Social Ramps: The Principles of Universal Design Applied to the Social Environment

Social Ramps

Bryan McKinney and I have just published an article in the latest issue of the Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (click on the words "Social Ramps" above to see it). The article looks at applying the principles of universal design to social environments. Using the idea of a ramp, something most people are familiar with as a way that folks who use wheelchairs can access physical enviornments, we wonder about how "social ramps" might be created to facilitate access to social enviornments. We make the point that confronted by steps, someone who uses a wheelchair is denied access. The society has determined that this is something that they want to correct, so ramps are designed and built allowing access to those who have been denied access in the past. The physical environment was created in one way and overtime has been reconstructed in a different way. You might say that we have changed our physical enviornment traditions such that access is easier.

Well, how might we change our social enviornment such that access might be easier? Are social skill traditions, cultural traditions immutable or might they be changed? How might we approach softening the social enviornment, changing traditons deliberately such that those who have been excluded for social skill deficits or misunderstandings might be provided access. Yes, some people can learn to change, but many others cannot change due to their disabilities, etc. If the social environment CAN change such that these folks could be included it might be encouraged to do so. Our social enviornments would then be different than they currently are. More loving more accepting, etc.

Well, please check our our article and think through the issues presented.
God bless,

McNair

Knowing the path versus walking the path

"Neo, sooner or later you are going to realize, just as I did, there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

Those are the words Morpheus speaks to Neo in The Matrix after he has saved Trinity from the crashing helicopter. I am increasingly, like Morpheus, coming to the realization that I have been taught the path to the point of knowing it pretty well. But at the same time that same teaching didn't really expect me to walk the path. That may imply that actually I didn't know the path either.

The words of Jesus are so challenging. Here is a sampling...

If you want to be my disciple, deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me. (Luke 9:23)

The story of the Good Samaritan ending with, "The one who had mercy on him. Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'" Luke 10:37

"Do you understand what I have done for you?...I have set an example for you that you should do as I have done for you...Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them" John 13

"In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets" Matthew 7:12

"If you love those who love you, what reward do you have?" Matthew 5:46

"Love your neighbor as yourself" Mark 12:31

The challenge is much greater, much deeper. Jesus wants us to follow him on the path he took. Do we really understand the path he took? Or as in the last posting of the poem have we been taught it as unapproachable, not really demanded of us, something for saints and super Christians. We even use that phrase as there is something other than just being a Christian with the same demands for all.

I need to learn that lesson. I need to be sure that those who come after me recognize the demand to follow. For so long I feel like the most important thing for me to do was to get my mind right, get the right theology as if that was the most important thing. What happens in my head is the most important thing not what I do with my life, my body, my mind towards other people.

As I write this, I have my turntable going, playing Kansas. What that means, is that I have a record playing music from a band of the 1970's (for you younger readers). Kerry Livgren, who ultimately came to the Lord wrote the following words. in the song Opus Insert.

But there's too many empty lives my friend
And we just can't let them waste away.
For this life is a precious thing my friend
And we just can't wait another day.

Do you feel the urgency there! Urgency for us to do something. To walk the path. Don't buy the lies you have been sold about what the demands of God are on your life. God tells you the MOST important thing you can do after loving Him with all your heart, soul and mind is to love your neighbor as yourself. And that demands action, work, discomfort, risk based upon faith. It is not just thoughts. Would someone be able to observe your walk and recognize that you recognize that there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path? What evidence would you provide?

McNair

Unapproachable - A poem about loving your neighbor

Unapproachable

By Jeff McNair

If where we end up,

is based on where we have been,

then what is pervasive,

reflects on how we begin.

The greatest is love.

It is what we sing of.

Sung of so often one might think love is trite,

not the battle demanding in which we must fight.

And we are losing.

Love is taught as unapproachable.

It’s the thing of saints, not me.

Expectations mean, and lean

in the hope, of love seen.

Is the subject of love obvious?

If where we began was right,

the target would be in sight

and we not oblivious.

The evident target is unseen.

My mirror blocks my view.

I step over someone wondering,  “Who is this neighbor I should love?”

That’s been asked before, and answered.

Could love resurrect with a ride, a couple bucks and a hotel?

You assume outcomes about you and he, but don’t know for sure.

Love feigned at its core, when demanded, slinks by

to play at love to an audience who fears it. Unapproachable.

Seriously?

Must I worry and scurry around,

bound by love’s fetter and forcing action

toward those who don’t get better?

Constipated by wealth, I go away sad

reeling from the frightening answer to, “What must I do?”

No pervasive love expectation

because it’s amazing, saintly, unapproachable.

My choices challenged,

I agree neighbors should be loved.

