Friday, 11 July 2014

Jeremy Pemberton, 'Gay Marriage' & a Messed Up Church

‘The Church of England recommends civil partnerships for gay clergy…the Church of England has ALWAYS recommended civil partnerships for gay clergy…’

Ok, so perhaps it’s a wee bit naughty to suggest there's something Orwellian in the House of Bishops' thinking around civil partnerships and equal marriage. I’ve been involved in the C of E long enough to presume my senior colleagues adopt a hand-wringing bimbling through issues rather than an overthought Soviet-diktat approach.

However, the emergent events surrounding Canon Jeremy Pemberton (see Church Times story here) should give all of us cause to pause and think. When I say ‘all of us’ I don’t just mean church people, but that wider group of people, of faith and none, who hold an interest in civil society and the pursuit of a compassionate, intelligent and generous society and public square.

Earlier this week Jeremy’s husband, Lawrence, signaled that Jeremy’s promotion to a new NHS Chaplaincy job had been de facto blocked by the acting Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham, the Rt Revd Richard Inwood. Lawrence asked that people write to the bishop and Archbishop John Sentamu indicating support for Jeremy. (Further info here.)

For those not on the inside of the machinations of the C of E – which frankly is basically most people – Pemberton’s role as a chaplain/Head of Spiritual Care in a hospital is a job paid for and contracted under the auspices of NHS, an organization committed to equal opportunities. However, it is standard practice for the NHS to request a Bishop’s Licence for that chaplain. This enables the chaplain to serve specifically as an Anglican priest in the Diocese in which a hospital is set. Licensing is something which is part of the habitus or warp and weft of being a serving Anglican priest in any setting in England.

Bishop Inwood has denied this license. This means that Pemberton cannot take up his new job.

It is the prerogative of the bishop to issue or withhold licences. The withholding of licenses is - as I understand it - a practice which happens under circumstances in which a priest has been disciplined, or has broken Canon Law in specific ways.

What particular transgression of discipline or behaviour has Pemberton committed in the estimation of the bishop? He has legally married.

That’s right. He has married. He has exercised his legal right, contracted using laws signed under the assent of the Head of State, the Queen (who also happens to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England).

The point of contention for the bishop is that Pemberton has married a man. From the point of view of law, that matter is incidental; that is, the gender of the person is no longer of any significance as a bar to the contracting of a marriage. Yet, despite Pemberton exercising his legal right and entering into a relationship which (whether undertaken in a church or not ) the Church has considered a social and human good, Pemberton has had his capacity to work as a cleric in a secular setting effectively denied.

In the eyes of the acting Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham Pemberton has seemingly – in getting married – engaged in conduct unbecoming to a (gay) Clerk in Holy Orders. What he should have done is contract a Civil Partnership (or remain in one if already contracted.)

Let’s be clear here. If I understand the House of Bishops’ advice and Inwood's reading of it aright, the ethically correct behavior for those gay clergy who wish to place their committed, faithful and stable monogamous relationships on a legal footing is to contract a civil partnership rather than get married. That is, there is a moral imperative on gay people not to engage in the kind of relationships which the church has said is the right kind of relationship for those who wish to make a lifelong commitment to each other.

What will bewilder non-religious people who read this blog is how on earth the State church of England has got itself into such a horrible mess. The mess runs as follows: when an ordained person exercises their legal right to commit to another human being in love and faithfulness, and this person happens to be of the same gender, this leads to them being denied work in a setting subject to the Equalities Act 2010. It rather bewilders me and I’m ‘of the church.’

I have no idea what the future holds. I already sense that the overwhelming majority of people in England have already switched off the internecine machinations of its State Church. We’re not even a laughing stock. People have to acknowledge your existence for you to be a laughing stock (trust me – as someone who’s experienced mockery and bullying for being trans – I know).

