The 99 and the 1

I now have posted two blog entries where a person with disability and his/her parent were asked to leave a church service (and in the one case be arrested if they came back).
See June 21, 2007 and May 19, 2008.

I was sharing the story of the young man with autism and the restraining order with a colleague and friend, Dr. Danny Blair, and he responded that it is the 99 and 1 story. You remember it, from Matthew 18:12-14. In case you don't it says...

10"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

12"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders
away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one
that wandered off? 13And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier
about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14In
the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones
should be lost.

So the example is to leave the "ninety and nine" to go after the one. Well what if the lost one, is really lost, like lost in autism, a disability that largely is a language disability (have you ever been in a setting where you can't speak a language that everyone else is speaking and even have difficulty communicating because you don't understand even the gestures people are using around you...if you have, you will know what it is to feel lost), lost in exclusion and lost in social isolation and perhaps lost spiritually as well. So you come to a church whose God has given the example of leaving the 99 for the lost one, and if you are able to understand the meaning of Matthew 18, you might expect that you would be welcomed.

But instead, perhaps you are asked to leave, or even arrested "for God's sake" (I choose my words carefully) if you attempt to not be lost. You have to wonder if that group has ever read the Bible they claim to represent.

As I have said elsewhere in this blog, I would love to have a person with disabilities evidencing some form of inappropriate social skill, like talking out, or standing up and sitting down, or making a noise, and hearing the pastor to say, "In the spirit of Matthew 18, lets see if we can tolerate, can live with this distraction and in a spirit of love continue on with our service."

As a person who played a lot of basketball, I have always been surprised at people who golf. When I was at the free throw line, I heard every comment possible screamed at me and people deliberately trying to distract me so I would make a mistake and miss the shot. But then there is golf where if you make a sound, even the people around you will shush you. Imagine people deliberately trying to distract a golfer? Both athletes are doing something that requires concentration, however, one has to do it with the roar of a hostile crowd. My point is not that we should heckle our pastor or any other teacher as she/he teaches. My point is that we have the ability to perform under a variety of conditions, and absolute silence is simply a preference it is not a necessity as a condition. I mean for goodness sake, visit an African-American church. We once had a black pastor speak at our church, and he made the comment something to the effect, "Speak up every so often so I know that you are listening" because everyone sat in silence like you are supposed to in most predominantly white churches. Great comment!

The presence of noise at a church service is a cultural thing, and cultural things can be changed, and at times should be changed in particular if they result in people being excluded. I can change the culture of my church, it is not a God ordained program for people to sit in silence, largely motionless for 40 minutes. We can change if we want to. So if people with autism or any other disability cannot fit our structures, our structures can change. And in a Matthew 18 kind of way, we can leave the ninety and nine behind and go for the one who is "lost," however he may be lost, be it socially, communicatively or spiritually.

What could possibly have been the point of Jesus telling the story of the ninety and nine and the one, if not to impress upon us the importance of the lost one? "...your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost."

Are you? And if you are, what are you willing to do to see they, and their families will not be lost?
McNair
(fcbu)

The ultimate in legal rejection

Sometimes I post things on this blog and people don't believe me. "It can't be as bad as you suggest" they sometimes say. It is always my prayer that I am wrong, that there is much more going on than meets the eye. But, for example, if there are 100 churches in the area of the country where I live (the Inland Empire of Southern California) who are working to reach out and include people with disabilities, then that means that only 10-12% of churches in my region of the country are reaching out to people with disabilities.


At times, we are also doing just the opposite, and at times the ridiculous nature of what we are doing is hit by the light of day. Why would the story about a child with autism's relationship with a local church be noteworthy? Was it because the church had dramatically changed the way they do things such that such individuals could be involved? Could it be that special programs were developed so that children with autism could be involved at the church? Those stories could be written, but all it takes is one of the following stories to short circuit the wonderful work of other churches.


The following is in reference to an article is by Terry Gruca, a reporter at wcco.com. In it she describes how a church took out a restraining order to prevent a 13 year old boy, who is a big guy from the description given from attending the church because he becomes violent or has loud outbursts. If such a child attends church, at least the church in the article, he is to be arrested.


