The resolutions on ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons and blessing of same-sex relationships proposed to General Convention by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) need perfecting, but what doesn't? Assuming no changes in substance or better resolutions coming to the floor of convention, I will support them there. They at least head into the wind.

That wind, one that blows through the Episcopal Church, is filled with dire predictions of "anything goes" permissiveness or imminent collapse of the unity of the Anglican Communion and schism in the American church. But we need not fear these things. Mature Christian belief is made of sterner stuff than to be casually permissive. Its value is not determined by the machinations of ecclesiastical principalities and powers. Anglicanism at its best is a form of Christianity for grown-ups, for people of faith informed at least in part by reflection on experience. It takes all the maturity we can muster to use that reflection to good effect.

The SCLM's second resolve is at the heart of the matter its members were asked to address. It is a resolution that mandates action. "Each diocese ... shall determine the resolution of issues related to same-sex relationships, including the blessing of such relationships, and the ordination of homosexual Christians." It assumes that there are issues, gives the church location for the determination of their resolution, and directs the dioceses to act.

This resolution has been called the "local option" resolution. It is nothing of the sort. At best, calling it that is a misunderstanding of its intent. At worst it falsely suggests that the resolution condones a laissez-faire attitude regarding church doctrine and discipline.

If any place is local in the Episcopal Church, it is the parish. And, if the words of these resolutions are as plain as they seem, the parish is distinctly not the place where these issues are to be resolved. In these resolutions the parish is the place of encounter; the diocese the place of resolution.

Why the diocese? The authors of this resolution believe it is the most likely ecclesiastical context in which some resolution to "issues related to same-sex relationships" can be determined. I think they are right.

The General Convention, the House of Bishops and Executive Council have no clear resolve regarding these concerns, except to opine that certain church and individual actions are not appropriate and that all the people involved are members of Christ's body and deserving of respect and care. But "not appropriate" is far from "not allowed." No prohibitions regarding blessing same-sex relations or ordination of persons in such relationships have been clearly stated by any of these bodies. It can be argued that such prohibitions would have no legal bearing anyway unless made canonical. The House of Bishops could by unanimous action agree as bishops to allow or not to allow such blessings or ordinations in which case diocesan decision making would be an expression of a wider unanimity of practice. For the moment, such unity seems impossible. Until then, or until General Convention makes a binding prohibition or provides clear approval, there is no church-wide resolution.

So, as it stands, the diocese is the place of resolution. Bishops in their dioceses already can provide for, allow or prohibit services not otherwise provided for in services of the Book of Common Prayer. They, with their standing committees, already must approve ordinations and can determine the grounds on which they will assess the moral character and the wholesomeness of each candidate. The needed diocesan authority is already in place and being exercised.

This notion of diocesan resolution disturbs some who believe the issues at stake are at the core of who we are as a biblically grounded community of faith. They see biblical prohibitions against sexual activity outside marriage, and against homosexual relations in particular, to be so strong that any affirmation of persons in relationships other than heterosexual marriage is an affront to that biblical grounding. They argue that resolution is not a diocesan matter and is even outside the realm of General Convention decision. Resolution is only to be found in submission to biblically based orthodoxy defined, I know not how. Such arguments do not persuade.

My sense is that these issues here are of only modest importance, except insofar as justice for the petitioners seeking affirmation of vocation is concerned. I believe it is unjust to deny affirmation of, or condemn, all same-sex relationships and turn away all candidates in such relationships from ordination. As with all other petitioners for blessing or ordination, these petitioners need to be met by pastoral attention and the best our powers of discernment can bring to bear.

I believe that nothing of the centrality of the faith is dependent on our excluding persons in same-sex relationships from being blessed, refusing to offer thanks for their committed relationships, or not admitting non-celibate homosexual persons into the ordained ministry in service to Christ. The notion that these issues are central and that they challenge biblically based orthodox faith is a matter of misplaced gravity at best. But it could be worse. In excluding, refusing or not admitting, what messenger might we have turned away?

It is argued that this resolution will lead to "ethnic cleansing" of dioceses, forcing doctrinal enclaves, or that it will lead to general condemnation of some provinces of the Anglican Communion by others. These things could happen. But unless we find some method for resolving these issues in the dioceses, where they can be resolved, those who come asking for bread and cannot even get a stone will certainly condemn us. For the Episcopal Church, the disarray of Anglican principalities and powers may be a problem, but condemnation by those who hunger and thirst will be a mortal blow.

We must find some location for resolution, where our "yes" is "yes" and our "no," "no." It is to the dioceses that petitioners will come for response, and dioceses must be ready to respond honestly and with the mind of Christ as the Spirit makes such understanding possible. o

The Rev. Mark Harris is a General Convention deputy from the Diocese of Delaware. He is the rector of St. James' Church, Newark, Del.