BBC: Around the World in 80 Faiths

6 January 2009

Which might have been subtitled: ‘Patronising Anglican on Backwards Pagan Traditions That Aren’t True Christianity (By Which I Mean My Anglican Version of Christianity) Even If Some Of Them Look A Bit Like It and Have Some of the Same Trappings But They’re Clearly Dodgy Otherwise’.

Jones on the John Frum cargo cult

Recently I saw the first episode of the BBC Two series Around the World in 80 Faiths (watch online) and followed Pete Owen Jones, an anglican priest, as he explored Australasia and the Pacific Rim seeking out and “experiencing” rituals from some of the various faith and religious traditions in that part of the world.

Not surprising (at least in my experience) for an anglican priest â€” who embodies the typical qualities of generic ‘niceness’, a willingness to get on with everyone and condescension to ‘lesser’ religions â€” Jones patronises the locals while coming across as being open-minded and willing to get to grips with a culture he’s unfamiliar with, then is comfortably snide while alone behind the safety of a camera lens to an indifferent at-best-vaguely-CofE BBC audience.

One of the communities that Jones visits is that of the John Frum cargo cult of Tanna of the Vanuatu islands. Jones â€” sadly, and predictably â€”Â treats these people as if they are living under some obvious-to-everyone-else delusion (which of course they are) but (and this is my bone of contention) vehemently insisting that his beliefs in his god (3-in-one, self-fathering, becomes-a-man-cracker when magic words are spoken, etc.) are somewhat more sophisticated and otherwise obviously true.

At least Jones acknowledges that there are at least some basic parallels between the beginnings of the cults surrounding the John Frum and Jesus characters, but he insists that the entire point of the John Frum cult was, and is, to eradicate christianity on Tanna. At a daily ceremony where locals raise the flag of the United States, Jones animatedly explains:

To western eyes this “religious” [you can hear the condescending air-quotes is his voice] ceremony is going to seem completely off-the-wall, but it’s important to remember that in the context of Tanna this wasn’t some minority cult, the impact of John Frum was absolutely massive and it nearly wiped out christianity altogether [one presumes he means only on Tana]. Between 1939 and 1941 the numbers (sic) of christians on the island dropped from a high of four thousand to just one hundred.

The segment that immediately follows, that shows a (christian) “prophet” called Fred, receives a much more favourable treatment and Jones, in typical anglican style, credits christianity with being the driving force for bringing people together while reporting at the same time that it’s the traditional island tradition of kastom that is actually the reuniting force (of course its more ‘barbaric’ aspects, like cannibalism, being tempered by christianity) but it was really christianity. Really. Honest guv.

However, I will give him kudos for stripping down to his bathing suit to take part in (at least for a while until the ‘nature worship’ bit comes up) a pagan witchcraft ceremony, which he (thankfully) now understands is not devil worship.

If you have access to the BBC iPlayer service, you can watch Around the World in 80 Faiths for yourself.

Myself, I’m going to clean myself off and re-watch the new Wallace and Gromit. That’s far more entertaining.

Possibly related posts:

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: Arkell v. Pressdram, BBC, christianity, culture, television, truthiness, UK

Comments

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

68015 ResponsesBBC%3A+Around+the+World+in+80+Faiths2009-01-06+11%3A32%3A50nullifidian to “BBC: Around the World in 80 Faiths”

heather on January 6th, 2009 9:23 am

You've expressed my thoughts on this almost exactly. His meeting with Australian aborigines was pretty infuriating too.
I can't work out why but your site instantly kills firefox and internet explorer. (It's Ok in Opera ) Maybe there's a temperamental plugin?
T_W on January 6th, 2009 9:50 am

Echoing Heather's comments, you've got it pretty much spot on here. I found this program so annoying I wanted to reach through the TV and choke the life out of Jones. Everything about him was patronising and the way in which he managed to completely ignore the irony in mocking this faiths while holding to his own equally weird beliefs was amazing.

Great review though.
T_W on January 8th, 2009 10:43 am

To be fair, tomorrows episode looks like it will be even more annoying if the soundbites being aired tonight are anything to go by.
nullifidian on January 9th, 2009 3:23 am

Thanks Heather.

I'm not sure what's going on with the site to crash FF and IE (FF/Mac works for me, although I usually use Safari/Mac without issue). If you could let me know a bit more about what happens to you when you use those browsers, I might be able to help.

