Denominationalism & Authority
Cambron Wright of Wright Writes published an article entitled “Is Itinerancy Dead?” on April 16. In it, he shares the valid concern that a lot of the communication about the role of itinerancy in Global Methodism is not yet as clear as would be helpful. He is personally aware of many clergy and laity who are reluctant to consider beginning a relationship with the GMC. One of the primary reasons for this is the potential threat of itinerancy, combined with stupid or petty bishops, to clergy and churches.
At the outset of this piece, I need to state flatly that I think exclusive covenant bodies, otherwise known as denominations, are needed in the world today. However, they should only exist and flourish where they add more than they take away from local fellowships. Constituent churches have to be willing to sacrifice some of their wealth, some of their autonomy, for the sake of greater gains they make through such a covenant connection. These gains should not be only theological in nature, but also practical. Right now the Global Methodist Church needs to be able to make the case for, or cast a vision of, what local churches might gain from such a connection that they cannot have if they do things on their own.
I’m not sure this is being done well. We haven’t yet decided how much muscle the body will have. Moreover, there is a good deal of fear mongering going on around potential risks of joining such a body. What follows is an acknowledgment of the role itinerancy plays in this larger conversation, and finally a vision for one of the ways in which the GMC might offer some great benefits that local churches cannot facilitate for themselves.
Itinerancy is an Expression of Authentic Methodist Arminian Evangelistic Theology
As one might know, Methodism was, from its roots, an itinerant movement. Bishops and clergy were expected to move around. A lot. Circuits were designed, which leadership was expected to move throughout. The mascot of Methodism was, for a long time, the horseback preacher.
This was true both in Great Britain and in the United States. I have heard it said that, at one point, it was a saying on cold or dangerous nights, “There’s nothing out but crows and Methodist preachers.” The main sentiment here was that itinerancy and Methodism were synonymous. An anecdote written out by Teddy Ray:
“Richmond Nolley was one of the many circuit riders of early nineteenth century American Methodism. His annual conference had organized a new church in what is now the northern part of the state of Mississippi. There was no parsonage nor were there any church buildings in this new circuit, but the conference, in typical Methodist fashion, felt that there might be some frontiersmen there who needed the comfort of religion. Nolley was assigned to this new work. So, riding a horse, the Methodist circuit riders faithful companion, Nolley started for his new circuit.
For eleven days in succession he traveled through the woods exploring his new circuit. Finally he came to the Tombigbee river. Here he noticed fresh wagon tracks which told him that a settler had come into that section. He followed the tracks and soon came upon a frontier family. The head of the family had selected a spot for his new home and was in the act of unloading his goods from the wagon, while his wife prepared the first supper in their new country. As Nolley rode up, the astonished frontiersman said:
"What! Are you here?"
"I am here, sir," replied Nolley, encouraged by this recognition, "but, I am sorry to say, I do not recall the happiness of our former acquaintance. Where, sir, have you known me?"
"I have never seen you before," grunted the settler, "but I know that you are one of those Methodist preachers. It is just two years ago that I left Virginia and settled in Georgia to get away from Methodist preachers; but you hunted me out, and in Georgia got my wife and daughter into your church. Then I left Georgia for this place, sure that I would be rid of you forever; but here you are before I had one nights peace."
"My friend," said Nolley, "go where you may, you will find Methodist preachers. If you go to heaven you'll find Methodist preachers there; if you go to hell, I am afraid you will find some there; and you see how it is on earth, so you had better make terms with us and be at peace."
This illustration exemplifies the fighting spirit of the men who laid the foundation of American Methodism. No place was too remote for the Methodist preacher. To tell the story of the love of Jesus Christ for humanity was the great mission of the circuit rider, even if it carried him hundreds of miles from the established centers of civilization. So faithful were the early circuit riders in filling their appointments and in traveling over their large circuits that it became a proverbial saying in bitter cold weather: "There is nothing out today but crows and Methodist preachers." A historian once said that the best way to have discovered the North Pole would have been to have included it in a Methodist circuit. It was this ceaseless activity on the part of the early Methodists that has made the record of Methodism a story of romance and adventure. It is a history of unequaled heroism.
