In general, it would be a grave mistake; as regards Canterbury, Anselm
always excepted, and Williams and Temple aren't bad. More generally, of the
various Doctors of the Church, plenty are bishops, but a rather smaller
number are Archbishops or Metropolitans: Clement (x 2: Alexandria,
Jerusalem), Athanasius, Anselm, Gregory (x 2: Nazianzus, Rome), Chrysostom
...
It's not so much that bishops were good at theology as that at one time
theologians tended to be appointed bishops. This is less common these days.
(The Romans, of course, grant ex cathedra authority to the Bishop of Rome,
but even they don't think that makes him a significant theologian; more
that they think God will keep him from saying anything irretrievably stupid
ex cathedra. Also, as an observed characteristic, in theological works,
recent Romans tend to argue heavily from authority and Anglicans from
reason. But that leads off into other byways..)
no subject
In general, it would be a grave mistake; as regards Canterbury, Anselm always excepted, and Williams and Temple aren't bad. More generally, of the various Doctors of the Church, plenty are bishops, but a rather smaller number are Archbishops or Metropolitans: Clement (x 2: Alexandria, Jerusalem), Athanasius, Anselm, Gregory (x 2: Nazianzus, Rome), Chrysostom ...
It's not so much that bishops were good at theology as that at one time theologians tended to be appointed bishops. This is less common these days.
(The Romans, of course, grant ex cathedra authority to the Bishop of Rome, but even they don't think that makes him a significant theologian; more that they think God will keep him from saying anything irretrievably stupid ex cathedra. Also, as an observed characteristic, in theological works, recent Romans tend to argue heavily from authority and Anglicans from reason. But that leads off into other byways..)