Introduction
In the 1980s, there were several places that had to move because of open-cast lignite mining. In one place, the citizens were presented with different plans of what the new place could look like. For example, they improved the layout, the street layout, etc., but the citizens chose the variant that most resembled their original old town, even though the old layout was inefficient and confusing and caused problems.
This place - unfortunately I didn't find out the name - made it into a research paper by US psychologists, which had the title:
"Status quo bias in decision making
which means roughly in German:
"Status quo bias in decision making".
"Status quo" does not mean the rock band here, but is Latin for the existing current state, which is how the term is usually used.
Let's take another quick look at the example. A completely new city was built: Why wasn't it built more beautiful, better? Why did they choose the old familiar, but worse, over the better?
I kind of liked the term "status quo bias". The definition (from Wikipedia) is like this:
The status quo bias (also called status quo tendency) is a cognitive bias that leads to an excessive preference for the status quo over change. In other words, people want things to stay about the way they are.
or
As a result of a status quo bias, people take greater risks to maintain the status quo than to change the situation.
Is that so? Do we find ourselves in this description?
Let's look at an example from the Old Testament on this.
Exodus from Egypt
A few thousand years ago, the Israelites lived in Egypt and were doing well, so that they had many children and became more and more. At some point, this became scary for the king of Egypt at that time (Exodus 1:9-14; NL).
And Pharaoh later goes one better (Exodus 1:22, NL):
A boy survives and is given the name Moses, which plays an important role later on.
How long and how consistently the Egyptians carried out the murder of the newborn boys is not recorded, but they also wanted to use the Israelites as cheap labour slaves, so they probably stopped murdering the newborn boys at some point.
Most people know this incident. Forty years later, the aforementioned Moses leads the people of Israel out of Egypt and travels through the desert towards the Promised Land, accompanied by God's visible intervention, e.g. through the pillar of cloud and various miracles.
So the people lived in this drudgery for about forty years. Children were born there, grew up in this bondage, a lifetime of slavery.
So now the people have left Egypt, have seen God part the Red Sea and defeat the Egyptians.
They were then in the desert and things didn't always go super smoothly. Sometimes it took a few days until they found water. God had then provided water.
And then, on the 15th day of the second month after the departure from Egypt, so everything was still fresh, the following happens (Ex 16:2,3; NL):
Of course God provided for them again, with manna and quails, most of you have heard the story before.
But I would like to pause here for a moment.
The meat pots in Egypt were still familiar to the Israelites, but the drudgery, the beatings, the slavery were forgotten. Or, in retrospect, they were no longer so important to them.
Rather familiar beatings than an uncertain hope? Rather familiar slavery than freedom in an unknown land?
You know what you have.
Even the Bremen Town Musicians were smarter: "We can find something better than death anywhere," and they were just made up.
But I don't want to look down on the Israelites so much. This preference for the status quo over change is certainly something we also find among ourselves, including me personally.
Let us look at another example from the Bible.
Abram
He is known by the name "Abraham", but he was first called "Abram" and was later renamed by God.
This is how it began with him (Genesis 12:1-4; NL):
Start over again at 75? Now Abram was still very fit physically and mentally, as we know from subsequent descriptions in the Bible. But still?
He listens to God and takes full risks. He already behaves differently than his descendants later in the desert, about whom we had heard earlier.
The term "comfort zone" also comes to mind here, which Abram is obviously leaving here.
Now, one could say that Abram receives great promises from God here and that it is therefore not difficult for him to set out on his journey.
But the Israelites in the desert had also received a great promise, for God had promised them a new, good land flowing with milk and honey. Nevertheless, their thoughts kept returning to their old, familiar life in slavery.
Examples in the New Testament
We also find positive and negative examples in the New Testament.
Jesus' disciples left their lives behind and joined Jesus. Peter also asks specifically at one point (Luke 18:28-30; NL):
Actually, one would have to look at this text in more detail now, what all this can mean in detail, but that would go beyond the scope now. However, the disciples took risks, just like Abram, and left their familiar lives behind.
A counter-example would be the rich young man (Matthew 16:22, NL):
If you want to go to heaven by doing good, you have to be perfect, and no one can do that.
His actual status quo was not his wealth, but his thinking that he would get to heaven through good deeds, a thinking that is certainly still widespread today. But you don't get there, as Jesus clearly shows the young man. Eternity is a gift from Jesus Christ, and if you put your mind to it and set out on the path to it, then you are taking a risk, because then your life changes fundamentally and you leave your own status quo.
Community
I want to take up a sentence from the beginning again:
As a result of a status quo bias, people take greater risks to maintain the status quo than to change the situation.
If you look at the very first church in Acts, the new members act completely differently (Acts 2:42-47; NGÜ):
Whether this church model would be literally suitable for today in our country, I have my doubts. At that time, it was probably suitable for a while, but later the church in Jerusalem ran out of money, so other churches collected for them.
But the values that were lived here are certainly timeless.
Teaching about the Bible, cohesion, mutual love and helpfulness, sharing with each other, giving a share, fellowship in the temple, i.e. in the church hall, with communion and prayer, meeting back and forth in the homes and celebrating God in everything you do, these are all marks of a living church.
Does this fit with our current status quo or do we need to take a risk and change something? Do we really want something to change?
Everyone has to question themselves personally. I'm more the type who stays loyal to the familiar. You can also see that from the three times I changed jobs, the company closed down in two cases and I had to look for something new.
While researching for the sermon, I found three golden rules of management:
- We have always done it that way.
- We have never done it like this before.
- Anyone could come.
Of course, it's not supposed to be like that ;-)
How much we should or must leave our home, our familiar status quo, I don't know. Maybe, like Abram, we need to move to a whole new country (figuratively speaking), maybe we "just" need to check our lived values against the Bible and bring our shortcomings to God and work on them, I don't know.
But we know from the Bible that God did not abandon the people who set out with him, we can already rely on that, no matter where the path ultimately leads.
Summary
I conclude:.
- As a result of a status quo bias, people take greater risks to maintain the status quo than to change the situation.
- Israel, after the Exodus from Egypt, preferred the terrible familiar to the uncertain.
- Abram didn't know where he was going either, but he left his comfort zone and set off.
- In the same way, the disciples joined Jesus Christ and took the risk of change.
- The rich young man was too entrenched in his status quo of "eternal life" through good deeds.
- We don't yet know what will happen to our church. Will it be a completely new path like Abram's, or will it be more of a gradual change, e.g. through orientation towards the values that the early church lived by? We are curious, but God will be with us.