Why Stewardship Matters

One of the more awkward sermons pastors preach during their tenure is on the theme of stewardship. It seems that no one enjoys talking about stewardship--not pastors, and not congregations.  And for good reason.  Talking about stewardship in a capitalist, consumer economy demands that we talk about the real issue at stake, money.  "Remember that pastor we had so many years ago...he would talk about money for a month straight in his sermons!  What business does he have about my personal life?  What I do with my money is my business."  This sentiment is totally normal and is considered acceptable in United Methodist churches all over the country, not to mention churches of all denominations.  This sentiment is why stewardship is such a headache for pastors as well; we know we need to talk about it, but we're afraid to infringe upon the strongly-held beliefs of our parish, and we understand that unity of the Spirit is more important than discussing details of money management.

Or is it?  

It seems that all of us are to blame, including myself, when it comes to this "unmentionable topic".  I'd rather have a sex talk with my (future) kids than face preaching a sermon series about stewardship, and I know I'm in good company.  And of all issues that the pastor brings to the pulpit, issues about stewardship tend to be one of the least-enjoyed topics by congregations everywhere.  This must be why so many books are being published today that center on congregational stewardship.  The Cokesbury catalogue even dedicates two to three pages in every issue to stewardship resources.  Why do we never see a section on "Holy Spirit resources" or "social justice issues"?  Not only do we loathe the issue of stewardship--it's one of our biggest struggles as a church, as a people of God.  The fact is, laity and clergy alike, our wallets has become a sacred space that we declare off-limits to God, and therefore the topic of stewardship falls on deaf ears for another year.  

The problem is one of enormous consequences, and we've already felt these consequences for some time now.  In America, we typically spend one hour twice per month (or more, if we're especially devout) at church, and much of the rest of our time engrossed in service and worship to the almighty Dollar.  We work hard to earn more dollars, we spend time exchanging those dollars for goods, and we save dollars for the future.  Many of us borrow more dollars for more power to buy more goods, and we have a lot of places we'd like to see those dollars being put to good use.  A bigger home; a new car; trendy clothing; more entertainment options; advanced technology; eating out more frequently; the list goes on, and it never seems to end.  All the while, "essential" spending has increased to include all kinds and types of insurance, greater and greater education savings, bigger and better stock portfolios, and naturally enough "mad money" to spend on whatever strikes us in the moment.  

Entire seasons are dedicated to Dollar worship.  Christmas, which in theory is a Christian holiday, has become overwhelmed with a spirit of mass consumption.  Easter is no longer complete without plenty of chocolate, an Easter egg hunt and cute pastel decorations.  Valentine's Day gifts are bigger and more expensive, and restaurants have doubled their incentives for you to come and dine to celebrate the fact that it's a Friday.  Every day of the year is a celebration for America, calling for ever-increasing consumption which is literally clogging our arteries, bankrupting our grandchildren and destorying the earth.  

If money remains a topic which is sacred and off-limits in the pulpit, then how will we ever be able to address our dangerous system of endlessly increasing consumption?  If we can no longer talk about stewardship of our resources, given that most of our resources can be monetized, how will we ever be able to work towards social holiness and healing of our communities where thousands upon thousands of people live in dire poverty?  If we cannot allow Jesus Christ to enter into our finances, why on earth would we trust him with our salvation?

At this point, we could talk about how often Jesus speaks about money and stewardship of other resources (such as food, valuables, etc.).  Certainly we could see some good fruit from such a discussion, because Jesus talks about money a lot in the four gospels.  And, perhaps unbeknownst to the majority of Christians, Jesus incessantly urges us to be generous to the point of total self-sacrifice with our money.  Yet, as pastors, our knees begin to knock when we think about preaching the concept of the tithe, or an offering of 10% of income.

Since most Christians--scholars, pastors, and congregations alike--will agree that Jesus was radically generous and challenges us to be more generous in his footsteps, I will not digress into a Scripture discussion here.  We need to talk about why we're holding back and how we can move forward to allow this Scripture to truly change us and how we live our lives.

