It is becoming quite common these days to hear from fellow believers that we can separate the source from the material, or to separate the truth from the teacher. It’s this idea that we can take the best from the material while ignoring issues we have with the source. Another way it is often said is, “consume the meat spit out the bones.”
Now, I fully support reading sources you may disagree with, or listening to music from a source that you don’t agree with on every theological detail, but I reject the idea that “truth is truth regardless of its source.” While that statement may hold some validity, it is ultimately unwise to adopt it as a guiding principle, as I hope to show in this blog post.
It has been deeply harmful for evangelicals to embrace the notion that we should be open to reading or listening to anything or anyone simply because they might say something true—or because we’ve accepted slogans like “even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
We need to let go of this mindset, it has grown like gangrene in the universal and local church. It’s like trying to “chew the meat and spit out the bones” when the meat itself is already rotten. Instead, we must carefully evaluate the authors we engage with, research their affiliations and connections, and exercise discernment in promoting their work. Sharing material from questionable sources can lead others astray, even if the material itself seems harmless or true on the surface. If we truly love one another, we won’t share or promote something merely because it appears true—we’ll share it because we’re confident it is true and comes from a trustworthy source.
Too often we are drawn into catchy statements or soundbites simply because they resonate with us. But ask yourself this: if someone like Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, or Joyce Meyer said something true, would you promote it? Would you pass them along to someone else as a reliable source merely because they made some true statements, or quoted scripture? Likely not! How about worship music? Would you recommend a song merely because a song contains some truth, or would you want to know who that person is, what their ministry looks like, who they are partnering with? Most of us would avoid directing others toward concerning people and would instead issue warnings about their teachings.
If we know a source is questionable, we should refrain from sharing it for the sake of protecting one another. We should strive to stay within the bounds of sound, evangelical teaching. Now, this doesn’t mean we can’t read non-evangelical authors. Of course, we can. But we must do so with wisdom, discernment, and vigilance. Many have wandered into theological “forests” and emerged with unbiblical, bizarre, or unconfessional beliefs. We need to guard against this and protect one another from unnecessary confusion. It’s easy for those who are discerning to say that they can protect their own minds from these sorts of potential pitfalls, but often those who think too highly of themselves can be mislead. Not only that, we must think of those who are new to the faith. Do we really want to mislead those who are beginning their walks with the Lord? Or, should we try to lovingly protect them by sharing with them good material, good resources, and sound teaching and worship?
This is where our evangelical leaders play a vital role. They should be regularly guiding us toward reliable resources, sound doctrine, and trustworthy teachers. In a world overflowing with false teaching, it’s impossible to know everything about everyone, but leaders must be equipped to help us navigate these waters by pointing us to solid foundations and helping us remain grounded in truth. The universal Body of Christ is in desperate need for leaders to step in and protect the flock.
Introduction – “But What He Said is True!”
In my 27 years as a Christian I have often observed Christians play the “truth” card when pressed on why the source matters. Statements like these are common:
“I don’t agree with everything he teaches; I just like this quote.”
“The lyrics are biblical. It doesn’t matter who wrote the song.”
“This preacher is wrong on some things, but this particular sermon is excellent.”
“We don’t have to throw out everything someone says just because they fell into sin.”
“What about David and Solomon?”
The more I age, the more I see Christians frequently evaluate material independently of its source, as though truth can always be extracted from its context without consequence. There is a consequence and it can be devastating for those who remain in the dark on this. I will use a couple of the examples above and provide counter questions to make my point:
“I don’t agree with everything he teaches; I just like this quote.” — What does he teach? What do you disagree with? Are you familiar with the areas of error he has propagated? Are you interested in warning others that while you might agree with the quote you wouldn’t endorse their material? Why bother sharing the material if other things they say are questionable? Is there not a better source available to draw from?
