The Watchdawggies: Building and Burning Straw Men
It seems that Ken isn’t the only one in the “watchdawggie” crowd that builds straw men. Besides his link to Brian Flynn’s men of straw yesterday, he (or whoever is lurking behind the mysterious “Editor” at Slice 2.0) has linked to another bit of gossip/slander couched as “discernment” today in his efforts to smear other Christians. This guy, Roger Oakland, has taken a page from the Ken Silva School of Logical Fallacy. To wit:
For example, I anticipate there will be statements similar to the following one made by Emerging Church supporter Darren King in an article he wrote titled “A Response to Reactionism Against the Emerging Churchâ€:
It is clear that while those of us engaged in the Emerging Church conversation might find new perspectives a helpful thing, there are others, within the larger Christian community, who find these fresh perspectives not only unhelpful, but actually threatening. These people tend to operate under very circular, rigid belief systems. And for these people, any idea that infringes on any one corner of the “faith infrastructure†causes what amounts to a fight or flight response.
This statement illustrates how someone with a rigid perspective (biblical perspective) is perceived by someone with an Emerging Church perspective (“fresh perspectiveâ€). From Darren King’s viewpoint, if someone is not willing to abandon their “faith infrastructure,†(the Bible) for the “fresh perspective,†(ideas that are unbiblical or anti-biblical) the person is considered a dangerous crackpot.
Well, sometimes a crackpot really is a crackpot, as you’ve demonstrated with yourself, Mr. Oakland.
For the uninitiated, a straw man is “an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.”
Or, to be more blunt, a straw man is a lie about your opponent which you then paint him with. In Christianity, we typcially call this ’slander’ or ‘libel’, but the less scrupulous might just call it ‘discernment’. The typical test of a straw man is to say, “would my opponent agree that my re-wording of his argment is a valid statement of his position?” If the answer is no, congratulations, you’ve built a straw man!
In this particular case (and others in this article, and ALL THROUGHOUT Ken’s miss-ives) the straw man is the chief tool of persuation. Notice that Oakland builds the straw man, step by step:
He re-defines the term “rigid perspective” to mean “Biblical perspective”, an opening falsehood that I’m sure that Darren King did not intend with his terminology “rigid perspective” (which more likely implies a false sense of security in having the only possibly valid interpretation of scripture, leaving no room for potential error in interpretation). He then defines the term “fresh perspective” to mean “emerging perspective” (which is probably closer to the truth). The purpose of this redefinition is to (falsely) set up “emerging perspective” to be antithetical to “Biblical perspective”, thus slandering Mr. King via straw man fallacy.
Next, Oakland defines King’s term “faith infrastructure” to be “The Bible”, once again creating a falsehood via redefining Kin’s words to mean something not intended. Finally, as the coup de grâce, Oakland uses his previous straw man (”fresh perspective” = “unbiblical/anti-biblical perspective”) to create an entirely new slanderous falsehood.
The remainder of the article is just more of the same nonsense – a web of lies.
This is what we’ve come to expect, though, from most critics of the emerging church. Lies, falsehood and deceit (not exactly the Fruits of the Spirit, one might add). Yes, there are things to criticize in any movement, but I think a commenter on Bob Hyatt’s site hit the nail on the head a couple weeks ago during the Kimball/TeamPyro discussion:
i’m a guy who is so much “in the same camp” as these guys on most issues. i love spurgeon, i’ve been called to be a calvinist, i even use jonny mac’s commentaries and other materials fairly regularly.
and i understand why they’re scared of emerging things. i’m not someone who jumps at change (the first time i read your article which used three critera for determing whether you are emerging or not i just assumed you were some pot-smoking west-coast hippie dude), but when i allowed myself to honestly evaluate some of the claims coming from “your camp”, i had to start rethinking things.
what makes me sad is that i’m coming to the conclusion that this is about power. i had hoped it wasn’t. i had hoped there were more pure motives, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
this is about labelling people with a scarlet “E” so that their own “sheep” will steer clear of anyone who might raise some difficult questions…
because they don’t think it’s okay for a pastor to say, “you know… i’m rethinking that, so i don’t have a good answer now.”