1. First and foremost, everyone needs to understand the simple fact that money is not a personal matter where God is unconcerned.  I think most people would agree, but many do not act upon it.  Some people are only interested in their personal benefit, like guaranteed salvation or a nurturing environment for their children, but as Christians we are called to live a life of personal sacrifice in accordance with the will of God.  The Bible is very clear in both the Old and New Testaments that God is very concerned with the proper cultivation, collection and use of all resources which we possess, and goes so far as to claim that all of our possessions belong to God.  They do not belong to you; you did not earn them (from God); they are merely entrusted to you to use properly.  

2. Next, we all must embrace the fact that in our baptism, through Jesus Christ, we have become one body, one family, and we are no longer our own person.  Now that Christ has paid everything for us to be restored and reconciled to our Father in heaven, we are God's own; our identity, our self, our person, and yes, our resources are all fully God's.  What's more is that because there is one baptism, because there is one loaf which we break together at the Lord's table, there is one salvation through which we all receive, together.  Therefore we are to be like-minded; we are all to conform to the one will of God; and we are called to pull our resources together to carry out God's mission here on earth.  To be fair, it's not the same as socialism, but you might think it looks similar.  Socialism is a form of human-inspired government where all members of society are required to pool resources together to ensure the welfare of all.  Christian stewardship properly understood is a God-inspired plan whereby all members of the body of Christ together pool resources together to help carry out God's mission to show love to a broken world.  Whereas socialism is motivated by fear for survival, Christian stewardship is motivated by hope for the kingdom of God.  As Christians we reject the idea of limited resources because we have faith that God provides in incredible ways; if only we allowed ourselves to live without all of the comforts of modern America, we might see God's miraculous works more often.

3. Stewardship of our resources is properly connected to our calling as Christians to love one another and our neighbor as ourselves.  I Peter 4:7-11 provides a brief "recipe" of holiness in the Christian life, with three basic summarizing principles: to love one another, to show hospitality without complaint, and to share resources.  If we say that we love one another and offer hospitality, but we do not give with a heart of total trust in God and a spirit of generosity, then we are making claims without following through.  God's call for us to love one another deeply and unconditionally includes providing for one another's needs, whether they be financial, emotional, spiritual, educational, etc.  As one example, imagine a parent who claims he or she loves their child, but then does not provide the child with the support he or she requires, as best as that parent is able to provide.  It would sound like the parent is speaking on one hand but dishing out something completely different on the other.  Non-believers are especially attune to this discrepancy among Christian people.  They are keenly aware that Christians claim to love people unconditionally, but then use their resources to effectively judge the world through withholding and targeted offering.  It is critical for the church in America and around the world to be a salty witness to Jesus Christ through sacrificial giving as we have been called rather than the attitude of "I'll give what I have left over" to those in need.  God has NOT called us to give our leftovers; we are called to give our firstfruits.

4. Generous stewardship is a lesson which the church must teach in order to remain relevant, fruitful and on fire for God.  As I've stated earlier, pastors generally loathe preaching or teaching on the topic of stewardship because it is seen as a fundraising campaign rather than a fundamental part of our lives as Christians.  As pastors, we must teach stewardship with a deeply-held conviction that there is no holiness without social holiness, and there is no holiness without stewardship.  All areas of our life need and must come into the conformity of God's will, by the cross of Calvary.  When we engage in debates over tithing and giving of money, too often we are pushing back asking ourselves, "how little may I give to God to maintain a minimally desired relationship in good standing?"  No matter how we respond to these debates, whether we accept the tithe, a portion thereof, or even if we claim a larger amount of giving as "mandatory", we have completely lost the point of stewardship and therefore are not pursuing true holiness.  The proper amount of money, time, knowledge, wisdom, love and service to give is as much as you are able to give, with the goal of giving more whenever possible.  Our entire lives need to be given as an offering to the Lord, just as our Lord gave us everything he had to save us from the shackles of sin.

