Archbishop Williams and Bishop Nazir-Ali on the place of religion in British public life
Paul Richardson
Church of England Newspaper
September 21st, 2012
With both Archbishop Rowan Williams and Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali producing books on the place of religion in Britain the press were bound to focus on the differences between them. Dr Nazir-Ali talks of a 'triple jeopardy for the West' from aggressive secularism, radical Islamism and multiculturalism and he criticises Dr Williams' suggestion that some kind of recognition be given to Sharia law. Dr Williams takes a more hopeful approach to Islam and worries less about the church being under attack by secularists.
The Archbishop distinguishes between procedural secularism and 'progammatic secularity' or secularism as an aggressive ideology and suggests not only that Christians can live with the former but that they have helped to shape it. He sees one of the dangers of secularism as being the adoption of a managerial, instrumental attitude to social policy but he does not think it actually sums up where we are as a nation.
Both Williams and Nazir-Ali claim that many of the values to which we are committed, such as belief in human equality and in the sanctity of human life, are rooted in Christianity. Nazir-Ali claims the common law was shaped by Christianity and warns that there are no free-standing moral values. He argues that the state must do more than balance the competing interests of different groups: it must provide a moral vision for the common good.
For Williams the situation is more complicated. He agrees that European culture has been heavily shaped by Christian culture but one aspect of this influence that he singles out is a readiness to look beyond appearances and to suspect any claim to final authority. People whose religion taught them to reject claims of inherited culture and to set the kingdom of God about the kingdoms of this world were bound to be seekers and sceptics. Moral values, including respect for human rights, can be traced back to Christian influence but so can the stress on the individual and on self-examination we see reflected in Western fiction and drama.
Like the Bishop, the Archbishop has questions about multiculturalism. He doesn't want to see people of different faiths and cultures isolated from each other. But unlike the Bishop, the Archbishop has a more dynamic understanding of culture that he understands as always growing and changing. We can't freeze British 'Christian' culture. We have reached a new situation in which people of different faiths and cultures want to join in the national dialogue and make their contribution to the development of our society.
Instead of a multiculturalism that seeks to keep the peace between separate groups with a minimum of government interference, Williams wants to see 'interactive pluralism' fostering dialogue and exchange between the communities. This is actually what many people mean by multiculturalism. For extremists and fundamentalists on all sides it is quite challenging but in the long run it is the only way to build up a sense of unity and national cohesion. 'Mutuality' is a key word for Dr Williams. He wants an 'argumentative democracy' in which people of all faiths and none participate. Secularists have to be ready to let believers call the state to account in the name of a higher authority.
Dr Nazir-Ali is more insistent on the dangers of militant Islamism and his warnings need to be heeded. But Dr Williams is more aware of the potential for Islam to make a contribution to public debate in Britain and in the long run the best way to defeat the people of violence is to ensure that this contribution is heard.
A crucial concept deployed by Dr Williams is that of irreversible moments in history in which changes take place, such as according equality to women or stopping child labour, that are no longer subject to discussion. Arguments about cultural relativity are not going to alter views on these topics. Dr Nazir-Ali is probably less convinced about this. His words about there being no 'free-standing values' suggest a danger that certain values that seem beyond debate today could be overturned in the future. Only time will tell who is right.
Williams and Nazir-Ali do not disagree about the importance of our Christian history or about the dangers in certain forms of multiculturalism but they see a different way forward. While there is shared ground in their discussion of religion and culture, there is less meeting of minds when it comes to economics and politics. The Bishop tells us it is not for religious leaders to say when a particular military mission is justified and how to conduct it; the Archbishop joined the Pope in criticising the Iraq War.
The Bishop is worried that a 'me-culture of personal fulfilment and gratification leaves no room for service, selflessness and sacrifice' and he agrees that moral values do not always influence the way the financial system operates but he is less critical of the capitalist system than the Archbishop. Two incisive Christian minds look at the Church and contemporary society. Both raise important question even if neither has all the answers. The Church of England should be grateful to have both as bishops.
(see Rowan Williams: Faith in the Public Square; and Michael Nazir-Ali: Triple Jeopardy; both published by Bloomsbury).
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2012/09/21/archbishop-williams-and-bishop-nazir-ali-on-the-place-of-religion-in-british-public-life/#more-64604
No comments:
Post a Comment