It’s a sad state of affairs when the “watchdogs” like Ken and Mr. Oakland have become more like the corrupt shepherds of Ezekiel 34, recondemned by Jesus in Jericho.
33 Comments(+Add)
Chris L.,
I do wish to thank you for placing one such as I in the company of Roger Oakland. Though I certainly don’t deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with real soldiers of the Cross of Jesus Christ like Oakland, I am nonetheless quite honored to stand with him in the defense of the genuine Gospel of God. peace.
Ken,
I also place you with Tomas Torquemada, for the same reasons (and more). You keep great company…
I pretty much found that article unreadable. I did like how he states at the beginning of the article “Not every Christian is called to be a watchman”, but then goes on to ensure us that he is. I find this to be the height of arrogance. He might as well come and say that he assumes that average Christians are too dumb to think for themselves, so they’d better let people like him do the thinking for them.
“[Oakland] might as well come and say that he assumes that average Christians are too dumb to think for themselves.” Nah Phil, that would actually be God Who is “the height of arrogance.”
For it was the LORD God said, “I appointed watchmen over you and said, ‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’ But you said, ‘We will not listen.’” (Jeremiah 6:17) And in Ephesians 4 – “It was He Who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.” (vv. 11-12)
Maybe you should spend more time reading the Bible and less listening to new evangelicals “it’s all abut me” musers. Just a thought…
One tires of hearing the “strawman” argument that those who critique the theological lack in the emerging movement are afraid. Afraid of what or who?? McClaren? You guys?
You are all welcome to “comeonnamyhouse” and mix it up if you like. (2 Cor 10:11)
I engage in no “circular theologies” another “strawman” argument.
Any and all can follow whatever they like, and blog about it all the day long. You are not going to convince me of anything, nor do I fear that you will.
BTW isn’t Torquemada a favorite son of the roman religion you recently defended?
As for Phil
” He might as well come and say that he assumes that average Christians are too dumb to think for themselves, so they’d better let people like him do the thinking for them.”
That is actually a liberal mindset and is used quite frequently in the political arena as well. Look up “clintonista” in the dictionary.
“That is actually a liberal mindset and is used quite frequently in the political arena as well. Look up “clintonista†in the dictionary.” (emphasis mine)
What? Just because liberals do it makes it ok for Roger to do it? I’m confused.
Oh, and Clintonista isn’t in the dictionary.
Way to go Chris P., no misspellings! Did you get the IE spell checker?
“Just because liberals do it makes it ok for Roger to do it?”
Chris P. was referring to phil – “As for Phil.” You might want to stay on point.
You cannot deny the fact that Oakland replaced “rigid” with “biblical”- thus redefining what the original article said.
You can argue whether this is a technical straw man fallacy or not… but redefining someone’s argument so it easier to attack is wrong.
Neil
“redefining someone’s argument so it easier to attack is wrong.”
O, I’m with you there. This is exactly what Chris P.’s talking about as happening on this website all the time.
I don’t see any biblical support that there are individual Christians who are appointed as a watchman for the Church at large. There was the Council at Jerusalem, but they were overseeing a movement in its infancy stage. Paul definitely was concerned about the teaching and happenings in the churches he wrote to, but those were churches he himself started.
The Biblical model of accountability is built on personal relationship, not drive-by attacks. It is also not about a place of central control and power – if that were the case we might as well all be Catholics still. The Spirit guides the Church in the pursuit of the Truth through the Scriptures.
I stand by my comment about arrogance. The self-proclaimed watchmen are happier tearing other Christians down rather than trying to expand the Kingdom.
ROTFLMBO!!!!!!
