Disability 101

  • A row of crown of Christ flowers above text: "those parts of the body that we consider less honorable, we clothe these with greater honor 1 Corinthians 12: 23"

    Intro to Disability

  • dis·a·bil·i·ty (noun): while disability is a difficult human experience to cleanly define, generally disability is a physical, emotional, or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities.

    According to the Americans with Disabilities Act website, a person with a disability (PWD) is someone who:

    • Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,

    • Has a history or record of such an impairment (such as cancer that is in remission), or

    • Is perceived by others as having such an impairment (such as a person who has scars from a severe burn).

    Disabilities can be physical, emotional/psychological, intellectual, and/or developmental.

    Some human experiences or circumstances that we deem to be disabilities are not disabling to the individual but do result in social ableism and discrimination.

    “I have Cerebral Palsy. I suffer from people.” - Tina Friml, Comedian

  • a·ble·ism (noun): discrimination in favor of non-disabled, typically forming people and/or typical human experiences.

    Some examples of everyday ableism are:

    • Inaccessibility.

    • When non-disabled people hinder people with disabilities (PWD) by blocking, using or repurposing accessible spaces such as parking spaces, bathrooms, and wheelchair ramps.

    • Asking a person with a disability what is “wrong” with them.

    • Assuming that a PWD's diagnosis is something that needs to be fixed.

    • Assuming incompetence, i.e. speaking to a PWD’s parent, spouse, or caretaker, assuming the PWD is not competent to speak for themselves.

    • Exploiting a PWD for inspiration.

    • Using disability language as an insult, e.g. retard, lame, spaz, dumb, etc. See “Language to Avoid” below.

  • Christian partiality happens when ableism shows up in Christian culture and theology. Giving partiality or favoritism to non-disabled members of the body of Christ often results in the exclusion and harm of people with disabilities (PWD).

    Everyday examples of Christian Partiality:

    • Church buildings and events formed without PWD in mind thus excluding them.

    • Allowing children to play on accessibility equipment or structures made for PWD, such as repurposing a wheelchair ramp as a jungle gym.

    • Misrepresenting the character or attributes of God to tell a PWD or chronic challenge that God promises to heal them.

    • Telling a PWD or chronic challenge they will be healed if they confess their sins, have more faith, pray this way, etc.

    • Using a disability story as a sermon illustration for inspiration (often ends up exploitative).

    • Unsolicited prayer solely based upon seeing that a person is disabled.

    • Treating biblical principles such as take your thoughts captive (2 Corin. 10:5), as promises or commands accessible to everyone.

    • Showing favoritism to non-disabled members of the body and expecting PWD to thrive in the same environment.

    Here is what scripture has to say about partiality:

    My brothers, practice the faith of our Lord Yeshua, the glorious Messiah, without showing favoritism [partiality]. … If you show more respect to the man wearing the fancy clothes and say to him, “Have this good seat here,” while to the poor man you say, “You, stand over there,” or, “Sit down on the floor by my feet,” then aren’t you creating distinctions among yourselves, and haven’t you made yourselves into judges with evil motives? Listen, my dear brothers, hasn’t God chosen the poor of the world to be rich in faith and to receive the Kingdom which he promised to those who love him? … If you truly attain the goal of Kingdom Torah, in conformity with the passage that says, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show favoritism, your actions constitute sin, since you are convicted under the Torah as transgressors.

    James 2:1-9, CJB

    God Himself shows no partiality (Deuteronomy 10:17, Acts 10:34). James is calling his hearers who put their faith and trust in God to emulate their Father in heaven in this way. Within the historical Roman context, rich people wore a profuse amount of rings to display their wealth. The poor often only had one likely well-worn outfit. James is warning his readers to be careful to not show partiality based on the appearance of wealth or the appearance of poverty. Today, appearance still plays a big role in how we treat people. People without disabilities and even some people who have chronic challenges that are not seen by the naked eye (often referred to as “invisible disabilities”) are likely to be treated similarly to the rich mentioned in this passage. People with visible disabilities are treated similarly to the poor mentioned in this passage, though often unintentionally. Additionally, people with disabilities are more than twice as likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people.

