I’ve been feeling emotionally disturbed and ill-at-ease all week. On Sunday I posted a comment and link to a newspaper article to the Changing Attitude Facebook group about the outcome of the CDM pursued against a friend of mine, Geoffrey Riba-Thompson, and the Bishop of Southwark’s five year ban on his ministry.
On Monday I was somewhat surprised to discover that Sam Margrave (unsurprisingly not a member of the group) had posted hostile comments on the thread.
Sam Margrave
Who is Sam Margrave? If you are a member of General Synod you will know only too well. He is a member of Synod for the Diocese of Coventry. At the February meeting of General Synod Mr Margrave had tabled a number of hostile amendments to the Bishop’ motion on the LLF process. He is notorious for his confrontational approach and has come under huge criticism for his controversial campaigning. His amendments were the first to be taken in the debate. All were defeated. Despite this, he attempted to disrupt the debate all the way through.
Mr Margrave has ‘history’. On February 1, 2023, Anglican Ink posted an article by Angela Minichiello Williams describing how Sam Margrave “had been reported to the police by his bishop for the hate crime of promoting Biblical sexual teachings.”
The Bishop of Coventry, the Right Reverend Dr Christopher Cocksworth, had reported Sam Margrave to the police regarding his 'highly offensive comments on social media'. Bishop Christopher said the diocese was “working to introduce a Code of Conduct with sanctions for non-compliance to our own Synod. We have not taken these actions lightly and have only done so in view of the sheer number of complaints received from third parties, and only after other avenues have been exhausted, including repeated offers of support to the individual concerned.”
You may now understand why I was shocked and disturbed to discover that Mr Margave had thought it appropriate to post comments to the Changing Attitude England Facebook group. I deleted the messages, blocked Mr Margrave from posting anything further and sent him a message telling him that he had been blocked.
Ian Paul, Charles Read, and David Runcorn
But there was more on Monday from another member of General Synod and CEEC. My friend David Runcorn, an evangelical who describes himself as a ‘Free-Range priest in the Church of England’ and was formerly the Associate Director of Ordinands and Warden of Readers in the Diocese of Gloucester, posted on his Facebook page. He was taking a brief mid-Lent break in his Lenten Facebook fast to share something particularly in his prayers.
He was concerned by the current behaviour and strategies of the CEEC. In recent years, he said, it has become increasingly conservative and has narrowed its terms of membership. David posted a link to the ViaMedia article What is The Church of England Evangelical Council Up To? Some Autobiographical Reflections by Charles Read, also an evangelical, as a helpful reflection on what was happening.
I began to read through the comments on David’s post. The second comment had been posted by Ian Paul, a high profile member of General Synod and the CEEC, a blogger on Psephizo and another disruptive presence in debates about LGBTQIA+ Christians in the Church of England.
Ian Paul commented that what David Runcorn had written was factually untrue, that “CEEC has not become 'increasingly conservative and narrow'. If it had become increasingly conservative and narrow, Ian would not be welcome in it, he wrote. He continued: It does continue to represent the 'variety of expressions that have always been the evangelical tradition'—but denying the clear teaching of Jesus that marriage is between one man and one woman has never been part of that 'evangelical tradition'. So many have welcomed that clarity—and as a result both CEEC and EGGS (the conservative Evangelical Group on Synod) have grown rapidly in recent months.”
David Runcorn said he knew Ian had read the recent letter in the Church Times from 18 evangelicals in General Synod who are saying the same thing as Charles Read in his ViaMedia blog and who are no longer members of CEEC and EGGS precisely because it has become in effect a narrow conservative evangelical sect. David continued “Your response to me and them is simply to deny it. If you are not prepared to listen to the concerns of fellow evangelicals you will not be part of the discussion that is needed.”
Ian then went on to post 15 further comments in response to a small number of people who engaged with him. At one point, David commented “This is more of the same Ian. Please leave it.”
Ian didn’t leave it; he continued: “My question is at the centre of this issue. You claim CEEC is 'narrowing', but the evidence is the contrary: you have diverged on this question. Historically, evangelicals have never differed on marriage, and for good reasons: it is the teaching of Jesus; it has been the consensus of the church catholic; and it is the doctrine of the C of E. We are evangelical *Anglicans* and evangelicals have always believed the doctrine of the Church.”
The CEEC brand of evangelical conservatism pursued by Ian Paul is the only true Christian faith. Anyone who dissents from their theology, use of the Bible and understanding of God cannot be an evangelical nor a proper Christian. Ian arrogantly and always claims to speak for all evangelicals. Anyone who doesn’t agree with Ian’s version of evangelicalism isn’t an evangelical. Ian is tribal and thrives on argument. He’s academically intelligent with tools at his disposal to challenge any counter-arguments to his. But he isn’t emotionally intelligent – he is unaware of how much damage he causes, how seductive he finds his arguments, and how seductive he is in performance.
Finally on the thread, David posted: “Ian This is just tediously obstructive. The question is perfectly clear to everyone else here. Your own position is clear. I am politely asking you to withdraw from this discussion thread.” Ian ceased commenting.
Conservative evangelical arrogance and abuse
Perhaps not every member of CEEC and EGGS is as abusive and arrogant as Ian Paul, but they seem to do nothing about asserting a different Christian vision. I have been unable to settle all week. The sheer invasion of spaces that are in theory healthy spiritual Christian spaces for those following the path of Jesus towards a Kingdom of God in which justice and unconditional love, beauty and goodness are primary qualities is deeply disturbing. How is it that neither of these two men understand the damage they cause?