Sunday, February 1, 2009

Social Integration - A Christian Perspective by Rick Eastin

Social Integration – A Christian Perspective
By Rick Eastin

The purpose of this paper is to assist persons who seek to help and support parents with a family member who is severely disabled. In order to do this one must understand the current ideology of professionals who work with these individuals with disabilities.

To begin with, America in the 1950’s began to depopulate its state institutions for the mentally retarded. The two basic premises of the early deinstitutionalization movement were: 1) it was founded on ethics set by the neglect and abuse that was prevalent in many institutional settings and 2) it was understood that in order for these people to live in the community they would need specialized services throughout their lives. This was the basic mode of thought during the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Starting with the 1970’s, we began to see a major philosophical transition gradually occur. Wolfensberger wrote a book entitled, The Principle of Normalization in Human Services. In this now classic text, Wolfensberger formulates and articulates a case for improving the lives of persons with developmental disabilities. Wolfensberger’s philosophy
Clearly implies these basic principles:

A. Since persons with developmental disabilities have characteristics that the dominant culture does not always applaud, it is our task to help eliminate these characteristics so that these people will be seen as socially valued members of society.

B. So this means that we should do away with all principles of helping the developmentally disabled when the means of helping these people are not highly esteemed by the mainstream culture. This implies doing away with special schools, group homes, sheltered workshops and Special Olympics.

Now that I have provided a brief historical summary, I now want to turn your attention toward the broader implications of the integration movement. This philosophy attacks our Judeo-Christian heritage due to its emphasis that a person derives his value from personal perfomance and denies his intrinsic value. Repeatedly, in their literature concerning employment, they state that one earns his status in this society by the type of job he has. According to one source, “To a significant degree in our society, the value of tasks performed at the workplace reflects a person’s perceived value”. (McLoughlin et al, 1987 p. 14)

This movement is not aimed at the mildly disabled person alone but affects the severely and profoundly retarded individuals as well. In regards to sheltered working conditions these same authors state: “our uncompromising position is that sheltered work environments are indefensible on a number of dimensions. Much of what they want from the disabled falls under the guise of age appropriate behavior, which in many cases is simply a clever way of introducing the world and its ways to persons who will always be like children. Since most severely retarded individuals possess a developmental age of three to five, they would naturally be more drawn to TV programs such as Sesame Street. Proponents of this movement strongly believe that if something similar to MTV is appropriate for the non-disabled, then it is equally appropriate for the disabled to view (even if they don't want to.) Integrationalists would say that by permitting a severely retarded adult to watch Sesame Street we are allowing this person to behave in a “deviant” way. Here Wolfensberger describes deviant behavior:

A person becomes deviant by being different from others in one or more dimensions of identity, which are viewed as significant by others, and this different-ness must be negatively valued. It is not different-ness in itself that makes for deviancy in this definition, but negatively valued different-ness. (Wolfensberger, 1980, p. 8)

Consider the humanistic impact of the following statements by the integrationalists:

It may not necessarily mean that a normalization implication is moral or immoral.
There may be some things that may be culturally normative and valued that may not be considered moral by a lot of people. (Wolfensberger, 1980, p.16)

All young adults must make choices about their personal sexual values. Providers should discuss, as objectively as possible, options on decisions such as sex outside marriage, use of birth control and the implications of parenting. It is essential that providers understand the right of individuals to make their own choices about such issues and that those choices may not be the same ones that the provider would make. (Gardner, 1986, p.52)

The proponents of this movement strongly advocate the abandonment of the developmental model (The developmental model says that we learn in stages, one stage builds on another stage. As a person moves from one stage to another his understanding is expanded so he is able to understand subject matter of a more complex nature.) A replacement approach, referred to as the top down model, is upheld by them to be the sole answer to this issue.

However, the danger with the latter model is that it is behavioristic. Those who hold to this view of man, say (in essence) that as people we do not have a mental life, only a physical life. So this means that we are teaching individuals to perform tasks and behave in certain ways even though they may not have any comprehension of what they are doing or why they are doing it. All of this is done so that these people can become integrated into the mainstream community life. This is directly related to Wolfensberger’s concept that we discussed earlier about eliminating behavior that mainstream society does not applaud.

I would like to illustrate with what the integrationalists consider a success story. Let’s look at John, a 23 year old with a functioning level of age 3. He has been placed in a hospital work setting where his task is to fold laundry. John needs constant supervision and because of his slow pace, he isn’t paid for the work. Now let’s look at how they assess John: “Since being placed near non-disabled models, he has learned to behave in appropriate ways vocationally, socially, communicatively, and in related to dress and grooming codes”. (Brown, et al, 1984, p. 264)

Now I want to consider what they say about curriculum development for persons who are severely developmentally disabled:

In sum, all children, including those with severe intellectual disabilities, should get opportunities to progress through normal human development stages and phases. They should also be given opportunities to function as independently and as productively as possible in an array of habilitative integrated environments and activities at age 21. Sometimes these opportunities are incompatible. That is, if they are required to progress through the same stages and phases through which non-disabled students presumably progress, probabilities are great that at age 21 students with disabilities will not be independent or as productive as they could have been if alternative routes to adulthood had been taken. Thus, Normal Development Curricular Strategies must be respected, but carefully scrutinized, modified, or abandoned whenever appropriate, and replaced with instructional strategies designed to minimize rather than maximize differences in adulthood. (Brown et al, 1988, p. 70)

Let us look at how his philosophy impacts the families of the developmentally disabled. Often times these parents are seen as overprotective. As a person with a physical disability myself, I personally know what it’s like to have family members who are overprotective. However, the concept of over protection has been greatly misused and abused when it comes to persons with developmental disabilities. Most parents of the severely handicapped are primarily concerned with their child’s welfare from a developmental viewpoint as opposed to a behavioristic one. Repeatedly studies done by the professional world about parent’s attitudes toward integration show that parents do not favor the professional’s viewpoint. (If interested, please refer to Carney and Orelove, 1988.)

Since most of this philosophy is being promoted from universities, we must understand its value system and the basis of its values.

Earlier education affirmed that truth and the good are fixed and final. It denied that right and wrong are culture-relative. The current view on the other hand, asserts that all ideas and ideologies are relative to culture – all ethical imperatives, all philosophical pronouncements, and all theological doctrines are partisan prejudices of the social-cultural matrix. (Henry, 1983, p.85)

The professionals say that they are upholding the human rights of persons with disabilities and this is why they strongly advocate for the integration of these persons. However, the problem with this position is that since there is no objective basis for truth, we are left with human experience as the basis for human rights. However, as theologian Carl Henry points out, the Bible has a doctrine of divinely imposed duties; what moderns call human rights are the contingent flip-side of those duties. To be sure many Biblical duties, if not all, imply a corresponding enforceable right. The divine prohibition of theft or of removal of a landmark implies an unstated right to property and possession. (Henry, 1988, pp. 148-149)

These people uphold the human rights of persons with disabilities apart from their ability to understand. It is God who gave us a variety of intellectual abilities. This is an aspect of what it means to be made in God’s image. Both Romans 7:7 and James 4:17 tell us that God holds us accountable on the basis of our understanding and ability. When I say God respects our understanding, I mean that He does not ask more of us than we are capable of, nor less. Since we are to reflect His image in the world, we must treat people as He treats us. Therefore, we are to defend and uphold the human rights of persons with severe disabilities in the context of their ability and inability to understand at their developmental level.

Now I want to turn your attention toward the church’s responsibility for people with disabilities. For the sake of this paper, I am zeroing in on the person with a developmental disability; however, the principle I’m about to outline applies to all varieties of persons with disabilities.

