I am reading So Beautiful by Leonard Sweet and came across this gem on page 85:
There are many features in my ministry that get me in trouble with certain segments of the Christian community, but perhaps the biggest of them all and the one I least understand is the way I am deemed guilty by association because I quote certain people. I admit it: I quote anyone. I quote the good, the bad, and the ugly… especially the bad and the ugly. I get this from John Wesley, who enjoyed everybody he met and believed he had something to learn from everybody. I begin every day with the assumption that everyone I meet has something to teach me. I begin every day with the assumption that the most important people in my life I haven’t met yet.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
46 Comments(+Add)
To what end? One normally quotes someone to either add weight to/support their own position or to show weakness/error of the one being quoted position.
I think who we quote does matter in the overall scheme of things. I’m sure Hitler and I agreed on many issues. Doesn’t mean I want to quote him in support of them.
Please show me one quote from someone “bad” that say something someone else “good” did not say.
If I quote Marcus Borg without an open disclaimer, a new or uneducated believer or unbeliever may assume he is a good source.
Wow, Hitler made it into the first comment. That might be a record!
Regarding Marcus Borg, let’s take a look at a worst case scenario. Let’s say someone reads an author and the author quotes Borg. The reader says, “this is an interesting quote, I’d like to read some more of this Borg fellow!” The person then buys a Borg book, reads it, is exposed to Borg’s ideas, and maybe buys into some of them.
It would seem to me that if someone was intelligent and curious enough to buy a book based on an endnote, that person would not just take everything he reads as gospel. I would expect that reading reviews of different books and the like, the person would soon realize that there are consenting views to Borg’s. He would then do more reading.
I guess I just don’t think that a person who cares enough to look at endnotes is going to be so naive.
And if a person is so naive, the proper treatment for naivete is not sheltering him from potentially harmful views – it’s teaching him how to develop good critical thinking skills. Otherwise, that person will eventually be led astray by something or another.
I’m with Rick. Quotes in a vacuum are a dime a dozen. A person’s entire world view is the only thing that adds gravitis to the argument and therefore one should be careful who they quote IMO.
One is either sympathetic to another’s world view or they are not. To Rick’s point, if someone with an opposing world view makes a point with which you agree then odds are someone else with home you do share a similar world view has made the same observation. Quoting without qualification only confuses the listener as to the true stance of the speaker. Pastors in particular are fortunate if their people even read their bibles outside the 2 minute public reading at church. A sad but true fact. Quoting “questionable” resources is not wise in the larger scheme of things IMO.
Whatever. He obviously doesn’t live in Texas.
Sorry guys,
When I quote someone (be it Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, John MacArthur, Mark Twain or Rob Bell), I assume I’m speaking to someone with a base level of intelligence with the ability to think for themselves and not a brain-dead kool-aid drinker.
As such, if they want to caterwaul about who I’ve quoted, then they’re not a charitable listener, they have an axe to grind and/or they’re a moron. Or – if they want to take my quote as an all-out endorsement of the person I’ve quoted, see above.
Quoting without qualification suggests you have some level of faith in the intelligence of the listener and a level of charity toward their intentions of listening to you. You’ll never find someone to quote whom you fully agree with – and even if you find a quote from an ideological twin, there’s a better than even chance that they’ve not made it so eloquently as the original quote you’ve chosen.
It is a matter of shepherd guidance which includes all levels of knowledge and maturity, as well as some unsaved. There also may be some morons who need shpherding as well.
*We’ll have to tell Paul this so that he can take out those quotes from pagan poets in his writings…* satire off
@John Hughes
I have neglected to mention the context of the quote in the OP. In this book of Sweet he proposes an alternative to the modern church’s model of A.B.C. (Attendance; Buildings; Cash) which he calls M.R.I. (Missional; Relational; Incarnational). The quote comes from the Missional section where he stresses the point that we have to engage/learn the culture we minister to similar to Paul’s ministry we read about in Acts.
To learn from someone requires humility. I had a professor at college who had this habit (that at first irritated me) of giving every student their chance to speak their mind even the ones who I thought were fools. One day, probably after sensing some irritation from the class about this, he told us that he believes that the Holy Spirit can use anyone at anytime to speak truth to us. I never looked at those “fools” the same way afterwards.
