DISABILITY AND SPIRITUALITY : simplebooklet.com

2 THE SOCIAL MODEL OF DISABILITY AND SPIRITUALITY as understood and lived at Holton Lee Disabled people and retreats The Editor of “The Good Retreat Guide” requested, that since Retreat places have been renovating and rebuilding in order meet disabled access requirements, I write soemthing based on our perspectives and experience with a focus on disabled people who are going on or thinking about going on a retreat, trusting that this information would be of interest both to disabled people and retreat directors and programme planners. When discussing this request, one of the Trustees of Holton Lee, himself disabled, said but … …“WHY TREAT US DIFFERENTLY?” That phrase was in my thoughts for several weeks. I think that the point is, we shouldn’t have to treat disabled people differently, as “the other”. What is written below is from the perspective that we are “all” made up of body, mind and soul/spirit; our spirituality involves our material bodies, not just minds or spirit. (McGuire, 2003) http://www.history-journals.de/journals/hjg-s00370.html Retreat houses offer a service which hopefully is not a segregated one and therefore people working within them do require a comphrensive and significant understanding of disability accompanied also by a current understanding of what is meant by Spirituality. I have outlined what is written below under relevant headings and considerations as outlined in the Table of Contents listed above. There are web references and sources throughout as well as a bibliography. 1. UNDERSTANDING DISABILITY “Disability” is a very complex and much misunderstood reality. For this reason it is mandatory at the outset to give a comprehensive overview of current understanding and practice both by those who are living with Disability on a daily basis and representative organisations. Frank Mulcahy, Secretary, Disabled Peoples’ International wrote that, “Within the new ICF the definition of disability that is used can, I propose, be utilized for our purposes. The International Classification of Functioning (ICF) defines disability as the outcome of the interaction between a person with an impairment and the environmental and attitudinal barriers he/she may face. He proposed that this understanding could be utilised for the moment as their preferred definition with the hope that we can have an improved definition when time on our World Council allows for a debate on this issue. (http://www.dpi.org/en/resources/topics/topics-definition-disibility.htm) Effective from 1 October 2004 the new directive of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) came into effect, requiring all churches to ensure that they have taken reasonable steps to improve access to their buildings and services. This applies to all service providers where “physical features make access to their services impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people.” It is estimated that 20% of the population can be categorised as disabled whilst a further 30% would benefit from improved access. (The Sarum Link: 1, October 2004) (The Church of England in The Diocese of Salisbury)

Page 4

3 3 December is the annual International Day of Disabled Persons, “… which aims to promote an understanding of disability issues and mobilise support for the dignity, rights and well-being of persons with disabilities. It also seeks to increase awareness of gains to be derived from the integration of persons with disabilities in every aspect of political, social, economic and cultural life.” The day “… offers an opportunity to foster changes in attitudes towards persons with disabilities and eliminate barriers to their full participation in all aspects of life.” 2004 focused on the global movement to achieve full participation and equalization of opportunities for, by and with persons with disabilities for the development of truly inclusive societies, in which all voices are heard and persons with disabilites can help shape a better world for all. (United Nations: Enable) http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disid2003.htm The United Nations declared December 3 as the International Day of Disabled Persons and the UN Commission on Human Rights, in their Resolution 1993/29 of 5 March 1993, appealed to member states to highlight the observance of December 3: “with a view to the achievement of the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and participation in society by Disabled People.” Disabled People International states that all around the world, organisations have been using this day very effectively to promote our organisations and the rights of disabled people at every level – local, national, regional and international levels. http://www.dpi.org/en/start.htm A Brief Overview of the Disability Discrimination Act The purpose of the Disability Discrimination Act is to prevent discrimination against disabled people. In relation to service providers, duties of the DDA was being introduced in three parts, indicated below: 1. Since 2 December 1996, it has been unlawful for service providers to treat people less favourably for a reason related to their impairment. 2. From 1 October 1999, service providers have had to make "reasonable adjustments" for disabled people, such as providing extra help or making changes to the way they provide their services 3. It is intended that, from 2004 , service providers will also have to make "reasonable adjustments" to the physical features of their premises http://www.manchester.gov.uk/disability/dda/section1.htm The New Disability Discrimination Act, now being enforced, helps to ensure “physical access” to public places, a concept which, it appears, is easier for people to understand than the attendant “attitudinal” perspectives which continually need to be understood and updated and which in many ways are even more problematical and discriminatory. 2. ATTITUDES I will continue to focus this discussion on “access” to retreat houses and churches, in particular. For all of us a retreat can be a part of life where we set time aside. In the magazine, “Retreat 2004”, Brian Thorne expressed it succinctly by saying that, “At best, retreats can offer people a space in which they can be themselves, be nurtured and find insights” One of the National Retreat Centre leaflets explains that the purpose of a retreat is to have a period in which we can have a time to reflect and learn, laying aside the preoccupations of day-to-day living, be inwardly still and be able to think, feel and pray. It outlines the many different kinds of retreats and what to consider when booking one. These considerations for our “spiritual life” are both personal and social, as indicated in the Mission statement of the Retreat Association which states that, “We are being challenged to see that spirituality is concerned, not only with our own personal salvation, but also with the

Page 5

4 whole of life, with justice, social order, the use of the natural resources of our earth and the enabling of all people to grow into the fullness of their potential.” www.retreats.org.uk As is required by the Disability Discrimination Act, Retreat Houses, Churches and all those who provide a “service” must now more adequately provide for “physical” access by offering a barrier free environment, for physically disabled people. However, the proposed the solution for provision is not that simple because, as The Social Model of Disability states, disability is socially constructed and therefore attitudinal barriers, as well as physical barriers, also have to be removed which, it seems, does involve a paradigm (worldview) shift at personal, organisational and societal levels as well as that of policy change, because reformulating Disability as a social oppression does insist on inclusion and the greater autonomy of disabled people. “The Other” Each of us has a body, mind and spirit, that is, we experience life with our physical, intellectual and emotional/spiritual capacities. However, attitudinal change and our current world view needs to be addressed because, “Bodily differences has for centuries determined social structures by defining certain bodies as the norm, and defining those which fall outside the norm as ‘other’; with the degree of ‘Otherness’ being defined by the degree of variation from the norm. By doing this we have created an artificial ‘paradigm of humanity’ into which some of us fit neatly and others fit very badly, according to PhD student Jan Clapton and lawyer researcher Jennifer Fitzgerald in their paper titled: ‘The History of Disability: A History of 'Otherness' http://www.ru.org/artother.html Dr Paul Darke also focuses on how “otherness” is perpetuated, saying that “Environments with Attitude” are those in which the signs of “Otherness” for disabled people exist all around us: toilets, parking spaces and entrances etc and they define the permitted spaces and places of difference and impairment. The image falsely propagates a unity of identity and experience for disabled people rather than social objectification and exclusion. Darke: http://www.outside-centre.com/darke/mycv/writings/envatit/ewa.html The History of Disability: A History of ‘Otherness’ Before we can change our attitudes and make the necessary paradigm shift, from one way of understanding to another, it seems essential to have an informed view of the problem, which, in turn, requires an understanding of the history behind such deeply ingrained and imbalanced perspectives and attitudes which continue to be lived out both within religious and secular practice. A deep learning curve is required at every level of personal, organizational and social levels. The main issue is about power and how disabled people can live with full participation in society.

Page 6

5 According to Clapton and Fitzgerald, we have “Black bodies, white bodies; male bodies, female bodies; young bodies, old bodies; beautiful bodies, broken bodies - right bodies and wrong bodies. Historically, our bodies have framed our futures and explained our past; our bodies write our stories. But it is not our bodies per se which write the story; rather it is the way in which we, as a society, construct our bodies which shapes our history and our future.” We have created an artificial 'paradigm of humanity' into which some of us fit neatly, and others fit very badly. Life outside the paradigm of humanity is likely to be characterized by isolation and abuse. Life is lived on the margins often with a history of silence, particularly as some disabled people continue to be marginalized even by those who are themselves marginalized, and in this way they actually become ‘the Other’ of the ‘Other’. However, as Clapton and Fitzgerald point out, Models of inclusion among the Maori of Aotearoa in New Zealand suggest that disability is accepted as being normal but this understanding has been erased from the West. Therefore Disability activists are re-creating a culture which celebrates and embraces difference. Clapton and Fitzgerald explain that there are three models of disability, which have as their essence – “otherness”. i. Religious Model ii. Medical/genetic Model iii. Rights-based Model i. The Religious Model of Disability Roots of understanding bodily difference have been grounded in Biblical references. ii. The Medical Model of Disability The doctor and the scientist replaced the priest as custodian of societal values and curing processes. Human worth was then determined by work value and profitability. “‘Normality’ became determined by the ideal of the white, youthful, able, male body and otherness to this ideal became hierarchically placed as inferiority. iii. The Rights-Based Model of Disability Recently “disability” has been conceptualised as a socio-political construct, shifting from dependence to independence, seeking a political voice and becoming politically active by engaging strategies used by other social movements such as those against sexism and racism. “Yet, rights-based discourse, although employed as a political strategy, has also become a way of constructing disability by locking people with disability into an identity which is based upon membership of a minority group. Entitlements thus become contingent upon being able to define oneself as a person with disability. And the conceptual barrier between 'normal' and 'abnormal' goes unchallenged, so that while one may have entitlements legislatively guaranteed, 'community' which cannot be legislated for, remains elusive.” (Holton Lee attempts to address these concerns by insisting on “inclusive services” where, therefore, no one is considered “special”) Yet rights-based discourse has not significantly altered the way in which disability is constructed. In fact, new challenges such as genetic and reproductive technology threaten to further alienate the whole and integrated person (the body, mind and spirit) from the medically or scientifically, diagnosed. Helpfully, ‘Canadian writer, Bickenbach, understands disability as a continuous condition which has no boundaries but which is the essence of the human condition and as a condition which is experienced by us all, at some stage in our lives, disability is actually normal. Sarkar also argues that bodily differences should not be allowed to mask our essential humanity. “At the level of our physical existence, diversity is a natural condition and the need is for us to welcome and embrace diversity outside of a hierarchical classification of difference. Yet, at

