Ms Schori said
““Using the metaphor of a school of fish, a pod of whales, a flock of birds or a herd of deer which has no obvious leader to describe the dispersed sense of a new Church Center structure, Jefferts Schori said “they respond to cues in the environment and move as a body.”

“That’s the kind of responsiveness we’re looking for,” she said.”
==============================================
Particularly interesting is the statement “which has no obvious leader to describe the dispersed sense of a new Church Center structure”

Would somebody please email, call on the phone, or personally visit Ms Schori and tell her that the Anglican Communion and the Church Catholic do have a “leader?”  His name is Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, Messiah, the Word.

Equally interesting was her statement ““they respond to cues in the environment and move as a body.”

Again, somebody please contact Ms Schori and let her know that Christain guidance, in addition to Scripture, the creeds and tradition does not come from “cues in the environment.”  Doesn’t she know that Jesus the Son and God the Father work with us through the Holyh Spirit?

I mean, this is really too much on her part.  Her words aren’t those of Christian theology, they are just uninspired “new age” musings.

“Not everyone was comfortable where we stood, but we stood together.” This still galls me that the few orthodox bishops “stood together” with the travesty of the HoB Response document and that some orthodox bishops in their diocesan letter praised the collegiality.

And, of course, the obligatory all is well:

Jefferts Schori summarized her work since the Council’s last meeting in June, beginning with her description of the “health and vitality” she has seen during her travels around the Episcopal Church. She said it was exciting “to see the passion with which dioceses and parishes in this church are engaged in mission.”

What health?  TEC is dying, for God’s sake!  What vitality?  Old folks sitting in the pews and not caring about what’s going on?  That’s vitality?  Gimme a break, Kate!

I have no idea what this draft response will say.  I do know that, as a member of the Covenant Design Group,  I was invited to speak to the Executive Council during the summer, but that the invitation was then rescinded (I am told this was because the other American on the Design Group, Prof. Katherine Grieb, was unable to attend).  In any case, the drafting committee has not spoken to members of the Covenant Design Group (unless Prof.Grieb has met with them on her own) in their deliberations.  I consider that unfortunate, unless, of course, the draft is simply a collation of various responses, without constructive suggestions, rather than a considered response on behalf of the church. If it is indeed the latter, then they have evidently not engaged the work of the Communion itself in its discussion of Covenant in a serious fashion.

#1: Her response is simply the response of a biologist. Her source of inspiration is the natural world, and it is to this world she has devoted her real interests. Her focus is therefore on this world and this means that scripture is a matter of small significance. But we already know this. She should be a Bishop in the New Church of Scientism, in which, we must allow, there is a vast and increasing congregation.  LM