Such has been the fighting spirit of Methodism. From the day of John Wesley to the present time Methodism by its aggressive religious program has attracted universal attention.
- from ‘That Fighting Spirit of Methodism’ by Paul Neff Garber
Itinerancy was an outgrowth of the theology that truly believed that Christ died for all and that all can be saved. It was the job of the evangelist, not to just minister to the city folks, but to move around the world to make sure every ear heard the good news. Despite the pervasiveness of the Internet, itinerancy continues to be the only way that large swathes of the world population can receive the invitation to follow Christ.
Normal People & Churches Have Always Hated Itinerancy
Also, from the beginning, people hated itinerancy. There was never a time in which church leadership, lay or clergy, just loved the practice, except for maybe John Wesley himself. It is, by nature, uncomfortable and inconvenient. Local churches love their pastors and come to rely on their strengths and personalities. Clergy love building things up and making a home, you know, like normal people. Humans desire comfort and control. These things are lost when dynamics shift too often. From the beginning, bigger and richer Methodist churches would engage in struggles with episcopal leadership to hold onto clergy they liked, pushing back against the insistence of Wesley, Asbury, and those who later served in their office.
Over time, the forces of entropy have won out. Circuit riders eventually came to locate in one location for three months at a time, then six months, then a year. After a couple of hundred years, no Methodist bodies practice anything approximating the original design of itinerancy. The norm of moving on an annual basis disappeared before I was born, though there is still an annual reshuffling in many conferences. By that I mean that there is still a main time of year when, if there is to be a reshuffling of the deck, it usually happens around the same time. But generally speaking, the norm has been to have clergy stay in the same place for much longer periods of time than ever before. Even in The United Methodist Church, itinerancy as it was originally conceived is dead. It is rare for clergy to be moved against their will and the will of their churches. The vast majority of moves take place at the initiation of the church or its clergy.
The key takeaway here is that itinerancy as it was originally designed has been dead for a long time. When we are talking about itinerancy today, we are talking about a watered down middle ground that nobody really has ever liked. Teddy Ray calls it “ad interim pastors.” In his article, “A vote in favor of Methodist itineracy, or When the circuit rider dismounted,” Ray makes clear that, in the beginning of Methodism, itinerant preachers did indeed frequently move around, such that they might preach at the location only four times in a year. Then at established churches, they would have located pastors. Combining the two offices, preacher or evangelist and pastor or elder, was not only unbiblical, but also quite miserable.
Disingenuous Detractors
A disingenuous way to dismiss an argument is to straw man it, which is to treat it as the weakest caricature of itself. Modern “itinerancy” is a straw man for itinerancy. I suspect most who disregard itinerancy actually have no clue that what they think to be itinerancy was only ever a miserable counterfeit compromise.
Another unhelpful way to dismiss something is to allow that it might have been helpful or faithful in its own context, but our context is different. This is the same argument Adam Hamilton made with his three buckets metaphor. One of his buckets was the bucket of scriptures that was true in the ancient world, but they no longer apply today. It is the same argument made every time one learns about the voluntary poverty of early Jesus followers, or about the universal principle of nonretaliation practiced throughout the early church, or the expectation that young men and women remain chaste until their wedding nights. “Well, that worked in its day, but it won’t work today!” I would remind the reader of the Chesterton truth: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”
Itinerancy only became ineffective when it became so watered down as to defeat itself. Had it been maintained in its original form and passion, we would not have seen a lot of the tragedy we have seen in the last century. We wouldn’t have such a soft and weak culture. We wouldn’t have such a consumer mindset. Methodists would have stayed hard and resilient rather than becoming as flabby and bland as we ended up.
The Alternative Ideal
The alternative, of course, is a congregational system, in which pastors are not dispersed according to a birds eye view of the missional needs of a region, but are largely claimed by local churches that hire and fire them. These pastors may or may not be accredited by a central agency, whether or not that be a denominational body. Many think a denomination should simply collect and connect clergy candidates to open pulpits, with congregations taking the initiative for hiring and firing. While it is good to talk about this as an option while a nascent Global Methodist Church is forming its own culture, this polity is fundamentally foreign to Methodism. I would go so far as to argue that it cuts Methodism off at the knees and robs it of its essential identity.