But my self-standards are too low.

I think my Bible tells me so.

My loveless leaders confuse me.

Guiding Sunday school to seminary,

they have fed my fears with ease about love

and fed my ease with fears about love?

Should I love my neighbor as myself?

No, it is unapproachable.

 “You don’t have to love that neighbor.”

I take my ease among the reproachable.

I learn no neighbor love demanded.

God’s love for me is confusing.

I love myself unchanged and unchallenged

because neighbor love is just a high ideal, unapproachable.

So, I do nothing.

 

 

We have a plan for you at Love Your Neighbor!

"Hello, I am here to love my neighbor."

"That's lovely! We have a variety of plans. What do you have in mind?"

"Oh, I don't know. I have just been thinking that I might want to love my neighbor so I was wondering what might be available."

"Well YOU have come to the right place!  At Love Your Neighbor, we do have a variety of plans which you might find interesting for loving your neighbor. Are you familiar at all with what we offer?"

"No, not really."

"Well then, let me go through our options! As with any product, some options are more expensive than others. But I am sure we can find something that will work for you."
First is our "Appear to love your neighbor" plan. In this plan, you do things that could cause those around you to think you love your neighbor. We will give you training to say the right things and talk about the right things. You will learn phrases like, "God bless them!" or "I will pray for you!" or even, "There but for the grace of God go I!" Each of these are likely to make those who are observing think that you actually do love your neighbor. All this at no cost to you! We are sure that over time you will feel much better about yourself and others will as well."

"That sounds interesting. God bless you for that plan!"

"HAHA!" He points at her. "You are really getting the hang of loving your neighbor already! Maybe you should consider our next level. The" Open your wallet plan." In this plan, you actually write checks for charitable organizations. That way you can both love your neighbor and get a tax deduction!"

"That one sounds a bit scary!"

"It is by far our most popular plan. Yes, you do have to make a financial investment, but everyone needs tax deductions. You also get praise from those to whom you send money! But I'll tell you the real pay off. When you get your taxes done, people will ask you why you give away that money. And your response, of course, is..."

"I love my neighbor!"

"Correct! AND you never have to have an interaction with someone who would make you feel, you know, uncomfortable."

"Does it matter how much money I give?"

"Well, if you want the tax preparer comment benefit, you probably should give like 5%."

"I think I could do that. Wow! And then I am really loving my neighbor."

"Well yes. Maybe. But there are other plans but most people aren't interested in them. There are stories of people who wanted to know about the other plans, but were not really prepared for the answer when they asked about them. Asking about other plans is pretty scary.  Also those plans are kinda expensive."

Hesitation. "Well I do want to know how to love my neighbor. What question do I need to ask?"

"The neighbor question." he responds nervously. "You know the neighbor question."

"What is the neighbor question?"

"Not what, who. The who question."

"Oh, you mean, Who is my neighbor?"

"Are you asking me that question? I can tell you the answer but it is a pretty expensive answer, err plan."

Boldly, "Who is my neighbor?"

"Well since you asked, let me describe the Who Is My Neighbor plan. Well he could be a guy who is disabled by being beaten up or treated badly by other people. Someone with a disability or a mental illness or something like that. You could use plan one for that kind of person, but if people find out, you won't be though well of. People won't think you really love your neighbor.  So under this plan, you do things like take emotional risks, spend your time helping the person, visiting them to be sure they are OK. You also do a lot of plan two. It IS expensive."

"Wow that is expensive. But at least the people get better, right?"

"Well, maybe." Shakes his head. "Could be you help them and they don't get better. Could be they stay the same or get worse. But you wanted to know how to love your neighbor, and who your neighbor was so I told you. Loving your neighbor is not about if the person gets better, it is about what you do."

"Wow! Then that is really expensive. I guess thats the highest plan, huh?"

"You might think so, but not really. Nobody ever gets past plan three. I'll tell you, they tiptoe around that plan and go back to plan one or two. But there is a plan four. I have never seen anyone buy it so it is a bit of a mystery to us here at Love Your Neighbor."

"What is it?"

"Sell everything you have and give it to the poor." He blurts out and coughs. "Most people when they hear that go away sad. They say they want to love their neighbor but when they find out the cost of doing it, well, I don't know. I guess they just figure it isn't worth it. But I am also not sure that plan is for everyone. I am totally sure plan three can  be done by just about anybody. They just have to have the desire to do it."

"You know, its funny. People don't really expect me to love my neighbor. If I say nice things they get kinda surprised. If I give my money, they can't believe it, or talk about how they wish they could do that too. But if I were to really choose a couple of people as my friends and really enter their lives. I think I could love them, but they might also learn to love me. I might help to lessen their difficulties, but they would also help me too, in ways I probably don't know about because I haven't tried to love my neighber in a plan three kind of way."

