What's wrong with this?

The former Pastor's response to your question about examples of legalism contains several issues related to logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and poor reasoning:

1. **Ad Hominem Fallacy**:
- Instead of addressing the question, the former Pastor attacks you indirectly by focusing on your perceived esteem for the new minister. This shift in focus undermines the logical structure of the conversation and avoids providing a substantive answer.

2. **Red Herring Fallacy**:
- The response diverts attention from the original question about legalism and redirects it towards your relationship with the new minister. This distraction does not contribute to answering the question on legalism and instead derails the discussion.

3. **Straw Man Fallacy**:
- The former Pastor implicitly constructs a straw man by suggesting that your admiration for the new minister is relevant to the discussion of legalism. This misrepresents your position and focuses on an irrelevant aspect rather than the original inquiry.

4. **Personal Bias**:
- The response may be influenced by personal feelings of resentment or jealousy towards the new minister, leading to a dismissive and unhelpful reply. This bias prevents a fair and logical engagement with your question.

5. **Lack of Constructive Dialogue**:
- The response does not engage in constructive dialogue. Constructive responses would involve providing examples of legalism, thereby advancing understanding and addressing the topic meaningfully.

6. **Avoidance**:
- By suggesting you ask the new minister, the former Pastor evades responsibility for answering your question. This avoidance reflects a refusal to engage with the topic presented and leaves your question unanswered.

In sum, the former Pastor's response is flawed due to its reliance on fallacious reasoning and personal biases, rather than addressing your question on legalism directly. It fails to contribute to a meaningful and constructive discussion on the topic at hand.