Even so, part of the reality we have to reckon with, and I’m being serious here, is that Methodism has been a barely-recognizable shadow of its former self for a long time. It isn’t just itinerancy. It is field preaching, class meetings, accountability, simplicity, and zeal. All of these things, among others, are pale reflections of their former selves in early Methodism. We within the GMC are currently talking in the open about which of these we might like to reclaim and which we might like to consign to the dustbin of history. It is no surprise that people largely want to do away with itinerancy: it has always been hated. But just because something or someone is hated is no reason to do away with them. Remember that our Savior was hated, after all.
I’m going to make the case as to why we need it, acknowledge why it isn’t going to happen, and then propose how we can actually work in that direction. Stick with me. I’ll be surprised if you find it boring or a waste of your time.
Why Itinerancy is Needed
Here’s why we need it: The gospel comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. We want to be comfortable and in control, but that is a spiritually toxic state. We need to be pushed, cajoled, encouraged, admonished. These things do not happen to the degree needed in the midst of long term relationships. Movers and shakers need to be introduced, and regularly, to keep a fire burning.
Pastors who hope to be in one place for a long time cannot knock heads with established community leaders. They cannot preach sermons that make people uncomfortable. They cannot rock the boat too much. This effectively neuters preachers. We somehow want to imagine that Global Methodist preachers are going to be bolder in ministry than was the norm in United Methodism. I do not know why we would expect that when the same dynamics are transplanted into the GMC. If our goal is the long term, then we will sacrifice short term faithfulness. As you might know, daily compromises result in situations that easily lead to spiritual death.
Congregations need to be made uncomfortable by bold proclamation of Christ and him crucified. They also need to take responsibility for themselves. Long term clergy have a way of taking over everything, assuming responsibility for everything. This is the opposite of Methodism. Methodism is a lay led movement. In order to get away from the clergy-centered culture of United Methodism, the only antidote is to unmoor the identity of local churches from their clergy and require laity to lead. This cannot really happen without actually moving the clergy.
If we cannot seriously talk about creating a culture that keeps local churches and their people uncomfortable enough to keep moving forward, I do not think we can realistically expect for Global Methodism to successfully fight the forces of entropy that are constantly working to calm and cool us down.
Down on Demographic Opportunism
A pet concern of mine is the way that we tend to laud pastors of big churches who happen to just serve in favorable demographic conditions. Many pastors are lifted up as models of excellence in evangelism or preaching, but what the primary cause of their success was really just demographic and marketing forces. I think there are some ways in which differential analytics can be done to highlight what clergy are actually more effective wherever they are placed. I hope the GMC does that. Even so, a great way to determine exceptional leadership is to actually move clergy from one context to another. This effectively keeps clergy humble, keeps celebrity culture from taking over, and keeps big rich churches from hubris.
Why Pastors Won’t Be Moved in the GMC
The primary reason is that we generally don’t want to, aren’t going to, and will leave if we have to. The Global Methodist Church has no trust clause; it cannot coerce constituent churches to do uncomfortable things. If it is tried, by bishops or anyone else, then member churches can just leave.
This is also the reason why I think churches who are reluctant to join make no sense. Why refuse to join if you can leave anytime you want? What exactly is the risk? Finding faithful covenant fellowship is worth the inconvenience implied in all this. I think most people and the local churches who make this excuse just don’t want to be a part of a covenant body and are making an excuse.
The reality we are dealing with is that we have all come to know Christ and figure out our identities in his church through The United Methodist Church. We have been conditioned like Pavlov’s dogs to salivate at a number of things that may or may not have to do with Christ. We yearn for comforts that may or may not be holy. As I have been prone to quote and butcher: “It is relatively easy to get out of Egypt, but much harder to get Egypt out of us.” The Egypt we left is an ineffectual ‘itinerancy’ that is more a mechanism to politely move ineffective or unhappy pastors without hurting the feelings of the congregations. What the GMC will probably have is something that is basically the same, but which will require a much more intentional “consultation” process.
Reason to be Concerned about the GMC
Everyone agrees that authentic Methodism requires class meetings. The GMC will not make these compulsory. Everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit causes uncomfortable movement. Virtually no churches or GMC structures are going to compel churches to actually do things they don’t want to do. For now, we want to believe that what we want is the same as what God wants, and we can all encourage and feel good together. Without the stick, we will soon find the limits of the carrot.