"Well just be careful about what you commit to. Please don't expect too much."

"Huh? Now you kinda sound like my pastor."


A friend of mine, Toby Hoff once shared a Steve Camp lyric with me that guided him. It says,
"Don't tell them Jesus loves them till you're ready to love them too."
McNair

A new website whatwouldbebetter.com

In 2012, Marc Tumeinski and I wrote an article bridging some of the principles of social role valorizaton with the development of devalued people within the Christian church. You can read the article here. The main thrust of the article was to provide criteria for ministry development, encourage people in ministry to consider the criteria, look at what they are doing in reference to the criteria and then ask themselves, "What would be better?" For example, the article states,

What does our shared vision of Christian community look like? Who is present in our biblical vision of community? How can the inclusion of vulnerable people better reflect the Gospel vision and therefore strengthen our church community? How can we more closely approach this vision here and now within our church? Given the actual makeup of our membership, might we unintentionally or unconsciously be putting some groups of people outside of this vision? What would be better?

The article implies that one has a vision or a goal for ministry in mind. However, the circumstances may be such that the local church of which you are a part are not prepared to embrace the vision as it is to threatening, or too costly. So rather than scaring people with our whole vision, we take small steps that make us "better" in some way. In the end we move toward our vision.

In proposing this idea, and seeking dialogue about what might be called "maturity in ministry" I have developed this website. I invite you to visit, make comments, propose articles, tell stories of how you have moved toward maturity in your ministry. Visit the website here.

Regards,
McNair

Universalsocialdesign.com

The concept of universal design is one that has made a significant impact on the lives of people with disabilities, particularly in America. Much of the changes in the physical environment that were brought about by the Americans with Disabilities Act can be traced to universal design principles. But something more is needed.

I have been thinking for a while about the application of universal design to social environments. Early thinking on this has led to an article about to be published in the Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability called, "Social ramps:Application of the principles of universal design to social enviornments." The article, by Bryan McKinney and myself, will appear on the universalsocialdesign,com website sometime in February of 2015, but if you are interested in some pre-release thinking about it, you can visit the website. There are also places there where you can offer your ideas or reactions on the subject.

McNair

Mark and David: Unconditional friends - video

I was blessed to be a part of a Joni and Friends television episode on friendship. Below is the description they provide on their website.

Mark and David - Unconditional Friends
This is an inside look at the lives of two adult men with intellectual disabilities, one single and one married. It includes insightful interview comments from Dr. Jeff McNair, Director of Public Policy at Joni and Friends and Professor of Education & Director, MA Disability Studies at California Baptist University. The viewer will gain new insights to the challenges faced by adults with intellectual disabilities living in our communities, and the limitations placed on them from cultural misunderstanding and perception.

Here is the link to the actual program.
Link to Mark and David - Unconditional Friends

God bless and enjoy!
McNair

 

Projections

Imagine a boy is born into a family. But the family didn't want a boy, they wanted a girl. So they give the boy a name that disrespects the fact that he is a boy.  Maybe they call him Sally. Sally goes through his life, living with the message that he is unwanted, that he is a disappointment. He may be gifted, but the the family will never know of his gifts because they see him through eyes that communicate their understanding of who he is; a disappointment. When he becomes what is projected upon him by his family, no one is surprised. In fact it is exactly as everyone thought, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Within the family this perhaps does not seem unkind because they are so convinced of their perceptions about Sally that they cannot imagine him any differently.

When I go to the movies, I enter the theater to a blank, large, white screen. As I sit there, I am hoping something memorable will be projected upon the screen. I may see love on that screen or I may see violence. I may see beauty or I may see horror and want to turn away from the screen. In the case of the screen, it has no qualities in and of itself, other than its ability to show what is projected upon it.

People can be treated like screens. They become to us and others what we project upon them. If we project sorrow, they are sad. If we project uselessness, they are ungifted. If we project beauty, they get a second look. But people are not like screens, we are told they have basic value, in themselves, independent of what we project upon them.

I project you have no value, the reality is still, that you are indispensable.
I project you are ugly, the reality is still, that you are created in the Image of God.
I project you are dishonorable, the reality is still, that you are worthy of special honor.
I project you are sinful or evil, the reality is still, that the purpose of your life is that the works of God might be seen in and through you.
I project you are a mistake, the reality is still, that you were knit together in your mother's womb.
I project you are other, the reality is still, that you are the same as me.
I project you are a bother, the reality is still, that your mere presence reveals who I am and corrects me.