Page 7

6 another level, difference is simply a construction of ideology, not a state of reality - since we are all interconnected and have flowing through each of us the same life force. According to Sarkar, "the force that guides the stars you too". Yet, the history of disability has been a history of seeking to construct hierarchical difference out of an essential reality of oneness. The challenge is to create the reverse.” http://www.ru.org/artother.html 3. THE MEDICAL AND SOCIAL MODELS OF DISABILITY It is crucial for us to understand the difference between the two existing Models which operate today, as outlined initially by Michael Oliver in 1983. What is included below is taken from the website indicated at the end of each contribution. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Oliver/in%20soc%20dis.pdf page 2 It is important to understand that an essential and fundamental difference is that, “disability and impairment are totally unrelated.” The two models explained below give a framework of understanding which is used within the “politicised” Disabled community. The dominant Medical Model and view advances the ideology that it is the disabled individual who is disabled, as a pathological reality, placing the problem within our body and minds. Thus it pathologises disability as a personal issue rather than understanding the ideology of a culture which excludes others; it is a construct, a social factor. The Social Model understands instead that it is society which is disabling because it creates things which oppress and exclude. Discrimination is the disability not the particular impairment and it takes place in three areas: institutional (systems), environmental (physical) and attitudinal (socially constructed and reinforced by cultural/medical factors). “Disabled people” are only “disabled” by external factors: “it is not us who are disabled it is society that is disabling and oppressive”. The aim of the Social Model is to identify social exclusion and achieve, through its application, “… inclusion as opposed to the more insidiously normalisation ideology of integration.” Discrimination is the “disability” not an impaired body, that is, segregated services, inequality, discrimination are all social factors and constructions unrelated to the pathological nature of impairment. It identifies disability as a political issue, not a personal issue, thus identifying the true cause of disability as social exclusion. Disability and impairment are totally unrelated. It is the systems and structures that oppress, for instance, with “special” schools, therapists and doctors as gatekeepers to the services, yet they don’t deal with disability. http://www.outside-centre.com/darke/mycv/writings/seminars/munich.html The medical model of disability

Page 8

7 http://www.selfdirection.org/dat/training?cmd=guest&p=/course01/welcome.html “The disability movement comprises those disabled people and supporters who understand that we are, regardless of our particular impairment, subjected to a common oppression by the non-disabled world. We are of the view that the position of disabled people and the discrimination against us are socially created. This has little to do with our impairments. As disabled people we are often made to feel it's our own fault that we are different. The difference is that some part, or parts, of our body or mind are limited in their functioning. This is an impairment. This does not make us less suitable to participate in society. Most people have not been brought up to accept us as we are. Through fear, ignorance and prejudice, barriers and discriminatory practices develop which disable us.” We have come to a fork in the road. There are two paths ahead. One is sign posted 'Segregation', the other 'Inclusion'. They lead to different places. We must decide as a community which path to follow. It is a clear choice. One or the other. (Self Direction Community Project 2000-2001) Holton Lee’s choice is always that of “Inclusion” and each place and person must decide what choice to make. http://www.selfdirection.org/dat/training?cmd=guest&p=/course01/welcome.html In their web site the Manchester City Council also refer to The Social Model of Disability and acknowledge that it is widely accepted that disabled people generally have fewer opportunities and a lower quality of life than non-disabled people. Thus any actions taken to deal with or remove the disadvantage experienced by disabled people depend on what is believed to be the cause of the disadvantage. They also explain and emphasise that the Medical Model features on the individual’s body whereas the Social Model encourages explanations in terms of characteristics of social organisation. They point out that when policy makers and managers think in the individual way they “compensate” people with impairments for what is “wrong” with their bodies and provide segregated “special” services for them. This of course “affects the way disabled people think about themselves, internalizing the negative message that their problems stem from not having “normal” bodies and such internalized oppression can make them less likely to challenge exclusion from mainstream society.” Helpfully, then, they go on to describe and define some negative terminology to be avoided. It is important to understand then that changes made by removing barriers ensures that responsibility remains with all people; negative stereotypes which exclude disabled people from mainstream provision will be removed and understanding, which reflects our attitudes and beliefs, will empower rather than disempower. http://www.manchester.gov.uk/disability/policies/model.htm Negative terminology is listed in their web site http://www.manchester.gov.uk/disability/language/index.htm Mike Oliver pointed out in 1990 that disability is a long-term social state – which rejects the prescriptions of the “normalising society” and instead requires society to change because disability is something not treatable and is certainly not curable. He emphasises that the real issues in disability are about oppression, discrimination, inequality and poverty. The social model locates the problem of disability squarely within society, pointing out that it is not The Social Model of Disability

Page 9

8 individual limitations which are the cause of the problem but society’s failure to provide appropriate services and adequately ensure that the needs of disabled people are fully taken into account in its social organisation. Until then, the consequences fall upon disabled people as a group who experience this failure as discrimination institutionalised throughout society. Since “Disability is a social state and not a medical condition”, medical intervention and control is inappropriate. The whole medical and rehabilitation enterprise is founded upon an ideology of normality with an aim to restore the disabled person to normality, whatever that may mean. But disabled people are coming to reject the prescriptions of the ‘normalising’ society, hence The Times article by a commissioner for the Disability Rights Commission, Jane Campbell, Thursday December 2, 2004. It was titled: A right to die? I’m more concerned that everyone has the right to live” and in it she emphasises that “society’s view is that death is preferable for severely disabled people such as me.” (her article is included at the end of this paper) The Social Model emphasizes that effective solutions cannot be imposed from outside or from above. They can only be resolved by groups or collectivities working together on them. As Oliver points out, working together requires recognition of each others’ experience; both sides must recognize the way power shapes the experience of disability for both groups. Medicalisation of disability gives doctors power and leaves disabled people powerless. The Social Model is a prescription for sharing power; doctors must learn to give up some of their power and disabled people must learn how to empower themselves. In addition organizational and administrative machinery will need to be developed for this power sharing. Again, Jane Campbell’s article gives first hand voice and experience to existing discrepancies. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Oliver/in%20soc%20dis.pdf Changing Society? “It is society that disables us and disabled people are an oppressed social group. Vic Finklestein believes that the Social Model of Disability which Mike Oliver developed was quite radical and provided the disability movement with an invaluable tool which has strengthened insight into the struggle for emancipation. He adds that it gave the words to describe the way society is constructed so that we become disabled and as a model it has to do with the creation of a society which enables us to be ‘human’ – not just access our ‘rights’ within an existing competitive market society. It is not a legalistic ‘disability rights’ model. Nothing less than dismantling the prison and replacing it with a non-competitive form of society can break-down the doors which bar our emancipation. From this point of view it is clear that what happens to disabled people is an integral part of the way our society is organised and structured. In fact we can argue that what happens to disabled people exactly mirrors where humanity is going wrong. For him repossessing the social model of disability means searching for openings in the structures of society where we might effectively contribute with others in the restructuring of society so that it is neither competitive nor disabling, for all people, which is the life-style we attempt to live at Holton Lee. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/finkelstein/soc%20mod%20repossessed.pdf Valuing Diversity? and an Emancipatory Philosophy which can Empower Jane Campbell, in her article on Diversity and Disability, refered to Adolf Ratzka who asked if the wheelchair sign should be forbidden, because it singles out: "… and stigmatises a particular group of citizens. By using this symbol of access you do yourself a disservice, because the symbol serves as an alibi for the accepted norm of

