Discernment in 2021: Biblical Principles for Selecting Sources
Image
Read the series.
Where should discerning Christians get their information? Whom should we “trust”?
Arguably, Christians shouldn’t “trust” sources at all, other than the Bible. We should consult sources on different sides of an issue and always engage our critical thinking skills. But there’s a reality we have to grapple with: nobody has enough time to personally research every important topic. Even if we were never lazy, we’d end up with favorite information conduits we draw from on a regular basis.
We had better choose well.
The sources we consult regularly become our leaders and teachers to some degree, and we’ll tend to be like them.
He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.” (Luke 6:39–40)
What we listen to, watch, or read on a regular basis influences our attitudes, assumptions, and biases.
Bad company corrupts good morals. (1 Cor 15:33)
Discernment depends on good sources of information, but, at the same time, choosing good sources requires discernment. This may seem paradoxical, but it’s really not. It’s like a spiral staircase you can enter at different points. No Christian begins the climb with zero discernment and zero good sources.
This article looks at using discernment to choose good sources and also at choosing good sources to grow in discernment.
First, some context.
What, why, how
The adult Sunday School class I began early in 2020 looked at Christian discernment under three headings that we cycled through repeatedly, adding and refining along the way:
- What: better understanding what discernment is
- Why: better understanding why it’s important and why we need to work at it
- How: better understanding the skills, habits and attitudes of discernment
With a similar approach in mind, here’s a working definition of discernment.
Discernment is, at its core, seeing the differences between three sets of things:
- Good/right vs. bad/wrong (Heb 5:14b, 1 Thess 5:21)
- Truth vs. error (1 John 4:3-6)
- More important vs. less important (e.g., Matt 23:23-24, 1 Cor 12:31)
In short, discernment is the skill of recognizing what’s good, right, true and most important. The ability to recognize what’s bad, wrong, false and of secondary importance is the flipside. Discernment is essentially the same thing as wisdom.
3 Biblical Qualities of Better Sources
1. Better sources are harder to find.
Proverbs is a platinum mine of insights into human nature, and one of the nuggets we find there is that humans have a built-in tendency to be distracted from where knowledge can truly be found. NIV’s rendering of Proverbs 17:24 is especially helpful:
A discerning person keeps wisdom in view, but a fool’s eyes wander to the ends of the earth. (Prov 17:24, emphasis added)
Wisdom can be found in many places (Prov 8:1-3), but foolishness can be found in many more! In Proverbs 17:24, the “fool” is simply someone failing to exercise source-discernment: he’s looking for smart in all the wrong places—the easy places.
Proverbs 2 pictures the principle as digging for treasure.
… if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, 4 if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, 5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. (Prov 2:3–5, emphasis added)
If we want to find truth in the daily cacophony of conflicting claims, we should expect to find it in places that take a little work. The more dazzling and passive a source is, the less likely we are to get good information from it.
Easier Sources
| Harder Sources
|
Not every video is a lower quality source than every article, but in general, the easy stuff is the least fruitful stuff, so what we need is less passive viewing and listening vs. more mentally-active reading.
When it comes to sources, the lowest life form out there is undoubtedly the social media meme. If it’s in a meme on Facebook, it’s almost certainly untrue or true but misleading.
The more reliable sources don’t just fall in our laps. They’re hidden treasures that require effort to find and take in.
2. Better sources tell hard truths.
Proverbs reveals that the best sources are willing to tell us things we don’t want to hear—things that challenge us and make us uncomfortable about ourselves. The keyword is “reproof.”
The ear that listens to life-giving reproof will dwell among the wise. (Prov 15:31)
A scoffer does not like to be reproved; he will not go to the wise. (Prov 15:12)
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. (Prov 12:1)
“Reproof” includes the groups, ideologies, denominations, ministries, movements, or political parties we see ourselves as belonging to. Its target is first, me, and second, us.
But reproof is in short supply these days.
Imagine a ballgame. It’s a lot like many real ballgames, but more intensely polarized. Two teams are on the field, and everybody in the stands is a passionate fan of one of them. In response to the other team’s actions, they only jeer. In response to their own team’s actions, they only cheer. Their own team can do no wrong. The other team can do no right.
Reproof is the opposite of this jeer-and-cheer scene, but the media—social, as well as TV and radio—are full of sources that never do anything else. These sources exist at both ends of the social-political spectrum (rarely in the middle, not coincidentally). When the jeer-and-cheer sources on the right criticize conservatives or Republicans, they commonly cast their targets as actually playing for the other team.
To these people, there is never anything wrong with their own team. In the language of Proverbs 15:12, they’re scoffers who hate reproof. In the language of Proverbs 12:1, they’re stupid.
