I just finished reading a really good book. It is called The State Boys Rebellion: A True Story, by Michel D'Antonio. I have long been a student of state institutions for persons with mental retardation, their beginning, gradual change over time, and their ultimate closing. During that time they went from being representative of the best man could hope for to places of abuse and even horror.
The book does a good job paralleling both the perspective of an inmate in the Fernald State School (which for those in the know, is the place about which Burton Blatt wrote and Fred Kaplan took pictures in the famous book Christmas in Purgatory), with events happening at the same time in the US related to ideas of disability, civil rights, etc.
The story probably came to light in response to the scandal about the "science club" at Fernald where young boys were given oatmeal laced with radiation to test its effects. But the desire of the main character of the story, Fred Boyce, is not so much to tell about the science club, but rather to expose the conditions which were allowed at the institution. Conditions which unfortunately were not uncommon.
So I would recommend the book to get an insight into what we as Americans are capable of if the conditions are as they were in the institutions.
(fcbu)
McNair
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Monday, June 27, 2005
John 5
The pastor of my church, Dr. Gary Inrig, gave the most interesting sermon this past Sunday. He preached from the book of John, chapter 5. He had many great insights which I am sure I will write about at other times in this blog (I immediately bought a CD of his sermon), however, one insight he had was the setting for the miracle which is described in the beginning of the chapter. He talked about how the city of Jerusalem would be packed out because fo the feast of the Jews, which meant that the area around the Bethesda pool would likely be more crowded than usual. He related that the physically disabled individuals in addition to perhaps not having the greatest hygiene in the first place, would more likely than not be surrounded by their own excrement and urine. No doubt a setting which would be a real affront to the senses. But the amazing thing was that Jesus was there, in the midst of the poor, the suffering and the filth which had to have been in the setting. The passage is not entirely clear why he was there, or whether he went to the pool directly as his destination. Jesus does notice the man whom he eventually heals, who for some reason caught his eye. He had been disabled for 38 years, the passage says. Jesus also approaches him with an interesting question, "Do you want to get better?" he basically asks, but that is for another blog entry.
Imagine, the Son of God, the Savior of us all, goes to a place of misery and filth and hopelessness and superstition, and heals an ungrateful man in the midst of it all.
Kind of reminds me of what he has done to me, although my misery and filth and hopelessness and superstition and ungratefulness is well hidden, at times even from me.
We serve an amazing God. Oh, that I could be more like him in ministering to those most forsaken and most helpless. Those whose last thread of hope is a superstition. Those who desperately need my help yet will be ungrateful and even try to cause me problems for my trouble in helping them (as the man does in reporting Jesus to the "Jews."
The standard set by our Lord for our service is exceedingly high (or low). We are to have his mind in us. He emptied himself and took the form of a servant. He was equal with God, but didn't consider his equality a thing to be "grasped." I sit and shake my head in amazement.
McNair
Imagine, the Son of God, the Savior of us all, goes to a place of misery and filth and hopelessness and superstition, and heals an ungrateful man in the midst of it all.
Kind of reminds me of what he has done to me, although my misery and filth and hopelessness and superstition and ungratefulness is well hidden, at times even from me.
We serve an amazing God. Oh, that I could be more like him in ministering to those most forsaken and most helpless. Those whose last thread of hope is a superstition. Those who desperately need my help yet will be ungrateful and even try to cause me problems for my trouble in helping them (as the man does in reporting Jesus to the "Jews."
The standard set by our Lord for our service is exceedingly high (or low). We are to have his mind in us. He emptied himself and took the form of a servant. He was equal with God, but didn't consider his equality a thing to be "grasped." I sit and shake my head in amazement.
McNair
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Membership
As I mentioned in the last post, I am working on an instructor's manual for an excellent text on special education. One of the themes which comes through over and over in this text, is that there is a dramatic need for community integration of persons with severe disabilities. Professionals seek integration in any way then find it. For example, I was surprised as the low lever of "membership" described in the text. So, classroom membership is evidenced by a name of a child with disability on the classroom roster, or school membership by that same child wearing school colors. That is hardly membership as I would define it. But then I wondered even at that level, what percentage of the persons with mental retardation, particularly adults, would be listed on a church's roster? Even that low level of membership would be a step in the right direction.
At my church, we facilitated all of the adults with severe disabilities having their picure in the church directory. For some, it was the first professional picture they had ever had made. Each received a free 8x10 in addition to appearing in the directory which was a huge treat for them. So much more needs to be done in my church (and done by me for that matter) but I was pleased to see even that level of membership.
But membership means much more to me than a name on a roster or even a picture in a pictorial directory. It implies relationships, and caring, and finding out about another's life situation, and making even the most minimal effort. I would like to think that if my wife and I didn't show up in church for a couple of weeks or a month, that someone would wonder where we were. To me that is membership: being known and potentially being missed. Hopefully the same type of awarness and relationships will begin to occur for adults with disabilities.
McNair
At my church, we facilitated all of the adults with severe disabilities having their picure in the church directory. For some, it was the first professional picture they had ever had made. Each received a free 8x10 in addition to appearing in the directory which was a huge treat for them. So much more needs to be done in my church (and done by me for that matter) but I was pleased to see even that level of membership.
But membership means much more to me than a name on a roster or even a picture in a pictorial directory. It implies relationships, and caring, and finding out about another's life situation, and making even the most minimal effort. I would like to think that if my wife and I didn't show up in church for a couple of weeks or a month, that someone would wonder where we were. To me that is membership: being known and potentially being missed. Hopefully the same type of awarness and relationships will begin to occur for adults with disabilities.
McNair
Friday, June 24, 2005
Beards and Pipes
I was provided with the opportunity to write an instructor's manual for perhaps the premier textbook in moderate to severe disabilities, Martha Snell and Fredda Brown's Instruction of Students with Severe Disabilities. In the edited text, there is a chapter on the "Promise of Adulthood" by Dianne and Philip Ferguson, well known experts in the field of special education who are not only professors of special ed, they are parents of an adult son with disabilities.
Anyway, in their chapter they tell the following story.
This quote made me think of experiences I have had at church. I remember giving a talk about poverty to a group of adults with mental disabilities and a homeless man. I had an inkling of what it was like to be living in poverty from some of my life experiences, however, many of the members of my audience were living in poverty on a daily basis and had been for years.
I guess the point is, I can think that I am doing something which reflects a change in my perspective, a change in my understanding of something, but is what I am doing really reflect a growth of understanding or only that I have so much further to go. When I go to church I hear people talking about God's love, and caring for your neighbor, and the widow's mite, and love for the poor, but I don't see a lot of poor people, as least disabled poor people at church. And when they do show up, they are unexpected. It's as if the congregation is taken aback, "We didn't expect to see you here" or even "What are you doing here?"
The men in the institution had beards and pipes but no autonomy, and nothing had really changed. But the people allowing them to smoke and grow their beards probably thought they had reached a new stage of understanding. Our "beards and pipes" in churches are that we speak of care for the poor, or God's love, or that we are all equal in God's sight, yet there are a lot of people who might be equal to me in God's sight but are never in my line of sight.
Bob Bennett, one of my favorite singers has a song called "The doing of the thing." In talking about helping those in need, he describes how he could, "mistake the very song I sing for the doing of the thing." What do we in churches mistake for the "doing of the thing?"
The retarded people have beards and pipes. Thats great.
McNair
Anyway, in their chapter they tell the following story.
"We remember working in a large state institution for people with severe disabilities some 25 years ago. This institution closed in June 1998, but at the time, a number of people who worked there had apparently gotten only part of the message about treating people as adults. As a result, over a period of months, all the adult men on the ward grew beards and smoked pipes. Nothing else changed in their lives to encourage their personal autonomy, much less their membership in the community. The beards and pipes were simply empty symbols of adulthood that had no grounding in the daily lives of indignity and isolation that the men continued to lead."