If your understanding of individuals with disabilities is that they are in reality the ways people have projected on them who they are, then the problem is YOU it is not THEM. And the problem most often is YOU and it is ME.

Would we blame the child who is raised in an abusive family for their abuse? Should we blame our misunderstandings of who persons with disabilities are on them?

McNair

"If this...Then that"

In a 2011 article, Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger laid out a series of interactions between two events. The article citation is provided below. In part it tries to propose connections between two "events". If we do something (if this) we might expect something to occur as a result (then that). We might also think in reverse in that if we see something occurring (then that) we might expect that something happened leading to the outcome we see (if this).


Clearly things are improving in the world of inclusion of persons with impairments within the local church. There are pockets of brilliance and still pockets of complete failure. Even where there are things happening, there is significant room for improvement or what might be called "maturity in ministry" (see this link for a good article that helps to explain maturity and provide a bit of a roadmap towards attaining maturity What Would Be Better?). What is it that has to God's glory been changing in recent times? It is not coming from the seminaries, at least not overtly. Disability is still not generally a topic for training there. Seminary training is not leading the way in teaching us to change in our love for our neighbors with impairments. They, as the "if this" are more likely to perpetuate the currently experienced "then that." Arguably it is not coming from our leadership. Yes there are organizations like Joni and Friends among others who areproviding leadership and working to facilitate the change. There is leadership in that way, from the few Christian disability organizations out there.  There are some denomintions providing leadership as well. But it is almost as if it is a grass roots movement that is causing the leadership, the basic practices and traditions to change. The change, should it come as I pray it will, will change the church in very dramatic ways. But as I have often said it will be a corrective.


As I have often thought about the universal misunderstanding and lack of desire for change across all permutations of the Christian world (Baptist, Catholics, Penecostals, etc.) it has struck me how universal the misunderstanding of persons with disabilities and the response of the church has been. How could it be that ALL permutations of the Christian church have gotten this wrong for so long? That is, there is or at least has been, something universally wrong with Christian theology, or traditions, or teachings (the "if this") that have led to the experience of persons with disabilities that we see or have seen (the "then that").


I have a long way to go on understanding this, but would be interested in any ideas people may have about why this is so. Ideas I have thought about thus far relate to the training of our leaders and the lack of understanding of those who train them. Training of whomever at almost every level evidences this problem. Once again this "poor training" of whomever is universal within the Christian church which is breathtaking. I wouldn't expect that there would be that much unanimity in this area across all the denominations. The outcomes of this training have at times caused people to desire to start new disability friendly churches from scratch in order to address what they see as the fundamental problems of the churches they have experienced. It is the old joke "How do I get to Chicago?" Response, "You can't get there from here!" This response indicates that the "if this" is so strong and pervasive, we need an entirely new starting point in order to get where we want to go because we cannot get where we want to go from our starting point; the existing way of doing things. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I understand the position nonetheless. I have related in this blog a conversation I once had with Jean Vanier where he said we have been focused on the rectitude of doctrine rather than the rectitude of love.  I resonate with this, but as Bishop Nazir Ali of the Anglican Church also once shared with me, if we had the right doctrine we would have the right love. So perhaps this fundamental "if this" problem is in part our doctrine. Yet, once again because of the universality of the problem within the Christian church, I wonder.  Could past or present exclusion of persons with impairments be the one thing that we agree upon across doctrines and denominations? Our experience might tell us that.


There is much more of my thinking that I could share here, but I won't at this point.  Once again I would welcome any input from anyone who happens to read this. I think it is something important to understand as we move forward.

God bless,
McNair


Wolfensberger, W.  (2011) An “If This, Then That” Formulation of Decisions Related to Social Role Valorization As a Better Way of Interpreting It to People. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: December 2011, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 456-462.

Two steps forward, one step back...

Well I heard it again today, hadn't heard it for a while.  Had a conversation with a gal living in Mississippi who told me of her experience with her child.


"Why don't you discipline that kid!" some church leaders and members said about her autistic child.
"We will have a ministry if you start it and stay with your child!" so why come to church?
"Your child is not a priority of ministry!" a church PASTOR told her.
"We are not interested in serving the people at the ARC group home that is across the street!" another church leader told her.


You know, just when you feel like we are finally making a bit of progress, you hear the same stories people have been hearing from US, the CHRISTIAN CHURCH for who knows how long.  It is disgraceful what our leadership will say and do. God forgive them and us.


Recently I have been thinking a lot about how the exclusion of persons with disabilities is a church wide problem. It is SO foundationally wrong. It illustrates an attitude that is SO far away from what we are called to be. But the thing that I have been thinking about is that if this is a church wide problem, then there is a church wide problem in the way we are being taught. There may even be a church wide problem with our theology. How could we choose to NOT love devalued people if our theology was correct? How could seminaries train leaders who would freely exclude people if they had not been taught incorrectly?


