Few people like conflict, and almost everyone works to avoid it. Yet throughout history we have admired those who stand for what they believe, those who stand on principle despite finding themselves in conflict with the majority. We admire them for their courage in the face of harsh retribution.
Martin Luther, under attack from his own church, boldly affirmed his adherence to the doctrines of the Bible alone. In the midst of the grand assembly gathered in Worms, Germany, outnumbered and outranked by a multitude of church leaders, Luther asserted his well-known, oft-quoted, and truly remarkable defense:
“Since your most serene majesty and your highnesses require of me a simple, clear, and direct answer, I will give one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is clear that they have fallen into error and even into inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me.”1
It was an amazing proclamation in the face of dire consequences. Standing in contrast to this much-admired quality of principled independence is “groupthink”—the nearly subconscious tendency to go along to get along. Groupthink is taking the path of least resistance, going along with the crowd, and buying into the prevailing narrative.
There is a historical event recorded in the Bible that illustrates the contrast between groupthink and principled resistance. Valuable lessons for today can be learned from the story.
the twelve spies
Many are familiar with the story of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, either from reading the story or from seeing the story portrayed in such productions as the classic movie The Ten Commandments. Through plagues in Egypt and other miracles, the Israelites were set free from bondage and oppression. Their goal upon leaving Egypt was to proceed to the land that God had promised to give them (i.e., the Promised Land). However, when they reached the Promised Land, the movement stalled. Here is where we see the conflict between groupthink and principled dissent based on trust in God’s promise alone.
The story is recounted in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of the book of Numbers. When the Israelites arrived at the border of the Promised Land, it was determined that they should pick a man from each of the twelve tribes to “spy out the land” (Numbers 13:2).2 While they were in the land, they “cut down a branch with one cluster of grapes; they carried it between two of them on a pole. They also brought some of the pomegranates and figs” (verse 23).
“And they returned from spying out the land after forty days” (verse 25). Ten of the spies, rather than trusting in God’s promise, focused on all the perceived difficulties: “We went to the land where you sent us. It truly flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. Nevertheless the people who dwell in the land are strong; the cities are fortified and very large” (verses 27, 28).
Caleb and Joshua, the two dissenting spies, reminded their countrymen that the reason it was called “the promised land” was because God had repeatedly promised to give it to them. “Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, ‘Let us go up at once and take possession, for we are well able to overcome it’ ” (verse 30).
“But the men who had gone up with him said, ‘We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we.’ And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, ‘The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. There we saw the giants; . . . and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight’ ” (verses 31–33).
The ten spies were dead wrong about how their enemies viewed them. One of the land’s inhabitants testified, “I know that the LORD has given you the land, that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land are fainthearted because of you” (Joshua 2:9).
But the crowds went with the majority report—groupthink took over. “All the children of Israel complained, . . . ‘Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?’ So they said to one another, ‘Let us select a leader and return to Egypt’ ” (Numbers 14:2–4). And the children of Israel, instead of realizing God’s plan for them, wandered in the desert for the next 40 years.
The decision they faced at the border of the Promised Land is similar to the decision we face today. Will we follow the groupthink of our times, or will we trust the promises of God?
the dilemma
Much is said today about “the common good.” You hear the phrase everywhere. But who decides what is the common good? What if your view of what is good for society is in direct opposition to what I believe is good for society? Whose view becomes the standard? Will we appeal to “democracy”? Are we OK with the idea that whatever the majority favors as the common good is, in fact, for the common good? Democracy under that definition is nothing more than justified mob rule—another form of groupthink. It gives the majority authority to oppress the minority and, through legal enactments, punish the minority because they don’t subscribe to the majority’s view of the common good for society. What if today, as with Nazi Germany under the spell of that regime’s propaganda, it was decided by the majority that exterminating a whole race of people was for the common good? Would it then, in fact, be good for society? Surely not!
Applying these same questions to the topic of religion, would it be for the common good if everyone were forced to become Christian? Can the masses decide that the common good would be best served if all Americans adhered to “Christian principles”? The idea may sound attractive, but it unravels rather quickly. For example, some Christians believe that confessing to a Catholic priest is the proper Christian principle, while others believe that confessing to God alone is the true Christian principle. Which of these “Christian principles” should be enforced for the common good of society? And what about something as basic as worship? For Muslims, Friday is a holy day. For many Christians, their worship day is on Sunday. For Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, and others, the seventh-day Sabbath is their choice for worship. Which of these faith traditions should be abolished for the sake of the common good? Clearly, religious liberty is in danger when fraternity and solidarity become the primary concerns.
Jesus and groupthink
How did Jesus respond to the groupthink of His day? The religious leaders saw Him as an enemy to their view of orthodoxy—a threat to their notion of the common good. To justify crucifying Christ, the high priest declared, “It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50). Jesus was crucified to protect the common good.
Jesus had previously told His disciples that following His example and avoiding eternal destruction would bring difficulties. He said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13, 14).
The masses today are charging through the wide gate and down the path of least resistance—the path to destruction. Is today’s groupthink truly for the common good? Shall we take the wide, easy path or be numbered among the few who find the path to eternal life—whatever the short-term consequences may be? I believe the principles of biblical Christianity demand that we rethink groupthink.
Dan Ross is a pastor and was managing editor of Signs of the Times®.