Scripture teaches that if we’re wise, we actively seek out voices that are willing to tell us uncomfortable truths about what we—or our movement or group—are lacking. The wise don’t behave as if their own team is perfect.
Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. (Prov 26:12)
3. Better sources possess genuine expertise.
Expertise is just specialized knowledge. When we’re looking for good sources of information on a specific question, genuine experts are those who have put in substantial time and work focused on that subject area. They have learning, usually credentials, but they also have relevant experience. If they’re at the top of their areas of expertise, there will usually be evidence of widespread respect from people who disagree with them as well as those who agree.
Whenever people allow themselves to see it, they respect competence, hard work, skill, and accomplishment. For Christians, this respect is more than a positive human tendency due to common grace. For us, it’s a calling.
Incline your ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply your heart to my knowledge (Prov 22:17; see also Prov 13:20)
The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can answer sensibly. (Prov 26:16)
Who do these verses tell us to listen to? “The wise,” and “seven men who can answer sensibly.”
The latter is what we today might call a panel of experts.
Processing claims of expertise in our culture is a complex topic, and I’ll probably circle back to it. What’s clear, though, is that good source-discernment seeks out the views of people most likely to really know.
Usually, political pundits are only experts in punditry. The same is true of CEOs and business, athletes and their sports, entertainers and their acts.
We normally see this easily. When we need surgery, or legal representation, or new wiring in the house, we don’t ask a random person on Facebook. But, for lots of very frail, foolish, human reasons, we abandon sense when facing many of the hot-button issues of the day. Suddenly, we see random social media posters, relatives, or political pundits as experts on viruses, vaccines, voting machines, vote verification, state law, and constitutional law.
Christians should do better. There are at least “seven people” who actually know what they’re talking about, and these should top our source list.
Photo: Jainath Ponnala on Unsplash.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 53 views
Better sources don’t expect to be taken seriously just because of their reputation. They try, as often as is possible, to point to outside points of reference as they’re making their argument. You see this a lot with Paul as well—“does not the very nature of things teach you…” and so on.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Pricey but worth it
[Bert Perry]Better sources don’t expect to be taken seriously just because of their reputation. They try, as often as is possible, to point to outside points of reference as they’re making their argument. You see this a lot with Paul as well—“does not the very nature of things teach you…” and so on.
Solid point. “Because I say so” is always a bad sign, though there is sometimes a fine line between “here are my reasons, and by the way I should know, because I…” vs. “because I say so.”
An appeal to genuine expertise is a valid argument, but the better experts don’t think that should stand alone or that it’s a substitute for “here’s why…”
I was thinking Apostle Paul doesn’t work all that well as an example, because he has a whole different kind of authority. It’s an authority of doctrinal expertise, but it’s also the authority of being a divinely appointed spokesman for Christ Himself. So, “becasue I say so,” would be entirely valid for him.
But if we look at what he actually does in the epistles, he usually offers logical arguments and appeals to reasons beyond his authority. So, as Bert, pointed out, that’s significant. For one thing, it’s healthier for those on the receiving end, because instead of just saying “believe it because I said so,” he’s saying, “Think about it; believe it because you can see yourself that it’s true.” He’s respecting the intelligence of his hearers/readers.
But there is a whole lot of implicit “because I said so.” It’s tacit. He doesn’t say “believe X because I say so;” he just says “X is how it is.” This is the same thing, but generally less annoying [to our pride] than tacking on “because I say so.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Probably next in this series is a piece on practical tips for good source-discernment. There are more biblical principles, too, though… so it may be a mix.
But I want to write something practical enough that you could pass it on to your aunt or your grandkids or your deacon—or whoever else you know who seems to be having trouble filtering out all the attractive, true-sounding, true-feeling misinformation we’re constantly showered with these days. A lot of that is going to better sources in the first place, or at least going to good sources to verify, in the second place.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
…..is that Christ typically does not appeal to Himself as authority outside of a reference that people will understand. That’s what His parables are, after all. That’s what His references to the Torah, the Psalms, and the like are.
We can debate about whether the fallacy is “appeal to authority” or “appeal to false authority”, but from experience, my rule of thumb is that when someone just says “trust me, I’m the expert”, but doesn’t provide outside points of reference, I’m going to check his facts, even if there’s a Nobel prize hanging on the wall. Real experts are those skilled in making the argument.
