I was doing some more thinking on social skills today (see Tuesday August 21). So last night I went with a friend to see the California Angels play. He had been wanting to go for a long time and once we got there, he almost immediately wanted to go home. I convinced him to stay till midway through the 5th inning, and of course after we left, the Angels exploded and scored 9 runs...oh well. At least he got the free blanket, an Angels baseball, and other free paraphenalia.
My point, however, was this friend of mine, a man with severe mental retardation, walked around greeting people the whole time we were at the game. In his somewhat difficult to understand speech, he would say, "Hello, how are you?" to just about everyone he passed. I must admit that I found that kinda refreshing, and most of the people he addressed were very kind to him as well, responding to his greetings.
By all accounts, he was evidencing a social skill problem, to use technical terminology, to darn much greeting. Obviously when you go somewhere, especially at a pro sporting event, you get in and get to your seat. You don't take the time to greet everyone you pass in the arena, it takes too long. Besides no one else is greeting everyone else that they pass. So my friend's friendliness was an example of poor social skills, according to societal standards, not mine, on his part. Instead of greeting and being friendly, he should have kept to himself and shut up. But his friendliness brought a smile to nearly everyone that he came into contact with. Sure they gave him the benefit of the doubt because he has a cognitive disability, but nevertheless, he didn't follow the rules with the result being that he softened those around him.
Think about it.
McNair
(fcbu)
Friday, September 07, 2007
Forms of faith expression
I have been thinking about the ways in which faith can be expressed by an individual. I was once an elder in a church, and when we would interview potential members, we would look for key phrases both positively and negatively. For example, if we asked the question, "If you arrived in heaven, why should you be let in?" we would look for responses like, "I believe that Jesus saved me from my sins" or "Only because of faith in Christ would I be allowed in" things of that sort from the positive side. Negatively, if someone said, "I have tried real hard" or "I have been a good person" these would indicate that the person didn't really understand the work of Christ, and at the very least needed some instruction on those aspects of the faith.
But what of the person who cannot communicate via words, spoken or written (see Jamie video below for written expression). What if they lack the cognitive ability to understand the work of Christ even to the point of saying that "I have done bad things and Jesus has forgiven me." How does one with that level of disability express faith?
Well, we don't allow anything to count as faith, but I think we should look for indications of faith amongst those people. First of all, God can be trusted in this whole discussion. He will love the people I am trying to love more than I can even imagine, so he is out for their best. I think I am wanting to affirm people at their level that they are expressing faith when they are expressing faith. This can get a bit wierd where we are projecting things on people. Where, for example, people make random statements, or speak incoherantly, or other random behaviors which those of us without disabilities take for expressions of something totally apart from what they might actuallty be doing. But there is a level of awareness that might be achieved by those who are helping people with disabilities in their faith, which can encourage and guide them.
I remember for example trying to teach a man with cognitive disabilities the Lord's prayer. In the beginning I would have him repeat the phrases after me. Each time the things that he said were unrecognizable to me as the statement I had just made. But then I began to realize that each of the statements was consistent and unique. So if I said, "Our Father" he would respond with an unintelligible, yet unique phrase which he would always repeat when that was the phrase he was to produce. "Who lives in heaven" same thing thing, unique and consistent phrase. I came to the conclusion that he was repeating the Lord's prayer, however, he was repeating it in a way that I could not understand due to his speech impediment, but I am sure was understandable to God. I have know others, however, who produced random statements in response to learing a Bible verse who I am sure had no idea about what they were saying.
Another aspect of this is the ability to respond to the degree you are able, or to the degree you have been given the opportunity to respond. So I know people who have grown to love coming to church. Sure there are social components to church attendance (which is obviously NOT the reason for many attending church who are not disabled), however, the desire to come to church, to be with other Christians, even to be in "God's house" are all evidences on some level of a faith committment. I have mentioned at other times in this blog Fowler's book on the Stages of Faith. There are stages I will probably never attain myself, however, there is a stage at which I am currently functioning, and hopefully I will grow in my faith. That is the same for persons with cognitive disabilities. We help them at the stage where they currently function and attempt to assist them to grow in faith. A critical aspect of this is I need to look for expressions of faith, not so I can judge, but so that I can reinforce and facilitate the spiritual development of those with disabilities.
McNair
(fcbu)
But what of the person who cannot communicate via words, spoken or written (see Jamie video below for written expression). What if they lack the cognitive ability to understand the work of Christ even to the point of saying that "I have done bad things and Jesus has forgiven me." How does one with that level of disability express faith?
Well, we don't allow anything to count as faith, but I think we should look for indications of faith amongst those people. First of all, God can be trusted in this whole discussion. He will love the people I am trying to love more than I can even imagine, so he is out for their best. I think I am wanting to affirm people at their level that they are expressing faith when they are expressing faith. This can get a bit wierd where we are projecting things on people. Where, for example, people make random statements, or speak incoherantly, or other random behaviors which those of us without disabilities take for expressions of something totally apart from what they might actuallty be doing. But there is a level of awareness that might be achieved by those who are helping people with disabilities in their faith, which can encourage and guide them.
I remember for example trying to teach a man with cognitive disabilities the Lord's prayer. In the beginning I would have him repeat the phrases after me. Each time the things that he said were unrecognizable to me as the statement I had just made. But then I began to realize that each of the statements was consistent and unique. So if I said, "Our Father" he would respond with an unintelligible, yet unique phrase which he would always repeat when that was the phrase he was to produce. "Who lives in heaven" same thing thing, unique and consistent phrase. I came to the conclusion that he was repeating the Lord's prayer, however, he was repeating it in a way that I could not understand due to his speech impediment, but I am sure was understandable to God. I have know others, however, who produced random statements in response to learing a Bible verse who I am sure had no idea about what they were saying.
Another aspect of this is the ability to respond to the degree you are able, or to the degree you have been given the opportunity to respond. So I know people who have grown to love coming to church. Sure there are social components to church attendance (which is obviously NOT the reason for many attending church who are not disabled), however, the desire to come to church, to be with other Christians, even to be in "God's house" are all evidences on some level of a faith committment. I have mentioned at other times in this blog Fowler's book on the Stages of Faith. There are stages I will probably never attain myself, however, there is a stage at which I am currently functioning, and hopefully I will grow in my faith. That is the same for persons with cognitive disabilities. We help them at the stage where they currently function and attempt to assist them to grow in faith. A critical aspect of this is I need to look for expressions of faith, not so I can judge, but so that I can reinforce and facilitate the spiritual development of those with disabilities.
McNair
(fcbu)
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Report from European Society on Theology and Disability
This is my report on the first meeting of the European Society on Theology and Disability held at Schoorl, Netherlands this past week(8/29-3/31/07). The conference organizers were Dr. Hans Reinders and Dr. John Swinton, however, Dr. Reinders and his family were the wonderful hosts who made this a memorable event. Accommodations were provided at an organic beef and dairy farm where we stayed in tents, enjoyed breakfast together as well as evening discussions about the events of each conference day. The conference itself was held at a place called Scorelewald, a residential/vocational setting for adults with cognitive disabilities.
The first evening opened with a few comments from Dr. Reinders, followed by a skit performed by members of the L'Arche community of Amsterdam about the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12). This was followed by the viewing of a film about the life of Henri Nouwen. Throughout the performance and the film, I sat by Willy, a beautiful gal from L'Arche who knew of Henri Nouwen and became excited whenever Jean Vanier was mentioned, and her friend Ferd. Both folks only spoke Dutch and I speak English, but we were reasonably able to communicate. After the film, another woman from L'Arche was interviewed about the impact the Nouwen film had made on her the first time she saw it with Dr. Reinders interpretting Dutch to English. The evening ended and we went back to the campground/farm.
The following morning, we awoke, had breakfast and walked the 1 1/2 miles to Scorelewald for the beginning of the conference. Dr. Reinders introduced the day and Dr. Swinton and others acted as moderators. We learned that attendees were from England, Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, Nigeria, India, Russia, America and of course Holland. It was a friendly, lively group of 32 attendees 12 of which presented. The day's schedule was two 1/2 hour sessions followed by questions, coffee break, 2 more sessions then lunch, 2 more sessions then coffee break and then 2 more sessions and then dinner. I had the opportunity to present after the morning coffee break after Dr. Herman Meininger. My topic was, "The essential nature of persons with mental retardation to the church."
After dinner, there was a short break and then a dramatic presentation put on by the residents of Scorlewald. About 200 people were in attendance. The play was entitled, "Happy Hans" from Grims fairy tales which included a great musical accompaniment provided by residents. Earlier in the day, we were given the opportunity to forgo a portion of our lunch time to tour a workshop that made musical instruments. I must say that these instruments (flute, lyre, drums, xylophone) were beautifully made and produced lovely tones. Similar instruments were for sale and were sold for as much as a thousand dollars. The workmanship was very impressive as was the fact that that people with severe cognitive disabilities were involved in making the instruments. Anyway, Happy Hans was well done and great fun, and many jokes were made later as Dr. Reinders name is also Hans!
The final day of the conference included morning presentations and a business meeting after lunch led by Dr. Swinton. Some good discussion and decisions were made. The next meeting of the society will be held in 2 years with the location tentatively planned to be Switzerland.
Friday evening ended with a delicious barbecue prepared by Dr. Reinders' son Jasper. There was much great discussion. Dr. Reinders and his family were lovely hosts. Through their efforts, the standard has been set very high.
My immediate reflections about the conference was that there were very different ways of approaching the notion of disability although there was a unity of heart. I was very interested to hear about Nigeria and the presenters' contention that the church is the answer to disability issues there. There was unanimity about the desperate need for the church to change. I was approached on several occasions for ideas about how to actually facilitate change. It seems there is much resistance in the countries represented.
The good news is that God is gathering change agents world wide. It is a small thing that 32 people gathered from 4 continents, but God uses small things. I am excited about the possibilities this society has for the future. I also know now that I have two years to work on my German!
