disabled Christianity

a life filled with "almost friends"

2012-01-31T12:21:00.000-08:00

That is the phrase one of my students in the California Baptist University's Disability Studies MA program, Jennifer Baca, used to describe the too often experience of people with disabilities. It is a powerful phrase, that is damning in its implications. Many people who experience disability have lives filled with people who are nice, perhaps because they are paid to be caretakers, or social workers, or teachers or some other role. They are nice and perhaps they are even friendly. But they are NOT friends. If I am a person with a disability I need to understand that...

People who are paid to be with me are not my friends.
People in my life who are forbidden to be my friend by their organization, their profession, independent of how nice they are to me, are not my friends.
Experts who interact with me when they are on the clock and will not or cannot visit me when they are not on the clock are not my friends.
People who worked with me, then worked with someone else, or changed jobs but do not now interact with me are not my friends.

All of these people are "almost friends."
But there is a huge difference between friends and almost friends.

Almost friends interact with me on the basis of a menu of services.
Almost friends see me as a part of their caseload.
Almost friends do not choose me.
Almost friends don't recognize the potential damage they do to me by submitting to human service standards that provide a distance.

I would hope that almost friends would recognize who they themselves are, but they actually don't. In reality, they cheapen friendship by referring to themselves as my friends, they cheapen me by thinking that I need them to be almost friends in my life perhaps because they either don't think I can have real friends, or are perhaps so unaware of my life situation that don't know that I really desire true friends. I wish almost friends would help me find real friends and not be confused about who they are. They may be good and caring and helpful and professional. But that doesn't mean they are my friends, and although I need good, caring, helpful, professionals in my life, what I most need is friends. It seems my almost friends do not understand that.

My almost friends don't seem to get that.

McNair

The Bible and people with severe intellectual impairments

2012-01-25T12:53:00.000-08:00

"Should we teach the Bible to those with severe cognitive disabilities?" is a question that was asked in a weblog entitled "The Works of God." I really appreciate this blog raising this question not because it necessarily is a question in my mind, but because it is the question in too many pastor's minds (assuming the question is even considerd).

I remember a pastor once saying to me,

"No one stays awake at night thinking of how to teach the Bible to people with intellectual disabilities."

I responded, "I do!"

The larger question is how we facilitate faith development in individuals with severe intellectual disabilities and are the current content based strategies for faith development of those with and without disabilities actually doing what we think they are doing. The integration of people with and without disabilities is an important step in the faith development to all.
Anyway, I was invited to provide a response to this posting for the Christian Post, and they did a good job editing my response. You can see it here Christian Post link .
The critical question in faith development, Bible "learning" is not whether, but how. Additionally as I have stated elsewhere, the changes that need to come to the church that would facilitate faith development for all, will largely result from a change in the entire church environment, not just in figuring out some way to teach the Bible to people with intellectual disabilities. The discussion begins with the statement, "Yes, we want people with severe intellectual disabilities integrated into the church in as many ways as possible."

Once we make that statement our real goal, we will find that we will change our structures such that Bible instruction of persons with disabilities is no longer something else we do, it becomes a significant aspect of who we are. We, the church body have changed from being a church to the Body of Christ with all that that entails.

At the moment, I am not sure we really want to become the Body of Christ because we will have to change the way we do things such that we respect people we have devalued.

This morning, I was part of a meeting that began with a devotion from James 2 about favoritism largely on the basis of wealth/poverty issues. The same applies with impairment/disability issues. For me to ask the question, "Should we teach the Bible to those with severe cognitive disabilities?" on some level implies that I am justifying what I am not doing. On some level it is a way of saying "I don't want to change." It is a way of saying, "I don't want to be inconvenienced." However, if it is an honest question that I want an answer to, then perhaps I should be asking, "How can I teach the Bible with those with severe cognitive disabilities?" It is easier to try every instructional approach and even perhaps fail then it is to prove that people cannot be taught the Bible. We are way too early in this awakening of the church to the presence of persons with disabilities in the community for us to excuse ourselves from facilitating faith development in those who we have ignored.

McNair

Underestimating others

2012-01-16T16:13:00.000-08:00

I had an interesting experience yesterday in our Light and Power class. I was sitting with a friend, perhaps the most severely impaired member of our group. He would be considered as having a severe intellectual disability as he is largely nonverbal mostly just sitting, occasionally stating single words like "presents" or "pizza" or something similar. It would be easy to think he is oblivious to what is occurring in the class whether it be Bible lessons, or singing, or other activities that occur during each session.

Yesterday during prayer, a woman who was praying said something to the effect, "Protect our friend in the hospital..." My head was bowed (I was praying). He reached over to me, lifted up my chin to get my attention and pointed to the crook in his arm. The way he did it, I knew exactly what he was trying to communicate; the experience of getting a needle in his arm for taking blood. He pointed to his arm once again, and held his hand up in my face and shook it to say "No." I said to him, "Are you talking about the hospital?" He responded by pointing like a needle in his arm and again shaking his open hand in my face to say no. "You don't like the hospital do you?" I asked. He shook his hand in my face again, agreeing "No." "Yeah I don't like the hospital either" I replied.

That interaction struck me in that in all the verbiage that was occurring in the class between the teacher talking, the others in the group talking and the actual prayer, he picked out a word that he was familiar with and had an immediate communicative response. My assumption was that he was not attending, perhaps my perception was that he was unable to attend. He totally blew me out of the water by attending, recognizing a concept that was presented, gaining my attention, and communicating to me what he thought about the concept. Hopefully, I will not underestimate him again.

McNair

Pastor of "Disability ministry"

2012-01-10T08:21:00.000-08:00

Part 1: What would be the role of a full time pastor of disability ministry?

A major part of the job would be to change the environment around individuals with disabilities, in other words, the church. The starting point might be to create a place where people are included, however, the goal would be to remove exclusion from existing programs and structures. There is a huge philosophical difference between these two activities. One says that a person doesn't fit in because of their characteristics. The other says that a person doesn't fit in because of the characteristics of the enviornment. Typically the expectation is that the individual will change to better fit the enviornment. They will develop better social skills, etc. such that they would be accepted by the larger enviornment, the social setting. There is not a lot of impetus on the environment to change. However, it is largely the enviornment that is in need of changing, even more than the individual who has the impairment. The church environment should be one that to the greatest extent possible does not reflect the socially constructed notions of disability that are reflected in Wolfensberger's 18 wounds. If the enviornment has wrong notions about people with impairments which are reflected in practices typical of society, then the environment needs to reflect more correct notions of who people with impairments are and reflect those notions in their practice. Imagine if a white woman went to a predominantly black church or a black woman went to a predominatly white church. Upon her arrival, the ministry staff approached the woman and said, "We are so glad you are here! We have a ministry specifically designed for women who are your color! All the people who are your skin color meet over there in the 'Your skin color' ministry." You would respond that this is ridiculous and you would be right. Skin color is an irrelevant characteristic when it comes to teaching people about the Bible and engaging in faith development. A segregated ministry for women with a skin color different then the majority of the women in the church reflects more about the flawed thinking of the church then it does about the relevance of the skin color of the woman. Sure there are things that have become relevant about skin color because of the way people of certain ethnicities have been socially constructed. People have experienced privilege and discrimination on the basis of their skin color. However, once you enter a church, you shouldn't experience privilege or discrimination on the basis of your skin color. The same holds for individuals with disabilities. My life in society will be different if I experience a bodily impairment of some kind. However, the socially constructed perceptions of my disability shouldn't find their way into the doors of a Christian church. I shoudn't experience discrimination in a church on the basis of disability. The fact that I do, implies the degree of change that needs to occur within that environment. That environmental change should be a major, perhaps THE major focus of the pastor of disability ministry. They should be agents of change above all else. They should be living out, teaching about, advocating for a replacement narrative, based on the Bible to replace the socially constructed, pervasive narrative about who people experiencing physical impairments are.

A second area of emphasis related to the first, is integration, friendship development and the changes the personal involvement and shared lives bring. If people were truly interested in supporting devalued people, if church members were looking for devalued people and bring them into the church, into relationship, then there might not be the need for a full time person. The fact that there is a need is somewhat of an indictment of rank and file church members who are NOT developing friendships, NOT seeking out devalued people, NOT advocating changing church structures such that people with disabilities would be included in the larger Body of Christ. If we were doing that, there wouldn't be the need so much for paid staff. Kathi and I recently spoke to the elder board at our church. We actually asked about the possibility of hiring a full time pastor of disabiltiy ministry. One of the elders in the course of the discussion, asked whether we were training another couple to take our place should we move or be incapacitated to do the ministry. At first, I thought "You don't look to the women's pastor or the junior high pastor or the college pastor to find a person within the congregation whom they can train as their replacement. Why would you look to us to do that?" Whether his comment was intentionally related to the naturalness of our "ministry" staffed entirely by volunteers as a perhaps better model, I am not sure. But it has since given me pause. We wanted a full time pastor because of the committment that funding implies on the part of the church. However, perhaps there are other ways churches can make a committment to ministry without hiring a full time pastor. A part of me thinks that the hiring of of full time pastoral staff to some degree simply removes the responsibility of the average congregational member from doing many of the things they should. Additionally, if a full time pastor of disability ministry was the one doing all the work of ministry to people experiencing disability within a church, it would be another example of a person who is only in the lives of a person with a disability because they are paid to do so (see Wolfensberger's wound #9) only in this case it is for the cause of "ministry." At least the hope is that this paid person would recognize the critical need for natural friendships and facilitate those within the social environment of the Church. From an evaluative perspective, if indivuals with disabilties attending a church do not have natural friendships with members of the church, the pastor of disability ministry is arguably NOT doing their job. If the only interaction that individuals with disabilities have with the larger congregation is the once per week chance meeting on Sunday morning with no social interaction outside of the church setting, then the pastor of disabiltiy ministry may be doing their job, but they are NOT doing a very good job. This aspect of "disability ministry" is hard because if people wanted relationships with persons with disabilities they would have those relationships. That they do not have such relationships communicates that they do not see those relationships as desirable or necessary TO THEIR OWN LIVES. The understanding of the Body of Christ, and of love among other things are then the foci of efforts of the pastor of disability ministry.

So thus far, we have described the most critical aspects of ministry and we haven't cracked a Bible with a person with a disability. Should someone not be able to understand the scriptures as presented to the larger congregation, the next critical work would be to facilitate Biblical study, faith development and teaching of that group of people. This will imply the development of a subenvironment within the church for people with this pedagogical need. Pastors of disability ministry should know what they are doing from a faith development perspective, understand what the goal is for a particular person with an intellectual disability for example and be discipling that individual to move forward in their faith. They should know what to do for an autistic child, or an adult with severe intellectual disabilities, or mental illness. In each of these cases, the approach for faith development would be different. To a large degree it would be inclusive, but to some degree the faith development approach might be different. The pastor should understand the samenesses and differences and develop those, constantly second guessing himself when segregation occurs in any form.

More to come.

McNair

Providing what is needed

2011-12-15T17:00:00.000-08:00

I heard a story recently about an interaction a man had with his son. His son experienced many disabilities including autism and epilepsy. One day as they were driving together, the son who is quite bright said to his father,

"I wish you could understand what is going on inside of me, inside of my head."
The father's interest was piqued. "Can you try to explain to me what it is you are thinking about? What is going on inside of you?"
The son replied, "You treat me as if I have a behavior problem, but what I have is mental illness."
The fathers eyes were opened and his relationship with his son changed dramatically.

There is a difference in how we interact with people when our expectations are in line with their abilities. You have the right to expect me to act in a particular manner, because my thinking is not impaired by mental illness. However, if I am experiencing mental illness, now your expectations will radically change. You recognize that there are things I can be expected to do, to understand, ways in which I will change, and many other ways in which I cannot change even though it might be my desire to do so. The result is that although you still have expectations for me, you will have to change your expectations of me. You can try to punish me in an effort to change me, and perhaps some kind of change might come from that, however, you aren't going to eliminate my mental illness, and will probably only exacerbate it through punishment. Your punishment will seem to me to be irrational and random.

Too often people who either do not have a child with a disability, do not experience disability themselves, or through their choices have no friends who experience disability. But will then act as if they can speak into the lives of those who do have those experiences, as if they know something. Well they shouldn't because they don't.

If you want to speak into the life of a family of a child with a disability, here are some things you might say.

Is there anything I can do to help you?
I would love to keep an eye on your child for you sometime.
Is your family available for dinner sometime?
We are having some families over for a big Christmas party and would love to have you bring your family!

Begin by choosing an individual or family as friends. You will then learn what you might do to assist and it will probably be something simple, but different from what you had expected.

McNair

Weird glasses people

2011-12-05T19:20:00.001-08:00

About 5 years ago, I wrote a blog entry that demonstrated an interaction between a person who wears glasses and one who does not, illustrating the manner in which people exeriencing disabilities are often treated. http://disabledchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/01/conversation-with-man-with-glasses.html

A friend from Australia, Lindsay Gale, who works for the Luke 14 project there, told me how they had been using the dialogue in a skit format. But imagine my surprise to find the skit had been made into a short video! Check it out. It is a lot of fun and they really do a wonderful job!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpuDiRvgYMU

McNair

Toby's "commercial"

2011-11-30T12:08:00.001-08:00

A friend of mine made this "commercial".
Please take a minute and check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRigofKAeZU&feature=feedu

McNair

Form follows function

2011-11-22T14:09:00.001-08:00

According to wikipedia, the phrase "form follows function" originates from Louis Sullivan in 1896.

The idea was presented in a quote that says,
It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic.
Of all things physical and metaphysical.
Of all things human and all things super-human,
Of all true manifestations of the head,
Of the heart, of the soul,
That the life is recignizable in its expression,
That aform ever follows function.
This is the law.

The friend who shared this with me was considering this idea in the light of accessible architecture. So the form of say, a ramp, follows the function of allowing access to a structure for people who use wheelchairs. If their is not a ramp, it implies that the function of the building either did or does not include the presence of persons who use wheelchairs, because the form would not allow their presence.

As the quote indicates, however, form and function transcend notions of architecture. Forms that we see in policy, in program, in social structures, in many ways reflect the function of those. We can see that people are not accepted, for example, in some social settings, perhaps on some level at least because the forms of those settings were developed with out people having a particular characteristic present. If people try to be a part of that setting, all will find difficulty because the forms expressed were designed without individuals having that particular characteristic comprising the function, functioning within that environment.

When there are changes in the function, say indivuals with disabilities are present, the form must change: be it the form of social gathering, the form of human interaction, etc. Dissonance within a social setting can be reflective of the need for a change in form or function.

There is a lesson here for the church. If there is difficulty integrating individuals with disabilities within the church, it is likely a problem of the form that resulted from the perceived function. The forms of the church were designed or developed with a different function, i.e. not including people with disabilities. As the function changes where people with disabilities are now present, the form will also need to change to some degree, if only in the physical structures (ramps, hearing devices, sign language interpreters).

Likely when there is less difficulty with integrating people with disabilities, forms have changed reflecting changed function.

McNair

So what do you do?

2011-11-12T12:28:00.001-08:00

I am reading Desmond Tutu's book No Future without Forgiveness, It is an amazing discussion of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which he directed as apartheid was dismantled. Perhaps I will share some of the deep lessons about forgiveness in a later post, relating them to disability issues. The excellent book has resurrected many memories of a trip I took to South Africa about 5 years ago. Thought I would post a poem I wrote back then as I tried to understand what I observed there.

So what do you do?
A reflection on South Africa

by Jeff McNair
So what do you do with the things that you see?
When natural beauty cannot hide the disparity. False Bay is aptly named.
And the love in their voices cannot mask an African’s plight:
the poor are the Black and the rich are the White.

So what do you do when people beg just for food?
In the shadow of cities and wealth so lewd
that embarrassed, you hide your affluence: not a motive of greed,
but a pleading desire to lie that “I am...I would be different.”

So what do you do when you give a beggar 10 rand ($1.65) and he breaks down weeping?
In worried humility, he creeping up to ask the time.
Such generosity reduces a man, crumbles him in tears.
We stand aghast, in wonder, as a beggar becomes a human and then becomes dear.

So what do you do as you take in the sights
knowing the person who drives you has never seen them?
He genially works nights for a living so basic, that you cannot believe
his friendliness is little more than an attempt to deceive.

So what do you do when driving a cab is a better life?
Thousands of miles from Dakar to Cape Town to drive a cab
is described, with a grateful, straight face, as a better life.
He pulls on the emergency brake, to stop at a light. “Mother is proud of me!”

So what do you do when Blacks and Coloreds and Whites are taught to say
“We’re all the same”?
While a “you know who” stands on each corner to guard those with wealth
as they scurry in safety by protectors on substandard wage,
who must see there’s no sameness from their economic cage.

So what do you do when you look in the eyes of a poor humanitarian?
Serving one’s people fuels the lifeblood that courses through proud veins.
“Will you be my partner?” the saint asks the rich man with averted eyes,
neither the rich nor the saint comprehending their respective guise.

So what do you do when leaders that Mandella’s wise plan brought to power
are kings of corruption?
Who in spite of their efforts cannot out sin, as the Whites’ “moral” replacement:
unquenchable greed and power murderous racism’s alternative.

So what do you do when the labor’s so cheap
that someone stands all day to keep you from pushing the elevator button?
With a kind word and friendly smile
protecting his job from the next in line.

So what do you do when you are back in the states
trying not to shake the memory of difference that grates
on your awakened, helpless sensibilities and uneasy ambiguity
destined to be gradually forgotten
in a file of pictures from a trip sometime back?

So tell me a story of a man and a people
who fought and gained freedom
from racism taken to the ridiculous extremes
of the color of bread.

Tell me they now live in a place just, as equals.
Because the story I heard, is perhaps better a sequel
where racism holds on by a rope not a thread
and has feigned its demise but is not as yet dead.

Prove to me that “We are all the same” by your lives,
as I am unconvinced by your blessed words.

Inclusion Fusion Conference press release

2011-11-01T16:38:00.000-07:00

FreeWeb Conference to Educate About Kids with Disabilities

Inclusion Fusion will teach church professionals how to reachkids with special needs

CHAGRIN FALLS, OHIO – November 1, 2011 – KeyMinistry, a non-profit organization based in Cleveland, Ohio, is regarded as a leader in the field ofinclusion ministry and is pleased to present Inclusion Fusion, our first annual special needs ministry websummit. In partnership with pajamaconference.com, we are offering this FREE,worldwide web conference to equip churches to more effectively serve, welcomeand include families of kids with disabilities.

Inclusion Fusion, being held from November 3-5, 2011, is being madeavailable free of charge to ensure the participation of as many churchleaders, volunteers and families as possible. Presentations will be videotaped inadvance by experts from all over the United States. Each training module willthen be available online, free of charge, at any time from November 3-5. A collection of all presentations will bepermanently housed on a related website following the conclusion of theconference.

Chuck Swindoll, Chairman of the Board at Insight for Living,Chancellor at Dallas Theological Seminary, and Senior Pastor at StonebriarChurch in Frisco, Texas will provide the keynote address. In addition to his professionalresponsibilities, Dr. Swindoll is the proud grandpa of a child with specialneeds.

Other speakers include Shannon Dingle, Founder of the blog“The Works of God Displayed,” and special needs ministry coordinator at Providence BaptistChurch in Raleigh, NC; Amy Dolan, Founder of Lemon LimeKids; Connie Hutchinson, Director ofDisabilities Ministry at First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton,California; Marie Kuch, Founder and Executive Director of Nathaniel’s Hope inOrlando, Florida, and many, many more.

There willbe topics of interest for those in professional ministry, as well as forparents of kids with special needs. Topics will include advocating for yourchild at church, how to set up welcoming ministry environments, how toestablish respite care and different models for providing respite, commonmisconceptions about special needs ministry, and using social media in specialneeds ministry to name just a few.

To learn more about Inclusion Fusion, please visit thewebsite at www.inclusionfusion.org,the Inclusion Fusion Facebook page or e-mail Katie@keyministry.org.

Opportunities and realities

2011-10-28T10:44:00.000-07:00

Opportunities abound for the possibility of doing good. The question is will we see those opportunities, or be distracted by some comparative trivia, some historical reason for resisting change? The "we have always done it this way" as foolish as it sounds remains a powerful argument. We resist change because change moves us out of our current positions of comfort, or prestige, or simple thought processes. "If people with disabilities are suddenly worth my effort, what does that say about my lack of caring in the past?" Well, it says you were uncaring IN THE PAST. The real question is, will you be uncaring IN THE FUTURE?

But courage is needed and I don't mean to demean that courage. Take my favorite movie, for instance (although it is a bad comparison). The reason I love the movie Babe, is not because there are singing pigs and crazy ducks. It is the story of a man, Farmer Hoggett (I think), who saw something that no one else saw. A pig who could herd sheep. He then had the courage to enter the pig in a herding contest, to the laughter and demeaning of the crowd. At the end, the deriders are speechless as they finally see what he had seen. But it takes real courage to act on something that you see, when you know that most others don't see it. If the pig had not herded the sheep before the crowd, the farmer still would have been right, he just would have lost that particular opportunity to convince the crowd of what he had seen, of what he knew. He would have been ridiculed, but he would have been right.

We are facing those kinds of opportunities today. We see something that I am hopeful we can help others to see. If we fail, that does not mean that our vision of a church that includes persons with disabilities is not a glimpse of reality. It means that we were simply unable to convince those who need to be convinced of the opportunities that lie before them, before us. I must also realize that I must be subservient to my Master, the Lord, who might be saying that the timing is not his timing. I must submit my will to his.

McNair

St. Giles Church 9/10/06

2011-10-28T10:39:00.000-07:00

I just discovered this post I had written on a trip to Scotland in 2006. Never posted, I thought I would post it now.

I just got back from a wonderful conference in Aberdeen Scotland. While there, I sat in a church in Edinburgh called St. Giles Church and listened as a classical music group prepared for a concert later that night. I wrote the following as I sat there

In a reformation kind of way, I hope to open the church. Or perhaps, it is a total change. I want it to change its priorities, to change its practices to become something it has never entirely been before. It may be that the doors are open. But that only means that like a museum it has visiting hours. You sit in a church but you might as well be like an informaiton center about cultural silliness (as in the Tron center there in Edinburgh which was once a beautiful church and now is the shell of a beautiful church filled with a combination of a partially excavated floor and silly things about witches, etc.). But it does begin with openness, with business hours. Particularly business hours that don't exclude. But people can be those visiting a museum or those engaged. People who look around and tke picutres and leave, or people are aware of what a church actually is, how it differs from a museum. How congregational members differ from museum attendees or visitors. I don't concern myself with who or is not in the museum. Of course, I would like everyone to have the opportunity to enter.

My desire, however, with a church is to think about who is or isn't in attendance and wonder why. How is their presence or not a reflection of me, of us? Churches may move from churches to museums to buildings housing silliness very quickly (comparatively) and the reasons for this change can be knowable. In summary, it is linked to obedience. How interesting that so many churches here in Edinburgh are museums or restaurants or bars. One even houses a tall rock climbing wall. It is a city dedicated to the culture they have abandoned.

So I go into Tron square church to see what is in the dirt that the church stands on. If I look up, the stained glass reminds me of worship. I got to the church below Edinburgh Castle and eat at the "Carvary." How funny that Kathi misread it as "Calvary." How many of the population would have the vestiges of culture to catch the "joke."

May God continue to move us forward as a growing church. The churches of Edinburgh are like the stumps of dead trees. A remembrance of what might have been, what had begun, what had life but is now a dead, distant memory.

McNair

"Treat all people the same"

2011-10-28T10:24:00.000-07:00

Imagine that was our creedo for the church. "We treat all people the same" but there are no women are in church. Would that be treating all people the same? Obviously not. So if we say we are treating everyone the same but certain groups are not present, that is probably a very good indication that we are NOT treating all people the same. How might it look if we were treating all people the same? Well, in many ways it would not look like it currently does simply because, in the case of people with various disabilities, they would be present in numbers reflecting the community. That they are not present indicates to me that we do not treat people the same. I also don't care if your church is largely comprised of white people, hispanic people, african people, asian people, it doesn't matter as most all of those groups of people are not treating people with disabilities the same as they would want to be treated within their own group or by other groups.

McNair

"Don't believe everything you think!"

2011-10-28T10:21:00.000-07:00

One of my students, Jayson, in responding to a reading I had the class do, came up with this great statement...

Don't believe everything you think!

It is such a great caution about living an unexamined life. There are many things that we think and do that we really don't understand. We have ideas about people or things that somehow are just a part of who we are and when we are in situations that call us to pull out that information, we do so without a lot of thought. When we are challenged to consider our ideas, it can be painful because we find out how wrong or uninformed our ideas may be.

As an undergrad at Wheaton College, I was a TA in a class called Christ and Culture. The major focus of the class for incoming freshmen was to challenge everything they believed about their Christian faith. They often misunderstood thinking we were actually challenging their faith. There was a lot of crying and questions like, "Why are you doing this?" But the point was to make their faith THEIR faith. They had been told things by their parents or others in their lives, but they hadn't investigated them for themselves. "Why do you believe what you do?" "Because my mom told me." May be a true response, but isn't necessarily a good response, particularly when you are confronted by the challenges of the world. If you have come to an understanding of something because you have thought it through, that is much different from simply, lazily relying on something someone told you even if it was your mother.

I remember I once had a job at an industrial laundry in Atlantic City, NJ. My boss was a great guy who was a Jehovah's Witness. He challenged me as a young man on many positions of the Christian faith that differed from the Jehovah Witness faith. "Why do you believe in the trinity?" he would ask. "Why do you say Jesus is God?" both postions that he as a JW would not support. I quickly realized that I had not done the required work to understand why I believed those things, and when challenged to find them in the Bible, as a young man, I couldn't do it. I was simply relying on what I had been told. Since then, I can easily support those positions from scripture, but it was my JW friend who challenged me to support my beliefs even though he didn't agree with them.

Social constructions of disability are the same kinds of ideas that people have that they have really not examined. So, of course everybody with a disability thinks thus and so. Of course they are all unhappy with their lives and so on and so on. As a mentor professor once said to me about a conference speaker he had heard, "Unencumbered by knowledge, he speaks with great authority!" That is the unexamined world of ideas that we carry around with us.

Now no one would (or should) come up to me and ask about economics. However, I carry ideas about economics around in my head that I have heard or read somewhere that come out of my mouth every so often. I can tell you that they are unexamined ideas. They are largely unexamined because I have never taken the time (nor do I want to take the time) to understand more about economics. I try real hard not to infuse my ideas about economics into conversations I am in if only because I would do little more than make myself look stupid if I were to offer my perspective. However, in the world of disability, because it intersects with the life of so many different people in so many different ways, knowledge doesn't always accompany ideas. I see it in "Christian" responses to people with disabilities, I see it in justifications for abortion or euthanasia, I see it in people projecting their ideas of what it would be like to have an impairment on others, I see it in the development of laws, I even see it in the definition some hold of what disability is.

So my caution is Jayson's caution..."Don't believe everything you think!"

McNair

Chickens and data based instruction

2011-10-17T16:15:00.000-07:00

Something I wrote about 10 years back about data collection. You can visit the actual website where it lives, if you want. There is other information there about being data based as a teacher.
http://www.jeffmcnair.com/CalBaptist/CBUTransition/Transition/new_page_4.htm

There are several reasons why a teacher should take data on her students. Interestingly, they all seem to follow a chicken feeding model. Don’t ask why, just read on.
Instruction in a general education setting is pretty much a chicken feed model. That is, the food is tossed out to the chickens, and they eat it. In a general education setting, most often instruction is made to the group. Assistance is provided to individuals to some extent, however, simply due to the sheer numbers of students, individualized instruction is at a minimum.
Such is not the case with Special Education. The instruction in Special education is supposed to be individualized. Some chickens, for whatever reason, cannot feed themselves. As a result, you walk into the coop and see some very fat chickens, those who are thriving in that setting, and those who are sickly and scrawny. The idea behind individualized instruction is to work directly with those who become sick and scrawny under the traditional model of chicken feeding so that they too can put on a little weight.
The first reason for taking data then, is to monitor the progress of students who have had difficulty in the past in order to ensure that they are improving. Imagine that you are responsible for a group of about 25 chickens. You might consider yourself an entry level "chicken service worker." The director of the chicken coop comes by one day and you have the following conversation . . .

"Hello chicken service worker number one. How are the chickens doing?"
"They are doing great" you respond.
"Really?"
"Yeah, they are much better than they used to be. You should have seen them when I first got them!"
"Are they eating better?"
"Yeah, I feel like they are much better then they were."
"Why is that one chicken sleeping with his feet sticking straight up and his tongue hanging out?"
"I don’t know. He does that all the time. But he has made friends with a family of flies."
" . . .and several others seem awfully skinny. I have never seen chickens sit down for so long."
"You know, when they first came here, they used to run around like crazy. Now they sit like good little chickens."
"Prior to visiting your coop, I didn’t know chickens could sit. I’m not sure they are supposed to sit."
"They do in here."
"How much food have the scrawny ones been eating?"
"Oh, a lot."
"Have they been gaining any weight?"
"Yeah, I feel like they have been gaining quite a bit of weight."
"I think that chicken with the friends is dead."
"Really?"
"Those other skinny ones, they don’t look like they are getting enough to eat. Have you been keeping track of how much they eat?"
Pointing to his head, "I keep it all up here."
"You keep the weights of twenty-five chickens as well as their daily intake of food in your head? That's a lot of information. . . I can’t believe you are able to do that."
Yet as unbelievable as it sounds, there are teachers who have starving students, educationally, in their classrooms. Students are educationally dead, in their classrooms and they don’t know it because they are not collecting any data. They are using educational approaches which are not working and they are unaware.

