So, we have to understand how different the question is in its English context. In England, the question is: "How far should a Christian society go in accommodating various religious beliefs?" And this, I think, is a tremendously important question for American Christians to reflect upon, because even though the U.S. draws from the Enlightenment tradition of creating a religiously neutral zone where "reasonable people will agree" apart from appeal to religious authority, many Christians in the U.S. seem to wish it were otherwise, speaking loosely of "taking the country back for Christ," changing the Constitution to "reflect God's values," and so on. If they got what they wanted and the U.S. became a Christian nation, they would face the question the Archbishop is addressing: how would we Christians be obligated to treat nonChristians in our midst?

Would we want to make life difficult for dissenters and other nonChristians - as, say, some Islamic states do regarding religious minorities, or, say, as some communist states have done toward members of all religions? (Or as some Christians in the United States do for religious minorities in their neighborhoods or school districts - or as some Christians did for members of other Christian denominations in past centuries?) Would we make it legal to practice other religions, but require nonChristians to submit to public forms of Christianity - Christian prayers in schools, Christian quotes on walls of public buildings, and so on? How would the sincere and wise Christian mind and heart address this issue of pluralism?

This is the issue that Archbishop Williams is addressing, and I believe, in the British context, his attitude toward Muslims is exemplary - and truly Christian. Since as a disciple of Jesus, I am bound to do to others as I would have them do to me, I am obligated to treat members of other religions with the same respect and kindness and understanding I desire. I am to bear in mind Jesus' command to love my neighbor as myself - and even to love the person who casts himself or herself as my enemy. This is a high standard ... higher, I think, than many Christians can imagine going.

What the Archbishop is advocating may be less odd than it sounds. For example, here in the U.S., many churches freely practice what is called "church discipline." Church members voluntarily deal with issues in church-appointed courts or according to church-determined protocols rather than taking one another to the secular courts. The Archbishop is saying, in essence, "Since we allow Christians to do this sort of thing, we should allow Muslims to do so also." Obviously, there have to be civil limits: in our own history, we decided that we as a secular nation wouldn't allow a religious minority to ratify polygamous unions, for example. More recently, we have seen how dangerous it is for church courts to try to deal internally with child abuse perpetuated by clergy.

Our Constitution bans the establishment of religion while maintaining free exercise (or nonexercise) of religion. So theoretically, Muslims would already have the right to free expression of their religion, including the right to deal with some matters voluntarily according to their internal religious protocols, as long as civil laws weren't being broken.

But the devil is the details, so to speak: we in the U.S. struggle repeatedly with how to maintain this balance between non-establishment and free expression. A general question like "How much control do we want the secular state to exercise over religion?" quickly becomes specific, as in "Should parents be allowed to withhold medical care to their children for religious reasons?" or "Should parents be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education classes or biology classes that they feel are in conflict with their religious beliefs?" or "Should tax vouchers be given to parents to educate their children in religious schools - whatever the religion?" We struggle with these questions constantly - from debates about Nativity scenes on public land to questions about removing tax exemption from corrupt televangelists to deciding which religious holidays should be granted excused absence in schools to allowing a Muslim elected official to be sworn in on a Qur'an rather than a Bible.

So, I would hope that people here in the U.S. would look at the unfolding debate in the UK with interest and the desire to learn. While some might be saying the the Archbishop of Canterbury is guilty of dangerous compromise, I would suggest we are witnessing a sincere attempt to express a truly Christian love of neighbor. England, with much of Europe, is in territory that we in the U.S. are entering as our population diversifies and our world becomes increasingly multi-faith and integrated. Neither the secularists who hoped religion would go away nor the religionists who hoped that their faith could maintain and unquestioned hegemony are getting their way. We're going to have to learn to live as neighbors with people who differ from us ... which, to the sincere Christian, shouldn't be a bad or scary thing at all, but rather a great opportunity to live out the way of Jesus.

In my most recent book, "Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope," I survey global crisis literature and apply a systems theory perspective. I synthesize a wide array of lists of global crises and trace their lineage down to four root issues, the fourth of which is the failure of our world's religions to take the lead in promoting effective, constructive action regarding the first three crises. Conventional religious thinking which wants to pit "us" versus "them" in a win-lose scenario may well plunge us into a century of brutal war. Fresh kinds of thinking are required, I believe, and Archbishop Williams is one of the wise voices I most trust in exploring new alternatives. (See www.deepshift.org for more information.)

One other thought: in conversation with Muslim friends, I have come to realize that "sharia" means something very different to many Muslims than it does to the average non-Muslim American who only hears the term used loosely in the media. Before we react to the word "sharia," we would be wise to learn more of what the term means. But that's perhaps another question for another week.