tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17557742575916654382024-03-14T00:00:32.216-07:00Rick's cornerRick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-587825350269384422013-09-04T22:06:00.000-07:002013-09-04T22:06:19.924-07:00First Church of God Merced CA Sept 7, 2013<br />
Three Views of Disability<br /><br />Rick Eastin<br /><br /><br />My name is Rick Eastin. I would like to share with you a little bit of my pilgrimage as it relates to my disability and to Christianity. From the ages of 3 to 14 I attended a school for persons with mental and physical disabilities. It was during my last year at that school that God met me in a most profound way.<br /><br />Before I give an account of this event, I need to give you some information about my own disability.<br /><br />I was born with Cerebral Palsy. This affects me both physically and emotionally. It wasn’t until I was a young adult that I understood the second aspect of my disability. At that time, I perceived myself to be only physically disabled. Because of this misunderstanding, I had a dislike for my fellow students who were mentally retarded. I did not want to be around “those people.” I considered myself to be better than them, and therefore, I did not want to be associated with them. From my perspective, this dislike is similar to racial prejudices.<br /><br />My prejudice against developmentally disabled people began to change during a school recess when I was 14 years old. I met a young lady who was both mentally and physically disabled. She had a radio. I asked her where she got her radio. She said that she had received it for her birthday. I then asked her how old she was, thinking to myself she could be no more then 13 or 14 years old. She told me, “I am 18 years old.” I was shocked at her answer! That one event started a love in me for people with developmental disabilities, as well as a lasting friendship with my new friend. You see, as I got to know this young lady, I began to realize that she was a lot more like me than I had thought. This caused that barrier of prejudice in my life to begin to diminish.<br /><br />From the ages of 14 to 17, I wanted to work with disabled people as a vocation. During that time, however, Christ was not at the center of my thinking. I began to walk with Jesus at the age of seventeen, in April of 1979. That started me on a journey of seeking to understand disability from a biblical perspective. My views about disability have taken about 18 years to fully develop. Also, when I started to walk with Jesus He not only intensified my desire to work with disabled people, but He also gave me a great concern and compassion for families and caregivers of the disabled.<br /><br />I have come to understand disabilities in the context of three biblical categories: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. Many Christian leaders, agreeing with the late Francis Schaeffer, have pointed out that the Lordship of Jesus cannot simply be restricted to our personal salvation, but must include all of life. As we seek to understand what Scripture says about a given topic and then implement its truth, we start to see redemption occur in a practical way. Just as the Fall has affected all of life, so redemption is to affect all of life for the better.<br /><br />Now, I would like to share with you three views of disability. These three views are The Tragedy, The Rose Colored, and The Common Good views.<br /><br />The Tragedy View<br /><br />The Tragedy view is conveyed by statements such as “that person will only be a vegetable,” “what a burden for the family to have a child with a birth defect,” and “that person can never be a productive member of society.” All three of these statements reveal lack of trust in God. Romans 8:20 tells us that because of the Fall, we now experience frustration. These statements are ways to deal with frustration outside of the biblical framework. People who use these statements are living outside of a scriptural view point. In much the same way, people who make these remarks do so because, for whatever reasons, they do not view disabilities as something that God intervenes in and redeems.<br /><br />I do not mind when people use words such as disabled or even handicapped. In fact, I think that when we try to use trendy words such as differently abled, or challenged, we miss the point, in that we fail to communicate what disabilities actually are.<br /><br />There is one term I especially dislike: birth defect. I do not like this phrase because it fails to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. While it is true that disabilities are a result of the Fall of Man, the Bible also teaches us that God is still in control of all things (including disabilities.) That means that persons with disabilities are created by God with a purpose. Psalm 139:14, 15 proclaims that all of us are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” Let us not forget God’s answer to Moses after Moses complained about his speech impediment: “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11)<br /><br />The Tragedy view of disability focuses almost entirely on the negative, and keeps us from seeing God’s hand, and His purposes in the lives of disabled people and their families.<br /><br />The Rose Colored View<br /><br />The next view is the Rose Colored view, which is represented by those who tell us that people who are retarded should always be treated according to their chronological age rather than their developmental age. This view tells us that we should enhance the image of people with disabilities in the eyes of non-disabled people. The way we are to go about doing this is to have them do as many activities as possible that non-disabled persons do, and as much as possible with non-disabled peers.<br /><br />On a practical level, those who embrace this view of disability believe that although it is nice to have people without disabilities accept people with disabilities for who they are, it is not very effective. Therefore, in order to be the most effective in helping non-disabled people to accept and embrace persons with disabilities, we must help disabled persons learn to behave in ways that appeal to those who are without disabilities. It is argued that as disabled people learn to behave in ways that appeal to those who are not disabled, non disabled people will want good things for persons with disabilities.<br /><br />As I consider this philosophy in light of biblical truth, it violates Scripture on many different fronts. The Rose Colored view advocates that we become respecters of persons. This view also contradicts how God calls us to view one another. I Samuel 16:7 tells us that man looks on the outside, but God looks at the heart. Scripture tells us that the strong are to bear the burdens of the weak. This is the opposite of the Rose Colored view. God calls his followers to be incarnational just as He was. We need to be incarnational in our ministry with people who are disabled. We need to enter into their world and understand their realities to the best of our ability. As Romans 12:15 says, we should mourn with those who mourn, and rejoice with those who rejoice.<br /><br />Advocates of the Rose Colored view would have us believe the concept of mental ages is not a valid idea when it comes to interacting with people that are retarded. I would be the first to admit that a person cannot be defined by their mental age. However, that does not mean that we should throw out the baby with the bath water. I believe that the concept of mental ages is a providential tool that God has given to us. It helps us to understand people with mental limitations.<br /><br />The Common Good View<br /><br />The Common Good view acknowledges that disabilities are a product of the Fall. Disabilities are some of the innumerable consequences of Adam and Eve’s original sin (Genesis 3). The Common Good view assumes that it is right and good to ask in faith for God’s healing. However, if healing does not come in the way expected, that by no means indicates a lack of faith. We need to understand that although sin and its fruits were not part of God’s plan for humanity, the reason they are part of the human experience is because of God’s sovereignty. The Scriptures tell us in many places that evil is under God’s control. He does not cause evil (James 1:13). Rather, he permits evil to serve His own purpose. II Cor. 12:7-10 shows us this truth.<br /><br />To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.<br /><br />We see the same truth reflected in the following texts: Exodus 4:11, Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7, John 9:1-3, and also in Jesus’ death and resurrection. We must rest in the truth of Romans 11:33-36 which says,<br /><br />Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God that God should repay him?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.<br /><br />There are three ways in which God uses a disability. The first way is that He heals it. The second way is that He does something so significant through it that the only way to explain it is to acknowledge that it is a God thing. Two contemporary examples come to mind. One is the life of Joni Erickson Tada. Because of her injury, the body of Christ now has the opportunity to minister to persons affected by disabilities throughout our country and internationally. David Ring is my other example. He is a man with Cerebral Palsy who speaks across America, sharing his testimony about how God uses his disability. He has 200 speaking engagements per year.<br /><br />In the third way, on the surface it seems as though the disability and the resulting suffering is all there is to it. In cases like these we need to remember Job. When in Job’s life it seemed as if nothing good was to come, there was a spiritual battle going on. Joni Eareckson Tada makes the point in her book, When God Weeps, that our response in this kind of suffering teaches us about the unseen realm. In fact, our response is a powerful statement to the powers and principalities that we are up against! (Ephesians 3:10)<br /><br />As a child, I suffered from severe epilepsy and Cerebral Palsy. I was often hospitalized due to my seizures. When I was 13 years old I was healed. From that day on, I was delivered of my epilepsy, and I received clearance from my doctors to terminate the use of my epilepsy medications.<br /><br />I have experienced God’s redemption in my life as he has used, and continues to use my disability to conform me more into the image of Jesus. It has helped me to be more compassionate and sympathetic to people who are in need. My disability has also helped me to look beyond the surface, to the deeper, underlying issues in people, and in life’s circumstances.<br /><br />At times it seems that there is no bright side to having Cerebral Palsy. It is during these times that I identify with Job or the Apostle Paul, and rest in the sovereignty of God.<br /><br />The Common Good view acknowledges that the Bible teaches that God is no respecter of persons. In God’s view, no person is more important than any other. This is clearly taught in Acts 10:34 and 17:25 see also James chapter 2. Because of this truth, we can rightfully conclude that people of all abilities are all part of the promise of Genesis 12:3.<br /><br />Psalm 127:3 tells us that children are gifts. From this foundational truth we can rightfully conclude that all people are to play a significant role in God’s world. There are no exceptions! Disabilities often make it hard to see people as gifts. However, according to Scripture, God promises to give his grace in hard times and declares that we can do all things through Him. (Phil 4:13)<br /><br />The Apostle Paul suffered from what he referred to as a “thorn in his flesh” in 2 Corinthians 2:7-10. At first he prayed that the Lord would remove this thorn. Finally, God changed his perspective. Paul realized that God was up to something. There is a bigger picture, even if from our human perspective we cannot see it. Paul realized this, and rejoiced in his weakness, that God might receive the glory.<br /><br /><br />Rick Eastin is on staff with Evangelicals for Social Action in Fresno, California. He is also a ministry associate with Central California Joni and Friends<br /><br />Recommended Reading:<br /><br />When God Weeps: Why Our Sufferings Matter to the Almighty<br />by Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes<br />Zondervan, 2000<br /><br />A Step Further: Growing Closer to God through Hurt and Hardship<br />by Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes<br />Zondervan, 1980<br /><br />All God’s Children: A Guide to Enabling the Disabled<br />by Joni Eareckson Tada and Gene Newman<br />HarperCollins, 1992 Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-42786804241406854992013-03-30T18:09:00.000-07:002013-03-30T18:09:32.122-07:00<span lang="EN"><div align="CENTER">
Reconciling Two Different Models of Disability</div>
<div align="CENTER">
Rick Eastin</div>
<div align="CENTER">
February 2013</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
To start out, I’d like to give you a little bit of my background. I myself am a person with Cerebral Palsy. For me it has been a life-long disability. As a result of this, I started to attend a Special Education School for persons with disabilities in the early 1960s, in Oakland, California. While I was at that school, I did not have a whole lot of interaction with students who were developmentally delayed until the last year when I was age 14. Through a series of circumstances, I got to know a young adult and that began to introduce me into the world of people with developmental delays. Upon further reflection, I then understood that I had more exposure to persons with developmental delays that I previously realized. Right across the street from my school was a place for students with severe and profound disabilities.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
At age 17, God drew me back to Himself. As I began to walk with Jesus, I began a process of trying to understand my time at the Special Education school. It was a time of reconciling how God was at work in my life during that timeframe. I started to understand that even in the most difficult of situations God is always at work, even though there are seldom “nice and easy” answers. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
Also at age 17, I began to study the field of intellectual disabilities. This study continues to be a life-long pursuit of mine. I eventually attended California State University-Fresno where I earned a BA degree in Social Work. Also, from 1987 to 2002, I founded and directed a program at my local Church that dealt primarily with adults having intellectual disabilities. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
In addition, a personal blessing to me came about through the reestablishment in 1986 of the friendship relationship with the young adult mentioned above whom I had befriended at my original school in Oakland. I had many opportunities to be of encouragement to her for the next 22 years.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
The 1970s were times of great transition in the field of intellectual disabilities. A consensus started to emerge that, because people with intellectual disabilities had been so badly mistreated and under-represented in society, that there needed to be a great effort to try as much as possible to begin to right some of the wrongs that had been done.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
A new paradigm began to emerge that said “intellectual disability often causes people who had this disability to behave in ways that the broader society does not find rewarding. Therefore, we need to work hard at attempting to get such people to behave in ways that the dominant culture would find rewarding”. The desired end result would be that people with disabilities would be treated in a better manner.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
Although this approach has the noblest of intentions in that its anticipated outcomes include the improvement of the treatment of people affected by disabilities, too often this philosophy ends up overlooking the very nature of the disability itself. By this I mean that in our contemporary society we often end up painting an overly optimistic picture that is simply not based in reality.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
Now I want to turn your attention to what Scriptures says about disabilities. In order to do this, I will be looking at this topic through the three categories of the Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. To start with, Scripture informs us that when God first created Adam and Eve there was complete and total bliss. But we find that once Adam and Eve disobeyed God, that resulted in pain and suffering being injected into God’s Creation. Part of the judgment that God issued because of the Fall was telling Adam that there would be thorns and thistles that would now be a part of his life, thereby extending to all humanity. The ‘thorns and thistles’ represent the many varied ways in which life is either hard and/or works against us.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
Disabilities are one of the many manifestations of the Fall with which we have to contend.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
God promises according to Romans 8:28 that He will work all things together for our good, for those of us who are in Christ Jesus. This means that even though disabilities can be very painful as they affect the individual, the family, and society as a whole, God will work through these difficult circumstances to reveal Himself. This also means that in every life, even though we may experience great difficulties as a result of disabilities, nothing is ever wasted; God can redeem it all.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
Now I want to look at what I call God’s Redemptive Design of disability. I want to set this within the context of Exodus 4:10-11, and Job 2:10. Both of these Scriptures inform us that God is in control, even when He appears to withhold resources from us that we think we need. This is what happens when we encounter or are faced with disability. It appears that we lack the needed resources to be able to have a good life. But evidently, based on these two Scriptures, God sees things differently. God gives us individually exactly what we need; it is our job to partner with Him in the process of trying to ‘unpack’ the design He has for us. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
When we apply these truths to persons with intellectual disabilities, we must come to the conclusion that God has a plan for these individuals as well. At times, that plan often goes against what our current culture thinks is ‘the good life’.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
God has created us all in such a way that every one of us goes through what is known as ‘developmental stages’. Typically, persons without disabilities follow a very predictable progression through these stages. However, people with intellectual disabilities often get ‘stuck’ at a development stage from which they do not advance. This is what makes their life experience so different from people without intellectual disabilities. But in the field of intellectual disabilities, the culture evidently has decided that it does not like this way of dealing with disabilities, not because it’s not based in reality, but many simply do not like, or feel comfortable with, the results it yields.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
I want to examine disability from two perspectives; on one hand, we are called by God to attempt to make things better and not simply accept things as they are. The classic illustration of this is in the Parable of Good Samaritan. The person who helped the individual in need surely did not leave things as they were. In the same way, we are called to attempt to help all people develop to their fullest. As St. Irenaeus said in the Second Century, “The Glory of God is Man fully alive”.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
On the other hand, we need to also, not only accept, but embrace the limitations that God in His providence gives to us. What this means to people with developmental delays is that yes, we are to challenge them as we would all people to develop to their fullest potential, while at the same time embracing the limitations that come with intellectual disability.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
In the field of intellectual disability, there is a great push to have non-disabled people to have good social perceptions of these persons. The reasoning behind this is that it is believed that if people have a good mental image of these individuals they will be treated better by their non-disabled counterparts. But we have to be very careful about how we proceed down this path of reasoning. It comes down to what I call “truth in advertising”; if God designed us with a disability, it just stands to reason that it is not His intention that we would spend so much energy on trying to prevent others to perceive us as not having the disability!</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
God has given people with intellectual disabilities a platform by which he or she is a facet of who God is. But often this platform comes in the form of two socially devalued roles. One of these roles is that of being perceived as a child or child-like, even though one is of an adult age chronologically. The other role is that of an object of pity. It is a fact, whether we like it or not, that often adults with intellectual disabilities remain do at a child’s level intellectually and that cannot be changed. Also, as a person with a disability myself, I know what it is like to have people be overly sympathetic to the point where it is just “too much”. However, that does not mean we should ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’. God has created us in such a way that when we encounter the brokenness of a disability, especially the more severe it is, we feel pity for that person. This is a God-given response to what we see. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
In our service to people who are intellectually disabled, we need to actively pursue how God has designed such persons to function in His world in a redemptive manner.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
I would like to now highlight three different places that work with people with intellectual disabilities where they are embracing people according to God’s design for them. The results are truly remarkable.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
First is Break the Barriers which is headquartered in Fresno, California. This is an amazing program where people with and without disabilities engage in gymnastics together. The results at that program are nothing short of remarkable. They have performed at local half-times for various sporting events, traveled to Washington DC to showcase their talents, as well as even doing some international travel. They have been to South Africa, Romania, and China to date.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
The next program I am highlighting is Central California Mennonite Residential Services. This is a program that provides supportive live-in services for adults with developmental disability. In this community, the abled and disabled share life together. Individuals affected by disabilities also receive the needed support from the staff, helping all residents meet their own personal needs and achieve their own goals. Jen Foster, the Executive Director, has a favorite saying; “We are better together than alone”. This reflects an attitude not of <i>independence</i>, but rather <i>interdependence</i>.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
The third organization I would like to highlight is called Shepherd’s Ministries, located in Wisconsin. They are a residential ministry for people with developmental delays, and I must admit I have only read about them online. Nevertheless, I am truly impressed with what I have read. They have a concept that I believe is rather unique to them, called ‘appropriate independence’. There is a rather lengthy article that is available online about this approach. Shepherd’s Ministries have shown much original thinking about how to apply God’s Truth while serving the everyday lives of people with disabilities.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