A second reason for taking data, is to evaluate our own teaching. Just because a teacher is teaching doesn’t mean a student is learning. It is the teacher’s job to ensure that the student is learning. Very often, the reason that students do not learn is not because they are unable to learn. Rather, it is because we as teachers are unable to teach, or refuse to teach using best practices.

"Those chickens are really, I mean REALLY scrawny!"
"I feed them every day!"
"Are they eating it?"
Pause, "I feed them every day. I even use SCRAWNEX, a special feed for scrawny chickens. Like the add says, ‘scrawny today, chubby tomorrow’"
"Is is working?"
"We had a coop inservice which said that it is the best food for scrawny chickens."
" . . . and why are those straws sticking out of the water bowls."
"I thought I’d try something new. I covered up the water, except for the straws."
"Are the chickens getting enough water?"
"They sure peck at the straws a lot!"
". . . and you thought this was a good idea?"
"Do chickens have lips?"

Many teachers have no idea whether the approach they are using is working, for any or all of their students. Yet, they blindly continue on with what they are doing.

The systematic taking of data also ensures that students are given instruction relative to a specific objective every day, or as often as the objective or program demands. Back to the chickens . . .

"You know when you took this job, the idea was to keep the chickens healthy."
"I think I have tried to do that."
"The feeding objective assumes you will feed and water the chickens every day. Have you given them food and water every day."
"Well, there are other things I needed to work on which weren’t in the objectives."
"So what are you telling me? Please don’t tell me that little Winger is so skinny because you haven’t been feeding her every day."
"She got food. Nearly every day she got food, and water too, I think."
"You know, if you had been taking data, you would not only know whether or not she had been fed every day, the recording of the data point would have ensured that you feed her every day."

A final reason is to be able to document for others the progress students are making. Imagine the same conversation above, however, the chicken service worker has been taking data on her chickens.

"So, how are the chickens doing?"
"Pretty good. Did you know we went through five different types of food last season?"
"Really?"
"Yeah. I finally found one that Beaky could eat. She has gone from two to three pounds in the last two months."
"What about that chicken who is sleeping over there?"
"He might not be sleeping, I think he might be dead. I have tried the five different types of feed, and have delivered each of them using three different feeding techniques. But still, he won’t eat and hasn’t gained any weight."
"Did you give them enough time to work?"
"I can show you the graphs if you’d like."
"Well, I’m sorry to say that we can’t save all of them. But at least you have done your best. I may need to show your graphs to the coop director if he really is dead."

How many times has the discussion at an IEP meeting revolved around the changing of objectives which haven’t been met, and there is no mention of data. Teachers should be responsible for sharing the data which would minimally indicate the various approaches which have been tried, how long the approach was tried, the results of the attempts, as well as anecdotal notes which would indicate the next steps which should be taken or the next approaches to be tried. Unfortunately, it is suspected that the sharing of this level of information at an IEP meeting is the exception rather than the rule.

Why take data? As professionals in special education could we do any less?

Teachers who do not take data, should be guilty of malpractice not common practice.

Data collection as a human rights issue

2011-10-11T11:34:00.000-07:00

Probably no one would argue that children having access to an education is a basic human rights issue. However, I am wondering at what point the way in which that education is provided also becomes a human rights issue. If the "education" either does not actually educate a child but instead simply babysits that child, is it still and education or is it now a denial of basic rights by deliberately wasting the child's time, by saying that the child is not worthy or not able to benefit from an education? In addition, if specific training techniques are known, are proven to result in educational gains by a child, if a teacher refuses to practice these strategies, is that now a denial of rights?

With children with severe disabilities, the progress that students make is sometimes so slight, so minimal in terms of the gains, that they could be easily missed. In actuality, perhaps the only way that gains can be observed is via the systematic taking of instructional data. You see, a teacher may have 13 students in a classroom with perhaps 8 IEP objectives each. If the teacher is not taking data on the student, they she is claiming to be able to monitor 104 (8x23) objectives, objectives that may only evidence tiny steps of progress, in her head. This is ridiculous! It is not possible. It is only through systematic collection of data on student performance that a teacher has any idea of how a student is performing on instructional tasks.

The other day, I was in a classroom with a student teacher. She is doing a good job as student teachers go. She had been taking data on student performance in a relatively regular, systematic fashion. I asked her, "How are your students performing on their tasks?" She replied, "Fine." As I observed, I would have to agree with her, as my general impression was they were doing fine as well. However, we randomly took 3 skills that students were working on and graphed the data. The first student's data indicated that she had met criterion about a month ago. That is, the level of performance for the skill that was considered mastery in the objective had been met...a month ago. So the teacher had continued to work on the skill with the student, even though she had met the objective. Because she hadn't graphed the data, she didn't know. The second data set we graphed indicated that the student had made no progress over the 5 weeks of instruction delivered thus far. So the teacher had naively been providing an instructional strategy for 5 weeks with no benefit to the student relative to the objective as stated. The third data set demonstrated that the instructional program was working and the student was making good progress! Probably in another month the student would reach criterion.

The point of this is not to criticize the student teacher, but to say that understanding student performance is not something that can be easily seen unless one is made aware of how the student is actually performing via the taking of data. To say, "I don't take any data" is tantamount to saying, "I really don't care whether or not the student is progressing."

Some teachers will say, "I can either teach or take data" which is a silly thing to say as the only way to teach students with severe disabilities is to take data. So I would argue that if you are not taking data, you are doing something, but whatever it is it is not educating the students in the manner they need to be educated.

An additional problem is the extensive problem of teachers working in classrooms for students with disabilities and doing nothing. It breaks my heart when I see teachers that I have trained whom I know, know what they should be doing but have succombed to the pressure of the environment, the pressure to be mediocre from districts, and regress to the mean of NOT educating their students but rather babysitting them...all the while collecting their paycheck as if they actually were educating them.

Teachers who are doing a good job, however, literally take your breath away when they show you their data, when the indicate that they know exactly where a student is functioning educationally. But they are too often rare.

A basic premise I learned when I was being trained as a teacher was...

Every child can benefit from a public school education

I think I would now restate that to say that every child can benefit from a public school education if their teacher actually cares enough to educate them and be aware of whether they actually are benefitting from the education as it is being delivered.

McNair

Beyond Suffering: A Christian View on Disability Ministry

2011-10-10T14:28:00.000-07:00

Beyond Suffering is the name of a new curriculum developed by Joni and Friends. To quote from the introduction,

Beyond Suffering: A Christian View on Disability Ministry is a ground-breaking course of study created to transform the way Christians view God's plan for disability and suffering. The textbook is the word of God accompanied by a comprehensive collection of professional articles written by more than 35 experts in ministry, education, sciences and disability advocacy. The study guide contains 16 lessons, which are supported by video case studies and organized into four thought-provoking modules
An Overview of Disability Ministry
The Theology of Suffering and Disability
The Church and Disability Ministry
An Introduction to Bioethics

I was blessed to be involved in the development of this material and I have high hopes for the way it will be used within the Christian community.
It has the potential to be everything from a Bible study to a college class. It is a wealth of material to guide the church.

The back cover quotes Chuch Colson saying,

When society wants utilitarian ethics, people on the margins get lost and are forgotten. I salute Joni Eareckson Tada and the Christian Institute on Disability for equipping the churth to think biblically about the issues of life.

It is really an excellent resource.
McNair

"every one of them"

2011-10-05T15:56:00.000-07:00

I was preparing a presentation for a local Christian high school that has begun to offer a special education class. When thinking through what I wanted to say, I turned, as I often do, to 1Corinthians 12 about the body of Christ. For some reason, verse 18 of the passage really jumped out at me this time.

15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

There is an emphasis it appears to me in verse 18 that is present in most of the translations of this veres. It doesn't say,

But in fact God placed the parts in the body just as he wanted them to be.

Rather it says,

But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.

It appears to emphasize every one of them are placed just as he wanted them. It appears to emphasize this point as if in the face of questions that might be raised to the effect that "Surely this part is not placed correctly" or "Surely there is no place for this part." No mistakes, no one without place or purpose, every one of them as they should be for placement into the body.

As I indicated to the students, there is a mystery in this. But it is a desire for discovery to understand the mind of God, to understand his purposes, to understand how he put his body together, to see the contribution of all. Good stuff.

McNair

Expressions of deep woundedness from Wolfensberger

2011-09-30T10:21:00.000-07:00

Several months back, I taught a class introducing students to Social Role Valorization. As a part of the lecture, we discussed the 18 wounds or as Wolfensberger describes them "The bad things that typically get done to devalued people." Having listed and described those bad things, he goes on to list the evidences or expressions in devalued people that they have been deeply wounded. I list them here for your consideration. These are quotes from "A brief introduction to social role valorization: A high-order concept for addressing the plight of societally devalued people, and for structuring human services" (3rd revised edition, 2004).

1. The wounded person may be, act, and feel like, an alien in the world, particularly the world of valued society. Devalued people can become very much aware that they do not fit in, that they are not welcome.
2. Wounded people may begin to dislike themselves and think that they really are despicable, unlovable, worthless; that everything bad that happens to them is their own fault, and that they deserve bad fortune.
3. Many of the wounds tend to make the wounded person very insecure.
4. These wounds can also generate an expectancy in the wounded person to fail at everythign or what psychologists have called a "failure set," which then tends to actually lead to avoidance of challenges..."
5. People who are the objects of devaluation may be very aware that they are a source of anguish to whatever people may still be around who love them, especially their family members.
6. Some people who have been deeply wounded by rejection and/or real or perceived abandonment -- especially early in life -- will embark on a real or smpolic quest for the abandoner.
7. Relatedly, people who have been deeply wounded in their relationships may develop fantasies about having once had positive relationships...
8. Relationship-wounded people may also seek a great deal of physical contact with others, perhaps going as far as being sexually promiscuous...
9. Deeply wounded people can become very distrustful of relationships

10. Many devalued people become embittered and perhaps even full of resentment and hatred towards the privileged world for having done, and continuing to do, such hurtful things to them.
11. Some people have been so badly wounded they withdraw from all contact from other human beings...
12. ...many deeply wounded people are so enraged about what has been and perhaps continues to be, done to them that they become overtly violent...
13. And coping with one's wounds can take so much energy that a deeply wounded person actually ends up reduced in intelligent, rational and adaptive functioning...

Wolfensberger's comments should give us pause. It should also impact the way we think about developing ministries that would facilitate openness and inclusion of devalued persons including those experiencing disabiliteis.

McNair

"Kids Corner" at Joni and Friends

2011-09-30T10:18:00.000-07:00

Joni and Friends has some new and exciting things that they are rolling out. In the future, I will share here about their Beyond Suffering curriculum which is really cool. But I wanted just to provide a heads up and the work they are doing for children at their website.

If you go to Kids Corner, they are producing videos and a variety of other activities focussed at children with and without disabilities. It is good stuff with a lot of thought behind it.
Please check it out!

McNair

"Your child has plateaued"

2011-09-30T10:04:00.000-07:00

Had coffee with a friend of mine who's father is a doctor who works with many children with disabilities. He related the story of how his father will have interactions with teachers about the educational program of one of their students, and they will say to the doctor,

"There isn't really much more we can do. The child has plateaued."

So, as a teacher of a child with severe disabilities, I needn't do anything for the child because they have plateaued. Now that doesn't mean that I won't continue to collect my paycheck for supposedly being their teacher, supposedly educating them. But at the same time, you can't expect anything of the child in terms of skill development because they have plateaued. My only response to such a statement is 'HOW DARE YOU!" Who do you think you are claiming to be able to look at another human being and say that you have the ability to know that they can no longer learn anything?

I have seen slacker teachers who do not do anything educationally for their students, but even those slackers would admit that they are just lazy. They would not say that they are not doing anything because the children don't have the ability to learn. That such people could thrive within the educational system of our country indicates how dysfunctional that system is. It also indicates what the perception of the educational system is relative to individuals with severe disabilities. The system itself through its actions may support the limited expectations by its minimal expectations of teachers.

It breaks my heart and makes me angry when I occasionally see teachers that I have trained that are now useless to their students, giving them nothing of benefit to them educationally. They, by their actions, communicate that they are glorified baby sitters. Even though I have trained those people, I hope for the opportunity someday to sit across the table from them as an advocate for parents. I would say, "I know you know better, because I taught you. I appealed to you to not become what you have become! I warned you that districts will pressure you to be mediocre. And yet, here you are, doing little or nothing for your students educationally. You entertain them all day with frivilous activities when what they need is an education. You do nothing for them and then blame their lack of progress on THEM, saying they have plateaued. Shame on you!"

So sad.
McNair

"the poorest of the poor"

2011-09-30T09:48:00.000-07:00

When I was in Kampala, Uganda this summer, my host, Jeff Atherstone found out about my addiction (I mean love) for coffee and said he would take me on the "Kampala Coffee tour" which I think is something he made up. But it was great going to these various coffee places which were all slightly different and all excellent. I think my favorite would have been a place called 1000 Cups, but I ordered this goofy thing with mint in it. Anyway, at one stop we met with a friend of mine who is working in Kampala at the moment. As we were sitting there enjoying our lattes, a friend of hers walked up from a relief organization that was working there in Uganda. He introduced himself as being with this organization that is working with poor folks living there. He gave me his business card which had the tag line in quotes at the bottom, "working with the poorest of the poor." I immediately had a question, but was afraid that I knew that answer and didn't really want to embarass my friend, but I decided to ask him the question anyway.

"You work with the poorest of the poor?"
"Yes we do!" he replied proudly.
"Then you with poor people who are disabled?"
"Well, no, we don't work with disabled people."
"Well, then you really don't work with the poorest of the poor. Because the poorest would be those with disabilities among those living in poverty."

I didn't push it any further, however, both my friend, my host, my traveling companion and even the guy working with the poorest of the poor knew I was right. He had to walk away understanding that the claim on his business card was not correct. Hopefully he would follow up with a discussion with those who were in leadership with him or above him about the statement. At the very least, I hope he would have to hedge a bit the next time he described his organization as working with the poorest of the poor, basically because it is NOT TRUE!

So often when you talk to Christian leaders about those with disabilities and that they should reach out to people having this socially devalued characteristic, their response is, "I didn't know." I have to say that I don't believe them. As soon as I ask this guy, who I am sure has a huge heart for people living in poverty, who is spending his life, his talents with the poor of Africa which is no small thing, immediately he recognized that I was right. He knew he was NOT working with the poorest of the poor. I didn't need to explain anything to him. All I needed to do was mention that disabled poor people are poorer and he immediately recognized it.

So why then are they not working with that group of people if it is so obvious that they are the poorest of the poor and they identify themselves as working with the poorest of the poor? I can only say that these omissions are representative of choices. I choose to work with a particular group of people with one characteristic and choose not to work with another group of people with another characteristic. It is a choice. It is not an oversight. If it were not a choice, then if this organization who claims to be working with the poorest of the poor, would respond with immediate action! "Oh my goodness! We didn't realize that we were not getting to those who are in the most desperate condition of poverty! Thank you for bringing this to our attention." But if the response is a casual, "No we don't work with people with disabilities who are poor" then you must understand that this is a choice to NOT do what your tagline says you are doing.

Look at the mission statements for any Christian organization (just about) and wonder whether that statement would include outreach to people with disabilities. Then look at that church, that organization and see whether they are doing what they actually claim to be doing as evidenced by the presence of EVERYONE who should be included in their mission. If people with disabilities are not there, it is probably a choice on their part to exclude, not an oversight.

McNair

428

2011-09-23T13:23:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine was recently admitted to the hospital. Even though a relatively young man, perhaps about 30, he has been struggling with hip pain for several years. To hear the medical description of the condition of his hip would make a brave person curl up in a fetal position and cry. I knew he was in pain, and was looking forward to a hip replacement. Well, he has had the replacement and now is in the hospital recovering. "The pain is the pain of healing!" he tells me which is much different then the pain of the past and I am very sure is encouraging to him as he knows that pain will soon stop.

When my wife visited him yesterday, she noticed that he had the number "428" on his hospital wrist band. The blessed life we have led as a family has not provided the need to be in the hospital, other than to visit others, very often. Kathi asked his mother, "What is the 428?" "That is the number of times he has been admitted to the hospital" she casually replied. How do you respond to that? To have been so ill over your life that you would have been admitted so many times, in a young life. I quickly realized once again, that I don't know what it is like to be a person with chronic health problems.

My friend (who I have only known for a short time and who has been unusually healthy by his standards) has had about 15 hospital stays per year. I have had 1 every 27 years. Are there words to say to understand this difference between two lives?
It is easy to talk about the sovereignty of God when you are on my side of the hospital stay equation.
I have another friend who recently related that she had lost 3 children who had not survived to birth, being miscarriages.
With two wonderful adult children, it is easy to talk about the sovereignty of God when you are on my side of the birth of children.

I am reminded once again of the John 9 passage. Man born blind, disciples ask who sinned, Jesus responds “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work." When the sovereignty of God is difficult in another person's life, is my response, "It sucks to be you." Is it, "There but for the grace of God go I." Could it be, "My pain is less so that I can help you to bear up under your pain." "My time has not been spent in the hospital so that I can spend time with you in the hospital." I experience my life so that the works of God might be displayed, in my life and through what I do in the lives of others.

"To whom much is given, much is expected!" (Luke 12:42)

McNair

Helping those who may not realize they are being wounded

2011-08-26T16:11:00.000-07:00

Leviticus 19:14.
Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD.

I have written about this verse elsewhere in this blog but in discussions with my disability studies class last night, I was struck once again about one aspect of this part of scripture. If someone curses a deaf person, there is a good chance that the person who is deaf will not know it. If someone puts a stumbling block in front of a blind person, there is a good chance that the blind person will not know the stumbling block was deliberately placed there. In each of these cases, those who are being victimized do not know they are being victimized. The deaf person doesn't know that they are being degraded before the society in which they find themselves if I curse them. The blind person would simply assume that there was a stumbling block that happened to be in their way even though I might have put it there to entertain myself or those observing the situation when the person trips and falls down. There is thus a protective function that people in the environment must play in the lives of people with disabilities (or those experiencing other forms of devaluing) although those who are experiencing the devaluing may not realize they are being devalued or teased or victimized.

I stop someone from cursing a deaf person whether or not the deaf person knows it because I understand the ramifications of allowing someone to be victimized by the environment. I prevent someone from placing a stumbling block before a blind person because I recognize the effect of allowing people to make fun or sport of a person who is potentially defenseless against such taunting. I do it because I understand the ramification of not doing it even though those who are the victims may not directly perceive the ramifications because of their disability.

I have intellectually disabled friends who talk to me about how some people are nice to them and some people are not nice to them. The situations they describe reveal that people are unkind in ways that reveal their taunting of a person with a disability...their taunting is disability related. My friends do not make that connection, the connection to a personal characteristic that they have, but simply just see the other person as randomly nice or not nice.

As an advocate, I must be aware of the ways in which a person is wounded (search this post for the 18 wounds) and do what I can to prevent the wounding, whether or not the person with disabilities is aware of the fact that they are being wounded. I know people with high functioning autism who are unaware of the way they come across socially. Because of their consistent experience socially with the world whereby they are treated as if they were strange or weird, I attempt to mitigate social situations such that relationships are less tempered by the environment's perception that the person with autism is strange. They may not be aware, I am. Through my efforts it is hoped that the wounding ceases, independent of the perceptions of the person with the disability.

McNair

"...compel them"

2011-08-16T09:19:00.000-07:00

In the Luke 14 passage about the Parable of the Great Banquet, when the host is rejected by his invited guests, there is the following interaction between the master and his servant.

“The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’
“‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’
“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’”

On a recent trip to Uganda, I was talking about this verse when I was struck by the word "compel" in the passage. There was a large athletic man who was one of the attendees at the training. I wondered aloud to the audience, "Could I make James come with me to church?" They all shook their heads "No," as nobody could easily, physically make James do something that he didn't want to do. It then struck me that the idea could be that of a compelling argument. Kneeling before James, I said, "Please come to the banquet. We will give you good food. We will treat you with respect and not embarrass you. We will make you feel like a friend and this will not be the last time we ask you to be with us. You see our Master wants you to come. He sees you as desirable and wants you to be among those who fill his banquet hall, his house. You will be given the same food as everyone else. Please come with me. My master will be disappointed with me if I cannot convince you, cannot compel you to join me."

If there was further hesitation, I would ask, "What can I do to change your mind so that you will give the banquet a chance? Perhaps I can bring you a taste of the food or bring others to you who have been to the banquet and had their fill. Please come with me as I don't want to disappoint my master who has commanded me to compel you to come to the banquet! He is already angry at those who have been invited and have rejected him."

If people were at society's margins (the poor, the crippled, the blind, the lame), one would think that an invitation to come to a banquet would be all that would be required. One might think they would be clamoring to get into the banquet. So to have to direct someone by saying, "...compel them to come in" indicates that the master knew that they would NOT want to come in even though they were poor and living on the margins of society. This reveals more about how the Master had been represented then it does about those who were invited. If I have to compel you to do something as positive as attending a banquet, it implies that it is something that you are not predisposed to do, that you would typically not choose to do. Perhaps your personal experience tells you, "Don't trust those people who invite you." No, you must be compelled. Perhaps if you are able to be convinced then you might give them another chance, you might change your perspective.

There is a saying that insanity is to do the same thing over and over again thinking "It will work this time." That people would need to be compelled to fill the Master's house, tells us that these people are not insane but are likely very rational, perhaps having given up on going to the Master's house. "Compel them to come in that my house might be full" is the command from a Master who knows his servants, AND those whom he desires to come into his house: "the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame."

McNair

Lessons from Uganda

2011-08-04T18:01:00.000-07:00

I just returned from a couple of weeks in Uganda. I was there with a friend and colleague, Dr. Rick Langer, speaking on issues related to Christianity and disability, at 3 different universities. Each of the three have an interest in increasing their work in the field of disability through offering either majors or minor programs of study. In speaking to these groups, it is always rewarding to "connect the dots" for people. People who have perhaps grown up in church and have a sincere desire to serve God but who have been largely blind to the presence of persons with disabilities in their communities. We left feeling that perhaps we have sparked greater interest and desire in first being aware of persons with disabilities, understanding a bit of their life experience, and then planning for next steps such that they would be included as integral parts of the church body.

At one university, we were invited to visit the home of a woman whose son had severe disabilities, including hydrocephalus which had been treated later in his life such that he was largely bed ridden. The mother told of how she is largely alone in the young man's care, with little help from anyone. As we stood on the porch of her home, one could see the steeple of the Catholic church, perhaps 50 yards from her home, and the gates of the university 100 yards away. As we addressed the students, we repeatedly spoke of how there were people desperate for help, only 100 yards from the gates of the school. The students were studying in the school of theology/child development (an interesting combination) and were very interested to learn that they could have a positive impact on a family and learn about children with disabilities simply by taking a short walk.

Other children were sequestered in rooms or parts of small stores. One grandmother was raising 10 children, one of whom was a girl with disabililities by trying to sell chickens that she raised in a small 6x6 pen. You could see the struggle on her face. Once again, this woman was in the community close by to the University where students could have a huge impact on the family.

It is my hope that should I return to this part of the world, things would be different for these families. There was an incredible gathering of people in the know, who didn't know each other but together comprised a critical mass to get things done.

We left each session very encouraged and very excited about what the future holds.

McNair

Reflections on travels thus far...

2011-07-18T00:31:00.000-07:00

I have been blessed to be traveling for about a month. Thus far, I have been attending a conference of the European Society on Theology and Disability in Skoorl, Netherlands and assisting with training (along with Kathi) for Ukranian pastors in Lutsk, Ukraine. At the moment, I am in Uganda, but work will not begin till this afternoon.

Some observations thus far...
Attended sessions in Skoorl on the "priestly passages" from Leviticus and elsewhere about disability provided by a brilliant scholar, Dr. Sarah Melcher from Xavier University, Love and autism (not correct title) by Dr. John Swinton which was very thought provoking among others. The first meeting of this society 4 years ago was wonderful, but the quality of presentations this time was very good. Papers will be published in the Journal of Religion, Disability and Health in the future (about to get a new name) and I would highly recommend anyone interested in the topic getting a hold of that issue in particular.

Pastors were very receptive to information about the social consequences of disability, facilitating faith development in individuals with disabilities, and the importance of integration in work and ministry. Lots of great questions and involvement from participants. We then visited a camp patterned after the Joni and Friends Family Camps with the pastors where we interacted with families and children and kind of provided feet to the ideas shared in the conference. I think this is a good training model for pastors as it puts together theory/practice with being able to view actual practice. I also now own a Bart Simpson keychain which was given to me by a young man at the camp. He got a flashlight in exchange but the keychain will have a place of honor in my office. Also renewed a lot of friendships, particularly with Sergey, Natasha, and Roman who are leaders at Fimiam church which is a real innovator in disability ministry in that part of the world. A highlight was sitting for an hour with Sergey and Roman and just strategizing about next steps for their work. Was a delightful, stimulating and hopefully strategic time together.

We are now in Uganda, Rick Langer and I and are about to embark on two weeks of trainings. Have made some helpful contacts and had some wonderful conversations thus far that will help to guide future work in Uganda. Actual training begin today.

Please keep us in your prayers,

McNair

Biologos

2011-06-21T11:25:00.000-07:00

This entry is perhaps not directly related to issues of disability but relates to a couple of meetings I attended this past weekend. Both meetings were attended by Dr. Frances Collins, past director of the Human Genome Project, and currently the head of NIH. He impressed me as a brilliant man, a humble man and a man of faith. He formed the Biologos forum, and then turned over leadership to Dr. Darrel Falk, when he took over NIH. In a nutshell, this group is attempting to put the facts of science, evolution in particular, together with the Christian faith. This is a task that is very threatening to very many people.

In a conversation with Dr. Collins, I asked him whether this moment in time where the Church is being confronted by the facts of science is tantamount ot a "Galilleo moment." His reply was "Yes."

Biologos talks about understanding God from two books. Obviously, the Bible is God's revelation of himself. However, they also point to the world, to nature. Citing Psalm 19, they also look to God's revelation of Himself in the world.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

I honestly am not entirely sure what I think about Biologos and the efforts to combine the facts of evolution with the Christian faith. I know that as a Christian, I have absolutely no fear of truth, including the truth of science (eg. the Earth revolves around the Sun).

I would recommend the Biologos website to you for you to draw your own conclusions. I would also recommend that you visit the website with a very open mind.

God bless,
McNair

Model Programs From Various Faith Traditions

2011-05-25T14:12:00.000-07:00

In meeting with people from faith groups and denominations, I am often asked about model programs that might be closest to the “state of the art” in terms of including persons with various disabilities. Recent research has also caused me to ask that question, particularly from an various faith perspectives.

What are best practices in the Muslim community, for example, and where might those best practices be observed?
Where is the “state of the art” best evidenced among Mormons?
Where can I go to view model programs within the Jewish community?
Are particular denominations leading the way for the Christian world, and/or what churches are doing a particularly good job?

Additionally, across faith traditions, what “parachurch” organizations (religious organizations that are not necessarily operated within a particular faith tradition), practice models that support the goals of what might be called best secular practices like integration, age appropriateness and functional skill faith development?

If you know of a good program, would you perhaps send me just a name of the particular faith group or program, their location and their website. These names could be sent to me at mail@jeffmcnair.com .
Personally, this information would assist me significantly with work I am currently engaged in.

Thank you so much for your assistance!

Blessings,
Jeff McNair

A picture is worth a thousand words

2011-05-03T08:24:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I had a very important meeting with some governmental officials regarding church/disability issues. As I always do when I have things I am concerned about in my life, I took my concerns to my church for prayer. In particular, I take my requests for prayer to our Light & Power group, a group which includes people with various disabilities.

As you look at the picture above, you see a man in need surrounded by loving, caring people who are lifting him up in prayer. It is a powerful image. I could just leave you with that image as what you see is really all that is important. But because I am trying to facilitate the inclusion of devalued people into the church, I will tell you that the tall man in the midst of the group is me. I am not a devalued person by the world's standards. By the world's standards, I might be considered successful because I am educated, have a career and have a home and family.

The people around me have experienced discrimination on a variety of levels because of a characteristic they have that society devalues. They would each be considered "disabled" by society. But look at the picture. Who is in need and who is ministering to the need? Do these characteristics matter in any way when people go before the Lord in prayer? They are blessing, encouraging, benefitting me. I am submitting to their ministry.

These kinds of images need to be more prevalent within the church. If people devalued by society because of a characteristic called disability are not contributing to the edification of others, it is probably because they have not been given the opportunity to do so.

It is our discrimination that distances them.
It is our discrimination that always puts them in the position of being recipients of ministry.
We are the same. To see us as different is not to see them as they are in the picture. It is a contrivance.

McNair

More on the Good Samaritan (a year later)

2011-04-13T20:14:00.000-07:00

To begin with, read the story of the "Good Samaritan" if you haven't ever read it before, and then continue on with this blog post. You can find it in Luke 10:30-35.

I want to think of the connections between this parable of Jesus that was provided to illustrate who a neighbor is, and how this relates to interactions with people with disabilities. Here are a few observations about what it means to be a neighbor to a person affected by disabilities.