As comedians sometimes say, "I couldn't make this stuff up." But this is not funny. This is tragic. It says that for some people there is NO place within the Body of Jesus Christ. If fact if you attempt to be a part of the Body of Christ, we will arrest you.


Talk about resistance to change.


This church is representing to the community that my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, would arrest disabled people for attempting to go to church. I wonder about the violence and loud outbursts. I mean loud outbursts are 50% of the reason why this young man would be arrested for attending church.


All I can say is God bless and God protect the mother of this man for her desire to take him to church, and her faith in God, in being unwilling to reject God in the way that what would be self-describing followers of God have rejected her.


"Sure you are critical of this situation, but what would you do, Jeff?"


Lets assume for a moment that the young man is violent and it remains to be seen what violence means in reference to a person with autism. But even so, does violence justify a person being excluded from the Body of Christ? My answer is NO. Don't expect me to have the young man working with the babies or children, however, I will create a place for potentially violent people so that they can be a part of the Body of Christ. I will not file restraining orders against them.


This is so very sad. May God forgive his church for such acts.


McNair

Joni speaks at Cal Baptist graduation/Disability studies MA

California Baptist University was honored this past week by having Joni Eareckson-Tada as the speaker for the graduate commencement. Of course she was wonderful. She has the ability to speak in a deceptively friendly, almost folksy kind of way. However, her insights are deep, her biblical knowledge broad and she challenges her audience to live the Christian life as it was meant to be lived.

She was given an honorary doctorate degree by Cal Baptist (her 5th I believe) and she was gracious and grateful. Afterwards I had the chance to speak with her a bit and she was excited and honored.

One of the reasons she consented to be at Cal Baptist, I believe, has been the developing relationship between Joni and Friends and Cal Baptist in the development of an entirely online MA degree in Disability Studies. Joni was particularly interested in coursework related to disability ministry and pastoral counseling as it related to persons with disabilities. Of course her writing will be a staple in those and other classes and we were delighted to receive her input in the design of those classes. She actually began her remarks by telling those in attendance about the new degree which if not the first of its kind, is one of the few of its kind. We were honored to receive her endorsement. We are still awaiting WASC approval, but are hopeful we will receive it in the next month or so.

The MA degree in Disability Studies at California Baptist University will be offered entirely online. Students will be able to specialize in areas of leadership in disability (including understanding leadership development of leaders experiencing disability), disability policy study, and disability ministry, including studying Christian perspectives on disability.

As a part of the relationship with Joni and Friends, we hope to afford students opportunities for internships and other opportunities. Because Joni and Friends is an international organization, opportunities will be available internationally. Because the MA is online, students will be able complete the degree from just about anywhere in the world where they have decent internet access.

I am personally excited about the opportunities this degree offers for people around the world. Should you desire more information, please contact me, Jeff McNair at jmcnair@calbaptist.edu
With accreditation, we will launch our first cohort with the Fall semester of 2008. That will be a historic first cohort!

Please keep us in your prayers over the next days and weeks as we move through accreditation and program planning.

McNair

A spritual disconnect

Rec'd this link from a student of mine, Geoff. http://www.ragamuffinsoul.com/?p=4757
The link depicts a man holding up his adult son with cerebral palsy while they are worshipping together. Check it out...you will have to scroll down the page a bit.

After the picture and the brief story, there are many comments. Listen to a few of them...

• what an awesome example of what it really is all about.
• beautiful… Jesus hands and feet
• THIS this is worship.
• I’m humbled.
• Your post really touched my heart. May we all take lessons from Matt and Jefferson
• True worship sacrifice! Amazing! Thanks for hitting us over the head again.
• Wow. That is beautiful.
• speechless…
• Amazing… Grace… Compassion… Authenticity…
• Unreal man. Completely amazing.
• absolutely beautiful.
• i think the entire Church can learn true authenticity from this picture.
• … tears i my eyes …
• This is the best thing i’ve ever seen. this is the best thing I’ve ever seen. this is the best…
• Sometimes God sends people like that along for us to wake us up
• Wow! That is precious! THAT is what it’s all about! Sacrifice - Worship - Praise - Hope! Yes. And so the question is almost.Was he real?Was he an angel?