I have been working in various capacities with people in evangelical circles who are developmentally disabled for approximately ten years. Based upon this experience, I have made some observations: A) the general Christian community, as a rule, has a kind and compassionate attitude toward people with developmental disabilities. B) The Church responds to social needs where there will be some type of socially tangible reward for the Christian community. (Please understand that I do not make the prior statement with a critical spirit, but as an observation to encourage us to mature as a church.) C) The reason the Church has not responded to the needs of the developmentally disabled in a more comprehensive manner, is that we do not see how these people, with their limitations, can be dynamic instruments for God’s glory in the Church and the world at large.

As Christians, we know that God is the giver of all life. Since we know this, we must ask ourselves, “What is God’s purpose for our lives?” I see this question as having a two fold
Implication. 1) The Bible is very clear about this matter and it teaches us that we are to reflect God’s image in this world. I know one of the ways this happens is when people are “born again”. There are other ways we can reflect God’s image. For example, preschoolers being taught how to take turns are being taught how to reflect God’s image. 2) I believe one of the questions the Church must face is “How are we to help the developmentally disabled fulfill God’s purpose for their lives”? After all, it was the Lord who said, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or dumb? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11)

We as Christians must address these issues and questions I have just posed. If we don't, the world most certainly will. And in effect it already has, as evidenced by the current integration movement. While churches have attempted to address the spiritual needs of persons who are developmentally disabled, we have not looked closely at the way secularism has affected these people.

If we adopt a secular paradigm that promises to maximize the social acceptability of developmentally disabled individuals, we will only end up harming them. The behavioristic model doesn’t teach these people. Rather, it trains them irrespective of comprehension. This method of educating the disabled disregards their human dignity and intrinsic value as individuals who are made in the image of God.

Jesus made it very clear in His teachings that child-likeness is a quality to be prized. Anyone who has worked with the developmentally disabled already knows that God has blessed them with an unencumbered child-like spirit. In contrast, the secular scholars who advocate integration, view those with developmentally disabilities as people who can be trained like an animal. Does this sound extreme? This is not an over reaction at all. When others impose their standards on someone who truly doesn’t comprehend those standards, they have reduced them to the point of simply responding to a stimulus. (i.e. Pavlov’s dog salivating at the sound of a bell)

In conclusion, I do not view this integration issue as affecting the handicapped only. I see it as one facet of a secular world view that continues to make inroads into our society. We need to stimulate the Christian Community to provide a biblical worldview as the only true alternative. At the same time, the church should not abandon the public arena in regards to this very important topic.

References:

Brown, L. Zanella-Albright, K. Rogan, P., et al. (1988) An Integrated Curriculum for Transition. In B. L. Ludlow, A. P. Turnbull and R. Luckasson (Eds.), Transitions to Adult Life for People with Mental Retardation Principles and Practices. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, pp. 67-78.

Brown, L. Shifaga, B. York, J., et al. (1984) Integrated work opportunities for persons with severe handicaps: the extended training option. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. Vol. 9, pp. 269.

Carney, I. H. and Orelove, F. P. (1988) Implementing Transition Programs for Community Participation. In B. L. Ludlow, A. P. Turnbull and R. Luckasson (Eds.), Transitions to Adult Life for People with Mental Retardation Principles and Practices. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, pp. 137-157.

Gardner, E. S. N. (1986) Sexuality. In J. A. Summers (Ed.). The right to grow up. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, pp. 45-62.

Henry, Carl F. H., (1983) The Christian Mindset In a Secular Society. Portland: Multnomah press.

Henry, Carl F. H., (1988) Twilight of a Great Civilization. Westchester: Crossway Books.

McLoughlin, C. S. Gardner, J. B. Callahan, M. (1987) Getting Employed, Staying Employed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.

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.

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.

Social integration - A Differerent View by Rick Eastin

Social Integration – A Different View
By Rick Eastin

Here we will examine the topic of social integration of persons who are developmentally disabled/mentally retarded into mainstream American society. I will first look at the concept of integration and segregation of people in general in our society. The second area I will examine is the definition of mental retardation, and the treatment and care of persons with developmental disabilities in America from 1950 to 1970. The third area I will consider is the current social integration movement. I will conclude with a look at the ethics of the current movement as it relates to values of self determination and informed consent that are fundamental to social work practice.

Segregation is the result of prejudice. As a society, America has a history of the practice of prejudice based on sex, race, age and disability. “Prejudice is a negative attitude of prejudgment tinged with unreasonable suspicion, fear, or hatred.” (Coon, 1984, p. 579) This type of behavior occurs because people believe that certain groups of individuals, who share a similar, trait are somehow inferior. When people are viewed as inferior, they are devalued or even dehumanized by the surrounding culture. The reason this perception occurs is because deviancy is “a) being different from others, b) one or more dimensions of identity, which c) are viewed as significant by others, and d) these differences must be negatively valued.” (Wolfensberger, 1980, p. 8)

As a nation we have used our U.S. constitution and our court system to help correct the injustices of prejudice. Our constitution states very clearly that all persons are created equal; therefore, prejudice and its outcome, segregation, are unlawful.

Now let's look at the definition of mental retardation along with the care and treatment of persons who are mentally retarded from 1950 to 1970:
“Mental retardation refers to significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period.” (Grossman, 1983, p. 1) Adaptive Behavior: “the effectiveness or degree with which individuals meet the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of their age and cultural group. The aspects of this behavior are maturation, learning, and/or social adjustment.” (Grossman, 1983, p. 157)

The 1950’s were a very important time in our country for the care and treatment of persons who are mentally retarded. However, in order to understand what was happening during this period we have to look further back into the past. Looking now at the beginning of the establishment of institutions in America and their intended function, the original purpose of institutions was to educate mentally retarded individuals so they could be returned back to the community. “…on October 1, 1848, the first institution for the mentally retarded was opened with ten children.” (Kirk and Gallagher, 1979, p. 137)

However, according to Elmer Towns and Roberta Groff, at the end of the nineteenth century a wave of pessimism swept the country. No longer were residential schools viewed as training institutions for the habilitation of the mentally retarded. Instead, they were viewed as custodial facilities for children and adults who were hopelessly dependent. (Towns and Groff, 1971, p. 120)

Then in the 1950’s there was a resurgence of interest in the care and treatment of mentally retarded persons. The primary reason for the resurgence of interest was the formation of the National Association of Retarded Children, according to the Executive Director of the Fresno Association of Retarded Citizens, Gloria McQustion. “In 1952 we were a group of concerned parents who wanted an alternative to an institutional life for our children.” Parents also sought to get their children into the public schools.

According to Kirk and Gallagher, “organized parent groups also placed great pressure on local school boards and state legislatures to provide help for their children. They succeeded in most instances, in getting their trainable children included under the special education provisions of the state laws”. (Kirk and Gallagher, 1979, p. 140)

During the 1960’s there was a movement to depopulate institutions. This trend came to be known as deinstitionalization.
…the movement was given great impetus by the many horror stories and exposures regarding institutions conditions. Public outrage at the dehumanizing nature of such facilities lead to immediate calls for reform including such drastic action as closing all such institutional ‘warehouses’. (Maloney and Ward, 1979, p.295)

As a result of the deinstitionalization movement two types of community programs were developed for the care and treatment of retarded persons.
Group homes:
One alternative to the institution was provided by group homes. In some communities, small units have been established that operate as much on the family concept as possible. The purpose of the group home is to create an environment for the mentally retarded adult that is more home-like than that of a large institution, and a setting in which a variety of skills necessary for effective living can be mastered. (Kirk and Gallagher, 1979, p. 165)

The second type of community program to be developed for mentally retarded individuals was the sheltered workshop. A sheltered workshop is “a facility which provides occupational training and/or protective employment for mentally retarded persons and or persons with other handicapping conditions.” (Kirk and Gallagher, 1979, P 166) These were the major developments of the 1950’s and 1960’s concerning the care and treatment of mentally retarded individuals.

