Decision by Pennsylvania dioceses to have separate bishops underscores Episcopal unwillingness to accept reality

The two Pennsylvania dioceses that previously shared Bishop Sean Rowe as part of a partnership agreement voted on May 3 to end their six-year collaborative effort. The announcement spells bad news for both dioceses. It reflects an unwillingness to face the reality that both dioceses are facing an existential crisis that will only get worse with time.

Soon after Sean Rowe was elected presiding bishop, the Dioceses of Northwestern PA and Western New York launched a study to assess the possibility of electing a new shared bishop. While the study identified some positive outcomes of the partnership between the two dioceses, it also found numerous challenges, including a lack of clarity over resource allocation, cultural differences, a yearning for the past, and lingering suspicion and mistrust.

Soon after, the dioceses voted overwhelmingly to end their partnership and pursue separate bishops.

Numerous challenges confront both dioceses

The decision by the dioceses to end their partnership comes as no surprise.

In addition to the issues identified in the report, there are some challenges specific to the geographic areas served by the two dioceses. Additionally, from our perspective, some of the challenges identified in the report deserve particular attention.

These challenges include:

• Far-flung geography. Put simply, any bishop serving these dioceses must recognize that Episcopal assets are widely dispersed. Unlike suburban parishes, which may be only a few miles apart, it is not uncommon for many churches in this region to be more than an hour’s drive apart. Thus, even for regional events, both bishops and laity spend a lot of their time on the road—time that otherwise could be spent on ministry or outreach.
• Size. Both dioceses have historically been small, and membership has plummeted in recent years. Indeed, the two dioceses had a collective 2023 average Sunday attendance (ASA) of 2,665, making them together roughly 60 percent the size of the average Episcopal diocese.
• Small parishes. The small size of the two dioceses and widely dispersed churches are factors exacerbated by the small size of individual parishes. In Northwestern PA, the largest church by far is the Cathedral of St. Paul in Erie, which had an ASA of 131 in 2023. No other parish has 100 or more persons in attendance on Sundays, and many have fewer than 20. Similarly, in Western New York, St. James in Jamestown leads with a 2023 ASA of 152; only Calvary in Williamsville has a 2023 ASA of more than 100, coming in at 124. Multiple parishes report zero attendance during that time.
• Small annual pledges. Both dioceses comprise large swathes of the so-called Rust Belt, leading to inherent financial restraints. These factors are reflected in an average 2023 pledge across the two dioceses of $2,237, versus $3,648 nationally.
• Declining diocesan revenues. While annual pledges in the two dioceses have increased over the past 10 years, they have not kept pace with inflation. Moreover, membership attrition has resulted in sharp revenue declines during this period, even before factoring in inflation. Thus, 2013 pledge and plate for the two dioceses was $7,273,254, while 2023 brought in $6,421,103, an 11.72% decline.
• Parishes at risk of imminent closure. Based on this author’s knowledge of churches in the area, many parishes rely on a combination of their savings, pledge and plate, and deferred maintenance to get by. That said, they have absolutely no wiggle room and are one failed boiler or leaky roof away from closure. (Or one pledging unit leaving.) This lack of resources leads to heightened tensions and anxiety within parishes and challenges in recruiting qualified clergy.
• Larger parishes carry the load. Many also forget that, in these faltering dioceses, many of the smaller churches either long ago reverted to mission status or never became large enough to become full parishes. As a result, both dioceses are very dependent on revenue from one or two churches. This scenario leads to a skewing of priorities and tensions within the relevant standing committees, and an endless juggling act as bishops and other diocesan officials try to keep all parties happy.

In short, the two dioceses are already barely viable, and there is no reason to conclude that things will get better any time soon. Moreover, the predicament facing these dioceses is a bellwether for the larger denomination; within just a few years, large swathes of the Episcopal Church will similarly be (barely) clinging to life.

Lessons learned

So, what lessons can we take from this situation?

The answer, regrettably, in many cases, comes as no surprise. Still, it makes sense to review these conclusions, if for no other reason to remind ourselves of the urgent need for change within the denomination.

Specifics:

• The church doesn’t like change. Yeah, no kidding, Captain Obvious. But it goes beyond that: If the church cannot embrace change, there won’t be a church to whine about the subject.
• A culture of criticism and conflict has become embedded in large swaths of the Episcopal Church. To be clear, the church has always been highly conflictive. But, as the partnership report cited above notes, for many, criticism has become more than a quirk—it’s become a debilitating disease that impedes growth. And, to be clear: When criticizing change becomes preferable to survival, the applicable word is “toxic.”
• Although respondents in the survey consistently cited a positive view of Sean Rowe’s role in the partnership, we’d be remiss not to note a failure of leadership on both the diocesan and parish levels. Indeed, while a majority of respondents to the partnership survey cite the relationship as positive, perceptional issues, including unaddressed concerns about the dynamics of the arrangement, resulted in an overwhelming vote against continuing. Thus, we can reasonably infer that problems were not identified and addressed in a timely manner during the partnership, which in turn suggests that internal communication within the dioceses was ineffective.
• We see numerous hints of unresolved conflict threaded throughout the report. Whether it’s the disconnect between perceptions that the partnership was successful and the vote to end it, the references to lingering distrust, or the anecdotal evidence about complaining, it seems that the dioceses ignored or overlooked the role of conflict as a success factor.

