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.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
,
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.
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.
Social Role Valorization
I am having a lively exchange with Dr. Jeff McNair, professor of special education at Cal Baptist University Riverside, concerning Social Role Valorization (SRV). You probably do not know what srv is, so I am providing the following paper that explains it.
An Overview of Social Role Valorization Theory
Joe Osburn
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is an updated version of an article originally published in The International SRV Journal in 1998 titled, An Overview of Social Role Valorization Theory SRV/VRS (Osborn, J) The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La revue internationale de la Valorisation des roles sociaux, 3(1), 7-12). I asked the author to revise his original article to incorporate significant developments in SRV made by Wolfensberger since 1998. We are particularly pleased to offer this revised article in our first issue, as a clear overview of what this Journal is all about.
“SOCIAL ROLE VALORIZATION” (SRV) is the name given to a concept for transacting human relationships and human service, formulated in 1983 by Wolf Wolfensberger, Ph.D., as the successor to his earlier formulation of the principle of normalization (Lemay, 1995; Wolfensberger, 1972; Wolfensberger, 1983). His most recent definition of Social Role Valorization is: “The application of empirical knowledge to the shaping of the current or potential social roles of a party (i.e., person, group, or class) -- primarily by means of enhancement of the party’s competencies & image -- so that these are, as much as possible, positively valued in the eyes of the perceivers”
(Wolfensberger & Thomas, 2005).
THE BASIC PREMISE of SRV is that people are much more likely to experience the “good things in life” (Wolfensberger, Thomas, & Caruso, 1996) if they hold valued social roles than if they do not. Therefore, the major goal of SRV is to create or support socially valued roles for people in their society, because if a person holds valued social roles, that person is highly likely to receive from society those good things in life that are available to that society, and that can be conveyed by it, or at least the opportunities for obtaining these. In other words, all sorts of good things that other people are able to convey are almost automatically apt to be accorded to a person who holds societally valued roles, at least within the resources and norms of his/her society.
There exists a high degree of consensus about what the good things in life are (Wolfensberger, et al., 1996). To mention only a few major examples, they include being accorded dignity, respect, acceptance; a sense of belonging; an education, and the development and exercise of one’s capacities; a voice in the affairs of one’s community and society; opportunities to participate; a decent material standard of living; and at least a normative place to live; and opportunities for work and self-support.
SRV is especially relevant to two classes of people in society: those who are already societally devalued, and those who are at heightened risk of becoming devalued. In fact, SRV is primarily a response to the historically universal phenomenon of social devaluation, and especially societal devaluation. In any society, there are groups and classes who are at value risk or already devalued in and by their society or some of its subsystems. (For instance, in North America, it has been estimated that from one-fourth to one-third of the population exists in a devalued state because of impairment, age, poverty or other characteristics that are devalued in society.) Devalued individuals, groups, and classes are far more likely than other members of society to be treated badly, and to be subjected to a systematic -- and possibly lifelong -- pattern of such negative experiences as the following.
Being perceived and interpreted as “deviant,” due to their negatively-valued differentness. The latter could consist of physical or functional impairments, low competence, a particular ethnic identity, certain behaviors or associations, skin color, and many others.
Being rejected by community, society, and even family and services.
Being cast into negative social roles, some of which can be severely negative, such as “subhuman,” “menace,” and “burden on society.”
Being put and kept at a social or physical distance, the latter most commonly by segregation.
Having negative images (including language) attached to them.
Being the object of abuse, violence, and brutalization, and even being made dead.
THE REALITY that not all people are positively valued in their society makes SRV so important (Kendrick, 1994). It can help not only to prevent bad things from happening to socially vulnerable or devalued people, but can also increase the likelihood that they will experience the good things in life. Unfortunately, the good things in life are usually not accorded to people who are devalued in society. For them, many or most good things are beyond reach, denied, withheld, or at least harder to attain. Instead, what might be called “the bad things in life” are imposed upon them, such as the six experiences listed above. This is why having at least some valued social roles is so important. A person who fills valued social roles is likely to be treated much better than if he or she did not have these, or than other people who have the same devalued characteristics, but do not have equally valued social roles. There are several important reasons why this is so. One is that such a person is more likely to also have valued and competent allies or defenders who can mitigate the impacts of devaluation or protect the person from these. Also, when a person holds valued social roles, attributes of theirs that might otherwise be viewed negatively are much more apt to be put up with, or overlooked, or “dismissed” as relatively unimportant.
IT IS ROLE-VALORIZING to enhance the perceived value of the social roles of a person, a group, or an entire class of people, and doing so is thus called social role valorization. There are two major broad strategies for pursuing this goal for (devalued) people: (1) enhancement of people’s social image in the eyes of others, and
(2) enhancement of their competencies, in the widest sense of the term. Image and competency form a feedback loop that can be negative or positive. That is, a person who is compe-tency-impaired is highly at risk of suffering image-impairment; a person who is impaired in image is apt to be responded to by others in ways that limit or reduce or even prevent the person’s competency. But both processes work equally in the reverse direction. That is, a person whose social image is positive is apt to be provided with experiences, expectancies, and other life conditions which are likely to increase, or give scope to, his/her competencies; and a person who displays competencies is also apt to be imaged positively.
Role-valorizing actions in the image-enhancement or competency-enhancement domains can be carried out on four distinct levels and sectors of social organization.
1. The individual;
2. The individual’s primary social systems, such as the family;
The intermediate level social systems of an individual or group, such as the neighborhood, community, and services the person receives;
The larger society of the individual or group, including the entire service system.
Combining these different dimensions and levels yields a 2x4 matrix for classifying the major implications of SRV, as shown in Table 1 (adapted from Thomas, 1999).
Table 1: Social Role Valorization Action Implications
Primarily to Enhance Social Images
Primarily to Enhance Personal Competencies
Individual Person
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions for a Specific Individual That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions of That Individual by Others
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions for a Specific Person That are Likely to Enhance the Competencies of That Individual
Level
Primary Social Systems
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions in a Primary Social System That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions of a Person in & via This System
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions of a Person’s Social System That are Likely to Enhance That Person’s Competencies
Of Action
Intermediate & Secondary Social Systems
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions in Secondary Social Systems That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions in & via Those Systems -- of People in Them, & of Others like Them
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions in Secondary Social Systems That are Likely to Enhance the Competencies of People in Them
Entire Society of an Individual, Group, or Class of People
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions Throughout Society That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions of Classes
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions Throughout Society That are Likely to Enhance the Competencies of Classes of People
FOR THOSE who wish to improve the situation of devalued people, SRV constitutes a high-level and systematic framework to guide their actions. In other words, it provides a coherent overall conceptual foundation for addressing the plight of individuals, groups, or classes of devalued people. Within this overall framework, SRV points to comprehensive service principles, from which are derived major service strategies, from which, in turn, flow innumerable specific practical action measures. These principles, strategies, and action measures are relevant in both formal and informal service contexts, and are thoroughly spelled-out in the SRV literature. In fact, SRV is one of the most fully articulated broad service schemas in existence. For example, within each of the eight boxes in Table 1, innumerable more specific role-valorizing actions can be imagined, and indeed, a great many have been explicitly identified (Thomas, 1999). Even in just the few words of the short definition of SRV (stated above), there is incorporated an enormous amount of explanatory power and implied actions which can give people much food for thought in their whole approach to serving others. If implemented, SRV can lead to a genuine address of the needs of the people served, and thus to a great increase in service quality and effectiveness.
