Disability Theology

Here it is. I didn't think I'd be hitting this topic again so quickly, but the Lord works in mysterious ways.

The Anglican Church of Canada began its General Synod yesterday. This is a big meeting with delegates from all of our dioceses, and they all get together to decide on a bunch of stuff. There have been some disastrous decisions made in the past, and I try to follow what's happening at every meeting because it is important and it matters.

This year, the Evangelical Lutheran  Church in Canada (ELCIC) is presenting a motion called "Tenets of Disability Theology". I can't tell if any of the people on their committee are themselves disabled, but I can tell you that the very title of the book they name as a primary source in their research is incredibly suspect. Pardon me if I consider The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability (by Nancy L. Eiesland, 1994) incredibly problematic.

I have not read this book, but I will potentially give it a go, though I suspect it will make me incredibly angry and therefore is not something I want to read. But we cannot properly debate these issues if we do not understand others' viewpoints, and the only way to do that is to read what they say and to really listen to the underlying message.

Because I know that these things have human emotions at their root.

Anyway, let's go through these tenets, shall we? Because a number of them are Not Good.

1. Imago Dei (Image of God):
All people, including disabled individuals, reflect God’s image. Disability is part of human diversity, not a flaw.

Yes, all humans reflect God's image. We were all created in His image. Disability doesn't take away from that.

But as I said previously, disability is a result of living in a broken, sinful world. No, it doesn't make any of us less than anyone else any more than monetary wealth makes anyone better than anyone else. But it's not a desirable thing. 

2. Rejection of the Sin-Disability Link:
Disability is not caused by sin or divine punishment. It is a natural part of life, not a spiritual failing.

This is true. While some disabilities definitely come about due to the actions of ourselves or others (e.g., physical disability due to an accident, Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) due to the mother's drinking alcohol while pregnant), many of them are not. And either way, being disabled is not a moral or spiritual failing. All of us will experience disability at some point in life, particularly as the body begins to lose mobility as we age.

And that's okay. It's natural.

But it's still not desirable.
 

3. Jesus and Disability:
Jesus' interactions with disabled people focus on inclusion, dignity, and community rather than on fixing disability.

Okay, but did they though? Jesus healed people constantly. We don't have stories about all of them, obviously; He healed hundreds (possibly thousands) during His ministry. Only one of those interactions had the physical healing as a side note, and all of the recorded ones very obviously were meant to teach something to the disciples.

I want scriptural references on this one, because I don't see it anywhere in the Gospels.

4. Healing vs. Wholeness:
True wholeness is not about curing disability but about love, inclusion, and full participation in the faith community.

This is true. Disabled people are part of the community and part of the Church, and efforts to include them in the life of the Church are necessary. 

5. Social Model of Disability:
Disability is not an individual problem but is created by societal barriers that exclude or marginalize disabled people.

No.

I am disabled by my ADHD whether society has expectations of me or not. I absolutely loathe the Social Model of disability for this because it ignores the clear fact that disability makes specific things difficult or impossible for us to accomplish without some kind of assistance, and sometimes no amount of assistance will get us there.

Guess what: I'm okay with that.

There are things that I struggle with every day, and it sucks, but I deal with it because that is my life. That is how I exist in the world. But I am still worthy of being treated with dignity and respect because I was created by God, and He loves me. Even if I weren't a Christian, this would be true. 

6. The Role of the Church:
Churches should be places of radical hospitality, accessibility, and leadership opportunities for disabled people.

Yes! As I noted above, disabled people are part of the Church. We have gifts and abilities that should be nurtured within that context, and our needs should definitely be considered. Things like ASL interpreters, Braille and large print orders of service, places for people with sensory processing difference to go so they can decompress or so their stimming isn't disruptive, and picture boards showing the order of service can all be great additions to parishes along with physical accessibility modifications to our buildings.

7. Suffering and Lament:
Suffering is acknowledged, but it does not define disabled lives. Lament provides a way to express pain while maintaining dignity.

This one is weird and I confess to not fully understanding what the heck they're talking about. But yes, suffering can absolutely be a part of anyone's life, but it is not a defining aspect of being disabled. We can (and do) live full, happy lives. And sometimes we get mad and we hate our disability and our lives and even ourselves, because it can suck a lot to struggle with things other people seem to just be able to do, but I am not clear on how lament allows us to express those feelings "while maintaining dignity". What?

8. Eschatology and Resurrection:
The assumption that disability will be ‘fixed’ in the afterlife is questioned. Resurrection may include diverse bodies.

This makes no sense.

It just doesn't.

We will be made physically perfect after resurrection. Part of Jesus' ministry was showing us God's Kingdom, and so we will be healed and made whole, physically and spiritually.

Also, gotta love the focus on physical disabilities in all of this sort of thing. Developmental disabilities and psychiatric disabilities also exist, and while these are generally understood to occur due to something in the brain, and the brain is physically part of our bodies, these disabilities are also rather different in the ways we need to be accommodated so we can participate in the life of the Church. 

9. Prophetic Witness:
Disabled people bring unique theological insights and challenge injustices within the church and society.

Do we really?

Or are some of us doing the same as so many others, teaching blasphemy in order to elevate ourselves? 

10. Interdependence Over Independence:
Christian theology values interdependence, mutual care, and shared vulnerability over the modern ideal of self-sufficiency.

This one I can get behind. People are meant to live in community with one another, and that includes disabled people. It's one of the things that first drew me to L'Arche, which is a ministry that has problems (as all human undertakings do) but it's meant to be a faith community that includes both disabled people and non-disabled people, living together and working together and supporting each other.

I suppose now I need to get hold of that book so I can read it and properly refute the points she makes. In the meantime, I hope what I've said here makes sense and is taken in the way I meant it: a loving correction to errors I see in the theology as it's presented in the resolution.

There are other things I want to focus on, particularly liturgy, but I suppose I can be a voice on this issue also, since it's one that affects me personally.

The resolution is being voted on tomorrow (Wednesday). I pray there is good discussion regarding each of these tenets, and that God reminds those gathered of His Truth.

Peace & Blessings.