disabled Christianity by Jeff McNair "If this...Then that" for Thursday, 2 October 2014 |
|
Clearly things are improving in the world of inclusion of persons with impairments within the local church. There are pockets of brilliance and still pockets of complete failure. Even where there are things happening, there is significant room for improvement or what might be called "maturity in ministry" (see this link for a good article that helps to explain maturity and provide a bit of a roadmap towards attaining maturityWhat Would Be Better?). What is it that has to God's glory been changing in recent times? It is not coming from the seminaries, at least not overtly. Disability is still not generally a topic for training there. Seminary training is not leading the way in teaching us to change in our love for our neighbors with impairments. They, as the "if this" are more likely to perpetuate the currently experienced "then that." Arguably it is not coming from our leadership. Yes there are organizations like Joni and Friends among others who areproviding leadership and working to facilitate the change. There is leadership in that way, from the few Christian disability organizations out there. There are some denomintions providing leadership as well. But it is almost as if it is a grass roots movement that is causing the leadership, the basic practices and traditions to change. The change, should it come as I pray it will, will change the church in very dramatic ways. But as I have often said it will be a corrective. As I have often thought about the universal misunderstanding and lack of desire for change across all permutations of the Christian world (Baptist, Catholics, Penecostals, etc.) it has struck me how universal the misunderstanding of persons with disabilities and the response of the church has been. How could it be that ALL permutations of the Christian church have gotten this wrong for so long? That is, there is or at least has been, something universally wrong with Christian theology, or traditions, or teachings (the "if this") that have led to the experience of persons with disabilities that we see or have seen (the "then that"). I have a long way to go on understanding this, but would be interested in any ideas people may have about why this is so. Ideas I have thought about thus far relate to the training of our leaders and the lack of understanding of those who train them. Training of whomever at almost every level evidences this problem. Once again this "poor training" of whomever is universal within the Christian church which is breathtaking. I wouldn't expect that there would be that much unanimity in this area across all the denominations. The outcomes of this training have at times caused people to desire to start new disability friendly churches from scratch in order to address what they see as the fundamental problems of the churches they have experienced. It is the old joke "How do I get to Chicago?" Response, "You can't get there from here!" This response indicates that the "if this" is so strong and pervasive, we need an entirely new starting point in order to get where we want to go because we cannot get where we want to go from our starting point; the existing way of doing things. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I understand the position nonetheless. I have related in this blog a conversation I once had with Jean Vanier where he said we have been focused on the rectitude of doctrine rather than the rectitude of love. I resonate with this, but as Bishop Nazir Ali of the Anglican Church also once shared with me, if we had the right doctrine we would have the right love. So perhaps this fundamental "if this" problem is in part our doctrine. Yet, once again because of the universality of the problem within the Christian church, I wonder. Could past or present exclusion of persons with impairments be the one thing that we agree upon across doctrines and denominations? Our experience might tell us that. There is much more of my thinking that I could share here, but I won't at this point. Once again I would welcome any input from anyone who happens to read this. I think it is something important to understand as we move forward. God bless, Jeff McNair Wolfensberger, W. (2011) An “If This, Then That” Formulation of Decisions Related to Social Role Valorization As a Better Way of Interpreting It to People. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: December 2011, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 456-462.
___________________________________
What Would Be Better?
Social Role Valorization and the Development of
Ministry to Persons Affected by Disability
MARC TUMEINSKI AND JEFF MCNAIR
ABSTRACT
There is much that Christian churches can learn from relevant secular approaches and adapt to support integration and participation within our congregations for adults with impairments. One of these approaches is Social Role Valorization developed by Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger. In this approach, one considers the relevance of image and competency of devalued individuals and how these two areas impact accessto “the good things of life.” This article applies these principles to the inclusion of vulnerable
congregational members into the life of the Christian church, asking the question, “What would be better?” as a prompt for those in leadership to reflect on their current practices with an eye toward maturity in their practices as they intersect the lives of devalued people.
Keywords: disability ministry, social role valorization, ministry maturity
INTRODUCTION
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28).
The Christian church has a heightening sense of awareness of individuals with characteristics that are devalued by society, particularly persons with significant physical and intellectual disabilities. Although there is still much to be done, increasingly, churches are mounting efforts to specifcally reach out and include all members of their communities more broadly, helping to build up the kingdom of God. Churches can learn a
great deal from relevantsecular approaches and make adaptationsto support integration and participation of adults with disabilities within their congregations.
