Days

VMRG Home

VRMG Meetings Albuquerque & Santa Fe
VMRG Meeting El Paso
Days of Discernment
Letter from Standing Committee
Letters sent to facilitators for Days of Discernment and consultants to EDC
Discernment Day, Albuquerque: Some observations

A critique of the episcopal discernment process to date

Via Media Rio Grande Preparatory Sessions for Days of Discernment
Thursday, 18 March St. Bede in Santa Fe
Monday, 22 March All Saints in El Paso
Monday, 22 March St. Chad in Albuquerque

From information that has been released to date about the Days of Discernment, VMRG notes the following…

Apparent Objectives for Days of Discernment:
- “…designed to help inform the preparation of the diocesan profile for the election of a bishop-coadjutor”.
- For Canon Brown to present “some compelling and surprising analytical information about the kind of diocese we are and what our challenges are likely to be in the future.”
- From the Discernment Day agenda below, one objective will likely be to hear and discuss Canon Brown’s perspectives on leadership in the areas of vision and healing, then have small groups discuss how those apply to election of bishop coadjutor.

These apparent objectives will be served by the following…

Published Agenda for Discernment Days:
8:30 a.m. Registration. Coffee and doughnuts.
9:00 a.m. Morning Prayer.
9:15 a.m. Welcome from the Standing Committee.
9:30 a.m. Plenary I: "Visionary Leadership" (Canon Brown).
10:15 a.m. Questions and Answers.
10:45 a.m. Break.
11:00 a.m. Small Group Sessions.
(Pre-ordered box lunches will be distributed during these discussions.)
12:15 p.m. Reports from the groups.
1:00 p.m. Plenary II: "Leading as Healing" (Canon Brown).
1:30 p.m. Questions and Answers.
2:00 p.m. Small Group Sessions.
2:30 p.m. Reports from the groups. Where do we go from here?
3:00 p.m. Closing prayers.

Purpose of VMRG Preparatory Sessions: To assist members of the diocese in contributing to whatever they feel will be constructive, informative and meaningful Days of Discernment.

Agenda:
7:00 Welcome, opening prayer, review of evening objectives.
7:15 What we know about Days of Discernment, what they are and what they aren't based on the knowledge to date
7:25 Small group discussion
8:15 – 8:25 Small groups report to large group; discuss summaries of most important concerns, hopes, comments, questions
8:55 Closing prayer, adjourn

Objectives for VMRG Sessions (in large and small group discussions):
- Surface your concerns and hopes about…
… current events in diocesan life, their effects on you and your parishes
… the process and possible outcome of election of coadjutor
… the future of diocesan life
- Choose the most important of these for Canon Brown, Standing and Discernment Committee members to hear on Discernment Days.
- Choose your most important questions to ask the same group.
- Talk about how to respectfully and effectively state information and ask questions.
Using the Apparent Discernment Day Objectives, think about how to formulate statements that tie your concerns and hopes to a) the type of leadership you’d want to see in a bishop and b) “what our challenges are likely to be in the future”.
How can your questions be worded to find out more from the Discernment Day conveners about learning the candidates’ leadership positions and abilities in your areas of concern?
- Explore how to effectively respond if Discernment Day process seems structured more around what the speakers come to share with us rather than taking stock of where we really are in the life of the diocese, its health, its diversity of opinion, etc...

To facilitate reaching as many of those objectives for the preparatory sessions as possible, we’ll employ the following…

Small group process guidelines:
- Brief introductions
- Read these process guidelines (a form of ground rules for small groups)
- Select a Recording person; pass out paper to all who want to make their own notes
- Everyone helps moderate discussion, share “air time”, keep discussion focused on objectives.
Treat and listen to others as you would want them to do so to you.
Allow everyone in the group time to contribute to the discussion.
Respect others by no judging or interrupting them.
- Recorder writes down most important concerns, hopes, information statements and questions to share with the larger group.
- Small group consensus is okay but not critical. Respect and learn from the fact that each person can have very different “most important” concerns and questions.