I now want to turn your attention to the current social integration movement. A major philosophical shift started to occur in the early 1970’s from simply providing services in the community for persons who are mentally retarded to the social integration of them into mainstream society. In 1972 Wolf Wolfensberger wrote a book entitled The Principle of Normalization in Human Services. This book represents the ideology of the current social integration movement. In this now classic text, Wolfensberger formulates and articulates a case for improving the lives of persons with developmental disabilities. He states A) since persons with development disabilities have characteristics that the dominant culture does not always applaud, it is our task to help eliminate these characteristics so that these people will be seen as socially valued members of society. B) So this means, that we should do away with all principles of helping the developmentally disabled, when the means of helping these people are not highly esteemed by the mainstream culture. This implies doing away with special schools, sheltered workshops, group homes, and Special Olympics. (Brown et al, 1984, Brown 1991, Wolfensberger, 1980) The principle of normalization is rooted in the sociological understanding of deviancy. (Flynn and Nitsch, 1980) Marc Gold, another supporter of the current social integration movement said, “The more competence an individual has, the more deviance will be tolerated in that person by others. (Gold, 1975)

From a normal human developmental perspective persons who are mentally retarded are placed into four categories/levels. These are: profound, severe, moderate and mild. Comparing the level of intellectual functioning reached by persons who are mentally retarded as adults, based on the Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, the break down is as follows: persons who are profoundly retarded reach a mental age of up to 2 years of age, persons who are severely retarded have a mental age between 3-5 years of age, persons who are moderately retarded have a mental age of between 5.5 to just under 8 years of age, persons who are mildly retarded have a mental age between 8-12 years of age. (Grossman, 1983)
There are two different types of mental retardation. One is cultural familial retardation. Persons with this type of retardation have no physical stigma and no central nervous pathology. These persons tend to come from a lower social economic background. Persons in the second group are organically damaged in that they do have central nervous pathology, physical stigma, and come from all economic backgrounds. Generally persons in the first group are mildly retarded and able to live on their own as adults and also tend to be able to develop a normal adult self concept. (Zigler et al, 1984) However, those in the second group generally are moderately to profoundly retarded and are not likely to be able to develop an adult self concept. These individuals tend to be childlike in their overall understanding as adults. (Heal, 1988) These persons in the second group are not likely to be able to live on their own as adults. (Ziegler et al, 1984) There is some overlapping between the groups in that there are those at or below the moderate level with no pathology. In most cases, pathology is the determining factor as to whether a person is able to develop a normal adult self concept and be able to live independently as adults. (Ziegler et al, 1984) My focus is on those persons with pathology.

The promoters of the current social integration movement are advocating for the abandonment of the normal human developmental model of learning.
In sum, all children, including those with severe intellectual disabilities, should get opportunities to progress through normal human development stages and phases. They should also be given opportunities to function as independently and as productively as possible in an array of habilitative integrated environments and activities at age 21. Sometimes, these opportunities are incompatible. That is, if they are required to progress through the same stages and phases through which non-disabled students presumably progress, probabilities are great that students with disabilities, at the age of 21, will not be as independent or as productive as they could have been if alternative routes to adulthood had been taken. Thus, Normal Development Curricular Strategies must be respected, but carefully scrutinized, modified, or abandoned whenever appropriate, and replaced with instructional strategies designed to minimize rather than maximize differences in adults in this condition. (Brown et al, 1988, p. 70)

They want to replace the normal development model with a top down skills model of learning which is based on behavior modification/applied behavior analysis. (Hanley-Maxwell, 1986, Matson and Rush, 1986)
According to advocates of this model, all persons who are mentally retarded/developmentally disabled should be placed in regular schools, jobs in the real world, and be part of non-disabled groups in regards to every aspect of their lives. (Brown 1991) The advocates of this movement understand that these people will need ongoing support to participate in integrated settings. (Myer, Peck, and Brown 1991) They also strongly reject the concept of mental ages as I have outlined. They stress that all persons regardless of the severity of intellectual impairment should be viewed and treated as adults. (Gardner and O’Brien, 1990, Brown et al, 1980) This movement is also based on the principle of equalitarianism, which says that all persons should be treated as equal. (Heal, 1988, Peck 1991)

Now I want to consider the current social integration in the context of the values of self-determination and informed consent. As professional social workers uphold the right of their clients to be self determining and this right is supported on the basis of the client’s ability to understand what they are doing – informed consent. However, the social integration movement does not teach these persons according to their understanding, but rather it conditions them to respond to stimuli. There is a difference between learning based on conditioning and learning that is based on understanding. (Beehick 1982, Coon 1984)

This approach often created problems for persons who are mentally retarded/developmentally disabled. Consider the topic of employment according to the supporters of social integration, “our uncompromising position is that sheltered work environments are indefensible on a number of dimensions”. (McLoughlin, 1987 p.17) However, research done with persons who are mentally retarded in the form of interviews, shows that many of these individuals prefer sheltered workshops over employment in mainstream society. (Turner 1983, Turner 1984)

…in the growing enthusiasm for programs for supported work, many clients have been more or less forced to leave sheltered workshops to accept work placements in the competitive economy. Because many of these people left all of their friends at their workplaces, it is common place for them to express great unhappiness about their new and improved lives. Some clients who resist their counselor’s pressure to enter supported work are openly threatened all in the service of improving the quality of their lives, but not it seems, their sense of well-being. (Edgerton, 1990 p.152)

Often times the advocates of this movement ignore the desires of the person with a disability in regards to the recreation and leisure activities these individuals find enjoyable. (Riddle and Riddle, 1982)

This material shows that the reason integration has not successfully taken place, is that the demands that are being placed on these individuals are beyond their understanding. Whenever people in general are placed in conditions they do not understand this creates stress in their lives and this often creates problems in their social adjustment to their environment. (Carson, Butcher, and Coleman, 1988)

As we saw, this movement is based on two different ideologies: social deviancy and equalitarianism. However, these ideologies are incompatible with each other; for with the first, one must change to be acceptable, whereas the second one says that all people are to be accepted as equal. The goals of the social integration movement are noble in that these people want the lives of individuals with mental retardation/developmental disabilities to be improved. They want them to be able to live lives of dignity and respect; however, they do not respect the felt needs, desires, and perceptions of the people they aim to serve. (Rowtiz and Stoneman, 1990)
If the human service community is to maintain its commitment to the values of self-determination and informed consent, we must acknowledge the felt needs, desires, and comprehendability of those who are mentally retarded/developmentally disabled. When their needs and desires are not what we consider to be in accord with the current social integration ideology, we need to be advocates for this group in that we uphold and respect their choices. We also need to realize that although the normal development model has been rejected by advocates of the social integration model, this does not change the fact that people with this condition understand the world according to their mental ability. There is a need to help the general public understand these individuals in the context of their mental abilities. When they do, I believe this helps eliminate what I view as an injustice. Rather than seeing these persons as deviants they will see them in a different light. If the human service community does not respect the needs and desires of this group, we are not treating them with dignity, thus we are not treating them in an ethical manner.

References:
Perspective and Issues, Washington DC: American Association on Mental Retardation, pp. 149-160.

Flynn, R.J., and Nitsch, K.E., (1980) Normalization Accomplishments to Date and Future Priorities. In R.J. Flynn and K.E. Nitsch, (Eds.) Normalization Social Integration and Community Services. Austin: Pro-ed, pp. 363-393.

