Christian social constructions

Are we a reflection of what social constructions say we are? At times we may desire to be a reflection of social constructions, at other times, not. For the Christian, we have been givein this archetype construction of who a person should be in the form of Jesus. Any Christian worth his salt will say that his greatest aspiration is to be like Jesus. The social construction of a "follower of Jesus" is something that was new at the time of Jesus, but has developed over time as Christians continue to grow in their understanding of who Jesus was and is. Douglas (1970) states that social construction theory explains a process whereby a reality is developed through the creation of knowledge. To the Christian, the reality is being a "Christ follower" which is built upon the knowledge which comes from revelation, wisdom and faith. If we truly understand this knowledge, we are able to look upon an individual and have some notion of how that individual lines up with the plumb line of "Christ follower."

There are those who would say that people are much more than a reflection of social constructions, whatever they may be, but for the Christian, the desire is to reflect the social construction in significant ways. For example, Jesus modeled ways in which a person would love his neighbor, love his enemy, and love and worship God. Christians themselves might mimic the ways in which Jesus prayed, by repeating the Lord's Prayer, making it their own. Christians might mimic Jesus' dedication by devoting daily time for prayer, Bible reading and reflection. Christians might also look at specific behaviors and language that Jesus used in reference to a particular life issue he confronted. For example, one might study Jesus' interactions with persons with disability in order to reflect the language and behaviors Jesus used in reference to persons with disability. The example of this interaction provides a knowledge set basic to a social construction of who persons with disability are, what disability is, and what the responsibilities of persons in the world toward both disability and those who have "disabilities." Jesus' life and teachings might be said to be the basis for a Christian social construction of disability.

For Christians, the degree to which they represent this social construction of disability, reflects the degree to which they emulate Jesus in this particular area of life. If they do not represent this social construction in this particular area, they do not represent Jesus. The Christian social construction is prescriptive in a slightly different way than the typical social constructions.
As we are socialized as people, we come to believe particular things about how the world works. Some notions are ingrained in our psyche. Every American child knows to "look both ways before crossing the street" or "don't pet a strange dog." But also built into that psyche deliberately or otherwise are "there but for the grace of God go I" or "don't stare" or "they can't help the way they are" or "they are God's special angels" or "they have a poor quality of life." These perceptions are communicated just as clearly as others although not perhaps as consciously.

For Christians, a whole series of behavioral social constructions are built into members of succeeding generations biologically and spiritually. Much of this "knowledge based reality" is indeed knowledge based. However, much of it is not and when examined shocks the person who had carried such a misperception all of his life.

I once went backpacking with some so-called friends. One of the group put a large rock in my backpack just before our decent down the mountain. Imagine my surprise to find that I had been carrying that rock for 8 miles. Upon recognizing that I had the rock in my pack, I promptly removed it and tossed it aside. We shouldn't press this metaphor too far, however, I was surprised because I had examined the things which found their way into the pack. I was surprised because something had gotten by my observation. In a life immersed in culture, we should not be surprised what notions, what ideas about reality, what social constructions fill our minds. It is only when we sit down and open our packs, when we engage in reflection in the light of what we know about our faith, that we see the incongruity of the rock in the backpack. But to recognize that a rock doesn't belong in a backpack, I need to know what does belong in a backpack. I don't throw out my dry socks, or my matches, but I definitely throw out the rock.

Over the centuries, Christians haven't been examining the contents of their backpacks, as least as they relate to persons with disability. If they had, they would have found that not only were they carrying rocks, they had neglected to pack dry socks and matches. How do we know this? It is because of the prescriptive nature of the Christian social construction of disability which points us to the knowledge which can be gained from studying the revelation of the life of Jesus, the wisdom which can be gained from life among people with "disability" and the understanding of one's own faith, who is invited to faith, and what the requirements of faith are.

Douglas, J.D. (1970). Understanding everyday life. In J.D. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life: Toward the resonstruciton of sociological knowledge (pp. 3-43). Chicago: Aldine.

McNair

More on "disabled" by design

I appreciated the thoughtful comments posted in reference to the last blog. It is interesting and I also think important to ask whether differences which our society has categorized as "disability" are examples of human variation or the result of "the fall." I will freely admit that I do not entirely understand what the answer is to that question. Observations I have made include those in the previous blog as well as others made at other times in months past in the blog. For example, is aging, and the degradation of the body the result of the fall? Are accidents like the one that caused me to blow out my ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) resulting in the bad knee I continue to have the result of the fall, or was there the possibility that someone could injure themselves to the point of having a bad knee pre fall?

As I said, I really am unsure, however, I am beginning to move in the direction of understanding differences called disabilities as a part of simple variations in the human race. When God says that his creation was "very good" does that mean that all of the human members of the creation were entirely equal in every way? At the very least, we know there were differences between men and women. At what point does a difference become a "disability?" History tells us that the number of persons labeled as disabled increased dramatically with the industrial revolution. That is, people who were within the "normal" range when all they had to do was have a strong back were now thought of as disabled in light of the demands of urban society. So one might ask, to what extent is "disability" a characteristic of an individual and to what extent is "disabilty" a reflection of the environment.

I recently saw the movie Ray about the life of Ray Charles. As I look at that movie, as I consider all that Mr. Charles achieved, I wonder at his "disability." In the range of visual ability, he was on the dark end of the scale, having lost his vision. So he had a severely diminished ability to perceive light. It is also true that he relied on persons in his environment to assist him throughout his life (as do I). But I kind of agree with his mother (as portrayed in the film) when she says something to the effect that "you cannot see, but don't become a cripple." Is the limited ability to see the result of the fall? I would think becoming a "cripple" is definately a result of the fall as it appears to reflect a lack of reliance on God, on oneself, and people. A person who is a "cripple" in the way that Ray Charles' mother implied is reflecting a negativity, a buying of the notion that one is less than created in the image of God. This notion is taught to a person, is pounded into a person by society and is society at its worst.

It has always struck me as ironic that people like me, who are largely within the normal range of ability levels, can look at our sin scarred selves with all the foibles and proclaim that we are created in God's image.

It also haunts me to come back to God's comment "who makes the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing, or the blind." Does God purposely create "imperfection" or do I need to change my definitions?"

. . . don't know, still working through it.

McNair

"Disabled" by design

And Jehovah said to him, Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the
dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Is it not I Jehovah?
(Leviticus 4:11)

Moses tells God that he didn't do the greatest job on his mouth. He says he is "heavy of mouth" and "heavy of tongue." Good description. However, in spite of his qualms, God doesn't relent. God responds with a kind of a rhetorical question put down. God knows Moses' mouth. The reply, however, is much broader when it says "who made man's mouth." To me the implication is that God knows about mouths (being the inventor) not just Moses' mouth, and also knows about the variations within and between mouths. "Who makes the dumb" God goes on to say, implying 1) that he knows of the variation between mouths, and 2) that he made the variations between mouths. That is, God even made the mouths of the dumb, those who cannot speak for whatever reason.

