One of the questions put into the Question Box simply asked: “What is the ‘Lucifer’ effect?” The expression seems to have originated with (according to the Internet) Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University. He has written, among others, three books: The Lucifer Effect (published in 2007, although the experiment was conducted many years earlier in 1971), The Time Paradox (2008), and The Time Cure co-authored by Richard and Rosemary Sword (2012).
The experiment was done with college students who volunteered for this study. The “prisoners” in the experiment did not know when it would begin. They were shocked to be arrested one morning and taken to a mock prison, where they were “stripped, searched, shaved and deloused, which caused a great deal of humiliation,” as one might imagine. The nine “guards” were not supposed to use corporal punishment, but they soon violated that rule. The prisoners at first did not take the authority of the guards seriously, but they began to when physically disciplined.
On only the second day, a rebellion broke out, which angered the “guards,” who responded with a show of force. They stripped the inmates naked, put the leaders in solitary confinement, and imposed other cruelties upon them. This construct only lasted 6 days instead of the two weeks planned. Frankly, the experiment was poorly defined and executed (in the estimation of this writer). To take students of equal rank and treat them in this fashion seems irresponsible and of little value. The greatest lesson to be learned is that no one should volunteer for an experiment unless he knows specifically what’s involved in it.
A much better study had been conducted in 1961 at Yale, in which one person administered an electric shock to another individual in a separate room for giving a wrong answer to a question. He himself received a sample from an electroshock generator of what he would be dishing out to a fellow human being. The punishment increased by 15 volts every time there was an incorrect answer; the dial went up to 450. Some participants refused to go beyond meting out 135 volts; however, most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible.
The fact that the person being punished had a heart condition did not seem to have much effect on the questioner, who could hear the screams as the voltage increased. It was estimated that no more than 3% of those giving the shock treatments would go all the way to 450 volts. In reality, 65% of those administering the punishment (26 out of 40) gave the maximum penalty, although many sweated, bit their lips, groaned, stuttered, or dug their fingernails into their skin.
The saving feature in this study is that none of the victims was injured; they were actors. No one had received any shocks whatsoever. Those controlling the shocks were the real subject of the experiment. And it really did reveal something about human beings—perhaps even providing insight into explaining how the Nazis could do what they did in World War II. How far will people go to be obedient and to have approval of those in charge?
Although both of these experiments are dealing in some measure with obedience, Milgram certainly designed his better. But where did Zimbardo come up with the idea of the “Lucifer” effect? He claims that it comes from the idea of the metamorphosis of Lucifer into Satan—that Lucifer “was once God’s favorite angel until he challenged God’s authority and was cast into Hell with all the other fallen angels.” Of course, this entire notion is fallacious.
The name Lucifer occurs only one time in the Scriptures—in Isaiah 14:12: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened nations!” But is this a description of Satan? To get the entire context, a student of the Word must go to where this passage begins, which is Isaiah 14:3-4, where the reader discovers that he is reading a proverb against the king of Babylon—of his impending death.
Among the things mentioned is that the Lord can break the staff of the wicked, the scepter of rulers (5). The underworld (sheol) is excited about receiving the king of Babylon (9). Other kings will say to him, “Have you also become as weak as we? Have you become like us?” (10). All of his greatness and pomp is being brought down to sheol (11). The reason that Lucifer is fallen is not that heaven was his original abode (since he is an earthly king), but because he said in his heart:
“I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation, on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.” Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. Those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you, saying, “Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, who did not open the house of his prisoners?” (13-17).
Notice that nothing is said about the devil or Satan or angels—fallen or otherwise. The passage refers to the fall of the self-exalted king of Babylon. God will judge that nation and its king (22).
The word Lucifer means “light bearer.” No one can offer any proof that Lucifer is synonymous with Satan. Nothing indicates that Lucifer was ever an angel or in heaven or fell from there to join other fallen angels. The devil, in fact, is undoubtedly the one who seduced the other angels and, very likely, with the same approach he used on Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He convinced them that the Paradise God had put them in was not good enough—that He was withholding from them knowledge that would make them even greater and happier than they already were. How do you convince angels or humans that there is something better than being in heaven itself? That is how proficient Satan is at his job.
