What is the nature of the authority of resolutions passed by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church? The example I want us to focus on, to keep this discussion down to earth, is its several lamentable (to say the least) resolutions on abortion:

http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_topic_search.pl?topic=Abortion

Are these resolutions - particularly ‘94 - authoritative? In what sense? To what degree?

Phillip,

Good question. As I understand it, General Convention resolutions are not binding. They do, however, represent the official public postion of the Episcopal Church on whatever the subject is until or unless they are undone or changed at a subsequent General Convention. Which is what is frustrating about 1994-A054. The prior existing resolution, 1988-C047, was quite nuanced. It was neither firmly “pro-lfe,” nor unequivocally “pro-choice.” Rather, it affirmed concerns that both could recognize and resisted resolving the tension. 1994-A054 added the amendment that put us oficially and firmly in the pro-choce camp. It was the result of a liberal drive for purity.

As I said, it is not binding in the sense that I, as a priest of the church, need to submit my pro-life/pacifist convictions to its authority. However, Resolutions on social and political issues do guide the Episcopal Public Policy Network which is the lobbying entity of the Episcopal Church. And it is 1994-A54 that has been used as the justification for Executive Council to align the Episcopal Church with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights.

Thank you Fr Matt for this clear response. If I may pose a further question. Say, hypothetically, that I’m ordained in TEC sometime in the next year. How do my ordination vows relate to 1994-A054?

Phillip,

Unless I am wrong, when one pledges at ordination to “be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them” that refers to scripture, BCP, and the Constitution & Canons. One does not pledge to submit to and obey every Resolve of General Convention.

Phil,
Your ordination vows would mean you’d stand shoulder to shoulder with lots of others who share your concerns with regard to the endorsement of the culture of death in all its forms.  Come join the resistance.

Having brouight a number of General Convention resolutions back to my Diocesan Convention for whatever action was called fo, and having written my share of resolutions for Diocesan Convention, I see the limited value of those resolutions, just as I see the limited value Lambeth resolutions. They express the mind of the body, but usually have less effect than the drafters had hoped for.

Thank you Daniel for your comment. What struck me above all is the last line: “They express the mind of the body.” Rather like, I suppose, when the PB says, “This [fill in the blank, e.g., approbation of homosexual sex, communion for the unbaptized, etc] is THE teaching of this church.” I’m beginning to gather that she has no authority to say such things; but, on the other hand, she speaks as the representative head of the Episcopal Church. Where does this leave us? To me, it seems that TEC really does have a “position,” or as you put it a “mind,” and that this is expressed in the resoultions and in the PB’s periodic remarks.

I have nothing but profound respect for those who have steadfastly opposed such developments and, in Craig’s terminology, constitute a “resistence” within TEC. My question is narrower; I’m pushing at the problem (not hypothetical) of the candidate for holy orders who pledges to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of TEC. Granted that, technically, this does not imply assent to GC resolutions, to say nothing of the last Time Magazine quote from the PB: does it not imply assent to the “mind” of the Episcopal Church?

Phillip,
I should clarify what I meant by “mind of the body….” I did not mean the mind of the Episcopal Church or, in the case of Lambeth resolutions, of the Anglican communion, only the mind of those assembled. How well those resolutions express the mind of the Episcopal Church of the Communion is debatable. Therefore, I think that the ordination affirmation does not mean that clergy assent to GC resolutions.
Daniel