As Christians, we have been called by God, not only to be reconciled to Himself through Jesus Christ, but we have also been given the ministry of reconciliation. What this means is, that as Christians, we need to seek on a continuing basis how to bring God’s Truth to bear in the realm of how we live with people with intellectual disabilities in God’s sin-marred world. We are called to be salt and light in this arena as was our Lord.</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
</div>
<span lang="EN"><div align="JUSTIFY">
# </div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> And we knthat in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. – Romans 8:28</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"># </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.” The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord?—Exodus 4:10-11</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><div align="JUSTIFY">
# </div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">He replied, “You are talking like a foolish[</span><div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%202:10&version=NIV / fen-NIV-12902a / See footnote a"><u><sup><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN">a</span></span></span></sup></u><sup><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"></span></span></sup><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"></span></span></a><sup><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN">] woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” In all this, Job did not sin in what he said. – Job 2:10ow that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. – Romans 8:28</span></span></sup></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"></span></sup></div>
<sup><span style="font-size: small;"># </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.” The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord?—Exodus 4:10-11</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"># </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">He replied, “You are talking like a foolish[</span></sup><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%202:10&version=NIV / fen-NIV-12902a / See footnote a"><u><sup><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN">a</span></span></span></sup></u><sup><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"></span></span></sup><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"></span></span></a><sup><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN">] woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” In all this, Job did not sin in what he said. – Job 2:10</span></span></sup><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></sup><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><span style="font-size: small;"></span></div>
</div>
</span>Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-11357037352490276242010-04-20T13:28:00.000-07:002010-08-07T10:38:50.655-07:00Advancing Individual, Not Professional, ChoiceAdvancing Individual, Not Professional, Choice<br /><br />About the author: Rick <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Eastin</span> has been on staff with Evangelicals for Social Action in Fresno, California since 1992. He is a ministry associate of Joni and Friends Central California, and the primary keynote speaker for many of their training events. Rick also founded and directed The Cornerstone (1987-2002), a Christian education and respite program for adults with mental retardation and their caregivers.<br /><br />My name is Rick <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Eastin</span>. I was born with cerebral palsy and as a result of my disability I attended special classes for persons with mental and physical disabilities from the age of 3 to 14. My time at the school was, in many ways, a painful experience because my own disability impacts me in three different ways: physical, emotional, and in my ability to learn. Physically, I have a hard time walking and talking. As a kid, I behaved in some very awkward social ways that caused my peers who were just physically disabled to ostracize me. I had trouble with stress at times, overreacting in ways that aggravated rather than resolved the situation. I still have a very difficult time with things like spelling and punctuation.<br /><br />Although my early education was in segregated settings, I had limited contact with persons with mental retardation. They considered placing me in a class with persons who are mentally retarded at one time. I told them, “I’m not going in a class with those ‘retards’”. My views began to change as a result of a chance encounter with a young woman on the playground. I was surprised to learn that she was 18 and came to understand that some of my fellow students would not leave that school until they were 21. I began to appreciate that many of us have real limitations and that ignoring them was unrealistic. I have continued my quest to better understand people who are retarded and their families.<br /><br />My academic and social skills improved about the time that I was ready for high school. I was mainstreamed into the regular ed. classrooms for most of the day. I became more independent when I learned to use public transportation and I began to expand my social circle. Eventually, I earned a BA in social work. I have also drawn upon what I've learned from a number of friends including a Sunday school teacher and a ministry team.<br /><br />Since 1979 I have been, in various capacities, involved in working with adults with mental retardation. Most of my involvement has been in the Christian community. However, I have sought to study and understand both what has been done historically and what is being done currently in the human services sector to serve persons with this disability. One of my major concerns about where I see services going for people with mental retardation is that while there is much talk about giving them choices, in reality we are ignoring what these individuals really want.<br /><br />We have abandoned the normal stage developmental model of understanding mental retardation and replaced it with what is known as the functional skills and/or the “top-down” model. It is based on research that 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 approach is used to teach daily living skills like toileting, eating and personal hygiene. Those who hold to the "Functional Skills" view, support teaching individuals to perform tasks even though they may not have any comprehension of what they are doing or why they are doing it. They also work to eliminate behavior that the mainstream society does not applaud. All of this is done so that these people can become integrated into the mainstream community life. We reject the developmental stage model because we do not like the results that it yields.<br /><br />The behavioral approach to developmental services is directly related to <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span>’s principle of normalization. The focus of normalization is on providing services in the most culturally valued way possible. The hope is that it will result in persons behaving in ways that are esteemed by the general culture. According to Dr. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span>, 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. Normalization asserts that all persons who are mentally retarded/developmentally disabled should be socially integrated into the mainstream community. They 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. The advocates of this movement understand that many of these people will need ongoing support to participate in integrated settings.<br /><br />An important facet of normalization is called the “dignity of risk”. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span> advocates for exposing people to challenges in which they may succeed or fail. The purpose of this is to give them the opportunity to learn from these experiences. However, we need to let people experience a “dignity of risk” within the context of their intellectual development. This is how we treat persons without disabilities. For example, we would never say it’s all right for a child of three to go to a downtown city unsupervised. However, if we fast forward to that person being fifteen, it would be perfectly legitimate to expect that the person would be able to be downtown independently. Persons with disabilities are often exposed to risks that exceed their ability to understand. Because they cannot understand, they are not able to appreciate the value of the opportunities being presented. In some cases, they are, in fact, exposed to risks that are even beyond their ability to keep themselves safe as well. The reason this happens is that in our social interaction with others many of the judgments that we have to make occur in situations that are unplanned. I am not saying that a person with a mental disability should not have these opportunities; I believe that they should enjoy the same opportunities that we all have. They should also have the supports necessary to empower them to be as successful as possible and to keep themselves safe.<br /><br />Another part of this ideology is to treat persons with mental retardation according to their chronological age rather than their mental age. This approach often creates problems for persons who are mentally retarded/developmentally disabled. Consider, for example, supported employment. According to the supporters of social integration, sheltered work environments are indefensible. (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">McLoughlin</span> Garner and Callahan, 1987). 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. 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 sheltered 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 or strongly persuaded to comply. This is all in the name of serving them and improving the quality of their lives, with little regard to the individual's perception concerning their own well-being. (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">Edgerton</span>, 1990 p.152)<br /><br />This philosophy also 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">over-protection</span> 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 behavioral one. The developmental model says 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 and perform tasks accordingly.<br /><br />The social integration movement is based on two different ideologies: social deviancy and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">equalitarianism</span>. These ideologies, however, are incompatible with each other. Social deviancy says one must change to be acceptable, whereas <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">equalitarianism</span> says that all people are to be accepted as equal. Although the goal of the social integration movement is to empower people to live lives of dignity and respect, advocates of this approach do not respect the needs and desires of the people they aim to serve. If the human service community is to maintain its commitment to the values of self-determination and informed consent we must acknowledge the needs and desires of those who are being served. 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 stage developmental model has been <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">rejected.</span> This does not change the fact that people 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, and when they do, 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 felt needs and desires of this group, we are not treating them with dignity. In which case, we are not treating them in an ethical manner.<br /><br />We should learn from the history of the human rights movement. People from disenfranchised races and cultures often began by trying to “fit in” with society at large. Over time, these groups recognized that they had a right to be respected by society without giving up their heritage and unique attributes (that society was what needed to change.) If we are to remain true to our commitment about choices, then we need to honor the choices of <strong>the people with the disabilities</strong>. This should be so even when their choices are not in line with what we happen to consider “age appropriate.” In contrast, the reason we want persons with mental retardation to behave in age appropriate ways is so that they will "fit in" with and be treated better by <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">non-disabled</span> people. In relation to other marginalized groups, we now demand that these people groups are treated respectfully and that society embrace their differences as such. Society's treatment of anyone should be based simply on their value as a human being. When people groups are not treated fairly, we see it as a great injustice on the part of our society (and rightfully so.) I am proposing that we view people with mental retardation in the same light as these other groups of people. When they are not treated according to their ability to understand, they are not being treated in a just or fair manner. There is a lot of talk about advocating for people with mental retardation, but this advocacy is not often based on what individuals in this condition truly want.<br /><br />I believe the material above clearly shows that the reason "integration" has not taken place is because 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. The provision of services to persons with mental retardation should be based on what science tells us about what mental retardation is. It is also important to have a strong value base when approaching individual <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">scenarios</span>.<br /><br />There are two broad sectors to consider. University professors and researchers often promote their own ideas about how persons with mental retardation should be treated. Families often have a very different view of the services that their family member needs. We need to find ways for both of these sectors to dialogue together in the hope of arriving at a more mutual understanding of what it is that mentally retarded persons actually need. Both groups of people have something very valuable to offer the other. Professionals have shown that we are able to teach people with severe disabilities things that were once considered impossible. We need to capitalize on that and use that technology to help these persons have as much control over their lives as is possible. On the other hand, professionals need to understand that just because we can get a person to perform certain tasks, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">doesn</span>’t necessarily guarantee that we are expanding their understanding of what is taking place. We need to find ways to integrate the skills that we teach people into their lives in such a way that we are also mindful and respectful of their limitations in the area of their understanding.<br /><br />Parents need to understand that college professors and researchers are just people. Therefore, they can be questioned and should be challenged just as we would do in any other field. For example, in our society there are parents who feel that they can best educate their children through the means of home schooling rather than the typical public education system. This is a clear instance of parents challenging professional opinion. In the same way, parents of a person with mental retardation need to feel confident enough to speak up for their disabled family member. This is so even when these parents feel like they are contradicting professionals.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">Edgerton</span> Robert, Quality of Life a Longitudinal Perspective ; In Quality of Life Perspectives and Issues Robert L. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">Schalock</span> (Ed). American Association on Mental Retardation Washington D.C.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">McLoughlin</span>, C.S. Garner, J.R. Callahan, M., (1987). Getting Employed, Staying Employed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-33544249013686697842009-02-01T16:45:00.000-08:002010-08-07T10:38:50.661-07:00Social Integration - A Christian Perspective by Rick EastinSocial Integration – A Christian Perspective<br />By Rick <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Eastin</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">deinstitutionalization</span> 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.<br /><br />Starting with the 1970’s, we began to see a major philosophical transition gradually occur. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span> wrote a book entitled, The Principle of Normalization in Human Services. In this now classic text, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span> formulates and articulates a case for improving the lives of persons with developmental disabilities. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span>’s philosophy<br />Clearly implies these basic principles:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Judeo</span>-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”. (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">McLoughlin</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">et</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">al</span>, 1987 p. 14)<br /><br />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.) <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">Integrationalists</span> 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span> describes deviant behavior:<br /><br />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-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">ness</span> must be negatively valued. It is not different-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">ness</span> in itself that makes for deviancy in this definition, but negatively valued different-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">ness</span>. (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span>, 1980, p. 8)<br /><br />Consider the humanistic impact of the following statements by the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">integrationalists</span>:<br /><br />It may not necessarily mean that a normalization implication is moral or immoral.<br />There may be some things that may be culturally normative and valued that may not be considered moral by a lot of people. (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span>, 1980, p.16)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">referred</span> to as the top down model, is upheld by them to be the sole answer to this issue.<br /><br />However, the danger with the latter model is that it is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">behavioristic</span>. 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span>’s concept that we discussed earlier about eliminating behavior that mainstream society does not applaud.<br /><br />I would like to illustrate with what the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error">integrationalists</span> 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error">isn</span>’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, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-error">communicatively</span>, and in related to dress and grooming codes”. (Brown, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-error">et</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" class="blsp-spelling-error">al</span>, 1984, p. 264)<br /><br />Now I want to consider what they say about curriculum development for persons who are severely developmentally disabled:<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" class="blsp-spelling-error">habilitative</span> 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" class="blsp-spelling-error">et</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_27" class="blsp-spelling-error">al</span>, 1988, p. 70)<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_28" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">over protection</span> 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_29" class="blsp-spelling-error">behavioristic</span> 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_30" class="blsp-spelling-error">Orelove</span>, 1988.)<br /><br />Since most of this philosophy is being promoted from universities, we must understand its value system and the basis of its values.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_31" class="blsp-spelling-error">flip-side</span> 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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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<br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_32" class="blsp-spelling-error">behavioristic</span> model <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_33" class="blsp-spelling-error">doesn</span>’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.<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_34" class="blsp-spelling-error">doesn</span>’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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />References:<br /><br />Brown, L. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_35" class="blsp-spelling-error">Zanella</span>-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_36" class="blsp-spelling-error">Albright</span>, K. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_37" class="blsp-spelling-error">Rogan</span>, P., <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_38" class="blsp-spelling-error">et</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_39" class="blsp-spelling-error">al</span>. (1988) An Integrated Curriculum for Transition. In B. L. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_40" class="blsp-spelling-error">Ludlow</span>, A. P. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_41" class="blsp-spelling-error">Turnbull</span> and R. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_42" class="blsp-spelling-error">Luckasson</span> (Eds.), Transitions to Adult Life for People with Mental Retardation Principles and Practices. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, pp. 67-78.<br /><br />Brown, L. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_43" class="blsp-spelling-error">Shifaga</span>, B. York, J., <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_44" class="blsp-spelling-error">et</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_45" class="blsp-spelling-error">al</span>. (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.<br /><br />Carney, I. H. and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_46" class="blsp-spelling-error">Orelove</span>, F. P. (1988) Implementing Transition Programs for Community Participation. In B. L. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_47" class="blsp-spelling-error">Ludlow</span>, A. P. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_48" class="blsp-spelling-error">Turnbull</span> and R. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_49" class="blsp-spelling-error">Luckasson</span> (Eds.), Transitions to Adult Life for People with Mental Retardation Principles and Practices. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, pp. 137-157.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Henry, Carl F. H., (1983) The Christian Mindset In a Secular Society. Portland: <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_50" class="blsp-spelling-error">Multnomah</span> press.<br /><br />Henry, Carl F. H., (1988) Twilight of a Great Civilization. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_51" class="blsp-spelling-error">Westchester</span>: <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_52" class="blsp-spelling-error">Crossway</span> Books.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_53" class="blsp-spelling-error">McLoughlin</span>, C. S. Gardner, J. B. Callahan, M. (1987) Getting Employed, Staying Employed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_54" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span>, W. (1980) A Brief Overview of the Principle of Normalization. In R. J. Flynn and K. E. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_55" class="blsp-spelling-error">Nitsch</span> (Eds.), Normalization Social Integration and Community Services. Austin: Pro-ed, pp. 7-31.Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-48644431260868011962009-02-01T15:52:00.000-08:002010-08-07T10:38:50.667-07:00Social Misfits or Another Culture by Rick EastinSocial Misfits or Another Culture<br />By Rick Eastin<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />References<br /><br />Barna, George, (1990) The Frog in the Kettle: What Christians Need to Know About Life in the Year 2000. Ventura: Regal Books.<br /><br />Carson, D.A., (1990) How long, O Lord? Reflections on suffering and evil. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Colson, Charles, (1987) Kingdoms in Conflict, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.<br /><br />Gill, David W., (1987) The Opening of the Christian Mind, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Neuhaus, Richard J., (1984) The Naked Public Square. Second Edition, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company<br /><br />Noebel David A., (1991) Understanding The Times. Manitou Springs: Summit Press.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Petersen, Janice (1983) When the Odds Are Against You. Foursquare World Advance. September.<br /><br />Schaeffer, Francis A., (1987) The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview. Vol. 4. Westchester: Crossway Books.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Van Leeuwen, Mary Stewart, (1985) The Person in Psychology: A Contemporary Christian Appraisal. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.<br /><br />Wanger, Peter C., (1973) Church Growth: More Than a Magazine, A School, A Book. Christianity Today. December 7, pp.11-12, 14.<br /><br />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.Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-148788724849772912009-02-01T15:42:00.000-08:002010-08-07T10:38:50.773-07:00Social integration - A Differerent View by Rick Eastin<div>Social Integration – A Different View<br />By Rick Eastin<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br />“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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />During the 1960’s there was a movement to depopulate institutions. This trend came to be known as deinstitionalization.<br />…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)<br /><br />As a result of the deinstitionalization movement two types of community programs were developed for the care and treatment of retarded persons.<br />Group homes:<br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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)<br />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.<br /><br />The promoters of the current social integration movement are advocating for the abandonment of the normal human developmental model of learning.<br />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)<br /><br />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)<br />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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />…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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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 <strong><em>acceptable</em></strong>, whereas the second one says that all people are to be <strong><em>accepted</em></strong> 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)<br />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 <strong><em>uphold and respect their choices</em></strong>. 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.<br /><br />References:<br />Perspective and Issues, Washington DC: American Association on Mental Retardation, pp. 149-160.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Gold, M. (1975) Vocational Training. In J. Wortis (Ed.), Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities: An annual review (Vol. 7) New York: Brunner/Mazel<br /><br />Grossman, Herbert J., (1983) Classification in Mental Retardation. Washington DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Krik, S.A., and Gallagher, J.J., (1979). Educating Exceptional Children, Third Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.<br /><br />Maloney, M.P. & Ward, M.P., (1979). Mental Retardation and Modern Society, New York: Oxford University Press.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />McLoughlin, C.S. Garner, J.R. Callahan, M., (1987). Getting Employed, Staying Employed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.<br /><br />McQustion, Gloria, Literature from the Fresno Association for Retarded Citizens.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Rowitz, L. & Stoneman, Z., (1990) Community First. Mental Retardation, 28, iii-iv.<br /><br />Towns, E.L., & Grott, R.L., (1972) Successful Ministry to the Retarded. Chicago, Moody Press.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ziegler, E., Balla, D., & Hodapp, R. (1984) On the definition and classification of mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, pp. 89, 215-230.</div>Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-26688310360993392392009-02-01T15:39:00.000-08:002010-08-07T10:38:50.807-07:00Empowerment and Protection by Rick Eastin<div>Empowerment and Protection<br />By Rick Eastin<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Now I want to provide the reader with some accurate definitions of these disabilities:<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Mental Retardation: significantly below average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior manifested during the developmental period. </div><br />
<br /><div>Levels of retardation are: </div>
<br /><div>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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br />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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />References<br /><br />Barna, George, (1990) The Frog in the Kettle: What Christians Need to Know About Life in the Year 2000. Ventura: Regal Books.<br /><br />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<br /><br />Colson, C., & Eckerd, J (1991) Why America Doesn’t Work. Dallas: Word Publishing.<br /><br />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<br /><br />Dick Marion, (1988) Families of Handicap Children. Elgin: David C. Cook Publishing.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Geisler, Norman L. (1983) Is Man the Measure: An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.<br /><br />Grossman, Herman J. (1983) Classification in Mental Retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.<br /><br />Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Hawley, Gloria (1981) Families and Friends of the Handicapped. Joni and Friends, Joy in Caring Seminar.<br /><br />Henry, Carl, F.H. (1988) Twilight of a Great Civilization. Westchester: Crossway Books.<br /><br />Jones, Stanton L., & Butman, Richard E. (1991) Modern Psychotherapies. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.<br /><br />Murren, Doug. (1990) The Baby Boomerang: Catching Baby Boomers as They Return to Church. Ventura: Regal Books.<br /><br />Nash, Ronald H. (1987) Evangelicals in America: Who They Are and What They Believe. Nashville: Abingdon.<br /><br />Nobel, David A. (1991) Understanding the Times. Manitou Springs.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Schaeffer, Francis (1987) The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview. Westchester Crossway Books.<br /><br />Shapiro, Joseph P. (1994) No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement, New York.<br /><br />Strully, Jeffrey, (1994) Video presentation given in Fresno, California.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Wheeler, Bonnie (1983) Challenged parenting: A Practical Handbook for Parents of Children with Handicaps. Venture: Regal Books.<br /><br />Wells, David F. (1993) No place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</div>Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-45463303926523749452008-12-22T11:47:00.000-08:002010-08-07T10:38:50.813-07:00Three Views of DisabilityThree Views of Disability<br /><br />Rick Eastin<br /><br /><br />My name is Rick Eastin. I would like to share with you a little bit of my pilgrimage as it relates to my disability and to Christianity. From the ages of 3 to 14 I attended a school for persons with mental and physical disabilities. It was during my last year at that school that God met me in a most profound way.<br /><br />Before I give an account of this event, I need to give you some information about my own disability.<br /><br />I was born with Cerebral Palsy. This affects me both physically and emotionally. It wasn’t until I was a young adult that I understood the second aspect of my disability. At that time, I perceived myself to be only physically disabled. Because of this misunderstanding, I had a dislike for my fellow students who were mentally retarded. I did not want to be around “those people.” I considered myself to be better than them, and therefore, I did not want to be associated with them. From my perspective, this dislike is similar to racial prejudices.<br /><br />My prejudice against developmentally disabled people began to change during a school recess when I was 14 years old. I met a young lady who was both mentally and physically disabled. She had a radio. I asked her where she got her radio. She said that she had received it for her birthday. I then asked her how old she was, thinking to myself she could be no more then 13 or 14 years old. She told me, “I am 18 years old.” I was shocked at her answer! That one event started a love in me for people with developmental disabilities, as well as a lasting friendship with my new friend. You see, as I got to know this young lady, I began to realize that she was a lot more like me than I had thought. This caused that barrier of prejudice in my life to begin to diminish.<br /><br />From the ages of 14 to 17, I wanted to work with disabled people as a vocation. During that time, however, Christ was not at the center of my thinking. I began to walk with Jesus at the age of seventeen, in April of 1979. That started me on a journey of seeking to understand disability from a biblical perspective. My views about disability have taken about 18 years to fully develop. Also, when I started to walk with Jesus He not only intensified my desire to work with disabled people, but He also gave me a great concern and compassion for families and caregivers of the disabled.<br /><br />I have come to understand disabilities in the context of three biblical categories: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. Many Christian leaders, agreeing with the late Francis Schaeffer, have pointed out that the Lordship of Jesus cannot simply be restricted to our personal salvation, but must include all of life. As we seek to understand what Scripture says about a given topic and then implement its truth, we start to see redemption occur in a practical way. Just as the Fall has affected all of life, so redemption is to affect all of life for the better.<br /><br />Now, I would like to share with you three views of disability. These three views are The Tragedy, The Rose Colored, and The Common Good views.<br /><br />The Tragedy View<br /><br />The Tragedy view is conveyed by statements such as “that person will only be a vegetable,” “what a burden for the family to have a child with a birth defect,” and “that person can never be a productive member of society.” All three of these statements reveal lack of trust in God. Romans 8:20 tells us that because of the Fall, we now experience frustration. These statements are ways to deal with frustration outside of the biblical framework. People who use these statements are living outside of a scriptural view point. In much the same way, people who make these remarks do so because, for whatever reasons, they do not view disabilities as something that God intervenes in and redeems.<br /><br />I do not mind when people use words such as disabled or even handicapped. In fact, I think that when we try to use trendy words such as differently abled, or challenged, we miss the point, in that we fail to communicate what disabilities actually are.<br /><br />There is one term I especially dislike: birth defect. I do not like this phrase because it fails to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. While it is true that disabilities are a result of the Fall of Man, the Bible also teaches us that God is still in control of all things (including disabilities.) That means that persons with disabilities are created by God with a purpose. Psalm 139:14, 15 proclaims that all of us are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” Let us not forget God’s answer to Moses after Moses complained about his speech impediment: “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11)<br /><br />The Tragedy view of disability focuses almost entirely on the negative, and keeps us from seeing God’s hand, and His purposes in the lives of disabled people and their families.<br /><br />The Rose Colored View<br /><br />The next view is the Rose Colored view, which is represented by those who tell us that people who are retarded should always be treated according to their chronological age rather than their developmental age. This view tells us that we should enhance the image of people with disabilities in the eyes of non-disabled people. The way we are to go about doing this is to have them do as many activities as possible that non-disabled persons do, and as much as possible with non-disabled peers.<br /><br />On a practical level, those who embrace this view of disability believe that although it is nice to have people without disabilities accept people with disabilities for who they are, it is not very effective. Therefore, in order to be the most effective in helping non-disabled people to accept and embrace persons with disabilities, we must help disabled persons learn to behave in ways that appeal to those who are without disabilities. It is argued that as disabled people learn to behave in ways that appeal to those who are not disabled, non disabled people will want good things for persons with disabilities.<br /><br />As I consider this philosophy in light of biblical truth, it violates Scripture on many different fronts. The Rose Colored view advocates that we become respecters of persons. This view also contradicts how God calls us to view one another. I Samuel 16:7 tells us that man looks on the outside, but God looks at the heart. Scripture tells us that the strong are to bear the burdens of the weak. This is the opposite of the Rose Colored view. God calls his followers to be incarnational just as He was. We need to be incarnational in our ministry with people who are disabled. We need to enter into their world and understand their realities to the best of our ability. As Romans 12:15 says, we should mourn with those who mourn, and rejoice with those who rejoice.<br /><br />Advocates of the Rose Colored view would have us believe the concept of mental ages is not a valid idea when it comes to interacting with people that are retarded. I would be the first to admit that a person cannot be defined by their mental age. However, that does not mean that we should throw out the baby with the bath water. I believe that the concept of mental ages is a providential tool that God has given to us. It helps us to understand people with mental limitations.<br /><br />The Common Good View<br /><br />The Common Good view acknowledges that disabilities are a product of the Fall. Disabilities are some of the innumerable consequences of Adam and Eve’s original sin (Genesis 3). The Common Good view assumes that it is right and good to ask in faith for God’s healing. However, if healing does not come in the way expected, that by no means indicates a lack of faith. We need to understand that although sin and its fruits were not part of God’s plan for humanity, the reason they are part of the human experience is because of God’s sovereignty. The Scriptures tell us in many places that evil is under God’s control. He does not cause evil (James 1:13). Rather, he permits evil to serve His own purpose. II Cor. 12:7-10 shows us this truth.<br /><br />To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.<br /><br />We see the same truth reflected in the following texts: Exodus 4:11, Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7, John 9:1-3, and also in Jesus’ death and resurrection. We must rest in the truth of Romans 11:33-36 which says,<br /><br />Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God that God should repay him?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.<br /><br />There are three ways in which God uses a disability. The first way is that He heals it. The second way is that He does something so significant through it that the only way to explain it is to acknowledge that it is a God thing. Two contemporary examples come to mind. One is the life of Joni Erickson Tada. Because of her injury, the body of Christ now has the opportunity to minister to persons affected by disabilities throughout our country and internationally. David Ring is my other example. He is a man with Cerebral Palsy who speaks across America, sharing his testimony about how God uses his disability. He has 200 speaking engagements per year.<br /><br />In the third way, on the surface it seems as though the disability and the resulting suffering is all there is to it. In cases like these we need to remember Job. When in Job’s life it seemed as if nothing good was to come, there was a spiritual battle going on. Joni Eareckson Tada makes the point in her book, When God Weeps, that our response in this kind of suffering teaches us about the unseen realm. In fact, our response is a powerful statement to the powers and principalities that we are up against! (Ephesians 3:10)<br /><br />As a child, I suffered from severe epilepsy and Cerebral Palsy. I was often hospitalized due to my seizures. When I was 13 years old I was healed. From that day on, I was delivered of my epilepsy, and I received clearance from my doctors to terminate the use of my epilepsy medications.<br /><br />I have experienced God’s redemption in my life as he has used, and continues to use my disability to conform me more into the image of Jesus. It has helped me to be more compassionate and sympathetic to people who are in need. My disability has also helped me to look beyond the surface, to the deeper, underlying issues in people, and in life’s circumstances.<br /><br />At times it seems that there is no bright side to having Cerebral Palsy. It is during these times that I identify with Job or the Apostle Paul, and rest in the sovereignty of God.<br /><br />The Common Good view acknowledges that the Bible teaches that God is no respecter of persons. In God’s view, no person is more important than any other. This is clearly taught in Acts 10:34 and 17:25 see also James chapter 2. Because of this truth, we can rightfully conclude that people of all abilities are all part of the promise of Genesis 12:3.<br /><br />Psalm 127:3 tells us that children are gifts. From this foundational truth we can rightfully conclude that all people are to play a significant role in God’s world. There are no exceptions! Disabilities often make it hard to see people as gifts. However, according to Scripture, God promises to give his grace in hard times and declares that we can do all things through Him. (Phil 4:13)<br /><br />The Apostle Paul suffered from what he referred to as a “thorn in his flesh” in 2 Corinthians 2:7-10. At first he prayed that the Lord would remove this thorn. Finally, God changed his perspective. Paul realized that God was up to something. There is a bigger picture, even if from our human perspective we cannot see it. Paul realized this, and rejoiced in his weakness, that God might receive the glory.<br /><br /><br />Rick Eastin is on staff with Evangelicals for Social Action in Fresno, California. He is also a ministry associate with Central California Joni and Friends<br /><br />Recommended Reading:<br /><br />When God Weeps: Why Our Sufferings Matter to the Almighty<br />by Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes<br />Zondervan, 2000<br /><br />A Step Further: Growing Closer to God through Hurt and Hardship<br />by Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes<br />Zondervan, 1980<br /><br />All God’s Children: A Guide to Enabling the Disabled<br />by Joni Eareckson Tada and Gene Newman<br />HarperCollins, 1992Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-79993309847211791442008-06-03T20:21:00.000-07:002010-08-07T10:38:50.899-07:00A friend's responce to Dr. McNair<div>I shared with my good Friend Gordon <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hathaway</font> <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">several</font> entries from Dr. <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error"><font id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">McNair's</span></font></font> blog, <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">concerning</font> ministry to adults with <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">intellectual</font> disabilities. In <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">response,</font> Gordon <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">wrote</font> the following <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">superb</font> paper. In order to help the reader understand the context of his comments, <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error"><font id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">McNair's</span></font></font> blog entries are posted <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">preceding</font> Gordon remarks. <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error"><font id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">McNair's</span></font></font> entries are in blue.<br /><br />...ye pay tithe of mint and anise and <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">cummin</span></font>, and have<br />omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.<br />Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.<br />Matthew 23:23b&24</div>
<br /><div><br />As I read over the notes that were given to me by my friend Rick <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Eastin</span></font>, the above verse came to mind. Within the variety of papers I read, I definitely found some common ground. I consider the common ground to be analogous to the gnats mentioned in the passage above. None of us would want gnats in our drinking water, so we can all join in on that straining project. But, what about the camel that someone is unfortunately swallowing. In the passage above the camel represents the "weightier matters."<br />For the purposes of this article, I will try to keep the focus on the "weightier matters," such as the underlying premise, the foundational basis, the core motive of the themes we are discussing.<br />These thoughts are a response to some ideas that were presented to me. It is therefore not intended to be a stand alone read. However, with enough imagination, one might draw out some valuable concepts that could serve as a food for further investigation. Rick has mentioned to me that he intends to post the original text with my responses inserted.<br />When writing it is difficult to convey the temperament and emotion in which the author intends to share. It’s important to me that anyone reading this treatise know that the entire thing was written calmly and peacefully. Capital letters can be interpreted as angry and resentful. I’m using caps merely for emphasis. My hope is that these thoughts will be helpful for my brothers and sisters in Christ.<br />************************************************************************************* <strong><font id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">stig</span></font>·ma·<font id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">tize</span></font></strong> - vb. to set some mark of disgrace or infamy upon:<br />The crime of the father stigmatized the whole family.<br /><br /><strong><font id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">de</span></font>·vi·ant</strong> - adj. Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society. n. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.<br /><strong>society</strong> - 1. Mankind considered as a <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">whole. Example</font>: He was a danger to society.<br />2. A community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions,<br />institutions, and collective activities and interests<br />3. The socially dominant members of a community.<br />**************************************************************************************<br />First, it is necessary to differentiate childishness and <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">child likeness</font>. Jesus shows us that becoming like a child (child-likeness) is a requirement for Kingdom entrance. However, Paul reminds us that when he became a man, he put away childish things. Childish THINGS can be isolated acts or attitudes that are often self-centered and therefore need to be left behind. For adults to enter true <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">child likeness</font> is a transformational journey only accomplished by God.<br />"STIGMATIZING FACTORS"<br />To talk with and treat adults with developmental disabilities in adult-like ways is important. However, there are different motives for doing so. One may have a Christ-like motive of giving them the respect and dignity that they deserve. A very different motive might be to attempt to hide his or her disability and thereby pacify the prejudices of society. It is also possible to actually look up to them as valuable however they present themselves, rather than refusing them admiration until they ACT like adults. From another perspective, one might find oneself actually admiring them because they DON’T ACT like adults. After all, the masks, facades, fear of what other’s think, condescending attitudes, prejudices, and yes the strong tendencies to stigmatize others are often strangely lacking in their demeanor. Treating people in this condition with dignity should be based in our love in Jesus, not in an effort to cater to people’s self righteousness and religious pride (stigmatic outlooks).<br />There are no "stigmatizing factors." It is not the factors that stigmatize people.<br />People stigmatize people. (See definition above) (Jesus was uniquely harsh with this particular sin)<br />If someone is being stigmatized, it’s because somebody (society) is doing this TO them. Stigmatizing someone involves prejudice, <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">judgementalism</span></font>, condescending attitudes, excluding those who are different from us in some specific way, etc.<br />Individuals or groups of people can be stigmatized for childish behavior, or skin color, or height, or accent, or weight, or age, or gender, or dress, or language, or teeth with braces, or buck teeth without braces, or any one of thousands of characteristics that set us apart as different from the "norm" (deviant from society). I wonder, as the Church, can we possibly cater to all of these "stigmatizing factors"? Should we even be attempting to?<br />A better focus for the Church would be that we join our brothers and sisters with disabilities in sharing the love of Jesus with those who are alienating and rejecting them. Maybe then the <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">STIGMATZERS</span></font> will find God beginning to melt down the pretense, masks, and facades of their spiritual pride.<br /><br /></div>