1. Why did the man get beat up/Why does someone have a disability?
...We can ask why things happen to people but ultimately we do not know. Additionally in this story, the reason why the man was beaten is totally irrelevant: the point of the story was the response of the Samaritan who understood who his neighbor was.
2. The beaten man had everything stolen, he is in poverty with no resources of his own
...Those with disabilities may have limited or no resources of their own to assist themselves.
3. The beaten man was abused and left "half dead"/he was actually disabled temporarily or long term depending upon the severity of the beating.
...Did you ever think that the man who was beaten was actually a disabled man as a result of the beating. So, Jesus uses the example of helping a disabled man as a way of illustrating the point of being a neighbor.
4. The beaten man may have been unaware of his situation as a result of his beating, perhaps passed out (he was "half dead").
...People with disabilities (particularly intellectual disabilities) may be totally unaware of their situation and what is happening to them. It is not unlike the Leviticus 19:14 warning about cursing the deaf or putting a stumbling block in front of the blind. Although he might not recognize his situation, I do and must do what I can to help independent of what he understands.
5. Priest and Levite "saw" the man and deliberately avoided him...they saw that he was beaten (disabled) and passed by on the other side...he was not a priority for them
...I have too often been told by Christian leaders that ministry to persons with disabilities is not a priority. These leaders are exactly the same as the priest and levite who walked by on the other side. It is what I call "Know excuse"...I didn't know. Well if you didn't know, why do you have handicapped parking spaces and restrooms with the big stalls? Who do you think they are for?
6. The Samaritan, stops, takes pity on him, goes to him, and assesses his wounds to determine a course of action
...Elsewhere in this blog, I have spoken about Wolfensberger's 18 wounds. I can tell you that those wounds are a good representation of the experience of many people with disabilities. If I take the time to assess a person's situation, I can see how they are wounded and come up with some kind of solution to address the wounds. It starts by stopping, going to the person and finding out how they are wounded.
7. The Samaritan stopped to help someone that the culture clearly considered as something different from itself (Samaritan sees a Jew, non disabled sees person affected by disability)
...No doubt, Jews and Samaritans were conditioned by their cultures to see each other as different, as enemies, as other. However, the Samaritan rejects his cultural conditioning and simply acts like a neighbor to the hurting man. He sees him as a man, not a different race.
8. The Samaritan ignored the potential "danger"
...People are afraid of relationships with needy people because of the demands they might make on them. If we are to be neighbors we must ignore this "danger".
9. After assessing wounds, bandages them "pouring on oil and wine", he did what he could.
...Probably there is more that could have been done to improve the care provided, more to be learned, but he started with what he knew...then he took him to the inn to pay for further care. He did not excuse himself saying, "I don't have any training" but did what he could and then took him to people who could help him do more.
10. Ministry cost him something and the cost was ongoing to some degree but he still made the decision to get involved.
...I was once told by a pastor that ministry to people with disabilities was a "black hole for service" the implication being that I should not get involved with people who's needs will constitute and ongoing cost to me. I suspect I should just serve people who I can serve quickly and then leave alone...but is that the Christian model Jesus provides here? No the support needed was demanding and ongoing.
11. The Samaritan put him on his own donkey (gave him a ride to the place where he could be ministered to) and "took care of him" for a whole day
...The Samaritan gave him a ride to church, so to speak. When was the last time you gave someone a ride to church who was not able to get there on his own? Have you ever made two trips to church so that you could pick up others who needed to get to church?
12. Ultimately the Samaritan developed a relationship with the man via providing for his care, and looking in on him when he returned reimbursing for further expenses.
...The Samaritan didn't drop the man off at the inn and make a hasty retreat. No he took the man there, paid for what was needed and said he would come back and pay for whatever else was needed. He established a relationship with the beaten man and the caretaker of the inn in order to get the best services for the person he perceived as his neighbor.

Theology awakened by disability

2011-03-04T09:48:00.000-08:00

There are those who worry about developing theology through various lenses of disability, or gender or ethnicity. I agree with their concerns. Theology should stand on its own as after all it is about understanding who God is. However, if my understanding of who God is results in me NOT loving all of his human creation then I don't understand who God is. I would worry that any conclusions that grow out of that flawed starting point are suspect. They are particularly suspect when I see the way the Christian world interacts with people it may deliberately choose not to love. We may not need a "disability theology" but we definitely do need a theology awakened by disability.
A student in a class at CBU wrote me the following recently.

When I interviewed this pastor about the efforts he has engaged in to bring persons with disabilities and their families into their fellowship, his response seemed incorrect, so to speak. He stated that he has been called to make disciples of the people, not to have a special ministry for individuals with disabilities. He indicated that nowhere in the Bible does it state Christians are to do so. I reminded him of all the times Jesus modeled the correct way to respond to the disabled, by reaching out to them and going against the status quo. He stated that why didn't Jesus reach out to all the disabled then. He did admit that everyone is equal, in that we all need Jesus. However, he said that marketing for the disabled to come to church is not correct.

I truly do understand that I am out of my depth in talking theology and I understand concerns about interpreting theology through various lenses. My point is that if I can develop a Christian, theological perspective that does not include love, that supposed understanding of God is flawed. How do I know that theology is flawed? At least in part through the experience of persons with disabilities with the Christian church. I would say I am looking for evidence of theology being acted out in the lives of people. In Matthew 15, Jesus speaks of the religious leaders of His time saying, "These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me." I don't know how I can get more basic in understanding God then to say "God is love." If I don't even have that as a starting point for theology there is little left to worry about, right or wrong.

Those who gain entre into Christian colleges and seminaries with programs that engage disability, bring a corrective I would argue, to the theological positions they have often been built upon. I have often said that I believe this work is one of the most important things we could be doing in the world! What is it that we are changing in them? It may be as simple as teaching them about love. We are pointing to foundational theological positions, however, what is it that this awareness is stemming from? Is it not the experience of persons with disabilities? If churches and theologians and Christian colleges were responding in love to people with disabilities we would not need this corrective? That bringing disability to the Christian world is such a incredibly mission critical exercise, to me, points to our theological problems as the Christian church. Our awareness of those problems, in part, grows out of our understanding of the experience of those with disabilities.

McNair

The passing of Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger

2011-02-28T15:30:00.000-08:00

It is with a sincere and great sense of loss that I share the following here. It was one of the great honors of my life to have known Dr. Wolfensberger. My prayers are with his family and friends. Please keep them in your prayers as well. Also please pray for Ms. Susan Thomas who was Dr. Wolfensberger's right hand colleague for so many years.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

We are saddened today to learn of the passing of Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger this past weekend. His death is a great loss to not only the thousands who embraced his research and teachings, but to the thousands whose lives have been changed by the values and principles he espoused.

Wolf Wolfensberger was made an honourary life member of Community Living Ontario in 1979 and was honoured at the conference at Queen's University that year. He was also presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award at the 2005 Community Living Conference in London, Ontario.

Wolfensberger lead the Normalization movement in North America and formulated the concepts of Social Role Valorization and Normalization. His teachings had a profound influence on the core values and principles of Community Living associations across Canada. Through his work, he shaped our beliefs about how we should support people and their families. He taught us that when people are supported to achieve socially valued roles, they inevitably develop meaningful relationships and rich lives in community. No other body of work has been as influential in shaping the way that people think and act with respect to the inclusion of people who have an intellectual disability in our society.

In 1991 Normalization was ranked as # 1 in the “Education and Training in Mental Retardation” list of 25 classic works in the field and in 2006 Exceptional Parent magazine named “the Work of Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger on the Principles of Normalization and Social Role Valorization” as one of the 7 Wonders of the World of Disabilities.

Our hearts and prayers are with his family and friends.

Dr. Wolfensberger will always be remembered for his brilliant mind and his great heart for disenfranchised and devalued people. In speaking with him you recognized you were in the presence of a great human being, someone of depth in his understanding of life. I will never forget his kindness and patience with me as I sat under his teaching on several occasions. The world has lost a significant force for good.

McNair

Some musings about a Christian model of disability

2011-02-15T16:37:00.001-08:00

Using the social model of disability we look to the effect or the impact that the environment has on individuals. It is arguable that the environment has never been fully accepting of people who are atypical. So the change that is being advocated is not a change back to a better day but a change to a new day. So to change the environment under a social model of disability is to create something entirely new. What we are about is softening environments that people with disabilities find themselves in. What we are about is changing environments so that they do not reflect negative societal attitudes or negative historical practices towards people who have disabilities, as well as limited physical notions of what it means to be a human being.
A Christian model would be a combination of the social model and something else. The social model component of the Christian model of disability would be that the environment would change such that people with disabilities might experience of what might be called social healing. Social healing is not a change in an individual in the way one would typically think when one thinks of healing and an individual with disability. Rather, social healing implies a healing of a sick environment such that it changes in its interactions with people with disabilities. The end result is that although those with disabilities have not changed they feel as if they've changed only because the environment is different. In some ways, social healing is a permutation of the social model of disability.
In a Christian model we are not only attempting to change the social environment, we are also attempting to change the way that individuals with disabilities see themselves. A Christian model would take the traditional biblical notions of human beings and just ensure that they are applied to people who have a difference known as disability.
In summary, however, a Christian model of disability should do several things.
First, in many ways the Christian model would adopt many aspects of the social model of disability in terms of saying that much of the difficulties faced by people with disabilities are not due problems that they have within themselves as much as they are due to the way in which society, the way in which the social environment interacts with them. The second aspect of a Christian model is to understand who people are who have differences called disabilities in relation to those who are more typical. A Christian model would also rely heavily on the sovereignty of God which is a difficult thing to do. To rely heavily on the sovereignty of God is to accept oneself as one is. This acceptance of one's self is not some syrupy, paternalistic pablum. Rather it is fully loaded, with God at the center telling all people they are a reflection of who He is and how He can be seen in the way he has made them. The Christian model therefore is not saying something or creating something new in the way that people with disabilities are understood. It is merely (but powerfully) awakening all to who people with disabilities are from a biblical perspective.
A third aspect of a Christian model of disability is to understand who God is. God is in charge. God is sovereign. Things will happen in our lives which will bring us joy. Things will happen in our lives which will cause sadness and discomfort. The Christian model would accept that these things come from the hand of a loving and just God and are a part of his plan not only for individuals but also for society. This is a critical aspect of understanding the Christian model of disability because this implies that there are purposes behind the things that occur in the lives of human beings. The notion of a sovereign God who is all-powerful coupled with the experience of disability in the world can largely lead to several potential outcomes. One is that God is in control, however, our sinful condition causes things to happen in the world that God would not necessarily desire, but that he definitely did set in motion in response to human sin. A second idea is that God directly causes disability in the lives of human beings in order to accomplish his purposes. These two options both implicate God as being behind disability. Now if God is behind disability then somehow it is a part of understanding his plan for human beings. This is an important understanding because disability would then imply purpose, it implies a lack of randomness, and it implies value in disability. If God is behind the cause of disability or if God is the cause of disability it implies that there is a purpose of disability that accomplishes something that he wants to accomplish. So therefore from a Christian perspective not only does the environment need to change, not only do biblical principles related the human beings need to be applied to those with disabilities, but we must also understand that there are purposes behind the things we see occurring in the lives of people in the world. This is a very difficult notion to swallow, to understand, to accept because of the suffering that we see in the world. It is only through faith that we can come to trust God in the midst of the difficulties that we see in the world. So a critical third aspect of the Christian model of disability is to understand who God Is, understand who God is in relation to man, understand the sovereignty of God and then put these things together in a way that leads us to faith and acceptance of God's purposes in our life.
The experience of disability significantly includes problems in each of these three areas. Society does not want to change. Society wants to continue in the way that it is currently functioning. Therefore one problem of disability relates to the social consequences of disability.
Human beings who have disabilities are either taught or come to believe that they have less value that they have some negative characteristic and as a result see themselves negatively, see themselves as not as valuable which is a second aspect of problems revolving around disability.
And thirdly people with and without disabilities do not believe God do not trust God do not understand God to any extent and therefore the purpose of differences in the lives of human beings is not understood. This is the third aspect of disability that is problematic.
A Christian model therefore would say the environment (the society) needs to change, the individual needs to change in their understanding of themselves from a biblical perspective, and understandings of God and who God is in reference to the experience of human beings need to change. A combination of these three changes, in society, in individual self perception and in understanding God will result in more positive outcomes are people with disabilities as they become more integrated into the larger society. If any of these areas are not developed we will continue to see the problems that we see. If your society continues on with its negative perceptions then the experience individuals with disabilities will continue to reflect the negative social consequences of disability. If individuals with disabilities don't see themselves in the way that the Bible would portray them then they may come to understand themselves as being of limited value of having no purpose as mistakes or defects or variety of other negative understandings of themselves. Finally if the individual with disability does not understand who they are in relation to God and who God is and they potentially see their life experience as random and having no meaning.
But with an understanding of who God is, there is the potential that they see their experience more as a part of a larger plan that comes from the hand of God potentially giving meaning to their lives and their life experience.

Texas plans to cut chaplains

2011-01-31T15:00:00.000-08:00

Apparently, the State of Texas is cutting funding for chaplains. I received the following (from an email) and posted it here for you to take action should you desire.
McNair

Dear Ministry Friends:
Here is the ugly reality facing Texas:

1)The primary budget cutters do not value what Chaplains do. They have cut the entire department. These trained professionals manage the religious programs at each Texas Prison.

2)If they are cut, the program will have to be managed by a correctional officer or a secretary. (They will be pulled from their other duties -- little savings, huh!)

3)Chaplains also provide "Pastoral Care" for everyone in the institution. It is difficult to find a community of 500 people in America which does not have pastoral care. Such care will be very hit and miss without the Chaplaincy Department if it occurs at all.

4)All a Chaplain has to do to recoop his entire yearly salary is influence one prisoner a year to give up his/her criminal activity. The state will pay more on the person's next incarceration than is paid to the chaplain in a year.

5)The very effective Religious Programming which we now have in Texas prisons, does not happen automatically. Religious Volunteers must be recruited and managed. That is the task of our chaplains. Without them, the programming will become very uneven, if it is able to exist at all.

My friend Chaplain Xxxxxxx Yyyyyy reminds us of the importance of this grave matter and how time sensitive it is:

HB 1 has Chaplaincy listed as "zero funded" ... which means if it is not "funded" in House Bill 1 (the Appropriation Bill), and not "funded in Senate Bill 1( the Finance Bill), in a couple of months both the house and senate will appoint from the Senate Finance Committee and from the House Appropriations Committee about 3-4 from each body. They will form the Conference Committee which works out the differences between HB 1 and SB 1. It could be TOO LATE if chaplaincy is not "funded" before the conference committee. The Key is encouraging people (constituents) to get with their Rep and Senator and express how important it is to you and how it is good for Texas to continue the Chaplaincy Department with at least one chaplain at each prison. Say to them: "Don't Let Chaplaincy fail to get Funded on your watch" - "If we lose it here, we may NEVER get it back."

Action Plan:Contact by personal visit, telephone call, letter, fax or email your State Rep and State Senator.
1) The address of your State Representative is: The Honorable (Name), Texas House, P O Box 2910, Austin TX 78768-2910

2) The address of your State Senator is: The Honorable (Name), Texas Senate, P O Box 12068, Austin TX 78711

Also please contact your Statewide Officials:
1) The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor's Office, P O Box 12428, Austin TX 78711 (no email, must contact through his website)

2) The Honorable David Dewhurst, Lt. Governor's Office, P O Box 12068, Austin TX 78711, phone, (512)463-0001, fax (512)936-6700, david.dewhurst@senate.state.tx.us

3) The Honorable Joe Straus, Speaker of the House, P O Box 2910, Austin TX 78768, phone (512)463-1000, fax(512)463-1064 joe.straus@house.state.tx.us

Other people will be contacting the state officials about this issue. In this case "More is Better." We want to stack up communications on the Austin Desks about this issue. If you personally take time to contact these 5 people, you are standing up for our cause!

Do not forget to Pray for guidance as you make contact with those who represent you in State Government!

Does disability = suffering?

2011-01-24T10:00:00.000-08:00

When a child is born to you, you have many expectations of what they will do of who they will be. Things you always wished you could do. Things that you never had the opportunity or aptitude to do. But children may "disappoint" because they were not the person you expected them to be. Perhaps you are a musician and your child gravitates towards athletics. Perhaps you are athletic and your child gravitates toward art. You are a person who enjoys being outdoors and your child likes nothing more than to sit and read. Some expectations die because they are exceeded in different ways. Some expectations die because they are unfilfilled, perhaps because the child hasn't the requisite abilities. The disconnect between expectations and reality causes a kind of "suffering" for those with the expectations although the child may be oblivious to the disconnect and "suffering" because unless it is communicated to them that they are not meeting our expectations, they grow, happy with their lives, their interests, etc.
Now to want an athlete and have an artist may bum you out a bit, but to desire a typical child and have a child with Down syndrome, for example, has thrown people's lives into total disarray.

Parents may feel great fear when a child is born with an intellectual disability. I know of mothers who have abandoned their children on this basis. I also know the abandoned individuals with disabilities as adults, many of whom may have an apartment in the community, hold a job and other than wishing they had more money (a common malaise) are quite happy with their lives. Those same mothers who could not face having a child with an intellectual disability, actually lived an identical life to the child they abandoned.

This leads us to the point of the way the child with Down syndrome, for example, is perceived. Yes they will make increased demands on their family in terms of supervision, in terms of not being able to have a decent job and so forth. However, in their own minds, they will see themselves as doing fine. With children with disabilities for a while at least, they may be oblivious to their difference because they know of nothing other than their life experience. As they grow and notice the differences in those around them, this may cause an internal dissonance or actual suffering created by the environment or how they perceive themselves in reference to the enviornment. Sure, many will desire such things as getting married, having their own home, etc. and depending upon their ability levels as well as the ability levels and creativity of those in their enviornment, this may or may not be a possiblity. The issue is the problem of equating disability with suffering particularly at points where they are not necessarily related.

Metaphorically,it reminds me of issues related to racism. For many groups of people at different times in different places, racism causes or caused them to experience discrimination and that causes suffering. It is important to state that there is not suffering in simply being a member of a racial group in and of itself (which can be a significant difference in making the comparison to disability in some of its forms). Suffering comes from being a certain ethnicity in the midst of a society that is discriminatory against that ethnicity. If I were to equate suffering with race X, you might correct me saying that that may be the experience of people of race X but it needn't be their experience. To always discuss race X under the heading of suffering would imply to the outsider that there is indeed something of a connection between race X and suffering that is unavoidable. Suffering is not the societally imposed consequence of being race X, it is simply an observed characteristic of being race X, because look at all the people in history who were race X who experienced suffering (albeit imposed by society). That does not diminish the reality of the suffering experienced by race X. It was and is real. However, if I take the next step and purposefully link race X with suffering, to some degree I may be complicit in that suffering. In the case of persons with disability, say Down syndrome again (who are arguably not physically suffering from their disability), people will then try to eliminate suffering they assume people with Down syndrome are experiencing using what they would call "humanitarian" means through such practices as abortion.

I do not want to deny that when people are suffering, they are indeed suffering. There are specific conditions that persons with disabilities might have that would cause physical suffering in a variety of different ways and I do not want to trivialize that suffering. There is also the kind of suffering that parents of children with disabilities might face which is also very real. Parenting children with autism, for example, can be incredibly difficult.

However, I do not want to project suffering onto people when they are either, 1) not suffering in their own minds, their own experience, or 2) are suffering because of something that I am doing that I can stop doing.

As stated, people may suffer when they have a disability for a variety of reasons. I may suffer due to my actual disability, perhaps it causes pain to me. I may suffer because of the disability of my child who has a disability as might my family suffer with this child. People may suffer due to the social consequences of disability to themselves or to their friends and family.

We must be careful, however, not to equate disability and suffering, particularly in situations when it is the social consequences of disabilty that lead to suffering. To equate suffering and social consequences indicates a giving over to societal effects of disability. Now I can understand that social consequences are the reality, however, at the same time if I refuse to equate suffering and disability on this level, perhaps I take the first step in changing what is considered common sensical and conventional wisdom. "Of course people with disabilities suffer from their disability" we say. But that is not necessarily true. Many people with intellectual disabilities, for example, are unaware they even have a disability let alone being distressed about it. I know of others who have physical disabilities who have come to understand themselves with their differences and are not suffering physical pain from their physical disability. They themselves have told me that they are doing fine and just wish "People would treat me like I am normal." We must be careful, therefore in equating suffering and disability and only talking about diability in the context of suffering.

McNair

Differences called disabilities

2011-01-18T15:00:00.000-08:00

I just had a fun lunch with a colleague of mine. We discussed a variety of theological issues related to disability. One of the points that I was making was the intersection of the sovereignity of God in relation to disability. The question is whether God causes disability or whether it is just the natural order of things as a result of the Fall. We came away with different perspectives on this issues and had a wonderful time discussing them.

One conclusion that I drew from our discussion, however, is that as Christians we run the risk of characterizing "disability" in the way the world does, a largely negative fashion, and then will say that God could not cause this negative thing. We call a characteristic of people negative and then say that God does not cause negative things to happen to people, therefore it is not of God.

If society were to take a person with Down's syndrome, for example, and as a society say that people with Down's syndrome are wonderful, loving people (which they are, although society does not agree when you look at the rabid efforts to prenatally diagnose and abort those with the syndrome), would we now credit God with the creation of Down's syndrome and thank him for it rather then say it is caused by natural processes and God just allows it? I think the answer is that "Yeah, we might do just that." If in my limited understanding, I can only see negatives in Down's syndrome, independent of where the negative comes from, I therefore will not be able to imagine that God would be the author of Down's syndrome. It is difficult when people suffer, whatever the cause. However, if people experience suffering related to their condition only because of the way that society treats them because of their condition, I need to rethink any fear of "blaming God" for the condition.

Now of course there are disabling conditions that are coupled with pain and suffering. God's sovereignity could be discussed in these cases as well. However, these are something different. Sin of individuals in society is typically not the cause of suffering in this case.

Yet in the case of many types of differences, called disabilities by society, the social consequences may be worse than the condition itself. I find this is particularly the case in those with intellectual disability. I have little difficulty seeing intellectual disability (as it is labeled by society) as an aspect of the creativity of God, and therefore the sovereignity of God. I can see God's sovereignity at work in the beauty, the change these individuals bring to those around them.

McNair

More on integration

2011-01-06T09:55:00.001-08:00

I once taught a Sunday school lesson on poverty to a group of people. In the group was a homeless man that I had known for several years who had been living on the street. Although the information that I had been sharing about poverty from the Bible was all good and truthful information as best as I could discern it, the presence of a homeless man living on the streets made me be much more circumscribed in the information that I would present. I almost felt as if I needed to be careful about the information I was sharing because there was an expert so to speak, a person living in poverty listening to me. The presence of this person changed the dynamic of the delivery of information from the person who was the instructor, changed the dynamic of those in the room in terms of their appreciating and understanding poverty and possibly impacted the individual living on the street themselves in that here was this person in a room full of people with resources that were talking about poverty and this dynamic had the potential to impact the degree to which this man continued to live or not live with limited resources. The people in the room had the potential to provide significant additional resources perhaps not to the degree that the man would no longer live in poverty but at the very least to the degree that the man's life would be much improved in terms of having consistent meals, in terms of having decent clothing, in terms of having social relationships, in terms of having the potential for transportation, the potential for involvement in families among other opportunities. So although these people living in poverty or homeless people are amongst us living potentially on the street, it's only when they find their way into our actual social spheres that they have potential to impact us and we have the potential to in some way impact them.

I believe the same is true with individuals with various disabilities. Initially our desire should be to bring them into the church setting for the same reasons indicated above relative to the homeless man. I cannot talk about the sovereignty of God in the same way potentially if I have people whose life experience would cause those around them to perhaps question the sovereignty of God in the room. That's not to say that I will change the truth of the gospel or the truth of the scriptures that I see relative to understanding the sovereignty of God, but perhaps there is a humility that comes with speaking of the sovereignty of God to a group of people who are affected by disability. I won't be so cavalier in just saying all we all need to trust God in the midst of our difficult times when I have an individual who is living life under the social consequences of disability and wonders about this sovereign God and why his life experience seems so different from my experience. This kind of connection, this kind of humility only comes with the presence of these individuals about whom we might be speaking. So, one of the benefits of inclusive churches is the way that the churches are changed by the presence of individuals devalued by society. It's difficult for a pastor to talk in the same way about people who have disabilities if the front row of the church is filled with people with disabilities. It's difficult for the pastor to talk about people who live in poverty in any kind of a glib manner if the front row the church is filled with people who are living in poverty. The presence of these people changes things in the way that material is delivered and the way that people interact with one another. Now I could take all the homeless people and put them somewhere else or take the people with disabilities and send them somewhere else in some sort of the segregated setting and think that it's identical to having them present with those who are not affected by poverty or disability but I am only fooling myself. And that is what groups will often do.

I remember in the town in which I live there was a meeting of community leaders to discuss the homeless situation. It seemed that there was an influx of homeless people coming to the community and the community leaders were concerned about what to do about that. One suggestion was to build a homeless center. This would be a place where you come to live for short periods of time where there would be food provided there would be places for showering etc. It would be a way of reaching out to the homeless people to assist them with their needs. But interestingly the answer to building this homeless shelter was that it should be built in the next town over such that the answer to serving the homeless people in my town was to build a homeless shelter in another town. Now no one was being fooled in terms of understanding why the homeless shelter should be built in a different town. Was there compassion and in building a homeless shelter? Of course there was. However, there was something else going on in terms of saying we want to serve the homeless people in a different town not in our own town and everyone in the room knew exactly what that was about. The same type of problem occurs when we take individuals with intellectual disabilities, for example, and say we want to serve them in a totally separate segregated setting. Is there compassion in serving individuals with intellectual disabilities? Of course there is. But at the same time in the same way as the desire to serve homeless people in a different city there is something additionally that is communicated when we say that we want to serve intellectually disabled people at a different time or a different setting apart from the larger church group and people may say that this is irrelevant but I think they're fooling themselves. If you were to come to my church and I were to say to you people with your characteristic, whatever that might be (particularly if it was a characteristic thought of negatively by society), go to a program in a different setting in a different time you would rightly be unhappy. Now if that characteristic was that everybody at that time spoke Spanish or everybody at that time were just women or were just men in terms of having additional special program offerings, that may be acceptable. However, if the only opportunity for participating was at a separate place and time you might wonder, “Why I can’t be with everybody else?” “How come I have to just with other people who have this perceived characteristic?”

In the same way that the presence of people living in poverty has the potential of having their need met through the resources of those in the larger group, the presence of people with various disabilities also provides the potential of their needs being met through the resources of the larger group. Now people will say I didn’t know of their need or I didn't know of their presence in the community and on some level I would agree as people can live their lives and have limited contact with people with particularly more severe types of disabilities. However, at the same time one must know of the presence of these people in the community and if they don't, the only way that they will know is if the environments that they are in are less segregated. So, segregated religious settings for people with disabilities in no way contribute to people moving out from an ignorance of the needs of individuals in the community. It's only by having people together in a setting that I began to become aware of the needs or even the basic presence of people with these characteristics in the community. Those who would segregate individuals with disabilities do little more than remove the potential of changing the lives of all of both those with disabilities who hold various resources and the lives of those without disabilities who hold various resources from coming together to the benefit of both.

A further problem with segregation of individuals with disabilities is that if the only way someone can be served is in some sort of the segregated setting or the only way that someone can participate is in some form of a segregated setting in a different time and place, that communicates to the larger community that there something wrong with these people and that they have no responsibility towards people with a particular characteristic and only furthers the negative stereotypes the society may have already laid upon these individuals. This is not something that the church wants to be a part of. If anything the church wants to be opening up the potential for relationships with people, particularly people who society has devalued. By the church segregating people, it contributes to the devaluation and negative stereotyping, actually affirming the negative societal attitudes towards people with disabilities. It actually exacerbates the negative social consequences of disability when there is no reason that it needs to do those things. It seems that those who segregate on the basis of disabilities are oblivious on some level to the lives of people with disabilities. Although people with intellectual disabilities for example may not understand the fact that they are being segregated, the higher functioning a person with intellectual disability is the greater the likelihood that they will desire things of a more typical nature. They will desire living on their own, they will desire of jobs in typical community settings, they will desire friendships with a variety of different types of people. If we as those who are not intellectually disabled understand these facts why we would we continue to play on the fact that those who are intellectually disabled do not understand these fact? Why would we continue to play on the fact that people, particularly with intellectual disabilities, don't know what they're missing when they are segregated when we were not intellectually disabled to understand what they're missing by being segregated and yet are unwilling to facilitate the integration that would potentially ameliorate some of the negative effects of self-segregation?

The scriptural principles that underlie this perspective are so obvious they almost would seem trite to lay them out. Principles like loving my neighbor or helping people who are devalued by society or reaching out to the least of these or the importance of every member of the body of Christ. All these most basic of Christian principles underlie and provide a foundation for the notion of integration of people with disabilities into the larger body of Christ. Which is why it's so surprising that there are so many who would move forward with programs of segregation in the face of these basic types of scriptural principles. But I understand the lack of understanding by many in the Christian world on these issues. A colleague of mine in talking about special education in Christian schools felt like he did not want to use the term special education because of the negative connotation it would have been Christian schools. Now this was not necessarily a philosophical orientation or a philosophical objection to the way that special education has developed in America or something along those lines. Rather, it was a gut level, negative feeling about the presence of children with disabilities in schools and that this notion was encapsulated with the term special education.

As I've said before in this blog the way to begin with integration starts with simply taking a position. The position is that people with disabilities belong in the church. But the next level of that position is that people with disabilities need to be integrated as much as is absolutely possible within the programs of the church. Once these positions are taken, once that philosophical decision is made the rest becomes logistics. How do I integrate people? How do I change the way that we do Sunday school? All those are good questions with myriad answers. People will come to me and say, “Jeff how they do I do integration?” My response is always “Has your church decided that they want the people there?” If the answer is yes then it's just a matter of coming up with ideas for how we can do integration, how we can be more inclusive. Simply coming up with ideas and trying them out. Those are all logistical issues. However, if the church has not made the decision that it wants the people there and not only wants them there but wants them included, then we can make suggestions all day long and they won't make any difference because the logistics will become too hard as the basic decision to want the people there has not been made. Once that decision has been made, that doesn't mean that the logistics become simple. However, it does mean that people are more willing to interact with logistics and different ways of meeting a need than they would be if the decision had not been.