“The lyrics are biblical. It doesn’t matter who wrote the song.” — While the lyrics may be biblical, does it not matter who the writer is? They could be a heretic, a false teacher, they might have an agenda, be affiliated with other false teachers. Do you not worry others could run after them and their ministry? Do you not worry that while the song itself is biblical they might not affirm other core doctrines essential to the gospel? At what point does the person who wrote the song actually matter? At what point do they become an invalid authority that we should mark and avoid?
“This preacher is wrong on some things, but this particular sermon is excellent.” — What is that preacher wrong about? What topics? Are these gospel related issues pertaining to salvation? Have they given sinful advice that they are unwilling to repent of? Has their ministry been called into question? Is there any controversy surrounding these individuals? Are you up to speed on them?
These questions and many others are not usually at the forefront of individuals and their thinking. They would just rather ignore these types of questions altogether. It’s easier to avoid asking questions—since this typically gets discerning Christians into trouble. When you avoid asking hard questions, you leave the door open to many other potential problems. It is my opinion that the reason these questions aren’t asked is because Christians are generally lazy! They don’t want to dig deep into testing sources and their material because it would require a ton of research and work and it’s just easier to plead ignorance. The real question then becomes: when the time comes, and a Christian begins to become aware of the issues of someone in ministry, will they still cling to them in light of the new information, or will they mark and avoid them altogether and warn others? I find the former to be true of most Christians I have encountered.
If someone finds an excellent quotation from a false teacher, a liberal theologian, a prosperity teacher, a Roman Catholic theologian, a charismatic teacher, or someone associated with serious doctrinal error and says “but the quote is biblical,” my response is, “perhaps it is, but why does this person need to be your source?” If faithful sources exist, why deliberately promote a compromised one? Because they are more sophisticated, because they framed something in the way you liked? What good comes of this?
I consider this issue even more serious when we come to the pulpit. When a preacher of the Word of God says:
“As [insert theologian, speaker, author, etc.] said…”
They aren’t merely transmitting a proposition, they are potentially communicating “this is a person worth hearing.” This can lead to an individual further researching this person, buying their materials, recommending them to others, etc. Source selection matters. Leaders must be kept accountable on this.
Truth and Trustworthiness Are Not the Same Thing
Let’s establish a logical framework.
A Statement can be True While its Speaker is False
It is true that statements can be made by a false teacher, prophet, or unbeliever. Here are a couple instances:
Caiaphas — John 11:49–52
Balaam — Numbers 22–24
Cretan Poet — Titus 1:12
The truth of a proposition does not establish the righteousness, authority, or trustworthiness of the person proclaiming it. Nor does it give us the right to appeal to our own sources for the sake of the truth. Our writings are not inspired, inerrant, or infallible.
But the Reverse Doesn’t Follow Logically
The fact that someone says something true doesn’t mean that we should trust them, listen to them, recommend them, quote them, platform them, read their books, sing their songs, or use their material in the local congregation. A false teacher can speak the truth, but that does not make the false teacher a trustworthy source. The truthfulness of a statement does not establish the trustworthiness of the person who made it. That should make us immediately pause to reflect.
Scripture Doesn’t Merely Tell Us to Test Statements — It Tells Us to Discern Teachers
This is a critical point, and one that I find people often don’t look to when establishing their position on this matter.
Jesus Emphatically says in Matthew 7:15-20 to Beware of False Prophets
Matthew 7:15 LSB
“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
In the next verse he says:
Matthew 7:16 LSB
You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes or figs from thistles?
The exact object of discernment is the person based upon Jesus’ own requirements for discernment. We need to look at the person, and discern their fruits. We know them by the fruits. False teachers are notorious for saying true things while serious error is mixed into their ideas and teaching.
