My recent doctoral research on comparative perceptions between clergy members and family caregivers of persons with IDD have revealed similarities and differences. It is imperative for clergy and caregivers to understand each other's perspectives for persons with IDD to flourish in local worshipping communities.
Statements
were answered utilizing a 4 point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree,
strongly disagree). The bars on the following charts indicate majority agreeing
or disagreeing to statement, while the markers indicate the level of strength in
agreement or disagreement (mean). This report utilizes the validated responses of 84 clergy members and 36 caregivers.
Caregivers
and clergy, while both overwhelmingly agreeing on two value statements, have a
radically different opinion of how their belief impacts their practices, as
observed by both the amount of persons agreeing as well as the strength level
of their agreement. The praxis question “Places of
worship should pray regularly for persons with IDD to be made normal” was an
inverse correlate of the theological question regarding the image of God; the
responses should have been identical.
There was, however, a significant gap between
the two in both frequency and strength of clergy opinion. Caregivers
overwhelmingly regard children with IDD created in the image of God as normal,
in contrast to the clergy. This can lead to the often reported caregivers’
perception non-normal is equated to “sinful” or “evil”.
Clergy’s practices
significantly contradict their belief: either clergy have not reflected on the
implications of the two, or they may be falsely assenting to a value statement.
A small group of caregivers’, perhaps reflecting their perceptions of clergy
opinion, hold a minority position that normalcy is desired.
In part,
these discrepancies may result from improper distinction between healing and
normalization: healing is the restoration of one to full participation in God’s
image (physical, mentally, socially, relationally, and spiritually), while
normalization is placing human notions of God’s likeness upon all humanity. People
with disabilities also get sick, injured, divorced – they too need healing. Healing
appropriated for a person with or without disability, does not alter any
persons’ identity as a limited human being created in God’s image.
Most clergy
do not see healing as primary necessity, although the strength of their
agreement is not strong. Furthermore, a significant amount (23%) do think it is
the primary need. The strength between levels of (dis)agreement is significant
between caregivers and clergy, to the point that caregivers are accurate in
their perception clergy’s primary goal is to see their child healed. In
addition, the primacy of healing seemed to supplant the necessity of salvific
grace. Based upon clergy’s inactive expressions, caregivers tend to conclude
just the opposite of clergy’s actual values.
Not every clergy
member indicated the necessity of salvific grace for people with IDD. Perhaps
it is due to how soteriology (theology of salvation) is often interpreted in the Christian community as
cognitive assent to doctrinal statements. Twenty-five percent of caregivers perceive
clergy believe healing is as high a priority as salvific grace. This united
combination of healing and salvation tends to further the perception that grace
is only extended to those experiencing healing.
I would encourage clergy and caregivers to engage in mutual dialog in order to better understand each other.
