Disability Studies and Bible translation

03/25/2020/in Bible Translation, Disability Studies

werner [at] forschungsinstitut.net

Abstract

This essay is a short introduction to Disability Studies and Bible translation. What is on the first glance not obvious, becomes much clearer when the linguistic and social impact of historic Bible translations is in focus. Not just political correctness but also an Inclusivist rethinking of the church is needed to overcome existing hermeneutics of Ableism or Disableism.

Disability Studies (DS) originates from social studies in the 1960s concurrent with both the gay and feminist liberation movements and Latin American liberation theology. Since then, there has been an increasing awareness of DS in theology, but not so much in missiology (intercultural theology in Germany) or in the Science of Bible translation. Research on, by, and with people with physical or mental impairment is yet to be introduced in these disciplines. Within Disability Studies, the history, the needs (e.g., care, assistance), and the social framework of adults with physical or mental impairment have been investigated. Less so in missiology or Intercultural Theology, where neither Christian parents nor other Christian care providers for children, or those groups that focus on Christian care have been in focus.

In the light of expensive long-term (Bible) translation training, preparation in intercultural-linguistics, costly member care and administrative structures, as well as the high cost of medical or physical aid both on the field and at home, there is an obvious lack of research on DS in missiology. Out of an inclusivist approach, such a need opens up the potential for sending organizations. For one it will help

gathering information about the needs of their staff with physical or mental impairment, as well as
evaluating concerns regarding disability within people groups on the field, in respect of at least ten percent of an ethnicity’s population (12.8% in US, 2017 census; 10% in Germany, 2016 census).
DS emerged out of the social prejudices against people with disabilities (i.e., ableism or disableism), in the form of

discrimination,
isolation, and
the exclusion of disabled persons.
It was implemented by veterans of war with a disability, and those persons with physical or mental impairment, who

had to live in special-care facilities isolated from a normal environment,
were unable to study at universities, or
to manage the needs of daily life (e.g., shopping, cooking, dealing with officials), due to the sheer fact of the inaccessibility of the public realm to them.
In addition, one would add the refusal by officials to listen to the needs of parents of children with impairment, especially regarding education or assisted care at home instead of in special-care homes. Whereas in the US, the outcry against the discrimination against the disabled was regarding the (in)accessibility and (lack of) education, in the UK and Germany, the focus was on seeking/the need for independent assisted daily life. Radical insider movements such as the “cripple movement” (Krüppelbewegung in Germany) were recognized on not just the national, but also the international level (Fandrey 1990). In 2006, the UN chartered the “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” The US, the UK, and Germany ratified the convention in 2009; by March 2018 there were 175 ratifications globally (Online see https://www.un.org/).

The terms “participation” and “integration” became keywords of the early days, later replaced by the multifaceted term “inclusion,” expressing an Inclusivist environment on all levels of life such as accessibility, assisted independent living, language, social acceptance, and perception. Historically, terminology of popular Bible translations (e.g., King James Version, Luther Bible) was very influential. Later, when by language shift some terminology was used in colloquial language as terms of abuse, the translation tradition did not adapt to modern Inclusivist language, but became exclusive. Examples such as “cripple,” “idiot,” “invalid,” “lame,” “monster,” etc., have nowadays become ostracized from acceptable usage. However, out of pity or sym- instead of empathy, exclusivist terminology is sometimes still used (un)consciously in Bible translation. For example, the 2017 revision of the Luther Bible still uses einen Lahmen, “a lame [person],” instead of “a paralyzed person” (Matt 4: 24), following the “Lutheran tradition” as a code for revision. One reason for this is the lack of disabled Bible translators, exegetes, and theological hermeneutists, bearing in mind the adage, “Nothing about us, without us.” This parallels the development of gender Inclusivist or Feminist language in the 1980s that resulted in revision in the Luther Bible in 1999 from Weib, which carried then the meaning ”bitch”, to Frau, “woman”.

There are similar demands in Bible translation for political correctness regarding the translation of descriptions of persons with a handicap as well as an Inclusivist perception by the Church. Wynn Kerry was one of the first to address this issue (2001). He gave four recommendations to translators, the most helpful one being to move from generalization to descriptive terminology. Thus “a lame person” may become “a man/woman with a mobility impairment,” and “a blind person” may be expressed as “a person with visual impairment.” Mark 8:25 reads, “his sight was restored” in most (more literal) Bible translations (so NRSV; cf. Ger. wiederhergestellt). This leaves the audience with the assumption that the healed man’s “blindness” was most likely an impairment caused by illness in later age, since the man’s sight was “restored” (“he saw again,” assuming he saw at one time in life). In a best-case scenario, the audience will wonder, whether the man was born blind or became blind later in life. This uncertainty would be obvious mainly to sensitive exegetes, who would use Inclusivist language in their rendition. Beyond that, hermeneutics must take into consideration that the Biblical authors reflected their culture-bound perception of disability.

Over more than nineteen centuries, literal translation transporting the NT authors’ perspective on disability led to the exclusion, isolation or, since the 18 c., relegation to special homes, of people with impairment, out of the Church’s mandate of social welfare (Ger. Diakonat). Nowadays, politics force the Church, as a public player, to make possible the inclusion of persons with disabilities on all levels of society as leaders, pastors, and staff, and of course members and interested parties. In this way, hopefully, sympathy out of pity is replaced in the Church by empathy out of equality, thus performing an Inclusivist role in building diversity in the communion of saints (Reynolds 2008).

Additional reading: Kerry 2007a, 2007b.

References

Fandrey, Walter 1990. Krüppel, Idioten, Irre. Zur Sozialgeschichte behinderter Menschen in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Silberburg-Verlag. [Engl.: Cripples, idiots, lunatics. On the Social History of Disabled People in Germany.].

Reynolds, Thomas E. 2008. Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality. Grand Rapids: BrazosPress.

Wynn, Kerry 2001. Disability in Bible Translation. Bible Translator 52/4, 402-414. New York: UBS.

Wynn, Kerry H. 2007a. Johannine Healings and Otherness of Disability. Perspectives in Religious Studies 34, 61-75.