I am gutted for Jeremy (and Lawrence) at a human level. However I am also gutted that the prospects for an institution that can offer so much seem so bleak. I want people to know God. I also still dream that people switched off by an institution that has worse LGBT policies than an organisation as crummy as McDonalds might come to recognise the C of E as a beacon of hope. That seems a pretty forlorn prospect.


  1. If he'd been a Catholic he would have had to leave the clergy no matter who he married.

    1. That might have been relevant, James, if Canon Pemberton had been a Catholic of the Roman Church but he isn't. He's a priest in the Church of England whose decision regarding the legitimacy of marriage for its priests is crystal clear:


      BISHOPS, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

    2. That's fair, although I was also thinking of the New Testament passage 1 Corinthians 7 were Paul encourages us not to marry.

    3. You are wrong Graham, Gods' Law only permits sexual intercourse between a man and a women. Two men or two women is an abomination in God's sight O.T. and forbidden in the New. The appalling mess that the C.O.E. has got itself into is because it wants to be popular and prefers to please men rather than be obedient to the scriptures. sadly this has gone on for years. So three cheers for a Bishop prepared to stand on the truth however unpopular that might make him.

  2. The Church of England is a mockery of Christianity. Since when did God get demoted and man take over as supreme leader of the Church? Ethics and popularity contests with atheists are now more important that following God's word. That's why I will never set foot inside a C of E church, apart from to witness some atheist friends getting married of course. That is what the C of E has become. A church for atheists. God is no longer in charge.

    1. well spoken, I too am seriously considering my position in the c.o.e. in the light of the apostasy being handed down, even into evangelical churches.

  3. Are you interested in attaining enlightenment and personal growth?

    Try doing the following two yoga exercises daily:

    Sodarshan Kriya Yoga

    Sat Nam Kriya Yoga

    Are you interested in preventing and curing cancer, Alzheimer's, high blood pressure, and many other common diseases using an inexpensive, natural indian spice called turmeric?

    Take two teaspoons full of turmeric powder mixed with a cup of warm soy milk (or any kind of non-dairy milk that you'd like). Also eat 2 or 3 black peppercorns along with it, as the pepper helps your body absorb the turmeric better. You also need fat for the turmeric to be absorbed properly, which is why drinking turmeric mixed in water won't work. You have to drink it with milk or some fatty based liquid. Do this twice a day and you will start to feel amazing within a couple of weeks.

    Lastly, please read the following two ancient indian scriptures which talk about the divine love of God:

    Ananda Vrindavan Campu PDF

    Govinda Lilamrta PDF

    If you have any questions about yoga, meditation, spirituality, or natural cures, feel free to email me at

  4. "this leads to them being denied work in a setting subject to the Equalities Act 2010"

    So this might be a pedantic point, but it is crucial to understanding the legalities correctly.

    By not granting a licence Bishop Inwood is NOT denying "work in a setting subject to the Equalities Act 2010". The NHS Trust in question is under no statutory obligation to demand a Church of England licence for the position. Neither is Bishop Inwood demanding that the NHS Trust employ someone with a Church of England licence. It is the NHS Trust who are at fault here for demanding of their (potential) employee some qualification that other employees doing the same job do not have. I repeat, there is no statutory obligation for the NHS to demand denominational recognition of its Chaplaincy Managers.

    Of course, the Church of England has a legal ability to deny employment on grounds connected with sexual orientation (and this is enshrined in the very Equalities Act you reference). But the Church of England is not doing the employing here. One line of recourse to Pemberton is to challenge Bishop's Inwood's refusal to grant a licence on the grounds that entering a same-sex marriage is not due reason to exercise such a refusal. But let's be clear that challenging Bishop Inwood because he has "stopped Pemberton getting a job" is an argument that is going nowhere, since Bishop Inwood is not the employer in this instance and the decision by Sherwood Trust to not employ Pemberton because he doesn't have a licence has not been demanded of them by Inwood - it is a choice they have volitionally made.