    It is expected that we show respect to non-disabled people by providing stairs to enter the sanctuary, pews to sit in, a sermon to listen to, and biblical counseling or pastoral care when needed. However, respect is rarely shown to PWD by providing wheelchair ramps, space for wheelchair seating, captions or sign language translation for the sermon (2% of the Deaf demographic has been reached by the gospel), and biblical counsel or pastoral care that is informed of the complex embodiment of image bearers. When this is the case, we are essentially telling people with disabilities to, “Stand over there,” or “Sit down on the floor by my feet.” The sign in front of the church may say, “All are welcome,” but that is not what is communicated to people with disabilities from the church website to within the walls of fellowship. As Francis Chan writes in Letters to the Church, “We would never dream of looking God in the face and telling Him we thought one of His children was worthless. But we don't have to say it with our lips if our actions scream it.”

    While much of this is done unintentionally due to unawareness, it still does harm and creates distinctions among the body of Christ.

    Disability and Church History

    Partiality for non-disabled people began to be built into the foundations of the modern American Church with the Ugly Laws (originating in San Fransisco in 1867) that made it illegal in America for people with disabilities to be in public from the mid-1860s to mid-1970s. This resulted in city planning and building construction (including churches) to be deliberately designed to exclude PWD. Partiality continued through the late 1980s and early 1990s, when Christian leaders (full list here on page 93) fought for exemptions from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Their reasons for exemption were 1) it was too expensive, 2) there was no compelling reason to do so, 3) they didn’t want to serve the AIDS population and 4) they wanted to protect their First Amendment rights. Regardless of the motives of these Christian leaders or any nuance, had these laws been enforced in the church and/or had loving their Disabled neighbor been at the forefront of their minds, people with disabilities would not be so scarce in the Church today. With the stark absence of PWD from the Church, our spiritual ancestors formed the theology and communities we enjoy today around the non-disabled human experience. This partiality of our spiritual ancestors has resulted in 1) the habitual exclusion of people with disabilities and chronic challenges and 2) the creation of a generational sin — sin and tendencies gone uncorrected that are then handed down from our spiritual parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. This generational sin of partiality has been handed down a few generations, shoving a gap between what we do and why we do it. Due to this information gap, anyone unaware of Disability history likely participates in this generational sin of partiality favoring the non-disabled experience. This partiality made the marginalization of PWD church legacy so much so that many people with disabilities know not to expect our personhood, civil rights, or spiritual safety to be honored in Christian spaces.

    Many church leaders are ordained into the legacy of partiality completely unaware of it and thus perpetuate it. Because church leaders are unaware, they are not educating their flocks, resulting in widespread accidental partiality. Most Christians are unaware of Disability history as well as the Disability experience which causes them to unknowingly accept this generational sin of partiality. While religious organizations are legally exempt from the ADA, Christians are not exempt from God’s law to love our neighbor as ourselves (Leviticus 19:15, 18; Mark 12:31; Philippians 2:3). So while it is legal under man’s law that faith communities do not need to be disability accessible or inclusive, by God’s law this is showing partiality. More often than not, Christian partiality happens when the inclusion of people with disabilities is not thought of or not understood. Many Christians simply don’t know that they are participating in Christian partiality that, at best, excludes people with disabilities and chronic challenges and, at worst, causes deep spiritual and psychological harm.

    *For more on Disability history listen to Crash Course: Disabilities & the Image of God with Laura Wifler starting at 37 minutes and Church Disability history at 1:01.

  • Spiritual abuse happens when someone uses spiritual or religious beliefs to hurt, scare, or control another image bearer causing them to believe false truths about themselves. The experience is heightened when this is carried out by a pastor, youth minister, or someone who has spiritual authority.

    When Christian culture and the design of physical spaces favor the non-disabled experience (e.g. no wheelchair seating, no American Sign Language (ASL) translation, etc.), this can result in the exclusion of PWD, subtly communicating to PWD that we are not welcome to be a part of the body of Christ without sacrificing our safety (1 Corin. 12:25). When Christian Partiality shows up in our theology (e.g. minimizing the importance of our being embodied, poor theology of disability, overlooking the historical biblical context as well as modern context of the disability experience, etc.), it is a kind of prosperity gospel that convinces a person with disabilities or chronic challenges that we must shed our disability to be considered faithful.

    Some examples of how this becomes spiritual abuse that can mar an image bearer’s faith and self-image are:

    • Repeated misuses of scripture causing wounding that results in an aversion to scripture,

    • Scaring PWD that their disability means they have a demon or are rejected by God in some way,

    • Disheartening PWD by telling them that they are not healed because they haven't confessed their sin or don’t have enough faith,

    • Causing people with disabilities and chronic challenges to believe false things about themselves by convincing them their symptoms of psychiatric disability are temptation and sin,

      • When repenting of psychiatric symptoms fails to heal the disability, this can cause a PWD to believe they are forsaken by God, and/or failing in faith and faithfulness.