Wynn, Kerry H. 2007b. The Normate Hermeneutic and Interpretations of Disability within the Yahwistic Narratives, in Avalos, Hector, Melcher, Sarah J. & Schipper, Jeremy (eds.): This Abled Body. Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies, 91-101. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Disability Studies – An Overview out of (intercultural) Theology

03/20/2020/in Disability Studies

werner@forschungsstiftung.net

Introduction – From “I” and “They” to a mutual “We”. 1

Disability Studies – Research Areas. 2

Disability Studies – Hermeneutic Approaches in (Intercultural) Theology. 3

Theology of suffering versus differential and convalescence. 5

Ethical Consequences of the Diversity-Oriented Church. 6

Prenatal pastoral care – balancing the rights and obligations to unborn life – Imago Dei 6

Balancing – parental and mother’s rights, unborn child rights 6

Practice of prenatal pastoral care. 7

Surrogate surrogacy – adoption and care. 7

Balancing parents’ living environment. 8

Church inclusion – unity in diversity – challenges and benefits. 8

Bibliography. 9

Disability Studies – An overview from an (intercultural) theological perspective

Abstract

Theological models and approaches to disability studies have been widely available since the publications of Newbigin (UK; 1979), Eiesland (USA; 1994) and Bach (Germany; 2006). At the same time, approaches have developed in other disciplines, such as social research, anthropology, medicine or queer studies, and increasingly also in political science. At the bottom of the list is intercultural theology, which is only slowly approaching the topic and, from a postcolonial perspective, has to deal with the history of Christian diaconia (social service) in the transcultural encounter. There are also no hermeneutic proposals for the inclusive-oriented church out of the view of “unity in diversity” and diversity as a reflection of the Kingdom of God.

1) Introduction – From “I” and “They” to a mutual “We”

Inclusion, integration and participation of all social groups in public opinion form the basis of a democratic and diversity-oriented society. However, people with mental and physical challenges need help from those without restrictions. In return, they enrich and complement research on social diversity with their own biographical experiences. The lifeworlds of researchers with mental and physical challenges offer science in all areas of life a perspective that represents the full humanistic representation. The previous renunciation of the perspective of people with mental and physical challenges in science, which can be described as paternalistic, is outdated. The “I” and “They” should give way to a “We”, which is ready to look at the research projects from an overall perspective. At this point, “normalcy” shifts towards people, who are part of society and who, in their “being different”, enrich society and challenge inclusion or social support. The mutual give and take in these processes asks for extra effort and does not fall to the person inclined to comfort. This also applies to people with mental and physical limitations, who should not rest on their marginalization but proactively, according to their needs, have to demand the support of society and take part in it with their gifts.

It is only when “we” are together that there is mutual giving and taking at eye level. Scientific research in theology and missiology must also face this inclusive approach, if it does not want to remain one-sided and paternalistic, but dynamic and socially relevant.

Disability Studies enable researchers with and without restrictions to discuss missiological-theological issues together and to view biblical content from different perspectives. The debate about building bridges between researchers with and without physical or mental limitations should therefore be superfluous because, although the realities of life in the two groups are different, cooperation is mutually beneficial. Science is only then holistically oriented when both groups exchange, seek to understand and complement each other. In practice, this also means meeting the support needs of researchers with physical or mental challenges. An elevator, a ramp or psychological support does not result on its own, so efforts by non-disabled people are necessary. In return, these researchers learn about research-related content regarding the realities of life of people with physical or mental challenges that give a picture of society as a whole. “Not about us, without us” is the slogan of the inclusive liberation movement shaped by groups of people with physical or mental challenges.

The following overview provides information on the current range of research in the field of Disability Studies from a theological perspective.

2) Disability Studies – Research

Disability Studies is an umbrella term for all research on disability as a socio-cultural phenomenon. Medical, diaconal-nursing, technological, rehabilitative, sociological, theological-religious, anthropological-ethnographic aspects play a role from a historical and present perspective. Specific specialist areas have crystallized out of this multitude of options, but are being expanded daily with new research areas. In order not to lose track we restrict ourselves to those areas which are significant for intercultural theological and missiological perspective:

· Disability Anthropology represents the ethnographic-biographical worlds of physically and mentally challenged people (e.g. Gelya Frank 2000).

· Disability and Gender describes the power movements and the influences on people with physical or mental limitations with regard to the gender issue. The particular disadvantage of women with disabilities is particularly in focus (e.g. Jacob, Köbsell & Wollrad 2010; Boll, Ewinkel & et. Al. 1985).

· Disability History, deal with historical relationships around people with physical or mental disabilities (e.g. Nielsen 2013).

· Disability Worlds deals with living environments and social relationships and spaces for encounters between people with and without physical or mental limitations (e.g. Whyte & Ingstad 1995).

· Critical Disability Studies bridge the gap between people with and without mental and physical challenges by addressing issues related to “disability” that are not addressed for historical reasons or political correctness. This includes self-critical inquiries about eugenics (DNA/ genome analysis and PND development), about the social participation of people who are artificially kept alive, i.e. those forms of life that would not be able to survive without outside help (medical and nursing discourse) or the ethical and financial responsibility of society Regarding the independent way of life of people with mental and physical challenges (political discourse; e.g. Shildrick 2012: 30-41).

· Disability Theology describes the exegetical and hermeneutic deficits with regard to people with physical or mental limitations in theology (e.g. Reynold 2008; Yong 2011).

· Disability Missiology is a currently developing discipline. She questions historical descriptions such as inclusion, exclusion or discrimination against people with physical or mental disabilities. In the context of postcolonial research (post-colonial studies) these relationships are recorded in Intercultural Theology (German: Interkulturelle Theologie). In German-speaking countries, Missiology has found its way under the roof of Intercultural Theology. At the same time, the results of this research on Christian development aid in foreign contexts are made accessible by people that are physically or mentally challenged or with regard to such a target group.

· Disability Pedagogy/ educational theory is a discipline that deals with the special needs in regard to information transfer. This includes both theoretical considerations for communication and practical technical solutions. Theoretic considerations about the haptic, visual and aural stimulation of the senses, as well as the receptive-cognitive processing of the communicative signals, play an important role. In practice, it is about computer-controlled technical assistance in the communication process, as exemplified by Braille translators, visual representations or sign language interpreting by avatars (Webb-Mitchell 1994, 1996).

3) Disability Studies – Hermeneutic Approaches in (Intercultural) Theology

As an independent discipline, Intercultural Theology is dependent on theological-hermeneutic proposals. Disability Theology provides approaches mainly from the English-speaking world.

