Updated 9 pm
The Nottingham tribunal took a new, and nasty turn, today, when Bishop Richard Inwood reportedly expressed his opinion that same-sex marriages were “sinful” and “unwholesome”.
This immediately provoked a very strong reaction in social media, and both Changing Attitude and LGCM have published responses to it:
Tracey Byrne, Chief Executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) commented:
“As the Tribunal deciding the fate of Canon Jeremy Pemberton continues, we, as Christians and members of the LGBTI community, would like to express our undivided support to Jeremy. This support goes alongside our absolute disgust at the comments made today by Bishop Richard Inwood. No life-long, faithful, stable relationship – be it gay or straight – should be described in these terms. It’s not fair, not right and not Christian. Today’s comments from the Bishop, in which he described same-sex marriage as sinful and unwholesome, are harmful for the Church of England and its relationship with the LGBTI community. We believe an urgent response to these comments is needed from the Archbishops.”
Curiously, this happened just before the Church of England website published this Statement on Nottingham Employment Tribunal.
Statement on Nottingham Employment Tribunal
17 June 2015
“The Church of England supports gay men and women who serve as clergy in its parishes, dioceses and institutions. Jeremy Pemberton is one of many who currently serve and receive that support. The Church has no truck with homophobia and supports clergy who are in civil partnerships.The Church of England’s doctrine on marriage is clear. The Church quite reasonably expects its clergy to honour their commitment to model and live up to the teachings of the Church. Clergy do not have the option of treating the teachings of the church as an a la carte menu and only modelling those with which they personally agree.
The Church is currently involved in a process of shared conversations about a range of issues on sexuality in regions across the country. It is regrettable that this case risks undermining that process by invoking legislation which does not even apply to this situation.”
Update
The Communications Unit at Church House Westminster has now issued this partial unofficial record of today’s hearing. Worth reading all the way through. And now copied in full below the fold.
There are two media reports:
Nottingham Post Former bishop prayed for priest after revoking his licence due to same sex marriage
Press Association via the Guardian Archbishop of Canterbury ‘passed the buck over gay priest’s wedding’
And now also
Telegraph Archbishop of Canterbury urged clerics to stick to ‘line’ over rebel priest’s gay wedding
From the Church of England Communications Unit
Employment Tribunal
Following comments on social media concerning the evidence of Bishop Richard Inwood at the Nottingham employment tribunal, the following is a record of the relevant cross examination between Sean Jones, counsel for Jeremy Pemberton and Richard Inwood which took place on Wednesday 7 June.
Sean Jones: Does the Church recognise Canon Pemberton as being married
Bishop Inwood: Yes because it’s the law of the land.
Sean Jones: Just so I’m clear about the scope of the doctrine of the Church, does the Church consider that entering into a same sex marriage is a sinful act?
Bishop Inwood: I think at this point, because the Church has not changed its canons or legislation, it is certainly irregular and some may say it is sinful yes.
Sean Jones: And they would say Canon Pemberton should be asking God’s forgiveness for his marriage?
Bishop Inwood: I can’t say what they’d say, I don’t know
Sean Jones: If someone is living in sin, then they need God’s forgiveness. Doesn’t that seem clear?
Bishop Inwood: Yes
Sean Jones: How would the Church expect him to repent?
Bishop Inwood: I’m unclear what you’re asking about. Are you asking about individual views? Some people might think that it’s sinful and think he needs to repent.
Sean Jones: Do you think it’s sinful?
Bishop Inwood: That’s a very difficult question to answer. I’m not a judge of what is sinful in the sense that I would claim to understand the mind of God. We are currently engaged in discussion to see what the mind of God might be. It may be that there would be a change on the Church’s position in which case same sex marriage would not be a problem.
Sean Jones: So whether you think it’s sinful depends on the process.
Bishop Inwood: I am open to changing my mind if we got to that point.
Sean Jones: What’s your present mind?
Bishop Inwood: My mind is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t think it is part of the beliefs of the Church to enter into a same sex marriage.
Sean Jones: So is entering into same sex marriage sinful?
Bishop Inwood: The word sinful is such a difficult one to deal with really. Part of me wants to say yes because I think it’s against the Church, but part of me says no because Canon Pemberton entered into it with the view to it being wholesome.
Sean Jones: So you think the intention was wholesome?
