That is NOT Normal
“I’m going to have to ask you, Ty to take Leland out, he is to distract for me to preach” after a visceral head snap back and flash of anger at my child’s joy during a Santa Clause service at a spiritual centre. This is just one of many types of inhospitable spaces of the Holy that Thomas E. Reynolds (2008) in his practical, personal and theological work, Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality would have explored as he too is a Dad with a child with exceptionalities, differently abled (my son’s term is super powers) or as we know them at a cultural level whether visible or invisible as disabilities (though in Alberta at least, there are still some Canadians that use the atrocious “r” word slur or short bus jokes, and yes these can be in the church). Other examples pop to mind of folks in churches articulating sounds being distracting, or that “children like that do not belong here” to scapegoating disruption or bullying from wealthier families to the children with exceptionalities (these examples came back to mind as I read Reynolds). Reynolds at this point is an entryway, especially for those who have not slowed to contemplate, for those engaged in the theological work whether consciously or unconsciously due to intersections with community, it is reflective. Reflective on the concept of the myth of normal, how this book may aid a spiritual community, understanding of Imageo Dei and intersections of the journey of ableism. Can there be reconciliation in these communities or others, after the truths shared? For, the cornerstone in the church that allows this truth to exist is simply the fact the child or adult it is directed as is not normal.
The Myth of Normal
What is normal? This is at the root of ableism and eugenics. Essentially, it is whatever the majority or the wealthy of a society stipulate is the benchmark for normal. Yes, there are tests that show whether or not an infant or child is thriving or not that aid in diagnosis. Historically this diagnosis would lead to segregation and isolation within institutions, horrific trials and tribulations, perhaps unmitigated electroshock therapy, neglect/abuse, harsh psychotherapeutics to catatonia, forced sterilizations to name a few. As time progressed, there is the shift to community living and supports, integration supposedly into community life. Government entitlements if they can prove themselves worthy, supports for families or the adult caregivers if the parents surrender into care for not being able to care from early intervention through to adulthood. Some are covered, most for extra care and staff are designed in Alberta for the parents to pay out first and then await the reimbursement. An assumption that only wealthy can embrace the beautiful diversity of the Imageo Dei.
The diagnosis whether historically or currently are used to separate. It can be into blessed communities that embrace the diversity, but the support staff when grieving are not given supports other schools would be given. Using the idiom, it’s part of the job get back to work. For the children, the catchphrase they don’t understand, they are not cognitive (removing the concept of emotion, connection and belonging from the child because they do not fulfill a “normal” benchmark for cognition or interaction). Grief is universal, but we do not want to understand how to aid our vulnerable to grieve.
Even think of how we introduce folks, we focus on the deficit. This is how you can help them or explaining what to expect behaviour wise from their diagnosis. At any point in the introduction did we get to know them? What is their passion? Their purpose? Who they actually are? It is one of the ways diagnosis or labels can be detrimental instead of being used to set up space for accessibility and inclusion for the highest need for access we use it to move a person from personhood to medical jargon, which makes othering easier.
Makes as, Reynolds (2008) shares in his book, they are not normal, so we do not need to see them as neighbour. Anyone who has a disability or is a loved one of a person with a disability knows how this happens in society, and sadly, if we attempt to engage in church many times we are met with overt or covert ableism. The implicit or explicit bias, depending on the person and their position or giving in the church it is either challenged or accepted. For we have a concept of normal, it is a myth.
Imageo Dei
Normalcy is a myth, there is the old chestnut or dad joke, what is normal? That is precisely the answer and should be the Christian response with our theological understanding of the created image of God. I have spoken and written on this topic immensely over the lifespan of my ministries, taken time to cultivate spaces of welcome for all abilities. Suffered the slings and arrows for a colloquialism for it, and yes in one associate role, was voted into non-existence at an Annual General Meeting I was in attendance in of a progressive congregation for having members in the children and youth ministries on the Autism Spectrum and Cerebral Palsy. Was it ableism because of the diagnosis? Or ableism because of the church having 3 floors and not wanting the cost of the lift? Which bias or stereotype was driving the soft excommunication of the disabled?