These observations on God's part are not restricted to the mouth, however. He goes on to say, "or the deaf" (i.e. variations in the ear) or the "seeing or the blind" (i.e. variations in the eye). Once again, the implication is that God created the variations we see in human beings, down to what are called disabilities; being unable to speak, unable to hear, or unable to see. One would assume that these variations could also include other types of "disability" including physical and mental differences. After all, sensorineural deafness and blindness imply nerve tissue insults or changes which would include mental retardation.

Taking this type of thinking to its final conclusion, these individuals we call persons with disability, are in reality part of the normal variation within human functioning. To think that God created a person who is unable to speak as a person who is unable to speak changes 1) the way I think about that person, 2) the language I choose to describe the abilities of that person, 3) the notion of who God is.

We will revisit these ideas.

McNair
(fcbu)

An Epiphany?

Epiphany: A spiritual event in which the essence of a given object of
manifestation appears to be the subject, as in a sudden flash of recognition
(The American Heritage Dictionary).

Epiphany? Maybe not. However, I did come to realize something the other day. One would think that the church would represent the comunity in which it finds itself. the church taken as a whole, say all the churches in the City of Redlands, California where I live, should reflect the entire community, but individual churches may not represent the community at all. That is, sadly we have churches which are overwhelmingly white, black, Hispanic or Asian in the ethnicity of the members. We even have churches which separate themselves within the groups. So if I go to a church that is predominatly black, I assume that white people worship somewhere else. If I go to a church that is predominantly Asian, I assume that the Hispanic people worship someplace else. I am used to attending churches which do not represent the community in and of themselves. Why would Christians choose or even want such an option? To me it is disturbing that we as Christians cannot even worship with people of a different ethnicity than ourselves. There is truth to the axiom, that Sunday morning at 11:00 is the most segregated hour of the week. The church will have some explaining to do when it meets its Husband.

However, I guess I assume that there are not very many African American people who attend my church because they go to a different church comprised of mostly African American people. In the same way, the Hispanics attend the Hispanic church, and I guess, the disabled people attend the disabled people church. Perhaps I have the same lack of concern in that I don't worry (or care) about those of a different ethnicity who don't attend my church, as I don't worry about the disabled people.

There are two problems with this assumption. One is that most people with disability do not represent a different culture. They are the same as the rest of us. The other is that there is not a separate church for persons with disability (nor should there be, I believe), so the only option is to include them in the existing churches. I would argue that you should assume that if persons with disability are not in your church, chances are that they aren't anywhere, aren't in any church. Why would your church be any different than any other in this regard?

So all you white, black, Hispanic and Asian churches, if their aren't white, black, Hispanic or Asian persons with disability attending your church, where do you think they are? Chances are they aren't attending any church. Do you care? Even if you do have some persons with disability at your church, do they represent the numbers you might expect in the community? Do you know?

"I tell you the truly, whatever you did not do for one of the least of
these, you did not do for me" (Matthew 25:45)

If you are not doing anything, why would you assume that someone else is?

McNair
(fcbu)

The Phantom of the Opera

This past weekend, my daughter Amy and I went to see "The Phantom of the Opera." We both loved it. I recognize that it is just a story, but there were many aspect of the story which made me think.

The loving character of Christine, the Phantom's love interest, toward him is really interesting. At one point she speaks of how his exterior is not what alarms her, but rather the way his soul has become. We learn from the movie that his soul is what it is largely because of the treatment he received as a child, being put on display and abused. On one level, he is able to overcome the abuse he faced and develops a relationship with her, originally as her "angel of music" and later he attempts to become her lover. She has fallen in love with someone else, and at a critical point in the movie, the Phantom tells her he will kill her love interest if she doesn't abandon him and love him (the Phantom) instead. She chooses to go with the Phantom to save her lover, but prays that God will give her the ability to love him (the Phantom) if she makes the committment to him. After a kiss from her, the Phantom realizes that he loves her, and releases her from the bargain so that she can go with the man she loves. In a remarkable show of love toward the Phantom, she goes back to him and places a ring in his hand, given to her by the man she loves.

This interaction between Christine and the Phantom was a wonderful example of understanding someone who has been devastated by the cruelty of society over a disability. Through her kindness, his love for her grows although he must ultimately let her go. With that in mind, the final scene is particularly poignant.

I have run across persons with disability in my life, who literally hated the church because of the interactions they have had with Christians. Sometimes the church can be even more hurtful than the world, particularly toward those who have a desire to belong to the church. But true love on the part of the church toward those with disability can at times heal the pain of the past. Like the Phantom stewed as he observed the interactions at the opera house, there are those with disability, or family or friends of persons with disability who stew as they stand on the outside. The Phantom wanted to be involved, wanted to be a part of the opera. Ultimately he wrote his own opera, which was a ploy on his part to not only become a part of the opera itself, but to become close to someone on the inside who captured his heart.

I want to be one who captures the heart of persons with disability and causes them to want to come back to the church, or come to it for the first time. I want to be the one who shows the love that softens the heart of the aggrieved; those who have actually experienced cruelty from people like me, Christian or otherwise.

McNair
(fcbu)

March 5, 2005 NACSPED Conference

The National Association of Christians in Special Education (NACSPED) is hosting their first national conference on March 5, 2005 at California Baptist University in Riverside California. This new organization was founded last year, and hopes to

• Bring Christian special educators together
• provide encouragement to Christian special educators
• provide professional development in a Christian context
• work to help the Church and its agents become more open to and accepting of persons with various disabilities

The conference is also be one of the many "That all may worship" conferences held across the country, begun by the National Organization on Disability.

For more information, go to
http://nacsped.com
or
http://jeffmcnair.com

McNair
(fcbu)

Remembering Amar, the man with down syndrome used by suicide bombers

"Down syndrome youth used as suicide bomber" is what the headline said. Apparently this young man, Amar, was a 19 year old Iraqui who was kidnapped rigged with bombs and sent to an area where people were being frisked before entering to vote. One report said he was to go to the checkpoint area, but went half way and then began to walk back toward the terrorists when they detonated the explosives. Another report says that he was "crossing open ground." A relative said, "They must have kidnapped him. He was like a baby. He had nothing to do with the resistance and there was nothing in the house for him to make a bomb. He was a Shiite. Why bomb his own people? He was mindless, but he was mostly happy, laughing and playing with the children in the street. Now his father is inconsolable; his mother cries all the time" (from The Age).

