Three Views of Disability

Three Views of Disability

Rick Eastin


My name is Rick Eastin. I would like to share with you a little bit of my pilgrimage as it relates to my disability and to Christianity. From the ages of 3 to 14 I attended a school for persons with mental and physical disabilities. It was during my last year at that school that God met me in a most profound way.

Before I give an account of this event, I need to give you some information about my own disability.

I was born with Cerebral Palsy. This affects me both physically and emotionally. It wasn’t until I was a young adult that I understood the second aspect of my disability. At that time, I perceived myself to be only physically disabled. Because of this misunderstanding, I had a dislike for my fellow students who were mentally retarded. I did not want to be around “those people.” I considered myself to be better than them, and therefore, I did not want to be associated with them. From my perspective, this dislike is similar to racial prejudices.

My prejudice against developmentally disabled people began to change during a school recess when I was 14 years old. I met a young lady who was both mentally and physically disabled. She had a radio. I asked her where she got her radio. She said that she had received it for her birthday. I then asked her how old she was, thinking to myself she could be no more then 13 or 14 years old. She told me, “I am 18 years old.” I was shocked at her answer! That one event started a love in me for people with developmental disabilities, as well as a lasting friendship with my new friend. You see, as I got to know this young lady, I began to realize that she was a lot more like me than I had thought. This caused that barrier of prejudice in my life to begin to diminish.

From the ages of 14 to 17, I wanted to work with disabled people as a vocation. During that time, however, Christ was not at the center of my thinking. I began to walk with Jesus at the age of seventeen, in April of 1979. That started me on a journey of seeking to understand disability from a biblical perspective. My views about disability have taken about 18 years to fully develop. Also, when I started to walk with Jesus He not only intensified my desire to work with disabled people, but He also gave me a great concern and compassion for families and caregivers of the disabled.

I have come to understand disabilities in the context of three biblical categories: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. Many Christian leaders, agreeing with the late Francis Schaeffer, have pointed out that the Lordship of Jesus cannot simply be restricted to our personal salvation, but must include all of life. As we seek to understand what Scripture says about a given topic and then implement its truth, we start to see redemption occur in a practical way. Just as the Fall has affected all of life, so redemption is to affect all of life for the better.

Now, I would like to share with you three views of disability. These three views are The Tragedy, The Rose Colored, and The Common Good views.

The Tragedy View

The Tragedy view is conveyed by statements such as “that person will only be a vegetable,” “what a burden for the family to have a child with a birth defect,” and “that person can never be a productive member of society.” All three of these statements reveal lack of trust in God. Romans 8:20 tells us that because of the Fall, we now experience frustration. These statements are ways to deal with frustration outside of the biblical framework. People who use these statements are living outside of a scriptural view point. In much the same way, people who make these remarks do so because, for whatever reasons, they do not view disabilities as something that God intervenes in and redeems.

I do not mind when people use words such as disabled or even handicapped. In fact, I think that when we try to use trendy words such as differently abled, or challenged, we miss the point, in that we fail to communicate what disabilities actually are.

There is one term I especially dislike: birth defect. I do not like this phrase because it fails to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. While it is true that disabilities are a result of the Fall of Man, the Bible also teaches us that God is still in control of all things (including disabilities.) That means that persons with disabilities are created by God with a purpose. Psalm 139:14, 15 proclaims that all of us are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” Let us not forget God’s answer to Moses after Moses complained about his speech impediment: “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11)

The Tragedy view of disability focuses almost entirely on the negative, and keeps us from seeing God’s hand, and His purposes in the lives of disabled people and their families.

The Rose Colored View

The next view is the Rose Colored view, which is represented by those who tell us that people who are retarded should always be treated according to their chronological age rather than their developmental age. This view tells us that we should enhance the image of people with disabilities in the eyes of non-disabled people. The way we are to go about doing this is to have them do as many activities as possible that non-disabled persons do, and as much as possible with non-disabled peers.

On a practical level, those who embrace this view of disability believe that although it is nice to have people without disabilities accept people with disabilities for who they are, it is not very effective. Therefore, in order to be the most effective in helping non-disabled people to accept and embrace persons with disabilities, we must help disabled persons learn to behave in ways that appeal to those who are without disabilities. It is argued that as disabled people learn to behave in ways that appeal to those who are not disabled, non disabled people will want good things for persons with disabilities.

As I consider this philosophy in light of biblical truth, it violates Scripture on many different fronts. The Rose Colored view advocates that we become respecters of persons. This view also contradicts how God calls us to view one another. I Samuel 16:7 tells us that man looks on the outside, but God looks at the heart. Scripture tells us that the strong are to bear the burdens of the weak. This is the opposite of the Rose Colored view. God calls his followers to be incarnational just as He was. We need to be incarnational in our ministry with people who are disabled. We need to enter into their world and understand their realities to the best of our ability. As Romans 12:15 says, we should mourn with those who mourn, and rejoice with those who rejoice.

Advocates of the Rose Colored view would have us believe the concept of mental ages is not a valid idea when it comes to interacting with people that are retarded. I would be the first to admit that a person cannot be defined by their mental age. However, that does not mean that we should throw out the baby with the bath water. I believe that the concept of mental ages is a providential tool that God has given to us. It helps us to understand people with mental limitations.

The Common Good View

The Common Good view acknowledges that disabilities are a product of the Fall. Disabilities are some of the innumerable consequences of Adam and Eve’s original sin (Genesis 3). The Common Good view assumes that it is right and good to ask in faith for God’s healing. However, if healing does not come in the way expected, that by no means indicates a lack of faith. We need to understand that although sin and its fruits were not part of God’s plan for humanity, the reason they are part of the human experience is because of God’s sovereignty. The Scriptures tell us in many places that evil is under God’s control. He does not cause evil (James 1:13). Rather, he permits evil to serve His own purpose. II Cor. 12:7-10 shows us this truth.

To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

We see the same truth reflected in the following texts: Exodus 4:11, Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7, John 9:1-3, and also in Jesus’ death and resurrection. We must rest in the truth of Romans 11:33-36 which says,

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God that God should repay him?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

There are three ways in which God uses a disability. The first way is that He heals it. The second way is that He does something so significant through it that the only way to explain it is to acknowledge that it is a God thing. Two contemporary examples come to mind. One is the life of Joni Erickson Tada. Because of her injury, the body of Christ now has the opportunity to minister to persons affected by disabilities throughout our country and internationally. David Ring is my other example. He is a man with Cerebral Palsy who speaks across America, sharing his testimony about how God uses his disability. He has 200 speaking engagements per year.

In the third way, on the surface it seems as though the disability and the resulting suffering is all there is to it. In cases like these we need to remember Job. When in Job’s life it seemed as if nothing good was to come, there was a spiritual battle going on. Joni Eareckson Tada makes the point in her book, When God Weeps, that our response in this kind of suffering teaches us about the unseen realm. In fact, our response is a powerful statement to the powers and principalities that we are up against! (Ephesians 3:10)

As a child, I suffered from severe epilepsy and Cerebral Palsy. I was often hospitalized due to my seizures. When I was 13 years old I was healed. From that day on, I was delivered of my epilepsy, and I received clearance from my doctors to terminate the use of my epilepsy medications.

I have experienced God’s redemption in my life as he has used, and continues to use my disability to conform me more into the image of Jesus. It has helped me to be more compassionate and sympathetic to people who are in need. My disability has also helped me to look beyond the surface, to the deeper, underlying issues in people, and in life’s circumstances.

At times it seems that there is no bright side to having Cerebral Palsy. It is during these times that I identify with Job or the Apostle Paul, and rest in the sovereignty of God.

The Common Good view acknowledges that the Bible teaches that God is no respecter of persons. In God’s view, no person is more important than any other. This is clearly taught in Acts 10:34 and 17:25 see also James chapter 2. Because of this truth, we can rightfully conclude that people of all abilities are all part of the promise of Genesis 12:3.

Psalm 127:3 tells us that children are gifts. From this foundational truth we can rightfully conclude that all people are to play a significant role in God’s world. There are no exceptions! Disabilities often make it hard to see people as gifts. However, according to Scripture, God promises to give his grace in hard times and declares that we can do all things through Him. (Phil 4:13)

The Apostle Paul suffered from what he referred to as a “thorn in his flesh” in 2 Corinthians 2:7-10. At first he prayed that the Lord would remove this thorn. Finally, God changed his perspective. Paul realized that God was up to something. There is a bigger picture, even if from our human perspective we cannot see it. Paul realized this, and rejoiced in his weakness, that God might receive the glory.


