This is an intriguing encounter from an apologists point of view. Mainly because Gervais is floundering and inarticulate, and because Williams just waits. Gervais comes across I think as typical of people one meets: wants to own to the word 'spiritual' and also makes it clear just how moral he is, but 'I am living my life'. He also does the typical race from one question to the next without waiting for an answer. I think the best moment was when Williams says 'is fundamentalist religion the only type of religion?' and Gervais goes on to say something along the lines of, 'well, if God exists he would be full on wouldn't he?' This IS quite a revelation I think - it is a similar line of attack to that of Dawkins. He almost refuses to talk seriously any kind of faith but the most fundamentalist kind, so that he can reject it.
Could Williams have done any better than he does here? I think he plays it quite well to score a 3-0 victory in the face of Gervais's blather. It is hard to play such opposition without sinking to the same level. Gervais is becoming more and more like his alter ego David Brent...
He then went on to an interview where he was reported as having denied the nativity story. What in fact he denied was the extra-biblical legendary materials: the big star, the stable, the donkey, that there were THREE kings (when there were certainly three gifts, but who knows how many Magi) and so on. Then he said you could become a Christian without believing the virgin birth, though he himself believed it. Scarcely controversial - but I guess when you have a name for being controversial, people hear what they expect to hear.
20 comments:
To embed, copy the HTML on the right hand side of the youtube page, which is in the section titled "embed" and past onto your blog post.
You will have to have the page view on your blog post set to "edit" or "HTML" (don't know what blogger uses) instead of "what you see is what you get (WSIWYG)". Et voila.
You wont't necessarily see anything on the WSIWYG page until you post.
Not convinced Williams would see it as a "3:0 victory"...
The most amazing part of this seems to be that Williams actually appears to be really trying to genuinely like the guy... you can see the Arch Bish naturally taking the adult role to Gervais' angry child but fighting it and trying to meet him on his level... to show him love rather than condescension.
Williams conveys the gospel in his reflection of God's love/grace for the person infront of him rather than merely just through his superior intellect and more robust rhetoric...essential though they are in this situation they're detail in what's going on here.
Don't y'think?
maybe this is just a girl's perspective...
;o)
Scarcely controversial - but I guess when you have a name for being controversial, people hear what they expect to hear.
Maybe it's more a matter of having a fixed set of stories in one's head, and having to assimilate any narrative to them even if the facts don't match.
This story was picked up in the SMH as well, and was written up (and headlined) according to the familiar bishop-denies-most-of-the-Christian-faith, certainly-the-things-that-you-believe template. No doubt there are bishops of whom one could write that story honestly, but as applied to Williams it's an obvious travesty. Although not obvious to the casual reader, perhaps: and therein lies the problem.
Video doesn't work for me. :-(
Anyone else having a problem?
According to Larson, there were four wise men, as you can see here (the caption to the image reads "Unbeknownst to most theologians, there was a fourth wiseman, who was turned away for bringing a fruitcake."
Here is another link to it
MJ, I wonder if we listened to the same interview? The AB barely got a word in. He did well enough with the little he said, but I'd hardly score it 3-0.
But I agree that this is exactly the sort of approach one should take with someone like this. Agree with as much as you can, invite them to keep sharing their beliefs, don't talk over the top, try not to argue with them.
Eventually they exhaust themselves and say, "Well, what do *you* think?"
Originally I had it scored at 1-0. Then, I had another listen, and it seemed to me Williams made a couple of really telling points though in a very quiet way.
I didn't find Gervais all that combative actually.
I think we're overlooking the real herisy here... that in the Mayo interview the ABC also denied that there was snow at the nativity... clearly this is his worst divergence from Orthodoxy.
As we all know, snow is essential to Christmas... To quote an earlier post on the Parsonage quoting St Bob "there won't be snow in Africa this Christmas ...[so] do they know it's Christmastime at all?"
It's terrible to see how liberal the Arch Bish is these days!
Those dumb Africans!
but, um, there won't be any snow in Oxford this Christmas either, will there?
snow/fog ...the greek is a bit uncertain for that word isn't it?
I had half a dozen great conversations with people at church this morning about the virgin birth Rowan Williams interview. All of them were 70plus and it was the first time with most of them we'd spoken theology. They were mostly astute enough to realise the media had misrepresented him and saw what he said as reasonable - although there was some confusion about the snow...
If all publicity is good publicity this certainly got the older group at church talking like nothing else in the media this year - that really suprised me
The video didn't work for me either, I think its been taken down however a search for the names on you tube provided the audio of the encounter. I had never heard Rowan Williams speak before - he has a great voice for recording: big, warm, deep, with that English authoritativeness: you would almost cast him as God. All Gervais' questions without pause for answers seem to come from the same emotional place as putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "No No No No No" to God... its a lot like one of the routines from his shows. And at times Williams actually sounds like God ... my favourite bit was when Willams threw "as long as you are ready to receive it" in at the end of the conversation about forgiveness.
Paul - you missed the very slight trace of Welsh lilt!
In the English context, that voice says Oxbridge, Oxbridge, Oxbridge ... which is a mixed blessing.
So there's a "comedian" arguing with the achbishop of Canterbury and your analysis proves? That the archbishop is funnier? I'd agree with that, he's a very intelligent and witty guy. (Which actually puts him 2-0 up on Ricky on this showing)
Well, it is an example of how one might respond to a very frustrating, even idiotic person, who just keeps piling on the verbiage. Most Christians have had to deal with an atheist like this at some stage, is my guess. It is remarkable how little they have thought about what they are saying, and how confident they are in saying it.
However, what a lot of incomprehensible blather his Christmas sermon was. I don't see why anyone would hold up Rowan Williams as a model of how to do apologetics. He doesn't seem to be able to make his meaning clear at all, and I suspect it is because he himself is not clear on the meaning of the gospel.
So there's your bit of Christmas humbug, just in time for the new year!
PS thought 'blather' was such a terrific word until I realized that you had used it in your blog entry. There is nothing new under the sun.
Anyway, if Williams wasn't so smart as to be apophatic, you'd peg him as a blithering idiot when it comes to the basics of the gospel. It's Anglican comedy, but for him it's personal tragedy
Well, as this opinion comes from your extensive reading of his works...
Of course, I didn't offer Williams as a model. I just thought the encounter was fascinating.
Post a Comment