Pride, sin and depression

Had a conversation with a man the other day who shared with me that he suffers from periods of depression.  He actually lives with a manic/depression form of mental illness and although through medication he has it somewhat under control, he will sometimes still deal with depression. 

He shared how when he has shared his disability with pastors or teachers (he hesitates to bring it up anymore), he is often told that his problem is "unconfessed sin in your life."  Now my sin can definitely cause me to be depressed, however, if I have clinical depression based upon a form of mental illness, my depression is not due to unconfessed sin.  That is the first lession.  Second, if you tell me that the reason I experience depression is because I have unconfessed sin in my life, you are basically saying that you think you are better than me because you, as an idyllic, humble example of righteousness have confessed your sin so you do not experience depression.  While I have such an obstinate attitude that I will refuse to confess my sins and thus I experience my depression.

This response is not only simply wrong, it is so prideful in judging one's neighbor when you may have no idea of what the person with the mental illness is experiencing.  Need I even mention the book of Job?  You experience no impairment, no disability, no mental illness because of your righteousness, while I experience impairment, disability, mental illness because of my sinful condition that you claim I refuse to confess.

This perspective is referred to as the moral model of disability.  I basically states that impairment/disability is due to what I have done, or my parents have done or my family has done.  You see I/we are bad people and we are just getting what is coming to us.  But if we were more like you who does not experience impairment/disability then we would not experience impairment/disability too.

When I have the opportunity to speak to groups, I often ask whether sin is the cause of disability.  Not from the perspective of the "original sin of Adam" but just more related to my personal sin.  Now I can do things of a sinful nature that can cause disability in others.  If I act violently towards another person I can cause disability.  But does the fact that I am a thief or a liar, or do not honor my parents, etc., basically that I am as Paul referred to himself  the worst of all sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), should I expect that my children will as a result be disabled?  In reality if sin were the cause of disability and I truly understood the sinful condition of people, then I should expect that ALL of our children would be disabled.  In my personal life, I know that sin is not the cause of disability because neither of my children are disabled.  I know myself, and trust me if sin were the cause of disability my children would be disabled.

But back to the conversation I had with my friend.  He may do things in his life of a sinful nature that can cause him to feel depressed, but his experience of mental illness is not due to unconfessed sin in his life any more than the lack of mental illness is caused by the confessed sin in the life of his detractors.  We need to understand human impairments for what they are.  We need to understand the pervasiveness of sin in all of us.  Recognize that it is the pride in me that causes me to see myself as somehow perfection in my spiritual astuteness to confess my sin, while simultaneously seeing someone who experiences impairment/mental illness as other and imperfect and unrepentant.

Get the log out of your own eye before you point out the splinter in someone else's eye (Matthew 7:5).

McNair

The power of the victim in the Good Samaritan

Following up on the last post about power, it occurred to me that in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), power can be seen.  That is, in the story one man is beaten and left for dead.  Three others come by.  First was a priest, second was a Levite (apparently a kind of assistant priest) who both passed by and didn't help the man disabled by the beating.  But a Samaritan stopped, helped the man and took him to a hotel where he could be cared for.

The new point for me was that the man who was disabled by the beating did nothing but lay there.  His only role in the story was that he was present.  When those who were arguably more "powerful" in that they were able to get up, move, do the things they wanted to do like travel came into his presence, his presence alone revealed their character.  They were much more powerful by comparison, he had no power by comparison (1 Corinthians 12:22 again, "seem weaker") but his presence alone was either hugely affirming or quite damning of the character of those who came in contact with him.  I mean think about it!  For centuries since, the Samaritan and his response has become a part of western (at least) language.  We all recognize that the Samaritan's character was revealed in this exchange (well it wasn't really an exchange because one person did nothing), in this encounter (a better word).  The priest and the Levite probably thought themselves good guys, regular temple attenders, respected in the community and so forth.  But the presence of a person with a disability revealed at least to some extant who they actually were.

And who were the priest and the Levite?

Jesus tells us.  They were people who were not a neighbor, who did not love their neighbor.  So who are we as a church?  We are people in the words of Jesus who do not "Go and do likewise."  We are the ones who pass by on the other side.  We are the ones who are unwilling to be changed by the presence of people who simply by their presence have the power to either reveal our character or potentially change us through the insight we get into who we are.  They are once again, "indispensable" because they will show us, all of us, independent of where each of stands on the disability/impairment continuum, who we are relative to the second greatest commandment of loving our neighbor as ourselves.

But people need to be present among us for that power to be weilded.  We need to stop the "passed by on the other side" kind of behavior which is little more than deliberately ignoring our neighbor.  The sad part is that both the priest and the Levite "saw the man" which resulted in the behavior of passing by on the other side.  When people tell me they just didn't know about people with disabilities in the community, I don't believe them.  Church leaders know there are people with disabilities in the community.  Although they may not actually put themselves in a place where they see them, they are still passing by on the other side.

Why is the inclusion of persons with disabilities so foundational?  Jesus shows us that if we do not love them, we do not love our neighbor.  What could be more basically wrong with us than if we don't love our neighbor.  The image of a man "left for dead" is a perfect illustration.  How often does the church, knowing people with disabilities are in need and in the community, attitudinally leave them for dead.  Everyone around the beaten man in the story allowed him to be "left for dead."  The social isolation and lives being filled with "almost friends" (Baca & McNair, 2013) people who are exclusively paid to be with a person with a disability, is how we leave people for dead today.  We must be like the Good Samaritan, love our neighbor, and reflect Jesus' directive to "Go and do as he did."

McNair

Baca, J. & McNair, J. (2013).  Almost friends.  Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability, 2(1).

Power and 1 Corinthians 12:22

1 Corinthians 12:22 "the parts of the body that seem weaker are indispensable."

I always pray for new insights regarding things related to the church and persons with disabilities.

The insight that recently came to me, was related to the part of the verse that says "seems weaker."  The rest of the passage indicates that persons who seem weaker are indispensable, but it doesn't address why they only seem weaker when in reality they are not. This is the new insight I received this morning.  People with disabilities have the potential to cause wholesale change the church and the traditions of the church with their presence.  So they may seem weak but the power of their presence is actually so powerful that if embraced it will change everything within the church. They are therefore, both indispensable and incredibly powerful to change the church...though seemingly weaker.

1 Corinthians1:27-29, particularly verse 27  says "God chose what is weak in the world to shame the wise."  When one is shamed, one is expected to do something in response to the shaming, perhaps a change in one's behavior, apologizes, etc.  Coupled with 1 Corinthians 12:22 the seemingly weaker will shame the wiser, potentially to bring change.

