Deconstructing disability:aging

A colleague of mine, Dr. Nancy Contrucci and I met briefly today to discuss common research interests. In the midst of that discussion, we began talking about prefall/postfall notions of disability. She brought up the issue of aging.

In the post fall condition, aging carries with it the idea of diminishing faculties (trust me, I know) be they physical or mental. The question is what were the prefall conditions associated with aging? One must assume that many of the reasons which can result in diminishing faculties were present pre fall. I can still fall and hurt my knee, or bang my head and hurt my head. Obviously there was the possibility that I could make decisions which could be detrimental to me even though they might not have caused death as did the decision toward disobedience. Pain receptors were pre fall, I would assume, in order to teach us safety. Bleeding and clotting I would assume, were pre fall to heal injuries the body received in life. Redundant bodily systems were present to compensate for loss. New fingernails could be grown should one be injured and fall off, and baby teeth were shed when adult teeth came in.

Yet, I would assume only one set of adult teeth came with any adult, and nerve damage was irreparable. You probably couldn't inadvertantly get a stick in your eye and hope to grow another.

Obviously there was a dramatic difference before and after the fall in innumerable ways. However, did the immune systems which are built into people to fight disease only arise after the fall when disease could kill? Was blood clotting only necessary after the fall as no one was ever injured before? Did no one ever stub their toe and loose a toenail before the fall?

These are important questions because they speak to the role that human differences, expressed by societal construction as "disabilities" may have in God's design of human beings.

We must always keep in mind that an omnipotent God is not surprised by anything in his creation, so the notion of disability, whether congenital or adventitious (the result of aging or disease, injury, etc.), is not something that took him by surprise, and bodily correction of injury appears to be planned for to a significant degree as evidenced by the systems for repair observable in our bodies. We experience repair when our systems return us to a place of normalcy as compared with the rest of people. If our systems cannot bring repair, we might be characterized as experiencing disability or in more severe cases death. This disability might be short term, like a broken arm, or last indefinitely as in cognitive disability. We know for sure that death came as a result of the fall, so someone severely injured prior to the fall must have either experienced healing, or was maintained in a living state while continuing to experience the injury, which hardly sounds like paradise.

McNair

Deconstructing cognitive disability: etiology and societal constructions

The etiology of disability can basically be categorized in three different general areas. There are disabilities caused by genetics, disabilities caused by trauma and disabilities caused by the environment. Questions related to the cause of disability can dovetail with the understanding of the why of disability.

The notion of disability caused by genetics may seem to be the most "God caused" notion as the cause of the disability is built into the makeup of the parents of the child who has the disability. Often, these disabilities seem to arise "out of the blue." Although the biological basis of such disability is as predictable any other cause effect sequence, they don't seem to be so, particularly if the disability is the first appearance within a family.

A geneticist/professor of mine used to state that each of us carry about 11% of out genetic make-up which if paired with a spouse who also has that same 11% genetic component will result in disability or death in the offspring. I suspect this percentage was an estimate on the basis if his experience, however, it causes one to pause in thinking about the various factors which would result in the pairing with another person (how a couple met, etc.) and the coming together to have a child with that other person. The take home lesson, is that each of us carry the potential to produce offspring with disability, genetically, if the conditions are "right." The reason why this potential is carried around in our genetic complement is a question for theologians. We will be discussing this question, however, for a moment, lets be clear on who we are talking about when we speak of persons experiencing disability.

Elsewhere in this blog, we have discussed the notion of the range of variability within the population. That is, the "normal" variation within the population. We note that Jesus, for example, was intelligent and physically strong, however, we also note that he was not necessarily remarkable in his physical appearance. Jesus himself reflected the range of normal. The question remains, however, what is the normal range? That is a difficult notion to nail down as normal, above normal or below normal is often environment specific.

I remember as a high school student, I was able to make the high school basketball team. That to some degree indicated that I was in the upper echelon of boys playing basketball at that particular school. When I went on to college, I found that the players on the basketball team were better than those at my high school. My skill level was suddenly much more average (and that was at a division 3 school). Should I attempt to play at a division 1 school, or for the sake of discussion at the professional level, I would not only be unable to compete, I would probably appear "disabled" by comparison with the athletes at those levels. So depending upon what particular portion of the population, within which particular environment, I can appear disabled, average or even above average.

Within our society we do a variety of assessments to attempt to determine what is the average for persons having particular characteristics (age, ethnicity, even urban or rural life experience among others). Depending upon what the characteristic is that we are assessing, we then develop interventions to take those who are below a particular level up to or above that desired level in order to facilitate life success. Now in our society we do not do basketball assessments, however, if we did, such assessments would identify those who are in the gifted range, those in the above average range, those in the average range, those in the below average range and those in the "disabled" range in their basketball ability. The fact that people are not being labeled as having a "basketball disability" is a reflection of what our society values in terms of assessing in all individuals. It’s nice if you are good in basketball, however, it is in no way required. When we meet someone who is good at basketball we celebrate that in the same manner that we would celebrate any strength in an individual. However, we don't commiserate with families who find that their child does not have basketball ability as such ability is not valued by all people in society.

For people with disability, particularly cognitive disability, one of the issues where they often evidence of weakness is social skill. Obviously social skill is something which is wildly divergent across groups and cultures. Social skill is perhaps the most difficult of skills to master particularly as a person’s range of accessed environments increases. Using the same range of ability level that we used with basketball, we will find that there are those who are gifted in the area of social skills, there are those above average and so on. However, in contrast to basketball ability, social skills are valued by society and one is personally included or excluded on the basis of their social skills. Society is very unforgiving in the social skill arena.

One way to increase the range of normal is to change the environment. In some ways the notion of disability changes as the environment changes. I suspect there are actually families for whom basketball is life to whom a family member who lacks basketball skill would be considered tantamount to having a disability. Unfortunately, individual Christians and churches often reflect society in a negative way. At times, churches can be more disability regarding than the secular world. This should never be the case. If disability can largely be a social construct, then the environment reflecting the social construct can change.

We have seen this occur for a segment of American society. In my lifetime, homosexuality has gone from psychological disorder to mainstream. It has been changed as a societal construct among some groups of people.

But what of areas of disability which are not socially constructed? The question is whether disability is part of the design of humanity or an aspect of the fall into sin. For a moment lets move away from the "gray" areas of disability which may be the result of a social construction. So we are talking about perhaps the most severe of disabilities, including more severe areas of mental retardation, or severe physical or sensory related disability. However, even these forms of disability must be segregated. The societal construction of deafness has developed to the point of becoming tantamount to a cultural difference rather than a disability. Blindness has not developed in this manner, however, people who are blind are finding their way into the mainstream on the basis of their own significant efforts, those who have advocated on their behalf, and technological advances. Even those with severe physical disability are making significant progress in deconstructing severe physical disability as a societal construction. Yet you only need to go to IHOP with your friend with severe physical disabilities to find out that if physical disability is a societal construction, it is still firmly entrenched. However, if the example of blindness is any indication, there is the potential for greater inclusion and acceptance in the future. The Americans with Disabilities Act has help in the deconstuction of physical disability, however, there is still a long way to go.

