Readers of this blog will know that I have rather a fascination with the bearded one, and may have expected comment from me on the unfolding controversy over his comments on the possible integration of Sharia law in the UK.
Well, here is my two cents.
Yes, the immediate reaction of the media was disgraceful - deliberate stupidity always is.
But, as the controversy unfolded, there was in fact a variety of very intelligent comment in the British papers, interacting with the actual lecture that Williams had given and for the most part disagreeing profoundly. So, the media reaction was not all as bad as Williams' defenders would have us believe.
As Williams himself admits, his main fault was obscurity of expression. I maintain that this is serious - it is not a minor flaw. Being a public intellectual means an awareness of how public discourse operates. The 'oh it is very subtle and complex' defence just isn't good enough. It is no good bleating 'why does everything have to be media grab size'; he knows the way the media works already. And besides which, it is expecting far too much of even very interested people to make an effort to understand what he is saying. When you talk, as I have, to intelligent and educated British people who haven't been to church for many years, everything they fear about the C of E is confirmed by the way their chief bishop talks to them. That is, that he can't speak plainly, and that he hasn't really got confidence, even quiet confidence, in what he is saying. I am not saying that this is true, but that that is the impression given.
However, the reaction to the issue is fascinating to me because it reveals that secular Britain has a choice. Does it really believe in its own pluralism? I think the debate reveals that it doesn't; on the whole, even secular Britons would rather the Archbishop stick to defending Christian 'values' or a Christian way of life for Britain! Secular Britain is just as hypocritical as Christian Britain was¬!
18 comments:
I was wondering when the Dishop of Oxford was going to rear his shiny head ...
'Does it really believe in its own pluralism?' Good question ... the battle of the gods!
BTW Michael. You may want to update the link to my blog to http://cruciality.wordpress.com
Thanks,
Jason
Byron Smith's one is wrong too. One too many http www dot w dot slash dot com dot org dot things in there.
Surely Rowan's biggest failure with the Muslims is his failure to present a credible case for looking at the gospel of Jesus. They won't all start flooding into churches to discover the truth if he says nice things about their sharia laws.
The first thing I did when the news broke was to read for myself the actual words of Dr Williams rather than continue to read the hot air circulating in the press reports. The internet usually makes it possible to go straight to the horse's mouth. As an academic proposition what Williams actually said wasn't *unreasonable*. It's entirely legitimate for people to raise questions about the necessity of legal monism in a so-called multi-cultural society. Simply put legal monism is not necessary and legal dualism (or even polyism) is entirely possible. In fact legal dualism/polyism already exists in certain forms in the West. The question is not whether it would work (for it certainly would) but whether the kind that is being proposed would be a good thing. I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't be. But here are some examples of how legal dualism exists even in Western countries.
France actually employs a system of legal dualism with it's "ordre judiciaire" and "ordre administratif". It's just that we're dealing with a system that doesn't discriminate on the basis of the litigants' religious affiliation. We have here two entirely "secular" legal systems operating side by side and most people don't see that as a violation of the "rule of law" -- although for many years it was fashionable for English lawyers to deride the French system as a violation of the rule of law :-) In France there is a "tribunal des conflicts" which occasionally needs to decide whether the dispute comes within the competence of the "ordre judiciaire" or the "ordre administratif".
Even Australia has dabbled with legal dualism, this time discriminating on the basis of the person's race. In an attempt to ameliorate the negative experiences of Aboriginal Australians with the criminal justice system, some Aborigines were (with the blessing of the state) tried and punished according to traditional tribal law. It was not exactly an uncontroversial move for at least two reasons: 1) because it discriminated on the basis of the person's race and 2) some of the traditional punishments were considered somewhat cruel by present-day standards.
And this brings us to Islamic law. Many Islamic countries have some kind of legal dualism or polyism, but this time discriminating on the basis of a person's religious affiliation. That is one set of legal rules applies to those whom the state identifies as Muslims, another to those whom the state identifies as Christians (or Animists etc). Such a legal system can work without too many (functional) problems. The real question, however, is not whether it works but whether it is desirable. Such a system presents a direct challenge to Western Enlightenment Rationalist Liberalism on at least two fronts: 1) That law as an expression of rationality should apply universally to all and 2) that religion is ever a relevant ground of discrimination in the public sphere; under sharia law people do not take part in public life purely on the basis of their common *humanity* but rather as human beings *belonging to a particular religious group* (which in reality is determined by the state and not the individual).