Information, comments and questions from these Preparatory Sessions will be posted on the VMRG web site.

Days of Discernment
Day of Discernment, March 27, 9am to 3pm, Trinity Church, Albuquerque:
Directions: I-40 to Louisiana (north) exit
Turn right on Prospect (one block south of Menaul)
Church is located at intersection of Prospect and Chama
The church building has a large sign painted on the outside wall that says
"Kids on Track."

Day of Discernment, April 3, 9am to 3pm, St. Francis on the Hill, El Paso
Directions: I-25 to I-10, first Mesa exit to Resler
left on Resler to third light, right on Escondido
Cross light at Westwind, St. Francis is on the immediate right

Letter from Standing Committee

DISCERNING NOT DECIDING

Days of Discernment
Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande
Northern and Southern Deaneries

The Standing Committee and the Episcopal Discernment Committee invite all members of the Diocese of the Rio Grande to these opportunities for prayer, sharing, and reflection, designed to help inform the preparation of the diocesan
profile for the election of a bishop-coadjutor.

Each day is scheduled to run from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. We are privileged to have as our facilitator the Rev. Canon Keith Brown from the Church Pension Fund, who is a published expert on leadership development for dioceses and parishes. Canon Brown ' s presentations will include some compelling and surprising analytical information about the kind of diocese we are and what our challenges are likely to be in the future.

Everyone is welcome! Since the session goes through lunch, you may want to purchase a box lunch. If so, you must call the diocesan office at 505-881-0636 or 800-388-1379, or if you prefer, e-mail bcaldwell@dioceserg.org, indicating which day you plan to attend. Northeast and Northwest Deaneries Saturday, March 27, 2004

Trinity Church
2520 Chama, N. E.
Albuquerque, NM 87110
505-293-3160
The Rev. Peter Schoew, Rector
Southeast and Southwest Deaneries

Saturday, April 3, 2004
St. Francis on the Hill
6280 Los Robles Drive
El Paso, TX 79912
915-584-5967
The Rev. Dr. Jim Trainor, Rector

AGENDA (for both Sessions)

8:30 a.m. Registration. Coffee and doughnuts.

9:00 a.m. Morning Prayer.

9:15 a.m. Welcome from the Standing Committee.

9:30 a.m. Plenary I: " Visionary Leadership " (Canon Brown).

10:15 a.m. Questions and Answers.

10:45 a.m. Break.

11:00 a.m. Small Group Sessions.

(Pre-ordered box lunches will be distributed during these discussions.)

12:15 p.m. Reports from the groups.

1:00 p.m. Plenary II: " Leading as Healing " (Canon Brown).

1:30 p.m. Questions and Answers.

2:00 p.m. Small Group Sessions.

2:30 p.m. Reports from the groups. Where do we go from here?

3:00 p.m. Closing prayers.

(sent via email: cmatthews@episcopalchurch.org)
March 24, 2004

Bishop Frank Clayton Matthews
8100 Free Chopt Rd. #102
Richmond, VA 23229

Dear Bishop Matthews,

This letter is being written to provide you input from over 350 communicants who have spent time reflecting on the health and direction of the Diocese of the Rio Grande. The information contained herein is a summary of two sets of gatherings that were held in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and El Paso in January and March. The first meetings in January provided a safe forum for dialogue about the issues and turmoil that have existed within this Diocese for the last 30 years. The second set of meetings concluded this week and provided the opportunity to share the information we received concerning the days of discernment and to assist members of the diocese in contributing to whatever they felt would be constructive, informative and meaningful to that process. We hope and pray that this information will help you in your work with the Episcopal Discernment Committee that has been formed in our Diocese.

We have been overwhelmed by the thoughtful, deliberate and prayful participation of those who shared their hopes for the diocese, expressed their concerns and worries and described what a healthy balanced and reconciling diocese could look like. A summary of major themes is listed below however, I encourage you to go to our web site (viamediariogrande.org) and review the entire summary of the comments that were generated in January and March.

