A partnership between the dioceses of Western New York and Northwestern Pennsylvania has led the way in such cooperation, but—unlike other arrangements—it was never intended as a merger.
“Just to be clear, the Partnership did not start with a ‘merger’ in mind, nor has it ever been the goal,” said the Rev. Luke Fodor, president of Western New York’s standing committee. “It was always an experiment to pioneer new approaches to ministry. The goal was to expend our collective capacity to empower us to better share the gospel in our region through the sharing of resources.”
Several other dioceses have merged in this decade. In 2024, General Convention approved the Diocese of the Great Lakes, which combined the dioceses of Eastern Michigan and Western Michigan. Central Pennsylvania and Bethlehem have agreed to a reunification and are working toward becoming the Diocese of the Susquehanna by January 1, 2026. The dioceses of Eau Claire, Fond du Lac, and Milwaukee reunified to form the Episcopal Diocese of Wisconsin. Fort Worth voted to become the North Region of the Diocese of Texas. Hawaii expanded to include Guam and Saipan, formerly known as the Episcopal Church in Micronesia.
Four consultants released a detailed report about the Partnership on February 28, and the dioceses will vote on May 3 on the next steps.
What If?
WNY/NWPA began exploring options almost a decade ago. The WNY & NWPA website described the arrangement as two dioceses sharing one bishop and one staff. The dioceses saw the Partnership as more than a money-saving step, but said its purpose was to “collaborate closely in mission and revitalize the Episcopal Church along the southeastern shores of Lake Erie.”
The plan was approved at a joint convention on October 26, 2018. Facing mandatory retirement because of age, Bishop William Franklin resigned in April 2019; Bishop Sean Rowe became the bishop of both dioceses, a position he maintained until his election as Presiding Bishop in July 2024.
“The Partnership between the Dioceses of NWPA and WNY came about because of a unique set of coinciding opportunities,” said the Rev. Canon Stacey Fussell, president of Northwestern Pennsylvania’s standing committee. “Bishops Sean Rowe and William Franklin were colleagues who found common ground in serving neighboring dioceses in economically challenged, depopulating regions, sometimes referred to as the Rust Belt. Bishop Franklin was facing mandatory retirement age and imagining next steps for his diocese. Bishop Rowe had experience serving as a provisional bishop for the Diocese of Bethlehem for a time certain to help them through a crisis while continuing to serve as Bishop Diocesan of NWPA. In conversations, the two bishops began to wonder ‘What if?’”
Fussell added: “What if, upon Bishop Franklin’s retirement, Bishop Rowe became Bishop Provisional of WNY but instead of NWPA just sharing their bishop with another diocese, the shared episcopate was the lynchpin of an innovated shared way of being and doing ministry for the two dioceses and for a committed relationship between the two dioceses—for a Partnership? After robust conversations and prayerful discernment, Standing Committees, Diocesan Councils, and Diocesan Conventions of both dioceses agreed to undertake this work as ‘an experiment for the sake of the Gospel.’”
Launching an Evaluation
The Partnership asked four leaders to conduct the study: the Rev. Canon Gay C. Jennings, former president of the House of Deputies and the Rt. Rev. Ian T. Douglas, retired Bishop of Connecticut; and adjutant consultants the Rt. Rev. Larry R. Benfield, retired Bishop of Arkansas, and Dr. Michelle Holmes.
Their 104-page report is divided into five chapters: History and Culture; Findings; Anti-Racism; Partnership Finances; and Options Going Forward. Add to that three Appendices: Evaluation Methodology; Organizational Culture & Organizational Effectiveness; and Partnership Evaluation Survey.
Western New York has 55 parishes/congregations and 6,014 members and Northwestern Pennsylvania has 36 parishes/congregations and 2,677 members. “This is a significant difference that impacts the culture and functioning of each diocese historically and today,” the evaluation said.
“Clearly both dioceses emerged from different historical circumstances,” the evaluation added. “Westen New York was carved out of New York in the early 19th century and shared the high church tradition of its parent diocese. Western New York then later gave birth to two other dioceses in New York. Seven decades after WNY was created, Northwestern Pennsylvania was divided from the Diocese of Pittsburgh with its more low church liturgical tradition. While also having rural communities, Western New York is dominated by the presence of the large urban reality of Buffalo as the ‘second city’ of New York. Northwestern Pennsylvania is less urban-centric and its population is more evenly distributed across the region.”
The evaluation’s results were listed as Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats.
Strengths
- Diocesan cultures marked by love of the diocese, the importance of relationships, loyalty to the episcopate, willingness to experiment, resilience, practicality, and faithfulness.