Gardner, J.F., & O’Brien, Jr., (1990) The Principle of Normalization. In J.F. Gardner & M.S. Chapman, (Eds.), Program Issues in Development Disabilities. Second Edition, Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Company, pp. 39-57.

Gold, M. (1975) Vocational Training. In J. Wortis (Ed.), Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities: An annual review (Vol. 7) New York: Brunner/Mazel

Grossman, Herbert J., (1983) Classification in Mental Retardation. Washington DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.

Heal, W.L. (1988) The Ideological Responses of Society to its Handicapped Members. In W.L Heal, J.L. Haney & A.R. Novack Amado, (Eds.) Integration of Developmentally Disabled Individuals Into the Community. Second Edition, Baltimore: Paul H. Books Company pp. 59-67.

Hanley-Maxwell, C., (1986) Curriculum Development. In F. R. Rusch (Ed.), Competitive Employment Issues and Strategies. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, pp. 187-189.

Krik, S.A., and Gallagher, J.J., (1979). Educating Exceptional Children, Third Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Maloney, M.P. & Ward, M.P., (1979). Mental Retardation and Modern Society, New York: Oxford University Press.

Matson, J.L. and Rusch, F.R., (1986) Quality of Life: Does Competitive Employment Make a Difference? In F.R. Rusch (Ed.), Competitive Employment Issues and Strategies. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Company.

McLoughlin, C.S. Garner, J.R. Callahan, M., (1987). Getting Employed, Staying Employed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.

McQustion, Gloria, Literature from the Fresno Association for Retarded Citizens.

Meyer, L.H., Peck, C.A., & Brown, L., (1991). Definition of the People TASH Serves (originally adopted December 1985: revised November 1986). In L.A. Meyer, C.A. Peck, & L. Brown, (Eds.), Critical Issues in the Lives of People with Severe Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Company, p. 19.

Peck, C.A., (1991) Linking Values and Science in Social Policy Decisions Affecting Citizens with Severe Disabilities. In L.A. 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.

Riddle, J.I., & Riddle, H.C., (1982) The “Joy Quotient”: Observations on our need to prioritize pleasure in the lives of the severely handicapped. An occasional paper of the National Association of Public Institutions for the Mentally Retarded, #20, January, 1983.

Rowitz, L. & Stoneman, Z., (1990) Community First. Mental Retardation, 28, iii-iv.

Towns, E.L., & Grott, R.L., (1972) Successful Ministry to the Retarded. Chicago, Moody Press.

Turner, J.L. (1983) Workshop Society: Ethnographic observations in a work setting for retarded adults. In K.T. Kerman, M.J. Begab, & R.B. Edgerton (Eds.), Environments and Behavior: The Adaptation of Mentally Retarded Persons. Baltimore: University Park Press pp.147-171.

Turner, J.L., Kerman, K.T., & Gelphman, S., (1984) Speech etiquette in a sheltered workshop. In R.B. Edgerton (Ed.), Lives in Process: Mentally Retarded Adults in a Large City. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency pp. 43-71.

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.

Ziegler, E., Balla, D., & Hodapp, R. (1984) On the definition and classification of mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, pp. 89, 215-230.

Empowerment and Protection by Rick Eastin

Empowerment and Protection
By Rick Eastin

Here we will look at some of the trends in the care and treatment of persons with developmental disabilities. Further, we will look at the current empowerment paradigm in light of the Biblical mandate to care for “the weak.”

According to public law (101-406) the Developmental Disabilities Assistant and Bill of Rights Act of 1990: “Defines developmental disabilitiy as a severe, chronic disability of a person who is 5 years of age or older. The impairment must be: 1) attributable to a mental or physical impairment or a combination thereof; 2) manifested before the person attains age 22; 3) likely to continue indefinitely; 4) result in substantial functional limitations in three or more areas of life activity (self help, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self direction, capacity for independent living, and economic self-sufficiency; and 5) reflect a person’s need for a combination of and sequence of special interdisciplinary or generic care treatments or other services that are lifelong or extended in duration and are individually planned and coordinated; except that such term, when applied to infants and young children, means individuals from birth to age 5, inclusive, who have substantial developmental delay or specific congenital or acquired conditions with a high probability of resulting in developmental disabilities, if services are not provided. (Gardner and Chapman, 1 developmental disabilities 993) p.6.


There are five disabilities that are commonly grouped together and called developmental disabilities. These are: 1) autism, 2) cerebral palsy, 3) epilepsy, 4) mental retardation and 5) any other condition requiring care similar to that of a person who is mentally retarded.

Now I want to provide the reader with some accurate definitions of these disabilities:
Autism: a pervasive lack of responsiveness to other people, gross deficits in language and communication, bizarre responses to the environment, absence of delusions and hallucinations, with onset before 30 months of age.

Cerebral Palsy: a disorder dating from birth or early infancy, cannot progress, characterized by examples of aberrations of motor function (paralysis, weakness, uncoordination.) Also, often there are other manifestations of organic brain damage, such as sensory disorders, seizures, mental retardation, learning difficulties and behavioral disorders.

Epilepsy: clinical disorder characterized by single or recurring attacks of loss of consciousness, convulsive movements, or disturbances of feeling or behavior; these transient episodes are associated with excessive neuronal discharges.

Mental Retardation: significantly below average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior manifested during the developmental period.


Levels of retardation are:

Mild mental retardation: a term used to describe the degrees of retardation present when intelligence test scores are 50 to approximately 70. Many mildly retarded (able to be educated) individuals who function at this level can usually master basic academic skills whereas adults at this level may maintain themselves independently or semi-independently in community life.

Moderate Mental Retardation: a term used to describe the degree of retardation when intelligence test scores range from 35-40 to 50-55. Many trainable individuals function at this level; such individuals usually can learn self-help, communication, social and simple occupational skills (but only limited academic or vocational skills.)

Severe Mental Retardation: a term used to describe the degree of retardation when intelligence test scores range from 20-25 or 35-40. Such persons require continuing and close supervision. However, they may perform self-help tasks and simple work tasks under supervision. This level is sometimes referred to as dependent retardation.

Profound Mental Retardation: a term used to describe the degree of retardation present when intelligence test scores range from 20-25. Such persons require continuing and close supervision, but some may be able to perform simple self-help tasks. Profoundly retarded persons often have other handicaps and require an aray of support systems to maintain quality of life. (Grossman, 1983)

As a general rule, in adulthood, persons who are mentally retarded function at the following levels. Persons at the mild level of retardation reach the cognitive ability of a 8-12 year year old. Persons at moderate level, function at a cognitive ability similar to that of a typical 5-8 year old. People at the severe level, mentally function as a 3-5 year old. People at the profound level, generally function at below that of a 3 year old child. (Grossman 1983)

Based on the above definitions, it may seem that these levels can be quite limiting to both children and adults. Upon first glance, it may appear as though these developmental limitations preclude these individuals from being able to participate in numerable social roles and activities.

Now allow me to change our focus specifically onto adults with intellectual disabilities. For people of all belief systems, we view children as the means to continuing our society in the future; this value can seem to be upside-down for parents of a child with a disability. The reason for this dilemma is that parents in these circumstances often face the lifelong responsibility of having to parent their dependent child with special needs in a protective manner throughout their adult life. Whereas the parents of typical children need to parent them for approximately 20 years, as their children transform into independant and interdependent adult lifestyles.

Sometimes parents of a child with a disability actually experience the emotions of someone who has experienced the death of a loved one. (Duckworth, 1988; Wheeler, 1983) Such an event as having a child with developmental disabilities very often causes a parent to ask philosophical questions: Why do bad things happen? Who is to blame? Can my family make it through such an ordeal and have a good family life?

