A Guide To Understanding Neurodiversity And Growing An Inclusive Posture
by Alex Murphy, LPC-S, LAC, ADS
Recently, I began watching the show Patience. This murder mystery from the UK gives an intriguing portrayal of a 20-something autistic individual who works in the police archives. In the show she brings a unique perspective to police investigations. Her character hungers for puzzles and patterns to decipher and finds insights that escape the non-autistic detectives she assists. One of the things I deeply appreciate is that this actor is autistic in real life. Additionally, the show writers are neurodivergent and thus uniquely positioned to write the protagonist with a rich, complex character and avoid making her a token autistic person. Woven amongst the engaging mysteries of the who-done-its, the writers tell a story about the challenging relationship neurodivergent people have with a society not oriented toward them.
Patience touches on a larger conversation about autism, ADHD, and other forms of neurodivergence that has grown over the past two to three decades. If your awareness of this world is new, either as part of the neuromajority or neurodivergent community, it might be helpful to discuss some terminology and explore how we think about the topic. Stay with me for what feels like a deep dive but actually only scratches the surface of this important discussion. I’ll also include some takeaways at the end.
Neurodivergent (ND), neuroexpansive, and the more playful "neurospicy" are words describing minds that experience the world differently from minds that process in the expected, or socially dominant ways. For example, this may include diverse sensitivities of sensory input, variations in processing speed and method (bottom-up vs top-down), and a variety of frameworks shaping motivation and engagement.
I first became familiar with these terms through a multi-year journey with my own family. In it, I came to understand the neurodiverse experiences of my children. Like many parents in this situation, the path eventually led to learning about the strong role of genetics. This knowledge stirred curiosity about the experiences of both my wife and myself (1, 2). The realization that all members of my family are neurodivergent radically changed the conversation in our home toward one that is more supportive. The lens of neurodiversity for autism, ADHD, and other ND conditions help destigmatize and empower us to engage the world more fully as we learn to live and act in a way that goes with the grain of our neurologies. In this guide I gently unpack terms and ideas around neurodiversity and explore how this aligns with the concept of the inherent dignity of all people as well as walk through the important role we all play in destigmatizing and empowering individuals. In other guides I’ll explore what it means to “live with the grain” of our neurologies.
Neurodiversity (3,4) is the understanding that there are many ways that brains and nervous systems process the world and that no single brain type possesses the correct way to do it. Instead, there are a variety of strengths and weaknesses across the population and those that diverge from what is considered normal enhance the richness of humanity in beautiful ways.
If neurodiversity is a lens through which we look at humanity, the term neurodivergent is how we describe an individual. A person is considered neurodivergent, neuroexpansive, or neurospicy when they have a mind that experiences the world outside of what is normative. It simply means that it is different, or diverges, from the majority of minds. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are two such variations of the mind. Current estimates suggest that 15-20% of the global population experience neurodivergence (5).
In contrast, rather than differences, the psychiatric handbook known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) describes these experiences as neurodevelopmental disorders. The DSM was first developed and published by the American Psychiatric Association in 1952 and has undergone five complete revisions since. It is the medical community's attempt to describe all mental health conditions. Its methodology evaluates them through a lens of pathology. Consequently, the conditions in it are defined by weakness, deficit, or malfunction. The experiences common to most of western society are interpreted as the standard of health. In other words, if a mind does not experience the world in the “normal” way, there is something wrong with it. Therefore, it should be adjusted to fit in and function “normally” within society. This is a medical model that pathologizes these conditions. The DSM says of neurodevelopmental disorders, “The disorders typically manifest early in development, often before the child enters school, and are characterized by developmental deficits or differences in brain processes that produce impairments…” (italics are mine, 6). In contrast, the neurodiversity lens says these different minds are not a medical problem, but reflect variation within humanity. Biodiversity more accurately describes these differences much like a variety of genetically determined physical qualities can mean the difference of capacities between an individual being capable of an Olympic speed 50-meter sprint or an individual capable of competing in an Olympic power-lifting Clean and Jerk (7). Nobody looks at the power-lifter and says, “Why aren’t you able to sprint more quickly?” The lifter was never going to be that kind of sprinter, but they can lift better than almost anyone. They have developed what they were genetically predisposed to.
