These themes are taken from the diocese’s Three Years Out report. A complete copy can be found online at www.edow.org/tyo.

I. Desire for ongoing parish networking and shared resources in all ministry areas
Participants [in feedback sessions conducted in assembling the report] expressed strong appreciation for the opportunity to network and share information and concerns with other parishes. They actively and enthusiastically shared ideas and experiences in such "tough" areas as evangelism and want more such opportunities to discuss common congregational needs and experiences and learn from each other. Increased networking within regions was seen as an obvious and relatively inexpensive way of doing this. Many said parishes need to feel less alone, more connected, more "diocesan partnership."

II. Need more resources for congregations from Church House staff
A consistent theme was the need for more training for both lay and clergy in all ministry areas, especially lay leadership development. This might include conferences in which attendees can learn from each other, such as the wardens' conferences which used to be held semi-annually. Suggested training topics included a wide range, from leadership to… evangelism … to Spanish language classes.… Appreciation was expressed for training provided in stewardship, financial/accounting procedures and youth ministry.

III. Support from diocesan staff
The current youth ministry staff received almost universal accolades. Respondents greatly appreciate the support they've received, and want more of it. They strongly recommend continuing the full-time youth ministry position.

Appreciation also was expressed for the support being received by colleges and Episcopal schools from the relatively new staff person responsible for Academic Ministries.
Respondents expressed less overall satisfaction with staff support in the areas of Congregational Development, Search Process and (particularly) Clergy Deployment. They desire greater visibility and more proactive leadership in these areas.

It should be noted that some respondents offered strong appreciation for staff support in areas not being reviewed; e.g., property management, information systems technology, and communications.

IV. Need for shared diocesan vision
There was strongly expressed concern that we need to understand our identity; i.e., Who are we as a diocese? What do we mean by "diocese"? What are we being called to do? How can we best work together? There was a call not only to develop a common diocesan vision, mission, goals, and objectives, but then to provide resources to equip parishes for implementing the vision.

V. Diocesan communication still remains an issue, despite progress.
Many respondents expressed appreciation for what they see as greatly improved top-down communication from Church House; e.g., "Washington Window is great!" They also like the EDOW Web site and online newsletter, although a number were unaware of the newsletter's existence and did not know they could subscribe to it. Horizontal and bottom-up communication, however, was seen as still needing improvement. As previously mentioned, a big area for improvement is communication and mutual support among parishes within each region and between regions.

VI. Concern about the Bishop's role
In discussing the role of the Bishop and his staff, participants acknowledged the unique demands placed upon the Bishop of Washington. Most recognized that our diocese is unique in being 1) at the crux of national and international affairs, and 2) centered at Washington National Cathedral, a house of prayer, celebration and grieving for all people. They were less in touch with what this means for the bishop and his time. Many of the demands placed on the Bishop of Washington are unique, too - from granting permission to use the cathedral for state funerals and celebrations (which previous bishops sometimes refused), to developing working relationships with international, ecumenical leaders from many denominations, and attending White House and embassy events or suddenly having to close down all diocesan operations for several days to secure the cathedral's grounds for the president to attend an event. Although the pressure of federal legislative issues is borne by the national church's Capitol Hill office, the resident bishop is the person on the scene, not the Presiding Bishop in New York City. All of this may be a shock for clergy called to this diocese whose access to the bishop may be much less than it was in previous dioceses.

While respondents are proud of the bishop's role in national and international events, both lay and clergy consistently expressed strong concerns that his involvement outside the diocese makes him much less accessible and responsive to diocesan needs than they would like. Members of the diocese like and respect the bishop - and they want more time with him! This theme was expressed repeatedly in every feedback session, online, and at Regional Assemblies. It focused particularly on the reduction of regular parish visitations by the bishop to once every three years. Both lay and clergy find this simply unacceptable, although many would be willing to accept alternating visits from a full-time suffragan or assisting bishop.

Concern also was expressed about what is perceived as the bishop's non-collaborative decision-making style. Examples include the way staff was hired and the decision to hold confirmations and ordinations only at the cathedral instead of in parishes. Strong objections were voiced both to the latter decision and to the way it was made; i.e., "We in the parishes were not consulted - we were simply told!"

Frustration also was expressed that so much of the bishop's time was being taken with "problem" parishes that there was little time left to help parishes simply flourish. Also, the bishop and staff were seen as reactive in dealing with parish crises, rather than proactive, partly because they didn't know parishes well.

Some, particularly clergy, were concerned about the bishop's inability to focus on a realistic number of issues, prioritize them, and follow through on addressing them. This was seen as having a systemic "trickle-down" effect which negatively impacts both staff (especially) and parishes.

Some clergy expressed the need for more pastoral support from the bishop for both clergy and laity. One said, "While Bishop Chane clearly takes his role as Apostle very seriously, he doesn't seem to have the same zeal as chief priest and pastor."

Thus, given the acknowledgement of the overwhelming demands on the bishop's time and the limitations of his personal style, there was a strong recommendation from all sources that he call either a Suffragan or full-time assisting bishop to "tend to the diocese."

VII. Concern about the impact of changing demographics
Broad and deep concern was expressed about perceived widening economic disparities among parishes, especially inner-city and suburban, and about racial and ethnic overtones in these disparities. Also voiced frequently was the need for more clergy and lay leaders who are trained and skilled in multi-cultural leadership and who are bi-lingual, particularly in Spanish.

VIII. We don't want our churches to die.
How do we grow, not only in numbers but spiritually? Many respondents agreed that the world is changing, and we need to change in response (e.g., provide multi-lingual, electronic communication, flexible liturgy and music, advertising, outreach beyond church doors!) There was a widespread plea for training in evangelism … particularly as a way to meet the challenges of the rapidly growing "mega-churches" which many see as a threat. At the same time, there was a sometimes rueful recognition that not all congregations really want to grow, because growth means change and requires taxing already strained human resources. In many congregations, the issue remains "to grow or not to grow."

IX. Need to develop and follow through on strategies in key areas
Three critical areas were identified where strategies and consistent follow-through were needed - Latino ministry, church planting, and church closings. While there was general acclaim for the attention and support given Latino ministry, there was also an expressed need for greater follow-through and coordination of this emerging ministry. Another key area was planting new churches. A number of people commented on the need to target limited resources strategically in planning for and starting new congregations. At the same time there was an acknowledgement that some churches were dying, and that perhaps the time had come to close their doors. Without a strategic approach, however, people feared it would be impossible to make these necessary changes.