Skip to main content

Hi Joy,

Let's take these in opposite order. There are many theories regarding the increase in autism diagnoses. First and most important, the rise in autism diagnoses is NOT caused by the increase in vaccination rates. The theory of vaccinations causing autism has not only been shown to be false, but also a fraud perpetrated to line the pockets of certain people. The rise in diagnoses may not indicate that any more people today have autism than, say, 100 years ago. A diagnosis uses specific criteria, and as those criteria have changed over the years, rates of diagnoses have increased. Regarding the church's response, the important thing is not so much the diagnosis, but the welcome the church gives to people who bear the image of God. 

That brings me to your first comment. Yes, it's true that some people who have autism are violent. It's also true that some men are violent, and some white people are violent, and some . . . are violent. We in the church should never hold prejudice against a whole group of people because they happen to share some characteristic. Instead, the church needs to be the welcoming community it is called to be, welcoming people with autism, and men, and white people, and . . . And if some individual, whether that individual has autism, or is male, or is white, begins to engage in inappropriate behavior, the church must take steps to set boundaries, not deciding immediately that he doesn't belong, but deciding to work with him to help him learn appropriate behaviors. I've consulted with a number of congregations who have done exactly that; what a beautiful expression of the love of God for all of us! "Because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved." (Eph. 2:4,5)

Mark Stephenson on February 11, 2014

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Jeanne, I praise God for the loving community at your church. From your description, it sounds like your church, this family, and this young man made decisions about his involvement in church based on his needs and his spiritual growth rather than on what people are most comfortable with. An expression of what a healthy body of Christ looks like!

Mark Stephenson on September 3, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Bill, I disagree. You mention physical ability and mental capacity as ways to define adult, but in Canada and the US we define "adult" by chronological age. When someone reaches 18 or 21 (depending on what responsibilities are granted) we call them "adults." To put a 10-year-old in the nursery, or a 12-year-old in a Sunday School class for 3rd graders does these individuals a great disservice. Likewise, baby-talking to people who are in their 40's. We need to treat people who are of age as adults. Sure if an adult has intellectual disability, we do Bible Study on a level that he or she understands, but surely not have him sit in a Sunday School class with little kids.

Many sources agree that the autism/vaccination link does not exist. It always worries me when someone will benefit financially if people believe a study that person publishes. Such is the case with Dr. Deischer, the author of the study you cite, according to this article in Patheos, and such was the case with Andrew Wakefield. We had our children vaccinated, and I firmly believe that God gave us minds to discover new ways of protecting ourselves from disease, whether vaccinations or antibiotics or other means. I feel sad for the children getting measles today because their parents refused to have them vaccinated. 

Mark Stephenson on September 4, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Thanks Bonnie. You provide another good reason why it would be good for adults with intellectual disabilities to be with the adults without disabilities in Sunday school classes and other activities. My experience with adults who have intellectual disabilities is that many of them are much less limited by adult conventions than we who call ourselves nondisabled.

Here's a great article by someone on the autism spectrum about developing Cultural Competency in interacting with people with autism. More good advice for neurotypical people to help our churches to become the communities Christ intends us to be. 

It's nearly impossible for science, good science, to make a blanket statement about a condition as complex as autism. However, the article I cite says, "The American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and the Institute of Medicine all agree that there's probably no relationship between autism and vaccines." Considering the enormous, real, and documented risks posed to unvaccinated children, compared to the highly unlikely connection between autism and vaccines, I still feel the need to express my belief that the most responsible and loving choice a parent can make is to have his or her child vaccinated.

Regarding your final question, I'm strongly prolife. Your question is a difficult one, though you ask it in a misleading way. Your question makes it seem as if babies are continually aborted in order to create vaccines. In fact, some, not all vaccines, use stem cell lines from three babies that were aborted decades ago - two in the 1960's and one in the 1980's. Just because these abortions happened decades ago does not make the action of the abortions morally acceptable. However, as this article from Right to Life of Michigan  points out, "The further away the current act (using a vaccine) and intent (protecting a child from a disease) of an individual are from a previous immoral act (aborting a child), the less that individual is restricted by the immorality of the previous act. While the act of aborting the child was certainly immoral, all of the steps involved with the development and use of the vaccines thereafter did not cooperate with the abortion." This article goes on to cite a number of authorities who agree that using these vaccines is morally acceptable.

Like you, I believe that God is omniscient. However, one of the great mysteries of the incarnation is that God was able to empathize with us in a new way through the incarnation according to Hebrews 4: "14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need." The word "tempted" can also be translated "tested." I find great comfort in the fact that not only does God have knowledge about us, but also God walks the path with us in the good times and the painful times. In Jesus he is Immanuel, God with us.

Fronse,
Great to hear from you. I hope you are doing well.

Have you done this before? It seems that you are picturing a group of people, some disabled and some nondisabled, with the disabled people sharing their stories and the nondisabled reflecting and interacting about those stories. Do I have that right? Sounds like it would be an excellent time of learning and growth for all.

I've done this kind of interaction before in anti-racism workshops in which people of color share their stories and the people from the dominant culture (the white people) listen and interact. It was very helpful to me as a white person to listen and learn.
Mark

So in this case, absolution would be a feeling of the listener: "I'm absolved of my participation in ableism and/or racism because I have (partially) listened to this other person." I'm hearing your say that the story sharing is more helpful in assuaging the conscience of the listener than in bringing about a deeper relationship between listeners and speaker.

Like you, I wish we could dispense with language of disabled and non-disabled. At the very least, I myself should be careful never to talk about disabled people, but instead use language like "people with disabilities." But even then, the term "disabilities" labels people resulting in "categorization and sympathy" as you say.

Loving as Christ taught us to love is so difficult. You are talking about the huge challenges in people developing real understanding of each other, and the exclusion of some people from participating "fully in human experience." But I would hope that people in churches (and society) will not say, "It's too difficult, so why try at all?" My work as director of Disability Concerns is motivated by the hope that real change for the better can happen in church communities.

Have you ever experienced a situation in which people without disabilities have experienced change in their consciousness and approach to people with disabilities? Or to put it another way, have you ever seen some barriers to participating fully in human experience broken, with greater relationship and participation as a result?

Mark

We want to hear from you.

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

Add Your Post