Updated Sunday
Humphrys in Search of God is a series of three half-hour radio programmes being broadcast on BBC Radio 4 over the next three weeks. The BBC blurb reads:
John Humphrys as you’ve never heard him before – talking with religious leaders about his unfulfilled desire to believe in God.
How is faith possible in a world of suffering, much of it arguably caused by religion or religious extremism and to which God seems to turn a blind eye? Is there a place for religion in an age dominated by science?
His guests are the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams; Professor Tariq Ramadan, Muslim academic and author; and Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi.
The first interview, with Rowan Williams, was broadcast today. The 29 minute programme as broadcast can be heard here (Real audio).
The BBC website also has an extended 54 minute version of it, which you can listen to here.
Readers from outside the UK who may not be familiar with John Humphrys will find his biography here.
Update here is a transcript of the shorter version.
If I may I’ll develop thoughts from as I have written elsewhere and add some: Whilst I can go along with parts of the detail of Rowan Williams’ position, it just does not add up in total, because he is trying to keep to and yet go along with some denial of what he is trying to keep to (about theodicy). It is his typical nip and tuck, back and forth, and at one level commendable and at another a failure. Nearing the end he leaps to doctrine and then a superior insight into the truth in Christianity, from its… Read more »
Too vague and confusing? I wonder. Would Humphrys have been converted on the spot by a snap answer (highly unlikely!) – or is it better to allow him to think at some length about the interview, so that he comes to faith in his own time, to his own satisfaction, rather than having answers imposed on him? And equally the listener, who has heard the standard arguments many times without responding – is it not better to lead gently, as Rowan does, rather than simply recite from a prepared list of statements?
Has anyone listened to the longer version on the web site? Whatever one felt about RW’s performance I was astonished that he didn’t once mention Jesus in the broadcast 29 minutes, and I’m rather hoping that might be down, at least partly, to editing…
Have a read of “How Long, O Lord” by Professor Don Carson – one of the best books on suffering out there.
It seems that mentions of Jesus and scripture may have been edited out of the broadcast version, I find it extreemly upsetting that the leader of the Church of England should seem so ill-equiped to answer straight-forward (if not simple) questions on the central basis of the Christian faith.
Williams’ voice was soporific, and I don’t think he mentioned Jesus once. Of course theodicy is a vital – if rather overworked – issue, but long ago C. S. Lewis plumbed these questions far better than this program did. I haven’t read the Carson book mentioned above, but he wrote a fine little work on ‘The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God’, which touches on some questions of theodicy – highly recommended, takes the debate beyond Lewis. Anyway, isn’t this the apotheosis of vanity broadcasting? Why are British taxpayers paying to hear about John Humphrys’ religious doubts? Who particularly… Read more »
I’ve spent the morning listening (twice!) to the full-length version of this interview. It is fascinating and ought to be compulsory listening. In the short version RW mentions Jesus once – to say he didn’t heal everyone. In the longer interview he gets more of a look-in, particularly towards the end where RW says that when Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life,” he meant that the fullness of relationship with God is what happens in relationship with himself. The real problem for RW during the interview is that Humphrys has already tried what he suggests… Read more »
No mention of Jesus, and, as far as I could hear in the 30 minute interview, no (direct) mention of sin either, but then again, would that have worked with the likes of Humphrys? For me (and, I suspect, for others) the fascinating thing about the interview is not Humphrys’ unbelief but the Archbishop’s belief and his articulation of it. You have to hold on tight as he sets off on some his answers but it’s worth it in the end. I don’t know if Humphrys was moved towards faith in God, but I found it moved me towards faith… Read more »
These pieces are always difficult to judge, though I have found some of the comments above very illuminating. This is a conversation for broadcast, scripted to highlight some of the aspects mentioned above, but also quite personal. If I was an “enquirer” I think I would be happy with this as first contact with a pastor, I would go back for more. John Humphrys would never have contemplated this series a few years ago, I see this as an interesting development for him. Several years ago I interviewed him about his faith and his Welshness for BBC radio – the… Read more »
The alleged lack of Christocentricity in ++RW’s interview would be consonant with (my understanding of) the purpose of the programme, that is to explore the arguments for faith in its more general form. Clearly ++RW is coming from the Christian tradition (and I tire of those who complain about Jesus not getting enough explicit mentions in the things clergy say — the fact that I am a Christian means it is axiomatic that Jesus is rather important to me), but is it really ++RW’s brief to turn JH into a Christian when the guy’s having enough trouble with the idea… Read more »
I’ve listened to the long version twice, and I am very impressed with the non-agressive character of RW’s reflections and attitudes – he “allows”, rather than demanding. He comes across as carefully thoughtful, gentle, and pastoral. I deeply appreciate that he claims no unassailable certainties of knowledge, but witnesses to his own faith life and spiritual development as well as truly honoring Humphrys’ sincerity and good will. It is not (thank God) a “debate”, nor is it (thank God) a Sunday School class, but a reasonable gentlemanly sharing. There was no point in dropping “Jesus” all over the place to… Read more »
In response to Alan Marsh (and I heard the 54 min version): I specifically say cliches would not have worked either, and I’m trying to assess Rowan Williams’ overall approach. I’ve also been given his On Christian Theology (2000) to borrow, and the speaking man is similar to the writing man, in that it is dense, closely argued, back and forth material. My interest is in how this all adds up to the total, and in the radio interview more came out about the whole than in the book. The issue for me is, where is the core location of… Read more »
I’m surprised at the suggestion RW makes no mention of Jesus. Listen again. He’s there, quite close to the beginning.