SRV IS A SOCIAL SCIENCE CONCEPT and is thus in the empirical realm. It rests on a solid foundation of well-established social science theory, research, and empiricism within fields such as sociology, psychology, and education and pedagogy, drawing upon multiple bodies of inquiry, such as role theory, learning theory, the function and power of social imagery, mind-sets and expectancies, group dynamics, the social and psychological processes involved in unconsciousness, the sociology of deviancy, and so forth. SRV weaves this body of knowledge into an overarching, systematic, and unified schema.
SRV is not a value system or ideology, nor does it prescribe or dictate value decisions. Decisions about whether to implement SRV measures for any person or group, and to what extent, are ultimately determined by people’s higher-order (and not necessarily conscious) values which transcend SRV and come from other sources, such as their personal upbringing, family influences, political and economic ideas, worldviews, and explicit religions. What people do in their relationships and services, or in response to the needs of the people they serve, or for that matter in any other endeavors, depends greatly on their values, assumptions, and beliefs, including those they hold about SRV itself. However, SRV makes a big point of how positive personal and cultural values can be powerfully brought to bear if one wishes to pursue valued social roles for people. For example, in most western cultures, the Judeo-Christian value system and liberal democratic tradition are espoused and widely assented to, even if rarely actualized in full. SRV can recruit such deeply embedded cultural values and traditions on behalf of people who might otherwise be devalued and even dehumanized. Every society has values that can be thusly recruited to craft positive roles for people (Wolfensberger, 1972, 1998).
As a social science schema, SRV is descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, SRV can describe certain realities (e.g., social devaluation), and can say what are the likely outcomes of doing or not doing certain things in regard to those realities, in what has come to be called the “if this...then that” formulation of SRV (Wolfensberger, 1995a). For example, SRV points out that if parents do things that help others to have a positive view of their child and that help the child acquire skills needed to participate positively in the community, then it is more likely that the child will be well-integrated into the community. If one does not emphasize the adult status of mentally retarded adults, and/or does not avoid things which reinforce their role stereotype as “eternal children” (such as referring to adults as children, engaging adults in children’s activities, and so on), then one is likely to perpetuate the common negative stereotype that mentally retarded adults really are overgrown children, with all the negative consequences that attend this stereotype. So, these are things that SRV can tell one. However, once people learn SRV, they themselves have to determine what they think about it, whether they believe in its power, whether they want to apply it in valorizing the roles of a person or class, and to what extent -- if at all --they even want to valorize other people’s roles. For example, while SRV brings out the high importance of valued social roles, whether one decides to actually provide positive roles to people, or even believes that a specific person, group, or class deserves valued social roles, depends on one’s personal value system, which as noted, has to come from somewhere other than SRV.
THE IDEAS BEHIND SRV first began to be generated by the work that was being conducted by Wolfensberger and his associates at the Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry, which he directs at Syracuse University. One major source of these ideas was an on-going effort on the part of Wolfensberger to continually explore, advance, and refine the principle of normalization --an effort that began almost as soon as normalization first appeared on the scene. For example, since normalization was first explicitly formulated in 1969, several books, numerous articles, chapters, and other publications (several hundred altogether) on the topic have been written and disseminated (see, for example, St-Denis & Flynn, 1999). And it was Wolfensberger, more than anyone else, whose writings successively clarified and helped to increase comprehension of the meaning and application of normalization. This process involved a concerted effort on his part to systematically incorporate into teaching and training materials the deepening understanding achieved in the course of: (a) thinking, writing, and teaching about normalization over the years; (b) its increasing incorporation into actual human service practice; and (c) numerous normalization-based service assessments, mostly using the PASS tool (Wolfensberger & Glenn, 1973, 1975, reprinted in 1978). There were also continuous attempts, again mostly on Wolfensberger’s part, to deal with frequent misconceptions and even “perversions” of the concept of normalization (see Wolfensberger, 1980), often due to the ease with which the term “normalization” itself could be (and was) misconstrued or misapplied.
This stream of concentrated development resulted in an evolution in thinking which brought about the conceptual transition from normalization to Social Role Valorization. Not surprisingly, the main substance of the concept of SRV began to evolve before the concept itself was defined, and before a new term was coined to describe it. For instance, Wolfens-berger’s last published formulation of the principle of normalization defined it as, “as much as possible, the use of culturally valued means in order to enable, establish and/or maintain valued social roles for people” (Wolfensberger & Tullman, 1982), thus foreshadowing both the new concept and the new term Social Role Valorization. This article was the first publication that articulated the insight that valued social roles for people at risk of social devaluation were -- even more than merely culturally normative conditions -- the real key to the good things of life for them. This represented such an advance that it was clearly a higher conceptualization than the earlier formulation of normalization. Thus, SRV definitely amounts to far more than a renaming or rewording of the normalization principle; rather, it constitutes a major conceptual breakthrough based on the double insight that (a) people with valued social roles will tend to be accorded desirable things, at least within the resources and norms of their society, and (b) the two major means to the creation, support, and defense of valued social roles are to enhance both a person’s image and competency.
Another big boost to the conceptualization of Social Role Valorization was the work being done by Wolfensberger, and his Training Institute associate, Susan Thomas, over a three to four year period on a human service evaluation tool called PASSING (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1983), which stands for “Program Analysis of Service Systems’ Implementation of Normalization Goals.” One could say that this first published edition of PASSING (i.e., the second edition) was ahead of its time in at least one sense: it spelled out the major action implications of the new concept of SRV in much more detail than in any other previous publication, and did so even before a term had been coined to name the new concept. PASSING thus incorporates mostly SRV concepts while still using the earlier normalization language. Happily, this anachronism is corrected in the anticipated third revised edition (Wolfensberger & Thomas, in press) which uses SRV terminology exclusively. The development of PASSING contributed much to the insight that actions to achieve the ultimate as well as intermediate goals and processes of SRV can all be classified as dealing with either image and/or competency enhancement.
In order to help communicate new concepts, new terms are often needed. The selection of the term “Social Role Valorization” was quite deliberate (see, for example, Wolfensberger, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1991a). Not only does it overcome many of the historical and other problems that had always plagued the term “normalization,” but it is based on two additional discoveries that are highly relevant to the essence of its meaning (Wolfensberger, 1985).
In modern French human service contexts, people had begun to use the word valorisation in order to signify the attachment of value to people. In Canadian French specifically, the term valorisation sociale had been used in teaching the normalization principle since ca. 1980 (Wolfensberger, 1991b).
