Contextomy or who is my neighbour?
Author: Mike L Anderson
Contextomy or who is my neighbour? by Mike L Anderson
In a cartoon a kid asks, “Is it more blessed to give then to receive, Tiger?” He replies, “That’s what they say.” In the next frame Tiger is “given” a snowball on the back of his head! It is very easy to see that the kid has committed the fallacy of contextomy or quoting out of context. The quote is from the apostle Paul who attributed the saying to Jesus (1). By ‘giving’ Paul meant being kind – the strong helping the weak. Contextomy occurs when only a portion of a a text is quoted in order to foister a meaning different to that intended by the author. Paul did not mean any kind of a giving; he meant the kindly kind of giving.
Anti-evolutionists are often accused of contextomy. For instance, one writer, trying to discount the scientific basis for evolutionary theory, quotes biologist Richard Dawkins on the geologically sudden appearance of Cambrian fauna, “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history” (2). Dawkins points out that that the excerpt was a rhetorical device “intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation that was to follow. Sad hindsight tells me now how predictable it was that my remark would be gleefully quoted out of context”(3). Dawkins is justifiably peeved. He continues, “Deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors.”
Dawkins is right that contextomy is un-Christian. Unfortunately, he falls into himself when it suits him. For instance he asserts, “Christians seldom realize that much of the moral consideration for others which is apparently promoted by both the Old and New Testaments was originally intended to apply only to a narrowly defined in-group. “Love thy neighbour” didn’t mean what we now think it means. It meant only “Love another Jew” (4) [p 253]. Where does he get this idea? From an American physician and evolutionary anthropologist (5). Where does the anthropologist get it? A passage in Leviticus. “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD”  (6). Taking this verse on its own might suggest that Jews were only meant to love other Jews, but later in the chapter we find this: “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God”(7). Perhaps Dawkins was unaware of this passage despite his confident posture.
 But he alleges that the New Testament also teaches that loving others applies only to the in-group. What did Jesus actually mean by “Love your neighbor as yourself”?(8). Dawkins approvingly quotes the same anthropologist, “Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs [i.e. gentiles]“(9). On the contrary, the Lamb is in heaven and enjoys the worship of the “pigs” He saved. “After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb”" (10).
Every Sunday school kid knows the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus expressly answered the question ‘who is my neighbour?’(11) In it a hated Samaritan loves the Jew in need. Jesus is stressing that neighbourly love should cross racial boundaries. He makes it even more abundantly clear that love should be extended to the out-group when He says, “You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”(12). Either Dawkins is abysmally ignorant of scripture or has fallen into the same deceitful contextomy of which he accuses others. And has he never heard of the Great Commission? Jesus commanded His disciples to make disciples of “all the nations” (13). How out-group can you get? And it was to a Samaritan that Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.” (14).
Here is a thought. Perhaps it is a fallacy to take anyone out of context not just my particular in-group. Perhaps we could consider the people we quote as neighbours to be loved? Perhaps we could quote them in the same way that we would like to be quoted. Perhaps we could extend the courtesy to the writers of the Old and New Testaments? And perhaps we could extend the same courtesy to Jesus.
Jesus taught and modelled what it means to love our neighbour, but the human race did not treat Him as a neighbour. And we still do not when we misquote Him.
——————————————————
Mike L Anderson, PhD Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology (Wits University), writes, develops educational resources and software and plays Starcraft.
=> His books are available here
Notes
1. Acts 20:35
2. Lennox, J. (1998) Evolution – a theory in crisis? _Nucleus_ April pp. 14-24  http://www.ethicsforschools.org/creation/evolve.htm
3. Dawkins, R.(2005) Creationism: God’s gift to the ignorant. May 21. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article1079838.ece
4. Dawkins, R. (2006) _The God Delusion_ Bantam Press, London, p. 253.
5. Hartung, J. (1996) Love Thy Neighbor: The Evolution of In-Group Morality _Skeptic_ 3(4)86-99.
6. Leviticus 19:18. Hartung calls this passage the “minimum context” … “from which the love law is so frequently extracted.” This implies that he is aware that there is a wider context and other passages that support the love law. This in turn implies that his contextomy is deceitful.
7. Leviticus 19:33-34.
8. Matthew 22:39.
9. Dawkins, R. (2006) _The God Delusion_ Bantam Press, London,  p.252.
10. Revelation 7:9-10.
11. Luke 10:29-35.
12. Matthew 5:43-44
13. Matthew 28:19-20. The Great Commission alone refutes the notion that Paul invented Christian universalism.
14. John 4:21.

Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/ezine/5568640