Fascinating comments here, and also a fascinating interview with ++Rowan. I haven’t been able to get through it all yet due to some connection problems. I’m at about 23 minutes into the long version, and heard a few bits of the short version. From what I’ve heard I think the edits in the short version definitely do NOT do Rowan justice. As I was listening, I had an idea for a 4th individual whom I would love to hear Humphrys interview, asking these same questions: Nicky Gumbel of Holy Trinity Brompton (and Alpha, of course). Since I haven’t heard the… Read more »
Apropos Williams’ references to Jesus, when Tariq Ramadan is interviewed I wonder whether he will have very much to say about Mohammed or the Qur’an? Will we wait while he seeks to lead Humphrys to Mohammed and the Qur’an via Allah, or will he begin with these things? Islamic theology is not, of course, ‘Mohammed centred’, but it is very close to be Qur’an centred – at least in terms of how God is revealed. The worry, for me, is that faced with the challenge to address a seeking doubter (which Humphrys clearly is) the leader of the Anglican Communion… Read more »
given the importance of the subject, I cannot recommend this book more highly – written by a professor who takes the subject head on
http://www.wesleyowen.com/WesleyOwenSite/product/8511.0950.htm
To know and follow Jesus of Nazareth is perhaps something distinct from knowing and/or pledging allegiance to this or that piece of doctrine, elaboration via tradition, or inference about Jesus of Nazareth.
The possible importance of this conversation is that it maybe helps to recover the benighted and backgrounded sense of faith as pilgrimage or journey, open-ended – rather than the going coin of new conserved belief systems (in which faith is almost always definitively presumed to be a final and closed sense of certainty).
People come to Christ in different ways: not every conversion is instantaneous, and many need to be led gently to faith. Unfortunately some evangelicals think the full-frontal assault is the only way, when a more subtle approach, such as that employed by Rowan, is more effective.
Gerard Manley Hopkins observed in “The Wreck of the Deutschland” how responses to the gospel vary widely:
Whether at once, as once at a crash Paul,
Or as Austin, a lingering-out sweet skill,
Make mercy in all of us, out of us all
Mastery, but be adored, but be adored King.
Alan I totally agree. Just as God has given us different gifts and temperaments, so it is that we find our way to God through different journeys and experiences. What sends one soul into dancing with delight can lead another soul cowering in a corner. I know that I have seen many a soul cringe away from public zealotry who when spoken to quietly and privately have internalised core biblical tenets into their personal morality. Zealots deny they recognise God, but God knows who has chosen to respond to His call. God also knows that none of us are perfect,… Read more »
We are told that God is non-interventionist. That humans must decide between good & evil. But we are told that happy events such as The Miracle of Stairway B at the WTC, when 25 firemen survived the collapse of the buildings, are as a result of the direct intervention by God. Can someone explain why he didn’t intervene on behalf of the 2973 who actually perished, or shall we allow God to abdicate responsibilty for their deaths, but to claim credit for the lives of the 25. Rather like having your cake & eating it, methinks.
Kevin’s comment needs to be taken seriously (it echoes one from classical times about portraits in a temple of Neptune of those who had appealed to the god and been saved from drowning. “And where are the portraits of those who appealed to the god and were not saved?”) but it is not a completely insuperable problem. It may be that the Johannine idea of ‘signs’still has something going for it. Where it really goes adrift is where some enthusiast claims that miracle is the normal way of God interacting with the world, as did people like the late John… Read more »
I would be interested (if it wasn’t intrusive or impertinent) in the spirituality of John Hymphrys himself…….. I wouldnt see him as deficient or ’empty’. I’d want to ‘do theology’by reflecting on the materials of his life journey; and inner life. That is if he would welcome that, himself, at this time.
Has anyone got any thoughts about the second interview, with Tariq Ramadan? I am just listening to the long version for a second time. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/misc/humphrys_ramadan.ram
I haven’t listened to any of the longer versions yet.
However, I notice that the programme’s website (link added to main article above) now has TWO extended interview files for Rowan Williams. Perhaps somebody else has more time!!
I heard Tariq Ramadan on the radio. He struck me as very moderate, conciliatory and apologetic. He could almost have been an anglican bishop. I took it , that he was watching his words, and that his private views would be even more open. I was struck by his unwillingness to comment on the eternal destiny of non-Muslims and others, John H. included — leaving it to the wisdom and mercy of Allah. Also, I was struck by his opposition to the death penality, amputation and other aspects of the Sharia. He certainly presented a thoughtful and kindly face of… Read more »
RW’s answer to JH’s question “Do you believe Christianity is the only path to God?” astounded me. RW said, “It is clearly NOT the only path to God…” He then goes on to say that to experience the “fullness” of a relationship we should believe as he does. The problem is, there is salvation found in NO OTHER name than Jesus Christ. He alone is the way, truth, and life. There is no such thing as a lesser degree of relationship. Either a person is a born-again believer or not. There is no such thing as partial relationship. Nobody is… Read more »
I was involved in producing The Miracle of Stairway B and none of the 12 firefighters involved believed that God saved them as this would mean he let their brother officers die.
I feel that I have some credentials to comment on John Humphrys’ interview with Rowan Williams in that I am a practising Christian but also have incurable cancer. I have known severe pain (although not comparable with those for whom modern, Western pain relief is unavailable) and my parents are facing the very high probability that I will die before them. Although I’m not a child, I can assure you that this is hard for them to bear. Like John, I was brought up in a Christian environment, but I have, from an early stage, questioned my beliefs. Until recently,… Read more »