Another aspect that families of persons with developmental disabilities have to deal with is the need to look to others for help. Since most of the families don't have the knowledge they need to deal with a developmental disability, they look to the medical and the social services communities to aid them. It is within this context that I will examine why and how such services have developed in North America to the point where they are today.

Just as persons with developmental disabilities perplex their families, so they are also creating dilemmas for the wider culture. Our culture views persons who will never be able to assume adult social economic roles from a deficit perspective instead of an asset perspective. This is the fundamental belief that drives services for persons with developmental disabilities.

Formal care for person with mental retardation in the United States started in 1848, when the first state institution was opened for children who were mentally retarded. This started a trend that saw the establishment of institutions throughout the country. The premise behind this was that such individuals could be rehabilitated and then returned to the community as productive citizens. These developments were occurring in the context of a philosophical worldview known as "modernity." This is a perspective which believed there are no limits to progress for humankind. (Nash, 1987)

However, by the early 1900’s, this optimistic view gave way to a pessimistic one. For people functioning at the lower to moderate levels, this outlook resulted in the function of these institutions being transitioned from being rehabilitative. This was done to persons on these levels due to the fact that they did not respond well to educational programs. It was also believed that persons with mental retardation were responsible for high rates of criminality, immorality and poverty. This belief led to development of the eugenics movement, in order to prevent the destruction of nation’s gene pool (MacMillan, 1982). This belief also caused moving institutions to rural areas. These places were designed to be self contained although it did not work this way. The function of institutions changed from one of trying to educate these persons to one of using these places to protect society from people who are mentally retarded, similar to a prison. This phase of thinking reached its high point between the years of 1912-1917.

From 1917 on, different developments emerged to show that the ways people with mental retardation were being cared for was based on unfounded facts. Research started to emerge that people with these disabilities were, in fact, able to live in typical social communities. It was found that assumptions between mental retardation and anti-social behavior were based on faulty research. (Gardener and Chapman, 1993)

A transition started to occur in the years of 1930-1950 as parent groups then started to organize to advocate on behalf of their children with mental retardation. These parents became increasingly concerned after World War II because more and more children with severe mental retardation were being admitted to institutions. Before World War II most admissions were adolescents with mild retardation. In 1950 the National Association for the Retarded was formed and this organization played a key role in the movement that came to be known as deinstitutionalization; in other words, taking persons who are living in institutions and place them primarily in homes in the community. One of the primary reasons for this movement was the dehumanizing living conditions in the institutions.
There were three other areas that parents organized around as it related to their children: 1) education, 2) adult services, and 3)residential services. Parents put pressure on local school boards and state governments to provide educational services for their children who functioned at the moderate and/or below level. Adult services consisted of two types of programs: 1)sheltered workshops. These are places where they basically do piece work and 2) work activity centers for low functioning individuals to work in a workshop setting. Different living arrangements were started based on type of needs and level of disability. The first being "independent living." These arrangements are broadly defined. Persons living in these places are high functioning. Other arrangements offering a greater level of support provide room and meals only. Group homes provide supervision for people who are lower functioning. The third type of residential setting is called an intermediate care facility for mentally retarded and developmentally disabled persons with medical needs. (Summers, 1986)

The 1970’s were a time of great change for persons as the deinstitutionalization movement was picking up momentum. Parallel to this movement research was being done at university levels that demonstrated that people with mental retardation could learn to do things previously thought too difficult. Through the use of behavior modification persons with moderate or severe retardation were being taught to do complex assemblies. This same technology was being used to teach skills like toileting, eating and personal hygiene among others. (DuRand and Newfeldt, 1980)

Another significant development occurred and this was an ideological response to people. It was called the principle of normalization. Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger is architect behind the principle of normalization. Previously the focus was providing needed services in the community. (Heal 1988, Wolfensberger, 1980, and 1992) The focus of normalization is on providing services in the most culturally valued way possible, while getting these persons to behave in ways that are highly esteemed by the general culture. According to Dr. Wolfensberger, it is not enough to ask people without disabilities to accept persons with mental retardation; for true acceptance to occur the person without the disability must experience the encounter in a positive way. (Wolfensberger, 1983) This philosophy of Dr. Wolfensberger, though in its infancy rejected, within a short time found acceptance within the professional community. From the 1970’s many others in the field of mental retardation started to think this way. A big part of this ideology was to treat persons with mental retardation according to their chronological age rather than their mental age. This segmented the professional community into two camps: those in the value camp and those in the research camp.

For those in the values segment community, the goal of working with a person’s mental retardation is to see these people become socially integrated into the society. Dr. Thomas Haring, who represents the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, says “social integration is defined as the full participation in social interactions within natural environments to the ultimate extent that the people encounter within that environment and as such is a part of a stable network. (Haring, 1991) Dr. John Dattio (1991), who represents the APSH organization, said, “It is extremely important for individuals with severe disabilities to develop age appropriate, community based leisure skill repertories to facilitate successful integration into the community”.

Persons who are in the research camp are anchored in the empirical tradition and are dependent on standardized tests as tools for client assessment of persons with mental retardation. This approach is also based on pre-supposition and is known as the medical model, which views mental retardation as an objective entry. (Ziger, et al. 1990)

Now, to examine the research methodologies of each camp: those in the values' side use both quantitative and qualitative methods. For those in this camp, mental retardation is a social problem and it holds people back from having a quality life because those that work with them expect so much more from them than what they can give. (Gardner and Chapman, 1991) These persons have used the political process to help secure what they perceive to be justice for persons with mental retardation. In the mid 1980’s legislation was passed and introduced what is known as “supported employment”. This is defined as a “…pair work in a variety of settings, particularly regular work sites, especially designed for handicapped individuals, 1) for whom competitive employment at or above the minimum wage is unlikely; 2) who, because of their disability, need ongoing support to perform in a work setting”. (Federal Register September 25, 1984) They have also sought to change the whereabouts of where children and youth with mental retardation are educated and where these persons live. These persons have introduced what they call full inclusion in the area of education, and supported living for adults. Starting in the late 1980’s student with all types of disabilities started to receive education in the regular classroom. This means proving students with the extra services they need in the regular classroom. (Giangreo, Putnam, 1991) Many parents and professionals view this inclusion of children with all types of disabilities as a civil rights issue. (Kauffman and Hallan, 1995) In this realm were adults with mental retardation. The concept of supported living introduced by definition means having these persons living in their homes while providing them with the support they need to do so. Federal money has been provided for this kind of situation for persons with mental retardation since 1990. (Racino, 1993) In all three of these models the key concept is that support is provided to these people to help them do what they cannot do on their own.

Those in the values camp reject the concept of mental ages that I have previously outlined. Instead of viewing people according to "normal developmental stages" perspective; they favor teaching these people by using "behavior modification." They rely on quantified research methods to justify their ideal outlook for persons with mental retardation; this means that their research is interpretative. Persons in this camp view the scientific community as putting roadblocks in the way of having people with mental retardation live integrated lives. (Taylor and Bogdan, 1994)

Others, who operate in the scientific camp, tend to be conservative in their outlook about how much people with these "problems" tend to agree with the concept of mental ages, as I have outlined above. The people in this camp are much more open to the need for specialized services for mental retardation. These people tend to rely on quantitative research methods to substantiate their claims. The reason they reject much of ideology of the values camp is that it lacks a sound research basis. The persons in the values community look at things through the lens of those without disabilities, and then try to have people live life through that grid. From their perspective they are empowering these people to be able to make choices that will give them social acceptance in the mainstream. In contrast those in the science community lean toward viewing life through the eyes of persons with mental retardation. They would see their condition more as a cognitive difference rather than a disability.