- Pride in being in the vanguard of cooperative ventures between dioceses in the Episcopal Church encouraging new possibilities.
- A visionary bishop providing strategic and pastoral leadership to guide the development of the Partnership; a responsive and supportive Partnership staff.
- Regional collaborations and partnerships that strengthen congregational life and witness.
- Close relationships; desire for greater connection, collaboration, and witness; communications; work of the joint Commission on Ministry and Commission to Dismantle Racism and Discrimination.
- Cost savings in operating budgets making funding available for strategic mission opportunities and grants.
Weaknesses
- Diocesan cultures marked by suspicion, mistrust, negativity, grievance opposition, congregationalism, weariness, and yearning for the past.
- Difficulty creating a shared Partnership identity while acknowledging the identity of each diocese; focus on what has been lost obstructing the view of what could be.
- Belief that treatment of the two dioceses has been inequitable.
- Dissatisfaction with communications.
- Turnover, role clarity, responsiveness, and structure of Partnership staff; location and use of Partnership offices.
- Lack of knowledge about cost savings and Partnership finances.
- Lack of connection to the Partnership on the local congregational level.
- A churchwide clergy shortage affecting many congregations.
Opportunities
- Build on the notion that critical mass provides greater diversity, resources, and impact; foster relationships and connection to build cohesion, shared identity, and trust; increase training and leadership development.
- Explore cultural differences as contributing to shared identity through diversity of people, perspectives, and gifts.
- If the Partnership continues, focus on participation in God’s mission and structure accordingly.
- If the Partnership does not continue, respect and honor the positive aspects of the Partnership, and explore ongoing collaboration if desirable.
Threats
- Relational isolation and congregationalism intensified by geography distances and attitudinal differences.
- A more widespread culture of complaint and grievance.
- Unavoidable consequences of decline of Christianity and religious affiliation and practice in the United States.
- Long-term sustainability and viability of congregations given loss of people, revenue, capacity, and confidence combined with aging buildings and populations, and difficulty securing clergy.
The chapter on future options presents seven options. On the seventh option, it recommends different actions for the two dioceses:
- Continue the Partnership.
- Become one new diocese through junction.
- End the Partnership and continue to cooperate in specific ministries.
- End the Partnership and go separate ways as two dioceses.
- Pursue a new partnership with another diocese.
- Seek reunion with a diocese with which it was once historically connected.
Option 7 for Western New York:
- Enter a junction with another diocese or a reunification with Rochester/Central New York/New York.
Option 7 for Northwestern Pennsylvania:
- Enter a junction with another diocese or a reunification with Pittsburgh.
Consultants’ Commentary
Consultants Douglas and Jennings were enthusiastic about the process, the report, and the dedication to the tasks.
“It was evident that they were very serious about this evaluation,” Douglas said. “They wanted to be multiple methodology and over a substantial amount of time. It wasn’t just a quick in-and-out and here’s short reflection. They’ve been at this for five years. It was one of the older partnerships. … There would be a lot of good lessons to learn.”
“The fact that these two dioceses were in the vanguard in these kinds of explorations and cooperations, partnerships between dioceses, I wanted to be part of looking at that because that’s where we are moving as a church,” Jennings said.
Douglas and Jennings said hundreds of people participated in the evaluation. They interviewed more than 60 people as individuals, or in group sessions. There were eight listening sessions with 150 participating both on Zoom and in person. The quantitative survey resulted in 400 submissions.
The consultants stressed that both dioceses were committed to this study. “They were both equally committed and in different ways,” Douglas said. “There was a variety across both dioceses. Lots of different access points, with different people and different levels of engagement with the diocese. They were equally committed.”
Lessons Learned
“It is imperative that leaders take the time to understand the differences in culture before beginning the process of partnership,” Fodor said. “Additionally, shortcuts only cause more work in the end. Setting the terms of engagement from the start will save many frustrations in the long-term. One thing we have learned is that while our polity often makes the episcopacy the lynchpin in our systems, it is essential that other democratic and canonical bodies be set up to strengthen the work of the whole—especially when working in uncharted territory. When you pin a partnership on the auspices of one individual, their departure from the system creates additional confusion and lack of custodial command of projects/processes.”
Fodor added, “Always follow the guiding the Holy Spirit! Don’t be afraid to try things even if they seem too difficult or complicated or uncharted.”
Neva Rae Fox is a communications professional with extensive Episcopal experience, serving the boards of The Living Church Foundation, Bible and Common Prayer Book Society, Episcopal Community Services of New Jersey, and others.
