Give Us Barabbas!

A New Blog Series on the Consequences of Groupthink, Part I

During the summer of 1975, I studied French horn with a German horn professor in Salzburg, Austria. One day during a social outing, a fellow student hesitantly asked Professor Hoetzel, “How is it that so many Germans went along with Hitler during the holocaust?” He paused, his eyes downcast, and said, “I think we didn’t know.”

Throughout history, there are other examples of similar tragedies when a country, a political party, or a group of people made a decision that now, in retrospect, seems unthinkable. Another instance comes to mind. This one took place during the first Century when throngs of people gathered outside Pilate’s palace during the trial of Jesus. Pilate knew Jesus was innocent and gave the Jews the opportunity to release him. Instead, with (I imagine) fists raised high, they shouted, “Give us Barabbas!” Barabbas. A notorious criminal who had been convicted of murder during an insurrection. Hours later, Jesus was crucified.

I’m sure the historical parallel is not lost on you or me. Yes, I’m still stupefied that so many Americans, let alone Christians, voted for and continue to laud a notorious criminal and—as seen in the last two weeks—a reckless, feckless leader. I honestly feel a great sadness, which has led to focused thinking, prayer, and reflection on how this kind of thing happens. How a group of people “bond” together around a person or a cause that proves horrific. I now wonder if this bond might be the consequences of a phenomenon called Groupthink.

Back to the story of the trial and the release of Barabbas. It’s recorded in all four gospels and that fact alone underscores how significant it was to the early Christian community. Implicit in the narrative is a clue of how this tragedy happened and how it can happen again. We’re told by Matthew and Mark that the leading priests and elders “persuaded” and “stirred up” the crowd to demand the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus. (Matthew 27:20, Mark 15:11) From this we can only deduce that the leaders spewed inflammatory rhetoric to whip them up and to incite violence; the crowd complied. They came under the spell of Groupthink.

As I’ve considered this story and the phenomenon of Groupthink, four characteristics that cultivate it have emerged. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be posting my observations, their parallel to our lives today, and the peril if we don’t wake up to the ways we all are vulnerable to be influenced by Groupthink. I also hope to provide some practical suggestions on how to break free from this toxic form of collusion. Stay tuned! (And if you’ve never subscribed to our blog, you can do so here.)

Before I conclude, let me entice you to read a straightforward description of Groupthink from Psychology Today. As you do, I think you’ll recognize its relevance for such a time as this.

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible. The problematic or premature consensus that is characteristic of Groupthink may be fueled by a particular agenda—or it may be due to group members valuing harmony and coherence above critical thought.

In the interest of making a decision that furthers their group cause, members may also ignore ethical or moral consequences. While it is often invoked at the level of geopolitics or within business organizations, Groupthink can also refer to subtler processes of social or ideological conformity, such as participating in bullying or rationalizing a poor decision being made by one's friends.

Warmly, Beth Booram

January 31, 2025