This quote made me think of experiences I have had at church. I remember giving a talk about poverty to a group of adults with mental disabilities and a homeless man. I had an inkling of what it was like to be living in poverty from some of my life experiences, however, many of the members of my audience were living in poverty on a daily basis and had been for years.
I guess the point is, I can think that I am doing something which reflects a change in my perspective, a change in my understanding of something, but is what I am doing really reflect a growth of understanding or only that I have so much further to go. When I go to church I hear people talking about God's love, and caring for your neighbor, and the widow's mite, and love for the poor, but I don't see a lot of poor people, as least disabled poor people at church. And when they do show up, they are unexpected. It's as if the congregation is taken aback, "We didn't expect to see you here" or even "What are you doing here?"
The men in the institution had beards and pipes but no autonomy, and nothing had really changed. But the people allowing them to smoke and grow their beards probably thought they had reached a new stage of understanding. Our "beards and pipes" in churches are that we speak of care for the poor, or God's love, or that we are all equal in God's sight, yet there are a lot of people who might be equal to me in God's sight but are never in my line of sight.
Bob Bennett, one of my favorite singers has a song called "The doing of the thing." In talking about helping those in need, he describes how he could, "mistake the very song I sing for the doing of the thing." What do we in churches mistake for the "doing of the thing?"
The retarded people have beards and pipes. Thats great.
McNair
Thursday, June 23, 2005
A theology of disability
In 1965, Robert Perske presentated a paper to a conference entitled "The Church and the Mentally Retarted." The title of his paper was, "An attempt to find an adequate theological view of mental retardation." He discusses "a history of how we have dealt with mental retardation in America" as a kind of a backdrop to the theology which might have been developing at the same time. He discusses periods of "total rejection . . . found early in American society" followed by attitudes about "bad blood and sins of the fathers." From there we proceeded to the feeling of "God's special children with the publication of the books "Angel Unaware" and "Retarded Children: God's Children."
He then says we came to the point where we sought a "special theology." He says, "This is probably the first period in American history that pastors have sincerely sought an adequate theology for the mentally retarded." Ultimately he says, "A special theology may not be adequate . . . the theological view we seek cannot be a special view." He suggests, "Therefore our task should be to enlarge the existing general theological views so that they include the mentally retarded. If we sincerely see the mentally retarded as human beings, we sould struggle to broaden and strengthen our general theological views to encompass people with other deficits as well."
I am unsure that we have actually passed the point of wanting a "special theology." If normalization means treating people as normally as possible, perhaps a once size fits all theology would be sufficient. But one size never fits all, and although we are all humans our experiences are different.
Answers.com defines social construction in the following manner
If a theology of mental retardation would in some way flesh out a God perspective on disability, then perhaps we do need such a theology in order to counter the "invention or artifact" of nearly all cultures about who persons with mental retardaton are. These perceptions are built into us, and become as close to us as intuition or consicence. Clearly cultures see peopel with disability as something different. The church appears to see them as something different. So although we say we are all the same in God's eyes, it seems we have adopted a cultural perspective on disability, as a church, rather than what might be called a theological perspective on disability.
One of my quests has been to try to understand disability from God's perspective to the extent I am able. The main reason is to be able to somehow take off the social constructions which are like blinders on my eyes, making me look in a particular direction, and instead see the truth, the truth about "disability" from a God, or theological perspective.
McNair
He then says we came to the point where we sought a "special theology." He says, "This is probably the first period in American history that pastors have sincerely sought an adequate theology for the mentally retarded." Ultimately he says, "A special theology may not be adequate . . . the theological view we seek cannot be a special view." He suggests, "Therefore our task should be to enlarge the existing general theological views so that they include the mentally retarded. If we sincerely see the mentally retarded as human beings, we sould struggle to broaden and strengthen our general theological views to encompass people with other deficits as well."
I am unsure that we have actually passed the point of wanting a "special theology." If normalization means treating people as normally as possible, perhaps a once size fits all theology would be sufficient. But one size never fits all, and although we are all humans our experiences are different.
Answers.com defines social construction in the following manner
A social construction, or social construct, according to the school of social constructionism, is an idea which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society. The implication is that social constructs are human choices rather than laws of God or nature.
If a theology of mental retardation would in some way flesh out a God perspective on disability, then perhaps we do need such a theology in order to counter the "invention or artifact" of nearly all cultures about who persons with mental retardaton are. These perceptions are built into us, and become as close to us as intuition or consicence. Clearly cultures see peopel with disability as something different. The church appears to see them as something different. So although we say we are all the same in God's eyes, it seems we have adopted a cultural perspective on disability, as a church, rather than what might be called a theological perspective on disability.
One of my quests has been to try to understand disability from God's perspective to the extent I am able. The main reason is to be able to somehow take off the social constructions which are like blinders on my eyes, making me look in a particular direction, and instead see the truth, the truth about "disability" from a God, or theological perspective.
McNair
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Audacity article
Please check out an opinion piece I wrote for Audacity magizine at the following website.
http://audacitymagazine.com/audacity.php?op=article&y=grfx&v=&i=26&a=322
McNair
http://audacitymagazine.com/audacity.php?op=article&y=grfx&v=&i=26&a=322
McNair
Monday, June 06, 2005
The Best and the Worst
It is interesting, that whenever someone wants to make the harshest criticism possible, they compare the behavior of an individual, or a group or a nation to that of Nazi Germany. We can hardly imagine a worse situation then what went on there. It was horrific for so many people representing many different characteristics which were deemed negative by the evil ones in charge. It was the same for persons with disabilities at that time.
We might also think about the worst of times in our own nation (America) with conditions in institutions for persons with disabilities. But as inhumane as those conditions were, they still don't compare with the life taking that occurred under the Nazi regime.
But then, I wonder what I would use for comparison for the absolute best the world has had to offer over the centuries, particularly for persons with disabilities. What might we point to and say, "This is how it should be, this would be the best situation." In considering the world's best, I wonder whether there would be any mention of programs or services, or attitudes, or sacrifice by the church who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Would that we could point to our times, have people remember how the birth of love and caring for persons with disabilities really began to happen in the early 2000's. Would that future people would say, "The enfolding of persons into the church that we enjoy today, started then and caught on in the community. It was that caring by the church which shamed the secularists, or at best chided them into being all they could be to persons with disability."
We have plenty examples of the worst. How about we become the example of the absolute best that the world has to offer. The absolute best!
McNair
We might also think about the worst of times in our own nation (America) with conditions in institutions for persons with disabilities. But as inhumane as those conditions were, they still don't compare with the life taking that occurred under the Nazi regime.
But then, I wonder what I would use for comparison for the absolute best the world has had to offer over the centuries, particularly for persons with disabilities. What might we point to and say, "This is how it should be, this would be the best situation." In considering the world's best, I wonder whether there would be any mention of programs or services, or attitudes, or sacrifice by the church who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Would that we could point to our times, have people remember how the birth of love and caring for persons with disabilities really began to happen in the early 2000's. Would that future people would say, "The enfolding of persons into the church that we enjoy today, started then and caught on in the community. It was that caring by the church which shamed the secularists, or at best chided them into being all they could be to persons with disability."
We have plenty examples of the worst. How about we become the example of the absolute best that the world has to offer. The absolute best!
McNair
Monday, May 23, 2005
Ezekiel 34 Part 2
Lets continue to consider Ezekiel 34 for a moment. It continues on, saying,
You know, a significant number of persons with mental retardation are "lean sheep" in that they live in poverty, often on fixed incomes. They are poor.
I think there have been times when the fat sheep have shoved the lean ones away. Maybe not with shoulder and flank, but with words and attitudes for sure. With the power they excercise over all the sheep. They shove out by saying that such ministry is not a priority, or that they haven't the money to do such ministry or bring them in. In these ways they give a more holy face to their actions which shove out.
