Is Itinerancy Rooted in Ableism?

At my ordination in 2017, I committed to serve God through the expression of faith known as the United Methodist Church. One of the unique attributes of the United Methodist Church is the ministry of itinerancy.

The itinerancy is tied to how we appoint pastors to serve in various churches and communities. Pastors make a promise to go where appointed to serve, and churches promise to receive the pastor appointed to them. There is more that is involved in this, but that is the most basic understanding of the itinerancy in the Methodist movement.

While there has been much talk on whether itinerancy is a just appointment system for modern family needs, especially when considering spouse employment opportunities, there has been little regarding conversations on whether or not itinerancy is rooted in a sinful system and practice, specifically ableism.

Ableism is the belief that certain bodies and experiences are considered normative. That norm is, then, considered the standard for all bodies and experiences. As such, ableism is an act of discrimination and bigotry expressed primarily towards individuals with disabilities, whether physical or invisible. The practice of ableism is rooted in our society, especially in what we believe a person can or cannot do, and the limitations that we presume a person with a disability must have without knowing anything about the person.

Is it possible ableism makes its way into how the United Methodist Church appoints pastors to serve various churches? To answer this, we have to understand how the itinerancy came into existence.

From a scriptural standpoint, the practice of itinerancy is a theological framework based on the ministry practices of Jesus and Paul. In both, we see a practice of movement to go where the people are and to serve as needed for a time. Neither Jesus nor Paul remain in one area for more than a season. In taking the message to go and make disciples of Jesus Christ from Matthew 20:19, it is possible to see within the ministry of Jesus and Paul an iterant call of ministry where the pastor goes, serves for a season, and continues the work of teaching and preaching at another place.

The historical practice of itinerancy is based on the ministry of John Wesley and the founding of the Methodist movement. Methodist clergy were appointed to circuits. Within that circuit, a pastor would go from church to church to preach, offer the sacraments, and then continue to the next church on the circuit. A pastor may be appointed for a year or so, believing that it helped to keep pastors fresh and all churches receive quality pastors. Pastoral appointments are made annually, and consultation occurs between the pastor, district superintendent, cabinet, bishop, and local church.

With that basic understanding of the itinerancy, then, can ableism be found, knowingly or unknowingly, within the system?

We must recognize that the system benefits tradition and the church’s needs over those held by an individual or their family. The early tradition of itinerancy believed a family’s needs were not to be considered of importance. Even Wesley said upon getting married that he would not preach one less sermon married than as a single person. There is an expectation within the itinerancy that the needs of the church must come before the needs of the family.

While there is a better attempt today to consider family needs, the overwhelming priority of the appointment system is to put pastors in the church and that pastors will go where sent, regardless of family needs.

That might be our first sighting of ableism within the system. If a pastor is to go where asked, it does not take into adequate consideration that there are some places where a pastor cannot go to serve because of their disability or those within their immediate family. Not all communities are the same, and many communities do not have the adequate resources necessary to care for some disabilities. The bias of ableism favors a system where conditions and needs are only marginally considered, but that a pastor can and must go wherever, regardless if their basic needs for humanity and life cannot be met where sent.

This creates harm to a pastor and family by adding undo stress and showing a lack of understanding of human needs and what might be needed for one life over the life of another.

For instance, a pastor who has a child with a disability has to consider their child’s best interests, such as educational resources, medical resources, and home and community-based supports. If those are not adequately available in a community, placing a pastor there under the assumption that they must go where asked harms the family and their ministry. It also creates a potential situation where the pastor is not fully present to serve within their church because they have to fight more to gain resources for their child.

The belief that pastors can go wherever appointed favors the abled bodies over the disabled pastor or family. Those who do not fit into whatever norm we hold must fight harder to protect their rights within an ableist system. A system based on presumed ableism is often unable or unwilling to hear those concerns, as it sees it as a threat to the status quo. There is a desire for the disabled person to serve, but accommodations and grace are needed.

We recognize this for those with physical disabilities, but even that is an exception to the norm. A pastor who uses a wheelchair would not serve a church whose sanctuary is inaccessible. However, a person with an invisible disability might easily be placed somewhere that is inaccessible to them because the needs are not equally discernable.

Ableism may be expressed within the presumed biases of those making appointments. We all have biases, and recognizing where those biases exist is vital for both spiritual and emotional growth. However, the lack of recognition of our biases or beliefs regarding what a person with a disability can or cannot do can create a bias against the disabled pastor. A person who does not take the time to consider the needs of a disabled person and community resources, and presumes that someone will be able to find their needs anywhere, shows ableism through a lack of understanding and recognition of needs.

At the same time, someone may presume that simply because someone is a caregiver for an individual with a disability cannot do something without talking to them. If that bias makes its way into an appointment conversation, ableism exists in the assumption of what a person cannot do based on a preconceived notion of what is possible, thus limiting options that might otherwise be present for them.

It is here where ableism is most rooted and established within the appointment system. While conversations are had with disabled pastors or pastors connected to disabilities, biases are still hard to overcome without knowledge, training, and compassion. In my experience, appointments are often made without the disabled pastor or pastor connected to a disability involved beyond the standard consultation practice. This harms the ministry of all involved.

Ableism exists within the appointment process. It is expressed in the assumption that a pastor can serve wherever appointed, regardless of one’s conditions or family situation. It is also in the potential biases and lack of understanding of those in the appointment process. We must recognize this and admit this as a sin.

If the United Methodist Church is to remain committed to itinerancy then changes are needed in how it is expressed.

One easy adaptation would be to have more conversations with disabled pastors or pastors attached to disability about what potential appointment options exist. There needs to be a more honest and open dialogue about what opportunities exist and if resources are available in certain areas. While the conversation should not include specific church names, conversations can occur about whether a particular county or region would be accessible for the family. That would give the family time to investigate and report back to the cabinet on what they have learned.

When my family had those types of conversations, though rare, it helped in providing better access for myself and my children. Those conversations could have been improved by allowing more time to investigate school options and resources before an official appointment.

I also believe the itinerancy process can be enhanced by having either a person with a disability on the cabinet or a disability advocate on call if the appointive cabinet has questions about placement having that resource can help to provide an advocate with real experience to help answer questions related to disability, to better understand what is involved in a move, and living a pastoral life through the perspective of disability. This advocate would enhance the system perhaps more than any other suggestion that could be made.

I am an ordained pastor in the United Methodist Church. I am committed to the itinerancy, even though it is tied to a system and practice of ableism. I believe it can and must be changed.

Those changes will strengthen the system not just for the disabled pastor and their families but for all pastors and all families. It will provide a healthier system that would improve the ministry life of all who desire to serve God within the United Methodist Church.