May God bless and direct the Eurpoean Society on Theology and Disability
McNair
(The Jordan Shelter,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
The first evening opened with a few comments from Dr. Reinders, followed by a skit performed by members of the L'Arche community of Amsterdam about the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12). This was followed by the viewing of a film about the life of Henri Nouwen. Throughout the performance and the film, I sat by Willy, a beautiful gal from L'Arche who knew of Henri Nouwen and became excited whenever Jean Vanier was mentioned, and her friend Ferd. Both folks only spoke Dutch and I speak English, but we were reasonably able to communicate. After the film, another woman from L'Arche was interviewed about the impact the Nouwen film had made on her the first time she saw it with Dr. Reinders interpretting Dutch to English. The evening ended and we went back to the campground/farm.
The following morning, we awoke, had breakfast and walked the 1 1/2 miles to Scorelewald for the beginning of the conference. Dr. Reinders introduced the day and Dr. Swinton and others acted as moderators. We learned that attendees were from England, Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, Nigeria, India, Russia, America and of course Holland. It was a friendly, lively group of 32 attendees 12 of which presented. The day's schedule was two 1/2 hour sessions followed by questions, coffee break, 2 more sessions then lunch, 2 more sessions then coffee break and then 2 more sessions and then dinner. I had the opportunity to present after the morning coffee break after Dr. Herman Meininger. My topic was, "The essential nature of persons with mental retardation to the church."
After dinner, there was a short break and then a dramatic presentation put on by the residents of Scorlewald. About 200 people were in attendance. The play was entitled, "Happy Hans" from Grims fairy tales which included a great musical accompaniment provided by residents. Earlier in the day, we were given the opportunity to forgo a portion of our lunch time to tour a workshop that made musical instruments. I must say that these instruments (flute, lyre, drums, xylophone) were beautifully made and produced lovely tones. Similar instruments were for sale and were sold for as much as a thousand dollars. The workmanship was very impressive as was the fact that that people with severe cognitive disabilities were involved in making the instruments. Anyway, Happy Hans was well done and great fun, and many jokes were made later as Dr. Reinders name is also Hans!
The final day of the conference included morning presentations and a business meeting after lunch led by Dr. Swinton. Some good discussion and decisions were made. The next meeting of the society will be held in 2 years with the location tentatively planned to be Switzerland.
Friday evening ended with a delicious barbecue prepared by Dr. Reinders' son Jasper. There was much great discussion. Dr. Reinders and his family were lovely hosts. Through their efforts, the standard has been set very high.
My immediate reflections about the conference was that there were very different ways of approaching the notion of disability although there was a unity of heart. I was very interested to hear about Nigeria and the presenters' contention that the church is the answer to disability issues there. There was unanimity about the desperate need for the church to change. I was approached on several occasions for ideas about how to actually facilitate change. It seems there is much resistance in the countries represented.
The good news is that God is gathering change agents world wide. It is a small thing that 32 people gathered from 4 continents, but God uses small things. I am excited about the possibilities this society has for the future. I also know now that I have two years to work on my German!
May God bless and direct the Eurpoean Society on Theology and Disability
McNair
(The Jordan Shelter,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Saturday, August 25, 2007
European Society on Theology and Disability
Well, I am off to the first meeting ever of the European Society on Theology and Disability to be held in the Netherlands. The group was organized by Dr. Hans Reinders (author of The Future of the Disabled in Liberal Society which is a great book) and Dr. John Swinton of University of Aberdeen (see his article Building a Church for Strangers). If you have the inclination, please pray for this meeting, this new organization and the conference. I will provide a report here when I return.
God Bless,
McNair
God Bless,
McNair
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Leadership in ministry to people with cognitive disabilities
Who should be in leadership of Sunday School classes or groups for individuals with developmental disabilities? Typically it is people without disabilities although there may be a few leaders among those with disabilities in the group. Perhaps someone in your group witha cognitive disability immediately comes to mind. Perhaps we have people on the leadership team, some with specific roles. Others participate in leadership meetings because their input is valued, but one could ask why they are participants any more than anyone else. I think we need to be sure that leaders are in leadership positions. I am also confident that we could hurt feelings if someone was not invited to be involved in leadership because we felt they were not leaders. For example, there are those who would feel that they should be at any and every meeting and that her comments are essential to the functioning of the group. Others, might feel they are just missing out on a good time. But if the meetings are for purposes of discussing the future of the group, truly leadership meetings and not just social outings, there will be exclusion.
Because some of our group at my church have cognitive disabilities, and I am in a position of leadership in that group, I do not have a problem excluding them from the leadership meetings, as their disability on some level limits their contribution there. That is a judgment on their leadership skills, and their cognitive abilities which would imply that they are not gifted for participation in leadership, or teaching, for example (Ephesians 4:11). Obviously, I do not say there was no place for those people, only that their options could be limited by their disabilities and that would be a determination made by people with and without disabilities. I for one, have never been asked to sing before the church, or to have involvement in financial matters of the church. I have no problem with someone telling me that I am not gifted for those activities of the church because it is true, I am not. I also do not feel the need to have people with cognitive disabilities present in leadership meetings simply for reasons of political correctness. There are those with cognitive disabilities that I love dearly, and that I enjoy long conversations with, however, they will not be holding a position of leadership in our group. People with cognitive disabilities have very much to offer the church, but because of their cognitive or other disabilities aspects of their service may be limited.
Another basic aspect of the disabled/nondisabled dynamic is that people with cognitive disabilities cannot help but look to people without cognitive disabilities for leadership. Every cognitively disabled member of the group at my church looks to a non-cognitively disabled person for leadership in areas such as finances, travel, work, relationships, spiritual issues, etc. I have no problem with that as well. That is our responsibility as those without cognitive disabilities toward our brothers and sisters in Christ who experience cognitive disabilities. It is, however, a fine line to try to walk.
In our group, we have in the past and will do a better job in the future, communicated that all of those without cognitive disabilities are in leadership, if only informally. We need to note that, support that and praise that. That aspect has been one of the greatest points of growth in our group, for example, over the past year. I want people to be considered leaders in the class because of the positive impact their informal leadership has on members of the group. Others have a very quiet role in the group, but are leaders nonetheless through the way they come alongside of many people to talk and encourage them, love and support them. Those without disabilities are often totally invested in the group, and I think would do just about anything we could ask for the group. In that way they are an important part of the leadership. We, as those without cognitive disabilities, are responsible to help those who are cognitively disabled. Those without, or with less severe disabilities enjoy the group for themselves, but they also see it as a ministry role in a much different way than those with more severe disabilities typically see their involvement. I want to encourage the ministry view without disparaging the attendance view. I mean, I participate in groups where I am largely the recipient of ministry and that is fine. The key is that all should have the opportunity to be on both sides of the ministry equation (givers and recipients) although leadership in ministry might not be available to all.
McNair
Because some of our group at my church have cognitive disabilities, and I am in a position of leadership in that group, I do not have a problem excluding them from the leadership meetings, as their disability on some level limits their contribution there. That is a judgment on their leadership skills, and their cognitive abilities which would imply that they are not gifted for participation in leadership, or teaching, for example (Ephesians 4:11). Obviously, I do not say there was no place for those people, only that their options could be limited by their disabilities and that would be a determination made by people with and without disabilities. I for one, have never been asked to sing before the church, or to have involvement in financial matters of the church. I have no problem with someone telling me that I am not gifted for those activities of the church because it is true, I am not. I also do not feel the need to have people with cognitive disabilities present in leadership meetings simply for reasons of political correctness. There are those with cognitive disabilities that I love dearly, and that I enjoy long conversations with, however, they will not be holding a position of leadership in our group. People with cognitive disabilities have very much to offer the church, but because of their cognitive or other disabilities aspects of their service may be limited.
Another basic aspect of the disabled/nondisabled dynamic is that people with cognitive disabilities cannot help but look to people without cognitive disabilities for leadership. Every cognitively disabled member of the group at my church looks to a non-cognitively disabled person for leadership in areas such as finances, travel, work, relationships, spiritual issues, etc. I have no problem with that as well. That is our responsibility as those without cognitive disabilities toward our brothers and sisters in Christ who experience cognitive disabilities. It is, however, a fine line to try to walk.
In our group, we have in the past and will do a better job in the future, communicated that all of those without cognitive disabilities are in leadership, if only informally. We need to note that, support that and praise that. That aspect has been one of the greatest points of growth in our group, for example, over the past year. I want people to be considered leaders in the class because of the positive impact their informal leadership has on members of the group. Others have a very quiet role in the group, but are leaders nonetheless through the way they come alongside of many people to talk and encourage them, love and support them. Those without disabilities are often totally invested in the group, and I think would do just about anything we could ask for the group. In that way they are an important part of the leadership. We, as those without cognitive disabilities, are responsible to help those who are cognitively disabled. Those without, or with less severe disabilities enjoy the group for themselves, but they also see it as a ministry role in a much different way than those with more severe disabilities typically see their involvement. I want to encourage the ministry view without disparaging the attendance view. I mean, I participate in groups where I am largely the recipient of ministry and that is fine. The key is that all should have the opportunity to be on both sides of the ministry equation (givers and recipients) although leadership in ministry might not be available to all.
McNair
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Sin and social skills
So, a person with a cognitive or emotional or mental disability approaches you. He stands too close to your face. He asks you questions that you think are inappropriate. He touches you too much. He doesn't get your hint that you are feeling uncomfortable. He doesn't understand your language indicating that you want to end the conversation. He will not let the conversation end. Finally you break away. When you get with a friend, you comment, "That guy is weird. He's a mess. He doesn't get it at all, he was like standing too close and touching me and couldn't take a hint."
The question is...who just committed the sin?
He doesn't get it, you do.
He is kinda flailing around in attempting to be loving and friendly. You aren't nor do you want to be loving or friendly.
He will talk about you as his friend. You talk about him as weird and how he doesn't get it.
He will look forward to a chance to talk with you again. You will avoid him in the future.
He will give you all the time he has. You will give time only out of some feeling of guilt.
So who is committing the sin?
