Who remembers SEM? That is to say, Shared Episcopal Ministry, that provision from the Anglican Church of Canada that will deal with the conflict within the church? About which it was said:
It is not necessary for any parish to consider such action (leaving the Anglican Church of Canada). The House of Bishops has designed a model for Shared Episcopal Ministry. This model enables a diocesan Bishop to share his or her Episcopal oversight with another Bishop for parishes finding themselves in conscientious disagreement with the Bishop and Synod over the matter of the blessing of same sex unions.
SEM was portrayed as a model of tolerance and diversity, allowing us all to live together in harmony. The optics on first glance looked good.
However, it seems that once certain agendas have the ascendancy, tolerance and diversity can be safely dispensed with. Courtesy of ‘Revtimbo’, here, it appears that the Diocese of Montreal have voted to reject SEM. I.e., as Revtimbo said, “you are not wanted unless you agree with the party line on SSB’s and no allowance for other points of view, however minor, will be entertained.”
I have a question, and this is intended respectfully. I believe there are Essentials Federation parishes in Montreal who have looked to go the SEM route (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Would anybody from a Federation perspective (from Montreal, or wider afield), like to comment on this? This is not a Federation-bashing question, I simply do not know what the inside strategy can be when the options seem to be “our way or the highway”?
I, too, look forward to comments from those on both sides of the conflict who proclaimed this as a solution.
Speaking for myself, in Montreal, I have been waiting, watching and praying. Not wanting to do anything too precipitous or antagonistic. Our bishop has, until this synod, been fairly quiet on the topic, “prayerful listening.”
The “our way or the highway” is from an inside power clique close to the bishop.
Let’s face it, it also comes from a “yes” or “no” vote. I will be interested to see if other alternatives can be offered.
The bishop said that the issue of SSB’s is a “pastoral” one, well, he now has two “pastoral” issues if he wants to continue to value true diversity and tolerance in his diocese.
I hope he will address the issue in a positive way, but it does rather seem as if the diocese has spoken. Praying for you guys!
I can only speak for myself, not the Federation or a Federation parish, but I have always seen this idea as a non-starter. No one was really happy with it as a means of reducing tensions over the ordination of women in England, where it was proposed as a temporary measure. File alongside “moratorium”.
The SEM should be rejected for it is nothing more than a way for parties to avoid their responsibility to stand up for the Gospel. If a bishop chooses to ignore the 2000 year history and practise of the church, then parishes should either stand up and demand his resignation or they should leave. Saying that one is going to stay in communion with a heretic as long as one is allowed to keep the property and have one’s own special bishop is nonsense. SEM allows parishes to ignore their responsibility to take action to stand up to bishops who refuse to remain faithful to the historic faith of the church.