The Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, today announced that he would be leaving his post on 31 August in order to return to academia. After nearly seven years in post he is to become Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. Is he right to go at this point?
According to the press notice, Tom said, ‘This has been the hardest decision of my life. It has been an indescribable privilege to be Bishop of the ancient Diocese of Durham, to work with a superb team of colleagues, to take part in the work of God’s kingdom here in the north-east, and to represent the region and its churches in the House of Lords and in General Synod. I have loved the people, the place, the heritage and the work. But my continuing vocation to be a writer, teacher and broadcaster, for the benefit (I hope) of the wider world and church, has been increasingly difficult to combine with the complex demands and duties of a diocesan bishop. I am very sad about this, but the choice has become increasingly clear.’
This is one of those announcements that makes you miserable and cheers you up in the same moment. He will be badly missed as a diocesan bishop and member of the General Synod and House of Lords – but he will now be able to produce more books, do more lecturing and broadcasting and continue to educate the rest of us whose brains aren’t big enough.
Tom published the superb The New Testament and the People of God in 1992, followed it up in 1996 with Jesus and the Victory of God, did a minor (800 page) diversion into The Resurrection of the Son of God in 2003… but has been promising another three volumes ever since. Given the nature of these first three books (of an intended five-part series which grew to six planned volumes), the Church needs the next three. Of course, since being Bishop of Durham, Tom has managed to write what seems like a book every week, numerous articles and papers, lecture around the world and pop up on the telly alot. His output and capacity for creative work is nothing short of remarkable.
It is perhaps sad that it is too difficult to combine being a diocesan bishop with academic work – he is not the first academic bishop to find the tension too great – but his choice means both a loss and a gain for the wider church. It is perhaps also evidence of the load carried by diocesan bishops in an increasingly demanding world and church – just consider the amount of legislation that now has to be embraced by the Church…
Tom will go with my prayers and gratitude. And a plea to get the remaining books written so I and others can continue to learn, be stimulated, encouraged and challenged.
April 27, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Thanks for this Nick. I was disappointed when I first heard the news but as I thought about it I could see why he has made the decision and like you look forward to him completing his series. I’m hoping that when +Stephen Cottrell comes to Chelmsford he will still be able to keep up his writing etc. and not allow the diocesan job to squeeze out the things that really inspire him.
April 28, 2010 at 2:26 pm
[...] add Bishop Nick Baine’s commentary also, note that he picks up the same point as Clayboy: Bishop Nick Baines – Wright Right If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a [...]
April 28, 2010 at 3:36 pm
It is Bishop Tom’s unsung work to safeguard our constitution as a member of the House of Lords that will be most difficult to replace and will loeave a huge gap at this time especially. However such a man of integrity must have weighed these matters and who are we to say which is most important.
April 28, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Until I visited this website I didn’t realise that bishops wrote books. I’d have thought they’d be too busy shepherding their flocks. Hence, I can understand Bishop Wright’s dilemma.
I hope you don’t take offence at this question Nick, but do you profit financially from the books you write?
April 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Trevor, writing books might actually be part of ‘shepherding their flocks’.
No offence taken by your question – whihc I will happily answer when you have answered mine of several weeks ago about your anonymity.
April 29, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Nick, please clarify your concerns regarding my ‘anonymity’. I have told you my real name, so I’m not anonymous. If I told you my surname I’d still be ‘anonymous’ in the sense that you don’t know me personally. How much biographical information do you want before you’ll talk to visitors to your blog?
April 29, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Trevor, even a surname helps. Some people hide behind anonymity, then write in what I might call ‘superior’ or ‘judgmental’ terms. I am sometimes tempted to not approve some comments because of this (although I only very rarely do so). I often wonder what lies behind your comments and questions.
To answer your earlier question: I feed all media fees into my Discretionary Fund (for supporting clergy and funding some special projects). I don’t make enough money from books to make it count. I also pay tax on the money I put into the DF. What other clergy/bishops do with their royalties is up to them: they did the work and wrote the books and the money rightly goes to them.
May 1, 2010 at 5:28 pm
[...] just for extras, my observations on the resignation of Tom Wright as Bishop of Durham and on the electoral campaign in the UK come together (sort of) in Tom’s [...]
May 3, 2010 at 8:37 pm
An alternative view:
Tom Wright has been a divisive and generally poor bishop.
He is a flatulent and self-indulgent writer.
He has realised that he will go no higher in the C of E establishment. Hence ‘the hardest decision’ (I don’t think).
May 4, 2010 at 11:25 am
John, I assume you have said this to Tom’s face? Or do you hide behind anonymity? Your comment about ‘going no higher’ is absurd – as any conversation with Tom Wright during the last seven years proves.
May 4, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Nick,
I haven’t said it to his face, although – under certain circumstances – I would.
Talk of ‘hiding behind anonymity’ is absurd. If your policy is that people cannot be formally anonymous (lots of people know who I am), you should arrange your ‘comments’ technicalities accordingly.
Lots of people in the Durham diocese – not only ‘liberals’ – think that Wright’s departure is a good thing. Perhaps now we might get a bishop who supports his priests, his diocese and his churches. We haven’t had one here. Too much ego, too much bullying, too much uncharitableness (his treatment of some of his gay people, including priests, has been disgraceful and – in the opinion of gay Anglicans who knew him in Oxford days – opportunistically hypocritical), too much globe-trotting and pontificating.
John Moles.
May 5, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Re John Moles’ comment.
Nick, you can’t say you didn’t ask for it!
Re the broader argument:
the basic underlying question remains a significant one.
What is a bishop for?
What is the blend of commitment to a diocese versus commitment to the wider church?
Is there any working agreement on this e.g. “I’ll spend 30 days a year in commitment to the wider church, and 11 months a year in commitment to the diocese?”
If so, who would you make that agreement with?
Should there be a working agreement?
Should this be discussed beforehand?
Did anyone ask Tom Wright before he was appointed what his level of commitment to the diocese would be? Who would have this conversation?
Bla, bla, bla.
No easy answers, I suspect.
Though, more pertinently, will this conversation happen with the future Bishop of Southwark? Who should decide whether such a conversation is desirable?
I don’t know the answer, but I hope someone in the appropriate position’s discussing it.
May 7, 2010 at 11:02 am
I ought in justice to say that one understands that the above issue was discussed at TW’s interview and that he asked for one third of his time off for his scholarship/writing. This was agreed (one member of the panel apparently then wanting to ask: ‘Will you accept a cut of one third from your salary?’). The observations I have made do not depend on this point.
I want to make it clear that, although myself holding ‘liberal’ views, I am a ‘Broad Church’ Anglican – to the point of applauding Bishop Nick’s recent proposal that perhaps ‘Anglican Ordinariates’ should be set up for FiF people WITHIN the C of E. I am also entirely happy that people should propound their own ‘line’ with vigour. But also, qua ‘Broad Church’, I think there are limits beyond which one should not go. My fundamental criticism, which includes all the other points, is that TW either does not understand, or does not accept, this. Such people, especially when they are bishops, promote disunity and bitterness. TW is a very disliked figure in some circles: there are Evangelicals just as Evangelical as he who are not so disliked. That is because they conduct themselves with restraint and with compassion for all.
May 7, 2010 at 2:10 pm
John, that is a helpful clarification. Thank you.
May 7, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Nick,
Thank you for your forbearance.
The choice, as ever, is between those who include and those who wish to exclude.