As an Evangelical leader and a person of faith deeply involved in dialogue in the public sphere (with Jews, Muslims, atheists, secularists, Protestants and Catholics) I ask myself the question what is the relationship of the nation's law and the moral codes or laws of specific faith communities? I am strongly in favor of a government that allows for religious pluralism without officially or de facto endorsing any worldview, religious or not. I also believe people should influence policy from there perspective this includes but is not limited to people of faith. Granted, this is no easy task.

There are several challenges to including a relationship with sharia ( or any other religious law) with any government. First, how do you account with the varieties of interpretations and implementations? This is true when trying to incorporate any religious law into a nation's legal system. India and the Philippines have some accommodation for this Muslim moral code and it has had it's benefits and challenges. The varieties of interpretations among Islamic scholars (liberal, conservative, moderate, Islamic feminist, etc.) not to mention the distinctions between Sunni and Shi'a would have to be carefully worked out.

On another note, any religious law (no matter from what faith it evolves) that violates the dignity, life, and freedom of human beings must be rejected. This is a very complicated conversation that is too long to unpack in this forum (one must define dignity, life, and freedom).

Recently, I was asked about making the Constitution more aligned with the Bible. My response was, "Who's interpretation of the Bible?" Many times in my Evangelical circles,(I am unapologetically Christian and Evangelical but do not impose my faith on others and welcome for others to proclaim their faith or incredulity in healthy ways), people wrongly assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation. The U.S is not a Christian nation. It is a nation that has many Christians in it and was influenced by both Enlightenment and Protestant worldviews. If Western nations, the U.K. and U.S. included, are to affirm religious pluralism they must be careful to value religious worldviews while preserving the freedom of thought of its citizens.

In the case of the sharia with the U.K., I think the Archbishop of Canterbury was very careful in saying that some (not all) aspects of the sharia could be incorporated. This conversation is a long one and requires discernment and nuance. The long road ahead leaves queries like, "Which aspects should be included?", "Who determines what is incorporated and what is left out (the question of power)?", "What does incorporating aspects of sharia imply for existing values within British laws?" The challenge of every democracy in the sphere of legislation is how do we respect individual freedom, group distinctions (religious or otherwise), and avoid the tyranny of the majority.

I will continue to pray for the U.K and all the Western nations as they wrestle with the reality of welcoming the stranger in ways that eschew the tragic legacy of colonization, xenophobia, racism, sexism, and religious oppression. I will continue to pray for all immigrants as they wrestle with the reality of entering countries with laws and customs that are foreign to them. I will continue to pray and advocate for laws to be passed that reject oppression of women, children, and the most vulnerable among us. I will continue to pray and work that this world would navigate the public sphere with a respect for both life and faiths. Shalom, Salaam, Paz, Peace, and Amahoro.