There is a disconnect here for me as I see the picture and read the comments. Yes it is wonderful that a father would love his son and assist him to participate in worship. But there are thousands of people who have no "father" to assist them in worship. The comments almost feel like posing sometimes because if people really felt it was so wonderful, why wouldn't they do it as well? The comments should read, "I think the entire Church can learn true authenticity from this picture and I am going to find a disabled person that I can help too." or "This is the best thing I have ever seen and I am going to be a part of it by helping a disabled person." or "THIS this is worship and I want to be a part of facilitating worship for someone else." Is it only if you have a son with a disability that you facilitate a worship experience for someone? Would you ever facilitate worship for someone with a disability if you didn't have that person as a son or daughter?

If we are "Real" we will not just recognize the beauty of the situation, we will be a part of the beauty. If I tell you that your service to the poor is beautiful but never help with my giving or my time, I am a poser. If I am "Real" I will do something.

Another side of me that is disconnected is that a man assists his son who is disabled at at church and this is amazing. Why is it amazing rather than commonplace? It would be commonplace if it is happening all the time. Is it amazing that a father is helping his son? No, fathers help their sons all the time. I am confident that the father himself would say it is no big deal and in many ways, he is right.

Well, then...
Is it amazing because it is too infrequently observed at a church?
It is infrequent that disabled people are worshipping at church in community numbers.
Is it amazing because a disabled man's worship is being facilitated by someone else?
It is infrequent that someone assists another in worship.
Is it amazing because one man is having his worship "interrupted" in order to facilitate the worship of another?
It is infrequent that a disabled person's worship is a priority for someone else such that
worship becomes something other than an uninterruptable individual experience.
Is it amazing because worship becomes transformed into something that it typically cannot be because we have been taught that worship is something that I do by myself and if someone for whatever reason imposes himself on me (through noise, or activity, or functional disability, or whatever) he should be removed so that I can worship?
It is amazing because it is worship in a different form. It is two men who are achieving an
apparently nontraditional form of worship which entails one loving, being patient with, and
facilitating the worship of another. However, in that service, the one being served also
transforms the worship of the servant.

Probably to most people at church, the presence of a person with disability "imposing" themselves upon them, "interrupting" their worship is a cause for complaint. "How am I supposed to worship when so and so makes me have to hold him up so he can sing and dance along with everyone else?" "How am I supposed to worship in song when so and so sings and mostly is just making a loud, off tune noise?" "How am I supposed to worship during the sermon when so and so will not sit quietly and listen?" "How am I supposed to worship when so and so bothers me continuously with their inappropriate social skills?" I mean people complain if the music is not the right genre for goodness sake. You see these things are linked. It is supposedly so beautiful to see a father be imposed upon by his son and DELIGHT in that and us it as a means of service to his son. It is supposedly so beautiful that a son would not be ashamed of his need for assistance but would DELIGHT in the assistance he needs in order to participate in worship.

Lets not be posers, Christian. If service is beautiful when I see it in someone else, it is also beautiful for me. If "interrupted" worship is beautiful for someone else, because it displays love in a kinda way it is supposed to be, then I should be more open to interruption. Worship needs to adapt to the impositions of imperfect people who are socially more imperfect than I due to their disabilities. My level of imperfection is acceptable, theirs causes me to reject them.

Lets be truly "Real," Christian, and do the thing we celebrate without excuses. Lets make the beautiful, the amazing acts of love commonplace such that when we see them, we still appreciate them but we are not amazed by them because they are not the rarities that they presently are. If it is beautiful to be loving and patient with people, lets make that the mundane within the Church.

McNair

F.I.R.E.

The Foundation for Inclusive Religious Education is a group sponsored by the Catholic Church.  The goal of the foundation is that they grant

...children with special needs the remarkable opportunity to receive a Catholic education in their parish schools.  In 1996, a group of parents founded F.I.R.E. to realize a common dream for their children with special needs to attend parish schools with their siblings and neighbors.  Since F.I.R.E.'s founding, the non-profit has provided essential financial grants to schools within the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph...

God bless the Kansas City - St. Joseph Diocese for their efforts in this area.  May efforts like these increase within the Catholic church, and the Christian church in general.  The figures for Christian schools offering education services for children with disabilities are dismal (for some more information, see a brief article I wrote for the NACSPED news).  We should follow the example of this diocese.

