Mark Stephenson

Bill, the point I'm trying to make is that we are all abnormal, so then it becomes meaningless to single out any particular group of people and call them "abnormal." And when it comes to what to call people, I don't think it's about being politically correct. Instead, it's about respect. Why not ask people what they prefer to be called? Most people who live with disabilities prefer people first language, so "people with disabilities" is preferred language. 

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."

Dementia runs strongly in my mom's side of the family. So of course I wondered over the past few years (with dread) whether this might be the way I'll spend my final days as well. As mom's dementia has gotten worse, ironically, I have grown less concerned about experiencing the same end myself. With the help of some medications to calm her anxiety, she has been amazingly content and good humored most of the time. She's in a good Christian place where people genuinely care for her and the other residents. She is comfortable overall. Sometimes it seems that the biggest discomfort with the dementia is not experienced by my mom, but by we who love her. Maybe, if we took our cues from her, we would be less anxious about it as well. Could that be one of the blessings that God is bringing through this decline in my mom's life - a way in which the wound of seeing my mother's decline has brought me just a little more trust in my heavenly Father? Maybe.

Mind you, I'm not saying that God allowed her to get dementia for my sake. Not at all. But I wonder if this is one of the collateral blessings that God is bringing to mom's family through her dementia.

John, thanks for your comments. To me there is a vast difference between ceasing to prolong life by removing life support and actively snuffing out a life using poison or some other means. My understanding is that palliative care is so much better nowadays that nearly all people can face death without fear of painful suffering. A couple years ago, I wrote a reflection on the death of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. In response, Rev. George Vander Weit articulated some of the same arguments you make, and he made some additional points as well.