Unless you’ve had your head in the sand over the last few days you will not have escaped the controversy that has been stirred up by Dr Rowen Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the world-wide Anglican Church. As a reminder, here are some of his comments:
here’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts – I think that’s a bit of a danger
What he is encouraging is that Sharia Law become a part of English Law. Some are quick to point out however that this is already the case as under English Law you can have civil disputes handled by a Muslim court – however, this applies to anyone not just Muslims. As a Christian, under English Law, I can ask for a civil court to be set up that is Christian. A Hindu or Jew can do the same. BUT … this is not the same as Sharia Law becoming a part of English Law. What the Archbishop is encouraging is that English Law doesn’t just make provision for religious law (as it does now), but that it adopts religious law. This is highly dangerous!
Others have long called for those of non-Christian religious convictions, who wish to make the UK their home to abide by Western values. Some even argue that if Sharia Law is so good then those that love it should practice it in a land where it is already practiced. Whatever, I don’t know about those things but it seems to me that Williams is trying to usurp the authority of the Bible, which English Law was (originally) based on. I also think that is about time Williams addresses the whole homosexual issue as well. He has sat on the fence far too long.
This is what he had to say when openly gay Canon Jeffrey John was appointed:
It is an appointment I have sought neither to promote nor to obstruct.
One synod member said:
“Many people, huge numbers of people, would be greatly relieved [if he resigned] because he sits on the fence over all sorts of things and we need strong, Christian, biblical leadership right now, as opposed to somebody who huffs and puffs around and vacillates from one thing to another.
I agree so long as he was replaced by someone who held to the sufficiency and inerrancy of the Bible as the only authority.