So now the terrorists have reached a new low in using cognitively impaired individuals like Amar to further their murderous agenda. It is one thing for a person to hold to a particular political agenda to the point of sacrificing his life for that agenda. It is another to take the lives of random others in one's self destruction. However, it is the depth of evil to take the life of someone who is oblivious to political maneuverings, oblivious about much of what is going on around him in the world even and sacrifice his life and those of random others.

It is my hope that the Muslim Arab world will see this murder of a man, a man innocent of political affiliation, at the hands of those who speak and act for "god" as the final proof positive that a political movement which would use blameless, naive persons with cognitive disability as the vehicle for murder needs to be removed from the face of the Earth.

I would like to think that Amar somehow figured out what was happening to him, and refused to be used in that manner. Many people like Amar that I have known would have acted with such courage.

McNair
(fcbu)

Matthew's Ministry

I first heard of this story from my friend and colleague Dr. John Shoup a scholar in the area of leadership who read about it in Kouzes and Posner's Christian Reflections on The Leadership Challenge. The Frankford District, Kentucky Conference of the United Methodist Church placed this retelling on their website. http://www.fewpb.net/users/frankfdist/devotion.html I provide a copy of it here below.


"MATTHEW'S MINISTRY Philippians 4:10-13

Adam Hamilton tells the story of visiting a woman (family) that had visited his church a week earlier. She informed him that her family had relocated from Texas. Though she appreciated his visit, she informed him that her family would not be attending nor joining his church. Why? She pointed to a child with multiple disabilities sitting in a wheelchair who had special needs as the reason why. The church in Texas had a ministry for such children that allowed parents to worship and be a part of ministry. Adam asked the woman that if she would be willing to attend the church if it could provide support for Adam during worship. She said yes. He said give me two weeks. He went back to the congregation and shared this experience and asked if persons would be willing to volunteer for an hour or so once a month to sit with and watch over Matthew. Several raised their hands. This was the beginning of Matthew's Ministry at Church of the Resurrection. Today, there are 35 persons in this ministry where children are watched and cared for while other family members worship and attend Sunday School.

Hamilton tells this story against the backdrop of an operating principle of his church of doing whatever is necessary for ministry to take place. Is this not a part of our calling. To sit with and watch over one another. An on-going lament of many churches is woe is me (us). We do not have the expertise, facility and know how to do these things. There is a mentality that we could do so much more if only we had the resources. God has already shown us what is good: to look over and care for one another. There are so many ways in which we can be in ministry with minimal financial resources. As you enter into a period of planning and resourcing ministries for the coming year, please be reminded that we need not impose parameters of why we cannot do certain things. It is my heart desire and prayer to God that you continue - please note the word continue - to be open to the many ways that we can be in ministry with one another and others. Peace and Grace. "

It all seems so easy, so obvious. We truly, "need not impose parameters of why we cannot do certain things." Obviously God can use experts, however, he doesn't need experts. See 1 Corinthians 1:26-29. God chose "the things that are not" to accomplish his purposes.

McNair
(fcbu)

Big Fish

I must admit that I am intrigued by Tim Burton's films. They all have an edge and seem to me at least to have many lessons. In "Big Fish" there is a comment made by Edward Bloom which resonated with me. Before I share it with you, I must tell you that I don't agree with the statement, although there is an aspect of the statement that I very much agree with. Bloom says,

"It was that night I discovered that most things you considered evil or
wicked are simply lonely and lacking in social niceties."

They are "simply lonely and lacking in social niceties." There are some things which are perceived, maybe not as evil, but as deviant or devalued which fit that description. To be deviant is often to be lonely. To lack in social niceties is to be perceived as different in a negative sense. The tolerance by society of minor social skill deficits is limited. In fact, research in special education in the 1980's indicated that the reason most persons with disabilities lose their jobs is due to minor social skill defecits. Persons who are lonely and lack social skills are devalued by society. Persons with cognitive disability are often lonely and are characterized as a group as lacking in social niceties, social skills. They also find themselves devalued.

A question that might be asked, however, is whether loneliness the result of poor social skills, or are poor social skills the result of loneliness? Persons with cognitive disability have been characterized as having minor social skill deficits. Could it be that these deficits are partially the result of limited contact with the general public? Could it be that these deficits are partially the result of loneliness? I know of no research supporting either of these notions, however, it is definately arguable that contributions to the social deficits of persons with cognitive disability might be made by loneliness.

But the other part of the statement is that the speaker says that things he considered evil or wicked were the reslut of loneliness and social niceties. People have perceived persons with disablity as evil or wicked because they didn't understand them and didn't take the time to understand them. We also have very little tolerance for anything outside of the expected socially.

I need to deal with this notion in further depth at a later time, however, the environment, society needs to change. Not all of the tolerance blather that is currently advocated is worth listening to. However, tolerance to minor social skill deficits on the part of society should be something that most can champion. If you give people a little latitude, you will often find that they are great people, much more like you than different from you. However, we as members of the environment need to change. We need to broaden the definition of normal to include those with minor social skill deficits.

We may not be able to completely address the social niceties part of the equation, but we can definitely do something about the loneliness.

McNair
(fcbu)

U.S. Catholic Bishops: Final Statement

May God Bless the U.S. Catholic Bishops for the vision they describe in the "moral framework" communicated through their 10 statements. These folks are no fools; they recognize that they are describing a vision for the Christian church which we are not currently experiencing. Their statement also empowers those who would work within the church (particularly the Catholic church) to make changes which would result in their statement being a reality. I know this is the case as I have used it myself for that very purpose.

You can say they are unrealistic, but doesn't God often call us to be unrealistic? Is our unrealism a reflection of our vision for the church which in some ways reflects God's vision for the church, or is it a lack of faith on our part to believe that the church could be all that God would want it to be.

You see, in any discussions, when you talk about including all God's children in the church, you have God's heart. I know that when I say that the church needs to be more caring toward persons with disability I am not just Jeff McNair speaking. I have full confidence that I am reflecting the God of the Bible. People will say that we need to be realistic, but I honestly don't know what they mean by that.

I often think people who say those kinds of things assume that I know as little as they about the issue and so they can therefore give me a snowjob about costs, or time committment, or some other reason for why we do not need to include persons with disabilities. It is not just me that they try to convince, it has become the standard response to just about anyone who attempts to call them into account for a heartless approach to persons with disability. The problem is, however, that those responses (cost too much, no facilities, etc.) have been used so successfully in the past, they HAVE become the reason for limited programs (in reality, a lack of caring).

