Social Misfits or Another Culture by Rick Eastin

Social Misfits or Another Culture
By Rick Eastin

This presentation/paper will look at what a culture is and how people become part of it. First, I will examine what is meant by mainstream culture. Second, I will consider why there are people who, because of a lack of natural ability, are not considered to be part of the mainstream culture. I will argue that such persons make up a culture. I will examine how this understanding fits into the multiculturalism paradigm. The third area I will consider is the impact that urbanization has on a cultural group. I will conclude by looking at the need for urban ministry workers to target such people as a cultural group and how this is a part of the ministry of reconciliation.

A culture is “a group of persons living together and pursuing the good life according to their perception of moral excellence.” Every culture has a network of institutions. It is through these vehicles that a culture explains: 1) its origin, 2) its purpose, 3) its functions and 4) its final designation. These institutions can be placed into three general categories. These are: 1) theological/philosophical, 2) political/government, and 3) social/economic. As we examine Scripture, we find that God instituted these three realms when he gave Adam and Eve their cultural mandate (Noebel, 1991). In this mandate we see God giving different commands to Adam and Eve. These came from a theological/philosophical institutional source, God himself. In these instructions, God told them to rule over and subdue the earth. These two commands deal with the political and government institution. The word “rule” relates to making choices, which is the nature of being political. “Subdue”, on the other hand, has to do with bringing something under control. This is the function of government and laws. There is another aspect to subdue, and that is to cultivate land. With this command, we see the emergence of a social-economic institution. The purpose of this one is to sustain, perpetrate, and enhance life.

Especially in developed nations, we find many institutions. Each falls under one of these broad categories. In Christianity, each institution is designed by God to serve the family and enable the family to serve God. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and increase in number. This speaks of God’s desire to generational continuity. God also put this desire for generational continuity in the hearts of mankind (Matthew 5:45 and Romans 1:14). Both of these scriptures speak of God’s general revelation which is the basis for mankind’s desire for generational continuity.

I will now examine what I call cultural identity. There are two dimensions to this concept: the first is biological and the other sociological. P ersons become a part of culture by birth and, at this point in their lives; expectations and judgments are placed upon them as far as their potential to become a person who can help promote generational continuity. An individual’s ability to help promote generational continuity takes different forms. We see this especially in western civilization as we assign varying degrees of status to various occupations. Based on one’s biological condition at whatever station in life they are, we place sociological expectations upon them. There are two different types of social membership in a culture. One is based on asset-membership: What a person has to offer to build up their culture. The other is deficit-membership, what a person and/or group take without being able to reciprocate back to society. Although, one’s biological membership is fixed, an individual’s sociological membership is not. Sociological membership is proportional, that is the greater an individuals function in society is valued by others, the more secure their social membership becomes.

Cultural identity creates two kinds of members of society: one is mainstream-asset membership and the other is a marginal-deficit membership. Now I will look at mainstream society in the context of American society. Members of mainstream culture have two functions. One is to directly promote generational continuity and the second is to promote and enhance each of the three social institutions we have examined. Both mainstream and marginal members are on a continuum in our society and because the dominant ideology of America is becoming progressively more secular, this creates greater polarization between these two groups. The reason this occurs is because the focus of secularism is materialistic. Therefore, as a society we see persons who are marginal as taking resources that could be better spent on contributing mainstream members.

There are two major types of differences this kind of class system creates. One is non-structural: race, gender, language, etc. The other is structural. By this I mean persons who lack the ability mentally, emotionally and physically to become a mainstream member. Thus there are two kinds of marginality: persons who experience the first kind of marginality-non structural- are generally able to be empowered either through individual achievement, merit and/or political power. In doing so, they are able to become part of the mainstream culture to varying degrees. Persons who experience the second kind of marginallity have great difficulty or are unable to enter mainstream society due to the nature of their conditions. The major reason persons who experience the second kind of marginality pose such perplexing issues to mainstream members is that persons in these conditions threaten the mainstream member's own sense of control. I will comment further on this when I look at urbanization.

