Half Term Ramblings

Not the best of half-terms: the whole family has had a nasty coldy bug which is taking ages to clear and leaving us all feeling decidedly washed out. BlackMatt recovered quickest - a walking (well, lounging) advert for the benefits of eating lots of fruit (how many other teenagers are there around who have to be discouraged from eating more fruit?).

Not long ago I had an example of the effects of differences in the way people do things. For a while now, I've been pushing my local church to look more outward, and to focus more on 'real-world' issues. Recently I found the results of a survey among regular church-goers to see where they found their church's teaching and activities helpful and where not. Basically the results were that issues to do with their spiritual walk they felt helped with, issues to do with their work and their family lives they did not feel helped with.

So I took the various issues that these churchgoers didn't feel helped with to our preaching team, basically asking whether Jesus and the cross and all that stuff was just a matter of 'Sunday stuff' or whether they thought it was relevant to the whole of life. And if the latter then it doesn't show in our church's preaching (tact is my middle name) and shouldn't they be applying their preaching to themes relevant to these important areas of life.

Cue discussion and general agreement that yes, these issues should be areas we address in church. Then, all of a sudden, the pastor is proposing a sermon series on a dozen such issues, backed by housegroup sessions on the same topics midweek, starting in May. And I'm thinking "Hang on, that's not really what I meant ... it'll never work ... what about the underlying themes ...", and various other less-than-constructive thoughts. There's a huge gap between having a vision of what should be happening, and actually making <i>something</i> happen in reality. Fortunately we have a pastor who is very good at making things happen - even if I do find myself thinking something has been lost in the translation. 

The lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury (hereinafter known as ABC) continues to bounce around the Internet. Irritatingly, I now cannot re-find a really good article I read pointing out that a lot of the fuss arose after the BBC reported his speech under a sensationalist (and inaccurate) headline. What I can still find though is this post by the 3 Minute Theologian, which gives the text of ABC's lecture with annotations for those who find ABC's style unclear. There is also an excellent analysis given by The Independent's Paul Vallely here.

Probably the most ignorant (and most repeated) comment I have seen on this matter is variations on the theme of "There is, and should only be, one law which covers all people and to suggest it can be otherwise is to seriously damage our rights":-

1. Sharia councils already exist, and are used by their local communities, throughout the UK. These are generally only answerable to either the local communities or, in the most worrying cases, to the foreign (frequently Saudi) groups that fund them.
   
2. In most cases, UK law doesn't actually kick in until someone makes a formal complaint. So if someone in a community takes an issue to their local Sharia council, and not to the police or civil courts, then there is already a 'parallel jurisdiction' operating. Is it better for this to continue outside the system, or should we at least explore ways of integrating such communities into the overall legal system - in particular human rights legislation?
3. The Jewish Torah is similar to Sharia in that it originally was meant to apply to the whole of life, it tends to disadvantage women, and it includes ancient punishments which are considered barbaric in a modern context. Yet, as the Beth Din courts illustrate, an accommodation can be reached. In effect, as I understand it, this involves the Jewish community delegating criminal law to the state, whilst the state delegates certain civil matters (where all parties consent) to the Beth Din. It seems to work for them.
4. English law is actually full of exceptions and special cases. Just one example is that the Church of England has a totally separate set of planning laws.
5. The law in Scotland is distinct from the law in England, even though both are part of the UK. The law in Northern Ireland is also different, although less so.
6. Whatever the theory says, in practice English law operates in a very different way for those who can afford expensive lawyers - see this post from a while back as an example. It also operates rather differently, the other way, if you can perm any two of: very poor, black, mental health issues, homeless.

On a totally different subject, I have been enjoying playing Neverwinter Nights 2 over the past couple of weeks. This is an example of a PC game which is fairly horrible from a technical point of view, particularly the user interface, but once you get used to actually making it work, the storytelling aspect becomes deeply engrossing.

tags: food  diversity  church  religion  law  sharia  rowan williams  pc games  neverwinter nights  

links: technorati