Should God judge between the poor with limited resources and the rich with great resources, how do you think the rich will fare? Will God say that the poor and disabled were not a priority for Him either?
If the church was doing what it should, then
I think it poignant the way this passage ends. I am not sure what the actual meaning of the last line is, but as stated it is a simple yet jarring statement. The implication is that you might not have recognized the obvious fact of the statement.
The group we are talking about, are not sheep or something other than people. They are people, the Sovereign Lord declares. People are always a priority, or at least should be. In the Christian faith, if they are not, then what is being evidenced is not the Christian faith.
McNair
Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep.
You know, a significant number of persons with mental retardation are "lean sheep" in that they live in poverty, often on fixed incomes. They are poor.
Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away.
I think there have been times when the fat sheep have shoved the lean ones away. Maybe not with shoulder and flank, but with words and attitudes for sure. With the power they excercise over all the sheep. They shove out by saying that such ministry is not a priority, or that they haven't the money to do such ministry or bring them in. In these ways they give a more holy face to their actions which shove out.
I will save my flock and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another.
Should God judge between the poor with limited resources and the rich with great resources, how do you think the rich will fare? Will God say that the poor and disabled were not a priority for Him either?
If the church was doing what it should, then
They will live in safety, and no one will make them afraid.
I will provide for them a land renowned for its crops, and they will no longer be victims of famine in the land or bear the scorn of the nations.
Then they will know that I, the Lord their God am with them and that they, the house of Israel are my people, declares the Sovereign Lord.
I think it poignant the way this passage ends. I am not sure what the actual meaning of the last line is, but as stated it is a simple yet jarring statement. The implication is that you might not have recognized the obvious fact of the statement.
You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people and I am your God, declares the Sovereign Lord.
The group we are talking about, are not sheep or something other than people. They are people, the Sovereign Lord declares. People are always a priority, or at least should be. In the Christian faith, if they are not, then what is being evidenced is not the Christian faith.
McNair
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Ezekiel 34 Part 1
Lets dance with a few sections of this passage, thinking about the church as the shepherds and persons with disability as the flock. I have pulled a few of the sections of Ezekial 34 out because of their particular applicability.
I think the implication is that some sheep were taken care of and some were not. Apparently the shepherds took care of themselves and their families, however, there was a group of people who were ignored. Who were they specifically?
The weak sick and injured were not strengthened, or healed or bound up. Additionally, they didn't bring back the strays (it seems the assumption is that they knew where the strays were) or search for the lost. Once again, it seems the assumption is that they knew they were lost. Instead, what did they do? They ruled them harshly and brutally. Now I don't know about brutality of the church persons with disability, but I have experienced and read about some harsh treatment on the part of the church towards persons with disability. Examples of that treatment are provided elsewhere in this blog.
Persons with disability often live at or below the poverty line. When you are poor, you live where other poor people live. There are many nere do well people who live among the poor and like wild animals they take advantage of the poor, particularly the mentally disabled poor. But why were they scattered? Because there was no shepherd. You don't know how often I hear church leaders excuse themselves from responsibility for persons with disability because of the their lack of funds. There are funds for other programs, oftentimes for programs for people who are not scattered or weak or sick or injured.
I was floored to find out that 20% of the population of the United States are disabled. Not all are cognitively disabled, but disabled nontheless. Why isn't the church looking for these people to bring them in. One could take the idea of being scattered as being lost, but one could also take it as that they are everywhere. They are on every high hill. But no one is looking for them.
More on the rest of this section in part 2.
McNair
"Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away. I will save my flock and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them: he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord have spoken.
They will live in safety, and no one will make them afraid.
I will provide for them a land renowned for its crops, and they will no longer be victims of famine in the land or bear the scorn of the nations.
Then they will know that I, the Lord their God am with them and that they, the house of Israel are my people, declares the Sovereign Lord.
You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people and I am your God, declares the Sovereign Lord."
Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves!
Should not shepherds take care of the flock?
I think the implication is that some sheep were taken care of and some were not. Apparently the shepherds took care of themselves and their families, however, there was a group of people who were ignored. Who were they specifically?
You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured.
You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost.
You have ruled them harshly and brutally.
The weak sick and injured were not strengthened, or healed or bound up. Additionally, they didn't bring back the strays (it seems the assumption is that they knew where the strays were) or search for the lost. Once again, it seems the assumption is that they knew they were lost. Instead, what did they do? They ruled them harshly and brutally. Now I don't know about brutality of the church persons with disability, but I have experienced and read about some harsh treatment on the part of the church towards persons with disability. Examples of that treatment are provided elsewhere in this blog.
So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals.
Persons with disability often live at or below the poverty line. When you are poor, you live where other poor people live. There are many nere do well people who live among the poor and like wild animals they take advantage of the poor, particularly the mentally disabled poor. But why were they scattered? Because there was no shepherd. You don't know how often I hear church leaders excuse themselves from responsibility for persons with disability because of the their lack of funds. There are funds for other programs, oftentimes for programs for people who are not scattered or weak or sick or injured.
My sheep wandered over the mountains and on every high hill.
They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them.
I was floored to find out that 20% of the population of the United States are disabled. Not all are cognitively disabled, but disabled nontheless. Why isn't the church looking for these people to bring them in. One could take the idea of being scattered as being lost, but one could also take it as that they are everywhere. They are on every high hill. But no one is looking for them.
More on the rest of this section in part 2.
McNair
"Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away. I will save my flock and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them: he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord have spoken.
They will live in safety, and no one will make them afraid.
I will provide for them a land renowned for its crops, and they will no longer be victims of famine in the land or bear the scorn of the nations.
Then they will know that I, the Lord their God am with them and that they, the house of Israel are my people, declares the Sovereign Lord.
You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people and I am your God, declares the Sovereign Lord."
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Ezekiel 34
A student of mine, Ms. Kimberly DeHuff shared a verse she had noticed in the book of Ezekiel. She encouraged me to read it with persons with disability in mind. It is really powerful. I provide it here fyi, and will try to unpack it a bit over the next few blogs.
Very powerful to think of the shepherds as we in the church, whether we be in leadership or not, and the sheep being those who are disabled or disenfranchised.
McNair
Ezekiel 34
The word of the Lord came to me: "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?
You eat the curds, clothes yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost.
You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. My sheep wandered over the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them.
"Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than my flock, therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them.
"For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and tend them in the good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.
"As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will judge between one sheep and another and between rams and goats. Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? Must my flock feed on what you have trampled and drink what you have muddied with your feet?
"Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away. I will save my flock and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them: he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord have spoken.
"I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of wild beasts so that they may live in the desert and sleep in the forests in safety. I will bless them and the places surrounding my hill. I will send down showers in season: there will be showers of blessing. The trees of the field will yield their fruit and the ground will yield its crops; the people will be secure in their land. They will know that I am the Lord, when I break the bars of their yoke and rescue them from the hands of those who enslaved them. They will no longer be plundered by the nations, nor will wild animals devour them. They will live in safety, and no one will make them afraid. I will provide for them a land renowned for its crops, and they will no longer be victims of famine in the land or bear the scorn of the nations. Then they will know that I, the Lord their God am with them and that they, the house of Israel are my people, declares the Sovereign Lord. You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people and I am your God, declares the Sovereign Lord."
Very powerful to think of the shepherds as we in the church, whether we be in leadership or not, and the sheep being those who are disabled or disenfranchised.
McNair
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Not really a new way to discriminate
Last night we had another meeting in Redlands Ca. relating to a group home for medically fragile, developmentally disabled adults. A group of neighbors to the future home were there and they claimed their major cause for concern was that the group home developer represented himself as adhering to the homeowners association agreement, and then changed the home by putting doors on the sides of the house so the wheelchair bound residents could exit the building in case of fire. They were appalled that he would be dishonest in this manner.
