well-meaning political correctness

Political correctness is not “well-meaning”.  It is malevolent and purposefully destructive.  It does not mean well.  It means ill toward those it seeks to silence.

#1: you got there before me. Absolutely correct. ‘Political correctness’ is posited on hatred of Christianity by agnostics and atheists.

It seems to me that, at this late date, this is a futile argument.  Of course he’s right.  But a person embedded in arrogance, by definition, is not much inclined to listen.  Pilate turned his back on Jesus with the utterly cynical, dismissive, and arrogant comment, “What is truth?”, speaking at that point for all relativists far into the future (politically correct or otherwise).  Jesus, of course, was not surprised and not deterred.  That is, as the church, we do not commend ourselves primarily on the basis of our history, but in our commitment to the truth as a source of renewal.

Is the CoE still the established church in England? Who is the head of the Church? The Queen, Parliament, ABC? Does it still get government funding as the state church? Why is there such open animosity toward the CoE in England? Doesn’t the call of the ABC for incorporation of sharia law go against what Lord Carey is saying?

DCNDale:  The ABC should keep pushing for sharia law. When instituted, it would quickly follow - “Off with their heads”.  That would solve a lot of problems including his own ineffectiveness.

Bishop Carey, David Suchet, and others are absolutely right in their observations about the determination of the governing elite in Britain not merely to sideline Christianity. I have now been working in England for more than two years, and am still stunned by not only the total lack of religious observance among the native population, but also the sneering hostility that there is toward the faith and the churches by the ‘talking heads.’ If some of the charges hurled at the Church of England, in particular, were said about the Islamic population there would at least be demonstrations, and possibly rioting on the streets.

To #4 I would say this, the Church of England is the established church, but that brings with it far more responsibility that it does privilege these days. The Church works hard to live up to its responsibilities, and the Queen is very much an active member of it. Also, the Church of England never has and never will receiving funding from the state. The C. of E. has to live on its wits, its endowments, and its own fundraising (which, alas, is desperately poor).

Also, the ABC did not call for Sharia law, that was a total fabrication of a hostile press misrepresenting a complex legal point he was attempting to make about Muslims and the manner in which they live within the British legal system. Such reporting is merely evidence of a secular press that is unscrupulous in its handling of information, and which is determined to make Christian leaders in general, and Rowan Willliams in particular, look like total nitwits. Legal scholars across the spectrum, from evangelical to Catholic, have jumped to the Archbishop’s defense, but the mud once thrown continues to stick—which tells something of the power of the media to spread disinformation.

#6. RichardKew,

LP: “I would have no difficulty with people being able by agreement, to opt into private religious legal systems, if it suited their purposes – it seems to work with Beth Din – but how do you ensure that the consent to jurisdiction is genuine?” I think that’s another way of saying “what is the nature of the scheme you are postulating?”
RW: Well, I think I must come clean and say I’m not postulating a detailed scheme, but raising a question about what the most fruitful kinds of relationship might be between the law of the state and what I have been calling “supplementary jurisdiction”. But I think were there to be – and I regard this as an open question – were there to be further forms of accommodation, then there would need to be I think, some element of transparency of monitoring which expressed a cooperative relationship rather than just parallel tracks.

Richard, I have extracted a portion of a followup Q&A session following his speech about Sharia Law. It appears to me that he is wanting to make accommodations for a pluralistic society in England. His approach of accommodation is consistent across settings and similar to wanting to keep TEC for example in the Anglican mainstream. He is not an easy individual to understand but I think you unfairly criticize the press for a mischaracterization of his position when it is nuanced to such an extent. I would would lay part of this on the ABC.

It appears that the United Kingdom has joined the United States and other European countries in becoming a decidedly post-Christian state. Christianity is thriving and growing in China and other anti-Christian states. Why cannot we find a way for Christianity to thrive and grow in a post-Christian state?

In the United States, at least part of the problem is denial that we have reached such a condition. The faithful orthodox who declaim the “Judeo-Christian” heritage of the United States are yearning for a lost cause.

Perhaps we need a new definition for “pagan.” Tolerating nominal Christians as a group that does not need to be evangelized is part of the problem. Are there any other parts? Again, how does one evangelize a post-Christian nation?

Also, the ABC did not call for Sharia law, that was a total fabrication of a hostile press

No it wasn’t - it was the revulsion of the press and others, myself included, at the Archbishop’s feckless remarks, for which he has been quite rightly castigated.  Wives and widows need the protection of English law for themselves and their children from a medieval tribal lore administered by and large by medieval tribal men.

I wonder how long the Archbishop would manage ministering in Northern Nigeria - perhaps he should go for a bit and find out what he is talking about?
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/12/nigeria-extremists-unleash-new-terror.html#more

RE: “Wives and widows need the protection of English law for themselves and their children from a medieval tribal lore administered by and large by medieval tribal men.”

Thank you Pageantmaster.  I agree.