McNair

The divide of theological certainty

2011-01-05T22:27:00.000-08:00

I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. John 17:20-21 (NIV)

The Christian world is divided in myriad ways, however, as I look at those endeavoring to develop ministry to persons with disabilities there are arguably 2 groups. There are what might be called the evangelical Christians and those who are the nonevangelical Christians. It is interesting to me how convinced members of each of these groups are that they are right to the exclusion of other Christian groups. I am sure that I am naive, however, if that is what the study of theology brings you to, unrestrained criticism of those with whom you do not agree, then I am pretty sure I want to continue to NOT know the things that those people know. (I would also say that theologians have been a huge disappointment over the years because they will argue over various positions, but they as a group cannot get the most basic of all things, love, right as it applies to loving those with disabilities. I stick to the position that we as a church have largely gotten things wrong from Sunday school to seminary. But I digress). When a Lutheran friend tells me that he is a believer in Jesus Christ, I am good with that. I need not find points of disagreement and discuss them. There is a haughtiness in theological certainty. Every denomination does this. Living near Loma Linda an adventist community, I noted a man driving with a bumper sticker that said "Saturday is the Sabbath, get it right." So lets find the one thing that I might not agree completely on with an adventist Christian, and make that the point of our discussion...I digress again. If I as a special ed professor am haughty and puffed up about what I know about special education, that is one thing. It is wrong for me to be filled with pride about the knowledge I have. However, it is something completely different to be puffed up with knowledge about the things of the Lord.

My point is that I have become aware that there are those in the Evangelical world who are doing wonderful things in disability ministry, and there are those in what might be called the nonevangelical world who are doing wonderful things in disability ministry but the groups are completely disconnected because of theological differences. They are even unaware of each other and this seems silly to me.

A friend of mine, well known in disability ministry circles once said to me, "Lets get the people with disabilities included in churches. Then we can figure out who is right." I couldn't agree more. I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog that Dr. Jean Vanier once told me that the church has been working on the rectitude of doctrine when it should have been working on the rectitude of love. These two sentiments really nail the issue for me. If we truly worked on loving others, we could perhaps get past our theological differences. However, we prefer to argue theological differences and forget about love.

Now don't mistake my position as anti-intellectual. I am a professor for goodness sake. But I am confident that the Lord Jesus would want us to be collaborative in our efforts to love our fellow man, collectively, as the church. Must I ignore the ideas of Henri Nouwen because he was a Catholic Christian and not a Baptist? Must I ignore the wisdom of Joni Eareckson-Tada because she is an evangelical and not a Lutheran?

I once had a pastor of a church I attended, a Church of Christ, who told me that if people were really serious about their faith and studied the scriptures that they would go to the Church of Christ. This has always struck me as the height of pride. It has always stuck with me that many with significant theological education think,

"If people were only serious about their study of God's word, then obviously they would agree with me because I know have studied harder than they, have gained greater insights than they, have a stranglehold on the truth when they do not."

Personally, I try hard to walk humbly (Micah 6:8) in issues of theology, because of all the brilliant people, Christian people, I have met in my life who were serious about their faith, really studied the scriptures and came away with different perspectives from one another.

Perhaps the love that must be learned to include people with poor social skills, or love those who make demands on me for my time could be the rallying point that would allow me to get past theological certainty. Perhaps I will release my stranglehold on my perception of the truth long enough to listen to someone else's perspective. Maybe I will learn something if, for example, after growing up in a Baptist home, going to a Baptist school, college and seminary, I listen to the words of a Nazarene Christian who loves the Lord.

McNair

You can't understand Jesus from the biased gospels

2010-12-08T18:13:00.000-08:00

I recently wrote an article for a publication. In the end it was rejected, which is nothing new to me. Honestly? Not a big deal. I have written things that people like and things that they don't like. I have actually had an article rejected for lack of quality and then published by another journal with very little editing. So on some level it is a kind of a game.
But the criticism that led to the rejection of this most recent article I will fully embrace. I am proud of this rejection! On one level is is a clear indication of the anti Christian bias of many in the field of disability studies. I am sorry but that is just the way it is. Anyway, read the following which are a few comments from the rejection. The article, by the way, was supposed to share a Christian perspective on disability, particularly using the example of Jesus.

While I understand that the essay --- is written from an evangelical Christian faith perspective, I am concerned by a number of seemingly uncritical assumptions. One is that we can treat the gospels as more-or-less accurate historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

No bias there.

The evidence marshaled here likely says more about what the authors of these gospel texts thought about disability than about what the historical Jesus thought about disability.

So we cannot use the gospels as a way of understanding what Jesus thought because they are filtered through the gospel writers. I can only assume, then, that they do not want to understand a Christian perspective on disability.

Similarly, other faith claims are treated as more-or-less factual -- e.g., “Old Testament prophesies can be interpreted as foretelling the coming of Jesus”. On the same page, quotations from Isaiah are taken as descriptions of Jesus. The essay also takes a more apologetic tone than is typical in a scholarly context -- e.g., “These healings were evidences of Jesus being the one who had been predicted as the savior of mankind”.

Does one relate a description of their faith as simply opinion? The thing that you have dedicated your life to should be treated as opinion? I would not expect anyone of any religious faith to describe the principles undergirding their faith as anything other than fact. However, if you yourself are uninformed by faith, you will see all faiths as opinion. I can only suspect that the reviewer was someone who did not have a personal religious faith, or held the position that everything is relative (unless you say that you don't believe that everything is relative at which point you are rejected).
But to cover the reviewers tracks for the bias offered thus far,

At the very least, I would ask the writers to say more about their hermeneutics. But frankly, I am not sure this essay is of sufficient quality to warrant publication.

So perhaps recognizing that all that had been said thus far is falacious, the article was of poor quality. I have got no worries there. Criticize the quality, give me the weak areas as to why the arguments or writing are of poor quality. But don't provide biased uninformed arguments about religious faith in general and a total lack of understanding of the Christian faith and then cover your tail by saying something is of poor quality.
If I seem angry, I really and truly am not. I will dust this article off and publish it in an unbiased journal, probably with little changes. But this is a reminder to me of the field of disability studies and its hostility toward Christianity. My desire to to truly open minds. My disability studies students read the best of what the world of disability studies can offer because I want them to be exposed to different perspectives. I want them to be challenged. However, those of other persuasions want nothing to do with anyone who might bring serious dialogue and disagreement. It is those who see themselves as tolerant who are typically the most guilty of tolerantism.

McNair

Seeing people by their outward appearance

2010-12-05T22:04:00.000-08:00

In the last several weeks, I have had conversations with several friends regarding people's outward appearance. The first revolved around one friends perspective that I should never look on outward appearances. He felt he could wear his pajamas to church and that should have no impact on the manner in which he was viewed by those around him. If they did have a problem with his appearance, it was their problem in not being Godly, viewing, even judging people on outward appearances and not looking on the heart as God does. We went back and forth on this, I in the awkward position of on some level defending some efforts to try to present myself in somewhat of a positive manner by my dress.
Now those of you who do not know me must understand that my outward appearance is not something that I worry about that much. I dress for comfort, buy my ties at the thrift store (since I was required to wear one in one work setting) and largely have a beard mostly so that I only have to shave 15% of my face rather than 45% of my face. Those who do know me would probably say I don't even work as hard on my appearance as I appear to be indicating here.
Yet I found myself in the position of trying to defend a notion of public appearance. My friend said it shouldn't matter and doesn't matter to him. I agreed that it shouldn't matter and doesn't matter to me, however, to those who might listen to me, who are not a part of the faith, potentially, it could make a big difference. So if I moved about the community in my pjs I am confident there are people who would not approach me or want me to approach them simply due to my dress. My friend understood and left it at that, but he could have brought up the example of John the Baptist and other Biblical characters who would have likely held his position.
Then another friend, a woman with mild intellectual disability was literally incongruous that I would care about outward appearance in any manner. If someone would judge others on the basis of what they look like, well, they are just being discriminatory. I shared my argument with her but she was as unconvinced as my other friend.
I have learned to listen to all my friends, but particularly those with intellectual disabilities because they will just about always tell me the truth as they see it. They are right that society judges on the outward appearance. They are right to question my willingness to participate in that form of judgment of people by the way that I dress or encourage them to dress. In their pure thinking where reasoning is "impaired" by disability, they are unaware of how society perceives them. On some level they don't care. I on the other hand, am brutally aware of how society perceives them and am at least partially aware that it is influenced by appearance. I am also aware, however, that they will be judged independent of their appearance. So perhaps they have it right whether them come to their understanding through logical reasoning or simply because they take Biblical warnings about judging others to heart.
The take home lesson for me, however, is that they really don't care about the appearance of others in a way I can hardly grasp. It goes back to the notion I wrote about in this blog several years ago discussing the saying "don't hate the player, hate the game." Well I will tell you in all honesty, that my friends with intellectual disabilities, for whatever reason, are absolutely unlike society in being able to see people simply as people without looking on outward appearances. Their lack of concern is breathtaking and refreshing.
I will refrain, in the future, from trying to convince them otherwise about how society sees them, or how they need to conform to society. Don't conform to the patterns of this world is what it says in Romans 12. My friends are beginning to teach me that lesson.
McNair

7 things every pastor needs to know

2010-11-16T17:44:00.000-08:00

1. People with disabilities are just people. People with disabilities are not an example of imperfection to the perfect. They are an example of imperfection to the imperfect who think themselves perfect.
2. The social consequences of disability are often the most difficult part of having a disability.
3. If I don't know your purpose, that doesn't mean you don't have a purpose. That means I don't know your purpose.
4. Once we decide that we want people with disabilities in the church, the rest is just logistics.
5. People with disabilities are indispensable parts of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:22).
6. The presence of people with disabiliteis should/will change the way we do things in the church.
7. The Bible applies to all.

McNair

The segregated church for people with disabilities

2010-10-30T09:37:00.000-07:00

I have often referenced the 1 Corinthians 12 metaphor of the Body of Christ in this blog. It helps me to understand my relation to my brothers and sisters in Christ. We altogether comprise that body. Whether I understand it or not, I need you and you need me. For some reason, the parts of the body which I would consider not as important I am told are indispensable. They are indispensable to me and they are indispensable to the body itself.

Now when I consider my real body, I notice that the parts are connected. If I could in some way take my nose, cut it off and put it in a jar in a manner that I have devised to keep it alive, it would technically be a part of my body, but in reality it is not connected. I have a nose, it is in a jar over there. It is alive but it is in a jar over there. Now because I have separated it from myself, I no longer have the benefit of being a body with a nose. If I have separated it a long time ago, I may not even remember what my body was like when it was still attached so that I do not even notice it's absence. At the same time, my nose doesn't know what it is missing by not being a part of me. It is sitting in its jar, alive, thinking it has a pretty good life as a nose. I may even visit it on occasion,

"Hello my nose. You are a part of me but I keep you in this jar apart from me because I detect something about you, a characteristic that you have that makes me separate you. You bring odors into my awareness that I do not like to perceive so I have removed you. You are still a part of my body, but I keep you in a jar over here because the best thing for a nose is to be by itself."

In reality, my nose has no idea what it is like to be a part of the body and I have no idea what it is like to have a nose. The nose brings something to the body that no other part brings. How would I ever know that there is such a thing as a sense of smell, that there are aromas that are floating around out there in the air, if I didn't have a nose. So my nose never finds out what its purpose is because it is separated from me and I never learn about the sense of smell because I have cut off my nose and put it over there. To push this analogy a bit further, the presence of the nose allows me to appreciate beauty that I would never know if it were not there. I would never know the fragrance of a rose, or fresh bread baking or orange blossoms in the spring. Living in SoCal, I would also not be able to detect danger like the smell of a brush fire or a gas leak in my home. I would also not know that I need a shower because I have body odor, or smell of urine. I need my nose attached to myself to be a whole body.

All this to say that I cannot take persons with intellectual disabilities (in particular) and separate them into a separate church just for them. It is flat our wrong from an integration perspective, it is not scriptural using the metaphor shared by Paul above, and it is disables the church as a whole. I need all my body parts present for me to be an entire body. I cannot take some parts and pull them away from the body and think I am doing anything other than stigmatizing those whom I have separated. I have communicated to the larger church body that they cannot be a part of the body at the local church where those who do not have their characteristics attend. They need to be separated, for their own good and for ours as well, I suspect. We are doing them a favor those who have such programs would say.

But I am reminded of Leviticus 19:14.

Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD.

Because of their intellectual disabilities, they do not recognize what is being done to them. They do not understand the harm that is done to them by being separated from all of the rest of us. This separation is part of the social consequences of disabilities which at times can be worse than the disabilities themselves that people face. Separation adds to the wounding of people with disabilities although they themselves may not understand it.

At the same time, the church does not understand the harm that is being done to it by separating people. We corrupt the understanding of people with disabilities for average church members by separating them. We support the ignorance of leadership when we separate people. Part of loving others who may be difficult to love because of social skill deficits and other reasons, is that I need to learn to love those people. I need to gain from the uniquenesses that they bring to the entire body.

But those who segregate, cut off our nose and put it in a jar. We think we can get along fine because we have no understanding of what smell is because it was taken away from us. We cannot even imagine a sense of smell as a body. What is it that the church is not experiencing, perhaps as beautiful and critical as a sense of smell because we exclude those with disabilities at worst and segregate them at best? There are those who remove this critical aspect of who we are from us and we actually thank them for it because sometimes we smell bad odors, and we would rather not have to address the warnings that such odors bring and change. So much better to remove those who make us uncomfortable under the banner of loving and serving them. I honestly doubt whether we do either when we separate, segregate and exclude.

McNair

Remembering Brad

2010-10-18T11:08:00.000-07:00

A dear friend of mine, Brad Winden died this week. I knew Brad for probably 15 years. He was one of those people in your life that you can be honest with. We had the kind of relationship where we could be truthful with each other, get angry with each other but in the end still love each other.

For example, he asked me to be his payee for Social Security, but then fired me because he didn't like the way I constrained him in his spending habits. All the while, we were friends. He trusted me to the point of being the decision for medical interventions for him, which was not a small deal because Brad experienced many medical problems across his life. I recall the last time he was in the hospital he signaled to me vigorously that he did not want to be on a respirator even though it would be temporary and he would recover. I pleaded with him to leave it in but he insisted on having it removed. Ultimately the machine was turned off and as I stood there with him, he would stop breathing unless I would jostle him. Ultimately, he acquiesced to allowing the respirator to be used and 24 hours later he was able to breathe on his own and no longer needed it.

Brad was a strong willed man who told you what he thought which is one of the reasons I liked him so much. He was the proverbial "straight shooter." His honesty was refreshing.

He was also an amazing servant. He liked to wash my car, probably because living on a dirt road, it was gratifying to see it clean. But he and I had an ongoing joke about the warranty on his wash job. I wanted 6 weeks which of course was impossible, but made for lots of joking and accusations back and forth.

He and I also referred to each other as turkey. He is the only person in my life that I have ever called a turkey and ever will. He would answer the phone "Gobble Gobble" as would I and we could call each other turkey across a crowded sanctuary using sign language.

The love of his life was Lisa and I will not go into detail about the incredible ways that he served her, but let me just say that few men would love and serve their wives in the way that Brad served Lisa. It was very difficult for him when she passed away and he and I would often talk about their reuniting in heaven.

His last evening here on Earth I was with him. He would at times come to classes that I was teaching and share his experiences with my students so they would have a greater understanding of life with a disability. He would always have a profound impact on the students. I asked him if he would like to speak to the students the Sunday before. He looked a bit down and I thought it might cheer him up to meet some new people and have a meal out. That same Sunday, the members of Light and Power gathered around him and prayed for him because he seemed a bit down. At the Wednesday night class, he was a bit tired, but enjoyed the students and they him. He seemed envigorated. After class, we stopped at Starbucks on the way home; he got a hot chocolate. We drove up to his apartment, and although a bit shakey, he used a walker in recent days because he had become a bit unsteady, I assisted him up the steps and into his apartment. I remember I was a bit surprised at the difficulty he had in climbing those 3 steps to get up to the front door. I thanked him for speaking to the students and told him I would see him possibly on Friday when we were planning to have coffee/lunch with Mark. He said he would call me. My last words to him, perhaps the last words he heard on earth, were, "God bless you!"

I will forever be indebted to Brad for his friendship.

I will also be indebted to him for what he taught me about being a person living with disability, fighting human services for services, and being a man of faith who lived with joy in the midst of great physical suffering and medical intervention. He didn't sit me down and say, "Jeff let me teach you about these things." But he taught me nonetheless through his life. I know that he had this effect on many others as well.

He will be missed.

McNair

"I went to the bachelor party!"

2010-10-13T14:26:00.000-07:00

This past week, my son got married. It was a wonderful time. All of his friends were there which was one of the most fun aspects of the wedding, reception and events leading up to the wedding.

One of his friends is a man that my son has taken out for lunch many times. They call each other the "Chipotle buddies" after their favorite restaurant. Anyway, as I watched my son's friend Mark at the wedding, I couldn't help but reflect on the powerful statement his presence meant. My son, basically communicated to all who attended that Mark, a man with intellectual disabilities was worthy of his friendship. He was specifically invited to attend the wedding because he was a person of value to my son, and once again, worthy of friendship. I wonder how many of the people in attendance noted that he was there, asked why he was there (surely he was just someone in the family who had to come, not someone totally unrelated and simply a friend of the groom) and were perhaps surprised to find out who he was and why he was there.

It was fun also, because the night before we had a big barbeque/party at our house and Mark was once again invited to that celebration. He participated in the various activities of the evening, ate too much like the rest of us and stayed up late. In fact on both nights, he didn't get home till after midnight. He went around the following Sunday telling everyone that he had been to Josh's bachelor party. Although not entirely true, he was with all his friends and family.

Not to make too much out of this, but Mark as a 50 year old man had been invited to the first wedding of his life (see Wolfensberger 2000's wound #15) and had been given the socially valued role of "friend" at a wedding. But not just any friend, a friend of the groom who had been specifically invited by the groom to be at the wedding. Might be a small thing to you but this was a very big deal to Mark and to me as well. I wish more people with intellectual disabilities in particular, could experience the role of "friend of the groom" at a wedding.

McNair

"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for you are with me"

2010-09-08T15:56:00.000-07:00

This was the second part of the 23rd Psalm that I was to report on to our group. We were studying Keller's, "A shepherd looks at Plsam 23."

As I went through this book, I was impressed with the idea of the sovereignty of God. That is something that is very difficult to accept in my life, particularly when I don't understand what is happening to me. In a Proverbs 3:5 way, I lean on my understanding. So much about disability and the acceptance of disability in oneself or one's family is about accepting the sovereignty of God. As someone who does not face a significant disability myself, or in my children, accepting God's sovereignty is probably easier for me. I do not wake up many evenings with my child with autism. I don't sit at the beside of my daughter with cancer and wonder about our future together. I don't face alzheimers disease in myself or my spouse and worry at the changes life has in store for us. I don't have these experiences at the moment in my life, but it is my prayer for myself as it is for those facing those life experiences now, that they will lean on God and trust him when the reasons cannot be understood because he is indeed sovereign.

In the book, Keller talks about why sheep would be walking through dangerous valleys. Sure, one might get lost and wander into dangerous places, but the point here is that the shepherd is taking the sheep to greener pastures, to a better place for them. So in reality, the shepherd is leading the sheep through the valley of the shadow of death. The shepherd took them there. And death is not imagined, it is there casting a shadow. However, the shadow is cast on the sheep and the shepherd. The shepherd is there with the sheep as he takes them through the valley to the greener pasture. This is an easy principle to describe, but it is perhaps the most difficult of all principles to live, to accept. Paul promises that in all things God works for the good of those who love him(Romans 8:28). That is encouraging, but that doesn't make life any less difficult. It will hopefully strengthen my faith such that I will trust in the Lord with all my heart and not lean on my own understanding. But having faith in difficult situations of life, like the facing of disability is hard.

Like a shepherd taking the sheep to a better place, a greener pasture, I trust God's sovereignty in the most difficult of sitiuations that life throws at me. Joni Eareckson-Tada is the greatest example of this to me, in terms of a real flesh and blood person. After 40+ years of living with quadriplegia, she is diagnosed with cancer. What is her response?

"For years I have hoped that my quadriplegia might encourage people struggling with cancer...now I have a chance to truly empathize and journey alongside, affirming that God's grace is always sufficient for whatever the disease or disability."

Amazing

On some level, that is what the green pasture looks like when we get to the other side of the valley of the shadow. Through faith in God and her trust in God's sovereignty, Joni is fearless. Of course she fears, she is a human being. However, her response is to trust God because she understands that He is leading her!

The experience of disability is dead in the center of God's sovereignty and the need for faith. I pray for those whose experience with disability challenges your faith. I also pray that each of us will come alongside of those facing the difficult aspects of the experience of disability to reduce the social consequences, to reduce the discrimination, and to become a part of the process of the church (meaning Christians) becoming the green pasture that people desperately need.

McNair

"He makes me lie down in green pastures..."

2010-09-08T15:26:00.000-07:00

This past week, I was a part of a group studying "A shepherd looks at the 23rd Psalm." I was assigned chapters 3 and 7 in the book and thought I would share what I learned here.

Chapter 3 takes the part, "He makes me lie down in green pastures."
On page 33 of the book, Keller says that in order for a sheep to be willing or able to lie down, they must be free of fear, free of friction with others, free of pests and free of hunger. If these conditions are not met the sheep will not lie down. More on this later.

He also talks a bit about the idea of "green pastures." He says that pastures can be existing/natural, or they can be made or prepared by the shepherd. At least part of the notion of green pastures for the Christian is the idea that God and his church are the green pasture. My relationship with God is more of the natural one, where no one needs to do any preparation. I can approach God on my own, and feel the refreshment that comes from a relationship with him. The church on the other hand, is more of the prepared pasture. It has to be made green. As I thought through this, I reflected once again on the research that indicates that parents of children with disabilities feel supported by their individual faith (the natural pasture) but not by their corporate faith (the prepared pasture, or I guess the pasture that has not been adequately prepared).

Keller goes on to talk about how a pasture is prepared (p 41). Once again as He went through this, I thought about the parallels with the church relative to people with disabilities and their families and how the church needs the same types of preparation.

Scriptural verses came to mind...
-Clearing of rocky land: Jesus did a lot of this (see Luke 6:4, 11:39-44 and Mark 7 about corban)
-Tearing out brush, roots and stumps: Matthew 15:13
-Deep plowing and careful soil preparation: John 9:3-5
-Seeding and planting special graines and legumes 1 Corinthians 12:22
-Irrigating: 1 Corinthians 1:25-30
-Taking care of crops: James 1:27

In order for the church to be a green pasture for people with disaiblities and their families: a place of refreshment, relaxation, support, without fear, friction, pests or hunger many changes need to happen.

We must remove fear, particularly fear of rejection, judgement and social isolation. No one who fears what might happen at the church will ever come to the church let alone consider it a green pasture.

We must remove friction due to intolerance of social skill differences, the program changes that might be required, and the general flexibility that must happen.

We must prevent/remove pests. The pests of state agency/school problems, lack of understanding of the behavior of people with intellectual disabilities, mental illness or autism, and understand the differences of life experience if I am a person with disability or a family member.

We must address provide opportunities to address the hunger of those who would come in areas of worship, Bible study, membership, acceptance and the provision of respite.

The more we endeavor to do the above, the more the church will actually become a green pasture. In a previous post, I commented on the phrase I read in a curriculum that states, "Acceptance does not change the reality of one's condition." Creating a green pasture is the creation of an environment that changes "the reality of one's condition." In particular by addressing the social consequences of disability. At least socially, the church can become the pasture that those affected by disability long for.

McNair

The "reality of one's condition"

2010-08-25T13:48:00.000-07:00

I was recently reading from a curriculum on disability. Under the heading of "Grief and Depression" was the following statement. "Acceptance does not change the reality of one's condition." As I pondered that statement, for some reason it didn't sit well with me.

As I think about the "reality" of a disability condition, I wondered about the reality functionally and the reality socially. I think that one can actually change the reality of one's condition. The reality functionally has been changed through curb cuts, TDD, and electric wheelchairs. Universal design has at times changed the environment such that the functional reality has indeed changed. Being someone with quadriplegia no longer means that I must live my life relegated to a bed, or unable to move about the community. Through creativity of people, the functional reality of many aspects of disability has changed and increasingly, people experiencing needen't accept many of the functional aspects of disability. Clearly, many aspects may never change. However, many aspects are truly due to an unimaginative environment.

The social reality is equally difficult to change it seems. How does one change the enviornment such that it sees people first? I have friends who have intellectual disabilities, yet they hold jobs, live in their own apartment, receive support from a variety of people, and generally enjoy their lives. Yet they are not seen as typical because the environment imposes a social reality on them that they have great difficulty escaping.

Clearly there is overlap between social and physical reality so that the distinction might be somewhat arbitrary. And the negative effects are clearly cumulative.

However, we as the church should be on the forefront of changing the reality of a disabling condition.

If I babysit for a friend's child with a severe disability, I have changed the reality of disability for those parents.

If I take a man with an intellectual disability out for lunch, I have changed the reality of disability for that man.

If I make a previously inaccessible building accessible, I have changed the reality of disabilty for anyone endeavoring to enter that building.

If I seek out persons experiencing various disabilities in an effort at evangelism, I change the reality of disability for those people regarding the Christian church.

Some aspects of disability must be accepted. Some aspects of disability need not be accepted if only the environment, in particular the Church would be what it was meant to be.

McNair

Garbage in the heart

2010-08-25T11:05:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was the first day of the fall 2000 and semester at California Baptist University where I teach. At one of the meetings I was sitting with a colleague of mine Dr. Keith Walters. We were thinking through some issues related to disability. The focus of the faculty training after coming back from summer vacation was the issue of diversity. In the process of one of the meetings where we were discussing diversity, disability came up as an aspect of diversity that is not necessarily addressed. When I mentioned the issues that the church faces relative to individuals with disability, some of my colleagues were absolutely astounded. They couldn't believe that the types of things I described would actually be the case within the Christian church. Later in sitting down with Keith he made the comment that we, as Christians, are totally unaware of the garbage in our own hearts. Now to me, on some level it is a gift from God that I am unaware of the garbage in my own heart. If I were actually aware of the garbage, the specific types of garbage, the amount of garbage in my own heart I would probably just sit in a corner somewhere and cry at my despicable state. So God in his grace perhaps protects us by not fully displaying to us our entirely sinful condition. He conforms us gradually to this image.

Another aspect of this is that I have observed is that often times people will carry the façade of a behavior or language that they know is acceptable. They then go through their lives and think of themselves as good people doing the right thing etc., because they are never confronted by anything that causes them to necessarily divulge what is actually in their heart. In relation to disability, I have often found that the even though in communities and individuals there is an appearance of the smooth kind of surface where everything is fine, running underneath the surface are either negative attitudes or attitudes which reflect socially constructed notions of disability in our society. Then what periodically happens is that the community or individual is confronted with some traumatic event, some demand for change on their part or some other intrusion on their smooth surface that causes them to actually live out the exterior that they appear to have. When this confrontation comes, what happens is that the negative attitudes, the negative perceptions, the social constructions that are under the surface bubble up to the surface and we find out what is going on inside a person's mind or heart. We see the garbage that Keith was talking about come to the surface.

At times when the negativity comes to the surface, it may just bubble up in a little comment or something similar that is barely perceivable. At other times, however, it's a full-blown geyser of negative attitudes that explode forth and we are shocked at what is actually going on inside of a person's head. In the church, one of my desires is to confront individuals, groups and organizations with the presence of people with disabilities such that these underlying hidden types of things which are floating below the surface may come to the surface and therefore be addressed. It's easy for me to say I love all people. Or as my students will often find when they interview pastors relative to the people with disabilities at their churches, “We would welcome people and love people if they came to church.” That's an easy thing to say because the people are not coming and so therefore these churches are not actually being confronted with the presence of people with disabilities and the changes that their presence might cause to occur.

These confrontations which cause our character to come to the surface may be evidenced in the form of temptations. We see in the Luke Chapter 4:1-13 the story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness. His integrity and faith in God comes out through the temptations that are thrown his way by Satan. We find from that story, that the exterior that we observe in Jesus is actually supported by an interior life of faith, prayer and of study of the Scriptures which allows him to respond the way he does.

But in many churches I sometimes find that the exterior that we see is an exterior that has not been confronted by the demands that people with various disabilities might place on the church. If the church, for example, never has an individual who uses a wheelchair present, they are never forced to find out what's below the surface relative to having the commitment and wherewithal to make the church accessible. If the church has never had a child with an intellectual disability in the church, then the church may never have been confronted with what faith development in a Sunday school class for example might actually be. Instead it is living on in practices which are much more knowledge oriented. If the church is never confronted with an individual with a severe form of autism, they may never have to come to grips with what inclusiveness might require them to do relative to the Sunday morning service or other programs within the church. As a result when people with autism do show up, the negativity that's hiding below the surface bubbles up. Sometimes it is evident in comments that your child can stay if you keep an eye on them the whole time. It bubbles up in outright rejection where parents are told they need to find a different place to worship or comments that there is no longer a place for you here.

