Minority reports
Voices for truth from relatively recent history, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the last few years; plus a current example
Dear Church Leaders (and everyone else)
During the last few years, when I have presented evidence for what I think is going on, I have encountered a variety of responses. Among them has been the apparent dismissal of what I am saying as a mere “minority report”, which I take to mean the view of a small group or and individual standing against the majority opinion.
Leaving aside here whether what I have been saying is correct, in this post I will outline some “minority reports” from relatively recent history, the Old Testament and the New Testament. And I will conclude with some brief reflections on the situation today, illustrated by a current example.
Minority reports from relatively recent history
By relatively recent history here, I mean the past couple of centuries.1 Such a timeframe offers plenty of examples to choose from, and these are but a mere sample of some of the more well-known.
It is not necessarily easy for us to imagine that, in each of these cases, there really was a time when what is now mainstream opinion was actually a very long way from the majority view. But this should remind us that a day will come when it will be hard to imagine that anyone ever seriously questioned some of today’s “minority reports”.
In each example here I have merely listed the view that was once a minority report, along with one or more of the people who opposed the majority opinion of their day.
History
Slavery is wrong and should be abolished (William Wilberforce)
All adults, including women, should be allowed to vote (Chartists, suffragettes)
Apartheid is unacceptable (Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu)
War
Hitler should not be appeased (Winston Churchill)
Going to war in Vietnam is a historic mistake (the two US Senators who voted against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution)
It is unwise to go to war in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support (Robin Cook)
Science
The general theory of relativity makes more sense of the reality of what we observe (Albert Einstein)
The continents were once joined together and are slowly drifting apart (Alfred Wegener)
DNA plays a central role in genetics (Oswald Avery, Colin MacLeod, Maclyn McCarty)
Health
The area of health has proved particularly fertile ground for “minority reports” that have eventually proved to be correct:
Good sanitation can make a massive difference to health outcomes (Florence Nightingale, Ignaz Semmelweis)
Cholera is spread through contaminated water rather than via “bad air” (John Snow)
Asbestos poses severe health risks when its fibres are inhaled (Montague Murray)
Smoking cigarettes is damaging to health (Lennox Johnston)
Thalidomide causes birth defects (Frances Kelsey)
DDT is hazardous to health and the environment (Rachel Carson)
Leaded petrol results in harmful long-term effects, particularly on children (Clair Patterson)
Stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria rather than stress and lifestyle factors (Barry Marshall and Robin Warren)
Excessive sugar is a bigger contributor than dietary fat to heart disease, obesity, and diabetes (John Yudkin)
Bisphenol A (BPA), which is used in the manufacture of plastics, can disrupt hormone function (Ana Soto and Carlos Sonnenschein)
It is hard to imagine now, but in the 1950s it was normal for doctors to recommend thalidomide to treat morning sickness. And for construction companies to endorse the use of asbestos in public buildings. And for health authorities to advocate spraying children with DDT.
For their health.
These are things that actually happened. With the approval of the majority of the “experts” of their day. And it was not actually so very long ago — there are plenty of people still alive who can remember such things.
It might be tempting to think something along the lines of “mistakes were made, but science has moved on, and things are better now”. But I suspect that that is how people have always thought. And it is the height of hubris to think that we could not be making similarly bad (or even worse) mistakes today.
And I suspect that future generations will find it hard to imagine how the mistakes of the 2020s happened as they did.
Minority reports from the Old Testament
Minority reports are nothing new. In the Bible we also find plenty of examples where an individual or a small group stood against the majority opinion, often in faithfulness to God.
Here are three Old Testament examples:
Caleb and Joshua
In Numbers 13-14, the majority of spies came back with a fearful report about the promised land of Canaan:
‘We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit. But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large…’
But Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, contrary to the majority, that:
‘We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.’
The majority raised objections:
‘We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are… The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size… We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.’
And the people were despondent at the prospect of not entering the promised land after all:
That night all the members of the community raised their voices and wept aloud. All the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron, and the whole assembly said to them, ‘If only we had died in Egypt! Or in this wilderness! Why is the Lord bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder. Wouldn’t it be better for us to go back to Egypt?’ And they said to each other, ‘We should choose a leader and go back to Egypt.’
But Caleb — now joined by Joshua — again pushed back:
‘The land we passed through and explored is exceedingly good. If the Lord is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will devour them. Their protection is gone, but the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them.’
And the response?
The whole assembly talked about stoning them.
Expressing a minority view can evidently be a dangerous business! In this instance those putting forward the alternative perspective were not stoned to death, but there is, as we shall see later, an example of that in the New Testament.
God then said to Moses:
‘How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them? I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them, but I will make you into a nation greater and stronger than they.’
And so it came to pass.
Caleb and Joshua showed courage in the face of peer pressure, and their minority report — plus their trust in God’s promise to deliver the land to his people — met with God’s approval. In the words of the old rhyme:2
Joshua the son of Nun And Caleb son of Jephunneh Were the only two Who got right through To the land of milk and honey.
