Skip to main content

I agree that the heart does matter . . . but for the broader community, and for changing societal attitudes (which I agree may or may not lead to heart change), I think that language *is* important. 

As a parallel to the use of "kid" . . . one of my best friends/sisters has four teenage boys. I have always referred to them as "Mona's boys". However, they are African-American, and I am acutely aware of the fact that a) there is a rather ugly history around white people referring to black folks as "boy" and b) that, while they are and always will be Mona's "boys", they are now young men. Similarly, my sister Mona will say to her three-year-old, "Boy, you need to get over here", but I would never dream of addressing him in that way.  

Another example--when I used to volunteer at a children's hospital, I remember one little boy who was five years old, but was very small due to his medical condition (probably the size of a two-year-old). Someone said something to the effect of, "Wow . . . he's smart!" and I could tell that they were not seeing him as a five-year-old who is able to do typical five-year-old things. I think this is more of the connection that Mark is trying to make when talking about referring to an intellectually disabled person as a "kid". I don't think we're talking about the generic usage of the term, but rather, about not seeing these adults as adults. 

On an individual basis, I agree that the heart is more of an issue than the language we use, but if we are going to effect change in society as a whole, the language we use DOES matter. 

Very good points, John. I am well aware that there are serious issues with people who have never been convicted...Sexual abuse of children is rampant in the church--I have a good friend whose father, a pastor (not in the CRC), abused her all during her childhood. And to your other point, my former pastor was almost not allowed to cross the border to Canada when he was dying because of a prior felony (many, MANY years prior). Nobody who knew him would argue that he was "renewed in faith and life by Christ". CRWM does not automatically exclude a volunteer because something shows up on a criminal record; rather, we look at them on a case-by-case basis. 

Do you have any suggestions/ideas on how to get beyond the surface? We do ask for references, including one from the volunteer's church, but if you have any suggestions on how we could take even small steps towards a more thorough vetting of volunteers, we would love to hear your feedback. 

A show on TLC that I love is The Little Couple, about a married couple who happen to be Little People. The wife is a successful neonatal doctor, and they do a good job of showing her going about her daily work with the accommodations she needs--but also showing that she is an accomplished professional. In a way, she uses her short stature as a benefit, since she works with newborns. 

As always, great reminder! 

Was going to comment, but I can't say it any better than George did. Amazing that one question was the catalyst for such an amazing movement! 

THANK YOU for this. What is unsaid here is that most of these critics are themselves hiding behind the relative anonymity of the Internet.

I would never suggest that our leadership should not be questioned, but I see such disrespectful and hateful comments being made via online forums (comments here or on the Banner site, blogs, etc.) that it makes me shudder. The most offensive to me personally, as someone who is committed to racial reconciliation and to increasing the diversity in our denomination, was a comment made by a blogger that Jerry Dykstra was removed from office because he wasn't "tan enough". 

Thank you again for this reminder . . . I pray that we will all take it to heart and commit to respectful, non-inflammatory dialogue.

I am a self-proclaimed "Facebook junkie" who uses Facebook for both personal and professional connections.

I have used Twitter sporadically, but I don't really use it anymore for the simple reason that I can't see ANYTHING that Twitter does that can't be done on Facebook. When I started "following" people on Twitter, I soon discovered that many of them were simply pushing their Tweets out to Facebook, which meant that I was reading everything twice.

I certainly cannot offer up a biblical defense for my use of Facebook, but Twitter just annoys me, as I am convinced that this application is a true case of the Emperor wearing no clothes.

And "FacebookandTwitter" is NOT a word!

(the views expressed in this post are my own and do not represent the views of my employer.)

We want to hear from you.

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

Add Your Post