1. How do we develop the community and engage in communication that values diversity and treats differing views with respect when for 30 years this Diocese has not encouraged open dialogue?
2. We value the richness that comes from living with our geographical and theological diversity. We want a Bishop who will also value this diversity. How can healing occur throughout our Diocese given the hurt and lack of respect that so many of us have experienced?
3. We want a Bishop who will welcome and pastor to all people and clergy, not just those who share a common mind set. We want a Bishop who will not take us out of the National Church and who will personally remain in full communion with the House of Bishops.
4. There is deep concern about the rush to elect a Bishop Coadjutor. Why? The present divisions within the diocese are not conducive to electing a Bishop who will be a unifying force. The proposed timeline is very aggressive. Parishes take 18 months to discern whom to call to their community. Why is our Diocese doing it in 12 months?
5. The survey that was sent out seemed to miss the mark on eliciting concerns about the character and personality of the diocese. The development of the Diocesan Profile seems rushed. How do individuals receive feedback about its content? How will communicants meet the candidates? What process is the Discernment Committee using to keep us informed and seek our input about this process?
6. Approximately 60% of the communicants reside in the NE and NW deaneries, yet their representation on the Episcopal Discernment Committee is only 1/3. Why?

It is important to recognize that the communicants who participated in all of these gatherings were united on one issue: we have a serious problem in our diocese that is much deeper than the issue of homosexuality: it is about respect, valuing diversity and creating a healing environment. There is a very strong desire to have these family problems resolved before our new Bishop is elected.

Via Media Rio Grande was formed with a mission to pray and work toward a healthy, balanced and reconciling Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande. We note, somewhat ironically, that our Standing Committee mailed a letter to all members of the Diocese stating that the activities of
VMRG are “reprehensible, destructive of the life of the diocese and do not promote healing for the church”. We have been asking our diocesan leadership to take that bold step: to slow down the process and to put the needs of every member of the entire diocese ahead of their own desire to act quickly.

Any member of our Steering Committee is available to speak directly with you should you so desire

In Christ,

Via Media Rio Grande Steering Committee

Diane Butler, St. Thomas of Canterbury: 505-247-2515. tierradiane@msn.com
The Rev. Gary Meade, Associate, St.John’s Cathedral: 505-247-1581. gmeade@stjohnsabq.com
The Rev. Carole McGowan, Rector, St. Thomas of Canterbury; 505-247-2515 mcgowan@stthomascanterbury.net
Don Noack, St. Michael and All Angels; ddnoack@msn.com
Dr. Don Partridge, St. Thomas of Canterbury;dpartridge@salud.unm.edu
Patricia Riggins, St. Michael and All Angels; 505-323-1707 priggins@comcast.net
The Rev. Brian Taylor, St. Michael and All Angels: 505-345-8147 briant@all-angels.com
Dr. James Tryon, St. Michael and All Angels; jamesrtryon@aol.com

(sent via email: sjoaquin@msn.com)
March 24, 2004

Canon Keith Brown
Consultant for the Church Pension Fund
17765 Homsy Ave
Fresno, CO 93727

Dear Canon Brown,

This letter is being written to provide you input from over 350 communicants who have spent time reflecting on the health and direction of the Diocese of the Rio Grande. The information contained herein is a summary of two sets of gatherings that were held in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and El Paso in January and March. The first meetings in January provided a safe forum for dialogue about the issues and turmoil that have existed within this Diocese for the last 30 years. The second set of meetings concluded this week and provided the opportunity to share the information we received concerning the days of discernment and to assist members of the diocese in contributing to whatever they felt would be constructive, informative and meaningful to that process. We hope and pray that this information will help you prepare to facilitate the Days of Discernment for our Diocese.