The best-known researcher in the field of disability theology was Nancy L. Eiesland (*1964- †2009). Her research, The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability (1994), opened up groundbreaking new discourses on the diversity of the church and its diaconal mission in theology. She builds her liberation theological approach on the ethnographic representations of Diane de Vries and Nancy Mairs (1994: 40-42 and 46). Both, like Eiesland himself, were dependent on assistance and aids. These biographies lead Eiesland to the conclusion that

both women reveal in their bodies the reality that ordinary lives incorporate contingency and difficulty. Furthermore, they embody this contingency and difficulty not only with anger and disappointment but also with respect for its unique value. (1994: 46).

In her remarks, Eiesland emphasizes that the actors’ by being different, as a deviation from the aesthetic or physical norm, imposes a stigma on the environment, but they perceive themselves as “normal”. It would be an act of dipolar self-denial if people with physical or mental limitations were constantly in conflict with their being. Naturally, physically and mentally challenged physical restrictions are perceived to be compensated for. Such consist of medical-therapeutic aids or environmental variables that expand the range of motion. However, the socially constructed barriers, such as discrimination and devaluation, are the real and superfluous fighting territory, which force the marginalized on the defensive.

The approach by Thomas Reynolds has already been mentioned; Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality (2008). Reynolds builds on the unending moment of “hospitality” in order to establish an invitation culture in the church (2008: 20). All are invited to participate in the exposed and vulnerable body of the Christian community (: 21). He derives this vulnerability from creation as mentioned in Genesis 1 to 3 (: 168-169) and depicts it in communion and the sacrament, which reflects the creative diversity of mankind. Worth mentioning is the concept of “vulnerable love of God”, which does not show itself in the omnipotence of God, but in the sinful, vulnerable and tragic embodiment of human existence. This love leads to the interdependence of people with each other, with the world and ultimately with God himself, who as creator loves this world and people in all their diversity. The marginalization of people with physical or mental limitations in “being different” as a deviation from the “normal” is eliminated in Reynolds’ vulnerability and weakness as a sinful being. It would have to be clarified by Reynolds whether an all-reconciling basis is assumed here? Furthermore, how does he face the homo erectus as a self-asserting human form that does not ask for God, like critical people do, which do not ask for any closeness or communion? Otherwise, Reynold’s approach is helpful in not only looking at disability and disabled people as victims or from their victimization, i.e. from the perspective of discrimination.

Amos Yong (2011) in The Bible, Disability, and the Church: A New Vision of the People of God comes from a charismatic point of view. He starts with three premises (2011: 13).

· People with physical or mental limitations are created as Imago Dei that is in the full and intact image of God, as all people do.

· These people are primarily people and only in secondary respects do they have a unique feature that is their individual disability.

· Disability in itself is not bad or good, but an integral part of life. Every person experiences it, either permanently from birth, only later, or even once or several times temporarily during the life course. The direct link between sin and disability is removed in John 9, but underlined in John 5.

Yong understands disability hermeneutics challenged to look deeper into the biblical texts and avoid superficial interpretations. He ventures an overview of the healing stories and emphsizes that people with physical or mental disabilities are comforted by the healing offer of the Messiah, protecting them from charlatans, doctors and the discrimination of non-disabled people (2011: 59). He cites this thesis as strengthening the rights and self-confidence of people with physical or mental limitations, since they would be welcomed in the Church as full members who would be served directly by the Holy Spirit. For Yong, the holistic healing of multisensory restrictions represents the comprehensive power of the Holy Spirit. He goes as far as to see the church as a or better the proper space for people with physical or mental limitations, since the church gathers the marginalized (: 95).

Creamer, Deborah Beth (2009) in Disability and Christian Theology: Embodied Limits and Constructive Possibilities proposes a third model of disability, which she calls the “Limits or Gifts model” (2009: 31-34, 95-96). This model focuses on “disability as such”. Her definition of disability as in the two basic models that she recognizes, namely the medical-functional model and the social or minority group model, makes you wonder where the focus is on disability (: 22-26)? For her, “disability”, which is a threshold existence in life, has not received the necessary attention in the previous proposals. Her Limits model differs from the other models in her opinion,

“in that it does not attempt to divide participants into one of two categories (either disabled or not-disabled) but instead offers a new way to think about what disability is. It attempts to engage in critical reflection on embodied experience and offers us a way to think about the limits of each person and situation and of what such limits may enable or make difficult. ” (2009: 31)

She compares the medical model that begins with an evaluation with her limits model, which describes the limitations at the center of human life as a well-known but neglected aspect of reality (: 10). She critically reflects the Church, which does not proactively deal with “disability”, although this corresponds to the intent of the biblical text, from the law of the “widows and orphans” as in the Mosaic Law to the healing and poor parables of the New Testament (: 35). It deals with the ideas of the body in antiquity and the biblical texts. It is based on McFague’s ideas of God (1987 and 1993), which focus on a God who lives in each individual (immanence) and pervades the entire universe as energy (Transcendence; Creamer 2009: 62). Furthermore, she deals with liberation theologies. Block (2002) is of particular interest because she advocates a “model of access”. It presupposes that everyone is welcome and has a place in the church. Access in the sense of inclusion/ participation stands in contrast to the exclusion of people, who are currently unable to participate due to physical or mental limitations (Creamer 2009: 81-82).

4) Theology of Suffering versus Differentiality and Convalescence

On the whole, all of these hermeneutical proposals for disability theology and also for disability missiology deal with a theology of suffering (theodicy question), which consider disability as disadvantage and weakness. They go two ways. Either they interpret such a weakness themselves to God or the “being different” of the people with such a restriction is assumed as a distance from the “normal”. There is nothing to be said against these premises, but the question arises whether the creative naturalness or better creatureliness of God can be found in this in regard to the theodicy question, or whether an example of “disability” is used to show an approach that

· either “normality” is extended or

· demands human diversity as a reflection of inclusion by the church from a divine perspective.

Disease, temporary limitation or weakness must be differentiated to some degree from this, because they are inherent parts of human existence. It is obvious that additional hermeneutical aspects are required that present the living environment of the people who are challenged physically or mentally as their own reality. From the point of view of people with such restrictions, it is important, first of all, that the impairment does not make up the person, but is part of their reality. Any limitation represents one of many challenges that people who classify themselves as non-disabled also know. At the same time, however, there is a need and demand for society and the church to provide conditions that enable participation in public life, given a temporary or enduring physical or mental challenge.