A missing piece of understanding the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, who took on the outcast story. Who pushed back, challenged, and began the steps of healing of the socio-cultural (justice issues really) of exclusion for those that missed the truth of poetry in the Hebrew Bible (I have taken to use this term for the Old Testament, after reading Sir Rabbi Jeffrey Sacks, that pointed out the term “Old Testament” was an act of Anti-Semitism), from Genesis 1:26-28 (New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition, 2024):
26 Then God said, “Let us make humans[c] in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the earth[d] and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
27 So God created humans[e] in his image,
in the image of God he created them;[f]
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them,
We are made in the Creator’s image. There was no qualifiers within the poetry. No differentiation or hierarchy. This is an understanding I was already engaging Reynolds’ with, some would not have as the journey and theological premises behind building this concept is quite clear as a shared experience of writer, teacher and Dad, I know where Reynolds’ was coming from, and his use of Jean Vanier’s theology, founder of L’Arche (and yes an abuser), also inspired one of the more known individuals who wrote of experience in disability community, Henri Nouwen.
For all four (I include myself here), and hopefully many others, the truth of the Imageo Dei, is one cannot fully understand or live this teaching without fully understanding all humanity is that image. Which ties back to the concept of introduction, and that those with disabilities are not here for us to serve, for us to teach or pity or… the list can go on.
They are here as part of the image. Like all parts of the image, that the Shema (known in the Christian Testament as the Great Commandments) speaks to love of God with our everything that is interconnected, and interdependent (not the story of life with Creator does not speak of individualism) to be able to love self and neighbour. This type of love is what my practical theology of belonging, one may say disability is built upon. We exist to be with one another, to aid one another in thriving, to create the just society that allows for these conditions understanding science, politics, arts, humanities, trades, etc. that give meaning and purpose, are all tools in our toolbox or toys in our toybox to create thriving creative and loving communities.
That is, if we can get out of our own way to allow the hope of the Holy to flow and wash away the myth of normalcy, to see the beautiful mosaic of the image of God.
Intersections with Ableism or can I belong here?
The Belonging Pyramid is an inverted pyramid precariously held up on the love from the Greatest Commandment lived out in an healthy interdependent community. The top of the pyramid is the easiest thing churches can do, but some fail. Accessibility, can one legitimately get into the building and access the spaces of the building? This is building code, there is bonus points if the access offers dignity to the image of God. There is also bonus points if the language is accessible, do we allow for pictures or other communication assist devices? Do we explain pieces of the rituals happening and why so folks who are new or different neurology’s can follow? Or do we lean into, this is the way it is an folks who know know, like a secret society? Do we point to lack of money for needed renovations without exploring grants or other fundraising concepts or partnerships? Do we plan for Universal Design for both spiritual formation (learning) and building?
The next piece leans into Universal Design, as it speaks to inclusion. Now that we are in the space, is there a space for us? A seat or a space for our ability assistance device we use (not usage not bound, it isn’t a form of bondage, I am not bonded to my legs, they move me, so do walkers, canes and wheelchairs) or do we use the idea of fire code and treat the user as furniture? Imagine that stigmatization, do we do the same thing with a slower moving or larger person who may be at an end of a row?
If we pass the row of inclusion, the precarious tip of the pyramid rooted in the heart of the threefold love of the Great Commandments, is belonging. Belonging is hard. Belonging is knowing one beyond socioeconomics, socio-culture, diagnosis, and other labels of society. Belonging is knowing one by name, knowing who we can share and be supported by, knowing who we support, who we live life with the joys and sorrows, and moments of uncontrolled giggles for no reason, belonging is when we miss a moment or event or appointment someone cares, notices and reaches out. Belonging is the greatest risk, because there could be a day when do to moving, life circumstance or succumbing to a chronic condition or pandemic or epidemic or MAiD (in Alberta accessed after chronic conditions with the co-occurrence of loneliness or poverty or both), the space where the person usually is—empty. Belonging is knowing one day you will grieve in change and be grieving loss.
How can this book be used?
Reynolds’ work is a good entry point for congregations that have never pondered. Congregations that have yet to engage with the aging community, or with, in Alberta as we have known for over two decades by this time in history 1 in 6 children will be born with or acquire an exceptionality in their early years. It opens the conversation, and the challenges with the right guide so that biases can be challenged, and hopefully changed for healthier communities.
For the myth of normal can be eliminated. Would it change outcomes of ex-communication or ostracism as has been touched upon in the personal journey here? In some instances, it could, there could have been a work through point, up to a point. But then the challenge of the sacred building stands and whether or not to continue to accessibility, inclusion and belonging the hardest discussion of the change to the “home of God” or “our church” conflated with the real estate would happen. Essentially has the forced, yet more subtle ostracisms/ex-communication is just delayed until the individual can no longer participate.
Reference
New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition. (2024) ESV Online.
Reynolds, Thomas E. (2008). Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality.
Brazos Press.