Autism Heresy….

A pastor from Missouri recently garnered national attention for his teaching that autism is of demonic origin, that to believe otherwise would be to believe God creates “junk.”

This is my response.

In all ages and all cultures, including the United States, the disabled have been reviled.  Sadly, in many instances, the church, called to show God’s love in the world, HAS LED THE WAY.  Generally, the grounds for revulsion are based on the notion that all seeming imperfections are the result of sin, and are therefore evidence of the judgement of God - either on the disabled person, or their family - or worse, satanic.

And yet, we have to ask the question, is this always the case?

We come by this notion naturally enough.

According to the Bible, we are created in the image of God:

Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them,” Genesis 1:26-27, NASB

Being created in the image of God, we have an innate understanding that things here on earth are not as they were intended to be.  The reason for that can generally be explained by the Biblical teaching regarding man's fall from God's favor:

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall deliver children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

“Then to Adam He said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; cursed is the ground because of you; with hard labor you shall eat from it all the days of your life.”

“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; yet you shall eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return,” Genesis 3:16-19, NASB

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned,” Romans 5:12, NASB

It is indisputable that we live in a corrupted world as a result of sin. Despite the teachings of some that man is inherently good, the Bible and empirical observation both give us overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  The teaching of sin accounts for much, even regarding disability and sickness.

But not everything.

I am going to say at this juncture that I do not claim to understand everything God has in mind for each of us when He creates us.  In what I am about to say, I neither attempt to explain God's designs, nor do I apologize for what God explicit says HE has done.

I simply offer what God says about Himself and His creative work in His Word.

The rest is up to Him.

In Exodus, God records a conversation he had with Moses.  He called Moses to lead His people, the Jews, out of their captivity in Egypt.  Moses, however, questioned whether that was God's best decision:

Then Moses said to the LORD, “Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither recently nor in time past, nor since You have spoken to Your servant; for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.”

 But the LORD said to him, “Who has made the human mouth? Or who makes anyone unable to speak or deaf, or able to see or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?”  Exodus 4:10-11, NASB

Conventional knowledge attributes all disability directly to sin, yet God explicitly refutes this.  He asks and answers His own question: why does man have disabilities?  I MADE HIM THAT WAY.

In this exchange, God had a perfect opportunity to explain to Moses how disability was the result of sin or demonic activity, to let Himself off the hook.  Instead, God unhesitatingly took full responsibility for creating people with disabilities.

***I*** created them that way.

But WHY?

That is the question that haunts so many - and a question with which I continue to struggle.

I am the father of a son with autism.

There are days when I accept this teaching readily, but then there are the other ones, the days when I rage against God's decision to create my son with autism.  I hear his aspirations - he wants to go to college, he wants be a train engineer, he wants a wife and children of his own in a home of his own - and then I observe his frustrations at the limitations that have been placed on his life, limitations that threaten to completely derail his aspirations, and my heart is torn apart.

So, WHY?

John 9 gives us the answer.

It gives us the account of a man who had been born blind, who spent his life as a beggar as a result.  And the disciples of Jesus, the giants of theology that they were at this point in their training, asked the same question that is still asked today:

“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” John 9:2, NASB.

There is that assumption again. 

Jesus, this man is disabled.  Surely the fallenness of man accounts for this, right?

Once again, God has a perfect opportunity to confirm their assumption, to let Himself off the hook.

And once again, He firmly sets the hook:

“It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him,” John 9:3, NASB

I, Jehovah God, Elohim (CREATOR GOD) did it; IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SIN.

But why?  Wouldn't it be more to your glory if you had created this person without their disability, or if you chose to heal them?

God’s answer?

No.

For reasons you will probably never understand during your time here on earth, I will be glorified through the disability of this person.  And make no mistake, THIS PERSON, WHOM ***I*** CREATED WITH WHAT YOU PERCEIVE TO BE A DISABILITY, AIN’T JUNK!

God created, and this person was born with a disability.  And for reasons we will never understand during this lifetime, God somehow will glorify Himself through it.

I don't know everything God is going to do to glorify Himself through my son.  We have already seen wonderful progress in his development, progressing from a child who was essentially non-verbal to an intelligent, diligent, hardworking, affectionate man.  Eleven years ago, we saw God reach through his autism to bring him to Himself in salvation.  He is a Godly man.  Big limitations still exist, but we trust God to continue working.