I have come to the conclusion that there is a system wide problem with our leaders, our understanding of spiritual truth and our theology. People will ask me when I say that, "What is the problem?" I don't know. I am working on trying to understand what it might be. I just know it is pervasive. Pastors will chide me saying there is nothing wrong with our theology and I respond, "Then why don't we care about people who are largely suffering because of the way we treat them? They have been devalued by our society, inside and outside of the church?" I wish they would get angry at me and defend something, but they just kinda shrug and say, "Well we will never get everything right because of our sinful condition."


I think I am going to try that explanation out on my wife.
"Well honey, I haven't done the dishes in 35 years, cause, you know I will never get it right because of my sinful condition."
"Yeah, I punched my boss and lost my job, but you know, I will never get it right because of my sinful condition.'


Of course we are sinful and of course we will never get it right.  But wash the dishes every so often and learn to control your anger.  Add to the list, MAYBE WORK ON TRYING TO LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR!  Yeah loving my neighbor is hard but that is I what I am called to do. That is also what my leaders should be relentlessly focussing on me doing. Leading by example, providing opportunities, and making me feel a bit of guilt if I am not loving my neighbor. But I guess they don't want to love their neighbors either because it is hard for them as well.


I have related this before, but I once met a famous theologian (can't remember his name it was in 1988). He spoke on disability related issues. Afterwards, I asked him how the church has missed this? His response was,
The church is disobedient.
That statement forever impacted me. It isn't just that I just screwed up, it is that I don't want to be obedient. Friends, we need to call our churches to obedience in this area and remember we are talking to people who too often do not want to be obedient in this area. Why would our leaders not want to be obedient? I go back to what I said above about wrong traditions and theology. For a theologically trained leader (like the lady I spoke to today described) to say the types of things he said implies that either they have an obviously wrong theology or they don't believe the theology they claim to be teaching me.


Sorry for the rant.
McNair

My friend Michael

My friend Michael passed away last night. He was one of those people in your life that you immediately make a connection with. I wouldn't see him much more than once a week at church or at special gatherings but we were great friends nonetheless.
I have often said that he is the type of person everyone should have in their life. Whenever I would see him, independent of where we were, he would shout out "Hey Jeff!" I would shout back in response, "Hey Michael!" I will miss that aspect of our relationship.  Total abandonment of social rules when we would see each other for the first time in any setting. Our recognition of each other was the MOST important thing. It was as if he was saying,

"I don't care if I disrupt you, my friend Jeff is here and I want to acknowledge him!"

Michael would always remember to ask for prayer for his bus driver and teacher each week, if prayer requests were sought. Others would roll their eyes at his repeated request, but I am confident that when Michael arrived in Heaven, the fruit of his faithful request for prayer was made known to him.
He was not a perfect man, at times his temper would get the best of him and when we were together I would talk through actions of his with him to help him to grow in his faith. He loved to wear a tie and jacket to church each week sometimes in the most random combinations. I loved seeing him dressed up but would help him to straighten up his tie and jacket. I don't know if he liked the attention, but he would allow me to make him look "perfect" as I would tell him.
Every week he would ask me for a dollar which I would give to him so he could buy a soda at his work the following day. As I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog, it also caused me at first to pause, before I knew him.  But then, we would sit together and talk about whatever happened to be on his mind. 
He loved sweets, particularly chocolate.  I remember the last time I saw him, Sunday, he had just eaten a chocolate iced donut. As a result he had chocolate all over his hands which I showed him he could lick off of his fingers. He also always wanted to take something home from church each week. Whether it was some bread donated by Panera, or a flyer about a church activity or whatever. He was VERY adamant about receiving something that he could take home with him.


This morning I was at the director's meeting at Joni and Friends when I received the message about his passing last night. I thought that I would be able to share his passing in a controlled manner, but once I began with "A dear friend of mine died last night..." I lost it. I thought about stopping my presentation (we describe our activities for the previous week at those meetings) but thought what better place than to share my grief over my dear friend with disabilities then at the director's meeting.
I cried through my description of Michael and then apologized for my emotion. But they were touched and said no apology was necessary.