Elijah
In 1 Kings 17ff, we read about Elijah, who had a difficult job even for a prophet. One of his biggest challenges came on Mount Carmel where he met King Ahab,3 who said to him:
‘Is that you, you troubler of Israel?’
Elijah replied:
‘I have not made trouble for Israel… But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the Lord’s commands and have followed the Baals. Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.’
Against 450 prophets of Baal, Elijah was clearly in a minority — indeed in the next chapter he contends that he is the only one of God’s prophets left. But he did not back down. After the prophets were assembled, he went before the people and said:
‘How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.’
The people said nothing. And then Elijah said to them:
‘I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire — he is God.’
The people answered:
‘What you say is good.’
And so the challenge proceeded:
Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, ‘Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.’ So they took the bull that was given to them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. ‘Baal, answer us!’ they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
At noon Elijah began to taunt them. ‘Shout louder!’ he said. ‘Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or travelling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.’ So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
Elijah then upped the ante, pouring a large quantity of water over the sacrifice and the wood:
He said to all the people, ‘Come here to me.’ They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had come, saying, ‘Your name shall be Israel.’ With the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he dug a trench round it large enough to hold [about 11 kg] of seed. He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, ‘Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.’
‘Do it again,’ he said, and they did it again.
‘Do it a third time,’ he ordered, and they did it the third time. The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
At the time of sacrifice, Elijah stepped forward and prayed:
‘Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.’
And then:
…the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, ‘The Lord – he is God! The Lord – he is God!’
Elijah was — at best — in a small minority. But as a man of God, he stood for what was true. And he was vindicated.
Micaiah
Whereas Elijah is relatively well-known, Micaiah is rather less so. But this example also comes in the reign of Ahab.
For context, the kingdom of Israel had divided into two parts: the ten northern tribes, known (somewhat confusingly) as Israel; and the two southern tribes, known as Judah. And in this episode — recorded in 1 Kings 224 — King Jehoshaphat of Judah was urging King Ahab of Israel:
‘First seek the counsel of the Lord.’
On the face of it, wise advice.
Ahab then brought together the prophets — about 400 men — and asked them:
‘Shall I go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?’
They answered:
‘Go, for the Lord will give it into the king’s hand.’
But Jehoshaphat pushed back. It seems that there were prophets and prophets — the king’s prophets (see verse 22) and God’s prophets. And so he asked:
‘Is there no longer a prophet of the Lord here whom we can enquire of?’ (emphasis added)
Ahab answered:
‘There is still one prophet through whom we can enquire of the Lord, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah.’
A messenger was sent to summon Micaiah. And, knowing that Ahab’s 400 prophets were unanimously predicting success for the king, that messenger urged the prophet of the Lord:
‘Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favourably.’
Micaiah replied:
‘As surely as the Lord lives, I can tell him only what the Lord tells me.’
When Ahab asked him, ‘Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or not?’ the prophet replied:
‘Attack and be victorious, for the Lord will give it into the king’s hand.’
It is hard to be sure of Micaiah’s tone. But we may reasonably deduce that he was being sarcastic. Ahab for one was apparently not convinced, and responded:
‘How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?’
And Micaiah answered:
‘I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the Lord said, “These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.”’
Normal service has, it would seem, been resumed. Ahab says to Jehoshaphat:
‘Didn’t I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?’
And he gave this order:
‘Take Micaiah and send him back to Amon the ruler of the city… and say, “This is what the king says: put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.”’
Another example of a costly minority report.
Micaiah, knowing the will of God, responded:
‘If you ever return safely, the Lord has not spoken through me… Mark my words, all you people!’
And in due course, Ahab and Jehoshaphat entered the battle, with Ahab wearing a disguise. But despite this, the king of Israel was killed by “someone [who] drew his bow at random and hit [him] between the sections of his armour”.
So the king died and was brought to Samaria, and they buried him there. They washed the chariot at a pool in Samaria (where the prostitutes bathed), and the dogs licked up his blood, as the word of the Lord had declared.5
Micaiah’s minority report had proved correct.
Minority reports from the New Testament
The New Testament also contains examples of minority reports.
Peter (and the Twelve)
The apostle Peter is perhaps best known for denying Jesus three times. But in an episode recorded in John 6, he stood firm against the prevailing opinion.
The context is Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand and his subsequent “difficult teaching” about his flesh and blood:
I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live for ever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’
…‘Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live for ever.’
John records that, on hearing this, many of Jesus’ disciples said:
‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’
And that:
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Jesus then asked the Twelve disciples:
You do not want to leave too, do you?’
And Peter, speaking for the group, responded:
‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.’
Peter was (along with the Twelve) among the very few who acknowledged Jesus for who he was.