So the remaining area of disability to be considered is severe cognitive disability which once again is caused by genetics, trauma and the environment and is the focus of this blog.

McNair

Deconstructing cognitive disability: an intro

In a recent issue of World magazine, Andree Seu has an editorial entitled, "House of mourning: Funerals are opportunities to hear the best, and worst, of theology." He states, "A collective spiritual insight almost breaks through, then is submerged again . . .But I am not here to desconstruct funerals." Probably all of us have had this same experience. If you haven't, you probably need to study up on your theology a bit. But people's ideas of death are not unlike their ideas about disability. It's like, they heard something somewhere before, can't really recall when, but they are sure it is in the Bible or something, and whatever the sentiment, it kinda makes them feel better about the situation. So we have people looking down on us from heaven, we have spirits still with us, we have people who haven't really died, we have people being reincarnated, and so it goes on.

But the same kind of rediculous ideas pervade in spiritual discussions of disability. Children with disability are special children from God. Funny how nobody wants them if they have the choice and often will choose to abort special children from God. If they were actually special children from God, perhaps the church would be more interested in serving them.

Or parents are told that they are special in that they were "chosen" to have a child with a disability. It would seem that chosen parents would be valued more than they are. It seems too often that "chosen" in reference to parents means "You are on your own, baby." That is, you were chosen, I wasn't so it is up to you to figure out how to help, integrate, educate, etc. you child.

Lets work through some of these misguided issues from a theological perspective. We will attempt to take on each one (that I can find) and address them. Lets see where we end up?

McNair
(fcbu)

1 Corinthians 1: 18-30

From the New International Version, 1 Corinthians 1: 18-30.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate'

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser thn man's wisdom, and the weakness of god is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to same the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - the things that are not- to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God - that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written; 'Let him who boasts boast in the lord."

The passage says, "not many of you were wise by human standards." This implies that there is at least one other standard by which one might be considered wise. And those who are not considered wise by human standards might be considered wise by that other standard. How might this other standard be applied?

"It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus..." It is not because of anything about you, other than the fact that you have acknowledged him as your Lord. People with cognitive disability will also acknowledge him as Lord if given the opportunity. There is nothing about them which should prohibit that opportunity. Remember, "God chose the foolish things of the world," "the weak things of the world," "the lowly things of the world," in a nutshell, "the things that are not."

What/Who has your church chosen?

McNair

Church caused suffering

I have recently taken a position as professor of special education at California Baptist University. In the midst of meeting other "new" faculty, we had a discussion about the suffering church. That is, those who as a result of their Christian faith are experiencing persecution around the world.

I mean in no way to minimize the suffering of any Christian, however, the church is causing some "suffering" itself. At those same new faculty meetings, we were each asked to share our interests. I shared my interest in opening up the church to persons with disability. As often occurs when I share my passion in a public forum, another faculty member, also the parent of a child with disability told me of how his heart was moved to hear of my passion. He was another of the many parents who cannot bring his child to church as they are not welcome. They are sometimes not welcome overtly, in that the church will tell parents their child is not welcome. They are also sometimes not welcome by default, in that the child is exclusively the parents' responsibility when on church property. The Sunday school will accept the child only if the parent accompanies him (not just for a short time, but forever), but otherwise, there is no place for the child.

Because of the stories I have heard and the things I have read, I can't help but believe that there are many churches where overt exclusion is occurring, and exponentially more where the exclusion by default is happening, even though those in leadership in the church must know that there are families with a child with disability who would chose to attend the church if some form of program were available.

However, the exclusion of persons with disabilities is so pervasive that it is common practice, and it really takes someone up in the face of the church, to rattle their cage to get something going. As I write this, I sit here shaking my head at the implication such exclusion gives to any who observe it about who the church is and worse yet, who their god is.

If it is too much trouble to include persons with severe disability in our churches, what does that shout out to those around us about the God we serve?

McNair

Refreshing disbelief

This past week I was teaching a lesson from the book of Acts to our class which includes adults with developmental disabilities. We were discussing Acts chapter 9, and the notion of persecution or discrimination. That is, the manner in which Paul was persecuting Christians at that time. By the way, it is interesting to compare Paul holding the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen, thinking they were doing something in the name of their god, to the beheadings in Iraq. I pray that God will turn those misguided fanatics around in the same manner he turned the misguided fanatic, Saul around. Anyway, in trying to illustrate the idea of persecution or discrimination, I mentioned how there used to be terrible discrimination against people on the basis of their skin color in the United States, and how there still is in some places.

The exact words from some of the members of the class (remember these are people with cognitive disabilities) was, "That doesn't make any sense!" "That (the color of your skin) doesn't make any difference!" "Why would they do that?" The indignant disbelief of the people in the group was so refreshing.

McNair

Facilitating community

I am back from vacation. Had a great time thanks to a friend of mine, Stan Swartz. Thanks Stan!

Community is a critical factor in the lives of individuals with disabilities. One can hardly consider the spiritual life and development of these individuals without being aware of the role of community. Specifically, community plays a role in the spiritual development of these individuals. Fowler (1981) describes stage two of his "stages of faith" as being the connectedness one feels upon recognizing a world that includes more than one's self. Fowler recognizes that the first step of growth occurs through belongingness. The relationships which comprise a community can a) facilitate spiritual growth, b) be an evidence of spiritual growth and c) define the parameters by which spiritual growth is described for these individuals. This is true for all people, but perhaps in particular in relation to individuals with disability.

It also appears that community is the goal for those endeavoring to serve persons with disabilities, whether they approach work with these individuals from a secular or religious perspective (or at least should be). But what exactly is it that we are after when we say we desire community, and why do we desire it?

We could simply reply with the three areas listed above. However, such a reply doesn't provide the specifics we require to determine whether or not the goals of our community efforts have been achieved.

The state attempts to require community through enforced physical integration (as in the Americans with Disabilities Act, inclusion in schools, and programs to facilitate less restrictive settings at work and in independent living). However, the state also recognizes that although physical integration may lead to social integration, there are no guarantees that the former will lead to the latter. In fact, the supports necessary to facilitate the former often preclude the latter from occurring. The state in its efforts to facilitate community life, in the end often frustrates the development of community by getting in the way. For example, job coaches may move into a work environment to provide "supports" with no notion of the types of supports that exist naturally in that work environment (McNair & Rusch, 1991). A thorough knowledge of the environment should lead to the "light touch" that is required.

The church, however, needs to find its uniqueness in the world in relation to a variety of roles, including involvement in the lives of individuals with disabilities. As Clapp (1996) states, "For centuries, most Christians have been eager to adapt to the world and tell it that it is right. So doing, we make ourselves redundant" (p 23).

Yet even when we aren't redundant, we can often be perceived as such because of the increasingly irreligious experience of people and the debased standard of human interaction embraced by the multitudes. The church's redundancy might be perceived in two ways. First the church may actually be redundant in offering many of the same things (supports, services, programs, etc.) as secular society, or the state. Secondly, the church may be simply perceived as redundant because of the lack of experience, particularly among direct care workers, with the church. Now related to the former, if a natural setting like a church and a contrived setting orchestrated by a state agency both provide the same service to the same individual, it is arguable that the state is being redundant because the church is natural. A majority of people do not rely on the state for services although a significant percentage of people do rely on religious settings. The state, in spite of efforts to attempt to develop or find natural supports, does not often see itself as redundant, as it cannot imagine the kind of community represented by the church as actually being in existence, as unchurched caseworkers or other professionals do not have such church experience.

McNair

How would things be different? The community

For the last part of this discussion, I wanted to briefly discuss how the community would be different if the church truly was obedient in the area of disability ministry. First of all, the church would be "the church," not separate churches. It is true that it is easier to talk ecumenically than it is to live it because each denomination has a slightly different perception of what is the truth. We often find ourselves distancing from each other over arguably lesser matters of theology even though we agree on the kernel of the truth; that is who Jesus is and was. Perhaps this will always be an insurmountable hurdle in community collaboration among "the church" for ministry purposes. In my mind, however, this is an important first step.

If you take the city where I live, for example, the City of Redlands, California, Christian churches are a pervasive presence. If the churches in Redlands could somehow become "the church" in Redlands, the impact would be incredible. But as is stated in the Lord of the Rings, the power of the enemy is seen in the disarray of those who oppose him. If "the church" in Redlands made ministry to persons with disability a peculiar focus (it would be peculiar in comparison to the church worldwide) families of persons with disabilities would flock to Redlands to receive the support and compassion of "the church" there. Secular community agencies would speak of the powerful impact of "the church" in the community and the lives of persons with disabilities and their families. Even the most radically secular of individuals would have to admit, "I'm no Christian, but 'the church' in Redlands surely would make me give Christianity a good look." "The church" in Redlands truly being "the church" would be a model for the entire world.

You know when I write this blog, I come with ideas in mind, and try to expand on them in a cogent fashion. It is a discipline to get me to try to think through ideas relative to disability and Christianity. Sometimes I come up with novel ideas, novel to me at least.

This morning, I think the Lord has given me a new vision for what I can do.

McNair

How would things be different? People with disability

For the next few blogs, I want to look at how things might be different if the church around the world were more responsive to persons with disability, particularly cognitive disability. Lets next look at how things might be different for persons with disability.

These differences can be considered according to several general headings.
1-how persons with disability would perceive the church
2-how persons with disability would perceive God
3-how persons with disability would perceive themselves
4-what persons with disability would do

Lets look at each of these areas briefly.

An interesting study would be to determine how persons with disability currently perceive the church. It is always tricky asking persons with mental retardation what they think about anything as they will try to tell you what they think you want to hear, not necessarily what they think. But I do wonder what they say to each other about the church. I suspect it is mostly related to the people they know at the church and less related to "the church" per se.

But wouldn't it be incredible if the community of persons with disability (persons with disabilities and their families) thought of the church as their "go to guy" in virtually any situation. That the words which would come out the mouth of any person either directly or indirectly interacting with a person with disability would be, "Where do you go to church?" Or even "You should go to a church because they will definitely take care of you there." Or "If you want to meet some really friendly, helpful people, you ought to go to the church." I can almost imagine a world where the church would be the best, first place for a family or a person with a disability to get connected. If the church was being obedient, it would quickly gain that reputation. The connection between the church and persons with disability would be as natural as bringing a new baby home to a family, or going to the hospital if you are sick. It would be the obvious thing to do because of the results others who did the same thing experienced. Word of mouth would quickly spread and even state agencies would be caught up in the natural supports being provided by churches.

Persons with disability and their families would then perceive God as someone who cares. Someone who reaches out to those in need. Someone who sees value in all people. Someone who is willing to be inconvenienced in order to include everyone. Isn't that who God is? Christians are quick to speak of how God in the form of Jesus was willing to die for them so He could have fellowship with them and they could be a part of His kingdom. Are Christians willing to take people with disabilities out to lunch, or call them on the phone so they can be a part of the church? Are they willing to be "inconvenienced" in any way so that people with disability can feel the value they have in God's eyes? Interestingly there is research which indicates that parents of children with disabilities feel supported personally by their religious faith, but do not feel supported corporately by the church. Sad.

That the church does not do what it should, impacts how persons with disability perceive themselves. We have outreach programs for a variety of groups, but not necessarily for persons with disability. One might counter, "But we don't exclude them from our outreach?" Perhaps true, however, you won't recruit poor people if you exclusively go to Starbucks. You won't recruit older people if you go exclusively to the YMCA. Unfortunately due to a variety of factors which influence the life experience of persons with cognitive disability, they are often do not have access to the same avenues for recruitment that typically might bring in other groups. They often can't read, they have limited transportation abilities because they typically can't drive, they often have financial problems. No, in order to recruit members of that group, you must specifically go after them, find and reach out to them. The fact that specific efforts are not being made to bring these individuals in says to them that they are not of particular interest to the church. The fact that there aren't more persons with mental retardation attending the church is particularly damning, because if invited, probably the majority would come. That they are not there indicates that no one is inviting them. It is not difficult to make the jump between the fact that because the church doesn't want me that probably is because God doesn't want me.

What persons with disability would do is come to church to access the friendship and supports they would receive (their motivation then, would be no different from persons without disability who attend church).

McNair

How would things be different? The church

For the next few blogs, I want to look at how things might be different if the church around the world were more responsive to persons with disability, particularly cognitive disability. We will first look at how the church might be different.

If the church were more accepting of persons with disability, there are several ways in which things would be different. Lets consider these differences according to several general headings.
1-congregational make-up
2-congregational attitudes
3-community perceptions
4-God's blessings

If all congregations were accepting of persons with mental retardation, the make-up of the congregation would be different. Instead of the hundreds of individuals with disability remaining at home on Sunday mornings, they would be at church, in the congregation. It would not be unusual for you to come to church and sit down next to a person who had a cognitive disability. There would also be a greater liklihood that families of these persons would be in attendance which would further increase the percentage of individuals directly affected by the disability. At least initially, untill the practice became more commonplace, there would be those who would come to see whether the church was really open to these individuals. They would hear about the unpredictability of the congregation at times, and might want to come to see if something unusual would happen, and how those in the congregation would react.

By having a steady diet of persons with mental retardation in the congregation, people would either come to accept those members, or seek to find another church where they can worship undistracted (I wonder where the practice of undistracted worship first came into place in the church? We are to at times pray in a private place, however, there is no indication that I can see that worship ALWAYS needs to be so predictable and regular, to the point where a baby crying is cause for my consternation). If all churches were open to persons with cogntive disability then there would be nowhere you could go to get away from them! I like that idea. The presence of these kinds of disabled persons also broadens your definition of normal. You break out of a situation where everyone is just like you who attends your church. I come to learn that there are variations in the manner in which a person can act and still be a Christian. I come to learn that there are variations in abiltiy level in persons who are Christians. I confront my own hard, brittle attitudes towards acceptable differences in persons, and am hopefully softened with the rest of the environment. I am confronted by Christian brothers and sisters who wisely tell me that I am the one who needs to change, not necessarily the persons with disability.

Community perceptions will change as well. Christians are criticized for being intolerant. Trust me I know after 15 years at a state university campus. It is difficult to be accused of intolerance when you are leading the way in including disenfranchised persons in your fellowship, taking them into your home, meeting their needs. Not only do you serve those who come to you, you scour the community to find others whose needs you might meet. The church becomes preoccupied with meeting the needs of hurting, in this case disabled, persons in the community. Quickly the community will know, that if you have a problem, go to the church as they will do whatever they can to help you and include you. I remember hearing speeches by politicians who held diametrically opposed views on issues like abortion or programs to the poor to those of Mother Theresa. However, whenever she was with them, they could not argue with her life as she spent it with the poorest of the poor in India. I remember her even upbraiding a president about his position on abortion, and all he could do is listen. It is that kind of life the the church needs to evidence in the community. A life of caring and service which silences the voices of many deriders, and becomes a place where people are drawn to see what it is that motivates these people to do what they are doing.

Finally, there are the blessings we will receive from God for being obedient in this area. Who knows what God might do in our midst if we were obedient in this area? I personally would like to find out what He might do. I think He would expand the numbers of the church exponentially. I think he would bless us beyond belief for reaching out to the types of people that Jesus himself reached out to.

I once attended a conference on the church and disability where Dr. John Stott was the keynote presenter. After his presentation, I followed him and was able to get off a brief question. "Why is it do you think, Dr. Stott, that the church has been so unresponsive towards persons with disability?" His response was basically, because the church is simply being disobedient. Wow. I have never forgotten that brief interchange. It is true, that the church is disobedient. Yet we mask our disobedience under a variety of excuses.

Imagine meeting the Lord and saying,
"You know, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but it was just too expensive.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but it just wasn't a priority.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but if we did, lots of the members of our congregation would have left.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but we didn't know where the people were.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but nobody in our church wanted to provide leadership.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but we didn't have any training.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but we thought that because we pay taxes that the needs of those people were being taken care of.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, we were worried about our children if we brought those people in.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but those people disrupt the worship service, by clapping wrong, or not whispering, or having social skill deficits.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but when we ask for prayer requests, they always air their dirty laundry.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but if those people come we can't cover the same material in our Bible classes that we typically would.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but those people are a black hole for service.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but those people never get better anyway.
Or, we would have fulfilled the great commission, but I could never do that, it takes a lot of patience to work with those kinds of people.

It takes more patience to work with a disobedient worldwide church. Each of the above are real excuses I have heard for why churches/people are not working with persons with cognitive disability. It is easy to see why Dr. Stott portrayed the church as disobedient.

McNair

Ruminations on typical things

Our church is putting together a pictorial church directory.  We decided that all of the members of our class for developmentally disabled adults should be included in the directory.  So we scheduled portrait settings with the photographer and had the pictures made.  Not only would our members get to be in the directory, they would get a free (to them at least) 8x10 professional portrait.  This past Sunday, we passed out the photographs.  But we didn’t just pass them out, we unveiled them by pulling each picture out of the envelope in front of the entire group.  The unveilings were followed by many oohs and aahs as well as “What a great picture of you!”  It was great fun.

It struck me, however, that most of these people probably never had had a professionally made photo before.  Many questions flood my mind as to why not, but the fact is that this experience was novel for them.  I wondered about other experiences which persons without disability regularly enjoy which persons with cognitive disability have not had the opportunity to engage in.  These kinds of things do not necessarily have to be prohibitive in cost, like sitting for a photo might be.  Just things which people without disability who weren’t raised in an institution or group home, or who as adults have had their opportunities limited for whatever reason, have the opportunity to do.

Some of these simple things are easily provided by regular families, by just allowing participation in the regular lives they live.  Some of the things which I and my family have done can provide examples. 

-For a while, I was having coffee every Friday morning with a man who was a friend of mine.  We talked about his work, my work, our families or friends, things we had seen on TV, our successes and frustrations with life.
-Occasionally, we have some friends up to the house to watch a movie.  We have nachos or hotdogs, and hot drinks if we sit outside on a cold night.  Sometimes we will play table games.
-Once in a conversation, a woman we know indicated that she hadn’t received any Christmas presents that year from her fairly large, yet dysfunctional family who lived nearby.  The following year, and the past several years since, she has spent Christmas day with us and our family.  Everyone loves to give her presents from our immediate and extended family, and she sits happily opening them for a long time.
-A friend of mine needed a few extra dollars and asked if he could do some work for us.  Occasionally, we have him up to wash our cars.  We pay about 10$ a car, and he usually has lunch with us as well.  But the best part is that we then complain to him till the next time he comes up about how dirty our cars are, and how if he had done a good job they would still be clean (by the way, we live on a dirt road).
-Every Sunday morning I meet with a couple of guys and have a donut.  We each pick out our favorite grab a cup of coffee and talk to each other or the people who walk by.

The experiences are no different than any someone would do in a typical day.  The only difference is that the experiences I described above are with friends of mine who are mentally retarded.  They are the same experiences you would have with anyone else.

People have to get over the mental hurdle that people with mental retardation are so different that somehow one can’t do the same things he would typically do with someone who isn’t disabled.
McNair

Ruminations part 2

Yesterday I discussed my desire to develop some form or structure which would link regular families with various persons who are disenfranchised, particularly those with cognitive disabilities.  A while back the term "life partners" struck me.  I am unsure at the moment whether there is some sort of legal aspect to what I am proposing (although in one relationship with a disabled friend, I have the authority to make medical decisions, by his request) although it may develop into such.
 