<br /><div align="left"><br /><font id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">CHILD LIKENESS</font> AND CHILDISHNESS<br />I intentionally surround myself with friends who have developmental disabilities. Why? I do this because they are my heroes and role models. I learn from my friends, not in spite of their disabilities, but BECAUSE of their disabilities. My heart’s desire is to be Christ-like and so I build relationships with people I find to be much more Christ-like than myself.<br />What’s so terrible about being childlike? Some people see having "the mind of a child" as a bad thing. <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Didn</span></font>’t our Savior himself put a child in the midst of his disciples? He then told them that they would in no way enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless they were to BECOME like this child. This was unheard of. Children were looked down upon (stigmatized) in that culture. According to what I’<font id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">ve</span></font> read in the papers that were given to me, the disciples should have been concerned about the stigmatizing "factors" present in this child. To avoid others rejecting this child and our ministry, we need to give him some stilts, teach him to talk in a deep voice, and dress him in adult clothing. But most important we must try to teach him to "ACT" like an adult. In other words, we must make him become like us for his sake (so that others don’t reject him for being like a child). After all, this could harm the image of the ministry. And don’t forget, we are acting on behalf this person, so that he will be accepted by "society". It is for him only that we are doing this.<br />Obviously, these were not the intentions of Jesus. In essence, he said that we are to look up to that child, for in many ways he is far more Christ-like than us. The disciples were the ones who were being called to change. And that would not be changing a few factors. They must be literally transformed by God to become like a little child. This would require THEM to change and break free from their society’s stigmatic attitudes toward children.<br />Now, the disciples may well have been thinking, <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">aren</span></font>’t men supposed to teach boys how to be adult men? Yes, they would be correct (like age appropriateness <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">approaches</font> are correct). But, in attending to surface issues (gnats), they might overlook the deep treasure that Jesus set before them.<br />During my 33 year quest for intimacy with Christ, I have found that building friendships with those of us who are "intellectually challenged" have been the most transformational experiences I've had. That's why I've intentionally surrounded myself (both in my private life, church life, volunteer life, family life, and work life) with people in this condition.<br /><br />When I compare our intellects, my friends in this condition have the disabilities.<br />When I compare our hearts, myself and my society have the disabilities.<br />Ask yourself, which one’s more important to our Savior?<br /><br />So, more specifically, what is it that so different about this population in general? Would it be a lack of being afraid of what others think of them? Might we find that our friends with these disabilities are exhibiting a much "less-conditional" (Not necessarily <font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">UN</font>conditional) love than our own? I've personally seen supervisors treat a such a person like dirt. That supervisor was still that client’s hero. Might it also be their appreciation for the simple things in life? Or is it their lack of facades (masks)?<br /><br />I realize this greatly depends on functioning level, temperament, family life, etc. of the individual. But will many of our friends in this condition be shunned and made fun of the rest of their lives, and most likely not shun or make fun of others, ever? I realize that that does not make my friends sinless, angels, or perfectly pure in heart. But, neither was the small child perfect that Jesus selected. Yet that does not negate our Lord's command to us to BECOME like this little one.<br />We spend a lot of time teaching those of us with developmental disabilities to BECOME like "normal" adults, and to some degree that may be necessary and good. However, too often (like the disciples might have) we focus on those surface issues and miss the priceless treasures of simplicity found in a little child (or in our disabled friends).<br /><br />at <a class="timestamp-link" title="permanent link" href="http://disabledchristianity.blogspot.com/2004/10/deconstructing-disability-role_07.html" rel="bookmark">10/07/2004 01:16:00 PM</a> <a class="comment-link" href="http://disabledchristianity.blogspot.com/2004/10/deconstructing-disability-role_07.html#links">Links to this post</a><br /><a class="comment-link" onclick="" href="http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6825243&postID=109718182348663743">0 comments</a><br /><a title="Email Post" href="http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=6825243&postID=109718182348663743"></a><br />Monday, October 04, 2004<br /><a name="109690803211424446"></a><br /><a href="http://disabledchristianity.blogspot.com/Deconstructing%20disability:%20Role%20perceptions/eternal%20child">Deconstructing disability: Role perceptions/eternal child</a><br /><font color="#3333ff">In 1972, Dr. Wolf <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span></font>, wrote about what he called deviant role perceptions. These were ways in which persons with disability were sometimes perceived. The word "deviant" should be thought of in terms of differing from the norm (American Heritage dictionary). The word deviant itself can be very charged in its connotations. I thought it might be interesting to examine each of these role perceptions briefly and think about the applications for today. The following role perceptions are from <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span></font>. 6. The deviant as an eternal child Unfortunately, much work in psychology has led to the perpetuation of this role perception. We have measures of intelligence translated into "mental age" apparently because such a measure will help professionals in programming. So we hear people say that Johnny has a mental age of 12 or the mental age of 11 months. Even people who are not professionals talk about a person as having the mind of a 6 year old. We see people as never growing up. Therefore, we place them in childish <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">environments</font> with decorations unfitting for their age. At times we even see adults with disability housed with children, the obvious thinking being that they are functioning at the same age level. As a reaction to this, beginning around the 1970's, professionals have developed the term "chronologically age appropriate" as a description of programs, interactions, environments, etc. for persons with disability. We want these aspects of their lives to reflect their chronological age, not their supposed mental age. There are a variety of reasons why we would want to do this. Persons with disability simply by virtue of the fact that they have a disability are often stigmatized. Disability is not seen simply as a characteristic of these individuals, it is a negative characteristic which limits typical positive interactions which might be enjoyed between people. This of course depends upon the mindset of the person without disability, however, at the very least, stigmatizing factors may at least cause one to pause. They cause one to wonder, thinking that something is not quite right. These stigmatizing factors may be overt, or discovered through further interaction. In order to facilitate normalization in interactions, we do well to not add stigmatizing factors to people who may already be devalued by societal constructions. Back in the early 80's (before I knew better) I once worked at a camp for adults with cognitive disabilities. The theme of the camp was "cowboys and <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Indians</font>." We rode horses, shot guns, made bows with arrows, <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Indian</font> jewelry and <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">headdresses</font>, and barbecued. The problem with this was that the persons with disability who attended the camp were adults, some in their 50's with cognitive disability. They had a great time at the camp, but the following week, some were walking around Pasadena California with <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">headdresses</font> on carrying a bow and arrow. Now they wouldn't be a danger to anyone (as hard as we tried, we weren't very good bow makers), however, what we did in holding a camp that was not age appropriate was to send them into the community with artifacts that they carried around which did little more than stigmatize them. Can you imagine walking down the street and seeing a fifty year old guy with a bow and arrow and a <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">headdress</font> (made out of construction paper no less) walking toward you on the street in Pasadena? I suspect your response wouldn't be to think, "I gotta get me one of those head dresses" but rather "What is wrong with that person?" By engaging in activities which were not age appropriate, particularly those which produced artifacts that the people carried around for the next 3 weeks, we hurt their potential for positive interactions with the general public by stigmatizing them. By contrast, there is a fellow who attends my church. Lets call him Chuck (not his real name). Now I have know Chuck for probably 10 years now. He is a good looking young man who dresses well. He regularly attends church with his mother, and I believe he works in some sort of sheltered setting. The point is, you would never pick this guy out of a crowd as being someone with a cognitive disability. So in every first interaction, he has the opportunity to sell himself to you (if he cares to) as the great person that he is. In discussion you would quickly learn that he has a disability, however, you would also learn that he is a great guy. Contrast that with the people I helped to stigmatize with the construction paper head dresses. Certainly your approach to them would be different. You would approach thinking these persons have cognitive disabilities. But the typically reply is, "But they enjoy the juvenile activities." Well, there may be juvenile activities that I enjoy as well, but I am careful to whom I share that interest of mine, or at the least, I have competence in other areas to overcome the deviance of my preoccupation with some juvenile activity. The poster child for the competency/deviancy hypothesis (I first heard described by Dr. Marc Gold) was Dennis <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_27" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">Rodman</span></font>, the outstanding NBA player. As long as <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_28" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">Rodman</span></font> got 17 rebounds a game, he could behave poorly and act crazy. He really was an outstanding <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_29" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">rebounder</span></font> and defender. But as he aged, his competence (rebounding) began to wane, while his "deviance" (acting crazy) remained the same. <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_30" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Ultimately</font>, he was unable to play any more in the NBA. It is arguable, however, if he had been a better "citizen" he might have lasted longer as there would have been less deviance to be overcome by competence. Persons with disability, at times due to their disability and at times due to the societal construction of their disability, carry around "deviance" which must be compensated for with competence. Age inappropriateness on the part of the person with disability only adds to their perceived deviance, requiring more competence of some type to overcome it. If the captain of the football team starts carrying a <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_31" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">Spongebob</span></font> <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_32" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">Squarepants</span></font> back pack, it will be cool. However, if the person with cognitive disability who attends the same school tries to initiate the style, he will be devalued because of the lack of competence he has to counterbalance the deviance. So by way of instruction, when you interact with a person with cognitive disability, independent of the severity of their condition, the way you interact, as much as <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_33" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">possible</font> the content of your interactions, the <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_34" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">environment</font> for your interactions, etc. should be as age appropriate as is possible. Your language might be simple in style and content, however, it is not age</font> <font color="#3333ff">inappropriate or demeaning, and reflects a respect for the person's age. <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_35" class="blsp-spelling-error">McNair</font> (<font id="SPELLING_ERROR_36" class="blsp-spelling-error">fcbu</font>)</font><br /><br />THE CAMP ILLUSTRATION<br />I had the privilege of being the Assistant Director of a summer camp designed for persons with developmental disabilities. Our age groups ranged from 7-77. We ran a six week program for approximately 80 guests (campers). It was a blessing to be involved in this ministry for 8 years. (That adds up to approximately 4,000 campers overall, though some attended multiple years) We ran an "age <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_37" class="blsp-spelling-error">INappropriate</font>" program, and we had a blast. We had an Indian theme, complete with the Red Tribe, Blue Tribe, and Yellow Tribe. We made head dresses, fruit loop necklaces, and the like. It usually took some time, but our counselors eventually humbled themselves and began to join in the fun. Next, the counselor’s masks came down one by one. It is interesting to me, that in all those years I don’t recall seeing any of the campers going through a transformational change. But I always treasured seeing the transformed lives of so many of the counselors. This was simply due to their friendships with our campers. Many came for a summer job and left with changed hearts.<br />That was twenty years ago. I’m involved in "age appropriate" family retreats now. I doubt that I would run a camp like that now, but I would also not take a stand against it.<br /><br /><a href="http://disabledchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/03/stigma.html"><font color="#3333ff">Stigma</font></a><font color="#3333ff"><br />When a person with a disability enters a room, people will tend to notice the differences about that person. Perhaps it is his facial characteristics as with people with D<font id="SPELLING_ERROR_38" class="blsp-spelling-error">owns'</font> <font id="SPELLING_ERROR_39" class="blsp-spelling-error">sydrome</font>. Perhaps it is the fact that she uses a wheelchair for mobility. Perhaps it is some scar from an operation. Perhaps it is some other type of equipment that the individual uses to communicate or move safely, or breathe. These things stigmatize a person. That is, they cause those in the environment to think in a particular manner about the person who has the characteristic. If I show up in a wheelchair, people in the enviornment have their minds flooded with every idea, every notion they may have about who a person is who uses a wheel chair, be those notions correct or not. If a person uses a wheelchair, I cannot entirely help the fact that the enviornment will stigmatize them in particular ways. But I can do things that will help to remove the stigma or I can do things that will perhaps exacerbate the stigma. Let me give you some examples.People with intellectual disabilities enjoy life as it is presented to them. Now I can present things to them via my disability ministry at church which gives the impression that disabled adults are really children. I can have them coloring pictures even though they are 50 years old. I can have them singing "Jesus loves the little children" even though they are in their 20's and 30's. I can communicate to those around the person with the disability that I believe that that person is not really an adult, she is really a child and because I am the expert in my church as the disability ministry guy, people will believe me and treat adults as children. Will the persons with disabilities enjoy coloring pictures and singing children's songs? Many will. However, I do not have them coloring pictures at church or singing children's songs because I know how this will stigmatize them towards others in the environment resulting in them being treated as children when they are not children. Instead, we will sit around tables like any other adult class at the church, sing choruses although they may be simple, which are typically sung in the church. If you walk into our class you feel like you are in a class for adults, not in a children's Sunday school class.I think too many ministries for adults with cognitive disabilities convey the message through the activities that they do with those they are attempting to serve that these adults are children which is a great disservice to those to whom we claim to be ministering. Part of this problem is our knowledge focus in the Christian church. Sunday school is too often all about imparting knowledge, so if a person is cognitively disabled, then (it is thought) they need children's knowledge, delivered in a manner children would accept or be comfortable with. I would argue that knowledge should not be the primary focus of the Sunday school (even though it is called school) but it should rather be faith development. Faith development and knowledge development are two very different things. Is there knowledge associated with faith development? Of course there is. But I can become confused and end up just providing knowledge without worrying about faith development. Programs stigmatize adults with cognitive disabilities when they are exclusively knowledge based, partly because the accumulation or understanding of knowledge may be the weakest point for the person with intellectual disabilities.However, faith development implies some knowledge, but also a lot of behavior. I can teach behaviors to persons with intellectual disabilities and it will likely result in faith development. For example, I can teach these people how to pray and then encourage them to pray daily, pray without ceasing, pray in faith. Will conversation with God via prayer increase their faith. I believe it will. I can teach them to fill their lives with uplifting media like Christian music or Christian video. Will that help them to grow in faith? I believe it will. I can also teach service and caring as a way of being like Jesus. In using these approaches, I am using the same approaches that those without disabilities should arguably use to grow their faith as well: doing something rather than just passively listening to something. As a result I am growing their faith in a manner that is not stigmatizing them by treating them as if they were children. I am also recognizing the fallacy of a overly intellectualized presentation of the faith that is too knowledge based for everyone in church, not just those with intellectual disabilities. </font></div><font color="#3333ff"></font>
<br /><div><br /><font color="#3333ff"><br /></div>
<br /><div align="left"></div>
<br /><div><br /></div>
<br /><div align="left"><font color="#000000">THE COUNTERBALANCING AND DEVIATION APPROACH</font><br /></font></div>
