Regarding denominationalism —
Our denominations, with all their ambiguities and puzzles, are often rooted in the very kind of ethnic distinctions or personality-based divisions which Paul went out of his way to combat. Perhaps that is one reason why moral discussions in the church tend to go round and round in small circles on a few favored issues, especially sex: discussing how, why, and when two human beings come together in a loving or quasi-loving act may be, after all, a displacement activity when we can’t cope with the question of how, why, and when a whole family of Christians should (but can’t) come together in mutual love and support. That doesn’t mean that sexual ethics are unimportant. On the contrary, they are symptomatic of the health or unhealth of the wider community. But we shouldn’t focus all our worries on the fact that the church secretary has run off with the organist’s spouse when the promised unity of Jesus Christ with all his people is flouted by structures and customs — and sometimes, yes, theology! — which destroy the fabric of the church just as surely as adultery destroys the fabric of the community.
(pp. 209-210). Wright is an Anglican bishop in England. He’s part of his denomination’s denominational structure — and yet he considers denominational division a worse sin than adultery. I agree. Disunity of God’s church is one of the greatest of all sins. It doesn’t excuse any other sin, but unity is of the essence.