I hope it's not the IntenseDebate plugin, I really like this system…
nullifidian on January 9th, 2009 3:26 am

Exactly. His attitude to some of the somewhat christian rituals (I remember hearing him say something like "but I can't help smelling paganism at work") that weren't exactly like he was used to stank of hypocrisy.
nullifidian on January 9th, 2009 9:36 am

I may watch it on iPlayer later. I don't think I have any more stomach for platitudinous anglicans when I could be out enjoying myself at the pub. :-)
Eeky on February 20th, 2009 11:29 pm

Marvellous subject, wonderful scenery, woeful presenter. Loved the lady in Lithuania who called him 'Mister Twister' and 'I don't understand you' in response to his speaking to her in her mother tongue.
nullifidian on February 20th, 2009 11:44 pm

I missed most of the episode this evening, but I did catch the the tail end. I was amazed that he had the audacity to claim that most religions were a bit wacky, and then immediately uses the catholic subsect of his own cult and their dogma of ritual cannibalism as an example of the wackiness of "other" religions.

The cognitive dissonance of the man is a wonder to behold.

I'll catch the whole thing later on iPlayer. It does make me wonder why do I put myself through this nonsense, though.
Gusg on February 21st, 2009 12:55 am

I thought it was a great idea for a series but it turned into an embarassing, condenscending, parochial, blinkered and exceptionally vacuous piece of dross, thanks, no less, to the presenter, Anglican Vicar – Peter Owen Jones, who you felt, at any moment, might utter the words "they're all barking mad" in one of his condenscending asides to camera.

In brief, it was about as enlightening as a soggy biscuit.

Somebody really needs to take the same premise and do it properly. If I was in charge of the license fee coffers, I would nominate Hitchens and Dawkins to travel across the globe and do it properly.

There are two moments in Friday nights episode that had me apoplectic…one was the scene in Russia where they "covered" Atheism. Just off the Red Square in Moscow, Jones shared a coffee with a Russian atheist who was doing his best to explain to Jones why so many churches had sprung up in Russia since the fall of communism. Jones couldn't contain his blinkered and short sighted glee over that fact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/80faiths/locations/europe.sh...

The Russian chap was doing his best to explain that under communism, Russian people had very strict boundaries, rules and regulations they had to abide by…for generations. They were groomed not to question anything. If they did, they would be punished. Now that communism was gone, Russians turning to religion was simply the replacement of one regime with another rather than the miraculous awakening Jones blubbered on about, in one of his many irritating asides to camera. I was shocked he didn't break into "Religion rules the Waves" to the tune of Rule Brittania.

Another teeth grinding moment when he was with a curious cult/group/faith in Italy called The Damanhur Experiment (there's a clip here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/80faiths/locations/europe.sh... and they generously showed him their stunning temple, which included a massive hall surrounded by little alcoves containging a stained glass depictiion of all the main world religions…from christianity to buddhism. In one of his annoying asides to camera, he noted how uncomfortable he felt that his religion was just one of many many other religions depicted in this hall. At that moment, I thought.."at last…the penny's dropped"….but no..he went on waxing lyrical about something else and the whole jaw-droppingly obvious point to the whole premise was lost.

If there was a nobel prize for irony, Jones would be a shoo in for a nomination.

To put it into context….it would be a bit like Darwin going to the galapagos, being surrounded by all these curious yet familiar creatures and turning to camera and saying…"hmm…that's interesting…now…I wonder what's for tea?" Or David Attenborough…in the midst of the jungle, surrounded by Orangutangs in their natural habitat, turning to camera and saying "I used to have a teddy bear, just like that when I was a boy"!.
nullifidian on February 21st, 2009 1:32 am

I think I could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that this was written in the style of Mark Steel.

Yes, that was a compliment (or at least it was offered as one). :-)
Gusg on February 21st, 2009 9:35 am

Thanks. Any similarities to Mark Steel are purely unintentional. I genuinely didn't know who he was until you mentioned it and linked to his column. Admittedly, I did stop for a minute and wonder if you were suggesting that I had the spelling prowess of a Graudian journalist.

I agree with your earlier poster who mentioned how well the series was shot. Which is probably what makes the Jones Factor so infuriating.

Casting him in the role of intrepid faith explorer is not unlike suggesting Paris Hilton should script and present a series devoted to quantum physics.
gusg on February 21st, 2009 9:38 am

incidentally…I have no problems with your site in firefox or chrome.
gusg on February 21st, 2009 2:49 pm

It's worth catching it if you can….even if it's just for the David Brent moments…

Such as the patron saint of patronising making his spectacularly profound discovery that nobody had sat in a couch for 2 years (in the Dalai Lama's penthouse in moscow). That was an absolute gem.

I wouldn't have been in the least bit surprised if there was a special announcement at the end of the programme, during the credits, that proclaimed "if you have been affected by the topics raised in this programme..or if you know of a couch that hasn't been sat upon for over 2 years..please call our special hotline now…where a team are ready to take your call and patronise you now" .

