The MMR Committee is honored to provide this snapshot of the diocese. We
took this challenge with an original timeline of response by January 2007. It
became apparent during a Clergy Day in the fall of 2006, that this timeline was
unrealistic and a decision was made by the chair of the MMR Committee and the
Bishop to extend our self-assessment to a target date of Easter Sunday April 8,
2007. The rationale for this decision was that Lent, being a time of selfassessment,
might be a good time to prayerfully assess our common life.

On April 9, 2007 we had a total of 26 respondents out of a possible 57 parishes,
5 convocational clergy groups, and the Executive Board. During a May meeting,
members of the Executive Board were given an update on the self-assessment
process. In response, the President of each convocation was charged with
contacting parishes that had not responded. A new target date of July 1, 2007
was established.

We are happy to report that a total of 39 parishes, 4 convocational clergy groups,
and the Executive Board provided data for this report. It is important to note that
our diocesan website lists 57 parishes in our diocese but we did not expect
participation, due to various circumstances, from 6-8 parishes. The honesty of
the responses, we believe, accurately reflects the mood of the parishes in our
diocese and is important as a guide to future conversation, reflection, and action.

Our committee operated as much as possible over the internet. The demands of
driving long distances to participate were therefore diminished by utilizing this
powerful tool.

Each parish, clergy group, and the Executive Board was counted as one
respondent. Our total respondent pool was 44. A large percentage of
respondents engaged the process utilizing the appreciative inquiry assessment
tool as presented. A small percentage, for their own stated reasons, chose to
respond in a different format, but they did respond.

We as a committee are grateful for the honest engagement by all respondents in
this self-assessment process. All responses are absolutely confidential. Our
prayer is that the data contained in this report will expand the dialogue we have
begun with all of our sisters and brothers, from the bishop to the smallest parish
in the farthest corner of the geographic boundaries of our diocese.

What is? Appreciating what we do well.
Major strength areas identified by the data include:
· Outreach: locally, nationally, and internationally.
· Worship.
· Youth ministries especially our diocesan opportunities.
· The staff of Evans House is greatly appreciated, especially annual council
and working with a small number of volunteer and paid staff.
· Our institutional ministries at Boys’ Home--Covington, Phoebe Needles,
and Grace House.

What might be?
We envision and see as possible:
· We desire a clear vision for the diocese that we can not only support with
our funds but with our hands.
· Growth in numbers in our parishes.
· Financial stability for our parishes and our diocese.
· More diocesan-wide engagement with parish-to-parish communication
and study offered on a regular basis, so that we may be useful to one
another.
· We desire a system for conflict management/resolution that is clearly
defined and accessible to all who are in need of this service.

What else? Dialogue
One area was clearly identified for more dialogue:
· It is clear that we desire more two-way communication with our bishop.
We wish the communication to be a free-flowing and open system
between the people of the diocese and the bishop. We hope the bishop
would play a proactive role in this intentional dialogue. We desire a regular
and frequent schedule for reviews.

Where’s the rub? Stress
While many areas of stress were identified by the respondents, we can capture
the essence of our stress within the system as:
· Our system currently lacks a process or system within which we can
express our frustrations/concerns in a transparently open format, and
expect an engaged, concerned, loving response.