Thomas Constable’s notes on Matthew 7 are helpful here:
“Jesus here sounded a warning that the Old Testament prophets also gave about false prophets (cf. Deuteronomy 13; Deuteronomy 18; Jeremiah 6:13-15; Jeremiah 8:8-12; Ezekiel 13; Ezekiel 22:27; Zephaniah 3:4). He did not explain exactly what they would teach, only that they would deceptively misrepresent divine revelation. This covers a wide spectrum of false teachers. Their motive was ultimately self-serving, and the end of their victims would be destruction.”1
Jesus knew that false teachers would be destructive to the Church, and they are. They are destructive because often leaders and the congregation fail to recognize them, they sneak in undetected. Elders and the congregation must remain alert and be on guard. I am convinced that elders should be constantly researching source material, constantly aware of the changing climate in evangelical circles, constantly discerning where individuals stand. Men who love the truth, love the flock, and love leading the flock. They should be constantly setting an example of discernment.
Paul Tells Us to Avoid Certain Teachers
If all that matters was the truth, then Paul would not tell us in his letters to avoid certain teachers, yet for Paul the destructive teaching of a false teacher would endanger the flock (cf. Acts 20:28), therefore Paul was protecting the flock by condemning the teachings and the teacher:
Romans 16:17-18 LSB
Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and stumblings contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own stomach, and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.
Titus 3:10-11 LSB
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
1 Timothy 6:3-5 LSB
If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words—those of our Lord Jesus Christ—and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited, understanding nothing but having a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
A biblically discerning individual should not only be aware of false teaching, but also of those who are behind such teaching.
Scripture Cares About the Messenger
The idea that we shouldn’t care about the messenger so long as the messenger is able to rely some truth is rebuked in Paul’s own letters (1 Timothy 3; 4:16; Titus 1; 2 Timothy 2:2). Paul makes it painfully clear that sound teaching and character + fruit matter in the local congregation.
The Source and the Material Can Be Distinguished — But They Cannot Be Separated
As we have seen so far, there is no evidence in the biblical witness that source and their material can be separated. We can concede that we can distinguish between them, but they cannot be separated.
I want to propose four questions for consideration here when asking whether Christians should receive, promote, teach, platform, recommend, or sing the material:
1.) Is it true? – Does it agree with Scripture?
2.) Who is saying it? – Is the source trustworthy?
3.) What theological system does it belong to? – Is the statement functioning inside a larger framework of error?
4.) What am I doing by using it? – Am I merely recognizing truth, or am I giving the source influence? What will my audience do with this material? Do I want them pursuing anything embedded in the source—which includes the theological system they belong to?
5.) Is there a faithful alternative? – If there is, why would I choose this?
The “David and Solomon” Objection
One of the most common objections thrown out when I say that I refuse to accept that we can separate the source from the material is David and Solomon. I often hear:
“Yes, David was an adulterer and murderer, but we don’t throw out David’s Psalms!”
Yes, absolutely, we still read and sing David’s Psalms, but why? Because David’s writings are Inspired Scriptures. The authority of Scripture isn’t based on David’s personal moral perfection. Scripture itself is on a different level than a contemporary teacher, or “worship leader.” David is not our precedent for consuming the material of morally or doctrinally compromised contemporary teachers. We don’t continue reading David because David was trustworthy. We continue reading David because God inspired David. That’s the key here. To appeal to David or to Solomon is to mix apples with oranges.
Consider for a moment how David’s reputation was tarnished with his adultery and murder. Do you for a moment think that the people of Israel looked at David the same way after these events? Do you think they came to him to seek for marital advice? Likely not! Why? Because people know that reputations are tarnished because of sin and/or false teaching. As a Christian I despise the idea that one can proclaim a strong stance toward sin (adultery, murder, etc.) and then go commit the very thing they spoke so strongly against. We should hate that hypocrisy, just as Christ hated it.
A word on Solomon. Solomon possessed extraordinary wisdom and still became profoundly unfaithful. His wisdom didn’t make him incapable of sin, nor did his gifting guarantee his faithfulness. Giftedness, usefulness, intelligence, and even genuine wisdom are not substitutes for faithfulness. Like David, his writings are inspired, and therefore cannot be questioned or touched. We cannot compare Solomon’s writings with a contemporary piece of literature, they are not the same.