Ken, you can’t be serious! I see you do this all the time… i have even taken the direct quotes on my blog to show how you did it… if you can’t see, pray for God to open you eyes… He will…
I can’t tell which is worse you or Ms. Dywana Litz…
You see you take one definition of a word, like meditate and then make that word mean, “Hinduism” and it was not meant that way at all… we are told in the Scripture to meditate on God and His Word… yet if we were to read you, all meditation is evil because it is “Hindu, eastern orthodox, not of John MacArthur” or whatever weirdness you have assigned to it… many of us see it clearly so instead of viewing us as “enemies” maybe the honesty of you “enemies” is something to consider as we see this and will not lie to you that we do… If you seek true honesty, I think you should consider what the other states… I do with you… yet even then I still see you miss the main point….
If your point is Hinduism does not mix with Christianity… then yes I am sure almost every emergent out there will agree… but to say meditation or contemplation is always wrong… indites Tozer as he taught others to contemplate scripture and look to the Christian mystics for inspiration in their walk with God… have you ever read Tozer’s “The Christian Book of Mystical Verse?” I doubt you have otherwise your wording would not condemn Tozer as he saw nothing wrong in the view of Christian Mystics… as you have blanketly said is always evil…
So, Tozer a heretic? If not… then how do you justify calling others such?
Blessings,
iggy
Ken,
I’m pleased to see you agree that Oakland redefined someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
I’m confident I have never done that, maybe you could show me an example of where someone else has.
It is beyond poor scholarship to imbue an obviously different meaning into someone elses words – as was illustrated by changing “rigid” to “biblical” –
Thanks,
Neil
Todd
I am well aware clintonista isn’t the dictionary. it would seem to me that this sight above all others would understand the use of inflammatory rhetoric.
As for mis-spellings I am actually more literate than you. I do not use spell check ever. I am a fast and furious typist when my ire is aroused leading to my hitting adjacent keys. Ken is right I was referring to Phil.
I suggest McGruffey’s reader as an aid.
BTW, I l respect the way you stay on topic and avoid personal attacks.
Personal attacks? Really? I’m sorry if you felt I was attacking you. I was merely joshing about your oft-poor spelling. I didn’t realize it was an attack. I’m sorry.
As for staying on topic, I would have to ask, “Why?” No matter how on-topic I stay, no matter how logically or eloquently I make my case, you will never hear me.
I’m young and immature. It’s much more fun for me to poke about your spelling than engage in a pointless debate.
Now, if you would actually respond to the arguments and criticisms leveled against you instead of constantly raising your ire and furiously posting, engaging in dialog with you would be quite an enjoyable past time.
As such, I will continue my “personal attacks” and “off-topic” comments:
It’s quite funny that you’ve misspelled “misspellings” AND McGuffey.
Todd said: “I’m young and immature.”
iggy,
If I were you I’d just cease writing before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. You already have many words to account for when you stand before Christ. You are way out of your league.
Ken,
You already have many words to account for when you stand before Christ. You are way out of your league.
Nathan,
*wink* We’ll see friend, we’ll see.
Best you take care to get yourself right with Christ because you are on the wrong side of these issues as well. Know this, we aren’t playing a game here…
The only time I remember Jesus talking about the wrong side of the issues it was in relation to taking care of the needy – not whether or not we had an appreciation for Bell and McManus’ words.
However, there is a verse about “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”
Wow – telling a brother he’s not right with Christ, that’s a pretty bold assumption.
Neil
Neil,
No, that’s par for the course.
It may be par – but when ya see it in writing the audacity kinda takes your breath away…
Ken,
you are SO ignorant, it is amazing. You are the laughingstock of so many people, denominations, churches and websites. It’s all over your ignorance, and making definitive statements about your divinity and holy “prophetic” words. I feel sorry for you, and the fact that you obviously do not know the Christ of the bible that I know.
Ken,
Do you ever have folks in your congregation disagree with your sermon? Do they ask you questions? What if they are persistent? Would you call them a fool or tell them they are a spiritual fourteen year old? Do you tell them they are out of their league or they need to get right with Christ? Do you tell them they are pressing on to apostasy? It is surprising that as a pastor you would resort to this back and forth game. How do you handle this in face-to face conversations with your congregation?
