Sam Margrave is a left-leaning former local councillor and has been a member of the Church of England’s General Synod for over a decade. Politically this makes him highly normative. And indeed, one would never have heard of him but for the fact that he believes in biblical and traditional ethics.
Perhaps it is because he has spent so much time in local politics that he has developed the habit of speaking his mind. Some traditionalists have long wondered if the welcome to speak your mind on any subject in the C of E falls short at the point where the mind is persuaded by the virtues of traditional sexual ethics.
It is not often that an Anglican layman receives a letter from both archbishops of the Church of England at once. But on 2 February, Sam Margrave received just such a letter. If a letter were capable of quaking with fury, this one would have come in at about 8 on the Richter scale of rage. Here is the letter:
As you will have read, the letter insists that some of his comments on Twitter – such as talking about the “Christian incompatibility of Pride” and stating that the C of E was “seeking to bless sin” by allowing blessings of same sex unions in the Church – had caused members of the C of E to feel intimidated, bullied and distressed. He has been accused of “lacking nuance”, and further: “We write to rebuke you… and ask that you publicly apologise for your language and the offence that it has caused.”
I don’t remember either an Archbishop of Canterbury or of York publicly rebuking anyone before. It’s not done. It’s not part of the Anglican lexicon. There are no rebukes for heresy, or public or personal immorality. There have been no rebukes directed towards high profile media LGBT+ priests like the one who wrote recently of how he and his gay partner had set out to deceive the Church about their nuptial arrangements.
Rebuking is just not done; the word is never used – until the Archbishops found themselves outraged at Mr Margrave’s lack of nuance.
Nuance is a value much appreciated in Anglican circles. It is prized as the virtue of not quite saying what you mean. It is often taken to be the practice of the talking with just enough obfuscation to give the impression you are being polite when you actually intend to be rather rude. It’s a very English middle-class thing (it always baffles Americans in particular). And Mr Margrave’s failure to use it has caused what looks like double-archiepiscopal apoplexy.
This probably happened because Mr Margrave actually wanted to say exactly what he meant, because he thinks it really matters.
The tide of sexual progressivism has been rising slowly but steadily in the C of E. But there is a symbolic moment where things change and are noticed. One such moment was an Anglican altar in Leicester which the lady vicar arranged to be covered by a rainbow pride flag instead of a liturgical colour and motif.
A number of people felt this was a step too far, and on their behalf Mr Margrave raised the matter at the General Synod to considerable progressive fury.
Worse even than that, he had caused significant public controversy when in July 2022 he put forward a Private Members’ Motion (PMM) for the General Synod entitled “Declaration of Christian Incompatibility of Pride”. Mr Margrave’s commitments also involved a pledge to run a campaign “against the sexualisation of children”.
In the two PMMs submitted, he asked the bishops to do a number of things: to raise concerns put to him by parents and professionals about images that show the sexualisation and grooming of children; to enforce laws in churches regarding the use of flags; to reflect on the relationship between queer theory and paedophilia; and to consider whether Pride is compatible with the Christian faith.
And it was the questioning of the link between the LGBTQI+ progressive agenda and the sexualisation of children that appears to be where the deepest animus against him he been generated.
No doubt Mr Margrave expected a certain amount of push back as he asked the legislative body of his Church to reflect on these charged matters. But two things he may perhaps not have expected were the death threats, and that the Bishop of Coventry, responding to pressure by LGBT campaigners, would report him to the police for hate crime.
It appears that even in Anglican theological discourse the line between lack of nuance and hate crime is thinner than might be expected.
Mr Margrave released a public statement commenting on the position he found himself in. It deserves to be quoted if only so that the reader can make up their own mind about his unwillingness or incapacity to bring a sufficient degree of nuance to bear:
“I am shocked, appalled and deeply hurt that the Bishop and diocese have resorted to reporting me to the police and have essentially thrown me under the bus.
“For standing against the sexualisation of children and the secularisation of the CofE, I have been repeatedly harassed and threatened. The impact on my well-being has been immense and the people in the Church who should be supporting me the most have closed ranks against me.
“I believe the CofE has been politically infiltrated by Stonewall and others. The promotion of queer theory, the acceptance of Pride flags, and now reporting any vocal opposition to the police, bares all the hallmarks of Stonewall and a repressive regime that wants to silence biblical truth at any cost.
“All I have wanted was to protect children and give a voice to parents by standing against the sexualisation and grooming of children, which was part of the manifesto I was elected on.
“I don’t hate anyone, this is not about hate, it has always been about truth and bringing positive change to the C of E.
“There is no natural justice and no complaints process within the Church to look at these matters. I’ve been bullied for representing people, and especially parents, in the diocese who have raised concerns with me.
“Many people who have attacked me are unable to distinguish between homosexual people and LGBTQ pride. They are two separate things. There are many people with same sex attraction who are totally opposed to what happens at Pride parades. One of the stated aims of the ‘Pride’ movement is to celebrate a wide variety of sexual lifestyles, which are diametrically opposed to Christian sexual ethics and doctrine of the Church of England.”
The timetabling this month of the debate that the C of E has undertaken on how it intends to progress the political and cultural imperative to bless gay relationships, while declining to embark on a change of its present doctrinal position which refuses to endorse them, has added fuel to the fire.
The archbishops’ joint letter in which they reach for the “rebuke, be silent and apologise” formula may well express a degree of frustration in these circumstances. It is certainly the case that within Anglican polity they have no institutional power over Mr Margrave.
What they may be hoping to exercise is moral authority to free themselves from his unstinting public invitations to reflect on the gap between what the Church officially teaches and what it is preparing to practice.
Their problem may be exacerbated by Mr Margrave’s un-nuanced suspicion that moral authority may be exactly what they lack, and that no amount of nuance can hide the growing gap.
(This article was updated to include the letter sent by the archbishops to Sam Margrave)
(Peterborough Cathedral flies “Pride” flag | Martin Brookes @flickr)
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.