Or the magical moment when he touched the arm of that middle aged Russian winter swimmer when urged to join in and go for a swim? What in the name of blazes was that about? I cannot think of a more inappropriate thing to do, apart from maybe asking the gentleman to drop his swimming togs to see if he was indeed a member of the human race. As for feigning a, *cough*, chest infection, I don't think paddypower will be offering any odds when the oscars come up.

That all said, one moment that made me cackle out loud in particular, was his attempt to become the most patronising person ever, with his David Brent-esque mimicking of the Hare Krishna's dance along the streets of Moscow.

So it's worth a glance..even just for the laughs.
Rebecca_Hamilton on February 26th, 2009 12:04 pm

I think most of you are bringing your own negative attitudes to the world to this series. I am what could politely be considered an ardent non-believer with a general contempt for the human race but I thought the series was great. I didn't detect any of the snideness that so many of you claim to have seen. I genuinely think you are projecting onto him your own prejudices.

What's wrong with him being tolerant and 'nice'? You accuse him of being too tolerant and also not tolerant! Would it have been more enjoyable for you if he went around converting people? He never once hides that he is an Anglican minister which must mean he believes in something powerfully enough to have become one. Yet when he expresses that what he is seeing makes him uncomfortable you complain. I suppose all of you are free from any emotions or opinions in all circumstances? He isn't impartial and never claims to be. This is stated at the start of every episode.

Perhaps you should try to be as understanding and open minded as he is trying to be. He isn't perfect but is doing a far better job at trying to be than any of the commenters here. I believe that too many of you are in love with being cynical for it's own sake, self promotion "look at me and my ever so clever sceptical view point" rather than trying to understand what you are seeing.
nullifidian on February 26th, 2009 1:11 pm

I think most of you are bringing your own negative attitudes to the world to this series.

For example?

I am what could politely be considered an ardent non-believer with a general contempt for the human race but I thought the series was great.

Good for you. Glad you enjoyed it. I, and others, didn't so much.

I didn't detect any of the snideness that so many of you claim to have seen. I genuinely think you are projecting onto him your own prejudices.

I'm detached from all religious rituals. He has quite strong opinions, very often in favour of those closest to his own oeuvre, and incredulous to those that are markedly different. Hardly comparable stances, and most certainly not a case of "projection".

What's wrong with him being tolerant and 'nice'? You accuse him of being too tolerant and also not tolerant!

Nothing is wrong with him being "nice", if he was being "nice" by simply accepting their rituals as-is, whatever their form, and without deference to or comparison with his assumptions.

Would it have been more enjoyable for you if he went around converting people?

What an asinine question.

He never once hides that he is an Anglican minister which must mean he believes in something powerfully enough to have become one. Yet when he expresses that what he is seeing makes him uncomfortable you complain.

If his "something" is so powerful, then why should he even feel uncomfortable in the first place?

You seem accepting of his discomfort in the beliefs of others, yet incapable of accepting that his beliefs might make others uncomfortable. I myself don't care for his beliefs one way or another, but when he is being judgemental of others because of (rather than in spite of) his beliefs, yet refuses to consider his beliefs to the same standard, that's simply insincere duplicity.

I suppose all of you are free from any emotions or opinions in all circumstances?

Your supposition is wrong.

He isn't impartial and never claims to be. This is stated at the start of every episode.

Which hardly makes it universal television, does it? Why present ritual from around the world through the viewpoint of one with one particular niche predilection? Why not present each segment from the point of view of one of its own adherents? Or perhaps from the viewpoint of one with no preconceived biases for any of the eighty sects?

Perhaps you should try to be as understanding and open minded as he is trying to be. He isn't perfect but is doing a far better job at trying to be than any of the commenters here.

Perhaps if the programme was presented as purely an anthropological comparison of various religious ritual rather than through the narrow lens of a (admittedly, as you point out) judgemental christian we all would have learned more.

If Auntie offered to pay for me to take a year off and travel around the world meeting interesting people and observing their rituals, I can assure you that, were I to accept, I would be far more impartial.

I believe that too many of you are in love with being cynical for it's own sake, self promotion "look at me and my ever so clever sceptical view point" rather than trying to understand what you are seeing.

Believe what you like: it doesn't make it so. I would have been far happier is someone like Richard Attenborough or another without pre-existing biases had presented it. That would have made "understand[ing] what you are seeing" untainted by notional prejudices.

Just in case you didn't get the meaning of my observations — and I would like to presume those of the other commentators although they're free to correct me — it's the blatant hypocrisy that I have issue with.