It is amazing what we, what I will do or think about a person just because their social skills are not all they should be. The person is not being evil, the person is not doing wrong, the person just doesn't understand many of what are truly the subtleties of social skills. My response is to reject him and 90% of my friends and 90% of the church would probably agree with my rejection of him. We as the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, condone, understand, accept, advocate, discuss, follow through on rejection of people with various disabilities because of their social skills.
Yet as I approach the Lord, of course my behavior is obviously perfect and my social skills are flawless. I have nothing to hide, and to the Lord, interacting with me is no doubt "a day at the beach!" How fortunate for him that he is able to be in my presence (being the Lord, and being omnipresent, he kinda doesn't have a choice but to be in my presence). I am confident that the three persons of the trinity do not huddle together and say to each other, "McNair is weird." Surely they talk about how fortunate they are to have McNair on their side. But you know, in reality God's interactions with me, and my prayers to Him are "a day at the beach" because the Lord loves me. He loves me not because I am "a day at the beach" but because out of his love he has chosen to make interactions with me "a day at the beach." He has chosen to make me feel like I am "a day at the beach! " In spite of all my problems, my sins, my poor social skills, my pride, the crap that is in me and circles me like flies because of the choices I have made, HE LOVES ME! You see that is the example he provides. He shows me, ME, as the example of loving someone who is difficult to love, and then He loves me.
Do you think he cares about the social skills of the person who bothers you? Please! No, he treats him like he is "a day at the beach" just as much as he does to me.
So do you get it? Social skills deficits are not sin. If I reject another on the basis of social skills, that is sin and I am the sinner. We, I, need to learn about love. True love is not easy. It is messy and inconvenient. It makes you feel uncomfortable. It makes demands on you. I pray that when I am put to the test, when God asks me to show real love to another human being, I will not be worrying about that person's social skills. I hope my concern will be whether I am reflecting the kind of Love that God shows to me. I pray that I will be worried about the sin I am tempted to commit by rejecting another person who God truly loves.
McNair
The question is...who just committed the sin?
He doesn't get it, you do.
He is kinda flailing around in attempting to be loving and friendly. You aren't nor do you want to be loving or friendly.
He will talk about you as his friend. You talk about him as weird and how he doesn't get it.
He will look forward to a chance to talk with you again. You will avoid him in the future.
He will give you all the time he has. You will give time only out of some feeling of guilt.
So who is committing the sin?
It is amazing what we, what I will do or think about a person just because their social skills are not all they should be. The person is not being evil, the person is not doing wrong, the person just doesn't understand many of what are truly the subtleties of social skills. My response is to reject him and 90% of my friends and 90% of the church would probably agree with my rejection of him. We as the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, condone, understand, accept, advocate, discuss, follow through on rejection of people with various disabilities because of their social skills.
May God forgive us.
Yet as I approach the Lord, of course my behavior is obviously perfect and my social skills are flawless. I have nothing to hide, and to the Lord, interacting with me is no doubt "a day at the beach!" How fortunate for him that he is able to be in my presence (being the Lord, and being omnipresent, he kinda doesn't have a choice but to be in my presence). I am confident that the three persons of the trinity do not huddle together and say to each other, "McNair is weird." Surely they talk about how fortunate they are to have McNair on their side. But you know, in reality God's interactions with me, and my prayers to Him are "a day at the beach" because the Lord loves me. He loves me not because I am "a day at the beach" but because out of his love he has chosen to make interactions with me "a day at the beach." He has chosen to make me feel like I am "a day at the beach! " In spite of all my problems, my sins, my poor social skills, my pride, the crap that is in me and circles me like flies because of the choices I have made, HE LOVES ME! You see that is the example he provides. He shows me, ME, as the example of loving someone who is difficult to love, and then He loves me.
Do you think he cares about the social skills of the person who bothers you? Please! No, he treats him like he is "a day at the beach" just as much as he does to me.
So do you get it? Social skills deficits are not sin. If I reject another on the basis of social skills, that is sin and I am the sinner. We, I, need to learn about love. True love is not easy. It is messy and inconvenient. It makes you feel uncomfortable. It makes demands on you. I pray that when I am put to the test, when God asks me to show real love to another human being, I will not be worrying about that person's social skills. I hope my concern will be whether I am reflecting the kind of Love that God shows to me. I pray that I will be worried about the sin I am tempted to commit by rejecting another person who God truly loves.
McNair
Monday, August 20, 2007
People with down's syndrome and Arthur Miller
A friend of mine sent me a fascinating link to an article in the Vanity Fair magazine. It is about the famous playwright, Arthur Miller (Death of a Salesman, The Crucible) and his inability to accept, come to grips with, the birth of a son named Daniel who had down's syndrome. This was apparently a particular surprise to many because of Miller's voice of morality. As Vanity Fair states,
Yet, he struggled with the acceptance of his son.
The article is excellent reading. It is fair to Miller, I felt, yet still wonders at the decisions he made about his son and the relationship he had with his son. Clearly we are looking at the situation through 2007 eyes which are very different from those of the 60's and 70's. We must hedge in casting judgement at Miller's decisions, at least some of them, which reflected the recommendations of professionals at the time. Yet as the article tells, Daniel's mother, was qouted as saying about her visits to Southbury Training School,
This is a good description of the institutions at the time.
God bless the older couple who took Daniel under their arms and loved and supported him. Apparently he now has a wing built onto their home where he lives.
The article ends with the following
Daniel, who "suffers" from down's syndrome as the story relates, "doesn't have a bitter bone in his body...he is deeply valued and very, very loved." How very sad for Arthur Miller. The lost relationship, the communication of no value to Daniel. God bless Daniel for his heart of forgiveness, and apparently irrepressible love for his father. As the article relates, who knows what plays were not written by a man the article states could be the greatest American playwright of the last 100 years. What great good he might have done in his own life, the life of his son and the life of his family. The article also gave me a new appreciation of Daniel Day-Lewis (I hated him in Gangs of New York, or I should say his excellent acting made me hate him!), who married into the Miller family and as the article relates is the "most compassionate about Daniel. He always visited him."
The Arthur Miller family is a famous family in America, but they are just another family in Daniel (their son's) mind. A family who he loves although he lives with a couple who loved him for who he was. A family like many families whose patriarch feared down's syndrome, probably would have aborted the child had the option been provided to the father. A family probably coming to grips with their legacy, informed, yet misinformed.
Why is it that we look back on situations such as the one with Daniel Miller, the son of Arthur Miller we look back with regret for what might have been. We judge Arthur Miller for not being a father to his son because his son had down's syndrome. We praise the family who came alongside of Daniel and took him in. But I suspect the Vanity Fairs of the world will also support abortion of persons like Daniel. They will blindly talk about choice, or those who "suffer" with down's syndrome, not knowing about what they speak. People who know other people who have down's syndrome tend to like them, tend to think they are nice people, tend to think they are loving people, tend to think they are friendly people. But in the future we may never know this because of our efforts to wipe out people with down's syndrome.
The article ends once again with the statement, "A character," he (Arthur Miller) wrote in Timebends, "is defined by the kinds of challenges he cannot walk away from. And by those he has walked away from that cause him remorse." Will the Christian Church walk away from the challenge of down's syndrome, the challenge of disability or with integrity will we say that we cannot walk away? If Arthur Miller committed a "crime" in his relationship with his son, it was a crime of reflecting society. Perhaps he went where the rest of society is going now. What is Vanity Fair's response for his taking this path? It is probably our response. It is lamentation, shaking our heads in sadness, and perhaps judgement. I doubt Mr. Miller had any notion that his relationship with his son would be the subject of a Vanity Fair article, or discussed by an obscure Christian blogger.
In our world today, Daniel Miller is anticipated. Daniel Miller is conceived, Eighty percent of Daniel Millers will be aborted. Down's syndrome was the challenge Arthur Miller walked away from, hopefully with remorse. Our society is running headlong toward the elimination of people with down's syndrome.
Lamentation, sadness and judgement will be the response of those in the future to what we are doing to people with down's syndrome now.
McNair
The Denver Post called him "the moralist of the past American century," and The
New York Times extolled his "fierce belief in man's responsibility to his fellow
man—and [in] the self-destruction that followed on his betrayal of that
responsibility."
Yet, he struggled with the acceptance of his son.
The article is excellent reading. It is fair to Miller, I felt, yet still wonders at the decisions he made about his son and the relationship he had with his son. Clearly we are looking at the situation through 2007 eyes which are very different from those of the 60's and 70's. We must hedge in casting judgement at Miller's decisions, at least some of them, which reflected the recommendations of professionals at the time. Yet as the article tells, Daniel's mother, was qouted as saying about her visits to Southbury Training School,
Inge said, "'You know, I go in there and it's like a Hieronymus Bosch painting.'
That was the image she gave."
This is a good description of the institutions at the time.
God bless the older couple who took Daniel under their arms and loved and supported him. Apparently he now has a wing built onto their home where he lives.
The article ends with the following
Some wonder why Arthur Miller, with all his wealth, waited until death to share
it with his son. Had he done so sooner, Daniel could have afforded private care
and a good education. But those who know Daniel say that this is not how he
would feel. "He doesn't have a bitter bone in his body," says Bowen. The
important part of the story, she says, is that Danny transcended his father's
failures: "He's made a life for himself; he is deeply valued and very, very
loved. What a loss for Arthur Miller that he couldn't see how extraordinary his
son is." It was a loss that Arthur Miller may have understood better than he let
on. "A character," he wrote in Timebends, "is defined by the kinds of challenges
he cannot walk away from. And by those he has walked away from that cause him
remorse." (emphasis added)
Daniel, who "suffers" from down's syndrome as the story relates, "doesn't have a bitter bone in his body...he is deeply valued and very, very loved." How very sad for Arthur Miller. The lost relationship, the communication of no value to Daniel. God bless Daniel for his heart of forgiveness, and apparently irrepressible love for his father. As the article relates, who knows what plays were not written by a man the article states could be the greatest American playwright of the last 100 years. What great good he might have done in his own life, the life of his son and the life of his family. The article also gave me a new appreciation of Daniel Day-Lewis (I hated him in Gangs of New York, or I should say his excellent acting made me hate him!), who married into the Miller family and as the article relates is the "most compassionate about Daniel. He always visited him."