Rick Eastin is on staff with Evangelicals for Social Action in Fresno, California. He is also a ministry associate with Central California Joni and Friends

Recommended Reading:

When God Weeps: Why Our Sufferings Matter to the Almighty
by Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes
Zondervan, 2000

A Step Further: Growing Closer to God through Hurt and Hardship
by Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes
Zondervan, 1980

All God’s Children: A Guide to Enabling the Disabled
by Joni Eareckson Tada and Gene Newman
HarperCollins, 1992

A friend's responce to Dr. McNair

I shared with my good Friend Gordon Hathaway several entries from Dr. McNair's blog, concerning ministry to adults with intellectual disabilities. In response, Gordon wrote the following superb paper. In order to help the reader understand the context of his comments, McNair's blog entries are posted preceding Gordon remarks. McNair's entries are in blue.

...ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have
omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Matthew 23:23b&24

As I read over the notes that were given to me by my friend Rick Eastin, the above verse came to mind. Within the variety of papers I read, I definitely found some common ground. I consider the common ground to be analogous to the gnats mentioned in the passage above. None of us would want gnats in our drinking water, so we can all join in on that straining project. But, what about the camel that someone is unfortunately swallowing. In the passage above the camel represents the "weightier matters."
For the purposes of this article, I will try to keep the focus on the "weightier matters," such as the underlying premise, the foundational basis, the core motive of the themes we are discussing.
These thoughts are a response to some ideas that were presented to me. It is therefore not intended to be a stand alone read. However, with enough imagination, one might draw out some valuable concepts that could serve as a food for further investigation. Rick has mentioned to me that he intends to post the original text with my responses inserted.
When writing it is difficult to convey the temperament and emotion in which the author intends to share. It’s important to me that anyone reading this treatise know that the entire thing was written calmly and peacefully. Capital letters can be interpreted as angry and resentful. I’m using caps merely for emphasis. My hope is that these thoughts will be helpful for my brothers and sisters in Christ.
************************************************************************************* stig·ma·tize - vb. to set some mark of disgrace or infamy upon:
The crime of the father stigmatized the whole family.

de·vi·ant - adj. Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society. n. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
society - 1. Mankind considered as a whole. Example: He was a danger to society.
2. A community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions,
institutions, and collective activities and interests
3. The socially dominant members of a community.
**************************************************************************************
First, it is necessary to differentiate childishness and child likeness. Jesus shows us that becoming like a child (child-likeness) is a requirement for Kingdom entrance. However, Paul reminds us that when he became a man, he put away childish things. Childish THINGS can be isolated acts or attitudes that are often self-centered and therefore need to be left behind. For adults to enter true child likeness is a transformational journey only accomplished by God.
"STIGMATIZING FACTORS"
To talk with and treat adults with developmental disabilities in adult-like ways is important. However, there are different motives for doing so. One may have a Christ-like motive of giving them the respect and dignity that they deserve. A very different motive might be to attempt to hide his or her disability and thereby pacify the prejudices of society. It is also possible to actually look up to them as valuable however they present themselves, rather than refusing them admiration until they ACT like adults. From another perspective, one might find oneself actually admiring them because they DON’T ACT like adults. After all, the masks, facades, fear of what other’s think, condescending attitudes, prejudices, and yes the strong tendencies to stigmatize others are often strangely lacking in their demeanor. Treating people in this condition with dignity should be based in our love in Jesus, not in an effort to cater to people’s self righteousness and religious pride (stigmatic outlooks).
There are no "stigmatizing factors." It is not the factors that stigmatize people.
People stigmatize people. (See definition above) (Jesus was uniquely harsh with this particular sin)
If someone is being stigmatized, it’s because somebody (society) is doing this TO them. Stigmatizing someone involves prejudice, judgementalism, condescending attitudes, excluding those who are different from us in some specific way, etc.
Individuals or groups of people can be stigmatized for childish behavior, or skin color, or height, or accent, or weight, or age, or gender, or dress, or language, or teeth with braces, or buck teeth without braces, or any one of thousands of characteristics that set us apart as different from the "norm" (deviant from society). I wonder, as the Church, can we possibly cater to all of these "stigmatizing factors"? Should we even be attempting to?
A better focus for the Church would be that we join our brothers and sisters with disabilities in sharing the love of Jesus with those who are alienating and rejecting them. Maybe then the STIGMATZERS will find God beginning to melt down the pretense, masks, and facades of their spiritual pride.

CHILD LIKENESS AND CHILDISHNESS
I intentionally surround myself with friends who have developmental disabilities. Why? I do this because they are my heroes and role models. I learn from my friends, not in spite of their disabilities, but BECAUSE of their disabilities. My heart’s desire is to be Christ-like and so I build relationships with people I find to be much more Christ-like than myself.
What’s so terrible about being childlike? Some people see having "the mind of a child" as a bad thing. Didn’t our Savior himself put a child in the midst of his disciples? He then told them that they would in no way enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless they were to BECOME like this child. This was unheard of. Children were looked down upon (stigmatized) in that culture. According to what I’ve read in the papers that were given to me, the disciples should have been concerned about the stigmatizing "factors" present in this child. To avoid others rejecting this child and our ministry, we need to give him some stilts, teach him to talk in a deep voice, and dress him in adult clothing. But most important we must try to teach him to "ACT" like an adult. In other words, we must make him become like us for his sake (so that others don’t reject him for being like a child). After all, this could harm the image of the ministry. And don’t forget, we are acting on behalf this person, so that he will be accepted by "society". It is for him only that we are doing this.
Obviously, these were not the intentions of Jesus. In essence, he said that we are to look up to that child, for in many ways he is far more Christ-like than us. The disciples were the ones who were being called to change. And that would not be changing a few factors. They must be literally transformed by God to become like a little child. This would require THEM to change and break free from their society’s stigmatic attitudes toward children.
Now, the disciples may well have been thinking, aren’t men supposed to teach boys how to be adult men? Yes, they would be correct (like age appropriateness approaches are correct). But, in attending to surface issues (gnats), they might overlook the deep treasure that Jesus set before them.
During my 33 year quest for intimacy with Christ, I have found that building friendships with those of us who are "intellectually challenged" have been the most transformational experiences I've had. That's why I've intentionally surrounded myself (both in my private life, church life, volunteer life, family life, and work life) with people in this condition.

When I compare our intellects, my friends in this condition have the disabilities.
When I compare our hearts, myself and my society have the disabilities.
Ask yourself, which one’s more important to our Savior?

So, more specifically, what is it that so different about this population in general? Would it be a lack of being afraid of what others think of them? Might we find that our friends with these disabilities are exhibiting a much "less-conditional" (Not necessarily UNconditional) love than our own? I've personally seen supervisors treat a such a person like dirt. That supervisor was still that client’s hero. Might it also be their appreciation for the simple things in life? Or is it their lack of facades (masks)?

I realize this greatly depends on functioning level, temperament, family life, etc. of the individual. But will many of our friends in this condition be shunned and made fun of the rest of their lives, and most likely not shun or make fun of others, ever? I realize that that does not make my friends sinless, angels, or perfectly pure in heart. But, neither was the small child perfect that Jesus selected. Yet that does not negate our Lord's command to us to BECOME like this little one.
We spend a lot of time teaching those of us with developmental disabilities to BECOME like "normal" adults, and to some degree that may be necessary and good. However, too often (like the disciples might have) we focus on those surface issues and miss the priceless treasures of simplicity found in a little child (or in our disabled friends).