The rest of this essay will be discussing the state of persons who experience the second kind of marginality. Primarily, the focus will be on persons who are developmentally disabled/mentally retarded. However, the principles outlined in this paper could be applied to other persons who are structurally marginal but share diverse etiologies and diagnoses.

From a Biblical perspective, we know that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God death was the result. This was the case in both the present as well as a future tense. The effects of the fall are comprehensive. (Genesis 2:27, 3:15, 19, and Romans 8:22-23) Although these passages do not speak in specifics about disabilities, they speak about the general nature of "the fall." Thus, disabilities are one result of the fall. 1 John 3:8 tells us that Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, and part of this included His healing of persons who were disabled. (Carson, 1990)

So, we can see that structural margins are considered by God to be abnormal. However, we also find in Scripture that God places great and equal value on all persons. (Psalms 139: 14-15, Acts 17:26) Both Matthew 25:31-41 and Luke 14: 12-14 highlight the importance of the Church’s ministry to persons who are handicapped. That is, to the degree that they are structurally marginalized.

Since, according to Acts 10:34, God is no respecter of persons, we have to conclude that all people are considered to be part of culture. The primary reason we have different cultures, is because of different languages. Language communication enables us to communicate so that one is able to participate in culture. From a developmental view, language emerges in a sequential manner. One’s ability to use language is directly tied to an individual understanding. We observe this with children. Persons who are marginal structurally share a common characteristic: Their level of ability in using language, both receptively and expressively. Although these persons share diverse and varied diagnosis, the common denominator they share that prevents them from being able to be assimilated into mainstream society is their inability to use language in the manner described above.

When we look at children who are not disabled, they are part of culture and their ability to participate in culture changes as they grow and develop. We target ministry to different language groups when designing ministry to children. We do so with their understanding level at the forefront of our plans. We can draw the conclusion based on this understanding that not only the kind of language makes a culture, but also the degree of how one understands and uses this language either gives them a place in the general culture or places them in a sub-culture. In order to help children develop into healthy adults across all areas of life, we have to enter their world. For example, we do not talk to pre-school children as we would to high school students. We know that to do so would be counter-productive. Childhood is a sub-culture because children, according to their development, share a common view of the world. But, as their ability to use language both receptively and expressively increases, they are able to assume more complex roles. Thus growing out of the sub-culture of childhood is not an event but a process. To the degree that children have to look to adults to meet their needs they are a part of the sub-culture of childhood.

Paul, the apostle, acknowledged the importance of persons who are part of a sub-culture. In 1 Corinthians 12:21-26 he stresses the importance of people whose appearance is not impressive. He said that they are needed very much by the dominant members mainstream to build up the church. The Corinthian church was very impressed with power so they placed different levels of status to different gifts. (Horton, 1992) But Paul’s point was that this kind of stratification is not in keeping with God’s character. Jesus also encounters this with the disciples when they did not want the people to bring their children to him. In Matthew 12:10 Jesus tells us not to look down on one of these little ones. Here again Jesus is talking about children.

Now, I want to consider the relationship between these passages and Colossians 1:16. This passage very plainly tells us that all things are made by and held together by God. This includes the intellectual understanding of childhood as well as the most insignificant form of ministry. This is why both Jesus and Paul responded with correction. We also see from these scriptures that the mainstream/dominant and sub-cultural /marginal members need each other. Just as God respects different amounts of intellectual development in children who are not handicapped, so He respects the different levels of ability in persons who do have disabilities. I draw this conclusion based on Colossians 1:16. The major way in which persons who are disabled in this way are not like children without disabilities is that children who are not handicapped are able to leave their sub-culture, whereas persons who are handicapped are not. Therefore, since such persons are not able to leave their sub-culture, their present level of language and understanding becomes their culture. We say this for two reasons: 1) Colossians 1:16 All things are under God’s control; and 2) Acts 10:34 God places equal value on all persons.