The Arthur Miller family is a famous family in America, but they are just another family in Daniel (their son's) mind. A family who he loves although he lives with a couple who loved him for who he was. A family like many families whose patriarch feared down's syndrome, probably would have aborted the child had the option been provided to the father. A family probably coming to grips with their legacy, informed, yet misinformed.
Why is it that we look back on situations such as the one with Daniel Miller, the son of Arthur Miller we look back with regret for what might have been. We judge Arthur Miller for not being a father to his son because his son had down's syndrome. We praise the family who came alongside of Daniel and took him in. But I suspect the Vanity Fairs of the world will also support abortion of persons like Daniel. They will blindly talk about choice, or those who "suffer" with down's syndrome, not knowing about what they speak. People who know other people who have down's syndrome tend to like them, tend to think they are nice people, tend to think they are loving people, tend to think they are friendly people. But in the future we may never know this because of our efforts to wipe out people with down's syndrome.
The article ends once again with the statement, "A character," he (Arthur Miller) wrote in Timebends, "is defined by the kinds of challenges he cannot walk away from. And by those he has walked away from that cause him remorse." Will the Christian Church walk away from the challenge of down's syndrome, the challenge of disability or with integrity will we say that we cannot walk away? If Arthur Miller committed a "crime" in his relationship with his son, it was a crime of reflecting society. Perhaps he went where the rest of society is going now. What is Vanity Fair's response for his taking this path? It is probably our response. It is lamentation, shaking our heads in sadness, and perhaps judgement. I doubt Mr. Miller had any notion that his relationship with his son would be the subject of a Vanity Fair article, or discussed by an obscure Christian blogger.
It seems that Daniel Miller was born and Arthur Miller saw down's syndrome not Daniel Miller. This should be a warning to me, a warning to all of us, lest we make the same error.May Arthur Miller's name forever be linked with the term down's syndrome and the name Daniel Miller.
In our world today, Daniel Miller is anticipated. Daniel Miller is conceived, Eighty percent of Daniel Millers will be aborted. Down's syndrome was the challenge Arthur Miller walked away from, hopefully with remorse. Our society is running headlong toward the elimination of people with down's syndrome.
Lamentation, sadness and judgement will be the response of those in the future to what we are doing to people with down's syndrome now.
McNair
Monday, August 13, 2007
Wyatt, Doc and difficult friendships
I like to wake up on Saturday mornings and watch old cowboy movies. This past week Wyatt Earp was on. There are two scenes that struck me. One, is when Wyatt and Doc Holiday meet for the first time. Doc asks Wyatt, "Do you believe in friendship?" He responds, "Yes" and their friendship begins. The movie portrays scenes from that friendship over the years. At one point, Doc and his girlfriend Big Nose, get in one of their typical drunken fights where they try to kill each other. Wyatt breaks the fight up and and attempts to sober Doc up. As he begins to regain his senses, Doc says, "Its not easy to be my friend, but I will be there for you when you need me" or something to that effect.
Do you have friends like that? Friends it is not easy to be friends with? Some of my cognitively disabled friends are like that (I have a greater tendency to not work on relationships with nondisabled people if they are hard to be friends with for some reason). Sometimes helping my friends with mental retardation, being friends with them is "messy." They have problems that I can't solve, and they impolitely do not keep their problems to themselves. They tell me their problems, make demands on me, and expect me to help them or solve their problems. Even keeping in contact with them is difficult because they don't follow the social etiquette I am used to. They will call me at 11:30 at night or 6:30 in the morning. They will call me 7 times a day or everyday of the week. My response has been to tell them "Please don't call me after 10 or before 7 unless it is an emergency. I will also tell them, "Please just call me once a week just to talk." I have gotten to the point that I will tell them, "You have already called me once this week. Unless this is an emergency, I will talk to you later." I may even have to hang up after ensuring there isn't an emergency. It might seem unkind, and perhaps it is, but it is what I have come to. But I like the fact that others in my church are facing the same challenges in their friendships with the people with cognitive disabilities who attend our church. These individuals are now on their radar screen. They are also someone else who can be called once a week just to talk for a few minutes.
Some of the messiness of the friendship comes from the social skill differences of my friends with cognitive disabilities. Some of the messiness comes from differences in my friends' life experiences that I may not be not used to. My friends with disabilities have to deal with...
In attempting to be a friend to some people, I find myself in the position of negotiating, or being in the middle, or whatever. They are not friends who I can call to come over, or meet for a ball game, who then go home and solve their own problems. They can be high maintenance.
The whole social skills thing is another aspect of the difficulty of some friendships. Some of my friends I am sure impact the potential of friendships with others. People I love have told me that friends of mine are "wierd." Those who are not afraid to be politically incorrect and tell me what they really think will sometimes say that, which makes me think that others with whom I am not as close probably think that as well, but just don't say it to me.
So as Christians, what do we do about this? Are we called to befriend those who are more difficult to befriend than the average person? Are friendships about us only? Do we befriend others to benefit them? Is friendship something that is easy? I must admit that I have at times asked myself Doc Holiday's question. I have wondered if I believe in friendship, or just friendship that is easy for me.
McNair
Do you have friends like that? Friends it is not easy to be friends with? Some of my cognitively disabled friends are like that (I have a greater tendency to not work on relationships with nondisabled people if they are hard to be friends with for some reason). Sometimes helping my friends with mental retardation, being friends with them is "messy." They have problems that I can't solve, and they impolitely do not keep their problems to themselves. They tell me their problems, make demands on me, and expect me to help them or solve their problems. Even keeping in contact with them is difficult because they don't follow the social etiquette I am used to. They will call me at 11:30 at night or 6:30 in the morning. They will call me 7 times a day or everyday of the week. My response has been to tell them "Please don't call me after 10 or before 7 unless it is an emergency. I will also tell them, "Please just call me once a week just to talk." I have gotten to the point that I will tell them, "You have already called me once this week. Unless this is an emergency, I will talk to you later." I may even have to hang up after ensuring there isn't an emergency. It might seem unkind, and perhaps it is, but it is what I have come to. But I like the fact that others in my church are facing the same challenges in their friendships with the people with cognitive disabilities who attend our church. These individuals are now on their radar screen. They are also someone else who can be called once a week just to talk for a few minutes.
Some of the messiness of the friendship comes from the social skill differences of my friends with cognitive disabilities. Some of the messiness comes from differences in my friends' life experiences that I may not be not used to. My friends with disabilities have to deal with...
-Access (busses they reserve to take them places), and
-conservators (who may or may not be very interested in them, but
nontheless have control over their lives),
-unscrupulous people who sell them things (cell phones can be the biggest
pain)
-being alone except for people who are paid to be with them
-dealing with human services and human service rules (in other words, the
government)
-a lack of friends
-too much time and too few things to do
-and so on
In attempting to be a friend to some people, I find myself in the position of negotiating, or being in the middle, or whatever. They are not friends who I can call to come over, or meet for a ball game, who then go home and solve their own problems. They can be high maintenance.
The whole social skills thing is another aspect of the difficulty of some friendships. Some of my friends I am sure impact the potential of friendships with others. People I love have told me that friends of mine are "wierd." Those who are not afraid to be politically incorrect and tell me what they really think will sometimes say that, which makes me think that others with whom I am not as close probably think that as well, but just don't say it to me.
So as Christians, what do we do about this? Are we called to befriend those who are more difficult to befriend than the average person? Are friendships about us only? Do we befriend others to benefit them? Is friendship something that is easy? I must admit that I have at times asked myself Doc Holiday's question. I have wondered if I believe in friendship, or just friendship that is easy for me.
McNair
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Website changes
Hello,
Well as you can see, I have been busily making changes to the website. I think this will in some ways be easier to negotiate than the old format. Hopefully you will feel the same way.
One cool change is that I am going to gradually upload a variety of video. Currently there is one about the ministry to persons with disabilities at Trinity Church in Redlands where I attend. This was just a kind of awareness video that was shown to the congregation. Enjoy. Others to come!
McNair
Well as you can see, I have been busily making changes to the website. I think this will in some ways be easier to negotiate than the old format. Hopefully you will feel the same way.
One cool change is that I am going to gradually upload a variety of video. Currently there is one about the ministry to persons with disabilities at Trinity Church in Redlands where I attend. This was just a kind of awareness video that was shown to the congregation. Enjoy. Others to come!
McNair
Monday, August 06, 2007
Description of a nightmare
A friend of mine is a man who attends my church. He is a big guy, about 6'1" and wide as well. He likes to work out. He has been attending the church for about 7 years. Yesterday at church he pulled me aside (true story).
McNair
"I had this terrible dream last night...it was a nightmare!" he said.I have had that nightmare, most often when I am awake, and it doesn't have to do with me personally per se. I am glad that for my friend it is only a dream and when he awakes he knows that it was just a dream. For too many people, however, the dream is that they have a place in church and are loved. The nightmare is when they are awake, when the reality of their situation where they are isolated and in need of love and companionship visits them again.
"What happened?" I asked.
"Well I dreamed that nobody in the church loved me anymore."
"Well, you know that isn't true" I quickly replied.
"Oh sure, I know that. Everybody loves me down here. It was
just a dream. It was just a nightmare."
McNair
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Call for papers: Inclusive Christian Religious Education
The following is provided FYI. the Journal of Religion, Disability and Health is putting together a special issue on Inclusive Christian Religious Education.
Call for Papers:
Thematic Double Issue Inclusive Christian Religious Education Among the many important aspects of congregational life are the opportunities designed to foster people’s spiritual growth; learn the teachings, practices, and expectations of the Christian faith; deepen their relationships with others traveling along the same journey of faith, and grow in their relationship with God. Indeed, most congregations strive to provide an array of quality religious education offerings to their members, including Sunday school classes, programs for children and youth, men’s and women’s groups, preparation classes (e.g., confirmation, membership), and small group activities. Yet, most congregations struggle with exactly what it looks like to meaningfully welcome and weave children and adults with developmental disabilities into these core aspects of congregational life. The largely cognitive orientation of most religious education activities can leave people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities participating only at the margins or excluded altogether. This special issue of the Journal of Religion, Disability, and Health will be devoted to the topic of religious education, exploring the myriad ways that congregations can thoughtfully support the full participation of children and adults with developmental disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities, autism, multiple disabilities) in the life of their faith community.
