| Is itinerancy still viable? Depends whom you ask BY ROBERTA SCOVILLE During fall 2002 and winter 2003, elders in the Baltimore-Washington Conference began a series of conversations around two critical questions to their life and ministry: - Is there a unique role for the Order of Elder in contemporary United Methodism?
- Is itinerancy a viable missional strategy for the 21st Century?
It  has been clear from the initial framing of our questions and in the continuing conversations, that many traditional functions of elders are now shared in practice by other Christians in leadership. Our primary understanding of ordination has been removed from the traditional connection with sacramental authority and transferred to conference membership. Representative ministry has given way to servant ministry as the dominant model for our vocation. By their ordination to word, sacrament and order, and by their deployment in itinerant ministry, some elders see themselves as the glue that holds the connectional church together. Others see themselves as uniquely responsible for considering and addressing the larger issues that effect the witness and ministry of The United Methodist Church. In such understandings, the unique role of the elder is to lead with authority within the life and for the mission of the whole church. Such a role runs counter to what some see as a creeping congregationalism as well as a centralized connectionalism. The elder is never solely the pastor of a local church. Neither is the elder solely an advocate or agency for the programs of the annual conference. Itinerancy is a unique commitment of elders (and associate members). For most elders there are perceived benefits to itinerancy as a means of deployment. Ideally these include matching the gifts and graces of the pastor with the needs and strengths of a congregation, working as a change agent, providing cross-cultural opportunities, supporting diversity, stimulating pastors to change and grow and as a spiritual discipline. However, there is also resentment among elders related to appointments and itinerancy due to a perception of injustice and inconsistency: Some elders are being allowed to push the limits of itinerancy beyond what others are allowed. This sense of injustice is inflamed when persons criticize elders for failing to keep the covenant of itinerancy while circulating stories of others allowed to flaunt the covenant without penalty. There appear to be pools of elders that itinerate differently with no explanation of such differences. Many elders feel it would be helpful to clarify the expectations and limitations to itinerancy that can be agreed upon as fair and reasonable, both as a standard for appointment making and as a standard for covenant keeping. Almost all participants involved in this conversation desire missional needs to be the primary criteria for appointment of elders. When missional needs are considered, the idea of a completely open itinerancy is modified by obvious limits. For example, an appointment where the essential needs of the elders family are disregarded would not be missional. A missional itinerancy is a limited itinerancy. Numerous suggestions were put forward: flexibility of anticipating short-term and long-term situations, intentional interim appointments following long pastorates, limited geographical itinerancy, cooperative parishes involving teams of clergy and groups of churches, provisions of pastors and resources to churches based on clear missional priorities. The issue of housing is critical to a functional itinerancy. The use of parsonages and housing allowances was discussed from a variety of perspectives. We no longer have a parsonage itinerancy, but a mixed bag of parsonages and privately owned residences which complicate appointment making. It was suggested by some elders that if a parsonage falls below conference standards, an elder could refuse an appointment without prejudice. However, if an adequate parsonage is provided, the church may not be forced to pay a housing allowance. As commuting elders are becoming more common, a distance limitation was affirmed by many participants, with some expressing a preference for pastors living in the communities they serve. Regarding tenure in appointments, most elders believe it is important for churches to be exposed to varied ministries. However, the tenure of a pastor should be long enough to be effective. An average of eight to 10 years was suggested. In response to these conversations, the executive committee of the Order of Elders is planning two fall forums, Nov. 12 and Nov. 19. Any adopted recommendations will be shared with the appropriate people. Elders interested in presenting a proposal for consideration should contact the Rev. Roberta Scoville, at (410) 256-5561 or e-mail
. The Rev. Roberta Scoville is dean of the conference Order of Elders, and pastor of Camp Chapel UMC in Perry Hall. The complete copy of this excerpted report can be found at eldersfullrpt.htm . | 
Login/Register to leave comment