at 10/07/2004 01:16:00 PM Links to this post
0 comments

Monday, October 04, 2004

Deconstructing disability: Role perceptions/eternal child
In 1972, Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger, wrote about what he called deviant role perceptions. These were ways in which persons with disability were sometimes perceived. The word "deviant" should be thought of in terms of differing from the norm (American Heritage dictionary). The word deviant itself can be very charged in its connotations. I thought it might be interesting to examine each of these role perceptions briefly and think about the applications for today. The following role perceptions are from Wolfensberger. 6. The deviant as an eternal child Unfortunately, much work in psychology has led to the perpetuation of this role perception. We have measures of intelligence translated into "mental age" apparently because such a measure will help professionals in programming. So we hear people say that Johnny has a mental age of 12 or the mental age of 11 months. Even people who are not professionals talk about a person as having the mind of a 6 year old. We see people as never growing up. Therefore, we place them in childish environments with decorations unfitting for their age. At times we even see adults with disability housed with children, the obvious thinking being that they are functioning at the same age level. As a reaction to this, beginning around the 1970's, professionals have developed the term "chronologically age appropriate" as a description of programs, interactions, environments, etc. for persons with disability. We want these aspects of their lives to reflect their chronological age, not their supposed mental age. There are a variety of reasons why we would want to do this. Persons with disability simply by virtue of the fact that they have a disability are often stigmatized. Disability is not seen simply as a characteristic of these individuals, it is a negative characteristic which limits typical positive interactions which might be enjoyed between people. This of course depends upon the mindset of the person without disability, however, at the very least, stigmatizing factors may at least cause one to pause. They cause one to wonder, thinking that something is not quite right. These stigmatizing factors may be overt, or discovered through further interaction. In order to facilitate normalization in interactions, we do well to not add stigmatizing factors to people who may already be devalued by societal constructions. Back in the early 80's (before I knew better) I once worked at a camp for adults with cognitive disabilities. The theme of the camp was "cowboys and Indians." We rode horses, shot guns, made bows with arrows, Indian jewelry and headdresses, and barbecued. The problem with this was that the persons with disability who attended the camp were adults, some in their 50's with cognitive disability. They had a great time at the camp, but the following week, some were walking around Pasadena California with headdresses on carrying a bow and arrow. Now they wouldn't be a danger to anyone (as hard as we tried, we weren't very good bow makers), however, what we did in holding a camp that was not age appropriate was to send them into the community with artifacts that they carried around which did little more than stigmatize them. Can you imagine walking down the street and seeing a fifty year old guy with a bow and arrow and a headdress (made out of construction paper no less) walking toward you on the street in Pasadena? I suspect your response wouldn't be to think, "I gotta get me one of those head dresses" but rather "What is wrong with that person?" By engaging in activities which were not age appropriate, particularly those which produced artifacts that the people carried around for the next 3 weeks, we hurt their potential for positive interactions with the general public by stigmatizing them. By contrast, there is a fellow who attends my church. Lets call him Chuck (not his real name). Now I have know Chuck for probably 10 years now. He is a good looking young man who dresses well. He regularly attends church with his mother, and I believe he works in some sort of sheltered setting. The point is, you would never pick this guy out of a crowd as being someone with a cognitive disability. So in every first interaction, he has the opportunity to sell himself to you (if he cares to) as the great person that he is. In discussion you would quickly learn that he has a disability, however, you would also learn that he is a great guy. Contrast that with the people I helped to stigmatize with the construction paper head dresses. Certainly your approach to them would be different. You would approach thinking these persons have cognitive disabilities. But the typically reply is, "But they enjoy the juvenile activities." Well, there may be juvenile activities that I enjoy as well, but I am careful to whom I share that interest of mine, or at the least, I have competence in other areas to overcome the deviance of my preoccupation with some juvenile activity. The poster child for the competency/deviancy hypothesis (I first heard described by Dr. Marc Gold) was Dennis Rodman, the outstanding NBA player. As long as Rodman got 17 rebounds a game, he could behave poorly and act crazy. He really was an outstanding rebounder and defender. But as he aged, his competence (rebounding) began to wane, while his "deviance" (acting crazy) remained the same. Ultimately, he was unable to play any more in the NBA. It is arguable, however, if he had been a better "citizen" he might have lasted longer as there would have been less deviance to be overcome by competence. Persons with disability, at times due to their disability and at times due to the societal construction of their disability, carry around "deviance" which must be compensated for with competence. Age inappropriateness on the part of the person with disability only adds to their perceived deviance, requiring more competence of some type to overcome it. If the captain of the football team starts carrying a Spongebob Squarepants back pack, it will be cool. However, if the person with cognitive disability who attends the same school tries to initiate the style, he will be devalued because of the lack of competence he has to counterbalance the deviance. So by way of instruction, when you interact with a person with cognitive disability, independent of the severity of their condition, the way you interact, as much as possible the content of your interactions, the environment for your interactions, etc. should be as age appropriate as is possible. Your language might be simple in style and content, however, it is not age inappropriate or demeaning, and reflects a respect for the person's age. McNair (fcbu)

THE CAMP ILLUSTRATION
I had the privilege of being the Assistant Director of a summer camp designed for persons with developmental disabilities. Our age groups ranged from 7-77. We ran a six week program for approximately 80 guests (campers). It was a blessing to be involved in this ministry for 8 years. (That adds up to approximately 4,000 campers overall, though some attended multiple years) We ran an "age INappropriate" program, and we had a blast. We had an Indian theme, complete with the Red Tribe, Blue Tribe, and Yellow Tribe. We made head dresses, fruit loop necklaces, and the like. It usually took some time, but our counselors eventually humbled themselves and began to join in the fun. Next, the counselor’s masks came down one by one. It is interesting to me, that in all those years I don’t recall seeing any of the campers going through a transformational change. But I always treasured seeing the transformed lives of so many of the counselors. This was simply due to their friendships with our campers. Many came for a summer job and left with changed hearts.
That was twenty years ago. I’m involved in "age appropriate" family retreats now. I doubt that I would run a camp like that now, but I would also not take a stand against it.

Stigma
When a person with a disability enters a room, people will tend to notice the differences about that person. Perhaps it is his facial characteristics as with people with Downs' sydrome. Perhaps it is the fact that she uses a wheelchair for mobility. Perhaps it is some scar from an operation. Perhaps it is some other type of equipment that the individual uses to communicate or move safely, or breathe. These things stigmatize a person. That is, they cause those in the environment to think in a particular manner about the person who has the characteristic. If I show up in a wheelchair, people in the enviornment have their minds flooded with every idea, every notion they may have about who a person is who uses a wheel chair, be those notions correct or not. If a person uses a wheelchair, I cannot entirely help the fact that the enviornment will stigmatize them in particular ways. But I can do things that will help to remove the stigma or I can do things that will perhaps exacerbate the stigma. Let me give you some examples.People with intellectual disabilities enjoy life as it is presented to them. Now I can present things to them via my disability ministry at church which gives the impression that disabled adults are really children. I can have them coloring pictures even though they are 50 years old. I can have them singing "Jesus loves the little children" even though they are in their 20's and 30's. I can communicate to those around the person with the disability that I believe that that person is not really an adult, she is really a child and because I am the expert in my church as the disability ministry guy, people will believe me and treat adults as children. Will the persons with disabilities enjoy coloring pictures and singing children's songs? Many will. However, I do not have them coloring pictures at church or singing children's songs because I know how this will stigmatize them towards others in the environment resulting in them being treated as children when they are not children. Instead, we will sit around tables like any other adult class at the church, sing choruses although they may be simple, which are typically sung in the church. If you walk into our class you feel like you are in a class for adults, not in a children's Sunday school class.I think too many ministries for adults with cognitive disabilities convey the message through the activities that they do with those they are attempting to serve that these adults are children which is a great disservice to those to whom we claim to be ministering. Part of this problem is our knowledge focus in the Christian church. Sunday school is too often all about imparting knowledge, so if a person is cognitively disabled, then (it is thought) they need children's knowledge, delivered in a manner children would accept or be comfortable with. I would argue that knowledge should not be the primary focus of the Sunday school (even though it is called school) but it should rather be faith development. Faith development and knowledge development are two very different things. Is there knowledge associated with faith development? Of course there is. But I can become confused and end up just providing knowledge without worrying about faith development. Programs stigmatize adults with cognitive disabilities when they are exclusively knowledge based, partly because the accumulation or understanding of knowledge may be the weakest point for the person with intellectual disabilities.However, faith development implies some knowledge, but also a lot of behavior. I can teach behaviors to persons with intellectual disabilities and it will likely result in faith development. For example, I can teach these people how to pray and then encourage them to pray daily, pray without ceasing, pray in faith. Will conversation with God via prayer increase their faith. I believe it will. I can teach them to fill their lives with uplifting media like Christian music or Christian video. Will that help them to grow in faith? I believe it will. I can also teach service and caring as a way of being like Jesus. In using these approaches, I am using the same approaches that those without disabilities should arguably use to grow their faith as well: doing something rather than just passively listening to something. As a result I am growing their faith in a manner that is not stigmatizing them by treating them as if they were children. I am also recognizing the fallacy of a overly intellectualized presentation of the faith that is too knowledge based for everyone in church, not just those with intellectual disabilities.