More from Sweet:
#10 – Did Paul name his source?
There is a difference between quoting “The early bird gets the worm” and saying, “Marcus Borg says Jesus has real power”.
I truly believe that atheists, apostates, and the like have very limited wisdom, and I would be wary of assigning credibility to them without a caveat, regardless if I was speaking to an entire congregation of “morons”.
I believe the number of evangelical morons is much greater than normally assumed. This would include some behind pulpits.
It may be true that the evangelical world in America is expanding in a wonderful way and being more well read we are acquiring a more brilliant revelation of Jesus and Biblical truth.
It also may be true that a large segment is moving toward a more non-descript and diluted view of Christ and Biblical truth while another segment is becoming more entrenched in dead orthodoxy.
This is the very problem I have tried to address here many times.
When, lets say, Rob Bell speaks to an audience, and he describes Christianity in such a way that can be interpreted that he does not believe or understand the Gospel, and he quotes Borg or Crossan more accurately than the Bible, there are those who say that it is all good, while I say that a non-believer listening to this can be deceived and no closer to being saved than before, and an immature believer can be deceived to the point of falling away into apostasy.
This can be said of more than Bell, for sure McLaren, Pagitt, Jones, Campolo, Ellis, et.al are guilty of a misrepresentation of the Gospel because they fall away from quoting the scripture primarily and use other sources, or they misquote and misapply scripture.
It is important who you quote, when speaking to people about things of a spiritual nature, we ought to be using the Bible as our primary reference source.
I’ve never heard Bell (nor McClaren or Pagitt for that matter) quote Marcus Borg or John Dominic Crossan during a sermon actually. Bell mentioned Borg in Velvet Elvis, but that’s a bit different than in a sermon. So once again, PB, you’re creating a strawman at best and lying at worst.
Actually, in virtually every sermon I’ve heard Bell give, he quotes more passages and larger portions of Scripture than the typical evangelical sermon I’ve heard.
I think what people need to realize is that a big reason why people are attracted to churches like Mars Hill is because Bell simply preaches from the Bible. He doesn’t get into gimmicky object lessons or giveaways. He simple explains Scripture in a straightforward narrative style using the historical-grammatical method. Heck, when Mars Hill first began, He started preaching by going through the book of Leviticus. So, PB quit slandering your brothers and sisters in Christ.
RE: I believe the number of evangelical morons is much greater than normally assumed. This would include some behind pulpits.
sad, but true, Rick.
and Bell purposely started with Leviticus because he was hoping it would keep the church small…
One day, I quoted Jesus and got in trouble.
It just depends upon the context.
and who cares if someone quotes Borg?
what if the particular quote is right and states truth effectively?
i’ve quoted many a theologian i don’t agree with on other issues from the pulpit, i just say “a theologian said…” if i think their name would be controversial to the ever present “god squad” that sadly exists in every church…comprised of self-appointed heresy hunters who believe that even hearing the name of a “bad” theologian is a betrayal of the gospel.
sheeesh.
btw, the “sheeesh” is for having to play the game…
not in a reaction to anyone here.
#13. We should start a page that keeps track of how many times John Chisham brings up a certain pastor from Mi in every and any post.
Joe,
You are right, but at least in this case he tied it to the post and made a point. That is, at least, an improvement over drive-by snarkiness…
I guess I just don;t see the big deal in the source of a quote – if the quote is used correctly and makes a valid point.
#20 – It’s called “discernment turrets”.
We all know that if something can be interpreted in a nefarious manner – you are the one to do it.
He is what I would say: If Bell, or anyone, says something that can be interpreted that he does not beleive the Gospel, I would go to other sources of his that are much more clear… one way or the other.
So, as we say in”Debunking>Paragraph 3:
have you a statement from Bell in which he recants the Mars Hill statement of faith?
We live a society where you have to credit your source or else get yourself in some legal trouble. Paul didn’t, although, he did say “as certain also of your own poets have said”.
Gene – Paul’s point was that he wasn’t being biased because even one of their own agreed. I do not think Paul would have quoted a Pharisee as a good source.
One day Ken Silva quoted from Michael Stipe…a noted ‘pagan’ ‘homosexual’ musician.
