I found this thought provoking link on one of Nathan's posts. Read it. Now. GO!
The writer deals with the issue of baptising people with mental disabilities in the Baptist Church. I think that he draws an extremely apt conclusion. Many of the comments that follow give way to a discussion on the inclusion of special needs people in churches more generally.
Before I go any further, I appreciate that as a special needs teacher aide, I am admittedly biased here. However, I feel that as a church, we frequently leave the issue of 'disability' in the "too hard" basket. In some ways that is understandable. Reconciling the existence of disability, and then acknowledging the implications that this has for a congregation is certainly not an easy task.
I suppose that I find it extremely disappointing when people with disabilities (particularly intellectual disabilities) are forgotten in the church. We often think that it is 'good enough' that someone brought them along to the service and sat them in the back row. At least they're there, right? Wrong. We wouldn't be satisfied with such minimal involvement and interaction with anyone else in the church; why do we think it's enough for people with disabilities? Please don't read this incorrectly, I'm certainly not suggesting that we should encourage a woman with high functioning autism to lead the pre-prep Sunday School class. It just breaks my heart to see congregations that are content to view people with disabilities as a disengaged presence. This issue isn't necessarily going to be addressed during the service, or even in opportunities that exist for people to serve within the church, but rather in how we love our fellow brothers and sisters. There are a number of adults and children with special needs in our church. I often wonder how many people know their names, or even acknowledge their presence. That said, there are also so many wonderful loving people in our congregation who actively love our brothers and sisters with disabilities... yet it shouldn't stop with them.
I realise that some may believe that their efforts to show love to people with disabilities are of little effect, and therefore not worth the time... but this really is a myth. The ability of many people with intellectual disabilities to understand and therefore show love is incredible. You need only spend one day in my job to understand this. When I am working in the grade one class at Vincent, my role is to shepherd the children in the class with special needs. One of the little boys I look after is functioning at the mental age of approximately 2 and a half years old. When this little boy blows me a kiss and signs "I love you" with the most basic of Auslan signs, it truly makes my heart melt. Some would say that he is simply mimicking modelled behaviours, however I think that the smile on his face and the glimmer in his eyes would beg to differ.
I realise that this post hasn't actually discussed a theology of disability. This is partly because I am still figuring it out in my own head, and partly because I have a history test in two hours and have rambled on for long enough. I suppose that the take home message would be that we need to be more proactive in showing love to people with disabilities in our congregations. Have another read of 1 Corinthians 13 if you're unsure of what this should look like. This passage isn't just applicable to wedding ceremonies.
I'd love to hear your thoughts or outbursts on this issue :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I read the original article you linked to, and while the author asked it didn't become a baptist-bashing session (and I hope it didn't - I haven't read the comments) I do think part of his particular problem lay in the baptist way of doing things.
Specifically: "We believe that a person who is baptized must be able to make a credible and intelligible profession of faith as an individual before a local church... baptism remains, in every Baptist church, an entrance into the local congregation by way of one’s own confession of faith in Jesus."
Intelligble? I can understand the confusion that might come from contemplating baptising someone like Bryan, with significant mental disabilities - you might be unsure whether the person understands what is really going on. But what about someone like Hellen Keller when she was a child - blind, deaf, mute - unable to make any intelligble communication, but with a perfectly functioning mind? She wouldn't have been able to give an intelligible testimony (until her teacher Anne came along) but her mind was perfectly capable of understanding (if there had been a way for her to hear about Jesus).
I do understand you'd want some sort of confirmation that the person can mentally understand the committment and decision they are making, but a person can do that without being capable of making an intelligble witness to others.
Sorry, I know this is a bit different to the tack you were taking in your post, it was just my thoughts on the article you linked to :)
However there was one particular thought that came to mind from your post: I think disabled children of existing church members are more easily included and integrated than disabled adults who come along.
Thanks so much for your thoughts Leah :)
I agree with what you wrote, I think that the issue in the article sheds light on a problem within traditional Baptist thought.
I understand that the leadership of a church would like their members to make a commitment knowing exactly what this means for their lives. However I don't think that someone's ability to give an "intelligible profession of faith" should be the determining factor in whether or not they can be baptised/granted membership. It seems a little narrow, and so easily shifts into legalism. I'm really glad that the author, in this particular instance at least, understood that the "Gospel is a greater thing than a church constitution".
I also agree with your last comment. I think that's a trend in society more generally, not just within churches. Including children with disabilities into any facet of society is easier than including adults. Children are cute (as shallow as that sounds), and they have parents whose role it is to provide them with constant care. Adults, on the other hand, aren't necessarily "cute", and are considered a burden because very few people have the time to provide the level of care that they require. This has further implications in the church. We often see our interactions with children as caring or nurturing roles, whereas with adults we want to engage them and encourage them to actively serve and positively contribute. This is can extremely difficult, disability or no disability, but I've found that people are less keen to persevere when a disability can be used as an excuse.
Post a Comment