1 Corinthians 1:27-29 says, God chose what is
   -low and despised in the world
   -even things that are not
WHY?
   -to bring to nothing things that are
WHY?
   -so that no human being might boast in the presence of God

It involves the bringing of change
   -via shame
   -bringing to nothing things that are (perhaps traditions)

God is strong in weakness.  If we allow God to use our weakness, he will act powerfully.  People seem weaker because we don't see their weakness in concert with God's power.  Using the understanding of weakness/power given us by the world, we see people as weak because in part we see them, in themselves, and don't understand God's purposes, particularly in weakness.  They therefore seem weaker.

Now power can be displayed in at least two ways.  Power can come from being over others.
Power can come from being necessary to others, in being indispensable to others.

Arguably, the power of those who seem weaker (they seem so but actually are not) is the second type in that they are powerful in what their presence allows or causes the whole body to become.  However, I can see what I might become with their presence, decide I don't want to become that thing, nullify their actual power, and relegate them to being perceived as weak.  But I might also be blinded to the changes their power exercised would bring and so do not find out what the change would be.  I probably  need to first include them and then see where I would be taken in terms of change.

Powerful people may exert their power over others and cause some type of change.  But the type of change we are discussing is not that exerted by the powerful, but rather the relinquishing of power to the "weak" by allowing the changes they bring.  Power is being transferred to them in the changes they bring.  They will enjoy the changes they bring, but they are not changes they in any way actively sought (particularly those with more severe disabilities).

Foucault would say that when people resist, it is evidence that power is being exerted.  The resistance of churches and church leaders could therefore be evidence of the unintentional exercise of the power of the week, simply by their presence.  The rejection by the church of this power to change (acquiesce to change by the church) might thus be the reason why those who are indispensable, seem weaker.

The pressure to love is another form of this power people exert over one another.  They may actually say, "You must love me!" but rarely so.  But with the Bible in one hand and the person needing some loving response from me present at the same time, the power of the Bible's command to love exercises power over those who would submit to becoming aware of it/the situation.  The responsibility to love is power over a person.  Think about this in reference to 1 Corinthians 13.

McNair

Survey of Fathers of Children with Disabilities

A colleague of mine, Rev. Joe Butler, is conducting a survey of fathers of children with disabilities.
If you are a father or know a father of a child with a disability, would you please forward this link to him?
https://s.zoomerang.com/s/disabilitystudies
Thanks so much!  I am excited to learn what Joe will find from his research.
McNair

More honor to parts that didn't have any

1 Corinthians 12:24b-26 says,

But God has joined together all the parts of the body.  And he has given more honor to the parts that didn't have any.  In that way, the parts of the body will not take sides.  All of them will take care of each other.  If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.  If one part is honored, every part shares in its joy.

How does one give more honor to parts that didn't have any?  Could it be that we overlook the reasons that someone would not have honor.  We overlook things like social skills or the sounds made by someone with Tourettes syndrome, or odors which might accompany someone who does not have bowel control, or other aspects of disability over which someone has little control and an inability to change.  In this way, we give honor to those who "don't have any."  For some, we would expect certain behaviors or abilities, however, for those with forms of disability, we altogether honor those people by not separating them, by changing the way things are done such that they can be included down to social skill standards, personal comfort, or traditional ways of doing things.  In this way we honor people who by societal standards do not have honor.  As we understand the lives of people who are dis-honored, we begin to understand the suffering experienced by people.

When the verse says, "If one part suffers, every part suffers with it" I believe it, but I don't see it.  People in the body do not suffer because of the suffering of others whom they may not even be aware.  Perhaps this is a description of something that happens that I am unaware of.  I may suffer from the suffering of others in ways in which I am not aware.  I am experiencing a life that is not what it should be because of those who are suffering which once again I am unaware of.  So we together should be something that we are not because of the suffering of others.  Perhaps if I was truly aware of the suffering of others and suffered with them I would be something that I currently am not.
McNair

More on disability as commodity (commoditization of disabiltiy)

"The $5.7 billion United Nations Development Program, the U.N.’s flagship anti-poverty agency, is
poor at producing lasting results,
sets unrealistic or unfocused priorities and
often seems more interested in getting funding than in setting up programs that make the best sense,
according to an internal assessment that will be discussed at a top-level meeting next month." (emphasis added)

That is the way a Fox News article begins, entitled, "UN anti-poverty agency chases cash rather than results, study finds."  The article is available here.

I feel this is the same rebuke that might be laid at the feet of many school district programs, adult service agencies and university programs.  Particularly in relation to persons with disabilities, the services they receive cause them to become a commodity that is used to pay people's salaries, buy out their time and do a wide variety of other things unrelated the reason for the actual funding.  The article goes on to say that related to the goals for which money were given they have

"limited ability . . . to demonstrate whether its poverty reduction activities have contributed to any significant change in the lives of the people it is trying to help." 

So billions of dollars have been spent, with no accountability, "limited ability" to demonstrate whether the money did anything for those it was intended to assist or whether there was any significan change in people's lives.

 

I think we do many human services in the same manner.  We assume that the human services paid exhorbitant amounts of money to serve persons with disabilities are in some way making a big difference.  Perhaps they are on some level, but the life they provide is poorly evaluated in comparison to being the type of life the average citizen would desire.  When services are monitored, they are arguably monitored under the wrong type of models, the wrong philosophy.  The result are outcomes that if viewed by the average outsider would be considered undesirable.  The person viewing the services just perhaps shrugs and says, "I guess that is the best we can do."

 

But I don't believe it is.  Our basic models are wrong which is why those with a community presence aren't being recruited to the degree they might.  Instead, natural resources are shunned in preference of those who are paid.  And those paid services have produced questionable results.

 

I don't think we need more money in human services (education, adult services, etc.).  I think we need to be wiser about

• how we spend the money,
• the goals we develop,
• the way we see the responsibilities of paid agents versus community members,
• the way we see ourselves as community members
• even the basic importance of integration which is comparable to the criticism of creating programs that do not make the best sense.

 

Change needs to happen, but will not happen till more people are aware of what the system is, how it makes disability a commodity, and finds ways to truly evaluate outcomes that would justify the spending of money on services.

 

McNair

Disability as impaired relationships

Disability as impaired relationships

Disability might be defined as a characteristic of individuals, something that impairs social relationships. Impaired relationships are possibly because a person may have an impairment in themselves that makes it difficult to form social relationships.  For example, someone might have autism.  Impaired relationships are also possibly because of discrimination by a society that does not want to develop a relationship with someone who has the characteristic called impairment.  This definition recognizes there are characteristics of individuals (impairments), and characteristics of environments, (discrimination or lack of caring or embracing the relegation of responsibility to governments, paid agents, etc.), which come together to define what disability is.

Because many people with disabilities have an impairment that impacts forming relationships (once again as above in that they have a personal impairment or experience discrimination because of their impairment), then the result is that society has to pay people to be in relationship with them because society will not choose to be in relationship with them otherwise.  These individuals are “paid relaters” or “almost friends" (Baca & McNair, 2013).  These individuals are potentially problematic in that they take the place of natural relaters or friends.

There's a degree to which the investment of society in making a bodily impairment something that does not impact function, will impact the opportunity that a person has to form relationships with others.  However, I might actually orchestrate a particular type of functional impairment and then design human services in a way that that would 1) provide control over the commodity of disability, and 2) maintain the particular form of functional impairment that needs me as the service provider.  I will not encourage community integration as that might reveal, that the separatist functional impairment that I have created is not real, and that people may actually be able to function in the community with much diminished supports being provided by the government (ie., they don't need me as a human service provider).

So the question is, to what extent have existing human services a been created by making disability a commodity?  To what extent is the creation of “paid relaters” or "almost friends" assent to the fact that disability is something that impairs social relationships?  That is, rather than working to address impaired social relationships by changing both the individual and society, I exclude people from community integration and pay workers to be in relationship with people with disabilities.  I would therefore monetarily benefit from my recognition that disability is impaired social relationships.  Human services would continue forever to be based on a medical model because a medical model both maximizes my extensive knowledge on how to evaluate individuals (whether or not I know what to do with that information in terms of interventions or actually care whether people are in natural relationships), and minimizes my lack of understanding of social environments in terms of facilitating changes in those environments such that they would lead to social relationship development (leading to interventions which could be counterproductive to my medical model of providing “paid relaters”).

“Paid relaters” are also a wide range of people.  They include every one from physicians to teachers, to social workers, to job coaches, instructional assistants or other entry level human service workers.  All of these faces in the human services crowd have at least one commonality: they need there to be something wrong with a person that “only they” can address.  Whether the thing that is wrong is real or fabricated is somewhat irrelevant.  Whether what is wrong can be attenuated by means other than what they can provide may also to some extant be irrelevant.  Whether their services make a difference is often irrelevant.  Oftentimes the services they provide are the only game in town so people can go to them or not receive services.  Are the services provided are what is best for the individuals being served?  The answer is arguable either way.  Services might be evaluated on the basis of criteria set by an agency or service provider, however, they are too frequently are not evaluated on the basis of what is best for the individual receiving the services.

Paid relaters are largely government agents from various agencies who appropriate relational positions which should be filled by community members.  Do human service agencies ever evaluate social environments to determine whether the “supports” they are providing might be filled by free agents in the community?  Do they exert any effort to facilitate the development of community relationships?  There is a huge literature on natural supports which seems to have been either lost or ignored, perhaps in part because such supports were not sought in the correct venues.

In times of fiscal restraints, the menu driven services may be attenuated, however, alternatives that would not require the services of those being paid to provide them are not explored.  We are probably not interested in cheaper services being provided by neighbors and community agents.  This is evidenced if only in the manner in which the community is not engaged when it might be.  For example, individuals with developmental disabilities living in group homes in the community are totally socially isolated from that same community in which they live.

 

If for the purposes of service provision, disability is defined medically, there is no real reason for community integration as disability is housed in the individual.  Expanding one’s mind to invite the community into the life of someone with a disability, only invites the discrimination which characterizes a social model of disability.  Apparently, the best thing to do, therefore, is to keep people away from a discriminating community and allow the “paid relaters” to rule their lives.

One means of intervention would be figure out how to address impaired relationships.  To what extent are impaired relationships due to characteristics of the individual in terms of their own impairment?  To what extent are impaired relationships due to a discriminatory environment?  To what extent are impaired relationships a natural outgrowth of the manner in which human services are designed, funded and provided?  Are existing services simply due to a lack of creativity?  If our definition of disability revolved around relationships, then we might evaluate the success of intervention programs on the basis of the presence of typical relationships with regular community members in the lives of people having the characteristic of impairment.

 

McNair

Christian Institute on Disability, Beyond Suffering Curriculum for iBooks

Beyond Suffering iBooks version has just been released.  It was published by the Christian Institute on Disability, an arm of the Joni and Friends organization.  This is an inexpensive option (about $15) for those interested in studying disability and the church.  The iBooks version includes the curriculum, videos, nearly 40 original articles and even powerpoints to use in teaching the course.

Check out the link above.  It is well worth the investment in the download.

The wrong models (commoditization of disability)

Some recent thoughts...

The state is focussed on a medical model which places disability within the individual with impairment, not seeing the social consequences or facilitating the support of the community. This is not to necessarily advocate for a social model, however, efforts at change are almost exclusively aimed at the individual with impairments, rarely at the community, or changes in the community such that integration would have a greater likelihood to occur. We ca easily see this in the activities in which paid service workers engage being so community isolated and individual focused.  Two lives result, disconnected as a result of the power of human service workers. 
Power in their regulation of all aspects of life.
Power in ensuring what is administratively convenient.
Power in their lack of training in community integration development: yet they are undaunted by a lack of knowledge.. 
Power in their refusal to integrate those with disabilities into their own personal lives: partly due to a misunderstanding of what is allowed, partially not caring.
Power in their use of community integration as something unnatural...a reinforcement for good behavior in one's regulated life.  Integrated life is like the ice cream cone you get for being a particularly good child...very foreign and outside of your typical experience, which is what makes it particularly good as a reinforcement.

The flip side is the way the Christian church has developed.  As in previous posting, they have been "fed in a particular way".  The result being that church universal turns care of persons with disabilities over to the state and the church by and large doesn't integrate, evidence of a lack of love toward people with disabilities.

The end result of both of these models is exclusion from the natural and reliance on the expensive: community based natural supports largely unavailable, paid for supports from "experts" pervade.  The natural result of community integration is like a metaphoric seed that never gets the opportunity to sprout and grow. When it does begin to grow, it becomes threatening to those who will lose their power over the person with the disability.  The regulated learn life unregulated and begin to like it.  But the threatening nature of community involvement results in the growing seed being cut back to the roots by those with power over the regulated and unregulated lives of persons with disabilities.

McNair

Fed in a particular way

On a recent trip to Uganda, I had the pleasure of meeting and hearing a bishop of the Anglican church, the Right Reverand Michael Nazir-Ali.  He was brilliant and delightful company and I was blessed to meet him.

In one of his sermons, he made the comment relating to being "fed in a particular way" as leading to a particular type of discipleship.  This notion of being fed in a particular way really began to ruminate in me.  I thought that if you are fed in a particular way it might lead to a particular set of actions or responses.  If my feeding is largely cerebral, I will probably expect a cerebral response.  If my feeding is largely emotional I might expect an emotional response.  If my feeding makes no demands for action or demands me to do something I will not act.  If my feeding is geared toward doing something, particularly doing something in the service of others, then chances are I will act in that way or in a manner that reflects my feeding.