While Zimbardo is wrong about Lucifer, what about his thesis that certain stimuli will cause good people to do bad things? He concludes:
Good people can be induced, seduced, and initiated into behaving in evil ways. They can also be led to act in irrational, stupid, selfdestructive, antisocial, and mindless ways when they are immersed in “total situations” that impact nature….”
Although many, or even most, may respond in a wicked manner, some always resist these pressures. From Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s study have come seven steps that grease “the slippery slope of evil.”
1. Mindlessly taking the first step. The solution to committing this action is to prevent it by evaluating and testing all things (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Don’t mindlessly do anything!
2. Dehumanization of others. Watching television and movies that offer up countless acts of violence against people we don’t know can be a contributing factor. Video games in which killing people is the major theme may contribute to dehumanization. Each human being is created in the image of God, can feel pain, or experience suffering. Every individual has value and worth to God. Jesus died for each one. Everyone should resist dehumanizing others for any reason.
3. Deindividualization of self (anonymity). As has often been stated, character is what a person does when no one is looking. If granted anonymity, is it all right to steal from another? If others do not find out, is it all right to commit fornication and adultery? How about inflicting pain on someone else—if he will never know who did so? God always knows (Pr. 15:3). No one ever “gets away with” anything.
4. Diffusion of personal responsibility. This simply means that when a person is in charge of inflicting pain on others, he is assured that he will not be held responsible. But we are accountable for the way we treat others (Matt. 22:37-40).
5. Blind obedience to authority. Those being tested were told they had to act cruelly. Their superiors would say, “I advise you to continue with the experiment,” if anyone wanted to quit. It could be stated more forcefully, “You must continue.” Most would respond favorably to this kind of authority, even though they were not fully convinced.
6. Uncritical conformity to group norms. Assurance that others complied with the rules was an incentive for everyone to comply even if they had reservations about doing so. The child of God must learn to resist peer pressure (Pr. 13:20; 1 Cor. 15:33).
7. Passive tolerance of evil through inaction or indifference. Once a person fails to respond the way he should, it becomes easier to say and do nothing. The Bible, however, teaches that we ought to promote good and oppose evil (Pr. 17:15; Eph. 5:8-11).
It must be admitted that false doctrines are of the devil since God teaches only the truth (John 8:31-32) and Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). Since false teachings originate with the devil, they are responsible for much evil in the world and in the church. When brethren succumb to errors, they have become disciples of the evil one. Some of the previously-examined principles are in operation in those instances.
Some, for example, mindlessly take the first step toward apostasy. They should have evaluated matters more carefully. Second, when a division occurs, it is too easy to look upon a brother as an enemy to be opposed rather than a brother to be saved (dehumanization). One gains a certain amount of anonymity by taking solace that he is part of a group, which also partially alleviates him from personal responsibility.
Many become careless in following leaders of movements rather than abiding in the Word. Each new group formed soon establishes its own norms with which all are expected to conform. The damage that the error is causing becomes a matter of indifference as time progresses, as do the pleas of earnest brethren to depart from the error. The more one resists those efforts, the easier it becomes to ignore them.
Equally evil, however, is the attitude of brethren who refuse to get involved in opposing false teaching. An unhealthy and unwholesome attitude has arisen among some brethren who just want to avoid conflict. Peace is preferable to a disruption of fellowship. Unity (more perceived than actual) is prized more highly than standing for the truth. No one wants to be called a radical. So, many congregations watch and observe but say nothing. Some are willing to fellowship error right along with truth; they have “a passive tolerance of evil through inaction or indifference.” The only solution to this problem is to return to number one and stop doing things mindlessly. Whether as individuals or congregations, we must evaluate things properly and respond accordingly.