I doubt that most US dioceses would consider consolidation - especially those that are the same as state boundaries. I see they still get to have their own bishop so that might ease the pain in places like Springfield, Eau Clair, etc. But it would not save much money since those bishops are not paid much anyway. Large areas (geographically), like Wyoming - with few members (compared to other dioceses) already feel challenged with one bishop. I am encouraged by the new bishop of W. KS who continues as rector as he carries out his episcopal duties. It would take some creative thinking by the dioceses (not from on high) to make changes and get "buy in."

That Daily Mail report is some weeks old and is based on a leak which is inaccurate in detail.

Thanks, Simon. I had not noticed the date. I presume you mean inaccurate about the details of the recommendation. My interest in using it was their interpretation of the causes which feel right, even while they also add their fear of the foreigner take to the story.

The single most salient factor will be the money.

Ministries realized from the joining-together of previously disparate entities such as congregations and dioceses will be a side benefit, but it will only be fiscal necessity that drives people to talk about economies of scale. We seem destined for the same conversations in the U.S., but it won't happen in earnest until the money runs out, and at that point it could generally be too late.

The congregations and dioceses best suited to head into the future are the ones willing to have those sorts of "smaller is better" conversations now and into the next five years.

Note that "smaller" and "more nimble" (remember that one?) may enjoy a natural overlap.

Torey Lightcap

Torey and Ann, your points are well taken. It's a bit of a leap but Secretary Gates in talking about the end of DADT emphasized the importance of doing it before a court imposes it. In the same way, it's important to plan for consolidation before the money runs out.

Are those conversations simply nonstarters? One would hope an appeal to good stewardship would prevail.

There was a recent story of a bishop who suggested consolidation to his neighboring bishop. Apparently he received a deaf ear. That's unfortunate. It seemed that independence and having your own bishop was valued over stewardship.

The most important factors are emotion and party spirit and independence. "you will take my diocese over my dead body" - so in the end finances may kill them but they will go down trying to keep it. IMO -- the only way to change this is to get people thinking of creative strategies -- consolidation and downsizing are not the only answers. Re-visioning why we need bishops and dioceses? are there other ways than the way we have always done things? Most bishops love being a bishop too much to change even in the face of death of the church.

This is being discussed, at least in some places. At our last diocesan convention a lay delegate brought a resolution to look at consolidation with an adjacent diocese. While there wasn't much enthusiasm, most of the concern was that this would happen suddenly or without thorough reflection. Wonks in the crowd noted that it couldn't happen quickly, nor without consent of General Convention, so a sort of "study resolution" went forward.

We have also heard here gossip (I can't provide anything stronger than that) that this also been proposed between two other dioceses in our region. As far as I know, if that conversation has happened nothing appears to have come from it.

I have been present for division of two dioceses in my career (West Tennessee from Tennessee and Eastern Michigan from Michigan). The issues then were costs of travel and cultural issues within the larger, dividing diocese. If we'd had then the communication structures we have now (at least in the case of Michigan) I don't know whether we'd have felt the pressure to divide.

Marshall Scott