In both French and English, the term valorization has its root in the Latin word valere, which means to value or accord worth. Relatedly, the word “valorization” has, or elicits, very strong positive connotations that clearly correspond to the concept it is meant to convey.
In combination, the above discoveries suggested that in English “Social Role Valorization,” and in French La Valorisation des Roles Sociaux (Wolfensberger, 1991b), would be eminently suitable terms for the new concept, both having positive connotations, while being unfamiliar enough not to evoke wrong ideas. The French term brings out even better than the English the fact that people hold multiple roles, and that more than one can be valorized.
Table 2: Sequence of Topics for a Leadership-Oriented Introductory Social Role Valorization (SRV) Workshop
PART 1: INTRODUCTORY ORIENTATION
a.
How the Workshop Will be Conducted
b.
Introduction to the Workshop Topic, Including a Brief Preliminary Sketch of SRV
c.
Orientation to Some Concepts Crucial to the Workshop
PART 2: SOCIAL EVALUATION, DEVALUATION & ITS IMPACT
a.
Basic Facts About Human Evaluation, & Social Devaluation Specifically
b.
The Devalued Classes in Contemporary Western Societies
c.
The Expressions of Social Devaluation: The Most Common Wounds of Devalued People
d.
The Common Effects on Devalued People of Being Systematically Wounded
e.
Conclusion to the Material on Wounds
PART 3: A MORE DETAILED INTRODUCTION TO SRV
a.
The Rationale Behind SRV
b.
Some Facts About Social Role Theory That Are Easily Understood & Crucial to SRV
c.
A More Global Overview Sketch of Social Role Valorization (SRV) c1. Some Broad Facts About SRV c2. Making Distinctions Between Empirical Versus Nonempirical Propositions c3. Concluding Clarifications
PART 4: TEN THEMES OF GREAT RELEVANCE TO UNDERSTANDING & APPLYING SRV
a.
Introduction to the Ten Themes
b.
The Dynamics of UNCONSCIOUSNESS, Particularly About Deviancy-Making, & the Unrecognized Aspects & Functions of Human Services
c.
The CONSERVATISM COROLLARY of SRV, i.e., the Importance of Employing the Most Valued Options, & Positive Compensation for Disadvantage
d.
The Importance of INTERPERSONAL IDENTIFICATION
e.
The Power of MIND-SETS & EXPECTANCIES
f.
The Realities of IMAGERY, Image Transfer, Generalization, & Enhancement
g.
The Concept of Service MODEL COHERENCY, With Its Requirements of RELEVANCE & POTENCY
h.
The Importance of PERSONAL COMPETENCY ENHANCEMENT & THE DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL
i.
The Pedagogic Power of IMITATION, Via Modeling & Interpersonal Identification
j.
The Relevance of ROLE EXPECTANCIES & ROLE CIRCULARITY to Deviancy-Making & Deviancy-Unmaking
k.
SOCIAL INTEGRATION & VALUED SOCIETAL PARTICIPATION of Devalued People in Valued Society
l.
Grouping & Association Issues That Derive From Combinations of Themes
m.
Conclusion to, & Relationship Among, All the Themes
PART 5: IMPLEMENTATION, ELABORATIONS, CLARIFICATIONS & CONCLUSION
a.
Some Further Issues of SRV Implementation or Practice
b.
The Benefits of SRV
c.
Brief Review of the Limitations of, & Constraints on, SRV
d.
A Brief Note on the Limitations of This Workshop
e.
Ways to Learn More About SRV
f.
Conclusion & Adjournment
Finally, another advantage of the switch from normalization to SRV is that because Social Role Valorization is an uncommon term, people are more likely to listen to definitions and explanations of it rather than attaching their own preconceived notions to it, as they had tended to do with the word “normalization.”
SRV IS BEING DISSEMINATED across the world. For example, in the English language, both the overarching SRV schema and its major elements have been described in an original introductory monograph (Wolfensberger, 1992), which was later revised into a 139-page edition (Wolfensberger, 1998) that now serves together with the PASSING manual (Wolfensberger & Thomas 1983; revision in press) as the main current SRV texts. Other prominent SRV-re-lated texts in English are the published proceedings of the 1994 International SRV conference held in Ottawa (Flynn & Lemay, 1999), with many chapters that reflect recent perspectives on SRV, and two books published in England (Race, 1999, 2003). There is also a massive set of (unpublished) teaching materials used in SRV training by qualified trainers (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 2005). The multitude of SRV action implications to human services and human service workers are thoroughly spelled out in SRV and PASSING training workshops, both of which are intensive teaching events, conducted in a variety of formats, of anywhere from one to seven days in length. Table 2 provides a list of topics covered in the most recent version of introductory SRV training workshops.
To date, most SRV and/or PASSING training events have been conducted in English, with several variations in terms of length (i.e., anywhere from half a day to five days duration), processes, and depth and quantity of content. There have also been a significant number of SRV/PASSING training events in French, conducted mainly by francophone trainers, again in different versions. In addition to English and French, such training has also been conducted in Spanish, Dutch, Welsh, Icelandic, Norwegian, and possibly other languages, typically with the aid of interpreters.
Both the English SRV (Wolfensberger, 1991a) and PASSING (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1983) texts have been translated into French (Wolfensberger, 1991b; Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1988), and the SRV monograph into Italian (Wolfensberger, 1991c) and Japanese (Wolfensberger, 1995b), and is in the process of being retranslated into German.
Another obvious vehicle for dissemination (in English) of general SRV related information and news is The SRV Journal. On the internet, there are several websites devoted to SRV matters, including one called Social Role Valorization at . There are also several groups in various countries that have formed around SRV; while these range from formal to informal and have slightly different purposes and processes, they tend to be composed of people well-versed in SRV development, dissemination, and/or application. Perhaps the two most prominent of these are the (North American) SRV Development, Training, and Safeguarding Council, comprised of members from both Canada and the United States of America, and the Australian SRV Group. The membership of both of these groups includes representatives of smaller more localized groups in various parts of their respective countries.
Information on the most recent SRV-related developments, and/or SRV training events, can be requested from the above-mentioned Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (800 South Wilbur Avenue, Suite 3B1 Syracuse, New York 13204, USA; 315/473-2978; fax: 315/473-2963).
References
Flynn, R.J., & Lemay, R. (Eds.) (1999). A quarter-cen-tury of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Kendrick, M. (1994). Some reasons why Social Role Valorization is important. SRV/VRS: The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La Revue Internationale de la Valorisation des Roles Sociaux, 1(1), 14-18.
Lemay, R. (1995). Social Role Valorization and the principle of Normalization as guides for social contexts and human services for people at risk of societal devaluation. In Dell Orto, A. E. & Maraneli, R. P., Encyclopedia of disability and rehabilitation. New York: McMillan, 515-521.
Race, D. (1999). Social Role Valorization & the English experience. London: Whiting & Birch Ltd.
Race, D. (2003). Leadership and change in human services: Selected readings from Wolf Wolfensberger. New York & London: Routledge.
