Skip to main content

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the U.S. Senate's failure to ratify the UN treaty, Mark.

More than disappointing, I found it demoralizing to say the least — and I'm still biting my tongue when I'm tempted to speculate about the motives of those 38 senators who voted against it. The silver lining I cling to is the extra attention and outrage this embarrassing vote has brought to issues of accessibility and inclusion. If and when this comes up again with a new Congress, I trust our representatives will show they have learned a lesson by righting a wrong.

You make a great point about how in subtle ways we in the church "decide for God" regarding who is capable of doing what — without getting to know them as people or ever bothering to explore their areas of giftedness, passion, or sense of call. I know that unwittingly I have made that very mistake many times.

Thanks for the excellent post, Mark, and for the reminder not to succumb to stereotypes of any kind.

Well said, Mark. I appreciate the distinctions you've drawn. A relational approach is always the appropriate starting point, even for churches that may have the benefit of specialized programs/experience with people with disabilities.

Recently I spoke with a parent whose 13-year-old son has struggled with sensory issues since birth, has been diagnosed with ADHD, and continues to be tested for other disabilities. When they were church shopping a few years ago, the parents felt "handled" when visiting a large-membership church that had trained volunteers and programs to respond to children with disabilities. Eventually, they joined a much smaller congregation that did not have such programs in place but did have people who got to know them first.

Ken, while personally I have many concerns about Donald Trump as president, even supporters acknowledge that he's made lots of claims and promises that do not include specifics, or that he's changed his mind about later.

I respect Paul Ryan and, like you, believe him to be grounded in the Christian faith. I wasn't attacking Ryan as much as summarizing what I have heard him say repeatedly — promises and claims lacking specifics. Whether he's a Christian or not, it remains troubling that details of an ACA replacement have been so long in coming. Along with many others, I'm still waiting for the evidence that Trump or the Republican Congress will come up with a plan that maintains the positives of the ACA and "leaves no one behind."

Here is a post by Ed Stetzer who writes a blog for Christianity Today on some of the implications of a "repeal without a replacement" approach.

And, just yesterday I received an email from another denominational disability organization — the Anabaptist Disabilities Network — noting that one of their field associates, Rebekah Flores, will be impacted if the ACA is repealed without a comprehensive replacement plan. Rebekah wrote, “I can only afford to see my doctor and pay for my medications to treat my Multiple Sclerosis because of the Affordable Care Act.”

I don't feel it's unreasonable to ask for a replacement plan before repealing.

Well said, Mark.

While the findings Erik Carter presented are both sobering and sad, it's also true that Carter's list of suggested actions families would find most helpful is encouraging. The actions are achievable and adaptable, not all are required, and churches would be better and more hospitable communities for implementing any of them — and as you know the beneficiaries would not be limited to the families they're intending to serve.

The resources you have compiled that are linked to the actions are outstanding as well. Great work!

We want to hear from you.

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

Add Your Post