Tag Archives: Straw man

Pastor Ed Young’s rant against Reformed theology

Note: This isn’t about the pros and cons of Reformed theology, so save those comments.  This is about using proper arguments.

Ed Young, a mega-church pastor, gave a rant against Reformed theology in this clip. This is a classic example of straw-man (putting words in the mouth of your opponents) and ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument) fallacies.

This was bad on many levels.  There wasn’t one biblical argument made and no examples of refuting anything Reformed people actually claim.

The “You’re putting God in a box” line could by used by both sides, which means it proves nothing.  He pretends that people actually say they have “God in a box.”  He makes plenty of claims about God, so it seems hypocritical of him to make this claim.  And God has revealed at least part of himself in scripture.  If he thinks we’ve misinterpreted it, then he should explain why.  But by Young’s definition, anyone claiming to know anything about God would be guilty of “putting him in a box.”

Young’s practices are so bad that he regularly shows up on anti-heresy sights.  I’ve seen clips of him using creepy high-pressure giving tactics.  He promoted his sex book by being on a bed on the roof of his church with his wife (does he even know the rooftop story about David’s son Absolam?).

He says Reformed people are mean-spirited?!  Has he listened to his own message?

He makes nonsensical statements about the Reformed people being focused on fashion when he is the one who put on a fashion show.

He says the Reformed folks are pushing the social gospel?!  In my experience, I haven’t come across one Reformed person guilty of that.  They are usually the first to criticize it.

Despite what he says, we don’t claim to know who the elect are and we certainly don’t ignore the non-elect.  From one of the YouTube comments:

Calvinists never reach people with the Gospel? Tell that to Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Sproul, Pink, Packer, Carey, Bunyan, Owen, and others like them.

Ed says he baptized lots of people.  So what?  Ed thinks he is reaching people, but how can he be sure he isn’t just making false converts?

He says his critics are pajama-wearing basement bloggers?  Sure.  Then he says he doesn’t have time to call names.

If you have time, listen to James White’s analysis here.  Young is obviously feeling very threatened.  White concedes that perhaps Young was offended by some inexperienced Reformed people who should be “caged” until they mature.  But even then Young’s comments were still fact-free.

People like him make me even more Reformed.

Straw man of the year: The “So you say you hate taxes?” list

As if we needed more evidence that Liberals literally fail at basic economics, this anti-Tea Party piece is floating around Facebook as if it actually proves something: So you say you hate taxes? … well here is the solution.  Here’s a sample of the 102 items listed (they really put a lot of work into this logical fallacy!):

1. Do not use Medicare.

2. Do not use Social Security

3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.

4. Do not ask the National Guard to help you after a disaster.

5. Do not call 911 when you get hurt.

I imagine that most of you will quickly spot the straw man fallacy: The Tea Party never claimed to want taxes to be zero.  Never.  They even used the “backronym” of Taxed Enough Already.  Therefore, the “but taxes pay for good things” argument is meaningless.  It proves nothing.  It was just an extended-play, petty vehicle to demonize one’s ideological opponents.

And you’ll probably realize that just because we need taxes for some things — and the Tea Partiers agree that some taxes are necessary — it doesn’t mean:

  • That taxes should be raised
  • That the current tax proceeds are being used efficiently and effectively
  • The tax proceeds are being spent in Constitutionally correct ways
  • That increasing tax rates will increase revenues.  For example, lowering the corporate tax rates would keep more jobs here, resulting in more personal income and Social Security tax receipts.

Side note: The commenters on the Facebook page included the typical “tea bagger” pejorative.  It occurred to me that the anti-Tea Party people must be real homophobes.  After all, why would they consider it to be such an effective insult to refer to Tea Partiers by a term describing a gay sex act?