Social Role Valorization
A Comprehensive Set of Relevant and Potent Tools
Social Role Valorization (SRV) has potential to help churches in this ongoing critical endeavor. SRV is a set of ideas built on the premise thatif we can help people with disabilities to have valued social roles, they will be more likely to have access to the good things of life. Wolfensberger, who formulated SRV in 1983, defined it as:
The application of empirical knowledge to the shaping of the current or potential social roles of a party (i.e., person, group, or
class)–primarily by means of enhancement ofthe party’s competencies and image–so thatthese are, as much as possible, positively valued in the eyes of the perceivers(Wolfensberger & Thomas, 2005).”
In Osburn’s summary of SRV, he states,
Therefore, the major goal of SRV is to create or support socially
valued roles for people in their society, because if a person holds
valued social roles, that person is highly likely to receive from society those good things in life that are available to that society, andthat can be conveyed by it, or at least the opportunitiesfor obtaining these…. To mention only a few major examples, they include
being accorded dignity, respect, acceptance; a sense of belonging;
an education, and the development and exercise of one’s capacities; a voice in the affairs of one’s community and society; opportunities to participate; a decent material standard of living; an at
least normative place to live; and opportunities for work and selfsupport. (Osburn, 2006, p. 4)
Why is this understanding relevant? At least some groups of people in
our society (or in any society) cannot take for granted that they will have
typical accessto the good things of life which many people take for granted,
such asfamily, friends, home, work, belonging, contribution, good health,
a transcendent beliefsystem, and so on (Wolfensberger, Thomas & Caruso,
1996). Given the predominant values of our contemporary culture, children and adults with significant physical and/or intellectual impairments
tend to be societally devalued, negatively perceived and mistreated, cut off
from these good things, which we all want (Wolfensberger, 1998, pp. 7-11).
Borrowing from Jean Vanier, Wolfensberger (2000) refers to the all-toolikely harmful consequences of societal devaluation as the 18 wounds.
Osburn (2006) goes on to relate that SRV is descriptive rather than
prescriptive (p. 7). That is, in observing social realities such as practices
which typically lead to social devaluation, one can describe likely outcomes
on the basis of what one does or what one does not do in light of those
realities. One’s actions can either contribute to or counter devaluation of
these individuals. As an example, Osburn states that if one does not
emphasize that adults with intellectual disabilities are indeed adults, but
rather behaves in such a way as to imply that these adults are really children, then one can expect to observe the likely result of such adults being
disrespected and treated as children (p. 8).
Although SRV is not prescriptive, the empirical observations of the
outcomes of societal devaluation in the lives of real people begs the question of whether one will do something with the information about the
social contingencies described in SRV.
What are individual Christians and churches called to do?
What would be better?
Using an SRV-based approach, the goal isto help devalued people have
access to the good things of life. For Christians this means supporting anadult with physical and/orintellectual impairmentsto get and keep valued
roles within a congregation asfriend, member, minister, prayer group participant, elder, pastor, deacon, lector, teacher, usher, committee member,
chaplain, steward, preacher, Bible study group member, worship leader,
greeter, etc.... Some of these roles are complementary–such as pastor and
parishioner, lector and worshipper/‘hearer’–and can therefore more easily
be built upon within existing congregational practices.
Wolfensberger (1998) states:
Competency and social image form a very powerful feedback loop
that can be either positive or negative … As the competencies of a
person increase, the person’s image improves; in turn, a person
who is positively imaged is more likely to receive positive expectancies, positive models, opportunitiesforskill improvement, etc., all
of which contribute to greater competency (p. 74).
Therefore, goalsfor church ministry for adults with disabilities might
take into account both image and competency enhancement considerations (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 2007). We will consider each of these
avenues below.
Image Considerations
Image in this context relates to the mental pictures we hold in our minds
about other people (Wolfensberger, 1998, p. 63). All kinds of images can
send messages about vulnerable people to others and to the individuals
themselves. Probabilistically, and particularly in combination, these
images will have an effect on whether vulnerable people are treated positively or negatively by others. Positive images and messages will invite others to see vulnerable people in a more positive light, and thus predicate
the extension of Christian fellowship, in addition to all the other good
things that can come with belonging to a church.
According to Wolfensberger (1998), images can also impact the devalued person’s internal understanding of their own perceived value to the
community, to the church and even to God (pp. 22-24). Positive images
developed by persons about themselves can reinforce their own perceived intrinsic value; in a sense communicating to people who have
been wounded that although they may be devalued by their society, they
are of inestimable worth to God. These notions grow out of a biblicalunderstanding of human beings, of the Body of Christ (as a metaphor for
the Church) and of God.