A possible overcoming of the onset of suffering results from the principles of differentiality in conjunction with convalescence. While the first is aimed at the differences in highlighting the realities of life and also the worlds of life for disabled and non-disabled people, the latter is aimed at restoring the diversity-oriented church.

Differentiality emphasizes the uniqueness of individual realities of life. Christina Gangemi applies this uniqueness already to the unborn in the womb. It relates to prenatal pastoral care for parents who are expecting a child with physical or mental challenges (Gangemi 2018). Contrary to the common assumption that people with different life experiences should orient themselves towards “normality”, there is the fact that the individuality of every life situation represents for the person in question his inimitable reality, to which there is no alternative. Within the social framework set for this person, she now experiences the ban due to her deviation from the norm. Inclusion starts at this point and demands that the framework be designed in such a way that everyone gets along. First of all, this can only be achieved in the physical area by providing digital and physical accessibility. The subsequent possible equal encounter without being dependent on help enables the mental approximation and shifting of the “concept of normality” towards a peripheral bordershifting. This means maintaining diversity while expanding the boundaries. This enables both parties, the disabled and the non-disabled, to adapt their understanding of the “normality” of the other group.

The second factor, “convalescence”, is an integral part of this, since it focuses the parties on a church that reflects, respects and spiritually promotes human diversity. As a consequence, the church extends its home-made limitation to groups of people that it has not previously considered in such a way that its contribution would be considered a “normal case”. The realities of the life of people with physical or mental challenges form an extension of the ecclesiastical framework with regard to the divine order of creation, which demands the diversity of human forms. The convalescence – restoration – of this human diversity is the task of the church, since the kingdom of God is a pool of all humanity.

5) Ethical consequences of the diversity-oriented church

What ethical orientation does the church need in order to live up to an inclusion-oriented model?

5.1) Prenatal pastoral care – balancing the rights and obligations to unborn life – Imago Dei

The Church has the mandate to provide prenatal pastoral care to parents who are expecting a child with physical or mental challenges. To do this, the church has to answer the question of how it deals with the protection of life.

The basic principle here is that the source of life is by divine foresight, but at the same time it is not the top priority of the biblical deity to preserve life at all costs, like the countless stillbirths or miscarriages, as well as the sacrifice of devoted followers of Christ to the deity as church history shows. Rather, the focus is on divine, social justice and a life devoted to followers. The quality or length of life is secondary. Incidentally, this is also the main reason for the Church’s rather modest orientation towards ecological interests.

5.1.1) Consideration – Parents’ and mother’s rights, unborn child’s rights

Especially in the phase of pregnancy and becoming a parent, different rights of life meet. On the one hand, there is the woman and mother, who has to decide whether she with her life partner or alone is able to raise a child, in this case a child with physical or mental limitations. The life partner performs to the social support and must also decide whether to face the task. Doctors are extremely unfavorable to answer this question, since they are themselves part of the “health system” and their economic interests are – although their personal interests may be very humanitarian – contrary to the right to life. The child has a right to life, because it was an uninvolved testimony to sexual union. From a biblical perspective, the unborn child is part of divine foresight, which man must respect by weighing up the spiritual factors of birth or termination. This is where the community of believers – the Church – comes into play. Society, the Church, has the obligation to create framework conditions that parents, even with a child with physical or mental challenges face. These rights and obligations meet and need to be weighed up.

Regardless of the political framework that provides social and medical indication through pregnancy counseling, parents are affected by medical and technical pressure. This includes that doctors generally advise against the birth of a child with physical or mental challenges due to a physical, but also psychological risk. This is partly due to a paternalistic arrogance that is in the medical training system (those who have properly covered 1,000 roofs will not get a doctorate!). Furthermore, due to economic medical interests, the risk of costs that would have to be borne is pointed out, which the health insurance companies then also confirm. Another factor is social pressure, which exists in society due to a profound fear of disabilities, as a reflection of one’s own impermanence. As a rule, financial arguments are argued by society. In Western cultures there is also an ideologically based evolutionary utilitarianism, or in Eastern cultures there is a religious, shameful deviation from the social “norm” and “normality”. As a consequence, this leads to ableism (in England: disableism; rejection of disabled people) and the existential categorization “unworthy of life” (Cloerkes 2007).

5.1.2) Practice of prenatal pastoral care

What can prenatal pastoral care look like in such a situation? It is important to consider the position of the child who cannot speak. The child himself knows only the one form of life in which it is born, cared for on this earth and guided into self-determination. From a creational point of view, physical or mental limitation is therefore a divine quality that contributes to the diversity of human variation. The Imago Dei should be considered in this regard and expanded if necessary. If it had been the assumption up to now that persons with physical or mental limitations would not be counted among the creation-initiated community with the Creator, this would have to be corrected. Such an assumption would also contradict the omnipotence and creativity of the creative power, which is able to provide and implement any creative option. At the same time, this creative power allows children to leave the mother’s love (miscarriage), die shortly after birth (child death) or even die early in childhood due to illness, misfortune (e.g. crime, external factors) or accident. In this sense, a divine “unconditional right to life” cannot be assumed, which also corresponds to the life experience of all people.

5.1.3) Surrogate surrogacy – adoption and care

The question of “surrogacy” should also be asked here, which arises from the idea that a mother should always give birth to a child because she is free to give the child to care or adoption thus releasing her (and the partner) of responsibility. Such a requirement would make the “mother” a “surrogate mother” because she would release the child to others or to society. On the one hand, especially in the case of children with physical or mental limitations, the mother would have no guarantees that the child would be cared for at all. On the other hand, surrogacy is at risk of boosting the still existing global market for “child offers” and putting children with physical or mental constraints as an oversupply. A solution to this is not in sight, since this area forms a global social gray area, which due to increasing infertility and simultaneous birth control in certain geographic regions is not yet publicly and globally discussed as a human or population planning problem.

However, if one were to consider adoption or care, close cooperation with state authorities, in particular the youth welfare office, the local adoption office and the family court is necessary. This entails additional burdens, which are rarely cushioned by church institutions. In this area, an institutional network of church employees with the authorities would be helpful to ensure the accompaniment of an unwanted pregnancy. The observation that mothers and fathers rethink possible parenthood in the light of their births also plays a role here.