Now I agree that he may have done this, not be entirely honest. He may have signed the homeowners' agreement with the full knowledge that he was going to make alterations to the home, and that was not entirely truthful. But I also sat there amazed at the people who were using this argument to discriminate against persons with developmental disabilities. They spoke of property values going down, and how the neighborhood would be devalued, of how their children would be unsafe and how the house would be poorly kept all due to the placement of the home in the community. They even had the nerve to ask whether people would be "peeing in their bushes."
As a boy, I grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood of Southern New Jersey. There were very few African Americans or Hispanics, or other persons who weren't white who lived in my neighborhood. I can clearly recall hearing adults talk about how the property values would go down, how the homes would not be properly cared for, how they feared for their children should anyone other than a white person fill any vacant house in the neighborhood. I can even remember people speaking about an unwritten agreement that homes would not be sold to anyone other than a white person. This is correctly referred to as bigotry or racism.
Yet, although there were those in the meeting from groups who have experienced significant bigotry and racism, they didn't connect their behavior to that of others who experienced discrimination.
Now imagine I developed a homeowners' association, and somehow we were able to establish a rule about homes that would somehow prohibit persons of ethnicity X from living in the neighborhood. However, a person of ethnicity X wants to live in the neighborhood. In order to live in the neighborhood, the person of ethnicity X comes in and makes the change required for him to live in the neighborhood, and the homeowners' association comes down against him for breaking the homeowners' association's rules. Can you imagine the charges of racism or bigotry? Those charges would be justified, unless the homeowners' association reflected on their rules and said, "We have made a huge mistake. We didn't intend our rules to be discriminatory against group X." If, however, that same homeowners association said, "We don't care, we have a homeowners' association and those are the rules," we would begin to wonder about their motives.
Well, the homes in question do not allow for particular types of modifications. In this case, the doors which were added to the sides of the house, to allow for the exit of the wheelchair bound residents were against the homeowners' rules. So in effect, persons having the types of disabilities of those who will live in the group home are excluded from the neighborhood. It was countered that the backside of the house is wheelchair accessible. The association rules indicated, however, that no ramps were permitted to be added to the front of the house. As one person commented, "If I am going to spend 500K for a home, I'm going in the front door."
Can you see how this is a civil rights issue? I can write seemingly innocuous rules, which are largely to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood, which in reality can be discriminatory against a particular group of people. Not people who want to paint their house purple, but people who want to go into the front door of their house, or be able to get out in case of a fire.
By the way, to my knowledge, there was only one pastor of a church who attended any of the meetings, and he is the parent of a son with a disability.
What ever happened to doing justice?
McNair
Now I agree that he may have done this, not be entirely honest. He may have signed the homeowners' agreement with the full knowledge that he was going to make alterations to the home, and that was not entirely truthful. But I also sat there amazed at the people who were using this argument to discriminate against persons with developmental disabilities. They spoke of property values going down, and how the neighborhood would be devalued, of how their children would be unsafe and how the house would be poorly kept all due to the placement of the home in the community. They even had the nerve to ask whether people would be "peeing in their bushes."
As a boy, I grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood of Southern New Jersey. There were very few African Americans or Hispanics, or other persons who weren't white who lived in my neighborhood. I can clearly recall hearing adults talk about how the property values would go down, how the homes would not be properly cared for, how they feared for their children should anyone other than a white person fill any vacant house in the neighborhood. I can even remember people speaking about an unwritten agreement that homes would not be sold to anyone other than a white person. This is correctly referred to as bigotry or racism.
Yet, although there were those in the meeting from groups who have experienced significant bigotry and racism, they didn't connect their behavior to that of others who experienced discrimination.
Now imagine I developed a homeowners' association, and somehow we were able to establish a rule about homes that would somehow prohibit persons of ethnicity X from living in the neighborhood. However, a person of ethnicity X wants to live in the neighborhood. In order to live in the neighborhood, the person of ethnicity X comes in and makes the change required for him to live in the neighborhood, and the homeowners' association comes down against him for breaking the homeowners' association's rules. Can you imagine the charges of racism or bigotry? Those charges would be justified, unless the homeowners' association reflected on their rules and said, "We have made a huge mistake. We didn't intend our rules to be discriminatory against group X." If, however, that same homeowners association said, "We don't care, we have a homeowners' association and those are the rules," we would begin to wonder about their motives.
Well, the homes in question do not allow for particular types of modifications. In this case, the doors which were added to the sides of the house, to allow for the exit of the wheelchair bound residents were against the homeowners' rules. So in effect, persons having the types of disabilities of those who will live in the group home are excluded from the neighborhood. It was countered that the backside of the house is wheelchair accessible. The association rules indicated, however, that no ramps were permitted to be added to the front of the house. As one person commented, "If I am going to spend 500K for a home, I'm going in the front door."
Can you see how this is a civil rights issue? I can write seemingly innocuous rules, which are largely to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood, which in reality can be discriminatory against a particular group of people. Not people who want to paint their house purple, but people who want to go into the front door of their house, or be able to get out in case of a fire.
By the way, to my knowledge, there was only one pastor of a church who attended any of the meetings, and he is the parent of a son with a disability.
What ever happened to doing justice?
McNair
Sunday, April 24, 2005
A hero's perspective
I picked up a copy of Beowulf at a used book sale. It is a story I love because of the way it portrays heroism in the face of absolute despair. The Danes of the story, were literally just waiting for Grendel to come and eat them in the most hideous manner. Beowulf, however, comes onto the scene, and well, without giving away the ending, is the hero. In describing Beowulf, the book says the following
In understanding his weakness, Beowulf determined to be better than most in his area of weakness. Weaknesses can cause us to throw up our hands and give up, or can spur us on to work through those weaknesses. Weaknesses can become excuses, or can cause us to see things in a different way, solve problems in a different way, to the point of out doing those who don't experience our weakness. I think about this with small churches. One of the excuses for not engaging in ministry to persons with disability from small churches is the supposed cost of such ministries, the resources required, etc. Taken to its logical conclusion, small churches are not responsible for ministry until they become big churches. But God calls us to be sheep, not goats, and there are no caviats for the service He requires. Does Jesus anywhere say, you know, when you have sufficient resources, then you can begin to be involved in service. But until then, you don't have to do anything.
Actually, I think that small churches have many advantages over other types and sizes of organizations. Relative to persons with disabilities, I wonder whether they have taken the time to find out what those advantages might be. It is interesting in the literature on employment of persons with disabilities, for example, that small mom and pop work places are often desirable over larger corporations. Why? Because the workers with disabilities become more pivotal to the functioning of the business. They begin to be seen for their strengths, and are relied upon. Larger corporations have the luxury of many employees, and therefore don't need to depend upon individuals quite as much. Small churches, therefore, might hold the greatest potential for integrating persons with disability and really tapping the depths of the gifts they bring.
Beowulf also wanted to be able to see in areas where others were only looking. I live on 5 acres and have a big time gopher problem. That is, until I started trying to see them and shoot them with my .22 rifle (I know, it sounds very red neck, but I am getting pretty good at it and my yard isn't as swiss cheesy as it was). Anyway, I have gotten to where when I look at my yard, I can detect the tiny movements of the gophers, whereas before, it seemed I never saw a gopher, just the hundreds of holes which told me they were there. You can be in a setting, even looking around in that setting and never see the setting. I am delighting in students of mine at California Baptist University, who have been looking at their churches and seeing the absence of persons with disabilities. They are gaining Beowulf's eyes in seeing what others are only looking at. I would argue that they are gaining a glimpse of God's perception of the setting. They are seeing the absence of persons whom He loves.