7. How do we develop the community and engage in communication that values diversity and treats differing views with respect when for 30 years this Diocese has not encouraged open dialogue?
8. We value the richness that comes from living with our geographical and theological diversity. We want a Bishop who will also value this diversity. How can healing occur throughout our Diocese given the hurt and lack of respect that so many of us have experienced?
9. We want a Bishop who will welcome and pastor to all people and clergy, not just those who share a common mind set. We want a Bishop who will not take us out of the National Church and who will personally remain in full communion with the House of Bishops.
10. There is deep concern about the rush to elect a Bishop Coadjutor. Why? The present divisions within the diocese are not conducive to electing a Bishop who will be a unifying force. The proposed timeline is very aggressive. Parishes take 18 months to discern whom to call to their community. Why is our Diocese doing it in 12 months?
11. The survey that was sent out seemed to miss the mark on eliciting concerns about the character and personality of the diocese. The development of the Diocesan Profile seems rushed. How do individuals receive feedback about its content? How will communicants meet the candidates? What process is the Discernment Committee using to keep us informed and seek our input about this process?
12. Approximately 60% of the communicants reside in the NE and NW deaneries, yet their representation on the Episcopal Discernment Committee is only 1/3. Why?

Any member of our Steering Committee is available to speak directly with you should you so desire

In Christ,

Via Media Rio Grande Steering Committee

(sent via email: dseger7@juno.com)
March 24, 2004

Canon David Matthews
117 North LaFayette Blvd.
South Bend, IN 46601

Dear Canon Seger,

13. How do we develop the community and engage in communication that values diversity and treats differing views with respect when for 30 years this Diocese has not encouraged open dialogue?
14. We value the richness that comes from living with our geographical and theological diversity. We want a Bishop who will also value this diversity. How can healing occur throughout our Diocese given the hurt and lack of respect that so many of us have experienced?
15. We want a Bishop who will welcome and pastor to all people and clergy, not just those who share a common mind set. We want a Bishop who will not take us out of the National Church and who will personally remain in full communion with the House of Bishops.
16. There is deep concern about the rush to elect a Bishop Coadjutor. Why? The present divisions within the diocese are not conducive to electing a Bishop who will be a unifying force. The proposed timeline is very aggressive. Parishes take 18 months to discern whom to call to their community. Why is our Diocese doing it in 12 months?
17. The survey that was sent out seemed to miss the mark on eliciting concerns about the character and personality of the diocese. The development of the Diocesan Profile seems rushed. How do individuals receive feedback about its content? How will communicants meet the candidates? What process is the Discernment Committee using to keep us informed and seek our input about this process?
18. Approximately 60% of the communicants reside in the NE and NW deaneries, yet their representation on the Episcopal Discernment Committee is only 1/3. Why?

Any member of our Steering Committee is available to speak directly with you should you so desire

In Christ,

Via Media Rio Grande Steering Committee

(sent via email: info@cpas.org.uk)
March 24, 2004

The Rev. Bob Key
Director of the Pastoral Aid Society, U.K.
Athena Drive
Tachbrook Park, Warwich CV34 6NG
England

Dear Rev. Key,

This letter is being written to provide you input from over 350 communicants who have spent time reflecting on the health and direction of the Diocese of the Rio Grande. The information contained herein is a summary of two sets of gatherings that were held in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and El Paso in January and March. The first meetings in January provided a safe forum for dialogue about the issues and turmoil that have existed within this Diocese for the last 30 years. The second set of meetings concluded this week and provided the opportunity to share the information we received concerning the days of discernment and to assist members of the diocese in contributing to whatever they felt would be constructive, informative and meaningful to that process. We hope and pray that this information will help you prepare to facilitate the Days of Discernment for our Diocese.