What About a Christian Who Falls Into Sin?
There are two distinctions here that need to be addressed:
a.) A faithful teacher who falls into serious sin
b.) An unrepentant teacher whose life disqualifies him from ministry
In terms of a faithful teacher who falls into serious sin (exp. Steve Lawson), we must pray for their repentance, they must be disciplined, and the congregation must wait to see the fruit of genuine repentance. Some believe that teachers like Lawson can be restored to ministry. I don’t believe they should be and I certainly don’t believe we should hold onto their material either. I don’t see anything good that could potentially come from it. The pastor/elder is no longer above reproach. Certain scandalous sins permanently damage their standing. These pastor/elders lose trust and credibility. Credibility with the congregation and with the outside community will never be fully regained. Not only that, restoring fallen leaders will lower the biblical standard for purity. What’s to stop the individual from falling back into the same sinful pattern again and jeopardizing other areas of ministry. I personally have a hard time relying on the ministry of those who have tainted the body of Christ and have brought shame upon our God. For instance, a man may have written a book on marriage and he then commits adultery, do you really want to rely on that person for marriage advice? Even if they were a sound teacher in this area? I certainly don’t.
In terms of the unrepentant teacher (exp. Alistair Begg on the issue of attending a homosexual or transgender wedding)—they are completely disqualified. Their material should be tossed, their names not cited, nor mentioned. They should be excommunicated if they choose to remain unrepentant. Now, that might be strong language, but it is completely necessary, especially in an age of passive leadership where it seems almost everyone gets a pass. I am convinced that we are losing level headed men that see the issue here and have caved to a postmodern culture that has completely lost sight of the holiness of God and the doctrine of sin. The issue here is that we must protect the Church. We must protect believers, and protection comes at a cost. It might mean separating yourself from what you once considered a sound teacher for the sake of protecting the Church. We need to have a heart that warns others, that calls out false teachers from the pulpit, that takes a strong stand against false teaching. I truly believe that the Apostles would have held to the same standards, they would have avoided false teachers and their false teaching:
2 Timothy 2:16-18 LSB
But avoid godless and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,18 who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.
The word of those who teach falsely will spread like gangrene. That’s why we must be equipped to discern that teaching, and also be prepared to know who’s teaching is spreading so we can mark and avoid them. This is what Paul said to Timothy at the beginning of his first letter:
1 Timothy 1:18-20 LSB
This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight,19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some, having rejected, suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.
Paul says that he handed over Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan to be taught a lesson. These two things are clearly not disconnected in Paul’s mind. He dealt with the individuals (Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus) and condemned their teaching (i.e., that the resurrection had already taken place). It’s quite possible that Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus taught many true things, but Paul doesn’t even bother to address the true things they might have said, he condemns them completely.
Theology is not a Buffet
As I noted above, it is common for believers to use this line: consume the meat while we spit out the bones as a justification for holding onto false teachers, false teachings, or to delve into the material even if there are concerns with the individuals, but this is impossible to do. Theology is interconnected.
A teacher’s:
- doctrine of Scripture
- hermeneutic
- doctrine of God
- doctrine of man
- doctrine of salvation
- ecclesiology
- eschatology
Does not exist in isolation. Ideas form systems and repeated exposure to a teacher can influence more than isolated propositions. It can influence: categories, assumptions, vocabulary, interpretive rules, theological priorities, and sympathies. Therefore, you cannot merely “consume” statements, you also must consume teachers. Christian, understand my concern and heart here. We might think that we will remain neutral in reading books from non-evangelicals, or listening to music from rotten sources, but there is no neutrality. The more you consume these things, the more they will influence your mind. Even those of us who are trying to be discerning can be tripped up in things we shouldn’t be. Be careful what you consume. Satan is crafty.
Worship Music – Theology We Sing
Oh how important it is that we understand that our time of corporate singing is directed to the Triune God. We come in adoration to Him. Our time with the Lord is a time where we mediate theologically on the great things that God has done.
