Mark Stephenson

John, you are right that the vote will be taken by the U.S. Senate, and the action I urge must be taken by Americans. I did make a couple changes accordingly. However, this is an international treaty, and as such affects Canada too. The MPs in Ottawa were way ahead of the U.S. They ratified this treaty years ago. It will be a good day when Americans can join Canadians as fellow ratifiers of the CRPD.

Joy, I find that whenever someone challenges prejudicial behaviors, they like to label it "politically correct." But if our behaviors and words hurt other people, it is not political correctness, it is a failure of love. Sure the dictionary gives a definition of "lame" that includes "imperfect, not satisfactory" just as it includes in the definition of "retard," "a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard." But the dictionary is merely descriptive of the way we use language, not prescriptive. For me, Christ is my guide for prescribing behavior, and the golden rule he laid out for us is this, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

Joy, I used the term "sexual orientation" to refer to someone's attraction either to persons of the opposite or same gender or both, which is the usual use of the term. Regarding my beliefs, I agree with the CRC's statement on homosexuality. That statement makes the same point I'm trying to make in this blog, "Persons of same-sex attraction should not be denied community acceptance solely because of their sexual orientation and should be wholeheartedly received by the church and given loving support and encouragement." Heterosexual people sometimes show blatant prejudice and more often we engage in "thoughtless" (to use your term) actions and language that can really hurt people with homosexual orientation. So I disagree with you that thoughtlessness can be contrasted with prejudicial behavior. Prejudicial behavior frequently takes the form of thoughtlessness. When we only act within the realm of our own experience and (often unintentionally) shut out others from participation in worship, congregational meetings, and so on, that's prejudice in action. 

I agree with you that not every church can afford big changes to their buildings, but the most important changes must come in our own attitudes - which is a costly change, but does not involve any dollars. To push back a little more, if we consider that about 20 percent of people in North American live with disabilities, shouldn't we devote a part of our church budget every year (at least 10 percent) to including people who have disabilities in the life and ministry of the chuch?

The opening illustration of this blog gives an example of "thoughtlessness" that demonstrates prejudice against people who are single by someone who is married. Put it under the category of "When married people don't know they're being married."

John, when talking about physical conditions, the words "blind" and "deaf" are perfectly acceptable to nearly everyone including people who are blind and people who are deaf. The concern I'm expressing is with the metaphorical use of these terms. Over the centuries, disability has often been associated with sinfulness. Though Jesus tried to end that ridiculous reasoning in his teaching recorded in John 9, his followers have persisted in this heresy. Many people with disabilities are accused of lacking faith, or experiencing disability due to unconfessed sin. Understandably, that kind of talk leaves people feeling wounded. So it's no wonder that some folks feel sensitive about metaphorical uses of the ideas of blindness and deafness because this metaphorical use is always negative - as in "deaf to the Word" or "blind to prejudice". Yes, our Lord himself uses the concepts of blindness and deafness metaphorically. So I'm not going to say we should never do so ourselves, but I'm saying that doing so can hurt others. And since that's true, why not find other ways of expressing the same ideas? 

Thanks Aaron. The CRC Office of Social Justice and the Centre for Public Dialogue as well as other ministries have been doing some very fine justice work already. I hope and pray that work will continue to blossom and grow. There are lots of ways to participate to continue a movement for justice in the CRC. Feel free to be in touch if you'd like to participate!

Bill, the main idea is to recognize that people are different, so to be loving we need to practice the teaching of Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Great idea. I just did.

John, I never thought much about how one could reexperience life from one's younger years as memories regress. Could bring horror (as you describe) or joy depending on what is stored away. Also, could bring a questioning of one's salvation, if one's memories regress to the time before one received Christ. John Swinton has written an outstanding article reflecting on what it means to be a person when one loses more and more memory. He says, "Persons are not defined by what they do but by what they are, or perhaps better, as David Keck puts it, by whose they are.3 The paper develops a practical theological critique of contemporary notions of personhood as they relate to the experience of dementia and argues for a revised understanding centred in God’s commitment to human beings which is not defined by doing but by being with and for the other." (John Swinton, "Forgetting Whose We Are: Theological Reflections on Personhood, Faith and Dementia" Journal of Religion, Disability, and Health, Volume 11, Issue 1 April 2007 , pages 37 - 63)  The whole article, which can be found by searching for "dementia" at the Journal of Religion, Disability, and Health, can be read for free, at least until the end of November.