And 25 years on, we still pray for his healing.

As hard as it is for me to say, God, YOUR CHOICE, for YOUR glory - either way.  God may choose NOT to heal.

And he wouldn’t be the only one God chose not to heal.

Moses was “slow of speech and slow of tongue.”  God’s response indicates that Moses may have had a speech impediment: I created your mouth and tongue.  God didn’t heal him.

Paul had his “thorn in the flesh,” GIVEN TO HIM BY GOD: “to keep me from exalting myself, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might leave me. And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness,” 2 Corinthians 12:7-9.  What, are you going to try and tell me that Paul of all people didn’t have enough faith? God didn’t heal him.

Jesus instructed the pharisees, “But whenever you give a banquet, invite people who are poor, who have disabilities, who are limping (lame), and people who are blind,” Luke 14:13.  He didn’t tell them to lay hands on these individuals and heal them, he told them to show compassion, to provide for them - and he never derided these individuals or attributed their disabilities to demonic influences. Never.

And Leviticus 19:14 warns, “You shall not curse a person who is deaf, nor put a stumbling block before a person who is blind, but you shall revere your God; I am the LORD.”  The implication?  Once again God says, I MADE THEM THAT WAY.

Simply stated, the teaching the autism has its origins in demonic activity contradicts what the Bible clearly teaches: worse, it attributes God’s creative activity to Satan.  For reasons we will never understand during this lifetime, God created these individuals with their developmental disabilities for His purpose and glory.

Our Food And Autism....

The autism epidemic continues to rage.  The most recent numbers indicate that 1 in thirty-eight boys have autism.

Many have been asking, why?  What is driving this?

Many have speculated on a link between vaccines and the preservative, thimerasol.  While I believe adding mercury-based anything to our vaccines is a REALLY bad idea, I don't see any solid evidence that it is causing autism.

There is also a suspected link between vaccines and the use of stem cell lines originating with aborted babies.  Many of the commonly required vaccines contain measurable amounts of human DNA/DNA fragments as a result.  I DO believe this is a possible contributing factor.

I have my own hypothesis regarding the explosion in the incidence of autism, as of today now estimated by the CDC to be 1 in 38.

Autism has been around for generations. The term was first used in 1911, but the incidence was historically very low; in the 1970s and '80s, the incidence of autism was roughly 1 in 2,000. But something happened around that time that appears to coincide with the explosion in the incidence of autism we have witnessed since then: the development and use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (RBGH). Development, marketing and use of RBGH went into overdrive during the 1970s and '80s in order to increase beef and milk production; an uncle of mine used it on his cattle farm before dosages were standardized. If a little was good, then a lot of it must have been even better. It brought on earlier sexual maturity, meaning cows could begin breeding and calving at an earlier age, it increased milk production, and it enabled cattle to pack on muscle at an accelerated rate, meaninng that heavier cows went to market. The use of RBGH led to the development of the mega farms that have become so common - assembly line techniques applied to the beef and milk industries.

Only one small problem: while the FDA signed off on the use of RBGH in 1993, NO LONG TERM HUMAN SAFETY STUDIES WERE EVER CONDUCTED.

I believe that the overuse of growth hormones, particularly RBGH, plays a major role in the widespread onset of autism, taking a condition that was once quite rare and turning it into the epidemic we are witnessing today. Moreover, I believe the effects are CUMULATIVE. Individually, each cow receives only small (microgram) dosages of RBGH. Multiplied over the millions of cows that receive it each year, however, that amount is magnified by many orders of magnitude. This is on top of the hormones infants receive from their mothers as they ingest breast milk and produce naturally. Science has confirmed that onset of puberty in humans has been accelerating over the years, now occurring in girls beginning at age 10 and in boys at about age 11. While many in the medical and scientific communities put this down to better nutrition, I believe the overuse of RBGH is ALSO having an effect. We administer it to animals (on top of what their own bodies already produce) in order to accelerate biological development. What if the increased amounts aren't being metabolized by cows as completely as they are supposed to and are instead passed on to humans through the milk we drink and the meat we eat? We would then be ingesting hormones on top of what our bodies already produce, resulting in hormone overloads that are passed from generation to generation - cumulatively.