But it's not just me who knows better. The leadership of the Catholic church in America knows better, and it is my hope that they will educate members of their church and the Christian church generally so that the pat answers for a lack of caring which have been so successful in the past will be regarded for what they are.

TASH, The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps used to have a button that said something like, "When someone says, lets be realistic, it means that someone is about to get screwed." I am tired of the church being realistic. I want the church to be faithful.

McNair
(fcbu)

U.S. Catholic Bishops part 10

The following is from the "Doctrine and Pastoral Practices" website sponsored by the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops. http://www.nccbuscc.org/doctrine/disabilities.htm

"10. Evangelization efforts are most effective when promoted by diocesan staff and parish committees which include persons with disabilities. Where no such evangelization efforts exist, we urge that they be developed."

It is true that for many forms of disability (blindness, hearing impairment particularly deafness, and physical disability) the inclusion of persons with disability on "diocesan staff" would be helpful. These folks might be perceived as more accessible to others having similar disability.

But it might also be felt that the role of the disabled staff member is to work with the congregational members that were disabled. Using that rationale, we need a white guy for the white people, a black gal for the black people, a bald guy for the bald people and so on. I wonder at the phrase that "evangelization efforts are most effective . . . committees which includes persons with disabilities." Please don't get me wrong, I am in favor of inclusive practices. I understand the need to relate to the community, to identify with the community, to have the community identify with those in any form of leadership. But we must not fall into the trap of patronizing people or seeing them as a Hispanic person or a tall person or a disabled person. We first see them as people. Should there be an evangelist amongst them who wants to serve on the committee, great. But, the person in the chair is on the committee because she is the best person for the committee. She is an evangelist (in this case) who moves about in a wheelchair.

Persons with various disabilities should feel that they have access to the same whatever, the same everything that those without disability have access to. But being in a wheelchair doesn't make a person an evangelist to others in wheelchairs. Placing a person with blindness doesn't not mean we now have a blind ministry. It does mean, however, that we see people for the gifts they bring to the table, and blindness is not a disqualifying factor.

Are there some disabilities which would disqualify a person with that disability from some aspects of Christian service? Absolutely. A person with mental retardation should probably not be the leader of the Bible study. Particularly if he can't read the Bible, or understand the subtleties of the scripture his cognitive impairment makes difficult for him. Should such a person serve on the evangelization committee? Maybe. Is he an evangelist?

Can you imagine if someone asked you to serve on a committee because they didn't have anyone who looked like you on the committee. Say it was a committee discussing particle physics, or some other obscure matter that you would have little knowledge of, and probably little to contribute. I for one would last about 10 minutes before I would say,

"You know, I'm sorry, but I really don't have a lot to contribute
here. I mean science is great and particles, sure, I'm in favor of
particles, but you are not taking advantage of my gifts, and frankly, I just
don't understand what you are talking about."
"But we want someone who looks like you on our committee so we can be
diverse."
"You know, that's great. I am all in favor of diversity. But I
would rather have the best people possible, whatever they look like. It
sure is nice to know that people who look like me are welcome on your committee,
but there must be someone else who looks like me who could participate. If
not, then I am happy to support your work, because the main thing is that you
have people who can do the work, not people who look like me."

Now the flip side, however, is that if I am a great candidate for the committee and you don't choose me because of what I look like, well, thats another issue. Thats called discrimination. But like section 504 of the Rehabilitation act of 1973 says, "No otherwise qualified handicapped person should be denied access. . . " The key is the otherwise qualified qualifier in the statement.

I must admit, however, that the notion of having persons with various disabilities on the evangelization committee could have its upside. Perhaps this is an effort on the part of the church to begin ministry to persons who they have ignored in the past. Perhaps this is an effort on the part of the church to say,

"Hey, we have gotten our act together and are doing better on this issue.
We will prove it to you by placing a person with disability in a position of
leadership. Look, there she is on the evangelization committee. In
the past we would discriminate against persons such as her, but look at us
now! We are doing much better than we did in the past!"

Now that I like. Its like allowing the cognitively disabled man to be an usher, or to serve communion. Its like hiring a staff member who is being PAID to develop ministries to persons with disability (whether or not the person is disabled herself). Its like having support staff available to support a child with autism who happens to show up some Sunday morning. From this perspective, it represents a change on the part of the church, an effort to reach out by correcting past wrongs.

McNair
(fcbu)

U.S. Catholic Bishops part 9

The following is from the "Doctrine and Pastoral Practices" website sponsored by the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops. http://www.nccbuscc.org/doctrine/disabilities.htm

"9. Often families are not prepared for the birth of a child with a disability or the development of impairments. Our pastoral response is to become informed about disabilities and to offer ongoing support to the family and welcome to the child."

It is interesting the the Bishops in response to a family being unprepred for a child with disability, say that it is the pastor's own responsibility, the pastoral response to become informed about disability. Wow, what an incredible response. The point is that although the family may be unprepared, the Bishops and their representatives within the church are not. Priests have received training and developed experience to assist families. Pastors and leaders in any type of a pastoral position recognize that in order to have a pastoral response, they must become informed about disabilites in order to offer ongoing support. The goal is to 1) support the family and 2) welcome the child.

As I have interacted with the Bishops' statements, it has become increasingly clear that these statements are a vision the Bishops are describing, not the reality of the situation "on the ground." I am reminded of a presentation I did a while back at Wright State University's Religion and Disability Issues Symposium. I built the presentation around comments made by Scrooge in A Christmas Carol, and the response of those requesting charity. Dickens dialogue goes like this. . .

“Are there no prisons? . . .And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge . . .”Are they still in operation? . . .The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigor, then?”. . . “Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” . . .”I wish to be left alone” . . . “since you asked me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer” . . . “I help support the establishments I have mentioned – they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides – excuse me – I don’t know that.”

“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.

I sometimes feel like those requesting money in the Scrooge vignette. There is sometimes a bluster which comes from the pulpit which reminds me of Scrooges response. People in positions of leadership make decisions to exclude and in so many words are saying that they didn't know they were making the decision to exclude, implying that those around them are in error to confront them on such issues. The response by the "gentleman" is wonderful in simply saying that although you do not recognize the contribution you are making to exclusion, to in some ways worsening the problem, ". . . you might know it." The information shared on this weblog, for example, is not something that is hidden from people, or is the result of significant training on my part. One needs only dig a bit into the response of the church to persons with disability to quickly recognize that there is significant failure at nearly every turn. The Bishops recognize that the knowledge required to be pastoral towards persons with disability and their families is knowable. How people can be supported is not only knowable, it is as a rule pretty easy.