Finally he worked at putting each imperfection to the service of his integrity. This is an interesting notion, which is actually scriptural. We know of passages where we hear that faith is perfected in weakness, or in Paul quoting God, "My grace is sufficient for you." Do we know how to put our imperfections in the service of our integrity? Do we have even the faintest notion of helping others to put their imperfections in the service of their integrity? I am often impressed by the faith of persons with mental retardation whom I know. They are by all measures, cognitively impaired. Yet they often have what Christ says that I need, the faith of a child. I get hung up on doctrine, and experience. I get confused by my normal intellect. They have the faith of a child. I am not prepared to say that people experience "disability" so that they can put their "imperfections" to the service of their integrity, however, there is that potential, and the church is the perfect agent to facilitate that understanding of disability. But people with disabilities need to be in the church, and we need to be prepared to help them to connect the dots to make sense of their life experience, particularly for those with disabilities acquired later in life.
McNair
"Beowulf was the rare kind of person who makes strength of his own weaknesses. His eyes being poor, he determined to see not just as well as other people, but better than most. He did this by cultivating habits of quickness and concentration that enabled him to be truly seeing where others were only looking. And this matter of the eyes was typical of his whole manner of being. Beowulf had made the best of all he had, putting each imperfection to work in the service of his integrity. Thus, his real strength lay in the balance of his person-which is, perhaps, another way of saying that he was strong because he was good and good because he had the strength to accept things in him that were bad." (from Beowulf A new telling by Robery Nye,1968)
In understanding his weakness, Beowulf determined to be better than most in his area of weakness. Weaknesses can cause us to throw up our hands and give up, or can spur us on to work through those weaknesses. Weaknesses can become excuses, or can cause us to see things in a different way, solve problems in a different way, to the point of out doing those who don't experience our weakness. I think about this with small churches. One of the excuses for not engaging in ministry to persons with disability from small churches is the supposed cost of such ministries, the resources required, etc. Taken to its logical conclusion, small churches are not responsible for ministry until they become big churches. But God calls us to be sheep, not goats, and there are no caviats for the service He requires. Does Jesus anywhere say, you know, when you have sufficient resources, then you can begin to be involved in service. But until then, you don't have to do anything.
Actually, I think that small churches have many advantages over other types and sizes of organizations. Relative to persons with disabilities, I wonder whether they have taken the time to find out what those advantages might be. It is interesting in the literature on employment of persons with disabilities, for example, that small mom and pop work places are often desirable over larger corporations. Why? Because the workers with disabilities become more pivotal to the functioning of the business. They begin to be seen for their strengths, and are relied upon. Larger corporations have the luxury of many employees, and therefore don't need to depend upon individuals quite as much. Small churches, therefore, might hold the greatest potential for integrating persons with disability and really tapping the depths of the gifts they bring.
Beowulf also wanted to be able to see in areas where others were only looking. I live on 5 acres and have a big time gopher problem. That is, until I started trying to see them and shoot them with my .22 rifle (I know, it sounds very red neck, but I am getting pretty good at it and my yard isn't as swiss cheesy as it was). Anyway, I have gotten to where when I look at my yard, I can detect the tiny movements of the gophers, whereas before, it seemed I never saw a gopher, just the hundreds of holes which told me they were there. You can be in a setting, even looking around in that setting and never see the setting. I am delighting in students of mine at California Baptist University, who have been looking at their churches and seeing the absence of persons with disabilities. They are gaining Beowulf's eyes in seeing what others are only looking at. I would argue that they are gaining a glimpse of God's perception of the setting. They are seeing the absence of persons whom He loves.
Finally he worked at putting each imperfection to the service of his integrity. This is an interesting notion, which is actually scriptural. We know of passages where we hear that faith is perfected in weakness, or in Paul quoting God, "My grace is sufficient for you." Do we know how to put our imperfections in the service of our integrity? Do we have even the faintest notion of helping others to put their imperfections in the service of their integrity? I am often impressed by the faith of persons with mental retardation whom I know. They are by all measures, cognitively impaired. Yet they often have what Christ says that I need, the faith of a child. I get hung up on doctrine, and experience. I get confused by my normal intellect. They have the faith of a child. I am not prepared to say that people experience "disability" so that they can put their "imperfections" to the service of their integrity, however, there is that potential, and the church is the perfect agent to facilitate that understanding of disability. But people with disabilities need to be in the church, and we need to be prepared to help them to connect the dots to make sense of their life experience, particularly for those with disabilities acquired later in life.
McNair
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
The log in my own eye
PRISM ePistle [epistle@esa-online.org] is an emailed newsletter which speaks to social issues of our day, and is related to Evangelicals for Social Responsibility's Prism magazine. The epistle dated Wednesday, April 20, 2005 began with the following "Thought for the day," a quote from Soren Kierkegaard. It caught me off guard with its directness and cut me to the quick.
Wow. I see that sentiment in myself. The New Testament is scary in the demands it makes on a person. Without the forgiveness of Christ it would indeed be "dreadful to be alone with the New Testament." As a man with a family a job and other responsibilities I have chosen, embraced in life, I wonder if I, myself am who I should be. I could easily spend myself, pour myself out like a drink offering. The opportunities to do good, the venues for service, the people I could touch are weighed over against the decisions I make. I think back on the Tolkien reference I made in the last entry:
I pray that I see the enmeshed ideals in common human interactions.God forbid that I should pretend to be unable to understand or even ignore what I know that I should do, because I know very well that the minute I allow the realization of understanding, that I will be obliged to act accordingly.
I will continue to exhort the church, but as Bob Bennet says in his song, "may the words of my mouth fall to my heart."
McNair
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."
- Soren Kierkegaard, from "Kill the Commentators" in PROVOCATIONS
Wow. I see that sentiment in myself. The New Testament is scary in the demands it makes on a person. Without the forgiveness of Christ it would indeed be "dreadful to be alone with the New Testament." As a man with a family a job and other responsibilities I have chosen, embraced in life, I wonder if I, myself am who I should be. I could easily spend myself, pour myself out like a drink offering. The opportunities to do good, the venues for service, the people I could touch are weighed over against the decisions I make. I think back on the Tolkien reference I made in the last entry:
"They do not perceive the complexity of any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed."
I pray that I see the enmeshed ideals in common human interactions.God forbid that I should pretend to be unable to understand or even ignore what I know that I should do, because I know very well that the minute I allow the realization of understanding, that I will be obliged to act accordingly.
I will continue to exhort the church, but as Bob Bennet says in his song, "may the words of my mouth fall to my heart."
McNair
City Council/Group Home
In the city in which I live, Redlands California, there was a city council meeting last night. One aspect of the meeting was a discussion of a group home for medically fragile, developmentally disabled adults which was scheduled to go into a neighborhood in Redlands. It was an interesting barometer of the sentiment of some people towards persons with mental retardation. Kathi and I left there feeling like we had a inkling into what community discrimination on the basis of race might have felt like.
Anyway, one person got up and chided the City Council that when an adult from the group home runs out into the street and gets hit by a car, it will be their fault. Another person dramatically waved at her baby (who perhaps,lucky for her was not disabled, but probably will be as a result of growing up with that mother, at least attitudinally) during her remarks about how it will be dangerous for her daughter if mentally retarded people live in the neighborhood. A man stood up and related how the group home developer had told him not to make eye contact or say hello to the residents because they will not leave you alone. I would hope a group home developer would have better sense than to say something like that which could hardly help but inflame the fears of the persons having homes around the group home. Next a woman spoke up wondering where the churches and religious people of the community were on this issue. That the community needed to be more accepting. A speaker from a state agency spoke about group home regulations, and in some ways added to the irrational fears rather than allying them. A mother of a man with disabilities spoke from her experience and hoped that a man like her son would be accepted by the community.