I have suspected a link between RBGH and autism for many years, but what really solidified it in my mind was a conversation I had with a graduate of Michigan State's animal husbandry program.

One of the things they study? 

The use of RBGH in cattle. 

As she and I conversed, I began to lay out my hypothesis; she immediately caught on to the direction I was going and broke in with information I did not previously have. 

She explained that, in addition to all the effects I listed earlier, RBGH was used to achieve another objective: making cows more docile and easier to handle. She explained that RBGH accelerates brain growth for the first 2-3 years - and then brings it to an abrupt standstill. In cows, this makes them docile and easier to handle. In humans, however, the results could be very different. I know that, in my own son, I watched impressive development for approximately the first two years of his life, at which time it all came to a screeching halt.

I fully understand that all I have is conjecture, but the overall effects and timing of those effects associated with the overuse of RBGH is too much for me to ignore, as is the increase in the incidence of autism when correlated to increased use of RBGH in the farming industry.

The problem is this: IF scientists were to ever seriously study this potential link and establish its validity, they would refuse to do anything about it, because doing so would mean that our entire food processing and distribution system would have to be completely dismantled and rebuilt from top to bottom.

Potter Park Zoo in Violation of ADA and Michigan State Civil Rights/Disability laws...

We are going to war. 

We took our son to Potter Park Zoo in Lansing, MI, this afternoon (07/21/13) for his birthday. When we got to the entrance, they would not permit us to enter the zoo with our son's autism assistance dog without first requiring proof of certification as an assistance dog, as well as proof of all immunizations being up to date. Then, after verifying all of that, we would have had to be accompanied by a guide who would tell us where we could and could not go in the park. The only other option offered was to leave our son's assistance dog in our vehicle - and it was a warm day today. We were given a copy of the park's policy only after we were making our way back to the parking lot.

Now, we like Potter Park Zoo. It is a wonderful facility. 

It also happens to be PUBLICLY OWNED/FUNDED facility - meaning that they must be in full compliance with both federal and state civil rights/disability laws. The ADA specifically states that their policy is illegal, as demonstrated in the revised ADA requirements for service animals:

"WHERE SERVICE ANIMALS ARE ALLOWED

Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go…

INQUIRIES, EXCLUSIONS, CHARGES, AND OTHER SPECIFIC RULES RELATED TO SERVICE ANIMALS

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform.  Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises  nless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence…

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals."

(Source: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm)

I tried to explain what both Michigan disability laws and the ADA have to say about this, but they insisted that the park's policy was the primary consideration - regardless of the requirements of the law.

I am at war. I want to make clear that I do not hold the admissions or security employees responsible for what happened. However, I will have some things to say to the zoo's policy makers. To that end I will be contacting media, legislators, and anyone else I can think of until Potter Park Zoo brings its policies in line with the ADA and Michigan civil rights/disability laws. The security guard with whom I spoke, who is also the father of a special needs child, told me that the park has done this many times over the years.  We have taken our son's assistance dog to Boulder Ridge Wildlife Park in Grand Ledge, MI, and to John Ball Zoo in Grand Rapids, MI, without any trouble whatsoever, so this is a first for us.

To say that our son was disappointed would be an understatement. He doesn't usually voice his feelings in his own words; he did so tonight.

***     UPDATE     ***

Autism Assistance Dog Turned Away From Zoo

We are thanking the Lord for the outcome with Potter Park Zoo. The zoo is reviewing and will be re-writing their service animal policy to bring it in line with ADA and Michigan civil rights/disability laws. It has essentially been acknowledged that the chances of a certified, disciplined, controlled, inoculated service animal outside the enclosure of zoo animals passing on disease to those animals is essentially non-existent. And when you stop to think that zoo animals are in constant, close contact with rodents, birds, and other carriers of harmful organisms that actually go in to the enclosures, the argument really didn't hold up.

We received a call from the director of the zoo just before the broadcast apologizing for the zoo's refusal to allow Bryce into the park and for the policies that violate the ADA, specifically those that require patrons to provide documentation of a service animal's certification and health record. They have assured us that we will be contacted when their policies have been re-written, and they have invited us back to the park.

Finally, we would like to thank Joe LaFurgey of WOOD TV for the role he and his camera man played in this. Thank you for your time, effort, and the quality of your report. You have helped open the doors of this zoo to patrons who would otherwise be denied entrance.