    • Mounting lies resulting in hopelessness and suicidality,

    • People with disabilities entering faith spaces not prepared to worship or fellowship but prepared to defend our faith. Over time, this creates hyper-vigilance that can develop complex trauma.

    Being unaware of power differentials between non-disabled people and PWD can also result in non-disabled people unintentionally intimidating, coercing, threatening, entrapping, and harassing PWD.

    When we are not informed of the nuances of the disability experience, even good intentions can result in behaviors that are wrong and harmful to PWD.

  • A row of crown of Christ flowers above text: "those parts of the body that we consider less honorable, we clothe these with greater honor 1 Corinthians 12: 23"

    Disability Vocabulary

Disability language is still evolving. Because adults with disabilities experience disability first-hand, we will at times come to different conclusions than non-disabled parents, educators, and professionals regarding the vernacular used to describe us. 

Due to changes in culture and the prevailing cultural climate, the meanings of words will continue to change over time.   

  • Identity-first language is often used by a person for whom their disability or minority experience is a part of their identity in a way similar to gender or race.

    In Deaf culture, people who were pre-lingually deaf often capitalize the “D” in deaf. For them, sign language is their first language and deafness is not a disabling condition but makes them part of a linguistic minority.

    Some people with congenital disabilities will capitalize the “D” in disability and/or their diagnosis.

    Example: I am Autistic.

    Person-first language is used by a person for whom their disability is not a part of their identity or culture.

    Example: I have Lyme Disease.

  • Someone who is non-speaking may not be able to communicate with verbalized words or sentences but is able to communicate with written word, vocalization, verbalization, and/or use sign language, which is a complete and legitimate language with regional accents and dialects. There are around 300 different types of sign language around the world. So people can be verbal yet non-speaking.

    People can also be “unreliable speakers” meaning that while they are able to speak, at times they are unable to speak, or lean on scripts that may or may not reflect what the individual desires to communicate.

  • It is preferred to use the term “wheelchair user” (uses crutches, walker, etc.) because ability aids are intended to give freedom.

    Terms like “confined to a wheelchair” or “wheelchair bound” give the impression the ability aid is a cage rather than a throne of dignity and means of independence.

  • Given that the first widely known service dogs were guide dogs for people with vision loss and/or blindness, the term “Seeing-eye dog” was originally used. However, given the versatility of tasks dogs perform, this is a fading term. It is appropriate to call them “service dogs.” “Guide dogs” is also used for dogs who perform guide tasks for people who are blind, D/deaf, or have other guiding needs. A Disabled person who utilizes a service dog is called a “service dog handler.” Service dogs are not pets but are considered live medical equipment and are to be treated by the public as such. A good rule of thumb is, if you wouldn't do it to a wheelchair (pet, make kissy sounds, take a photo) don’t do it to a service dog.

    Side note: Bringing pets into non-pet-friendly public places not only stresses the pet making them liable to distract or attack a service dog, but it is also in violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Misrepresenting that a dog is a trained service animal is a misdemeanor. The number one killer of service dogs is pet dogs in non-pet-friendly areas (grocery stores, malls, banks, etc.). Just the sight of a pet in non-pet-friendly public places can stress a service dog handler to the point of a medical episode. Please leave your pets at home and always leash your dog in deemed areas.

    For more information about service dogs from real service dog handlers, watch All About Service Dogs on Disabled Christian Voices Vodcast and check out this Key Ministry round table discussion.

  • The term “special needs” is a controversial one. While many parents of children with disabilities, as well as some adults with disabilities, prefer the term, most adults with disabilities do not appreciate the term and prefer the term “disabled.” Many adults with disabilities will say that the term “special needs” implies that a Disabled person’s needs are “special” requiring above and beyond effort that puts us consistently in the debt of others. But our needs are the same as everyone else's needs, simply accommodated differently.

    The origin of the term “special needs” is a bit of a mystery. It likely morphed from the Special Olympics in the late 1960s and popularized in the U.S. after the Education For All Act in 1975, when children with disabilities were first legally allowed an education. Due to the discrimination of people with disabilities and the shame surrounding disability, the word “disability” itself was considered a dirty word. Due to this, terms like “special needs" and “differently abled” were introduced, intending to give dignity. Unfortunately, they can serve as over-corrections and be experienced as patronizing and infantilizing.