As a person who has watched the values community over the past number of years while working and befriending persons with mental retardation, I have made the following observations: The community say they are giving them ????? However, they will not support them when they are not able to operate and function at "normal societal levels" ???? For lack of a better analogy, this is like comparing how a luxury vehicle drives to an economy car, both are valuable in their own way. One is not good and the other bad. They both have their place for different reasons. In the same way, it would be unfair to consider all persons working in the field of mental retardation as subscribing to current integrated ideology. On the other hand, the promoters of this ideology have one goal, and that is to see their vision for persons with mental retardation to be the socially accepted norm (without leaving room for other perspectives or a more ballanced approach.)

Work is a gift of God’s common grace, and because all people are made in His image, we derive satisfaction from this. See Ecclesiastes 1:31. As Chuck Colson and Jack Eckerd (1991) point out, we have an innate need to engage in meaningful work. Since the 1960’s there has been significant research from state university-affiliated programs; the programs provide research about best practices in developing community living settings for persons with mental retardation. Research that was done until the late 1970’s about working with these people was done in the context of modernity paradigm. However, in the early 1980’s research started to be derived from a postmodern/qualitative paradigm.

The people who work with persons with mental retardation are caught in between a rock and a hard place because what they are able to accomplish with them is not that impressive when measured through the lens of empiricism. Just because this is true does not mean this God-given need will go away; rather it leaves a void that longs to be filled. One of the themes in the writings of Dr. Francis Schaeffer was that people need meaning in their lives so much so that they will have an optimistic outlook on life even when there is no rational basis for holding to such a view. (Schaeffer, 1982)

In the mid 1970’s the education of persons from moderate through the profound levels of mental retardation was still being questioned by both those in regular education and special education. At this time each of these sectors doubted that disabled persons could profit from education. It was within that cultural context that those in the values camp started to formally organize in the mid 1970’s. By their own admission the reason the values community held the ideology is they wanted to see what they considered to be more meaningful outcomes for people with mental retardation (i.e. social integration).

Our culture as a whole at this time was undergoing a transition toward an ethic of self-fulfillment, thus people wanted to change things that were not pleasurable to them. It is worth noting that persons who were formulating the values perspective on this issue were from a higher educational background; the reason this is important is because this ethic of self fulfillment started at the university level and filtered its way into the common populace. (Wells, 1993)

In the mid 1970’s the term “developmental disabilities” started to be used in the way outlined above as legislation passed at the federal level. During the first part of the 1970’s two very significant pieces of legislation were passed, the first was the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This law made it illegal for any public entity receiving public money to discriminate in any way on the basis of disability.

The next significant piece of legislation was the Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This act guaranteed that all children receive a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. What the meant is that people with all kinds of disabilities, whenever possible, should be in a regular classroom. At that time mainstreaming was being practiced based on the student’s ability to perform in a regular classroom. Students who were not able to perform were provided with education in a separate self contained classroom on a public school campus.

During the late 1960’s and into the 1970’s there was also the civil rights movements among those that were physically disabled who wanted to get into the cultural mainstream. This is what is known as the “independent-living movement”. These persons wanted to take control of their own lives; the basic philosophy is that these persons could and should manage their own lives. These people rejected the concept of seeing themselves as “sick” people, but instead perceived themselves as human beings who, when given assistance could be a part of mainstream society. For these persons, independence is not defined by what people can do for them, but rather how much control they can have over how they chose to live their lives. These same people started their fight for civil rights on the same level as other minority groups who were also advocating for civil rights. (Shapiro, 1994)

These pieces of legislation, along with the independent living movement, paved the way for those in the values camp to start to lump all disability issues together. In the early 1980’s the mix of factors came together politically: we had a very conservative administration and the ideology of those persons from the values camp fit together in a strong way. This administration’s emphasis on less government was a hand-in-glove fit with the emphasis of the values camp. Both of these social sectors were able to feed off of each other – those in the value’s camp could point to the fact that having persons with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities work at real jobs and attend regular schools helped get more out of our tax dollars. Meanwhile politicians could state that by having persons with mental retardation in regular schools and real jobs they were increasing the self sufficiency of this culture.

This group points out that the limitations of a person’s mental retardation is a reason why they cannot participate in certain aspects of the mainstream life, which they claim is oppressing them. Since people in the values camp use qualitative methodology to justify their position, this means that much of their augments for social integration of people are based on their subjective view of reality. And their view of reality says one’s quality of life is determined by how well one is plugged into the social mainstream. This is a very interesting point, in my opinion.

The generation of persons who are in positions of leadership at the university level, special educators, psychologists, social workers and other fields related to mental retardation are typically baby boomers. Research on this particular group shows that these people like life to be practical, and they turn away from things that they don't view as useful. (Barna, 1990, Murren, 1990) It seems to me that the mind set of this generation in combination with emphasis on self-fulfillment is fueling this focus on self integration. Both of these mind sets are like a single coin which has two sides. The way that this plays out is that because the limitations inherent with mental retardation often preclude these persons from achieving normal developmental milestones, this makes their work with these people often impartial . As a society we have turned to the public university to help us deal with our social needs and problems. The aim of this is based on an assumption that we can find practical solutions to the dilemmas that confront us as a society through the universities. Although this is their intended function, this simply is not the case. There is no such thing as objective truth at the university level. Given this cultural reality, what gets past as a solution is whatever seems to works at the time (i.e. pragmatism).

I will now examine how the ideology of the values camp is impacting families of persons with mental retardation. Having a child who is mentally retarded may mean the death of some common parental dreams for that child; it means having to readjust one’s expectations for that child. Both parents and professionals agree that this is a source of grieving for parents, and for some parents it never stops having an effect because they have not internally accepted it. (Hawley, 1981) Based on my research, parents generally have two different modes of response to having a child who is mentally retarded: one is what I call “reality based thinking” and the other is what I call “misplaced opposite”. Parents who have a realistic view are the parents who, as a general rule, go through the same stages of grieving as do persons who experience the death of a loved one. To their credit, persons in the values camp are right to point out that grieving is often treated as a pathological response and therefore, something to get over. The ability to grieve is a gift from God. Jesus modeled this for us in his response to the death of Lazarus; this is a very profound verse, for it tells what our response to tragedy should be, therefore, that grieving is to be viewed as pathological.

Parents of persons with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities who embrace the “ideology values” want to downplay the grieving aspect of having a child with these kind of disabilities (Strully, 1994) One of the reasons for the difference in reactions may be that many parents and professionals have gone on to be trained in the university level in different disciplines related to mental retardation. Modernity has been the prevailing worldview on the university campus. That outlook taught us that we do not have to accept limitations and we can find ways to overcome our problems: no longer are “problems, as such, but they are called “challenges” to be overcome. Some of these parents are in positions of leadership with local agencies that serve people with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities. As a result, these agencies are under pressure to change meaning, to embrace the ideology of the values camp.

Another major difference between these two groups of parents is that those who hold to a reality based perspective tend to accept the limitations of their children. On the other hand, parents in the values camp want to continually push the boundries of what their children accomplish. As people who bear God’s image, we are designed to respond to tragedy in a way that admits the pain. I believe response to tradgedy is one aspect that is included when scripture teaches about doing things by nature in Romans 2:14. In the life of Jesus we read how he showed emotions in different contexts and some of these were in the face of tragedy. I believe it fair to say persons who are in the values camp are denying a part of their humanity.