Page 10

9 inaccessibility, emphasising the exception rather than the rule." For this reason we are “sign free” at Holton Lee and instead attempt to make all of Holton Lee accessible, therefore, not having to single out one particular person or group from another. Campbell believes that a radical change is needed if society is to value disabled people. We need to find ways of making our collective minority powerful enough to influence the future. She pointed out that in the mid 1970’s watershed, disabled people started to organize away from charities and statutory bodies who “spoke on our behalf” as self appointed guardians. Now we can beg questions like how can we break in? Why are we excluded from society? She emphasized how the Social Model, as the disability movement’s tool for social inclusion, has the potential to transform lives. In a recent Daily Mail poll 68% of the population said they would abort if they found out they were carrying a disabled child. “If we are to really value the lives of disabled people, we have to confront our own personal ghosts. This can only be done by listening to and involving those who experience that which we wish rub out. Not as most do - ask a Dr.” She continues, by saying that, “Control over what happens in our lives on a personal day to day level, lies at the very heart of what we disabled people claim for ourselves. We call this simple philosophy - Independent Living. (We are constantly striving to create “independent living” at Holton Lee with access to buildings, services, land and attitudes both in staff and guests.) It is a state of mind rather than something we can physically or mentally accomplish in comparison with non disabled people. She stated that: “We want to contribute - not as a rung on someone's ladder to a charitable heaven - but in our own right, with our uniqueness recognised and our diversity celebrated.” http://www.drc-gb.org/publicationsandreports/commissionerspeechdetails.asp?id=6 4. UNDERSTANDING RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY AND JUSTICE? a spiritual perspective We have now considered an understanding of disability, highlighting the fact that it is about oppression and the way society is organized to exclude. We have also begun to understand how extremely complex the way forward is. It is one thing to speak of perspectives, services and accompanying theory and causes but quite another to be able to embrace these understandings deeply and significantly enough to own them at personal, organizational, social and global levels and sufficiently well enough to make a paradigm change which would affect how we live out our understanding with others. We will now consider a current understanding of spirituality. David Tacey, who has recently published a book called: “The Spirituality Revolution: the emergence of contemporary spirituality,” believes that the essence of spirituality is relational and links us at a primordial level with God, our neighbours and our planet. It is what makes us feel at home in the universe. It is the reverse of alienation and when spirituality loses its voice it also fatally weakens its social and political impact in the communal search for justice. Until such time as we recover a public spirituality, vast numbers of people are condemned to feeling spiritually lost. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/book_review.cgi/past-00197 Tacey warns that, “If a tradition is not interested in what the people are thinking or feeling, it is in danger of becoming a cult, no longer a tradition.” He also cautions that the gap between religion and spirituality is still enormous and may get wider before the rift begins to heal, since it is in a mutual stand-off. But the healing task is to bring together individual feeling and traditional knowledge, to attempt some kind of linkage between the wisdom of the heart and the wisdom of tradition. http://www.aare.org.au/victoria/No1%202004.pdf

Page 11

10 It is not just minority, oppressed and marginalized groups of people who are struggling to understand how to find authentic, relevant and shared spirituality but rather they are joined by the many seekers who actually find the struggle torturous. There is a common shared problem and need to re-connect so we no longer have to live deprived, isolated, disconnected and oppressed lives of individualism, self-sufficiency and autonomy, having to split secular society and church and religion or to think of others as superior to us. Many of us have experienced the pain of exclusion because “religion” no longer makes sense. We want to release the stifled voices of our hearts and find peace for our souls rather than live with the continually torturous splitting of our selves, leaving our souls unattended, which is so injurious to our own personal integrity and wholeness. This conflict is in individual souls and in the soul of society. Since Spirituality is understood as personal “and” social in its search for justice, it helps us to move towards integration and community and to be a bridge to link religion and society. We now understand that many people are struggling with their spirituality. However, for minority groups that pain is often further and very painfully exacerbated by social exclusion and further oppression. The personal and social are not separate but influence and affect each other. The pain of experiencing “otherness” has an additional and unnecessarily inflicted social source and so its causes of oppression “can” be eliminated, if we care to, within society, organisations and institutions, including the Church. http://www.aare.org.au/victoria/No1%202004.pdf Of course a change of world view is required but, … 5. … THE EXPERIENCE OF BEING DISABLED, within the institutional church with a disabling theology, remains painful at many levels, as shared below. Professor Nancy Eiseland is Associate Professor of Sociology of Religion and author of The Disabled God: Toward a Liberation Theology of Disability and a paper titled Encountering the Disabled God. She herself has a congenital disability and has written that, “Sadly, rather than offering empowerment, the church has more often supported societal structures and attitudes that have treated disabled people as objects of pity and paternalism”. The problem now is not to “accommodate” disabled people but rather to change a disabling theology which functionally denies inclusion and justice, as one which is dangerous for disabled people, with its accompanying prejudice, hostility and suspicion. Interpretation of Scripture can reinforce negative stereotypes, support social and environmental segregation and mask the lived realities of disabled people. Even implementing “accessibility” usually happens through a subtle but powerful paternalism of the able-bodied church, liberally “welcoming” those of us with disabilities. They still speak in the voice of the non-disabled community, advocating for disabled people but not allowing our own voices, stories and embodied experiences to be central. Disability Rights movements around the world are raising crucial cultural and moral questions about the very meaning of embodied experience, human dignity, social justice and community. We need a theology of disability with liberating meaning and power for all of us. She adds the Christian church has neglected the social and political needs of disabled people, failing to place as central emphases, political engagement and social inclusion. Our task is not simply one of correcting some faulty texts or of building greater architectural access but rather to recognise that disabled people, like other minority groups, call the church to repentance and transformation. Many activists for social change in the Disability Rights Movement understand why disabled people have such depreciated views of themselves and lack genuine convictions of personal worth, as those whom society has made as outcasts, treated in demeaning and exclusionary ways, and has thus participated in silencing disabled people. A significant rift between activism and faith has resulted: activists see religion as damaging and those in the church are uninterested in political and activist matters.

Page 12

11 She outlines how a Jesus, as a living symbol of a “disabled God”, is consistent with many images of Jesus, in solidarity with all those who have struggled to maintain the integrity and dignity of their bodies in the face of injustice and bodily degradation. The Disabled God embodies practical interdependence and such a symbol can then offer a hope that pushes towards social and interpersonal transformation, toward a justice of access and mutuality that is free from barriers that exclude, constrain and humiliate. It rather situates reality of existence as ones with dignity and integrity, affirming that nonconventional bodies, which oftentimes dissatisfy and fail us, are worth the living. (Eisland, 2002) http://www.theotherside.org/archive/sep-oct02/eiesland_print.html The Rev Nancy Lane, Ph.D. has lived with cerebral palsy since her birth. She has also written about her experience of encountering years of discrimination and exclusion in and by the institutional church. She has talked with hundreds of disabled people who have also been excluded from the church because of negative attitudes with “victim theology” and architectural and communication barriers. These people also speak about the spiritual wounds engendered by exclusion and their despair of God’s presence to them. She therefore writes about “spiritual abuse” and the call for the church to be welcoming and inclusive. She points out how important it is for disabled people to tell their stories and how equally important it is for people in the faith communities to hear and receive the stories, and in this way people can teach each other. She believes that the majority of disabled people do not want to ask for “fixed” bodies but rather the healing of wounds engendered by discrimination, the barriers of exclusion, the pain of abuse and the negative attitudes of our communities and churches. One can live with a disability or chronic illness and know healing. She believes that special skills are not necessary for working with disabled people but rather understanding their issues allows one to use one’s skills for effective listening, care and/or referral. (Her web site address below includes various handouts as a resource along with various helpful papers titled: The Psychology of Disability; The Spiritual Resources of People with Disabilities; Issues which prevent the religious community from addressing the spiritual issues and needs of people with disabilities; Living into a Spirituality) Nancy Lane believes that, “All discrimination perpetuates marginalisation, spiritual abuse, oppression and injustice. The Church must take the appropriate steps to embrace and practice the principles of inclusion and equality set forth in the “Americans with Disabilities Act” (1990). In doing so they will also promote justice by practicing “the law of love” set forth in the teachings of scripture.” She adds that, “Spiritual abuse is the act of denying people considered disabled their full humanity. It is to treat and care for them as if they were less than human.” She tells us that attitudinal barriers put disability in a socio-political category and that these barriers are more handicapping than is the disability. These barriers lead to subordination and social disadvantage, as an oppressed group, making disability an issue of justice, since Disabled People are not seen as real people, but rather are demeaned, with negative stereotyping portraying them as passive, dependent and childlike and perceived as an object. http://soeweb.syr.edu/thechp/spirituality.html 6. DISABILITY CULTURE AND SPIRITUALITY CULTURE a.) Disability Culture: “Mainstream society needs to figure NOT how we fit in, but how we can be of benefit exactly the way we are.” (Brown)

Page 13

12 As Eisland has previously stated, Disability Rights movements worldwide are raising crucial cultural and moral questions about embodied experience, human dignity and social justice and community. The Christian Church is failing to place as central emphases political and social inclusion. Lane stated that attitudinal barriers put disability in a social-political category. A definition used by Steven Brown, the Co-Founder of the Institute on Disability Culture is: “People with disabilities have forged a group identity. We share a common history of oppression and a common bond of resilience. We generate art, music, literature, and other expressions of our lives and our culture, infused from our experience of disability. Most importantly, we are proud of ourselves as people with disabilities. We claim our disabilities with pride as part of our identity. We are who we are: we are people with disabilities.” He adds that a set of artifacts, beliefs and expressions created by disabled people describes our own life experiences; we have all encountered oppression because of our disabilities. He makes an additional and very important point saying that, for years we have discussed integration like it was our business to fit in with mainstream society but as we become more aware of our own unique gifts some of us have also become more convinced that this is a backwards perspective. It is absolutely not our job it fit into mainstream society. Rather it is our destiny to demonstrate to mainstream society that it is to their benefit to figure out that we come attached to our wheelchairs; our ventilators; our canes; our hearing aids; etc. and to receive the benefit of our knowledge and experience, “… mainstream society needs to figure not how we fit in, but how we can be of benefit exactly the way we are.” http://www.iddc.org.uk/dis_dev/key_issues/dis_culture.shtml b.) Spirituality culture: “we together” are bound up into a network of relationships we call interdependence. Everything which insults the sense of inequality and justice is addressed. (Soelle) Spirituality Praxis actually has a consideration of power, for emancipatory and for liberatory transformation. It addresses the cultural concerns of the day with intentional social activity in order to deal with and eliminate the causes of oppression. There is an emphasis on context which thus includes a soci-political approach. Spirituality embodies social witness, has to do with consciousness-raising and suggests that both oppressors and those who are oppressed need to change and to be freed from the need to control or remain submissive so that each can become empowering “with” others in non-hierarchical relationships. Spirituality reveals and guards against systemic distortion, false ideologies and deals with real issues, responsibilities and conditions. Such Action Orientated Spirituality therefore requires continuous change at both individual and social levels because it is understood that holiness and social action combine in individuals, organizations and society. All people must transform so that discrimination, disadvantage, domination and oppression can be replaced by empowerment and enabling. If we understand then that Spirituality Praxis is not an individualistic activity but rather encompasses political, social, ecological and interpersonal concerns, “with” others, then it follows that our spiritual journeys subsequently require a big paradigm (worldview) shift from understanding our spiritual life in very personal individualistic terms towards one that embraces a wider reality. Recently deceased German Theologian, Dorothee Soelle, who worked a great deal in Latin American countries, wrote that, fundamentally, spirituality is about love and freedom and

