A Church of All: Persons with disabilities – Hermeneutical issues
19 October 201512. How can we interpret from a theological perspective the fact that some people live with disabilities? What does that fact tell us about human life in God’s world? We have learned from 20th century philosophy and theology that we are historical beings and our interpretations are always made from within history. Our interpretations of reality are always finite because we are finite beings. When we are developing a theological interpretation of the fact of human disabilities, we must acknowledge that history has changed and will change the way we interpret it. And by history, we may mean the story of an individual, or the developing perceptions of the community in which persons with disabilities live.
13. As has been noted above, disability has historically been interpreted as loss, an example of the tragedies that human beings can experience. The Gospel stories about how Jesus heals persons with different diseases and disabilities are traditionally interpreted as illustrating how human beings are liberated and empowered to live a richer life.
14. In this understanding, people with disabilities are seen as weak and needing care. As a result, they are viewed as objects for charity, those who receive what other persons give. Thus, people with disabilities can not meet other people in the churches on equal terms. They are regarded as somehow less than fully human.
15. The church has justified this view from different theological perspectives. For instance, disability has been interpreted as a punishment for sins, either committed by the persons with disabilities themselves or by their relatives in earlier generations. Or disability has been understood as a sign of lack of faith, that prevents God from performing a healing miracle. Or disability has been understood as a sign of demonic activity, in which case exorcism is needed to overcome the disability. Such interpretations have led to the oppression of people with disabilities in the churches. In that respect, the churches’ attitudes have reflected attitudes in societies as a whole. Structures of oppression within societies and churches have mutually reinforced each other.
16. When new ways to understand disability have emerged in society, new theological ways to understand this issue have also emerged in the churches and in the ecumenical movement. But the churches have not taken a leading role here. Even though one can find inspiration for such an approach in the Bible, they have not been a prophetic voice against oppression. Rather, churches have generally followed the trends in society, often with distinct reluctance. Conservative structures in the churches, often related to the churches’ own charitable institutions, have enforced old ways of interpreting disability. Theological ideas, like that linking disability and divine punishment for sins, remain evident in every part of the world, and disabled persons have been subjected to “pastoral counselling” to address the presumed causes of their “punishment”.
17. When new understandings of disabilities emerge in society, traditional theological interpretations are challenged. In some churches, this has raised awareness that people with disabilities were not seen as equal. In many churches, traditional ways of treating people with disabilities were then perceived as oppressive and discriminatory, and actions towards people with disabilities moved from “charity” to recognition of their human rights. Changing attitudes have led to new questions and interpretations. Awareness has slowly grown that people with disability have experienced that which can enrich the churches themselves. In the search for unity and inclusion, some have acknowledged that people with disability must be included in the life and the witness of the churches. Often, this has been connected to the language about weakness found in the New Testament, especially in the two Epistles to the Corinthians.
18. But even this insight has been challenged. Is disability really something that shows the weaknesses in human life? Is that in itself a limiting and oppressive interpretation? Do we not have to take another, more radical step? Is disability really something that is limiting? Is the language of disability as a “loss” an adequate one at all, despite it being a stage of the journey undertaken by persons with disabilities themselves? Is a language of plurality not more adequate? To live with a disability is to live with otherabilities and limitations that others do not have? All human beings live with limitations. Is not disability something that God has created in order to build a plural, and richer, world? Is not disability a gift from God rather than a limiting condition with which some persons have to live?
19. Such questions need to be taken seriously when we are searching for a new theological understanding of disability. This interim statement is an ongoing process. We will never reach the point where we find “the” theological understanding. We must acknowledge the fact that we will have a different way of raising the theological perspectives tomorrow than today. The main purpose of an interim statement is not to impose one understanding of disability, but to enable us to engage in an ongoing conversation. It is the process in itself that is valuable. It can be liberating both for the churches and people with disabilities.
20. Disability is an human condition and, as such, it is ambiguous. To be human is to live a life that is marked both by the God-given good of creation and the brokenness that is a part of human life. We experience both sides of human life with disabilities. To interpret disability from one of these perspectives is to deny the ambiguity of life and to create an artificial ontological split in the heart of our understanding of disability.
21. We have to let different and conflicting interpretations stand beside each other and let them challenge and correct each other. We should not try to create a syntheses that removes the conflict between the different interpretations. Rather, we should hold on to the tension between them as that which keeps the process going.