At that point I was called on and went forward with two of my friends who were adults with developmental disabilities living in group homes. Joyce is a woman with higher cognitive abilities and Josh a man with lower abilities in that area. Joyce told that she worked at Baker's Restaurant and her recent trip to Las Vegas to see Tom Jones, and I described Josh's work at an adult day care center. Anyway, I introduced them, spoke briefly about the fear of the unknown, how when families have a child born to them they are suddenly struck with the discrimination of the community (of which they may have been a part in the past) and expressed my desire to get into the face of the group home developer about his comments regarding not interacting with the adults who would live in the group home. I was reminded of the statistic that says that many adults with developmental disabilities only know one person without disability in the community and many none. No doubt the warnings of people like the group home developer fuel such lonliness. It also made me wonder about the fitness of the developer to have group homes if he was that misinformed about who persons with mental retardation are. I concluded my remarks (3 min) by saying the reason that he probably made the comment about not interacting is that the adults would try to develop a friendship with their community neighbors. At that point, Susan Peppler, the Mayor of Redlands graciously commented that they would be good people (the group home members) to develop a friendship with, or something to that effect. The audience applauded briefly, and Josh became very animated, making the "raise the roof" gesture. The audience loved it and we left.
Obviously the church is not responsible for every societal ill, and cannot cure everything. But I couldn't help but wonder how the discussion might have changed if the church had had a greater presence in the community toward persons with disability. I particularly wondered in a city like Redlands, where there seems to be a church on every corner.
McNair
Anyway, one person got up and chided the City Council that when an adult from the group home runs out into the street and gets hit by a car, it will be their fault. Another person dramatically waved at her baby (who perhaps,lucky for her was not disabled, but probably will be as a result of growing up with that mother, at least attitudinally) during her remarks about how it will be dangerous for her daughter if mentally retarded people live in the neighborhood. A man stood up and related how the group home developer had told him not to make eye contact or say hello to the residents because they will not leave you alone. I would hope a group home developer would have better sense than to say something like that which could hardly help but inflame the fears of the persons having homes around the group home. Next a woman spoke up wondering where the churches and religious people of the community were on this issue. That the community needed to be more accepting. A speaker from a state agency spoke about group home regulations, and in some ways added to the irrational fears rather than allying them. A mother of a man with disabilities spoke from her experience and hoped that a man like her son would be accepted by the community.
At that point I was called on and went forward with two of my friends who were adults with developmental disabilities living in group homes. Joyce is a woman with higher cognitive abilities and Josh a man with lower abilities in that area. Joyce told that she worked at Baker's Restaurant and her recent trip to Las Vegas to see Tom Jones, and I described Josh's work at an adult day care center. Anyway, I introduced them, spoke briefly about the fear of the unknown, how when families have a child born to them they are suddenly struck with the discrimination of the community (of which they may have been a part in the past) and expressed my desire to get into the face of the group home developer about his comments regarding not interacting with the adults who would live in the group home. I was reminded of the statistic that says that many adults with developmental disabilities only know one person without disability in the community and many none. No doubt the warnings of people like the group home developer fuel such lonliness. It also made me wonder about the fitness of the developer to have group homes if he was that misinformed about who persons with mental retardation are. I concluded my remarks (3 min) by saying the reason that he probably made the comment about not interacting is that the adults would try to develop a friendship with their community neighbors. At that point, Susan Peppler, the Mayor of Redlands graciously commented that they would be good people (the group home members) to develop a friendship with, or something to that effect. The audience applauded briefly, and Josh became very animated, making the "raise the roof" gesture. The audience loved it and we left.
Obviously the church is not responsible for every societal ill, and cannot cure everything. But I couldn't help but wonder how the discussion might have changed if the church had had a greater presence in the community toward persons with disability. I particularly wondered in a city like Redlands, where there seems to be a church on every corner.
"O man, He has declared to you what is good. And what does Jehovah require of you, but do do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8)
McNair
Friday, April 01, 2005
We must work the works: John 9:3-5
Nearly a year ago, I related the following in a blog entry:
This morning, Kathi and I had the pleasure of having coffee with some friends who are parents of a daughter with down syndrome. They related the story of how their daughter will engage in a game of "keep away" with a couple of boys in the neighborhood. Invariably, the game becomes those two boys keeping the ball away from their daughter until the game finally ends. Independent of whether or not the gal with the disability recognizes that she is being taken advantage of in the game, it is obvious that those two boys are not working "the works of him that sent me while it is still day." Now its not that the boys are being particularly evil or something, but they certainly are not being kind to the girl. Working "the works of him that sent me" would probably look a lot less competitive in this case (I have nothing against competition), and reflect, I don't know, fairness, encouragement; evidences of works of God.
People with disability in our midst, provide us the opportunity to work the works of God. Don't hear me wrong. They are not in existence so that I might gain some brownie points with God. That would belittle the importance of their lives and accentuate the importance of my life. I see no evidence from scripture that I am to do either. However, as with the opportunity to help any person who needs it, the chance is provided to work the works of God. At times I will work the works and at other times I will receive the benefit of someone else working the works. The take home lesson, I believe, is that we are all surrounded by opportunities to serve others and we need to take advantage of those opportunities. We are all equal before God.
In response to a letter about his Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien penned the following,
There is a depth to the situations of my life. I may not be attending to the depth but it is there nonetheless.
McNair
John 9:3-5 says,
"Neither this man or his parents sinned" said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming when no one can work" (NIV).
Jesus said this in response to his disciples asking about a blind man they encountered, "Who sinned, this man or his parents?" They were wondering who's sin caused the blindness.
Merril C. Tenney, the Bible scholar wrote that this passage might be translated in a different way. Here is Tenney's translation.
"Neither did this man sin, nor his parents" said Jesus. "But that the works of God should be made manifest in him, we must work the works of him that sent me, while it is still day; the night cometh when no man can work."
One of Tenney's points with his translation is that the works of God are made manifest in persons with disability by the things those around them do. The works of God were not made manifest solely through the healing of the man by Jesus. An interesting perspective to consider. An interesting plumb line for evaluating the response of the Church to persons with a variety of disabilities.
This morning, Kathi and I had the pleasure of having coffee with some friends who are parents of a daughter with down syndrome. They related the story of how their daughter will engage in a game of "keep away" with a couple of boys in the neighborhood. Invariably, the game becomes those two boys keeping the ball away from their daughter until the game finally ends. Independent of whether or not the gal with the disability recognizes that she is being taken advantage of in the game, it is obvious that those two boys are not working "the works of him that sent me while it is still day." Now its not that the boys are being particularly evil or something, but they certainly are not being kind to the girl. Working "the works of him that sent me" would probably look a lot less competitive in this case (I have nothing against competition), and reflect, I don't know, fairness, encouragement; evidences of works of God.
People with disability in our midst, provide us the opportunity to work the works of God. Don't hear me wrong. They are not in existence so that I might gain some brownie points with God. That would belittle the importance of their lives and accentuate the importance of my life. I see no evidence from scripture that I am to do either. However, as with the opportunity to help any person who needs it, the chance is provided to work the works of God. At times I will work the works and at other times I will receive the benefit of someone else working the works. The take home lesson, I believe, is that we are all surrounded by opportunities to serve others and we need to take advantage of those opportunities. We are all equal before God.
In response to a letter about his Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien penned the following,
Frodo indeed ‘failed’ as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to
the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say ‘simple minds’ with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. there weakness, however, is twofold. They do not perceive the complexity of any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget that strange element in the World that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgment (since it is present in the Divine nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God (emphasis added) (From Carpenter & Tolkien (1981), The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #246, pp. 326)
There is a depth to the situations of my life. I may not be attending to the depth but it is there nonetheless.