We are seeking to capture the innovative work being done in this area, to challenge congregations to see people with developmental and other disabilities as an integral part of their communities, and to articulate a vision of what their programs could and ought to be for all participants. To this end, we encourage submissions addressing, but not limited to, the following topics:
• New and innovative models for inclusive religious education
• Program approaches focused on specific age groups: Early childhood and elementary programs Youth ministry and youth groups o Adult programs and small group activities
• Curricular and pedagogical approaches that promote learning, growth, and belonging for everyone
• Analysis of the fit in using traditional educational approaches to providing religious education involving persons with or without various disabilities
• Strategies for designing and implementing religious/educational support
• Expanding participation in ‘rites of passage’ and other preparation programs
• Supporting the participation of children and adults with challenging behaviors, emotional disabilities and/or mental illness
• Empirical studies exploring factors that support and/or hinder the meaningful participation of children and adults with developmental disabilities in religious education programs
• Perspectives of people with developmental disabilities and/or their families on the importance and impact of inclusive religious education in their lives
• Effective partnerships among congregation leaders, lay volunteers, and the disability service system
• Approaches for preparing teachers and other lay volunteers for inclusive religious education
• Contributions and barriers of church “structures” to the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in religious education
• Exploration of the relationship between education and “faith development,” particularly for individuals who may not evidence “spiritual growth” in the same ways as other congregational members
• Examination and evaluation of the goals of religious education for persons with and without disabilities
Our desire is that this issue will reflect the range of pioneering ideas, creative approaches, and progressive responses taking place across diverse traditions within the Christian faith.
This special issue of the Journal of Religion, Disability, and Health will be co-edited by Dr. Jeff McNair (California Baptist University) and Dr. Erik Carter (University of Wisconsin-Madison). If you are interested in submitting to this special issue, please contact the co-editors to discuss your proposed contribution. We encourage you to contact us with specific questions about this special issue. The deadline for submission is November 30, 2007. Please consult the author instructions located at the website of the Journal of Religion, Disability, and Heath (see http://www.haworthpress.com/).
Guest Editors Jeff McNair, Ph.D. Dr. Bonnie G. Metcalf School of Education California Baptist University 8432 Magnolia Avenue Riverside, CA 92504 (951) 343-4489 telephone jmcnair@calbaptist.edu
Erik W. Carter, Ph.D. Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education University of Wisconsin-Madison 432 N. Murray Street Madison, WI 53706 (608) 263-5750 telephone ewcarter@wisc.edu
Call for Papers:
Thematic Double Issue Inclusive Christian Religious Education Among the many important aspects of congregational life are the opportunities designed to foster people’s spiritual growth; learn the teachings, practices, and expectations of the Christian faith; deepen their relationships with others traveling along the same journey of faith, and grow in their relationship with God. Indeed, most congregations strive to provide an array of quality religious education offerings to their members, including Sunday school classes, programs for children and youth, men’s and women’s groups, preparation classes (e.g., confirmation, membership), and small group activities. Yet, most congregations struggle with exactly what it looks like to meaningfully welcome and weave children and adults with developmental disabilities into these core aspects of congregational life. The largely cognitive orientation of most religious education activities can leave people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities participating only at the margins or excluded altogether. This special issue of the Journal of Religion, Disability, and Health will be devoted to the topic of religious education, exploring the myriad ways that congregations can thoughtfully support the full participation of children and adults with developmental disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities, autism, multiple disabilities) in the life of their faith community.
We are seeking to capture the innovative work being done in this area, to challenge congregations to see people with developmental and other disabilities as an integral part of their communities, and to articulate a vision of what their programs could and ought to be for all participants. To this end, we encourage submissions addressing, but not limited to, the following topics:
• New and innovative models for inclusive religious education
• Program approaches focused on specific age groups: Early childhood and elementary programs Youth ministry and youth groups o Adult programs and small group activities
• Curricular and pedagogical approaches that promote learning, growth, and belonging for everyone
• Analysis of the fit in using traditional educational approaches to providing religious education involving persons with or without various disabilities
• Strategies for designing and implementing religious/educational support
• Expanding participation in ‘rites of passage’ and other preparation programs
• Supporting the participation of children and adults with challenging behaviors, emotional disabilities and/or mental illness
• Empirical studies exploring factors that support and/or hinder the meaningful participation of children and adults with developmental disabilities in religious education programs
• Perspectives of people with developmental disabilities and/or their families on the importance and impact of inclusive religious education in their lives
• Effective partnerships among congregation leaders, lay volunteers, and the disability service system
• Approaches for preparing teachers and other lay volunteers for inclusive religious education
• Contributions and barriers of church “structures” to the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in religious education
• Exploration of the relationship between education and “faith development,” particularly for individuals who may not evidence “spiritual growth” in the same ways as other congregational members
• Examination and evaluation of the goals of religious education for persons with and without disabilities
Our desire is that this issue will reflect the range of pioneering ideas, creative approaches, and progressive responses taking place across diverse traditions within the Christian faith.
This special issue of the Journal of Religion, Disability, and Health will be co-edited by Dr. Jeff McNair (California Baptist University) and Dr. Erik Carter (University of Wisconsin-Madison). If you are interested in submitting to this special issue, please contact the co-editors to discuss your proposed contribution. We encourage you to contact us with specific questions about this special issue. The deadline for submission is November 30, 2007. Please consult the author instructions located at the website of the Journal of Religion, Disability, and Heath (see http://www.haworthpress.com/).
Guest Editors Jeff McNair, Ph.D. Dr. Bonnie G. Metcalf School of Education California Baptist University 8432 Magnolia Avenue Riverside, CA 92504 (951) 343-4489 telephone jmcnair@calbaptist.edu
Erik W. Carter, Ph.D. Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education University of Wisconsin-Madison 432 N. Murray Street Madison, WI 53706 (608) 263-5750 telephone ewcarter@wisc.edu
Less honorable need abundant honor
...And those members of the body which we think are less honorable, on those we
bestow abundant honor. (1 Corinthians 12: 23)
So, a man with mental retardation lives for 60 years. He gets up in the morning, goes to a job, comes home, and spends time with friends or family, and goes to bed. This scenario is somehow different from people without mental retardation who get up, perhaps go to a better job by comparison (more responsibility, more money, etc.) come home to family or friends and go to bed. How is the life of the person who is a waitress or a mechanic or a teacher or a professor or a doctor different? Is the difference based upon how much money they make or their contribution to others? Distinctions are artificial.
So we react when "stay at home mothers" are regarded as less than working mothers. Then we decry the effect on children of poor parenting. If some salary figure is our criteria for life well lived, stay at home mothers are criticized. If well adjusted children are our criteria, then working mothers are criticized. The critieria we set will determine whether we are successful in the evaluation. But I must look critically at those inside and outside of the group I am evaluating if I am being honest. For example, the need to be served might be a criteria to elevate someone to inclusion (special honor) not only a reason to exclude.
Self-sufficiency, the Bible would imply, causes people to not trust in God, to think they don't need God. Yet how do we convince self-sufficient people that they need God? Perhaps we put them in situations where their presumed self-sufficiency is inadequate. Put them in situations where they are once again forced to trust in God and not in their wealth (for example). People in need, people who need to be served have the potential on many levels to teach us about faith. Those we think are less honorable might actually be worthy of honor for a variety of reasons.
1) through their own faith
2)through the way they cause others to try to reconcile disability and faith theologically and philosophically
3) through the service they demand (causing one to decide whether or not he
will serve God)
4) what are the essential elements of being human or being made in the Image of God
5) what is is that makes a life valuable or well lived
6) why should I or my life be considered more valuable than that of a person with a disability
7) God's soverignity
8) support within/among the Body of ChristThe ability to teach lessons about faith might require special honor.
So the giving of honor might be less an artifact of our simply being obedient (although that is sufficient reason) but might actually be due to people if we use the correct criteria to do the evaluation. In thinking about having honor or giving honor, we might define honor in the following ways (the first five definitions from Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1966):
1. good name or public esteem
- so people may have no good name or receive no public esteem, but we would give it to them
- we give them a good name through our social capital
- we recognize their contributions such that they receive public esteem
2. a special prerogative
- so we give them special prerogatives in overlooking social skill differences in the same manner we would overlook the social errors of our loved ones
- we facilitate the opportunity to provide honor by giving the opportunities to make decisions about their own lives, rather than approaching with a we know best attitude
3. person of superior standing or importance
- we begin by recognizing as a person as having equal standing and importance
- recognizing strengths we may begin to see superior standing
- through relationships we may begin to see importance
4. one that is of intrinsic value
-we honor by fighting for the disabled person's intrinsic value, that is, value that is not determined by ability levels, etc.
-we honor by having a realistic picture of our own value, intrinsic or otherwise
5. an evidence or symbol of distinction
-we honor by giving the same symbols of distinction to those who are disabled that we would give to anyone
-we honor when relationships with persons with disabilities are no longer a symbol of distinction
Our society decides about what it will choose to honor and then honors it. We honor physical appearance and athletic or other abilities. The Bible calls upon us to think differently about what honor means. One distinction of being a Christian is that within the Body of Christ, we reject the worlds criteria for honor, and honor whom we choose to honor. Paul chides us to give special honor to those whom we would typically think are less honorable.
Perhaps there are things worthy of honor if we would see people through God's eyes, using God's evaluative criteria. Perhaps we are to treat those we think are less honorable with abundant or special honor because in the deliverance of that honor we will begin to see the honor we should have been giving but missed in the first place.