Some examples from the Nobel; beyond the obvious fact that the Peace Prize has (Obama, Arafat, etc.) become a (rather bad) joke, you’ve got the fact that the Economics (Sveriges Riksbank) prize isn’t being made proud by Paul Krugman, and really a bunch of others. Chemistry and physics are OK, but then….literature. Accolades and honor from others are not a sure sign that someone knows what they are doing.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Excellent, Aaron! One thing that I would add is the need to go to original or primary sources. In my history classes, they distinguished between primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources are the actual fragments of history (diaries, letters, and so forth), whereas secondary sources are what historians say. I think that a similar contrast could be made between primary and secondary news sources. Primary sources would be those that actually are the reason for the news (speeches, Court opinions, etc.), whereas secondary sources would be the regurgitation of that news (TV, newspaper, even social media).
I found this distinction to be important when I was researching Supreme Court opinions on California churches. The news websites made it sound as though California churches were free to meet much sooner than was actually the case. Only by reading the actual Court opinions could I get an accurate understanding.
Court opinions can be difficult to understand—or easy to misunderstand—but I don’t disagree with your point. I steer people toward “almost primary” sources for a lot of these things… when the primary sources are too technical or too hard to access. But there’s usually plenty between the beginning and the end of the info chain, and anything is better than starting at the end, where all of the analysis, and interpretation, and context are already done or assumed.
Which reminds me of the difference between news and opinion: when you get far enough from the primary sources, the difference disappears. It may be subtle, and pretend to be news, but you’re getting mostly opinion at that point.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Your article reminds me of books by Neil Postman: Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly. Both address the loss of discernment and the effects of technology (as opposed to reading).
Thanks, Aaron.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
As worked up as he was about TV, I can’t imagine what he’d say about Facebook and Twitter!
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Real experts are those skilled in making the argument.
I think we have to be careful on this point. Sometimes we’re just paying attention to people who talk better. For example, the most expert mechanic isn’t necessarily the one who is best at explaining to me what needs fixing. The latter is a better businessman, for sure, but he might not be the best mechanic.
Along similar lines, I’ve sat under some teachers over the years I believe knew their subject area better than some other teachers, but they had little or no teaching ability—which requires a good bit of empathetic imagination, to look through student’s eyes and anticipate what they’ll have difficulty with, what sort of language to use, etc.
The “not necessarily good at making logical arguments but definitely know their thing” phenomenon is broadly true, including medicine. I as going to say including law, but law is mostly about reasoning, so in that case, an exception. There are a few others.
So, while “because I said so and I know what I’m talking about” is always a red flag, it’s often not a show stopper. We have to be careful that it’s not our own arrogance that insists, “what you say has to include reasons that make sense to me or you’re not an expert.” That’s just pride… and a real barrier to learning.
One other way this goes wrong… Sometimes the reasons why are included and people simply don’t see them. If I had a nickel for every time I provided a well reasoned argument and people responded with “Well, I disagree,” and nothing more—as if I merely stated my opinion with no supportting facts and reasoning—I’d be up there with Bill Gates (and joining him in plotting to take over the world through chip-infused vaccines everyone takes in response to the disease I created (for the conspiracy-minded—that’s a joke!)).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]So, while “because I said so and I know what I’m talking about” is always a red flag, it’s often not a show stopper. We have to be careful that it’s not our own arrogance that insists, “what you say has to include reasons that make sense to me or you’re not an expert.” That’s just pride… and a real barrier to learning.
It’s actually the attitude that’s the show stopper. As soon as an expert takes the “because I said so and I know what I’m talking about” tack, and is not interested at all in supporting their argument, as you mention doing in your post, that is a big red flag that may indicate that he is hiding something or bluffing. All of our nonsense detectors should be going off when that happens. It doesn’t mean that the expert doesn’t know what he is talking about, but it sure leads to suspicion, and rightly so, in my opinion.
I’d be up there with Bill Gates (and joining him in plotting to take over the world through chip-infused vaccines everyone takes in response to the disease I created (for the conspiracy-minded—that’s a joke!)).
No need for fake conspiracies when the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is actually supporting things like “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction.” That tells me most of what I need to know about what comes out of their charitable giving.
P.S. Thinking back, I noticed that back when I was in school, the professors that knew what they were talking about didn’t have to toot their own horn, or tell us that they were experts and knew what they were talking about, or even list out their qualifications and degrees. They simply let their competence and expertise speak for itself. I can’t think of even one that pulled the “I’m the expert” card that was a professor that earned respect from any of the students for their expertise.
Dave Barnhart
Having been in a graduate level engineering program myself, and having written a few papers myself, the thing that comes to mind is that every scholar who earns an advanced degree needs to be skilled in communicating those facts to his thesis committee. Now that doesn’t mean that what he does ought to be easily understood by the common man, but it does mean that any real expert is skilled at pointing to outside references that make his point for him.
Really, what Dave says. If an “expert” presents nothing besides his own opinion, that is a big warning sign. The experts I work with don’t do that—or if they do, they quickly find themselves on the outs in their organization.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Don’t disagree about academic experts. Communication and reasoning are part of the expertise.
