UMC—Part 2
One of the biggest challenges (in my opinion) for the UMC church involves the itinerant system.
Here is a brief statement about the itinerant system from the UMC:
“The itinerant system is the accepted method of The United Methodist Church by which ordained elders are appointed by the bishop to fields of labor. All ordained elders shall accept and abide by these appointments.”
Basically, once a minister is fully ordained as an elder, the Bishop appoints the minister to whichever church the Bishop (or cabinet/board) believes is God’s best.
This model presents several challenges:
- The local church doesn’t have much say (if any) in selecting their pastor.
- The pastor and pastor’s family may hesitate to fully engage in a community knowing their future is uncertain.
- The people in the church know their pastor could be moved at any time.
- The length of tenure in the itinerant system is often much shorter than others. This creates problems of building trust, casting vision, and developing long-term relationships.
While this system had advantages and was effective for years, it is largely ineffective today. I am totally convinced that LifeChurch would not be close to what it is today if the staff, the body, or my family knew that any year I could be asked to leave and serve another church.
Visit 
The UMC is made up of many great churches. Yet the small advantages (of itinerant) are dwarfed by the system’s ability to kill momentum. Who want’s to buy into a vision of someone who could be gone in 12 months? Churches transform cities when vision fulfilling laborers are lead by visionary leaders. It’s hard to imagine what The Church of the Resurrection (great KC church) would look like if Pastor Adam was transitioned somewhere else in the early years.
Because I have never been a part of this type of venture, I have always had questions about it. I think you raise the most valid. How can someone get involved in the community knowing he and the family would be moving in maybe 3 years? Who would want to endear himself to the church or community if that were true? How could he gain the trust of the people in the fellowship he pastors? I understand it takes upwards near 3 years before people even start trusting. In today’s culture, settledness is a plus. And a big one: what happened to local autonomy? How can someone far away possibly understand what the local church needs in a pastor? I have known UM pastors and this was (for the most part) the bummer part of their job…moving. ‘Course some were glad. :) I think you are raising some serious questions that the UMC and others like them need to be asking themselves (and I speak as an outsider). I hope “your” people are listening Craig.
the system is not perfect - what system is? but if you want to site longevity you may want to check your numbers - churches that call their pastors often end up with shorter tenured pastors. i’ve seen enough local churches who have the authority to call pastors abuse it just as well as episcopal appointment systems. some dysfunctional local churches want a super pastor who will do it all or a pet pastor who will do tricks or speak honey to them rather than be prophetic
and then there is the pastor who is always looking for greener pastures or wants to split when things get tough. The UM church is looking for and expecting longer appointments - seven years minimum in our conference. and they are also looking at effectiveness - letting pastors stay put if showing fruitfulness in ministry. we still get it wrong - mostly because we don’t have enough effective pastor/leaders in a diverse church culture. but how many pastors in smaller call churches stay seven years? and if you want to take this in a totally different direction - call systems surely aren’t hospitable to women in ministry.
it’s a complex issue matching pastors to congregations and can succeed or fail in any system. misuse of power. what we UMs really stuggle with is not the appointment system but pastoral/leadership succession. Look at Florida State football if you want a good model for maintaining vision and momentum. We’re all gonna die or be moved or . . . - the vision should be bigger than one pastor.
Stan, you’ve raised some good points… especially pastors looking for greener pastures and/or splitting churches.
I’d be interested to know if anyone has solid stats on tenured pastors. I’d always heard that the itinerant system moved pastors more often, but I’m open to correction if I’m wrong.
I remember wondering each year at FUMC if we were going to lose our pastor or if my family was going to be moved. I’d hate to feel that way now.
While I agree that a church should be bigger than one pastor, God often does use one leader over a place during a season.
Stan, you nailed it saying that no system is perfect. I love my UMC heritage but personally believe its current system creates more challenges than opportunities.
Great, honest conversation!!
I love how we can have good, Christ-like, conversation over things that many attack each other for!
No system is perfect…at the same time that doesn’t mean we don’t work on fixing our imperfections. I love how we can have open conversation about fixing our imperfections!
Always remember…this is all for the glory of God!!
I am witnessing some changes in the small town in which I live where the UM minister is being moved and a new one is coming. They have only been here two years or so. I see the problems but also see where their can be benefits - but those would be for those without children.
Thanks for the post.
IMHO, the itinerant system has become a problem in the UM church for two reasons;
Clergy ineffectiveness. In days past, once a ministerial candidate made it through the Board of Ordained Ministry (which I understand was a basic check to determine whether a pulse could be detected) and was ordained, they were ‘in the system’ and guaranteed an appointment. This system, up until recently, had no clear-cut policies on how to deal with ineffectiveness, so it moved dysfunctional and ineffective pastors from one charge to the next with little regard for the consequences.