I know that I have failed in this area and am really trying to glorify God with everything I write. I think you and all bloggers would be more effective if we answered questions more directly and stayed on topic. I will admit, that your explanations of my sincere questions of the emergent church last year were effective and I learned a lot. I just part ways on things like your belief that Chuck Swindoll and Dallas Theological Seminary are pushing contemplative spirituality because he endorsed someone’s book that had something contemplative in it.
…forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward…, Darren
Todd,
Well placed verse. That’s exactly what these guys are doing here.
Nathan,
O, I suspect a few people laughed at Noah … well … at least until it started to rain. Look, the sky was pretty red this morning.
Neil,
Man, have you ever read John 7:24?
And good ol’ Darren,
Seriously friend, you need to grow up and realize the times in which you live. Swindoll is definitely heading more into contemplative.
I know of a pastor who just got off Swindoll’s mailing list because of that, and I also know of a radio station that just dropped him because of his language and contemplative leanings. I do my homework.
Ken,
the problem is that you are proud and unteachable. You hide behind the title of pastor-teacher as if you are sovereign. I was just listening to a teaching on how you should not trust a human leader (aside from Jesus) who never says “I was wrong” or even “I MIGHT be wrong.” This is a huge sign of pride, arrogance, and usually someone hiding sin or other unhealthy lifestyles.
You see Ken, the writers here do listen to differing orthodox opinions. We discuss the issues and are ok with being different from one another. There is a beauty in that. In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. The problem is that you play a very arrogant role when you assume everything you do/say/publish is THE word of God.
I know you dance around the issues and questions all the time, and your prideful heart may not allow you to answer this.
1. Is there even a possibility that you are wrong?
Ken,
I am only on God’s team by Grace… and i boast only in my weakness… so thanks!
blessed,
iggy
Ken,
It seems you would rather put people down then answer questions… so I think maybe you don’t have answers… in fact i see you don’t have much but criticism to give others… you never answer questions and in fact just proved you think yourself better than me your prideful statement…
I critical spirit is not good… we are to edify the body of Christ…
I encourage you to do that… not to tear down… but to build up…
That is why God gave pastors, teachers… and maybe even “editors”…
blessings,
iggy
Ken, I realize that asking for the name of the pastor is out of the question, but would you mind telling us the name/callsign of the radio station that dropped Swindoll’s show?
Ken,
I guess you answered my question. This…….
“And good ol’ Darren, Seriously friend, you need to grow up”……..is how you talk to people in your congregation.
Regarding Swindoll and those that dropped him, if someone dropped MacArther or Piper I would not press the panic button on them. If you find a church where you agree with every single person on every issue, it will be a church of one. I think I received some pretty solid teaching at Dallas Seminary and am just fine with his past presidency.
Darren
Considering the climate that has been being created by people who do not acknowledge there is a difference between taking purposeful time to reflect and think and ponder over scripture and going “ommmmm” it seems that if a station would drop Swindoll thinking he is introducing TM… is a joke and that station would not have much on it that is worth listening to… it would be the Ingrid show… hours of “we agree with only me”.
So, again, Ken, Tozer… he was into contemplation… I pointed out the book… do you want me to point to a sermon series where he talks positive about contemplation?…. Oh…. THAT WOULD BE HOMEWORK….
You still have not answered… Tozer a heretic because of his Christian Mystic leanings? Still going to quote him on CRN?
BTW, I would not want to be in your league… I live in the reality of Christ… I live for His Kingdom… not my own…
You are just dodging the question…
iggy
I have read Roger’s books and seen several videos that he is in. He does a great job on creationism vs evolution. I have a great amount of respect for him……
Jeff,
Roger wasn’t very impressed with Lyons’ screed here when I showed it to him. It’s Chris’ usual ad hominem…
Ken,
The only “screed” I’ve read of late comes from your two sites. No ad homenim here. Oakland’s all wet on this one, and his straw man is a classic one.