Page 14

13 that “orthopraxis” has to do with the constitution of freedom. She believed that the future form of religion is one which will overcome illusions of autonomy, self-sufficiency and the praxis of exclusion which, as she noted, is already the hope of self-aware minorities. She believed that, “liberation” is what sets us free from economic, political, cultural and spiritual oppression because the truth cannot communicate itself only as a correct belief but is dependent on the struggle for liberation. “Everything that exists coexists and is bound up into a network of relationships we call interdependence”. She believed that, “being-in-God” cannot be privately appropriated and enshrined into a purely personal happening but rather that “good power” distributes itself and makes others strong – “power is empowerment”. The world can be redeemed but not just individual souls out of it. In fact, she stated, “the life between one human being and another can itself become a symbol for God” and she referred to Martin Buber who maintained that only human beings who are capable of truly saying “you” to one another can truly say “we together” and in this “we” is the decisive precondition of the I-Thou relationship. Everything which insults the sense of inequality and justice is addressed. (Soelle 2001:279-298) It is possible for all of us to make the paradigm shift (to change our worldview) so that we are freed from either the need to control and oppress or to remain submissive and oppressed. “If” we do so then perhaps it would be possible to embrace and live with the understanding of the reformulation of disability as a social oppression, which, of course, will require both attitudinal and policy changes, which insist on inclusion and the greater autonomy of disabled people, who will then be able to participate in creating solutions to their own problems. The power base would have changed to one of relationship and mutuality. Fundamentally it is how we “are” with people that really matters, both for those who want to provide a service and for those who want to use services, recognising that “love overcomes the praxis of exclusion”. Then we would be able to more deeply understand the implications of the reality that disability is a social oppression which results in injustice, exclusion and pain. Spirituality is both personal and social and is a way of life and a project of life-integration, which means that it is holistic, involving body and spirit, emotions and thought, activity and passivity, social and individual aspects of life. It is an effort to bring all of life together in an integrated synthesis of ongoing growth and development. It connotes the whole of life of faith and even of the person as a whole, including bodily, psychological, social and political dimensions. (Schneiders 1989:675-679) and also in web reference http://www.austheos.org.au/topics/tacey-website.html.htm It appears that Disability and Spirituality Cultures have the same concerns, agendas, needs, oppressions and hopes. Perhaps then we can “all” share a remedy for our common soul sickness and social distress and in the way forward we can together hope for and begin to live authentic and integrated lives, overcoming illusions of autonomy, self-sufficiency and the praxis of exclusion, thus changing and being set free from the existing economic, political, cultural and spiritual oppression. A shared way forward? One of the most painful feelings some disabled people have to overcome, is that of feeling a freak and therefore it is very difficult to try to be able to embrace the beauty of their bodies. For this reason, sometimes people need help to do so and such help is often hard to find because others also find it hard to offer that kind of acceptance. But, it is important for us all to realise, as stated in the Disability Directory, which provides guidance to museums and galleries so that they can improve their services to disabled people, that … “Impairments are a fact of life and will be the experience of most people at some point in their lives particularly given the ageing of the population. Disability

Page 15

14 issues are now clearly positioned within the broader diversity agenda of human rights and equal opportunities. Disabled people share many of the same barriers, concerns and issues as those fighting racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination.” “Disabled people are fighting for a society which celebrates difference, a society which does not react to physical, sensory or intellectual impairments, or emotional distress, with fear and prejudice. We want a society that recognizes the difficulties we face, but which values us for what we are. Our hopes for the future are based on the justice of our wish for control over our lives, the strength of our demands for equal participation, the passion of our belief in the value of our contribution to the communities in which we live.” http://www.mla.gov.uk/documents/disdir.pdf p 15 (Disabled Lives, BBC Publications, 1992) Living in Context – the world views of spirituality and disability It is important to realize that Spirituality is understood from where we stand and therefore its emphasis is on context and it is understood through the lens of praxis. It is embodied in individuals, groups and organizations and doesn’t separate the sacred from secular. It is a particular way of being in the world, linking psychological, spiritual, interpersonal and political aspects of life, therefore we have to structure life to embody values professed, which entails choices and decisions in all aspects of our lives. Spirituality’s concern is for an empowering quality of life with a commitment to justice and for us to deal responsibly with real issues and conditions. It is also important to recognize that the identity of disabled people has undergone dramatic change over recent decades. How they view themselves affects how they behave, and how you view them affects how you serve them. Over a long period, up to recent times, the accepted way to view disability was as a state deserving of benevolence and pity. In this context, it was NOT common to provide equal access to services or to offer real choice to disabled users. The deserving receiver was expected to be grateful, pleased and apologetic, and had no choice unless their physical, intellectual or sensory needs were minor. Change began in 1981, when the International Year of Disabled People focused attention on the topic and made some disabled people more aware of their own numbers. The new view of disabled people as valuable citizens with equal rights, who make their own life decisions and choices, continues to gain ground and shows disabled people as part of society and influential on its progress. The Disability Discrimination Act was enacted in 1995, along with an implementation programme, which extended to 2004. For the first time in UK legislation, it introduced measures aimed at ending discrimination. It establishes the right of access to goods, services and facilities and puts an anticipatory duty on service providers to know the needs of disabled people and how they can be met. http://www.mla.gov.uk/documents/disdir.pdf It is also very important to be cognisant that one of the difficulties which can be experienced when trying to make contact with “disabled people” is the mistaken perception that there is a single disability community. Unlike many other minority communities (including Deaf culture) there is no real disability community. Discrete communities do exist, because of activists and people from impairment groups who may choose to socialise together, but the world of disability is varied and non-homogenous. Disabled people have experiences in common but many do not choose to share these as a cultural dimension. Instead, it should be assumed that disabled people are present in all roles and social situations. They may have

Page 16

15 cultural identities based on ethnicity, social background, religion, interest or regional identity. http://www.mla.gov.uk/documents/dis_guide01.pdf 7. GOOD PRACTICE AND AN AUTHENTIC ENVIRONMENT: What is required for living spirituality praxis with mutuality? We read in the text above that one of the stated needs of Disabled People is “… the right of access to goods, services and facilities.” However, the more important and implied question asks whether we can then trust that the provision offered would not be that of, “service providers”, doing “to” others, instead of living with an attitude of “we together”. If we understand, as stated above, that how Disabled People view themselves and how others view them, does affect both how Disabled People behave and how you relate to them, it could follow then that it is mandatory that the attitudes held by those who provide “service” also need to be reconsidered. That is, if we embrace the “new view”, which is non-discriminatory and non-hierarchical, then attitudes might well need to change as well as the existing policy. Otherwise we may not actually be able to live with relational power and mutuality and will instead continue to marginalize, segregate or oppress “others”, even unwittingly or unconsciously, by continuing to treat them as submissive, dependent and passive “other”. Based on what has been understood so far we now recognise how important it is for most individuals, who are also members of organisations, society, institutions, work places and Churches, to have this deeper understanding and world view, at personal as well as organisational and social levels. The fundamental need is for people to recognise that disability is socially constructed, paternalistic and patronizing, because “impairment” is understood as a deviation from normality. The result then is that people feel their dignity has been taken away, feel they are freaks and are “done good to”, stared at and talked down to. a.) Disability Equality Training A very important provision and resource to help with changing understanding and attitudes is that of “Disability Equality Training” (DET), which can be specifically designed for particular contexts and provision. The training helps people to understand more deeply what is involved in living in the Social Model of Disability instead of within the Medical Model. The attendant understanding is that structures in society are the problem and that the disabling factors themselves are, in fact, one’s disability, such as: lack of useful education, discrimination at work, segregated services, poverty, belief in the Medical Model, inaccessible information, inaccessible transport, prejudice, de-valuing and inaccessible environments, as indicated in the Model. Both of these models were described previously on pages 6 and 7. Disabled People also often have to be helped to understand that they too have been living within and colluding with the Medical Model believing that if their impairments can’t be “cured” then it is their fault, with the result they then live in a “blame culture” feeling a failure, blamed, with low self-esteem as a victim of services, continually presenting “symptoms” to yet another Doctor, hoping for that “cure”. What follows is some general information on disability equality training which has been extracted from the guide and website listed below. It states that training staff in disability issues is a valuable tool for positive change. It plays a vital role in the development of equal access for disabled people to public places. Disability training has been referred to as “perhaps the most effective action any service provider can take” towards improving provision for disabled people. Training raises the level of awareness, responsiveness and resourcefulness of staff. It can enable staff at all levels to realise the proactive role they can play in the development of an organisation which is inclusive of disabled people. The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) makes employers and service providers responsible for