In the few minutes since that meeting, I wondered how many men, living in a group home, working in an adult day care setting have someone who weeps over their passing: someone who was just a friend in their life, who knew them, and will miss them. My faith tells me Michael is with the Lord. I have great confidence in that. But I will miss him because he was my friend.  His calling out to me to greet me is unlike any other friend I have ever had, or will probably ever have again. His friendship was a tremendous gift to me! As a friend at Joni and Friends told me, his friendship probably meant more to you than to him! I like that thought although I hope he delighted in my friendship as well. It is my prayer that more and more, persons with disabilities, particularly those with severe disabilities, with intellectual disabilities will have real friends in their lives who will mourn their loss. Not just family members or people who have become accustomed to them because of the paid services they provided to them, both of those are great. But people who were really their friends and were with them because they enjoyed the human interaction that any friend enjoys.


I will miss you Michael!
Jeff

"Natural like home"

In our Light and Power Company group, we often talk about how we feel more like a family than like a class or a group that meets at church. People are accepted as they are.  Sure we make demands on each other. But the overriding theme is acceptance, overlooking differences like social skill deficits, thinking the best of others, trying to be affirming, praying for each other, caring for one another and so forth. These are the kinds of attributes we find in families that are functioning well.  We rejoice with the successes of our family members, we hurt with them when they hurt. It is like we recognize that we are in this life together, as a family. In families, you don't necessarily choose each other, but you love one another nontheless. When you enter a group like our Light and Power group, you become a member of a family of people who chose the group initially, but then just accept others as the family grows. It is kind of like the idea of America being a melting pot (although we seem to be struggling with that at the moment as many groups don't want to relinquish their rights to be a part of the American family, they want to change the American family to be like them), where you come in as whomever you are and then become a part of the family, whatever personal characteristics you bring.

On our recent trip to Australia, we discussed this idea with Lindsey Gale, a groundbreaker in helping churches to be open to persons with disabilities. She made the comment in one presentation that the experience of being in a church should be, "natural like home." Church should be an extension of the love and acceptance I feel in my home among my family. As she went on to say, if disability is different at home than it is at church, that indicates a problem. If I do not feel at home, I am not experiencing the hospitality that I should be feeling.

I have been thinking that churches should be regularly reviewing their level of hospitality towards people...all people. Not the high performers who would be celebrated in any environment.  But hospitality toward those who experience devaluation for any number of reasons, not the least being disability and the poverty that too often accommpanies it. It is the presence of those people who can be like the "canary in the mineshaft" to tell us how we are doing at hospitality.  If those people are not in your church, if they do not see your church as "home", then some serious self examination needs to occur about who you are as a church. Are you a church of Jesus Christ who would welcome devalued people, or have you morphed into something else that self-examination would cause you to make excuses for?

Do you have the courage to ask those with disabilities or those who are familes with members with disabilities about whether your church feels like home to them? It is a scary question. (see this past post on scary questions) But it is a question if answered honestly will provide guidance for the church such that it will become hosptiable to all.  So it would be "natural, like home."

McNair

"God has a mission so the mission has a church"

A new friend, Rev. Phil Gale (husband of CBM's Luke 14 Director, Lindsey Gale), in one of our many great discussions, turned me on to the thinking of Bishop John McIntyre of the Anglican church.  His comments about the "missional church" were really interesting in particular as they relate to ministry that includes persons with disabilities.  I quote Bishop McIntyre from an article in the July 2014 issue of TMA (The Melbourne Anglican, p. 11).  All emphases are added by me.

"To be a missional church, he said, was "simply in integretity to be Christlike and in grace point to Jesus Christ in all we are and all we do."
It is to be present in community with an integrity of being that assures all those whose lives we touch that we are there alone for their wellbeing; that we are committed to peace with justice, mercy and inclusion. Where we can live out that demand, I am convinced people will be drawn anew to faith in Jesus Christ. Then our churches will grow as we participate in the mission of God in the world."
One reason Anglicanism is Australia was hampered in its capacity to be genuinely missional was because in the past "we have essentially been an associational church rather than a missional church" - "just another association of people who happen to be religious," he said.
The problem was exacerbated when church people assumed the associational view of church as well, so that "what we call 'mission' then becomes finding new ways at attracting people to become part of our association." But the "mission of the church is not to grow churches," he said, "It is to live under the rule of God; to live in allegiance solely to Jesus Christ.
"God's mission has a church. If we make growing churches our aim, we are trying to do God's work. Our aim is to live in singular allegiance to Jesus. When we do that with integrity and grace, God grows churches as the means by which God's way is extended in God's world. Others come to faith in Jesus Christ and join us."

"...we are there alone for their wellbeing..." Imagine if that was our reputation as the Christian church in the lives of persons with disabilities. What things might we do for people for families? What example might we be to the community?

