"The Arsonist in the Chapel" - An Excerpt
In the social science world, there are countless studies that look at collectivism; or the idea of groupthink, and our natural tendencies to follow patterns and directions. In literature we see extreme cases of this in George Orwell’s dystopian pieces 1984, or Fahrenheit 451. But this only happens in novels. A world where individualism ceases to exist would never really happen—would it? No conscience person is willing to let that happen—right? Nothing will ever be able to control our thoughts, and our media, oversee everything we ever do—and tell us what’s real and what’s fake. No matter how much we try to convince ourselves of this, unfortunately, human history would tell us otherwise.
Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram, sought answers to these philosophical behavioral questions in his 1963 research, aptly named “The Stanley Milgram Experiment.” The premise for the study was under the deception of participants to believe they were involved in an education study, where they would be given the responsibility of being the ‘teacher’ instructing a ‘learner.’ The task for the ‘learner’ was a series of word associations that they had to memorize, connect and recall when asked. (It’s important to note that the ‘learner’ is an actor who is aware of the real study, and is playing along solely for research purposes.) In order for the ‘teacher’ to instruct the ‘learner’ the ‘learner’ was attached to a series of probes, which were connected to an electrical box, with various power settings ranging in increments of 15 to 450 volts. (A slight shock, to a fatal electrocution) The ‘teacher’ had control of the switches and we instructed by the head researcher to deliver shocks to the ‘learner’ if they make a mistake in their word associations problems. They started at 15 volts and progressively increased voltage as instructed—even though they could see it bringing physical pain to the ‘learner,’ each time they made a mistake. If at any point during the test, that they questioned what was being done to the ‘learner’ the head researcher would respond with a series of orders to coerce them to continue teaching. These demands were: “Please continue.” “The experiment requires you to continue.” “It is absolutely essential that you continue.” “You have no other choice but to continue.”
Now, this sounds pretty farfetched, why would any civil human being keep shocking a total stranger, for a silly social experiment? Nobody wants to cause other people pain and suffering. That wouldn’t ever happen. As much as I wish this was the case, unfortunately 65% continued to teach, and deliver shocks until the highest setting of 450 volts. That’s nearly two-thirds of a population who would willingly kill an innocent stranger just because they were instructed to. If that isn’t shocking enough, (bad word choice—sorry) the other data hurts me even more. In every case, every participant, even those who refused to finish the test, continued the experiment until the 300 volt mark. This is a certainly painful, if not lethal checkpoint that everyone tested, continued to before choosing to quit.
Now of course, the actor ‘learner’ wasn’t actually being given volts of electricity into his body, he was just pretending to, but what does this experiment say not only about our society, but also us as humans? Are we all born as instinctive killers? Do we all subliminally have the desire to harm others sewn into our DNA? Are moral values and truths just made up in an attempt to appear superior to any other animal on this planet? These results could appear to suggest that, but there’s something else going on—something arguably even more sinister.
Human beings are trained to follow orders and instructions, even if it counters what we may subconsciously believe to be ethical or practical. Just because someone who appeared to be official gave the directions to continue the experiment, rather than questioning it, it was easier to comply; even if the consequence to someone else was suffering. Challenging authority isn’t something culturally we do. This is engrained from the times we are kids. We teach preschoolers to sit flat on the carpet quietly, elementary kids are told to sit still in a desk and raise their hands, middle schoolers are told that they should learn to listen better, high schoolers are expected to submit to authority, and then young adults have the pressure of submitting to predetermined expectations of who the world wants them to be. Systemically, our world teaches submission and obedience, because compliance allows for influence, and influence leads to control.
It’s in no way the fault of the participants in the Stanley Milgram research that they would listen to the lead researcher, because challenging it would violate years of behavioral teaching. Generationally, refusal is discouraged because it inhibits the possibility of developing individual thought. It’s a scary thought that our unawareness could prevent us from pursuing justice and truth.
As a society we criminalize those who challenge authority. Yet as individuals we admire these individuals for their actions. Take a moment and process that. This contradictory idyllic is something that tantalizes our desire to break traditionalist ideals, and seek broader vision for the world in entirety. Take Rosa Parks, Anne Frank, Martin Luther King Jr., Lewis Hine, Marshall Mathers, Shepard Fairey, Mahatma Ghandi, and countless other individuals who we notably look up to for their non-traditional and occasionally radical methods of chasing an idea. Despite having various intentions, and all existing in a diverse range of time periods, each of them stood on a set of values, which was greater than worldly standards and legal jurisdictions. They didn’t blindly tolerate injustice, but rather struggled to bring enlightening vision to a clearly sightless world.
History books, cinematic reenactments and documentaries never feature stories of the ordinary man who obeyed every law, and accepted the world as is. The person who stood up straight, followed the rules, wore their tie just right, and stayed in line never changed anything. Call them rebels, mutineers, upheavals, or insurgents, but sutured in their identities, they are revolutionary. They didn’t let the world influence them instead they broke the rules in order to influence the world.
In modern religion especially, breaking routine is discouraged because by catering to people’s natural obedience, a church can build an audience, without necessarily building disciples. A crowd’s numerical mass is a faulty consolation and reassurance for authentic obligations. A fully packed congregation can be spiritually empty. Just because it’s practically viable doesn’t make it just.
How come after years of customs in religion we’ve adopted this idea that challenging and questioning is a negative thing? This suggests that there were no dissenters in a biblical era—I think many both Old and New Testament stories would differ.