I also got the feeling that you can be fed in such a way that you don't get beyond a particular discipling stage.  That is an interesting idea as well.  Maturity in ministry would cause us to think about the discipling stage of those we are discipling.  If we are sufficiently aware, we would try to determine the connection between the particular way we are feeding people and the particular outcome of that discipling in order to evaluate our feeding practices.

I can't help but wonder what the exclusion of persons with disabilities indicates abour the particular way that the church has been fed.  If everyone from the leadership on down shows no interest in devalued people or persons with disabilities that would imply something about how those people have been fed.  They have been fed to believe that they have no responsibility for their neighbor with a disability.  They have been brought up on an exclusive form of love that feels no hypocrisy in not loving some people.

I think we really need to look at ourselves, at our churches, at the behaviors of churches and ask ourselves if who we are is an artifact of how we have been fed, and when will we change that way of being fed such that we are better prepared and provided with better motivation and opportunities to love our neighbors.

McNair

Nate's story

A man named Nate once went to a church leader for council.  Apparently, Nate's son, an adult with cerebral palsy had had a difficult time at a recent Association for the Fair Treatment of People with Cerebral Palsy meeting.  The man related first of all that the building where the meeting was held, was not accessible.  Several people attending the meeting noticed that he could not enter and helped the man with cerebral palsy to gain entrance to the building.  Once inside, he was surprised to find that he was shunned by the people attending the meeting.  When people did speak with him, they spoke as if he were a little child.  When he asked about meeting activities that he could be involved in, the membership indicated that they felt he had little to offer.  Rather, they asked himi to sit quietly so as not to disturb those in attendance, fearing that he might drive them away.  After a time, the man met some people who were interested in him.  They started a sub grouop of the organization in which he and others like him could get together.  However, the people interested in him moved to a different chapter of the organization and the organizational leadership showing no interest allowed the subgroup to dwindle and eventually the man with cerebral palsy was left alone.  At that point, no one in the Association for the Fair Treatment of People with Cerebral Palsy seemed to notice or even care.

Upon hearing the story, the church leader was amazed at the lack of caring shown by the members of the organization whose basic creed was to support people with cerebral palsy.  The church leader said,

"What kind of organization is this!?  Their very name implies that they should be treating your son with fairness, yet, not only to they pay no attention to him, they even seem uncaring.  I say that they have lost their reason for being!"

Nate then said to the church leader,

"You are that organization, you are the leader, and the churches represented by you are that organization's members.  The persons with disabilities in your community whom you ignore are my son."

And the church leader's eyes were opened and he repented of his lack of love and compassion.

McNair

Call for Papers Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability

CALL FOR PAPERS

 

The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) announces a call for papers for future journal issues.  The next issue will focus on Friendship.  Future journal topics will include: Leadership and Disability, Maturity in Disability Ministry, The Old Testament and Disability, Christianity and Disability Studies, Special Education in Christian Schools, Education of Students with Severe Disabilities, and Human Services.

 

Authors are also invited to submit original work for review in other areas of interest.  Questions about topics, articles or future issues may be sent to Dr. Jeff McNair at jmcnair@joniandfriends.org.

 

Instructions for Authors

 

Submission of Manuscripts

All manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the Senior Editor, Jeff McNair, Ph.D. at jmcnair@joniandfriends.org.  Each manuscript must be accompanied by a statement indicating that the work has not been published and/or is not being simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere.  Authors are responsible for obtaining permission for the use of any copyrighted materials.  Authors are also required to sign an agreement for the transfer of the work’s copyright to the publisher.  Manuscripts should be prepared using the style of the American Psychological Association (APA).  This includes formatting, reference citing within the text and a reference section at the end, running head and page numbering.  The manuscript should be double spaced throughout, with margins of one inch on all sides.  We also request the submission of an abstract (100 words maximum), five key words, and a maximum 30 word biography about each author including degrees, position and email of lead author.  Articles should be approximately 7,000 words.  Articles will be sent to consulting editors for anonymous reviews with publication decisions shared with authors.

 

Illustrations, Tables & Figures:  Illustrations, tables and figures should be prepared according to APA style requirements. Illustrations should be submitted as digital files and not embedded in the text.  No color illustrations will be accepted.  Tables and figures should not be embedded in the text, but included as separate files or in an appendix.  Authors may indicate within the manuscript, the approximate location of the additional material, within the article.

 

Proofs:  Page proofs are emailed to the lead author for review.  They must be returned within 72 hours of receipt.

 

Article reprints:  Each author will receive three complimentary hard copies of the journal in which their article is published.  They will also receive a complimentary PDF version of their article for their personal use only.  JCID articles are not to be copied and/or disseminated without prior permission from Joni and Friends.  Requests for reprints should be submitted to cid@joniandfriends.org .

Entering into the suffering of others

We are in the midst of the Christmas season.  To the Christian, Christmas is about God "emptying himself and taking the form of a servant" (as it says in Philippians 2).  To use human terms, Jesus as God was having this perfect existence as God.  But He saw the desperate condition of His creation and came to them to save them, to give them hope, to be with them as they are.  Once again as Philippians says, "He didn't think equality with God was a thing to be grasped" or held onto.  He left his perfect existence to help us who have no perfection.

I have been thinking about this idea a lot.  I know very little about suffering compared with probably most of the rest of the people in the world.  I have a perfect family, a perfect job, dear friends, have never known hunger or want.  Yet all around me are people who for a variety of reasons experience all forms of suffering.  If I am to follow the example of Christ, I will recognize that perhaps I am not experiencing suffering, at the moment, so that I can support and come alongside of those who are.  As my son has told me, he has wept over suffering, but not his own.  Rather it is the suffering of others that he has entered into.

Hurting people are a morass of difficulty sometimes.  If we try to dance around them with platitudes we may help a bit, but we will not know their suffering.  People's lives are often a mess, and you cannot help if you do not get messy yourself.  A homeless man that I know has often told me that I want to take "an arm's distance approach to helping" meaning that I am not willing to dive into the difficulty that is his life.  I am sure there is some truth to that.

1 Corinthians 12 talks about the body of Christ as a metaphor for the church.  It says if one part suffers the whole body suffers.  I don't think that is true.  Perhaps that is the way it is supposed to be but I don't see that being practiced to the degree it should be.  In order for me to suffer with you, I need to enter into your suffering in some significant way.  For you to suffer with others, you must enter into their suffering in some way.  I can't really tell you how to do that, for you, but you won't have to look to far to find hurting people whose lives are a mess.