    Some educators stand by the term “special education” because it is specialized education which is understandable from an educational standpoint. But from a Disabled human perspective, it would help if it wasn't “special” but equitable education to aid in the normalization of disability and support needs. The term “special” feels increasingly condescending as we get older and can have effects on an individual’s confidence and sense of worth. It may sound nicer but the term “special needs” is problematic as many adults with disabilities experience it as an unwitting term of oppression. For adults, the term perpetuates infantilization so when people with disabilities advocate, non-disabled adults are inclined to dismiss us to prefer the opinion of non-disabled professionals or caregivers who might champion the term while having no first-hand experience of the resulting trauma and bullying. Furthermore, terms like “"special needs” and “differently abled” separate an already dispersed people group from our communities, cultures, and history.

    Calling an individual a “special needs child/person,” “SpEd,” “Special Ed” or “high/low functioning” dehumanizes them, defining them by their needs or level of functioning rather than their personhood. Unfortunately, these terms are so ingrained within systems that we may be forced to use them to receive support.

    If a Disabled individual prefers “special needs” that is their decision. No one should be gatekeeping marginalized minorities. However, if non-disabled people insist on the use of these terms and continue teaching them to Disabled individuals who are vulnerable to being misled, I would invite them to consider who the terms are serving, why are these terms so important to them, and for those who use their education as authority, to consider who informed that education - Disabled people or non-disabled people.

    Due to decades of bullying and dehumanization, the term “special needs” is triggering for many. It is important to ask what people prefer.

  • Many words we commonly use (typically insults) were at one time diagnostic terms to describe people with various disabilities. Here is a brief introduction.

    Dumb

    The original meaning of the word “dumb” was meant to describe people who cannot or do not speak. “Deaf and dumb” was used to describe people who were unable to both hear or speak.

    Today this word is widely used as an insult meaning unintelligent or uncool. This transition of meaning stemmed from philosophers and doctors assuming that people who were unable to hear or speak were unintelligent. The use of this word in any context is offensive to the D/deaf community as well as many in various D/disability communities who are non-speaking or unreliable speakers.

    Additionally, the use of the word “deaf” in a negative context can also be offensive.

    Retarded, Idiot, Moron

    Like the word “dumb”, these words were used as medical diagnostic terms used clinically to describe persons with intellectual differences. Due to the disgust and hate towards people with disabilities, these words became insults. Other similar problematic terms are “lame,” (meaning injured in or missing some member of the body, but often used to mean “uncool”) “imbecile,” “nuts,” “psycho,” and “spaz.” The terms “blind,” and “deaf,” are appropriate to use only when referring to a blind or deaf person or the actual physical condition. Using these two terms outside these parameters can be offensive.

    Spaz

    While the slang use of the word “spaz” is meant to degrade someone as incompetent or uncoordinated, spasticity is a condition or a symptom of a condition usually caused by damage to nerve pathways within the brain or spinal cord that control muscle movement.

    Functioning Labels

    Functioning labels such as “high functioning,” “low functioning,” and “Asperger’s” categorize human beings by deficits. They put the focus on an individual’s perceived lack.

    In the Autism community, there is tension with the terms “high functioning,” “low functioning” and “Asperger’s”. This is because while they can be helpful shorthand when attempting to attain services, they have a dark history.

    Dr. Hans Asperger was a Nazi pediatrician before and during World War II. He coined the terms “high/low functioning” to categorize children he designated as “autistic psychopaths” for experiments and “mercy killings” as part of “Aktion (action) T4.” This was all part of the Nazi trial run for their genocidal practices. ‘Asperger syndrome’ was introduced to the world by British psychiatrist Lorna Wing in the 1980’s. The term derived from a 1944 study by Hans Asperger who found some autistics didn’t have significant learning difficulties and were proficient in a special interest or gifted in areas that were deemed valuable. Although Asperger Syndrome was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) in 2013, it is still sometimes used to separate Autistics who have low support needs from Autistics with high or significant support needs. This is considered a form of ableism by many.

  • A row of crown of Christ flowers above text: "those parts of the body that we consider less honorable, we clothe these with greater honor 1 Corinthians 12: 23"

    FAQs