5. Finally, it's worth mentioning the church as the place to give to God, or not.  For too long Americans in particular have been suspicious of the church's power or authority and have been nervous to give their full gifts through the church.  Many pastors, they fear, seek greater financial offerings in order to increase their own salaries and leave an unforgettable legacy in the churches they serve, as a boost to ego and career prospects.  I do not deny this as a possibility, or that fact that it has happened in churches before; but in the United Methodist Church, we do have courses of action against such leadership, for we have episcopal oversight that can eliminate much of this drama.  Even if this may be the case in isolated scenarios, the proper course of action when you feel there is financial mismanagement in your church is not to withhold your offerings, but rather to hold the leadership accountable as brothers and sisters in Christ.  When we withhold our offerings to God because we fear the church, then we are as guilty as anyone we might be accusing, rightfully or wrongfully.
If we believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then we affirm the presence of the church as evidence of the Holy Spirit in our midst, for the church cannot exist without the Holy Spirit.  It's true that some churches may "have" the presence of the Holy Spirit more than others, but that does not mean they are unfruitful churches necessarily.  God's ways, movements, ebbs and flows are constantly mysterious to us, and are based on our "performance" or good or for ill.  Rather, God's presence in a church is based entirely upon God's own will and not our works or desire for God to be with us.  Quite frankly, God is going to be close to those who are weary, brokenhearted, alone, and lacking whether we like it or not, whether we choose to accept it or not.  So if you know of anyone in this situation in your church on Sunday, you can rest assured that God is with you, and that your church is truly a place fitting to give offerings to God.
While I absolutely affirm the validity and fruitfulness of many other places to give offerings to God outside of the church, it is essential for our work together as saints in the church that we pool many of our resources in our local congregations, where the majority of our prayers, presence, witness and service take place.  These ministries require financial and other physical resources, and withholding financial giving is almost always out of fear, spite, anxiety or greed--none of which are gifts of the Holy Spirit.

I pray that you take time to examine how you exhibit stewardship in your life.  You may take the Wesleyan model as a beginning guide by considering your prayers, presence, gifts, service and witness and critically examining how you are giving--or not--everything unto Christ.  But this is only the start; remember that all resources are to conform to the will of God, including our spiritual gifts, our secular education and skills, our wisdom, our worldviews, our time, our bodies and our minds, to name only a few.  What a fantastic gift it will be to you if you were to consider each area of life and analyze your giving to grow more deeply in the Spirit!  I pray that in doing so you would gain assurance of the peace of Christ, the love of the Father and the mission of the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunate preaching

Something very strange has occurred in my first appointment here at Moriah UMC.  More and more frequently, people give me positive feedback on my sermons.  This is nice!  But you might not guess the reason.  Is it because I was fully clear and concise?  Was I entertaining, with the ability to draw listeners into the sermon?  Was it simply because I have original ideas?  No, these are not compliments I have ever been given.  Which is good, because I don't think full clarity is ever possible with Jesus running around making things complicated; I am not always entertaining because that is the furthest thing from my mind; and I really don't have an original idea in me, for there is truly nothing new in this world we haven't already seen a million times.  

Did you guess why I am so often complimented?  By far, the most common compliment I receive is that I preach from the biblical text.  I know, I know, if only all churches were so loving and forgiving!  If only everyone had such a simple standard!  Perhaps I'm living in some strange paradise, but the folks who say that aren't referring to only one pastor before me--some of these people have been at Moriah for decades, and some of these people have only ever known me as their pastor.  So I know they aren't making specific comments about any specific pastor, at least not as a group.  What is going on?!

I must admit that I do not fully have an answer, but I have suspicions and I welcome further discussion into the topic.  