Most usages of quotes are just filler or interest picqs anyway, which are by definition taken out of context. People get all bent out of shape about cherry picking scriptures and using them as proof texts but we seemingly turn a blind eye to cherry picking quotes out of context to enhance our position or distract from a position we do not agree with. An author’s quotes occur in a context and within their world view. I think that is something to consider and for me personally, who a person quotes (favorably) cannot be isolated from the source’s larger body of work. If my pastor is quoting Binny Hinn favorably without qualification I would have to assume that says someting about my pastor’s overall beliefs.
P.S. Proverbs has a lot to say about listening to fools.
#14 Nah, he just quotes Marianne Williamson.
I will not dig through all of his messages, but I will look for his quotes from Borg and Crossan.
#27 When Silva quotes these folks, he does so to discuss their ideas. Like when he quotes Rob Bell, he does so to expose the falsehoods that he is perpetrating.
I guess I just don’t see the big deal in the source of a quote – if the quote is used correctly and makes a valid point.
Quoting people in support of your position is very limited in value. The person you quote may be as wrong as you.
@PB,
have you ever read Borg’s work?
I’m confident in the Truth and not threatened by someone’s incorrect views on some things.
to write off theologian’s entire work because in certain areas he may be dead wrong is intellectually dishonest and lazy.
i don’t quote people in support of a position. (i.e. their particular weight of reputation isn’t what matters. )
i quote people because they may say something elegantly, concisely or better than i can.
quoting other people’s work has, in my experience, only helped underscore my credibility as a speaker…simply because it demonstrates that i am doing a wide range of reading/research/study.
it shows i take my work seriously.
it’s always be a “win” for me.
sheeesh…
marianne williamson…marianne williamson…marianne williamson…
good grief, he thought Nelson Mandela said the quote…
talk about a masturbatory obsession.
“to write off theologian’s entire work because in certain areas he may be dead wrong…”
Like the resurrection?
yes.
borg/crossan are dead wrong about the resurrection, but in other areas of theology they have said things that have been incredibly valuable…
you should read borg’s description of multi faceted character of “faith” as 1. assent, 2. radical trust, 3. faithfulness, and 4. as a way of seeing.
it has proved an indispensable tool for pastoral care.
the proof is in the pudding.
if i’m having a conversation about “resurrection”…which is central and non-negotiable…then borg is the wrong person to go to.
but i’m not willing to say people with whom i may have sharp disagreements elsewhere do not have something of value/merit to say for me and the people i serve.
All truth is God’s…i’m not scared of the packaging.
If a raggedy looking man walked up to me on the street offering me the gift of a paper bag filled with a million dollars, or a gold bar, i would be a fool to discount the value of said gold bar because it didn’t come in a mahogany box lined with velvet.
the raggedy man could smell like crap and bourbon and be a knee-jerk republican or democrat who not only supports abortion, but thinks the more babies we kill the better…
it’s not pertinent to the fact that he’s offering me a gold bar that’s his to give away.
i’ll thank him, take the bar and go on my way.
If Marcus Borg and John Crossan are not heretics and apostates, then no one is. The Jesus Seminar is all seminar and no Jesus.
didn’t say there was or wasn’t heresy…
just say’n that being heretical on the resurrection does not necessitate heresy everywhere else…
besides… you come pretty close to denying the 2 natures of Christ…and i still think you have something to say.,.
The resurrection is light years beyond an esoteric discussion of the one/two natures of Jesus Christ.
BTW Nathan – I am awarding you two Frueh points for paying attention! The “two natures” reference was a great touch.
actually, the historic arguments about two natures goes to the economy of salvation.
but, it’s neither here nor there…for you.
i’ll take the points.
and i appreciate how you and i can constantly disagree about historical theology and still keep it civil.
thanks, friend.
btw,
you’re right about the Jesus Seminar.
Most of the professors where i did my most recent grad work hated it…
and that was at a so-called “liberal” school.
I wonder what Len’s wife and children think about that statement?
John,
I had the same thought when I read that but I think what Sweet is trying to say is that he approaches each new relationship with expectation and not with suspicion that some might call discernment. Maybe he could have chosen his words better.