Not all expertise is academic, though… and I’m not really talking about academics. Most people interact with experts in the popular literature/media.
We have a lot of farmers around here. Some of them are very good at explaining why they do things a certain way. Many are not. I don’t for a minute second guess them on their methods. I know I know nothing about it.
For reasons I’ve already noted, expertise in A may not correlate with ability to communicate A or explain the reasoning for A.
I really think that frequently we’re just anti-authority on some of these things. Love our individualism and self-sufficiency too much.
So… these statements are both true:
- Experts should provide reasons in understandable language to help persuade the uninformed (if they don’t, reality is that people are too proud to take their word for it)
- The uninformed should be humble and accept that they will not always understand (only fools think they know better than a person with years of achievement in a field just because that person hasn’t provided a satisfying explanation)
If my doctor looks at a mole and says “It’s either A or B and neither are anything to worry about… unless it grows or changes color, then we’ll know I was wrong.” I’m absolutely taking his word on that, because I’m not arrogant enough to think I know better. He looks at more moles in a month than I have in my entire life.
It’s another full length post, but humility is one of the cardinal attitudes of discernment. It’s not “check your critical thinking at the door.” It’s know how much you don’t know and respect those who do.
Having been in a graduate level engineering program myself, and having written a few papers myself, the thing that comes to mind is that every scholar who earns an advanced degree needs to be skilled in…
Did you notice what you did there? You made a claim to expertise on what good scholarship looks like, based on your experience. It’s a valid claim. I’m just pointing out that you expect people to you believe you based on your experience. We all do. We’re often right, but it also goes the other way in fields we lack experience in.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]We have a lot of farmers around here. Some of them are very good at explaining why they do things a certain way. Many are not. I don’t for a minute second guess them on their methods. I know I know nothing about it.
I wouldn’t know anything either, and I wouldn’t presume to tell them how to take care of their farms. If, however, I was starting out in farming, and a farmer told me “you must do it this way,” but couldn’t or wouldn’t explain it to me, I wouldn’t just accept his word for it, at least not without substantial research of my own that indicates he might be right, even if there are competing experts. I’m not 4 any more, and treating me like I am isn’t a matter of the “correct amount of humility.”
We think it’s a great thing if someone asks a 4-year old, “Why are you doing that?” and the answer is “My daddy said so.” There’s no reason for the dad to try to give a 4-year-old all the reasons something is done. If that’s the answer a 14-year old gives (and that’s all his dad would give him), there’s a problem.
So… these statements are both true:
- Experts should provide reasons in understandable language to help persuade the uninformed (if they don’t, reality is that people are too proud to take their word for it)
- The uninformed should be humble and accept that they will not always understand (only fools think they know better than a person with years of achievement in a field just because that person hasn’t provided a satisfying explanation)
I’d agree. But if the supposed expert refuses to give any reasons, whether he is a farmer, doctor, or theoretical physicist, then I believe I am on solid ground finding another expert in the field to listen to who is credible. That doesn’t mean I think I would know more than any of those three, but with that attitude, I still wouldn’t be inclined to trust them any longer.
Did you notice what you did there? You made a claim to expertise on what good scholarship looks like, based on your experience. It’s a valid claim. I’m just pointing out that you expect people to you believe you based on your experience. We all do. We’re often right, but it also goes the other way in fields we lack experience in.
I can’t speak for Bert, but I sometimes use that construct too. However, I have no expectation that people automatically believe me or take my advice. What I do think is that the reference to my experience will give them a reason to not dismiss what I say out of hand. I’m fairly expert in my sub-field of networking in Computer Science, and I suspect I know more than most of the general populace I meet on that topic. That doesn’t mean that what I say is always 100% correct (especially when there is more than 1 good answer), and I would have no issue with someone listening to my advice, doing their research/thinking on the matter, and then making a different decision. I still might not agree, but my ego is also not so fragile that I think my “expertise” MUST be believed simply because I have >30 years of experience in a field that they don’t.
Dave Barnhart
Aaron, what I’m saying is beyond just my own experience. It’s simply how earned doctorates and masters’ degrees work. If you don’t have outside references, you can forget about that advanced degree. For that matter, freshman rhetoric papers in reputable schools work the exact same way. No references, big fat F on the front. Even people majoring in things with the word “studies” in the name of their degree use outside references that can be tracked. Go to work in the professions, and you will likewise need to back up your assertions with outside references.
So to argue that there are real experts out there who don’t know how to make their case simply ignores how experts are created and nurtured. And in that context, the person who simply comes in and says “listen to me, I’m the expert” is essentially showing first off that he’s ignoring all the training he received.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion