“To call for a moratorium on all three, as though they all caused disunity, is to fly in the face of reality. Cross-border interventions undermine institutional unity by creating competing jurisdictions. New Westminster’s same sex blessings and New Hampshire’s consecration of a gay bishop do not.”

To paraphrase:  Can the eye say to the hand, “Do whatever you want, I do not care.  Nothing you can possibly do will affect the health of the body.  What you do is none of my concern?”  (Cf. ICor 12:12-26)

This scriptural passage would argue against both sides.  Clearly, the actions of those whom Integrity strongly supports *do* undermine institutional unity (the wholeness and unity of the Body).

To call for a moratorium on all three, as though they all caused disunity, is to fly in the face of reality. Cross-border interventions undermine institutional unity by creating competing jurisdictions. New Westminster’s same sex blessings and New Hampshire’s consecration of a gay bishop do not.

Just the opposite of what Judge Bellows found in the Virginia cases.  He recognized that division had occurred over contentious issues and that this led to realignment.
The orthodox could not live with the LGBT agenda and began looking at ways out of TEC - the VGR fiasco precipitated the border crossings.  The LGBT TEC & Canada clubs were warned that their actions would “tear the fabric of the communion.”  The border crossings are symptomatic of that tearing.
Anyway, why strain my fingers typing this.  We are all talking past one another.

The person that wrote this either lives on Fantasy Island or they have hiv related dementia.  They GLBT activists and their posterboy/chief vicitm VGR are THE immediate cause of splintering in the communion.  The true cause is their denial of Christ and he Authority of the Holy Bible, which they reject along with two thousand years of Church teachings.  THAT is the problem.  Dream on Integrity.

The ethics of homosexuality is cause for disagreement, not disunity. All churches contain diversity of belief among their members. Until now Anglicanism has accepted diversity of belief and open debate [...]

This statement alone demonstrates that Integrity’s version of “the listening process” involves much talking and little listening. Why don’t they show even a shred of respect for those who disagree with them, and acknowledge that “the ethics of homosexuality” is merely the presenting form of the much deeper issues of scriptural interpretation and authority? Issues which most certainly can give rise to disunity if the disagreement is sharp enough.

So is it sharp enough? Surely we can all agree that reappraisers like Integrity proclaim a rather different gospel than reasserters. Regardless of which side you’re on, it is Gal 1:9 indeed. And I would personally argue that Integrity’s gospel is radically different from the faith once for all entrusted to us (Jude 1:3). To claim that this is “cause for disagreement, not disunity” is completely vacuous. Do everyone the favour of taking the disagreement seriously, please.

The key statement is that moratoria “fly in the face of reality.”  This is a huge, theological red flag.  The working theology of TEC, perfectly exposed by Integrity, has a radically different view anthropology than the rest of traditional Christianity in space and time: they deny the Fall.

Integrity argued, as they have in the past, that to deny full affirmation of same-sex relationships is to “fly in the face of reality.”  Strikingly, they are correct!  Christianity does fly in the face of reality:  Christians fly in the face of hate and say love; Christians fly in the face of sin and say righteousness; Christians fly in the face of death and say life.  All of these and many more – hate, sin, death – are part of our fallen reality.  And Christ flys in the face of that reality to be sure!  The Integrity pamphlet perfectly exposes that TEC does not assent to the doctrine of the Fall: Human beings are not fallen in their thinking, not marred by Original Sin, and thus human beings are not in need of a savior in the traditional sense.

I’ve witnessed this theology myself at General Seminary.  The Christus Victor model (actually I believe it’s more an odd variation on it) is set against the model accepted and propagated by the church since before the reformation (eg Augustine, Anselm).  It is usually articulated as Christ tricking Satan and thus overcoming death.  Very little seems to be said about man having his nature changed.  The doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin are regularly denied.  Curious references are made to Gregory of Nyssa and Origen (who died a heretic) while Augustine, perhaps the single most influential theologian in Christian history, is studiously avoided.  This Christus Victor model is attractive to TEC theologians because it does not seem to involve human beings changing.  The notion that human beings are universally fallen and need amendment of life is denied: only certain persons (not all) need amendment of life (here one notes the potential for pelagianism). 

TEC theologians read the creation narrative in Genesis, see that God said that things were good (tov), and close their Bibles very quickly before the serpent speaks or the fruit is eaten.  How they explain man’s universal tendencies toward war, greed, hate, pride and ultimately death is a mystery.  Only in this theological milieu could one actually excuse sin by saying “I was born this way.”

Cross-border interventions undermine institutional unity by creating competing jurisdictions. New Westminster’s same sex blessings and New Hampshire’s consecration of a gay bishop do not.

Very clever.  What he says is technically true enough.  (And we must be fair enough to admit that.)  But there’s a vast logical gulf between that and deciding that “The ethics of homosexuality is cause for disagreement, not disunity.”  The unspoken assertion is that the institutional aspect of the Church is the most important, possibly the only thing that matters.  The Church’s witness, teaching, discipline, etc. become trivial.  It also conveniently ignores any causal relationship between the three actions, specifically that the third was a completely avoidable reaction to the first two.

On further reflection, I’d add that cross-border interventions don’t actually undermine unity; they simply reveal the existing dis-unity, which is a result of the first two actions, and the related broken trust due to broken promises.

Heh, posts #1 and 4 are working against the belief of the day quoting Pauline epistles. To so many with a new understanding of Christianity Paul is passe, just some dead white male trying to tell people what to do, don’tchaknow? ...all that Road to Damascus stuff notwithstanding.