Having been out of radio contact for the last three days (at a residential meeting at the utterly beautiful and wonderful Parcevall Hall in the Yorkshire Dales – no mobile signal and no accessible wi-fi), I re-emerge to find all sorts of comment about the Rowan Atkinson interview last week. I am beginning to wonder if he regretted slagging off the clergy in the first place or if it was a deliberate ‘get the headlines’ grab to raise his profile for the launch of his latest film. I wonder if he really thought his comments would become the story they did.
What is interesting from some of the response is just how personal it all gets. People have been questioning his own integrity, hypocrisy, etc and then having a go at his not-very-funny creations… as if disliking Mr Bean is enough to justify discrediting the actor behind the character. It’s all a bit odd, really.
I don’t feel at all hostile to him. I even wonder if he – like many who find the unwise aside quoted as the main thrust of the story – watched amazed as the story ran away with itself.
I have no idea – and it is hardly the most important matter in the world. The truth about clergy integrity can stand for itself, regardless of how comic actors see them.
However, I also emerged to the rather bizarre shouting match about the BBC and its policy decision to ban the use of ‘BC’ and ‘AD’ on its programmes. Yet another example of anti-Christian, liberal, politically-correct nonsense by the Beeb! Except, of course (and somewhat inconveniently), it simply isn’t true. (Listen to ‘Feedback’ on Radio 4 today – which I did in the car.)
No such policy decision has been made. The whole story emanated from a piece on the BBC website and from it all sorts of conclusions were drawn. Why did no one ask the BBC?
One of the shouters is, predictably, Ann Widdecombe. Hardly surprising, as she has form in this regard. She once slagged off (in a newspaper column – the Express, I think) the entire House of Bishops of the Church of England – and, by extension, the whole Church of England) for some research the House was supposed to have commissioned and published. I did a head-to-head with her on BBC radio and she went first, repeating her tirade. When I got my chance I asked her for an apology (on the basis of the ninth Commandment which says that we shouldn’t misrepresent our neighbour’s case) as the said report had nothing to do with the bishops, had not been commissioned by them, not published by them and not authorised by them. She managed to go through the entire interview trying to ignore this inconvenient truth and simply slag off the lousy Church anyway.
Very entertaining, of course. But, why, when these stories explode, do people like Widdecombe and others not exercise the self-discipline of finding out the facts before commenting? I wouldn’t have thought that would be so revolutionary. We all get caught out by the journalist phoning, telling us the horror story and asking for an instant response – and that’s fine. But, if we can’t resist nature’s propensity to abhor a vacuum (or silence), we shouldn’t then be surprised to find ourselves embarrassed by the exposure of our naivety, stupidity, credulity or self-righteous pomposity.
And I still find Rowan Atkinson funny. And the offer to show him some crackingly good clergy still stands.
September 30, 2011 at 10:30 pm
I suppose Widdecombe and Atkinson were conducting propaganda without reference to the facts.
Blackadder finished in WW1 when many clergy would be regarded by our contemporaries as hypocrites.
I wonder wether the stance of some clergy towards Atkinson is consequently untypical of them?
Atkinson seems to me to be an enigma: He avoids publicity unless it is required to promote his work. Perhaps this is an oddity arising from a potent clash of the shame of clergy who agree with the stance of Blackadder and the expectations of the actor / author that they are naff.
October 1, 2011 at 7:03 am
I am looking forward to the return of ” Rev” which presents the clergy with sympathy and nuance – whilst not exactly State Church propaganda.
October 1, 2011 at 9:45 am
In his somber book published in 2011, “The Passing of Protestant England: Secularisation and Social Change c.1920-1960″, author S.J.D. Green devotes a chapter to examination of Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree’s 1951 text titled “English Life and Leisure: A Social Study”, Rowntree presented 200 thorough case studies of people in post-war England. Maybe only 20 of these people had anything positive to say about the Church or England or Church of England clergy. In fact, many of Rowntree’s research subjects seemed to go out of their way to insult clergy. The level of malice and ridicule was incredible and shocking to me. After reading the Rowntree study, Rowan Atkinson’s comments were nothing new. Some people have had very bad experiences in church life. Some Christians –lay and ordained– set bad examples or act in a disappointing causing disillusionment. I enjoy films of all kids. I’ve never made a particular effort to seek out a film starring Mr. Atkinson, but I know some people who find him very funny. I saw him in “Four Weddings and a Funeral” 17 years ago and that’s it. I do not know of any clergy who sought ordination to make financial profit. As I struggle with my personal sense of sinfulness, I expect that some clergy have good and bad days, too. Clergy experience stress and burnout. There are to be found (as in any vocation) some real, eccentric “pieces of work,” but I am convinced they do not represent the majority of our ordained servant-leaders. During the recent Ember Days I found myself making prayers of thanksgiving and asking God’s choicest blessings on every deacon and priest who has ever “been there” for me and my loved ones. Of course, the work of bishops usually doesn’t involve parish-level pastoral ministry, but I thank God for bishops I recall as good teachers, writers, and those engaged in the unpleasant work of conflict resolution within the church. I remember parish priests encouraging me to pray, patiently teaching me my catechism, ministering to me or others in illness, being available at all hours when a family member was dying, and providing meaningful and dignified Christian burial for a parent (and later consoling me in my grief). I can recall snippets of excellent and helpful sermons preached decades ago. Clergy (as well as family) encouraged me to study Holy Scripture and guided me in that process. In the end, I am confident that Church of England clergy Mr. Atkinson described as “smug, arrogant, and conceited” will be loving to him, minister to him and his loved ones with humility, welcome him to worship with gladness, teach him if he is interested, baptize his children (if he has any), pray for him in illness, age, and incapacity, sit with him when he is facing death, and ensure he has the option of Christian burial. I was appalled by the clergy-bashing comments in the 60-year-old study by Rowntree. God bless Mr. Atkinson. I have nothing against him. I vigorously respect his freedom to express a public critique of the Church and clergy in our civic discourse. I disagree with him and haven’t had the same experiences he has. Mr. Atkinson’s comments only have served to make me redouble my efforts as a layman to be a more faithful follower of Christ and to be more supportive of our clergy who have increasingly difficult jobs and diminishing resources. I offer my profound gratitude to any member of the clergy who has ever ministered to me or my loved ones. The Rowntree study is available free at the Internet Archive: http://tinyurl.com/3u3cwap
October 1, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I rather liked this response to the AD/BC problem … http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/sep/25/1
As much as I dislike Ann Widdecombe (quite a lot) I would love to know how & why she ‘slagged off (in a newspaper column – the Express, I think) the entire House of Bishops of the Church of England’.
She is a devout Catholic, so I assume it was not on secular grounds.
Does anyone have a link to the article?
KK