Such image considerations include questions related to setting, relationships,roles and activities, and miscellaneousimagery (cf. Wolfensberger, 1998,
pp. 64-69). Let us consider each of these briefly. The reader is encouraged to
reflect on the current expression of each variable in their own church congregation. With that in mind, they are then encouraged to ask themselves,
“What would be better?”
Setting: Wolfensberger (1998) states about settings:
A setting can convey images aboutthe peoplewho use it. Forinstance,
a setting will cast its users in a positive light if it is nicely decorated,
comfortable, has a history of being used for positively valued purposes, and is next to other places that people view positively. On the
other hand, settings will cast a negative image on their users if they
are decrepit, ugly, in undesirable neighborhoods and next or near to
other places that people do not want to be next or near to (p. 64).
The following are questions to provide initial guidance relative to the
intersection of image and setting.
• Do the settings where vulnerable church members spend most of
their time look like typical church settings? In making this determination, one should consider design, furnishings, decorations,
etc. Imagine a naive observer looking at these settings and guessing who spends time in them. Would they be likely to think positively of the people who use these settings? What would be better?
• Do the settings where vulnerable adult church members spend
most of their time look like places where adults spend time?
Consider design, furnishings, decorations, etc. Imagine a naive
observer looking at these settings and guessing the age of the people who spend time in them. Would they guess “adults”? What
would be better?
• Is the time of assembly when vulnerable church members spend
most of their time at church the same time that typical church
members assemble at church? If the main worship time is on
Sunday morning, are the vulnerable church members present at
the same time and place? What would be better?
Relationships: Wolfensberger (1998) states that image will also be profoundly affected by the people with whom that party is associated, as captured in the folk phrase that people are “judged by the company they keep”
(p. 64). The following questions can guide usin considering the intersection
of image and relationships.
• Do vulnerable church members spend most of their church time
mixing in and participating with a broad spectrum of other
church members, across all ages and abilities? Are we avoiding
(even unintentionally) or reinforcing negative stereotypes, such
asthat “those people only belong with their own kind” or “those
people are happier with their own kind”? Are vulnerable church
members being chosen as friends to the same degree as other
church members? What would be better?
Roles and activities: Wolfensberger(1998) indicatesthat “people will also
be imaged by the activities,schedules and other routinesin which they are
engaged” (p. 65). Because a significant component of church structures
include the activities developed by the congregation (e.g., worship, Bible
study, outreach, formation and education, etc.) as well as the roles people
take on within those activities (choir member, Bible study leader, teacher,
student, etc.), the following questions are provided to guide in facilitating
desirable roles and activities.
• Are the roles and activitiesin which vulnerable church members
spend most of their time the same kinds of roles and activities in
which most church members engage? Do the vulnerable church
members engage in these roles and activities at the same time, in
the same places and with a broad range of other people, particularly people close to their own age? What would be better?
Miscellaneous Imagery
Wolfensberger (1998) also cautions that,
Images are also conveyed by the names of services, of service settings, of various services practices such as its programs and activities, and of its servers. A service which has a culturally valued
and otherwise positively-imaging name will be more enhancingfor its recipients than one which has a peculiar or even stigmatizing name” (p. 66).
Questions about language and naming can guide us in the characterization of vulnerable people and the manner in which they are included and
served.
• In our spoken and written language, our conversations, our correspondence, our church bulletins,sermons, etc., do we use fairly
typical, respectful, age-appropriate language to and about vulnerable church members? Are we being truthful as well asloving
in our language use? Are we emphasizing what we all share in
common? How would I feel if I were spoken to or referred to in
these ways? What would be better?
Competency Considerations
By competency considerations, we broadly include physical, social and
intellectual abilities as well as related skills, habits, motivations, and disciplines (Wolfensberger, 1998, p. 70). Do our church practices reflect that
we believe all people can learn, and that learning and competency enhancement are a natural part of life? This is part of how God made human
beings. Lesser competency in one area can frequently be compensated for
in another area, often with help from other people. Greater competency
can open the door to increased social status, more opportunities, more
valued socialroles and an enhanced image, possibly even leading to greater
satisfaction in life. Our aim is to help adults with disabilities grow in various competencies, particularly those related to church membership and
participation.