5.1.4) Balancing the living environment of the parents

The general conditions of the parents / life partners are an important factor, since they form the stability for the coexistence of the core and the extended family. It is important to consider how the parents are able to cope with the challenges of a child who has a greater need for assistance and care. For this, experiences of other people are absolutely necessary and helpful. The opinion and experience of parents who have decided against this form of parenthood must also be brought into play. The question of how a decision consequently affected the future path of life remains speculative, since it has not been proven to have been experienced. Nevertheless, a consideration can take place due to the life cycle, since the given life descriptions have to be weighed up. Prenatal pastoral care represents a common guide to making your own decision and proceeds without prejudice, whereby it is clear that no pastoral counseling would be objective or neutral. It should also be noted here that neither the pro-familia (offered by the state ishttps://www.profamilia.de/)objective, since there are personal, health-medical and economic interests, and private advice such as that provided by Pro Femina e. V. (https://www.profemina.org/) can be value-neutral, since the latter is a by Christian ethics motivated organization.

5.2) Church inclusion – unity in diversity – challenges and profit

The church faces far-reaching challenges. As the architectural designs of the churches, which have been politically required since the 1980s, show that people with physical or mental disabilities are not included, it is not for nothing that they are included. The consequence is a willingness to assist, to open circles for “the others” and thus to limit one’s own expectations in favor of others. Above all, the pressure to perform in groups of children and adolescents after an attractive program, such as that which exists in the church, must be weighed in the face of children who need assistance with the life experience that a child receives when he learns about the realities of life in other life forms. In particular, the experience that divine creative power encompasses very different living environments is a fundamental finding at a young age. The long practiced and still existing practice of home accommodation, special needs schools without any connection to the public school system, and extra services at the homes and the special needs schools do not allow contact zones. The state-sponsored principle of inclusion must also prevail in the church in order to offer contact zones.

Are church members willing to involve people who allow stuttering and leave the usual flow of communication in order to accept less information within a considerable amount of time? Are visual support aids of what has been said disruptive for people with hearing impairments, or do they become normal and also serve as support for other church visitors? Is the mentally restricted child in the children’s program a burden or an asset? These questions should be discussed and common solutions sought, with an emphasis on shared solutions by employees, parents and children with physical or mental challenges.

To conclude these considerations, it should be emphasized once again that a church, as a reflection of divine creativity, reflects a “unity in diversity”, which only receives its spiritual output in the presence by the Creator. This perspective on posterity relativizes current reality of life and emphasizes the social justice demanded in the Sermon on the Mount and dedicated succession as emphatic sympathy with the most diverse realities of life on earth.

Bibliographie

Bach, Ulrich 2006. Ohne die Schwächsten ist die Kirche nicht ganz. Bausteine einer Theologie nach Hadamar. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Baumann, Andreas 2007. Der Orient für Christus: Johannes Lepsius – Biographie und Missiologie. Giessen: Brunnen.

Block, Jennie Weiss 2002. Copious Hosting: A Theology of Access for People with Disabilities. New York: Continuum.

Boll, Silke, Ewinkel, Carola, Hermes, Gisela, Kroll, Bärbel, Lubbers, Sigrid & Schnartendorf, Susanne (Hgg.) (1985). Geschlecht: behindert – Besonderes Merkmal: Frau. Ein Buch von behinderten Frauen. München.

Cloerkes, Günther 2007. Soziologie der Behinderten. Edition S. 3. Aufl. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.

Conner, Benjamin T. 2015. Enabling Witness: Disability in Missiological Perspective. Journal of Disability & Religion 19:1, 15-29. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

Conner, Benjamin T. 2018. Disabling Mission, Enabling Witness: Exploring Missiology Through the Lens of Disability Studies. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

Creamer, Deborah Beth 2009. Disability and Christian Theology. Embodied Limits and Constructive Possibilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eiesland, Nancy L. 1994. The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability. Nashville: Abingdon.

Frank, Gelya 2000. Venus on Wheels: Two Decades of Dialogue on Disability, Biography, and Being Female in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gangemi, Christina 2018. Because I am: Christian accompaniment through the experience of a pre-birth diagnosis of a possible disability. London: Redemptionist Publications.

Huxley, Aldous 1932. Brave New World. London: EA.

Jacob, Jutta, Köbsell, Swantje & Wollrad, Eske (eds.) 2010. Gendering Disability: Intersektionale Aspekte von Behinderung und Geschlecht. Bielefeld: transcript.

McFague, Sallie 1987. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

McFague, Sallie 1993. The Body of God: An Ecological Theology. London: SCM.

Newbigin, James Edward Lesslie 1979. Not Whole without the Handicapped, in Müller-Fahrenholz, Geiko (ed.): Partners in life: The handicapped and the Church, 17-25. Faith and Order 89. Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications. Und Online: URL: https://archive.org/stream/wccfops2.096/wccfops2.096_djvu.txt [Stand 2019-11-04].

Nielsen, Kim E. 2013. A Disability History of the United States. ReVisioning American History, Band 2. Boston: Beacon Press.

Reynolds, Thomas E. 2008. Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality. Grand Rapids: BrazosPress.

Schildmann, Ulrike 2009. Normalität, in Dederich, Markus & Jantzen, Wolfgang (Hgg.): Behinderung und Anerkennung, Bd. 2. Behinderung, Bildung, Partizipation: Enzyklopädisches Handbuch der Behindertenpädagogik, 204-208. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Shildrick, Margrit 2012. Critical Disability Studies: Rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity, in Watson, Nick, Roulstone, Alan & Thomas, Carol (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, 30-41. London: Routledge.

Thüne, Sabine 2007. Ernst Jakob Christoffel – Ein Leben im Dienst Jesu: Ernst Jakob Christoffel Gründer der Christlichen Blindenmission im Orient, Der Freundeskreis, Die Mitarbeiter anhand von Briefen, Schriften und Dokumenten im Auftrag der Christoffel-Blindenmission. Nürnberg: VTR.

Webb-Mitchell, Brett 1994. God Plays Piano, Too: The Spiritual Lives of Disabled Children. New York: Crossroad.

Webb-Mitchell, Brett 1994. Unexpected Guests at God’s Banquet: Welcoming People with Disabilities into the Church. New York: Crossroad.

Whyte, Susan Reynolds & Ingstad, Benedicte 1995. Disability and Culture. Oakland: University of California Press.

Yong, Amos 2011, The Bible, Disability, and the Church – A New Vision of the People of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdman.

