After an absence of some years, the phrase "local option" is back in the church's vocabulary. During the 1970s and beyond, while arguments raged over ordination of women, local option was heard frequently. Those who opposed ordination of women felt the matter should be decided by dioceses. Local option would mean that a diocese should decide whom to ordain. Proponents of ordination of women argued that there should be no local option, that the national canons should be revised to enable women to be ordained to all orders.

Local option is back in the news. In its report to General Convention, the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music recommends that the blessing of committed same-sex couples and the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons should be a matter of local option [p. 6]. The 28-page report, issued by the 16-member commission, urges the church to engage in more dialogue on the sexuality issues and recommends that "each diocese, under the spiritual direction of its bishop, shall determine the resolution of [sexuality] issues ..."

In issuing the report, the commission responded to a resolution adopted at the 72nd General Convention (1997) that directed the commission to "continue its study of theological aspects of committed relationships of same-sex couples, and to issue a full report, including recommendations of future steps for the resolution of issues related to such committed relationships," to be considered at the 73rd General Convention.

The commission's report includes eight short essays by its members. One of them, by Bishop Paul Marshall of Bethlehem, addresses the matter of local option, which he terms "local resolution." He notes that "it seems best not to take absolutist positions on a national level about what cannot be known with great certainty," and concludes that the lack of general agreement on homosexuality suggests "providing for local resolution rather than doing nothing."

The recommendation of the commission probably will not be satisfactory to persons on either side of this issue. For those persons who have been campaigning for the church to authorize these blessings, it won't be enough. Advocates of blessing same-sex unions were encouraged when the 72nd General Convention narrowly defeated the matter, so they had every reason to believe that this year's convention would take the next step. While some dioceses will be immediately in favor, the approval of a segment of the church wasn't what proponents had in mind.

For persons who have opposed such blessings and ordinations, there will be disappointment that the matter didn't come down to a "yes-or-no" vote, settling once and for all the church's position. Opponents who live in dioceses where such events are approved will feel especially saddened, while some others may be relieved that the church did not take decisive action.

There is no guarantee, of course, that the commission's resolution will be adopted by General Convention. The hard liners on both sides of the issue may oppose it and force a vote.

We are concerned about the possibility of moving responsibilities to the diocesan level. If dioceses were not capable of settling the ordination issue, why are they now competent to determine the outcome of this one? And what else will be shifted to the diocese? The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music has produced a thoughtful, insightful document. It has given General Convention deputies and bishops much to consider.