The following represents a collation of several brief reflections on theology and disability, occasioned by Sharon's studies in the Seattle Pacific Seminary's MA in Theology, and a discussion on SPU's "Facnet" listserv in response to a video about an alumnus with disabilities. It is by no means systematic or comprehensive, but it does capture my current imperfect wrestling with these topics.
When we refer to people with disabilities as “people first,” we do not intend a blind, neutralizing attitude which pretends there are no real differences. On the contrary, we cannot help but see, acknowledge, and celebrate the various kinds of difference represented across God’s creation. But I believe we must include various kinds of ability and disability (both physical and intellectual) as part of this range of diversity, all considered under God’s description, “very good.”
I am not sure that being born without arms, or blind, or with a cognitive disability, represents “brokenness” from God’s perspective. We are all broken in different ways, and our spiritual need for relationship is primary. I don’t think we can judge what God’s perspective is on whether physical “wholeness” is a model to which we all must aspire. I do agree that our theology has tended to make this assumption, leaving much of society--and the church--with the sense that someone with a physical or intellectual disability is somehow further from God’s ideal than those who are “normal.”
What was lost in the fall was not necessarily physical perfection, but perfect relationship. God saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone, and created him in relationship. Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil damaged their relationship with God: because they chose not to value and preserve the relationship by following God's instructions. This requires some degree of cognition, to be sure, but prioritizes relationship rather than individualism. In some sense, might we not consider the "knowledge of good and evil" a sense of prioritizing individual preference over our relationships to those with whom we are in community?
"Knowledge" here is not intellectual assent, but deep personal relationship. This is something that anyone, of any cognitive level, is capable of. And while not all human beings are equipped to exercise choice in the same ways, creating openings for choice by everyone IS central to the human experience. This has to mean EVERYONE, if choice is central to our identity and dignity as human beings. That means we must go further than the “we-them” dichotomy set up by well-meaning, caring people: WE just want to help THEM, to fix THEM, to care for THEM. Enduring programs such as the L’Arche communities across the world (including here in Seattle) challenge this idea with the insistence that we all minister with and to one another, and there is no “care-giver/care-receiver” power contrast; it is all about relationship.
The value of individual persons and the centrality of relationships are essential to the messy ways we live out our faith. While we may differ over God’s definition of “very good” from a physical or intellectual standpoint, ultimately we can’t answer those questions, and what matters is our behavior toward and with all of the different kinds of “others” we encounter and learn from every day.
I believe that we need to imagine and work toward a society which does not value persons based upon their “wholeness” or “capacity” or “contribution,” but on who they are, in all the messy complexity that entails. Seeing people with what society labels "disabilties" live their lives as who they are on their own terms inspires me in that particular way, and I worry that sometimes we may read that inspiration more in terms of “if they can overcome that, what do I have to complain about?” which edges us toward the idea that challenging experiences, and particularly those which are dramatically “overcome,” exist for the rest of us to learn something. I just can’t accept that God created any of us simply as “inspiration” for other people. And I can’t accept the potential implication, that those who do not “overcome” similar challenges are somehow less significant.
A few of many potential resources on these topics:
David Watson's blog
David is a professor at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, and the father of a child with Down syndrome.
Two recent posts particularly stand out:
- http://drwatsonselementaryblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-bible-and-people-with-disabilities.html
- http://drwatsonselementaryblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-do-people-matter.html
Dave Hingsburger's blog
Dave is an advocate for people with intellectual disabilities, an internationally-known author and speaker, and a Canadian blogger who himself has a physical disability. His daily posts are honest, generous, and insightful.
Thomas Reynolds' Book
Tom Reynolds teaches theology at the University of Toronto, and also is the parent of a child with a disability.
His book, VULNERABLE COMMUNION, offers a perspective on theology from the shared human experience of vulnerability.
Posted with Blogsy
No comments:
Post a Comment