Page 17

16 knowing and meeting the requirements of disabled people (see Guide 5). The DDA Code of Practice “Rights of Access; Goods, Services and Premises” cites the provision of training as evidence that an organisation is meeting this duty. Disability Equality Training may include issues common to awareness training such as customer care, etiquette and language. It is likely to encourage exploration of the social model of disability (see Guide1) in greater depth. This would cover how people are disabled by attitudes and barriers present in society and institutions. It might include, for example, an examination of media images of disability and how they contribute to society’s views and attitudes. From this standpoint, the course can positively demonstrate what an organisation needs to do to change attitudes to disabled people and to remove barriers to access for them. The booklet emphasises that a disabled person is best placed to provide this training. The core components of disability equality and awareness training should always be led by disabled people. This view is reflected in the response to the Resource disability survey: “When providing specialist training (e.g. outreach; marketing or policies) both disabled and non-disabled people with the right skills and experience will be able to do this. Resource believes, however, that the most effective training programme always involves disabled people.” Trainers ought to be able to provide you with contacts and sources of information. http://www.mla.gov.uk/documents/dis_guide03.pdf There is a also a booklet titled “Meeting Disabled People” which is helpful to read. http://www.mla.gov.uk/documents/dis_guide02.pdf b) Good Practice – loving conduct? – a new way of living There are now several issues which have emerged and therefore need to be considered. Firstly, as stated earlier in this paper, Nancy Lane believes that “special skills” are NOT necessary for working with disabled people but rather understanding their issues then allows one to use one’s skills for effective listening, care and/or referral. Secondly, at the very beginning of this paper I made reference to the Trustee at Holton Lee who asked, “… but why treat us differently?” Thirdly, as we have just read, when organizing Disability Equality Training it is important that the trainers, “know about your particular field of work or be happy to work alongside someone with that knowledge”. Fourthly, we also recognize that it is utterly essential that there is a change of attitude to one of mutuality and not one of “caring” “for” others. This awareness applies to all who offer service or provision to people, that is, various organizations and, institutions, both secular and religious. c) A Conducive Environment Since DET training is concerned with “good practice” it must also follow that having a “conducive environment” for such practice is essential to what is offered. When practice is combined with theory they mutually inform each other and the outcome is “praxis”. Since as we have already understood “spirituality praxis” is concerned with addressing cultural concerns of the day through intentional social activity and liberatatory transformation, such praxis would attempt to ensure that the dignity of disabled people is respected so they are offered the right to participate fully in life by removing environmental and social barriers and structures. When theory and practice are integrated, sound and authentic praxis is able to be lived out. People, organizations and society then shift from either the need to control or the need to remain submissive and the result is that empowerment and non-hierarchical relational power can be lived out “with” others. According to Theologian, Noffke, such “loving conduct” is practical and concrete because it includes both meeting needs or problems “and” also addressing the causes of these needs and problems, if they are to be eliminated. Such praxis then requires the study of issues and systems so that we can convey

Page 18

17 at least basic understanding to others, otherwise what we offer could risk shallowness or even counter productiveness and not be an integrated spirituality.(Noffke, 1993) A basic understanding of spirituality praxis and its hallmarks as outlined in the Guidelines which emerged in our recent Doctoral Research at Holton Lee, is included below. When we understand that the “personal is political” we are challenged to transform human relationships and institutions. If we do live out an “integrated spirituality” with the result that we live in mutual participation, we are then able to create new policies and generate new social structures, with a congruence lived out between our inner and outer lives. Our love will be connected to justice because the paradigm of power will be one of mutual empowerment “with” others. We can then challenge and change systems which cause poverty and injustice since we recognise that we are all called to advocacy and solidarity with those on the margins. However, there may be a cost, because this way of life may also lead to conflict and collision with powerful institutions, including the “Church” and “State” when they organise themselves against the “weak”. Such “practice” or purposive action is lived, not through or by complicated dogmas, but instead with the doctrine of compassion, love and respect, which subsequently often does require a re-ordering of our habits and attitudes. This love, which is the very core and centre of “all” authentic “religion”, cannot be programmed and does not come from human effort alone. The understanding instead is that the ultimate goal is to change the hearts and minds of those who oppress instead of removing the burden from those who are oppressed. With such increased spiritual awareness society, culture and consciousness are transformed, because values of empowerment, participation and inclusiveness are embraced, which in turn have social and political consequences. A “rightly understood and practiced spirituality” can help to give meaning and direction to these transformations of society, culture and consciousness. This “phenomenon of spirituality”, which is actually a “transformational spirituality”, does then provide resources for us to live out this new holistic spirituality, which is understood as a “mysticism of action” because it recognises that personal, social and global developments are closely interdependent. Spirituality permeates the personal and political and requires us to live out the new paradigm of a “transformative spirit in action” which integrates: action and contemplation, social and personal, outward and inward. As we have now understood, politicised Disabled People celebrate their difference, rather than trying to conform to what is put forward as “normality” and as they celebrate diversity they combat discrimination, imbalance, injustice and exclusion, through attempting to remove discriminatory barriers. It is very important to realise that actual change and equality is not accomplished by the faddish change or tokenism which happens when people simply try to change the way the institution looks, but rather, we have to be able to live out what we say and avoid discrepancies, which requires us to allow all people to be who they are and encourage their growth and potential, which usually requires a radical alteration of the institution which previously excluded people who were marginalised. But, again, there is a personal implication and cost, because if we embrace this understanding, we have to also oppose causes of war within ourselves. That is, an “evolutionary spirituality” means that we go through a process of genuine change, moving from the old to the new paradigm, at personal, group, societal, national and international levels. The result then is that we don’t just validate things as they are, which is just often a ploy to keep people contented as “outcasts” in a patriarchal land, but instead we work towards the emancipative possibilities of all oppressed groups in compassion with “all those who cry for liberation”. In this way a new integrating spirituality is capable of generating new social structures. We can more easily recognise then, that, freedom is another word for love, and realise that that kind of loving only happens when we stop discriminating and it

Page 19

18 38NEW PARADIGM & WORLDVIEW in a new global communityBoth oppressors and oppressed must change to new relation of mutuality & inclusion. Paradigm of power is one ofmutual influence – empowering “with” others - relational powerInterdependent & non- hierarchal dominant paradigm •hierarchical, •patriarchal•oppressiveoppressed •marginalised•powerless paradigm shiftfrom “I” to “we”journey of change & transformation. freed from the need either to control or remain submissive.THE BASIC MODEL OF INCLUSIVITYdualisms disconnectionscompartmentsDiagram 9© C Reinhart dies at the moment of coercion, control or conflict. If love is forced it is phoney. Instead, if we have an awareness of self and each other, we will know what love is, but this way of living also means dropping past conditioning and the control society has had over us with its tentacles penetrating to the roots of our beings, which has resulted in the various prejudices, projections, attachments, labels and concepts we still hold on to. This reality underlines the truth that it is not goodwill which will save the world but rather it is a change in our thinking which is required otherwise we will continue to respond, either consciously or unconsciously, to ideologies, principles, economic, political, religious and psychological belief-systems with our thinking, all the while, contaminated with fear, desire and self-interest. As indicated above, in order to live spirituality, we need hearts divested of programming because spirituality isn’t lived by a practice of techniques but rather by being a certain kind of person and not through doctrinal formulations, methods, techniques, spirituality exercise or formulas. Nor is it a commodity you can buy and what matters most is what you are and what you become in your on-going journey. As individuals, groups and organisations, we can facilitate our on-going spiritual understanding and practice, (our praxis), as we continue to reflect and discern God’s loving action in the world. (extracts from Holton Lee Doctoral Report Guidelines) 8. THE BASIC MODELS OF INCLUSIVITY AND INCLUSIVE SPIRITUALITY Between 2000-2003 Holton Lee undertook a Doctoral Participative Action Research Process which considered how to establish a spirituality praxis within the organisation, which has at its mission statement, “…empowering and resourcing people, particularly carers and disabled people through creativity, environmental awareness, personal growth and spirituality.” One of the outcomes of the research was an understanding about how the Social Model of Disability can be integrated with an understanding of The Basic Model of Inclusion, which is explained in Diagrams 1 and 2. They both highlight the reality that as individuals, groups, organisations and society we need to make a paradigm shift. That is, the understanding is that we need to change from a world view in which we are either hierarchically dominant and oppressive or living as submissively oppressed and marginalised victims, and to be able to move instead, to live in a circle of inclusivity and mutuality with shared and relational power. Both the oppressors and oppressed need to change and if they do there is the possibility of an accompanying attitudinal and policy change. The resultant hallmarks of living with relational power is an ability to live with an empowering and solidarity “with” others with more openness, respect, reciprocity, mutualness, compassion, interdependence, interconnectedness, interrelationship and a passion for right relationship. Diagram 1

