I want to talk about the row the Archbishop of Canterbury has got himself into, because I feel the matters he raised are important ones for all of us in this country to think about, and especially for Christians. Let me begin by recapping what has happened. On February 7, the Archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams, was invited to give a lecture in the Temple Church in London, on Islam in English Law. The Temple Church is within the Inns of Court and functions in some ways as the chapel of the legal profession based there. The audience – it was a lecture, not a sermon to a congregation engaged in worship – consisted of lawyers and theologians, as well as members of the general public. It is worth pointing out that the Archbishop was invited to give the lecture, and to speak on that subject, as one of a series of talks held by the Temple Church; he did not decide off his own bat to get up one day and talk about English and Islamic law.
The same day the Archbishop gave an interview to BBC Radio 4. It was probably this interview, more than the lecture, that sparked the row. The Archbishop was asked by the interviewer whether he thought parts of sharia law should be adopted in order to promote social cohesion, and he replied that it was probably inevitable. This was reported as ‘Archbishop proposes adoption of sharia law.’
Now there are several points I would like to make about all this. The first is that it is always important, when people get into hot water because of something they said, to find out exactly what they said before reacting to it. That is why I have put copies of the Archbishop’s lecture and his interview by the entrance to the church. There are also copies of his address at the opening of the General Synod on 11 February. (There may still be some there – you can get copies from me at any time if you would like one, or for those on the internet you can go to www. archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575 for the lecture, www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573 for the interview, and www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1583 for the address to General Synod.)
If you look at the lecture, you will find that it is quite hard to follow. It is written in academic language for an audience consisting mostly of academics, and to be honest I do not think it is as clear as it could be. The Archbishop’s style is sometimes rather opaque. But I would defend the Archbishop in his courageous attempt to address a matter that affects the whole of our society whether we like it or not, and for the fact that in the lecture he gives no black and white definitions to a complicated picture. And although I think he could sometimes express himself more simply, we cannot always demand that an address by one very learned person in public life to an undoubtedly learned audience, will be completely transparent in every phrase to the non-specialist. (I have been present when the Archbishop gave a short homily to a very mixed congregation, and it was beautifully clear and simple, though quite profound – and without notes.)
So I am glad the Archbishop did what he did, even if I am not always sure exactly what he meant. The main thrust of the lecture deals in general terms with how civic, secular law accommodates the religious sensibilities of various groups without violating the basic principles of justice and of equality before the law, principles that guarantee our freedom and that give a certain essential dignity to all. The Archbishop tries first of all to remove some misunderstandings about sharia. It is not a set of rules, of do’s and don’ts, but a way of trying to apply Islamic faith to every area of a Muslim’s life, and there are various traditions of sharia. (Rather curiously, the word sharia itself apparently means in Arabic, ‘the way to the watering hole’. I suppose it might have something to do with the idea, found also very strongly in Judaism, that the law of God is a source not of bondage but of refreshment and life.) The Archbishop goes on to point out that the law of the land, English civil law, already makes allowances for the religious beliefs of several faiths. Orthodox Jewish believers in England have had, for a couple of generations at least, their own tribunals, called Beth Din, which are used to settle certain disputes within their own community. No doctor is forced to perform an abortion if doing so would violate his or her conscience. Sikh men are permitted not to wear motorcycle helmets, as they would otherwise have to remove their turbans. And the Church of England conducts weddings in which all the legal requirements of a marriage are carried out in an entirely religious ceremony. Furthermore, as a matter of fact there are already ten sharia tribunals which operate in this country, and many Muslims turn to them to settle financial and marital disputes.
What the Archbishop seems to be proposing is simply that the law of the land could find a way of recognising these informal arrangements which are already taking place. He is very clear on two points that have been widely misunderstood or misrepresented: no accommodation that the state might make with the application of sharia in certain specific circumstances would remove the right of anyone to resort to English law, and no accommodation could be made with any application of sharia that directly infringed English law or violated any rights anyone might have under English law. sharia would not replace English law or run in parallel with it; rather, English law might recognise as valid some cases where all parties concerned had agreed to abide by the decision of a sharia tribunal. There would be no question of sharia ever being forced on anyone. In fact, bringing what is already taking place in sharia tribunals under the scrutiny of English law. might help to prevent extreme or unjust actions being taken.
This is rather different from much of the reporting on the Archbishop’s words. Some of the newspaper headlines have been simply abusive, and I’m afraid I’m one of those who have more or less given up hoping that our press and mass media might be able to deal with an argument that cannot be reduced to slogans and sound bites. More saddening has been the reaction of some of the Archbishop’s fellow Christians, and fellow members of the Church of England. Let me be clear that I believe we are all entirely free to disagree with every word the Archbishop has said – once we are quite sure we have understood him – just as you are free to disagree with me, and to do so forcefully. It is the spirit of the disagreement that matters. For those of us who are members of the Church of England, there is a question of loyalty here. Agree or disagree, he is our Archbishop, not some bloke who popped up and said something controversial. Some people have called the Archbishop a disgrace. He is not. You may think that what he said is wrong, but it is surely right for an Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the established church of England, with a duty of mission to the whole of the nation, to try to help us all think more deeply about how we live with our neighbours. I think he adorns our Anglican communion with his wisdom and leadership, doing a near-impossible job at great cost to himself, and I am proud to have Rowan Williams as my Archbishop.
The trouble is that, unwittingly or not, Archbishop Rowan pressed a few panic buttons both in our society as a whole and in the church. How many of us, if we have heard of sharia at all, think first in terms of its worst excesses? Do we see in our minds images of hands being chopped off for shoplifting and people being stoned for adultery or apostasy? These things have happened, and do still in a few places. But to judge the Islamic faith and the efforts of Muslims to be true to their faith solely by such horrors would be as false as forming a view of Christianity based on accounts of heretics being burned at the stake and the bombing of abortion clinics, both things that have been, or are still occasionally, carried out in the name of Jesus Christ. Sadly, I think, even the words ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ also awake many of our prejudices and fears. Some of the reaction to what the Archbishop is supposed to have said, much of it a distortion or even an outright contradiction of what he actually did say, reflects the panic-button mentality to which we are all prone when thinking about a way of life and a faith that may sometimes seem to us alien and hard to understand. Where fear and panic lead, reason, that great gift of God, is driven out. The Archbishop has led the way in encouraging us to listen better to the Muslims who share our land. They are not going either to go away or to abandon their faith. Can we learn not always to focus on the worst, but to seek after the best in Islam (as we would hope Muslims and others would do for us?) We are so much closer to the Muslim faith in many ways than we dare to imagine. In today’s Old Testament reading (Genesis 12: 1-4a), God promises to Abraham that through him all the nations of the earth will be blessed. Along with the Jews, Christians and Muslims are all descended, in spiritual terms, from Abraham. Has the world not been mightily blessed by Judaism, by Christianity, and by Islam? I believe the Archbishop has given us an example of the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ, in action – Jesus always strives to include people, to widen the circle of God’s love. And isn’t that what we are supposed to be about?