From I to us – A hermeneutical Perspective

03/05/2020/in Disability Studies

werner@forschungsstiftung.net

Abstract

Theological models and approaches to disability studies have been widely available since at least Newbigin (UK; 1979), Eiesland (USA; 1994), and Bach (Germany; 2006). At the same time, approaches have developed in other disciplines, such as social research, anthropology, medicine, or queer studies, and increasingly in political science. Bringing up the rear at the moment is intercultural theology, which is only slowly approaching the topic and has to come to terms with the history of Christian diakonia in transcultural encounters from a postcolonial perspective. Also missing are own hermeneutical proposals for the inclusive church from the point of view of “unity in diversity” and diversity as a reflection of the kingdom of God.

Contents

Introduction – From “I” and “The” to the common “We”. 1

Disability Studies – Areas of research. 2

Disability Studies – Hermeneutic Approaches in (Intercultural) Theology. 3

Theology of Suffering versus Differentiality and Convalescence. 5

Ethical consequences of the diversity-oriented church. 6

Prenatal pastoral care – balancing rights and duties to unborn life – Imago Dei 6.

Balancing – parental and maternal rights, unborn child rights. 6

Practice of prenatal pastoral care. 7

Balancing surrogacy – adoption and foster care. 7

Balancing living environment of parents. 8

Church inclusion – unity in diversity – challenges and gains. 8

Bibliography. 9

Introduction – From “I” and “Them” to the common “We”.

Inclusion, participation and involvement of all social groups in public opinion form the basis of a democratic and diversity-oriented society. Persons with mental and physical challenges need help from those without limitations. In turn, they enrich and complement research around societal diversity through their own biographical experiences. The lifeworlds of researchers with mental and physical challenges offer a perspective to science in all areas of life that is a total humanistic representation. The previous abandonment of the perspective of persons with mental and physical challenges in science, which can be described as paternalistic, should be a thing of the past. The “I” and “The” should give way to a “We” that is willing to take an overall perspective on research projects. At this point, “normality” shifts to people who are part of society and who, precisely in their “otherness,” enrich society and challenge it for inclusion or social support. The mutual give and take in these processes is exhausting and does not fall to the person inclined to comfort. This also applies to people with mental and physical limitations, who cannot rest on their marginalization.

Only in cooperation does a mutual give and take arise on an equal footing. Scientific research in theology and missiology must also face up to this inclusive approach if it does not want to remain one-sided and paternalistic but dynamic and relevant to society.

Disability studies enable researchers with and without disabilities to discuss missiological-theological issues together and to look at biblical content from different perspectives. In this context, the debate about a bridge-building cooperation between researchers with and without physical or mental limitations should already be superfluous, since although the life realities of both groups are different, a cooperation is of mutual benefit. Only when both groups exchange ideas, try to understand each other and complement each other, science is holistically oriented. Practically, this also means meeting the support needs of researchers with physical or mental challenges. An elevator, a ramp, or mental health care won’t happen on its own; efforts by non-disabled people are needed. In turn, these researchers learn about research-relevant content regarding the realities of life for people with physical or mental challenges, which provides an overall social picture. “Not about us, without us” is the slogan of the inclusive liberation movement shaped by groups of people with physical or mental challenges.

The following overview aims to inform about the current range of research on the field of Disability Studies from a theological perspective.

Disability Studies – Research Areas

Disability Studies is an umbrella term for all research around disability as a socio-cultural phenomenon. Medical, diaconal-care, technological, rehabilitative, sociological, theological-religious, anthropological-ethnographic aspects from historical and contemporary perspectives play a role here. From this multitude of options, specific areas of expertise have crystallized, but new areas of research are being added daily. In order not to lose the overview, we limit ourselves to those areas which are significant from an intercultural theological and missiological perspective:

Disability Anthropology presents ethnographic-biographical lifeworlds of physically and mentally challenged people (e.g., Gelya Frank 2000).
Disability and Gender describes the power movements and influences on people with physical or mental limitations in terms of gender. The particular disadvantage of disabled women is specifically in view here (e.g., Jacob, Köbsell & Wollrad 2010; Boll, Ewinkel & et. al. 1985).
Disability History, deal with historical contexts around people with physical or mental disability (e.g., Nielsen 2013).

Disability Worlds deals with lifeworlds and social references and spaces of encounter between people with and without physical or mental limitations (e.g., Whyte & Ingstad 1995).
Critical Disability Studies bridges the gap between persons with and without mental and physical challenges by addressing questions about disability that have not been addressed for historical reasons or by political correctness. These include self-critical inquiries about eugenics (DNA analysis and PND development), the social participation of artificially kept alive persons, i.e., those life forms that would not be viable without outside assistance (medical-care discourse), or society’s ethical and financial responsibilities regarding independent living for persons with mental and physical challenges (political discourse; e.g., Shildrick 2012:30-41) .
Disability theology describes the exegetical and hermeneutical deficits with regard to persons with physical or mental disabilities in theology (e.g., Reynold 2008; Yong 2011).
Disability missiology is a currently developing discipline. It questions within the framework of historical descriptions how inclusion, exclusion, or discrimination of people with physical or mental disabilities has been understood. Within the framework of postcolonial research (postcolonial studies), these contexts are captured in intercultural theology. In the German-speaking world, missiology has partially come under the umbrella of intercultural theology. At the same time, the yield of this research is made accessible to Christian developmental assistance in foreign contexts by people with disabilities themselves or with regard to such a target group.
Disability Pedagogy/ educational theory is a discipline that addresses special needs in the communication of information. This includes theoretical considerations of communication as well as practical technical solutions. In theory, haptic, visual and aural stimulation of the senses, as well as receptive-cognitive processing of communicative signals play an important role. In practice, it is about computerized technical assistance in the communication process as exemplified by Braille translators, visual displays, or sign language interpretation through avatars (Webb-Mitchell 1994, 1996).
Disability Studies – Hermeneutic Approaches in (Intercultural) Theology
As a discipline in its own right, Intercultural Theology depends on theological hermeneutical proposals. Disability theology offers approaches mainly from the English-speaking world.

The best known researcher in the field of disability theology was Nancy L. Eiesland (b. 1964-†2009).