McNair
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Disabled man / Christian man
As I have mentioned before, I have a friend, a man who uses a wheelchair who challenges me to think about many issues related to disability and Christianity. As he works through various issues in his personal life, he asks me what I might suggest, how I might counsel him regarding the various issues he is grappling with. On several occasions, he has asked me, "Why is it that the disabled person has to change and not the nondisabled person?" My response typically is "I am not speaking to you as a disabled man, I am speaking to you as a Christian man." I hope that is encouraging to him.
But I have been wondering lately, how does being a disabled man impact being a Christian man? Does being a disabled man change one's expectations regarding what that person might be able to be as a Christian man? Clearly if a person has a cognitive disability, has mental retardation, there will be some limits in terms of knowledge, or specific ability levels. However, I have known people with mental retardation who althought limited in some areas, were very gifted in areas of faith, forgiveness, loyalty, and love among other things. So on the one hand, to limit a person with a disability is wrong. I limit others at my peril, in terms of not being Christlike in my interactions with them. Because there is more to disability than just the outward signs of physical or mental disabilities, I must see those people as I see myself. I too have strengths and weaknesses, some related to differences in my abilities, some related to differences in my abilities, some related to my sinful condition. But overall, we are the same.
Now clearly, I cannot expect self-control from a person who is mentally ill, or emotionally disturbed. They may have the desire to be self controlled, but they lack the ability to be so. It is no different in a person with mental retardation wanting to read the Bible, but lacking the ability to learn to read. But I wonder whether there are other aspects of being a disabled man which may limit a person's particular abilities. Jean Vanier speaks of the wounds of persons with disabilities. Wounds which Wolf Wolfensberger expands upon, breaking them out into specific types of wounds. See the March 21, 2007 posting for more specifics on wounds. If I were to have a stab wound in the arm, you would hardly expect me to throw a baseball, or use a hammer. I might desire to do so, but I am unable because my wound has incapacitated me.
So thinking about the particular wounds faced by a person with a particular disability, I might find that that person would face limits due to his wounding. Wolfensberger talks about diminishing wounds, attempting to limit them to the degree possible. His goal generally is largely to simply limit the wounds a person has to face, out of caring, out of concern out of love. I, however, would also argue that as we work to diminish the wounds of our disabled brothers and sisters we empower them to grow in various aspects of their Christian faith. We enable them to forgive, we enable them to love, we enable them to do a myriad of things they would desire to do in order to be Christlike, but are unable to do because of the wounding they face.
In summary, we must work to diminish, to attend to, to love those who are wounded. In doing so, we literally heal the wounds that prohibit them from being all they can be as Christians.
McNair
But I have been wondering lately, how does being a disabled man impact being a Christian man? Does being a disabled man change one's expectations regarding what that person might be able to be as a Christian man? Clearly if a person has a cognitive disability, has mental retardation, there will be some limits in terms of knowledge, or specific ability levels. However, I have known people with mental retardation who althought limited in some areas, were very gifted in areas of faith, forgiveness, loyalty, and love among other things. So on the one hand, to limit a person with a disability is wrong. I limit others at my peril, in terms of not being Christlike in my interactions with them. Because there is more to disability than just the outward signs of physical or mental disabilities, I must see those people as I see myself. I too have strengths and weaknesses, some related to differences in my abilities, some related to differences in my abilities, some related to my sinful condition. But overall, we are the same.
Now clearly, I cannot expect self-control from a person who is mentally ill, or emotionally disturbed. They may have the desire to be self controlled, but they lack the ability to be so. It is no different in a person with mental retardation wanting to read the Bible, but lacking the ability to learn to read. But I wonder whether there are other aspects of being a disabled man which may limit a person's particular abilities. Jean Vanier speaks of the wounds of persons with disabilities. Wounds which Wolf Wolfensberger expands upon, breaking them out into specific types of wounds. See the March 21, 2007 posting for more specifics on wounds. If I were to have a stab wound in the arm, you would hardly expect me to throw a baseball, or use a hammer. I might desire to do so, but I am unable because my wound has incapacitated me.
So thinking about the particular wounds faced by a person with a particular disability, I might find that that person would face limits due to his wounding. Wolfensberger talks about diminishing wounds, attempting to limit them to the degree possible. His goal generally is largely to simply limit the wounds a person has to face, out of caring, out of concern out of love. I, however, would also argue that as we work to diminish the wounds of our disabled brothers and sisters we empower them to grow in various aspects of their Christian faith. We enable them to forgive, we enable them to love, we enable them to do a myriad of things they would desire to do in order to be Christlike, but are unable to do because of the wounding they face.
In summary, we must work to diminish, to attend to, to love those who are wounded. In doing so, we literally heal the wounds that prohibit them from being all they can be as Christians.
McNair
Friday, July 20, 2007
Joni and Friends "Through the Roof" Summit
The Joni and friends organization are planning their series of 2007 (follow the link)
Joni and Friends "Through the Roof" Summit meetings to be held in Chicago in September and in Pasadena in October. These are great events that you should attend if you have any interest in disability ministry, or a Christian perspective on disability.
My wife Kathi and I will be speakers at the event in Pasadena along with many other excellent and informative sessions.
It is also obviously a great pleasure to hear Joni Eareckson-Tada speak. Last year she was absolutely amazing and powerful. I have had the priveledge to hear her on several occasions and of course on the radio. But she gave one of the most convicting and powerful presentations of issues related to culture, church and disability I think I have ever heard. Do not miss the opportunity to hear her and meet her.
McNair
Joni and Friends "Through the Roof" Summit meetings to be held in Chicago in September and in Pasadena in October. These are great events that you should attend if you have any interest in disability ministry, or a Christian perspective on disability.
My wife Kathi and I will be speakers at the event in Pasadena along with many other excellent and informative sessions.
It is also obviously a great pleasure to hear Joni Eareckson-Tada speak. Last year she was absolutely amazing and powerful. I have had the priveledge to hear her on several occasions and of course on the radio. But she gave one of the most convicting and powerful presentations of issues related to culture, church and disability I think I have ever heard. Do not miss the opportunity to hear her and meet her.
McNair
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Learned helplessness and learned unhelpfulness
Learned helplessness results from period in which someone encounters failure and as a result just gives up. It is a motivational problem. People will say, "I'm tired of fighting" or something to that effect.
Learned unhelpfulness is the result of someone being taught that all they need to do to help their neighbor is to pay their taxes, or contribute some money to a group that is doing something. People will say, to use the words of Ebenezer Scrooge in Dicken's A Christmas Carol (see A nation of Scrooges? ),
Those having the potential to help, instead look to the government because they pay taxes, or look to some organization because they give money. As a result then are unhelpful on a personal level.
In the end there is a confluence of learned helplessness and learned unhelpfulness. Those needing assistance may be totally frustrated with government and other beauracratic structures from whom they have been endeavoring to receive help resulting in their feeling helpless and wanting to give up, while those who could help have learned to lean on beauracratic structures to help those in need, thinking they need to do little or nothing other than that, resulting in their becoming unhelpful.
As Christians, we should know better than to rely on the government to help people in need. Sure we can support and/or advocate for government programs, however, we recognize that services are rendered when caring is needed. As Christians, we should also know better than to assume that all we need to do is to send a check to someone and we are then relieved of our responsibility towards others. Statistics indicate that the majority of Christians do not even tithe their financial resources, so that we are giving too little financially to charitable and church organizations, and expecting others to also do the grunt work of helping others, whether it is through governmental programs or relief organizations.
Its like the perfect storm of uncaring coupled with deep need. Perhaps the only way it could get worse would be for the government to cut programs as then the learned unhelpful would be relying on governmental programs that were not in existence, and the learned helpless would experience a further loss of motivation to attempt to fight for limited governmental resources.
To my mind, the answer is for me to get involved with my neighbor. I must tell you that that involvement is not often clean and easy either. I have a friend I am trying to encourage and support who looks to me for solutions and I have none. I sit with him and talk through the issues, I am his friend, I try to encourage him in the midst of the frustrations with the system, but I don't have the answers. What I do have for him is encouragement and friendship. He knows that when we get together for coffee, that he will be meeting with someone who cares about him, who listens to him and will try to help him if we can arrive at a course of action. Will I be able to help him to move forward, I hope so, but I make no promises. However, I also do not wash my hands of him in the assumption that the government or other agencies are taking care of him. I know better. I cannot do everything, but I can do something and what I can do I try to do and I think that is encouraging to him. It helps him to continue to battle the helplessness that the system is unconsciously trying to teach him. It also helps me through my friends encouragement to battle the unhelpfulness that the system is unconsciously trying to teach me.
Human service is always messy and not easy. The degree to which human service becomes regimented and easy is the degree to which it is excluding helpers, removing freedoms, and teaching helplessness. To paraphrase Dr. Julian Rappaport, when I use convergent thinking to solve human service problems I prove that I do not understand the problem.
So find those around you who are being devalued and encourage them. Then look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have bought the lie that helping is the government's or some agency's responsibility. Have you been programmed to be unhelpful?
McNair
Learned unhelpfulness is the result of someone being taught that all they need to do to help their neighbor is to pay their taxes, or contribute some money to a group that is doing something. People will say, to use the words of Ebenezer Scrooge in Dicken's A Christmas Carol (see A nation of Scrooges? ),
“Are there no prisons? . . .And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge . .
.”Are they still in operation? . . .The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full
vigor, then?” . . . “Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that
something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” . . .”I wish to be
left alone” . . . “since you asked me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer”
. . . “I help support the establishments I have mentioned – they cost enough:
and those who are badly off must go there.”
Those having the potential to help, instead look to the government because they pay taxes, or look to some organization because they give money. As a result then are unhelpful on a personal level.
In the end there is a confluence of learned helplessness and learned unhelpfulness. Those needing assistance may be totally frustrated with government and other beauracratic structures from whom they have been endeavoring to receive help resulting in their feeling helpless and wanting to give up, while those who could help have learned to lean on beauracratic structures to help those in need, thinking they need to do little or nothing other than that, resulting in their becoming unhelpful.