THE COUNTERBALANCING AND DEVIATION APPROACH

This whole idea of "counterbalancing the deviation" is problematic and is not supportive of Biblical ministry. This is a very shallow analogy which says far more about the "student body’s" attitudes than it does about the behavior of the captain of the football team or the student with pronounced disabilities. We don’t know anything about this football captain, maybe he actually values those with disabilities and treats them with the dignity that they deserve. Maybe he would wear a Sponge Bob backpack due to the friendship he has with this fellow student with a disability. I realize that’s not your point, but please hear out my point. In the example given, it seems like you have you actually stereotyped the captain of the football team? Maybe he doesn’t care to initiate the style of Spongebob backpacks. I’m quite sure our high school student with the developmental disability couldn’t care less about whether he’s starting new "style" or not. He may not even notice the cruel stares and glares of his peers that concern themselves with such shallow things. It is not the person with the disability that needs to develop some kind of competence. It is the cruel teenagers who need God’s love to change their unacceptable treatment of those who are simply not designed to retaliate or defend themselves. Apparently, according to your stated approach, the student body is alienating their peers due to behavioral abnormalities and even for something as small as what kind of backpack they choose to wear. And yet you advocate teaching the alienated one some competency, so that proud, self-centered teens will be more likely to accept him. It is hard for me to believe that you really believe that additional competence will change the cruelty that the world dishes out (especially in the typically self-centered teen culture.) Isn’t this really all about the crowd (society). Say society is rejecting me. Therefore, I need to work hard at developing some competency so that their view of me can be balanced out. You and I, as "able minded" persons might care about developing these competencies (possibly due to our fear of what others think of us if we don't conform). I doubt, however, that this teenager with a developmental disability would care about any of that. I’m trying to imagine a competency that this young man could work on that would balance out his "deviation." (And thus increase his chances of being accepted by the cruel and self-centered members of the student body). I wonder if in a million years this adolescent could achieve a competency that would effectively cause society be okay with him having a disability. I’m serious, what on earth are you thinking? Please, give me some examples. What would be good enough to raise his status to the level of backpack trend setter? There are individuals with disabilities who are virtually unable to develop any "competence." What of them? Are they left to a lifetime of personal rejection without the hope of ever balancing themselves with competence? Whether you judge someone’s value based upon their disabilities (deviancies in behavior) or based upon their abilities (competencies), it’s all the same thing. HATEFUL JUDGEMENTALISM! You are simply advocating solving one prejudice with another.
After all of this work building up competencies, the crowd has not changed, nor has that even been suggested. My guess is, that if our young disabled teen finally develops enough competencies to appease these prejudices, the crowd will move on to the next person with a disability who hasn’t heard about his need for competencies. Or, possibly the crowd would simply focus its attention on another one of a myriad of "stigmatizing factors" and then use it to justify its own judgmentallism. It is the crowd that has been wrong all along. The crowd needs to change, nondisabled persons who have done absolutely nothing to deserve such treatment. Do the crowd’s (society’s) perceptions really matter that much? Jesus didn’t seem to be concerned about that at all. He didn’t seem to be working up competencies so that society would be more acceptive of His social deviances (and he was indeed Deviant). It seems God’s approach concerns changing the hearts of people who look down on others. His approach does not include eliminating all of the differences in the human race so that no one is looked down upon.
ON SPECIAL SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASSES
How about Sunday School? If everything in a special program is just like the adult programs, then why have a specially designed program at all. Why not integrate people who have this disability (I hope we do for people with other disabilities)? If Christians are condescending, they need to be lovingly confronted and instructed. Better yet, maybe we should invite those who "act" like adults to integrate into the special Sunday School classes. Eventually their adult pride may begin to melt. Ground will be gained if they dare join their child-like brother or sister in some "age INappropriate" activity. (Coloring perhaps?) Joining in on the singing of Jesus Loves the little children Me, may cause them to revisit the simplicity of their own childhood. In so doing, they may begin to treasure the humble childlikeness of those with these particular disabilities. In other words, they may experience something transformational. THEY will be the ones changing, rather than always expecting others to change to fit their arrogant requirements.
However, it is possible that these church goers may actually move from rejection of others to an outlook just as cruel! They may now see themselves as quite noble due to this new prideful compassion they have toward whoever they used to reject and alienate. They have now achieved a sympathetic viewpoint and feel deeply sorry for these individuals. They may be overheard praying to themselves, "Thank you Lord that I am not like these."
STAGES OF TRANSFORMATION: FROM PRIDE TO HUMILIY
(Looking down on)……………….Alienation
(Feeling sorry for)…………………Sympathy
(Treating as equal………………… Empathy Person with a disability
(Looking up to, honoring………….. Dignity
I attended a church once where a man with cognitive disabilities was a part of the team that served communion. The man fulfilled those responsibilities admirably. However, there was a changeover of the elders, and a psychiatrist became one of the elders. He advocated removing the man from the serving of communion because to use his words, "He has the mind of a 10 year old." I guarantee to you that no one in the congretation would have even suspected that the man had a congnitive disability on the basis of his communion serving. However, because of an overzealous application of mental age, the man was seen as a disabled man, not a man
MINISTRY ROLES FOR THOSE WITH DISABILITIES
Let’s take this matter of the developmentally disabled usher. Now this is an illustration I DO NOT understand in the least. In this example, the person you refer to is perfectly capable of performing the duties of an usher and has proven himself for some time. Apparently, he has done a good job of hiding his disability so that no "stigmatizing factors" are evident. Now a physiatrist becomes an elder and blows this young man’s cover. Now his stigmatizing factors are exposed, and, of course, the congregation will in turn have great difficulty with his stigmatizing factors (notice it’s his problem again). Apparently, we never get the end of the story. I certainly hope the new board member was lovingly confronted about his unChristlike attitudes. If he was unwilling to change his views, I certainly hope the pastor would have the courage to remove him from the board of elders and any other service role in that church. I certainly hope that the congregation would resist the temptation to stigmatize and alienate this individual. I would hope that they would instead choose the love of Jesus. They would then encourage this individual in his God-given gifts, and release him from the burden of trying to hide his disability. If the congregation hardens it’s heart, the pastor should probably teach from the pulpit on this subject. Leaders could be trained by Para church organizations whose mission is to change people’s misconceptions toward those who have disabilities. As a professor of disability ministry, I would think that you would be spearheading these efforts to enlighten Christian’s who are sinning by stigmatizing their brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to have pronounced disabilities (or any other "deviance" for that matter.)
What if your usher were black in a mostly white church and an elder had a problem with it? What should be done? Should we ask the black man to hide his deviance. What if an elder was adamant that this usher be dismissed from the position due to his differences? Isn’t it also the congregation’s problem because it is stigmatizing him? (Or, allowing him to be stigmatized by others). Is he wrong for being different "deviant" or are the Christians who "ACT" like adults wrong for harboring their prejudice. My guess is that you may be thinking that a person with the mind of a ten year is a different case. And that a man with the mind of a ten year old cannot or should not perform the duties of an usher unless they can hide their disability. How ABOUT a ten year old, could they do the job? Better yet, how about a woman, or someone in a in a wheelchair, or a woman in a wheelchair, or even a child with CP, or a blind man, or a sister who is deaf? It’s a little more difficult to ask them to try to hide their disabilities so that they won’t have any stigmatizing factors showing. (I prefer to say, "So that others won’t stigmatize them.") Why is it "the norm" to have only adult males take the offering? I asked my sister that question, years ago. Her answer to that question was not positive. Maybe you could help me understand why this is such an exclusive ministry role. Would Jesus be so exclusive? I don’t know. Is their no room for children, women, the disabled to serve (even if their spiritual life and love for Jesus is healthier than there able-bodied counterparts)?
In the waking hours of this morning, a word picture came to me that sums up the underlying problem with this usher illustration. Allow me to borrow some of our Lord’s imagery. The disabled man is trusted with usher responsibilities at his church. He had beautiful diamonds in his eyes, but nobody noticed. A new elder came on board. He happened to have a huge log in his eye. Everyone noticed, but pretended they didn’t. He said he saw a speck in this usher’s eye and someone needed to remove it or this usher was obviously unfit for the job. The congregation found that they couldn’t see the speck. Someone ventured that it may have been our board member’s special log-filled eye that allows him to see the speck. So, they too put huge logs in their eyes. Amazingly they could now see the speck. "Now the problem is exposed," they said, "there really is that horrid speck in his eye." One of our log-eyed brothers was asked to escort the now disqualified brother back to the Special Class. On the way, he talked with the ex-usher. He kept making eye contact. In the reflection of the diamonds he saw this huge log in his own eye. He began to compare his log to the diamonds in his friend's eyes. He prayed that God would remove the log. It was removed instantly. When the healed man made eye contact with his disabled friend again, he noticed that the speck was no longer in his eye. But even more amazing was in place of the reflection of the log was a reflection of a new set of diamonds. He asked his friend, "Did God remove your speck as well as my log?" The gentle answer came, "There never was a speck in my eye. The speck was companion to your log and part of your healing. You are now seeing me through the eyes of Love, which overlooks a multitude of specks."
Please don’t tell me we need to insert logs into these guys’ eyes so that they will fit in with the congregation! Please tell me it is our new sighted friends mission to help his visually impaired (log eyed) brothers and sisters (one by one if necessary) to see their need for humble healing. In doing so, the church will not just accept our brothers and sisters in spite of their disabilities. We will instead begin to treasure and celebrate the God given differences in each and every one of us.
By this time I imagine you’re probably about ready to stop reading these notes. You may feel that my responses indicate that I don’t understand the original text. You may be thinking, "He’s assuming that I don’t know all of this already." I can assure you, I do have an understanding of the text (though possibly quite different from your understanding). Please bear with me. I’d like to go a little deeper.
LET’S GO DEEPER
Let Jesus be our example. When he was walking the earth, many people were stigmatized (or as you say, had stigmatizing factors). Women, children, Gentiles, Samaritans, the immoral, and especially the disabled were targets of stigmatization by "society."
Who did Jesus hang out with? Don’t we see him interacting with women even prostitutes with respect and dignity? When the disciples stigmatized the children and tried to keep them from the Master, what did he do and say? How about the disabled? What if a leper attended your church, how would the congregation respond? How did Jesus respond? Jesus’ ministry was focused on the disabled and the outcast, not on placating "society." He did not cater to the stigmatizing whims of society. He did not ask the prostitute to change clothes and wash up before washing His feet with her tears. After all, shouldn’t He assist her in diminishing her stigmatizing factors for her sake? After all, high society was about to be offended BY both of them. This is exactly what happened because He stuck with His approach. In fact, I think he intentionally allowed her to come "as is" in order to expose the hard hearted arrogance of those Pharisees. He seemed to vehemently challenge and even condemn the societal stigmatizing of the time. He had compassion on the outcasts that were stigmatized (They were outcasts because somebody (society) cast them out, stigmatized because somebody stigmatized them). He appeared to side with the alienated persons, and, in doing so, He exposed the hearts of the alienators.
Come to think of it, Jesus himself was an outcast (stigmatized, if you will). By nature he was deviant from the norm and was laden with stigmatizing factors (whatever that means). He didn’t seem to be at all concerned about catering to the arrogant, pride-filled, condescending society that He lived in. He chose not to fit into society, that was not His goal. He actually couldn’t fit in, even if He did want to. He was love, humility, and compassion. That’s part of the reason one must humble oneself to start a friendship with Him. I guess it’s just one of His "stigmatizing factors." I suppose we could assist Him in hiding (diminishing) this stigmatizing factor from the proud. After all, they may alienate Him and we wouldn’t want that. How would the congregation respond if Jesus attended one Sunday morning? Would we ask Him to change His clothes, trim his beard, wash up, or bandage His wounds before entering "the sanctuary"? Would we allow Him to be an usher? Maybe if His behavior and appearance, and social interactions were deviant enough, He might find himself escorted to the Special Class. I personally think He would prefer it there, especially if His children were to sing Jesus Loves Me in simplicity and sincerity.
Jesus actually does come to every church, every Sunday. As you are well aware, Jesus said that what we do to the least of His brothers, we have done unto Him. I take that to mean that those society chooses to stigmatize and alienate are "the least of these my brothers." We are actually (often unknowingly) alienating our Savior. He is not going to change to meet our requirements. But, if we will let Him, He will change us. (Often through those who are extremely deviant from the norm.)
IN CONCLUSION
This is my final question. Should a ministry seek to conform people to "society?" Or, should it instead be seeking the transformation of "society"? Answer…
And be not conformed to this world:
but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind…
RO 12:2a

