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.”

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.

The issue is not long they DO stay but how long they COULD stay.

Just my thoughts.

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.

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’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.

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.

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?

Thanks for the post.

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’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.