May F.I.R.E. be inundated with requests for help as other Christian schools catch their vision.

McNair

Beating each other up

So, in the past 2 months, I have been an advocate for a family with a school district that apparently has been beating up on some parents, and I am going to be an "inspirational" speaker for a different school district, encouraging teachers because the parents and their advocates have been beating up on the teachers. So like a scene out of Clint Eastwood's Fistfull of dollars I am in the midst of playing both sides (although my movie would not be a Fistfull of dollars because unlike Eastwood's character, I am not charging anything, which is not a complaint as I am happy to be an advocate and an encourager for both sides). It is all about the best services for children with disabilities.

Parents too often are placed in the position where they have to fight school districts or any other agents of the state for appropriate services. Schools have limited resources and they attempt to cut corners where they can. So if they can cut corners for your child, then they can serve another child whose has parents who are more active advocates. But I don't want them to cut corners for my child so I fight to get the services that I feel my child needs. Schools will sometimes play games with parents such that parents get tired of being pushed around, or tired of not receiving services, or tired of having their rights stepped on, so they find an advocate, or someone like me who only is interested in the best services being provided for a child. The difference is that by bringing an advocate, or someone like myself into the meetings, the school district acts differently. Even something as simple as the time alloted for the meeting changes from being brief, to as long as it takes. Services providers cannot brow beat parents because someone is in the room who knows the parents' rights. In one meeting, for example, one of the professionals on the school district's side, was pushing a particular IEP goal that the parents were not interested in. The parents tried several times to express that they were not interested in the goal, but the district kept pushing. Finally I spoke up and stated, "The parents do not want this objective so it is dead." Nothing more was said about the objective because that is the parents' right in the IEP meeting and although everyone knew it, the parents were not responding to the districts assertive position with assertions of their own. In spite of what are hopefully the best intentions, schools are villiainzed by parents because they may find that the only way they can get services is to fight. And unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that those who fight often get the best services.

On the other side of the coin are the teachers. Of course there are slackers as there in any job, but largely I believe that teachers are doing their best for their students. Some parents, however, are entirely unable to be satisfied. At times there are issues of not being able to accept their child's disability (I know of parents who want the district to work on reading for a 20+ year old who has not been able to learn to read for their entire school career), or being unreasonable about services (demanding one or more aides, or private school services, or myriad other programs that they may have heard about), or bringing in experts whose sole purpose is to make the district look foolish or to sue. These people are not helpful, because it is true that districts do not have unlimited resources. It is also true that as hard as teachers may try, they are not perfect. There are very few "perfect" classrooms for students with intellectual disabilities, for example, so it is easy to observe a classroom and find fault. Some aspects of programs are considered the most basic of best practices. I try to impress upon my student teachers the importance of instructional data to ensure teacher accountability. However, other aspects are simply opinion. But if I as a parent have an opinion because I saw something on a television program, or read some controversial book, I begin to demand this or that particular program for my child when the teacher may be feeling that there is no empirical evidence supporting a particular approach and the approach is also very expensive. There are many such approaches out there that have great zealots behind them and not a shred of research data supporting the fact that the approach does anything. But parents who may be desperate to find anything that might work with their child are sucked into promises, and then demand services at the local school.

So the educational system is such that teachers feel beat up by parents and advocates, and parents feel beat up by schools and professionals. The system is adversarial at nearly every level. It can even be adversarial between agencies, where some agencies think that they are God's gift as advocates and are quick to villianize other agencies. They become indignant should anyone make any accusations toward them, however. But being a friend of parents, I could tell you stories of unsatisfied parents and family members, and professionals who feel put upon by EVERY state agency.

But I, in response, will continue to advocate for parents for the best services for their offspring from any agency, and I will continue to encourage teachers to be the professionals they are, and to use best practices, and practice accountability.

McNair

Getting into "trouble"?

Recently I have had an interesting experience that I guess I should have expected, but didn't and have been a bit taken by surprise.  As I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog, there is a group home close by to my home that I like to visit once per week.  The people who live in the home also attend my church.  They are all adults who also experience moderate to severe intellectual disabilities.