I am pessimistic about my words persuading anyone here. I suspect a good portion of people who read this will know that I am at least partially right. But a basic truth of ministry is that we have to start with what we have and build to where we want to be. If I start insisting on Christian Perfection the moment I begin ministry at a new church, I can go ahead and close the church doors. I work with the raw materials of what God has given me, and I slowly, consistently, faithfully urge them in God’s direction.
The GMC is starting off culturally very similar to the UMC. We want to head in a direction that is more dynamic, more faithful and holy, more effectively engaged with the world. We want to burn hotter, move more nimbly, and do powerful things in the name of Jesus. Insisting on perfection right now is folly. Right now we are just setting the stage for what we want to see in the future. If we want to see a dynamic and responsive movement, as opposed to a moribund and sclerotic institution, then we MUST have itinerancy in some form.
How Itinerancy WILL Be Utilized in the GMC
That is why the episcopacy is currently being redesigned to be an itinerant office. I recently did an interview with Rev. Christopher Ritter of peopleneedjesus.net, who has been a part of these conversations for some time. He has done a series of pieces on early Methodist episcopacy. It was thoroughly itinerant. It looks like it will be again. Bishops will be expected to constantly move throughout four or five annual conferences, building up the church, safeguarding her doctrines and discipline. It remains to be seen how many will have the stamina or willingness to function in such a capacity, and how high the bar will be set and sustained by those who hold the bishops accountable.
I think this was a wise first step. Even so, it will not be enough to move our shared culture in this more dynamic direction. All clergy know, as well as most clergy, that it is virtually impossible to move a group as a singular individual. It takes a team to come alongside a corporate entity and show it a new way of life. One can preach the best sermon until one is blue in the face, but nobody is going to change without a lot of practical hand-holding. A transformed way of life has to be modeled in order for it to be adopted. On their own, Global Methodist bishops do not stand a chance at creating a new alternative culture that grows and once again spreads scriptural holiness across the land.
Conceding the Need for a New System
Early Methodism always included “located” pastors. These were men who did not itinerate, but who were given charge long term to minister to Methodist churches. It was expected that they would operate alongside Methodist clergy who would itinerate through the connection, leading revivals and prayer meetings in their areas, all of them submitting to the authority of their bishop.
The reality is that early Methodism always had solid non-itinerating leadership in the church. As I once read, when a person went through a big life event, they didn’t care so much if the itinerating pastor was around to minister to them. Rather, they cared about the presence of their class leader, who had taken responsibility for their souls for some time. This was, and should again be, the primary spiritual anchor relationship for Methodists: between a believer and their class leader. Not between a believer and the pastor or preacher.
I say all that to concede that we can and perhaps should continue to, in perpetuity, expect and support “located” leadership, whether it be lay or clergy. However, in order for Methodism to dynamically move and respond to the world in these last days, we must also have teams of itinerant believers, in submission to their bishop.
So here is how I think itinerancy could and should be reclaimed:
A year or so ago, I had the joy of interviewing Simon Mafunda, a United Methodist layperson from Zimbabwe. He shared with me that we Americans cannot easily get ourselves out of the funk that we have known in American Methodism for some time. Rather, we need a cultural infusion from other parts of the world. He proposed the idea that while Americans’ primary role toward contributing to a global connexion is obviously money, the role of Africans can and should be to spiritually revive the connexion. You tell me if spiritual revival is as important as funding it. Yes. The answer is yes.
Mafunda described teams of African Methodists traveling around the US, facilitating revivals and worship gatherings. “It would be so easy for us,” he said. I had never thought of this.
Methodism was built on the back of public worship events like this. Methodist field preachers would get people whipped up in the Spirit, then they would organize these newly-awakened souls into classes. The exact same model could be utilized today: Itinerant bands of evangelists and worshipers could travel through the connexion, spreading evangelical zeal unabashedly, rubbing off on Global Methodist fellowships. If local churches were able to host such gatherings, receive ministry from these roving bands of fervent Methodists, and submit to the instruction given by their bishop through them, then over time I believe we could see a significant cultural revival within Global Methodism.
