read. She is, of course, a role model within the Christian classical school movement.

She seems to have been a delightful person, too. I would recommend reading her biography.

She is a woman who thought deeply about theology, and came down squarely on the side of orthodoxy.

She is a good role model. No, I am not, nor have I ever said I was. …and my story is still my story…

God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw

this blog is not about me. You are tying to make it about me, and Cheryl is allowing it.

[Blog owner has edited the comments above]

I do not hate or even dislike egalitarians. Did the women tell you all that I have said about egalitarianism? I have spoken on the theology list, too, and you can go to see my interaction with Pastor Robin there. I was sad that she left the group, but it is hard to be the dissenting voice. I miss her, and she is one of my favorite internet people of all times.

[Blog owner’s comments…let’s end with this positive comment. Donna if what you say is true, then the most loving thing you can do is to stay away from egalitarian blogs. I do not think anyone should have to defend themselves on this blog. There are a lot of worthy organizations out there that could use your God-given gifts without you thinking another moment about complementarians and egalitarians.]

[Blog owner’s further comments. If anyone wants to remove any of their comments on this post, just let me know. For now, the subject of Donna will be done with on this post. I have asked Donna to take a break and I assume that she will be submissive. When I find someone on a blog or a discussion board that “stirs the pot” to get all the ugly stuff going that has settled on the bottom, I just ignore them. One hand can’t clap. Blessings, Cheryl]

Since Cheryl has me on moderation, and none of you, I was not sure if she would post my answer to you.

So, I put it on my blog. Read up a few comments and you will see that I have responded to you.

[Blog owner has edited the comments. Donna you are not being fair to me. Please get up from the computer and take a walk. When you come back from your walk, please consider removing yourself from all of these egalitarians blogs. Why do you care so much about what other people do in their service to the Lord? The Bible says that the Lord is the one who will make us stand so we are not to be judging another man’s servant. If you do not want to teach the bible to men and you like your marriage exactly as it is, then good for you. Stay there and be blessed. Let the Lord deal with his dear children in his way and in his time.]

God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw

[Edited by blog owner for using my blog for what it appears to be a personal agenda regarding other posters and their blogs. Please and thank you for taking the time to post on the proper blogs dialogging with your “friends” there. If you have something to contribute on the Trinity and it is respectful I will allow the posts to go through]

“DL:

..but I am not sure that you folks are able to grasp the meaning of what I am saying.

[Edited by the blog owner. I do not know what you are saying here Donna but it appears you are doing cross talk using my blog to reach someone else regarding what was written on their blog. Please keep to the subject and please post your comments applicable to someone else’s blog on that particular blog. Thank you.]

[Edited by blog owner to remove offensive words]

No, there is nothing wrong with the idea of mutual submission, it just depends on what you mean by “submission”? Is it connected to “yielding” or to “empowerment”. there is a big difference…

Hey, God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw

My point, Cheryl, is not that you are a bad Christian, or a bad person, or insincere, or anything like that. I do not doubt for a moment your desire to serve God as you understand that term.

My point is that since Kamilla is not here, it was not appropriate or kind to share what she had said in a private email. You did not need to do that in order to move the discussion along. Kindness would have just said that she did not wish to discuss the issue in this venue. That is what I mean. You “tattled” on her.

Love covers.

Sincerely,
Donna L. Carlaw

The pristine purity of this blog has been violated.

The gossip continues…

Cheryl:
This forum is a place where I have chosen that the words spoken here will be with Christ-like respect and ones that honor truth. I would ask that you respect the intent of this blog.>>>>

You have failed, my dear, and I pointed out your failure. You are just engaging in gossip. Kamilla is not here, yet you brought her into the conversation in a disrespectful way.

You do not want to be held accountable for your words. You have exposed your shame and hypocrisy.

Cheryl:
Actually I thought it was very respectful behavior. While I waited, you were the one who suggested I read your posts. I saw a very public person who was not kind nor respectful to the opposition. If you have something to say to me in the way of correction, I am willing to listen publicly. If you have nothing to say in the way of correction, I completely understand. >>>>

Cheryl, I must point out something to you, and it causes me grief. You are sharing information that was sent to you in private. In doing that, you are casting aspersions on your sister, and betraying a confidence. You are doing a very clever job of editing to make yourself look good, and your sister look bad.