But the upshot of these confrontations can be good though they're not necessarily beneficial to the families who experience them. They can be good for the church because I suspect even though negativity may be bubbling to the surface, at some level those who are expressing the negativity must be saying to themselves, “This is not right” or “This negativity is not what I should be engaging in” or” I am not reflecting the example of Christ through this negativity.” So the confrontation of disability once again awakens the church or individual Christians to some of the garbage in their own hearts relative to acceptance of people that have not been accepted in the past. And if this garbage in the heart is actually exposed to view either for the individual to view themselves or for the group to view, there is the potential that changes might come in the individual or in a group as a result of seeing that garbage.

I at times have been in a situation where I have confronted a church or the leadership of churches regarding heart garbage relative to individuals with disabilities and their ongoing rejection. Unfortunately, sometimes those in churches cling to the garbage in their heart rather than saying when this garbage is exposed, “This is something that I should not be doing” or “This is something that I need to change.” I would like to say that more often than not there is a spirit of repentance and a desire to want to know what to do, a desire to want to figure out how are we can be more responsive. But it is definitely not always the case.

McNair

Lorna's faith story

2010-08-05T16:11:00.000-07:00

Please note the new viedeo below which is a woman's faith story from our Light and Power class. I never tire of hearing about how someone finally finds a church home who did not have one, whether or not they have a disability. But that they struggle to find a home is still an indictment on the church. Very sad.

If any of you who read this blog are available and interested, we are having a celebration of persons with disability at my church this coming Sunday, 8/8/10. Should be fun. I will have a very small part of the service but happy to support those who are putting it together. We will also be having our typical Light and Power class, so stop by for that as well. The church is, Trinity Church in Redlands, CA. 1551 Reservior Rd. Here is the website. http://trinityonline.org
Our church is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but we are trying to be obedient in the area of removing exclusive practices as they relate particularly to people with disabilities.

So come by if you are available.

McNair

Social consequences of disability

2010-07-13T15:32:00.000-07:00

I have written elsewhere in this blog about what have been called the "social consequences of disability." That is, how does society respond to the fact that someone uses a wheelchair or has autism, or has an intellectual disability. See for example this posting Social Healing or here Social Role Valorization and Wounding.
Both of these postings provide great detail about the social consequences of disability.

I have been thinking about social consequences in reference to 2 Corinthians 12:10. It reads like this in the NIV.

That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

This is the closing statement of a section where Paul describes the "thorn in my flesh". I am not a Bible scholar, but I don't think it is too out of bounds to think about the experiences Paul had in his life related to the quote above, at least in part due to his "thorn" his disability.
It is interesting to read the list of the 4 experiences that fall under the heading of weaknesses and think of how his experience of disability at least in part is reflected in those weaknesses.

In insults. There are so many forms of insult that persons who are affected by disability experience. Of course there are the out and out verbal insults, however, there are also the jokes, the mocking and the just general treatment people will receive simply because of their differences.

In hardships. Hardships are part of life for people with disabilities, just about independent of the type of disability one has. Many hardships are avoidable if society were only different.

In persecutions. There is much in literature which describes the experience of persecution that people with disabilities experience. Should they be Christians, they can only expect that experience of persecution to increase. Persecution is without a doubt a social consequence of disability.

In difficulties. Be they intentional or otherwise, the experience of disabilty is an experience of difficulty. One need only look at the various systems designed to help by governments and societies to get a first hand picture of difficulties.

So Paul understands the experience of living with the social consequences of disability. But his response to this is amazing. "I will boast gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me." That is his response to God's telling him, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."
That is my prayer for people who are experiencing the insults, the hardships, the persecutions and the difficulties leveled against them because of differences they have in their lives which have come to be called disabilities. My prayer is that God's power would be evidenced in their weakness, be perfected in their lives through their weakness.
Let me also say, however, that my prayer is that we all will work to lessen the social consequences of disability to the degree we are able. Sure, God's power can be seen in the weakness of persecution, but I needn't be the agent of the persecution or hardship or insults or difficulties that people face. It could be that part of the grace God dispenses in the lives of persons experiencing disability is what I do in attenuating the social consequences.
But it should comfort you if you are reading this entry and you experience a disability that Paul, writer of books of the Bible, great man of faith, knows something of your experience, and in the midst of it, found strength to face the difficulties of his life through the grace of God, even seeing God's strength through his weaknesses to the point of making that a cause for boasting.

McNair

Community Based Isolation

2010-07-13T12:24:00.000-07:00

I recently had a meeting with a friend of mine and we were discussing the problems faced by people with various disabilities, particularly intellectual disabilities, who live in group homes in the community. The friend I was talking with said that the people are living in “community-based isolation.” That is, although they are physically integrated into the community they are definitely not socially integrated into the community. In reality they seem to be in a form of protective custody in the community. It's not unlike the way that law enforcement will take an individual who they feel is at risk of harm from and put them in a form of protective custody. This could occur by putting them in a jail cell or in some sort of a hotel room with guards but the idea is that you do not want any harm to come to the individual so you put them in a form of protective custody. The protective custody is fine if your goal for an individual is just to keep them from harm, but a person's life while they're living in protective custody is hardly a life. They cannot move freely about the community and they have the things that they can and can't do determined by those who are facilitating protective custody over them.

So take the protective custody example and move it over to individuals with disabilities living in group homes. The way that this custody is often acted out is that if I am a person who does not like sugary soft drinks I will keep those in my protective custody from having sugary soft drinks. If I'm a person who does not think that participating in a religious group is of importance, I willl not allow you to participate in a religious group because I don’t think it's important for you either. So often with protective custody is not just protection but also as the imposition of values of those who are facilitating the protective custody.

The lives of people living in group homes in the community should never have been designed to be a form of protective custody. Now as I have stated elsewhere in this blog I clearly understand that people with disabilities, particularly intellectual disabilities, often are the victim of people who would take advantage of them and try to use them for whatever their purient interests might be. But while I don't want to just give those who are bad people complete access to do willy-nilly whenever they would choose to do to individuals with disabilities, at the same time I don't want to be protective to the point where those with disabilities have no life because they live in a form of protective custody. They live in a form of community-based isolation.

There are those who think that because someone is physically living in the community that they are integrated in the community but nothing could be further from the truth. On some level what we actually have are little institutions in the community that are called group homes that are either so highly regulated people are living in protective custody or the people who run them are so afraid of litigation that they will not allow a person to do anything that could be in even the remotest way perceived as dangerous because they don't want the legal ramifications of a person having some sort of a problem as a result of access to the community. The end result is that people who are adults with disabilities are treated as children, protected as children, protected as you would protect a little child down to determining what they can or can't do who they can or cannot be with and so they live the life of a protected little child. But these individuals are adults. Adults sometimes do things that they shouldn't do. They smoke cigarettes, they drink too much coffee, they may go places that potentially they shouldn't go. A part of being an adult is the dignity of risk. A part of being an adult is making some decisions for myself which other people may or may not agree with.

I'm sure all of us have at one time or another spoken to someone who smokes cigarettes. Cigarettes have been determined to be bad for your health. However, do I have the responsibility to take the cigarettes from an adult, if a person lights up a cigarette should I pull it out of their mouth and say you shouldn't smoke? The ability to smoke is called freedom, and throughout our history, people have literally given their lives to protect our freedom. Well if I do grab a cigarette out of someone’s mouth, I may have to face the ramifications of that which will likely be a hostile response from the person. I can try, but I really don’t have the right to regulate someone else’s life with my own personal opinion about what that person should or should not do. However because a person has some form of disability those typical societal rules which would not allow me to regulate the life of another people another person are totally thrown out the window and I feel like I have the absolute right by virtue of the fact that a person has a disability to regulate their lives in areas of safety in terms of access to people in terms of even simple like choices like of what to eat at how late to stay up at night. In reality, this is mostly because of the effect their behaviors may have on me and my convenience as the person who is supervising the living arrangements, even though it's all done in the name of safety, in the name of protection, in the name of what's best for an individual. Even stating it in that way it's obvious to see how paternalistic these notions are. However, there is a big difference between what I think a person should or should not be able to do and what a person is able or not able to do.

So once again I am not advocating that all all notions of safety or regulation be thrown out the window. However, at the same time we must recognize that a life lived in protective custody is not a real life and what we're trying to facilitate is that people, to the degree that they're able, have a real life. And when you have a real life that does that mean that you will never be hurt. Of course not Actually the fact that you are hurt may indicate that you are living a real life. All of us disabled or not have at one point or another been hurt in a whole variety of ways whether we have been physically hurt or emotionally hurt or whether we've been victimized on some level or another, by virtue of the fact that we are living a real life. None of us would deliberately desire harm for persons with intellectual disabilities. But the only life where one does not experience any harm is by sentencing a person to protective custody. This sentences a person to not having as real a life as they possibly might have.

Now this blog is about disability and Christianity. So the major focus here is helping people to have as real life as possible by allowing them to have access to the church and the programs of the church. Are there bad people who go to church who could potentially victimize someone with a disability? Of course there are. But the lion’s share of people the majority of people are not those types of people. There is also the safeguard that people who are attending churches are looking out for one another to make sure people are safe. So can people be victimized? Of course they can. Yet at the same time the risk, the dignity of risk that goes along with access to these types of settings is the kind of thing that will facilitate a person having a real life.

McNair

Please keep Joni and Ken Tada in your prayers

2010-06-23T11:44:00.000-07:00

This morning, the Joni and Friends website shared that Joni has been diagnosed with cancer. Please visit this website for the full letter drafted by Joni.

In the letter she states,

Please pray that the upcoming tests, surgery and subsequent treatment will be successful (thankfully, my quadriplegia has no bearing on either the surgery or the treatment; I'm like any other woman with breast cancer -- I simply want to focus my energies on getting better).

Of course, I believe that God can and does heal and I covet your prayers to that end. Most of all, please pray that God will pour out grace-upon-grace on Ken and me.

God has used and continues to use Joni in my life as an example of trusting in the sovereignity of God. I would wish to know and trust in God as Joni has learned to do throughout her life, but I would not wish to face the trials that she has faced to give her complete trust in God. When I waver in my faith or in my trust in God (I wish that were less often than it is) I will often think of her and am encouraged.

I must also tell you that through some opportunities I have had to meet and speak with her, she is real. Real about her life experience and the impact it has had on her. She is not some pie in the sky purveyor of platitudes. But someone who has lived the raw edge of life's challenges, coming away with a dogged desire to trust God, and look on her significant challenges as a way to encourage others. Her faith is such that I suspect she received the diagnosis of cancer anticipating how God would use it in her life to His glory.

Please keep Joni and Ken in your prayers as they move forward into the unknown of cancer. Cancer may not be known to them, but God is known and as real as quadriplegia, even more real. I leave you with one more quote from her letter.

For years I have hoped that my quadriplegia might encourage people struggling with cancer… now I have a chance to truly empathize and journey alongside, affirming that God's grace is always sufficient for whatever the disease or disability. (Joni 6/23/10)

McNair

"Celebrating the past: Honoring the legacy of Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Senator Edward Kennedy"

2010-06-10T10:04:00.000-07:00

That was the title of a presentation given to the entire membership this morning at the AAIDD conference. The majority of the presentation centered on Mrs. Shriver who was an amazing advocate for persons with intellectual disabilities in America. Her brothers President Kennedy and Sen. Edward Kennedy are the ones often credited with the actual programs and legislation that affected individuals with disabilities, but as one of the presenters indicated quoting Sen. Kennedy, "It was all Eunice!" I doubt that is entirely true, but it was clear nontheless from the presentation that she was the momentum behind much of the policy that impacts people with a wide variety of disabilities. For a more complete discussion of her contributions, I would refer you to an article by Dr. David Braddock entitled, "Honoring Eunice Kennedy Shriver's Legacy in Intellectual Disability" published in the journal, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, vol 48, number 1, February 2010.

There were several things about the presentation about Mrs. Shriver, however, that I was unaware of. I plan to become a student of her life in the future, but these two things were quite remarkable.

First is that she was a very devout Catholic. Steven Eidelman one of the presenters today who knew Mrs. Shriver personally, indicated that she would attend Mass twice a day, rain or shine, going to a little church near where their offices were. I love knowing that someone having such a profound impact on our country in the area of disability, was at least partially motivated by her faith in God. I wish that had been explored much more in the presentation, but it was mentioned and described as a critical part of who she was.

The second was that she was staunchly pro life. Another of the presenters, Deborah Spitalnik who was clearly not pro life, even apologized for giving Mrs. Shriver that label. Obviously, in the circles she runs in, to be called pro life is to be denegrated. How difficult for her (Spitalnik) to reconcile the life of and contributions of Mrs. Shriver with her pro life stance. She concluded her comments with a comparison of Sen. Kennedy and Mrs. Shriver as being loving family members on opposite sides of the issue and how wonderful that was. But there were the political jokes or innuendo about Bush or others who might disagree with her. Yet she herself could not even use the term pro life without an apology for characterizing Mrs. Shriver that way.

To me, it is not Mrs. Shriver who was inconsistent in her position towards life and intellectual disability, it is those like Spitalnik who are inconsistent. How can someone be in an organization like AAIDD which supposedly is all about what is best for persons with intellectual and developmental disability and advocate for the taking of their lives via abortion. This has been the case in the past as well with the AAIDD stage being given to those who would "prevent" intellectual disability via abortion. To me it is painfully inconsistent.

But praise and thank God for the life of Eunice Kennedy Shriver. She made her mark on the country and the world as well, bettering the lives of persons with disabilities in myriad ways. To quote the closing paragraph of the Braddock article mentioned above,

So, in every country across the globe, in every city, town and remote village - and she touched almost all of them during her life - let the word go forth to honor the legacy of Eunice Kennedy Shriver.

McNair

AAIDD Providence

2010-06-09T20:59:00.000-07:00

I am currently at the annual meeting of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. I am the incoming president of the Religion and Spirituality Division of the organization and have been enjoying interactions with old friends and have been making some new friends.

Today, I attended a session by Dr. Robert Schalock, a very important researcher in the field of disability. He was the moderator of a session about the Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports (Eleventh edition) The AAIDD is the organization which defines intellectual disability, which is no small task as it impacts people in terms of receiving services and legal responsibilities. I found it a very informative session, and those in attendance were a "who's who" of the field of intellectual disability for the past 20 years or so.

Two very positive things jumped out at me from the meeting actually 3. First, I plan to purchase the book noted above. I think it is critical to understand the direction the field is going in, and particularly relates to my interests in policy development for the church. Second and related, there seems to be a movement in the definitions towards more of a community focus, and a understanding of intellectual disability on the basis of services needed versus past notions of assessment and identification. This has always seemed to be an issue. If I label you intellectually disabled, that really tells me very little about who you are in really any way. However, should I describe the supports or services you need, I have a better handle on your needs professionally, and I at least have the potential of moving away from giving you a label that causes you to be devalued by society. It is a positive move and I raised my hand and told them so!

Thirdly, attached to the definition are what they call 5 assumptions. I will list them all here at a future date, when I have my copy of the book. But assumption #5 I did copy down. Here is what it states,

With appropriate personalized supports over a sustained period, the life functioning of the person with intellectual disability generally will improve.

I love that, but recognize that much of those kinds of efforts cease after one leaves school. I have clearly seen this principle in effect in a religious setting. Spiritual understanding and its effect on behavior, language, faith development has been at times staggering to me. I am ashamed to admit that I have had expectations that have often been beautifully exceeded by friends of mine with disabilities. I will often look at Kathi at our Light and Power class, at times holding back the tears at the spiritual insights of people, who as adults, continue to grow and develop as human beings.

I also raised the issue (when I raised my hand) that I feel that we are a bit stuck with group homes being as they are, in that we seem to be at a place, similar but not the same, that we were with institutions in the 70's. People are in the community in little institutional homes rather than in large institutions of the past. They are still socially isolated, they are still controlled and lacking in freedom, but it is individually on a smaller scale (although taken together, it is a scale of great magnitude). Dr. Schalock stated that we don't need another deinstitutionaliation movement, but I am not sure I agree. I think we do need another de-little-institutionalization movement where people gain freedom while in group homes. It is the next phase, I think, and churches are an integral part of facilitating the next phase. The Christian community can be both advocating for change, and also be the provider of real lives for group home residents. Let us have access to isolated people and let us bring real life to them. I honestly think that is what we have to offer.

McNair

Autism & Alleluias

2010-05-17T15:29:00.000-07:00

I was contacted recently about reviewing the new book, Autism & Alleluias here. The book is written by Kathleen Deyer Bolduc and as my friend Bill Gaventa describes in the Forward is like a "book of modern day psalms." I think it is the kind of book that parents or family members of an individual with autism would read and find encouraging. The reader gets a snapshot of life experience with someone with autism, and then is pointed back to scripture, faith, prayer in integrating that experience. The average reader will find this book very accessible. I think it would also give someone who isn't very experienced about life with a child with autism many insights into the challenges that parents and families face.

McNair

Growing pains

2010-05-11T14:35:00.001-07:00

Something occurred to me the other day, actually in the midst of doing a presentation at the Joni and friends conference in Pasadena this past weekend. The changes that the church is/will be/should be going through are going to cause discomfort, perhaps emotional distress to those who want to keep things the same. I have commented elsewhere in this blog that there are those who want video screens or texting questions to the pastor, or some other change, and think they are being so innovative. It is the preoccupation with all things technology. To some this is "painful" as pastors aren't behind podiums and the music is different (I can remember when electric guitars were cutting edge, which only tells you how old I am). But though the presentation is different the message, those present, and the focus are pretty much the same.

The kind of change that I am talking about is the change that comes from including all of the people who would want to be part of a church in the church. People are much more willing to buy a video screen then they are to be inclusive. We still have heated discussions (happened this past Saturday) about whether people with disabilities should be integrated into church programs. We still desire to segregate them. I compared it to cutting off my foot or hand and placing it across the room. It should be a part of me, but it isn't because it is separated. To me that implies we are trying to be something that we might call the "church" (an idea of the church) when we should be becoming the Body of Christ. Please don't get me wrong...The Church is the answer. No doubt about it. However, I don't think it is the church the way it currently is because the church the way it currently is is exclusionary. It is a form of church.

The idea that I had while presenting this past weekend, is that the "difficulties" the church faces as it changes to include all people, are growing pains.

I think they are the growing pains that happen when the "church" becomes the Body of Christ.

I therefore embrace the challenges, the discomfort, the wondering what to do. I will even embrace the errors that come with trying to do something not quite done before. All those are the growing pains of the "church" becoming the Body of Christ.

I remember being a gangly 14 year old who was 6'5". I had to think about walking I was so uncoordinated. That is how the church would be and at times,currently is if it is embracing those with disability in its midst. It is ungainly and uncoordinated. It is experiencing a period of growth it hasn't for a long time. Embrace the pain that comes with growth. Pain usually causes you to do things differently than the way you used to do them. Bring on the pain and seek God in the midst of growth.
McNair

Good intentions and laziness

2010-04-26T10:09:00.000-07:00

In my role as a special ed professor, I am often visiting classrooms where student teachers work under a "master" teacher in order to learn how to be a teacher through direct practice. Typically these classrooms are a mixed bag. There are some teachers who truly are masters at what they do. I look forward to visiting those classrooms because I can always learn something new from them. Although I teach teachers how to work with children with moderate to severe disabilities, my actual classroom teaching experience is 20 years old. So to visit the class of an excellent teacher who has been teaching for 20 years is a treat for me!

But then, there are those teachers who for whatever reason are doing little or nothing. It is like they got a credential from a school and then just stopped doing anything that reflects best practices. It breaks my heart when I see students in these kinds of classes, and breaks my heart even more when teachers that I have trained have regressed to this level. This semester has been particularly disheartening on both of these levels.

On visiting one of my student teachers, the "master" teacher literally had 2 and 1/2 hours of free time built into the schedule. I can't believe that the school district would tolerate such a thing, but perhaps that tells you what they think about students with severe disabilities. The time spent "working" was filled with doing endless puzzles, or sitting in a circle singing songs, which could be a good instructional activity if the students had the intellectual capability to learn from the songs but unfortunately they didn't. Other activities are totally non functional for the students. Yet the one teacher had a bulletin board by her desk covered with recognitions/awards from the district, and the other teacher I think had good intentions, liked his students, but was a total slacker and was probably being paid like 50K a year to be a baby sitter.

I always warn my teachers that if I am an advocate for a parent and am sitting across the table from them at an IEP, and they are not doing what they should be doing, I will go after them.

But it is when one of my students becomes a babysitter that I really get bummed out. That also happened this semester. One of my student teachers was in this classroom and was literally unable to do the best practices that she was required to do because the teacher was not practicing them. She was frustrated with the placement as was I. But I know that that "master" teacher knows what to do, but must be just too freaking lazy to do what she should. When asked about monitoring student progress, the "master" teacher gave the typical stupid answer that she "knows where each student is." SO if you have a class of 15 students and each one has say 8 objectives, then you are keeping the data on 120 objectives in your head. You see this is simply laziness. But the teacher is friendly and upbeat, and has good intentions so she will get by being nothing more than a babysitter when she should be condemned for being a slacker.

Switching to issues of religious education of persons with disabilities, I remember providing a training on disability ministry to a group of ministry leaders. One woman in the group became very upset, saying "You are too critical! You are being unkind!" Well, if I walked into your ministry at your church, I would celebrate that fact that you have a ministry, in the same manner that I would celebrate that students with severe disabilities have access to a public school education. I don't walk into random ministries or classrooms and criticize what is happening there. However, when I am invited as an evaluator in order to assist in improving things, or I am designated to train people in best practices, good intentions are important, however, I am more interested in best practices. For my own children, I would have rather had a teacher who was grumpy toward them but taught them how to read, or how to write so that when they left the setting they knew how to read or write than to have them in some setting where the teacher had good intentions, but nothing educationally was going on because that teacher didn't care enough to learn about and develop the best practices. Also when confronted with best practices or trained in best practices, they should be embraced, not rejected because they are too hard.

I am happy for good intentions, but I would rather have best practices. Sure, start something just to get it going, but ultimately find out what there is to know about how to best do what you are doing. If you don't care to find out, or find out what you should do and then don't do it, you should expect a certain set of outcomes. As I look at students with moderate/severe disabilities leaving schools with little or no skills, I can only assume that nothing was taught. Bad teachers rely on their perception that nothing can be taught. But I can only assume that if children are in school, someone things they can learn skills. So if they have no skills, then either they were not taught, or the basic assumption that they can learn skills is flawed. The truth is they were not taught!

McNair

The good Samaritan

2010-03-31T18:15:00.001-07:00

Tonight I was speaking to my class about the family life cycle as it relates to people with disabilities and their families. The research literature at times mentions "chronic sorrow" in regard to the life cycle in that at every stage of life, people with disabilities and their families are often confronted with the impact of disability on their lives. Some of those impacts are directly due to the impairment the person has, however, often the negative experiences are due to the social consequences of having a disability. That is the way the individual or family experiences life with disability being a part of that life.

Before getting into this discussion, I asked students to report on an assignment they needed to complete. The assignment was to interview the pastor of their church, or at least someone in leadership about the priority the church places on people with disabilities. A common reply was that there was a handful of people who were attending the church, but that was all. Of course they would be willing to serve others if they came but that was all they had.

As I thought of the woundedness related to the social consequences of disability particularly related to Wolfensberger's 18 wounds, I was reminded of the story of the Good Samaritan. I won't retell the story, but the approach of the churches interviewed and reported on made me think of how churches today might retell that story. I suspect that first of all, the Samaritan wouldn't have seen the wounded man in the first place, or at least claim to not have seen him or known about him. But using the rationale of the church leaders interviewed, once he saw the wounded man, their response would have been, "You know, there is a hotel up the road. And if you get yourself there, I would be willing to help you out, to patch you wounds and all. Just get yourself to the hotel. Ok then, see you later."
Actually, more likely they would ignore the wounded man and blame him for not coming to the church where they would help him if he were to come there.

So we figuratively have wounded, bleeding people lying in desperate pain, in desperate need, and we glibly say that if they came to the hotel (church) we would patch their wounds. These are truly, desperately wounded people who have probably showed up at a church in the past and have been turned away. Yet our response is to tell them to suck it up and ask for help. They won't do it!! They haven't the ability to do it!!

It is not just people with intellectual disabilities who haven't the ability to get to church often simply because they haven't a driver's license (do you really think that churches don't know that people with intellectual disabilities haven't the abiltiy to drive?) so couldn't get there if they wanted to. It is truly that these people are hurting and are either fearful of further hurting/attacks, are feeling that they are unwanted because no one is coming after them, or simply haven't the strength to come. Do people always have to ask/beg me to do something for me to do it or at least volunteer to do something for them? Or might I recognize that my resources (time, money, home, etc.) are not just for me and might be shared with someone else and volunteer, or even insist that the hurting person take them or use them.

So the dying wounded man lies by the side of the road and the Christian Samaritans sit in the church saying we would serve him if he came. I mean c'mon we have handicapped parking spaces and accessible restrooms.
McNair

3/21/10 World Down Syndrome Day

2010-03-22T11:18:00.000-07:00

"Your search yielded no results"

Rarely does this statement cause me happiness when it appears on my computer screen. Typically it means that I haven't been able to find what I was looking for. But today, I smiled happily at my computer screen. They get it. You see, I searched the Down Syndrome International website for the word "prevention" and received that message. I say again, they get it.

You see, people who know people with down's syndrome, are typically much less likely to want to be rid of it. That is probably because the only way to be rid of it is to be rid of the people who have it. I believe that only those who have never had an interaction with a person with down's syndrome would want to be rid of them, at all costs, including prenatally diagnosing their presence and killing them. But in the warped minds of the pro-choice world, this is totally acceptable...perhaps.

Bill Armer (2007) writes the following in, Eugenetics: a polemical view of social policy in the genetic age.

It is sometimes suggested by scholars that eugenics was some form of pseudoscientific aberration of the first half of the twentieth century which is nowadays of historical interest perhaps, but has no place in contemporary scientific society...Nonetheless, eugenic ideology, and particularly ideas that the human race may and should be 'improved', is certainly extant today...The fundamental issue to be borne in mind is that the overt eugenics movement in the west had two key values: the 'improvement of the human stock' and the avoidance of financial drain on society." (p. 1).

Armer discusses the term "provisional pregnancy" which is clearly related to women carrying a baby with down's syndrome among other 'obvious' reasons for abortion (obvious to the medical profession it would seem). Pregnancy is now provisional untill the experts can council us as to whether or not our children are 'viable' or in some way 'worthy' of birth. Funny how your ideas will sometimes "come home to roost" as the saying goes.

Armer also quotes Alison Davis (1987, Women with disaiblities: abortion and liberation in Disability, Handicap & Society, p. 283)

...the mainstream women's movement has made the mistake of transferring our oppression to the unborn...it becaue natural to eliminate or ignore those (with) conflicting interests who were too vulnerable to fight back...the mainstream women's movement claims to support women with disaiblities and help them fight against their double oppression [as women and as disabled people], but I do not now believe that it is possible to do so while...defending so aggresively the 'right to choose' to kill unborn children because they suffere from exactly the same disabilities.

The human genome project will only convolute these issues as there will be more to 'assess' in order to 'prevent'. To cut the doublespeak, more children will be diagnosed prenatally as having an undesirable characteristics and then killed through abortion. How people can support and fight for rights of individuals at one point in their lives and work voraciously to kill them at another point in their lives is simply hypocritical.

So God bless Down Syndrome International. May they always be found on the side of life for people with down's syndrome and all people. In terms of down's syndrome, prevention=death.

McNair

Amos Yong at Cal Baptist

2010-03-10T15:18:00.001-08:00

Dr. Amos Yong will provide a
Special Lecture on issues in Theology and Disability
Thursday March 25, 2010 at 430-6 pm
Copenbarger Room, Yeager Center
California Baptist University

Dr. Yong is J. Rodman Williams Professor of Theology and
Director of the Doctor of Philosophy program,
Regent University School of Divinity. He is author of 11 books
and numerous articles on Biblical and theological issues. One
of his books is the 2007 volume, “Theology and Down Syndrome:
Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity.” All faculty, staff and students
are invited to this free lecture.

Sponsored by the Disability Studies Institute at CBU and the
College of Education.

The Church and Disability / The Orchard

2010-03-05T17:02:00.000-08:00

I have just published two new books. The first is entitled The Church and Disability and is basically selections from the first five years of my weblog, disabledChristianity. As I went through the entries, I was interested once again with what, I believe, God has revealed to me about issues of theology and disability, disability ministry, people with disablities and societal and church attitudes towards people experiencing disability. It is perhaps the best compilation of much of my thought on these issues. It is a convenient, easily accessible means to view these ideas.

I would encourage readers (parents, individuals with disabilities,professionals or church leaders) to consider picking up a copy for themselves or to share with others who need to open their minds to the potential of the church. Because it is entries from a weblog, it is perfect for daily readings.
Please click on this link for more information. https://www.createspace.com/3398398

The second book is entitled The Orchard and is a political fantasy about societal and political engagement. It builds and expands on Niebuhr's ideas encapsulated in his book Christ and Culture. More information about this book is available at this link. https://www.createspace.com/3396835
Thanks
McNair

DTS and DBU

2010-03-05T13:28:00.001-08:00

I had an amazing day today. I had the opportunity to meet with two men who have been involved in the development of a new course on the theology of disability and suffering at Dallas Theological Seminary which is one of the premier seminaries in America. Daniel Thomson spearheaded the development of the course at DTS and with Dr. Larry Watters coming alongside has put together what looks to be an amazing offering. The course is online and is a series of asynchronous lectures which I should add are close captioned. In addition material delivered in the lectures is being assembled into a textbook which will no doubt be a must have for people interested in the subject. The good news too is that it is largely a theological work.

