"I maintain and have publicly declared my belief that those interventions have created more havoc in the Church, resulting in schism, than any honest and transparent theological dialogue on issues of sexuality through due synodical process in dioceses and in the General Synod."
It is true that "those interventions have created  havoc in the Church, resulting in schism."
It is also true that "those interventions have created more havoc ... than any honest and transparent theological dialogue ..."
But what is slippery here is the impression created that the "interventions" are directly linked to something as innocent as "dialogue."
As Anglican Samizdat points out, "What he left out was the fact that the “interventions” were precipitated not by the “dialogue” on homosexuality, but by the actions of so many dioceses who are vigorously pursuing the blessing of same-sex unions."
Here we could add, "and the actions of these dioceses came before the interventions." Some things have created "more havoc" than others. True. But not the things asserted here!
The speaker, by the way, of this slippery reasoning? A secular journalist not quite up to the play on church life? A synod rep from one of the extreme ends of the church?
No. This sentence is cited from the Presidential Address of the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, Archbishop Fred Hiltz. It is this slippery reasoning at the highest level of the leadership of Anglican churches and the Communion which contributes little to clarity in debate and does much to foster endless circumnavigating of basic issues.