Page 20

19 51Medical Model • paternalistic • patronising • professionals speak “on behalf” of disabled people•impairment understood as deviation from “normality”• excluded from mainstream social life• prejudice• discrimination• dignity taken away• denial of democracy• poor, segregated, done good to, stared at and talked down to Policy & attitudinal changedisability is socially constructed so reject patronising INCLUSIVE? SPIRITUALITYDiagram 12© C ReinhartSOCIAL MODEL OF DISABILITYinsists on inclusion & greater autonomy• Respect dignity with • right to participate fully in solutions to own problems• remove environmental and social barriers & structures• Disabled people speak out for themselves and therefore• change conditions of life, • thus overcoming disability imposed on top of physical impairments by way society is organized to exclude A Model of Inclusive Spirituality When the Basic Model of Inclusivity addresses concerns of Disabled People, as explained in Diagram 2, we begin to realise that we need to shift from living within the traditional Medical Model of Disability, with its paternalistic and patronising approach and attendant understanding, which is that it is the impairment which is the disability, which in turn results in a “blame culture” since the impairment can’t be cured. We then also begin to realise that, conversely, The Social Model of Disability recognises that it is the structures in society which are the problem and that the resultant disabling factors are, in fact, the disability. The understanding is that the paradigm shift to the Social Model of Disability happens through policy and attitudinal change and it insists on inclusion and greater autonomy. Then people gain self-respect and are able to play an active part in solving their own crisis, recognising they are not helpless, passive puppet-like recipients of private and public services. Denial of an opportunity for participation is the denial of human dignity and democracy. It will not work. (Saul Alinsky 1971; Barnes, 1998) Instead a socio-political approach focuses on the environment and social barriers faced. Disabled people speak out for themselves and change conditions of life, thus overcoming disabilities which are imposed on top of physical impairments by the way society is organised to exclude. This holistic approach understands the reformulation of disability as a social oppression. The two models – applied together? As has become evident in this paper, the concerns highlighted by both the Social Model of Disability and The Basic Model of Inclusivity do indicate that there are “shared concerns” which need to be addressed. Both models emerge from the understanding that that people are seeking right relation to themselves, others, and the Sacred and that we are all caught in the various splits, dualisms, compartments and dichotomies being lived out within our dominant oppressive patriarchal cultures, institutions and systems. We are all seeking new ways of understanding so that we can live with integrity and authenticity. We are all, in this sense, “the other”. Current “Theological” Perspectives: the importance of the body We have learned that we are all connected and that we each have a body, mind and spirit and that we are all oppressed in varying degrees, so we will now consider several relevant and current perspectives from three theologians, who each provide further understanding of the overlap between The Social Model of Disability and The Basic Model of Inclusivity. a.) William Johnston speaks about the need to have a deep sense of the dignity of the human body instead of a negative attitude toward the body and sexuality, because the result then is that people have to repress their human instincts in the search for their spirituality, a search which in turn is also accompanied by a denied concern for social issues. But, he also believes that there has been more recent recognition of the need to work to change unjust structures that oppress the poor, writing also that, “Humanity needs a deep conversion of Diagram 2

Page 21

20 heart that will lead it to love, nurture and protect the material earth that is our home.” He proposes that we need a new mysticism for the third millennium which recognises the presence of God in all things. He adds that, Mystics can teach us how embrace both matter and spirit, that is, a mysticism of the earth, of the human body, of sexuality and of science. He also emphasises that we live in a unified web of interconnected energies, where we recognise that “mind and body are one.” The understanding is that energy flows through the whole body and human energy is linked to cosmic energy which is, in turn, joined to the Source of All Energy, the Ultimate Reality. He points out that the human person has body, mind and spirit and that we have greatly developed our rational consciousness but now we need to move towards the spiritual, the great mystery that envelops the universe and dwells at the core of our being. However, he gives us an important reminder stating that this is a gift and not the result of human effort and it is offered to people of all or no religion, which is a very inclusive perspective. Johnston believes that this mysticism is for all the millions of people who are searching and who cannot separate themselves from our harrowing problems of peace and justice and ecology and violence and racism. He also emphasises that we now know that these problems can never be solved at the level of mind but only at the level of spirit. He also encouragingly believes that the goal of all religions is the same because they have a single origin and One also is the final goal: God. Therefore he suggests that we can join hands on the journey toward this common goal where we will be the same and different, one and many. Here we will experience unity in diversity. The challenge of institutional religions then is to guide people to this supreme wisdom. He believes we need to guard against fundamentalism because it has an exaggerated view of the objectivity of truth with people who claim to have absolute truth which they can impose. Rather, his understanding is that “Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, agnostics and atheists of good will – all are engaged in a common search for truth and for a solution to the awful problems that confront us. The true light enlightens everyone. The Spirit of God is at work in the whole universe.” (Johnston, W, 2000: 79-84) b.) With regard to the body, Feminist Theologian Lisa Isherwood believes that, “… the main challenge to the myths surrounding the body and the culture that springs from them should come from those who are least well served by the culture.” She identifies that both women and gay men were the first to challenge centuries of negative mythology perpetuated about them and thus they stood up against stereotyping ( and we add Disabled People). “Both groups came to understand that the way society viewed their bodies was the site of their oppression.” She suggests that with body theology we take seriously the whole of the person, recognising that experience is not something that we have just in our heads. This understanding is a challenge to theology which claims to be based on rationality alone, thereby functioning in a dualistic way. However, as she points out, “The body in its entirety is the site of experience” and does not refer to only the white male elite body nor can it be colonized in the same way as reason has been. “The body is far more expansive and inclusive. By focusing on experience the body becomes the site of personal redemption and redemptive interdependence.” (Isherwood, 1998) c.) We can also learn something of the continuing foundational perspectives and problems which continue to influence some church institutions and the resultant view that some clergy have, from Robert Andersonm, in his paper titled: “Infusing the Graduate Theological Curriculum with Education about Disability: Addressing the Human Experience of Disability in the Theological Context”. He explains that theology is relatively silent about the human experience of disability and asks if it should have a response to this dimension of life? He believes that “Responsibility signals not only the speaker-listener transaction, but also the ethical imperative to make room for people cast as different. Where disability is

Page 22

21 concerned, religious inquiry is compelled to plumb the depths of human experience for what the occurrence of disability tells us about ourselves, God, and life together in community with others. We need the voice of people with disabilities to realize a richer revelation of God and ourselves.” The silence poses barriers for disabled people and as Deborah Creamer wrote: “The church has failed to honestly engage with people who have disabilities, to seek out and listen to their stories, and instead only speaks to or about them or does things for them. It is the same with theology. Theology has rarely engaged in conversation with, or been done by, people with disabilities . . . by refusing to consider the perspectives of people with disabilities, the church limits its own possibilities for growth and wholeness.” Anderson tells us that a small growing number of scholars are adding voice to the need for an informed perspective of human disability within theology and that there is a “serious call for the inclusion of people with disabilities”, a “transformative call with regard to the human experience of disability.” He refers to Kathy Black, a homiletics professor, who believes that “Clergy often lack sufficient awareness of the human experience of disability such that they sometimes unwittingly do more harm that good articulating the subject of disability.” Institutions often cannot “see” the barriers that people with disabilities experience. Addressing inclusion requires that we be proactive and intentional, willing to learn from people with disabilities.” “ … disabled people are silently marginalized within the academy of religion, not intentionally, but because the frame of reference for educational structures is an able-bodied perspective. This phenomenon is described as “an active process of disregard” He points out that “theological education”, over the past few decades, has had experience of popular movements seeking justice and community, which bring new knowledge (both cognitive and affective), such as women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, and liberation theology, each with its own agenda and self-proclaimed place, within the academy. He adds, that “The fact remains that disability is an equally valid expression of human experience. An interdisciplinary approach in studying theology and the expression of human experience of disability is needed.” He refers to Govig who offers that people with disabilities become “teachers” to the able-bodied and in this way such interaction may allow differences to be less limiting. Thus the theological school could become more inclusive, through these more informed contextual learning experiences. Theological pedagogy must grapple with change in the increasingly multicultural world and influence of global living. Anderson adds a ray of hope, by pointing out that the transformative possibilities of infusing education about human disability into contextual relationships, which requires committed dialogue and active engagement, will also more deeply reveal the interrelationship of all people who are welcomed to the table together. He refers to Robert Bogdan and Steven J Taylor who wrote that, “The ‘problem’ surrounding people with disabilities is not the disability, but how we who are able-bodied see the people. The humanity of people with disabilities is just a little more obvious than with others. Until we arrive at a place in our relationship spaces that regards people with disabilities as valued and loved human beings, our theology and our ministry will be incomplete.” He reminds us that human beings are created in the image of God, encompassing the spiritual, physical, emotional and mental fabric of our creation. People with disabilities offer unique theological perspectives, perhaps because they have to grapple theologically with their own bodies. He recognizes that, interestingly, female theologians offer some of the best perspectives about body theology—and disability. Creamer describes how her body has been “colonized” by theological misrepresentation:

