Itineracy under the magnifying glass
Monday, April 21, 2008

This is an important post.
My friend and Arkansas Conference colleague Eric Van Meter continues his series of columns in the United Methodist Reporter this week. You can access his first, second, and third articles in the Reporter's archive.
In his current installment, Eric looks at the issue of itineracy. He centers on the problem that itineracy creates in the church being able to fulfill its mission, which is (according to Paragraph 120 in the Book of Discipline) to make disciples of Jesus Christ. Eric writes, "Itineracy - in practice, if not in theory - fosters [a] culture of shared-and-shirked responsibility. Superintendents, pastors and local congregations all share the responsibility for the formation of Christian disciples. Most of these folks are decent, committed people who love the Lord and want to serve faithfully.
"But they're distracted, constantly preoccupied with the short-term commitments our practice of itineracy encourages."
Bingo. He is right-on there. Because the UMC has evolved into a large denomination with congregations ranging in size from a handful up to thousands, the itinerant system has taken on the character of a corporate ladder. When you get a church, you need to balance the budget, avoid scandal, keep attendance steady, and come across to your people as reasonably competent. Do all that, and you can be guaranteed a move in a few years' time to a bigger church with a more impressive salary and greater prestige. All the incentive for taking risks for the gospel are effectively eliminated.
Eric says that pastors accomplish their tasks as well as they do in spite of, and not because of, the increasing transience of the American experience. And I think he's hitting on something really crucial. Think of it this way: in the true days of the circuit riders back in the 1800s, it was the communities that were permanent and the pastors that were not. You might get a new Methodist preacher every year or two, but you could be sure that the same people you knew in your little town would grow up, grow old, and die there.
Now our cultural situation is such that people move around constantly. Take me, for example: I'm 32 years old, and since I was 18 I have lived in Paragould, AR, Conway, AR, Nashville, TN, Jackson, TN, Searcy, AR, and now Durham, NC. That's 6 different towns in 14 years! I may be a little over the norm because I've moved so many times for school and ministry, but my experience is by no means uncommon for today's young adults. And in fact, it's not even young adults, since job opportunities, divorces, and other factors lead even older adults to move much more frequently than they did in the past.
All that leads to a suggestion that Eric makes well: namely, the suggestion that pastors and congregations need to covenant together for long-term ministries that will allow for the full flowering of gospel ministry. If communities are more transient, the cultural reality calls for pastors to be less so. And that means bishops and district superintendents realizing the situation and taking on the discipline of really listening to their pastors and churches instead of forcing pastors for the sake of the appointment process.
This is a timely and prophetic column. I only hope the rest of the church is reading it.
5 Comments:
Yep. Thinking about this lately on my blog as well. Appreciated both Eric's column and Don Haynes' columns over the past month. Itineracy is at least worth a look under the hood to see if it is serving us well now and, more importantly, if it can serve us well going forward.
I'm not sure I agree that the problem is with itinerary. And I'm not sure that our congregations are quite a mobile as they're made out to be here. I have served in at least four UMC churches and have not seen the kind of mobility that you are speaking about here. For the most part, the core leadership was pretty stable. This may reflect the older generation who is more stable making up the core leadership, and that certainly presents other issues. But I'm not sure that itinerary is at the heart of the problem. I think you do get at a good part of it though with your reflection on the "corporate ladder." And this is not necessarily a function of the system as it is with a lack of personal spiritual depth and holiness in those who are intinerating. Thus, I'm approaching a solution to this problem from another angle. You can check it out here: http://orderofstjames.blogspot.com/2008/04/proposal.html.
Peace,
Tom
I would agree with Tom that I'm not sure that the itineracy is the problem nor is long-term pastorates the panacea that it's made out to be. I spent 4 years in a rural church, slowly getting more and more spiritual worn out and dead. Had I covenanted at the beginning to be there for 7 years, as I have heard suggested, I would have left the ministry. As it was, I felt free to talk to the District Superintendent about my own discovery of my call-within-call to urban ministry and be moved. I actually took a cut in salary to go to an urban location (which the DS's had a hard time understanding), but it turned out to be a wonderful place for me to continue to grow.
I think our churches really do need to go through processes which allow them to discover more of who they are at their core--that's what I've tried to do in each of the churches I've been in--to help them discover a source in Jesus Christ rather than in their pastor. I don't know many churches where the turnover is more than 10% of the membership in any given year. I think if more churches were able to state very clearly their understanding of their call to be in ministry in their own community, we would have an easier time not only matching pastors who can help them with that but also in having less church upheaval when a pastor leaves.
That being said, I would like to speak to one other comment and that is the perception that there is a heirarchy and a "ladder" that needs be climbed. Whatever we can do to get rid of that perception (whether basing salaries on something other than church size or whether figuring out what it means to classify churches on the basis of the skills and gifts they offer to the conference and the skills and gifts they need in a pastor) we MUST do. I just received a call from the Cabinet and will be moving in June. It is a larger church. It is a bigger salary. But we prayed an awful lot before we were willing to be at peace and accept the move. And we have been absolutely militant about making sure that no one refers to it as a "promotion" because we don't want our current church to perceive it's worth to the conference as "lesser". Our real task is to make sure that churches are not "lesser" when we want them to think of themselves as "healthy/not healthy", transforming, or with a lot better descriptions than those which place them in competition with each other.
Quite frankly, the same needs to be true of pastors in the annual conference. We cannot be connectional and be competitive at the same time.
Cynthia
I believe that what eric is saying is not that at every appointment we covenant to stay for seven years, but that when a good match does take place and growth happens(I don't just mean numerical, but spiritual) then the DS, cabinet, church, and pastor agrees that this will be a longer term appointment. The problem I think Eric is addressing is that when churches do grow under pastors there is the expectation that unless it is a huge church that pastor will move. Which brings us back to the need to reevaluate how salaries are paid to pastors and the hierarchial system that seems to be in place. I applaud you Cynthia for willing to take a pay cut and go where you felt God calling you. I hope that you next appointment is also fruitful.
Thanks for these wonderful and thoughtful comments. Tom, you are right about the core leadership of local churches, which is (and must be) stable. I was thinking more about my experience with college and young adult ministry, where the transience is part of the lifestyle. I was moved mid-year while serving as a campus minister, and many of my college students were deeply troubled by that. I think part of it was the sense that the church (as represented by myself or the system in general) had somehow "betrayed" them. What most of them didn't realize at the time was that this is just the way our system works - appointments open up mid-year and the D.S. has to fill them. People get moved, whether they want to or not. But for a ministry population that doesn't have much of a sense of permanence, the pastor represents a kind of rock that they need and the itinerant system doesn't do them many favors. There are some parallels there with young adult ministry in local churches as well, I think.
I'm also intrigued by your idea for an Order of St. James, Tom. I will post on that later today.
The allusions that all the responders have made to commitment and discernment strikes me as crucially important. Thanks for your thoughts on that.
Post a Comment
<< Home