I cannot tell you how many times, how many situations I am in where I am confronted with the perceived enormity of the task of supporting persons with disability on the part of those, particularly those in Christian leadership, when alerted to the need. It is going to cost so much money, or it is going to take so much time, or it is going to require so much physical change to the facilities and on and on. Bottom line, is that these protestations are simply unfounded.

Finally the Bishops speak of welcome to the child. Pastors have told me of a church member having a child with down syndrome, and not knowing what to say, or commissurating in the horror of it all. This is not an informed response to disability. As I have said elsewhere, persons with down syndrome are some of the nicest people in the world, and the problems they face typically have less to do with them than they have to do with the society around them. If I were to grieve at the birth of a child with down syndrome, I would grieve more for the inappropriate manner in which society will often treat the child than I will grieve for the child himself or for his disability. This comes from knowledge and experience. ". . . becoming informed about disabilities" through interactions with persons with down syndrome and their families.

The fact that pastoral leaders are not informed is indicative of the lack of persons with disabilities and their families within their churches.

McNair

Critical Reflections on Stanley Hauerwas' Theology of Disability

I am excited about the release of the book, Critical Reflections on Stanley Hauerwas' Theology of Disability: Disabling Society, Enabling Theology (edited by John Swinton).

I am personally looking forward to reading responses to Hauerwas from, Jean Vanier, Michael Bérubé, John O'Brien and Ray S. Anderson among others.

I was honored to play a small part in the book as one of the respondents. Specifically, I interacted with the article, "The Church and the Mentally Handicapped: A Continuing Challenge to the Imagination."

The book is scheduled for release shortly from Haworth press. A link is provided below should you be interested.

<http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sid=HHB8FN7KP1W29JL9FX5QWAFFEPJHFVS0&sku=5443&AuthType=4>

McNair

U.S. Catholic Bishops part 8

The following is from the "Doctrine and Pastoral Practices" website sponsored by the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops. http://www.nccbuscc.org/doctrine/disabilities.htm

"8. We welcome qualified individuals with disabilities to ordination, to consecrated life, and to full-time, professional service in the Church."

Although the primary focus of this blog has been integration of persons with disability, particularly cognitive disability, into the church we have at times touched on other areas of disability. Although I do not understand all aspects of "consecrated life" as mentioned by the Bishops, I suspect there could be vocations which might be filled by persons with some form of cognitive disability. Particularly those which might not require a great deal of study or theological understanding. Those which would not require the supervision of those without cognitive disability or some of the more demanding aspects of teaching. However, I want to move away from cognitive disability for a moment.

There is no doubt that persons with various forms of disability (physical disability, blindness, deafness, etc.) have been ordained and served in full-time professional service to the church. If they did not have these disabilities when they began service, they certainly have developed them over time. As we are using a Catholic document as a point of departure for this discussion, one need only consider the Pope who with advanced age has found himself increasingly facing apparent physical disabilities. Although these disabilities have impacted his ministry, they have in no way limited the impact of his ministry. I suspect there are many who upon seeing his disability are actually encouraged by the fact that he can relate to the physical issues they are facing in their lives.

There are also those who have been disabled by others in the service of God. The Bible speaks of horrific tortures people have faced over time because they refused to either denounce a belief in God, or refused to stop telling others about God. I cannot imagine we would now disqualify those who endured such trials from working in ministry.

I have known a variety of people who have served as ministers who also experienced disability. One of the most powerful sermons I ever saw was delivered by Rev. Steve Chance. He is an ordained minister who also has cerebral palsy. I remember Steve would sit in the front row of the church waiting to be introduced. Upon his introduction, he would slowly go up the steps leading to the stage so that he could deliver his message. You struggled with him as he made his way up the steps. Just the act of him climbing those steps drew you in, gave you some small bit of empathy toward the challenge moving around the community might be for him. As he would reach the platform and move toward the lectern, you were relieved. Steve, somewhat haltingly, would then turn and rivet the audience with a brief pause. "Is God fair?" he began, and you knew that he had a good notion of whether on not God was based upon his personal experience. Contrast that presentation with the good looking well built pastor who bounds up on stage and asks the same question. Steve had and has a vital ministry because of the experiences God has placed in his life. Experiences you and I and probably Steve would chose not to have, but the end result is a powerful witness for God in a way that others could not emulate.

I was in a meeting the other day where several deaf leaders in their church spoke about the incredible benefit of having a pastor/priest who was able to sign. It was not shared whether or not the person they spoke of was deaf himself. If he was, what a great investment on the part of the church to train up and place him among others who spoke the same language and had similar experiences (I am reminded of God coming to the Earth in the form of man). But even if he wasn't deaf, what an obvious thing to do to minister to a community. Can you imagine going to a church where you not only don't speak the language they speak, you can hardly even perceive it.

Involvement of persons with disability in church leadership is not a mandatory thing that must be done, but it does send a message to the congregation about what the church thinks about persons having that characteristic. If I see persons with my same racial flavor in leadership, it implies to me that people like me are valued. If I never see anyone who looks like me in leadership it implies that people like me cannot rise to leadership at worst, or at best that the church is too lazy to find someone like me.

I remember that at the university where I used to teach, a new building was built with a large lecture hall. The stage of the lecture hall had no wheelchair access to it. I can imagine the discussion between those who planned that stage . . . "Do you think we need to have wheelchair access to the stage?" "Naw, nobody in a wheelchair would be speaking to this group. Besides, if the university thinks its important, they can add a lift or something later." The ultimately did.

If the church wants to engage the community, to bring the community in, to minister to the community, then the congregation must reflect the community AND the leadership must reflect the community as well. If I don't see myself there, then I won't come.

McNair

U.S. Catholic Bishops part 7

The following statement is from the "Doctrine and Pastoral Practices" website sponsored by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is available at http://www.ncbuscc.org/doctrine/disabilities.htm

"7. We must recognize and appreciate the contribution persons with disabilities can make to the Church's spiritual life, and encourage them to do the Lord's work in the world according to their God-given talents and capacity."

You know, I honestly don't think we do recognize and appreciate the potential contribution persons with disabilities can make. We have an idea of what it might be like if persons with disability were integrated into the church, but really, we don't know.

I remember back in 1985 when I bought my first computer, a Mac (it was amazing). Although I had a notion of what I might be able to use a computer for, part of me felt like I was buying a Cadillac to go the grocery store when I already had a perfectly good electric typewriter. Now, I can hardly imagine life or work without a computer.

Perhaps if persons with disability were truly integrated into the church we would begin to recognize the contributions they have always been available and able to make but never had the opportunity to make because they were not fully included.