It is important to note that the neurodiversity movement does not deny the very real difficulties experienced by ND individuals. It tries to avoid such rose-colored glasses. Rather, the social disability lens it uses argues that these are disabilities relative to a neurotypical society. This means that the ND mind struggles to function in the neurotypical (NT) world due to a mismatch. It does not mean it is inferior, it's just not in an optimal environment. It's not unlike expecting a camel to pull a sled in the Arctic or a husky to carry a pack in the Sahara Desert. Neither scenario is optimal for the animals, but if put in better contexts they will not only function, but excel.
With this understanding, disability arises not from a defect or deficit, but a mismatch between a person and environment (8). The neurodiversity movement agrees a disability exists, but it disagrees as to why it is considered a disability and how to address it. The movement does not see differing abilities as something that must be fixed. Instead, they should be accommodated. It is the difference between saying a person paralyzed from the waist down who is trying to enter a building with stairs must walk to enter, versus saying the building should add a ramp to allow for a wheelchair. One position demands a change in the person, the other demands a change in the environment. The latter accepts the person as they are. The neurodiverse community is asking for the same thing.
As someone who considers myself a Christian, I find it intriguing to look at neurodiversity with a theological mind. Beyond surface-level curiosity, there is importance and implication for how we as a “Body of Christ” regard neurodiversity among us and in humanity. Do we see an ND person as good and worthwhile with their difference being an intrinsic part of them? Or, do we see their neurodiversity as a defect or illness like cancer? How we answer this question shapes how we value their presence, voice, and the dignity we acknowledge within them. Let’s explore how we might view the presence of a neurodiverse world.
When we consider who God and man are in comparison to each other, the incarnation of Jesus highlights the contrast of humanity and divinity. Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine and this paradox is a vivid tension that appears throughout the New Testament. Paul's letter to the church in Philippi speaks of the divergence between Jesus in his divine fullness and Jesus in his human form. About Jesus he writes:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! (9)
The paradox of the union of full humanity and full divinity, called the hypostatic union, has been orthodox belief since at least 451 AD when this understanding was defined and recorded by the Council of Chalcedon(10). Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions hold to this. Their theologians continue to wrestle with and debate how this fleshes out and have written many volumes on it.
No matter what the exact details are of how this union works out in the birth of Jesus, it ultimately comes with limitations. If we contrast how his physical body exists compared to his pre-embodied existence, there are many differences. Jesus must sleep. He must eat. He must walk to travel from place to place. He can be injured, and he can die. Before being born to Mary and Joseph, he did not need anything to exist and sustain himself. Upon birth he became dependent on care from his human parents and community. Without it, like any infant, he would have quickly died. His body shaped how he engaged the world around him and what he needed in accommodation. Shoes or sandals, clothing, food, and more were all things the Godhead, in a non-embodied form, does not need, but the incarnate Jesus did.
The gulf between Jesus' human form and non-human form is wide. It sheds light on just how great the difference is between any human and God. When we look at the Trinity it is a community upon itself. The three beings of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in nature and different in presentation. They share a common capacity with different functions. Humanity does not share this same capacity. In fact, it is emphasized in Scripture that we can't even grasp the mind of God (11). We don't have the capacity to do so. Our mind and body operate differently.
In a social disability model, it is fair to say humanity is disabled when compared to God (12). Our communication ability with both people and God is quite limited. I've never given somebody a vision to get my point across (13), and I require the Holy Spirit to groan on my behalf for communion with God (14). My understanding and reasoning are less capable than God’s (15). My movement in and engagement of the created world pales in comparison. God divides the Red Sea, dries the Jordan River, turns water into wine, causes a fig tree to shrivel with a touch, walks on water, and creates the universe among other things. Humanity is not God’s equal. Moreover, we were never intended to have the same abilities and capacities as God. This is true even in the Garden of Eden, before the Fall, where God called humanity not just “good,” but "very good” (16). God proclaimed this before giving the invitation to work or produce something. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that our shortcomings and weaknesses relative to God do not make us defective. They were intended. With our designed shortcomings God in his gentleness, power, and love accommodates us in relating to him. This touches on a deeper truth of our worth being independent of what we can or cannot perform. Our measure is not our capacity or what we produce. Let me say it again, our worth does not depend on what we do.
