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.