In the months since our Diocesan Convention voted not to pursue reunification with the Episcopal Diocese of Indianapolis, many have asked why we entered into the conversation in the first place, what we have learned through the process, and why was the eventual vote and the 2025 Diocesan Convention a “no” vote. These are important questions, and they deserve a thoughtful response.
Where It All Began
In 2015, the Episcopal Church General Convention considered Resolution A100, which proposed requiring dioceses to assess their vitality and viability during periods of episcopal transition. While the resolution ultimately failed – largely because deputies and bishops were hesitant to impose such an institutional mandate – the underlying idea of intentional self-assessment gained wide support.
Bishop Douglas Sparks and Bishop Jennifer Baskerville-Burrows believed that such discernment is best undertaken before a diocese finds itself under the pressures of a transition. Rather than waiting until circumstances forced difficult decisions, they believed it was wise to ask thoughtful questions while both dioceses had the freedom and stability to do so. Further, given that Northern Indiana was once part of the Diocese of Indianapolis, restoring a previously existing diocese is procedurally much simpler under the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church than attempting to merge with a different neighboring diocese to create an entirely new one. There are also practical legal advantages to having a diocese located entirely within one state. Although a few dioceses cross state lines, doing so requires navigating the tax, corporate, and nonprofit laws of multiple states.
Why Did the Diocese of Northern Indiana Vote “No” to Reunification?
No single factor explains the outcome, but several themes emerged during conversations across the diocese.
Many people expressed a desire for a more compelling vision of what a reunited diocese would become. While much attention was given to organizational structures and governance, many felt that the larger question – who God was calling us to be together – remained undefined. Though leadership was asked many times for reasons for “why reunify,” no sufficient or convincing answers were given by leadership.
One misunderstanding for “why reunify” was that the diocese was facing imminent financial difficulty. It became clear through the process of reunification, however, that this oft-held narrative about our diocese is not true. In fact, thanks in part to a recent $1 million bequest, our diocesan treasurer believes the diocese has the financial resources to continue its ministry well into the next generation. While many of our congregations face the realities of aging membership, declining attendance, and local financial challenges, the diocese itself remains on solid financial footing. Through careful and faithful stewardship, we expect to continue serving God’s mission for many years to come.
Some people voiced concern that the Diocese of Northern Indiana, which has long functioned in a highly relational and collaborative manner, might lose something of its distinctive culture within a diocesan structure perceived as larger, more formal, and more hierarchical. There were moments throughout the process where clergy and congregations were asked to reflect on “who we are,” and what we would mourn if reunification were to take place. This reflection cultivated a new sense of pride in who we are as a small relational diocese.
There were also practical concerns. People worried about preserving ministries that have become part of our diocesan identity, including programs such as summer camp. Others wondered whether congregations in Northern Indiana would continue to enjoy meaningful representation on diocesan committees, commissions, and General Convention deputations.
Some observed that reunification appeared to carry different levels of importance and investment within the two dioceses. Whether or not that perception reflected reality, it shaped how many people viewed the proposal.
Despite sincere efforts by leaders in both dioceses, we have not yet built the depth of relationships that many believed would be necessary to support such a significant step. Organizational plans can be developed in relatively short order, but trust, familiarity, and shared identity take much longer to cultivate. Requests to slow down the process to cultivate relationships were ignored by leadership.
As our own bishop prepares to retire, many also feel strongly that the Diocese of Northern Indiana should preserve as many options as possible as we enter a season of discernment. Choosing not to reunify at this time allows the diocese to move forward with its search for new episcopal leadership while remaining open to whatever opportunities God may reveal in the future.
The reunification process required an extraordinary amount of work. Members of the joint reunification committee devoted countless hours to studying governance, finances, ministry, communications, and the practical implications of reunification. They fulfilled every task asked of them and did so within an ambitious timeline. Our vote not to reunify should never be understood as a criticism of their dedication or the quality of their work. The diocese owes them a sincere debt of gratitude for their faithful service.
In Conclusion
Although reunification is no longer under consideration, the process itself has not been without value. It prompted us to examine who we are, how we understand our mission, and what kind of future we hope to build together. Those are conversations worth continuing. As we begin our search for the next bishop of Northern Indiana, they will help shape not only the leader we seek, but also the church we believe God is calling us to become.
The “no” vote did not come from fear, anxiety, or a stubbornness to change. These were not factors in the ‘no’ vote. Rather, it came from a renewed understanding of our own identity. The proposed reunification with the Diocese of Indianapolis began as a proactive effort to assess the long-term vitality and future of both dioceses, rather than as a response to an obvious immediate crisis. Although the process provided valuable opportunities for reflection, we ultimately voted against reunification because many felt there was not a compelling enough vision for what a reunited diocese would become, while the diocese itself remains financially stable and does not face the imminent financial crisis some had assumed. The process also highlighted the value of our distinctive small, relational, and collaborative culture, along with concerns about preserving ministries, representation, and local identity within a larger and more hierarchical structure. Additionally, many felt that sufficient relationships, trust, and shared identity had not yet developed between the two dioceses, and that the process had moved too quickly. Ultimately, the “no” vote was an affirmation of Northern Indiana’s identity and a desire to preserve its options as it enters a new period of episcopal leadership and discerns the future God is calling it to build.