Page 23

22 “Those of us with disabilities are often seen as physically broken, a concept that is easily connected to intellectual or spiritual brokenness. Able-bodied people often assume that people with disabilities are less intelligent, and religious institutions often forget that we are full members of God’s community. The language of brokenness needs to be reclaimed in such a way that it no longer oppresses us . . . . I consider my disability to be a central part of who I am; I cannot be whole without it.” Anderson recognizes that with the power of voice we can “reach out” and “call” others into relationship with us. He refers to Penny Gosetti and Edith A Rusch who clarify that in order for marginalized people to have a voice, educational institutions must rethink what they say and do. This self-critique must start with an examination of ways to infuse the discourse throughout the institution’s lifeline: the curriculum. They suggest a curriculum of infusion, interweaving knowledge about the human experience of disability throughout the existing curriculum, through people with disabilities themselves, whose presence will usher generative discourse within the community. A commitment to a process, that educates the faculty how to interweave the subject of human disability into any course they might teach, is needed. “Most of the contributions, to our knowledge, about human disability have come from the “secular” fields of study: sociology, anthropology, and the physical sciences. People with disabilities offer theological education new revelation about what it means to be the people of God.” http://www.religionanddisability.org/user/ATS%20article,%20Theological%20Education,%2039(1).pdf It is important to recognize that the agenda for the “theology” outlined above and that of “spirituality” outlined previously both have a shared concern and intention, which is to empower disabled people. Through having such shared perspectives, understanding and concerns for justice and right relationship, the existing gap between theology and spirituality might begin to close since both are united in a common concern for justice and right relationship for all people. 9. USER INVOLVEMENT FOR SERVICES PROVIDED We began this paper by discussing how Retreat Houses can offer an inclusive service. We now understand that there is a an attendant need to address the underlying causes and change attitudes so that real change can happen. Also as indicated, both models focus on meeting those needs by addressing the underlying causes of oppression. As previously stated, “praxis” is an outcome of theory and practice mutually informing each other and “spirituality praxis” has to do with liberating practice. Often, it is the case that what is offered as a service, can be top-down and prescriptive and not freeing at all, in that the experience is one of being done “to” or “for” prescriptively rather than experiencing an empowerment “with” personal involvement and choice. Colin Barnes, himself disabled, has written a paper titled, “Social Models as a Basis for Commissioning: the social model, user involvement and services?” in which he discusses the “… significance of user involvement in the commissioning and delivery of services” with particular reference to the Social Model of Disability. He also points out that there remains a degree of confusion over what this understanding actually entails and he explains that the “… most important controversy concerns the relationship between the experience of impairment and the experience of disability.” http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Barnes/social%20models.pdf What Type of Services?

Page 24

23 What type of services should be provided? Michael Oliver gives an important overview and reminds us that when we discuss services for disabled people it is essential to remember the very important and crucial distinction between impairment related and disability related services, reminding us that the former deal directly with medical concerns and the latter with economic, environmental, and social considerations. Historically, the two have frequently been bundled together and as a consequence then health “care” professionals have been charged, often willingly, with the sole responsibility for almost every aspect of disabled people's lives. The futility of this approach is increasingly and depressingly clear. Professionals are expected to deal directly with issues over which they have little or no control and disabled people then become locked into a dependency creating cycle which is more often than not impossible to break. Often this results in depression and low self esteem. Oliver makes a critical point explaining that the language of welfare provision serves to deny disabled people the right to be treated as fully competent, autonomous individuals, as active citizens. “Care in the community, caring for people, providing services through care managers and care workers all structure the welfare discourse in particular ways and imply a particular view of disabled people.” In 1986 disabled people argued for an abandonment of such patronizing and dependency creating language and organizations controlled and run by disabled people began to move to a language of entitlement emphasizing independent living, social support and the use of personal assistants. He points out that there are fundamental incompatibilities between care and entitlements, between special and ordinary, which make provision and practice contemporaneously difficult and ultimately impossible. . It is because of this understanding that at Holton Lee we employ “Personal Assistants” not carers. Oliver’s own alternative view suggests that: “Integration is not a thing that can be delivered by politicians, policy makers or educators, but a process of struggle that has to be joined.” He suggests, therefore, that we change the name of the discourse to that of inclusion/inclusion rather than that of integration/segregation, because the discourse of integration has largely been a static one about location whereas inclusion is a process which, according to Mason and Rieser: “… fundamentally challenges the traditional approach which regards impairment and disabled people as marginal, or an ‘afterthought’, instead of recognizing that impairment and disablement are a common experience of humanity, and should be a central issue to the planning and delivery of a human service such as education.” Oliver concludes that merely changing labels and the terminology used isn’t adequate, since language is a political issue structured by relations of power. He points out that “ … language can enable us to conceptualize a better world and begin the process of reconstructing it … if we believe that we can improve the quality of all of our lives through better policy and changed practice then we have to recognize that language has a central role to play in this improvement” http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Oliver/pol%20and%20lang%2094.pdf There are important points raised by Oliver about provision of “service”. If what is provided is not a segregated practice, divorced from the views of disabled people themselves, then it is one of inclusion, understood as a process, which does then challenge the traditional approach which still regards impairment and disabled people as marginal rather than understanding disability as a common experience of humanity. This understanding is understood and lived out within the International L’Arche Communities, which “builds community with people who have learning disabilities”. It’s UK Chairman, Brian McGinnis, wrote about their understanding of equality in their 2004

Page 25

24 UK Newsletter. He points out that equality is very much in the policy limelight in the UK today and suggests that, “Empowerment and service are not enemies.” He also cautions us by saying that since “ … physical disability has dominated the disability part of the equality debate, there is a danger of the simplistic thinking that if you install a ramp beside the steps you secure equality.” He suggests that instead we should assume that those steps and ramp lead to an information service. But then, the baseline equalities argument then becomes that you need information staff with communication skills so a conversation can take place; you need an accessible environment within the building , induction loop, speaking lifts, Braille direction signs etc and you also need accessible information. He asks, “Then you have equality?” and answers, “Well, no you don’t” saying that we have also got to recognise that some people still can’t go away and use the information to do their own thing. But since empowerment and service are not enemies and inequality remains a reality whatever we do, then we also realize that, “ … we do all we can to help people make their own choices and shape their own independent lives; but then we stand ready to help … and of course to be helped.” 10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In conclusion and by way of a summary I will highlight the perspectives, experiences, key words, phrases and theory, previously shared by Lane and Eiseland, who have addressed much of what this paper has been referring to, through their own first hand experience. In that sense they “have” joined theory and practice which suggests an informed and changed praxis. Summary Nancy Eisland believes that disabling theology functionally denies inclusion and justice, which is dangerous for disabled people because of its accompanying prejudice, hostility and suspicion which reinforces negative stereotypes, supporting social and environmental segregation, masking the lived realities of disabled people with the powerful paternalism of the “able-bodied church”, speaking in the voice of the non-disabled community and advocating “for” but not allowing disabled peoples’ own voices, stories and embodied experiences as central. Church has neglected the social and political needs of disabled people, failing to place as central emphases, political and social inclusion. Our task is not simply correcting faulty texts or building greater architectural access. Disability Rights movements worldwide are raising crucial cultural and moral questions about embodied experience, human dignity and social justice and community. Disabled people have such depreciated views of themselves and lack genuine convictions of personal worth, since society has made them outcasts, treated them in demeaning and exclusionary ways thus has participated in silencing disabled people. Activists see religion as damaging and those in church are disinterested in political and activist matters. Nancy Lane believes that there have been years of discrimination and exclusion in and by institutional church with hundreds excluded because of negative attitudes, which has resulted in a “victim theology”, architectural and communication barriers and spiritual wounds engendered by exclusion, despair of God’s presence to them and “spiritual abuse”. It is important for disabled people to tell their own stories. We do not want “fixed” bodies but healing of wounds engendered by discrimination, barriers of exclusion, pain of abuse and negative attitudes. Understanding the issues allows one to use one’s skills for effective listening, care and/or referral. All discrimination perpetuates marginalization, spiritual abuse, oppression and injustice, relating to disabled people as if less than human. Attitudinal barriers put disability in a socio-political category and they are more handicapping than the disability. Barriers lead to subordination and social disadvantage, as an oppressed group,

Page 26

25 making disability an issue of justice since disabled people are seen as demeaned, not real people, with such negative stereotyping and portrayed as passive, dependent and childlike, as an “object” Conclusion With the understanding gained in this paper, through the voices of those who either live with disability every day of their lives or through those who work within organisations committed to understand from the bottom up, we could now say that it is important for all those who provide service, including Churches and Retreat Houses, to take appropriate steps to embrace and practice principles of inclusion and equality rather than just placing ramps over the steps to provide physical access into buildings where disabled people will only then find themselves “welcomed” by people in the able bodied church, who don’t understand and who mistakenly want to “accommodate” rather than change their disabling theology which then will result in further “spiritual abuse”. We have seen how important it is for us to remove attitudinal barriers which are even more “handicapping” than is the disability. If we continue to live with a dualistic worldview we will also continue to live in the old paradigm with its many separations and splits where both-and dichotomies exist and are still actively maintained and continue to separate : body from mind and soul, thinking from feeling, theory from practice, us from them (the other) , disabled from non-disabled, male from female, rich from poor, black from white, spirituality from theology, dominant from submissive/subordinate, power over from power under, oppressors from oppressed, hierarchical from flat, straight from gay, individual from community and so on. If we continue to live with this understanding we will also continue to experience discrimination, disadvantage, domination and oppression at many levels. However, if we do move to a new paradigm and worldview, as individuals, organisations and society, we will be willing to embrace the necessary change and transformation to one of relational power. This shift does require us to move from an “I” to the “we”, that is, to “both-and” which, in turn, also requires both the oppressors and oppressed to change, where each are converted to a new relation of mutuality because we are freed from the need either to control or to remain submissive. This new paradigm is one of inclusion and companionship where the paradigm of power is one of mutual influence with relational power and collaboration, where we live with mutual connectedness and empowering “with” others, recognising that none are inferior or superior. It is then that we all experience empowerment. The hallmarks and fruit of this relational power are those of: integration, connectedness, interrelationship, interdependence, mutuality, compassion, respect, reciprocity, interconnectedness and a passion for right relationship. Such understanding begins with experiences rather than abstract ideas and embraces truth at grass root levels where love is fleshed out in daily lives, while also being committed to take responsibility for the needs of the social sphere. When theory and practice combine together to become “spirituality praxis” there is an insistence both on meeting needs and a consideration of power is implied because there is an accompanying attempt to also address the causes of those needs. Without such attempts to address the cultural concerns our practice is shallow. We recognise that “living spirituality” is a particular way of being in the world and is a way of life and life project where we structure our lives to embody the values we profess, which then, of course, entails choices and decisions in all aspects of our lives: the psychological, spiritual, interpersonal and political. With this understanding we don’t separate the sacred and secular or individual and social with the result that we enter into the struggle for justice and peace, which then often requires us to stand up against unjust systems, practices and

