Over the course of the next week, I will continue to publish
partial preliminary findings of my research on perceptions between clergy and
family caregivers regarding disability issues in congregational settings. All of these findings will be eventually
placed into a formal summary report as well as incorporated into my doctoral project
dissertation with the appropriate discussions on significant statistics.
Opinon
|
Value
|
Strongly Disagree
|
1
|
Disagree
|
2
|
Agree
|
4
|
Stronlgy Agree
|
5
|
One panel of questions utilized a 4 point Likert scale and
asked caregivers to rate their perception and what the rating they expected
clergy to give themselves. Questions
ranged across topics including sacramental observances, congregational
participation, and orthodox Christian theology. This was then compared to the actual
clergy ratings as well. Depending upon
the question, 87-90 clergy members responded while 37-39 family caregivers
responded. Statistical significance was
determined through a t-test for differences in means.
Areas of Strong
Agreement
(no major statistical
difference at 80% or higher confidence level)
CAREGIVER
Rating (mean)
|
Statement
|
Actual
Clergy Rating (mean)
|
4.54
|
People with IDD are created in the image of God.
|
4.36
|
4.45
|
Clergy representatives allow persons with IDD to receive communion.
|
4.42
|
4.38
|
My place of worship allows persons with IDD to become members.
|
4.21
|
2.32
|
Clergy representatives have been adequately trained in ministering to
people with IDD and their family caregivers.
|
2.37
|
1.95
|
Persons with IDD may NOT need to experience God’s
saving grace.
|
1.89
|
Brief Discussion
Of the five statements where there is virtual agreement, two
address questions of theology (anthropology and soteriology), two address
social belonging in the community of faith (communion, membership), and the
final one addresses clergy training and preparation.
It is good to note that both groups are in high agreement of
persons with IDD being created in the image of God. This basic acknowledgement of personhood drives
relational disability ministry.
Both questions on belonging (communion, membership) also
have a high agreement factor. These two
important steps into full active inclusion into the life of the congregation
tend to be the easiest and least disruptive.
While both groups also heartily disagree with the statement
that persons with disability need to experience God’s grace, it is surprising
that the conservative clergy members did not strongly disagree with this point.
In part, I think there may be some unanswered wrestling with a cognitive
based salvation common in western evangelical theologies. Most soteriological models have not thought
through intellectual disability. This may be indicated by the caregivers estimating the clergy response to be a mean of 2.23 – a statistically significant different
rating. This may also reflect the caregivers’
perception that clergy members are more ambivalent on this theological
statement.
Family caregivers expected clergy members to rate themselves
with a 2.97 mean for adequate
preparedness for ministry while only giving them a 2.32 rating. In this case, clergy
members acknowledge their lack of training and rated themselves in-line with
the caregivers. This discrepancy may
indicate clergy desire additional training but are unwilling to admit their competence
inadequacies to families. Research on
developing relationships between family caregivers and social
service agencies indicate that developing mutual trust through vulnerability is a key to successful collaboration.
These statistics indicate areas of strong mutual
agreement already exist. As pastors receive additional
training and supports in disability theology and ministry, areas not
in agreement may be resolved and flourishing may occur.
Coming Soon:
The Clergy / Caregiver
Divide – Perceptions on Disability: Areas of Strong DISAGREEMENT
