I think Bishop Wright quite insightful but his comparing the consecration of Gene Robinson to the Iraq war streches. According to Reuter's we long ago passed the 1,000,000 deaths in the Iraq war and as far as I know, there are none in the Robinson controversy.

Jim Naughton's piece was great. The more +Wright blathers, the more he comes across as a narcissitic imbecile. He should stick to writing books. God help us if this man ever gets an archbishopric.

Does Bp. Wright remember that, after the US, Great Britain was the largest component of the Coalition of the Willing, and Tony Blair's support of the war was one of the chief arguments the administration used for saying that the invasion was not unilateral? There are those who can say that "George Bush decided" etc. but an Englishman cannot be in that company.

Almost unbelievably irresponsible.

In one respect only is Tom Wright a force for unity: in his home diocese (where I live) practically all shades of Anglican opinion are united in considering him a rotten bishop.

Sadly, some will do and say just about anyting to justify their own personal prejudice ... be it against women, gay men, Americans, and -- I'd imagine -- a host of others.

What a truly irresponsible comment for a man of Bishop Wright's rank.

I knew of the suggestion that the job of Archbishop makes the holder go mad but I didn't think it applied to the see of Durham. Clearly this guy cannot keep his counsel.

This merely demonstrates that some souls can only comprehend gatherings in terms of conflict and power play.

Maybe some are having withdrawal symptoms as the usual ringleaders of conflict aren't there to set the agenda, and they were quite happy to play along on someone else's plans.

Typical dodging of responsibility. Some souls might not start the fight but don't mind cheering and egging on when others were having a go. Such lovers of conflict and violence are suited to warring neighbourhoods where hoodlums take out vendettas and traumatize the weak and vulnerable.

Hardly the kinds of souls who bring healing with their feet and tranquility with their presence.

John, I live in Durham diocese as well and I *used* to think very highly of +Tom having spoken to him several times at the Cathedral.

I don't understand why he voted against women bishops the other week and as a woman considering ordination found it rather hurtful but this comment about +Gene takes the biscuit. I can't believe a man of his learning and holiness could actually make such a crazy comparison.

I can only assume that the power of being the bishop of Durham and the way it means people tend to listen to him is going to his head! Maybe if he spent more time in his diocese and less time jetting here and there he'd be a bit more considered about what he says to the media...

"The bishop, who is highly respected and a close friend of the Archbishop of Canterbury, told The Sunday Telegraph that the presence of American bishops involved in the consecration of Gene Robinson, the first openly homosexual Anglican bishop, was proving divisive.

"“A lot of people here have a lot of questions about why the American bishops are here,” he said. “Those questions are in the room.""

They are there because they were invited. By your pal the ABC,who seems to have a middling better grasp of reality than you do, which is not saying much, because he can't see +Gene, who was legally and duly elected and consecrated like all the rest.

Why is their presence divisive? And how many of the TEC bishops present were consecrators? Can you name them?

Go back under the rock you live under.

Grandstanding, goofy grandstanding...very shabby stuff from his Durhamness.

I quite a d o r e the comments on the link!

For whom does Tom Wright speak? Jonathan Wynne-Jones, who proposes that +Dunelm is "highly respected [questionable] and a close friend of the Archbishop of Canterbury" seems to imply that the good Bishop of Durham represents the "official" C of E line. But N.T. Wright has been extraordinarily - and indeed suspiciously - promiscuous in his media appearances over the last few months. Had he not managed to ram his foot with such unerring accuracy right into his flapping episcopal gob on this occasion, I would suggest that this looks, on the surface, like pretty transparent attempt to torpedo the efforts of his "close friend" ++Cantuar. Is Tom Wright perhaps attempting to stir the pot a little? My suspicion is that Bishop Tom best represents the interests and opinions of Bishop Tom.

I guess the unintentional truth to be found in +Tom's Iraq analogy, is the obvious bit he left out... that a flawed invasion and occupation lead to the rise of a fundametialist dominated insurgency intent on creating an authoritarian theocracy as created in their image!

Katie,

Thanks.

'Maybe if he spent more time in his diocese and less time jetting here and there he'd be a bit more considered about what he says to the media...'

That's the point EVERYBODY agrees on.

Hope we meet sometime. I'm at St Margaret's (which, of course, he's never visited).

N T Wright reminds me of Corporal Jones in Dad's Army, shouting "Don't panic" when the only person panicking is him.

He's a person of intelligence and learning, but absolutely no judgment and a fatal smidgeon of arrogance which has been increasingly to the fore lately.

But this casual anti-American racism is really particularly unpleasant.

Bishop Wright's remarks are out of date, as if he is recycling last year's expostulations. Even his sophomoric way of referring to the Iraq War savors of hasty newspaper scanners in 2003-4. He should tune in a bit more to what seems to be going on at the Lambeth event right now. A bit of silence would be good for him.

There was a time when Durham Diocese got positive and lively publicity under Bp David Jenkins.
Alas, it's now a laughing stock.

Um - I believe that Mr. Naughton's piece on Bishop Wright was satire...

I am no Wright fan, but I don't believe he said the things attributed to him. Go back and reread the article.

Let's seen, now...

Lambeth 1978 called for "deep and dispassionate study of the question (sic) of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research."

Lambeth 1988 called for further study, "such study ... to take account of biological, genetic and psychological research being undertaken by other agencies, and the socio-cultural factors that lead to different attitudes in the provinces of our Communion."

Lambeth 1998 called for listening and for sharing of resources with respect to previous studies of homosexuality.

Now, thirty years after the beginning of repeated calls for study by Lambeth, I wonder if the Bishop of Durham might explain to us whether these requests from Lambeth were:

1) genuine requests for serious study;
2) a purely academic interest with no forseeable practical application;
3) a delaying tactic (until when or what conditions?);
4) a sham intended to fool gay and lesbians into thinking the Anglican Communion had the remotest interest in them, even if only as laboratory rats?

If (1), then perhaps his Lordship could explain why he is so surprised that some who have undertaken the study in good faith, and come to certain conclusions, have begun openly to act on those conclusions (whilst some act on them, but not openly, not to mention any Province by name in England)? And what precisely we should do when other Provinces whose study process stopped at Leviticus 18:22 are unable to grasp, let alone share, those conclusions?