My first suspicion is that pastors, as they preach for years and years, run out of steam and begin to delve into the secondary literature that is so readily and oft ordered from the various retailers.  Now I admit I love to read such books; I have probably read 20 to 25 books since I became pastor, completely aside from my assignments at school.  And I use these texts sometimes in teaching and even preaching--but I do not use secondary literature as the basis of any sermon.  Rather, I preach the biblical text in conversation with other Christians who came before me.  This includes people who are alive today, such as William Willimon; ancient Christians such as Tertullian or Origen of Alexandria; or other key theologians such as John Wesley and Karl Barth.  No sermon has been thoughtfully prepared if it does not take into some kind of consideration the larger conversation at hand, incorporating discussions from many of the world's greatest Christian theologians, past and present.  But our problem is that pastors are preaching from secondary sources first and foremost, and only make casual reference to the biblical text during a sermon.  It's not as if doing this is inherently wrongdoing, but Christians who come to church are hungry for God, not us, and not other people.  We as preachers have the task of proclaiming, interpreting, heralding the Truth, the Truth being Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh who dwelt among us.

My second suspicion is that pastors use the biblical text in order to point to humanity.  That is, they do in fact preach directly from the Bible, but they use it as a tool for humans to understand themselves and what they should do, exclusively.  For these pastors, God is an ideal, a superhero, worthy of worship but some distant, irrelevant Person.  And for these pastors, the primary goal of Christianity is to guide and direct us rather than to reveal more of this God to us.  We do not read the Bible to learn more about humanity; the Bible is about God first and foremost, and only by understanding who God is can we learn about who we really are.  So often we "go" to the Bible in order to search for some hidden truth, a pancea for our earthly problems.  We feel that the Holy Spirit's purpose is to be with us when we need, and otherwise we're not interested.  As pastors, I feel that sometimes we feel that we can interpret the text just fine without God, and only when we have writer's block Saturday evening do we clamour for the power of the Holy Spirit to inspire our preaching.  But even if this is not true, and pastors are indeed looking to the Bible as their primary source for inspiration, they are largely doing it in reverse.  We do not "go" to the Bible looking for anything; the Bible comes to us, and tells us who we are.  Someone might say, "Eric, what do you mean by that?  That's what we do every day."  I agree that we believe we do, but our actions might prove otherwise.  Do we approach Scripture in search of something, or do we allow Scripture to move and change us?  Do we appeal to Scripture when it proves our point, or do we hunger for Scripture to prove us wrong?  We as preachers have the task of knowing the difference, and modeling this for our congregations so that they have any chance at all of being able to be part of the wider conversation, of God's incredible works in our midst.

My third suspicion is that pastors believe their congregations need us to "dumb down" the text so that they can understand it.  That is, the theological concepts are too difficult for the "average Joe" to be formed in new and significant ways without cheesy illustrations that slush their way into irrelevance.  For these pastors, because they know very personally that the people in their congregations are full of sinful tendencies, they assume that these people are unable to comprehend the greater, more radical messages of Jesus' teachings.  I Peter 2 comes to mind, when, at the beginning of the chapter, the apostle tells the congregation to first start on "pure, spiritual milk" in their journey, suggesting that greater things are to come, but only if basics can be lived out.  I find this interpretation of spiritual milk to be completely false.  God's truth is far beyond any human comprehension; that which we are able to preach is only the simplest, tiniest sliver of God's incredible magnitude.  Nothing that we understand as preachers is all that much more complicated than the simplest commandments.  My point is that why would we hide or shield our congregations from difficult topics of Scripture, or break down the truth so much that it is a sad, boring glop of nothing?  God's people are hungry for a challenge, a deeper truth which pierces through them and challenges them to see the world in a completely new light.  Our congregations know that all is not right in the world, and they know when you are holding back from proclaiming that truth.  We as preachers have the obligation to share the deepest insights which God has entrusted to us, that the entire congregation might share in the gift of knowledge, wisdom and revelation that we have been gifted.  I Corinthians 12 anyone?