<br /><div>This whole idea of "counterbalancing the deviation" is problematic and is not supportive of Biblical ministry. This is a very shallow analogy which says far more about the "student body’s" attitudes than it does about the behavior of the captain of the football team or the student with pronounced disabilities. We don’t know anything about this football captain, maybe he actually values those with disabilities and treats them with the dignity that they deserve. Maybe he would wear a Sponge Bob backpack due to the friendship he has with this fellow student with a disability. I realize that’s not your point, but please hear out my point. In the example given, it seems like you have you actually stereotyped the captain of the football team? Maybe he doesn’t care to initiate the style of Spongebob backpacks. I’m quite sure our high school student with the developmental disability couldn’t care less about whether he’s starting new "style" or not. He may not even notice the cruel stares and glares of his peers that concern themselves with such shallow things. It is not the person with the disability that needs to develop some kind of competence. It is the cruel teenagers who need God’s love to change their unacceptable treatment of those who are simply not designed to retaliate or defend themselves. Apparently, according to your stated approach, the student body is alienating their peers due to behavioral abnormalities and even for something as small as what kind of backpack they choose to wear. And yet you advocate teaching the alienated one some competency, so that proud, self-centered teens will be more likely to accept him. It is hard for me to believe that you really believe that additional competence will change the cruelty that the world dishes out (especially in the typically self-centered teen culture.) Isn’t this really all about the crowd (society). Say society is rejecting me. Therefore, I need to work hard at developing some competency so that their view of me can be balanced out. You and I, as "able minded" persons might care about developing these competencies (possibly due to our fear of what others think of us if we don't conform). I doubt, however, that this teenager with a developmental disability would care about any of that. I’m trying to imagine a competency that this young man could work on that would balance out his "deviation." (And thus increase his chances of being accepted by the cruel and self-centered members of the student body). I wonder if in a million years this adolescent could achieve a competency that would effectively cause society be okay with him having a disability. I’m serious, what on earth are you thinking? Please, give me some examples. What would be good enough to raise his status to the level of backpack trend setter? There are individuals with disabilities who are virtually unable to develop any "competence." What of them? Are they left to a lifetime of personal rejection without the hope of ever balancing themselves with competence? Whether you judge someone’s value based upon their disabilities (deviancies in behavior) or based upon their abilities (competencies), it’s all the same thing. HATEFUL JUDGEMENTALISM! You are simply advocating solving one prejudice with another.<br />After all of this work building up competencies, the crowd has not changed, nor has that even been suggested. My guess is, that if our young disabled teen finally develops enough competencies to appease these prejudices, the crowd will move on to the next person with a disability who hasn’t heard about his need for competencies. Or, possibly the crowd would simply focus its attention on another one of a myriad of "stigmatizing factors" and then use it to justify its own judgmentallism. It is the crowd that has been wrong all along. The crowd needs to change, nondisabled persons who have done absolutely nothing to deserve such treatment. Do the crowd’s (society’s) perceptions really matter that much? Jesus didn’t seem to be concerned about that at all. He didn’t seem to be working up competencies so that society would be more acceptive of His social deviances (and he was indeed Deviant). It seems God’s approach concerns changing the hearts of people who look down on others. His approach does not include eliminating all of the differences in the human race so that no one is looked down upon.<br />ON SPECIAL SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASSES<br />How about Sunday School? If everything in a special program is just like the adult programs, then why have a specially designed program at all. Why not integrate people who have this disability (I hope we do for people with other disabilities)? If Christians are condescending, they need to be lovingly confronted and instructed. Better yet, maybe we should invite those who "act" like adults to integrate into the special Sunday School classes. Eventually their adult pride may begin to melt. Ground will be gained if they dare join their child-like brother or sister in some "age INappropriate" activity. (Coloring perhaps?) Joining in on the singing of Jesus Loves the little children Me, may cause them to revisit the simplicity of their own childhood. In so doing, they may begin to treasure the humble childlikeness of those with these particular disabilities. In other words, they may experience something transformational. THEY will be the ones changing, rather than always expecting others to change to fit their arrogant requirements.<br />However, it is possible that these church goers may actually move from rejection of others to an outlook just as cruel! They may now see themselves as quite noble due to this new prideful compassion they have toward whoever they used to reject and alienate. They have now achieved a sympathetic viewpoint and feel deeply sorry for these individuals. They may be overheard praying to themselves, "Thank you Lord that I am not like these."<br />STAGES OF TRANSFORMATION: FROM PRIDE TO HUMILIY<br />(Looking down on)……………….Alienation<br />(Feeling sorry for)…………………Sympathy<br />(Treating as equal………………… Empathy Person with a disability<br />(Looking up to, honoring………….. Dignity<br /><font color="#3333ff">I attended a church once where a man with cognitive disabilities was a part of the team that served communion. The man fulfilled those responsibilities admirably. However, there was a changeover of the elders, and a psychiatrist became one of the elders. He advocated removing the man from the serving of communion because to use his words, "He has the mind of a 10 year old." I guarantee to you that no one in the congretation would have even suspected that the man had a congnitive disability on the basis of his communion serving. However, because of an overzealous application of mental age, the man was seen as a disabled man, not a man</font><br />MINISTRY ROLES FOR THOSE WITH DISABILITIES<br />Let’s take this matter of the developmentally disabled usher. Now this is an illustration I DO NOT understand in the least. In this example, the person you refer to is perfectly capable of performing the duties of an usher and has proven himself for some time. Apparently, he has done a good job of hiding his disability so that no "stigmatizing factors" are evident. Now a physiatrist becomes an elder and blows this young man’s cover. Now his stigmatizing factors are exposed, and, of course, the congregation will in turn have great difficulty with his stigmatizing factors (notice it’s his problem again). Apparently, we never get the end of the story. I certainly hope the new board member was lovingly confronted about his unChristlike attitudes. If he was unwilling to change his views, I certainly hope the pastor would have the courage to remove him from the board of elders and any other service role in that church. I certainly hope that the congregation would resist the temptation to stigmatize and alienate this individual. I would hope that they would instead choose the love of Jesus. They would then encourage this individual in his God-given gifts, and release him from the burden of trying to hide his disability. If the congregation hardens it’s heart, the pastor should probably teach from the pulpit on this subject. Leaders could be trained by Para church organizations whose mission is to change people’s misconceptions toward those who have disabilities. As a professor of disability ministry, I would think that you would be spearheading these efforts to enlighten Christian’s who are sinning by stigmatizing their brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to have pronounced disabilities (or any other "deviance" for that matter.)<br />What if your usher were black in a mostly white church and an elder had a problem with it? What should be done? Should we ask the black man to hide his deviance. What if an elder was adamant that this usher be dismissed from the position due to his differences? Isn’t it also the congregation’s problem because it is stigmatizing him? (Or, allowing him to be stigmatized by others). Is he wrong for being different "deviant" or are the Christians who "ACT" like adults wrong for harboring their prejudice. My guess is that you may be thinking that a person with the mind of a ten year is a different case. And that a man with the mind of a ten year old cannot or should not perform the duties of an usher unless they can hide their disability. How ABOUT a ten year old, could they do the job? Better yet, how about a woman, or someone in a in a wheelchair, or a woman in a wheelchair, or even a child with CP, or a blind man, or a sister who is deaf? It’s a little more difficult to ask them to try to hide their disabilities so that they won’t have any stigmatizing factors showing. (I prefer to say, "So that others won’t stigmatize them.") Why is it "the norm" to have only adult males take the offering? I asked my sister that question, years ago. Her answer to that question was not positive. Maybe you could help me understand why this is such an exclusive ministry role. Would Jesus be so exclusive? I don’t know. Is their no room for children, women, the disabled to serve (even if their spiritual life and love for Jesus is healthier than there able-bodied counterparts)?<br />In the waking hours of this morning, a word picture came to me that sums up the underlying problem with this usher illustration. Allow me to borrow some of our Lord’s imagery. The disabled man is trusted with usher responsibilities at his church. He had beautiful diamonds in his eyes, but nobody noticed. A new elder came on board. He happened to have a huge log in his eye. Everyone noticed, but pretended they didn’t. He said he saw a speck in this usher’s eye and someone needed to remove it or this usher was obviously unfit for the job. The congregation found that they couldn’t see the speck. Someone ventured that it may have been our board member’s special log-filled eye that allows him to see the speck. So, they too put huge logs in their eyes. Amazingly they could now see the speck. "Now the problem is exposed," they said, "there really is that horrid speck in his eye." One of our log-eyed brothers was asked to escort the now disqualified brother back to the Special Class. On the way, he talked with the ex-usher. He kept making eye contact. In the reflection of the diamonds he saw this huge log in his own eye. He began to compare his log to the diamonds in his friend's eyes. He prayed that God would remove the log. It was removed instantly. When the healed man made eye contact with his disabled friend again, he noticed that the speck was no longer in his eye. But even more amazing was in place of the reflection of the log was a reflection of a new set of diamonds. He asked his friend, "Did God remove your speck as well as my log?" The gentle answer came, "There never was a speck in my eye. The speck was companion to your log and part of your healing. You are now seeing me through the eyes of Love, which overlooks a multitude of specks."<br />Please don’t tell me we need to insert logs into these guys’ eyes so that they will fit in with the congregation! Please tell me it is our new sighted friends mission to help his visually impaired (log eyed) brothers and sisters (one by one if necessary) to see their need for humble healing. In doing so, the church will not just accept our brothers and sisters in spite of their disabilities. We will instead begin to treasure and celebrate the God given differences in each and every one of us.<br />By this time I imagine you’re probably about ready to stop reading these notes. You may feel that my responses indicate that I don’t understand the original text. You may be thinking, "He’s assuming that I don’t know all of this already." I can assure you, I do have an understanding of the text (though possibly quite different from your understanding). Please bear with me. I’d like to go a little deeper.<br />LET’S GO DEEPER<br />Let Jesus be our example. When he was walking the earth, many people were stigmatized (or as you say, had stigmatizing factors). Women, children, Gentiles, Samaritans, the immoral, and especially the disabled were targets of stigmatization by "society."<br />Who did Jesus hang out with? Don’t we see him interacting with women even prostitutes with respect and dignity? When the disciples stigmatized the children and tried to keep them from the Master, what did he do and say? How about the disabled? What if a leper attended your church, how would the congregation respond? How did Jesus respond? Jesus’ ministry was focused on the disabled and the outcast, not on placating "society." He did not cater to the stigmatizing whims of society. He did not ask the prostitute to change clothes and wash up before washing His feet with her tears. After all, shouldn’t He assist her in diminishing her stigmatizing factors for her sake? After all, high society was about to be offended BY both of them. This is exactly what happened because He stuck with His approach. In fact, I think he intentionally allowed her to come "as is" in order to expose the hard hearted arrogance of those Pharisees. He seemed to vehemently challenge and even condemn the societal stigmatizing of the time. He had compassion on the outcasts that were stigmatized (They were outcasts because somebody (society) cast them out, stigmatized because somebody stigmatized them). He appeared to side with the alienated persons, and, in doing so, He exposed the hearts of the alienators.<br />Come to think of it, Jesus himself was an outcast (stigmatized, if you will). By nature he was deviant from the norm and was laden with stigmatizing factors (whatever that means). He didn’t seem to be at all concerned about catering to the arrogant, pride-filled, condescending society that He lived in. He chose not to fit into society, that was not His goal. He actually couldn’t fit in, even if He did want to. He was love, humility, and compassion. That’s part of the reason one must humble oneself to start a friendship with Him. I guess it’s just one of His "stigmatizing factors." I suppose we could assist Him in hiding (diminishing) this stigmatizing factor from the proud. After all, they may alienate Him and we wouldn’t want that. How would the congregation respond if Jesus attended one Sunday morning? Would we ask Him to change His clothes, trim his beard, wash up, or bandage His wounds before entering "the sanctuary"? Would we allow Him to be an usher? Maybe if His behavior and appearance, and social interactions were deviant enough, He might find himself escorted to the Special Class. I personally think He would prefer it there, especially if His children were to sing Jesus Loves Me in simplicity and sincerity.<br />Jesus actually does come to every church, every Sunday. As you are well aware, Jesus said that what we do to the least of His brothers, we have done unto Him. I take that to mean that those society chooses to stigmatize and alienate are "the least of these my brothers." We are actually (often unknowingly) alienating our Savior. He is not going to change to meet our requirements. But, if we will let Him, He will change us. (Often through those who are extremely deviant from the norm.)<br />IN CONCLUSION<br />This is my final question. Should a ministry seek to conform people to "society?" Or, should it instead be seeking the transformation of "society"? Answer…<br />And be not conformed to this world:<br />but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind…<br />RO 12:2a<br /><br />SOME SPECIFICS<br />Please be reflective of what I have shared as you read these quotes from your own texts.<br />"We do them no favors if we communicate that they are different."<br />"When a person with a disability enters the room, people will tend to notice the differences about that person…These things stigmatize a person. That is, they CAUSE those in the environment to think in a particular manner about the person who has the characteristic."<br />"If you have a visible disability, society will consider the difference a form of deviance and devalue you. You will therefore need to have additional competence in some area to balance out that deviance in order to be accepted by society, or not devalued by society."<br />"Once their connection is made with him, he will sink or swim socially based upon his skills and the flexibility of the person with whom he is interacting."<br />"The man was seen as a disabled man, not a man." (now we wouldn’t want that)<br />"I am advocating that we be a respecter of persons." (possibly a typo)<br />"The point is, you would never pick this guy out of a crowd as being someone with a cognitive disability" (This is supposed to be a good thing?)<br />"Certainly your approach to them would be different. You would approach thinking these persons have cognitive disabilities." (like that’s a bad thing?)<br />"Well, there may be juvenile activities that I enjoy, but I am careful with whom I share that interest of mine, or at least, I have competence in other areas to overcome the deviance of my preoccupation with some juvenile activity." (Why?)<br />"Often it is not the disability itself that is the CAUSE of stigmatization. "<br />"…let them at least have a fighting chance to be known by a discriminating church."<br />"If you have a visible disability, society will consider that difference a form of deviance and devalue you. You will therefore need to have additional competence in some area to balance out that deviance in order to be accepted by society, or not devalued by society."<br /><br /><br />Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.<br />And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,<br />And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me:<br />and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me:<br />for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.<br />LUKE 9:46-48<br />He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me;<br />and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.<br />LUKE 10:16</div>Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-61486051350943640052008-04-26T21:34:00.000-07:002010-08-07T10:38:50.905-07:00The Cornerstone People by Rick EastinThe Cornerstone People<br />By Rick <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Eastin</span><br />I would like to introduce you to the Cornerstone People – more commonly called the mentally retarded, severely handicapped, autistic. For now, however, I will call them the Cornerstone People. These people are often looked down upon by those around them. This reminds me of how the cross of Jesus was looked at by people around Him. The people in the time of Jesus thought of the cross as being weak, foolish and having no significant value. This is often the view people have of the Cornerstone People. However, it’s through the weakness of the cross that God saves those who believe. So it is also with Cornerstone People: God wants to reveal Himself through these people.<br />Pain was another aspect of the cross, and so it is with the families of these people. For when such a child is born, or becomes handicapped in this manner of life, the family experiences great loss and pain. Parents of these children continually face the death of dreams for their child or children: there are no hopes of such a child ever going to college, having a good job or marrying. Parents continually face the task of having to parent their children in a protective manner through the child’s lifetime. Often these parents hope to outlive their children, so they will not have to be concerned about who will care for their children once they are gone. Siblings are also faced with their own set of emotions concerning their handicapped brother or sister. These include embarrassment, which can be caused by the awkward behavior of their handicapped sibling. Also, these siblings are often given too much extra responsibility, and this can cause the sibling to be resentful towards the handicapped person. The presence of a handicapped child can also cause problems for marriages: four out of five couples now raising a handicapped child will break up.<br />Although it would seem that there is no hope for these families, there is great hope to be found in Jesus. This is where you and I come in: as we reach out to the children of these families and love them as they are, this will help the families see what God is like, and as they do, these families may come to know Jesus. Child likeness is a quality that is common among Cornerstone People. However, because these families are hurt, they are often unable to see this in their children. On the other hand, Christian parents of these people often say that these children are their greatest teachers. When a parent is able to make such a statement, we are seeing scripture in 1Peter 2:7–"the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone" – become a living reality. For no longer is the handicap a means of destruction, but rather a means of instruction. This is what happened with the cross of Jesus from a natural viewpoint: the cross should have destroyed Jesus. However, it was through the weakness of the cross that God chose to save us.Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-49157288628463377672008-04-26T20:16:00.000-07:002010-08-07T10:38:50.991-07:00Dr. Jeff MaNair's responce to A different take on social role valoriazation<div><font color="#000099">I think it would be easiest to respond to within your email below. I will put my responses in italics so that it can be differentiated from your points.<br /></font><br />I have studied much of Dr. Wolf <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger's</span> work on Social Role <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Valorization</span> (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span>.) I understand that <font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">SRV</font> is a social science paradigm. As person a who has been in the field in various capacities and as a person with a disability, I cannot reconcile biblical truth with how <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> views persons with developmental disabilities. For scripture teaches that no matter who we are, we are of equal value before God. We are not only equal before Him, but he is in control of all events. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Colossians</span> 1:16 Romans 8:28 and Psalms 115:3 among other passages tell us that God is in control of all things. This means that He's in charge of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">where and</span> how persons with cognitive disabilities function. On the one hand, we are to accept each other where we are at. On the other hand, we are to encourage each other to grow and change for the better. These truths apply to all persons. I understand there is a balance between God's sovereignty and our responsibility. We trust God to protect our belongings but we also lock our houses. When something like a fire occurs, we do what we to put it out and if needed call on others to help. Also, when it comes to those of us with disabilities, we should <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">attempt</span> to minimize our disabilities. The apostle provides beautiful balance of this in Galatians 6:2. Here we are told to help carry each other's burdens. This is balanced in the same passage (verse 5.) Here we are instructed to carry own own load.<br /><br /><font color="#000099">My understanding of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> is that it does both accept people where they are and endeavor to assist them to grow and change. There is a big difference between minimizing <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">some one's</span> disability and not contributing to their stigmatization by things that we choose to do in a particular way that can just as easily be done in a different way that does not contribute to their stigmatization. Often it is not the disability itself that is the cause of stigmatization it is what we do in response to the disability that causes the stigmatization.</font><br /></div>