St-Denis, C., & Flynn, R.J. (1999). A comprehensive bibliography on Normalization, Social Role Valorization, PASS, and PASSING, 1969 -1999. In Flynn, R.J., & Lemay, R. (Eds.) (1999). A quarter-century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 507547.
Thomas, S. (1999). Historical background and evolution of Normalization-related and Social Role Valorization-related training. In Flynn, R.J., & Lemay, R. (Eds.), A quarter-century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 353-374.
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of Normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Wolfensberger, W. (1980). The definition of Normalization: Update, problems, disagreements, and misunderstandings. In Flynn, R.J., & Nitsch, K.E. (Eds.), Normalization, social integration, and community services.
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press, 71-115.
Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social Role Valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of Normalization.
Mental Retardation, 21(6), 234-239.
Wolfensberger, W. (1984). A reconceptualization of Normalization as Social Role Valorization. Mental Retardation (Canada), 34(7), 22-26.
Wolfensberger, W. (1985). Social Role Valorization: A new insight, and a new term, for Normalization. Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded Journal, 9(1), 4-11.
Wolfensberger, W. (1991a). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W. (1991b). La valorisation des roles sociaux: Introduction a un concept reference pour l`organisation des services. (A. Dupont, V. Keller-Re-vaz, J. P. Nicoletti, & L. Vaney, Trans.) Geneve, Switzerland: Editions des Deux Continents.
Wolfensberger, W. (1991c). La Valorizzazione del ruolo sociale: Una breve introduzione al concetto di valorizzazione del ruolo sociale inteso come concetto prioritario per la strutturazione dei servizi alle persone (M. Costantino & A. Domina, Trans.). Geneve, Switzerland: Editions des Deux Continents.
Wolfensberger, W. (1992). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services. (2nd (rev.) ed.). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W. (1995a). An “If this, then that” formulation of decisions related to Social Role Valorization as a better way of interpreting it to people. Mental Retardation, 33(3), 163-169.
Wolfensberger, W.(1995b). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization: A high order concept for addressing the plight of societally devalued people, and for structuring human services. (Japanese trans. by Y. Tomiyasu). Tokyo, Japan: K.K. Gakuensha. (Based on a revised and enlarged version of: Wolfensberger, W. (1992). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services.
(2nd.(rev.) ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership, & Change Agentry.
Wolfensberger, W. (1996). Reply to John O’Brien’s “Nobody outruns the trickster: A brief note on the meaning of the word ‘valorization.’” SRV/VRS: The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La revue internationale de la Valorisation des roles sociaux, 2(1), 16-20.
Wolfensberger, W. (1998). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization: A high-order concept for addressing the plight of societally devalued people, and for structuring human services. (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W. (1999). Concluding reflections and a look ahead into the future for Normalization and Social Role Valorization. In R. J. Flynn & R. Lemay (Eds.),
A quarter-century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. University of Ottawa Press, 489-504.
Wolfensberger, W., & Glenn, L. (1973). Program analysis of service systems (PASS): A method for the quantitative evaluation of human services. Handbook. Field Manual. (2nd ed.) Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Wolfensberger, W., & Glenn, L. (1975, reprinted 1978).
Program Analysis of Service Systems (PASS): A method for the quantitative evaluation of human services: (3rd ed.). Handbook. Field Manual. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1983). PASSING (Program analysis of service systems’ implementation of Normalization goals): Normalization criteria and ratings manual (2nd ed.). Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1988). PASSING
(Programme d’analyse des systemes de services application des buts de la valorisation des roles sociaux): Manuel des criteres et des mesures de la valorisation des roles sociaux. (2ieme ed.). (M. Roberge, trans.; J. Pelletier, Adap.) Toronto: l’Institut G. Allan Roeher & Les Communications Opell.
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (2005). Introductory Social Role Valorization workshop training package. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (in press). PASSING: A tool for analyzing service quality according to Social Role Valorization criteria. Ratings manual. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W., Thomas, S., & Caruso, G. (1996). Some of the universal “good things of life” which the implementation of Social Role Valorization can be expected to make more accessible to devalued people.
SRV/VRS: The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La Revue Internationale de la Valorisation des Roles Sociaux, 2(2), 12-14.
Wolfensberger, W., & Tullman, S. (1982). A brief overview of the principle of Normalization. Rehabilitation Psychology, 27(3), 131-145. Opell.
JOE OSBURN is director of the Safeguards Initiative, Bardstown, KY, USA, and a member of the North American SRV Council.
The citation for this article is:
Osburn, J. (2006). An overview of Social Role Valorization theory. The SRV Journal, 1(1), 4-13.
An Overview of Social Role Valorization Theory
Joe Osburn
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is an updated version of an article originally published in The International SRV Journal in 1998 titled, An Overview of Social Role Valorization Theory SRV/VRS (Osborn, J) The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La revue internationale de la Valorisation des roles sociaux, 3(1), 7-12). I asked the author to revise his original article to incorporate significant developments in SRV made by Wolfensberger since 1998. We are particularly pleased to offer this revised article in our first issue, as a clear overview of what this Journal is all about.
“SOCIAL ROLE VALORIZATION” (SRV) is the name given to a concept for transacting human relationships and human service, formulated in 1983 by Wolf Wolfensberger, Ph.D., as the successor to his earlier formulation of the principle of normalization (Lemay, 1995; Wolfensberger, 1972; Wolfensberger, 1983). His most recent definition of Social Role Valorization is: “The application of empirical knowledge to the shaping of the current or potential social roles of a party (i.e., person, group, or class) -- primarily by means of enhancement of the party’s competencies & image -- so that these are, as much as possible, positively valued in the eyes of the perceivers”
(Wolfensberger & Thomas, 2005).
THE BASIC PREMISE of SRV is that people are much more likely to experience the “good things in life” (Wolfensberger, Thomas, & Caruso, 1996) if they hold valued social roles than if they do not. Therefore, the major goal of SRV is to create or support socially valued roles for people in their society, because if a person holds valued social roles, that person is highly likely to receive from society those good things in life that are available to that society, and that can be conveyed by it, or at least the opportunities for obtaining these. In other words, all sorts of good things that other people are able to convey are almost automatically apt to be accorded to a person who holds societally valued roles, at least within the resources and norms of his/her society.
There exists a high degree of consensus about what the good things in life are (Wolfensberger, et al., 1996). To mention only a few major examples, they include being accorded dignity, respect, acceptance; a sense of belonging; an education, and the development and exercise of one’s capacities; a voice in the affairs of one’s community and society; opportunities to participate; a decent material standard of living; and at least a normative place to live; and opportunities for work and self-support.
SRV is especially relevant to two classes of people in society: those who are already societally devalued, and those who are at heightened risk of becoming devalued. In fact, SRV is primarily a response to the historically universal phenomenon of social devaluation, and especially societal devaluation. In any society, there are groups and classes who are at value risk or already devalued in and by their society or some of its subsystems. (For instance, in North America, it has been estimated that from one-fourth to one-third of the population exists in a devalued state because of impairment, age, poverty or other characteristics that are devalued in society.) Devalued individuals, groups, and classes are far more likely than other members of society to be treated badly, and to be subjected to a systematic -- and possibly lifelong -- pattern of such negative experiences as the following.