Psalm 68:32 LSB
Sing to God, O kingdoms of the earth,
Sing praises to the Lord, Selah.
Ephesians 5:19 LSB
speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord
Our theology should be biblical, it should reflect what Scripture says about God. Which means that the lyrics absolutely do matter as they drive us toward our God.
The problem that I have once again observed is that those responsible for leading this portion of worship during corporate gatherings are generally content to cater the music to their audience. If they have young families, they want catchy, modern, upbeat songs; if they have an older crowd, only hymns will do. The goal is often to attract people based upon the music—and it works. I know many young people who attend a particular congregation simply because they like the worship music. Bands like Hillsong, Bethel, and Elevation are what much of the younger generation wants, and it fills churches. But here is the question: is the music sound? Is the source sound? Most leaders don’t seem to care so long as the lyrics appear biblical. The problem is that some of these “sources” have adopted the term “evangelical” while embracing a false gospel or harboring false teaching that you would need to do some research to uncover. The lyrics are often simple and theologically weak, and therefore they receive an automatic pass. But this cannot be the way we approach our time of corporate worship.
Christian, worship songs TEACH.
Colossians 3:16 LSB
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with gratefulness in your hearts to God.
Worship music is theological instruction. We don’t merely listen to worship music:
- we sing it
- we put its theology into our mouths
- we repeat it
- we memorize it
- we teach it to children
- we sing it corporately
This means that lyrics aren’t the only question that we should have in mind. We should ask:
- who wrote this?
- what does the writer believe?
- what ministry produced it?
- what theological system surrounds it?
- what does this ministry teach?
- what does the use of this song communicate?
This is what discernment looks like. We need to cease with laziness when it comes to the spiritual battle we are in. This laziness is killing the church. There is a battle and far too many are not equipped for this battle.
For an important treatment of this subject, check out Redeeming Truth, where Costi Hinn, Dale Thackrah, and Kyle Swanson provide important reasons for marking and avoiding ministries like Bethel, Hillsong, Jesus Culture, etc. that have a false gospel.
Conclusion
Clayton L. Nuttall said it well, “Satan is bent on destroying the Biblical New Testament Church.”2 He’s right! Satan also knows that he can’t completely destroy it because “the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” (Matthew 16:18). Yet, the best way to attempt to destroy the Church is to introduce wolves, false teachers, false teachings, subtle unbiblical processes, man-made divisions, contentions, etc. Satan loves to mess with the Church, he loves to infiltrate it and work it from the inside—as was clear in Revelation 2-3. Separating the source from the material is a subtle way to distract the church from the rotten root of the issue. It gets us looking at the tree and the branches while ignoring the root and acting like we can pick off some of the fruit while ignoring the fact the tree is rotting. Cut it down! Cut down the tree, and burn the root. The church needs to be bold here. We have conceded too much ground through this passivity.
Church leaders must be firmly rooted in truth, but they must also know where to look for truth. It is not enough these days to pull a quote from online because it sounded good. It’s not enough to play a song because it is catchy. If we love the local and universal body we ought to protect others from the dangers that are attempting to or already have infiltrated the church.
Christian, but remember, it isn’t only the duty of the Church leaders to protect the flock, be aware that you can also be equipped, be discerning, ask questions, and pursue godly sources. Do your own research, be discerning, inspect and evaluate all things.
Proverbs 14:15 LSB
The simple believes everything,
But the prudent one discerns his steps.
Hebrews 5:14 LSB
But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern both good and evil.
1 John 4:1 LSB
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
References
- Constable, Thomas. “Matthew 7:15.” In Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes. 2012. StudyLight.org. Cited 8 September 2026. Online: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dcc/matthew-7.html. ↩︎
- Clayton L. Nuttall, The Weeping Church: Confronting the Crisis of Church Polity (Schaumburg: Regular Baptist Press, 1985), 13. ↩︎
