Expressions of deep woundedness from Wolfensberger

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

"Your child has plateaued"

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"

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

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

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"

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

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...

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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 about disability

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

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

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!"

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