This begsthe question of competency acrossthe larger Body of Christ.
Using the body metaphor, a toe may be competent as a toe; however, it is
not competent as an ear. One therefore has a purpose within oneself which
may appear quite limited in comparison to the combined purpose of the
entire body. Yet, the toe and ear are critical elements of the body. As 1
Corinthians 12:1 states, “The body is a unit.” Parts of the body when considered separately may “seem weaker but are indispensable” (1 Corinthians
12:22). “The eye cannotsay to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’” (1 Corinthians
12:21). Competence should be considered on a macro level in relation to
a whole body and the whole body’s purpose. My role as a “toe” or “ear”may not appear particularly worthy of special attention; however, if I am
seeing the toe in relation to the whole body, my perspective changes. The
intersection of competency and image is critical for the church to reflect
in its interactions with adults who have impairments. This macro/whole
body notion also has potential to deepen the Judeo-Christian notion of
being created in the image of God, within congregations.
As above, these competency considerations include questions related
to setting, relationships, roles and activities, and miscellaneous competency. Let us consider each of these briefly. The reader is once again
encouraged to reflect upon the current expression of each variable in their
church, consider the specific variable provided in the questionsthat intersects with competency, and to ask themselves, “What would be better?”
Setting
• Are the church settings physically comfortable, easily accessible,
welcoming and useable by people of all ages and abilities? What
would be better?
• What do church settingsreflect about the body’s competency as
a unit?Is mutual dependency reflected in church structures and
settings? What would be better?
• Does the church setting’s “structures” (sound, materials, strategies, seating, programs, sight lines and visibility, access, etc.)
enhance the competency of vulnerable church members? What
would be better?
Relationships
• What does our shared vision of Christian community look like?
Who is present in our biblical vision of community? How can
the inclusion of vulnerable people betterreflect the Gospel vision
and therefore strengthen our church community? How can we
more closely approach this vision here and now within our
church? Given the actual makeup of our membership, might we
unintentionally or unconsciously be putting some groups of
people outside of this vision? What would be better?
• The Christian walk is a communal walk—with family, fellow disciples, and our brothers- and sisters-in-Christ. We are not meantto face our joys or our struggles alone. In what ways are we supporting families and small groups to come together around and
with vulnerable church members: in prayer, worship, fellowship,
celebration and mutual aid/support? What would be better?
• When vulnerable church membersspend time with other church
members, are they in groups that are of a comfortable and welcoming size? Does anyone feel overwhelmed? Does everyone have
a chance to contribute, and feel comfortable in contributing?
What would be better?
• Are vulnerable church members forming genuine and mutually
enjoyable relationships as well as friendships with other church
members of all ages and abilities? Are such relationships welcomed and nurtured? How so? What signs will we look for to
know this is happening? What would be better?
• What are some of the ways that our church members typically
spend time with each other outside of the formal church setting
(e.g., visiting one another’s homes, Bible study, prayer, socializing, etc.)? How are vulnerable church members supported to
engage in these roles and activities outside the church setting
with a broad range of other church members, including people
close to their own age? Once again, are vulnerable church members being chosen asfriends by typical members? What would be
better?
Roles and activities
• Do vulnerable church members perceive themselves as “secondclass” or “lesser” church members?In what ways do existing roles
and activities communicate to vulnerable membersthat they are
something other than typical members?Isthere a reason for the
roles and activities as currently designed to continue? What
would be better?
• What is entailed in becoming a member of this church? Are there
any Christian forms of initiation used? What is expected of a
(new) church member? Do any of these expectations create
unreasonable barriers to membership for those with physical
and/or intellectual impairments? How can we be even more welcoming as we remain true to our faith?
• How do church structures and practices acknowledge and utilize the gifts of all church members, including those members
with physical and intellectual impairments? Do our structures
reinforce notions of independence or that we are members of an
interdependent body? Do our structures, schedules, practices,
worship, prayer, leadership, membership, etc., welcome and
nourish people with physical and intellectual disabilities even in
cases where it can be physically, emotionally and/orintellectually
challenging?If exclusions, exceptions or compromises are made,
why are they made and where? How long will such exclusions,
exceptions and/or compromises continue? How will we move
closer toward our shared vision of Christian community? How
can we come together to support one another through these
challenges: the vulnerable person, their family and friends, other
church members?
• Whatsigns of growth in faith do we see among church members?
Does the presence of devalued people impact the understanding
of how faith development is carried out for all congregants? How
is our church community supporting all members in their
Christian life? What would be better?