McNair
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
I don't need you
Think about what has been happening in the Schaivo case as it relates to other persons with disability whose lives might be determined unworthy of continuance due to a quality of life determination. Paul wrote,
How often in the church, the household of faith, the body of Christ, do we turn to our neighbor and say, "I don't need you!" Our neighbors are defined as people who "seem to be weaker." Interesting caviat. They "seem" to be weaker for whatever reason, however, the Bible indicates that somehow these persons are "indispensable." It would appear to me that they are weaker, justifying my statement, "I don't need you!" but in actuality, they are "indispensable." It also says that the parts that "we think" are "less honorable we treat with special honor." Another caviat in the statement "we think," the implication being that although we think them less honorable, they are to be treated with special honor. God has "given greater honor to the parts that lacked it so there can be" get this, "no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other." No division, equal concern. Equal concern about or for what? It would seem equal concern at the most basic level for life.
In the Schaivo case, they have music playing, flowers around her and a stuffed animal in her arm, but they are starving and dehydrating her to death. Is this having "equal concern for each other?" Who are we comforting with these amenities? Supposedly the woman's life is being taken because she is in a persistant vegetative state and would not appreciate such things. Please, if there is any notion that these things are comforting to her, reinsert the tube as she has the ability to appreciate music and beauty!
It occurs to me, that the church has for so long excluded people with disabilities that it has less problem than it perhaps should when a disabled person is starved to death. Or even if it has concern, it seems hollow in light of its lack of effort to include persons with disability prior to the point of life sustaining measures for a brain damaged person. If the church truly has concern for such individuals, why aren't there more brain damaged persons going to church? A pastor friend of mine has said that for a church to have a ministry that includes persons with down syndrome for example (as that is the form of disability most often tested for via amniocentesis in efforts at "prevention" of mental retardation leading to abortion), we give teeth to our arguments against abortion. We say, "Don't abort those children and bring them here, to our church to become a part of our church family, after they are born."
But I don't see as many persons with down syndrome attending church as are represented in the community. Instead, I hear horror stories of churches discriminating against persons with down syndrome and other disabilities and their families.
The church is a part of the problem in this whole issue. Disability has been constructed by the church in such a way that we feel comfortable saying to a disabled person "we don't need you." I look at this incident and am concerned, but I look at what might be the result of 2000 years of the church's lack of concern and am really concerned for what the future may hold.
Would we as Christians even miss, would we even know they were gone, if persons with mental retardation, for example, were systematically starved to death? We see Ms. Schiavo being starved to death and we become greatly concerned about the life of a person with a severe disability. But our track record says that really, as a whole Christian church, we don't seem to give a damn about persons with disability.
Like participants in a liturgy, we stand before the Lord, and tell those with severe disabilities who are not in our midst, "WE DON'T NEED YOU!" That is, until we are confronted with the natural results of our indifference.
McNair
(from cbu)
The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now, you are the body of Chirst and each one of you is a part of it (1 Corinthians 12:21-27).
How often in the church, the household of faith, the body of Christ, do we turn to our neighbor and say, "I don't need you!" Our neighbors are defined as people who "seem to be weaker." Interesting caviat. They "seem" to be weaker for whatever reason, however, the Bible indicates that somehow these persons are "indispensable." It would appear to me that they are weaker, justifying my statement, "I don't need you!" but in actuality, they are "indispensable." It also says that the parts that "we think" are "less honorable we treat with special honor." Another caviat in the statement "we think," the implication being that although we think them less honorable, they are to be treated with special honor. God has "given greater honor to the parts that lacked it so there can be" get this, "no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other." No division, equal concern. Equal concern about or for what? It would seem equal concern at the most basic level for life.
In the Schaivo case, they have music playing, flowers around her and a stuffed animal in her arm, but they are starving and dehydrating her to death. Is this having "equal concern for each other?" Who are we comforting with these amenities? Supposedly the woman's life is being taken because she is in a persistant vegetative state and would not appreciate such things. Please, if there is any notion that these things are comforting to her, reinsert the tube as she has the ability to appreciate music and beauty!
It occurs to me, that the church has for so long excluded people with disabilities that it has less problem than it perhaps should when a disabled person is starved to death. Or even if it has concern, it seems hollow in light of its lack of effort to include persons with disability prior to the point of life sustaining measures for a brain damaged person. If the church truly has concern for such individuals, why aren't there more brain damaged persons going to church? A pastor friend of mine has said that for a church to have a ministry that includes persons with down syndrome for example (as that is the form of disability most often tested for via amniocentesis in efforts at "prevention" of mental retardation leading to abortion), we give teeth to our arguments against abortion. We say, "Don't abort those children and bring them here, to our church to become a part of our church family, after they are born."
But I don't see as many persons with down syndrome attending church as are represented in the community. Instead, I hear horror stories of churches discriminating against persons with down syndrome and other disabilities and their families.
The church is a part of the problem in this whole issue. Disability has been constructed by the church in such a way that we feel comfortable saying to a disabled person "we don't need you." I look at this incident and am concerned, but I look at what might be the result of 2000 years of the church's lack of concern and am really concerned for what the future may hold.
Would we as Christians even miss, would we even know they were gone, if persons with mental retardation, for example, were systematically starved to death? We see Ms. Schiavo being starved to death and we become greatly concerned about the life of a person with a severe disability. But our track record says that really, as a whole Christian church, we don't seem to give a damn about persons with disability.
Like participants in a liturgy, we stand before the Lord, and tell those with severe disabilities who are not in our midst, "WE DON'T NEED YOU!" That is, until we are confronted with the natural results of our indifference.
McNair
(from cbu)
Thursday, March 24, 2005
What to make of current events
I must admit that the recent events regarding taking the life of a severely disabled person concern me. However, it isn't just the events regarding the woman in Florida, it is also the discussion which surrounds her life and the battles of those around her. For example, this morning a bioethicist spoke of how the practice of removing a feeding tube occurred commonly across the country. He specifically referenced it happening to aborted infants who were born alive and children born with down syndrome. If you recall, the starving of children with down syndrome was an issue during the Reagan administration with the whole baby doe affair. I am aghast to think that our medical profession does such things.
Now I recognize that people should have a right to determine whether or not extensive efforts should be made to keep someone alive, particularly someone who has specifically requested that such efforts should not be used. However, feeding someone has now become included in extensive efforts. People are also permitted to make decision about others by caviat, without any documented permission given.
When people have lived life without the experience of the differences referred to as disability, they think they know how they would respond should they at some point experience disability. However, that is like trying to think about what it would be like to be a cat when you have been a dog all of your life. You think you know what you would do as a cat, but you really don't know, and you may find that your will to live as a cat is much more than you ever expected when you were still a dog.
Another concern to me is where these decisions about the life of another will go. If I have a severe disability, do I have a poor quality of life when the quality of life I have is the only one I have ever known? Can I look at a person in desperate poverty and say that they have a poor quality of life? Can I look at a person with down syndrome and say they have a poor quality of life? I have gone out of my way to ask quality of life questions to persons with disability, and almost without fail the response is that they feel they have a good quality of life. I have also at other times in this blog referred to the interview Christopher Nance did with Ray Charles. Nance asked, "What is it like to be blind?" Charles' wise response was, "What is it like to not be blind?" Quality of life is in the eye of the person having the life experience. . .not those observing the person.
We must be very careful about projecting our perspectives of poor life quality on others who may not agree with our point of view, or may agree at one point and not at another. Joni Eareckson relates the story of how she would have said that she wouldn't have wanted to live with the differences she now faces prior to the accident that changed her. However, now having become accustomed to her life, she feels she has a good quality of life.
So, although I don't want to get into people's business when such decisions are on the line, I am very worried that our laws allow for starving another to death on the basis of subjective notions of disability and quality of life. Persons with severe disability are easy targets.
