A video has gone viral after a police officer was filmed pulling a woman over for using a mobile phone in her right hand whilst driving. Check it out below, more comment follows underneath.
There are lots of things we might say about this but let me limit myself to just one observation. Anybody might think they have seen something. Anybody might lie when confronted with what they have been seen doing. The police inevitably have to make judgement calls about these kind of things all the time, sometimes they will be right and other times they will be wrong. But what is so surprising about this particular video is the unwillingness of the officer to back down from his ‘I know what I saw’ stance when presented with the incontrovertible proof that this woman has no right hand in which to hold a phone!
It is impossible to say whether this was at play in this particular incident, but it certainly mirrors something of what we see in wider society. I have lost count of the number of times somebody has made sweeping and categoric statements – particularly, it is worth saying, about politics – only to be confronted with some incontrovertible proof they are wrong. In the past, that would lead more often than not to a slightly awkward, but nevertheless grudging, acknowledgement that despite their dead certainty and increasing volume, they were in fact wrong. It might even make the person a little more circumspect next time they flaunt their absolute-for-definites opinions. Sadly, those days are long behind us.
These days, when confronted with some incontrovertible proof – just like the officer in this video – the response is more often to double down. If the discussion is in person, no quarter is given despite being seen to be wrong. In those cases where these things happen online or via messaging services, the unquestionably definitive proof against the position is dismissed and, after a short while of presumably trawling the internet for any analysis that agrees with them, an article of spurious credibility is provided as though it were a worthy riposte.
When the non-existence of half a limb is not enough to prove that you did not see what you think you saw, what chance have we got making any sort of political point across the divide that rests in fact but can be explained away and spun according to one’s particular predilections? Perhaps more seriously still, how can we make any theological or religious point that also rests in fact but that can even more readily be explained away and spun according to whatever belief of philosophy one might care to hold? It is the death of any meaningful discussion about anything.
Christians should be able to demonstrate a better way amongst ourselves in our conversations. In church on any given Sunday, you are likely to be sat with people of different political dispositions and those with all manner of underlying philosophical beliefs. Dare I say, if everyone you interact with in church shares all your political and philosophical assumptions, your church isn’t doing its job properly and most likely isn’t centring itself on the primacy of the gospel. If we genuinely believe that we are all sinners in need of repentance, there is a great saviour who loves to forgive and welcome repentant sinners, and that God’s people are supposed to model that same welcome and forgiveness as the saviour they worship, several things follow.
First, we know that we will get things wrong. Second, we therefore know that we will need to repent and say sorry to one another. Third, we should be able to rely on a gracious response if and when we own our mistakes, missteps and wrongdoing. Fourth, we should be quick, then, to admit our faults and we should similarly be quick to forgive when it is forthcoming. Fifth, if we all acted like this, it would be much easier to not fall out with one another over our differences, to be a gracious about one another’s shortcomings and to have meaningful conversations with one another without aping the absolute horror-show of the internetification of discourse.
This obviously begs the question why these things are often present in the church. The simple answer being, the church has a tendency to mirror the world far more than we would like to admit. But the good news is that the church has at its disposal the means and theological framework to be better. For one thing, we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. If anyone is going to help us own our faults, repent and apologise, it is him. Second, we have the theology to make none of this a surprise when it arises and the biblical imperatives in the Word of God to encourage us to be better. The Word and Spirit are the means by which we don’t have to be like this and they provide us with the framework to know we needn’t be like this. We can engage in serious discussion and even disagree without being obnoxious, without failing to admit error or mistake and without doubling down on our wrongness in the face of overt proof to the contrary.
When we have people in public office doubling down on what is unquestionably untrue, in a world where facts are whatever you want them to be, can we Christians not model a better way?
‘Pride comes before destruction, and an arrogant spirit before a fall’ (Prov 16:18).
‘The one who conceals his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them will find mercy. Happy is the one who is always reverent, but one who hardens his heart falls into trouble.’ (Prov 28:13-14).
‘Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud; instead, associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own estimation… If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.’ (Rom 12:16, 18)