Often parents who hold a reality-based view of their children are seen as putting up roadblocks to their progress because they do not have high expectations for them. Another aspect of what it means to be made in the image of God has to do with how we respond to those who are weak; I believe it is fair to say because we are partakers of general revelation, parents in general have a tendency to view their adult children in a protective manner. Not all, but a good number of people who are not Christians still have within them a sense of protecting and looking out for those who are weak: this is a product of God’s common grace. I also believe it is fair to say that the reason so many parents in the reality based camp reject much of values camp ideology is that it violates what is best for their children. In Romans 1:18 we find that people suppress the truth in uprightness; it seems to me these persons in the values camp are doing so because they are unwilling to accept the limitations that are part of the condition known as mental retardation. The reason these parents have been brought into this line of thinking is that as a society we have been drifting away from any sense of transcendent moral order; instead truth is found in one’s personal experience. As noted before, some parents have sought a higher education from many different sources and concur that there is no such thing as truth at this level of our society, but only that which we perceive as true for us. In 1976 Francis Schaeffer said that we as a culture have bought into the impoverished values of a person’s space and audience. I think this portrays the outlook of these parents. (Schaeffer, 1981) This group of parents have been greatly broken by having a child who is mental retarded; however they often refuse to accept what has been given to them by the hand of God. Because many of the advocates of this ideology have gone through secular universities, where for the most part, there is no such thing as objective truth, but rather truth is seen as a matter of personal preference. This has opened the way for people to start experimenting with ways to provide services for persons with mental retardation. Another reason for this type of thinking is that we as a society do not view persons as uniquely created by God, but rather we view them simply from a materialistic perspective.

Now I want to look at how mental retardation relates to being made in the image of God. This is important because all that we do is related to the use of our intellect and almost all that we express is a facet of our being created in the image of God. One could say that all uses of our intellectual, emotional and aesthetic functions are an expression of the image of God.

From a Biblical perspective, mental retardation is considered a sickness, because it hinders the degree to which one can participate in the cultural mandate. On the other hand, all persons participate in the curator mandate to one degree or another. We can counter this for the following reason: 1) Acts 10:34 God is no respecter of persons. 2) ?????????? 3) every life is a wanted life, see Acts 17:26. People in the church today tend to take extreme positions concerning the subject of divine healing. On one side (the side where those say without exception it is always God’s will to heal at all times); and then those who claim God does not work that way today. (According to Ken Blue and Wayne Grudem, we only have to look at how Jesus responded toward sickness to understand God’s perspective toward sickness: he hates it because it is part of the fall. We are confronted, however, with a dualism in scripture because it states that although God hates sin and all its results, he permits evil to be a part of our experience in this world. In the books of Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7, and Psalms 115:3 we find that God uses evil to serve his own purposes. So when confronted with affliction such as mental retardation we should ask in faith for healing, but if it does not happen we need to know that he will work through the affliction to bring glory unto himself. When we see this happening we are seeing the cornerstone principle which is that He uses the very affliction itself to defeat sin and Satan. This is what happened through the cross. It was meant by Satan to destroy Jesus, however, it is through the cross that victory was won. The cross became the foundation for our salvation. Colossians 1:16 tells us that Jesus holds all things together and that they exists because he has permitted them to exist. This would include the different stages of development that persons with mental retardation reach.

One of the major ways we learn about the world is through creation. Through the study of the world about us we draw conclusions because we are free under the Lordship of Jesus. The scope of our inquiry covers every facet of exploration that humans are capable of. Because this is true, this would also include our inquiries about the nature and ramifications of what we call “mental retardation” . There are those in the values community who consider mental retardation to be a social construction. In contrast to the advocates of this view I argue that there is something objectively known as “mental retardation”. (Biklen and Duchan, 1994) The reason we are able to make this distinction is that there are persons whose intellectual abilities are very limited and this condition hinders the degree to which they can participate in different aspects of the cultural mandate. Notice I said “limited”, not unable to participate in the cultural mandate. I believe because God is no respecter of persons we are starting to participate in the cultural mandate from the moment we are born. We tend to think of children as getting ready for adulthood; however, because God is no respecter of persons, this means that each stage of human development is of equal value to him. This also means that children and/or persons with mental retardation are able to be players in the cultural mandate no matter where they are developmentally. We are to view every developmental stage as a treasure in and of itself and not simply as a means to an end… (i.e. as opposed to treating the "normal" stage as the only treasure)

I will now examine the concept of empowerment as it relates to persons with mental retardation from a Biblical perspective. First of all, there are degrees of empowerment. Scripture talks about this in Genesis when God says “for this reason a man should leave his father and mother”: I understand that it is talking about marriage, it is also implied in this statement is that a person starts to leave home long before the person actually does. As the person moves through the normal progression of developmental states, they become less dependent on others for meeting their needs and are able to assume more complex personal and social roles. As they take on these different roles, they are becoming more empowered in the sense that they are gaining more control of their lives. This is what I call proportional empowerment, as the degree of ability grows the level of control is expanded. Jesus talks about this kind of empowerment in Matthew 25:15, when he talks about giving talents according to the ability of the servants. Because there are many different levels of mental retardation, these persons obtain different levels of empowerment according to their abilities. This scripture shows us that God is a God of reason, and reason dictates. He does not ask more of us than what we are capable of. Also, there are many other cases that speak of the importance of reason, (see Isaiah 1:18, Romans 12:2, James 3:17-18.) Although these passages do not specifically mention reason, the thought is definitely implied: our ability to reason is fundamental to what it means to be made in the image of God. The ability to reason is also a product of our human development. So that although our reasoning ability is very important, what makes us human is that God gave all persons the breath of life (Acts 17:26). However, to the degree that we are able to develop intellectually, we are able to take on different social responsibilities.

From a Christian perspective the topic of empowerment needs to be examined within the context of one’s ability to assume responsibility. Carl Henry points out that human rights cannot be separated from human responsibility. He points out that human rights and human responsibility are like two sides of the same coin (Henry, 1988). As we have seen, there is something that we can rightfully call mental retardation (meaning limited intellectual ability.) From a Biblical perspective it is right for parents of a child to restrict their child’s participation in activities they know the child does not have the ability to succeed in (or even be safe in.) Making informed decisions regarding their involvement in certain activities may be well beyond that child's ability discern. Within the context of the Bible, regarding human rights, parents have to do this for two reasons: one is simply to ensure social order, and the other is for moral reasons. If parents did not restrict children in this way we would have social chaos, and on a moral level this is a violation of general revelation. The advocates of the values camp talk about giving persons with mental retardation choices, yet deny the fact of how these persons perceive the world because of their limited abilities.

The methods these persons use are quite questionable from a Christian perspective. These persons rely very strongly on “behaviorism” for teaching persons with mental retardation. Many Christian thinkers have pointed out serious problems with this worldview. (Geisler, 1983; Jones & Butman, 1991; Noebel, 1991; Schaeffer, 1981) There is a delicate balance that needs to be maintained here. We have to use some of this philosophy with very young children. An example of the right use of this teaching method would be a child that learns by route to go to the next door, or a person who functions at a 2-3 year old level as an adult and has to learn to put their dirty clothes in the hamper. However, there is a great difference between teaching someone how to perform a task and the denying fact that how we perceive the world is in a large measure based upon our intellectual development. The topic of choice is also related to one’s level of intellectual development. Also, the understanding of choice is directly related to our being made in the image of God. When we make choices this is an expression of the image of God. We see this very clearly when God told Adam to give names to the animals. He was telling Adam to exercise his power of choice.

From a Biblical perspective, the understanding of choice is also proportional to one’s ability to understand. Just as we saw, parents must restrict the activities when their child has a lack of ability to understand those activities. So, we must restrict activities of a person with mental retardation when they do not understand the activity or are unable to process its ramifications to themselves and others. It is quite common to hear persons that work in the field say things like, “label jars, not people”, however the ability to classify and discriminate is a God given ability. These are vital skills to provide a stable social order. We see in the creation account that he divided the night from the day. In the New Testament Paul uses discriminating terms. There he talks about stronger and weaker (i.e. we need each other, but he acknowledges the differences between the weak and the strong. (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-26)

In the parable of the Good Samaritan we see that those persons had to have skills to determine what course of action needed in that situation. First, the Samaritan had to access the situation to determine what needed to be done. This meant doing some things as opposed to choosing to do others. This ability to discriminate in a healthy manner is part of what it means to be made in the image of God. We have already seen that from a Biblical viewpoint mental retardation would be considered a sickness. We have also seen that parents have to restrict the activities of their children when they are too young to understand the consequences of their actions.

