The trouble with the Archbishop of Canterbury is that he is too much of a Christian. He just can't help himself. Instead of contenting himself with a role as boss of the Church of England (a non-religious organisation which is part of England's heritage industry) or, alternatively, as a spokesman for something called "British values", Rowan Williams has this weird conviction that what he says and does should be connected to the life, teachings and spirit of that strange and subversive figure, Jesus of Nazareth. Well, we can't have that, can we?

The trouble with the Archbishop of Canterbury is that he is too much of a Christian. He just can't help himself. Instead of contenting himself with a role as boss of the Church of England (a non-religious organisation which is part of England's heritage industry) or, alternatively, as a spokesman for something called "British values", Rowan Williams has this weird conviction that what he says and does should be connected to the life, teachings and spirit of that strange and subversive figure, Jesus of Nazareth. Well, we can't have that, can we?

Dr Williams used to be criticised for saying very little about public issues. Now, after an unexpected bout of talkativeness, he is being urged to take a vow of silence.

It's rumoured that he may even get a visit from the men in the grey cassocks. I hope he tells them to go to, er, hell. Williams's public musings about sharia law have enraged both the religious (including his predecessor, the weasly Dr George Carey) and the secularists, triggering the kind of public vitriol and ridicule which is normally reserved for English football managers.

One of the milder website comments on the man who was appointed Professor of Divinity at Oxford at the extraordinarily young age of 36 was: "Get lost, beardie." Well, yes, the Archbishop does have a beard. He also has a brain. He tends not to speak unless he has something to say, and in this age of rent-a-quote politicians and clerics, I rather admire him for it.

He lacks neither intellectual strength nor courage. (Mind you, he shouldn't be allowed out alone: this somewhat otherworldly and, indeed, holy man has trespassed into a minefield with a beatific smile on his face. Some would argue that this particular beardie has already got lost.) Williams's crime has been to say out loud that the application of some aspects of sharia law might be appropriate in this country, and that it would be worth thinking through the possible implications of such a move. The public perception of sharia is tied to barbaric images of public floggings and hand-chopping. Pity to spoil a good story, but the tabloids' Lambeth Lunatic did not suggest that people should be beheaded for shoplifting in Marks & Spencer; in fact, he stated unequivocally that "nobody in their right mind" would want to see this kind of inhumanity in Britain, nor the attitudes to women expressed in some Muslim quarters.

In mainstream Islam, sharia is much more than a law code; it is a codification of ways of living one's faith in day-to-day situations. Williams, in fact, was not calling for the introduction of sharia law as a parallel jurisdiction to the civil law, but was "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience".

This has actually been happening for years without frightening the horses. British Jews frequently turn to their own religious courts to resolve civil disputes, with the blessing of the law of the land.

These are voluntary understandings conducted with the agreement of participants. Provision is also made for, say, Christian doctors who have a conscientious issue about performing abortions. This is part of what it means to be a civilised society.

Many people will be in a fury as they read this. They will argue with passion that too much attention is paid to the scruples of minorities, and that if people don't like any part of Britain's legal arrangements they should move elsewhere. In this they will be joined by the likes of Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, who said: "If Muslims want to live under sharia law, then they are free to emigrate to a country where sharia law is already in operation." Take it or leave it, mate.

I don't want to live either in a flat-earth secular state or under a Christian (or Muslim) Taliban.

What underlies a lot of the excessive reaction to Williams's intervention is an assumption about the superiority of "British values". Muslims, who make an important contribution to life in this country, might be puzzled by this hubristic, xenophobic righteousness as they look at our city centres at weekends, the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, the sheer crassness of much private and public life, and the extensive damage caused by family break-up.

An accommodation that allowed people within a particular tradition to choose to work out certain disputes in ways which respect their time-honoured wisdom - all within a framework approved by parliament - would not be a sign of weakness but a sign of a mature, confident and generous society. I would even say there would be something Christian about it.

In the midst of the torrent of bile, the still, small voice of the Bearded One of Canterbury makes a lot of sense.