My last suspicion is that pastors still believe that the Reformers, the original Protestants from the early 1500s, were right about the importance of preaching.  Moving away from Catholic tradition, the Reformers insisted on the centrality of the preaching during worship, and in fact all of Christian life.  To this day in America, we often think of the sermon as the most important function or part of a worship service.  But this simply is not true.  Many have argued that prayers and liturgies are the most important; still others argue that the Lord's Supper (Communion) is the center of worship.  I would agree that communion is highly important, and prayers and music and everything has its place.  As bad or obvious as this may sound, the most important part of a worship service is the God we have come to encounter.  You may say, "Eric, that was given.  Obviously, our primary reason is to worship and encounter God; we are arguing which part of the service offers us this encounter primarily."  And I understand this argument, because I believe that you believe this to be true.  But think about the last time you went to a worship service.  I will use myself as an example.  The last time I went to worship, outside of the church I serve at Moriah, I was not remotely thinking about an encounter with God.  As a pastor, I was busy thinking about the layout of the room, the leadership up front, the music choices, how communion was administered, etc.  You may not be a pastor, but do you truly come to worship Sunday with the first and foremost thought being, "I can't wait to see how God pops up today!"?  My guess is no, and we pastors are to blame.  Pastors have slipped into the assumption that we have to make sure worship goes well so that people may encounter God.  I do think that it's important for us to be aware of our movements, word choices and leadership, or else we as pastors will send the wrong signals.  However, we need to think less about ourselves and more about the God we claim and believe we are worshipping.  We need to think about how we can better help others encounter God through our sermons, through the liturgies, through the Lord's Supper, through any and all element of the worship service.  We as preachers are responsible for making sure that the Trinity--one God in three persons--is the forefront of everyone's mind, not the sermon, not the music, not the prayers, not the announcements.  

All four of these suspicions are simply the beginning of the conversation.  My guess is that parts and pieces of all of these, as well as other items I have not mentioned, are potential problems in differing amounts for all of us.  They are all certainly challenges we must face each week as we stand before the assembly, given charge for the care and delivery of God's word.  It is no small task!

And my guess is that, because I tend not to slip into these items too often (I am still a very, very new pastor, and praise God for this), I am told by the congregation that I am a good preacher because I stick closely with the biblical text.  The fact is that our congregations are highly intelligent and very much want to encounter God--they know when they are not being challenged, when the whole truth is not being told, or when we are not faithfully using the Bible in a right manner.  But that does not mean that they know how to explain their thoughts and feelings, nor does it mean that they want to spend all day analyzing it!  As pastors, it is our responsibility to be sensitive to and listen for these types of comments on Sundays and throughout the week so that we may gauge what happened in those pews, so close yet so far away, that Sunday morning.  

Their comments, while not always perfect or golden, can teach us so much.  Perhaps the most important sermon on a Sunday morning is not the proclamation of the word to the congregation, but the response of the congregation to the one who is giving the proclamation.  How else will we pastors be kept in check, dutiful and mindful to the incredible task of preaching God's truth week after week?  How else will we know what to say or not to say next week, if no one corrects us from spewing the boring, irrelevant and pop-psychological mess that we default to when we find ourselves with writer's block on Saturday night?

The Itineracy of the United Methodist Church

What is itineracy?  It is the practice of moving pastors from church to church by the bishop and cabinet's oversight.  The United Methodist Church practices itineracy, and we are one of the few denominations that does.  This means that as a pastor, my bishop has the authority to move me to a different appointment, within the conference, at his decision.  This practice, however, has come under fire in the past few years as a possible problem for the UMC.  People cite problems from all around, and they have good intentions and reasonable observations.  Let's look at the itinerant system's pros and cons, and then see if we can think about where we ought to stand in relation to this subject.

The cons of itineracy

Since the more recent discussion has alluded to the problems of itineracy, let's start here.  A starting point for local churches, especially smaller churches, is that the itinerant system undermines stability in the local congregation.  In most other denominations, pastors are hopeful to stay in one church for ten to fifteen years.  The average for a United Methodist is around seven, with many pastors leaving a church after one to three years.  I know here at Moriah UMC of Greensboro, NC, if we analyze the history and statistics over the past thirty years, church growth and flourishing almost always coincide with a pastor who remained for more than one or two years.  Stability of leadership is difficult to maintain when the bishop and cabinet have plans for clergy to move to other charges after short periods of time.  Also, since we are guaranteed appointments in the church, if a pastor does not like his/her appointment, he/she may request a move in any given year, and frequently such a request is honored in a timely manner.  For small churches to thrive, the intinerant system sometimes works against them as pastors seeking to "move up" in the world, to move to a more desirable location, or simply to move to a church better suited for them, are able to be replaced easily.