Lessons for the future of the denomination

None of the issues that arose in the partnership were unexpected. Indeed, given the Episcopal Church’s conflictive nature and preference for process over results, it’s surprising that the partnership worked as well as it did.

Still, in addition to the largely tactical issues identified above, there’s a good argument to be made that Rowe’s initiative didn’t go far enough, fast enough.

Indeed, while Episcopalians generally dislike change, they also have an organizationally narcissistic view of the subject.

For instance, many older Episcopalians, particularly in Northwestern PA, will recall that not that long ago, morning prayer was normative, and you were lucky if a priest came once a month. That part of history, however, was conveniently forgotten following the church’s halcyon years in the early 1970s.

Real estate

Relatedly, while having a church building had an almost one-to-one correlation with mission or parish status 50 years ago, today it is hard to justify the continued ownership of these white elephants.

That does not diminish the beauty and historical significance of many of the Victorian-era church buildings in the two dioceses. Still, parishes with ASAs of 20 or less are doing themselves and their real estate a disservice by clinging to these costly, empty relics of a bygone era.

Further, especially if Morning Prayer is being said, there’s little reason not to livestream the service, perhaps from a library, courthouse, or a suitable member’s home. Not only does this free up cash for meaningful programmatic activity, but elderly church members, often with limited mobility, are spared the time, trouble, and risk of travel.

Thus, we believe that if the Episcopal Church wants to maintain a foothold in areas beyond Trinity Wall Street, it needs to focus on a house church-based model. In other words, parishes can and should remain, but their survival will be independent of their ability to maintain a moldy old stone heap that stands unused much of the year.

Yes, some parishes will choose to preserve physical plants, especially if multiple churches can use the space, but this will no longer be normative.

To be clear, the notion of one parish, one building, is a throwback to the wealth and prestige of the Episcopal Church.

For example, the Latter-day Saints, as a matter of church policy, typically assign two wards to an individual church building. Meanwhile, a third ward, sometimes a singles ward, may share the space. Wards only leave the building once they are large enough to warrant their own facility, after which the space-sharing process starts over.

Clergy deployment

Similarly, the current clergy deployment model is worse than dead on arrival. It’s been dead for a long time, but no one wants to admit it. (Even worse, the bivocational model is a non-starter, as many regions don’t have the jobs needed to attract a bivocational priest to the area.)

Thus, the current notion of a priest as someone who attended seminary for three years is obsolete, even with the Virginia Theological Seminary offering free tuition. Most people can’t take three years out of their lives to attend three years of residential grad school, then settle down in a small town in western PA to care full-time for a parish of 20 people.

As a result, all dioceses in the denomination need to consider paths to the priesthood that work for adults who already have full-time jobs.

Yes, the result may be clergy who, for example, lack proficiency in Aramaic. But we have yet to meet a parishioner in either diocese who has found Aramaic to be a meaningful part of their faith journey.

Meanwhile, we know many church members in both dioceses who wish their priest would learn how to live stream a church service, perform minor building repairs, raise money, engage via social media, or recruit young people to the church.

Relatedly, it’s fair to say that there is a huge disconnect between a seminary education and the needs of struggling parishes. Parishes need clergy who can grow a church, have strong interpersonal skills, understand church governance, and can respond to myriad demands on their time, including fundraising, social media, pastoral care, liturgy, finances, and care of the physical plant.

What they too often get is someone who, in military parlance, has all the skills needed to fight the last world war.

We also note that, from our admittedly skewed vantage point, far too many unqualified people are still going to seminary in the first place.

Specifically, we see:

• Facially obvious clinical narcissists who were smart enough to answer questions in a way that allowed them to make it through psychological screening.
• People lacking a real calling who enjoy going to church and didn’t know what else to do with themselves after college, so they showed up at seminary.
• Bored spouses of all genders who thought that seminary/ministry might be a fun way to fill their days.
• Persons with absolutely no moral compass. As in, no matter how drawn someone feels to ministry, if they are dishonest or cannot put the needs of their parish first, they have no business in ministry. They may have a good pastoral presence, be charming, friendly, and more, but sooner or later, these candidates invariably cause lasting harm to the church.

The episcopacy and the dioceses

Of course, no discussion of the denomination’s future would be complete without a discussion of the role of the episcopacy and the dioceses.

In that regard, we reiterate a criticism that’s bounced around the denomination for years. Specifically, the denomination persists in building out a gargantuan, labyrinthine hierarchy that exists far too often merely to perpetuate itself.

How can we say that?

Just look at the size of diocesan budgets and how little the average diocese actually does for most parishes.

Indeed, while dioceses are quick to ask for money, relatively few, for example, provide templated fundraising materials to support pledging at the parish level. And even fewer teach clergy how to overcome their deep-seated fear of “the ask,” despite the fact it’s a vital part of church life.