The itinerant system as we now know it looks nothing like the missional system Wesley envisioned. Pastoral itineracy evolved as a necessity of the Methodist movement. Father John could simply not train class leaders and preachers (Methodism began as a renewal/revival movement centered upon who-da-thunk-it, small groups) quick enough to keep up with the growth, so he trained a core group of able persons who would rotate from class to class or charge to charge. Think of it in terms of a cooperative parish. This model was viable in 18th century England and frontier America…it was, after all, the Methodists who evangelized the West. The problem now is that the role of ‘class leader’ or ‘preacher’ has changed significantly with the advent of institutional Methodism…pastors are not encouraged/expected to be out in the mission field (when was the last time you saw your UM pastor at the local tavern?). Modern Methodist pastors are expected to tend the flock…to nurture and love the blessed little souls that occupy the pews and pay the bills. The current ‘itinerant’ system does not account well for individuals who are missionally or evangelistically oriented…it simply does not know how to deal with said individuals. It is precisely this inward, institutional focus that is killing the movement.
Can the itinerant system be saved? I think it can. The great gift of the Methodist ’system’ is its great connection. In many UM conferences, this connection is funding new church starts (to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars per year). I believe the itinerant system COULD be made to work in a situation where a church planting pastor is given opportunity to establish a ‘home base’ in a mission field with the objective of starting a new faith community every few years. After the new church is off the ground, the pastor moves on to plant again, and again, and again.
Craig, while I agree that stability is important, and the current itinerant system is a shambles, I do believe that the concept of itineracy is legitimate…we realize that there are pastors out there who have extraordinary apostolic gifts, while there are others who are shepherds…in theory, an itinerant system COULD be set up to play to the strengths of the pastor as well as connect said pastor to denominational resources (perhaps a more blended model that narrows the pool of pastors for specific churches and provides for more conversation/imput with the local church during the appointment process). As the system is currently set up, it has no real means of dealing with the varying giftedness of clergy…how many other Craig Groeschels has the church unwittingly crowded out for this very reason?
As an associate pastor just approved to be ordained a full elder this summer I spent some time this afternoon discussing itineracy with my senior pastor. I would LOVE to go on an international mission trip this summer but can’t pay the deposit until I hear about my appointment because I can’t be gone when I’m supposed to move! He and I are both uncertain if we’re staying so it is hard to think about exciting an summer sermon series if we’ll be gone.
I would happily accept a truly itinerant system where Bishops looked at gifts and graces and matched them to churches…instead of knowing they start at the top salary level and work their way down the list matching people here and there in salaried tiers.
As a clergy woman in the south I like being in a system where I might be sent to a church that would never have called a female pastor, but who might accept one and have the opportunity to grow together in unique way. On the other hand, it completely frightens me that some day I might actually be sent to a church that isn’t happy about having a female pastor and I’ll face challenges simply based on gender.
As far as I know pastors do have a choice to move or not. A church in the Houston area has a pastor still there that was assigned before I was in 1st grade. The church is going strong, so they’re letting him stay. (Now I’m married with kid & one of the way) As for me growing up as a UM PK we did move quite a bit, but the older I got the less we moved.
With the challenges you listed, I’m not sure what I think of #1, ’cause being the PK I just went with the flow. :) #2 & #3 I mostly agree, although my parents were great at embracing our new congregations. I on the other hand took a while to open up and accept a new place.
Although with #3, we’re at an Ev. Cov church in MN and people here seem to be nervous about my husband and I leaving sometime now that we’ve been here for 3 years, but that could also be due to him being a YP, and those usually have short term positions too. Hopefully we wont! :)
#4 from my experience was not a problem. But that could be because my Dad is great at building relationships! :)
Love the spirit in which these comments are made. What a gift you have of melting love and truth…keep writing, growing in order to help us re-think church in ways we would probably not bother to do if it were not for how God has wired you.
As an outsider to the UMC and Lifechurch.tv, this is all very interesting to read. And given your platform Craig, this is also a very bold move.
I’m wondering if you’re willing to go into some theological setbacks the UMC may have had in the past 15-20 years that may have caused practical/pragmatic shifts in the everyday life of the UMC and its members?
Not to get too dogmatic, but are there doctrinal/theological shifts within the UMC which have caused their practices/approaches to evangelism/outreach to change?
Much love.
This conversation really caught my attention as I’m part of The Salvation Army, a church whose founder came from the Methodist movement and moves it’s clergy in a very similar way. I would agree with much of the discussion and assert there are positives and clear drawbacks. I do believe we’ve moved into a time this may become more challenging. The extra added to the mix for The Salvation Army is in married couples, both are ordained so both give leadership to the local church. At least both people are moved unlike UMC where it’s, generally, one spouse that is moved and the other, if working, faces an extra challenge.
This is something you know going into these particular denominations. Of course knowing it and being effected by it can be very different. Wherever our calling takes us we can’t take limit God’s power to overcome all human processes.
I have talked with many UMC ministers on this very thing.
As I talked with one minister… he was responsible for two small churches in rural Appalachia. He & I were talking about how to reach our community and the time it would take.
He said to me, “it makes no sense for me to put the time & effort to cast vision & create strategy. I never know when I am going to get moved to another church or community and I need to do it all over again. So why take the time, the commitment, the energy when I will never see it to fruition?”
