JayneK

“No I wasn’t questioning their motives, I said that I was shocked because they treated her poorly and had no answer to her Greek explanation.”

You said they treated her poorly “because they did not have an answer to her explanation of the Greek”. Your use of “because” means that you are claiming this was the cause of their behaviour.

You also said, “because they told her as a woman that she was to be quiet.” They did not say anything about her being a woman when they told her to be quiet. You have deduced that it was because she is a woman but this is not what they told her.

You said, “Kamilla has been publicly sent to reprimand me by the Bayly brothers.” Perhaps I missed this. Are you referring to the comment from Tim Bayly which said:
“Is there a woman reading this blog who would be so kind as to speak to Cheryl privately, as a Titus 2 woman, and explain to her why she should be quiet and learn Scripture before trying to teach Trinitarian doctrine again, publicly?” He neither specified Kamilla nor used the word “reprimand”. If this is what you refer to then your comment was misleading.

You have expressed some concern about how Christians who disagree with each other get along. I suggest that we can work toward this goal by giving greater attention to the accuracy and clarity of our statements, especially when describing the positions of others.

“. . . because they did not have an answer to her explanation of the Greek from the original Greek manuscripts, but also because they told her as a woman that she was to be quiet.”

Neither of these are reasons they gave for asking Suzanne to be quiet. In the first case, you are making assumptions about their motives. In the second, you are misrepresenting what they said, as Suzanne herself has told you. This makes a poor impression on me. (Although it does leave me favorably impressed with Suzanne.)

Perhaps you meant well by setting up a public forum for discussion with Kamilla, but it was not respectful to make such a decision without consulting her. This is not neutral ground. You were, in effect, forcing her into a position where she would be out-numbered by a hostile audience. I find her refusal to participate quite understandable.

“. . . complementarian blog that is known to be rather unloving towards egalitarians”

I have not come across any egalitarian blogs that I would describe as loving towards complementarians so why expect the reverse. Regardless of who is more correct doctrinally, I don’t see that either side can claim the moral high ground. I have seen less than gracious behaviour from people on both (as well as gracious). And both sides have banned dissenting commenters. I myself was prohibited from posting comments on an egalitarian blog: http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/are-patriocentric-views-of-a-womans-role-causing-homeschooling-freedoms-to-be-at-risk/
(I expect people here to think Karen was justified in her decision, just as complementarians defended the Bayleys’ decision.)

It is often easier to notice the ugly attitudes and personal attacks coming from the other side than our own. It is often easier to excuse negative behaviour from those with whom we agree than those we do not. It is tempting to adopt an attitude of “not only are we taking the right position, but we are just nicer people too.” Just remember that many of the people with whom you argue are thinking the same thing.

As for the Bayly brothers, they have a blunt and forceful style that I can understand some may find off-putting. It doesn’t bother me personally. Their interpretation of Scripture makes a lot more sense to me than the opposing position. And I see nothing wrong with their attitude toward women. The speak to and of their wives and daughters with respect and affection. The only interaction with me personally was kind and affirming (but then I was agreeing with them.)

I haven’t even gotten to the Trinity yet and I have run out of time. It is just as well. I don’t enjoy this area of theology.