19. How do we develop the community and engage in communication that values diversity and treats differing views with respect when for 30 years this Diocese has not encouraged open dialogue?
20. We value the richness that comes from living with our geographical and theological diversity. We want a Bishop who will also value this diversity. How can healing occur throughout our Diocese given the hurt and lack of respect that so many of us have experienced?
21. We want a Bishop who will welcome and pastor to all people and clergy, not just those who share a common mind set. We want a Bishop who will not take us out of the National Church and who will personally remain in full communion with the House of Bishops.
22. There is deep concern about the rush to elect a Bishop Coadjutor. Why? The present divisions within the diocese are not conducive to electing a Bishop who will be a unifying force. The proposed timeline is very aggressive. Parishes take 18 months to discern whom to call to their community. Why is our Diocese doing it in 12 months?
23. The survey that was sent out seemed to miss the mark on eliciting concerns about the character and personality of the diocese. The development of the Diocesan Profile seems rushed. How do individuals receive feedback about its content? How will communicants meet the candidates? What process is the Discernment Committee using to keep us informed and seek our input about this process?
24. Approximately 60% of the communicants reside in the NE and NW deaneries, yet their representation on the Episcopal Discernment Committee is only 1/3. Why?

Any member of our Steering Committee is available to speak directly with you should you so desire

In Christ,

Via Media Rio Grande Steering Committee

Summary
Preparation for Days of Discernment
Santa Fe 3/18/04 and Albuquerque 3/22/04

Hopes and Concerns

1. For a Church that is welcoming to all cultures, people, and church which hears and uses all of us for work in the church.
2. For a Bishop who is willing to listen to all parishioners and act on the concerns of each parish.
3. Hope for a diocese in which opportunities will be offered for all of us to participate in the work of the church
4. That the profile includes someone who will bring us back to full contribution status of ECUSA.
5. We are a divided house; we are fearful and have a lack of trust.
6. Seems to be lack of openness
7. Diocese seems to be polarized; not much middle ground
8. What can I do; how can I be heard?
9. Want Bishop Coadjutor to be an agent of change. Open the diocese to various points of view.
10. Want inclusion, no one 2nd class member
11. Want Bishop Coadjutor to attend House of Bishops
12. Want Bishop Coadjutor to take Holy Communion with House Bishops
13. We want to be a Diocese and Bishop Coadjutor who is not taking sides-but is open to and tolerant of all sides.
14. Want a Bishop Coadjutor who is open to inclusive discussion of the issues within the Deaneries.
15. Power structure in the Diocese is a concern. Will all voices be heard?
16. Hope for a process where we can “vet” the candidates and get to meet them
17. Need to be certain that all members of diocese have the opportunity to meet the candidates.
18. Concern that the new Bishop will take us from the National Church
19. Concern that the profile will not reflect the true diversity, variety and dissent that exists within this diocese.
20. Fear that a Bishop (or specific) type of Bishop has already been selected
21. Concern that Bishop Kelshaw’s view have been confused with his personality
22. Concern that we will end up with a profile that is not reflective of our diocese.
23. Given survey process, concern that we will not end up with an independent Bishop
24. How will the diocese discuss issues across boundaries?
25. Concern that the process will not allow for a thorough investigation of candidates
26. Concerned that the Day of Discernment does not allow for asking too many questions.

What type of Bishop are we looking for?
1. We need a compassionate Bishop
2. One who respects and understands and follows the Canons and Parliamentary procedure
3. Will respect everyone’s opinions, not make him or her an enemy
4. Someone who is well balanced mentally and physically
5. We need someone who will build a program of spiritual development for the diocese
6. A Bishop who understands and pledges self to God
7. Bishop who is interested in a program to theologically train lay people to “think theologically” (not Bible Study).
8. We need someone who will bring solid theology to society’s table.
9. Open-minded, loving, concerned, has a real relationship with God
10. Need a Bishop with proven pastoral skills, with abilities in teaching and administration.
11. Open to listening and respecting all the views of others; doesn’t reinforce the biases that exist within the diocese
12. Some who can pastor to clergy and laity
13. Someone who has extensive parish experience in the United States
14. Bishop who supports the National Church Programs
15. Bishop who will remain a part of ECUSA
16. A Bishop who will be in communion with the House of Bishops
17. Someone interested in outreach
18. Work to strengthen ECUSA, not become a breakaway faction
19. Bishop who will address all diversity issues: youth, disabilities, evangelical, culture, etc.
20. Want a Bishop who can deal with diversity and not just preach on evangelism.
21. Had administrative Skills: good organizational skills, fiscal management, wider vision of administration of people
22. Theology: more open and tolerant
23. Pastoral Skills: minister to the clergy and the members of the diocese
24. Reconciler, healer, listener
25. Questioning should not equate dissent with heresy and “unchristian”
26. Honest about himself/herself and his background
27. Follows Canons and does not make unilateral decisions.
28. Someone who has humility. Want to know how candidates interpret their vows.
29. Someone who is not focused on one issue
30. Listens and responds faithfully