That for me became a very telling statement on the attitude of many UMC church leaders. The same minister said to me that he never signed up to take care of or maintain church that was dying… but he was also tired of wasting his time & effort because he would just get moved again.
Malcolm…very sad that he’s in that position and feels that way.
As an elder in the UMC, when I am appointed to a church or churches I spend my time there as if I will be there “forever”… This allows me to vision and dream, however it does get difficult planning long term if you are pastor centered in your planning. I try to include as many of the spiritually mature leaders in the planning and implementing of the ministries of the church so that it is not dependent upon me as the pastor… Does this mean I don’t “do” anything? no, I spend a lot of time teaching and training the people who implement the vision God gives me for the church. This way - in theory - if/when I leave, the next pastor can pick up and nothing has fallen by the wayside because I left. Does little for the ego of a pastor when everything keeps going without him/her, but this is about God not our precious egos…
I think the stats would be interesting. The tenure issue might be a little skued in this conversation though. What is is hurting the UMC is that the pastor and congregation has no say. I am in the SBC and we have a really short average tenure, but that is the fault of the churches and the pastors. But for those that are in a positive situation, they can lead with vision and passion and investment that is robbed from them by the itenerate system.
The issue is not long they DO stay but how long they COULD stay.
Just my thoughts.
I think benjamin touched on a good point to consider. I’m a UM PK, and have experienced the itinerant system first-hand my entire life while living at with my parents. Too often, preachers are relied on to do everything in the church, and I don’t think that’s scripturally sound. From that system, it is difficult to plan long-term if you don’t know where you’ll be a year out. But I don’t think any church should operate like that. There should be leaders in every church that are willing to take on the responsibility of the direction that church takes regardless of who resides in the parsonage. The preacher should be able to implement whatever direction or plan the Holy Spirit leads them to. But they shouldn’t have to feel like it is all on them to maintain that direction or plan.
As a United Methodist Pastor who is interested in a former UM opinion, I have to agree with Craig about the serious issue the itenerate system causes for many Pastors and churches. Pastor who have a vision for an area are usually moved just when things are starting to move in a positive direction.Most Pastors within the UM system may stay 6 years and that would be considered a long appointment so Pastors are reluctant to give everything for such a short period of time, Churches are reluctant to trust which makes then take control over a church which limits vision an authority of a Pastor, it is obvious to most Pastors within the system that things need to change but the system has become like any organization it quits giving life at some point without serious change.
Great post.
I don’t think the issue is the fact that many UMC pastors area actually moved, but that at any moment, they COULD be moved. That’s an underlying issue that has got to impact vision, community transformation, and buy in.
i don’t think the issue is itinerency, i think it’s leadership. i agree that every church needs stable leadership. i don’t agree that the pastor has to be that stable leader. the itinerant system was designed around a complimentary local lay leadership system wherein lay persons provided the stable leadership for the local church (Board of Stewards etc.) and the pastors moved about covering the circuit. this was in a day when pastoral talent was in shorter supply than leadership talent, thus the moving, shared part was the pastoral talent. a pastor leads a worship service. that is very, very different than a pastor leading a group of people in a particular mission. what we have done in the UMC is to uncritically fuse the roles of pastor and local leader thereby dropping the ball on developing and sustaining local lay leadership as the stable leadership talent. We’ve assumed that all pastors are leaders and all leaders are pastors. while such may be the case for some (Revs. Groeschel, Beeson, and Hamilton are certainly fine examples), that is not the case for most (the other 98% of all Christian churches on the entire planet earth throughout the comprehensive history of Christiandom). we should not be moving leadership about constantly, and we should not locate congregational leadership exclusively in the office of the pastor. we should be developing local, stable lay leadership and deploying capable pastors to shepherd them in their work. when heaven offers the church a doubly gifted pastor/leader then we should deploy her/him to plant a new church. that has been a successful model for some i hear!
[...] http://swerve.lifechurch.tv/2010/02/22/umc%e2%80%94part-2/ [...]
I can see where itinerency could be good for a congregation–if the Bishop believed that a pastor was doing God’s true work in a community, despite what layleadership thought, the pastor could be left in place long enough to do some real good. However, I worked for a “flagship” UMC in our conference, and know from many conversations that our pastors too often work toward the “metrics” of success in our conference to ensure they will move up, i.e. they must build new buildings and continually grow their membership so they will be considered “cutting edge” come June. True, they are not afraid that they will be moved against their wills; however, rather than leverage their knowledge and wisdom towards leading their flock, my pastor friends too often sit back and play ball.
And this system puts them at a disadvantage, even if they were interested in rocking the boat for the sake of the Kingdom! Our most recent head pastor was actually told by a lay-leader who did not like our new direction, “That’s okay. You do what you will. I will be here long after you are gone.”
[...] http://swerve.lifechurch.tv/2010/02/22/umc%e2%80%94part-2/ http://swerve.lifechurch.tv/2010/02/23/umc-part-3/ [...]