The areas in which it would be least controversial (but still controversial!) to introduce sharia law in the UK would be in *private law* (as opposed to public law or criminal law) and to *consensual transactions*. So most people would have less of a problem with a contract between two Muslims (private law, consensual) being governed by a different legal system such as Sharia law than they would in having different sets of laws based entirely on a person's religion for when the state is willing to grant a licence (public law) or indeed when a person has committed an offence which is subject to a sanction (criminal law). Divorce provides an interesting case. It's somewhere between the examples given. It has a consensual element -- eg two parties agreeing on custody arrangements and property distribution -- but unlike a contract it's not purely consensual; the state has an interest in regulating and enforcing divorce proceedings beyond what the parties may themselves agree to.
I don't think there's any compelling reason why the UK or any Western country should adopt aspects of Sharia law. But then I'm not a "multiculturalist" (but nor am I an Enlightenment rationalist). No doubt there are aspects of the law in a Western liberal democracy that present difficulties for Muslims. But this is also the case for Christians and every other conceivable group.
Returning to Dr Williams' speech. As an academic lawyer I don't have a problem with discussing the question of legal monism and sharia law. It's entirely reasonable to discuss these things. However, as a Christian (and an Anglican one at that) I have a problem with the AB of C raising it in the way he did. Unfortunately he seems to misunderstand the nature his office. He acts as if he is an academic free to raise any and every academically interesting idea for public discussion. (Interestingly he didn't just raise the question; he gave an answer which upset many Christians. Perhaps politically speaking the adoption of parts of sharia law in Britain is inevitable. If Muslims become populous enough in Britain then they may be in a position to bring about a change in a law. But that's not really what he was saying. His words could be fairly taken to imply that he believed it inevitable not just a matter of political and demographic reality but as a matter of *justice* that Britain adopt parts of sharia law.)
The office of AB of C is not primarily one of academic to the British nation; rather he is primarily a Christian pastor and evangelist -- and not just in his diocese or province of the Church of England. Since the Church of Christ is a worldwide affair he also has a responsibility to be thinking of Christians in other parts of the world suffering under the yoke of sharia law. And, as Gordon Cheng commented, if he really was interested in the well-being of British muslims he would be longing for (and working towards) their conversion to Christ.
Look I'm sorry to rain on the parade here, but "They won't all start flooding into churches to discover the truth if he says nice things about their sharia laws" is both (a) a cheap shot and (b) not to the purpose. Would it be preferable if the Arch were seeking out something nasty to say about sharia law, like front-bar pundits everywhere? And if he happens to have something interesting (or merely neutral) to say a propos sharia, is it really desirable for him to censor it?
I do take the point that the AofC is not meant to be academic-en-chef to the nation, and that while you can take the man out of academia, it seems hard to take the academy out of this particular man. (In an odd convergence, the pope seems to have a similar problem.) But from my distance some of the problem looks rather specifically British. Michael you said that for some British people, everything they fear about the C of E is confirmed by the way their chief bishop talks to them. This particular Australian doesn't have such hangups --- "woolly" pronouncements by bishops is not a Sydney problem --- and I have never heard RW say an uninteresting thing. By contrast the relentlessly on-message approach of public pronouncement in Sydney, when I can actually bear to dip into the Sydney Anglican website, I often find radically dull. And quite often Philistine. I can safely say I've never read a Philistine sentence of RW's either.
I understand that Canterbury is in England and thus it's a problem if his tone is read by English (or other British) people as you say. And that he should address this problem. But still, I would have his virtues respected for what they are.
This is the most useful thing I've on the controversy, and is by an expert on Williams.
It also seems that Williams has admitted that he wasn't particularly clear.
As for Williams trying to make the gospel intelligible and attractive to Muslims, he gave a very interesting lecture in Cairo a few years ago in which he attempted to explain the Trinity to an Islamic audience.