So, we understand that from both a moral perspective and from a pragmatic viewpoint, it is necessary to restrict the rights of persons with mental retardation. For, to not do so would be a violation of general revelation and would lead to social chaos. From a Biblical perspective, we need to help persons with mental retardation in accordance with their abilities. We need to help them become empowered according to their level of understanding. Persons holding to the values position, no matter how well intentioned they may be, are pushing an ideology that isn't based on fact. Scripture clearly teaches that every good and perfect gift is given to us by our Heavenly Father (this includes the study of human development.)

Through interactions with persons, we discover that there is a great variation in the abilities of persons with mental retardation. Therefore, the needs are very diverse. We are designed to respond to certain situations in particular ways. When we do not, we violate general revelation. For the most part, people respond to persons who for whatever reasons do not act as adults with a sense of care and protection, and so we are acting in accordance with the way we were designed to function. Persons in the value camp want to change the behavior of persons with mental retardation so that people without disabilities will want to interact with them. Their reasoning is that persons with mental retardation are being treated by others with distain because of their abherent (or different) behavior. These condescending attitudes are held up as the "norms" of our "society." The sole solution in this "unacceptable" situation is to drive those with disabilities to disguise their disabilities in order to placate the arrogant "norms" of society at large. They do not want those with mental retardation to be seen as weak and needy. Rather, while they admit that these persons have needs that others with don’t have, the important thing in their mind is the socially valued roles that these people can attain. It is unreasonable to ask and/or think that people should respond to mental retardation in this fasion. The reason for this is that as we’ve seen from a Biblical perspective mental retardation is considered a sickness. Because we are created in God’s image, we were designed to respond to the “abnormal” with empathy, sorrow and compassion. We see when Jesus was at Lazarus’ tomb, he wept. The reason he did this was because it was His response to that which was abnormal. In their effort to view mental retardation through rose colored glasses, those in the values camp are asking people to deny their God given response to tragedy.

Children are gifts from God. They are meant to be a blessing to their families and others. Core scriptural truth applies to all children no matter how disabled they may be. Considering how perplexing it is for parents to have a child with mental retardation, one can see why parents would want to hold to the view that the values camp embraces. However, as Christians, we need to help these children develop according to their God given potential and also accept the limitations that are part of mental retardation. The reason the church needs to concern itself with this topic is threefold: 1) the family, 2) care of the weak, and 3) dissemination of correct knowledge.

It is often in times like these that a family will turn to the church for direction. The church needs to be a knowledgeable resource to them and/or know where to point these families for further help. The fundamental need is to help each parent see that child from a Biblical paradigm (no matter how old or disabled the child is.) God told Abraham I have blessed you so that you will be a blessing to others. This truth applies to parents with a child who is afflicted with mental retardation. These parents need to know that the way their child ends up being a blessing to others will probably be different than they had previously expected. However, the fact that their child will be a blessing to others is without a doubt!

We are living in a society that doesn't want to discriminate against anyone in any way. However, as we have seen, it is an aspect of expressing God’s image to make intellegent discriminations. Although I believe strongly that all people are created equal, we are not equal in our abilities. It is right for us to draw conclusions based upon our empirical observations that follow from persons being mentally retarded. To the degree that we understand mental retardation, we can help them be all God intends for them to be. Persons in the values camp are going against general revelation. For to simply interact with persons who are mentally retarded is to know that these persons have limitations. At the very highest level, they may function at about that of a 12-13 year old child. We would be hard pressed (even at this level) the abilty to assume the total responsibilities of adult roles. Yet this is the kind of unrealistic burden that often gets placed upon persons with mental retardation.

There is a need for the people of God to struggle with these issues and speak up for those who the Bible has no problem calling “weak”. If people are not willing to speak truth concerning the treatment and care of persons with mental retardation, this creates a vacuum that is filled with the values camp ideology. To let these people be treated in a way that does not reflect God’s best for them, is not what the Bible has in mind.














References

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

Biklen, D. & Duchan, J.F. (1994) I Am Intelligent. The Social Construction of Mental Retardation. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 19, 173-184

Colson, C., & Eckerd, J (1991) Why America Doesn’t Work. Dallas: Word Publishing.

Dattilo, J. (1991) Recreation and Leisure: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Directions. In L. H. Myer, C. A. Peck & Lou Brown, (Eds.) Critical Issues in the Care of Persons with Severe Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brooks Company 171-194

Dick Marion, (1988) Families of Handicap Children. Elgin: David C. Cook Publishing.

Gardner, James F., & Chapman, Michael S. Developing Staff Competencies for Supporting People with Developmental Disabilities: An Orientation Handbook, Second Edition. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Company.

Geisler, Norman L. (1983) Is Man the Measure: An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Grossman, Herman J. (1983) Classification in Mental Retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Haring, Thomas G. (1991) Social Relationships. In L. H. Myer, C A. Peck & L. Brown (Eds.) Critical Issues in the Lives of Persons with Severe Disabilities, Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Company.

Hawley, Gloria (1981) Families and Friends of the Handicapped. Joni and Friends, Joy in Caring Seminar.

Henry, Carl, F.H. (1988) Twilight of a Great Civilization. Westchester: Crossway Books.

Jones, Stanton L., & Butman, Richard E. (1991) Modern Psychotherapies. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Murren, Doug. (1990) The Baby Boomerang: Catching Baby Boomers as They Return to Church. Ventura: Regal Books.

Nash, Ronald H. (1987) Evangelicals in America: Who They Are and What They Believe. Nashville: Abingdon.

Nobel, David A. (1991) Understanding the Times. Manitou Springs.

Pomerantz, David J. & Martholin, David, II (1980) Vocational Habilitation, a Time for Change. In R. J. Flynn & k.E. Nitsch (Eds), Normalization Social Integration and Community Sevices. Austin: Pro-ed, pp. 259-282.

Racino, Julie A. (1993) Opening the Doors: The State Role in Housing and Support. In J. A. Racino, P. Walker, S. O. Connor and S. J. Taylor, Housing Support and Community: Choices and Strategies for Adults with Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.

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

Shapiro, Joseph P. (1994) No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement, New York.

Strully, Jeffrey, (1994) Video presentation given in Fresno, California.

Taylor, Steven J. & Bogdan (1994) Qualative Research Methods and Community Living. In Mary F. Hayden & Brian H. Avery (Eds.) Challenges for a Services System in Transistion: Ensuring Quality Community Experiences for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.

Wheeler, Bonnie (1983) Challenged parenting: A Practical Handbook for Parents of Children with Handicaps. Venture: Regal Books.

Wells, David F. (1993) No place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.


Wolfensberger, Wolf (1980) The Definition of Normalization Update, Problems, Disagreements and Misunderstandings. In R. J. Flynn and K. E. Nitch (Eds.) Normalization and Social Integration and Community Services, pp.71-116.

Wolfensberger, Wolf (1992) A Brief Introduction to Socaial Role Valorization: As a Higher Order Concept for Structuring Human Services. 2nd revised. Syracuse, N.Y.: Training Instittue for Human Services, Planning, Leadership and Change Agency.

Ziger, E. Hodapp, R.M. & Edison, M. R. (1990) From Theory to Practice in the Care and Education of Mentally Retarded Individuals. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 95, 1-12.