Skip to main content

Mark Stephenson on December 24, 2010

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Ken, thanks for giving your perspective. Since I don't live with a disability myself, it's very helpful to hear from someone who does. Mark

Mark Stephenson on May 31, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

David, a link to a website is never intended as an endorsement of all that's on the site. I did not read all the way to the end of the article, but I should have said explicitly that I do not endorse all that was said about the senators on the site. As you see, I pulled the link and have included the list at the end of my article.

Mark Stephenson on June 7, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Michael, thanks for making contact with your senator and for sharing the letter he returned to you. I'm hoping that as more people assert the facts about the meaning of ratification of the treaty the errors about the dangers of ratification will be corrected.

Hi Michele, thanks for the comment. Yeah, it should be a given nowadays that some people need medications for their mental health issues just as some people need medication for high blood pressure. Sadly, some Christians still believe that mental illnesses are spiritual issues that should be handled by strictly spiritual means. Thanks for speaking up against this attitude which is not only out of touch with the realities of mental illnesses but also not loving. 

Mark Stephenson on November 5, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

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.

Mark Stephenson on November 21, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

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)

Mark Stephenson on December 2, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

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?

 

Mark Stephenson on December 2, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Bill, language keeps changing. If we listen to the voices of people who are blind, you'll find many of them saying that it pains them to hear their blindness associated with "lacking perception, awareness, or discernment." Similarly, people who have intellectual disability with the word "retard." My understanding of 1984 is that Orwell was concerned with the increasing use of language to deceive people. One can easily talk about lack of perception and stupidity without resorting to words like "blind" or "regarded." 

Mark Stephenson on December 2, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

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."

Mark Stephenson on December 2, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

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? 

Mark Stephenson on December 11, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

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!

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post