Comments on: Criticism — Constructive, Destructive, Gentle, & Stinging

By: Susan

Susan — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:20:46 +0000

Tim, I don’t blame you (I wasn’t even suggesting you try to read all of that). I really don’t care that much about the C vs. E thing honestly. I’m basically C, and it’s never been an issue for me. The more significant issue in the discussion, toward the end was, that I believe it became apparent that Sue is probably not a believer tho she poses as one. It seems that she makes quite an effort to approach scholars and can be quite a source of frustration….. and apparently, influence, to those inclined toward E.

It became a very tense and unfriendly conversation. It’s really the only time I’ve felt attacked at P&P, but then, it’s the only time I’ve ever felt it important to probe as to where a person was really coming from…. believer or not. Ultimately I felt the need to expose her….. or at least to point out to others the basic questions of faith I asked her and how she repeatedly evaded…. not something a believer would do.

What does it matter? If she stays away, or Michael expels her, then it’s done (P&P anyway). I’ve stayed away for a few days. Another frequent commenter was fightin’ angry with me. I’m enjoying peace!

Why do I tell you this? I’m not sure actually, except that if you ever run into her in the blogoshere you’ll have a heads up. I DARE you to write a thread on E vs. C and invite her over If you don’t have a big name she probably won’t bother. She seems to target the heavies.

Have fun, and keep blogging!

Susan

Your thread here speaks to this sort of situation.

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:14:01 +0000

Hi Susan, I skimmed some of it earlier today, when I noticed that the comment thread was so high. I didn't read closely enough to get any impressions of Sue, other than that she's an egalitarian--I first saw her a few months ago, actually. I probably won't spend any time on it. The point would be either to study egalitarian arguments, or just to find out if she's imbalanced. If she's imbalanced, there's not much value in me spending time verifying it. And I've already got a couple books to read, if I want to study that side. Thanks, though.

By: Susan

Susan — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:04:00 +0000

Jugulum, Did you happen to read Wallace’s recent Wife Abuse post? I felt pressed to try to determine whether commenter “Sue” was a believer or not. She has been a dominant presence in Dan’s last two posts. I’ve noticed that she rarely refers to scripture… builds her case largely on external evidence and historic sightings etc. She attempts to persuade and indoctrinate relentlessly. She’s the most frustrating person to dialog with because of the subtle way she twists things and misrepresents what others have said to her. I asked her a series of simple probing question which any believer would be happy to answer, but which she danced around, repeatedly. I believe she doesn’t want anyone to know the truth about her because she would loose her audience. I suspect that she has come to have much influence in the Christian community… she has interacted with several well-known scholars. She has accused Dan Wallace of causing wife abuse by promoting a Complementarian view (via email). She has gotten into scuffles with other well-knows over the same.

Read my conversation with her if you are interested. I think that people need to know the truth about her. She lists Gordon Fee among her preferred scholars. Dan Wallace’s plenary speech at the ETS conference two days ago tells the story there. I had read the speech a few days before, because he had sent it to me….. the comments about Fee are included within my comments on the Abuse thread. Do delete this message if you feel it best. Thanks. Susan (P&P).

By: Eugene

Eugene — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:54:33 +0000

Now everyone is talking about the American economy and eclections, nice to read something different. Eugene