First Church of God Merced CA Sept 7, 2013
Three Views of Disability

Rick Eastin


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tragedy View

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

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

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

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

The Rose Colored View

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

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

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

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

The Common Good View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Recommended Reading:

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

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

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

Reconciling Two Different Models of Disability

Rick Eastin

February 2013

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Disabilities are one of the many manifestations of the Fall with which we have to contend.

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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”.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 independence, but rather interdependence.

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.

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.

 

#

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

# 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

#

He replied, “You are talking like a foolish[

^{a] 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}

# 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

# He replied, “You are talking like a foolish[^{a] woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” In all this, Job did not sin in what he said. – Job 2:10}

Advancing Individual, Not Professional, Choice

Advancing Individual, Not Professional, Choice

About the author: Rick Eastin 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.

My name is Rick Eastin. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The behavioral approach to developmental services is directly related to Wolfensberger’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. 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. 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.

An important facet of normalization is called the “dignity of risk”. Wolfensberger 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.

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. (McLoughlin 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. (Edgerton, 1990 p.152)

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 over-protection has been greatly misused and abused when it comes to persons with developmental disabilities. Most parents of the severely handicapped are primarily concerned with their child’s welfare from a developmental viewpoint as opposed to a 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.

The social integration movement is based on two different ideologies: social deviancy and equalitarianism. These ideologies, however, are incompatible with each other. Social deviancy says one must change to be acceptable, whereas equalitarianism 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 rejected. 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.

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 the people with the disabilities. 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 non-disabled 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.

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 scenarios.

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, doesn’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.

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.

Edgerton Robert, Quality of Life a Longitudinal Perspective ; In Quality of Life Perspectives and Issues Robert L. Schalock (Ed). American Association on Mental Retardation Washington D.C.

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

Social Integration - A Christian Perspective by Rick Eastin

Social Integration – A Christian Perspective
By Rick Eastin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Misfits or Another Culture by Rick Eastin

Social Misfits or Another Culture
By Rick Eastin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social integration - A Differerent View by Rick Eastin

Social Integration – A Different View
By Rick Eastin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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