SOME SPECIFICS
Please be reflective of what I have shared as you read these quotes from your own texts.
"We do them no favors if we communicate that they are different."
"When a person with a disability enters the room, people will tend to notice the differences about that person…These things stigmatize a person. That is, they CAUSE those in the environment to think in a particular manner about the person who has the characteristic."
"If you have a visible disability, society will consider the difference a form of deviance and devalue you. You will therefore need to have additional competence in some area to balance out that deviance in order to be accepted by society, or not devalued by society."
"Once their connection is made with him, he will sink or swim socially based upon his skills and the flexibility of the person with whom he is interacting."
"The man was seen as a disabled man, not a man." (now we wouldn’t want that)
"I am advocating that we be a respecter of persons." (possibly a typo)
"The point is, you would never pick this guy out of a crowd as being someone with a cognitive disability" (This is supposed to be a good thing?)
"Certainly your approach to them would be different. You would approach thinking these persons have cognitive disabilities." (like that’s a bad thing?)
"Well, there may be juvenile activities that I enjoy, but I am careful with whom I share that interest of mine, or at least, I have competence in other areas to overcome the deviance of my preoccupation with some juvenile activity." (Why?)
"Often it is not the disability itself that is the CAUSE of stigmatization. "
"…let them at least have a fighting chance to be known by a discriminating church."
"If you have a visible disability, society will consider that difference a form of deviance and devalue you. You will therefore need to have additional competence in some area to balance out that deviance in order to be accepted by society, or not devalued by society."


Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.
And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me:
and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me:
for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
LUKE 9:46-48
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me;
and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
LUKE 10:16

The Cornerstone People by Rick Eastin

The Cornerstone People
By Rick Eastin
I would like to introduce you to the Cornerstone People – more commonly called the mentally retarded, severely handicapped, autistic. For now, however, I will call them the Cornerstone People. These people are often looked down upon by those around them. This reminds me of how the cross of Jesus was looked at by people around Him. The people in the time of Jesus thought of the cross as being weak, foolish and having no significant value. This is often the view people have of the Cornerstone People. However, it’s through the weakness of the cross that God saves those who believe. So it is also with Cornerstone People: God wants to reveal Himself through these people.
Pain was another aspect of the cross, and so it is with the families of these people. For when such a child is born, or becomes handicapped in this manner of life, the family experiences great loss and pain. Parents of these children continually face the death of dreams for their child or children: there are no hopes of such a child ever going to college, having a good job or marrying. Parents continually face the task of having to parent their children in a protective manner through the child’s lifetime. Often these parents hope to outlive their children, so they will not have to be concerned about who will care for their children once they are gone. Siblings are also faced with their own set of emotions concerning their handicapped brother or sister. These include embarrassment, which can be caused by the awkward behavior of their handicapped sibling. Also, these siblings are often given too much extra responsibility, and this can cause the sibling to be resentful towards the handicapped person. The presence of a handicapped child can also cause problems for marriages: four out of five couples now raising a handicapped child will break up.
Although it would seem that there is no hope for these families, there is great hope to be found in Jesus. This is where you and I come in: as we reach out to the children of these families and love them as they are, this will help the families see what God is like, and as they do, these families may come to know Jesus. Child likeness is a quality that is common among Cornerstone People. However, because these families are hurt, they are often unable to see this in their children. On the other hand, Christian parents of these people often say that these children are their greatest teachers. When a parent is able to make such a statement, we are seeing scripture in 1Peter 2:7–"the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone" – become a living reality. For no longer is the handicap a means of destruction, but rather a means of instruction. This is what happened with the cross of Jesus from a natural viewpoint: the cross should have destroyed Jesus. However, it was through the weakness of the cross that God chose to save us.

Dr. Jeff MaNair's responce to A different take on social role valoriazation

I think it would be easiest to respond to within your email below. I will put my responses in italics so that it can be differentiated from your points.

