If you've been around the Lutheran cyberworld, you have run into the Quote Wars. Somebody quotes the Bible or the Confessions to support his point, and then says, "So, what do you say to
that?" Or there will be quotes from Luther, from Walther and Pieper, from Cyprian and Augustine, even from Sasse and Marquart: "Take that! And that! So how do you answer that, huh? See, Luther said it. You'd best not disagree with Luther!"
Once upon a time, my children were active on the Higher Things email list. Oftentimes, theological discussions would arise onlist, and those topics would invariably spill over to the dinner table. At one point, there was a discussion of the image of God, what it is, what it's not, what it means, etc. The teenagers onlist were debating; pastors got involved too and gave input. As the kids and I talked about the right and wrong points of various participants, I was reminding them of what Pastor says in Didache (and other venues) about the image of God being interwoven with a plurality of persons in one union, giving and receiving love.
The surprise came when one of the pastors (who was disagreeing with what my kids were saying as they echoed Pastor B) quoted Pastor B to prove his point.
Huh?
When questioned, the pastor was adamant that this quote from Pastor B's book proved that my kids were wrong. It's right there in print; this is what Pastor B says; so thus-and-such is what he means, and he agrees with what I'm saying. Wondering if we might be misunderstanding Pastor, I asked him about the topic. Nope, I'd understood correctly from the start. Nope, that quote was taken out of context and did not mean
at all what the other guy took it to mean.
Oh.
It made me wonder about other quotes. What happens when someone says, "This is what Luther says! Don't you agree with Luther?" What happens when someone pulls out a Bible verse and asks, "You aren't going to tell me you disagree with God's word, are you?" (Interestingly, the devil kind of said the same thing to Jesus during the temptations immediately following His baptism.) I've seen quotes that I had a hard time believing were quotes from the person cited; when I looked into the matter further and
saw the context of the quote, everything fell into place. No, that writer/speaker was not saying what the quoter suggested he was saying ... even though those are the words that came from his pen or from his mouth.
I've become very skeptical of Quote Wars, especially when agreement-with-quotes is used as a litmus test. Wouldn't it work better to communicate in your own words with the individual person?