Suffragan Bishop of Aston: The Reverend Anne Hollinghurst
From: Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street
First published: 2 July 2015The Queen has approved the nomination of the Reverend Anne Elizabeth Hollinghurst BA, MSt, to the Suffragan See of Aston.
The Queen has approved the nomination of the Reverend Anne Elizabeth Hollinghurst BA, MSt, Vicar of St Peter’s St Albans in the diocese of St Albans, to the Suffragan See of Aston in the diocese of Birmingham in succession to the Right Reverend Andrew Watson MA on his translation to the See of Guildford on 24 November 2014.
Notes to editors
The Reverend Anne Hollinghurst (aged 51) holds a BA from the University of Bristol and trained for the ministry at Trinity College, Bristol. She later studied for an MSt at the University of Cambridge. Prior to ordination she was a Youth Worker on the staff of the Hyson Green/ Basford Team Ministry in inner-city Nottingham. She served her title at Saviour’s Nottingham in the Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham from 1996 to 1999. She was ordained priest in 1997 and went on to become Chaplain at the University of Derby and Derby Cathedral in 1999. In 2005 she took up the role of Bishop’s Domestic Chaplain and Residentiary Canon of Manchester Cathedral in the Diocese of Manchester before moving to her current post as Vicar of St Peter’s Church, St Albans in St Albans diocese in 2010.
Anne is married to Steve, who is a researcher and trainer in mission and culture, and a part-time tutor for Church Army. Her interests include theatre and the arts, the environment, the history of Christian spirituality and contemplative prayer. She enjoys travel, fell-walking, and real ale pubs.
Birmingham diocesan wesbite The Revd Anne Hollinghurst announced as next Bishop of Aston
Two outstanding appointments on the same day.
That’s three evangelicals, all safe on equal marriage, in one week, more like it. A traditionalist Catholic for Edmonton and a charismatic for Islington will complete the picture so that the critical tradition of Anglican theology is further squeezed out of the House and College of Bishops. Gongs all round for the Diocesans concerned for cow-towing to Welby. Again.
James A: We’ve heard that the next Bishop of Edmonton will ordain women, so parishes will now be able to seek episcopal care from the Bishop of Fulham.
A number of parishes including my own have been busy passing resolutions over the last few weeks
It’s worth pointing out that most of these ‘evangelicals’ who are distressing James A and others so much would not have been recognized as ‘sound’ by evangelical luminaries such as John R.W. Stott, James Packer and much of the previous generation of conservative evangelicals who led the movement to the explosive growth which has resulted in these appointments. Of course, what goes around, comes around. When John Stott was appointed as rector of All Souls Langham Place in the early 1950s, evangelicals were held in scorn in the C of E, and evangelical bishops were few and far between. And… Read more »
Well said, James A, the bishops’ bench is being well and truly packed. Now the Church of England practices gender-neutral discrimination against its LGBT members. Progress of a kind, I guess, but not a kind I want anything to do with. Tim, definitions shift. In his turn, I doubt Stott would’ve been recognized as an evangelical by earlier generations. These appointments undoubtedly slot in to the current mold, that’s charismatic (though not in the common sense of the word), “sound” on sexuality, and that finds liberal scholarship alien (or scholarship, as I prefer to term a discipline marked only by… Read more »
James..at last someone sees what I have seen. The pattern emerges..moderate evangelicals but rock solid on ssm.
When the legislation to enable women to be ordained to the episcopate was seen through Synod in July last year, I remember one wise, experienced and just-about-to-retire bishop telling me that the ‘usual suspects’ (i.e. those feted by Ruth Gledhill & co as the first to be consecrated) had no cause to rejoice. “Justin cannot cope with dissent on the Board” was his comment. What we have seen this week, and in previous appointments, bears this out. Those hoping that the opening of the episcopate to women would signal a culture-change in the H & C of Bs were too… Read more »
Oh, Colin. So very cynical. So very, very accurate.
Yup, bang on Colin. Still, let’s not get disheartened: realpolitik cuts both ways. Any female bishop who condemns homosexuality is in an extremely vulnerable position. Whatever justifications she offers for liberating herself from tradition while leaving gay people chained, the distinction looks like naked self-interest, and she knows it. She can’t speak near as loud as Welby would like. Hopefully, as Welby keeps packing the House of Bishops, liberals will, at last, start standing up for themselves. Just compare our current quiescence with the fury of Southwark evangelicals when they perceived the reverse. Evangelicals get power. When liberals get it… Read more »
I hate to disabuse the conspiracy mongers, but Justin doesn’t control the appointment of suffragans. The names do of course get agreed with him – but the nominations are those of the Diocesan Bishop. So there is no co-ordinated approach on this. Our three London names emerged from the Diocese, and they happen to be the best people for the role. But no doubt folk here on TA will persist in their single lens approach to these matters. One’s support or otherwise for SSM isn’t the governing issue for choosing bishops. Some might wish that it was. I guess I… Read more »
I’m happy to hear that the theological imbalance is just a coincidence, and look forward to all the progressive appointments to come: by progressive, I do mean bishops willing to break collegiality, and advocate for change.
Can I assume that we haven’t long to wait for the first announcements?
Somehow, it’s not the highest priority to appoint people you would call “progressive”. Generous orthodoxy, yes. The rest we can do without.
