"Consider the source" is not always a good idea.

[LovebirdsFlying]

Of course, no advice holds true 100% of the time. There are always exceptions. But "consider the source" could lead to some mighty big traps, so I'd like to address it.

During my childhood, some adults in my life used this phrase to try to teach me not to get too overly concerned about other children's disapproval. "He told you you're ugly and stupid? Well, honey, just consider the source." I never quite understood what that meant, exactly. Over time, I realized the translation is, he's nobody worth listening to. Since he doesn't have enough authority to give his opinions any value, just disregard anything he says.

And there's the problem.

One of Satan's favorite tricks is to state the truth alongside a lie. He's hoping you'll either swallow the lie, or dismiss the truth, figuring it must be a lie too. He knows the Scriptures as well as any of us. If given the opportunity, he could take the pulpit and preach a solid, Scriptural sermon containing nothing but truth. And even in this way he deceives. Because now he's got some people thinking, "He spoke truth before, so I'll believe him this time too," and then they're going to be fed an enormous, destructive, fatal lie. Because that's what the devil does. He came to steal, kill, and destroy.

And he's got others thinking, "Consider the source. If that statement came from the devil, it must be a lie." Then they refuse to believe something that is life-giving and will lead to salvation, and he's got them too.

This is why Paul was irked by the possessed servant girl who kept following them around, yelling, "These men are servants of the Most High God, and show us the way to salvation." The words she spoke were true. But Paul knew, and Satan knew, that if it came out of HER mouth, nobody would believe it.

I would conclude that "consider the intention" is a bit more on point than "consider the source." If the intention is to build up and to teach, that's one thing, but then the same statement can be made with the intention to belittle and damage. That's where the heart of it is.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don't think it is ever wrong to consider the source. The problems comes with how that process of "considering" plays out. If one jumps immediately to "he's not someone worth listening to", then one has not really "considered the source" in the context of whatever it was that source said. If a good friend tells you that the blouse you are wearing today makes you look ugly, that is quite different from a known bully telling you the same thing. From past experience you know your good friend is likely to be telling you what she honestly thinks and is doing so for your own good. (Maybe you should get rid of that blouse.) But from past experience if you have witnessed that same bully insulting the looks of those that he bullies, then it is reasonable to discount the his opinion on that issue. However if that same bully came to you and told you that you accidently picked up his notebook, it is best to check and see. He might be right. It is factual and can be easily checked, whereas a comment about you looking ugly is subjective and not easily verified.

When it comes to Satan and his allies mixing truth with lies, one needs to have a good foundation of epistemology. How do we know what we know? If we establish our epistemology on the assumption that liars always lie and truth tellers always tell the truth, we will be susceptible to that particular ploy of Satan.

More generally, the idea of "consider the source" is sometimes a logical fallacy commonly called "shoot the messenger" or in more high-brow terms, an "Ad hominem attack". For example, if a newspaper prints factual story from their news department, it would be a fallacy to reject the story outright just because that newspaper prints editorials with an opposing political camp from yours. In that case consider the source is not a very good idea. But when that same newspaper prints an editorial, it is entirely proper to "consider the source" and perhaps reject the opinion printed based on what you know of the source. What is described in the OP for individuals can also hold for organizations. Sometimes a generally untrustworthy source will print lot of truth to hide the fact that within that report is also a lie.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"He told you you're ugly and stupid? Well, honey, just consider the source." I never quite understood what that meant, exactly. Over time, I realized the translation is, he's nobody worth listening to.

I took that to mean that the bad emotional place the saying came from was the source.

That's pretty bad if the adult meant the person was the bad source. Sorry to hear that.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I took that to mean that the bad emotional place the saying came from was the source.

That's pretty bad if the adult meant the person was the bad source. Sorry to hear that.

Nobody ever actually spelled it out for me, but any time my father said it (and he was a notorious jokester) he would always look toward the "source" with a mischievous "ooooh, I just zapped you" smirk on his face, just as he did with any other zinger he came out with. It still confused me. I didn't get the joke. But that was the conclusion I drew.