I'll admit, when I first heard the proposal of the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music — to let each diocese determine its own "resolution of issues related to same-sex relationships" [TLC, March 12, May 21] — my reaction was, "So what?" It reflects what is actually happening now and at least it avoids placing an approved liturgy for same-sex unions in the Book of Common Prayer.

But I came to realize that the SCLM proposal is arguably worse than that "worst-case" scenario. It's worse because it's deceptive. Under the guise of even-handedness, honesty and humility, the report derisively distorts historic and orthodox teaching, while legitimating behavior the church has always known to be wrong.

The SCLM proposal rightly admits that the Episcopal Church offers a cacophony of moral confusion regarding sexual ethics. It errs in treating moral ignorance as a virtue. But the church's moral ignorance is not a virtue. It is sin. It should be confessed, not codified.

Interestingly, I have yet to find anyone — right, left, or even moderate — who really likes this proposal. It promises to multiply the fierce and divisive debates of the national church into every diocese. Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold has admonished us that the homosexual debate cannot be settled legislatively. If it can't be settled nationally by legislation, it certainly won't be settled regionally either.

Another irony of this proposal is that it compounds moral confusion with liturgical confusion. A common life of worship is a hallmark of Anglican identity. How bizarre that the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (comprised of the folks who ought to know better) now invites widespread liturgical experimentation, with no guidelines or limits. (One wag has noted that the only authorized use of the 1928 prayer book might soon be for same-sex unions. If the SCLM resolution passes, it will dismayingly reveal what the Episcopal Church will tolerate and what it will not.)

There seems to be a growing consensus that at least the second resolve — mandating "the resolution" of the same-sex debate within each diocese — will not pass General Convention. But I'm convinced that General Convention should decline even to receive the SCLM report. Most especially, the convention must not recommend the report as a resource "to enable a dialog that is comprehensive and transforming" or "to facilitate genuine and respectful encounter." This report cannot support those ends.

Promoted as a resource in the church, the one-sided SCLM report will only further inflame passions and contribute to misunderstanding. While feigning evenhandedness, the report's essays are written to persuade the reader toward the acceptance of homosexuality. Those who differ will find their views, at best, briefly mentioned then dismissed. At worst, they are caricatured beyond recognition. The unmistakable assumption of the essays is that there is an inexorable trend toward the moral acceptance of homosexuality and that the necessary task is to make that trend palatable.

Here are a few examples of the distortion and imbalance of the SCLM report:

The report sets the stage by listing three significant experiences that have shaped the Episcopal Church over the last 25 years: the 1979 Prayer Book with renewed emphasis on baptism and Holy Eucharist, the "experience of AIDS," and the ordination of women. Why were these last two chosen? One might just as easily replace AIDS with the entire sexual revolution, the concomitant increased acceptance of divorce and promiscuity, and the epidemic rise of sexually transmitted diseases. Or why is ordination of women chosen as a significant experience? Why not the growth of Anglicanism in the two-thirds world, relegating the Western church to the cultural and theological minority? The reason is clear. Evoking ordination of women builds sympathy for "progressive" change, whereas the growing influence of Anglicanism in the South sends a more cautionary message.

The report exhibits a myopic focus on the American church. It includes no mention — not one! — of the Lambeth resolution on sexuality nor any reflection on how the SCLM resolution might be received by the rest of the Anglican Communion.

The Rev. L. William Countryman's assertion of Anglicanism's "minimalist understanding of scriptural authority" manages to minimize the Bible into insignificance. Anglican theologian the Rev. Christopher Seitz notes in his critique of the SCLM report, "The Episcopal Church will be a 'church,' if this report passes, where scripture is read on Sunday and 'shared' by bishops in buzz groups, but where it is of no real relevance in forming the worldview of its members or guiding corporate identity. It will be a double-minded church with a dithering hermeneutic."

Bishop Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania gets the prize for distorting Anglican teaching beyond all recognition. He shamelessly posits experience as the source of authority for Christian teaching on sexuality that takes "precedence over...the classical Anglican epistemological tripod — Scripture, Tradition and Reason." He not only makes experience primary, he ignores the Wesleyan understanding of experience as our experience of God in regeneration and sanctification.

One could go on. Suffice it to say that there is not one single essay in the SCLM report that captures either classical biblical teaching on sexuality or the views of a majority of Anglicans today. There is not one essay about which we could say, "Yes, that fairly and compellingly expresses our deepest convictions about sexuality, moral authority or the church."

The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music has attempted a compromise that it hopes can hold the church together. Indeed, Bishop Paul Marshall of Bethlehem commends the report by concluding, "the principal alternative seems to be schism, which many an ancient Christian believed to be a state far worse than heresy or ignorance."

I share Bishop Marshall's antipathy toward schism. But this report blesses and formalizes the very theological and moral discord that so threatens our unity. Those of us who long for the greater unity of the Christian Church read the report with foreboding. Adopting the SCLM resolution will move the Episcopal Church further into an ecclesiastical backwater — away from the central witness of our Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and protestant brothers and sisters. We will be turning away from the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."

A friend of mine, a member of Integrity who identifies herself as a lesbian, has nevertheless observed with both courage and grace, "My issue isn't worth splitting the church." She's right. But that's exactly the tragic end to which the SCLM report will contribute. o

Diane L. Knippers is the president of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, Washington, D.C. She is an alternate deputy to General Convention from the Diocese of Virginia.