Deborah Creamer, a theologian who wrestles deeply with the theology of disability argues, "insights that come from disability are something with which we all have experience” (17). In other words, being human is naturally limiting and so being limited is an experience we all have. Society labels some of those limits as disabilities. However, none of us are disabled before God and our life in a restored Creation will not necessarily, with the exception of sin and death, eliminate our limitations. Being human is not a defect.
What kinds of takeaways in this discussion are important? There may be more, but here are few that I hold:
A diversity of minds is not problematic.
How we view people and their experiences matters. If we view someone as pathologically or medically disabled we are tempted to grow a bias against anyone carrying labels like autism or ADHD. We may see them as defective and less valuable and begin to sideline them in various settings. Additionally, if I myself am autistic or ADHD I might begin to internalize the idea of being defective and view myself as less than.
Accommodations for limitations of capacity are part of being human.
Worth and dignity are fundamental starting points of our human existence. They exist before we do or produce anything.
I wonder if the diversity of minds can be looked at through these conditions of existence before God. Are the different minds an expression of God's creativity where the divergence from the neuromajority emphasizes the artistic expression of God? If society were built to accommodate the divergent (or socially different) mind, what flourishing would exist for those individuals? What additional beauty would the whole of humanity experience in the variety of minds engaging one another? How many of the challenges an autistic or ADHD mind experiences in a social environment created for the neuro-majority would no longer be issues?
My hopes and encouragements for neurodivergent people:
Your neurodivergence does not mean you are less.
You belong and have a right to exist as you in society and church communities as you.
Your pain and difficulty is real and it is ok to say so.
Your mind is good and beautiful.
My hopes and call to people in the neuromajority:
Make space for people with minds and nervous systems that differ from yours. Include their presence and voice (spoken or written). Not all will want to bring their voice, but many will.
Be mindful of the advantages you possess as part of the majority. Society is built for minds like yours and has not done a good job of recognizing or accommodating neurodiversity. It is improving as awareness grows, and there is further still to go.
Learn about the neurodivergent experience. It will help you grow in compassion and the ability to see others well. It will help you recognize gaps between ways of experiencing, processing, and communicating that might need to be bridged through accommodations.
Returning to where this guide began, the television series Patience is written by neurodivergent individuals but is about one person. It has value as one story about an individual, but it cannot be taken as the representative experience of all neurodivergent people. It is valuable as part of the tapestry, but not the whole picture. As is often said within the neurodiverse community and is true of any group of people that you are attempting to understand, “When you’ve met one neurodivergent person, you’ve only met one neurodivergent person.” A posture of curiosity and openness will serve you and me well as we journey toward honoring and valuing our neurodiverse world.
Tick, B., Bolton, P., Happé, F., Rutter, M. and Rijsdijk, F. (2016), Heritability of autism spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis of twin studies. J Child Psychol Psychiatr, 57: 585-595. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12499
Faraone, S. V., & Larsson, H. (2018). Genetics of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Molecular Psychiatry, 24(4), 562–575. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0070-0
Baumer, N., & Frueh, J. (2021, November 23). What is neurodiversity? Harvard Health Publishing; Harvard Medical School. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-is-neurodiversity-202111232645
This term is generally attributed to the social scientist Judy Singer who began using it in the 1990s.
Doyle, Nancy (2020), Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults, British Medical Bulletin, Volume 135, Issue 1, September 2020, Pages 108–125, https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa021
American Psychiatric Association. “Neurodevelopmental Disorders.” In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5-TR, Fifth Edition, Text Revision. American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2022.
El Ouali, E., Barthelemy, B., Del Coso, J. et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between ACTN3 R577X Genotypes and Performance in Endurance Versus Power Athletes and Non-athletes. Sports Med - Open 10, 37 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00711-x
Oliver M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. London: Palgrave. 10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1
The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Php 2:6–8.
The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals. (2018, October 12). Papal Encyclicals. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm
Gillibrand, J. (2010). Disabled church – disabled society: The implications of autism for philosophy, theology and politics. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Creamer, Deborah. 2009. Disability and Christian Theology: Embodied Limits and Constructive Possibilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.