The Archbishop of Canterbury gives this lecture regarding English law and the growing Muslim community in England, and all hell breaks loose around him! The British and American press start screaming for his head!
If you've seen the flak but haven't read the lecture, you should. You can read the full text here:http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575. Unless you're a grad school professor or Ph.d. candidate, you'll probably find the lecture a tough read. I mean, it's a scholarly paper, filled with intellectual caveats, profound nuance of argument and obscure citations. It takes some time to penetrate and fully understand what the archbishop is suggesting, but here is what I found after two or three careful reads: In it, rt. Revd. Williams decidedly does not call for the introduction of Sharia law in England, does not consider Islamic law "unavoidable," and most definitely recognizes serious issues with Sharia as practiced in parts of the Muslim world...in particular, the horrific misogyny and draconian punishments we have all seen reported. Instead, he calls for everyone to step back, breathe deep and look at potential areas of constructive engagement; what he calls the possibility of some transformative accomodation of select areas of Sharia law not in serious conflict with British law and principle. He sets out a choice for England: either ignore this growing, restive population and isolate it further to everyone's ultimate detriment, or approach the widely varied Muslim minority constructively with the goal of finding some norming realm of public engagement. consideration and, ultimately, law. Simple enough. Smart enough.
But there's your key to the whole flap: the lecture is a tough read. I've read the most inane commentaries on this issue, including:
- a positively pathetic piece by Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post in which it quickly becomes clear that she either never read the lecture, or at least dosed off through entire sections. She calls his language "mild-mannered, legalistic, jargon-riddled," showing clearly she hasn't spent a whole lot of time in academic circles. His entire statement of the present realities for most Muslim women and his call for their protection -- and the protection of all individuals under British law -- is completely lost to her somehow.
- even worse from investors.com, inwhich their editorialist not only bases his/her entire rant on half a misapplied quote from a radio interview, rather than the lecture itself, he/she then goes on to call England a "safe haven for religious dissenters since the days of the pilgrims." Quick check -- why did the pilgrims run to Holland and the New World? Are we smarter than a fifth grader?
- worst of all, absolute dreck all over the internet -- comments based on the comments of comments others wrote about comments regarding comments of a writer who also failed to read the lecture.
Our problem is this, I believe: We in the western world, with our steady diet of journalism-for-ad-dollars, sitcoms, CSI:East Podunk, politics-for-sport, religion-for-profit and debutarts, can no longer easily bend our crania around the well-measured thoughts of a gentleman and a scholar. We have no patience for the challenges of reasoned inquiry. Just think how many of our pundits and preachers throw around the term "intellectual" as an insult, as if the engagement of our God-given reason is somehow a sign of god-lessness and human impotence! "Lean not on your own understanding" does not mean "be thou a complete moron!"
What has happened to the Archbishop is so sad. What it suggests about us is positively tragic! Our society has nearly abandoned reasoned discourse. Serious journalism is hard to find, replaced by the sort of "personality" reporting that lacks depth sufficient to inform in any real way. An uninformed electorate spells danger for a democracy.
Turn that same lense on the collective church and we don't fare so well, either. John's great opening to his Gospel speaks of Christ as Word...Logos... REASON. Yet so many of our fundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters revel in their opposition to the scientific process. It is mortifying to see so many embrace willful ignorance as if it is a sacrament of their Lord. At the same time, many of our more liberal denominations take socio-political stands that seem muddled and counter-intuitive at best. And then there is the whole bland, neither-hot-nor-cold church that hasn't heard a prophetic word since the sexton barked his shin on the organ bench in 1978. We Christians have definitely tended toward intellectual laziness.
All the more reason why we should embrace and celebrate rt. Revd. William's latest paper and its presentation. As any good prophet will do, he pulled the dressing off a deep societal wound nobody wanted to deal with, and now he has people talking. That is the usual result of the work of the prophet. The usual goal of the prophet is to get people thinking and acting accordingly. That goal has confounded God and God's prophets for milennia. No wonder Jesus wept.
You've illustrated nicely how human beings tend to be reactionary when faced with complicated problems, failing to use logic and reason appropriately. We tend to take the easy way out- accepting someone else's opinion ( usually a self inflated radio talk show host or politician) as our own truth instead of firing up the old brain. The same brain that God gave us . Thanks for shedding some light on this issue.
ReplyDelete