Well Bruce it needn't be a choice between two extremes in quite this way. As Byron points out, Williams' own confession was to a certain amount of unclarity in expression, so, unless we accuse him of false humility here, we are only taking him at his word. The British people I spoke to are not church goers, so have no church-political interest one way or t'other. They listen to Radio 4, they read interesting books, they have degrees, they read the broadsheets not the tabloids: and yet, they feel that the C of E is represented by people who specialise in confusing gobbledygook (fairly or not). Who can blame them?
Byron,
Thanks for posting the link to the video. I thought it was great.
Michael,
I'm confused about what you mean when you say that 'the C of E is represented by people who specialise in confusing gobbledygook'. Are you saying that Australia is better than India in cricket? Or have I misunderstood you. Us Nonconformists prefer it with pictures :-)
Now I am confused!
I wasn't saying that: I was just reporting that this is the feeling from those absenting themselves from the pews of a Sunday. I don't claim that talking like a politician or a self-help guru is the way to do it better of course.
I know that Michael ... Just trying to show how easy misunderstanding can happen.
Do you get it now?
um...
no.
Now I'm confused.
Byron Smith's one is wrong too. One too many http www dot w dot slash dot com dot org dot things in there.
Still not fixed, dude! Get to it JJ, the hypertextual linguistic philistinism is driving my laptop crazy. Not to mention depriving Byron's blog of much needed hits. ;-)
Michael, et al, I do wonder also if part of Rowan's problem is not the sheer Englishness of his way of speaking. In his speech to Synod, he said at one stage, "Perhaps you'll allow me now to pass on to what I originally intended to say this afternoon." Is this not just a little too deferential for its own good?
I really do think that one of the big problems is the unwillingness of the Archbishop to get to the point and a reluctance to say, "This is the way it is, and the way things are going."
If Rowan got into the habit of getting to the point more directly, perhaps we'd all get the point more clearly!
PS Hi to Bruce Yabsley!
Hi John. Good to hear your take. "Sheer Englishness" puts it well, I think.
Michael re "Who can blame them?", I thought I had already conceded the point that RW could and should be more clear --- at the very least because of his role --- so I'm not sure what you mean by underlining this example in this way. Just to avoid ambiguity: RW could and should be more clear, and more aware of how his words will be parsed by the media; his role demands it.
I thought the target of my remarks was plain enough: I object to the further point, perhaps implicit in what Michael wrote but in any case baldly stated by Gordon, that the real problem is RW's failure to be reliably on-message. Gordon takes this further by applying the criterion "[does this directly conduce to the conversion of individuals?]".
As I stated, being on-message can be (and in Sydney, is) taken to the point of absurdity. As to demanding that all activities bow the knee to the imperative of conversion: this has always seemed to me implausible on its face --- what is the argument for it? --- and in practice in Sydney it drives us away from engagement with cultural or personal phenomena on their own terms. In short, we talk past people or at them, or (even worse) at ourselves.
I am all for using the reactions of "people ... not church goers ... [who] read interesting books ... have degrees [and] read the broadsheets" as a heuristic: I would just have them used consistently. To wit: I think we should keep Southern Cross out of the hands, sight, or awareness of such people at all costs; and if such a person asked me what conservatives have to say to that perpetual media presence JS Spong, I would give them Rowan Williams' 1998 response to Spong without a moment's hesitation.
If I thought such points were being kept in mind, I would be more comfortable with the line of criticism of RW being advanced.
I wonder whether RW's main mistake was to give the interview beforehand and allow his message to be summarised so poorly into such a misleadingly provocative soundbite. That is, his primary failure of clarity was that for once he wasn't careful or precise enough.
Gordon - thanks for spruiking for me!
'Preaching is more than mere verbalizing; but it cannot do without language, and undermines its own authority if it arrogantly refuses the ordinary speech of humanity, whether by developing a pseudo-mystical, abstract and technical idiom, or by retreating into a "prophetic" key of pure assertion.'
- Rowan Williams, Resurrection, 62.
Post a Comment