The idea is that a family will express the desire to life partner with a disenfranchised person.  In an adoption kind of way, the church would facilitate a meeting together between the family and the person with whom they would enter into a relationship with.  It could be as simple as a meal at McDonalds, or at the family's or disabled person's home.  Should a friendship begin, the folks are on their own to schedule future meetings.  Ideas for meetings and activities could be supplied by the church which the life partners may or may not choose to follow.  However, some minimal standards might be set, like . . .
     -face to face meetings once per month
     -a conversation twice per month
     -sharing of phone numbers
     -the opportunity for meeting with persons within the church who have knowledge about  
          persons with disabilities to assist the family should they have any questions
     -the opportunity for meeting with persons within the church who have knowledge about
          families to assist persons with disabilties should they have any questions
     -holiday get togethers
     -birthday parties
 
As I write this it sounds so simple, and in some ways so easy.  It needs to be fleshed out much more, but in actuality what is needed is very simple.  Simple caring for others, movement outside of one's comfort zone a bit, seeing one's family as a tool for ministry, trying to understand others who people generally don't care to understand.
 
When I shared this with a friend, he told me that it might sound simple to me, but in reality it is very difficult for others.  Somehow in the sharing of this model, the simplicity of it needs to come through.
 
This is also a way for the church to reach out to the larger community.  Churches might contact local school districts, indicating that there are people who want to adopt a family of a child with disability in order to help the family with respite, and provide a church home where the family and child can feel welcomed. 
 
Adult service programs could also be contacted as a means to link families within churches with adults with disabilties with whom a partnership can be developed.  These partnerships could be with a group home, or individual adults living in the community. 
 
More to come on this.
McNair
 

Ruminations on a model for churches

For years, I have wondered about the kind of model I would propose for supporting persons with cognitive disabilities in a local church.  On the one hand, such a model needs to be natural; it needs to be something which is a natural growth out of the life of the church.  Good people have proposed a variety of models which borrow from those developed by the state, state agencies, secular groups.  This is not to say that these groups have nothing for the church, however, it seems the church, a church which really believes in helping other members and fellow men in general could come up with something more .
 
Recently, I have been ruminating over an idea which I think has some merit.  It has partially grown out of interactions I have had with a homeless man I know.  I can't say he would consider me his friend, although I have provided assistance to him on occasion, have gotten into shouting matches with him on the phone, and have discussed the relevance of the church to the problem of homelessness in general.  Anyway, in spite of problems he faces with mental illness, his feeling is that if some family would take him in, that would be the start of a successful program that would put him on the path of recovery.  The notion of average families helping disenfranchised people is what has struck a nerve with me.
 
I want people, regular people and their families to know persons with mental retardation for the same reason others want white people to know black people and black people to know yellow people.  That reason is that when such people get to know each other, stereotypes, fear, distancing, negative attitudes, fall away and are replaced by understanding, acceptance, empathy and caring.  I want every family in my church to know a person with mental retardation by name.  I want the children of every family in my church to have had lunch with a person with mental retardation and to know that person by name.  I want every person with mental retardation to know the phone number of a family in my church whom they can call when they have a problem, who will be there for them, who will care about their problems, who will help them out on occasion.  I want that because that will change the person without disability, will change the person with disability, will change the church, will change the community and perhaps most of all, would be an evidence that we as a church are finally being obedient to the example of Christ provided for us.
 
DC Talk the musical group has stated, "a physical world creates a spiritual haze."  That is so true.  I never cease to wonder at the indignation of families of persons with disabilities, or persons with disabilities themselves at the treatment they receive from those around them.  These same people were oblivious to the experience of disability till they experienced it themselves.  But people without disabilities are only that way for a while, they will eventually have a disability of some sort either themselves or within their family.  For example, I see a further degrading of my already poor eyesight, and if the Lord gives me 20 more years, I can't imagine what my knees will be like by then.  The certainty of disability is right up there with death and taxes.  Yet a physical world creates a spiritual haze.  How might we cut through that spiritual haze?
 
Perhaps some sort of a program which links families with disenfranchised persons of various types might be the answer.  Not everyone can make the committment required to be a member of a L'Arche community, however, everyone can make some sort of committment to a neighber.  People will be able to deal with more or less severe disabilities according to who they are.  I for one can work with a mentally ill, homeless man, or another emotionally disturbed man whom I used to know because of who I am, my personality, etc.  Others would be scared or threatened.  But there are plenty of sweet adults with down syndrome, for example, who could use a friend, a family to fill their lives.  The interaction would not be one sided either.  Both would gain.  There are children/adults with autism and their families who would gain from interactions with other families.  Families who would take the time to learn how to baby sit for the autistic child sometimes.  There are group homes in the community where sweet adults with severe developmental disabilities live, where a visit a couple times a month would make a huge difference.  Yes there are staff at these facilities, but anyone who has ever been in a hospital knows the difference between being visited by the nurse and by a family member or friend.
 
So what am I proposing?  As the title states, this is just ruminating, but some kind of linkage between persons with and without disabilities, particularly interactions in which regular families get to know persons with disabilities and their families.  I would love to pull any 5 year old child at my church aside and ask, do you know someone with mental retardation, someone with a disability?  I would literally cry if I could consistently hear, "Yea, Rosa is coming to our house for a barbeque today!"
 
We can get there.
McNair
 

Why so accepting?

Continuing on with my last entry, I wondered why persons with mental retardation (in particular) are so accepting of others, almost an unconditional acceptance.

You might say, that because of the state of need they find themselves in, they have somehow learned to be accepting in order to get what they need from others. I think there is some truth to the fact that acting politely has been pounded into them by parents and others. I remember a woman who had down syndrome who was a friend of mine who would precede literally anything she would say with, "Now, I want to say this in a nice way . . ." Obviously those around her had constantly reminded her to say things in a nice way, and it became a part of her vocabulary. However, people who can help them and people who cannot help them are both treated with the same general level of acceptance. So the notion of being nice in order to "get something" is really pretty much foreign to these individuals.

You might say they are accepting in order to get friends, because they lack friends. I am sure there are those who are lonely for whatever reason (parents won't let them out of the house, aspects of their disability, etc.) but although they may lack friends within the nondisabled community, they are often rich with friends within the community of persons with disabilities. In interviews I have done with adults with disabilities, they pretty much equate their friends with and without disabilities. I have also noticed that the network amongst persons with disabilities in the community can be pretty extensive.

But there are characteristics of persons with disabilities which endear you to them, make you feel accepted. Its funny that in interviews with adults with disabilities, if I ask who their best friend is, they always say me, and if my son Josh is in the room, they also say Josh or whoever else is with me. Now as with other people there are some with disabilities who I am very close to and others with whom I am just friends. But they characteristically, will take the person close to them at the moment, in the room, and refer to him as their best friend. I know caseworkers who have been confused by this. Because they hear such affirmations from disabled adults they believe that that is the case, but it is not. This is not a put down of the caseworkers and perhaps they are the best friend of some of their clients, but rather it is a statement about persons with disabilities. As in the old Crosby, Stills and Nash song, they truly do love the one they are with.

Because of characteristic difficulties with social skills, the manner in which this acceptance is shown is not always understood by those without disabilities which causes some of the distancing. A fellow I know, whenever he sees me, will steal my keys, or tickle me (I haven't been tickled in many years, except by him), or grab my hand and refuse to let go. All these are expressions of affection by him. But he did these things the first time we met. If people aren't in an accepting mindset I think they probably will reject these kinds of advances even though they are innocent and friendly on the part of the individual with disability.

Another reason persons with mental retardation are so accepting is that they don't always understand the subtle social cues indicating rejection. These minor social skill deficits will at times get them into trouble in the workplace. These same inabilities to recognize social cues will cause them to be undaunted in social relationships. They themselves are different. If for some reason they don't like you, they will say so; you pretty much always know where you stand. Whereas we in our socially appropriate manner will give you subtle cues of rejection becoming increasingly more overt in our rejection. There is something refreshing in someone honestly saying to you, "I don't like you because you use bad language," or "I don't like you because you hit other people" as compared to speaking about others behind their backs or simply avoiding them.

By way of example, we recently had a new member come to our church program for adults with disabilities. The new guy, a big fellow with down syndrome, came in. I immediately plopped myself down by him and started to make conversation. "Where are you from?" "Do you have any brothers and sisters?" "What do you like to do for fun?" "What kinds of things bother you?" After answering all the questions preceding, he answered the last question, "I don't like people asking me a bunch of questions." Great answer, great honest answer. We have continued to grow in friendship, and I know I can count on him to be honest with me.

One can never take a whole group and characterize them in one particular way. That is called stereotyping. However, just a persons with down syndrome look like they are all from the same family, I think there is a characteristic of persons with cognitive disability, with mental retardation, which makes them similar in the ways in which they interact with others. In the midst of their mental retardation, God gives them in some ways, a social advantage. It is a strange combination of honesty, a lack of defensiveness, gregariousness, and social ineptitude. There is also an ability to be forgiving which I think is beyond that of the rank and file nondisabled person.

I have always thought that persons with down syndrome have the perfect social make up to be great Wal-mart greeters.

McNair

Models of acceptance

A few weeks back, I went to pick up a man with disabilities who lives at a retirement home, mostly for seniors. Typically when I go to pick him up, he is asleep in his chair, and has to go through a variety of varying routines before we can leave (which is why I am pretty much always late for church). Anyway, as I waited for him, his room mate was awake, sitting in a chair. Before him sat his breakfast which he was largely unaware of. He is a man of about 70, obviously in later stages of alzheimers disease. As he sat there, he had a running diatribe with someone who wasn't there, but was very real to him. The conversation went something like this. " You (deleted) I'm going to kill you. I am going to (deleted). You (deleted)." I think you get the idea. Violent language littered generously with various profanities and racial slurs. On the wall there were pictures of the man with family members, with children, so obviously he was definately not what his language now makes him appear to be. (I shudder to think what might come out of my mouth were I in his same condition).

Anyway, as we were walking out to the car, I asked my friend if he liked his room mate. "Yes" he replied. He told me his name and said he liked him although "he doesn't talk much to me." I was surprised at his response.

But then I thought of other people with developmental disabilities I have known. I know a guy, good looking, athletic, muscular build who also has mental retardation who would always introduce me to his latest girlfriend. I found it interesting that such a good looking guy would choose girlfriends who were very severly disabled. Sometimes not, but it was obvious that appearance had very little to do with how he chose his girlfriends. I doubt that he consciously had rejected the standard that secular society places on good looks, etc., however, he had. When I would ask him about a girlfriend, he would talk about how she worked hard at the workshop, or was very friendly, or had a nice smile.

It is this type of acceptance which originally amazed me about persons with mental retardation and drew me in to the point that I wanted to spend my life with them. They accepted me with a full acceptance independent of who I was. They loved me openly, without the kinds of walls that we put up between ourselves in relationships even between friends. Acceptance is a wonderful thing.

How can people who are so accepting of others be often so rejected by them? Hmmm. I see the image of God in the manner in which people with mental retardation love others for who they are, independent of the things which would typically cause people to be stand offish (appearance, social skills, hygiene, disability, etc.). They show acceptance and simply hope for acceptance back. Oftentimes, even if it is not reciprocated, they press on with love and acceptance. If you give them a chance you will find them a model for you as to how to accept others.

McNair

The focus of skill development

In the design of educational programs for students with cognitive disabilities, Dr. Lou Brown at the University of Madison, Wisconsin stated in a 1979 article that education should provide

chronologically age appropriate
functional skills
in natural environments

It is wise to consider these aspects in designing church programs for individuals with cognitive disabilities.

Briefly, chronological age appropriate means you interact with these people on the basis of their chronological age, not their supposed "mental age." Treat adults like adults in all ways possible. Treat 10 year olds like 10 year olds. To treat them otherwise will only further stigmatize people who are already experiencing some degree of stigmatization on the basis of their disability. I have mentioned in this blog that I am a buddy to a young man in a Sunday School program. One day, he brought a purple teddy bear to church. Now if he were a preteen girl, that would probably be fine. However, as a preteen boy that would only bring negative attention to himself. I pulled him aside and asked him if any of the other boys in the class had brought their teddy bear to church. He replied "No." "Well, maybe you shouldn't bring yours either" I replied. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a young boy carrying his teddy bear, however, I know how that young boy will appear to his peers, so I will encourage him not to bring the bear to reduce the stigmatization.

Functional skills can be defined as skills having a high probability of being required of someone. For me, profesional writing is a functional skill. However, professional writing was not a functional skill for my father who was a tool and die maker. For him measurement to thousanths of an inch was a functional skill. For me it isn't even on the radar screen. There are skills which are functional for successful functioning of adults with cognitive disabilities and those which are not. It is useful for the Sunday school teacher to consider these. I remember a lesson provided to a group of adults with mental retardation about the conflicts between David and Saul. The take home lesson was that David could have killed Saul but he didn't, so wasn't he a great guy because he didn't kill him. You or I might be able to make a connection between this conclusion and our lives (having the ability to get revenge or do evil to another but not doing it because we want to do what's right, etc.) but this was hardly functional for those for whom the lesson was designed. In contrast, there was a lesson about walking away when someone is abusive to you. I think that to this day, if Gary (a guy in the class when the lesson was taught) if he saw me would say, "Jeff, do you know what I am going to do if someone calls me a fat pig (the insult of choice for that lesson), I am going to walk away." In this man's life, such verbal abuses were common, so that the remedy of walking away was a functional response. We need to consider the functionality of what we are teaching when we teach any Biblical lesson to any group for that matter.

Natural environments means that we teach the skills in the environment in which they will need to be evidenced. This is more difficult, particularly with behavioral issues, however, we can still do what we can to facilitate the generalization of the skills to the natural environment.

Overall, Brown's emphasis is to look at the kinds of skills that adults need to be successful and teach them to students with an eye toward the longitudinal development of skills. If Sally needs to be able to interact socially with other adults in a workplace as an adult, what can I do to help her to move toward that outcome as she stands before me as a 10 year old. The same might apply in regards to spiritual development, personal disciplines of the Christian faith, quiet times, etc. We think of the behaviors which make for successful followers of Christ in adults and develop them in the persons who come to us, whatever their age.

McNair

Ideals for church ministry

I sometimes wonder whether I really know what specifically I am after when I think of the ideal for involvement of persons with cognitive disabilities in the church.

I know I want the church to be accepting. I think there is an institution wide problem of perception. A misunderstanding about who people with disabilities are. In its best form it is simply paternalistic and condescending. People with cognitive disabilities are treated as if they are children. In its worst form, it is theologically incorrect and even evil. People with disability are seen as the result of evil, or lacking faith. The response might even be, "But they are the result of evil. Disability is the result of the Fall" which illustrates the point. As true as that statement might be, I have compassion on the child of the alcoholic, I don't blame the child for the sins of the parent. If disability is indeed the result of sin (from the Fall or parents) the victim should not be the one blamed. The sin should have little or no impact on interactions (other than perhaps increasing compassion), as those interacting with the person with cognitive disability carry the same burden of inherited sin.

I want people, Christians overall to be more patient and more accepting. I know of a situation where a woman with moderate disability was excluded from a Bible study. As it turned out, the people in the Bible study basically just didn't want her there. There wasn't anything in particular that she was doing "wrong." How can this happen in a Christian church? If the reason I go to church is for me, then it can easily happen. I want comfort, sameness, no confrontation, music I like, and my donut to be fresh. If I go to church to meet with God, I want accessibilty and acceptance for those around me so that they can have a positive worship experience. I want to be in a place where people are serious about taking the Gospel to the world, to all people and welcoming those people when they come to the church.

I want the church to be willing to adapt what it does in order to include persons with disability. Rather than saying "we have no place for you" the church should be saying, "we will change so there is a place for you." We shouldn't say things like, "that is not a priority for ministry" or "we haven't the funds to start that" or "we haven't the training to do that" all of which are just excuses for a lack of interest. We should be saying, "We don't have anything today for your child with autism, but can you give us 2 weeks and we will be ready. Please give us 2 weeks so we can have the opportunity to serve you, your child and your family."

I want people to see their responsibility toward others in the church as a 24/7 kind of thing. I am speaking to myself when I say that we need to care more about all the people in the church. In regards to persons with disability, phone calls, an occasional lunch out would be great, and so appreciated. Many persons with cognitive disability, particularly in the town where I live, consider a lunch at a burger place a big deal as such extravagances are often not within their budgets.

I want families to teach their children about persons with disabilties. I want children to have experiences with persons with disabilities. To know people with cognitive disabilities by name so they can understand who they are and develop relationships with them. It is through this kind of understanding that fear and discomfort goes away.

I want people in the church to be prepared to live in the world. Obviously instruction in the Bible is critical. Instruction in other areas of life is also important. Using our subject, instruction might be provided in interacting with persons with disability; how does one interact, what would you say, what might you do. This instruction is perhaps necessary not because there is some secret about it, or some special knowledge that is needed, but just to break down the intellectual walls which cause people to believe that there are special secrets or special knowledge that is needed.

I will never forget the first time I was given instruction in what to do if someone has a seizure. I expected complicated instructions about, well I don't know what, but I expected complicated instructions. When a person has a seizure, the best thing you can do is to help them to the ground, if they haven't already fallen down, and just allow them to go through the seizure. You might keep track of how long the seizure lasts or keep their head from banging against something hard and you want to help the person once they come out of the seizure, be sure they are ok, don't need anything, etc. but otherwise you basically do nothing.

I want people within the church to understand that the way you interact with persons with cognitive disability is no different than those without cognitive disability.

McNair

What would the church look like?

What would a church that always includes all types of disenfranchised people look like?

What would it look like organizationally?
There would have to be many channels of communication set up and open to deal with the many isues people would have both as persons with problems and with persons with problems. Because some of those who are disenfranchised are used to "working the system" there would have to be ways of checking their stories to both have some level of stewardship over the resources of the church, for reasons of safety for the members (children and adults).
Communication would be imperative in supporting such people with their various emergencies.
Communication would also help the church leadership to keep on top of the needs of all members of the church, particularly those who are disenfranchised. Perhaps particular pastors, leaders or lay people would be the first points of contact through whom someone might become enfolded.

What would be characteristics of the people there.
Church members would need to come to church prepared for the unexpected. Church services might become a bit more unpredictable due to the social skills (or lack thereof) in the membership. But the people in attendance would be just a genuine as those already in attendance in regards to their desire to worship, to grow, to change. Their backgrounds, disabilties, etc., might cause them to come out of a different background, however.

Other potential characteristics might include,
fresh - a certain unpredictability might also bring freshness to the situation
unpredictable - when things are unpredictable, they require another whole set of skills. You become less brittle in the way you do things. You have a plan and a program, but it adapts with the situation. The flexibility which results is a good thing.
accepting - because you are committed to enfolding all types of people, particularly those whom society has often rejected, your level of acceptance expands. You begin to worry less about how someone dresses or looks or smells. The range of "normal" expands as you meet more people who are outside of what is typically considered to be normal. For example, a friend of mine with cognitive disabilities talks a little too loud during the church service (a service for largely white people in an affluent suburb). I visit other churches in other settings and I find that behavioral standards for churches are different. An African-American pastor once spoke at my church and wondered out loud whether the people were paying attention because they were so quiet.
full - the church would be full of both people who are disenfranchised and those who desire to serve those people.
ministering - to others would be the rule of the day. I remember Lake St. Church in Chicago which did include many disenfranchised persons who required a high level of service to be eligible for initial or ongoing church membership (I believe). Not an entirely bad idea.
needs met without programs - sure there would be many programs within the church, however, much of the work of the church which should be encouraged on a one to one basis would happen naturally. Programs are not to be disdained, however, individuals or families helping others independent of programs should be encouraged.
prepared for this role - obviously people would need to be prepared for this role. There would have to be discussions about what is appropriate or inappropriate within a Christian church setting. As and undergrad, I took a course in "contextual theology" the jist of which should be a must for all churches. Can you have communion without bread, or grape juice? I sometimes wonder whether churches believe you could. Could you have a worship service without a sermon? Could you have singing without people with microphones up front? Preferences which seem almost wrong, are often far more the result of cultural differences, or even what people have become used to more than something ordained by scripture.
character of worship would change - at times in church I try to imagine what the persons with mental retardation who sit next to me are thinking about what they are hearing. I listen to them sing the worship songs with the words projected on the screen and imagine how I would do singing those songs. If I look away from the words, I find I sound a lot like they do, remembering a few words when I sing. Obviously the entire character of the worship can't change to better include a few with disabilities, for example, however, I wonder what thought is put into planning for persons who are dyslexic or mentally handicapped, etc.
many would leave - finally, in such a church many would leave. They want their God to be predictable, and they want him to be worshipped in an predictable manner. Don't change the order of the worship, the songs sung, the version of the Bible, the social skills required, the way the offering is taken, or to some extent who they have to sit next to. If the church really started bringing in everyone, many would leave because I honestly believe that there are those who don't want everyone there. In fact they would rather have particular persons not there then have their familiar worship experience disrupted.

More on this later.

McNair

We need to lead the way

Several years back, a friend of mine, a professor at a state university who is not a Christian to my knowledge, sent me a book he had written about natural supports to adults with disabilities. It was an interesting treatment of the topic. However, as I looked in the index for words like "church" or "religion" or even "faith-based" there were no listings. I responded by sending a hand full of articles which I had written on the topic and a brief note, "Have you considered this type of support."

Unfortunately, that is the perspective taken in much secular writing about the role of the church in supporting persons with disability. But I must admit that over the years when I have spoken publicly to secular groups about the potential of church support to persons with disabilities, I am sure to talk about the potential for support.

If you have read many of the entries in this blog, you get the idea that I am exhorting (critical in a positive way, I hope) the Christian church to do more to seek out and support the disenfranchised persons in the community. I honestly believe that if the Church was working harder at this, it would be impossible to write a book about supports for persons with disabilities and not mention the Church (I honestly still believe there is a lack of academic rigor evidenced by those who do write about support and don't mention religious groups). In a nutshell, I think the problem is that the Church is allowing the secular world to lead the way in so many areas of life, particularly as they relate to the works of the Church. So we put in ramps for wheelchairs when the ADA requires it. Why were Christian churches not the first buildings in the community to install ramps for access? At times, state agency caseworkers bring people with disabilities to the church of their own initiative. Why weren't we out there trying to recruit these people? Christian parents stay home from church because there is no place for their autistic son in the Sunday school class, or other children or families feel uncomfortable. The Sunday school should be redesigned to accommodate all children. Perhaps we could come up with the model for the delivery of educational services to children. We certainly have the mind of God on our side. I can't imagine that would be a logistical problem He couldn't figure out.

But the world looks at the public school system where integratiaon zealots have made efforts to integrate all students to the point of being goofy, and Christian parents keep their kids with disabilties at home because the Church has nothing for them. Man, this has got to change!

McNair

If an 18 year old bball player can figure out what to do . . .

My first real interactions with persons with disabilities was back in 1978 at Wheaton college. My brother, Steve, was working in a recreation program for persons with cognitive disabilities and he invited me to visit it with him. I immediately fell in love with the people there, partly because of their honesty, partly because their openness and lack of social walls.

Anyway, one of the guys there was named Johnnie. Johnnie was about 17 and had autism. Now I had never heard about autism, had never read about autism, had no experience with autism. I found him fascinating and began to watch him whenever I went to the program. Eventually I came up with a plan to try to develop a friendship with him. I mimicked some of the physical actions he would do, like rocking. I mimicked some of the language he would say. He enjoyed brief tickling of his ribs, so over a relatively short time I taught him to come up to me and say "Tickle me." Nothing fancy, I just told him I wouldn't tickle him until he said "Tickle me." Well, because he was echolaliac, he would repeat the last phrase I would say to him, so he would always end up saying "Tickle me." The cool thing was when he began to initiate the phrase himself.

Later I came to find out that my approach wasn't too bad. It actually has some of the components which one would find that are good ways of working with a person with autism. I had no training, but with a desire to interact with him and a little observation, was able to come up with a plan and implement it.

I was in a meeting yesterday where I heard again the excuse that programs for persons with disability do not exist in churches because people don't know what to do, don't have any training. I tire of that excuse. I admit that deep down I am a special educator, however, I as an 18 year old person who had up to that point spent most of my time developing my jump shot was able to figure out something to do.

When people within churches, or church leaders say they don't know what to do, I think they have either bought the secular lie that you must have some degree or type of training to do anything for someone else, or just don't care. It is time that the church stepped back and looked at some of its practices, particularly as they relate to persons with disabilities. Many practices are based on secular principles, not the principles of scripture. Others are due to lazy theology which also indicates a lack of caring. Others are due to the general malaise of a Christian church that doesn't make persons with disability a priority, perhaps again because they are running their churches like businesses rather than like churches.

At some point faith has to kick in when one is using the financial excuse for doing nothing.

At some point personal responsibility for one's neighbor has to kick in over thinking it is someone else's responsibility.

At some point the desire to serve must overwhelm the "lack of training" which so often is the excuse of choice for doing nothing.

At some point people with disability have to be seen as people rather than the result of sin, or a black hole for service, or some other negative stereotype.

At some point people who aren't as yet directly affected by disability have to take an interest and do something rather than waiting to be effected themselves and then complaining that the services are weak or lacking.

At some point those who are affected by disability must see disability as more than just their own family member and broaden their responsibilities to others with disability.

At some point professionals and family members of persons with disability have to recognize that they have expertise which they can share beyond their own work day, or personal family experience in order to improve the lives of others with disability and change "The Church" to the kind of receptivity toward persons with disabilities exemplified by Jesus himself.

I don't buy the "I don't have any training" excuse anymore, and if you give that one to me, I will tell you to your face that it is just an excuse. Do something an be corrected by those with training who might be able to help, or, God forbid, do something and ask for guidance from God's Holy Spirit who is eminently able to guide you. But please, no more of the excuses about training.

McNair