Victoria Coren has written this: Bashing the Bishop.
… Dr. William’s oeuvre has caught the imagination, snatched headlines and triggered a national debate. Maybe we should swap jobs? Except I’d make a terrible archbishop.
It’s exactly what he should be doing, of course: getting stuck in to matters of public ethics, questioning the national conscience, being a strong and relevant voice on issues of social concern. I can understand why some in the press feel obliged to disagree with him – and this is a good thing; we all want to live in a country of robust debate – but the way that some have slammed him for speaking out at all is just embarrassing. It’s like they don’t understand who he is, what he does or what the role’s about…
(The NoTW article she mentions is here.)
Paul Vallely wrote at the Independent on Aid and what the Archbishop should have said.
Those naughty people at the New Statesman. Apparently when the Archbishop of Canterbury arrived to do his week as guest editor he was planning to write the main editorial on aid to Africa. But Rowan Williams was persuaded to offer, instead, his thoughts on the state of the coalition government one year in. The paper got the headlines it wanted but we have been deprived of his thoughts on the place we used to call the dark continent. So what might he have said? And why does it matter?
At least one other bishop has spoken up in support of the archbishop:
John Pritchard of Oxford is reported in the Witney Gazette Bishop John joins attack on ‘disastrous’ Government cuts.