The Bishops also chide us that we must "encourage them to do the Lord's work." As I have stated elsewhere in this blog, a friend of mine named Jack is an adult with developmental disabilities who lives at a healthcare center for seniors. Jack lives there because of a medical problem he has, however, he is far and away the youngest man at that place. Many of the other residents are in advanced stages of senility, alzheimers, whatever you might want to call their gradual mental regression. But Jack knows all their names, says hello as he walks through the facility, talks about the Lakers (his favorite subject), reads the newspaper with them among many other things I am sure I am just not aware of. Jack is a minister of friendship and encouragement to the people living in that place. He also facilitates prayer for people in that place, staff and residents at times, through mentioning their names at times when we pray at church.

In my mind there is also something special about the prayer of a person with cognitive disability. Now don't get me wrong. The specialness has nothing to do with some idea that they have a special soul, or any other theological goofiness. The Bible says that the prayer of a righteous person avails much. Other notions of prayer are linked to faith. I find that persons with cognitive disability often have great deal of faith (as Jesus recommends, the faith of a little child). I really don't think God looks on us and says, "Your faith isn't as good as someone else's faith because you are cognitively impaired. Or your faith is greater because you are a professor at CBU." It is more about what we do with what we have. If I am to have the faith of a little child, then there might be something that I need to loose in order to gain that innocence. I need to loose my overly analytical mind, my need for proof. We are saved by faith. I see some of my cogntively disabled friends much ahead of me in terms of basic faith in God. I also find they are righteous. No they are not perfect. But their unrighteousness is often different from my unrighteousness.

People with unquestioning faith are definitely in need in the church. I could give many examples of such faith in persons with cognitive disability. Times where they encouraged children and adults with their "take Him at his word" approach to God.

So although I appreciate the Bishops' statement, and agree with it, I really don't think we know of what we speak, as the saying goes. Are there blessings to be had if the church is more open to and inclusive of persons with disability? What would we see if the congregation represented the community?

Lets find out...

McNair
(fcbu)

U.S. Catholic Bishops part 6

The following statement is from the "Doctrine and Pastoral Practices" website sponsored by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is available at http://www.ncbuscc.org/doctrine/disabilities.htm

"5. Since the parish is the door to participation in the Christian experience, it is the responsibility of both pastors and laity to assure that those doors are always open. Costs must never be the controlling consideration limiting the welcome offered to those among us with disabilities, since provision of access to religious functions is a pastoral duty."

The parish (aka the local church) is indeed the door to participation in Christian experience. It also is the responsibility of both the pastors and the laity to keep the doors open. I have been in situations where the pastors kept the doors open to persons with disability in spite of the laity and the laity kept the doors open in spite of the pastors. The latter seems more difficult to me. But a larger question is what is meant by keeping the doors open.

In one of the Cal Baptist courses I teach, students are required to interview their pastors about ministry to persons with disability. Perhaps the most common answer they receive is that the church is 1) wheelchair accessible and 2) has handicapped parking spots. Somehow, these legal requirements for public buildings have been confused with the Bishops' notion of the churches' doors being "open." Obviously, openness must mean something more than simply physical access. The fact that I can go somewhere doesn't mean that I am welcomed there. There is a qualitative difference that distinguishes open in terms of access from open in terms of wanting or desiring someone's presence. The latter form of openness implies that those who are open have done something to be more than just physically accessible.

The Bishops imply openness is participation in the Christian experience. For some that implies a facilitation of participation as participation will not occur on its own. Its like the catalyst in a chemical experiment.

catalyst - A substance usually present in small amounts relative to the
reactants, that modifies, especially increases, the rate of a chemical reaction
without being consumed in the process. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Interesting definition.
Small amounts, yes.
Especially increases the rate of reaction, yes.
Without being consumed in the process, yes.

Costs are at times given as the reason for a lack of programs for persons with disability. The point I find interesting about this excuse, is that we accept it. Perhaps it has just been used for so long, that we assume it is a justifiable response. But I would say, that the next time someone tells you they cannot afford something relative to serving persons with disability, ask them to share with you what the specific costs are, and how they came to determine those costs. I am quite confident they do not know of what they speak.

". . . since provision of access to religious functions is a pastoral duty."
I do not claim to be a Bible expert, however, I cannot remember a time in the New Testament when people were excused from ministry on the basis of finances. It is almost as if finances are somewhat irrelevant. Please do not get me wrong, I understand that things cost money, however, there is much that can be done without money. A major focus of the Bible is both ministry to the poor, and the responsibility of the poor in ministry. God would not call us to only expensive forms of ministry as not all would be able to participate then. It is just as God would not make walking, or vision, or hearing, or cognition a prerequisite to ministry. We are all called to serve independent of our abilities. To whom much is given, much is expected, however, there are very few to whom nothing is given and nothing is expected. We cannot use the excuse of no money for nonparticipation in ministry. That is the cool thing about God's call. Pretty much all of us have what is required for some level of service, we have the ability to be servants independent of our salaries.

The Catholic Bishops are all about access, facilitating access, and removing barriers. This statement (statement 6 above) would not be relevant if the Bishops had not seen a lack of access or the placement of barriers somewhere.

McNair

Christmas message from the Archbishop of Canterbury

A friend, Bill Gaventa passed this on to myself and others. He states, it is "important for the way a major church leader has utilized a metaphor from the world of disability to shape a message... a positive vision about the importance of inclusion and embrace, via the Archbishop of Canterbury." I agree with Bill about the message's importance and so I thought I would pass it on here as well.
McNair

Christmas message from the Archbishop of Canterbury

to the Anglican Communion

"A few weeks ago, I took part in a discussion that involved a number of people working with children and young people who suffer from different forms of 'autism' - the kind of disorder that seems to cut people off from ordinary communication and shows itself in strange repetitive behaviours and sometimes in violent outbursts. We watched a video showing the work of one of the most experienced therapists in Britain, and then heard her talking about what she is trying to do with her methods.

The first thing we saw on the video was a young man, severely disturbed, beating his head against a wall, and then walking fast up and down the room, twisting and flicking a piece of string. The therapist's first response was strange: she began to twist and flick a piece of string as well. When the young man made a noise, so did she; when he began to do something different, like banging his hand on a table, she did the same.

