The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music proposes that blessing the relationship of gay men and lesbian women be made a matter of "local option" [TLC, March 12]. No doubt this proposal will call forth familiar arguments for and against these unions. What may be missed in the heat of the moment is clarity that, should this particular resolution be adopted, it would give official sanction to a fundamental change in our polity. To permit "local option" will accelerate and bless the now open and all too rapid movement of the Episcopal Church toward a congregationalist polity.

A change in polity of this sort has been in the making for some time. A significant number of people in the Episcopal Church already view most issues of doctrine, morals, liturgical practice and church order as open to discretion and private judgment. By making "core doctrine" both minimal and open to contextual interpretation, the decision in the Righter hearing renders all doctrine a matter of local interpretation. Bishop John Spong bears witness. The revisions to the Book of Common Prayer that will be proposed to General Convention also make the prayer of the church a matter of local option. To be sure, there will be a Book of Common Prayer, but there will also be a large body of supplementary material (coupled with wide discretion on the part of the local ordinary) which will render the public worship of the Episcopal Church diverse and fragmentary. The ancient requirement of baptism for reception of the Eucharist is now treated as a matter of pastoral discretion. Again, local option prevails.

The resolution of the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music does more than contribute to this ongoing corruption of Anglican polity. What is more troubling is that the resolution forthrightly authorizes the very dysfunction that currently undermines the traditional Anglican polity of the Episcopal Church. That polity does not rely on a centralized form of authority as does the Roman Catholic Church, nor upon a more or less fixed body of tradition as do the Orthodox churches, nor upon a confessional statement as do the dominant churches of the continental Reformation. Rather, Anglican polity relies upon the collegiality of bishops as an effective sign of continuity and unity. Practically, this means that change in the practices of the church should occur only when there is scriptural sanction, historical precedent and general agreement. Homogeneity is neither expected nor sought, but the constraints of mutual admonition, counsel and consent are presumed as necessary for the enduring unity of the church.

The present trend is the reverse of this collegial practice. Collectively, we assume that dissent, disobedience and innovation are a leavening process. We think that bishops and presbyters should have the freedom to press constantly against the limits of traditional practice. However, these assumptions ignore dangers. Fragmentation of discipline and practice undermine the visible unity of the church. Disdain for the inherently slow process of mutual consultation inflames party spirit and encourages ideological conflict. Refusal to submit to the collective deliberation of the church goes hand in hand with willful innovation that threatens apostolic continuity.

These are by no means modern trends. Anglican polity, in fits and starts, but with definite shape and purpose in the 16th and 17th centuries, evolved to combat exactly these threats to the church's common life. As the Episcopal Church increasingly abandons that polity, we worry about further fragmentations and refusals. Other "local options" may soon follow. Lay eucharistic presidency is on the horizon. Non-Trinitarian forms of worship are a distinct possibility. The material issues in all these cases are crucial, but our concern rests with the overall trend. Such innovations will emerge here and there, always defended against discipline by the principle of local option. Local option gives canonical status to fragmentation, the failure to seek the counsel of the church, and the refusal to submit to the decisions of the whole body of the church.

In sum, passage of the standing commission's proposal of a "local option" will have three results. First, the Episcopal Church will no longer be governed by the principles of Anglican polity that still provide the basis for other provinces within the Anglican Communion. Not surprisingly then, the leaders of the other provinces find our situation troubling. Even if we must handle questions of sexuality in "our own way," we must handle them in a recognizably Anglican way, that is to say, in an orderly, collegial fashion that enhances church unity and reinforces the bonds of common practice.

Second, the basic principle of Anglican polity, namely, the collegiality of bishops in respect to doctrine, discipline and worship, will be subverted. Having bishops is not sufficient for Anglican polity. They must actually meet in order to guide and govern the church (in our case, in collaboration through General Convention with the clerical and lay leaders of the church), and they must submit to the constraints of that obligation. Free-wheeling bishops, authorized by canon to exercise authority while liberated by local option from all oversight authority, is just the episcopal nightmare that ardent critics of Anglican polity have long feared. It would be a perverse irony if such a degraded form of episcopal governance were our "gift" to the Lutherans.

Finally, common belief and practice are part of the definition of a church. By authorizing fragmentary, even contradictory practices, local option will encourage the very trends within the church that currently contribute to the disintegration of visible unity.

We think these three consequences of local option reflect a profound danger of the resolution offered by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. From within and without the Episcopal Church, the practice of homosexual marriage motivates much talk about heresy and apostasy. At Lambeth, questions were raised about the willingness of the Episcopal Church to submit to the authority of scripture. These concerns are apt. However, we do not believe they best describe the true circumstances. Our conviction is that the most pressing issue in the standing commission's proposal, and the already ongoing practice of local option that it seeks to endorse, involves the church's identity as a province of the Anglican Communion.

As we increasingly accept fragmentation, as we disregard the constraints of substantive unity in teaching and practice within our own province, we are concerned that the Episcopal Church may shed its character as a church. Bureaucratic structures will, of course, remain. The Church Pension Fund will endure forever. No doubt, particular dioceses and parishes will flourish and manifest many of marks of the body of Christ. All this is quite true, but it does not make this church a functional ecclesiastical entity. If local option prevails, then a debilitating trend toward congregationalism becomes an official policy.

Congregationalists assert that no entity above the local church has theological significance. As the Episcopal Church becomes functionally congregational, whether at the level of parish or diocese, it will manifest the unfortunate truth of that assertion. Local option gives official status to the church's ongoing flight from collective responsibility and mutual submission on questions of doctrine and discipline. Such a decision means the Episcopal Church no longer functions as a province within the Anglican Communion. It will have renounced the very function of collegial decision and submission that gives it theological significance. o

R.R. Reno is a professor in the Department of Theology at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb. The Rev. Philip Turner is the retired dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale.