Making things even worse by indicating they have no understanding of Christianity and its relationship to Britain’s common law, the Anglican Church stepped in to defend the Archbishop of Canterbury after he faced fresh criticism from MPs, Muslim leaders and rights activists over his comments that the adoption of parts of sharia law in Britain was “unavoidable”.
Dr Williams has “sought to carefully explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural society”, said the Church in a memorandum to MPs.
Common law is indeed unitary, that is, it is one body of law for all, whether they are Christians, the adherents of another faith, or non-believers, but it is not a “secular” law. It was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles and created by Christians for practical and spiritual reasons.
[i]Making things even worse by indicating they have no understanding of Christianity and its relationship to Britain’s common law, the Anglican Church stepped in to defend the Archbishop of Canterbury after he faced fresh criticism from MPs, Muslim leaders and rights activists over his comments that the adoption of parts of sharia law in Britain was “unavoidable”.[/i]
He’s right. As evidenced by the leadership of TEC in the past 30 years, Biblical and theological illiteracy even among clergy is rampant. Seminaries are clearly not doing their job in presenting historic understandings of Chrisitian theology, and if they are, they are either being presented as quaint, outdated thought or being ignored. And then this is being passed on in parishes.
Maybe I was too harsh in my condemnation of churches that require Alpha for all members, as a refresher is clearly needed.
Although I agree that the root of secularism is Judeo-Christianity, I wonder how many evangelicals would agree with that in practice….
JW. Or secular-humanists, liberals, conservatives, or libertarians. All of us need a refresher course on where this country came from and that includes me and maybe you.
“Common law is indeed unitary, that is, it is one body of law for all, whether they are Christians, the adherents of another faith, or non-believers, ”
This is not the case.
Faith communities already enjoy a wide range of exemptions from laws all other UK citizens must obey. Just how the legal system will cope with this as religious groups (mostly Christian) ask for further exemptions is part of what Williams is addressing.
Americans may not all realise that the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of England are courts of the realm and their Canon Law is part of UK law.
ABC and his ilk do need refreshers in the history of Christianity and of the Anglican Communion, but they won’t bother. History is of incidental interest to them. That’s is one reason the Anglican Communion has reached the depths it now is experiencing. The only wonder is that ABC still can be surprised by the responses to idiotic tihngs he says–or can he is he?
[i] Please avoid targeting one individual with a comment that skirts an ad hominem attack. [/i].
During my third year at university studying theology my Director of Studies went on sabbatical and I was assigned a new one, a norwegian lutheran old testament professor. He wanted to meet with me briefly just to put a face to my name, so I went in for a 10 minute chat. After we confirmed my courses for the year, he decided to make some small talk, and he asked me what I was planning on doing with my degree when I left uni, and I told him my plan was to go into the priesthood in the Church of England. He answered: “that’s good, by and large Anglican clergy are terribly educated”.
It’s unfortunately true that Anglican clergy are known for a lack of education and a lack of discipline.
#4: that’s true, but their remit has been steadily reduced over the years from the days when they could impose tithes on local farmers. I understand they still have some strange residual powers, like requiring certain local people to pay for chancel repairs.
Of course, if Mr Reynolds’ organization, the Gay and Lesbain Christian Movement, has its way, the right to bar practicing homosexuals from the priesthood would be taken away – & that may happen in England, under some imaginative ruling of the new Sexual Orientation Regulations that the newly Catholic Tony Blair used to close down Catholic adoption agencies.
Apropos of RW’s lecture (which I have read fairly closely as well as his interview with the BBC), I see that an English clergyman reports that Lambeth Palace is giving out a different title to the lecture to its actual title ‘Islam and the Law’ and is downplaying its real content:
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/
Revisionism is as revisionism is does. I knew it by the original title and wondered how some folks had not understood precisely why the ABC used Islam. Now I know. Revisionism. Again. I should like to say I am surprised but I fear I cannot. It is a disease of the intellect and it goes on to infect every body part if allowed to linger.
Dwstroudmd: be a bit more precise with the word “revisionism.” The 18th century view of the world needed to be revised, I suggest. Would that mean that everything that followed was “revisionism?” It’s a clever word, but more often its just name calling, used to halt thinking about hard subjects.
Many enlightenment thinkers would have disagreed that the foundation of their thought was “judeo-Christian.” They were the ones doing new translations of the religious texts of all different traditions and were influenced by the sorts of ideas returning to the colonial world from the colonies. I believe freedom is particularly xn, it still needs to be argued.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but they are looking on the wrong shore of the Thames.