Dallas Baptist University is also thinking through how they might build disability issues into their curriculum. There was a sweet openness at the meeting that began with their president. It will be exciting to see what develops there in the next few years.

At Cal Baptist we just keep plugging along. Our MA program in disabity studies is off the ground with a wonderful group of students and we are looking forward to launching our second cohort in the fall (2010).

In the midst of discussions we heard about other Christian colleges who refuse to house courses on disability within their Bible departments or to allow courses to have titles reflecting that the courses are about theology. It is both angering and frustrating at times. At the same time however we must focus on the many good things that are happening. We truly are on the crest of a wave, I believe, that is about to wash over the church. It could not come too soon for my liking.

McNair

Juxtaposition

2010-02-17T17:35:00.000-08:00

What do you think when you see this object? This object or one very much like it has been in many households in America. Typically you think "infant" as this is a toy for small children that helps them to learn to sort shapes. It is a kind of a cultural icon that people would recognize.
Now imagine that you see a person say 10-12 years old playing with this object. What is your first impression of this person? Do you think that it is cool that this pre-teen is playing with this object or do you immediately assume that there is "something wrong" with this individual because they are playing with this toy? No doubt the answer is the latter. When we juxtapose people with things that typically do not or perhaps even should not be with them, we cause them to bear the associations that go with such a juxtaposition.

This is called using age inappropriate materials with a person. The use of this particular toy will stigmatize a person who is over the age of say 3 who is using it. Let alone, if the person is the only one in a group who is using it.

Now what about this picture which is a page from a Christian coloring book. Imagine that you visited a class that was for adults with intellectual disabilities and they were all sitting around coloring this picture. I deliberately picked this picture because it is a bit more "hip" less juvenile than the pictures in many Christian coloring books.

What would you think about the adults sitting and coloring this picture? I suspect you would think that this is a very unusual adult class as virtually no other adult class sits around coloring pictures. "But the students enjoy coloring!" That really doesn't matter as I know how they will be perceived when they carry around the picture they have colored, they don't. They may be oblivious to the treatment they receive, the stigmatization that goes with being thought of as a child. I know the ramifications, the demeaning, the loss of respect, the way attitudes are affected by simply being treated as if they were a child by those who are supposedly providing them with a Christian education.

Because we understand these things, we must do our best to prevent the negative from happening. Our students may be intellectually disabled, but they are full partners in the blessings of God. I do them no favors when I indicate to people that I think they are children when they are adults.

McNair

"...extension of the processes of control within the capitalist state."

2010-01-28T14:38:00.000-08:00

That is how Michael Oliver, the Professor of Disability Studies describes the move from institutions to the community in a 1994 article. He does not see the change as "part of a process of removing some of the apparatus of social control by the state." But an extension of control. I am confident that I don't agree, at least for those individuals with intellectual disabilities that I have known. Perhaps there was more "freedom" within institutions, however, I think chaotic, irresponsible, life without any direction is hardly a desirable alternative to more of a regulated life in the community. His general point, however, I think is well taken. That being that the move from institutions to the community was somwhat of a facade in terms of people truly having their lives changed in terms of approaching more of a typical or normal life. Normal meaning a life like that for the average individual.

However, he doesn't provide an alternative to institutional lives of regulation which is the answer that is really needed. People confined in institutions were "protected" from the community although their protection was not worth the price and was a horror. The shift to community based care was not as Oliver states, a way to save money. If anything it is more expensive if only because of the ratio of care providers to those with disabilities, and the programmatic offerings (good or bad) which are in place.

But his point about extending the processes of control I think I would agree with. Are there capitalist ties, perhaps there are, but I think it is more related to the human condition than it is to our lack of movement toward Marxist ideals as he would desire. I think we see the vestiges of protectionism that occurred at the time of deinstitutionalization which may have provided some level of protection for ex-inmates of institutions, but has now has created new generations of state controlled people, with the venue of control being community based housing/group homes or community based services.

But I wonder about the church. What could the role of the church be, as a free agent not submitting to state regulations in terms of setting up parallel homes or parallel services causing them to be as regulated as any other service. We have tremendous resources within the church, tremendous creativity, but oppressive traditions which do not often allow us to be innovative. We put video screens in the sanctuary and think we are innovative. How about doing something innovative for poor people, or those with disabilities often living in lonliness? One of the beauties of the L'Arche communities as I understand them is the creative model they developed. Yet when they come to America, they struggle to hold on to their identity because of regulations. How might we facilitate community integration that it excludes the governmental regulation, the "processes of control" such that people cease to be commodities that are regulated and be come human beings who just want a regular life?

McNair

Regulated lives, regulated relationships

2010-01-08T08:09:00.000-08:00

Well, a light came on for me this morning while I was mucking out the horse's pen. I was blessed with the opportunity to address a group of case workers from the Inland Regional Center on the issue of community integration of persons with disabilities. They were a great group and I had a great time. One point that I make in the presentation is that, particularly for persons with intellectual disabilities, their lives are filled with people who are paid to be with them. That always bothered me because I didn't like the idea that the only way I, as a disabled person, might have an interaction with someone, it seemed, is that if the person was paid. Not only that, those who are paid restrict the unpaid people that I might have access to. They make them do things like get fingerprinted, or other things that change them from friends into regulated (although unpaid) people in my life. The touch of the regulated kills the natural. So I don't like that.

But the light that came on for me, and I recognize it is obvious but a subtle point, is that those who are paid to be with me are regulated. So it is not sufficient that they are paid to be with me, but they also are restricted by their menu of services, how our interactions must be structured, when and where they can be with me, what our interactions will be, and so on and so on. They can be with me when they are acting as a professional human service worker, but cannot be with me when they are acting as a regular person. I can only have a relationship, therefore, with professionals who are experts in understanding me when they are acting as professionals. At least that is what they think. They have been so conditioned by their regulators, that the thought of having personal relationships with people with disabilities, simple friendships, never enters their minds. This is a VERY sad state of affairs. People who have the best chance of understanding me as a person with a disability, people who have the most understanding of my disability and how it will affect social relationships, people have the best ability to advocate for me, people who can demonstrate to others how I can be socialized into regular life through their own invovlement with me, are professionally socialized and regulated into thinking that they cannot have a personal relationship with a disabled person.

As I shared with the group from Regional Center, caring case workers would say, "I am not permitted to interact with people with disabilities outside of work. It is not allowed in my job!" Now that is sad because this agency serves thousands of people with developmental disabilities and the perhaps several hundred caseworkers who have chosen this field as a career feel like they can have no person to person (as opposed to person to professional) relationships with any of them. They are also blinded to the fact, perhaps because of their indoctrination, that there are other people with disabilities in the community who might benefit from a personal interaction with them. On one level, I don't blame them for their oversight. They have been so conditioned in their training and by their handlers in their working life about what their relationship with disabled people should be, they almost cannot imagine personal friendships with these folks.

We have now had perhaps 30 years of efforts at integrating persons with intellectual disabilities into the community. Those who live in group homes are the ones I am particularly thinking of. And in my opinion, our efforts at community integration have failed miserably. There are a lot of reasons for this but let me give you two that I am confident are true. First, professionals in human services, either due to their training, or their personal feelings, feel no personal responsibility for having regular friendships with people with disabilities in their personal lives. As a result, those who would have the greatest likelihood of facilitating integration are not doing it. They are expecting others to do something that they either do not want to do or feel regulated, because of their work, out of doing. If the professionals will not have friendships, why would we expect the average person to have friendships? Second, the church is not the player it should be. This is due to problems on all sides. State agencies, once again because of their regulations I would suspect, feel that they cannot use religious groups, use churches to assist in facilitating integration. The "separation of church and state" is instituted in the lives of persons with disabilities. It is actually foolish to think it might be somehow otherwise. How would regulated people with disabilities, regulated by regulated professionals be expected to do anything approaching natural or normal? For normality to come to the lives of those who are regulated, regulations have to be removed or limited. And then, the church has to step up and be seeking out those who need unregulated, natural friendships. In my own life, I want to be able to stay up too late and be tired the next day if I want to. I want to eat too much if I want to. I want to drink too much coffee if I want to. I want to go places with friends when I want to. I want to be in the community when I want to. I want freedom, in other words. People with disabilities, by virtue of the fact that they have a disability, particularly an intellectual disability, loose their freedom. But the loss of freedom needn't be that way. The more programs are administratively convenient, the more freedom is lost. The more lives are regulated, the more freedom is lost.

What is needed is to step away from regulated lives. More "free agents" need to be in the lives of people with disabilities. People who can go off the reservation in terms of offering the natural relationships and consequences of choices that the average nondisabled person experiences. I am so damned tired of people being told what they can or can't do (can't have a coke, can't walk around, can't talk), having their behavior managed as if they were a child, and expecting me as their free agent friend to participate in behavior management by restricting either my interactions or the things I give to the individuals. I am damned tired of people being regulated for no other reason than the convenience of care providers. I am also tired of care providers who want to move toward normalcy being regulated out of offering regular lives, and into the creation of some morphed, prison like, restricted, unnatural life designed for people. In case you don't know, the life created by human service professionals, me included, sucks in comparision to typical, regular lives. I personally do not want people to try to create a life for me that is dependent on boneheaded regulations put together by some politician or beaurocrat. Just leave me alone as much as you possibly can. If you must interact with me, be my professional, but also be sure that I have real friends as that is what I need to have a fulfilling life, perhaps even more than a trained human service professional. And finally, professionals, think outside of the freakin box! If you are not interacting with people with disabilities, befriending them in your personal life, you are failing them and the society who trained you. That society desperately needs you to step up for the betterment of those whose lives have been devalued by the regulations they live under and the very regulated people who serve them.

McNair

"Not playing with a full deck"

2009-12-31T10:31:00.000-08:00

When someone is referred to as "Not playing with a full deck" the implication is that they aren't all there, that there is something that is lacking. I find that with some of my friends with disabilities that they are not playing with a full deck. But not in the sense of lacking something like intellect, or physical abilities due to a disability, but they are not playing with a full social deck of cards. Because of their sometimes devalued status, they lack the social capital to get what they want or need. They therefore play the cards that are often buried in most of our social decks. Because of their sometimes hurting condition (socially and otherwise) cards of strength are not played. Rather cards intended to cause guilt, cards that reflect anger, cards that reveal their lonliness or their expectations. It is easy to have those cards played on you and respond, "What did I do to make you angry?" or "It is not my fault that you are lonely" or "I cannot meet your expectations because I work, have a family, have other responsibilities." It is easy to meet these accusing cards with rejection, particularly if you (like me) are pretty much unaffected by those who attempt to foster guilt in you.

I remember when I taught students with serious emotional problems. They would threaten me and swear at me, and try very hard to get me upset. At times they were successful. But I grew to understand that those attacks were their disability speaking. So, just as I wouldn't condemn a person with an intellectual disability who couldn't do math, I can't condemn a person with an emotional disability who can't do social interactions. It is their disability speaking. In the process, if I am able to keep my composure, they learn acceptance and love and I learn patience and how to love people who are difficult to love. I will tell you honestly, however, that I prefer not to learn those lessons. I prefer to be appreciated and told that I am wonderful. Not to be told that I am uncaring and unresponsive. The issue is not whether my disabled friend is telling the truth about me (particularly when I don't think he is), the issue is what will I do with a person who is not playing with a whole social deck and is left to playing cards that will contribute to his exclusion and ostracism; a fact that he is oblivious to.

On occasion, some of these friends will find an encouragement card, or a gratefulness card and I delight when these are played both for the way that they make me feel, and that my disabled friend who played the card was, in that moment, of such a positive mindset that they were able to find that buried card somewhere, pull it out and play it.

The bottom line of this is that loving other people is hard, particularly hurting people. The relationship does not feel like it is 50-50 in effort or kindness or forgiveness. But once again it relates to who I compare myself to. I as a socially competent, successful person with a jovial personality from a Christian home look pretty good when I compare myself with a lonely, dependent person from an abusive home, experiencing the social consequences of disability and living on social security. I come off quite good in such a comparison. But I am playing with a stacked deck compared to many of my friends. I have more aces than the average person, and they may not even have a face card. Once I realize that, the rules of the game change...for me. To whom much is given, much is expected (Luke 12:48). This verse applies to all areas of life including social interactions and I need to pause, and not respond in kind but in kindness.

McNair

Event at Cal Baptist featuring Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger

2009-12-16T13:58:00.000-08:00

As a reader of this blog, you will recognize the name Wolfensberger. Dr. Wolfensberger has had a significant impact on the way I see services for persons with various disabilities. He will be coming to Cal Baptist, Feb 27 & 28 to do a training on The history of human services. It will be excellent! See a description of the event below.
McNair

A two-part two-day presentation on the history of human services, tracing the origins of some of our major contemporary service patterns, & some universal lessons which can be learned from this history.
Presented by Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger, and Ms. Susan Thomas of Syracuse University’s Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry

Dates & Times:
9am-430pm each day
Saturday, February 27 and Sunday, February 28, 2010

Place:
Yeager Center, California Baptist University

Fee:
75$ per person for Day 1 only
125$ per person for both days.
In order to attend Day 2, participants MUST first have attended Day 1.Reductions in the fee are available; contact the registrar.

Description of the presentations:
For each day, the entire morning, and part of the afternoon, are devoted to presentation of content. This is followed by open-ended questions-and-discussion for the remainder of the afternoon.

Using several hundred slides from many (often obscure) sources, this two-part presentation documents the evolution of major human service concepts and practices from ancient, informal, voluntary, unpaid personal helping forms to the largely commercialized patterns that we see today. Especially, illustrations of the architecture of human service settings will be used to show what the service patterns and assumptions were in a given era, and how they changed over time.

The first part of the presentation (Day 1) will sketch important prehistoric and pre-Christian antecedents of current human service patterns, and will show that the history of human services of all types in inextricably intertwined with the history of care for the poor, and of residential services. The evolution of human services into the late Medieval period will be traced, and the impact of the collapse of medieval services preceding and during the Reformation will be explained. The presentation will also explain the negative effects of political and economic changes during the period of absolutism in the 16th-17th centuries.

The second part of the presentation (Day 2) will explain how services became alienated from their valued cultural roots and analogues, and how service recipients of all kinds began to be interpreted as menaces and treated accordingly in brutalizing fashion. At the end of Day 2, universally applicable lessons from this historical review will be drawn, as well as some lessons that are more particular to contemporary services.

The entire presentation will demonstrate how the following current human service ideas evolved: that bigger services are better services; that afflicted people are a menace to society; that segregated services are preferable to integrated ones; and that service recipients should be thankful for what they receive from service workers. The presentation will demonstrate that human service concepts were propagated rather uniformly throughout the westernized world, and leapt across barriers of language, nations, and culture, as early as medieval times. Even then, there was an international human service community which was very well informed of innovations anywhere, so that innovation was often copied elsewhere as quickly as it is today. It will also show how human services are more effective when they are deeply rooted in the historical traditions and values of their culture, and that the drift of services away from cultural-rootedness and toward non-normative and culture-alien approaches contributes so much of the disfunctionality that infects current human service structures and practices.

The presentation as a whole will compellingly demonstrate that human services are full of practices which are now carried on unconsciously, but which are actually vestiges of distortions of practices that were originally instituted with high consciousness.

Even in advanced graduate training, there is very little teaching of this history of human services. This material is relevant to every human service worker, form those on the direct clinical level to those at the highest planning levels, including service professionals and non-professionals, clinicians, advocates, volunteers, administrators, planners, theorists, and analysts. Attendance at the presentation can help anyone gain a better understanding of the service challenges that confront them, some of the dangers that lurk everywhere, and what sorts of service patterns to strive for. Many people who have attended this presentation have remarked that it fundamentally altered their perception of many human service patterns and that it helped them to understand -often for the first time- some of the things they had witnessed, or of which they were a part, or to which they had contributed. Persons who have been through PASS or PASSING training will also find that the presentation can help them greatly to master the very challenging issue of “model coherency” of human services.

Each day there will be a break for lunch and short breaks in mid-morning and mid-afternoon. Because of the highly sequential nature of the material, no one may be admitted to Day 2 of the presentation who has not been to Day 1.

Who should attend:
The presentation is relevant to anyone who is involved in any way in any kind of human service to any societally devalued group in any service field. For instance, for people involved/interested in residential and institutional services, the presentation shows how various specialized institutions grew out of the multi-purpose institution and workhouses for all kinds of afflicted and poor people of the 1600-1700s, which in turn grew out of the small, early Christian hospices.

Of special interest to people who are involved/interested in nursing homes, medicine, and psychiatric services, the presentation will trace several practices and typical architectural styles found in current medical settings from their origins in the practices and structures of early Christian residential services for the sick, pilgrims, and the poor. For example, it will be shown how the nurses’ station evolved from the early Christian service practice of placing an alter in the service setting so that all people there could see and hear the Mass being said. Also, considerable coverage is given to the impact of infections disease, the role of leprosy and the plagues on the design of other kinds of services, and the role of “miasmic theory” of disease propagation. Similarly, the ties of hospitals and other medical settings to concentration and death camps will be documented. For example, the evolution of the tuberculosis sanitarium from the pesthouses of the 1500-1600s will be documented, as well as how different kinds of quarantine-related institutions contributed to the development of concentration camps. It will also be shown how some famous institution architectural designs that are still copied today grew out of the miasmic theory that human afflictions were passed on by winds and “vapors.” The negative features of the separation of medicine from its ties to philosophy and religion, and its conversion into an essentially materialistic science, will also be noted, particularly in regard to the field of psychiatry. Slides will be shown that illustrate the mechanical (and rather brutal) psychiatric treatment devices which sprang up mostly during the 1800s, largely in response to psychiatry’s rejection of the “moral treatment” reform of mental health services.

Of special interest to people involved/interested in prisons and corrections services, the presentation will show how many of the concepts in the prison system and prison architecture of today are actually corruptions and perversions of very noble ideals. For example, it will be shown how prisons lost their culturally normative appearance; that the guard station and gun emplacements in so many prisons are descendents of an earlier custom, in which the altar was the focal point of the setting; and how, over time, prisons came to be located away from population centers and to acquire all sorts of menace imagery.

To register
Contact Dr. Jeff McNair (California Baptist University, 8432 Magnolia Ave., Riverside, CA 92504, phone 951/689-5771, fax 951/343-4553, email:jmcnair@calbaptist.edu. Upon registration, registrants will receive information, including on accommodations.

This event is sponsored by,
The Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP)
The Disability Studies Institute at California Baptist University
California Baptist University Faculty
Inland Empire Autism Society of America (IEASA)

Like a child

2009-12-16T12:09:00.000-08:00

I haven't been blogging as much lately because I have been writing articles for several outlets. I am excited about the articles. Here is a cut from one article that has to do with Jesus and disability. I am sure the final will be much different from this passage, but it was helpful to think through this issue, even though it is still in rough stages. Here goes...

Let's begin this discussion with a story. The first author once interviewed a man with intellectual disabilities in front of one of his classes. When asked if he had a disability, the man responded, “I don’t know, I don’t think so.” The author responded, “Do you know anyone with a disability?”, knowing that the man knew many others with intellectual and physical disabilities. He looked up in thought, paused and thought for a moment. “I can’t think of any,” he replied. That, the authors would argue, is how God sees people. It is not that differences are not seen or even ignored. Is that disability is not the defining characteristic of a person. Persons have value because they are persons, not for the skills or abilities that are brought to the table. In reality, it is those who are most dependent who might be God’s preference. “He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him” (1 Corinthians 1:28 & 29). Also, “it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8 & 9). There is equality among people, and those who are the most gifted in terms of ability should not be catered to if the Christian or the Christian church is to reflect God’s preferences. If anything, those who are typical or above average are warned, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48).

Jesus also makes several allusions to people becoming like children and welcoming children or those who are like children. One must tread carefully as the point we are trying to make here is not that individuals with intellectual disabilities are children or should be treated like children. There is a danger in juxtaposing people with intellectual disabilities with anything that is child oriented as it feeds into inappropriate and wrong social constructions of who people with disabilities are (Wolfensberger, 2000). But Jesus tells us that we should have childlike faith, that we should humble ourselves like a child (Matthew 18:2-4) and that we should welcome little children (Matthew 18:5). Let’s consider each of these points briefly.

People with intellectual disabilities often do evidence a childlike faith in that they believe what they are told about God by those around them in a very unquestioning manner. Intellect, although a great blessing, may interfere with the childlike faith Jesus is referencing. This is not to say that faith is not based upon intellect, but that the complete trust in God, like a child trusts her parents, is what is desired. There is a questioning that comes with intellect that may interfere with a wholesale giving over of oneself to the person in whom one has faith, be it religious faith or just faith in another person. However, from the authors’ experience, this wholesale faith is able to be developed in persons with intellectual disabilities. It is unwavering and is an example to those who know individuals with such faith.

Then, Jesus celebrates those with the humility of a child. What is childlike humility? It is the basis of the relationship between a parent and a child. The parent is in charge, the child does what he is told to do. The child submits to the parent in all areas of life. This characteristic, once again, is something that is desirable in a follower of Jesus. It may be due to the dependence of people with intellectual disabilities on their families or care providers. Perhaps they recognize their need for support and direction, or perhaps they have simply accepted the fact that they have been relegated to the social status they experience. Either way, they model the humility that Jesus wants people to evidence in a faith relationship with him. Undoubtedly, the fierce independence and individualism of people with typical intelligence, are an impediment to the development of humility leading to faith, which God desires in his followers.

Thirdly, we are to welcome the little child. People with intellectual disabilities can be excellent at welcoming. As indicated in the story above, they may not even see a person’s disability, which is very childlike in the most positive of ways. Young children, in particular, are pure in the manner in which they do not reflect the social constructions of a society that will be taught to them intentionally or otherwise as they grow. These constructions cause people to be characterized in particular ways, specifically as acceptable or unacceptable. Because of a lack of understanding of social nuance, or their not being a part of the “in crowd” they may not be taught the concept of “other” and its impact on relationships. They most likely have experienced being treated as other, but even this notion is misunderstood as people just being unkind for no particular reason. People who treat me poorly because I am a person experiencing a disability, are not seen by me as reacting to my personal characteristics, but rather as just not very nice people.

From the perspective of the welcomer of a little child, some of the same issues that revolve around welcoming children relate to welcoming individuals with disabilities. We are not excused from welcoming should a person have social skill deficits, or not understand particular ideas, or need direction, or need support, or make demands on someone’s time and so forth. Rather, as with meeting the needs described in Matthew 25 “whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me” (Matthew 18:5). Welcoming someone with childlike characteristics is welcoming Jesus.

More to go on this but that is where it currently stands.
McNair

CBU online MA in Disability Studies to launch in January 2010

2009-12-16T12:05:00.000-08:00

The following is the announcement put out by California Baptist University.
You can also contact me via email should you have any questions. Not to late to join the very first cohort, but must act quickly.
McNair

ANNOUNCING CBU's Master of Arts in Disability Studies Online Program

**********************************************************************
Great news! The Master of Arts in Disability Studies Program at CBU is ready to begin online January 2010. If you would like to start the New Year by enrolling in this exciting program, it's not too late! Get your paperwork in by the first week of January. Classes begin the second week of January.

For information please contact:

Debbie Passalacqua
Assistant Director
CBU Graduate Admissions
8432 Magnolia Ave • Riverside • CA 92504
Phone: 951.343.4527 Toll Free: 877.228.8877

The death of evil

2009-12-10T16:25:00.000-08:00

I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio the other day. He is always very insightful. He made a comment something to the effect that society typically only recognizes evil when it is done...only recognizes evil when it is dead evil not when it is live evil. For example when we look back on things like slavery in America, or racial prejudice we see it for the evil that it is and was. Yet at the time it is as if many were blinded to the evil, perhaps denying that it even existed. Once again thinking about racial predjudice, one cannot imagine that dominant groups were unaware. Yet they may have been. I often have to caution my students when looking at issues of disability, that we look through 2009 eyes at problems that were not understood as problems in the 1960's. Or, if they were understood, it was only by a few. That doesn't mean that the problems were not problems or were not evil. But simply that we have had the benefit of years of societal evolution and analysis relative the events of the past such that they appear crystal clear to us.

I have the feeling that the church is beginning to wake up to the evil of exclusion of persons with disabilities. This is a very promising change, as if what Prager says is true, then perhaps we are beginning to see the death of that evil. I feel, sometimes, as if I am looking at the 1960s through 2009 eyes. I have stated elsewhere in this blog that I don't know why God has allowed me to see the injustice when so many are not even aware of it. I see the shock in my student's eyes when I ask them about their church experience, when they report on interviews with their pastors and when they are exposed to the information provided in class. It is literally as if dark glasses were taken off of their eyes. "I had no idea" is a common refrain. The good news is that they now have the equivalent of 2009 eyes looking at 1960 and Lord willing, this will cause them to make an impact for social justice in their own church settings.

If the Lord allows, I hope to be in a room someday, where, after years of inclusive attitudes by the church toward persons with disabilities, someone will say, "Remember then they used to exclude these people? I can't believe that people would have actually done that. What were they thinking?" I have had that experience relative to young people and issues of race. I hope to have the same experience relative to issues of disability, particularly in a church setting.

McNair

The 40 year old virgin

2009-12-07T08:33:00.000-08:00

Not too long ago, there was a movie out called The 40 year old virgin. I didn't see it, but I am confident I know the premise. How can a person be 40 years old and still be a virgin? For a Christian, the answer is easy although living up to the requirements is not as easy. For a Christian, a 40 year old virgin is someone who is not married and is doing their best to be obedient to God's commands. Society treats such persons as fools. I would honor such a person as a saint! You see if you are not married and you are not a 40 year old virgin, you are either living under God's forgiveness for your failings, or you are needing God's forgiveness for your failings. In the overwhelming majority of areas of my life, I am the former. I am living under God's forgiveness for my failings. But I want to take this discussion in a different direction. That is, if you are a person who is doing what is right, what you should be doing, you will not always be celebrated by society, you may actually be ridiculed, called a fool, or disdained. As a Christian, one of the best things you can do is learn to pay no attention to those in the world who would criticize you for doing the right thing, like being a 40 year old virgin if you are unmarried.

I have visited many special education classrooms for students with severe disabilities. Some teachers stand out from others as really getting it. In one of those settings, I supervised a teacher who was excellent at data collection on educational programs for her students. That is important because students who often make slow progress need teachers who are accountable to ensure that they are making progress. So this teacher who was one of the best in this area that I have seen, has become embarrassed about the fact she takes data. Why? Because those around her tease her about her efforts to be accountable. As a result, she at times does not share the hard work, good work, that she has been doing.

In my classes for teachers who teach students with severe disabilities, I often tell them that there will be great pressure on them to be mediocre. Believe it or not, it often comes from the districts and from other teachers. People are often threatened by excellence because it shows them it can be done, and may make those over them expect excellence of them as well. So what do they do? They tease and criticize those who are doing well in order to protect the marginal way they are doing things, are doing their work. Rather than seeing themselves as a part of a team, they see themselves not wanting to raise their standards.

Albert Pujols is arguably one of the best baseball players ever. But imagine if his teammates teased and criticized him about how many home runs, or RBIs or MVP trophies he received. Rather than criticize, they should celebrate him. He not only makes them look good as a part of their team, he raises the standard for them to aim at, and shows them what excellence can actually look like.

That is what good teachers need to do. I talk to those in the administration above my teachers, and I know the kinds of things THEY say about excellent teachers. They are extremely grateful to have teachers who are doing it right, whose standard is not the positive regard of their peers who do not reflect the best practices. So if you are doing your best to serve your students, to serve God through your work, ignore your detractors who fear that you make them look bad.

McNair

Faith Structures

2009-11-05T14:07:00.000-08:00

I am in the process of finishing up an article about faith formation in individuals with disabilities. For those who are not affected intellectually by their disability, perhaps most of the questions one might have about faith development are pretty much the same. There might be additional questions about God's sovereignity, about what might be expected of the Body of Christ in terms of support and understanding, and generally the social consequences of disability. These aspects of life need faith answers in addition to just life answers. When one is the recipient of negative social attitudes one wonders where God is in all of it. Even in the best of social situations, one wonders about the difficulties one faces on a daily basis, and leans heavily on God for support.

I have heard Joni Eareckson-Tada say something to the effect that when she wakes up some mornings, she prays hard that God would give her a smile to give to her care provider to start her day. That beautiful smile does not always come naturally and I think Joni would agree that at times it is the result of supernatural intervention.

So there are aspects of faith development that are unique to persons with disabilities that are not related to their intellect.

At the same time, as I have been thinking about faith development as it relates to people with intellectual disabilities, particularly severe disabilities, I have wondered about what the research literature sometimes refers to as the structures of faith. Faith development research often uses these structures to measure faith development. Lets put aside, for a moment, that these structures are somewhat generic which in and of itself may be problematic as they may imply that the content of faith is somehow less important in faith development than the structures are. Obviously for the Christian, nothing could be further from the truth. But what if you were really unable to comprehend the content of your faith or your faith group. How might one develop "faith" in these people?

As I have thought through this, I think that I have come to the position that I will work to develop faith structures as the focus of faith development for these individuals. What are these structures? Things like loving other people, participating in traditions, being a member/a part of a larger group, and receiving love and acceptance from people within the group. These things which are related to faith might provide the best evidence of whether one is growing. I will admit that one might grow in these areas independent of the content of one's faith. I will also admit that I trust God in the lives of persons with severe disabilities, and I try to understand the lesson of Luke 5:20's statement about Jesus seeing "their" faith and the impact of the faith of those around the disabled man on his own life. Perhaps in some way, the faith of the body impacts the development of the faith of the intellectually disabled person although it might only be measurable in faith structures.