Being perceived and interpreted as “deviant,” due to their negatively-valued differentness. The latter could consist of physical or functional impairments, low competence, a particular ethnic identity, certain behaviors or associations, skin color, and many others.
Being rejected by community, society, and even family and services.
Being cast into negative social roles, some of which can be severely negative, such as “subhuman,” “menace,” and “burden on society.”
Being put and kept at a social or physical distance, the latter most commonly by segregation.
Having negative images (including language) attached to them.
Being the object of abuse, violence, and brutalization, and even being made dead.
THE REALITY that not all people are positively valued in their society makes SRV so important (Kendrick, 1994). It can help not only to prevent bad things from happening to socially vulnerable or devalued people, but can also increase the likelihood that they will experience the good things in life. Unfortunately, the good things in life are usually not accorded to people who are devalued in society. For them, many or most good things are beyond reach, denied, withheld, or at least harder to attain. Instead, what might be called “the bad things in life” are imposed upon them, such as the six experiences listed above. This is why having at least some valued social roles is so important. A person who fills valued social roles is likely to be treated much better than if he or she did not have these, or than other people who have the same devalued characteristics, but do not have equally valued social roles. There are several important reasons why this is so. One is that such a person is more likely to also have valued and competent allies or defenders who can mitigate the impacts of devaluation or protect the person from these. Also, when a person holds valued social roles, attributes of theirs that might otherwise be viewed negatively are much more apt to be put up with, or overlooked, or “dismissed” as relatively unimportant.
IT IS ROLE-VALORIZING to enhance the perceived value of the social roles of a person, a group, or an entire class of people, and doing so is thus called social role valorization. There are two major broad strategies for pursuing this goal for (devalued) people: (1) enhancement of people’s social image in the eyes of others, and
(2) enhancement of their competencies, in the widest sense of the term. Image and competency form a feedback loop that can be negative or positive. That is, a person who is compe-tency-impaired is highly at risk of suffering image-impairment; a person who is impaired in image is apt to be responded to by others in ways that limit or reduce or even prevent the person’s competency. But both processes work equally in the reverse direction. That is, a person whose social image is positive is apt to be provided with experiences, expectancies, and other life conditions which are likely to increase, or give scope to, his/her competencies; and a person who displays competencies is also apt to be imaged positively.
Role-valorizing actions in the image-enhancement or competency-enhancement domains can be carried out on four distinct levels and sectors of social organization.
1. The individual;
2. The individual’s primary social systems, such as the family;
The intermediate level social systems of an individual or group, such as the neighborhood, community, and services the person receives;
The larger society of the individual or group, including the entire service system.
Combining these different dimensions and levels yields a 2x4 matrix for classifying the major implications of SRV, as shown in Table 1 (adapted from Thomas, 1999).
Table 1: Social Role Valorization Action Implications
Primarily to Enhance Social Images
Primarily to Enhance Personal Competencies
Individual Person
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions for a Specific Individual That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions of That Individual by Others
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions for a Specific Person That are Likely to Enhance the Competencies of That Individual
Level
Primary Social Systems
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions in a Primary Social System That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions of a Person in & via This System
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions of a Person’s Social System That are Likely to Enhance That Person’s Competencies
Of Action
Intermediate & Secondary Social Systems
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions in Secondary Social Systems That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions in & via Those Systems -- of People in Them, & of Others like Them
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions in Secondary Social Systems That are Likely to Enhance the Competencies of People in Them
Entire Society of an Individual, Group, or Class of People
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions Throughout Society That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions of Classes
Arranging Physical & Social Conditions Throughout Society That are Likely to Enhance the Competencies of Classes of People
FOR THOSE who wish to improve the situation of devalued people, SRV constitutes a high-level and systematic framework to guide their actions. In other words, it provides a coherent overall conceptual foundation for addressing the plight of individuals, groups, or classes of devalued people. Within this overall framework, SRV points to comprehensive service principles, from which are derived major service strategies, from which, in turn, flow innumerable specific practical action measures. These principles, strategies, and action measures are relevant in both formal and informal service contexts, and are thoroughly spelled-out in the SRV literature. In fact, SRV is one of the most fully articulated broad service schemas in existence. For example, within each of the eight boxes in Table 1, innumerable more specific role-valorizing actions can be imagined, and indeed, a great many have been explicitly identified (Thomas, 1999). Even in just the few words of the short definition of SRV (stated above), there is incorporated an enormous amount of explanatory power and implied actions which can give people much food for thought in their whole approach to serving others. If implemented, SRV can lead to a genuine address of the needs of the people served, and thus to a great increase in service quality and effectiveness.
SRV IS A SOCIAL SCIENCE CONCEPT and is thus in the empirical realm. It rests on a solid foundation of well-established social science theory, research, and empiricism within fields such as sociology, psychology, and education and pedagogy, drawing upon multiple bodies of inquiry, such as role theory, learning theory, the function and power of social imagery, mind-sets and expectancies, group dynamics, the social and psychological processes involved in unconsciousness, the sociology of deviancy, and so forth. SRV weaves this body of knowledge into an overarching, systematic, and unified schema.
SRV is not a value system or ideology, nor does it prescribe or dictate value decisions. Decisions about whether to implement SRV measures for any person or group, and to what extent, are ultimately determined by people’s higher-order (and not necessarily conscious) values which transcend SRV and come from other sources, such as their personal upbringing, family influences, political and economic ideas, worldviews, and explicit religions. What people do in their relationships and services, or in response to the needs of the people they serve, or for that matter in any other endeavors, depends greatly on their values, assumptions, and beliefs, including those they hold about SRV itself. However, SRV makes a big point of how positive personal and cultural values can be powerfully brought to bear if one wishes to pursue valued social roles for people. For example, in most western cultures, the Judeo-Christian value system and liberal democratic tradition are espoused and widely assented to, even if rarely actualized in full. SRV can recruit such deeply embedded cultural values and traditions on behalf of people who might otherwise be devalued and even dehumanized. Every society has values that can be thusly recruited to craft positive roles for people (Wolfensberger, 1972, 1998).
As a social science schema, SRV is descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, SRV can describe certain realities (e.g., social devaluation), and can say what are the likely outcomes of doing or not doing certain things in regard to those realities, in what has come to be called the “if this...then that” formulation of SRV (Wolfensberger, 1995a). For example, SRV points out that if parents do things that help others to have a positive view of their child and that help the child acquire skills needed to participate positively in the community, then it is more likely that the child will be well-integrated into the community. If one does not emphasize the adult status of mentally retarded adults, and/or does not avoid things which reinforce their role stereotype as “eternal children” (such as referring to adults as children, engaging adults in children’s activities, and so on), then one is likely to perpetuate the common negative stereotype that mentally retarded adults really are overgrown children, with all the negative consequences that attend this stereotype. So, these are things that SRV can tell one. However, once people learn SRV, they themselves have to determine what they think about it, whether they believe in its power, whether they want to apply it in valorizing the roles of a person or class, and to what extent -- if at all --they even want to valorize other people’s roles. For example, while SRV brings out the high importance of valued social roles, whether one decides to actually provide positive roles to people, or even believes that a specific person, group, or class deserves valued social roles, depends on one’s personal value system, which as noted, has to come from somewhere other than SRV.