Follow the Christmas message of Christ who although He was in the form of God did not hold onto his right to be left alone as God, but humbled himself and took the form of a servant.  Why he would want to enter into the sinful muck that is our lives is unfathomable.  But He did it out of love which is a good motivation for us as well.

McNair

Cause for Life

Cause for life is a program of the Joni and Friends organization's Christian Institute on Disability. 
Their website says,

Cause 4 Life Global Missions and Internships prepares today’s emerging and next generation Christian leaders for ministry, missions, advocacy, and justice for people affected by disability around the world.

Just recently, they have made a video describing opportunities for internships.  It is a very powerful video for an amazing program.  The director of Cause for Life, Rev. James Rene is a man with a passion for Jesus Christ, for the training of interns in the heart of God, and the development of ministry to persons with disabilties.  View their amazing video at the link below.

http://www.joniandfriends.org/cause-4-life/
 

"Segregation feeds self-interest and integration fights self-interest"

At the meeting of the ministry directors of Joni and Friends today, Doug Mazza, CEO, made a very powerful statement.  He said,

"Segregation feeds self-interest and integration fights self-interest"

Such a powerful statement that cuts to to the quick about what are too often the motivations for segregation.  If I don't have you with me, you cannot make demands on me, so I can continue on in my own self-focussed self-interest.  I can claim that your segregation is in some way what is best for you, but in reality it is all about me. I will not need to change to accommodate you.  I will not be inconvenienced by you and your need to have me do something for you.  I won't have to change my programs, or my schedule, or make room for you in my car.  I don't need to find out about your life, the challenges you might face from agencies or the community and that makes me happy because I am focussed on self-interest.

Integration truly is the enemy of self-interest because if you are with me, I have to consider your wants, your needs, YOU, in the things that I do. Your presence, integrated with me, will make me feel uncomfortable about my affluence if I you are poor.  Your presence, integrated with me, will make me worry about whether you are being treated well by the community.  Your presence, integrated with me, will make me wonder whether you have friends and whether I perhaps could be your friend.  I start thinking about all kinds of things that take my mind off of myself. 

I have heard people at times complain about their inability to worship when people are present who are typically segregated because of their social skills, or behavior, or even appearance.  This should point to the fact that even worship is at times all about self-interest, once again.  I should be able to worship in the manner in which I have become accustomed because you have not been with me.  Don't know where you have been, but it is better for me if you are there.  Rather than coming to the inclusive definition of worship that would come with integration, I prefer the self-centered notion of worship where you are segregated.

When I think about the example of Jesus and the people who crowded him, the people to whom hs spoke, the people he interacted with and healed, I can only think it must have been a very integrated, third world group.  Yeah, people would tell others to "Shut up!" but Jesus would call their name and ask them to come and meet him.  I want to be like that.  I want my life to be integrated as much as I am can: not choosing to segregate myself from others out of my own self-interest.  I wish I was better at that then I am.  I want my lifestyle of inclusiveness to be a soldier that is truly fighting the battle of defeating my self-interest because anything that can help me to do that, will make me more like Jesus, will develop my faith, will model the reality of how life should be.  In the same way that devalued people need to be with me, I need to be with devalued people.  Not because of what I can do for them, but for what they can do for me in defeating my desire for comfort, desire to be left alone, desire for my own self-interest.

Memorize Doug's phrase.  It will impact your day to day life and how you understand the life of the Church,

McNair

"Rights without opportunity is meaningless"

"Rights without opportunity is meaningless" is how Zola (1988) characterized the issues he was discussing in reference to independent living for individuals with disabilities.  However, the same could equally characterize the right to religious freedom purportedly given to those with disabilities who live in residential facilities.
"Sure, you have the right to religious freedom, but I am not taking your to church."  Or as I have heard recently, "We are taking a break from church."  How can someone who is responsible for the lives of persons with disabilities in a residential setting say to people who have been expressing religious faith by the attendance at a church, "We are taking a break from church?"  I am about to press the issue with a particular home, but it indicates the depth of the problem.  People can be attending church for a long time (in this case, probably 10 years) and suddenly have that opportunity taken away from them on a whim by their "care providers."  Where is the state protecting their religious freedom?  Do their agency workers even know that they attend church?  If community integration really was a desire of human service workers, be they the directors of a group home or those who monitor the group homes, or those who are the social workers for the persons living in the group home, they would want to know whether those who have chosen to attend church are actually doing so.  That they don't know or care is a part of the problem.
Those who run homes have pervasive power over the lives of those who live in the homes.  I don't believe this is how the system was meant to be.  If it was meant to be this way then it needs to change, and change dramatically.  I have seen the individuals who are hired as group home "parents" and not all are great people.  I remember one home where several women lived, where the man who was the "parent" would at times show up at the front door in his boxer shorts.  Yet these are the people who are making decisions about what a person living in a group home may or may not do.

But thinking again about religious freedom, if you have such freedom, but are never given the opportunity to attend a religious group, never have the opportunity to meet people who attend religious groups, never have the opportunity to hear or learn about religion, then you truly do not have religious freedom.  In reality, you are largely trapped as the person who exited school and entered the home by the plan that was developed for you at that time.  How many of you who are reading this blog are the same person you were when you exited High School?  In these plans, there seems to be little expectation for human growth and change.  How many of you have not explored other ideas which have influenced the way you are as more mature adults today?  Additionally, the life of a student in public school, even if in special education classes, is much different than that of a disabled adult in the disability care system.  In school there was at least the possibility that you would see nondisabled peers.  Chances are the increased time you spent with your family would allow you access to people with whom you could be integrated.  However, the adult service system is almost entirely cut off from community integration, relegating people to a segregated existence with those who are paid to be with them.  Unfortunately, I think that is how people in human services want it to be because it is easier for them.  I think too many group home providers would prefer to not have community members in the lives of their residents because they bring the dangerous ideas of autonomy and rights, and the things that cause a person to have a real life.

If we truly believe that those whose lives are regulated by people who are regulated by agencies deserve rights and freedoms, then we must provide opportunities for them to exercise those rights.

Otherwise, as Zola states, rights are truly meaningless.
McNair

The centrality of disability exclusion

Imagine I was the pastor or leader of a church.  One of the members of my church comes to me and says, "We need to reach out to white (or black, or brown or yellow or whatever, for the sake of this example, lets just say white) people.  There are white people who would be a part of us if we would welcome them and include them."  Imagine if I responded, "We don't serve white people.  White people are not a priority for ministry."  That statement would on some level now be the central issue in my church.  I would now be the leader of a racist church because I would not serve people of a particular skin color.  I might have a wonderful homeless ministry, or support poor people.  But because of that stand, I am now the leader of a racist church.  There is no logical reason for me to not serve people on the basis of that personal characteristic.