McNair
Now I recognize that people should have a right to determine whether or not extensive efforts should be made to keep someone alive, particularly someone who has specifically requested that such efforts should not be used. However, feeding someone has now become included in extensive efforts. People are also permitted to make decision about others by caviat, without any documented permission given.
When people have lived life without the experience of the differences referred to as disability, they think they know how they would respond should they at some point experience disability. However, that is like trying to think about what it would be like to be a cat when you have been a dog all of your life. You think you know what you would do as a cat, but you really don't know, and you may find that your will to live as a cat is much more than you ever expected when you were still a dog.
Another concern to me is where these decisions about the life of another will go. If I have a severe disability, do I have a poor quality of life when the quality of life I have is the only one I have ever known? Can I look at a person in desperate poverty and say that they have a poor quality of life? Can I look at a person with down syndrome and say they have a poor quality of life? I have gone out of my way to ask quality of life questions to persons with disability, and almost without fail the response is that they feel they have a good quality of life. I have also at other times in this blog referred to the interview Christopher Nance did with Ray Charles. Nance asked, "What is it like to be blind?" Charles' wise response was, "What is it like to not be blind?" Quality of life is in the eye of the person having the life experience. . .not those observing the person.
We must be very careful about projecting our perspectives of poor life quality on others who may not agree with our point of view, or may agree at one point and not at another. Joni Eareckson relates the story of how she would have said that she wouldn't have wanted to live with the differences she now faces prior to the accident that changed her. However, now having become accustomed to her life, she feels she has a good quality of life.
So, although I don't want to get into people's business when such decisions are on the line, I am very worried that our laws allow for starving another to death on the basis of subjective notions of disability and quality of life. Persons with severe disability are easy targets.
McNair
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Bottle necked pastors = layperson movement
I was asked to be on an advisory board for a disability advocacy group. It was interesting as yesterday, I met with the director and their idea is to develop lay people to influence the church. Lay people/leaders to open churches with disability programs. He said that the pastors of the churches can be the "bottle neck" in getting programs into churches for persons with disabilities. Wow.
But, you know, it makes sense that the exclusion of persons with disability has gone on for so long, that it is institutionalized to the point that pastors can be part of the problem. The church structures themselves, theology, leadership, and as a result rank and file members are the problem. I don't think we can rely on seminaries or Christian colleges (at least in their current form) to cause the changes that will result in churches being open to persons with disability. It might actually have to be a lay movement such as the one described by my lunch partner yesterday, that causes changes in the church.
Lets do it!
Interesting stuff to think about.
McNair
(from cbu)
But, you know, it makes sense that the exclusion of persons with disability has gone on for so long, that it is institutionalized to the point that pastors can be part of the problem. The church structures themselves, theology, leadership, and as a result rank and file members are the problem. I don't think we can rely on seminaries or Christian colleges (at least in their current form) to cause the changes that will result in churches being open to persons with disability. It might actually have to be a lay movement such as the one described by my lunch partner yesterday, that causes changes in the church.
Lets do it!
Interesting stuff to think about.
McNair
(from cbu)
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Inclusive worship
I have often wondered about the concept of worship; what it is, how it is done, among other things. Recently questions about who can participate in worship enter my mind. In my church, worship seems very much performance oriented. The band plays loud, and the participation of the congregation is often hardly heard. Then the sermon is given and the expectation is quiet attention.
There are many people who cannot perform with the excellence that performance style worship requires so they would never be able to participate there. Even as audience members they can't sing because they can't read the projected words. They don't even clap in a very timely fashion. They are able to raise their hands and participate in other movements. During worship itself, they at times speak too loud, or ask for assistance in finding a Bible passage, or get up to use the restroom. They don't always look or dress like the rest of the congregation. They also sometimes don't smell like the rest of the congregation. As a result, they have at times been asked to not be a part of the congregation.
But the style of worship in many of todays churches which isso fragile, so excellent that it excludes those who are different belies something about the church. I would argue that if the style of worship is not inclusive of the range of people who would like to be involved in worship, then the style of worship needs to change. I don't recall where in scriptures that social skills are a requirement of worship participation. But I honestly believe that we have excluded persons with disability from the church for so long, that the traditional style of worship has grown to be one that excludes their participation in its very design.
McNair
There are many people who cannot perform with the excellence that performance style worship requires so they would never be able to participate there. Even as audience members they can't sing because they can't read the projected words. They don't even clap in a very timely fashion. They are able to raise their hands and participate in other movements. During worship itself, they at times speak too loud, or ask for assistance in finding a Bible passage, or get up to use the restroom. They don't always look or dress like the rest of the congregation. They also sometimes don't smell like the rest of the congregation. As a result, they have at times been asked to not be a part of the congregation.
But the style of worship in many of todays churches which isso fragile, so excellent that it excludes those who are different belies something about the church. I would argue that if the style of worship is not inclusive of the range of people who would like to be involved in worship, then the style of worship needs to change. I don't recall where in scriptures that social skills are a requirement of worship participation. But I honestly believe that we have excluded persons with disability from the church for so long, that the traditional style of worship has grown to be one that excludes their participation in its very design.
McNair
Monday, March 14, 2005
Patronizing Good Will
Oftentimes when describing work with persons with disabilities, or even in introducing persons with cognitive disability to those without disability, I have the feeling that I am the recipient of a kind of patronizing good will. Whether it is based on some notion of political correctness in relation to the particular enviornment one is in, or a reflection of some general social etiquete of how one is to act or speak when the question of mental retardation arises, people move into this sentimental seriousness about persons with disability. Their speech belies good will of language on their part, but there is also a laziness about it. It's like they reverence the challenges of the families of those persons and what they suspect is the experience of the persons with disabilities themselves, however, they speak out of ignorance; a kind of lazy ignorance at that. Its like the response many special educators joke about that they receive when they say they are special educators. Without fail, others will respond, "You must have a lot of patience." Ask any special educator and he will report that he has heard that response.
It seems when confronted with disability, the general public is often so unfamiliar with persons with disability and their experiences that they respond with the pat answers, the patronizing replies which have been used over and over again. It is good will, but it is patronizing and unreflective of knowledge. But apparently they have heard others use those mindless replies and they appeared to sound heartfelt, kind and maybe even intelligent. So they repeat them as well. And so on and so on. In the end, we have social constructions reflected in the trite language used in response to the unknown of disability.
Now it is obviously better that the mindless responses of the general public should be patronizing good will over something negative, however, oftentimes the pat answers convey negativity which is just below the surface. I use positive speak in public environments about persons with disability, however, in private speak or when challenged to put the positive into practice (drop a group home in the neighborhood, for example) the positive is quickly replaced because the "due diligence" has not been done to actually support the positive.
So when confronted with trite, good speech about persons with disability, ask the questions that will cause the speaker to either back up the speech with actions, or at least go a bit deeper in his understanding of disability.
McNair
It seems when confronted with disability, the general public is often so unfamiliar with persons with disability and their experiences that they respond with the pat answers, the patronizing replies which have been used over and over again. It is good will, but it is patronizing and unreflective of knowledge. But apparently they have heard others use those mindless replies and they appeared to sound heartfelt, kind and maybe even intelligent. So they repeat them as well. And so on and so on. In the end, we have social constructions reflected in the trite language used in response to the unknown of disability.
Now it is obviously better that the mindless responses of the general public should be patronizing good will over something negative, however, oftentimes the pat answers convey negativity which is just below the surface. I use positive speak in public environments about persons with disability, however, in private speak or when challenged to put the positive into practice (drop a group home in the neighborhood, for example) the positive is quickly replaced because the "due diligence" has not been done to actually support the positive.
So when confronted with trite, good speech about persons with disability, ask the questions that will cause the speaker to either back up the speech with actions, or at least go a bit deeper in his understanding of disability.
McNair
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
