Speaking Up for Jeremy to help Mrs Jones

There was a certain irony picking up my copy of Third Way from the doormat and finding an article about hospital chaplaincy by Terence Handley MacMath entitled "Taking care for all in good faith" within it. Just minutes earlier to reading this article I had been reading a Changing Attitude article issuing a plea from Laurence Cunnington, hospital chaplain Jeremy Pemberton's husband, asking for people to contact various figures in the CofE with regard to the latest developments in this case where his licence giving Permission to Officiate has been revoked following his marriage.

The Changing Attitude article gives the latest developments in Jeremy's case explaining how he had recently been successful in gaining promotion to a new job as Head of Chaplaincy and Bereavement Services in a larger hospital nearer to home. However, to take up his new role he needs to receive a licence from the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, normally a routine matter. In this case it is far from routine because following the guidance given from the House of Bishops saying that Church of England priests are forbidden from entering same sex marriages the Bishop is refusing to issue a licence.

Cunnington makes the point very clearly that all has changed from the past, when permission was given, is that he has married. Previously a licence was given by a bishop who knew he was living with his partner. Indeed the guidance given by the House of Bishops suggests a licence would have been issued if it had been a Civil Partnership rather than a marriage he they had entered into. He also refers to the fact that this is a role where Pemberton will be employed by and paid by the NHS rather than the CofE.

At the moment I want to avoid a discussion of discipline and doctrine and instead refer back to the MacMath article. Within it there is a moving section which talks about the way in which "a healthcare chaplain's daily work involves encounters with people who have actively avoided the Church, often for years." It gives the fictional example of "Mrs Jones" and her experience of rejection over a baptism issue. It goes on to talk about the way healthcare chaplains have to be able to "absorb the anger that many people carry after an encounter with the Church, or with individuals within it" and how that "is a vocation of healing in itself."

Later in the article it talks about being able to make fruitful relationships with others and the importance of this within this sector.  This comes immediately prior to talking about the way in which chaplains will have "studied ethics in some depth".

To have been successful in this ministry and to have gained promotion Pemberton must have shown himself to be gifted in this environment. He is obviously able to connect with both patients and staff and to undertake careful study of ethics as well as come across as a team player. He will have put forward a positive view of the Church to people at their point of need.

Yet he now faces becoming rejected by the Church, just like our fictional Mrs. Jones because of rigidity over a piece of doctrine it is acknowledged there is a wide variety of opinion on.

As we pause I want to think about what this case is doing. Whilst it might be satisfying some in the Church it is probably reinforcing Mrs Jones prejudices as she reads about it in her local paper....where no doubt it will at some point emerge. It is also showing the NHS that the Church talks about inclusion and diversity, but is only prepared to play by their own rules....not those by which everybody else is agreed on. At a time when, as the MacMath article reminds us, there is debate about funding and Chaplaincy posts are being lost I am sure this debacle cannot be helpful.

I do understand though that central to this case are matters of doctrine and discipline. But so too are matters of compassion and justice. It was interesting watching the debate on Marriage and Civil Partnerships streamed from Methodist Conference recently, which is still available to watch.  Conference passed this resolution, which effectively means the Pemberton case would not arise within the Methodist Church in this country:

"The Conference resolves that, whilst recognising that the 1993 Resolutions on Human Sexuality would still apply to all relationships, the ruling regarding those entering civil partnerships, namely that there is no reason per se to prevent anyone within the Church, ordained or lay, from entering into or remaining within such a relationship, should also extend to those entering into legally contracted same sex marriages."

Within the debate around this resolution there were two contributions which were particularly striking. One was from a delegate who referred to the way in which voting for this resolution would put doctrine and discipline at odds with one another. The other was from a Presbyter who talked about the way in which, if this resolution weren't passed, she could be faced with a stark choice between ministry or marriage and how that is an unfair position to put anybody in.

Methodism chose to go the way of compassion and flexibility the Church of England has chosen to go the way of rules and rigidity.

I make this point because much is made within the debates on marriage and LGBT issues about partner churches, or those we seek to work in closer cooperation with. In Chaplaincy particularly ecumenicalism is a core element and in this post Jeremy would no doubt be working with partners from a range of denominations some of whom could legitimately be in relationships such as his without sanction. Yet, in holding fast to this position and taking this action, which need not have necessarily been taken - as chaplaincy with its different terms of employment from the NHS  has often had a slightly different approach taken towards it to Parish ministry as I understand it - the CofE is further defining itself away from a denominations it says it wants to move forward with.

Laurence Cunnington's post ends with a call for people to take up their pens to call for a change of heart on the part of the Bishop and an issuing of the licence.

I reproduce it here because I think it is important and I ask you to consider taking the action requested by Jeremy's husband:

"What I am asking

Some of you may think what Jeremy has done is wrong and that he is paying the penalty for that. You are entitled to your opinion and I ask you to do nothing. Those of you who agree with me, I would ask that you consider doing one or more of the following in order to show support and perhaps result in the acting Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham changing his mind and issuing Jeremy with some form of a licence. When writing, it may carry more weight if you mention that you are a Christian/member of the Church of England if you are.

You could write, expressing your views to:

The Right Revd Richard Inwood
Acting Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham
Jubilee House
Westgate
Southwell
NG25 0JH

Email bishop@southwell.anglican.org

I am not clear whether this latest decision was as a result of consultation with the Archbishop of York but, in any event, I would ask that you copy your correspondence to him at:

The Most Revd & Right Hon Dr John Sentamu
Archbishop of York
Bishopthorpe Palace
Bishopthorpe
York
YO23 2GE

Email office@archbishopofyork.org

The Acting Dean of Southwell Minster, Nigel Coates, is extremely supportive, for which Jeremy and I are most grateful. You may also wish to contact him to express your support at:

The Revd Canon Nigel Coates
Acting Dean of Southwell Minster
Minster Centre
Church Street
Southwell
NG25 0HD

Email dean@southwellminster.org.uk"