Her research The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability (1994) opened groundbreaking new discourses in theology around the diversity of the church and its diaconal mission. She builds her liberation theological approach on the ethnographic accounts of Diane de Vries and Nancy Mairs (1994:40-42 and 46). Both, like Eiesland herself, relied on assistance and tools. These biographies lead Eiesland to conclude,

Eiesland emphasizes in her remarks that the actors with their being different, as a deviation from the aesthetic or physical norm, have a stigma imposed on them by their environment, but feel themselves to be “normal”. It would be an act of dipolar self-denial if people with physical or mental limitations were constantly in conflict with their being. Of course, physically and mentally challenged people perceive physical limitations that they have to compensate for. This may consist of medical-therapeutic aids or environmental variables that extend the range of motion. However, the socially constructed barriers, such as discrimination and devaluation, are the real and superfluous territory of struggle that force the marginalized on the defensive.

The approach has already been mentioned in Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality by Thomas Reynolds (2008). Reynolds builds on the unifying moment of “hospitality” to establish a culture of invitation in the church space (2008:20). All are invited to share in the vulnerable and vulnerable body of Christian community (Vulnerable Communion) (:21). He derives this vulnerability from the creation order (:168-169) and models it in communion/communion, which reflects the creaturely diversity of humanity. Worth mentioning is the concept of “God’s vulnerable love”, which is not shown in God’s omnipotence, but in the sinful, vulnerable and tragic configuration of human existence. This love leads to the interdependence of human beings with each other, with the world, and ultimately with God himself, who as Creator loves this world and human beings in their diversity. The marginalization of people with physical or mental limitations in “being different” as a deviation from the “normal” is cancelled out for Reynolds in the vulnerability and weakness of the human being as a sinful being. It would have to be clarified with Reynolds whether an all-reconciling basis is assumed here? Furthermore, how does he see himself in the face of a homo erectus, a human form asserting itself as itself, which does not need God?

Amos Yong (2011) in The Bible, Disability, and the Church: A New Vision of the People of God comes from the charismatic denomination. He starts with three premises (2011:13).

People with physical or mental disabilities are created as Imago Dei in the image of God.
These people are first and foremost human beings and only secondarily endowed with a unique characteristic, their individual disability.
Disability is not in itself evil or good, but an integral part of life. Every person experiences it, either permanently from birth, only later, or even once or several times temporarily during the course of life.

The direct link between sin and disability, while broken in John 9, is underlined in John 5.
Yong sees this as challenging hermeneutics to look deeper into the biblical texts and avoid superficial interpretations. He ventures a survey of the healing stories, which seem to him to comfort people with physical or mental disabilities in that the Messiah’s offer of healing would protect them from charlatans, medical practitioners, and the discriminations of non-disabled people (2011:59). He cites this thesis as enhancing the rights and self-esteem of people with physical or mental limitations, as they would be considered full members in the church, served directly by the Holy Spirit. For Yong, the holistic healing of multisensory limitations depicts the comprehensive power of the Holy Spirit. He goes so far as to see the church as an original space for people with physical or mental limitations, as the church gathers the marginalized (:95).

Creamer, Deborah Beth (2009) in Disability and Christian Theology: Embodied Limits and Constructive Possibilities proposes a third model of disability, which she calls the Limits or Gifts model (2009:31-34, 95-96). This model places “disability as such” at the center. Her definition of the two basic models recognizable to her, into the medical-functional model and the social or minority group model, leads her to ask where is the focus on disability there? (:22-26)? “Disability,” which is, after all, a liminal aspect of life, does not get the attention it deserves in the previous proposals. Their Limits model differs from the other models in that, in their opinion,

She compares the medical model, which begins with an evaluation, to her limits model.

Limits model, which describes limitations at the center of human life, as a familiar but neglected aspect of reality (:10). Critically, she reflects on the church that does not proactively address “disability,” although this is in keeping with the intent of the biblical text from the widows and orphans commandment of the Mosaic Law, to the healing and poor parables of the New Testament (:35). She engages with the body concepts of antiquity and the biblical texts. She borrows from McFague’s conceptions of God (1987 and 1993), which focus on a God who both lives in each individual (immanence) and permeates the entire universe as energy (transcendence; Creamer 2009:62). She goes on to address liberation theologies. Block (2002), in particular, is of interest because she advocates a “model of access.” She presupposes that all are welcome and have a place in the church. Access in this sense contrasts with the exclusion of people who are currently unable to participate due to physical or mental limitations (Creamer 2009:81-82).

Theology of suffering versus differentiality and convalescence.

In the grand scheme of things, all of these hermeneutical proposals for disability theology and also disability missiology deal with a theology of suffering (theodicy question), which view disability as disadvantage and weakness. In doing so, they take two paths. Either they interpret God himself as such a weakness or the “otherness” of the persons with such a limitation is presupposed as a distance from the “normals”. There is nothing to be said against these premises, but the question arises whether the creative naturalness or better creatureliness of God is found in this approach to the question of theodicy, or whether it is not precisely the example of “disability” that shows an approach which

either expands the concept of “normality” or demands human diversity as a reflection of ecclesial inclusion from a divine perspective.
Illness, temporary limitation or weakness are to be distinguished from this as inherent in being human. It is obvious that there is a need for additional hermeneutical aspects that present the lifeworld of persons who are physically or mentally challenged as their own life reality. From the point of view of persons with such limitations, it is first significant that the impairment does not constitute the person, but is a part of their life reality. The impairment represents one of many challenges, as it is also known by people who classify themselves as non-disabled. At the same time, however, there is the need and demand on society and the church to provide conditions that enable participation in public life.

A possible overcoming of the suffering approach results from the principles of differentiality in connection with convalescence. While the former is directed to highlight the difference of life realities and also life worlds of disabled and non-disabled persons, the latter is directed to the recovery of the diversity-oriented church.

Differentiality emphasizes the uniqueness of individual life realities. Gangemi begins this uniqueness in the womb. She refers to prenatal pastoral care to parents expecting a child with physical or mental challenges (Gangemi 2018). Contrary to the common assumption that people with deviant life experiences must orient themselves to “normality,” the fact is that the individuality of each life situation represents first of all for said person his inimitable reality to which there is no alternative. Within the social framework set for him, he now experiences ostracism because of his deviation from the norm. Inclusion starts at this point and demands that the framework conditions be designed in such a way that everyone can cope. First of all, this can only be achieved in the physical realm by providing digital and physical accessibility. The resulting equal encounter without having to rely on assistance enables the mental approach and shift of the “concept of normality” towards peripheral bordering. What is meant by this is the maintenance of difference while expanding the boundaries. This allows both parties, the disabled and non-disabled, to adjust their understanding of the “normality” of the other group. The second factor, “convalescence” is directly part of this, as it aligns the parties with a church that reflects, respects, and spiritually nurtures human diversity. This means, in consequence, that the church extends its home-made limitation to groups of people whom it has not had in mind so far that their contribution would be counted as the “normal case”. The reality of life of persons with physical or mental challenges constitutes an extension of the ecclesial framework with regard to the divine order of creation, which calls for the diversity of human forms. The convalescence – restoration – of this human diversity is the task of the church, as the kingdom of God is a gathering place for all.

