The Profile was written by a subcommittee of the Nominating Committee. The subcommittee chose an approach to gathering information that would be as open as possible and that would gather information from as many people as possible. The members of the subcommittee have understood their work as a collaboration with all who have submitted information and responded to the various drafts.

To accomplish our goal of a high level of involvement, we planned an initial exercise for local congregations, either as part of Sunday worship (in place of a sermon), coffee hour, adult or youth forum, or other occasion. Seventy congregations reported back from their experiences in early October, 2005 and offered specific input to the Profile. Many members of our congregations participated.

Our stated goals were:

• Increased awareness of a bishop’s ministry.
• Engagement of the Diocese as a whole in discernment of the 10th Bishop of Newark.
• Input from the Diocese as a whole to the diocesan Profile.

This approach allowed us to have the involvement of many people and also had a developmental effect as people throughout the Diocese heard one another speaking about their experiences of bishops as well as about their hopes for the future. The input we received came in narrative form, allowing us to identify broad themes and to receive specific comments.

Our suggested questions for these congregational Bishop Reflection Sundays were: 1. What is your experience of bishops? 2. What characteristics are most important in the next Bishop of Newark? 3. What characteristics are least important in the next Bishop of Newark?

To gain more in-depth input on more specific questions, we planned six Input Focus Groups in October, 2005. These groups were offered to clergy, laity, diocesan staff, and diocesan youth. There were four sessions held regionally in the Diocese for laity and one each for each of the other groups. Eighty active clergy participated in the clergy group. Approximately 100 lay adults, 30 youth and 15 diocesan staff persons participated in this exercise. Conversations were uniformly constructive. Again, our goal was to identify themes and gain narrative supporting comments. We asked four questions for more in-depth response. We asked each person to write and submit their own response and then to participate in a small (four to six member) group conversation and give a report of the conversation. This experience was aimed at heightening participation to allow every voice to participate and contribute.

Finally, the draft of the Profile was circulated to the Diocese for review and response prior to final editing and review by the Nominating Committee, Standing Committee and Diocesan Council. Our questions for the four Profile Response meetings were: 1. What is not in the Profile that should be? 2. Is there too much or too little emphasis on one area? 3. Does this Profile represent the Diocese as you understand it? 4. Does the Profile give a clear picture of who northern New Jersey needs as a bishop? In addition to comments in our meetings, we received many email responses from people throughout the Diocese who downloaded and read the draft.

Reading and summarizing information submitted for the Profile was very time intensive but allowed members of the Profile subcommittee to hear the voices of the members of our congregations from all areas of the Diocese of Newark. We gained insight and were able to apprehend the thoughts, hopes, dreams, and concerns of the Diocese in the words and phrases in which they were expressed.