The Bishop’s Gambit: 2006 strangely resembles 1986
Porpoise and I have become great fans of the 1980s BBC shows “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister,” both comedies about the battles of intrigue between bumbling politician Jim Hacker and wily civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby (played by the excellent Nigel Hawthorne). We even watched a few episodes over our honeymoon. We’re always amazed (particularly in “Yes, Prime Minister,” which often features foreign policy issues) how a show from 20 years ago can still be so spot-on relevant today.
We’re about halfway through all the episodes of “Yes, Prime Minister” now, and this afternoon we watched an episode which was stunningly appropriate for today, this particular day, June 18, 2006. You see, today the Episcopal Church (USA) is electing a new Presiding Bishop to replace Frank Griswold, and on “The Bishop’s Gambit,” Jim Hacker has to appoint a new bishop for the diocese of Bury St. Edmunds.
For some examples of the amazing timeliness of the episode, I give you various lines of dialogue from “The Bishop’s Gambit” (though you really should watch the episode, as I can’t capture the exquisite timing of the actors’ delivery):
[Sir Humphrey explains to Hacker that the Church is seeking a candidate to maintain balance. Hacker inquires about what sort of balance.]
Humphrey: The bench of bishops should have a proper balance between those who believe in God and those who don’t.
[In the ensuing conversation, Humphrey explains to Hacker what it means when the Church says that their preferred candidate is a "modernist."]
Humphrey: In the Church of England the word Modernist is code for non-believer.
Hacker: An atheist?
Humphrey: Oh no, Prime Minister. An atheist clergyman couldn’t continue to draw his stipend. So when they stop believing in God they call themselves modernists.
Hacker: How can the Church of England recommend an atheist as Bishop of Bury St. Edmunds?
Humphrey: Very easily. The Church of England is primarily a social organization, not a religious one.
Ha! So true, even in the Episcopal Church here.
[Humphrey proceeds to explain that it's hard to argue with the Church's choice, because of the practice of apostolic succession. Hacker asks what that means. Humphrey explains that, after Judas' demise, the apostles got the Holy Spirit to appoint his replacement.]
Hacker: And how did the Holy Ghost make his will known?
Humphrey: By lot.
Hacker: [something along the lines of] Can’t we get the Holy Ghost to do the same thing now?
Humphrey: We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop.
Hoot! So lovely and cynical, and so accurate about church politics in most mainline Protestant denominations.
Now I don’t know anything about the seven candidates up for the Presiding Bishop election today, though I’m tempted to say none of them can be any worse than His Arrogance Frank Griswold. But I’m afraid they’ll prove me wrong. Because, you see, the only delegates allowed to vote for the Presiding Bishop are bishops, and most bishops have studied theology, rather than serving actual parishes.
And, as we know from “Yes, Prime Minister,” “theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church of England.”
2 comments June 18th, 2006