Ethical consequences of the diversity-oriented church
What ethical orientation does the church need in order to live up to an inclusion-oriented mission statement?
Church inclusion – unity in diversity – challenges and gains
The church has a mandate to participate in prenatal pastoral care to parents who are expecting a child with physical or mental challenges. For this, the church must ask the questions

how it holds it with the protection of life.

The principle is that the source of life is divine providence, but at the same time, the top priority of the biblical Godhead is not to preserve life at all costs, as the countless stillbirths and miscarriages, as well as the sacrifice of devoted followers of Christ in church history, show. Rather, the emphasis is on a life devoted to divine social justice and discipleship. The quality or length of life is secondary. Incidentally, this is also the main reason for a rather modest orientation of the church to ecological interests.

Balancing – parental and maternal right, unborn child right.
It is precisely in the phase of pregnancy and becoming parents that various rights to life come into conflict. On the one hand, there is the woman and mother, who must decide whether she is able to raise a child with her life partner or alone, in this case a child with physical or mental limitations. The life partner forms the social support and must also decide whether to take on the task. Doctors are inconvenient to answer this question, because they themselves are part of the “health care system” and their economic interests are contrary to the right to life. The child has a right to life because it was a witness to the sexual union in an uninvolved way. From a biblical perspective, the unborn child is subject to a divine prediction that man must respect by weighing the spiritual factors of birth or abortion. This is where the community of believers – the Church – comes in. Society, the Church, has the obligation to create frameworks that are fair to parents, including those with a child with physical or mental challenges. These rights and responsibilities meet and must be weighed.

Regardless of the political framework, which provides for a social and medical indication through pregnancy counseling, the parents are hit by the medical-supply pressure. This includes the fact that, as a rule, doctors advise against the birth of a child with physical or mental challenges due to a physical, but also psychological risk. This is partly due to a paternalistic arrogance inherent in the medical profession’s training system (if you have covered 1,000 roofs professionally, you don’t get a doctorate!). Furthermore, due to economic medical interests, the danger of costs that would have to be borne is also pointed out, which is then confirmed by the health insurance companies. Another factor is the social pressure, which exists in society due to a profound fear of disabilities, as a reflection of one’s own transience. As a rule, this is argued with financial burdens for society.

Practice of prenatal pastoral care

What can prenatal pastoral care look like in such a situation? It is important to consider the position of the child, who cannot speak for himself. The child itself knows only the one form of life in which it is born, cared for on this earth and led into self-determination. From the point of view of the creation approach, therefore, the physical or mental limitation forms a divine quality, which contributes to the diversity of human variation. The Imago Dei is to be thought in this respect and, if necessary, to be extended. If it were the assumption to date that persons with physical or mental limitations would not be counted among the creation-initiated communion with the Creator, this would have to be corrected. Such an assumption would also contradict the omnipotence and creativity of the power of creation which is able to provide and to realize any creative option. At the same time, this power of creation allows children to perish in maternal love (miscarriage), to die shortly after birth (infant death) or to die in early infancy through illness, misfortune (e.g. crime, external factors) or accident. In this sense, an “unconditional right to life” cannot be assumed, which also corresponds to the life experience of all people.

Practice of prenatal pastoral care

Weighing up the living environment of the parents

The living environment of the parents/life partners is an important factor, as it provides the stability for the nuclear and extended family to live together. It must be weighed up how the parents are able to deal with the challenges of a child who has increased assistance and care needs. For this, experiences of other people are absolutely necessary and helpful. The opinion and experience of parents who have decided against this form of parenthood must also be included. The question of how a decision affected the further course of life remains speculative at first, since it was not demonstrably experienced. Nevertheless, due to the life paths a consideration can take place, since the delivered life descriptions are to be weighed. The prenatal pastoral care represents thereby a common guidance to an own decision and proceeds without preliminary judgments, whereby it is clear that no pastoral counseling would be objective or value-neutral. It is equally to be noted here that neither the state-provided Pro-Familia (https://www.profamilia.de/) counseling is objective, since there are personal, public health, and economic interests, nor private counseling such as that provided by Pro Femina e. V. (https://www.profemina.org/) can be value-neutral, since the latter is a Christian-motivated organization.

Church inclusion – unity in diversity – challenges and gains

The church faces far-reaching challenges. As the architectural designs of churches for accessibility, which have been politically demanded since the 1980s, show, inclusion of people with physical or mental limitations is also not to be had for free. A readiness for assistance, the opening of circles for “the others” and thus a limitation of own expectations in favor of others is the consequence. Above all, the pressure to perform in children’s and youth groups according to an attractive program, as it exists in the church, must be weighed against the life experience a child receives when it gets to know the reality of other ways of life, in view of children who are dependent on assistance. In particular, the experience that divine creative power encompasses very different life worlds is a fundamental realization at a young age. The long practiced and still existing practice of institutionalization, special special schools without connection to the public school system, and extra religious services in the homes and special schools does not allow for contact zones. The state-sponsored principle of inclusion must also prevail in the church in order to provide contact zones.

Are church members willing to allow people who stutter to participate, leaving the usual flow of communication to accept less information at a significant cost in time? Are visual supports of what is being said disruptive to people with hearing impairments, or do they become the norm and serve as a support to other church attendees as well? Is the mentally impaired child in the children’s program a burden or an asset? These questions should be discussed and joint, emphasis on joint, solutions sought by staff, parents, and children with physical or mental challenges.

In concluding these reflections, it should be emphasized once again that a church as a reflection of divine creativity reflects a “unity in diversity” that receives its spiritual yield only in the presence with the Creator. This perspective into posterity relativizes this present reality of life and emphasizes the social justice and devoted discipleship called for in the Sermon on the Mount as emphatic co-suffering of the most diverse realities of life on this earth.

Bibliography