And the xyz of this sharia furore

A few days later and I can safely say that the British media, in the words of Bob Dylan, "went along for the ride" and failed to offer any objective analysis of Rowan Williams' comments on sharia law. Bishop Tom Wright has written an open letter to his clergy which is a helpful guide to the truer intentions of the Archbishop and Andrew Goddard has published an insightful piece on the Fulcrum website here, (thanks Jon's Journal for finding these).

There seem to me to be two different motors, both forming a pincer movement, driving the reaction to the sharia debate. The first motor is from a secular perspective that would drive out this awkward business of faith from all public spheres such as law, education and business. In the words of Friday's Guardian lead, "what the Archbishop really wants is a tolerance for the role of religion in public affairs that succeeds only in highlighting why it should be excluded." The second motor is exemplified by these comments in the Daily Telegraph: "If the Church of England is to have any point, it is to stand up for the prevalence of English and Chrsitian values."

Now in both wings there are real fears, both sensible and misguided, about sharia law and extremist Islam in Britain. What there has been precious little of in this debate is the altogether fundamental question of what sort of society we want to live in. In Britain, we have moved from a largely Christian-based legal and social system to an increasingly rights-based secular system. We live in a time of transition where so many of the structures and still many of the legal principles carry echoes of a church-shaped past. Much of our present social, cultural and legal thinking is being driven by individual "rights": the supreme power of the individual in her conscience to decide on the reality of the world for herself. Overlaid on this, the multiculturalism project, as distinct from the "laicite" of France where no public acknowledgement of faith is, in theory, permissible, fostered cultural and religious difference without any corresponding social "glue". In essence, everyone is free to do their own thing so long as they don't harm "me", and I get to choose "my way".

The trouble with this is manifold. What if I don't have the resources to choose what I want? Individual rights and freedoms quickly transform into proprietary rights, demands and consumption. What if the choices I see being made harm creation, harm future generations, and by my judgment, harm "them"? What kind of "choice" do I have about the environment and society I live in and is access to this only possible through money if I have no say in shaping the greater good? Is there no prior claim to "duty" to the other, our neighbour?

...These are the big questions underlying the debate, make no mistake. In the church, we need to begin to at least get a handle on the symbols of this discussion because the two responses I outlined earlier are also played out, sadly, by Christinas. If we are not careful, we will find ourselves advocating for what Lesslie Newbigin called a "naked public square": devoid of the language of faith and thus prey to totalitarianism and naked greed. Alternatively, jostling for prime position on a pedastal of privilege, pushing off the awkward squad of other religions that want to make their presence felt undermines our faith and, in the process, neuters the public square from the rigour of genuine challenge.

A dose of reality and humility is called for: "the past is a different country; they do things differently there." Are we going to fall for the traps of cultural supremacy or Christian dualism? .....Or is there another way forward in Christian faithfulness?

Comments

[Jonathan Taylor]

Thanks Richard. Excellent stuff. I bought your book today. Looking forward to your visit to Trinity in a few weeks.

[Ian Adams]

Many thanks Richard for this - really helpful.
Hope all is well with you.
Peace Ian

[St]

I wonder if this issue also challenges us to one further change in our attitude. Having observed a deep Christian thinker be, almost deliberately, misunderstood, perhaps we ought to learn to model, in our public pronouncements, a willingness to completely understand something we have a gut disagreement with before speaking against it. This is what newspapers tend not to do. We should maybe show them how to do it. Christians should be slow to anger, self-controlled etc.