The video showed what happened over two days. By the end of the two days, the boy had begun to smile at her and to respond when touched. A relation had been created. And what the therapist said about it was this. Autism arises when the brain senses too much material coming in, too much information. There is a feeling of panic; the mind has to regain control. And the best way of doing this is to close up on yourself and repeat actions that are familiar; do nothing new, and don't acknowledge anything coming from outside. But when the therapist gently echoes the actions and rhythms, the anxious and wounded mind of the autistic person sees that there is after all a link with the outside world that isn't threatening. Here is someone doing what I do; the world isn't just an unfamiliar place of terror and uncertainty. And when I do this, I can draw out an answer, an echo; I'm not powerless. And so relationship begins.

To see this sort of thing in action is intensely moving. This is real mental and spiritual healing at work. But it gives us a powerful imageof what it is we remember at Christmas.

Human beings are wrapped up in themselves. Because of that great primitive betrayal that we call the Fall of humanity, we are all afraid of God and the world and our real selves in some degree. We can't cope with the light. As John's gospel says, those who don't want to respond to God fear and run away from the light. But God acts to heal us, to bring us out of our isolation - which is as bizarre and self-destructive as that young man beating his head against the wall. And he does this in a way that is just like the therapist in the video. He does what we do; he is born, he grows up, he lives for many years a life that is ordinary and prosaic like ours - he works, he eats, he sleeps. Here is ultimate love, complete holiness, made real in a back street in a small town. And when he begins to do new and shocking things, to proclaim the Kingdom, to heal, to forgive, to die and rise again - well, we shouldn't panic and run away because we have learned that we can trust him. We know he speaks our language, he has responded to our actions and our words, he has echoed to us what we are like.

Christ does not save the world just by his death on the cross; we respond to that death because we know that here is love in human flesh, here is the creator's power and life in a shape like ours. As we read the gospels, we should think of God watching us moment by moment, mirroring back to us our human actions - our fears and our joys and our struggles - until he can at last reach out in the great gestures of the healing ministry and the cross. And at last we let ourselves be touched and changed.

That's what begins at Christmas. Not a doctor coming in with a needle or a surgeon with a knife, but a baby who has to learn how to be human by watching; only this baby is the eternal Word of God, who is watching and learning so that when he speaks God's transforming word we will be able to hear it in our own human language. He is God so that he has the freedom to heal, to be our 'therapist'. He is human so that he speaks in terms we can understand, in the suffering and delight of a humanity that he shares completely with us. And now we must let him touch us and tell us that there is a world outside our minds - our pride and fear and guilt. It is called the Kingdom of God.

May the blessing of Christ our incarnate King be with you all at this season."

Rowan Cantuar

(c) 2004 Rowan Williams

U.S. Catholic Bishops part 5

The following is from the "Doctrine and Pastoral Practices" website sponsored by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is available at http://www.ncbuscc.org/doctrine/disabilities.htm

"5. Parish liturgical celebrations and catechetical programs should be accessbile to persons with disabilities and open to their full, active and conscious participation, according to their capacity."

Accessiblity and participation.

Accessibility is much more than wheelchair access or handicapped parking spots. Today, virtually any new, public, building will have many accessibility aspects nailed down because it is the law. However, accessibility is much more than that. If I have chairs in my auditorium, does that mean I am willing to accept any person who sits in those chairs? Hardly.

Accessibility should imply a certain desire to have people involved, it implies that I have done a bit more of something, something out of the ordinary perhaps, to facilitate access. So in my church, for example, we not only say we invite children with autism to be involved in the children's classes, we have people who are available to serve as "buddies" to help the child feel a part of the group. It is a small thing, but it allows one to say, "Not only are you and your child welcome here, but we have buddies to help your child to be successful in the children's program here." It implies we have thought about people like you, with your life situation before. It implies that we value you, so, we have come up with a way to make access to our church easier for you.

The Bishops' statement says access to "liturgical celebrations" and "catechetical programs." Although not a Catholic myself, I recognize the importance of liturgy to the Catholic tradition. If one is to be a full fledged Catholic, she must have access to liturgical celebrations, which include much of the public meetings of the faithful. The catechetical programs are the educational programs leading to catechism as well as other benchmarks of church membership/participation (I would assume). Persons with disability should have access to these educational programs so that they can participate fully, "according to their capacity."

On the basis of experience with persons with cognitive disabilities in church situations, it would be easy to dismiss someone as not having the capacity to benefit from a variety of programs the church has to offer, if you don't provide time and opportunity for those individuials to participate in the programs. Yet, there are people who are prayed for on a weekly basis, simply because friends of mine who are adults with mental retardation ask our group to pray for them during a time of prayer requests. I have prayed for the bus driver of several men who make the request each week, for years. If you honestly believe in the power of prayer, you must believe that the desires on the part of those men to have their bus driver prayed for has somehow made a difference. They also always ask me to pray for their teacher. Another man who lives in a senior center (arguably not the most appropriate placement for that man, although I think he has a ministry there as he brightens the lives of many of the residents through his knowledge of sports and unabashed ability to start a conversation with anyone) asks me to pray for his mother and a nurse who helps him each week. I can't help but wonder how many of the other residents are not prayed for each week. One staff member always asks him to pray for her as well and we make a point to remember to pray for that person. I guarantee to you that were those men not involved in the program at our church, for sure the people for whom they ask for prayer might not be the topic of prayer, at least not by me and others in the group. Will these men remember that Paul and Barnabus split up and Paul went with Silas and Barnabus with Mark (our current lessons are from Acts)? Does it even matter? They are participating to the extent to which they are capable and they are making a difference in their own lives as well as the lives of those for whom they are praying or facilitating prayer through their request for prayer.

The Bishops touch on a notion which I suspect has a great deal behind it, that of "conscious participation." I suspect this term implies a notion of understanding. My son recently took a class in Philosophy as a part of his college curriculum. At the end of the class, students could ask the professor any question they wanted. He asked, "Do you believe in God?" He replied "No," but followed up the statement with the analogy of him being like a flea on a dog, trying to understand what a dog was (as an aside, that is why God-the dog, became a flea-in the form of Jesus, so we would get some understanding of who He is). Anyway, we understand a lot less than we think we do. We compare ourselves to others who know less than we and congratulate ourselves, or segregate ourselves on the basis of our knowledge. As I have stated elsewhere in this blog, however, such comparisons are silly. They are particularly silly when we think about what we know about God in relation to what might be known about him, and then we segregate our selves on the basis of what we supposedly know.

"He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the
things that are not - to nulify 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. (1
Corinthians 1: 26-29)"

You know, sometimes the above sounds like a warning to me. It makes me wonder about the things that I choose in comparison to the things God chooses. My choices are evidenced by to whom I give access and for whom I facilitate participation.