As Christians, we should know better than to rely on the government to help people in need. Sure we can support and/or advocate for government programs, however, we recognize that services are rendered when caring is needed. As Christians, we should also know better than to assume that all we need to do is to send a check to someone and we are then relieved of our responsibility towards others. Statistics indicate that the majority of Christians do not even tithe their financial resources, so that we are giving too little financially to charitable and church organizations, and expecting others to also do the grunt work of helping others, whether it is through governmental programs or relief organizations.
Its like the perfect storm of uncaring coupled with deep need. Perhaps the only way it could get worse would be for the government to cut programs as then the learned unhelpful would be relying on governmental programs that were not in existence, and the learned helpless would experience a further loss of motivation to attempt to fight for limited governmental resources.
To my mind, the answer is for me to get involved with my neighbor. I must tell you that that involvement is not often clean and easy either. I have a friend I am trying to encourage and support who looks to me for solutions and I have none. I sit with him and talk through the issues, I am his friend, I try to encourage him in the midst of the frustrations with the system, but I don't have the answers. What I do have for him is encouragement and friendship. He knows that when we get together for coffee, that he will be meeting with someone who cares about him, who listens to him and will try to help him if we can arrive at a course of action. Will I be able to help him to move forward, I hope so, but I make no promises. However, I also do not wash my hands of him in the assumption that the government or other agencies are taking care of him. I know better. I cannot do everything, but I can do something and what I can do I try to do and I think that is encouraging to him. It helps him to continue to battle the helplessness that the system is unconsciously trying to teach him. It also helps me through my friends encouragement to battle the unhelpfulness that the system is unconsciously trying to teach me.
Human service is always messy and not easy. The degree to which human service becomes regimented and easy is the degree to which it is excluding helpers, removing freedoms, and teaching helplessness. To paraphrase Dr. Julian Rappaport, when I use convergent thinking to solve human service problems I prove that I do not understand the problem.
So find those around you who are being devalued and encourage them. Then look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have bought the lie that helping is the government's or some agency's responsibility. Have you been programmed to be unhelpful?
McNair
Monday, July 16, 2007
Inclusion and exclusion
I was struck the other day by something. It may be obvious to you, but the notion of inclusion is not really an outcome. Inclusion is more of a strategy that has been applied at schools, particularly public schools in order to attempt to facilitate social integration. Inclusion is not the outcome, inclusion is the intervention, the strategy I might use in order to facilitate integration. It's like phonics is a way to teach reading. Phonics is not reading, it is a way to teach reading. Many people learn to read via phonics, but others don't. As a strategy to teach reading, phonics is pretty good. I am unsure whether inclusion as a way to teach integration is very good at all.
It has at times made me uncomfortable to say that I am not a big inclusion fan. When you say that, people think you are discriminatory against people with differences, like you don't want them around or something. But you see I am a big integration fan, maybe even a zealot. I think people with and without disabilities, for example, should work to be integrated together. I believe in the outcome, I just don't necessarily believe in the strategy many have attempted to use to facilitate integration, that being inclusion. Maybe it is just inclusion in its current form that I don't particularly like, but I must say that my perspective is supported by the lion's share of the empirical research. Inclusion as practiced by public schools does not really lead to integration. That is the reason I am not a supporter.
What might be some of the major reasons why inclusion is not working in schools? Could it be that...
Inclusion is something I expect students to do that will lead to integration.
Inclusion is something I expect others to do that will lead to integration.
Inclusion is something I do not do in my own live that will lead to integration.
Inclusion is something I do not do because I really do not want integration in my personal life.
You see we think it wonderful when children with and without disabilities are integrated, but we are unwilling to do it in our own lives as adults.
Once again, however, it is important to make the distinction that inclusion is just a strategy to achieve integration, it is not the outcome.
In a related way, I have been thinking about exclusion. Exclusion is also a strategy that people use deliberately or otherwise to teach, or to achieve an end. I have most often seen exclusion employed as a strategy to keep a group from changing. "If we integrate you, we will not be able to do things in the manner in which we have become accustomed to doing things. If we do not integrate you, we can keep doing things the way we always have done them." I think that is a reason why there aren't more people with various disabilities in local churches.
So in the same way that inclusion is a questionably successful strategy for facilitating integration, exclusion is a means which is a very successful for facilitating segregation.
The one thing I can say for those attempting inclusion, is that they are at least trying to get others to believe in inclusion and hopefully integration. But it is too often a do as I say not as I do kind of proposition, so no wonder it doesn't work very well.
But whatever we do, we should not practice exclusion because whether we know it or not, it is probably a more powerful form of instructional strategy, a more powerful intervention than inclusion. If we see someone being disruptive or having a seizure in a social setting, our response should not necessarily be to remove them from the setting. That is exclusion. Perhaps we might first think of what is best for the individual, at least for a moment. Might we stop for a moment, to determine whether there are flaws with the setting? Disruptions are not always bad. Disruptions can cause us to evaluate the way we do things. Disruptions can cause us to ask, "Is this the best way of doing things?" "Is exclusion of this indiviudal the only response we can offer?" Are we excluding because we just don't want to be confronted with the need for change? Are we so brittle that we cannot accommodate?
Disruptions can introduce us to people and ways of looking at people which we might not have considered before.
McNair
It has at times made me uncomfortable to say that I am not a big inclusion fan. When you say that, people think you are discriminatory against people with differences, like you don't want them around or something. But you see I am a big integration fan, maybe even a zealot. I think people with and without disabilities, for example, should work to be integrated together. I believe in the outcome, I just don't necessarily believe in the strategy many have attempted to use to facilitate integration, that being inclusion. Maybe it is just inclusion in its current form that I don't particularly like, but I must say that my perspective is supported by the lion's share of the empirical research. Inclusion as practiced by public schools does not really lead to integration. That is the reason I am not a supporter.
What might be some of the major reasons why inclusion is not working in schools? Could it be that...
Inclusion is something I expect students to do that will lead to integration.
Inclusion is something I expect others to do that will lead to integration.
Inclusion is something I do not do in my own live that will lead to integration.
Inclusion is something I do not do because I really do not want integration in my personal life.
You see we think it wonderful when children with and without disabilities are integrated, but we are unwilling to do it in our own lives as adults.
Once again, however, it is important to make the distinction that inclusion is just a strategy to achieve integration, it is not the outcome.
In a related way, I have been thinking about exclusion. Exclusion is also a strategy that people use deliberately or otherwise to teach, or to achieve an end. I have most often seen exclusion employed as a strategy to keep a group from changing. "If we integrate you, we will not be able to do things in the manner in which we have become accustomed to doing things. If we do not integrate you, we can keep doing things the way we always have done them." I think that is a reason why there aren't more people with various disabilities in local churches.
So in the same way that inclusion is a questionably successful strategy for facilitating integration, exclusion is a means which is a very successful for facilitating segregation.
The one thing I can say for those attempting inclusion, is that they are at least trying to get others to believe in inclusion and hopefully integration. But it is too often a do as I say not as I do kind of proposition, so no wonder it doesn't work very well.
But whatever we do, we should not practice exclusion because whether we know it or not, it is probably a more powerful form of instructional strategy, a more powerful intervention than inclusion. If we see someone being disruptive or having a seizure in a social setting, our response should not necessarily be to remove them from the setting. That is exclusion. Perhaps we might first think of what is best for the individual, at least for a moment. Might we stop for a moment, to determine whether there are flaws with the setting? Disruptions are not always bad. Disruptions can cause us to evaluate the way we do things. Disruptions can cause us to ask, "Is this the best way of doing things?" "Is exclusion of this indiviudal the only response we can offer?" Are we excluding because we just don't want to be confronted with the need for change? Are we so brittle that we cannot accommodate?
Disruptions can introduce us to people and ways of looking at people which we might not have considered before.
McNair
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Write love
My son, Josh, turned me on to an cool story of love, acceptance and forgiveness. Check it out. TO WRITE LOVE ON HER ARMS by Jamie Tworkowski
In the story it states,
Are they important because of who the girl is or who she might be?
If she were to become a great poet, would those acts be now justified?
If she was to be saved from her addictions would those acts be justified?
If she were to become a loving mother, would the acts be justified?
If she were to become a Christian, would the acts be justified?
OR
If she were to be unable to escape her addictions would those acts be unjustified?
If she remained an addict for the remainder of her life, would those acts be unjustified?
If she were never to become a Christian, would those acts be unjustified?
Can you see acts of love and kindness and forgiveness are of value within themselves? The recipient of those acts is largely irrelevant. Sure our heart goes out to a woman who condemns herself in profane terms, writing her indictments with a razor on her skin. But what of a woman who has been socialized to believe that she is worthless, or would be better off dead, or should have been the focus of an abortion to prevent her life? Does our compassion change if the woman has down's syndrome, or a birth defect of some kind?
I believe the story shared at the website is a true story, and may God help that woman to escape her addiction and her self abusive behaviors and find forgiveness. But may God also help His church to escape her addiction to comfort that leads to exclusion, exclusion which is really a form of self abuse through the exclusion of people God loves and wants in his church, and may He through the church's repentence provide forgiveness leading to repentence.
In the story, the girl condemns herself by writing f*** off on her arm. What is the church writing on the arms of persons with down's syndrome or mental retardation or mental illness? I pray that as the website says, we are writing love on those people for the sake of writing love on those people. That is the end. For the benefit we receive when we show love to another without any expectations or for no other reason than the showing of love.
McNair
In the story it states,
Why is this interaction with the girl in the story, the love showed, the kindnesses expressed, the forgiveness of God explained, all of these acts of love, why are they important?We often ask God to show up. We pray prayers of rescue. Perhaps God would
ask us to be that rescue, to be His body, to move for things that matter. He is
not invisible when we come alive. I might be simple but more and more, I believe
God works in love, speaks in love, is revealed in our love. I have seen that
this week and honestly, it has been simple: Take a broken girl, treat her like a
famous princess, give her the best seats in the house. Buy her coffee and
cigarettes for the coming down, books and bathroom things for the days ahead.
Tell her something true when all she's known are lies. Tell her God loves her.
Tell her about forgiveness, the possibility of freedom, tell her she was made to
dance in white dresses. All these things are true.
Are they important because of who the girl is or who she might be?