Once again, "God's mission has a church." The way Phil restated the bishop's words is that
"God has a mission so the mission has a church."
That resonated with me as different then the way we often understand church. It implies that we are up to something, that we are active, kinetic, doing something of worth in the community that draws people to want to join us in our mission and become followers of Jesus Christ. They will learn about what we believe, but our mission by God's grace causes us to be irrestible. In order to achieve our mission, we have a meeting place where we are trained, where our wounds suffered from trying to love our communities are ministered to, and we are prepared to be sent out again. The church meeting is not the focus of the mission, not the end all of the mission.  The church meeting, the Sunday morning service, simply becomes a part of the mission. We are not being prepared at that meeting to go home because we have done all we need to do for the week, untill the following week when we come in and sit again. It is a rallying point for our onging, difficult activity of loving our neighbor.

If the above were the case, we would be prepared to find our neighbors with disabilities in need of assistance or simply love and friendship. When was the last time you heard a sermon about loving your neighbor with disabilities? Unfortunately, that is currently not a part of the mission as evidenced by what we are not being prepared to do (assuming we are being prepared to DO something) and by the people who are not sitting in the chairs next to us.

We have a church because God has a mission and the mission is not our comfort.

McNair

People with their backs against the wall

I recently came across a wonderful book called Jesus and the Disinherited by Howard Thurman. Rev. Thurman wrote the book in the 1940s out of his experience as a black man growing up in the 1920s and 1930s and his conversations with his grandmother who had been a slave. His writing was no doubt influential to leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King. Although he largely discusses the experience of racial discrimination in America, his ideas about what "the readings of Jesus have to say to those who stand at a moment in history with their backs against the wall...the poor, the disinherited, the dispossessed" has broader applicability. His grace in describing his experience at that time and his strong desire to live the religion of Jesus is in contrast to the discrimination he experienced in his life. But I think he is writing about discrimination in a much larger sense.  Some of the most memorable passages, to me, related to issues of integration and segregation.
Here are a few.

''Segregation can apply only to a relationship involving  the weak and the strong. For it means that limitations are arbitrarily set up, which. in the course of time, tend to become fixed and seem normal in governing the etiquette between the two groups. A peculiar characteristic of segregation is the ability of the stronger to shuttle back and forth between the prescribed areas with complete immunity and a kind of mutually tacit sanction; while the position of the weaker, on the other hand, is quite definitely fixed and frozen." (p. 42)

"It is necessary, therefore, for the privileged and the underprivileged to work on the common environment for the purpose of providing normal experiences of fellowship. This is one very important reason for the insistence that segregation is a complete ethical and moral evil. Whether it may do for those who dwell on either side of the wall, one thing is certain: it poisons all normal contacts of those persons involved...The result is that in the one place in which normal free contacts might be most naturally established-in which the relations of the individual to his God should take priority over conditions of class, race, power, status, wealth, or the like- this place is one of the chief instruments for guaranteeing barriers." (p. 98)

When people can "shuttle back and forth between the prescribed areas with complete immunity" when others cannot, there is something implied in the relationship between the two.

He boldly states that"segregation is a complete ethical and moral evil." Relationships are indeed poisoned by segregation.

But the part that really condemns is his comment on the church when he says that the church is one of the chief instruments for guaranteeing barriers. In the 1940s and today, there continue to be issues of racial segregation in the manner that Thurman describes. But for our purposes, here in this weblog, his sentiments highlight the kinds of changes that continue to need to occur in the church.

Early on in the  book he states, "It has long been a matter of serious moment that for decades we have studied the various peoples of the world and those who live as our neighbors as objects of missionary endeavor and enterprise without being at all willing to treat them either as brothers or as human beings" (p. 13). He goes on to say, "But it is one of the subtle points of a religion which calls attention to the point of overemphasis..." In this case in a negative manner. Any differences are overly elevated and then unfortunately naively applied resulting in segregation.

Ministry with personswith disabilities suffers from this malaise. Seeing people as the object of ministry rather than the subject of relationship is arguably the greatest problem of disability ministry at this current time.

McNair

Follow Me Session #3 - Light and Power Company

Follow Me Session #3 - Light and Power Company

In our Light and Power group, we are studing the "Follow Me" Bible study curriculum. This curriculum is being studied church wide in the Sunday sermon and weekly Bible studies. Here is the session for the third week of Follow Me. It is about a half hour.
This will also give you a feel for how we run our weekly teaching time.

Special thanks to Pat and Curtis Hall for putting this video together.

Enjoy!

 

Light and Power Company - Follow me Session #3

 

McNair

Follow Me Session #2 - Light and Power Company

Follow Me Session #2 - Light and Power Company

In our Light and Power group, we are studing the "Follow Me" Bible study curriculum. This curriculum is being studied church wide in the Sunday sermon and weekly Bible studies. Here is the session for the second week of Follow Me. It is about a half hour.
This will also give you a feel for how we run our weekly teaching time.