Information we want to learn from Standing and Discernment Committee
1. Is the Episcopal Discernment Committee concerned about the Positive and Negative Polarization within the Diocese?
2. If there is not a clear majority for a Bishop, is the Standing Committee prepared to delay the election?
3. How do the people in the pews find out about the profile?
4. How will the standing committee use the profile to match against candidates?
5. How many candidates will there be?
6. How will we have the opportunity to interact with the candidates?
7. What is the basis for selecting the candidates?
8. What does Canon Brown know about the situation/character of our diocese?
9. The survey left us feeling like we were being led in a certain direction. How will the Standing Committee address those concerns?
10. What kind of thorough background checks will the Search Committee do and will that information be shared with the diocese as a whole?
11. Why has the standing committee embarked on such a “speedy” timeframe? It feels like there is a hidden agenda.
12. Is the Discernment Committee concerned with the polarization that exists in our diocese? How do they plan to address it as they look for a new Bishop?
13. What is the process for accepting nominations outside of the search committee?

What responses/actions would you use if the Discernment Day Speakers were focused more on imparting information than on listening?
1. Stand up and pray
2. Stand up and reflect our frustration because our concerns and questions were not being answered.
3. Avoid use of labels
4. How do we turn around polarization and listen to each other?
5. Think about vocabulary
6. Turn questions into statements so that
7. How do the statements of Canon Brown lead us to understand the behavior, leadership, beliefs and actions that the Bishop we are calling will manifest?
8. What would this diocese look like if we had a Bishop who did heal this Diocese?
9. Reframe questions:
a) When I think of a Bishop, I want him/her to ……………………..
b) Put out expectations for the Bishop.
c) What does vision/leadership/healing/reconciling look to you? State that.
d) Take the words of small groups and use them to state your expectations.
10. Develop 3-4 positive statements for Saturday
11. Turn questions into affirmations

Notes from the March 22, 2004 VMRG meeting in El Paso

Concerns and hopes for our diocese, the search process, our new bishop:
Each of the following points is a summary synthesis of the comments, using the phrases of the participants.
There was near unanimity around the themes of our discussion, and each participant drew out different implications of these themes.

Current atmosphere created by Bishop Kelshaw and other diocesan leaders:
Triumphalism, polarization, fear, and combativeness.
Certain clergy and parishes have been ostracized and treated unequally, not cared for pastorally. Favoritism has been shown towards others.
The evangelical position is the only acceptable theological orientation.
It is assumed that God only speaks through the bishop.
Those who merely have a difference of opinion are treated as enemies

We need a bishop who will
Welcome and pastor all the people and clergy of the diocese, not just the like-minded.
Consider all the clergy as important extensions of diocesan ministry, not some of them as adversaries
Pastor all the people of God and who heals rifts, not causes them.
Be dedicated to the restoration of a divided diocese that is embroiled in negativism.
Be psychologically healthy, and screened carefully for this purpose.
Treat congregations and clergy as we all expect our own parish clergy to treat us.
Be an active and positive participant in the Episcopal Church and House of Bishops
Help us all be in this together, in an atmosphere of compassion, acceptance, free of fear.
Value the theological diversity as a strength of our church.
(that’s why many of our participants are Episcopalian)

Concerns about the search process
It is too rushed. This is terrifying, inappropriate.
If a parish takes 18 months to find a priest, how can the diocese, a much more complex community, do a good job of a profile, nominations, election in half that time?
It is obvious - by the makeup of the Discernment Committee, their survey, and their agenda for the Days of Discernment – that this is all about political control
We are clearly only going through the motions in order to say we’ve had a “fair process”
We should wait for Anglican primates and the Episcopal Church to sort out the wider issues before electing.
We need an interim bishop.