Itineracy can be very difficult for pastors and their families.  If a pastor moves five to fifteen times during his/her career, you can imagine the stress, expense and change the family must deal with.  Especially when pastors have school-aged children, uprooting from one school system to another can be very challenging indeed.  In today's world spouses are unable to stay at home without working, and while the future shows that spouses may be able to work from home via technology more easily, this has not yet become the norm with UMC clergy families.  Packing and unpacking, never knowing if the church secretly wants to get rid of you, and the annual looming of a future move add uncertainty and instability to the clergy and his/her family.  And with fewer churches opting for building parsonages, more pastors have to buy their own homes, which adds another layer of difficulty for those frequently moving.

The General Conference of 2012 narrowly approved a vote to end "guaranteed appointment" for clergy, which is a counterbalance to itineracy to ensure some stability for clergy.  However, this has recently been attacked as a source of complacency and lack of excellence among clergy in the UMC.  While the judicial council voted this down as unconstitutional, and we still have guaranteed appointments, we can see the issue of itineracy and appointments being at the forefront of our minds in the UMC.  If our system has a bit of instability so that we need guaranteed appointments as a counterbalance, perhaps we ought to rethink the entire system and allow local churches to hire (as in a "call system")?  This way mediocrity would be kept in check as the "best" might naturally rise to the top, as merit-based thinking dictates.

Finally, anti-establishmentarians who distrust the bishops and their cabinets feel that the itinerant system simply neglects the needs of the local church, since a bishop who may be hundreds of miles away cannot possibly know the ins and outs of each and every church, even with help from the District Superintendants.  In the past, many appointments were made based on ranking, merit or other career advancement logic, not based on the gifts and graces of the pastor and local church.  Today the cabinets do strive to "match" clergy with churches more to prevent frequent shifting, but still many churches, especially smaller ones, feel that they are dealing with clergy "leftovers" because they are not big and flashy appointments.  Besides, what value does the bishop bring to the table anyways?  How could he/she know best for so many churches?

The pros of intineracy

Many would argue that oversight from the bishop and cabinet is critical for the local church to thrive.  In a "call system", where pastors are hired locally by the church members, you might have the choice of three to five applicants; whereas in the itinerant system, each clergy could be placed at any church, thereby opening the door to hundreds of possibilities for any given church.  This allows for much greater consideration of the gifts and graces of clergy and churches, even if they are not known as intimately as the local church knows themselves.  And with the many years of experience between the bishop and his/her cabinet, they are likely to know a lot about compatibility between pastors and churches, since they themselves have participated in this system for decades.  Another key is that the bishop and his/her cabinet have theological training and years of study, allowing them to make selections (potentially) based on deeper insights from God.

The itinerant system protects against a very common trend in American religion, known harshly as the "cult of personality".  That is, in many churches here and around the world, a particular charismatic pastor might be sought out more than God due to his/her preaching, teachings, care, etc.  In churches, however, where clergy move around every few years, this "cult of personality" is never really able to take off to dangerous levels.  Sure, a church might adore their pastor, but they know that before too long, their pastor will be called to shepherd others, and the local church is never able to deify one particular person.  Often we in the UMC do not realize how big this problem is in megachurches today, especially among those labeled "evangelical" in persuasion.

For the families of pastors, itineracy can be exciting!  Some people prefer geographic stability, but not everyone!  For children to have stability in their formative years, it is far more important that there be a cohesive, stable family life where the parents are loving, nurturing and promote all-around health.  It seems no one is having this debate among military families, and despite the hardships on transfer every four or fewer years, no one seems to question whether "military brats" are able to grow into healthy, functional and productive adults.  Moving every few years can add tremendously to a family's life together, weaving a narrative of places and people that almost no one else will ever be able to experience.  For a family in this intinerant system, they must realize that no matter how much they love (or hate!) their current context, it is not going to last forever--and the opportunity for God to work in new ways in a new place is always on the horizon.