McNair

Amos Yong on theology and disability

2009-10-29T14:27:00.000-07:00

Dr. Amos Yong of Regent university, was recently honored by being appointed to the J. Rodman Williams chair. In the speech he provided upon receiving the honor, he spoke about issues of church and disability. He spoke about the centrality of people with disabilities to the church. I found his presentation really remarkable, and would encourage anyone who follows this weblog to view his remarks. Go here, and the video will load.

http://www.regent.edu/admin/media/fms/butterfly/butterflyURL.cfm?address=3000148

If you are interested in remarks regarding the chair itself and the man who is its namesake, you can just let the video run.

But if you are interested in Dr. Yong's remarks, move the cursor on the control bar that indicates the loading/movement through the presentation to the first red line on the right of the bar. That is where his presentation begins.

The presentation is excellent. As I wrote to him, I suspect many theologians have never thought the ideas he shared, let alone spoke them.

McNair

Corporate Faith

2009-10-23T11:35:00.000-07:00

In relation to persons experiencing various disabilities, discussion must be made of aspects of corporate faith versus individual faith. 1 Corinthians 13 tells us that one can speak in tongues of men, be a prophet, move mountains, give everything to the poor, even sacrifice one’s own life, but without love you gain nothing. For those with disabilities who look at the Christian church, and for those within the church who have the awareness to self evaluate, one must ask what we have to offer those with disabilities in terms of faith development because we have lacked love, toward them. We focus on all these things which are described as less important in comparison to love and think we have the ability to grow their faith. We show favoritism to particular people in the face of warnings against such favoritism (James 2:1-13) and then expect to grow their faith.

For many, perhaps most churches, corporate faith development has to precede individual faith development of individuals with disabilities because as a friend with severe physical disabilities once commented to me, “Why would I go to them for help when they have already indicated they have no interest in me?” The church’s corporate faith is in many ways a prerequisite to developing the individual faith of members with disabilities. Many who have endeavored to include persons with various disabilities in local churches for the very purpose of increasing their faith are often frustrated by the lack of faith, the lack of understanding of who God is, their lack of trust in God and dependence upon themselves and their ignorance and actual disdain for God’s desires for all people evidenced in the leadership of churches. What is revealed about what faith is when faith leaders are comfortable with the exclusion of persons with disabilities? Would one go for piano lessons from someone who cannot play the piano or plays poorly with no interest in improving and doesn’t even particularly like the piano? For faith development to occur at local churches there needs to be a change in the understanding of what faith requires in local churches. Why would I possibly want to learn the faith of a group who would exclude me? To tweak the famous Groucho Marx line a bit, “I would not join any group that would not want me as a member.” People with disabilities will not be drawn to a Christian church that does not want them as a member. People with disabilities will not be drawn to a Christian faith that is comfortable with their exclusion. Why would people with disabilities want to learn and grow in the Christian faith if it does not see them as a priority? It doesn’t take Bible knowledge to understand that such a stance is evidence of a lack of faith, whatever the faith of the group is. For the Christian faith, such exclusion indicates that at worst, the faith is not at all Christian, and at best sinful behavior.

McNair

"Favoritism Forbidden"

2009-10-22T10:45:00.000-07:00

The NIV version of the Bible that I have, provides the heading to chapter 2 of James with the phrase, "Favoritism Forbidden." The passage then goes on to the say the following.

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine chothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or Sit on the floor by my feet, " have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen my dear brothers: Has not God chosen thowe who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?"

Later it says,

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself" you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

A friend and leader in disability ministry who has a son with severe disabilities told me a story the other day. A couple of weeks back, he dropped of his son who does not have a disability at the Sunday school of a church he was considering attending. He asked one of the helpers about whether there was a program for his other son who had severe disabilities. At that moment, the pastor walked by. The Sunday school worker stopped him and asked about whether there was a spot for the son with severe disabilities in the children's program. He responded, "We are not equipped to serve children with autism."

Have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

I wish this were less common than it is. I think that just as faith without works is dead (the next chapter of this section of scripture) I would argue that love with exclusion is dead. This child with severe disabilities is being excluded through no fault of his own. He has done nothing that should cause him to be excluded. But because of who he is, arguably because of the way that God has created him, he is deemed by the church to be excludable. This is disobedience. And as the second quote states, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." Is it not obvious that this church is therefore, this PASTOR is therefore guilty of breaking the law. Yet this behavior is still considered acceptable.

It never ceases to amaze me that people will say things that are so evident of disobedience. I might think disobedient thoughts, but to share them with a parent who has experienced the challenges of raising a child with disability such a dismissive statement based clearly on favoritism is somewhat breath taking.

McNair

MA in Disability Studies at CBU

2009-10-20T22:15:00.001-07:00

California Baptist University to launch its new MA degree in Disability Studies in January of 2010. The degree is entirely online. We are accepting applications for the first cohort now through the end of November. Applications need to be completed by December 1. Spring classes will be taught by Dr. Jeff McNair, and Prof. Kathi McNair. For more information, check out the website, http://calbaptist.edu/disabilitystudies or you can contact Dr. McNair directly at jmcnair@calbaptist.edu or by phone at 951-343-4489.

This program received WASC accreditation Summer of 2008 and has received significant input and support from the Joni and Friends organization whom we consider our partners.

So please contact Dr. McNair with questions or to request an application or you can visit the website above for more information.

Prophetic presence

2009-09-30T13:28:00.000-07:00

prophet-a person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom a divinity expresses his will

People with intellectual disabilities are a prophetic presence to the Christian church in that they cause the church to become what it has the potential to be merely by their presence. By this I mean, when a person with an intellectual disability is present, their presence changes me in terms of what I am able to do, and what I might now be required to do. If I don't reject them, they will cause me to be a servant, they will cause me to look outside of myself and not be as preoccupied with myself. They will cause me to step back and consider what is really important in life and in human interactions. They will grow my faith in what is sometimes the messiness of their lives that needs help through no fault of their own. They will teach me to love them when they stretch me with atypcial social skills. They need not do anything but be, and they speak through their presence, they challenge through their presence.

I can also exclude their prophetic voice in a variety of ways. I can simply not allow them to be present. I can make deliberate efforts to exclude them. I can claim I didn't know they were out there in the community. I can say they are not a priority.

I can also remove them from the church and create disabled churches. Those who create these settings are very well intentioned.

I do not question their motives.

However, they have an absolutely WRONG notion of the Body of Christ and what it should be. They take what are perhaps the most weak, the most challenging members, and take them away from the larger body. By doing that, they allow the church to continue on on its self absorbed way, not having to change in response to the prophetic presence of people with disabilities. Using 1 Corinthians 12:22 once again, they take the indispensable parts away from the Body, thinking they are doing something helpful. Yes the intellectually disabled adults are happy in their segregation as are the nondisabled adults happy in their lack of integration. But both are WRONG. I cannot take a group of people and decide I don't need them to be with me (check 1 Corinthians again) and those who do these segregated churches are actually doing harm to the larger Body of Christ because they are removing the prophetic presence from the larger church that would cause it to change.

But people celebrate these types of programs because they are uninformed or have never critically thought through the issues involved. Once again, I don't question their motives. However, there are many people who do things that are not good things to do for the best of motives. I will not generate a list here, but segregated churches for people with disabilities is definitely on that bad idea/good motivation list. No doubt.

Who am I talking about? Here is an example. There is a Christian magazine called World. In the recent issue, they list one of these segregated churches as among those being considered for a special award. I don't mean to be unkind but I honestly pray that group will not receive the award, because it sends the exact wrong message about what the church should be doing relative to persons with disabilities. The answer is not to separate them from those without disabilities but to fully integrate them so that their prophetic presence will change us to be what God intends us to be. Both World magazine and this group are actually impeding the prophetic presence, and by impeding their presence, they impede the prophetic will of God.

McNair

Coffee worship

2009-09-29T20:50:00.000-07:00

Often when I go to church, I notice that people take a cup of coffee into the worship service. Now I don't really care whether or not they do that. I was at a church recently, where I bet 10-15% of the congregation were drinking coffee during the "worship" service. Not very many people, but enough that you would notice it.

But, I have often wondered about what worship is perhaps because of how I see it expressed in churches. Singing songs is worship. Singing songs with a cup of coffee in your hands is also worship, I guess, because churches serve coffee to worshippers and don't discourage coffee drinking during the service. So the expectation is that Christians, for whatever reason, cannot do without coffee for an hour in order to be totally focussed on worship to the God they claim to have dedicated their lives to.

You can search this blog and see my questions about worship in terms of what it is or isn't. The thing that disturbs me is not that practitioners like me might be confused, but rather that those in leadership apparently are confused. I guess I could wash people's feed with a latte in my hand or serve the poor, or work with the homeless all while I am sipping my coffee. Imagine standing before a judge or meeting with an important person like the president and walking in with a coffee cup in your hand. That would be considered disrespectful because it in some ways trivializes the interaction. But imagine even more if those in leadership encouraged you to do so. In relationship to worship, that tells me a great deal about who they think God is. God is trivial, not to be taken entirely seriously. "Go ahead and have your coffee while you worship the God of the universe."

This absolutely corresponds to my responsibility to my neighbor, by the way. If worship is trivialized, where I need not respect God, why should I not also trivialize the needs of my neighbor, or ignore them for that matter? This is further evidence of the Christian church's malaise. Muslims pray to Mecca repeatedly in a totally humbling position. Other faiths go through rigorous preparations in order to even enter the presence of their gods.

But hey, for Christians worship is really no big deal. Grab a latte and while you are sipping it, maybe give God a nod because it will make him happy. He likes it when people take a few seconds from their totally self absorbed lives to notice him during the worship service. Are we really so damned dependent on coffee that we can't leave it alone for just one hour a week in order to give God, the respect he deserves? I guess I actually do care...

McNair

Responsibility of disability professionals

2009-09-17T16:27:00.000-07:00

In the last year or so, I have done several presentations to teachers groups and human service provider groups. The presentation has been very well received, and will probably become an article someday...

The idea is that when professionals look at the lives of people with disabilities, particularly special education professionals, they tend to look for 3 outcomes that they are attempting to facilitate. The first is a job that either provides a decent wage, or at least allows the worker the opportunity to contribute to the community through some form of useful service. The second is a place to live that is safe and allows access to the things of life that the individual wants to have access to. These two outcomes are what agencies are most typically interested in facilitating. Organizations are characterized as successful or unsuccessful on the basis of their success or lack thereof in these two areas. However, the third outcome that is desired issatisfying social relationships. That those with disabilities have the ability to choose the people they would desire to be with and that they could maintain contact with family and friends. Ultimately that they would develop a personal, social network.

I then tell the audience that if I was to ask you, "What is the most important thing in your life?" and you responded by talking about your job or your house, most of society would think that is pretty sad. You see the most important thing is the people in our lives be they friends, family, coworkers, etc. Relationships are the most important of the 3 outcomes. However, facilitating, helping to develop relationships and to maintain existing relationships are largely not on the radar screen of those who are working in human services. In fact many programs deliberately prevent the development of social relationships in the name of "protecting" those who have disablities.

My wife and I spend time with friends of ours who are adults with intellectual disabilities who live in group homes. The group homes we are involved with happen to be very good ones as those types of settings go. However, I will tell you that the regulations placed upon those who run those homes just about make them into a prison for those who live there. They experience group regulation, and the owners are so afraid of those from licensing, that they fear to allow their residents access to the community because of fines, losing their license, etc. I have shared the following story elsewhere in this blog, however, it bears repeating.

In order for me to have a friendship with the men who live in the home, I have to be fingerprinted. Now trust me, I recognize that this is done only to protect the adults from potential abuse, but just step back and realize that in order for a man living in a group home to have a friendship with someone from the community, someone who is not paid to be with him, that individual has to pay 60-80$. In my case, it was 61$ that was paid in order for me to be able to develop a friendship with 5 men who were living in a home in the community but who were totally socially isolated. When the regulatory folks found out about me, the reviewed the report done by the local police and fined the group home $500 because one of the addresses was wrong (the report was sent to me instead of being sent directly to the group home). I then had to be re-finger printed in order to have access to my friends there. So in the end, it cost a typical person from the community $620 to have a friendship with 5 socially isolated adults with intellectual disabilities. But that isn't the end of it. I will sometimes take a couple of the men to my university, where they are taken out to dinner by students, interviewed, and then finish out the evening with me at Starbucks. Rather than celebrating the fact that a local university professor took an interest in socially isolated people, the group home owner was once again warned about the "inappropriateness" of these individuals going to a university class. In the end, threats were given, and only the member of the home who has the intellectual ability to lie, has been given the opportunity to attend the university with me. When asked by the social workers whether she went out to the university, she responds "No" and they leave her alone. The men when asked, would talk about the people they met, the food they ate, the great cup of coffee they drank and as a result of that, the group home owner was threatened and they can no longer go with me.

Of course all this is frustrating. But the point of this rant is to encourage disability professionals to become involved in the lives of persons with disabilities for at least 2 reasons.

First, if professionals are not involved in these lives who will be? Professionals need to set the example for the larger community with their own personal lives. I tell audiences that I am proud of the fact that my children (now adults) know the names of perhaps 50 adults with intellectual disabilities, because they have been in my home. I don't just expect others to be integrated with people with various disabilities, I try to recruit them into my own life. I do that because they are people worthy of knowing, worthy of friendship. I give them the choice of having a friendship with me, and sadly they always say "Yes". It is sad because I may be their only choice for friendship with a person who is not regulated like them, or is not paid to be with them. In many ways I am a very rare individual in their lives if only for those characteristics.

Second, professionals need to be involved because the more they are the more they will experience the kinds of frustrations that I have experienced over the years. It is the professionals who have the ability to make changes in the way services are provided. They have the ability to advocate for people who often don't even realize that they are experiencing discrimination and are having their rights abridged. The fact that things are the way they are is sufficient evidence for me that professionals have not involved people with disabilitie in their personal lives because if they had, they would be much less satisfied with the services they are providing. I wonder what it will take to wake professionals to their responsibility to those they have devoted their lives to professionally.

McNair

Christian Horizons in Ethiopia

2009-09-10T11:11:00.000-07:00

As noted in this blog, Kathi and I along with our son Josh, went to Ethiopia this past summer to work on issues related to disability. Kathi and I did a doctoral seminar at the University of Addis Ababa and then went on to do work in the city of Asela.
However, when we decided to go to Ethiopia, we didn't realize the breadth of the vision of Christian Horizons, and in particular Michael Alemu for this part of the world.

Christian Horizons, a nonprofit out of Canada is doing nothing less then trying to start special education programs in the nation of Ethiopia! They have developed a workable model, have the blessings of the government, and are in the process of trying to train 1000 teachers over the next 5 years. Their model, at present, is to provide an intensive 1 month teacher training program. Kathi and I were involved in providing input into the further development of that curriculum. They will then place the teachers in local school districts, and the government will pay them as regular teachers. They also have a program whereby donations can be made to establish special education classrooms at local schools. Money donated goes to the refurbishing or remodeling of available space, some material and furniture purchase, and the assigning of a teacher. As available, curriculum is also purchased.

The plan is to fine tune a model for special ed delivery, which might be spread throughout the country of over 70 million, and then perhaps move also into southern Sudan and Kenya! It is a very exciting project.

I love the fact that a Christian group goes into a country and assists the government to promote social justice for its own citizens. The group goes in and facilitates a community good, and does it in the name of Christ. Very cool! In training sessions for community leaders, parents, people with disabilities, and even religious leaders from other faiths (particularly Islam) there was openness and a spirit of collaboration with the Christian group. We did our best to put aside our differences and work toward the justice end we were all seeking.

We also had the opportunity to speak with Christian groups as well. Both in churches, and in pastoral training. They (and we) feel that the two objectives go hand in hand. The church needs to offer the spiritual component as well as facilitate greater community integration of those with disabilities. We shared biblical principles about disability which were very well received. It is such a delight to share this information from the Bible. Whether in America or the west, or in places like Ethiopia, people have literally NEVER heard the truths of the Bible regarding disability. They are literally like deer in the headlights, totally amazed at what can be found, but have never heard. It is wonderful to be the purveyor of that new, exciting, encouraging information! It is also disheartening to think that generations of people have never heard the good news of the Bible ABOUT DISABILITY. So sad.

So keep Christian Horizons and its work in Ethiopia/Eastern Africa in your prayers! They are working to increase the access of children with disabilities from the less than 1% currently in the public schools. How exciting to think that a NGO from Canada could step into another country and facilitate such a blow for social justice.

McNair

"Pulled up by the roots"

2009-09-08T14:31:00.000-07:00

From my journal, 7/6 in Ukraine (we were in Lutsk at that time)

I have often quoted the sections from Mark 7. In particular, verses 6,7,8,9 & 13. In a nutshell, "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding onto the traditions of men." As I was sitting here, I asked God if he would give me a new insight, and as he always does, he did.

The same basic story is in Matthew 15:1-20 but with some interesting differences.
v3. "Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
v11. "what goes into a man's mouth does not make him "unclean" but what comes out of his mouth that is what makes him "unclean"
v13 Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots...They are blind guides, leave them.
v18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart and these make a man "unclean"
v19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man "unclean"

In v11, we learn that what comes out of his mouth...probably also his actions, what he does makes him unclean. Rejection implies a lack of love which might be considered a form of "uncleanness."
V13 is amazing! It implies drastic action and is actually violent. Pulling a plant out by its roots implies removing any trace of it so it can never grow back. Like pulling up the weeds in your garden. You don't just cut off the top, you pull up the whole thing so there is no trace of it and it will never grow back.

Jesus also does this with healing on the Sabbath, and clearing out the money changers. He confronts these wrong traditions head on and unapologetically. This is seen in the disciples' response, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?" But jesus does not relent. "Leave them they are blind guides." Wow, blind guides. "If a blind man leads a blind man both will fall into a pit" (v14).

And what is "corban," the original focus of this passage? It is an excuse for not doing what I should be doing towards other people (parents in this case).

So lets pull this rambling all together. The Pharisees' traditions had morphed into practices that were contrary to the commands of God. In actually corban was a way to get out of obligations to parents that the children were to follow. But in ways that were perceived as "benefitting" the church, the traditions were developed and passed on. Jesus comes along, and says tradition that contradicts the commands of God are going to be pulled up like weeds at the roots so that there will be no trace of them. He also said that the religious leaders were blind guides, leading others to fall into a pit (along with themselves). When Jesus confronted them they were offended but he didn't care. He actually said that they did a lot of things like that (meaning traditions over the commands of God). Church leaders can say nice things, like God loves us all the same, or we are all equal at the foot of the cross, but the things that come out of me (even if my words are nice) in the form of the actions of the church and its leaders are the things that make them unclean. People with disabilities are not embraced to the degree they should be by the church and its agents. Therefore, by the teaching provided above, they are unclean in the discrimination that is coming out of them.

McNair

Prevention of intellectual and developmental disabilities

2009-09-01T10:52:00.000-07:00

Prevention of intellectual and developmental disabilities is the title of an opinion piece in the August 2009 AAIDD journal. It is written by Dr. Wayne Silverman and takes up prevention using a presentation by Alan Guttmacher, currently the acting director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

I do not doubt that Dr. Silverman and his colleagues who consulted with him on this article are humanitarians. I also don't doubt they think they are doing what is best for persons with disabilities.

But a comment was made in the article which is just so troubling. Here is the comment

"Current research in genomics, as well as many other areas, is intended to improve understanding of the fundamental causes of disability to reduce risk, thereby lowering incidence of impairments and minimizing their severity. Should these goals be realized, the decrease, perhaps dramatically, and in some distant future significant impairments might even be eliminated altogether. As unachievable as that ultimate goal might appear to be, an assumption supporting many of the programs and much of the research agenda in the field of developmental disabilities is that we, as a society and as individuals, would be better off if physical, mental and cognitive impairments ceased to exist"(p. 320) (Silverman, W. (2009), Prevention of intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 4, 320-322)

I am not sure the world would be better off if the impairments experienced by people ceased to exist. Perhaps, perhaps for individuals it would be better, however, for society as a whole, I am not sure of whether the world would be a better place should I need to have little or no responsibility for others in the community who were dependent on me. If you think our society is self-indulgent now, can you imagine what a self-indulgent society we would have if we weren't faced with the challenges that take our eyes off of ourselves, and place them on our neighbors?

A key phrase for me from the above is also where it says that there might be cures, "in some distant future." Look at the genetic information we currently have. Take down's syndrome for example. Some research indicates that 90% of parents choose to abort children with down's syndrome when prenatal diagnosis information is provided. So, as we await this distant future, people armed with genetic information will not prevent conditions, not prevent disabilities, they will kill people with those conditions and disabilities. It is breathtaking to be so naive as to not see this. It is not a question of prevention of disability. It is a question of killing people with disabilities and calling it "preventing disability."

Later, Silverman does make the comment,

"Furthermore, it must be emphasized that one of the most pressing issues facing our field has been conspicuously avoided in these examples: elective pregnancy termination based on the results of prenatal screening and diagnosis. Consideration of this critically important subject, along with negative biases of many clinicians toward developmental disability (see Bauer, 2008), must be a major part of any dialogue about prevention.(p. 321)

Do we understand, that in the real world today, the overwhelmingly utilized means of "prevention" is "elective pregnancy termination"? Elective pregnancy termination means, abortion, or killing the disabled baby. Can we really enter this discussion "leaving the issue of life and death aside"? That is the issue. We are killing people and calling that prevention. If we can prevent disability without killing people or doing other evil in the process, I am with you. However, the fact that there are decreasing rates of down's syndrome is the result of killing. That is the world I do not want to live in. People with disabilities do not have their disabilities prevented they have their lives taken. Dr. Hans Reinders makes the point in his book, The future of the disabled in liberal society, that if people suffer from down's syndrome, they suffer because of the way they are treated by society, not from the condition itself. So how do we address the negative attitudes of society? We kill the person they have the negative attitudes toward...we foolishly do NOT attempt to change the society.

Later in the article, Dr. Silverman states,

"Even leaving the issue of life and death aside, though, an outspoken segment of our community vehemently opposes prevention. As expressed by the final comment from the audience at Guttmacher's (2008) plenary presentation identifying "the elephant in the room," some among us would "not want to live" in a world without intellectual and developmental disabilities. The commitment of this gentleman and his like-minded colleagues is beyond question, as is their regard for individuals with disabilities. However other people share this commitment yet endorse the concept of prevention (although not necessarily all the strategies for possible implementation). The real elephant in the room, then, seems to be the question of whether a high regard for individuals with developmental disability inherently conflicts with support for prevention of the impairments affecting those very same people." (p. 321)

I was the person he referred to as making the last comment at the conference. You can see my response to the presentation here in a different blog entry.

I was the person mentioned above, but I was misunderstood...
Of course if there was a cure for autism I would be in favor of people with autism and their families having access to it. Of course I celebrate the medical accomplishment related to PKU. If my children had mental illness, of course I would do what I could to prevent THE MENTAL ILLNESS. From a Christian perspective, even though we see the passage where God indicates that He makes people blind or deaf (Exodus: 4:11) we also see Jesus healing a person who was born blind (John 9:3). So healing of disability is great! But you see, that is not what is going to happen.

The cataloging of the human genome will result in people being able to prenatally diagnose more conditions than ever before. So until the "distant future" that is dreamed of, we will increasingly be living in a world where people with disabilities are fewer and fewer because they are being killed as infants or young children. There are those who think that it is wonderful and that we truly are "better off if physical, mental and cognitive impairments ceased to exist." The repercussions of this statement are staggering in their potential for evil because people are equated with impairments so to say we would be better off if the conditions did not exist is tantamount to saying that the people should not exist.

I am confident that this is NOT what the authors are suggesting.

Yes there is a nuanced difference but 99% of the population will not see it.

As I stated, the article was an opinion in the Perspectives section of the journal.

Well, in my opinion, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities is either very naive, or simply doesn't get it.

McNair

Works of mercy

2009-08-17T15:18:00.000-07:00

I have been reading a wonderful book that is called "Dorothy Day: Selected Writings" (edited by Robert Ellsberg, Orbis press, 1983) which chronicles the writings of Dorothy Day over her life. She was a Catholic, started The Catholic Worker newspaper, a radical, and pretty much an unapologetic communist, in the purest form of the word. She mostly wrote about poverty, and societal ills, and I have grown to love her ideas. She was greatly influenced by Peter Maurin (who I have discussed elsewhere in this blog).

Here is a quote from Day

Its time there was a Catholic paper printed for the unemployed. The fundamental aim of most radical sheeds is the conversion of its readers to Radicalism and Atheism.

Is it not possible to be radical and not atheist?

Is it not possible to protest, to expose, to complain, to point out abuses and demand reforms without desiring the overthrow of religion?

In an attempt to popularize and make known the encylicals of the Popes in regard to social justice and the program put forth by the Church for the "reconstruction of the social order," this news sheet, The Catholic Worker, is started. (p. 51)

"Is it not possible to be radical and not atheist?" I love that! We need a generation of Christian radicals. People so radical in their love for Jesus, and their working on behalf of social justice, that they become the object of attention by the FBI as Dorothy Day was.

I could easily quote 75% of the book here, it is wonderful, but let me put one more extended quote from a section called "The Scandal of the Works of Mercy" (p, 98-100)

The Spiritual Works of Mercy are: to admonish the sinner, to instruct the ignorant, to counsel the doubtful, to comfort the sorrowful, to bear wrongs patiently, to forgive all injuries, and to pray for the living and the dead.

The Corporeal Works are to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to ransom the captive, to harbor the harborless, to visit the sick, and to bury the dead.

When Peter Maurin talked about the necessity of practicing the Works of Mercy, he meant all of them. He envisioned Houses of Hospitality in poor parishes in every city of the country, where these precepts of Our Lord could be put into effect. He pointed out that we have turned to state responsibility through home relief, social legislation, and social security, that we no longer practice personal responsibility, but are repeating the words of the first murderer, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

The Works of Mercy are a wonderful stimulus to our growth in faith as well as love. Our faith is taxed to the utmost and so grows through this strain put upon it. It is pruned again and again, and springs up bearing much fruit. For anyone starting to live literally the words of the Fathers of the Church - "The bread you retain belongs to the hungry, the dress you lock up is the property of the naked"; "What is superfluous for one's need is to be regarded as plunder if one retains it for one's self" - there is always a trial ahead. "Our faith, more precious than gold, must be tried as through fire."

Here is a letter I received today: "I took a gentleman seemingly in need of spiritual and temporal guidance into my home on a Sunday afternoon. Let him have a nap on my bed, went through the want ads with him, made coffee and sandwiches for him, and when he left, I found my wallet had gone also."

I can only say that the saints would only bow their heads and not try to understand or judge. They received no thanks - well, then, God had to repay them. They forbore to judge, and it was as though they took of their cloak besides their coat to give away. This is expecting heroic charity, of course. But these things happen for our discouragement, for our testing. We are sowing the seed of love, and we are not living in the harvest time. We must love to the point of folly, and we are indeed fools, as Our Lord Himself was who died for such a one as this. We lay down our lives too, when we have performed so painfully thankless an act, for our correspondent is poor in this world's goods. It is agony to go through such bitter experiences, because we all want to love, we desire with great longing to love our fellows, and our hearts are often crushed as such rejections. But as a Carmelite nun said to me last week, "It is a crushed heart which is the soft heart, the tender heart."

...Well, our friend has suffered from his experience and it is part of the bitterness of the poor, who cheat each other, who exploit each other even as they are exploited, who despise each other even as they are despised.

And it is to be expected that virtue and destitution should go together. No, as John Cogley has written, they are the destitute in every way, destitute of the world's goods, destitute of honor, of gratitude, of love, they need so much that we cannot take the Works of Mercy apart and say I will do this one or that one Work of Mercy. We find they all go together...

Do I need to make the connection between these words and the experience of persons with various disabilities? "it is to be expected that virtue and destitution should go together." Might I ask whether there is virtue in my life if there is no person experiencing destitution in my life? I am confronted by my lack of personal responsiblity for others as being reflective of the words of the first murderer. I am confronted by my wealth, I probably have 10 pairs of jeans in my closet, and think about how I contribute to plundering the naked. It is not just about "downsizing" the things we own, it is thinking about how there are people in your community who cannot afford a pair of jeans, let alone the rest of the world.

SO it must imply that I must deny myself the things I can afford for myself and conscientiously take money and make other people's lives better. How many guitars, how many computers, how many (fill in the blank for you) do you need, when there are whose who live in poverty, because of their disability in your own community. After I read this section of Day's book, I looked at my closet in shock and immediately began to think about how I could live differently.

It is the Godly sorrow that I mentioned a couple of blogs back that begins with repentence. That is where I am at the moment, repentence. But I must move forward to an eagerness to examine myself, to clear myself so I can look at my closet with some degree of confidence that I have repented. Read this passage from Day above again, then revisit the 2 Corinthians 7:8-11 section. It will make you feel guilty but it might also do you, and a lot of poor people, many of whom are disabled, in your community and around the world, some good.