Bishop Inwood: Yes, but I think the timing was wrong
Sean Jones: Do you think they got it wrong and entered into an unwholesome marriage?
Bishop Inwood: Yes because I think Canon Pemberton ought to have had regard to the teaching of the Church and held off on his marriage at this particular point and had regard to the Church’s teachings.
Sean Jones: One last question on this. So we’re clear, in your view would getting divorced now solve the problem or make it worse?
Bishop Inwood: That would make it worse.
Sean Jones: So it’s better that he remains married than divorced.
Bishop Inwood: Yes.
Sean Jones: Thank you.
I have suggested on the earlier TA post that the CofE started this case love-30 down based on my amateurish legal analysis. Based on today’s cross-examination of the bishop one might be tempted to say that the score is love-40. The bishop is meant to be trying to win this case and is backed by the not inconsiderable resources of the Church Commissioners. He has strayed miles from the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement which is meant to be his talk sheet. Surely he must have been given the press release from Church House in advance! I am sure the… Read more »
The Guardian has a rather different account of what Bishop Inwood said. (The below is all quoted from The Guardian’s article on its website.) Asked by Sean Jones QC, counsel for the respondent, whether the bishop thought Pemberton had committed a “sinful” act marrying partner Laurence Cunnington, he answered he was unsure. “The word sinful is such a difficult one to deal with really,” the bishop said. “Part of me wants to say yes, because it’s against church doctrine on marriage, and part of me wants to say no because I believe canon Pemberton and his partner entered into it… Read more »
Bishop Richard, please be aware that Marriage has already been redefined in common practice within our lifetime. No longer is there a fixed pattern of courtship, betrothal, marriage family and home. The separate elements occur in various alignments. And very recently the voters of all persuasions in Ireland have signified their approval of further variations from the former norm. Is our society so different? It is not suitable for the Church hierarchy to condemn any committed self-giving relationship as sinful, whoever has contracted it . The Church is not wise to meddle in secular unions, and who is the Judge… Read more »
Sadly I feel that remarks like that are injurious and unwholesome. What a terrible impression that gives to the nation at large. We are, after all, talking about people who seek to commit (before God and the community) to lifelong devotion, tender care, sacrifice, love and fidelity. And that is a sin? The Church of England leadership is at sixes and sevens, and does not represent the opinions of so many of its membership. Frankly remarks like this are an embarrassment, and simply serve to alienate reasonable and fair-minded people, and portray the Church as homophobic… …whereas many people in… Read more »
rjb, whom I greatly respect (not knowing who he is) has bewailed Jeremy P’s recourse to law
(citing Paul). But at least one good consequence of this process is that Bishop RI has now lost all credibility, both within his episcopate and within UK society as a whole.
This is not at all what the Guardian is reporting: Asked by the counsel for the respondent, whether the bishop thought Pemberton had committed a sinful act marrying partner Laurence Cunnington, he answered he was unsure. “The word sinful is such a difficult one to deal with really,” the bishop said.
“Part of me wants to say yes, because it’s against church doctrine on marriage, and part of me wants to say no because I believe canon Pemberton and his partner entered into it with a view to it being a wholesome thing.”
“Clergy do not have the option of treating the teachings of the church as an a la carte menu and only modelling those with which they personally agree.”
Really? So should bishops in the CofE model consecrating women, or not consecrating women? I was rather under the impression that there was precisely an a la carte there, or is that just the extra-cost cheese course on the table d’hote?
Honestly, I couldn’t make this up if I tried. The below from the Press Association/Guardian report: A bishop has been asked if the “hot potato” issue of a clergyman marrying his partner in a same-sex marriage was delegated by the archbishop of Canterbury, to avoid a Church of England split. Former acting bishop of Southwell and Nottingham Richard Inwood was asked if the Most Rev Justin Welby decided “to leave it (the issue) alone, politically,” in allowing individual bishops to handle such a breach of the church’s rule as they saw fit. The bishop replied: “To paraphrase the TV programme… Read more »
Now having seen the transcript of the exchange between the bishop and Sean Jones, Counsel for Jeremy Pemberton, it seems he fell into a trap set for him. Had he stayed on the high ground of the language of the House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage (14 Feb 2014) there would have been no need to rise to the bate of ‘sin’ and ‘unwholesomeness.’