Well, there are churches who will say, "We do not serve people with disabilities."  Or they may say, "People with disabilities are not a priority for ministry."  This now becomes a defining characteristic of this church.  They are known by the fact that they will not serve people with impairments.  However, this has not become a characteristic that separates one church from another because too many of them take this position.  If every church is racist, then a racist church would not be called out about their racism.  If every church is excluding people with disabilities, then an exclusive church will not be called out on their exclusion.

But in the same manner that the civil rights movement (a movement that changed society in a morally positive direction in contrast to many movements today which are taking society in a morally negative direction) called attention to racism, movements today need to call attention to exclusion of persons with disabilities such that that form of exclusion gets called out and confronted.  It should be that the exclusion of people with disabilities in a local church is something that people should see as central to who a particular church is.

"How can that church claim to love Christ and not include disabled people?" should be the kind of question that people should be asking.  "They may have a good homeless outreach, but don't try to be a disabled guy there.  They want nothing to do with those people." should be a condemnation that hits hard.  "They sure talk a lot about being prolife, but if you have a kid with autism and want to go there, well they get quiet then."

Can you see how this type of exclusion is not a choice, at least should not be a question of choice.  If I get this wrong, if I exclude people because of their impairments, it indicates I get the most basic of all Christian foundations wrong...I get love wrong.  That, therefore, makes the exclusion of people with impairments a central issue in evaluating churches.

McNair

Tolerantism

I am an advocate for people with disabilities.  I will do my best to convince you of my position on a variety of issues, hopefully with logical argument.  However, I am not what might be called a "tolerantist."  To me, that is not a kind label for someone.  I will not force you to be tolerant.

Tolerantism in itself might feel nice.  Tolerantists want to ensure that we all get along, all respect one another and so forth.  I hope for that as well.  However, there is a difference between wanting people to get along, trying to convince them of your position, whatever it might be via solid argument and forcing them to be tolerant.  In order to force people to be tolerant, you must have no values of your own other than the goal of no values.  For to even force you to be tolerant, implies that I am imposing my values on you, my values of tolerance.  The value relativism that is enforced falls in on itself.  How can I be both tolerant and force you to be value relative?  How can I say values are relative and force you to be tolerant?  It sounds nice, but the end result is no values.  So in reality tolerantism in the name of harmony forces people to have no positions, no values, no morality.

In spite of what you might think, our government is not in favor of tolerantism because it does not believe in value relativity.  I was just in Seattle.  I promise you that I feel that I have a right to park where I want, and the government should not force me to not park where they want (I hold this value pretty much). But if I don't follow the signs that are everywhere, I will get a ticket and will have to pay it.  They do not believe in value relativism.  Most times I will surrender to their lack of tolerance of my parking values.  But there are also times when I will not surrender to their lack of tolerance.  I would say there are also times when I will surrender to their forced tolerantism and there are times when I will not surrender to their forced tolerantism.  The myriad issues to which this applies, political and social, surround us in this present time.  Increasingly because of the lack of values in our government and social institutions, I am being forced to engage in what Foucault calls "acts of insubordination" because I do not believe in tolerantism and what it attempts to do to me and other people who have values.

Right now in our society there are a variety of issues that are currently on the table.  As a Christian, my views are immediately suspect, are a lightning rod for attack because I have taken solid positions, I stand for a particular morality, I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong.  Those of us who have taken moral positions are criticized by those who may not have, as being intolerant.  Interestingly, their intolerance of both me and my positions are sanctioned whereas my intolerance of their position(s) is not sanctioned because values whatever they may be result in intolerance. 

Have Christians been intolerant or continue to be intolerant.  Of course they have an are.  However, interestingly the Judeo-Christian ethic, that was the basis of much of what America is, allows for dissent.  To borrow a quote from the Matrix,
"Damn it Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe"
"My beliefs do not require them to" (interchange between jason Lock and Morpheus)
A critical aspect of the Christian position is choice.  People are able to choose God or not choose Him.  The lack of choice is not a Christian principle at the most basic level. 

So for people to impose their position on others, even if, or especially if it is a position of tolerance is not a Christian principle.

Now clearly I will advocate for laws that support my position.  In these and other areas I will engage in dialogue to try to convince others of my position.  I will win and I will loose.  I will choose to follow what is imposed upon me and at times I won't.  It is interesting in our time that our own federal government will choose which laws it will follow and which it will not.  I don't entirely like that, but they have on some level opened the door for people of principle to do the same.

McNair

Social genocide

Joseph Barry is a student in the Disability Studies MA program at Cal Baptist university.  He's a sharp guy.  In a recent paper, he wrote the following.

Wolfensberger states, "We need to take a stand against the genocides of our time" (p. 101).  Not only should we take a stand against the documented genocides of past and present, but we should also continue to stand against the social genocides that exist as well.  The placement of values on persons with disabilities based on their disability status and the resulting objectification of them continues to have damaging effects on such persons.  The Church can be a leader or a hindrance in this battle and its role cannot be under emphasized.  Not only should all of us address basic issues one at a time, we should do so without wasting another minute." (Barry, J. Objectification and Value Assignment: Christian Responses to Disability, 2012).

Barry's statement is perceptive and powerful on so many levels.  We typically think of genocide as the outright taking of life, but the term might be tweaked in the manner in which he did.  Social genocide is a form of life taking that too many societies either overtly or purposefully have participated in.  Clearly I should do what I can to influence society such that it doesn't destroy people socially.  I need to do that.
But his comment about the church is straightforward.  The church can be a leader or a hindrance.  I believe at times it has been both.  I believe now it is being both.  The first step in change is awareness.  I have often stated that the first step in churches developing what has been called disability ministry is repentence.  I don't want to be a part of the problem.

I am reminded of the Luke 14 passage about the master telling the servant "Go out to the roads and contry lanes and make them dome in, so that my house will be full."  Earlier the master has said, "Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame."  The servant is told to make them come in (other versions say compel them to come in).  Perhaps they need to be made or compelled because they have been the perennial victims of social genocide.  How many times must I be killed socially before I no longer believe you?  Or perhaps I am just socially dead and need to be awakened socially in order to drag my socially deadened self to a place where there is social life.

If someone were to look at your life, would you be on the side of the social killers or the social life givers?

McNair

Lausanne Movement - Global Conversation Project

Received this as an email today from my colleague, Brian McKinney at Joni and Friends.
Check out the free account option and join the conversation!