THE IDEAS BEHIND SRV first began to be generated by the work that was being conducted by Wolfensberger and his associates at the Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry, which he directs at Syracuse University. One major source of these ideas was an on-going effort on the part of Wolfensberger to continually explore, advance, and refine the principle of normalization --an effort that began almost as soon as normalization first appeared on the scene. For example, since normalization was first explicitly formulated in 1969, several books, numerous articles, chapters, and other publications (several hundred altogether) on the topic have been written and disseminated (see, for example, St-Denis & Flynn, 1999). And it was Wolfensberger, more than anyone else, whose writings successively clarified and helped to increase comprehension of the meaning and application of normalization. This process involved a concerted effort on his part to systematically incorporate into teaching and training materials the deepening understanding achieved in the course of: (a) thinking, writing, and teaching about normalization over the years; (b) its increasing incorporation into actual human service practice; and (c) numerous normalization-based service assessments, mostly using the PASS tool (Wolfensberger & Glenn, 1973, 1975, reprinted in 1978). There were also continuous attempts, again mostly on Wolfensberger’s part, to deal with frequent misconceptions and even “perversions” of the concept of normalization (see Wolfensberger, 1980), often due to the ease with which the term “normalization” itself could be (and was) misconstrued or misapplied.
This stream of concentrated development resulted in an evolution in thinking which brought about the conceptual transition from normalization to Social Role Valorization. Not surprisingly, the main substance of the concept of SRV began to evolve before the concept itself was defined, and before a new term was coined to describe it. For instance, Wolfens-berger’s last published formulation of the principle of normalization defined it as, “as much as possible, the use of culturally valued means in order to enable, establish and/or maintain valued social roles for people” (Wolfensberger & Tullman, 1982), thus foreshadowing both the new concept and the new term Social Role Valorization. This article was the first publication that articulated the insight that valued social roles for people at risk of social devaluation were -- even more than merely culturally normative conditions -- the real key to the good things of life for them. This represented such an advance that it was clearly a higher conceptualization than the earlier formulation of normalization. Thus, SRV definitely amounts to far more than a renaming or rewording of the normalization principle; rather, it constitutes a major conceptual breakthrough based on the double insight that (a) people with valued social roles will tend to be accorded desirable things, at least within the resources and norms of their society, and (b) the two major means to the creation, support, and defense of valued social roles are to enhance both a person’s image and competency.
Another big boost to the conceptualization of Social Role Valorization was the work being done by Wolfensberger, and his Training Institute associate, Susan Thomas, over a three to four year period on a human service evaluation tool called PASSING (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1983), which stands for “Program Analysis of Service Systems’ Implementation of Normalization Goals.” One could say that this first published edition of PASSING (i.e., the second edition) was ahead of its time in at least one sense: it spelled out the major action implications of the new concept of SRV in much more detail than in any other previous publication, and did so even before a term had been coined to name the new concept. PASSING thus incorporates mostly SRV concepts while still using the earlier normalization language. Happily, this anachronism is corrected in the anticipated third revised edition (Wolfensberger & Thomas, in press) which uses SRV terminology exclusively. The development of PASSING contributed much to the insight that actions to achieve the ultimate as well as intermediate goals and processes of SRV can all be classified as dealing with either image and/or competency enhancement.
In order to help communicate new concepts, new terms are often needed. The selection of the term “Social Role Valorization” was quite deliberate (see, for example, Wolfensberger, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1991a). Not only does it overcome many of the historical and other problems that had always plagued the term “normalization,” but it is based on two additional discoveries that are highly relevant to the essence of its meaning (Wolfensberger, 1985).
In modern French human service contexts, people had begun to use the word valorisation in order to signify the attachment of value to people. In Canadian French specifically, the term valorisation sociale had been used in teaching the normalization principle since ca. 1980 (Wolfensberger, 1991b).
In both French and English, the term valorization has its root in the Latin word valere, which means to value or accord worth. Relatedly, the word “valorization” has, or elicits, very strong positive connotations that clearly correspond to the concept it is meant to convey.
In combination, the above discoveries suggested that in English “Social Role Valorization,” and in French La Valorisation des Roles Sociaux (Wolfensberger, 1991b), would be eminently suitable terms for the new concept, both having positive connotations, while being unfamiliar enough not to evoke wrong ideas. The French term brings out even better than the English the fact that people hold multiple roles, and that more than one can be valorized.
Table 2: Sequence of Topics for a Leadership-Oriented Introductory Social Role Valorization (SRV) Workshop
PART 1: INTRODUCTORY ORIENTATION
a.
How the Workshop Will be Conducted
b.
Introduction to the Workshop Topic, Including a Brief Preliminary Sketch of SRV
c.
Orientation to Some Concepts Crucial to the Workshop
PART 2: SOCIAL EVALUATION, DEVALUATION & ITS IMPACT
a.
Basic Facts About Human Evaluation, & Social Devaluation Specifically
b.
The Devalued Classes in Contemporary Western Societies
c.
The Expressions of Social Devaluation: The Most Common Wounds of Devalued People
d.
The Common Effects on Devalued People of Being Systematically Wounded
e.
Conclusion to the Material on Wounds
PART 3: A MORE DETAILED INTRODUCTION TO SRV
a.
The Rationale Behind SRV
b.
Some Facts About Social Role Theory That Are Easily Understood & Crucial to SRV
c.
A More Global Overview Sketch of Social Role Valorization (SRV) c1. Some Broad Facts About SRV c2. Making Distinctions Between Empirical Versus Nonempirical Propositions c3. Concluding Clarifications
PART 4: TEN THEMES OF GREAT RELEVANCE TO UNDERSTANDING & APPLYING SRV
a.
Introduction to the Ten Themes
b.
The Dynamics of UNCONSCIOUSNESS, Particularly About Deviancy-Making, & the Unrecognized Aspects & Functions of Human Services
c.
The CONSERVATISM COROLLARY of SRV, i.e., the Importance of Employing the Most Valued Options, & Positive Compensation for Disadvantage
d.
The Importance of INTERPERSONAL IDENTIFICATION
e.
The Power of MIND-SETS & EXPECTANCIES
f.
The Realities of IMAGERY, Image Transfer, Generalization, & Enhancement
g.
The Concept of Service MODEL COHERENCY, With Its Requirements of RELEVANCE & POTENCY
h.
The Importance of PERSONAL COMPETENCY ENHANCEMENT & THE DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL
i.
The Pedagogic Power of IMITATION, Via Modeling & Interpersonal Identification
j.
The Relevance of ROLE EXPECTANCIES & ROLE CIRCULARITY to Deviancy-Making & Deviancy-Unmaking
k.