Finally, many have argued that the itinerant system provides greater justice and equality for minority groups of pastors, including women.  Our "guaranteed appointment" system with oversight means that female pastors, African-American pastors, Hispanic pastors, etc. will always have a ministry, even if local churches are reluctant to accept change.  Theologically this is a solid argument for the bishop's oversight, forcing churches to be formed in the vision of Revelation 7:9-10: "After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and languages and peoples, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white with palm branches in their hands."  The idea that churches should be of one ethnicity, led by a married man with a family is not healthy; and sometimes, churches need that extra push to see the biblical vision of equality among God's people.  God has called some people into ministry, and in the UMC this calling is more heavily scrutinized than perhaps anywhere else in Christian history!  We can be certain that God is doing something with this pastor, even if it is not apparently or readily obvious to us.

The reality of our debate

All of these issues above are real issues with the itinerant system.  They are cited by God-fearing people, typically discussed in depth by clergy.  These folks have their hearts set on Jesus Christ, no doubt, and they are trying to figure out the future of the UMC where we can be a church of salt and light once again (since 1968 we have declined in membership across the USA, every single year).  However, the problem with our debate is the evidence we bring to the table to support both sides.  If you notice, with all of the above arguments, there is very little mention of Scripture or theological conviction.  Even I had a hard time citing Scripture writing the above list of pros and cons; even though I could cite Scripture, if I forced it, biblical convictions on the nature and mission of God are rarely central in the debate over itineracy.  More often than not, we are missing the mark by discussing itineracy's gifts and pitfalls in a more tangible, earthly way.  That is, we are considering how itineracy has actually manifested in the past rather than keeping sight on where God is taking us in the future.

Now I don't want to get into the theological discussion over the itinerant system and the call system; both systems appear to be biblically sound, and in the UMC we are itinerant due to our tradition and heritage.  Sure, itinerancy developed out of practical concerns, but these were concerns for the kingdom of God and the good of the mission, not concerns for either the churches or the clergy.  Most of our debate, as you can read above, deals with what is "best practices" for churches or for clergy.  And most people, when they defend their views, cite real-life experiences as evidence of their particular persuasion.  As Methodists we allow experience to shape our theology, but not prior to Scripture and the tradition!  For our discussion to advance beyond mere lists of personal preferences based on such-and-such church a long time ago, we need to restructure the debate in terms of God's kingdom, rather than churches OR clergy.  Our debate must be firmly grounded in biblical principles, specifically eschatology (the study of the consummation of this world; the "end").  Only then should the practicality and utility of certain strategies be fleshed out, in light of these theological principles.

Either way we go, we have to make absolutely certain that we are supporting a system that serves others for the sake of Jesus Christ rather than serving ourselves.  We all do it--we slip into a pattern of acting upon self-interest or the interest of those close to us, rather than acting upon self-denial and the interest of those who are furthest from us.  Not to sound too harsh, but clergy in the UMC accept itineracy upon their ordination, and have made a covenant to continue this tradition, both its theological foundation and practical implementation.  We clergy need to own up to our vows and serve where we are sent, without complaining, for the harvest is very ripe, and we harvesters are fewer and fewer.  The other side of the coin is also true: churches need to come to grips with the fact that they do not and cannot know who the "best" clergy for them will be.  In fact, there is no such "best" person for the job, ever; this is why we move around, so churches may have many clergy over time!  It is possible that you will have a pastor that turns out not to be the best "match" for your congregation--but our system DOES allow for churches to request new pastors and provide input for those incoming.  These are resources at your disposal; the bishop is also called to serve you, and the cabinet will do their best to plan for an upcoming change.

If we are to be salty again, if we are to shine the light of Jesus Christ in our world, we must base all of our discussions and decisions in the Truth, the Word made flesh, and the testimony to him found in the Old and New Testaments.  We must practice, not merely preach, the virtue of self-denial as we seek holiness and renewal.  My guess is, whether we have an itinerant system, a call system, or any number of hybrids in between, we can still be the salt and light of the earth, and work with God to bring justice and mercy to the land.