Special thanks to Curtis Hall for putting this video together.

Enjoy!

Light and Power Company - Follow me session #2
McNair

Follow Me Session #1 - Light and Power Company

In our Light and Power group, we are studing the "Follow Me" Bible study curriculum.  This curriculum is being studied church wide in the Sunday sermon and weekly Bible studies.  Here is the session for the first week of Follow Me. It is about a half hour.
This will also give you a feel for how we run our weekly teaching time.

Special thanks to Curtis Hall for putting this video together.

Enjoy!

Light and Power Company - Follow Me Session #1

McNair

The "special" label

A student of mine, a woman with a physical impairment, recently wrote in an article synopsis of her experience in her church. The church was one where there were few people with disabilities. She being largely the only one there, was treated as special, was spoken of as special and anything she ever did was regarded as remarkable because she was special. She wrote of how she tired of this designation, wishing she would just be seen as another regular person attempting to live her life for Christ like anybody else. She has challenges in life, they have challenges in life.  She then wrote about how she now attends a different church where many people with disabilities attend, and she is just another congregational member. She is no longer "special".

The word special is often associated with people with impairments whether it is special education or special ministry. Merriam Webster defines it as "different from what is normal or usual; unusual in a good way : better or more important than others: especially important or loved: more than is usual." Is that the truth of who persons with impairments are? If it is, then why are we so desperate as a society to prenatally diagnose and abort people with disabilities? If it is not, then why are we being pitiably pejorative and disingenuous in reference to people with a particular characteristic?

The fact of the matter is that special, when associated with an individual, actually implies distance, unfamiliarity, being something other.

I don't refer to my friends with impairments as special.  They are just my friends. I wouldn't refer to my child with a disability as special, he is just my child. Those who work with students in special education experience the sympathy stigma that Goffman (1963) refers to. People "distance" themselves from special educators by saying they are so special in that they can have an amazing amount of patience towards people with impairments. The distancing is in seeing themselve as not having patience, not being able to interact with people they would designate as special. By labeling those who do not see persons with impairments as different or special, the average person dismisses themselves from interactions with those perceived as different or special. However, if I am willing to change in my perception of others, they may have a speciality in that they are particularly good at something, but I would not allow their impairment to be something that would distance them from me by saying they were special (implying that I am not because I do not have an impairment).

I don't think people with disabilities generally want to be thought of as different independent of the motivation of those differentiating them (out of pity, or paternalism, or even good motives). They just want to be Bob or Sally or Mary or Fred. A human being.

McNair

Matthew 25 from Joni and Friends Daily Devotional

The following is from   Joni and Friends Daily Devotional March 30, 2014

"You Did It for Me"

"Then the King will say, 'I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you thirsty and give you something to drink?' The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" Matthew 25:34-40 The year is A.D. 33. It's late on a stormy Friday afternoon, and I am standing on a rugged hill by a trash heap outside Jerusalem. I huddle with a group of women just a few yards from the cross. Large drops of rain begin to pelt the dust, and I clutch at my head shawl, wiping away tears and rain. I cannot take my eyes off Jesus. His body is ramrod stiff, covered with caked dirt and blood, back arched, near death, yet hands stretched and fingers splayed. Jesus' head bobs against the crossbar and He groans, "I thirst." I step out of the group and cock my ear. Did Jesus say He was... thirsty? A soldier, half-drunk, cracks off a stock of hyssop, spears a sponge and, after soaking it in sour wine, laughs and thrusts it into His face. I am horrified. Wait. Don't give Him wine gone acidic. This is the Lord who is asking for a drink. O, God, if only I had a jug of fresh spring water! But history is written. I am helpless to do anything. ______________________________________ It is this year. It is late on a stormy afternoon. You drive by a nursing home, recalling a community notice mentioning the need for more dinnertime volunteers at the home. Jesus said that when we meet the needs of our neighbors, we have ministered personally to Him. Hurting people are our neighbors. History can be rewritten -- we can still give the Lord that drink.

Blessings, Joni and Friends www.joniandfriends.org     If you go to the website you can sign up to receive these daily devotional emails from Joni! McNair

Individuals with Disabilities and Employment Survey

Please consider taking this survey if you are an individual with a disability and meet the criteria below.
Thanks,
McNair


Individuals with Disabilities and Employment Survey

The purpose of this survey is to identify the influences and obstacles that have enabled individuals with disabilities to acquire and maintain part-time or full-time employment.
To participate, you must have a disability AND have been working part-time or full-time for at least 1 year. Your feedback is important, entirely confidential, and completely anonymous.

Employment survey