If she were to become a great poet, would those acts be now justified?
If she was to be saved from her addictions would those acts be justified?
If she were to become a loving mother, would the acts be justified?
If she were to become a Christian, would the acts be justified?
OR
If she were to be unable to escape her addictions would those acts be unjustified?
If she remained an addict for the remainder of her life, would those acts be unjustified?
If she were never to become a Christian, would those acts be unjustified?
Can you see acts of love and kindness and forgiveness are of value within themselves? The recipient of those acts is largely irrelevant. Sure our heart goes out to a woman who condemns herself in profane terms, writing her indictments with a razor on her skin. But what of a woman who has been socialized to believe that she is worthless, or would be better off dead, or should have been the focus of an abortion to prevent her life? Does our compassion change if the woman has down's syndrome, or a birth defect of some kind?
I believe the story shared at the website is a true story, and may God help that woman to escape her addiction and her self abusive behaviors and find forgiveness. But may God also help His church to escape her addiction to comfort that leads to exclusion, exclusion which is really a form of self abuse through the exclusion of people God loves and wants in his church, and may He through the church's repentence provide forgiveness leading to repentence.
In the story, the girl condemns herself by writing f*** off on her arm. What is the church writing on the arms of persons with down's syndrome or mental retardation or mental illness? I pray that as the website says, we are writing love on those people for the sake of writing love on those people. That is the end. For the benefit we receive when we show love to another without any expectations or for no other reason than the showing of love.
McNair
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Church as community recreation
Teaching Exceptional Children is a kind of a research magazine put out by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), perhaps the largest special education professional organization in the United States. In the July/August 2007 edition, there was an article entitled, "Including students with moderate and severe disabilities in extracurricular and community recreation activities: Steps to success." The article by Kleinert, Miracle and Sheppard-Jones briefly describes a survey of special education teachers that the authors completed. They found the following:
This is not totally surprising as other researchers have pointed out the involvement of persons with disabilities in religious groups. This is just some of the latest information. Later in the article, the authors make the following statement.
This article discusses what is already occurring in the lives of children with moderate to severe disabilities. It is wonderful when the church surprises secularists with their inclusive practices. Both because it causes them to second guess the negativity sometimes evidenced toward churches in general, and because churches are making a difference in the lives of people in a significant way. A difference in which no other group has greater potential.
McNair
The five most frequently noted community activities in which at least one
of their students participated included church social activities (65.5% of the
teachers responding to tht question indicated that at least one student
participated); peer social activities not related to schools, such as going to
the movies or shopping (58.7%); church youth groups (56.3%); community sports
teams (25.0%); and church clubs (21.4%).
This is not totally surprising as other researchers have pointed out the involvement of persons with disabilities in religious groups. This is just some of the latest information. Later in the article, the authors make the following statement.
I have been speaking about and writing about this potential for community integration for many years now. I have always thought it would be ironic if secular groups were the ones who ultimately encouaged faith groups to be more involved in the lives of persons with disabilities. I will never forget a presentation I once made at a national conference of a secular special education organization. I presented on the potential of faith groups to be the answer for community integration of adults with cognitive disabilities. At the close of my presentation, one attendee raised her hand and said, "This is so obvious. Why haven't I ever heard about this before?" It is obvious, and there are many reasons one might not have heard of it ranging from secular bias to church inaction. As this article illustrates, however, secular organizations such as CEC might be recognizing the potential of the church. Let us pray for more research from a secular perspective which would help secularists.Several findings were somewhat surprising. First, the high rates of
reported participation in such activities as church youth groups suggest that
teachers of students with significant intellectual disabilities may want to
encourage their students to become involved in these opportunities if the
students and their families are members of local congregations. The high
rates of participation also suggest that teachers should assist families in
ensuring that their sons or daughters are meaningfully included in youth
activities for their church, synagogue, or faith based organization...
This article discusses what is already occurring in the lives of children with moderate to severe disabilities. It is wonderful when the church surprises secularists with their inclusive practices. Both because it causes them to second guess the negativity sometimes evidenced toward churches in general, and because churches are making a difference in the lives of people in a significant way. A difference in which no other group has greater potential.
McNair
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Divorce and children with down's syndrome
In the recent American Journal on Mental Retardation, there is an article entitled, "Divorce in families of children with down syndrome: A population-based study" by Urbano and Hodapp (vol. 112, number 4, 261-274, July 2007). The abstract states the following...
Finally, the authors make the following statement in the discussion section of the article.
McNair
In this study we examined the nature, timing and correlates of divorce inThe article goes on to mention the "Down syndrome advantage" that being that "families of children with Down syndrome cope better than do parents and familes of children with other disabilities." Over the 12 year period studied (1990-2002) the divorce rate was 7.6% in families with children with down's syndrome, 10.8% in the comparison group (not identified disability) and 11.2% in the other birth defects group. The one caviat finding relative to down's syndrome, was, "Of families who divorce after the birth of the index child, families of children with Down syndrome were almost twice as likely to divorce during the first two years of the child's life."
families or children with Down syndrome (647), other birth defects (10,283) and
no identified disability (361,154). Divorce rates among families of
children with Down syndrome were lower than the other groups. When divorce
did occur in the Down syndrome group, hoever, a higher proportion occurred
within the first 2 years after the child's birth.
Finally, the authors make the following statement in the discussion section of the article.
Taken together, the results of this study have important practical andThey go on to say,
theoretical implications. Practically, parents of newborns can be
counseled about the risks and timing of possible marital discord. For many
families, especially those steeped in the still commonly heard notion that
"divorce is rampant" among families of children with disabilities, it may be
comforting to know that divorce is neither a necessary nor a common outcome of
having a child with Down syndrome.
What wonderful opportunities for the church. Counseling early on in the life of a family with a child with Down's syndrome and outreach to rural families in particular. There are a lot of Chrisitan churches in rural settings. How about stepping up to the challenge....social workers and early interventionists can educate parents about
common stresses that arise during the earliest years. Those parents with
less education can be especially targeted, as can those parents-especially
fathers-who are both less educated and who live in rural areas...neither of the
United States' two main parent groups in Down syndrome currently feature special
programs designed for outreach to rural families.
McNair
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Community integration through the public schools
The following is the abstract from a study published in Exceptional Children, a journal of the Council on Exceptional Children, entitled "A National Study of Youth Attitudes Toward the Inclusion of Students with Intellectual Disabilities" by Siperstein, Parker, Bardon and Widaman (2007, Vol. 73, No. 4, 435-455).
The authors surveyed a national random sample of 5,837 middle school students on
their attitudes toward the inclusion of peers with intellectual disabilities
(ID). The national sample provided results that were accurate, with a margin of
error of +/- 1.4%. Findings indicated that youth (a) have limited contact with
students with ID in their classrooms and school; (b) perceive students with ID
as moderately impaired rather than mildly impaired; (c) believe that students
with ID can participate in nonacademic classes, but not in academic classes; (d)
view inclusion as having both positive and negative effects; and (e) do not want
to interact socially with a peer with ID, particularly outside school.
Structured equation modeling showed that youth's perceptions of the competence
of students with ID significantly influence their willingness to interact with
these students and their support of inclusion.
Those of us in special education, know that inclusion has been the perspective of many in education for the past 15-20 years. You must understand that there are many perspectives on inclusion in the public schools. There are those who are total zealots who feel that the only place for any child, independent of their disability is the "regular classroom with their age peers." There are others who feel that children with disabilities should be segregated into separate schools where they can receive "intensive therapy." Others hold differing positions somewhere in the middle, although the politically correct position is much more toward the inclusion in the regular class over the segregation position. There have been many studies, largely anecdotal that speak of the trememdous benefits to children with and without disabilities as a result of inclusion. There have not been many empirical studies supporting the inclusion position in terms of long term integration benefits.
Now one cannot take a position on the basis of one study, but I must admit that I find this study quite sad. You see, at least in regard to the children who participated in this study and the larger group they may represent, inclusion is not working very well.
We see that in the summary results,
limited contact in classrooms and school,
students perceived as more impaired than they are,
inclusion has both positive and negative effects, and
typical children do not want to interact socially with a peer with ID, particularly outside school.
The question remains in my mind as to whether or not the school, in particular the general education classroom, is the best place for integration. The assumption from some researchers and inclusion zealots is that it is the best place. The authors of the article conclude that their research might demonstrate that, "inclusion is not working; that the policies and practices put in place have not reduced or eliminated the social barriers to inclusion for students with ID; and thus, that the social goals of including students with ID in general education enviornments may not be attainable or even realistic" or contrarily perhaps "we have not yet done enough to promote inclusion and that we cannot rely on physical inclusion by itself to foster positive attitudes." What the authors do conclude is, "What the results of this survey do indicate is that finding ways for youth to witness the competence of people with ID would go a long way toward fostering positive attitudes." How many opportunities are provided in schools for children with intellectual disabilities, with mental retardation to demonstrate competence when the point of integration is the cognitively oriented, regular class curricula? We set them up for failure in many ways and then are surprised when they are seen as less than competent.
The saddest of the findings, however, was that typical children do not want to interact socially with a peer with ID, particularly outside school. That is probably one of the reasons why thsy see their peers as more disabled than they actually are...they don't know them. The study implies that peer pressure would cause the lack of interaction outside of school, which I don't quite get. I could see peer pressure in school, but outside of school there would be more opportunity for privacy in ones social interactions. But what type of setting would allow a person with an intellectual disablity to be seen as competent outside of school for the purposes of social integration. Many settings might be imagined, however, as this is "disabled Christianity" you know my obvious suggestion is the church. Schools cannot find the key to helping persons with disability to demonstrate competence so that positive attitudes might be developed. The Christian church has the potential to provide myriad opportunities for people with various diabilities to be seen in a competent, positive light, which the authors of the article contend would lead to community integration.
Schools have set the tone for integration through special education programs and efforts at inclusion, but they are failing at long term community integration I would suspect. Once again, can you see that the schools are not the answer to the integration question? Once again the answer for integration falls squarely at the feet of the church.
McNair
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