Anyway, over the past couple of years, the lives of the group home residents have improved a bit, I would argue, as a result of their participation in church.  I mean not only do they participate in activities on Sunday morning, but they also go with both church and community groups (Rotary and high school service clubs) to ball games (major and minor league baseball, high school basketball and football that we at the church facilitate), have attended concerts and an occasional play, a yearly shopping spree, as well as going to swim parties, movie nights at church, speaking in classes for students study special education, and just generally going out for a meal now and then.  I as one of the main people facilitating these outings have gotten fingerprinted (see my entry on fingerprinting) and am an approved person to be with the folks. 

Anyway, the group home has received increased scrutiny because of the small move toward regular lives that the people are experiencing.  Social workers are concerned that the residents are interacting with people at church who are not finger printed.  They are concerned that they are going to ball games with people who are not finger printed.  They are concerned that when they come to address my classes, addresses that have proved to be truly life changing for the students whom they address (I will have to share about that in another entry sometime), that in actuality they are being "put on display" in some form of disparaging manner, I can only assume because the regulators must think that the residents have nothing to say to a class of university students.

I think that they are making these assumptions and raising these concerns as people who live in group homes are supposed to live there in isolation without the presence of people from the community who might actually be interested in developing a relationship, making friends with them because that, sadly, is the experience of most people living in such a situation.  I really do understand the desire on the part of professionals to protect people from victimization.  But I also recognize that no one can be totally protected, and that one just has to use his best judgement in looking at relationships with community members.  Clearly, the community has been sensitized to the horrible behavior of what is comparatively a handful of religious people, however, one can be wise without being ridiculous.  The fact that the vast majority of interactions between children and priests, for example, have been edifying and a blessing, does not diminish the fact that a small group of people are evil, but it does point to the fact that the vast majority of interactions are edifying and a blessing.  It has also changed the manner in which all people interact in religious settings.  For example, I myself when out in the community with friends with intellectual disabilities, will be careful to avoid being in a car alone with a disabled woman, even if just driving her home.  I will always attempt to take women home first and then the men second.  That is just common sense.

It is also interesting that professionals in disability related services will speak of their desire for things like community integration, and normalization , and friendship.  However, it is interesting that when it actually occurs, they don't know what to do with it, and rather than allowing something natural to occur, something like friendship, they will attempt to regulate it, and in effect destroy it.  In my own situation, I can already see the group home owner pulling back a bit, and who can blame her?  Why should she risk getting into trouble with regulating agencies who will come the home looking for something wrong, and expressing a judgmental attitude at the positive things that might be happening?  I am sure her thinking is, "If I just keep the people in the house and not give them access to the outside world, I would be much better off."  No doubt that is the reason for the punishing attitude of the social workers and other regulating agencies as well.  "Quit doing the community integration stuff.  You need to be regulated by us if you are going to have your residents develop friendships.  How dare you do something apart from our regulation."  One can only assume that they would then be happy if the group home residents left daily for their adult day care setting where they are often treated as children, and then just come home and stay in the house.  Case workers will decry the fact that group home owners will run to the store for a gallon of milk, take one of the residents and count that as one of the required monthly outings.  But when people are engaged in real outings with real friends, I guess their "handlers" are considered trouble makers.

This is another barrier that churches must be prepared to face in attempting to do disability ministry. We have decades of uncaring attitudes of churches and protectionist attitudes by professionals.  As we, the church, begin to reach out to those we have ignored, we must expect to find resistance on the part of the protectionists, because their structures for the way they do their services were designed without a group like the church taking an interest in group home clients to the point of wanting they to be participating members.  So although they talk a good integration game, in reality they are a part of the problem, by their own design.

But the problem of the woman who runs the group home that I visit, is that she got into the group home business because she loves and wants to serve adults with intellectual disabilities.  She wants the very best for them, in spite of the way in which the agencies would regulate or intimidate and try to scare her.  Not only does she recognize that her residents are people who want to have a full life, she also recognizes that they are people who desire to express the spiritual side of their lives.

So, apparently integration of adults with intellectual disabilities into the community is a fight with the church to want to integrate them and a fight with the state to allow the integration to occur.  Apparently the church is not the only one who claims to stand for one thing and do something else.  The state can and apparently is hypocritical in its approach to community integration, saying they want it, but regulating and punishing and frustrating efforts at integration.

McNair