I’ve read quotes of Bishop Inwood’s remarks in the Nottingham Post:
“During the hearing, The Rt Revd Inwood said he believed Mr Pemberton married too early, as the church are still discussing their stance on same sex marriage.
He said: “I would hope my mind is open to change if we get to that point.”
In other words, Bishop Inwood’s position seems to be that if the institution changes the rules, then Pemberton’s marriage would no longer be sinful and unwholesome.
I don’t know what to say to that.
Someone needs to get the phone number of the communications unit at church house westminster, and let them know that satirists have taken over their website and are posting things that can only be intended as jokes. I mean, seriously, that evidence cannot possibly by the work of someone who isn’t playing it for laughs, can it? It boils down to “this marriage is sinful but not as bad as getting divorced”.
It seems from reading these documents that Bishop Inwood deserves a degree of sympathy for the impossible situation he finds himself in, though from another perspective no sympathy, as he should have seen this coming. To be questioned under oath my a clever QC on a matter of this complexity must be a truly awful experience. I am sure, for example, that his “prayers and good wishes” were genuinely offered, but it is easy for them to appear insincere under questioning. The church as a whole, and especially its senior leadership is in an impossible situation, and this former Assistant… Read more »
Reading the “record of the relevant cross examination” it might seem we did go off slightly half-cocked…
While Inwood fell victim to leading questions on cross, I have zero sympathy for him. He brought this on himself. He was under no obligation to refuse Pemberton a license. If he had been, he should either have defied Church House, or resigned in protest.
I find the Church of England’s cowardly evasiveness even more repugnant than Christians who say, plainly, that homosexuality is a sin. At least they’ve the courage of their convictions, say what they mean, and mean what they say.
I am surprised about the level of surprise, whether this bishop went into mealy-mouthed words or said it plainly. The Church of England has been given its right in sacred and ministerial areas to be discriminatory. The problem is that this should not impact at all on NHS employment. The NHS needs to have a legal method to know when a refusal to licence is discriminatory in nature so that it can grant the employment regardless. It’s also time that the Church of England became the Church in England and thus as a principle kept its discrimination purely to itself.
So a prayer to “to have and to hold from this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part” now makes one a “rebel.” Well, there we are, aren’t we?
To state that to be anti-homosexual practice or marriage is homophobic is an over simplification, as I remember Jeremy Pemberton when he held that position.
There are undoubtedly many people, who have prejudice based on revulsion, but there are others who base their convictions on the Word of God and how it has been consistently taught and expounded for nearly two thousand years.
(Roman) Catholic theologians (USA) in a recent CTSA meeting discussed matters connected with the ‘sensus fidei’ and the ‘sensus fidelium.’ You can read an account of their meeting here: http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/catholic-theologians-ponder-sensus-fidelium-annual-convention One pertinent remark by a leading contributor – “The need for reception of teachings by the People of God is a counterbalance to this modern need for certitude, Burkhard said. “In some situations the real question is not ‘Is it true?’ but ‘Is it life-giving?’ ” he said. “ Canon Pemberton’s marriage rests upon his and his partner’s individual ‘sensus fidei.’ Does Bishop Richard think he, as Bishop, is enunciating… Read more »
“The Church of England supports gay men and women who serve as clergy in its parishes, dioceses and institutions. Jeremy Pemberton is one of many who currently serve and receive that support” quoth the Church House Comms unit. Once the laughter has died down and the tears have been wiped away, does this not require a massive reality check? Who on earth do they think they are kidding? The Archbishops have lost all credibility on this issue, along with others (e.g. Renewal and Reform) and are simply setting themselves up to become a public laughing stock – even though they… Read more »
I really can’t understand why poor old retired Richard Inwood is in the dock allegedly saying unwise things that definitely don’t promote his case? How come he was appointed Acting Bishop of the vacant diocese in the first place? Surely when a Diocesan retires the suffragan becomes Acting Diocesan, so why wasn’t the Suffragan Bishop of Sherwood given the reins, was there some special circumstance or reason which prevented this usual arrangement taking place? They sometimes say that life is stranger than fiction. Presently I am reading “Unseen Things Above” by Catherine Fox where the Suffragan Bishop of Barcup (Bob… Read more »
“It’s also time that the Church of England became the Church in England and thus as a principle kept its discrimination purely to itself.” Couldn’t agree more, Pluralist, needs to be an iron curtain between church and state. Church of England, as currently set up, is worst of all worlds, with all the freedom of disestablishment, but all the power and influence of being part of the state. If the church were finally cast adrift, it could only help cut down on its imperialist mindset, which veers between wallowing in vicarious guilt for the sins of others, and expecting its… Read more »
IO, I think the question of a la carte cannot be compared to the women bishops arrangements, because they are in all parts sanctioned by the CoE and have come about through a formal internal process. We would need to find other examples where priests have not followed what the church believes to be its official teachings without being punished for that. Vestments, anyone? To those who say that Bishop Inwood fell into a trap set for him, yes, he probably did. Please spare a thought for all the traps the church’s legal team has set for the previous witnesses.… Read more »
I think that Pemberton should not be paying his lawyer. The lawyer should be paying him for the opportunity to publicly shoot fish in a barrel. The Church is not so much shooting itself in the foot as amputating both legs below the knees
As others have remarked elsewhere, the sentence in the official Church House statement:
“It is regrettable that this case risks undermining that process by invoking legislation which does not even apply to this situation.”