James 2:14 is a challenge to us... What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

McNair

Simon the shoe maker

2009-08-11T07:22:00.000-07:00

In Cairo, there is a Coptic Christian church called "the hanging church" which is old and absolutely beautiful. In the entrance hallway to the church there are several mosaics depicting a miracle which allowed the church to be built. The story is told that the bishop wanted to build a church. However, the land they owned was on the side of a mountain and could not be built upon. However, the Moslems in the city had plenty of land. The bishop went to the Moslem leaders and asked for some land. The Moslem leader replied that in the Bible, there is the part where Jesus says that if someone has faith the size of a mustard seed, he can move mountains. So they could just ask God to move the mountain if they had enough faith. The bishop was very disturbed. He wanted to believe that through faith he could move mountains, but doubted. He got the congregation to fast and pray for 3 days asking the Lord what to do. In some manner (I don't remember how) God appeared to him in a dream telling him that there was a man in the city who had the faith required to move the mountain (see picture of priest dreaming and him being shown the cobbler). The man was Simon the cobbler. So the bishop found him and asked him to pray that the mountain would be removed. He did and there was an earthquake that moved the mountain! (see picture of the miracle occurring with the sun shining through the crack in the mountain on the left side of the picture) The church was then built.

This story struck me in a variety of ways, but what touched me was that God knew who had the most faith in the city, and it was the cobbler, not the bishop or any of his priests. There is a great lesson in this story about faith, and people, and how God sees the world. I have stated elsewhere in this blog that when I speak to my group of friends, many of whom have intellectual disabilities, I do not stand before them as the one with the greatest faith, or the greatest morality. I may have been given the greatest opportunities, but that only makes me all the more accountable for the fact that I am not the one with the greatest faith or morality or love for others. No, I am confident that one of the adults with disabilities has the greatest faith and that causes me to approach all of them in a much different manner. You see the thing that is the most important thing in life, Faith in God, they may have gotten correct. Their complete faith is the stuff that can move mountains.

However, the church and too often me as well, focus on things that are NOT very important in God's eyes. (see close up of Simon the cobbler at left) Things like appearance and intellect. My friends with intellectual disabilities would be high on God's list for praying to move mountains, or loving others in a Godly manner. I wonder how far down on the list pastors and church leaders actually are. They might be very embarrassed to find out.

I believe in the prayers of my intellectually disabled friends for these very reasons. I know of their faith and I know of their love. So I truly do covet their unpretentious, simple prayers spoken out of faith and love.

McNair

Godly Sorrow

2009-08-10T21:42:00.000-07:00

Kathi and I just returned from a trip to Ukraine and Ethiopia. While in Ethiopia, I was asked to do a morning devotional for the team I was a part of. I wondered about how to integrate the things we had been experiencing there. The poverty is overwhelming to see. As I looked around I saw a section in the back of the Bible that addresses or offers verses related to how someone might be feeling. Sorrow was one of the listings with the verse, 2 Corinthians 7:8-11. Verses 10 and 11 jumped out at me in particular. "Godly sorrow brings repentance" and then later, "See what this Godly sorrow has produced in you; what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done."

As I reflected on these things, I noted that
1. My time in Ethiopia has brought out a kind of Godly sorrow when I see the poverty and know my wealth.
2. It brings out a kind of repentance in a Luke 12:48 (to whom much is given much is expected) kind of way.
3. Looking at verse 11, Godly sorrow brings about
-earnestness - honesty with myself and others
-eagerness to examine myself - What can I do? How can I help? How do I contribute to the bad?
-indignation - what I see should not be
-alarm - something must be done immediately
-longing - for a different reality for people, that God's kingdom would come
-concern - for people who have no work, little means for livelihood, a weak or poor government, no safety net
- a desire to see justice done - in the lives of the people, poor and disabled who I met in Ethiopia.

This section of scripture almost strikes me as a recipe for integrating such a mission experience as one works through each of the aspects of the verses, ending with a readiness to see justice done. It is almost as if there are steps in a process that brings us to a point where the Godly sorrow late led to repentance, now takes us to the place where we are prepared to to what is necessary, to make the sacrifices, to see justice done when perhaps prior to embracing the Godly sorrow, we had not humbled ourselves to the point of wanting to see justice done. Before we weren't ready, but now we are.

The Christian church needs to work through this process in regard to persons with disabilities. It begins with repentance. It was amazing that I was sharing Wolfensberger's wounds with a group of pastors in Assela, Ethiopia. When I came to wound 16 (I believe) about exclusion from higher order thinking including church and religion, I commented that the Christian church was guilty of all of the wounds. Of course as I was speaking, my words were being translated. I made the comment, "May God forgive us" in reference to the Church's complicity. As I turned back to the screen, the entire group of about 100 pastors all said in unison in their language, "MAY GOD FORGIVE US!" It was very powerful, but perhaps the first time that when I shared this information, the audience, pastors in particular, responded in such a way. Too often the response is "It is not as bad as you think." Praise God for the Ethiopian pastors who simply responded with a statement of repentance which has to be the point of beginning. No wonder that there has not been earnestness, indignation, alarm, longing, concern and a desire to see justice done in the church toward persons with disabilities. There has yet to be repentance.

I pray that the church will wake up in Godly sorrow in the same way that the Corinthians woke up to Paul's confrontation in the letter that this section of scripture refers to.

McNair

Come without your "competence"

2009-06-19T11:16:00.000-07:00

My daughter Amy graduated from Seattle Pacific University last weekend. She had a wonderful experience there.

On Sunday, we visited University Presbyterian Church and heard an excellent sermon by Pastor George Hinman. He told how he is not a very good golfer. But when he is playing on occasion with friends, he always is worried at the first hole because there are always a lot of people standing around waiting to begin their round looking on. He shared how he wants desperately to get off a good first shot, in spite of the fact that he is not a good golfer (I have felt that way too..."Please God, let me not miss, or totally hit it sideways"). Relating that to his and our problem with pride, he said something to the effect that, "the point of greatest pride is wanting to present myself as something that I am not." In the case of his story, he goes to the tee, and wants to present himself as a good golfer so that he will not be laughed at as a bad one, and that he will get praised by those looking on who might think him a good one. His point in the golf analogy was that we should come to God, without our "competence" at least our self perceived competence.

I immediately thought of my friends with disabilities and how they model that for me. My friends with severe physical disabilities cannot fool me into thinking that they have great physical abilities. My friends with intellectual disabilities cannot fool me into thinking they have great intellectual disabilities. One friend in particular who because of his intellectual disability cannot read, tries desperately to impress those around him with an ability to read, and although we attempt to help him, or point out correctness when he reads something right, we recognize that he is fooling himself and those of us around him see that.

What competence do I think I am impressing God or those around myself with? I guarantee I may be very impressed with myself, however, God looks on and probably "shakes his head" pointing out to me how I sometimes get things correct, but also recognizes that I am fooling myself in thinking that I am something that I am not.

But the pastor also made the point that it is not God's desire that I live in despair at my lack of competence. No, God frees us from the burden of despair by always giving us hope. Not hope within ourselves, but the hope that faith in Christ brings. I have a hope of forgiveness through Christ. I have a hope of acceptance through Christ. I have a hope of growth in obedience through Christ. I have a hope of being used by Christ. I have a hope of a life together with God through Christ. That hope makes me smile! I come to God as I am, he sees me as I am (maybe I sometimes see myself as I am, too), and we move on from there.

One last point on the church in Seattle. Beautiful service, wonderful music, powerful sermon, friendly people, however, those at the information booth knew nothing about a program including people with disabilities that we were told was a ministry of the church.

McNair

Jean Vanier on Lazarus

2009-06-10T14:22:00.000-07:00

Jesus' friend Lazarus, may have been a person with a disability. That is what Jean Vanier (L'Arche communities) suggests. He states the following

Lazarus, loved by Jesus
This is one of the simplest and most beautiful
chapters in the Gospel of John.
It reveals how profoundly human and totally divine Jesus is.
It is about Jesus loving people and raising from the dead
a man who had already been in a tomb for four days,
whose body was starting to decompose.
It is about Lazarus, who was sickly (asthenes).
In the language of today, we would probably say
"who was disabled."
The Greek word asthenes can be translated as
"sick," "without strength," "feeble" or "insignificant."
Lazaurs is deeply loved by his two sisters
and Jesus has a special relationship with him.
At one moment his life is in danger,
so the two sisters send word to Jesus:
"Lord, the one you love is sick." v. 3
And the evangelist tells us:
Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. v. 5
Later Jesus says:
"Our friend Lasarus," v. 11
and further on in the chapter,
when people see how Jesus is deeply moved
by the death of Lazarus, they say:
"See how he loved him." v. 36
This is the first time in the Gospel of John
that we hear of Jesus' love
for individual people,
the first time that John, speaking of Jesus,
uses the Greek words agape and philia.
(from Drawn into the mystery of Jesus through the Gospel of John, 2004, p. 195).

There are clues in passages about Martha and Mary and Lazarus that might give you the impression Vanier suggests about Lazarus being disabled. In addition to the use of the word asthenes in reference to Lazarus, we see in Luke 10:38 that Martha is the head of the household, with her sister Mary and brother Lazarus. Culturally speaking, one would suspect that at that time if Lazarus was the brother in the family, he would be the head of the household. He isn't which raises some questions as to why he might not be. Additionally, we note that neither Martha nor Mary are married although elsewhere we get an impression of Mary's past (John 11:2 perhaps pointing to Luke 7:36). John 11 says Jesus loved Martha, her sister and Lazarus, he once again listed last in the passage. The name Martha means lord or master.

I do not have the ability to study the language or culture of the time to determine the validity of Vanier's suggestion about Lazarus, however, it is interesting to think about. Jesus' friend, the one who he wept over at his death just may have been a man with a disability of some type.

McNair

Graceland

2009-06-08T09:49:00.000-07:00

Im going to Graceland
Poorboys and pilgrims with families
And we are going to graceland
My traveling companion is nine years old
He is the child of my first marriage
But I've reason to believe
We both will be received
In Graceland

Paul Simon says that this is the best song he has ever written which is saying a lot. My son, Josh, got me a DVD about the Graceland CD that I recommend. It talks about South Africa at the time, how some felt that Paul Simon was exploiting the racial discrimination there and so on and so on. Simon hopes that the music may have contributed in some way to the positive changes that have occurred there over the past 25 years.

But as I was listening to Simon talk about Graceland, and the lyrics were swirling in my head, a connection was made for me. Graceland was apparently named after a woman named Grace, but Simon saw a different connection in the name perhaps related to a future for South Africa. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission under the leadership of Nelson Mandella and Bishop Desmond Tutu in so many ways made the name Graceland a truly fitting name for a country fighting to shed itself of racism, using the incredibly powerful weapon of grace. I shake my head in amazement and disbelief every time I read or think about the grace shown largely by the black leadership of that country. The awesome power of God's forgiveness was and is on display in South Africa. It is a lesson for the generations.

The church should be known as Graceland. That song title and some of the lyrics could be or should be how the church is known. "Poor boys, and pilgrims with families" are the people the church should be reaching out to. People who have been broken "my traveling companion is 9 years old, he's the child of my first marriage"
independent of who they are. I think about people with disabilities. When we think of the Christian church, we should be thinking, "But I've a reason to believe we both will be received in Graceland." Wow, can you imagine people on a pilgrimage, people who are disability imigrants, traveling to a Christian church thinking 'I have a reason to believe that I will be received.' I can imagine people who feel like imigrants feeling like they are coming home when they come to the church.

But we have much to do to be a place where people will have a reason to believe that they will be received. It begins, I think, with a decision that we want people with all types of disabilities in our churches. If I decide that I want you, the rest becomes pretty much just logistics in terms of how do we make adjustments, make changes, do whatever is necessary in order for you to be welcomed. If I as a beginning point do not want you, I will communicate that in my practices. I will communicate that you are "putting me out" with your presence which I think is how many churches make people with disabilities and their families feel. Yes there are those who literally say, "Go somewhere else." But perhaps more often, we blurt out in exasperation, "All right, I'll try to figure out how to make a place for you" said with the expectation of great appreciation being the response on the part of the people with disabilities and their families.

But that is not Graceland.

When people come to our group, I try really hard to communicate that any changes that we may need to make to include them are, will be, or were easy, were effortless, independent of how difficult they may have been. We do that because that is what grace is.

Think about your salvation, Christian. All you had to do was to say, I am guilty of sin, and I look to Jesus for my salvation...I believe. What a comparatively easy thing for you to do. Why is it such? God may make it appear effortless on your part, however, think of the work Jesus needed to do for it to be "effortless" for you. I wonder about Christians who are unwilling to dispense grace to others. Are they not aware of the extreme grace that they have received? Jesus talked about this in Luke 7:36-44. If we understand that we have been shown so much grace, why can't we show a little more grace to others, others desperately in need of grace? I want the church to follow that example in the enfolding of all types of people. Follow the example of God, in that I am willing to do what it takes to make you a part of the Body of Christ. Come to this place known for grace in its fellowship, because it reflects the grace of God that all in the fellowship enjoy.

McNair

Peter Maurin: Wisdom from Easy Essays

2009-06-05T16:53:00.000-07:00

Peter Maurin along with Dorothy Day were the founders of the Catholic Worker Movement. Maurin is also somewhat known for his "Easy Essays" that were often in the movement's publication "The Catholic Worker". Here is one of them

Feeding the Poor at a Sacrifice
1. In the first centuries
of Christianity
the hungry were fed
at a personal sacrifice,
the naked were clothed
at a personal sacrifice,
the homeless were sheltered
at a personal sacrifice.
2. And because the poor
were fed, clothed and sheltered
at a personal sacrifice,
the pagans used to say
about the Christians
"See how they love each other."
3. In our own day
the poor are no longer
fed, clothed, sheltered
at a personal sacrifice,
but at the expense of the taxpayers.
4. And because the poor
are no longer
fed, clothed and sheltered
the pagans say about the Christians
"See how they pass the buck."

What does the church's interactions with people with disabilities in the church, in Christian schools, in other forms of the church tell the world about what Christians think about people with disabilities?

In another Easy Essay, Maurin says,

Christianity Untried
1. Chesterton says:
"The Christian ideal
has not been tried
and found wanting.
2. It has been found difficult
and left untried."
3. Christianity has not been tried
because people thought
it was impractical.
4. And men have tried everything
except Christianity.
5. And everything
that men have tried
has failed.

The church as the whole, complete body has never been tried because the presence of everyone would imply change and change is difficult. Integrating people with disabilities has not been tried because it is thought impractical. The integration that people seek, particularly in the secular world of professionals for persons with disabilities is available in the Christian church. We, however, seem to think it easier to not try it, and leave the state to do it. But that is not entirely true. Do you know that research indicates that religious parents are more likely to see the care of their children with disabilities as their own responsibility while those who are not religious see it as the state's responsibility? So some of the church are trying. The research just seems to indicate that they are not being supported by the rest of us, by the body.
One more from Maurin.

Houses of Hospitality
1. We need Houses of Hospitality
to give to the rich
the opportunity
to serve the poor.
2 We need Houses of Hospitality
to bring the scholars
to the workers
or the workers
to the scholars.
3. We need Houses of Hospitality
to bring back to institutions
the technique to institutions.
4. We need Houses of Hospitality
to show
what idealism looks like
when it is practised.

The same could be said about individuals with disabilities as with the poor. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine the "pagans" as Maurin puts it saying, "Go to such and such church and you will see what idealism looks like!" I would love my church to be accused of idealism in its interactions with persons with disabilities. Idealism in practical service. Idealism, through faith, in actually embracing Christianity in relation to people with disabilities to see what Christianity might actually be like. I get excited just thinking about that. Can you imagine what the church would look like if Christians actually fully embraced Christianity? It could be that people with intellectual disabilities in their childlike faith might be the ones to actually lead us there.

McNair

Disability natives vs. Disability immigrants

2009-06-03T12:02:00.000-07:00

In his article, "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants" (from On the Horizon, NCB University Press, Vol. 9, No. 5, October 2001) Marc Prensky makes the distinction between what he calls digital natives and digital immigrants

"But the most useful designation I have found for them is Digital Natives. Our students today are 'native speakers'of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet. So what does that make the rest of us? Those of us who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the net technology are, and always will be compared to them, Digital Immigrants" (p. 1-2).

I think this distinction might be applied in a similar way to the world of disability. Throughout history, societies have always seemed to be disability immigrants. We seem to be always surprised by people affected by disability. Children are born to us with a disability and we have no experience with them. People with disability come to church and we have no experience with them. People with disability enter the community and we have no experience with them. It seems individuals, families, communities and the church are constantly in the beginning stages of a learning curve. In spite of thousands of years of people being born with disabilities or being affected by disability later in their lives, we are consistently surprised by them and like a 30 year old sitting in front of a computer for the first time are totally lost.

But Christians, all Christians should be disabiltiy natives. This should not be the case for Christians. This should not be the case for the Christian church. The simple act of someone attending any Christian church should result in their becoming a "disability native" because the presence of people with disabilities there would be expected, kinda boring really in the same manner that the presence of children, or college students, or old people is kinda expected, kinda boring, kinda typical.
Before I had children I had a pretty good idea of what children were like because I was in places where children were. I saw them at church or in the community. I am a native when it comes to children.

I am confident that people who are new to disability enjoy their interactions with those who have experience with people with disabilities. Not to brag, but I am sure that I calm people who are new parents when I enter their orbit. I have a pretty good idea of educational ideas that should work. I have a pretty good idea of behavioral issues they will face. I even have a decent notion of what the future will probably look like for that individual based upon years of experience. I am not too bothered by disabled children with behavior problems. I am not a disability native, but I have been an imigrant for a very long time.

My prayer for the church is that we will raise generations of disability natives. People who are not afraid, or ashamed, or have goofy ideas about the why's of disability theologically. People with experience. People who are undaunted by just about anything that a person with a disability might do intentionally or otherwise. A church full of disability natives would be a softened environment for all. An environment that is relentlessly accepting of individual differences. My social faux pas would be more readily overlooked because the presence of people with social skill deficits would make the social environment less rigid. As I said softer, more accepting of difference. It is universal design applied to social relationships. The result of accepting people with social skill deficits is that I experience greater acceptance as well.

In the public schools today, there is some degree of disability native development. At least I can hardly go to public school without seeing other students with disabilities although I may not have meaningful social integration resulting in relationships with them.

But how I wish that were the case in the church.

Look at a youngster playing deftly with his hand held video game. He does it effortlessly as if he were born with the game in his hands.

Imagine a youngster playing deftly with his friend with disabilities. Imagine an adult at coffee with his friend with disabilities. The conversation flows effortlessly, speech impediments overlooked as if they did not exist. They do it fluently, smoothly, NATURALLY! Because it is natural for them. They are Christians who have grown up in a church, which means they are disability natives! Imagine.

McNair

Christians who don't need Jesus

2009-06-02T21:42:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking a lot about the high profile abortion doctor who was murdered recently. The story is sad in so many ways.

A man devotes his life to killing late term infants.
He is killed by someone who kills him in the name of "pro-life".
A church has him as a member, treating him as if he were a school teacher or something.

There is so much pain in this story from every angle, it is hard to know where to begin in discussing it. But because this blog is about disability, I will only approach from the disability perspective. The stories I have read spoke of how he performed late term abortions on infants with disabilities. I have no doubt that of the many abortions he committed, many of the decisions must have been excruciating as in some of these cases, it truly can come down to a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the infant. One can only pray for God's guidance in those cases and there is a need for people who can do the horror that is necessary is these excruciatingly painful cases. I as a Christian could support someone who assisted in saving a life understanding that one must be lost.

But the question that I cannot reconcile, is the killing of babies with disabilities, one of the other reasons given for the late term abortions. Even if we were to assume that all the other abortions were as described above (which they obviously were not) how could a Christian systematically take the life of a child with a disability when the disability was the only indication for the abortion? How could a Christian Church welcome someone into their midst as a regular member whose reason for killing babies with a disability was, because they have a disability. That was the only reason. No repentence, no plea for forgiveness. Yes, God accepts us as we are, as sinners. But he accepts us as sinners because we confess our sins, repent of our sinning, and seek the power of His Spirit to stop sinning. As a Christian I think God's Spirit would enable me to stop killing disabled babies.

No what we have here is not Christianity on the part of the abortion doctor or the church leadership. A pastor would not allow a church member to continue in sin, particulary a sin like killing disabled babies. If he/she did, he/she would be unworthy of leadership. But no doubt the leaders are being celebrated by those enlightened in our society, be they religious or otherwise, to see Christianity as including unrepentent murderers because they are more interested in a political pro-choice agenda than the truth of the scripture.

You see, when my personal choices bump up against Biblical principle, my personal choices, my politics, my philosophy must change to reflect the Biblical principle. In our society, I can be an UNREPENTENT Christian anything: murderer, sexual addict, abortionist, and so on and so on. And the more that I am able to be an unrepentant Christian, the more society celebrates my "christianity." But if you are a real Christian, you will really piss off the society because you recognize that your Lord makes demands on your life, beginning with getting you to repent of your disgusting sinful behavior. If I admit my sin and come to Jesus, he is faithful to forgive me and I will be welcomed. If I come to Jesus and say that I am not a sinner, His response might be, "Then what do you need me for?" As the Bible says, it is not the well who need a doctor (the implication being those who think themselves well, those who do not think themselves sinners) but the sick.

I have been a Christian for most of my life. My goal is not to negotiate with God over my sin, my goal is not to tell God it is not sin. My goal is to strive with all that I am to find the failures in myself such that I can work to be more conformed to the image of Christ. And if I am hated by society, that means that I am growing to be more like my Lord as he was hated and ultimately killed, by those, who claimed to be God's representatives on Earth.
McNair

This is how we do it

2009-05-12T09:56:00.000-07:00

So I heard through the grape vine, from a very reliable source about a Southern California Christian college that is trying to start a program to prepare teachers to work with students with moderate/severe disabilities. A student teacher supervisor was working with a candidate, doing student teaching. For a year, the candidate did nothing. The supervisor from the Christian college tried and tried to get the student teacher to educate the students with severe disabilities but he did nothing. The student teacher supervisor told his supervisors at the university that he would need to flunk the student teacher because he wasn't doing anything with his students. The response from the CHRISTIAN college? Hire another supervisor that would pass the student teacher because they are trying to get the moderate/severe teacher training program established and they didn't want any bad press for the new program. In other words, "We as the Christian college don't give a damn about the education of the students with severe disabilities. We just want to expand our programs into other areas of Southern California."

I have seen this approach numerous times in state unviersities. Many state universities although they have moderate/severe programs haven't the foggiest idea what they are doing in this area. I know because I speak to students from those universities, and at times have assisted state universities with inservices about the most basic of things, that you would think their students would have learned in introductory classes.

How are students with moderate/severe disabilities ever to have a fighting chance at an education when teachers are poorly trained? What does it say to future teachers in that program about quality education for students with severe disabilities? I will tell you what it says. It says that we want to train babysitters for the mod/sev classrooms of California. As much as I want Christian colleges to wake up to the lives of people with disabilities in the community, literally, for God's sake, Christian college, do no harm! You are God's representative to the community, so please for His sake, do no harm. But you harm by your diminishing the importance of education for these students.

What would it imply to you, if I said that the education of your child was not important enough to ensure that teacher of your child was doing anything for a whole year that they were in the classroom. But that is what this Christian college is communicating, and get this...they are communicating this so that they can stay in the business of educating teachers of students with severe disabilities!

I personally have had some student teachers that I have really liked as people as friends. However, because I desperately want them to be the best teachers possible, I have tried to move them to a particular, high standard that I have for teachers of students with severe disabilities. I am looked to as the university expert, as their trainer. If I am more interested in pumping out teachers so that my program stays alive than I am that the teachers are of a certain quality, I am doing evil to the students those teachers will teach in the future. So should my mod/sev program die because of the quality standards we aspire to at the little Christian college where I teach, so be it! At least we will walk away from such a program trying to do our best. Are we perfect? Of course not, there are always areas we are trying to improve on all the time. However, we will do our best to ensure the highest level of quality we can because we care about the students with severe disabilities more than we care about their teachers chafing under rigor and going elsewhere. Trust me, if you want to be a teacher of students with moderate to severe disabilities, there are places that you can go that will be easier than our program. If what you want is ease, please do go elsewhere. There are those who have. I know of at least one Christian college in Southern California that is interested in training slackers.

McNair

Marriage

2009-05-10T21:33:00.001-07:00

I am probably "late to the party" on this one, however, in recent weeks I have met two couples who have made me aware of a problem and a solution.

I have known Christian couples over the years, couples who were persons with intellectual disabilities who, probably after counseling from case workers and family members, decided to live together as married, although they were an unmarried couple. The state "punishes" people who receive government benefits by reducing their social security payments, among other changes in potential benefits should they marry. However, the state generally doesn't care if two people live together and doesn't care what their relationship is while they are living together. The key issue, I think, is how marriage is defined by the state agencies who control benefits. Well in the case of these two couples, both of them were married in a church, were married before God, however, they did NOT get a state marriage license, and therefore as far as the state is concerned are not married. Their marriage had no effect on their benefits because they were not married as far as the state is concerned. The couple has wedding pictures up in their home, talk about each other as husband and wife, had a ceremony in a church and so on and so on. However, they never received a state marriage license so they are not married as far as the state is concerned.

There are up sides and down sides of this arrangement. Philosophically, I don't care if the government recognizes my marriage as such. I am more concerned that I did what was required regarding marriage, in a church, before God. My marriage license from the State of California means very little to me (I don't think I could produce it if my life depended upon it) even though I have been married 30 years. I don't think that if a marriage license had not been required of me by California it would have mattered to me either. The church wedding was what mattered.

The downsides relate to the things that domestic partnerships protect. Actually, it might be beneficial for Christians to be married in a church and then file for domestic partnerships (just thinking out loud, I really have very little knowledge in this area). I wonder how a domestic partnership arrangement would affect the benefits that persons with disabilities receive from the government? I would not be surprised if those in a domestic partnership have the potential "negative" results of a state marriage diminished.

As marriage grows to be even more convoluted in our society, perhaps the church, perhaps Christians should take a new look at the value of being married before the state, following state regulations. Let the state say that marriage can be between a tree and a fish if they want to, as long as truly Christian churches hold to what marriage actually is (which I recognize is problematic as some "Christian" denominations are morally adrift in terms of representing the teachings of the Bible). If truly Christian churches held the line on marriage, such that a ceremony in a Christian church were the desired standard, then a Christian marriage would mean something. But I suspect the next thing would be for the state to force Christian churches (or Jewish Synagogues, or Muslim Mosques for that matter) to marry people the state said were eligible but that is a different discussion.

Social justice calls us as Christians to make decisions about the things we support or don't support that our government does. If a state marriage license takes two people who are living in poverty, and pushes them deeper into poverty, then perhaps we should not support a state marriage license, even though we absolutely support the importance of a church sanctioned marriage before God. If the state doesn't care whether or not a couple participates in a ceremony together before they live together, or whether they live together as husband and wife, then perhaps in order to benefit those in poverty, we as Christians should not care whether or not a married couple gets a state sanctioned marriage license.

McNair

A few comments on leadership

2009-04-29T20:41:00.000-07:00

Throughout the years of writing this blog, I have at times complained about leadership within the church. In my Feb 4, 2006 entry, I spoke about the late Rev. Dennis Kingsland who told me that pastors were a bottleneck in the attempt to open churches to people with disabilities. Since that time I have often reflected on his statement. But there is more to the impediment issue than just standing in the way of ministry to all of God's people.

Leaders also need to set the example, from the pulpit. Perhaps pastors have not been congregational members for a long time, but a whole lot of congregational members listen to what the pastor says. They listen to what he says and what he doesn't say. That is why a periodic mention of individuals with disabilities is an important thing for pastors to do to recall these individuals to the congregation's mind, and to reinforce that they are valued members. In addition, brief comments can guide the congregation in their interactions, tell them how to interact.

In our group, the Light and Power Company, we have very loving dedicated people with and without disabilities who are involved in ministry to each other and as participants. Periodically, I remind all of us of what our standard is for the group. So I say to those who can be counted on to be involved in the ministry things like,
"Remember, we are always about acceptance."
"It is more important that people have access to me as the leader than it is that they sit quietly"
"We need to recognize that people are here for different reasons, and at times our focus will be the reason why others are here, and perhaps not the reason why you are here"
"We want to avoid shushing people and telling them to sit down or we will be spending all of our time doing that. Let's grow in our acceptance of people with social skill differences."
We also recognize that the class will not always be quiet, that conversations may be going on during a lesson, or during prayer which we learn to tolerate. We state that there is pretty much nothing that anyone could do in our group that would cause them to not be welcome.

I make these statements to the group to remind us why we are here, what our standards are, what we expect from each other in terms of forgiveness and tolerance and acceptance. If those who have to a greater degree committed themselves to such ministry need this type of reminder periodically, what about the regular congregational member?

One of my students shared in class the other night that she is the parent of a child with a disability and her famiily attends church. She related sadly, however, that every time she arrives with her family, it is almost as if everything stops while the people all look at her and think, "Here comes the Jones family." She wishes that just once her family would be welcomed like any other. To me that is a leadership thing. I think the pastor who must be aware of the feelings of this family and the larger congregation regarding this family should just say out loud, "I recognize that little Sally Jones can be noisy and disruptive. Rather than staring at her, how might we make the Jones family feel loved and accepted the next time they arrive at any meeting?" By addressing such issues head on, we not only communicate to the congregation that the pastor, the leadership wants those people accepted, but also to the Jones family that their acceptance is a priority for the leadership.

Imagine your pastor starting off a Sunday service someday saying something like, "We believe that this church should include all people with disabilities. That is one of our core values. Thus the rest is just logistics. We may not be able to do things the same way we always have, but we think that having people with disabilities among us is more important than maintaining our traditions." You know what? I would almost guarantee to you that the congregation would rise to its feet and give the pastor a standing ovation. You see, I as a congregational member am waiting for that sermon. I have probably been waiting for that sermon for the better part of 40 years. I pray someday I will hear it.

McNair