Although I am not an advocate of the radical multiculturalism paradigm. It is useful for our purpose here. According to supporters of multiculturalism, we should not impose our values on other cultures. They advocate thay we view all cultures as being valid in their own right. Therefore, all cultures have something of value that they offer to each other. This is what we saw in the 1 Corinthians 12:12-26 passage. I agree with that. I would not agree with those of the multicultural school of thought who argue that there is no mainstream culture. The reason I state this is scripture supports the concept of a mainstream culture. Paul uses this imagery in the passage I just stated to describe the relationship between persons who are part of the mainstream and persons who have a marginal structure.

At a time when the supporters of multiculturalism are advocating for members of cultures to maintain their own identity, the human services community that works with persons who are developmentally disabled/mentally retarded are seeking and engineering ways for these persons not to have any kind of group identity. I will show how urbanization has contributed to this human service ideology and how it often leads to the oppression of persons who are structurally marginalized as developmentally/mentally retarded. I will argue that like advocates of multiculturalism, other cultures should be able to maintain their own identity. And that we as urban ministry workers need to speak up for the rights of persons who are structurally marginalized to be able to do the same. Finally, I will show how this approach is compatible with the incarnate model of the ministry of Jesus.

Now I will explore this impact that urbanization has on this culture, technologically and sociologically. Urbanization creates a dualism, that is, there are more people which mean more resources, but at the same time more people competing for those resources. Technology has enabled persons who are physically disabled to become more mobile and in so doing enter the mainstream. This is very important because this application of knowledge is able to significantly change a person’s social status from being considered a marginal member to being a mainstream member. The reason this change occurs is that technology enables one to become more mobile not only on a personal level, but also on a social level. Generally, when people are perceived by others as being mobile, this creates a sense of mutuality and this perception fosters assimilation. Whereas people with physical disabilities are able to compensate for their defects, individuals who are structurally marginalized cannot do so to as great an extent.

The human services communities that work with persons who are structurally marginalized understand the primary problem for this population is how they are perceived by others. Because such persons are seen by others as being limited in their mobility, this perception often leads to their social rejection by persons who are not disabled. It is within the context of this understanding that human services professionals attempt to use technology to help such persons compete for their share of resources in a word that is becoming more urban. The branch of technology which the professionals are embracing to help their target group is applied behavior analysis which is a sub-group of behaviorism. (Van Leeuwen, 1985)

According to these professionals, this technology can and should be used to help these individuals learn behavior that the non-disabled populace considers to be socially valuable. Then persons who are structurally marginal will be able to interact with their non-disabled peers because their peers then will view them as having something positive to offer. So we can see that the overall goal of professionals is to help persons who are structurally marginal to be perceived by their non-disabled counter parts as being socially mobile through the application of this technology. This will create a sense of mutuality and help change their social status in the eyes of others. As urbanization provides more technology, this gives us more tools to help persons who are structurally marginal. Therefore, because our sense of control is increased, we are more willing to invest our resources in helping these individuals.

Although technology equips the professionals with the “what” and “how” to use this knowledge it does not and cannot address the “why” questions. By this I mean what makes it right for us as mainstream society to ask these persons to conform to the social norms and expectations of people without disabilities. In order to answer that question I will outline the ideology of the professionals and then contrast it with the incarnate model of the ministry of Jesus Christ.

According to the human services community, it is not effective on a macro level to ask or to expect the non-disabled population to accept these people as they are. Instead, if we are truly concerned about their well being, it is the person who is handicapped who has to change. (Peck, 1991) This understanding is based on the concept of social role deviancy. According to the human services community although, in themselves, persons who are structurally marginal are not deviant but the social roles they occupy are. (Wolfensberger, 1980)

The implementation process of this ideology is four fold: 1) research and demonstration projects at the university level, 2) formation of social policy through political action based on this research. 3) As new laws emerge they affect change in social agency delivery services and 4) directly impact persons served at the agency level.

As both Neuhaus (1984) and Colson (1987) have pointed out, we are living in the midst of the naked public square, meaning there are no transcendent values so we are left with human experience as the source for determining what is right and wrong. The way we sanction right and wrong in the naked public square is through political power. Primarily this is done in the name of human rights and social justice. The reason for the ideology of the human service community is to empower persons with disabilities so they will be treated in a just fashion, and as they are their human rights are being protected.