<br /><div>However, when it comes to persons with cognitive disabilities the advocates of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> think these persons should not engage in behavior that causes others to think less of them. However, we find Scripture that works THROUGH stigma and not just in spite of it. Many passages tell us this. Consider James talking about the sin of favoritism and Exodus 4:10-11 and Matthew 25:31-41. We also find in Matthew 25:14-30 that God gives us differing abilities.<br /><br /><font color="#000099">It is not they that should refrain from behavior that would cause people to think less of them, it is we who should refrain. So we can teach adults to sing "When you are happy and you know it clap your hands" which contributes to their being thought of as children or we can teach them to sing "Amazing grace" which contributes to their being perceived as adults.<br /></font><br />For <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfensberger</span>, deviancy is in the eye of the beholder, and he is careful to state that persons are not deviant, but the roles they occupy are. One of the tools God have given us to understand the world is general revelation. With this as a premises, I want to look at the relationship between abilities and roles. Looking at the nature of human development we find that as we grow and gain more abilities we are able to enter more and more complex roles. This is accepted for persons without contrived disabilities. But when it comes to people with contrived disabilities, we want to change the paradigm. We say that since these people cannot progress though normal developmental stages, we should teach them functional skills that are based on where they are chronologically instead of where they are developmentally. However, general revelation shows that persons develop intellectually in stages, no matter who we are. And when this is applied to persons with cognitive disabilities, they are caught in one of the early developmental stages. Although the advocates of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> understand the dynamics of why and how persons with cognitive disabilities function, they want us to perceive these persons in ways that are not compatible with their developmental functioning.<br /><br /><font color="#000099">The motive for teaching functional skills over developmental skills is to empower people who may not progress through a typical developmental sequence to do tasks thought to be beyond their developmental level. So I may not be able to stack 4 blocks but I might be able to cook a meal in a microwave. If I stuck with a developmental sequence for instruction, I would never have the opportunity to teach someone to use the microwave because they would be stacking blocks forever. It is not a denial of development it is a recognition that not all people follow a typical developmental sequence, and that they have the ability to do things outside of a strictly developmental approach.</font><br /><br />I also understand that general revelation can be used to argue that since the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">tendency</span> to devalue others comes all too easy to us, we therefore need to do everything we can to reduce it. However, the wealth of biblical evidence calls the strong to bear burdens of the weak Romans 12:3, 15:1. For the supporters of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span>, the goal is to reduce the stigmatizing factors of the disability with the end result being that these persons will be treated better by their <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">non disabled</span> counter parts. However, scripture shows that very often God chooses to work THROUGH a stigma. Three examples of this are Exodus 4:10-11, 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 and the death of Jesus on the cross.<br /><br /><font color="#000099">God may indeed choose to work through stigma. But should I pile more things onto a person that are really unnecessary so that the stigma will increase or should I be circumspect in the things that I do to minimize the stigma? Intellectually disabled people are intellectually disabled. I cannot change that. However, I can give them institutional looking haircuts so they look intellectually disabled or I can give them good looking haircuts so they look more typical. You seem to imply that we should do things to further stigmatize people. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> would say that we should be very circumspect in what we do because we understand the potential negative effects of what we do.</font><br /><br />The very meaning of adult hood is that one be able to master certain skills and thereby grow out immature ways of thinking and acting, with the end result being assuming adult roles. Human development is very complex in that we have the role of one's environment and genetics playing interrelated roles in how one develops. For supporters of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span>, adulthood simply occurs because of chronological age and we should be instructing people to engage in as much adult behavior and activity as is possible. According to <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wolfenensberger</span>, a good/positive ideology is needed when working with persons with cognitive disabilities, . I wholly agree that we need to have a good ideology from which to draw upon for our relationships with people in this condition. However, there is a major difference between having a ideology that is based on truth, and one that is simply based on how we wish things were. I am afraid that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV's</span> ideology falls within the latter category. For supporters of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span>, the goal is to increase the typical behavior we can have persons with cognitive disabilities perform in the presence of socially valued persons. The desired response would then be that the socially valued persons will want good things for persons with cognitive disabilities.<br /><br /><font color="#000099">I don't believe adulthood is just one thing. I think aspects of it do relate to chronological age and aspects of it relate to skill levels. However, how am I harming someone if I choose to treat them as normally as possible commensurate with their chronological age? I choose to give them respect, to speak them with respect, to treat them as much as possible as a typical adult. I am not denying anything about a disabled individual. I am doing all I can to respect that person.<br /></font><br />Now I will at look cognitive disabilities in the light of God's Created order, then consider what it means to accept disabilities in a fallen world. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error">Colossians</span> 1:16-17 instructs us that all things are in God's control, this would include the why and how adults with contrive disabilities perceive the world. Therefore, when these persons enjoy doing things that are more in accord developmental level they are simply being the persons that God intends them to be.This also means that for those of us involved in ministry with these persons we need to helping others to understand this population within the context of their ability levels. Instead of allowing the so-called socially valued people blatantly devalue others (for whatever reason), we are to instead challenge their perceptions with the truth of God's word.<br /><br /><font color="#000099">Clearly there are things that intellectually disabled people will enjoy doing that would be perceived as childish by the world. My point is that I should not contribute to that. Rather I understand how they are perceived, I understand how environments are shut off to them, I understand the effects of perceptions on their lives. I freely admit that negative perceptions are the result of sin. If people truly did love one another as Christ called us to love one another, this would be a very different world. In a sinful, fallen world, I understand how people are perceived and I therefore want to do what I can such that they are perceived in the most positive light possible. My goodness, I don't need to tell you that the Christian church itself, the agents of the Lord Jesus Christ are exclusive of people on the basis of such perceptions. If I want to break through to them, I need to once again minimize the negative contributions I make toward a persons perception and let them at least have a fighting chance to be known by a discriminating church.</font><br /><br />While it is true that God has created us in such a way, that we do our best when there is an incentive involved, this is only one side of the coin. The other side of the same coin is that much of life difficult. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 5:45 that life is a mix good and bad. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> places a great deal of emphasis making interactions between persons with cognitive disabilities as pleasurable as possible, on the part the person who is in a socially valued role.<br /><br /><font color="#000099">Who is the beneficiary of the efforts of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> to minimize stigma? It is the people with the disability. I work harder to be more creative in my interactions, and the end result is better perceptions of those who are typically discriminated against.</font> </div>
<br /><div><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV's</span> understanding of deviancy and its application to persons is a violation of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" class="blsp-spelling-error">creational</span> design for these persons. The reason <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> rejects to concept of mental ages is not because it is not true, but because they do not like the results that follow from such a position. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_27" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV's</span> reasoning is that when we see adults behaving in ways that are in accord with their developmental age, that will cause others think less of them, and this can result in others treating them badly. Scripture presents us with two seemingly conflicting truths about disabilities. The first, views disabilities as a product of "the fall." The second, views them as part of God's <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_28" class="blsp-spelling-error">creational</span> design.<br /><br /><font color="#000099">I reject the idea of mental age because it is not only untrue it is not useful. How does it help me to be told that a person has the mental age of a 6 year old? What does that tell me? Does that mean he can read? Does that mean he is friendly? Does that mean he loves God? Does that mean he can ride a bicycle? Does that mean he is able to take care of his own hygienic needs? The mental age of a 6 year old tells me nothing at all. What it does do is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_29" class="blsp-spelling-error">stigmatize</span> and put down the person who it is used in reference to. If you want to tell me that a person likes to play with trains, tell me that and I will show you typical adults who like to play with trains. If you want to tell me that a person can't read, tell me that and I will show you college professors who are dyslexic. If you want to tell me that the person cannot take care of his own <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_30" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">hygenic</span> needs, tell me that and I will show you many other adults who cannot attend to their hygienic needs for whatever reason. To tell me someone has the mental age of a 6 year old is lazy and unhelpful. It does nothing more than put a person down. It is clearly not Gods <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_31" class="blsp-spelling-error">creational</span> design for me to dismiss people with a nondescript diagnosis of mental age.<br /></font><br />We are taught in scripture that suffering and pain were brought into the world as a result of the fall and that includes disabilities of all kinds. Because we are all created in God's image, when we come into contact with different aspects of "the fall", we experience frustration. This happens for both non Christians and Christians alike because we know instinctively that things are not the way they are suppose to be. This is in accordance with Romans 8:23. We live in a society where we believe that if there is a problem, there is a corresponding solution. However we encounter persons with various disabilities, this is a reminder of our limitations and we are not okay with that.</div>
<br /><div><br /><font color="#000099">Of course this is true, and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_32" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> is about minimizing suffering as a result of the fall. It attempts to define the wounds that are put on people by society that are not directly the result of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_33" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">some one's</span> impairment so that the wounds may be minimized. The answer is not to say to someone, that disability is the result of the fall, too bad for you. I am to come alongside of people and love and encourage them. In a John 9 way, we must work the works such that the Glory of God is seen.</font><br /><br />Scripture also makes it clear that God creates persons with disabilities. Exodus 4:11, Psalms 139:16, John 9:1-3 and other Scripture passages tell us that evil is under Gods control. He is also the maker of the poor. You may wonder why I make reference to the poor. It's because the very nature of intellectual disabilities often precludes these persons from participating in the social/economic flow of things that allow them to rise above being poor. One of the major reasons persons with these kinds of disabilities are poor is because there is a lack of social economic potential. The fact that God's Word is so clear about how purposeful He is in creating persons with disabilities leads me to draw the following conclusions about mental ages and adults with intellectual disabilities..<br /><br /><font color="#000099">It is arguable that much of the unemployment among people with disabilities has less to do with their disability than it does with society's treatment of them. Sure there are very severely disabled people, but many others have found work as a result of changing societal values such as the ADA.</font><br /><br />First, I view intellectual disabilities as a calling in the same way God calls persons to be teachers, bankers, professors and pastors etc. In the case of former, He does this by withholding abilities so that persons are not able to function certain ways. In the latter, God grants abilities so that persons can take on the above mentioned roles. Job 2:10 asks a rhetorical question (should we not accept good as well as evil as being from the the Lord?) Paul speaks on the same subject in Philippians 4:12 about being content when we are abounding and also when we find ourselves in need. Applying these truths to persons means that God is in charge of how and where persons with contrive disabilities function. Just as we applaud people without disabilities for their talents and skills, we need to embrace persons with intellectual disabilities as being equally part God's <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_34" class="blsp-spelling-error">creational</span> design and applaud them.<br /></div>
<br /><div><font color="#000099">The notion of intellectual disabilities being a calling from God is very interesting to me. I will have to think about this some more. However, intellectual disabilities are VERY different than mental age distinctions. (I <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_35" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">accidentally</span> lost this paragraph, so I patched in from memory. Editor)</font><br /><br />The second one is in contrast to <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_36" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> which views treating adults in developmental ages as stigmatizing. I will make the case for using them as tools for gaining a better understanding of these persons and meeting their needs in best possible way. We use developmental stages for our understanding of persons in general from birth thorough adulthood. But <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_37" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> wants to get rid of this paradigm when it comes to our understanding adults with intellectual disabilities. Developmental stages are not only a fact of social science, but more impartially, that is how God has created us. Therefore , to reject mental ages as they relate to adults with intellectual disabilities is to violate God's <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_38" class="blsp-spelling-error">creational</span> design for these persons.<br /><br /><font color="#000099">I don't understand why you feel developmental age or mental age is such an important concept. I see nothing in scripture to support such a notion. On whom are developmental stages normed? They are normed on those without disabilities. People with disabilities be it deafness, or blindness or intellectual disability will develop differently from the norm. Why must we use the typical person as God's only <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_39" class="blsp-spelling-error">creational</span> design? God said that he made Moses' mouth when Moses complained that he didn't speak well. Do people with speech and language disorders develop language in the same way that those who do not have such differences develop language? The answer is that they don't. People with autism may suddenly develop speech as a result of using picture cards to communicate. Is that invalid as a means of development because they follow an atypical path? I think God is much more varied in his creation then you are claiming.</font><br /><br />Instead of trying to eliminate and trying to minimize the stigma of intellectual disability, we need to embrace the stigma. By embracing it, I mean that we need to accept mental ages as valid in working with adults. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_40" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Berating</span> them according to their mental ages we are acting in accordance with Matthew 7:12.<br /><br /><font color="#000099">I think a critical point in all you are saying that I think you are misunderstanding is that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_41" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> is about changing the environment not about changing the individual. It is about changing the things I might do to stigmatize someone, what human service people might do. The person's disability remains their disability.</font><br /><br />We need to work on interpreting the stigmatizing behavior of others who are not disabled. Helping them to see how much of their behavior may not be considered "adult." Somehow in these <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_42" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">non disabled</span> people this is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_43" class="blsp-spelling-error">okay</span>. In many cases these persons are simply enjoying being the people that God created them to be. An appropriate guideline for acceptable and non acceptable behavior is: Is the behavior a danger to self and/or others, and does the behavior in any way violate God's moral law.<br /><br />Finally, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_44" class="blsp-spelling-error">although</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_45" class="blsp-spelling-error">SRV</span> considers social devaluation as a human response to what's <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_46" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">referred</span> to as negatively valued differences, the Word of God has a very different take on the matter. Socially DEVALUING others is wrong, because it shows a disregard for a VALUABLE part of God's creation.<br /><br />As I said earlier, I totally agree that stigmatizing people, treating people differently because of appearance, not loving them because of a disbility is all sin. So what am I to do? SRV would say to understand the social realities and to work within them for the best for the person who is being stigmatized. The best answer is that people would love others in the same manner that God loves us. Short of that, we need to refrain from doing anything that contributes to the devaluing of others while we are at the same time working to make the environment more accepting of all people independent of their personal characteristics.</div>Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-15403303856468826222008-04-26T19:11:00.000-07:002010-08-07T10:38:51.024-07:00A Different Take on Social Role Valorization by Rick Eastin<div>I have studied much of Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger of work on Social Role Valorization, I can see that SRV is understood as a social science paradigm. As person who has been the field in various capacities and as a person with a disability, I cannot reconcile biblical truth with how SRV views persons. For Scripture teaches that no matter who we are, we are of equal value before God. Not only are we equal before Him, but He is in control of all events. Colossians 1:16, Romans 8:28, Psalms 115:3 and other passages tell us that God is in control of all things. This means that He's in charge of where and how persons with cognitive disabilities function. On the one hand, we are to accept to each other as we are. On the other hand, we are to encourage each other to grow and change for the better. This applies all persons. I understand that there is a balance between God's sovereignty and our responsibility. We trust God to protect our belongings, but we also lock our houses. When something like a fire occurs, we do what we can to put it out and if needed we call on others to help us. Also, when it comes to those of us with disabilities, we should minimize our disabilities as much as possible. The apostle Paul provides beautiful balance of this in Galatians 6:2. It is here that he tells us that we are to help carry each other's burdens. Then in verse 5 he directs us to carry our on own load (which appears to be a paradox.)<br />,<br />owever, when it comes to persons with cognitive disabilities, the advocates of SRV claim these persons should not engage in behavior that causes others to think less of them. However, we also find in the Scripture that God works though stigma and not just in spite of it. Many passages tell us this. Consider James talking about the sin favoritism. Exodus 4:10-11 and Matthew 25:31-41 contain other examples. We also find in Matthew 25:14-30 that God gives us differing abilities.<br /><br />For Wolfensberger deviancy is in the eye of the beholder, and he is to careful to state that persons are not deviant, but the roles they occupy are. One of the tools God has given us to understand the world is general revelation (God revealing Himsef and His truth through His creation.) With this as a premise, I want to look at the relationship between abilities and roles. Looking at the nature of human development, we find that as we grow and gain more abilities, we are able to take on more and more complex roles. This is accepted for persons without contrived disabilities. But, when it comes to people with contrived disabilities we want to change the paradigm. We say that since these people cannot progress though normal developmental stages, we should teach them functional skills that are based on where they are chronologically (instead of where they are developmentally.) However, general revelation shows us that persons develop intellectually in stages, no matter who we are. When it comes to persons with cognitive disabilities, they are caught in one of the early developmental stages. Although the advocates the of SRV understand the dynamics of why and how persons with cognitive disabilities function, the way they want us to treat these individuals is not compatible with their developmental functioning.<br /><br />I also understand that general revelation can be used to argue that since the tendency to devalue others comes all too easy to us, we therefore need to do everything we can to reduce our differences. However, the wealth of biblical evidence calls us to embrace and even celebrate our differences (rather than attempt toiminate them.) For instance, God points out our differences and how we are to respond to these differences when He casually mentions that "the strong" are to bear the burdens of "the weak" (Romans 12:3, 15:1.) For the supporters of SRV, the goal is to reduce the factors causing stigma. The ultimate goal is that these persons will be treated better by their non disabled counter parts. However, Scripture shows that very often God chooses to work though stigma. Three examples of this are Exodus 4:10-11, 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, and the death of Jesus on the cross.<br /><br />The very meaning of adulthood is that one becomes able to master certain skills and thereby grow out of immature ways of thinking and acting. With the end result being assuming adult roles. Human development is very complex in that we have the contributors of one's environment and genetics playing interrelated roles in how one develops through out life. For supporters of srv adulthood simply occurs because of chronological age and we should be instructing developmentally disabled individuals to engage in as much adult behavior and activity as is possible. According to Wolfenensberger, a good/positive ideology is needed when working with persons with cognitive disabilities. I wholly agree that we need to have a good ideology from which to draw upon for building relationships with these persons. However, there is a major difference between having a ideology that is based on truth and one that is simply based on how we wish things were. I am afraid that srv is in the latter category. One of the goals of supporters of srv concerns an increase in the amount of typical behaviors performed by those who have cognitive disabilities in the presence of socially valued persons. By doing this persons with cognitive disabilities earn the approval of the non disabled. </div>