Relatedly, it is not uncommon on the parish level to hear people ask, “What exactly does the diocese do for us?” In many cases, there’s no easy answer beyond a retreat center and, hopefully, an annual episcopal visit.

Even worse, the services the hierarchy provides are often mediocre. Specifically:

1. Recent turn-key advertising campaigns fell flat.
2. Church-wide website efforts are weak, with most larger parishes preferring a bespoke web presence.
3. Title IV and clergy discipline remain a hot mess, with even criminal conduct getting a pass, particularly when bishops are involved. Additionally, intake officer Barb Kempf and the Disciplinary Committee for Bishops continue to ignore rudimentary requirements under the canons, including a pastoral response. (We don’t think it unfair if the canons require something, but the church ignores the requirement and is aware of the issue, to conclude that the church is lying to its members.)
4. The church still has no way to address issues like sexual harassment, bullying, and other serious issues outside the ambit of Title IV. Thus, these issues typically go unresolved, or result in a free-for-all in which it’s every man, woman, child, and beast for themselves.
5. Church Pension Group coverage, which, while generous to parishes, is grossly misaligned with the church’s claims of social justice and often requires victims of abuse to sue the church for relief.
6. Church planting is ludicrously thin, with the much-vaunted $9 million in funding from the national church over the past decade accounting for less than .04 percent of church revenue.

We might even be okay with some of this if we knew the church was working to improve. But the reality is that it’s not, except for some tweaking around the margins.

Relatedly, we note that overhead in the Episcopal Church is estimated to run as high as 70 percent of revenue, comprising salaries and physical plant costs. This staggeringly high level, combined with mediocre services from the episcopacy itself, and the casual nature of governance at the diocesan and parish levels, continues to cause Anglican Watch grave concern.

Indeed, even with these high expenditures, many dioceses allow parishes to substitute an Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) or compilation for an annual audit. Even worse, many parishes present these as audits, despite the fact that they are emphatically not and expressly have no attestation value.

To be clear: If nothing else, dioceses/judicatories must support standing committee, vestry, and bishop’s committee members in their roles as fiduciaries by ensuring they see audit engagement letters, audit reports, and audited financial reports for the entities they serve.

Moreover, there must be no off-budget programs, including church schools, which in some cases comprise 2/3 of a parish’s budget yet have zero vestry oversight, despite legally being part of the parish. In such cases, breakdowns in governance are all but assured.

Relatedly, in cases in which a fiduciary turns to the diocese with concerns, whether they involve financial misconduct, sexual abuse, bullying, or other untoward behavior, the diocese in question must protect the fiduciary. As with current issues in the federal government, no fiduciary will be willing to come forward if they face retaliation as a result. And yes, the canons forbid retaliation, but we have yet to see a single instance where judicatories have enforced this provision, despite numerous opportunities to do so.

So, how do these issues relate to the unwinding of the partnership between Northwestern PA and Western New York?

The answer is twofold.

On the one hand, the petty bickering and animosity that emerged during the partnership and the longing for an unobtainable past are microcosms of the larger Episcopal Church.

On the other hand, we now see both dioceses pursuing independent bishops, despite the fact neither can afford one.

Indeed, to the extent the dioceses raise money to do so, it becomes a case of the proverbial “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Far more pressing issues face both dioceses than paying for a full-time bishop. Thus, this is a case of profound dysfunction by two dioceses that should be focused on strategies for survival and growth rather than ways to return to the good old days.

Moreover, in pursuing independent bishops, both dioceses appear to be ignoring a painful reality, which is that a merger is all but inevitable. In fact, even if the two dioceses combine, the resulting organization will still be much smaller than most dioceses in the larger church.

We also should note that there’s little justification for the Episcopal church’s 108 dioceses. Indeed, ACNA continues to grow by about 2.5 percent a year, which corresponds with the larger denomination’s historic rate of decline. Yet it does so with just 29 dioceses.

To be fair, ACNA segments that comprise former Episcopal parishes, like many around Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and Fort Worth, continue their tradition of decline. Growth typically is centered on newer dioceses and churches. Thus, it’s fair to say that decline is a difficult tradition to overcome.

In closing

In closing, we hope that both dioceses will take a deep breath and consider their future prospects carefully. Simply put, neither will last long as a stand-alone entity, no matter how much they might wish otherwise.

Nor should the dioceses treat the partnership as an all-or-nothing proposition. While members may dislike some aspects of the partnership, the painful reality is they will be working together in some fashion in the not-too-distant future, even if only to figure out how to offload the remaining assets.

Meanwhile, we believe that the partnership’s unwinding offers promising lessons, including the dangers inherent in relying on any one person, bishop or otherwise, to be a bridge to the future.

Finally, while the study prepared by the partnership was careful to focus on the positive, we hope that all involved, including other dioceses, will look carefully at the challenges identified by the study. In doing so, there’s room for ample soul-searching, including asking the question, “Are our negative attitudes undercutting the survival of the church?”

As things stand, our fears for the future of the Episcopal Church are growing, not declining.