I want to address two aspects of this ideology that are problematic for people who are structurally marginal-disabled. The first has to do with the basis for the authority of this ideology and, secondly, the felt needs of persons who are disabled.

According to Dr. Charles A. Peck of Washington State University, who is an advocate of this ideology says about its value base: “…that values are not given (or received) a priority, but are informed by a wealth of cultural and personal knowledge and experience”. (Peck p.7, 1991) Dr. Wolfensberger, a professor of special education and rehabilitation at Syracuse University in New York says about his principle of normalization (which means to treat people with disabilities as normal as possible): …it may not necessarily mean that a normalization implication is moral or immoral. There may be some things that may be culturally normal and valued that may not be considered moral by a lot of people”. (Wolfensberger, p16 1980) From these two representative statements the inference can be made that the authority of this ideology is based on situational ethics. The problem with situational ethics is there can be no real justice because right and wrong are determined first on the basis of personal experience; second, sociological consensus and then legitimatized through political action. This places persons who are structurally marginal under the control of the politically powerful which often leads to their oppression.

Ethnographic research done with persons who are mentally retarded has shown that very often the desires of these persons and those of the human service systems that serve them are very different. (Turner, 1984) The response of these persons shows that their perceived needs are being served by the professional community but not their felt needs. The primary reason why this happens is because persons who are mentally retarded are unable to understand the why and what of what is being asked of them. Therefore, this ideology is of no significant value to them.

In contrast to the approach of the professionals is the model of the incarnate. With this approach we see Jesus coming to us where we are. Instead of asking us to come up to his level he comes down to ours. Then once we come to know him as Lord and Savior, he holds us accountable based on where we are. Throughout scripture we see that there is a direct correlation between our ability to understand and our moral accountability before God. (See Isaiah 1:18, Romans 7:7-9 and James 4:17) We can make the inference from these scriptures that moral accountability is on a continuum depending on one’s intellectual development.

Since we are to model the image of God in the world, we must seek to enter the world of persons who are structurally marginal. As we seek to understand their perceptions to the best of our ability it is then on this basis that we can make demands on them that are in accordance with their cogitation. Whereas the secular approach asks these persons to change, they do so without respecting their ability to comprehend the nature of what is being asked of them. Through the model of Jesus we are able to address both the perceived needs as well as the felt needs of these people and as we do we are acting in accordance with Matthew 7:12 and 2 Corinthians 8:9.

When we talk about targeting a people and/or cultural group with the gospel, we do so with the goal of seeing evangelism and discipleship take place among the persons who are the aim of our efforts. One perplexing issue when it comes to persons who are not able to understand in a normal manner is the status of their moral accountability before God. There are two different answers to this question. There are those who are involved in ministry with persons who are intellectually impaired that argue that most people who are mentally retarded are capable of understanding the plan of salvation. Therefore, they are accountable before God just as anyone else. Those on the other side say that most of these people are not accountable. Therefore, they are assured a place in heaven automatically.

Based on my experience of ministry with individuals who are intellectually impaired, I have found that although these persons may be able to understand the plan of salvation, they are not able to internalize the implications and demands of salvation. By this I mean their understanding is at a root level versus an authentic intellectual apprehension. However, I always present the gospel to them because I never wan to undermine the power of the Holy Spirit to bring about the conviction of sin through the Word of God.

I want to address two different concerns I have with both of these positions and provide an alternative understanding of moral accountability that I consider to be more compatible with the whole of scripture.

The concern I have with th4e first position is those who hole to this one are of the believe that the only way to validate the legitimacy of a ministry is in terms of the number of persons who are converted and follow conversions desired outcome which is discipleship. My concern with the second position is that this causes people to believe that we, as the church, do not have to reach out to these individuals. By embracing this position what we end up saying, without meaning to, is that Christianity has no relevance for these people in the “here and now”.

