06/06/2026
https://tinyurl.com/5xtbbsre The political point-scoring over the death of Henry Nowak cuts both ways...
The case of Henry Nowak has generated intense public debate. It has raised questions about policing, equality before the law, freedom of expression, public disorder, and the way our institutions respond to different communities. These are serious matters that deserve serious discussion.
I find myself agreeing with an observation recently made by Brendan O’Neill in The Spectator. He pointed out that some of the very people who enthusiastically politicised the death of George Floyd in 2020 are now insisting that Henry Nowak’s death must not be politicised. There is certainly a degree of inconsistency there.
After George Floyd’s death, many activists argued that a tragic death was evidence of wider social and political problems. Those who questioned that interpretation were often criticised. Yet now, when others suggest that the circumstances surrounding Henry Nowak’s death raise broader questions about policing and public policy, they are told to remain silent and not ‘stir up tensions’. That contradiction is real.
And many left-leaning evangelical leaders are guilty of that contradiction. When George Floyd’s death hit the headlines, how many of them embraced the Black Lives Matter movement? And took a knee? And changed their social media profile pictures? Yet some of those leaders are now denouncing those of us who have spoken out against the police double-standards in the Henry Nowak case.
But there is another contradiction that deserves attention as well. Many on the political right criticised the way George Floyd’s death became the catalyst for a broader political movement. They argued that a personal tragedy should not be exploited for ideological purposes. Yet some of those same voices now appear eager to use the death of Henry Nowak as evidence for wider political arguments of their own. The inconsistency cuts both ways.
The Nowak family have asked that their son’s death should not become a political football. Any decent person should hear that plea with sympathy and respect. Yet it is also true that the circumstances of the case inevitably raise public questions. Questions about policing and public order are, by their nature, political questions. Even politicians and commentators who insist that the case must not be ‘politicised’ are themselves using that phrase for a bit of political point-scoring.
In truth, hypocrisy seems to be everywhere in this debate. I include myself in that assessment. Earlier this week I wrote in response to the Nowak case that Christians know all too well that some religions appear to be treated more sensitively than others by the police. I stand by that concern. It reflects the experience of many believers. Yet I also recognise the danger of approaching a case like this with more heat than light, with more arrogance than humility.
That is where Scripture speaks powerfully to all of us. The Bible repeatedly warns against hypocrisy. The Lord condemned those who applied one standard to themselves and another to others. The prophet Nathan exposed David’s hypocrisy after his sin with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah (2 Samuel 12:1-7). David was quick to condemn wrongdoing when he thought it concerned someone else, but slow to recognise it in himself.
The Pharisees frequently fell into the same trap. Jesus described them as those who ‘tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger’ (Matthew 23:4). Their standards were strict for others and lenient for themselves. The Apostle Peter also had to be rebuked for hypocrisy. In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul confronted Peter publicly because his actions contradicted the gospel he professed to believe.
And perhaps the most searching warning comes from our Lord himself: ‘Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?’ (Matthew 7:3). That verse should make all of us pause.
How easy it is to spot inconsistency in our opponents while overlooking it in ourselves. How quick we are to notice double standards on one political wing while excusing them on the other. How readily we condemn selective outrage in others while practising our own version of it.
The truth is that hypocrisy is not merely a problem of one political tribe. It is a problem of the human heart. That is why Christians must ultimately look beyond politicians, commentators, activists and influencers. We must look to Christ.
Jesus alone never suffered from hypocrisy. He never preached what he would not practise. He never applied standards to others that he refused to apply to himself. He never distorted the truth for political advantage. He was full of grace and truth, perfectly consistent in word, thought and deed. The rest of us cannot make that claim.
None of this means that the questions raised by the Nowak case should be ignored. They should not. Serious concerns deserve serious discussion. Burying our heads in the sand will solve nothing. A healthy society must be willing to ask difficult questions about justice, policing and equality before the law.
But perhaps the debate would be healthier if all of us approached it with greater humility. Perhaps those on the left should acknowledge that they have sometimes politicised tragedies when it suited their causes. Perhaps those on the right should acknowledge that they are capable of doing exactly the same thing.
And perhaps all of us should spend less time searching for specks in the eyes of our opponents and more time removing the planks from our own. That would not solve every disagreement. But it might help us discuss them more honestly.