SOCIAL INTEGRATION & VALUED SOCIETAL PARTICIPATION of Devalued People in Valued Society
l.
Grouping & Association Issues That Derive From Combinations of Themes
m.
Conclusion to, & Relationship Among, All the Themes
PART 5: IMPLEMENTATION, ELABORATIONS, CLARIFICATIONS & CONCLUSION
a.
Some Further Issues of SRV Implementation or Practice
b.
The Benefits of SRV
c.
Brief Review of the Limitations of, & Constraints on, SRV
d.
A Brief Note on the Limitations of This Workshop
e.
Ways to Learn More About SRV
f.
Conclusion & Adjournment
Finally, another advantage of the switch from normalization to SRV is that because Social Role Valorization is an uncommon term, people are more likely to listen to definitions and explanations of it rather than attaching their own preconceived notions to it, as they had tended to do with the word “normalization.”
SRV IS BEING DISSEMINATED across the world. For example, in the English language, both the overarching SRV schema and its major elements have been described in an original introductory monograph (Wolfensberger, 1992), which was later revised into a 139-page edition (Wolfensberger, 1998) that now serves together with the PASSING manual (Wolfensberger & Thomas 1983; revision in press) as the main current SRV texts. Other prominent SRV-re-lated texts in English are the published proceedings of the 1994 International SRV conference held in Ottawa (Flynn & Lemay, 1999), with many chapters that reflect recent perspectives on SRV, and two books published in England (Race, 1999, 2003). There is also a massive set of (unpublished) teaching materials used in SRV training by qualified trainers (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 2005). The multitude of SRV action implications to human services and human service workers are thoroughly spelled out in SRV and PASSING training workshops, both of which are intensive teaching events, conducted in a variety of formats, of anywhere from one to seven days in length. Table 2 provides a list of topics covered in the most recent version of introductory SRV training workshops.
To date, most SRV and/or PASSING training events have been conducted in English, with several variations in terms of length (i.e., anywhere from half a day to five days duration), processes, and depth and quantity of content. There have also been a significant number of SRV/PASSING training events in French, conducted mainly by francophone trainers, again in different versions. In addition to English and French, such training has also been conducted in Spanish, Dutch, Welsh, Icelandic, Norwegian, and possibly other languages, typically with the aid of interpreters.
Both the English SRV (Wolfensberger, 1991a) and PASSING (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1983) texts have been translated into French (Wolfensberger, 1991b; Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1988), and the SRV monograph into Italian (Wolfensberger, 1991c) and Japanese (Wolfensberger, 1995b), and is in the process of being retranslated into German.
Another obvious vehicle for dissemination (in English) of general SRV related information and news is The SRV Journal. On the internet, there are several websites devoted to SRV matters, including one called Social Role Valorization at . There are also several groups in various countries that have formed around SRV; while these range from formal to informal and have slightly different purposes and processes, they tend to be composed of people well-versed in SRV development, dissemination, and/or application. Perhaps the two most prominent of these are the (North American) SRV Development, Training, and Safeguarding Council, comprised of members from both Canada and the United States of America, and the Australian SRV Group. The membership of both of these groups includes representatives of smaller more localized groups in various parts of their respective countries.
Information on the most recent SRV-related developments, and/or SRV training events, can be requested from the above-mentioned Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (800 South Wilbur Avenue, Suite 3B1 Syracuse, New York 13204, USA; 315/473-2978; fax: 315/473-2963).
References
Flynn, R.J., & Lemay, R. (Eds.) (1999). A quarter-cen-tury of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Kendrick, M. (1994). Some reasons why Social Role Valorization is important. SRV/VRS: The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La Revue Internationale de la Valorisation des Roles Sociaux, 1(1), 14-18.
Lemay, R. (1995). Social Role Valorization and the principle of Normalization as guides for social contexts and human services for people at risk of societal devaluation. In Dell Orto, A. E. & Maraneli, R. P., Encyclopedia of disability and rehabilitation. New York: McMillan, 515-521.
Race, D. (1999). Social Role Valorization & the English experience. London: Whiting & Birch Ltd.
Race, D. (2003). Leadership and change in human services: Selected readings from Wolf Wolfensberger. New York & London: Routledge.
St-Denis, C., & Flynn, R.J. (1999). A comprehensive bibliography on Normalization, Social Role Valorization, PASS, and PASSING, 1969 -1999. In Flynn, R.J., & Lemay, R. (Eds.) (1999). A quarter-century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 507547.
Thomas, S. (1999). Historical background and evolution of Normalization-related and Social Role Valorization-related training. In Flynn, R.J., & Lemay, R. (Eds.), A quarter-century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 353-374.
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of Normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Wolfensberger, W. (1980). The definition of Normalization: Update, problems, disagreements, and misunderstandings. In Flynn, R.J., & Nitsch, K.E. (Eds.), Normalization, social integration, and community services.
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press, 71-115.
Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social Role Valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of Normalization.
Mental Retardation, 21(6), 234-239.
Wolfensberger, W. (1984). A reconceptualization of Normalization as Social Role Valorization. Mental Retardation (Canada), 34(7), 22-26.
Wolfensberger, W. (1985). Social Role Valorization: A new insight, and a new term, for Normalization. Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded Journal, 9(1), 4-11.
Wolfensberger, W. (1991a). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W. (1991b). La valorisation des roles sociaux: Introduction a un concept reference pour l`organisation des services. (A. Dupont, V. Keller-Re-vaz, J. P. Nicoletti, & L. Vaney, Trans.) Geneve, Switzerland: Editions des Deux Continents.
Wolfensberger, W. (1991c). La Valorizzazione del ruolo sociale: Una breve introduzione al concetto di valorizzazione del ruolo sociale inteso come concetto prioritario per la strutturazione dei servizi alle persone (M. Costantino & A. Domina, Trans.). Geneve, Switzerland: Editions des Deux Continents.
Wolfensberger, W. (1992). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services. (2nd (rev.) ed.). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W. (1995a). An “If this, then that” formulation of decisions related to Social Role Valorization as a better way of interpreting it to people. Mental Retardation, 33(3), 163-169.
Wolfensberger, W.(1995b). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization: A high order concept for addressing the plight of societally devalued people, and for structuring human services. (Japanese trans. by Y. Tomiyasu). Tokyo, Japan: K.K. Gakuensha. (Based on a revised and enlarged version of: Wolfensberger, W. (1992). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services.
(2nd.(rev.) ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership, & Change Agentry.
Wolfensberger, W. (1996). Reply to John O’Brien’s “Nobody outruns the trickster: A brief note on the meaning of the word ‘valorization.’” SRV/VRS: The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La revue internationale de la Valorisation des roles sociaux, 2(1), 16-20.
Wolfensberger, W. (1998). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization: A high-order concept for addressing the plight of societally devalued people, and for structuring human services. (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W. (1999). Concluding reflections and a look ahead into the future for Normalization and Social Role Valorization. In R. J. Flynn & R. Lemay (Eds.),
A quarter-century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. University of Ottawa Press, 489-504.