McNair
(fcbu)

U.S. Catholic Bishops part 4

The following is from the "Doctrine and Pastoral Practices" website sponsored by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is available at http://www.ncbuscc.org/doctrine/disabilities.htm"

"4. Defense of the right to life implies the defense of all other rights which enable the individual with the disability to achieve the fullest measure of personal development of which he or she is capable. These include the right to equal opportunity in education, in employment, in housing, and in health care, as well as the right to free access to public accommodations, facilities and services."

Once the right to life is secured (and it is arguable that it has not yet been secured, as evidenced by the Bishops' third statement) our hope would be to expand rights to include those which facilitate the fullest measure of personal development. This is one of the reasons this blog spends so much time on opening the church to persons with disabilty as churches do indeed facilitate a fuller measure of personal development, and not just in the spiritual arena. The notion of personal development of persons with disabilities is not one that the church necessarily knows how to do. The comment was once made to me that disabled persons don't improve, so why devote so much time to them? The fact of the matter is that even the most severe of disabled persons do evidence improvement (I haven't done the research yet, but anecdotally I have observed this) although perhaps not to the degree of those without disability. However, as with all church members, it should interest the church whether its members are achieving the fullest development possible, as least as much as they are able to impact development.

Then there should be equal opportunity in

• education
• employment
• housing
• health care

Education is improving, although equal opportunity doesn't necessarily mean access to the core curriculum being used for students without disability. It should mean access to the type of curriculum which would best serve each student (would facilitate personal growth as above). However, sadly many disability advocates have fought for access to the core curriculum, which is a curriculum built upon a social efficiency model (having the greatest impact for the greatest number of people) not a critical/functional skills model. So students have gained the right to a curriculum which is not necessarily even relevant for them. People have confused access to the core curriculum with integration and so even though children are being educated next to each other, it is arguable as to whether they are receiving the instruction each individually (both those with and without disability) needs to be the most successful.

Employment access has improved somewhat through both the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act, and the increasing recognition among employers that persons with disabilities make good employees. In particular, persons with cognitive disability make great long term workers in entry level jobs. Increasingly, employers are learning that they can save money on hiring a person with cognitive disability to fill positions that have a high turnover rate when persons without disability hold those positions. Actual equal opportunity, well, not quite. The bias against persons with disability is evident in the workplace as employers are simply a subgroup of a larger population who hold the same biases. However, employers go to church and if the church were to involve persons with disability, there would be a greater opportunity for employers to know persons with disabilities and potentially employ them. The gains from network membership are also great in terms of increasing employer tolerance for minor social skill "deficits." More on this aspect of network development is provided at the following website <http://www.jeffmcnair.com/CSRD/networks.htm>

Access to housing, well, they have access to what they may be able to afford. There used to be a program whereby persons with disability were able to receive supplements such that their rent would be no more than a third of their income, however, for whatever reason new applications are not being taken. As a result, I have one friend who is an adult with cognitive disability who pays over 700$ for his apartment and another friend who pays about 260$ for the exact same apartment. The second got into the program when they were still taking applications. Now imagine getting a little over 700$ per month in Social Security, and then having a part time job on the side (part time as you don't want to loose your Social Security benefits) and trying to pay 700$ in rent. As he has stated, he hasn't had the luxury of eating out at McDonald's in the last 6 months because he can't aford it. So access to housing? Access to housing in the worst areas of town.

Health care is better than I might have thought if I hadn't had contact with many of the people I know. I have one friend who has received two kidney transplants, and has been in the hospital on numerous occasions. I have another friend who is dealing with depression who has received great medical support both in terms of long term hospital care, outpatient services and even assistance with medication. Both of these persons have developmental disabilities. Perfect, no, however, I would say it is better by comparison than say housing opportunities by far.

The folks I know also have access to public accommodations (including travel assistance) and various facilities and services. Of course I am not privy to every aspect of their lives, however, I hear few complaints about busses, etc.

So the right to life in terms of other rights is a mixed bag. The church holds huge potential in improving access to other right simply through their inclusion of persons with disability.

McNair

(fcbu)

U.S. Catholic Bishops part 3

The following is from the "Doctrine and Pastoral Practices" website sponsored by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is available at http://www.ncbuscc.org/doctrine/disabilities.htm

"3. Our defense of life and rejection of the culture of death requires that we acknowledge the dignity and positive contributions of our brothers and sisters with disabilities. We unequivocally oppose negative attitudes toward disability which often lead to abortion, medical rationing, and euthanasia."

The notion of a culture of death has been well described by Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger. He uses the term "deathmaking" to refer to a wide variety of programs, positions, laws which would in total contribute to the Bishops' notion of a culture of death. I will go into Wolfensberger's notion of deathmaking at another time. The defense against the culture of death, I believe, does begin with recognizing that there is such a culture in our society. The culture of death can be related to actual physical death, or perhaps more commonly more of a "social death" in which a person with disability is relegated to life situations different from the mainstream but common to many of those with disability. Perhaps a defense of life is made when we acknowledge the diginity and positive contributions of persons with disabilities, however, I always wonder about who those to whom such a defense must be made, are. Are they even convinceable? On what basis would they see persons with disabilities as anything other than worthy of dignity? There is an evil here which must be labeled for what it is.

The notion of positive contributions once again gets back to my last entry about this statement. Somehow, we need to see positive contributions, abilities, in persons with disability in order to make the case for their lives. We need to see abilities, apparently on some scale of worth, which will move the balance of the scale toward the defense of life and the rejection of the culture of death. Honestly, I refuse to play that game because of the evil behind it which requires one to prove someone's worth. I will not argue about someone's worth. I am given a glimpse into the soul of the person I am speaking to, when I hear that they feel worth must somehow be proven. Of course those who would challenge the worth of another assume they themselves have worth.

I too, unequivocally oppose negative attitudes toward persons with disability, in particular those which lead to abortion and other forms of death making (I do share the negativity persons with disability often have toward their own disability: I would prefer that persons with cerebral palsy, for example, not have cerebral palsy). However, there are other forms of negative attitudes which don't directly lead to death which should also be condemned.

I never cease to be amazed at the negativity I see in church people. An instance arose in my own church a couple of weekends ago. Someone who is a wonderful man of God made a decision affecting adults with disability in a very discriminatory fashion, and probably never even saw what he did as being discriminatory. Somehow, he feared the impression of others in the church, in terms of turning them away, or limiting the spiritual experience he was attempting to develop. I would respond by asking, "How can you have an experience with God, when you begin the experience by excluding persons whom God loves on the basis of their disability?" Yet somehow, this seemed logical to him.

I appreciate the Bishops' strong statement in defense of life, however, we must be careful to avoid situations where even our participation in the discussion somehow provides support for those who would detract from the humanity of persons with disability.

McNair
(fcbu)