Its Law Courts have to administer human Justice, not Divine Justice. At the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, the Ecclesiastical Courts were one of the worst abuses that had to be ended. And we do not want to see them raising their heads again in our own country, either in our own religion or in any other; and it is parochial not to recognise this. Jesus Christ did not concern himself with the secular world; or if he did then I’m afraid his understanding of it was very limited. Whether the Risen Christ has a broader outlook than the Historical Jesus is not for me to say. It is sufficient that for someone in authority (by that I mean someone who is in a position and has the power to influence others for good or ill) to ask himself the whole time, “What would Jesus have done?” is not only absurd; it is the road to catastrophe.
So it is not surprising that those who are competent in the secular world regard religion as being on the edge of life, if religion cannot speak in any language but its own. In my opinion religion ought to be able to speak in the language of anyone with whom it has to talk. Of course in this country it will use English. What I mean is that in talking to scientists, it will talk the language of Science; in talking to lawyers, the language of the Law; to soldiers the language of War, etc. There is not the slightest point in talking to a jury in speech that does not appeal to them; I know because I addressed juries for 40 years. In colloquial jargon, you have to be on the same wavelength as they are. So to communicate with someone, for example to persuade them of the correctness of what you are saying, you need to talk the same language as the person or the people who are listening to you. If you talk down to a jury, they switch off. So what do I mean by “talking the same language”? I do not mean adopting the same frame of mind; when prosecuting, you do not pretend that secretly you are one of the jury. When prosecuting your job is to present the case in a way that shows best that it is a thoroughly credible story, and if possible shows that the defence evidence demonstrates that wherever truth lies, falsehood lies with the accused. In other words, one must strive to have the same concepts of truth and falsehood that the jury are likely to have, judging by their appearance, demeanour, and the little one knows about their background. The atmosphere in a Courtroom is very real, and is a pretty reliable guide in deciding how to pitch one’s argument. Addressing or talking to an individual is not so different. The rapport between you again is very real; you have an instinct of what you can say, and what you cannot say. And usually you have a pretty clear idea of whether you want to say anything to them, or not!
But assuming you have mastered the skill of talking to people, and persuading them to listen; what are you going to talk to them about?