Discernment Day, Albuquerque: Some observations

• The meeting, led by Canon Keith Brown of the Church Pension Fund, was characterized as a time to clarify the role of a bishop, ask questions and make comments that would then be considered by the Discernment Committee and become part of the Diocesan Profile.

• Cannon Brown described how expectations of bishops are usually excessively high and unattainable due to the full spectrum of individual needs, interests and values throughout a diocese. What he saw of the survey results indicated that the Diocese of the Rio Grande is no exception to that rule, and that we will need to come to grips with the inevitability that this person cannot meet all needs, be everything to everyone... "The bishop can't do it all."

• Canon Brown and Standing Committee attendees admitted that there was no "job description" to present to this gathering, but that a general description exists in the Book of Common Prayer. It is a broad, baseline description that's important but variably interpretable.

• In the course of his presentations, these are the roles and responsibilities Canon Brown emphasized as appropriate to a bishop:

1. Adept "team leader" for other diocesan leaders and groups (Standing Committee, Diocesan Council, other councils)
2. Able to affect "healing" through conflict resolution, listening and hearing, "dialoging rather than pontificating", especially with the troubled folks of the diocese.
3. Skilled at "building new churches"... (Canon Brown juxtaposed the low response to this trait with the relatively high need reported from the survey for the bishop to provide "family pastoral care". He emphasized this disparity in our expectations with the opinion that the former is truly a bishop's role while the latter cannot possibly be met. One small group suggested that the simplistic survey questions left folks limited and with incomplete ways to express needs and expectations and that this particular response was more about wanting more personal contact with a bishop, a more pastoral (rather than a "CEO-type") leadership attitude.
4. Chief deployment officer: (Presumably, Cannon Brown’s comments were about helping to attract, recruit and influence hiring and possibly positioning of clergy within the diocese.)
5 Have good administrative and human resource abilities
6. Has or can gain a firm grasp of financial realities of diocese; doesn't avoid financial realities by leaving everything up to chief financial officer.
7. Skilled at appropriately separating diocesan initiatives from those that should be handled by the parishes.
8. The PRIMARY evangelist, teacher, inspirational leader, and representative of the diocese.
9. A visionary
10. Embodiment of openness to new and different ideas and a willingness to change.

• In addition to these ten roles and responsibilities, Cannon Brown made two further qualitative points about the bishop’s role:

1. He said that since the demands of the modern Episcopate have in many cases outgrown the established theology and traditions, there are new tensions that bishops need to be adept at dealing with.

2. It is critical that the Episcopal church, dioceses, parishes and their leaders exemplify healing, reconciliation, conflict resolution and dialog to the rest of society and the world. (Many commented that this meeting seemed like a positive step toward the attitude and resultant civil behaviors that will be needed to reconcile, heal and create more trust at least within our diocese.)

• From what he was hearing, Canon Brown suggested we were highlighting a need for additional interpretation and clarification of the bishop coadjutor’s role, the election process and the Diocesan Profile through dialog with the laity that the Discernment Committee, the Diocesan Profile and bishop candidates will benefit from.

• Small group sessions put interests, needs, and values on the table. It is not yet known whether any of this information was used to complete the Diocesan Profile.

• Canon Brown emphasized that the time frame for election was not unusual (12-18 months is usual). He does not view the Diocese of the Rio Grande as "troubled" as many are experiencing it. However, due to the time frame of the election and what he was hearing, he suggested that it would be good for us to focus more time and effort on clarifying and working through the issues.

• The Discernment Day was a tangible step toward open discussion in the diocese. However, the factional applause for several statements in the last session emphasized the polarization that still exists and will need to be dealt with by the bishop coadjutor.