The common problem with both of these positions is that they fail to understand the all-encompassing nature of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The first position ends up putting God in the box of empiricism. However, Jesus tells us in Luke 14:12-14 to reach out to people who cannot reciprocate in a socially tangible-empirical way. And because of the perfect nature of our Lord, we can conclude that he was not making a generic statement about all persons with disabilities, but rather he was commanding us to reach out to a specific segment of the disabled population. The second fails to acknowledge the implications of Christ’s Lordship for these persons in the “here and now”. But as Frances Schaeffer has said, “the Lordship of Jesus Christ covers all of life”. (Schaeffer, 1987) “There is no legitimate field of study or work which will fail to be illuminated by the Word of God”. (Gill 1989, p27)

In Matthew 18:10, Jesus says small children have angels that watch over them. In scripture we find that angels only minister to the righteous. Therefore, we can conclude that young children and those who lack the natural ability to understand are counted among the righteous. This is a general guideline (there are exceptions of course). Since these people are counted among the righteous, the way we minister to them is by edifying them. Since the Lordship of Christ covers all of life, this does not limit the ministry of edification to only the spiritual life but includes all aspects of life.

Based upon scripture, it is very clear that thee persons are not social misfits but rather they constitute a culture that needs to be targeted by the church. To target a culture means that we seek them out instead of waiting for them to come to the church. As urban ministry workers then it is imperative a firm theological foundation be established in our hearts and minds for ministry to this culture. The reason why this is so important is as people made in God’s image, we are to derive a sense of satisfaction from our ministry endeavors. This is in accordance with Genesis 1:31.

When we minister with these persons this psychological need of ours must be addressed because we are living in a society that equates success with our ability to problem solve and its outcome must be manifested in very tangible ways. This mindset has become socially institutionalized in both the Christian and secular world through what I call cost effective thinking. By this I mean we only will invest our resources in areas of need where the probability of a good return on our investment is highly likely. (Barna, 1990 and Wagner, 1973) Because our ministry efforts with these persons often do not produce these kinds of outcomes this can affect our sense of satisfaction in a negative way. However, when we consider what scripture says about why Christ came to die for us, Romans 5:8 tells us “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us”. This verse helps us to see very clearly that God gave to us through Jesus when we could not give back to him. Since we are to reflect the image of God in this world one of the best ways to do this is by giving to those who cannot reciprocate in a socially tangible way.

Once we accept this truth we need to ask God to engrave into our hearts and internalize in our minds the highly significant value he places on the most humble form of ministry. (Matthew 10:42 and Romans 12:2) To the degree we realize the value he places on the humblest form of service, we will come to understand what we are achieving with this culture is very important to him. Then we will experience satisfaction is our ministry endeavors with this group. As this transformation occurs in our hearts and minds we also come to understand that not only do the members of this culture have needs, they also have very important gifts that God wants to give us through them. Then it becomes not ministry to, but ministry with these persons. Speaking in this context, Fred Reed, a Foursquare pastor and chaplain at the Lanterman State Developmental Center for persons with developmental disabilities in Southern California, says about the persons to whom he ministers who have profound intellectual disabilities: “I don’t know why the profoundly disabled person is necessary to the world…but I know why they are necessary to the church. Being a part of the Body of Christ, they have something to offer. And what they have to offer is a tremendous uninhibited ability to give love”. (Pedersen, 1983)

In the earthly ministry of Jesus he focused on the Kingdom of God which is the rule of God. (Colson, 1987) Wherever God’s rule is established there is peace, righteousness and joy. (Romans 14:17) The result of the kingdom being established is reconciliation. In a sociological context, reconciliation means to bring people together who have significant differences that would normally keep them apart from each other in such a way that they can truly see the value of being together. And because they understand the value of being together, a mutual relationship is established between them.

