The ayatollah of Canterbury?

Furious controversy this week after Dr Rowan Williams, the head of the Church of England, was apparently quoted as supporting the idea of introducing elements of Islamic Sharia law into the British legal system.

Despite sharing a taste in beards with the spiritual leaders of revolutionary Iran, it appears on closer examination that the Archbishop was not advocating hand chopping as an alternative to community service for first offences of shoplifting. His gripe is with the one-size-fits-all secular legislation that has increasingly started encroaching into areas that used to be regarded as matters of conscience (often religious conscience).

He has watched with alarm as respected Christian adoption agencies have been threatened with closure if they do not comply with new regulations requiring them to place children with gay couples. A similar issue is brewing over the human fertilisation and embryology bill currently passing through parliament.

Dr Williams' solution seems to be a more flexible legislative approach which makes space for religious belief through providing opt-outs and statutory alternatives. And if he is going to advocate this for Christians, he senses that he would also have to support it for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and everyone else.

This week's reaction must surely show that his approach, whatever its merits, is dead in the water. The British commitment to 'one law for all' goes back to Magna Carta. And thus yet another nail is driven into the coffin of the sacred-secular divide.

The message is clear. If Christians are going to be free to live according to their conscience in modern Britain, they will need to strive vigorously to ensure that the laws of this country continue to reflect broadly Christian values. This can hardly be a bad thing: Moses first made the point that righteous laws are a blessing to any nation. But it seems that the alternative is not just social sub-optimisation but creeping religious persecution.