Once again as many of my friends are in the midst of packing boxes to move from one appointment to the next to fulfill some missional purpose that most have no clue what is, I will offer three reasons why the church needs to abolish the practice of itineracy for clergy deployment. Itineracy was designed for single young male clergy.
Itineracy was designed for a different era of church growth. Itineracy was instituted in the era of single men circuit riders being deployed by horseback into the Wild West frontier. These men had short life spans and were sent to evangelize the west as these new frontiers sprang up across the United States. They were basically interchangeable, rapidly deployed, and zealous about their missional evangelistic approach to converting people to Christianity. The frontier isn’t the same. It doesn’t require you to keep throwing multiple men at it until the west is won. The new frontier requires stability, patience, intentional community formation, and consistency. In other words, the exact opposite of itineracy model. So why do we keep doing it?
Itineracy isn’t designed for families. Itineracy was designed for single young men on the frontier. It doesn’t take into account families where both spouses work outside of the home. It doesn’t take into account family stability, access to community needs, relationships, or even where this family might flourish and ministry can grow. In fact the majority of the time itineracy does the exact opposite. It often moves families who have built relationships in the community. Forces children to different schools. Uproots connections. Puts clergy into bad or openly hostile situations. So why do we keep applying it to the clergy of today?
Itineracy destroys churches. It has been proven over and over again that a local church does better when clergy leadership is retained for 8+ years. Itinerating clergy average 3-4 years. Just as things are turning around and the church is beginning to see some encouraging signs of growth, clergy are often moved. More often than not they are moved because the church is starting to grow, and the thought process is: they did it at this church, surely they can do it at the next. However, past results are no guarantee of future returns. Every church is different. More often than not, clergy who succeed at one church often struggle at the next and vice versa. The churches are often the ones who bear the burden of continuing to try to reestablish continuity from one pastor to the next. They are never able to actually engage in the mission. Itineracy makes churches always begin again with new ideas, new leadership models, new strategies. This is a recipe for disaster. So why do we keep destroying out churches?