Wolfensberger, W., & Glenn, L. (1973). Program analysis of service systems (PASS): A method for the quantitative evaluation of human services. Handbook. Field Manual. (2nd ed.) Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Wolfensberger, W., & Glenn, L. (1975, reprinted 1978).
Program Analysis of Service Systems (PASS): A method for the quantitative evaluation of human services: (3rd ed.). Handbook. Field Manual. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1983). PASSING (Program analysis of service systems’ implementation of Normalization goals): Normalization criteria and ratings manual (2nd ed.). Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1988). PASSING
(Programme d’analyse des systemes de services application des buts de la valorisation des roles sociaux): Manuel des criteres et des mesures de la valorisation des roles sociaux. (2ieme ed.). (M. Roberge, trans.; J. Pelletier, Adap.) Toronto: l’Institut G. Allan Roeher & Les Communications Opell.
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (2005). Introductory Social Role Valorization workshop training package. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (in press). PASSING: A tool for analyzing service quality according to Social Role Valorization criteria. Ratings manual. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W., Thomas, S., & Caruso, G. (1996). Some of the universal “good things of life” which the implementation of Social Role Valorization can be expected to make more accessible to devalued people.
SRV/VRS: The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La Revue Internationale de la Valorisation des Roles Sociaux, 2(2), 12-14.
Wolfensberger, W., & Tullman, S. (1982). A brief overview of the principle of Normalization. Rehabilitation Psychology, 27(3), 131-145. Opell.
JOE OSBURN is director of the Safeguards Initiative, Bardstown, KY, USA, and a member of the North American SRV Council.
The citation for this article is:
Osburn, J. (2006). An overview of Social Role Valorization theory. The SRV Journal, 1(1), 4-13.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Expanding our understand of healing
Expanding Our Understanding of Healing
By Rick Eastin
As Christians, we believe that salvation is for the whole man. Part of that includes our physical healing. Since the fall affects every area of our lives, when Jesus comes into one’s heart He wants to redeem every area for His glory. However, for many, this poses a problem, because to the best of their knowledge, they are right with God. Yet when they ask in faith for healing, they are not healed. In this short article I’d like to share some insight that by God’s grace will expand our understanding of healing.
Jesus came to establish the kingdom of God. Mark 16:17- 18 describes some of the principles of the kingdom Jesus established: "And these signs will accompany those who have believed in my name: they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;…they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover."
This is the "Conquering King" side of Jesus; the facet of His wonderful nature that steps into situations and changes them. This view of Jesus is strongly supported in Scripture, but the problem is that we live in a society that wants to do away with any and all circumstances that are uncomfortable. And, just as there is this tendency in secular society, as Christians we often reflect this attitude with an addition of using, or misusing, God’s Word to justify our position.
Three statements characterize our sometimes erroneous approach to people who have an affliction which does not seem to improve: 1.) The person is afflicted because of demonic activity. While this may be true in some cases it is by no means true of every situation that does not respond to the standard approaches. 2.) The person is not healed because of secret sin or lack of faith. 3.) The person who is not healed cannot bring as much glory to God as the one who is healed. This is a simplistic statement not supported by the Scriptures or history.
These statements often add to the burden of a person who has an impairment, as well as those who care for them. Such statements often reveal our hearts and our belief that the reason God has given us the gifts of His Spirit is to make us happy. In the final analysis, these kinds of statements can cause us to develop an unloving attitude toward those who are afflicted, while we should be extending our care for them in the love of Jesus.
There is another side of Jesus besides the "Conquering King." There is also the "Suffering Servant" side of our Lord. This is where He steps into a situation and doesn’t change it. He takes hold of it and turns it around to His glory. This is what happened with Jesus himself on the cross. God did not remove the cross, but rather turned it into defeat for sin and Satan.
In the same way, when God does not take away and impairment, He turns it around for His glory. This He does in two ways: 1.) He prompts His people to reach out to afflicted ones and affirm their value to Him and His church. In so doing, we foil the strategy of the enemy whose purpose is to devalue and destroy people. 2.) He uses the affliction to accomplish higher purposes than comfort or happiness. This He did in my own life by using a physically and mentally handicapped woman to call me into His service.
We know that every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of Lights. Whether we help people by natural or supernatural means, we are establishing the Kingdom of God. Jesus used both means to reveal Himself. He is able, today, to reveal His glory through supernatural, miraculous ways, and through the afflictions that are part of the natural process of fallen life on this earth. He will be glorified one way or the other!
By Rick Eastin
As Christians, we believe that salvation is for the whole man. Part of that includes our physical healing. Since the fall affects every area of our lives, when Jesus comes into one’s heart He wants to redeem every area for His glory. However, for many, this poses a problem, because to the best of their knowledge, they are right with God. Yet when they ask in faith for healing, they are not healed. In this short article I’d like to share some insight that by God’s grace will expand our understanding of healing.
Jesus came to establish the kingdom of God. Mark 16:17- 18 describes some of the principles of the kingdom Jesus established: "And these signs will accompany those who have believed in my name: they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;…they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover."
This is the "Conquering King" side of Jesus; the facet of His wonderful nature that steps into situations and changes them. This view of Jesus is strongly supported in Scripture, but the problem is that we live in a society that wants to do away with any and all circumstances that are uncomfortable. And, just as there is this tendency in secular society, as Christians we often reflect this attitude with an addition of using, or misusing, God’s Word to justify our position.
Three statements characterize our sometimes erroneous approach to people who have an affliction which does not seem to improve: 1.) The person is afflicted because of demonic activity. While this may be true in some cases it is by no means true of every situation that does not respond to the standard approaches. 2.) The person is not healed because of secret sin or lack of faith. 3.) The person who is not healed cannot bring as much glory to God as the one who is healed. This is a simplistic statement not supported by the Scriptures or history.
These statements often add to the burden of a person who has an impairment, as well as those who care for them. Such statements often reveal our hearts and our belief that the reason God has given us the gifts of His Spirit is to make us happy. In the final analysis, these kinds of statements can cause us to develop an unloving attitude toward those who are afflicted, while we should be extending our care for them in the love of Jesus.
There is another side of Jesus besides the "Conquering King." There is also the "Suffering Servant" side of our Lord. This is where He steps into a situation and doesn’t change it. He takes hold of it and turns it around to His glory. This is what happened with Jesus himself on the cross. God did not remove the cross, but rather turned it into defeat for sin and Satan.
In the same way, when God does not take away and impairment, He turns it around for His glory. This He does in two ways: 1.) He prompts His people to reach out to afflicted ones and affirm their value to Him and His church. In so doing, we foil the strategy of the enemy whose purpose is to devalue and destroy people. 2.) He uses the affliction to accomplish higher purposes than comfort or happiness. This He did in my own life by using a physically and mentally handicapped woman to call me into His service.
We know that every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of Lights. Whether we help people by natural or supernatural means, we are establishing the Kingdom of God. Jesus used both means to reveal Himself. He is able, today, to reveal His glory through supernatural, miraculous ways, and through the afflictions that are part of the natural process of fallen life on this earth. He will be glorified one way or the other!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)