I have studied much of Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger's work on Social Role Valorization (SRV.) I understand that SRV is a social science paradigm. As person a who has been in the field in various capacities and as a person with a disability, I cannot reconcile biblical truth with how SRV views persons with developmental disabilities. For scripture teaches that no matter who we are, we are of equal value before God. We are not only equal before Him, but he is in control of all events. Colossians 1:16 Romans 8:28 and Psalms 115:3 among other passages tell us that God is in control of all things. This means that He's in charge of where and how persons with cognitive disabilities function. On the one hand, we are to accept each other where we are at. On the other hand, we are to encourage each other to grow and change for the better. These truths apply to all persons. I understand there is a balance between God's sovereignty and our responsibility. We trust God to protect our belongings but we also lock our houses. When something like a fire occurs, we do what we to put it out and if needed call on others to help. Also, when it comes to those of us with disabilities, we should attempt to minimize our disabilities. The apostle provides beautiful balance of this in Galatians 6:2. Here we are told to help carry each other's burdens. This is balanced in the same passage (verse 5.) Here we are instructed to carry own own load.

My understanding of SRV is that it does both accept people where they are and endeavor to assist them to grow and change. There is a big difference between minimizing some one's disability and not contributing to their stigmatization by things that we choose to do in a particular way that can just as easily be done in a different way that does not contribute to their stigmatization. Often it is not the disability itself that is the cause of stigmatization it is what we do in response to the disability that causes the stigmatization.

However, when it comes to persons with cognitive disabilities the advocates of SRV think these persons should not engage in behavior that causes others to think less of them. However, we find Scripture that works THROUGH stigma and not just in spite of it. Many passages tell us this. Consider James talking about the sin of favoritism and Exodus 4:10-11 and Matthew 25:31-41. We also find in Matthew 25:14-30 that God gives us differing abilities.

It is not they that should refrain from behavior that would cause people to think less of them, it is we who should refrain. So we can teach adults to sing "When you are happy and you know it clap your hands" which contributes to their being thought of as children or we can teach them to sing "Amazing grace" which contributes to their being perceived as adults.

For Wolfensberger, deviancy is in the eye of the beholder, and he is careful to state that persons are not deviant, but the roles they occupy are. One of the tools God have given us to understand the world is general revelation. With this as a premises, I want to look at the relationship between abilities and roles. Looking at the nature of human development we find that as we grow and gain more abilities we are able to enter more and more complex roles. This is accepted for persons without contrived disabilities. But when it comes to people with contrived disabilities, we want to change the paradigm. We say that since these people cannot progress though normal developmental stages, we should teach them functional skills that are based on where they are chronologically instead of where they are developmentally. However, general revelation shows that persons develop intellectually in stages, no matter who we are. And when this is applied to persons with cognitive disabilities, they are caught in one of the early developmental stages. Although the advocates of SRV understand the dynamics of why and how persons with cognitive disabilities function, they want us to perceive these persons in ways that are not compatible with their developmental functioning.

The motive for teaching functional skills over developmental skills is to empower people who may not progress through a typical developmental sequence to do tasks thought to be beyond their developmental level. So I may not be able to stack 4 blocks but I might be able to cook a meal in a microwave. If I stuck with a developmental sequence for instruction, I would never have the opportunity to teach someone to use the microwave because they would be stacking blocks forever. It is not a denial of development it is a recognition that not all people follow a typical developmental sequence, and that they have the ability to do things outside of a strictly developmental approach.

I also understand that general revelation can be used to argue that since the tendency to devalue others comes all too easy to us, we therefore need to do everything we can to reduce it. However, the wealth of biblical evidence calls the strong to bear burdens of the weak Romans 12:3, 15:1. For the supporters of SRV, the goal is to reduce the stigmatizing factors of the disability with the end result being that these persons will be treated better by their non disabled counter parts. However, scripture shows that very often God chooses to work THROUGH a stigma. Three examples of this are Exodus 4:10-11, 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 and the death of Jesus on the cross.

God may indeed choose to work through stigma. But should I pile more things onto a person that are really unnecessary so that the stigma will increase or should I be circumspect in the things that I do to minimize the stigma? Intellectually disabled people are intellectually disabled. I cannot change that. However, I can give them institutional looking haircuts so they look intellectually disabled or I can give them good looking haircuts so they look more typical. You seem to imply that we should do things to further stigmatize people. SRV would say that we should be very circumspect in what we do because we understand the potential negative effects of what we do.

The very meaning of adult hood is that one be able to master certain skills and thereby grow out immature ways of thinking and acting, with the end result being assuming adult roles. Human development is very complex in that we have the role of one's environment and genetics playing interrelated roles in how one develops. For supporters of SRV, adulthood simply occurs because of chronological age and we should be instructing people to engage in as much adult behavior and activity as is possible. According to Wolfenensberger, a good/positive ideology is needed when working with persons with cognitive disabilities, . I wholly agree that we need to have a good ideology from which to draw upon for our relationships with people in this condition. However, there is a major difference between having a ideology that is based on truth, and one that is simply based on how we wish things were. I am afraid that SRV's ideology falls within the latter category. For supporters of SRV, the goal is to increase the typical behavior we can have persons with cognitive disabilities perform in the presence of socially valued persons. The desired response would then be that the socially valued persons will want good things for persons with cognitive disabilities.

I don't believe adulthood is just one thing. I think aspects of it do relate to chronological age and aspects of it relate to skill levels. However, how am I harming someone if I choose to treat them as normally as possible commensurate with their chronological age? I choose to give them respect, to speak them with respect, to treat them as much as possible as a typical adult. I am not denying anything about a disabled individual. I am doing all I can to respect that person.

Now I will at look cognitive disabilities in the light of God's Created order, then consider what it means to accept disabilities in a fallen world. Colossians 1:16-17 instructs us that all things are in God's control, this would include the why and how adults with contrive disabilities perceive the world. Therefore, when these persons enjoy doing things that are more in accord developmental level they are simply being the persons that God intends them to be.This also means that for those of us involved in ministry with these persons we need to helping others to understand this population within the context of their ability levels. Instead of allowing the so-called socially valued people blatantly devalue others (for whatever reason), we are to instead challenge their perceptions with the truth of God's word.

Clearly there are things that intellectually disabled people will enjoy doing that would be perceived as childish by the world. My point is that I should not contribute to that. Rather I understand how they are perceived, I understand how environments are shut off to them, I understand the effects of perceptions on their lives. I freely admit that negative perceptions are the result of sin. If people truly did love one another as Christ called us to love one another, this would be a very different world. In a sinful, fallen world, I understand how people are perceived and I therefore want to do what I can such that they are perceived in the most positive light possible. My goodness, I don't need to tell you that the Christian church itself, the agents of the Lord Jesus Christ are exclusive of people on the basis of such perceptions. If I want to break through to them, I need to once again minimize the negative contributions I make toward a persons perception and let them at least have a fighting chance to be known by a discriminating church.

While it is true that God has created us in such a way, that we do our best when there is an incentive involved, this is only one side of the coin. The other side of the same coin is that much of life difficult. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 5:45 that life is a mix good and bad. SRV places a great deal of emphasis making interactions between persons with cognitive disabilities as pleasurable as possible, on the part the person who is in a socially valued role.

Who is the beneficiary of the efforts of SRV to minimize stigma? It is the people with the disability. I work harder to be more creative in my interactions, and the end result is better perceptions of those who are typically discriminated against.

SRV's understanding of deviancy and its application to persons is a violation of creational design for these persons. The reason SRV rejects to concept of mental ages is not because it is not true, but because they do not like the results that follow from such a position. SRV's reasoning is that when we see adults behaving in ways that are in accord with their developmental age, that will cause others think less of them, and this can result in others treating them badly. Scripture presents us with two seemingly conflicting truths about disabilities. The first, views disabilities as a product of "the fall." The second, views them as part of God's creational design.

I reject the idea of mental age because it is not only untrue it is not useful. How does it help me to be told that a person has the mental age of a 6 year old? What does that tell me? Does that mean he can read? Does that mean he is friendly? Does that mean he loves God? Does that mean he can ride a bicycle? Does that mean he is able to take care of his own hygienic needs? The mental age of a 6 year old tells me nothing at all. What it does do is stigmatize and put down the person who it is used in reference to. If you want to tell me that a person likes to play with trains, tell me that and I will show you typical adults who like to play with trains. If you want to tell me that a person can't read, tell me that and I will show you college professors who are dyslexic. If you want to tell me that the person cannot take care of his own hygenic needs, tell me that and I will show you many other adults who cannot attend to their hygienic needs for whatever reason. To tell me someone has the mental age of a 6 year old is lazy and unhelpful. It does nothing more than put a person down. It is clearly not Gods creational design for me to dismiss people with a nondescript diagnosis of mental age.