So we can see that, from a Biblical basis, reconciliation means right relationship between God and man, and man to his fellow man. We also saw earlier that persons who are not disabled have a hard time relating to people who are structurally marginal because they cannot see the value of doing so. Therefore, we can see the need as urban ministry workers to help non-disabled people to view this culture from a Biblical viewpoint. This orientation needs to happen at four different levels: first, this needs to take place within the church of Jesus Christ itself. Second, the church needs to be able to communicate this to families of persons who are developmentally disabled/mentally retarded so they will be able to view their child as part of God’s plan. They need to see their child in the context of John 9:3, and as they do they will be able to see their child as being an important part of the future.

The third and fourth levels are the personal social levels and the social systematic level. The personal relates to local community where the family lives. We need to help the local community see the person with an intellectual impairment in relationship to their abilities and this will to some degree, help foster acceptance of the person with a disability and thus, the family unit.

When it comes to the social systematic level, we encounter two vastly different ideologies that are equally oppressive for persons with intellectual impairments. First, is what could be called the far right. These individuals simply do not see ay reason why this culture should be part of the public. Often it is persons in this camp who oppose such things as group homes for persons who are developmentally disabled/mentally retarded. The other one is represented by Dr. Peck and Dr. Wolfensberger which is provided as an answer to those who hold to the far right ideology. But this too is oppressive because it does not respect the understanding of this culture. This one rejects where these persons are developmentally because it does not use the normal developmental stage model with these people which can greatly help us to understand the desires of this segment of society.

In order to secure justice for these people we will find ourselves having to confront both of these extremes. As we enter the public domain to argue for the rights of this culture we will have to, based on our reasoning abilities and using social science tools such as the normal stage developmental model of learning, keep in mind the goal of promoting the well being of the members of this culture.

By entering into the lives of these persons in our imagination, we will discover the gifts they have to give to us and through this mutuality between us will occur. As we help others to discover their gifts they too will understand, by interacting with these people who are members of culture, they can become be4tter people. When this happens we are seeing reconciliation take place and God using members of this culture through their weaknesses to help shape and build his church and society in general mainstream culture in a way that brings glory to him.








References

Barna, George, (1990) The Frog in the Kettle: What Christians Need to Know About Life in the Year 2000. Ventura: Regal Books.

Carson, D.A., (1990) How long, O Lord? Reflections on suffering and evil. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Carson, D.A., (1992) The purpose of signs and wonders in the New Testament. In Michael Horton (Ed.) Power religion: the selling out of the evangelical church. Chicago: Moody Press. Pp, 89-118.

Colson, Charles, (1987) Kingdoms in Conflict, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

Gill, David W., (1987) The Opening of the Christian Mind, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Horton, Michael Scott, (1992) The Subject of Contemporary Relevance. In Michael Scott Horton (Ed.) Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church. Chicago: Moody Press, pp.327-353.

Neuhaus, Richard J., (1984) The Naked Public Square. Second Edition, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Noebel David A., (1991) Understanding The Times. Manitou Springs: Summit Press.

Peck, C.A. (1991) Linking Values and Science in Social Policy Decisions Affecting Citizens with Severe Disabilities. In L.H. Meyer, C.A. Peck & Lou Brown, (Eds.), Critical Issues in the Lives of Persons With Severe Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Company, pp. 1-15.

Petersen, Janice (1983) When the Odds Are Against You. Foursquare World Advance. September.

Schaeffer, Francis A., (1987) The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview. Vol. 4. Westchester: Crossway Books.

Turner, J. L., Kerman, K.T. & Gelphman, S., (1984) Speech Etiquette in a Sheltered Workshop. In R. B. Edgerton (Ed.) Lives in Process: Mildly Retarded Adults in a Large City. Washington D.C.: American Association on Mental Deficiency pp.43-71.

Van Leeuwen, Mary Stewart, (1985) The Person in Psychology: A Contemporary Christian Appraisal. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Wanger, Peter C., (1973) Church Growth: More Than a Magazine, A School, A Book. Christianity Today. December 7, pp.11-12, 14.

Wolfensberger, W., (1980) A Brief Overview of the Principle of Normalization. In R. J. Flynn and K.E. Nitsch (Eds.), Normalization Social Integration and Community Services. Austin: Pro-ed, pp.7-31.