Page 27

26 institutions. In that sense holiness and social action are pre-requisites of each other as we attempt to love across social and religious barriers. Such an empowering way of life also requires us, as individuals, organisations and society to take responsibility for any deeply rooted attitudes which need radical change so that we can face the truth and be able to relate to others sensitively and honestly. Without a change in our thinking we respond instead with preconceived ideas and prejudices with our thinking contaminated with fear, desire and self-interest, which happens either consciously or unconsciously. Transformational Spirituality Praxis is not just about embracing certain “theory”, but also involves felt knowing and experience. Neither is it simply individual, but also systemic and contextualised, that is, embodied in individuals and organisations, within structures, attitudes, relationships and practice, thus providing an enabling environment where justice and peace can be lived out “with” others, and in this way helping to overcome the “praxis of exclusion”. As David Tacey has pointed out, there is a current “spirituality revolution” which is rising from below, and not from above. He cautions us as well, saying that, “As such, it is vulnerable to commercial manipulation and unscrupulous interest. There are many organisations and groups that seek to capitalise on the shifts taking place in society, and we have to be alert at every turn to possible abuse, violation and distortion of spiritual impulse”. However, he also adds that, “Because this interest is rising from below, it may take some time before mainstream institutions in health, education, politics, journalism, and religion are able to catch up with it.” In addition he also points out that most of our public institutions are secular and are not prepared for a revolution of spirit but the spirituality revolution is also about finding the sacred everywhere and not just where religious institutions have asked us to find it. Things previously considered worldly or even unholy are being invested with new spiritual significance, such as the body, nature, the feminine, sexuality and the physical environment, which is a direct political and philosophical challenge to traditional notions of sacredness. (Tacey, 2000) In addition, Theologian Sandra Schneiders points out, that the emergence of spirituality, as an academic discipline, has cross-cultural, inter-religious and non-religious study and responds to real life questions because “marginalised”, excluded and oppressed groups are now bringing their agenda to the academy, from their social locations, which in turn demands a whole new approach to knowledge, particularly since spiritual traditions are embodied in people, rather than doctrine. http://www.ihmsisters.org/spirituality-theological1.html A current example of a real life question and oppression is highlighted very starkly by Jane Campbell, the Commissioner for the Disability Rights Commission, who wrote on Thursday December 2, 2004 in The Times newspaper page 16, about her recent experience. The article was titled, “A Right to Die? I’m more concerned that everyone has the right to live” and it in she explains how she was admitted to hospital for emergency treatment and the assumption was that if she went into respiratory failure she would not want to be resuscitated on a ventilator. This message was repeated to her several times and both she and her husband got very scared and so he rushed home to get a photograph of her in her doctoral graduation robes, saying, “This is my wife, not the person you think she is. She has everything to live for. You do everything for her just as you would for anybody in this situation”. She pointed out that it took this confrontation to bring about a change of attitude in the way she was treated because society’s view is that death is preferable for severely disabled people such as she is. She reminds us that, “Physical and mental diversity are part of the human condition and most of us will have to face up to terminal illness before we die. But I will feel safe only when we recognise the benefits of a society which treats disabled people as

Page 28

Page 29

28 References: Isherwood, L, Stuart, E (1998) Introducing Body Theology Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press McGuinnis, Brian, 2004, L’Arche UK Newsletter, Issue 57 Moloney, The Way, 43/4, October 2004, 123-134) Noffke, S (1993) Study, In the New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, Downey, M (ed) , Minnesota: The Liturgical Press Schneiders, Sandra, ‘Spirituality in the Academy’ in Theological Studies, 50 (2), 1989 Soelle, D (2001) The Silent Cry. Mysticism and Resistance,Minneapolis: Fortress Press Tacey, D, (2000) The Spirituality Revolution, The emergence of contemporary spirituality. Hove and New York: Brunner-Routledge Web sources: 1. Frank Mulcahy, Secretary, Disabled Peoples’ International (http://www.dpi.org/en/resources/topics/topics-definition-disibility.htm) 2. Clapton and Fitzgerald, http://www.ru.org/artother.html) 3. Medical and Social Models http://www.selfdirection.org/dat/training?cmd=guest&p=/course01/welcome.html 4. Paul Darke http://www.outside-centre.com/darke/mycv/writings/envatit/ewa.html 5. Paul Darke web site http://www.darke.info/ 6. Medical and Social Models http://www.in-hln.org.uk/socialmodel.html 7. Medical and Social Models http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/6-living/accessibility/etiquette/etiquette-model 8. Paul Darke http://www.outside-centre.com/darke/mycv/writings/seminars/munich.html 9. David Tacey http://www.aare.org.au/victoria/No1%202004.pdf 10. David Tacey http://www.media.anglican.com.au/tma/2003/05/tacey.html 11. David Tacey http://www.austheos.org.au/topics/tacey-website.html.htm 12. David Tacey http://www.austheos.org.au/magazine/tacey-soulsearch.htm 13. Medical and Social Models http://www.manchester.gov.uk/disability/policies/model.htm

Page 30

29 14. Disability Rights Commission – talk video which challenges misconceptions about disability http://www.drc-gb.org/citizenship/ Disability Rights Commission - http://www.drc-gb.org/index.asp 15. Disabled People and terminology http://www.manchester.gov.uk/disability/language/index.htm 16. Equalities online-Implementing the Social Model of Disability http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=1196&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=1815 17. Nancy Eiesland http://www.theotherside.org/archive/sep-oct02/eiesland_print.html 18. Nancy Lane http://soeweb.syr.edu/thechp/spirituality.html 19. David Tacey http://www.harpercollins.com.au/title.cfm?ISBN=0732271738&Author=TACEY__DAVID 20. David Tacey http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/book_review.cgi/past-00197 21. David Tacey http://www.dialogueaustralasia.org/2002Conferenceprogram.html 22. David Tacey http://www.aare.org.au/victoria/tacey.htm and http://www.aare.org.au/victoria/No1%202004.pdf 23. David Tacey http://www.aso.qld.edu.au/zone_files/Conference_2004_documents/dr_david_tacey_-_spirituality_as_a_bridge_to_religion_and_faith.pdf 24. United Nations: Enable http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disid2003.htm and http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/ 25. Disability Awareness in Action The International Disability & Human Rights Network http://www.daa.org.uk/ and http://www.daa.org.uk/publications/Reskit2.htm 26. Disabled Peoples’ International http://www.dpi.org/en/resources/documents/ResourceKit2003.pdf and http://www.dpi.org/en/start.htm and http://www.dpi.org/en/resources/topics/topics-definition-disibility.htm 27. Spiritus http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/spiritus/v003/3.1mcguire.pdf McGuire, M, Spiritus Vol 3, Number 1, Spring 2003 28. Disability Portfolio, http://www.mla.gov.uk/documents/dis_guide03.pdf 29. The History of Disability – A History of Otherness http://www.ru.org/artother.html 29. The Tablet - The Spirituality Revolution http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/book_review.cgi/past-00197

Page 31

30 30. Retreat Magazine http://www.retreats.org.uk 31. Sandra Schneiders http://www.ihmsisters.org/spirituality-theological.html 32. Jane Campbell – Valuing Diversity- The Disability Agenda. We’ve Only Just Begun http://www.drc-gb.org/publicationsandreports/commissionerspeechdetails.asp?id=6 33. Mike Oliver – The Individual and Social Models of Disability http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Oliver/in%20soc%20dis.pdf 34. Culling the sacred cows: from disability slogans to disability Dr Tom Shakespeare PowerPoint presentation http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/apsocsci/events/dsaconf2003/fullpapers/shakespeare.ppt 35. Judging Disability: The Problem of Ableism http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/law/hrlc/hrnews/may97/bart.htm 36. Politics and Language: Understanding the Disability Discourse Mike Oliver, Professor of Disability Studies, University of Greenwich, London 1994 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Oliver/pol%20and%20lang%2094.pdf 37. Disability Culture Institute on Independent Living Newsletter 12/2001 – Steve E Brown, Co-founder, Institute on Disability Culture. (there is a very extensive list and addresses of further website articles on Disability Culture) http://www.iddc.org.uk/dis_dev/key_issues/dis_culture.shtml and http://www.iddc.org.uk/dis_dev/key_issues/dis_cult_news.shtm 38. Colin Barnes: the social model – user involvement http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Barnes/social%20models.pdf 39. Viv Finklestein – Social Model of Disability Repossessed http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/finkelstein/soc%20mod%20repossessed.pdf 41. Alan Sutherland http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability- studies/archiveuk/Sutherland/Archive%20day%20paper.002.pdf 41. The Disability Archive http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/titles.html 42. Nigel Leaves – reviewing Tacey’s book: http://www.sof-in-australia.org/spiriturevol.htm 43. Michael Lerner: What Spirituality is All About http://www.ru.org/lerner.html 44. Colin Barnes – Social Model : http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Barnes/social%20models.pdf 45. Robert Anderson: Infusing the Graduate Theological Curriculum http://www.religionanddisability.org/user/ATS%20article,%20Theological%20Education,%2039(1).pdf

DISABILITY AND SPIRITUALITY

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3