is at best unwise, and at worst public comment on a sub judice matter.
As I read it, Bishop Inwood was saying that the problem was in going against current Church teaching, rather than the particular thing done. I don’t think he would say that a same-sex marriage between two lay people would be sinful (see his answer to “So is entering into same sex marriage sinful”). But clergy, at their ordinations make promises to obey Church teaching – so as he sees it the sin would be promise breaking. If and when the teaching of the CofE changes, the ordination vows would not be imperilled by a same-sex marriage. This seems to me… Read more »
May I just correct some English here:
“There are undoubtedly many people, who have prejudice based on revulsion, but there are others who base their convictions on the Word of God”
Surely that should read:
“There are undoubtedly many people, who have prejudice based on revulsion, but there are others who base their prejudice on [sic] the Word of God”
May I also just correct some English here:
The first comma should not be there.
The Bishop said that Canon Pemberton’s marriage is sinful, because it flouts the Church’s teaching, and unwholesome, because it came about before the Church changed that teaching. Whether these are the Bishop’s complete views is another question. He may actually think that the marriage is sinful and unwholesome for additional reasons. But these are the answers he gave, after being well prepared for this hearing by competent counsel. The answers the Bishop gave are basically the Church asserting its power. Sin is what the CofE says it is–even if Parliament has just enshrined same-sex marriage as a legal right. (Given… Read more »
Should that be correct the punctuation rather than the English?
Jeremy non P,sometimes I wish Thinking Anglicans had a “like” button.
Father David at 0735 on Thursday: “Surely when a Diocesan retires the suffragan becomes Acting Diocesan, so why wasn’t the Suffragan Bishop of Sherwood given the reins, was there some special circumstance or reason which prevented this usual arrangement taking place?” There was. The Bishop of Sherwood initially undertook the role of Acting Diocesan (in addition to his duties as suffragan) but after some time had to take sick leave for several weeks. The Metropolitan decided that it would be unfair to expect him to undertake both roles in the diocese in addition to his national responsibilities in the College… Read more »
Apparently there are a few things that an “acting diocesan” can’t/doesn’t do. Patronage is one of them. Another (I gather) is to give consent for those who have been divorced and have a former spouse still living to be ordained – and that is interesting in relation to where the decision in this case happened to fall.
Daniel Berry NYC: In other words, Bishop Inwood’s position seems to be that if the institution changes the rules, then Pemberton’s marriage would no longer be sinful and unwholesome. I don’t know what to say to that.” That’s because CoE is far more hierarchical than TEC. We tolerate equal marriage in some dioceses, even though the canons haven’t been changed yet, as the movement of the Spirit, to which the church will catch up. CoE leadership don’t seem to recognize the movement of the Spirit until they’ve said so… Order trumps conscience and Spirit, in my view. It’s hard to… Read more »
Surely the ‘church,’ in common parlance, is a man-made religious organisation and as such can change its stance as it wishes. It doesn’t mention God a lot. On the other hand, the ‘Church’ of Biblical definition is not an organisation but a group of people, irrespective of denomination, who know God through Christ and who believe the Bible to be God’s inspired Word and therefore not subject to man’s revision. Individuals comprising that ‘Church,’ in adhering to Biblical tenets may have some unpopular stances, but these are unfairly interpreted as ‘judgments.’ This is a misunderstanding of terminology, (evidenced also in… Read more »