The compulsory part would not be the constant threat of located clergy being stripped away. Rather, the compulsory behaviors required of local GM churches would be to 1) host sanctioned Methodist evangelical groups and their gatherings, 2) collaborate with them before and afterwards to guarantee their success, and 3) put those converted into classes.
This would, of course, require money. Global Methodists have it. It would not be difficult to establish a fund to begin such an itinerant group ministry, nor to provide the infrastructure to oversee it. Whether or not the funds came from compulsory connectional giving, or from voluntary offerings among the new denomination, I’m sure that people would gladly offer out of their abundance to make such a thing happen.
This would still be hard for local churches. Traveling evangelists will push churches to do things they aren’t already doing, to behave in ways that they are not comfortable behaving. Moreover, if this setup were to work, then itinerant leadership would need to outrank ‘located’ leadership in some key ways. Here is a hard truth: True Methodist connexion requires sacrifice and self-denial. Many privileged American churches have grown accustomed to doing things in their own ways and are not willing to conform to a larger culture. These churches, despite all the money they might have to offer, probably should not join the Global Methodist Church.
For those churches who can set aside the time, energy, and resources to regularly welcome such infusions of Holy Spirit culture, whether it be ethnically African, Filipino, or Venezuelan, there can be great benefit. One of the challenges will be whether or not we can truly be global, or catholic, in our mindset. We have talked a big game. This is one of the ways in which we could show, not just a return to primitive Methodist practice, but an adoption of a renovated form of it that could easily be superior.
In church planting, one model is called a “parachute drop.” It is when one pastor on his or her own in dropped into new territory and expected to build something alone. This model is not nearly as successful as when an entire team splits off from a vital church to plant a new one together. This is very similar to what I am proposing here. I am not submitting a new thing so much as a cobbling together of many things Methodism has already seen. We know it works.
Closing Thoughts
So, yes, itinerancy is needed for the future. We need bishops who command the dynamic movement of bodies around the connexion to save souls and revitalize churches. We need submissive churches, willing to cooperate with a denominational body that sometimes makes them uncomfortable. I know the concern for many is that a lot of churches who are looking at us just aren’t going to join up if they are asked to be vulnerable in ways like this.
I am okay with that. I think you should be, too.
I want to belong to a body with an established culture that can be expected at every local church. I am not a fan of building the largest group possible. I would rather have a group with a shared culture and identity in Christ.
If we cannot muster a commitment to such a project for now, then I am pessimistic about the long term odds Methodism has to accomplish what other Methodist denominations are struggling to accomplish. We are connexional and itinerant. If the way of claiming this heritage is not what I have proposed here, then we need to talk about other ways. But I agree with Cambron: It is not good to provide vague and unstructured language and let the chips fall where they may. Let’s have the conversations, build the structures, maintain the standards, and trust that the Holy Spirit will give the growth, even if for right now many decide they aren’t on board. I can live with that. I hope GMC leadership can, too.
Overall a very good article, Jeffrey. You may not have realized it but your points have provided the grounds for the suggestions I’m about to make. Looking back to the history of the early church, we can see clearly that they were instructed to accept the fact that there was only ONE true Church, that all Christians are fundamentally connected through their union with Christ, that the various gatherings of believers throughout the Roman Empire experienced oversight by apostolic workers, and that many of these congregations were planted by apostolic workers in conjunction with evangelistic workers, who eventually appointed elders/shepherds to oversee and train the saints to do personal Christian ministries within their communities. And to assist the shepherds over these communities of faith, itinerant prophetic workers would make the rounds. This arrangement facilitated what some Biblical scholars have estimated, a growth from around 200,000 Christians at the end of the first Century to around as many as 20,000,000 at the time of Constantine. This system was already being challenged by certain Early Church Fathers by the middle of the 200s, and by the implementations of Christendom, the former five fold ministries were incorporated into the so called office of ministry of Word and Sacrament. The non-Biblical division between clergy and laity was firmly established, and remains in place today. Thus you now have the sad situation that you’ve described in your article. I’m suggesting like you, that we need to go back to reincorporate some of the forgotten ways, but a little further back than you’ve suggested.