<br /><div><br />Now I will at look at cognitive disabilities in the light of God's created order. Then I will consider what it means to accept disabilities in a fallen world. Colossians 1:16-17 instructs us that all things are in God's control. This would include the why and how adults with contrived disabilities perceive the world. Therefore, when these persons enjoy doing things that are more in accord with their developmental age level, they are simply being the persons that God intends for them to be. This also means that as for those of us that are involved in ministry with this population, we need to be helping others to understand their world in the context of the abilities of each individual. Instead of allowing the so called "valued" view the socially "devalued" as they have been doing, we need to challenge the perceptions of the "valued" people with the truth of God's Word.<br /><br />While it is true that God has created us in such a way that we willdo our best when there is an incentive involved, this is only one side of the coin. The other side of the same coin recognizes that much of life is difficult. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 5:45 that life is a mix good and bad experiences. Srv places a great deal of emphasis on making interactions between persons with cognitive disabilities as pleasurable as possible on the part the person who is in a socially valuable role.<br />Srv's understanding of deviancy and its application to these persons is violation of God's creational design. The reason srv rejects the concept of mental ages is not because the concept is not true. The reason for the rejection is that they don't like the results that follow from such a position. Srv's reasoning is that when society sees adults behaving in ways that are in accord with their developmental age, it will think less of them. This will result in people in society treating them badly. Scripture presents us with two seemingly conlicting truths about disabilities. The first, views disabilities as a product of the fall. The second, views them as part of God's intenational creational design.<br /><br />We are taught in Scripture that suffering and pain were brought into the world as a result of the fall and that includes disabilities of all kinds. Because we are all created in God's image, when we come into contact different aspects of our humanity, we experience frustration. This happens for both non Christians and Christians alike because we know instinctively that things are not the way they are suppose to be. This is in accordance with Romans 8:23. We live in a society where we believe that if there is a problem, there must be a corresponding solution. However, when we encounter persons with various disabilities, this is a reminder of our limitations and we are not okay with that.<br /><br />Scripture also makes it clear that God creates persons with disabilities (Exodus 4:11, Psalms 139:16, John 9:1-3.) Other Scriptural passeges also tell us that evil is under God's control. He is also the maker of the poor. You may wonder why I make reference to the poor, it is because the very nature of intellectual disabilities often precludes these persons from participating in the social/economic flow of society that would allow them to rise above being poor. One of the major reasons persons with these kinds of disabilities remain dependent is their lack of social/economic potential. The fact that God's Word is so clear about how purposeful He is in creating persons with disabilities, leads me to draw the following conclusions about mental ages and adults with intellectual disabilities..<br /><br />First of all, I view living with an intellectual disabilities as a calling (in the same way that God calls persons to be teachers, bankers, professors, pastors etc.) In the case of disabled intellects, God works by withholding these abilities so that these people are not able to function in certain ways. In terms of the callings listed in parenthesis, God grants abilities so that these people can take on the above mentioned roles. Job 2:10 asks a rhetorical question, "Shouldn't we accept good and evil as being from the Lord. Paul speaks on the same subject in Philippians 4:12 about being content when our blessings are abundant and also when we are in need (we see these states as being good and bad respectively.) Applying these truths to persons in this condition recognizes that God is in charge of how and where persons with contrived disabilities function. Just as we (as asociety) applaud people without disabilities for their talents and skills, we need to embrace persons with intellectual disabilities as being an equally valuable part God's creational design.<br /><br />The second one is in contrast to srv, which views treating adults in developmental stages as stigmatizing. I will make the case for using these stages as tools for developing a better understanding of these persons and how we can help meet their needs in the best possible way. We use developmental stages for our understanding of persons in general, from birth through adulthood. But srv wants to eliminate this paradigm when it pertains to our understanding of adults with intellectual disabilities. Developmental stages are not only a fact of social science, but more importantly, they are intregal to how God has created us. Therefore, to reject mental ages as they relate to adults with intellectual disabilities is to violate God's creational design of people in this condtion.<br /><br />Instead of trying to eliminate and trying to minimize factors supposedly leading to stigma, we need to embrace the stigmas. By embracing them, I mean we need to accept that concept of mental ages is valid in working with adults with this disability. We should be treating them according to their abilities and the imitations as measured by their "mental ages." When we do this, we are acting in accordance with Matthew 7:12.<br /><br />We need to work on interpreting the stigmatizing behavior others who are not disabled. Helping them to see that much of their behavior may not be considered appropriate to their own chronological level. In many of these cases it is apparently okay to behave in an "inappropriate" manner. Often, people in these situations are simply letting themselves go and being the genuine persons that God created them to be (having a great time doing it.) Guidelines for acceptable and non acceptable behaviors should be: 1) Is the behavior a danger to self and/or others? 2) Does the behavior in any way violate God's moral law.<br /><br />Finally, although srv considers social devaluation as a human response to negatively valued differences, the Bible has a very different take on the matter. It teaches us that this approach is wrong because it shows a disregard for the intense value of this part of God's creation.</div>Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-43356799597254313392008-04-26T18:31:00.000-07:002010-08-07T10:38:51.026-07:00Dr. McNair's ResponceIn October, I emailed Dr. McMair my essay titled Three Views of Disability and he responded with the following:<br /><br />The title of the section of your paper "The Rose Colored View" is the part that I think is most relevant to the social role valorization presentation that I did. I would begin by saying that I don't think the srv view is "rose colored" implying that one does not see the reality of the situation. I think that one of the things that srv does a pretty good job of doing is looking at the natural consequeces of a whole variety of actions, practices, etc., that impact the lives of persons with cognitive disabilities (since that was the major context of my comments). I don't advocate treating cognitively disabled adults in an age appropriate manner for any reason other than that they are adults. I personally don't buy the "mental age" argument because I honestly am unsure how it help in interactions with people with cognitive disabilties. I think it does little more than demean people. For example, I attended a church once where a man with cognitive disabilities was a part of the team that served communion. The man fulfilled those responsibilities admirably. However, there was a changeover of the elders, and a psychiatrist became one of the elders. He advocated removing the man from the serving of communion because to use his words, "He has the mind of a 10 year old." I guarantee to you that no one in the congretation would have even suspected that the man had a congnitive disability on the basis of his communion serving. However, because of an overzealous application of mental age, the man was seen as a disabled man, not a man. I could share other examples as well. I think it is affirming and even life supporting to treat someone with the respect that simply accompanies their age, particularly when I know the effects of stigmatization should I do otherwise.<br /><br />I would also say that I am accepting a person for who he is. But I am also respecting a person for who he is. The fact that there are those around persons with cognitive disabilities who will not respect them, makes my interactions all the more important, all the more urgent. This view is actually just the opposite of what you state, I believe, when you say...<br /><br />"The Rose Colored view advocates that we become respecters of persons. This view also contradicts how God calls us to view one another. I Samuel 16:7 tells us that man looks on the outside, but God looks at the heart. Scripture tells us that the strong are to bear the burdens of the weak. This is the opposite of the Rose Colored view. God calls his followers to be incarnational just as He was. We need to be incarnational in our ministry with people who are disabled. We need to enter into their world and understand their realities to the best of our ability . As Romans 12:15 says, we should mourn with those who mourn, and rejoice with those who rejoice."<br /><br />I am advocating that we be a respecter of persons, because I am not looking at what is on the outside. At least I am not looking exclusively at the cognitive disability that the person has, the mental age or whatever but I am attempting to look at the heart, the soul of the person. It is because that person is created in the image of God and is loved by God that I am respecting that person. That causes me to not take that person at face value, but to look deeper into who he is. To say, that although he appears very child-like, he is not a child, and should not be treated as a child. To say that although the person with severe cognitive disabilities appears very limited, he has value and has worth and should be respected as a person, not simply as he appears. A significant portion of what I was trying to communicate through a discussion of srv was that whole notion of respecting the person by not looking at the outside, and being very circumscribed in a whole variety of aspects of life such that I communicate and fight for the value of persons, because they may not appear to some to be valuable on the outside.<br /><br />So the view is not rose colored in any way. It is not saying that people are not disabled who are disabled. Rather it is fighting tooth and nail for them to be viewed as fully human, and to prevent the kinds of things that society will do covertly or overtly, consciously or unconsciously that detract from viewing a person superficially simply because he has a disability.Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-72051823918507323752008-04-26T17:11:00.000-07:002010-08-07T10:38:51.041-07:00Social Role ValorizationI am having a lively exchange with Dr. Jeff McNair, professor of special education at Cal Baptist University Riverside, concerning Social Role Valorization (SRV). You probably do not know what srv is, so I am providing the following paper that explains it.<br /><br />An Overview of Social Role Valorization Theory<br />Joe Osburn<br />EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is an updated version of an article originally published in The International SRV Journal in 1998 titled, An Overview of Social Role Valorization Theory SRV/VRS (Osborn, J) The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La revue internationale de la Valorisation des roles sociaux, 3(1), 7-12). I asked the author to revise his original article to incorporate significant developments in SRV made by Wolfensberger since 1998. We are particularly pleased to offer this revised article in our first issue, as a clear overview of what this Journal is all about.<br />“SOCIAL ROLE VALORIZATION” (SRV) is the name given to a concept for transacting human relationships and human service, formulated in 1983 by Wolf Wolfensberger, Ph.D., as the successor to his earlier formulation of the principle of normalization (Lemay, 1995; Wolfensberger, 1972; Wolfensberger, 1983). His most recent definition of Social Role Valorization is: “The application of empirical knowledge to the shaping of the current or potential social roles of a party (i.e., person, group, or class) -- primarily by means of enhancement of the party’s competencies & image -- so that these are, as much as possible, positively valued in the eyes of the perceivers”<br />(Wolfensberger & Thomas, 2005).<br />THE BASIC PREMISE of SRV is that people are much more likely to experience the “good things in life” (Wolfensberger, Thomas, & Caruso, 1996) if they hold valued social roles than if they do not. Therefore, the major goal of SRV is to create or support socially valued roles for people in their society, because if a person holds valued social roles, that person is highly likely to receive from society those good things in life that are available to that society, and that can be conveyed by it, or at least the opportunities for obtaining these. In other words, all sorts of good things that other people are able to convey are almost automatically apt to be accorded to a person who holds societally valued roles, at least within the resources and norms of his/her society.<br />There exists a high degree of consensus about what the good things in life are (Wolfensberger, et al., 1996). To mention only a few major examples, they include being accorded dignity, respect, acceptance; a sense of belonging; an education, and the development and exercise of one’s capacities; a voice in the affairs of one’s community and society; opportunities to participate; a decent material standard of living; and at least a normative place to live; and opportunities for work and self-support.<br />SRV is especially relevant to two classes of people in society: those who are already societally devalued, and those who are at heightened risk of becoming devalued. In fact, SRV is primarily a response to the historically universal phenomenon of social devaluation, and especially societal devaluation. In any society, there are groups and classes who are at value risk or already devalued in and by their society or some of its subsystems. (For instance, in North America, it has been estimated that from one-fourth to one-third of the population exists in a devalued state because of impairment, age, poverty or other characteristics that are devalued in society.) Devalued individuals, groups, and classes are far more likely than other members of society to be treated badly, and to be subjected to a systematic -- and possibly lifelong -- pattern of such negative experiences as the following.<br />Being perceived and interpreted as “deviant,” due to their negatively-valued differentness. The latter could consist of physical or functional impairments, low competence, a particular ethnic identity, certain behaviors or associations, skin color, and many others.<br />Being rejected by community, society, and even family and services.<br />Being cast into negative social roles, some of which can be severely negative, such as “subhuman,” “menace,” and “burden on society.”<br />Being put and kept at a social or physical distance, the latter most commonly by segregation.<br />Having negative images (including language) attached to them.<br />Being the object of abuse, violence, and brutalization, and even being made dead.<br />THE REALITY that not all people are positively valued in their society makes SRV so important (Kendrick, 1994). It can help not only to prevent bad things from happening to socially vulnerable or devalued people, but can also increase the likelihood that they will experience the good things in life. Unfortunately, the good things in life are usually not accorded to people who are devalued in society. For them, many or most good things are beyond reach, denied, withheld, or at least harder to attain. Instead, what might be called “the bad things in life” are imposed upon them, such as the six experiences listed above. This is why having at least some valued social roles is so important. A person who fills valued social roles is likely to be treated much better than if he or she did not have these, or than other people who have the same devalued characteristics, but do not have equally valued social roles. There are several important reasons why this is so. One is that such a person is more likely to also have valued and competent allies or defenders who can mitigate the impacts of devaluation or protect the person from these. Also, when a person holds valued social roles, attributes of theirs that might otherwise be viewed negatively are much more apt to be put up with, or overlooked, or “dismissed” as relatively unimportant.<br />IT IS ROLE-VALORIZING to enhance the perceived value of the social roles of a person, a group, or an entire class of people, and doing so is thus called social role valorization. There are two major broad strategies for pursuing this goal for (devalued) people: (1) enhancement of people’s social image in the eyes of others, and<br />(2) enhancement of their competencies, in the widest sense of the term. Image and competency form a feedback loop that can be negative or positive. That is, a person who is compe-tency-impaired is highly at risk of suffering image-impairment; a person who is impaired in image is apt to be responded to by others in ways that limit or reduce or even prevent the person’s competency. But both processes work equally in the reverse direction. That is, a person whose social image is positive is apt to be provided with experiences, expectancies, and other life conditions which are likely to increase, or give scope to, his/her competencies; and a person who displays competencies is also apt to be imaged positively.<br />Role-valorizing actions in the image-enhancement or competency-enhancement domains can be carried out on four distinct levels and sectors of social organization.<br />1. The individual;<br />2. The individual’s primary social systems, such as the family;<br />The intermediate level social systems of an individual or group, such as the neighborhood, community, and services the person receives;<br />The larger society of the individual or group, including the entire service system.<br />Combining these different dimensions and levels yields a 2x4 matrix for classifying the major implications of SRV, as shown in Table 1 (adapted from Thomas, 1999).<br />Table 1: Social Role Valorization Action Implications<br />Primarily to Enhance Social Images<br />Primarily to Enhance Personal Competencies<br />Individual Person<br />Arranging Physical & Social Conditions for a Specific Individual That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions of That Individual by Others<br />Arranging Physical & Social Conditions for a Specific Person That are Likely to Enhance the Competencies of That Individual<br />Level<br />Primary Social Systems<br />Arranging Physical & Social Conditions in a Primary Social System That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions of a Person in & via This System<br />Arranging Physical & Social Conditions of a Person’s Social System That are Likely to Enhance That Person’s Competencies<br />Of Action<br />Intermediate & Secondary Social Systems<br />Arranging Physical & Social Conditions in Secondary Social Systems That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions in & via Those Systems -- of People in Them, & of Others like Them<br />Arranging Physical & Social Conditions in Secondary Social Systems That are Likely to Enhance the Competencies of People in Them<br />Entire Society of an Individual, Group, or Class of People<br />Arranging Physical & Social Conditions Throughout Society That are Likely to Enhance Positive Perceptions of Classes<br />Arranging Physical & Social Conditions Throughout Society That are Likely to Enhance the Competencies of Classes of People<br />FOR THOSE who wish to improve the situation of devalued people, SRV constitutes a high-level and systematic framework to guide their actions. In other words, it provides a coherent overall conceptual foundation for addressing the plight of individuals, groups, or classes of devalued people. Within this overall framework, SRV points to comprehensive service principles, from which are derived major service strategies, from which, in turn, flow innumerable specific practical action measures. These principles, strategies, and action measures are relevant in both formal and informal service contexts, and are thoroughly spelled-out in the SRV literature. In fact, SRV is one of the most fully articulated broad service schemas in existence. For example, within each of the eight boxes in Table 1, innumerable more specific role-valorizing actions can be imagined, and indeed, a great many have been explicitly identified (Thomas, 1999). Even in just the few words of the short definition of SRV (stated above), there is incorporated an enormous amount of explanatory power and implied actions which can give people much food for thought in their whole approach to serving others. If implemented, SRV can lead to a genuine address of the needs of the people served, and thus to a great increase in service quality and effectiveness.<br />SRV IS A SOCIAL SCIENCE CONCEPT and is thus in the empirical realm. It rests on a solid foundation of well-established social science theory, research, and empiricism within fields such as sociology, psychology, and education and pedagogy, drawing upon multiple bodies of inquiry, such as role theory, learning theory, the function and power of social imagery, mind-sets and expectancies, group dynamics, the social and psychological processes involved in unconsciousness, the sociology of deviancy, and so forth. SRV weaves this body of knowledge into an overarching, systematic, and unified schema.<br />SRV is not a value system or ideology, nor does it prescribe or dictate value decisions. Decisions about whether to implement SRV measures for any person or group, and to what extent, are ultimately determined by people’s higher-order (and not necessarily conscious) values which transcend SRV and come from other sources, such as their personal upbringing, family influences, political and economic ideas, worldviews, and explicit religions. What people do in their relationships and services, or in response to the needs of the people they serve, or for that matter in any other endeavors, depends greatly on their values, assumptions, and beliefs, including those they hold about SRV itself. However, SRV makes a big point of how positive personal and cultural values can be powerfully brought to bear if one wishes to pursue valued social roles for people. For example, in most western cultures, the Judeo-Christian value system and liberal democratic tradition are espoused and widely assented to, even if rarely actualized in full. SRV can recruit such deeply embedded cultural values and traditions on behalf of people who might otherwise be devalued and even dehumanized. Every society has values that can be thusly recruited to craft positive roles for people (Wolfensberger, 1972, 1998).