What have the Southwark Good Stewards got against gays?


Have you ever had two tabs open on your browser and found an unexpected connection between the pages?  Here’s a thing. Is there something relating these two?  In one there is a story about conservative Anglicans in London who have come up with a great wheeze.  They have set up an organisation called the Southwark Good Stewards Company.  This is a way of making sure their cash doesn’t fund congregations that support liberal things like toleration of homosexuals. 

And right next to it is a Scientific American article reviewing some research that indicates what a lot of us have suspected for years is right.  Vociferous homophobia is correlated with high levels of arousal on exposure to homosexual images.  Or overcompensation, in other words.

To be fair, I am sympathetic to people who don’t want to fund things they don’t approve of.  But I wonder if this is actually not so much a split as a tiff.



3 thoughts on “What have the Southwark Good Stewards got against gays?

  1. Not sure the Southwark Good Stewards is homophobic
    (unless you equate disagreement with homosexual practice with homophobia – which many do today).

    To my mind it seems to be standing up for traditioanl sexual morality.

    If you have truck with that, fine.
    But don't call it homophobic.

  2. The St Matthias Day Statement (14 May 2012) is an update of the 1995 St Andrew’s Day Statement on homosexuality and seeks to help Anglicans understand their church’s teaching in the area of marriage and sexual relationships and its relevance today.

    It does so by providing a five-fold summary of that teaching based in Scripture and Anglican tradition under the following headings:

    1 – God’s love and call to love
    2 – God’s Word and Church
    3 – God’s gift of marriage
    4 – God’s grace and call to holiness
    5 – God’s people united in and by God’s word

    As would be expected the statement takes a very high view of Scripture and is unambiguous about taking the whole of Scripture seriously.

    I was particularly struck by the principles in section 2 which need far wider promulgation, especially 2b which addresses a major heresy in the church today.

    The essential flaw of this heresy is that it tries to affirm ‘God is Love’ (I John 4:8) whilst ignoring ‘This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments’ (I John 5:3).

    The commandment to love our neighbours (Exodus 19:18) cannot be used to justify sexual sin.

  3. @Victor – Yes you are quite right, one could disagree with homosexual practice without being homophobic. I don't know the details, but I am sure there is a logical argument to justify this conservative group's actions. There usually is. But I was just wondering out loud if there isn't some other motivation afoot.

Leave a Reply