Who Are You Quoting?
9/19/2013
On reading a reputable author, I noticed several of his quotations. These quotations were used to bolster his points. The quotes were to give his arguments strength. They were to elevate his presentation and give it legitimacy. The people he quoted were his authorities, at least on the particular point he was making. (In the following discussion, the quotations under consideration are those used to substantiate a position, not quotes for purpose of analyzing the person’s position, or quotes for purposes of humor or amusement.)
Some questions came to mind as I read through his book. Who were these people that he was using as helps to make his point? What was he saying about the people when he used their quotations? What was he assuming his readers would think about the people he was quoting?
When a writer quotes someone, he assumes the readers will ascribe some credibility to the person quoted. He assumes that the reader knows something about the source. He assumes that even if the reader hasn’t heard of the source, the reader will ascribe some authority to the point made because the author would choose a reputable person to quote.
When an author quotes someone else, the author is saying that this person has standing to be speaking on the subject. That person dignifies the work by being quoted. The source is someone to be honored and regarded at least relating to the subject. The source is not being criticized or analyzed, but is rather being repeated and to a certain extent, emulated. Quotes that have no disclaimer are in a sense a legitimization of the person who is being quoted. Being quoted is an honor, in that for the moment the author is elevating the source above himself.
Who are these people who were honored by being quoted? Two of them were Machiavelli and Abraham Maslow. Who were these men? Machiavelli was a politician who tried to ingratiate himself with those in power so that he could advance his own career. Maslow was a humanistic psychologist whose fame derived from his theory of human needs. If you are of the persuasion that humanism or pragmatism are admirable systems to emulate, then you would want to quote these men. But if you are using them to somehow bolster your argument from a Christian viewpoint, you weaken the Christian position by diluting it with competing philosophical suppositions. Why would we elevate the enemy in the eyes of our readers, or give them more credence than they deserve? Yet we see this happen over and over in Christian writing.
There are times when quoting the enemy is appropriate. Paul quoted one of the Cretians in bolstering his argument that they were self-indulgent liars. He wasn’t really spoiling the Egyptians. What he did would be similar to Don Richardson of Peace Child fame quoting one of the tribal people saying that betrayal was an admired aspect of his culture. In doing so, he is only enhancing our understanding of their deception, not giving any honor to their tribal system which elevated trickery. In contrast, the above mentioned author legitimized both Machiaveli and Maslow. He gave them credence. He used them as authorities. What this does is muddies the waters of truth. S.D. Herron said that the unregenerate mind has a twist somewhere. When we quote those with a twist somewhere in their thinking, we do a disservice to truth.
The argument for using secular sources to bolster our argument is based on the concept of “spoiling the Egyptians” — use their treasures for our purposes. But the problem is that Egyptian treasures often undermine God’s truth. The analogy of the Egyptian treasure is being stretched too far. The Jewish people were slaves. These treasures could be seen as proper payment for their forced labor of many years. They took things of monetary value. To equate the Egyptian silver and gold with ideas is not legitimate. God did not instruct the Hebrews to borrow from Pharaoh’s library. They didn’t come away with the latest psychologists’ ideas, or the research from their scientists, or theories from their theologians. Yet Christian psychologists regularly quote secular sources. Christian philosophers quote non-Christians to back up their lofty concepts. Many assumptions of secular scientists are passed on to unsuspecting Christians who read their quotes in Christian writings. And because a name is attached to the quote, there is enhanced authority, and an assumed stronger argument. Further, Christian theologians often quote from unbelieving theologians.
Does a Christian help or dilute his message by quoting sources that don’t exhibit the qualities of Christianity? This may be the question that one needs to ask before using a quote. It probably weakened the credibility of the author when he quoted Machiavelli and Maslow. Quotes can do various things. They can be a help, if you use a godly source. They can be a detriment, if you use an obviously ungodly source. They can be a Trojan Horse for wrong thinking, if you use a good quote from a secular mind whom you legitimize, and then whose other writings undermine truth. Choose your sources carefully. Also, be discerning when you read what is being quoted. Don’t allow an enemy to slip into your camp unnoticed.