• What are the typical elements of adult faith formation within
our church? What impact does the presence of devalued people
have on the way faith development is understood in our church?
Who leads these efforts? Who participates in them? What learning and growth opportunities do we make available? Where do
they take place? What learning materials are used?Is anyone not
participating solely or primarily because of an impairment?
What can we do about that?
• Over time, are vulnerable church memberstaking on new valued
roles (e.g., member, minister, prayer group member, elder, pastor, deacon, lector, teacher, usher, committee member, chaplain,
steward, preacher, Bible study group member, worship leader,
greeter, etc.) within the church? How are they contributing to
the life of their church community? What would be better?
• Doesthe church’s core values and mission adequately reflect the
change required for the church to more fully include members
whom society has devalued? Does the church engage in reflection and self-evaluation regarding the participation of devaluedpeople in the life and ministry of the church? What evidence can
the church collect for itself to gauge progress towards its mission of including devalued people? What would be better?
Summary from a Christian Perspective
Certain roles within a church or congregation can be assigned, attributed
or ascribed (Wolfensberger, 1998, p. 31), even when the person in the role
has done (and can do nothing) to warrant the role or to carry it out.
Examples include: bearer of the Image of God (Genesis 1:21), member of
the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12), one for whom Christ died (John
3:16), and so on. Such church and congregation roles go beyond even the
secular roles of member or citizen. Being seen and perceived as a fellow
member of the Body of Christ reflects an inherent dignity and interconnectedness with other Christians that lies at the heart of what it means to
be a church. Perceived competence and similarity to others may therefore
also come from an understanding of the biblical narrative as a social/cultural replacement narrative,simply with the attribution of the above mentioned roles. Whether other church members embrace and act upon these
ascribed or attributed roles in a valorizing fashion in no way diminishes
the reality of these roles. However, there is much that can be done to help
Christians and congregations genuinely extend these roles to the adults
and children that society has devalued. There is also much that can be
done to help adults with impairments themselves to take on these roles.
The practice of baptism for example seems (super) naturally fitted for
these roles. We recognize of course that the nature of one’s identity as a
bearer of the Image of God goes far beyond the human reality of social
roles; nevertheless, we are focused in this article largely on what a church
congregation can do to extend and deepen its mission to and with adults
with impairments.
CONCLUSION
Image and competency enhancement are by no means the only foci to be
considered when attempting to influence church practices in regards to
adults with impairments. However, the application of these SRV criteria
provides an empirically based starting point from which to proceed. With
the help of God’s Spirit, genuine reflection on, “Whatwould be better?” can
help move individual Christians and congregationsin a positive directionin a non-threatening manner. The assumption of phenomenologicalreflection dispelsthe notion of a process with an endpoint, implying instead that
there is only ongoing movement through a process of mutual growth.
“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members
of the body, though many are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one
Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks,slaves orfree–and
all were made to drink of one Spirit. “For the body does not consist of one
member but of many” (1 Cor. 12:12-14).
REFERENCES
Osburn, J. (2006). An overview of Social Role Valorization theory. The SRV
Journal 1(1), 4-13.
Wolfensberger, W. (1998). Abrief introduction to Social Role Valorization:Ahighorderconcept for addressingthe plight of societally devalued people, and forstructuring human services (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for
Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse
University).
Wolfensberger,W.&Thomas,S.(2005). IntroductorySocialRoleValorizationworkshop training package. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service
Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W. and Thomas, S. (2007). PASSING.Atool for analyzingserve
quality accordingto Social Role Valorization criteria. Ratings manual (3rd rev.
ed.). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning,
Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
Wolfensberger, W., Thomas, S. & Caruso, G. (1996). Some of the universal
‘good things of life’ which the implementation of Social Role
Valorization can be expected to make more accessible to devalued people. The International Social Role Valorization Journal, 2(2), 12-14
For more information on Social Role Valorization and PASSING, please
visit www.srvip.org.
http://www.joniandfriends.org/media/uploads/jcid/JCID_What_Would_Be_Better.pdf
___________________________________
Marc Tumeinski, Ph.D., (candidate), is the Editor of the biannual SRV Journal and the Training Coordinator for the SRV Implementation Project. marc@srvip.org
Jeff McNair, Ph.D., is the director of the Disability Studies Program and the Moderate/Severe Teacher Credentialing Program at California Baptist University. jmcnair@joniandfriends.org
___________________________________
|
No comments:
Post a Comment