If you’ve spent any time at all in a church environment, the idea of rebellion seems polar. Breaking the rules—you just can’t do that! Maybe you’ve been taught to sit still in a pew, listen earnestly to the speaker, rise when you’re asked to stand, and sing (or pretend to mouth the words) from that blue hymnal in front of you. Following directions—we do it every single day, why would it be any different on a Sunday morning?
In the book of Daniel in the Bible, in a city called Babylon (current day Iraq) there’s this King named Nebuchadnezzar who had the longest run of the empire from 605 BC to 562 BC. In his time, he overtook countless countries and expanded armies very efficiently. That’s a substantial length of time in this era, because being overthrown or assassinated was incredibly common. This in turn meaning he historically, had an incredible amount of influence and therefore control over his people.
Like any good movie villain, (or any human actually) this power quickly made its way to his head, and he wanted to further develop his dominion. History says that he had a nine story tall gold dipped statue replicating him built and placed on a high plain overseeing the ancient city.
From an architectural and engineering standpoint, this is a massive feat in itself, (especially when lacking modern construction machinery) but only goes to show the amount of power and control he had over his dwelling.
After building completion, King Nebuchadnezzar declared that there needed to be a dedication of the new statue to unify the nation, and ensure his authority. This was a mandatory ceremony for all civilians, and attendance was violently enforced by military commanders.
At the ceremony, the king announced that as soon as the orchestra begins playing, that in unison, the city was instructed to bow to the statue, showing a form of solidarity and cohesion. Out of fear, all but three individuals bowed at the demands of their leader. These brave guys were known bt the tribal names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. They boldly remained standings, and refused to bow down to the gold statue.
Nebuchadnezzar quickly noticed their rebellion and declared his soldiers to seize them, and bring them to the feet of his throne. Out of boldness, they said that they will only bow to one King—Jesus, the King of Nazareth.
Enraged and caught off guard, King Nebuchadnezzar declares that they be publically executed, making a statement to the entire crowd about the consequences of disobedience. He makes his admirals heat up the massive furnace that was used to melt the metal for the sculpture as hot as possible. This kiln was located at the base of the statue, visual to the city’s people. The three rebels were tied up, and walked to the entrance to the furnace chamber and shoved inside. Historically it was documented, that the heat was so intense that the soldiers even standing near the entrance were charred to death—in simpler terms, it was hot as hell.
The crowd was fearful, and Nebuchadnezzar seemed as if he has made his statement clear, until moments later, through a side door of the chamber (that was used to clean out ash) not three, but four figures could be seen unharmed, in full form, and walking around inside the chamber. The fourth person inside wasn’t another perpetrator, but rather the celestial image of Jesus. The non fabricated, eternal King who had kept them safe amongst the flames.
Even if you don’t believe in the context and validity of biblical stories, that’s totally fine, but you should still be able to take something from this tale because the characters in this narrative deliver some profound truths about individualism and the human condition. Their refusal to bow and submit to authority and obey commands of any idol, offered them protection from a certain capital punishment. Their civil disobedience ultimately brought them their freedom from a violent unjust regime. Their defiance made a statement of its own to the thousands of civilians in the crowd whom had been blinded by indoctrinated fear.
This kind of story seems radical, and extreme, and entirely unlikely, but despite its times, it holds extensive relevance to today’s religious idolatry. Replace the figure of King Nebuchadnezzar with a Mega Church, and there isn’t always a big difference between the two. They are both entities that have a major influence over a massive audience, and convince them to believe and act a certain thing without ever questioning reasoning. It is this open submission that can be so damaging to an individual’s identity.
Author and speaker Erwin Raphael McManus so elegantly captures this thought when he writes “There is something inside you that resists surrendering your soul to legalism.” This alludes to an idea that we shouldn’t be confined into the restrictions of false appropriations for an existing reality. Our hearts, minds and physical bodies were created to live in cohesion with other people, but we shouldn’t be confined to settle at collectivism. There are so many practices used by religion and other organizations that are incredibly effective, but aren’t always ethical. It’s not only unethical within unjust practices, but also because of the corruption it causes to the human spirit.
Our behaviorally taught obedience holds our hearts hostage. We aspire to pursue, but feel unequipped for the consequences that may come, because of the constant stream of lies that we’ve been fed. We’ve been gorged full, and can’t determine what is really beneficial to us.
The most notable attributes of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, is that they weren’t content with settling for less than they knew they were worth. They would rather have faced death, than to settle for what the rest of their community was tolerant of. Frankly, many people today would struggle even rationalizing this, because of an ambiguity of their internal worth. In seeking for answers, we only develop more queries. This distressing notion makes us apathetic to ourselves, and disconcert to those around us.
The uniqueness of the message of Jesus, is that it embraces the uniqueness of our individuality, and begins a journey of transformation, not consolidation that continues for a lifetime. Jesus was a rebel, and did nothing traditionally, and if we are supposed to live our lives in the likeness of him, we shouldn’t just try and mold ourselves into what society as a whole says we should be.
The reason that so many people are unhappy and discontent with their day to day lives is that they are chasing to live like the unrealistic standards that society creates, and fails to realize that we were never made to be like this. Our individual fingerprints represent the individual and personal plan God sets forth for each person’s life. Everyone will have different experiences and encounters that will shape them to the individual that they were meant to be.
We are more than solely an empty body following orders, we have the ability to choose a life of meaning and shatter the standards and expectations that own us. The moment we become conscious of this, our desires to assimilate ourselves to what the world wants, quickly fades away.