"Beginning today, Joni and Friends will be initiating a month-long conversation on the website of The Lausanne Movement – an organization dedicated to international evangelization – focusing on evangelism to people with disabilities. The Global Conversation Project is designed to spur the local church into action and to emphasize selected portions of the Cape Town Commitment, which resulted from the Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization held in Cape Town, South Africa, in 2010. 

“We at Joni and Friends are passionate about taking the Gospel to people with disabilities, and we want to highlight the section of the Cape Town Commitment called ‘Christ’s Peace for People with Disabilities’ during this month,” said ministry founder and CEO Joni Eareckson Tada, who has for many years served as senior associate on disability concerns for the Lausanne Movement." 

"The Global Conversation Project is designed to get Christians all over the world involved in discussion on issues that require a global response. Conversations are conducted in eight different languages so that individuals from many nations can be involved. This week’s focus is “A Culture of Life Ethic“ featuring Joni Eareckson Tada’s acceptance speech, “Sanctity of Life and Disability,” which she gave upon receiving the Wilberforce Award at the Wilberforce Forum on March 30. Following Joni's speech are two response articles by Dr. Kathy McReynolds, Director of Academic Studies for the Joni and Friends Christian Institute on Disability, and Dr. Rick Langer, Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology professor with a focus on the integration of faith and learning. Sign up for a free account to get involved and enter the global conversation and involve all your “friends” and “followers” on social media!"

Culture by exclusion

When experts in disability studies discuss disability as a concept, they will at times discuss various models.  Minimally there will be three; the medical model, the moral model and the social model.  In both the medical and moral models, disability is totally focussed on the individual.  The medical model largely sees someone with an impairment as someone to be healed or corrected.  You own your impairment and my interactions with you are geared toward addressing your problem.  The moral model says that your impairment is due to something that you or your family or parents did.  You are to blame for this thing called impairment that has happened in your life.

If we believe either of these models are the reality, it will cause us to do things in relation to people with impairments in particular ways.  Chances are, one aspect of treatment will  be segregation.  As a student of mine, Sarah Slayman, once wrote in a paper, "Segregation centers disability within the individual."  If I follow one of these two models (medical, moral) I feel limited responsibility toward the person with the impairment, other than perhaps, some sort of therapeutic or rehabilitation based interactions.  Your life experience with an impairment has nothing to do with me.  So I even perceive my segregation of you, on the basis of your impairment, is based on something about you not something about me.

The model that emerged in reaction to the medical and moral models was the social model which takes the perspective that disability is not due to impairment but is entirely based in society.  Disability is actually the result of societal response to impairment.  It is not difficult to make the connection between how those with some form of impairment might feel in reaction to the medical or moral models and the treatment that followed and the reaction of saying that the entire experience of disability is caused by the environment. 

The connection between these ideas and the church is that if I segregate persons with disabilities, I am once again, centering disability within the individual.  I create a somewhat new class of people called people with an impairment, who are a culture to themselves.  If they are a culture to themselves, it is because the larger culture(s) have isolated them to the point that they find themselves together in an isolated group.  I may find myself as a member of a culture of excluded people, my characteristic being society's reaction to my impairment."  This experience, particularly from a Christian perspective, should not be sufficient to isolate me. Culture by exclusion is not something to be celebrated.  I make you become your own culture by distancing you from myself.   The excluded culture's characteristic being something imposed upon them by the dominant culture in more of a  moral model kind of way in response to a personal characteristic.  If we then celebrate the excluded group by providing ministry to them on the basis of their "culture" we support the devaluation and segregation by society.  In order to fight culture by exclusion, we must instead refuse to recognize the culture by exclusion and instead insist that we are one in Christ.

We therefore need to be exceedingly careful if we are involved in any activity that segregates people on the basis of any characteristic.  When we do so, we are saying that a person's characteristic and their life experience as a result of that characteristic totally resides within them and that we agree with society's way of interacting with them and isolation of them.

McNair

Questions and answers about friendship

5 questions…
How would you define friendship and the relation of this definition to the lives of individuals with developmental disabilities?

There are many definitions of “friendship.”  Miriam-Webster says, “one attached to another by affection or esteem.”  In relation to individuals with developmental disabilities, I would argue for the addition of the phrase that one “chooses” to be attached to another by affection or esteem verses one who “is paid” to be attached to another.  If I choose to be with you, I may be your friend.  If I am paid to be with you, I may be friendly, but under this definition I am not your friend.  There is a huge difference between being paid to do something and choosing to do something.  This is not to imply that human service workers are unkind, are unfriendly or are even unprofessional.  It is simply to say that there is a big difference between someone who is paid to be with me and someone who chooses to be with me.

How might friendship be used as a measure of the community integration of individuals with developmental disabilities?

There are several criteria that might be used to define community integration.  These could include physical integration and social integration.  It is impossible for someone to be socially integrated with others without some degree of physical integration.  Yes there are the social relationships which might occur via the use of technology, however, these types of social interaction are often not accessible to individuals with developmental disabilities because of the nature of their disabilities.  For one to be integrated into a community, most often the person needs to be physically present in that community.  Even if a person is physically integrated into a community, they still might not be socially integrated.  This has been seen in relation to integration between persons of different ethnic groups who, although they might be present physically in the same community, are not socially integrated.  Few people would look at the simple presence of a group home in a community as evidence that those living in the group home are socially integrated with their neighbors and those living on their street.  However, if an individual living in a group home could name specific individuals who are their neighbors, describe events that they participated in with neighbors (birthday parties, barbeques, etc.), talk about times in which neighbors came by for coffee, etc., one would then probably agree that those who live in the group home in the neighborhood are actually socially integrated into the community.

One might also look at participation in other activities of the larger community in terms of social events, knowing names of community members with whom one has a relationship, local stores or restaurants that have been visited, etc.  Each of these imply that community participation in the form of the activities that might indicate friendship has developed.  If I know your name, chances are that I have had ongoing interactions with you.  If I know the name of a restaurant, chances are that I might have visited that restaurant with friends, etc.  If I know the name of a particular faith group in the community, chances are that I have attended that group, know the practices of the group and know members of that group.

One other criteria might be the degree to which I am known by members of the community.  For example, if a group of people who are not paid to be with me know my name, my interests, my favorite food, my birthdate, etc., this would integrate that on some level they are my friends and on some level I experience integration with the community of which those individuals are a member.

 

What is the relationship between community integration, friendship and a “real” life?

It would be the unusual person who would be considered integrated into a community if the only friends that that individual had were persons who were either 1) paid to be with them, to be in their network, or 2) simply a member of a group defined by the services they needed by a governmental agency.  This is not to diminish either the caring and professionalism of those paid to work with individuals with disabilities, or the importance of friendship among those with disabilities.  It is simply to state that to truly be integrated within a community, there probably should be some non-zero chance that a person could have a relationship with people who are not residents of their adult living facility, workshop, or other government provided service.  They are simply other community members who are not regulated in any significant way by state agencies.  People who choose to have a relationship with someone simply because they see them as interesting people, worthy of friendship.