We are taught in scripture that suffering and pain were brought into the world as a result of the fall and that includes disabilities of all kinds. Because we are all created in God's image, when we come into contact with different aspects of "the fall", we experience frustration. This happens for both non Christians and Christians alike because we know instinctively that things are not the way they are suppose to be. This is in accordance with Romans 8:23. We live in a society where we believe that if there is a problem, there is a corresponding solution. However we encounter persons with various disabilities, this is a reminder of our limitations and we are not okay with that.

Of course this is true, and SRV is about minimizing suffering as a result of the fall. It attempts to define the wounds that are put on people by society that are not directly the result of some one's impairment so that the wounds may be minimized. The answer is not to say to someone, that disability is the result of the fall, too bad for you. I am to come alongside of people and love and encourage them. In a John 9 way, we must work the works such that the Glory of God is seen.

Scripture also makes it clear that God creates persons with disabilities. Exodus 4:11, Psalms 139:16, John 9:1-3 and other Scripture passages tell us that evil is under Gods control. He is also the maker of the poor. You may wonder why I make reference to the poor. It's because the very nature of intellectual disabilities often precludes these persons from participating in the social/economic flow of things that allow them to rise above being poor. One of the major reasons persons with these kinds of disabilities are poor is because there is a lack of social economic potential. The fact that God's Word is so clear about how purposeful He is in creating persons with disabilities leads me to draw the following conclusions about mental ages and adults with intellectual disabilities..

It is arguable that much of the unemployment among people with disabilities has less to do with their disability than it does with society's treatment of them. Sure there are very severely disabled people, but many others have found work as a result of changing societal values such as the ADA.

First, I view intellectual disabilities as a calling in the same way God calls persons to be teachers, bankers, professors and pastors etc. In the case of former, He does this by withholding abilities so that persons are not able to function certain ways. In the latter, God grants abilities so that persons can take on the above mentioned roles. Job 2:10 asks a rhetorical question (should we not accept good as well as evil as being from the the Lord?) Paul speaks on the same subject in Philippians 4:12 about being content when we are abounding and also when we find ourselves in need. Applying these truths to persons means that God is in charge of how and where persons with contrive disabilities function. Just as we applaud people without disabilities for their talents and skills, we need to embrace persons with intellectual disabilities as being equally part God's creational design and applaud them.

The notion of intellectual disabilities being a calling from God is very interesting to me. I will have to think about this some more. However, intellectual disabilities are VERY different than mental age distinctions. (I accidentally lost this paragraph, so I patched in from memory. Editor)

The second one is in contrast to SRV which views treating adults in developmental ages as stigmatizing. I will make the case for using them as tools for gaining a better understanding of these persons and meeting their needs in best possible way. We use developmental stages for our understanding of persons in general from birth thorough adulthood. But SRV wants to get rid of this paradigm when it comes to our understanding adults with intellectual disabilities. Developmental stages are not only a fact of social science, but more impartially, that is how God has created us. Therefore , to reject mental ages as they relate to adults with intellectual disabilities is to violate God's creational design for these persons.

I don't understand why you feel developmental age or mental age is such an important concept. I see nothing in scripture to support such a notion. On whom are developmental stages normed? They are normed on those without disabilities. People with disabilities be it deafness, or blindness or intellectual disability will develop differently from the norm. Why must we use the typical person as God's only creational design? God said that he made Moses' mouth when Moses complained that he didn't speak well. Do people with speech and language disorders develop language in the same way that those who do not have such differences develop language? The answer is that they don't. People with autism may suddenly develop speech as a result of using picture cards to communicate. Is that invalid as a means of development because they follow an atypical path? I think God is much more varied in his creation then you are claiming.

Instead of trying to eliminate and trying to minimize the stigma of intellectual disability, we need to embrace the stigma. By embracing it, I mean that we need to accept mental ages as valid in working with adults. Berating them according to their mental ages we are acting in accordance with Matthew 7:12.

I think a critical point in all you are saying that I think you are misunderstanding is that SRV is about changing the environment not about changing the individual. It is about changing the things I might do to stigmatize someone, what human service people might do. The person's disability remains their disability.

We need to work on interpreting the stigmatizing behavior of others who are not disabled. Helping them to see how much of their behavior may not be considered "adult." Somehow in these non disabled people this is okay. In many cases these persons are simply enjoying being the people that God created them to be. An appropriate guideline for acceptable and non acceptable behavior is: Is the behavior a danger to self and/or others, and does the behavior in any way violate God's moral law.

Finally, although SRV considers social devaluation as a human response to what's referred to as negatively valued differences, the Word of God has a very different take on the matter. Socially DEVALUING others is wrong, because it shows a disregard for a VALUABLE part of God's creation.

As I said earlier, I totally agree that stigmatizing people, treating people differently because of appearance, not loving them because of a disbility is all sin. So what am I to do? SRV would say to understand the social realities and to work within them for the best for the person who is being stigmatized. The best answer is that people would love others in the same manner that God loves us. Short of that, we need to refrain from doing anything that contributes to the devaluing of others while we are at the same time working to make the environment more accepting of all people independent of their personal characteristics.

A Different Take on Social Role Valorization by Rick Eastin

I have studied much of Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger of work on Social Role Valorization, I can see that SRV is understood as a social science paradigm. As person who has been the field in various capacities and as a person with a disability, I cannot reconcile biblical truth with how SRV views persons. For Scripture teaches that no matter who we are, we are of equal value before God. Not only are we equal before Him, but He is in control of all events. Colossians 1:16, Romans 8:28, Psalms 115:3 and other passages tell us that God is in control of all things. This means that He's in charge of where and how persons with cognitive disabilities function. On the one hand, we are to accept to each other as we are. On the other hand, we are to encourage each other to grow and change for the better. This applies all persons. I understand that there is a balance between God's sovereignty and our responsibility. We trust God to protect our belongings, but we also lock our houses. When something like a fire occurs, we do what we can to put it out and if needed we call on others to help us. Also, when it comes to those of us with disabilities, we should minimize our disabilities as much as possible. The apostle Paul provides beautiful balance of this in Galatians 6:2. It is here that he tells us that we are to help carry each other's burdens. Then in verse 5 he directs us to carry our on own load (which appears to be a paradox.)
,
owever, when it comes to persons with cognitive disabilities, the advocates of SRV claim these persons should not engage in behavior that causes others to think less of them. However, we also find in the Scripture that God works though stigma and not just in spite of it. Many passages tell us this. Consider James talking about the sin favoritism. Exodus 4:10-11 and Matthew 25:31-41 contain other examples. We also find in Matthew 25:14-30 that God gives us differing abilities.

For Wolfensberger deviancy is in the eye of the beholder, and he is to careful to state that persons are not deviant, but the roles they occupy are. One of the tools God has given us to understand the world is general revelation (God revealing Himsef and His truth through His creation.) With this as a premise, I want to look at the relationship between abilities and roles. Looking at the nature of human development, we find that as we grow and gain more abilities, we are able to take on more and more complex roles. This is accepted for persons without contrived disabilities. But, when it comes to people with contrived disabilities we want to change the paradigm. We say that since these people cannot progress though normal developmental stages, we should teach them functional skills that are based on where they are chronologically (instead of where they are developmentally.) However, general revelation shows us that persons develop intellectually in stages, no matter who we are. When it comes to persons with cognitive disabilities, they are caught in one of the early developmental stages. Although the advocates the of SRV understand the dynamics of why and how persons with cognitive disabilities function, the way they want us to treat these individuals is not compatible with their developmental functioning.

I also understand that general revelation can be used to argue that since the tendency to devalue others comes all too easy to us, we therefore need to do everything we can to reduce our differences. However, the wealth of biblical evidence calls us to embrace and even celebrate our differences (rather than attempt toiminate them.) For instance, God points out our differences and how we are to respond to these differences when He casually mentions that "the strong" are to bear the burdens of "the weak" (Romans 12:3, 15:1.) For the supporters of SRV, the goal is to reduce the factors causing stigma. The ultimate goal is that these persons will be treated better by their non disabled counter parts. However, Scripture shows that very often God chooses to work though stigma. Three examples of this are Exodus 4:10-11, 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, and the death of Jesus on the cross.