<br />As a social science schema, SRV is descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, SRV can describe certain realities (e.g., social devaluation), and can say what are the likely outcomes of doing or not doing certain things in regard to those realities, in what has come to be called the “if this...then that” formulation of SRV (Wolfensberger, 1995a). For example, SRV points out that if parents do things that help others to have a positive view of their child and that help the child acquire skills needed to participate positively in the community, then it is more likely that the child will be well-integrated into the community. If one does not emphasize the adult status of mentally retarded adults, and/or does not avoid things which reinforce their role stereotype as “eternal children” (such as referring to adults as children, engaging adults in children’s activities, and so on), then one is likely to perpetuate the common negative stereotype that mentally retarded adults really are overgrown children, with all the negative consequences that attend this stereotype. So, these are things that SRV can tell one. However, once people learn SRV, they themselves have to determine what they think about it, whether they believe in its power, whether they want to apply it in valorizing the roles of a person or class, and to what extent -- if at all --they even want to valorize other people’s roles. For example, while SRV brings out the high importance of valued social roles, whether one decides to actually provide positive roles to people, or even believes that a specific person, group, or class deserves valued social roles, depends on one’s personal value system, which as noted, has to come from somewhere other than SRV.<br />THE IDEAS BEHIND SRV first began to be generated by the work that was being conducted by Wolfensberger and his associates at the Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry, which he directs at Syracuse University. One major source of these ideas was an on-going effort on the part of Wolfensberger to continually explore, advance, and refine the principle of normalization --an effort that began almost as soon as normalization first appeared on the scene. For example, since normalization was first explicitly formulated in 1969, several books, numerous articles, chapters, and other publications (several hundred altogether) on the topic have been written and disseminated (see, for example, St-Denis & Flynn, 1999). And it was Wolfensberger, more than anyone else, whose writings successively clarified and helped to increase comprehension of the meaning and application of normalization. This process involved a concerted effort on his part to systematically incorporate into teaching and training materials the deepening understanding achieved in the course of: (a) thinking, writing, and teaching about normalization over the years; (b) its increasing incorporation into actual human service practice; and (c) numerous normalization-based service assessments, mostly using the PASS tool (Wolfensberger & Glenn, 1973, 1975, reprinted in 1978). There were also continuous attempts, again mostly on Wolfensberger’s part, to deal with frequent misconceptions and even “perversions” of the concept of normalization (see Wolfensberger, 1980), often due to the ease with which the term “normalization” itself could be (and was) misconstrued or misapplied.<br />This stream of concentrated development resulted in an evolution in thinking which brought about the conceptual transition from normalization to Social Role Valorization. Not surprisingly, the main substance of the concept of SRV began to evolve before the concept itself was defined, and before a new term was coined to describe it. For instance, Wolfens-berger’s last published formulation of the principle of normalization defined it as, “as much as possible, the use of culturally valued means in order to enable, establish and/or maintain valued social roles for people” (Wolfensberger & Tullman, 1982), thus foreshadowing both the new concept and the new term Social Role Valorization. This article was the first publication that articulated the insight that valued social roles for people at risk of social devaluation were -- even more than merely culturally normative conditions -- the real key to the good things of life for them. This represented such an advance that it was clearly a higher conceptualization than the earlier formulation of normalization. Thus, SRV definitely amounts to far more than a renaming or rewording of the normalization principle; rather, it constitutes a major conceptual breakthrough based on the double insight that (a) people with valued social roles will tend to be accorded desirable things, at least within the resources and norms of their society, and (b) the two major means to the creation, support, and defense of valued social roles are to enhance both a person’s image and competency.<br />Another big boost to the conceptualization of Social Role Valorization was the work being done by Wolfensberger, and his Training Institute associate, Susan Thomas, over a three to four year period on a human service evaluation tool called PASSING (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1983), which stands for “Program Analysis of Service Systems’ Implementation of Normalization Goals.” One could say that this first published edition of PASSING (i.e., the second edition) was ahead of its time in at least one sense: it spelled out the major action implications of the new concept of SRV in much more detail than in any other previous publication, and did so even before a term had been coined to name the new concept. PASSING thus incorporates mostly SRV concepts while still using the earlier normalization language. Happily, this anachronism is corrected in the anticipated third revised edition (Wolfensberger & Thomas, in press) which uses SRV terminology exclusively. The development of PASSING contributed much to the insight that actions to achieve the ultimate as well as intermediate goals and processes of SRV can all be classified as dealing with either image and/or competency enhancement.<br />In order to help communicate new concepts, new terms are often needed. The selection of the term “Social Role Valorization” was quite deliberate (see, for example, Wolfensberger, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1991a). Not only does it overcome many of the historical and other problems that had always plagued the term “normalization,” but it is based on two additional discoveries that are highly relevant to the essence of its meaning (Wolfensberger, 1985).<br />In modern French human service contexts, people had begun to use the word valorisation in order to signify the attachment of value to people. In Canadian French specifically, the term valorisation sociale had been used in teaching the normalization principle since ca. 1980 (Wolfensberger, 1991b).<br />In both French and English, the term valorization has its root in the Latin word valere, which means to value or accord worth. Relatedly, the word “valorization” has, or elicits, very strong positive connotations that clearly correspond to the concept it is meant to convey.<br />In combination, the above discoveries suggested that in English “Social Role Valorization,” and in French La Valorisation des Roles Sociaux (Wolfensberger, 1991b), would be eminently suitable terms for the new concept, both having positive connotations, while being unfamiliar enough not to evoke wrong ideas. The French term brings out even better than the English the fact that people hold multiple roles, and that more than one can be valorized.<br />Table 2: Sequence of Topics for a Leadership-Oriented Introductory Social Role Valorization (SRV) Workshop<br />PART 1: INTRODUCTORY ORIENTATION<br />a.<br />How the Workshop Will be Conducted<br />b.<br />Introduction to the Workshop Topic, Including a Brief Preliminary Sketch of SRV<br />c.<br />Orientation to Some Concepts Crucial to the Workshop<br />PART 2: SOCIAL EVALUATION, DEVALUATION & ITS IMPACT<br />a.<br />Basic Facts About Human Evaluation, & Social Devaluation Specifically<br />b.<br />The Devalued Classes in Contemporary Western Societies<br />c.<br />The Expressions of Social Devaluation: The Most Common Wounds of Devalued People<br />d.<br />The Common Effects on Devalued People of Being Systematically Wounded<br />e.<br />Conclusion to the Material on Wounds<br />PART 3: A MORE DETAILED INTRODUCTION TO SRV<br />a.<br />The Rationale Behind SRV<br />b.<br />Some Facts About Social Role Theory That Are Easily Understood & Crucial to SRV<br />c.<br />A More Global Overview Sketch of Social Role Valorization (SRV) c1. Some Broad Facts About SRV c2. Making Distinctions Between Empirical Versus Nonempirical Propositions c3. Concluding Clarifications<br />PART 4: TEN THEMES OF GREAT RELEVANCE TO UNDERSTANDING & APPLYING SRV<br />a.<br />Introduction to the Ten Themes<br />b.<br />The Dynamics of UNCONSCIOUSNESS, Particularly About Deviancy-Making, & the Unrecognized Aspects & Functions of Human Services<br />c.<br />The CONSERVATISM COROLLARY of SRV, i.e., the Importance of Employing the Most Valued Options, & Positive Compensation for Disadvantage<br />d.<br />The Importance of INTERPERSONAL IDENTIFICATION<br />e.<br />The Power of MIND-SETS & EXPECTANCIES<br />f.<br />The Realities of IMAGERY, Image Transfer, Generalization, & Enhancement<br />g.<br />The Concept of Service MODEL COHERENCY, With Its Requirements of RELEVANCE & POTENCY<br />h.<br />The Importance of PERSONAL COMPETENCY ENHANCEMENT & THE DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL<br />i.<br />The Pedagogic Power of IMITATION, Via Modeling & Interpersonal Identification<br />j.<br />The Relevance of ROLE EXPECTANCIES & ROLE CIRCULARITY to Deviancy-Making & Deviancy-Unmaking<br />k.<br />SOCIAL INTEGRATION & VALUED SOCIETAL PARTICIPATION of Devalued People in Valued Society<br />l.<br />Grouping & Association Issues That Derive From Combinations of Themes<br />m.<br />Conclusion to, & Relationship Among, All the Themes<br />PART 5: IMPLEMENTATION, ELABORATIONS, CLARIFICATIONS & CONCLUSION<br />a.<br />Some Further Issues of SRV Implementation or Practice<br />b.<br />The Benefits of SRV<br />c.<br />Brief Review of the Limitations of, & Constraints on, SRV<br />d.<br />A Brief Note on the Limitations of This Workshop<br />e.<br />Ways to Learn More About SRV<br />f.<br />Conclusion & Adjournment<br />Finally, another advantage of the switch from normalization to SRV is that because Social Role Valorization is an uncommon term, people are more likely to listen to definitions and explanations of it rather than attaching their own preconceived notions to it, as they had tended to do with the word “normalization.”<br />SRV IS BEING DISSEMINATED across the world. For example, in the English language, both the overarching SRV schema and its major elements have been described in an original introductory monograph (Wolfensberger, 1992), which was later revised into a 139-page edition (Wolfensberger, 1998) that now serves together with the PASSING manual (Wolfensberger & Thomas 1983; revision in press) as the main current SRV texts. Other prominent SRV-re-lated texts in English are the published proceedings of the 1994 International SRV conference held in Ottawa (Flynn & Lemay, 1999), with many chapters that reflect recent perspectives on SRV, and two books published in England (Race, 1999, 2003). There is also a massive set of (unpublished) teaching materials used in SRV training by qualified trainers (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 2005). The multitude of SRV action implications to human services and human service workers are thoroughly spelled out in SRV and PASSING training workshops, both of which are intensive teaching events, conducted in a variety of formats, of anywhere from one to seven days in length. Table 2 provides a list of topics covered in the most recent version of introductory SRV training workshops.<br />To date, most SRV and/or PASSING training events have been conducted in English, with several variations in terms of length (i.e., anywhere from half a day to five days duration), processes, and depth and quantity of content. There have also been a significant number of SRV/PASSING training events in French, conducted mainly by francophone trainers, again in different versions. In addition to English and French, such training has also been conducted in Spanish, Dutch, Welsh, Icelandic, Norwegian, and possibly other languages, typically with the aid of interpreters.<br />Both the English SRV (Wolfensberger, 1991a) and PASSING (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1983) texts have been translated into French (Wolfensberger, 1991b; Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1988), and the SRV monograph into Italian (Wolfensberger, 1991c) and Japanese (Wolfensberger, 1995b), and is in the process of being retranslated into German.<br />Another obvious vehicle for dissemination (in English) of general SRV related information and news is The SRV Journal. On the internet, there are several websites devoted to SRV matters, including one called Social Role Valorization at . There are also several groups in various countries that have formed around SRV; while these range from formal to informal and have slightly different purposes and processes, they tend to be composed of people well-versed in SRV development, dissemination, and/or application. Perhaps the two most prominent of these are the (North American) SRV Development, Training, and Safeguarding Council, comprised of members from both Canada and the United States of America, and the Australian SRV Group. The membership of both of these groups includes representatives of smaller more localized groups in various parts of their respective countries.<br />Information on the most recent SRV-related developments, and/or SRV training events, can be requested from the above-mentioned Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (800 South Wilbur Avenue, Suite 3B1 Syracuse, New York 13204, USA; 315/473-2978; fax: 315/473-2963).<br />References<br />Flynn, R.J., & Lemay, R. (Eds.) (1999). A quarter-cen-tury of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.<br />Kendrick, M. (1994). Some reasons why Social Role Valorization is important. SRV/VRS: The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La Revue Internationale de la Valorisation des Roles Sociaux, 1(1), 14-18.<br />Lemay, R. (1995). Social Role Valorization and the principle of Normalization as guides for social contexts and human services for people at risk of societal devaluation. In Dell Orto, A. E. & Maraneli, R. P., Encyclopedia of disability and rehabilitation. New York: McMillan, 515-521.<br />Race, D. (1999). Social Role Valorization & the English experience. London: Whiting & Birch Ltd.<br />Race, D. (2003). Leadership and change in human services: Selected readings from Wolf Wolfensberger. New York & London: Routledge.<br />St-Denis, C., & Flynn, R.J. (1999). A comprehensive bibliography on Normalization, Social Role Valorization, PASS, and PASSING, 1969 -1999. In Flynn, R.J., & Lemay, R. (Eds.) (1999). A quarter-century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 507547.<br />Thomas, S. (1999). Historical background and evolution of Normalization-related and Social Role Valorization-related training. In Flynn, R.J., & Lemay, R. (Eds.), A quarter-century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 353-374.<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of Normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1980). The definition of Normalization: Update, problems, disagreements, and misunderstandings. In Flynn, R.J., & Nitsch, K.E. (Eds.), Normalization, social integration, and community services.<br />Baltimore, MD: University Park Press, 71-115.<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social Role Valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of Normalization.<br />Mental Retardation, 21(6), 234-239.<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1984). A reconceptualization of Normalization as Social Role Valorization. Mental Retardation (Canada), 34(7), 22-26.<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1985). Social Role Valorization: A new insight, and a new term, for Normalization. Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded Journal, 9(1), 4-11.<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1991a). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1991b). La valorisation des roles sociaux: Introduction a un concept reference pour l`organisation des services. (A. Dupont, V. Keller-Re-vaz, J. P. Nicoletti, & L. Vaney, Trans.) Geneve, Switzerland: Editions des Deux Continents.<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1991c). La Valorizzazione del ruolo sociale: Una breve introduzione al concetto di valorizzazione del ruolo sociale inteso come concetto prioritario per la strutturazione dei servizi alle persone (M. Costantino & A. Domina, Trans.). Geneve, Switzerland: Editions des Deux Continents.<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1992). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services. (2nd (rev.) ed.). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1995a). An “If this, then that” formulation of decisions related to Social Role Valorization as a better way of interpreting it to people. Mental Retardation, 33(3), 163-169.<br />Wolfensberger, W.(1995b). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization: A high order concept for addressing the plight of societally devalued people, and for structuring human services. (Japanese trans. by Y. Tomiyasu). Tokyo, Japan: K.K. Gakuensha. (Based on a revised and enlarged version of: Wolfensberger, W. (1992). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services.<br />(2nd.(rev.) ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership, & Change Agentry.<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1996). Reply to John O’Brien’s “Nobody outruns the trickster: A brief note on the meaning of the word ‘valorization.’” SRV/VRS: The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La revue internationale de la Valorisation des roles sociaux, 2(1), 16-20.<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1998). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization: A high-order concept for addressing the plight of societally devalued people, and for structuring human services. (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).<br />Wolfensberger, W. (1999). Concluding reflections and a look ahead into the future for Normalization and Social Role Valorization. In R. J. Flynn & R. Lemay (Eds.),<br />A quarter-century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact. University of Ottawa Press, 489-504.<br />Wolfensberger, W., & Glenn, L. (1973). Program analysis of service systems (PASS): A method for the quantitative evaluation of human services. Handbook. Field Manual. (2nd ed.) Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.<br />Wolfensberger, W., & Glenn, L. (1975, reprinted 1978).<br />Program Analysis of Service Systems (PASS): A method for the quantitative evaluation of human services: (3rd ed.). Handbook. Field Manual. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.<br />Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1983). PASSING (Program analysis of service systems’ implementation of Normalization goals): Normalization criteria and ratings manual (2nd ed.). Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.<br />Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1988). PASSING<br />(Programme d’analyse des systemes de services application des buts de la valorisation des roles sociaux): Manuel des criteres et des mesures de la valorisation des roles sociaux. (2ieme ed.). (M. Roberge, trans.; J. Pelletier, Adap.) Toronto: l’Institut G. Allan Roeher & Les Communications Opell.<br />Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (2005). Introductory Social Role Valorization workshop training package. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).<br />Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (in press). PASSING: A tool for analyzing service quality according to Social Role Valorization criteria. Ratings manual. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).<br />Wolfensberger, W., Thomas, S., & Caruso, G. (1996). Some of the universal “good things of life” which the implementation of Social Role Valorization can be expected to make more accessible to devalued people.<br />SRV/VRS: The International Social Role Valorization Journal/La Revue Internationale de la Valorisation des Roles Sociaux, 2(2), 12-14.<br />Wolfensberger, W., & Tullman, S. (1982). A brief overview of the principle of Normalization. Rehabilitation Psychology, 27(3), 131-145. Opell.<br />JOE OSBURN is director of the Safeguards Initiative, Bardstown, KY, USA, and a member of the North American SRV Council.<br />The citation for this article is:<br />Osburn, J. (2006). An overview of Social Role Valorization theory. The SRV Journal, 1(1), 4-13.Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1755774257591665438.post-64270436437099163482008-04-17T20:43:00.000-07:002010-08-07T10:38:51.053-07:00Expanding our understand of healingExpanding Our Understanding of Healing<br />By Rick <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Eastin</span><br />As Christians, we believe that salvation is for the whole man. Part of that includes our physical healing. Since the fall affects every area of our lives, when Jesus comes into one’s heart He wants to redeem every area for His glory. However, for many, this poses a problem, because to the best of their knowledge, they are right with God. Yet when they ask in faith for healing, they are not healed. In this short article I’d like to share some insight that by God’s grace will expand our understanding of healing.<br />Jesus came to establish the kingdom of God. Mark 16:17- 18 describes some of the principles of the kingdom Jesus established: "And these signs will accompany those who have believed in my name: they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;…they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover."<br />This is the "Conquering King" side of Jesus; the facet of His wonderful nature that steps into situations and changes them. This view of Jesus is strongly supported in Scripture, but the problem is that we live in a society that wants to do away with any and all circumstances that are uncomfortable. And, just as there is this tendency in secular society, as Christians we often reflect this attitude with an addition of using, or misusing, God’s Word to justify our position.<br />Three statements characterize our sometimes erroneous approach to people who have an affliction which does not seem to improve: 1.) The person is afflicted because of demonic activity. While this may be true in some cases it is by no means true of every situation that does not respond to the standard approaches. 2.) The person is not healed because of secret sin or lack of faith. 3.) The person who is not healed cannot bring as much glory to God as the one who is healed. This is a simplistic statement not supported by the Scriptures or history.<br />These statements often add to the burden of a person who has an impairment, as well as those who care for them. Such statements often reveal our hearts and our belief that the reason God has given us the gifts of His Spirit is to make us happy. In the final analysis, these kinds of statements can cause us to develop an unloving attitude toward those who are afflicted, while we should be extending our care for them in the love of Jesus.<br />There is another side of Jesus besides the "Conquering King." There is also the "Suffering Servant" side of our Lord. This is where He steps into a situation and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">doesn</span>’t change it. He takes hold of it and turns it around to His glory. This is what happened with Jesus himself on the cross. God did not remove the cross, but rather turned it into defeat for sin and Satan.<br />In the same way, when God does not take away and impairment, He turns it around for His glory. This He does in two ways: 1.) He prompts His people to reach out to afflicted ones and affirm their value to Him and His church. In so doing, we foil the strategy of the enemy whose purpose is to devalue and destroy people. 2.) He uses the affliction to accomplish higher purposes than comfort or happiness. This He did in my own life by using a physically and mentally handicapped woman to call me into His service.<br />We know that every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of Lights. Whether we help people by natural or supernatural means, we are establishing the Kingdom of God. Jesus used both means to reveal Himself. He is able, today, to reveal His glory through supernatural, miraculous ways, and through the afflictions that are part of the natural process of fallen life on this earth. He will be glorified one way or the other!Rick Eastinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03763540545008144623noreply@blogger.com0