Kennedy on Heresy: II
In "Kennedy on Heresy: I", I have argued that the worst a reasonable critic from the right could accuse TEC of on the matter of ordaining an actively gay bishop is material heresy, which is really just a nasty name for theological error.
But all Christian groups have erred from the beginning in matters of faith; recall early Paul's misconceptions about the Second Coming and Milennium, an article of faith referred to in the Creeds.
If mere material heresy is sufficient for schism, Christian unity is doomed a priori. For there is no way Christian groups can have knowledge with finality and certainty over all matters touching the faith on which they must take a stand; there is no way to eliminate human fallibility. The church is always in a position of having to be open to correction; no part of the church can know with certainty that it is free of material heresy.
If a critic from the right like Kennedy is to have any case for splitting from TEC, he should establish that TEC is in a state of formal heresy--not merely mistaken on a point of moral theology, but perversely adhering to a point that it already knows to be contrary to the faith.
Note how high that bar is. It is not enough even for the critic to be convinced of his or her own argument, thinking that an airtight case has been made once and for all. The critic should know that the opponent--in this case TEC--also recognizes the cogency of the critic's case, and nevertheless adheres to error.
I believe critics from the right have not made an airtight theological case for their opposition to GC2003--at best we have grounds for an ongoing debate; but more importantly, they have made no plausible case for TEC recognizing that it is in error and persisting in adhering to a belief known to be contrary to the faith.
In short, Kennedy et al have made no case for schism.