Right now there is a concerted effort on behalf of The United Methodist Church to promote that they are still orthodox in their beliefs. For the most part this is accurate. The United Methodist Church as a denomination is still very much 100% orthodox in its theology. This is true across the board. The progressives that I personally know still hold the Creeds as authoritative. They believe in the miracles and divinity of Christ. They believe in the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Most have an orthodox understanding of the atonement. I don’t personally know a single person that might articulate that Jesus wasn't the son of God and the virgin birth wasn’t real. Yet, I am sure there are some. Probably not a lot, but a few that have deconstructed the faith to articulated that the Articles of Religion, the Confession of Faith, and the Creeds are best relegated to historical document status, and not a real formative doctrine.
Therein lies the problem.
Let me explain through a comparison. Think about the other mainline protestant denomination like the ELCA, TEC, or the PCUSA. These denominations also have Articles, Confessions, and Creeds as part of their doctrine. There is also a wide range of clergy from traditionalist to progressive who hold far different ideas about the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the bodily resurrection, and the atonement within these mainline protestant denominations. The one church model works in these other mainline protestant denominations. However, there is one key difference that separates The United Methodist Church from every other mainline protestant denomination in question. That key difference is the real problem.
Itineracy.
Going back to my post on pastors being specialists versus generalists, the expectation is that every pastor can serve every church. This does not work in this day and age unless you are the Roman Catholic Church where priest are largely interchangeable from one parish to another. Mass is mass is mass. However, in The United Methodist Church, churches are largely different from another. Some lean right, others lean left, others want to think of themselves as more centrist. I would go far as even to say that there are no two United Methodist Churches exactly the same. This is the same with pastors. United Methodist Clergy, unlike priests, are not interchangeable.
The other mainline protestant denominations have all adopted a modified call system in response to this dilemma. This allows them to continue to operate with a set of orthodox beliefs on paper while churches and clergy within the denomination may swing from right to left in huge differences. They realize that every pastor cannot serve every church so they worked around it. Orthodox churches can keep their orthodox clergy and progressive churches can keep their progressive clergy and the one church plan can work in these denominations.
My question on Twitter that was never really answered is: Would ANYONE in The United Methodist Church be okay with the reality of the one church plan where churches could opt out of receiving progressive ministers? My first thought is NO. Separate but equal has already proven it doesn’t work in our society. An Annual Conference would be furious if all the large churches in the AC decided they couldn’t receive a progressive pastor (As they should be!)
So you are left with two options:
Completely do away with itineracy and go to a modified call system similar to TEC. Allowing churches to self select pastors that fit their profile from progressive, centrist, or traditionalist.
Force churches to receive pastors who might conflict with their profile and beliefs. Force clergy to go to churches whose culture might be wholly different from their belief system.
I am not sure the UMC will ever do the former, and the latter has a lot to do with where they are today.
I agree with your analysis of the impact itinerancy has on our UM difficulties. My experience on the theology question, however, is different from yours. I have known UM clergy (too many) who do not adhere to the core doctrines of the faith. They are ministers in good standing under appointment.
Pastors and SPR committees have way more input on itinerancy these days than when I experienced it from the inside out as a Methodist PK. I was born in '41 and enlisted in the Army in '59. Back then it was pretty much the DS and Bishop who called the shots. I would say we're a lot closer to a "modified call system" now than we were back then. Dad - RIP - always believed in what he called the "genius" of the itinerancy, especially the guaranteed appointment aspect that made sure no church would be without a pastor and no pastor would be without an appointment. I shudder when I hear stories about churches in denominations with the call system that go well beyond a year with interim pastors until they find one that satisfies them.