The very meaning of adulthood is that one becomes able to master certain skills and thereby grow out of immature ways of thinking and acting. With the end result being assuming adult roles. Human development is very complex in that we have the contributors of one's environment and genetics playing interrelated roles in how one develops through out life. For supporters of srv adulthood simply occurs because of chronological age and we should be instructing developmentally disabled individuals to engage in as much adult behavior and activity as is possible. According to Wolfenensberger, a good/positive ideology is needed when working with persons with cognitive disabilities. I wholly agree that we need to have a good ideology from which to draw upon for building relationships with these persons. However, there is a major difference between having a ideology that is based on truth and one that is simply based on how we wish things were. I am afraid that srv is in the latter category. One of the goals of supporters of srv concerns an increase in the amount of typical behaviors performed by those who have cognitive disabilities in the presence of socially valued persons. By doing this persons with cognitive disabilities earn the approval of the non disabled.

Now I will at look at cognitive disabilities in the light of God's created order. Then I will consider what it means to accept disabilities in a fallen world. Colossians 1:16-17 instructs us that all things are in God's control. This would include the why and how adults with contrived disabilities perceive the world. Therefore, when these persons enjoy doing things that are more in accord with their developmental age level, they are simply being the persons that God intends for them to be. This also means that as for those of us that are involved in ministry with this population, we need to be helping others to understand their world in the context of the abilities of each individual. Instead of allowing the so called "valued" view the socially "devalued" as they have been doing, we need to challenge the perceptions of the "valued" people with the truth of God's Word.

While it is true that God has created us in such a way that we willdo our best when there is an incentive involved, this is only one side of the coin. The other side of the same coin recognizes that much of life is difficult. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 5:45 that life is a mix good and bad experiences. Srv places a great deal of emphasis on making interactions between persons with cognitive disabilities as pleasurable as possible on the part the person who is in a socially valuable role.
Srv's understanding of deviancy and its application to these persons is violation of God's creational design. The reason srv rejects the concept of mental ages is not because the concept is not true. The reason for the rejection is that they don't like the results that follow from such a position. Srv's reasoning is that when society sees adults behaving in ways that are in accord with their developmental age, it will think less of them. This will result in people in society treating them badly. Scripture presents us with two seemingly conlicting truths about disabilities. The first, views disabilities as a product of the fall. The second, views them as part of God's intenational creational design.

We are taught in Scripture that suffering and pain were brought into the world as a result of the fall and that includes disabilities of all kinds. Because we are all created in God's image, when we come into contact different aspects of our humanity, we experience frustration. This happens for both non Christians and Christians alike because we know instinctively that things are not the way they are suppose to be. This is in accordance with Romans 8:23. We live in a society where we believe that if there is a problem, there must be a corresponding solution. However, when we encounter persons with various disabilities, this is a reminder of our limitations and we are not okay with that.

Scripture also makes it clear that God creates persons with disabilities (Exodus 4:11, Psalms 139:16, John 9:1-3.) Other Scriptural passeges also tell us that evil is under God's control. He is also the maker of the poor. You may wonder why I make reference to the poor, it is because the very nature of intellectual disabilities often precludes these persons from participating in the social/economic flow of society that would allow them to rise above being poor. One of the major reasons persons with these kinds of disabilities remain dependent is their lack of social/economic potential. The fact that God's Word is so clear about how purposeful He is in creating persons with disabilities, leads me to draw the following conclusions about mental ages and adults with intellectual disabilities..

First of all, I view living with an intellectual disabilities as a calling (in the same way that God calls persons to be teachers, bankers, professors, pastors etc.) In the case of disabled intellects, God works by withholding these abilities so that these people are not able to function in certain ways. In terms of the callings listed in parenthesis, God grants abilities so that these people can take on the above mentioned roles. Job 2:10 asks a rhetorical question, "Shouldn't we accept good and evil as being from the Lord. Paul speaks on the same subject in Philippians 4:12 about being content when our blessings are abundant and also when we are in need (we see these states as being good and bad respectively.) Applying these truths to persons in this condition recognizes that God is in charge of how and where persons with contrived disabilities function. Just as we (as asociety) applaud people without disabilities for their talents and skills, we need to embrace persons with intellectual disabilities as being an equally valuable part God's creational design.

The second one is in contrast to srv, which views treating adults in developmental stages as stigmatizing. I will make the case for using these stages as tools for developing a better understanding of these persons and how we can help meet their needs in the best possible way. We use developmental stages for our understanding of persons in general, from birth through adulthood. But srv wants to eliminate this paradigm when it pertains to our understanding of adults with intellectual disabilities. Developmental stages are not only a fact of social science, but more importantly, they are intregal to how God has created us. Therefore, to reject mental ages as they relate to adults with intellectual disabilities is to violate God's creational design of people in this condtion.

Instead of trying to eliminate and trying to minimize factors supposedly leading to stigma, we need to embrace the stigmas. By embracing them, I mean we need to accept that concept of mental ages is valid in working with adults with this disability. We should be treating them according to their abilities and the imitations as measured by their "mental ages." When we do this, we are acting in accordance with Matthew 7:12.

We need to work on interpreting the stigmatizing behavior others who are not disabled. Helping them to see that much of their behavior may not be considered appropriate to their own chronological level. In many of these cases it is apparently okay to behave in an "inappropriate" manner. Often, people in these situations are simply letting themselves go and being the genuine persons that God created them to be (having a great time doing it.) Guidelines for acceptable and non acceptable behaviors should be: 1) Is the behavior a danger to self and/or others? 2) Does the behavior in any way violate God's moral law.

Finally, although srv considers social devaluation as a human response to negatively valued differences, the Bible has a very different take on the matter. It teaches us that this approach is wrong because it shows a disregard for the intense value of this part of God's creation.

Dr. McNair's Responce

In October, I emailed Dr. McMair my essay titled Three Views of Disability and he responded with the following:

The title of the section of your paper "The Rose Colored View" is the part that I think is most relevant to the social role valorization presentation that I did. I would begin by saying that I don't think the srv view is "rose colored" implying that one does not see the reality of the situation. I think that one of the things that srv does a pretty good job of doing is looking at the natural consequeces of a whole variety of actions, practices, etc., that impact the lives of persons with cognitive disabilities (since that was the major context of my comments). I don't advocate treating cognitively disabled adults in an age appropriate manner for any reason other than that they are adults. I personally don't buy the "mental age" argument because I honestly am unsure how it help in interactions with people with cognitive disabilties. I think it does little more than demean people. For example, I attended a church once where a man with cognitive disabilities was a part of the team that served communion. The man fulfilled those responsibilities admirably. However, there was a changeover of the elders, and a psychiatrist became one of the elders. He advocated removing the man from the serving of communion because to use his words, "He has the mind of a 10 year old." I guarantee to you that no one in the congretation would have even suspected that the man had a congnitive disability on the basis of his communion serving. However, because of an overzealous application of mental age, the man was seen as a disabled man, not a man. I could share other examples as well. I think it is affirming and even life supporting to treat someone with the respect that simply accompanies their age, particularly when I know the effects of stigmatization should I do otherwise.

I would also say that I am accepting a person for who he is. But I am also respecting a person for who he is. The fact that there are those around persons with cognitive disabilities who will not respect them, makes my interactions all the more important, all the more urgent. This view is actually just the opposite of what you state, I believe, when you say...

"The Rose Colored view advocates that we become respecters of persons. This view also contradicts how God calls us to view one another. I Samuel 16:7 tells us that man looks on the outside, but God looks at the heart. Scripture tells us that the strong are to bear the burdens of the weak. This is the opposite of the Rose Colored view. God calls his followers to be incarnational just as He was. We need to be incarnational in our ministry with people who are disabled. We need to enter into their world and understand their realities to the best of our ability . As Romans 12:15 says, we should mourn with those who mourn, and rejoice with those who rejoice."

I am advocating that we be a respecter of persons, because I am not looking at what is on the outside. At least I am not looking exclusively at the cognitive disability that the person has, the mental age or whatever but I am attempting to look at the heart, the soul of the person. It is because that person is created in the image of God and is loved by God that I am respecting that person. That causes me to not take that person at face value, but to look deeper into who he is. To say, that although he appears very child-like, he is not a child, and should not be treated as a child. To say that although the person with severe cognitive disabilities appears very limited, he has value and has worth and should be respected as a person, not simply as he appears. A significant portion of what I was trying to communicate through a discussion of srv was that whole notion of respecting the person by not looking at the outside, and being very circumscribed in a whole variety of aspects of life such that I communicate and fight for the value of persons, because they may not appear to some to be valuable on the outside.

So the view is not rose colored in any way. It is not saying that people are not disabled who are disabled. Rather it is fighting tooth and nail for them to be viewed as fully human, and to prevent the kinds of things that society will do covertly or overtly, consciously or unconsciously that detract from viewing a person superficially simply because he has a disability.