                                                                                                                                                        Where might people with disabilities go to find typically developing friends/peers in the community?

The short answer to this question is that they would go to the same places that anyone would go to develop friendships.  However, because of the regulated nature of the lives of individuals with developmental disabilities, there is the need for those doing the regulation to facilitate opportunities for natural relationships with community members. 

One place for potential relationships is with the faith group choice of the individual with disabilities.  Those in human services need to understand that 1) people have the right to such participation, 2) they should be provided a choice for the group they would choose to participate in, and 3) this opportunity impacts the manner in which support plans are either developed or understood.  Regarding number three, if a person will only have the opportunity for faith group participation if it is written in their plan, then their choice is minimized by those making plans for them.  If in planning, this form of community participation is not considered, chances are there will be little opportunity for this form of community participation in the future.  It is recommended that the potential for faith participation be a part of every plan.  Not that all would choose this option, but that at least this form of participation would not be restricted by virtue of the fact that it is not in an individual’s plan.

Second are participation in various community settings were people congregate such as work out facilities, bowling alleys, and various social groups.  There is at least the potential that people with disabilities might meet community members in these settings as they would be gathering with others having a common interest.

                                                                                                                                                                 What is the responsibility of the case worker, independent living provider and others in paid positions in the life of a person with developmental disabilities to facilitate the development of friendships?

Because of the regulated nature of the lives of people with developmental disabilities, aspects of life which might occur more naturally for those who are not regulated must be facilitated.  Those without developmental disabilities, move about the community in self-directed ways.  They visit settings they desire to, choose friendships and relationships as they please, and participate in social groups that appeal to them.  These same opportunities are minimized when one is regulated by agencies restricted to some degree by a menu of services that they are permitted to provide.  So those with responsibility must walk a line between free access to the community for those in their care, including the potential risks that any person faces who has access to the community, and limiting access to the community with the concomitant removal of real life opportunities that come with that regulation.  While service providers should perhaps not provide unlimited access to the community on one level, there needs to be reasonable access such that people experience similar risks that typical community members face.  The only way to completely protect someone is to totally restrict their community involvement to little or nothing.  However, a completely protected life is not a normal life and it will be difficult for people to develop natural relationships with community members if community access is regulated to the point that there is little or no involvement with regular community members.

"What would you change about yourself?"

If the average person were to look upon someone with an intellectual disability, they would see that impairment as perhaps the defining characteristic of that individual's life.  They would also, no doubt, see that impairment in myriad negative ways.  Hence the fervor for prenatal diagnosis and abortion of people having the characteristic of intellectual impairment.  One only needs to consider the "impairment" down syndrome to see this fervor.  But, how do people who have this characteristic called intellectual disability feel about themselves? 
Surely they would agree with those with "normal" intelligence that their lives are terrible because they have that characteristic. 
Surely they would do anything to not have that characteristic. 
Surely they see themselves as the pitiable souls that they are.

Or do they?

You know, it would be instructive to ask them how they feel about themselves.  If we were willing to understand how they feel about their lives, could that possibly impact how those of us with typical intellect might also feel about them?  One would hope so. Think about other people who have been or continue to be devalued.  As a man, should I simply project on women how I think they feel about their lives because they are not men?  Surely they all wish they were men like me.  How about people of different races or ethnicities than myself.  Should I project on them how I think they feel about their lives because they are not the same color as I am.  Surely they all wish they were the same color as me.  Those two statements are very offensive and no one in their right mind would state them. 

However, those of us without intellectual impairments think we know how those with intellectual impairments think about themselves.  We think we know how much they would desire to be different then they are.  We can get away with those projections on this particular devalued group, because it is OK to see people with disabilities in a negative light.  It is OK to project my perceptions on them.  It is OK even to take their lives on the basis of my projections of who I think they are and how I think they perceive themselves.  I can't get away with such pronouncements in the other areas mentioned above, but regarding people with disabilities there is no condenmation for my perceptions.  Why?
Obviously they are suffering, right?
Obviously they wish they were more like me, right?
Obviously they would choose nonexistence over being born or living with an intellectual disability, right?
I mean it is obvious, right?

If you really think those things, click on the link below and have your eyes opened.
http://sproutflix.org/content/one-question

 

I wish we would listen to people to find out what they think instead of projecting on them what we think.

May God forgive us...

 

McNair

Disability and the Church

The Disability Studies Institute of California Baptist University is interested in creating a snapshot of the current status of the Christian community's interaction with people with disabilities. To that end, a survey has been created to elicit input from various parties. This brief survey is available at http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22EPTEFHACK . We are hoping that individuals and representatives of church, parachurch organizations, or other Christian faith-based organizations will participate in this study by completing the survey. It is our desire to have as broad a representation
as possible so please forward this survey link to anyone who might be interested in being involved. We appreciate your participation in this foundational study of the Christian community's interaction with people with disabilities.
Sincerely,

George White
Jeff McNair

6 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0MZCrMlUl4&sns=fb

A friend of mine sent me this link.  It is very simple, nothing special going on in the video.  But it is also incredibly powerful in its simplicity.

The video shows a boy in a wheelchair in a crowd of children.  He is just sitting there, looking around, perhaps attempting to get attention with his looks at the other children.  However, for the entire video, no one looks at him, interacts with him, talks to him.  He might as well be a piece of furniture.

In the society of that school, that classroom, he is ignored.  I guess it is OK to ignore someone like him.  Perhaps he is perceived as having nothing to offer in terms of friendship.  Perhaps he is deemed to be too difficult to communicate with as he does use some sign language at the end of the video.  It appears obvious that he can understand speech from the way he interacts with the person who speaks with him briefly at the end.

We only see the boy for 6 minutes, and my hope, my prayer is that this was an unusual occurrance.  But I suspect it isn't, as society is reflected in that 6 minutes.  I don't accuse the children or even the teachers because I know how I am.  I know how I get busy and ignore those around me.  I have a friend with whom I should spend more time and he always provides my excuse for me when we are together.  "I know you are busy" he says, forgiving me for not being present.  Easy for me to forgive myself when I am not present to others who would appreciate my presence.

But when you see it portrayed as it is in this brief video, and see yourself in those ignoring the boy, it is difficult to forgive yourself.  Not a word, kind or otherwise.  Not a look, not an invitation to do what they were doing.  Nothing.  As if he wasn't there.  He might as well not be there from the perspective of those in that enviornment.

I, we have to do better.
McNair