Stephen
In the book of Acts we read that in the days of the early church the number of believers was increasing, and there were complaints because widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.
So the Twelve apostles gathered all the followers of Jesus together and said:
‘It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.’
And among those chosen seven was:
Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit
Luke, the writer of Acts, records that:
Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called) — Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia — who began to argue with Stephen. But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke.
It appears that members of the religious establishment did not like what Stephen was saying, and the fact that they could not stand up against his God-given wisdom. And so:
…they secretly persuaded some men to say, ‘We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God’ …they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They produced false witnesses, who testified, ‘This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.’
The high priest asked Stephen:
‘Are these charges true?’
And Stephen responded with a long speech, explaining from the Old Testament — Genesis onwards — the context for what he believed, and ending with these words:
‘You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: you always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him — you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.’
It was a courageous act to speak out against the religious establishment. And, while he was not alone in what he believed, it appears that Stephen was very much in a minority in being so vocal.
And it is perhaps no surprise that:
When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him.
Luke tells us that, in response, Stephen:
…full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
And said:
‘Look, I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’
At this, the members of the Sanhedrin:
…covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at [Stephen], dragged him out of the city and began to stone him…
While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed:
‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ Then he fell on his knees and cried out, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them.’ When he had said this, he fell asleep.
Stephen’s minority report — in which he told the religious authorities some inconvenient and unwelcome truths — cost him his life.
He is widely regarded as the first of many Christian martyrs.
Paul and Barnabas
Later on in Acts we read that:
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.’ This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
…When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.’
It appears that the majority view was that Gentile (i.e. non-Jewish) converts should follow Jewish laws, particularly circumcision.
After much discussion, Paul and Barnabas’ minority view6 prevailed.
And:
…the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorisation and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul — men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. (Emphasis added)
These three examples highlight New Testament figures standing alone for truth and righteousness. There are of course plenty more in the life of Jesus, and also in the life of Paul.
Minority reports from the last few years
Many similarities
The above examples illustrate a long history of minority reports where a small group or an individual stood against the majority opinion and was ultimately vindicated. There are many examples where what we now think of as mainstream opinion was once a minority view.
Of course this does not mean that every minority report is correct. But it is does at least suggest that dissenting opinions should be carefully considered, and preferably with an open mind (insofar as that is possible).
I wonder whether, in the last few years, the number of dissenting voices has reached an all-time high. There are certainly plenty to choose from, not least those featured in articles elsewhere on this Substack.7
An important difference
On one level, it could be argued that there is nothing new under the sun.8 The fight against powerful vested interests is certainly nothing new. And neither is the unwillingness of many people to consider evidence, to think carefully, and to change their minds.
But one important difference today is that anyone with an internet connection can easily follow those questioning the mainstream consensus and engage with what they are saying. And in my experience, those who do engage with such people — usually on alternative media platforms rather than via mainstream media — tend to be much better informed about what is actually going on in the world.
A current example
By way of a current example, there were credible voices outside the mainstream media raising serious questions about the Lucy Letby trial more than a year ago.
While the overwhelming majority of mainstream media coverage looked like this…
…articles such as this one from The Daily Sceptic and this one from Unity News Network were challenging the received wisdom. And, as far as I can tell, alternative media accounts such as Rex v Lucy Letby — Full Disclosure and The Trials of Lucy Letby have done a much better job than any journalist from a mainstream news outlet.
As has the Law, Health and Technology Newsletter (on Substack). This recent article — How unusual was the spike in neonatal deaths when Lucy Letby was working? — is from two London-based academics who claim to show, “using data available to police, barristers, the court and journalists at the time… that, from a strict probabilistic view, there was nothing unusual about the number of neonatal deaths”.
It should surely concern us all when preprint servers9 refuse to accept such analysis.
In subsequent posts I plan to feature further examples — starting with more from Prof Norman Fenton as it happens — and to outline some general thoughts on how to evaluate minority reports.
[Update: a follow-up article, featuring Prof Fenton, is now available here]
Dear Church Leaders articles (some of which, including a shorter version of this one, can also be found on Unexpected Turns)
The Big Reveal: Christianity carefully considered
Which does of course rule out some of the most famous examples, e.g. Galileo
Based on Numbers 14:30
Not one of Israel’s better kings, and married to the notorious Jezebel
And also 2 Chronicles 17
In the previous chapter: 1 Kings 21:17-19
See e.g. Galatians 5:1-6
Here is a selection in reverse order, featuring: a senior church minister, a geologist, a former hedge-fund manager, a former MP, an orthopaedic surgeon, an Australian Senator, a diagnostic pathologist and a former Pfizer Chief Scientist:
Such as arXiv (pronounced “archive”), “a free distribution service and an open-access archive for nearly 2.4 million scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics” where “materials… are not peer-reviewed by arXiv”; or medrXiv, “a platform for posting preprints of health-related research that have not been peer-reviewed”