It seems to me that Kamilla exposed you, and you want to cover your nakedness with a fig leaf of hypocrisy.

I love you, Psalmist. Come by to see me anytime, my dear sister.

God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw

Paula:
Donna, let me answer your points, but first make one of my own: that “misrepresentation” is a very common charge on this topic and many others. When Christians disagree, it seems to be the first reaction. The problem is that this charge is rarely proved but only asserted.>>>>

I see what you mean. The word “misrepresentation” can be understood as being something deliberate, a deliberate lie about the position of another person.

I should have said, “misunderstand,” rather than “misinterpret.”

I would encourage people to read what is said at the CBMW, and try to understand where they are coming from as far as the eternal subordination of the Son is concerned. It is an appeal to greater understanding.

Then, I would also appeal to people to examine presuppositions. What are the hermeneutic principles being used, and what is the basic theological bias of anyone writing about theology, even in these little comments sections. Even saying ” I do not use labels, I am a biblicist” is a theological bias. What does a person mean when they say, “I am a biblicist” or “I don’t use labels” or “I am a complementarian” or “I am an egalitarian” or whatever. Not everyone tells you where they are coming from, and you have to figure it out for yourself.

So, thank you for allowing me to clarify. This is a difficult subject. I’m not going point by point with you, not because I don’t think you are important enough to me to respond. On the contrary. You are my sister in Christ, and of infinite worth to my Saviour and Lord. We are in His family, and it is natural for us to love one another.

I just don’t think that this is the time or the place.

God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw

Why don’t you ask her? 🙂

No, I’m not lost, nor am I misplaced.

I see that you are misinterpreting the idea of the eternal subordination of the Son, thus setting up straw men arguments.

The CBMW has written some excellent articles on this subject at their blog. You can check it out there, and see that what they are saying is well within orthodoxy.

http://www.cbmw.org/Blog

Just to guide your thinking about what the eternal subordination of the Son, here are some questions to ask yourselves.:

1. If one person willingly submits his will to that of another person because they are of one will in the first place, is that person’s being diminished in any way?

2. What does the phrase “the Father SENT the Son to be the Saviour of the world” say about when the Son began to obey the will of His Father? No one disagrees that Jesus was in submission to the will of His Father during the time of His earthly ministry. However, when did this submission to His Father’s will begin, right at the moment of His conception by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary, or before? When was He SENT, IOW?

3. The very words “Father” and “Son” show that they are in a hierarchical relationship, but one that does not diminish them in any way. God chose to reveal Himself as the eternal Father who has an eternal Son. Christ’s sonship did not begin at the incarnation and end when He returned to sit at the right hand of the Father.

Then, may I make a friendly suggestion. Some of you seem to be clueless as to what feminist theology is and what hermeneutic is being used. Some of you say that you have no labels, which is fine. There is no law that says you have to be a complementarian or you have to be an egalitarian.

There is no doubt that God can and does use whoever He pleases, whenever He pleases, however He pleases. He is the Lord of His church, and He ministers to her and trough her as He wishes, since He is her Head.

However, you really should know where you are coming from, and where your ideas are coming from. Feminist thelogy has not been developed in some secret, dark corner somewhwere, so why are you so ignorant of it’s hermeneutic and it’s presuppositions?

I fear for you , and am saying this in the most loving way possible. You are just doing shot-gun theology, but some among you are very aware of feminist theology and are actively promoting it in your midst, and you seem to be clueless.

No offense.

Cheryl:
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) supports the claim that the husband is to be king over his wife and this view is taught in an on-line book on their web site. >>>>>

Cheryl, have you invited the CBMW folks to your blog to clarify what they really believe? You are grossly misrepresenting the complementarian position, especially as presented by the CBMW. It would be only fair to invite a representative of that organization equal time on your blog to present their views, right?

That would only be fair.