Who does +Pete Willesden think he’s kidding? Does he really imagine that diocesan bishops will go through the hassle of appointing suffragans of whom Pope Justin will give the thumbs down – complete, I’ve no doubt, with veiled threats of refusal to consecrate. If that’s the game he has played in recent CNCs (St Edmundsbury & Exeter spring to mind – and don’t say it was secret, because it wasn’t!) I refuse to believe he is not bringing similar pressure to bear on other appointments. We know what the process is supposed to be. Don’t insult us by suggesting that… Read more »
As I said, I can’t convince you out of your conspiracy theories. But if there is a line, it’s not there to be towed – it would be toed – we’re not into haulage here, but into stepping towards a mark. (Come and see me after class!) And the line is about people who are missional and believe in the gospel as a power to save people through encounter with Jesus Christ. The major criterion for choosing a bishop in the ordinal is not, I fear, related to seeing where they stand on one particular issue. This is Thinking Anglicans,… Read more »
+Pete defines “generous orthodoxy” as “missional and believe[s] in the gospel as a power to save people through encounter with Jesus Christ.” I’m content with that. So why does that rule out people who are theologically “progressive”? I get the clear impression that what this really means is only people who can peddle the tribal vocabulary, who understand mission in one-dimensional terms, who continue to bang-out the same slogans irrespective of whether people are listening or not, who are insulated against the massive cultural shifts going on around the Church of England and… above all, the preservation of the institution… Read more »
The Church of England is alas becoming increasingly lop-sided. If we want evidence that the Established Church has now become nothing more than another Protestant Body then the latest comment from Bishop Broadbent is all the evidence that we need.
In his book of the same name (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Generous-Orthodoxy-Evangelical-Conservative-Contemplative/dp/0310258030) Brian McLaren describes himself as having a ‘generous orthodoxy’ in that he is:
“missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian”
I think I could live with that.
I wouldn’t agree with Father David’s second sentence but do whole-heartedly endorse the first. I wonder if Bishop Pete would explain to us why the process as currently implemented isn’t corrupt.
So the argument goes like this:
“People who support the views of some LGBT Christians aren’t being appointed as bishops”
“Therefore the process is corrupt.”
There seems to be a small leap of unstated inference in that particular progression…
Gross caricature, Bishop Pete, especially if it’s meant to cover Father David as well. Bishops really should do better.
I’m actually trying to understand why you think that “the process as currently implemented (is) corrupt.” Perhaps you’d care to fill in the gaps in your argument? What process? What corruption? Your comment makes no sense to me.
You’re not really trying to understand. You should at least admit that your last remark was cheap. There are no ‘gaps’ in my argument. It’s absolutely clear: if, along the line, apart from necessary concessions to FiF and Reform (which I support), more or less everyone appointed belongs to ‘friends of Justin or John’ and equally worthy or in my opinion better candidates who are not ‘friends’ etc. are not appointed, it’s corrupt. Sorry you can’t see it.
John Moles,
Professor of Latin,
Newcastle University.
Well, at least you’ve now exposed the unstated middle assumption (which I believe to be erroneous). If it were the case that those being appointed were, as you put it, “friends of..”, then indeed it might be accused of being a corrupt process. But in point of fact that isn’t what happens. Diocesans (via CNC) and Suffragans (via panels) are subject to interview and discernment against criteria set out in a role description. There isn’t some secret list of Justin’s mates. It’s you who have brought cheap assertion to the discussion, not me.
It’s a widely-held view, as you perfectly well know, not only on this thread – across virtually the whole spectrum of opinion – but among some senior C of E people (they’ve told me this is their view). But to focus on a specific example: could you please comment here on the treatment of Jeffrey John? Conscious as one is of one’s own frailties, one is continually amazed by the low ethical standards of our bishops (and archbishops).
Conspiracy Theorists (of whom there are a fair few in these debates at both ends of the spectrum) can believe a number of things before breakfast and reassert them endlessly on the internet until they become “true”. I’m unimpressed by generalisations about “senior” (whatever that means) CofE people and their views. The acid test is “were they present at the interview where this alleged corrupt practice took place?” I’m telling you that we interviewed candidates and that there wasn’t a list of “friends of…” to which we had to have recourse. I therefore take no heed of “the whole spectrum… Read more »
Hello Bishop Pete, lovely that the London team has taken shape and many thanks to all involved in the process. Contemplating the seven bishops, and remembering the bishop of Fulham’s words to me last year, “I have always been quite clear that my visits to St Mary’s – as to many other parishes across the Diocese – have been made in my capacity as Suffragan Bishop for the whole Diocese of London. I am glad to have the encouragement of all at senior staff level in the Diocese to function in this way, precisely to ensure that the ministry of… Read more »
There is a major issue for us in London about the need to reflect gender and ethnic diversity in our leadership. I’d love there to be a woman bishop on the team, but there were no vacancies in the two Episcopal Areas where that would be easiest to facilitate. The Transformations and Turning Up the Volume agendas are intended to address the women and BAME questions – and we shall be working very hard on these over the coming years.
Many thanks +Pete – v helpful reply. Happy Synoding.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I posted a reply to Bishop Pete’s last reply to me that the TA management evidently judged to be too peppery. However, I hope they will allow me to state loud and clear that I think ALL Bishop Pete’s responses have been evasive.