Disability Studies and Bible translation

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

werner@forschungsstiftung.net

 

Contents

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

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,

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).

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,

“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, 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.

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

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.

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

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.

Questionnaire on Disability and Christian aid agencies/ theological education centres

Dear readers,

In September 2019, a global questionnaire study on Disability Studies and Intercultural Theology was carried out (see below; PDF version here questionnaire print version Fragebogen Print-Version SoSci). The aim was to find out how Christian Development Services are prepared for church employees who work abroad and have a physical or mental enrollment or are parents of children with such challenges. It was asked to what extent Christian development services meet inclusive requirements and how employees with such restrictions feel in the area of ​​member support and recruitment.

The questionnaire study described below was completed by 23 participants from the global church development service. A questionnaire evaluation can be found here as PDF Auswertung Questionnaire or here as Word.docx Auswertung Questionnaire (please click).

January 2020

Eberhard Werner

********************************************************************************************************

Process

Dear Friends, Colleagues or interested parties,

The Network on Disability Studies and Intercultural Theology (NeDSITh) is interested in knowing how individuals, organizations or institutions involved with Christian development deal with disability and people with mobility or mental impairment. The audience for this study are parents of a child with a disability, people with disabilities themselves, and people that are caring for those with a physical or mental disability. One question asked here is how Christian development organizations or institutions are taking an Inclusive stance nowadays. The focus here is mainly on insider (emic) experience (e.g. parents with a child with special needs), but would also allow for those that are working with people with disability.

[https://www.soscisurvey.de/forschungsstiftung/]

The 20 questions will not take you longer than 10 minutes. We ask you to spend that time to get a picture on Inclusion in Christian agencies and theological education centers.

We also would like to ask you to send this Mail and Link on to parties that you think should also contribute. We appreciate if you involve your networks with this study.

Sincerely

Eberhard Werner

 

Dr. Eberhard Werner

Network Disability Studies and Intercultural Theology (NeDSITh)

Heegstrauchweg 68 (Rathenaustr. 5-7)

35394 Gießen

Tel. 0641-9797 033 (not consistently accessible)

 

E-Mail:   werner@forschungsstiftung.net

Website: http://forschungsstiftung.net

Foundation Oversight: Regierungspräsidium Gießen; Postfach 100851; 35338 Gießen

Board: Prof. Dr. Klaus W. Müller

 

Forschungs-Stiftung Kultur und Religion.

Evangelische Bank Kassel:

IBAN:       DE14520604100000417823

BLZ/BIC    GENODEF1EK1

Extended Evaluation of the Questionnaire-Study

(PDF here: Auswertung Questionnaire )

 

Evaluation: Questionnaire on Disability Studies and Intercultural Theology (PDF here)

1. Empirical Questionnaire – Qualitative Results. 1

1.1. Personal data of respondents (evaluation). 2

1.2. Size of the team and personal Feeling about the Work Environment 3

1.3. Considerations for the Questionnaire Study. 4

1.4. Summary of the Questionnaire Study. 5

2. Transcultural-anthropological considerations. 5

3. Summary – Questionnaire. 8

References. 9

 

1. Empirical Questionnaire – Qualitative Results

The questionnaire study evaluated here is found above in English. The study was created with the online program Sosci Survey at www.soscisurvey.de under professional guidance and help from a psychologically experienced employee. It can be found at URL: https://www.soscisurvey.de/­forschungsstiftung/ and can be viewed at URL: https://forschungsstiftung.net/sites/all/files/­uploads/­Fragebogen%20Print-Version.pdf [accessed 2020-01-20].

This qualitative questionnaire, describes the current status of people with physical or mental limitations in the Church’s International Development aid, as described in self-perception or from the perspective of non-disabled people, and on the other hand emphasizes those relationships that arise for these actors from transcultural interactions. This global survey is part of the research mandate by the Network Disability Studies and Intercultural Theology (NeDSITh) based in Giessen/ Germany. It operates within the framework of the Research Foundation Culture and Religion (URL: https://forschungsstiftung.net/de; there NeDSITh under https://forschungsstiftung.net/de/node/87).

To begin with, it must be noticed that because of the origin of the researcher (director of NeDSITh) and his employees, the survey was limited to their networks. These mainly cover the Western Churches and organizations in development aid. Another limitation is the range of physical or mental limitations by the participants. Due to the small number of 23 participants, who work in global church development services, far from all disabilities could be covered. The focus of the participants is on people with mobility-related challenges. Additionally those are also active church development workers who, despite their physical or mental limitations, have taken responsibility and are committed to their organizations to the best of their ability. As a result, these organizations had to adapt to people with physical or mental challenges.

The nine questions describe two sets of questions

1.) Personal data and living conditions (nine questions),

2.) Inclusive values in life and work (six questions) and inclusive structure (six questions).

 

Specifically:

  • Complex of questions numbered 1)
  • *personal data (age, type of disability in mobility impairment, mental limitation; parents of children with such restrictions or those concerned with disabled people; Question 1-3)
  • *Living conditions regarding:
    • is the church service abroad or in your own home country (Question 4)?,
    • is assistance necessary and to what extent (Question 5)?,
    • the employer-employee relationship (Question 6),
    • the working environment and the size of the team (Question 7),
    • the assessment of your own work environment with regard to dealing with the physical or mental restriction (Question 8), and within this block
    • the question of one’s own theological assessment of physical or mental limitations with regard to the Holy Scriptures (Question 9).

On complex of questions numbered 2)

The second complex of questions dealt with

*six questions about inclusive values that result from the living environment and the employment relationship. More

*six questions dealt with inclusive structure.

O Three questions seek to investigate how the work structures are accessible to the respondents within the scope of their special needs and

O three more questions about whether you experience yourself as an accepted and respected person.

Finally, it was possible to enter the email address and to request a statistical evaluation of the survey, which is done hereby.

Particularly noteworthy are the results that come from the almost 35% (8 participants) of Christian development workers who are parents of children that have a physical or mental disability. As the evaluation below shows, their challenges are often very different from those actors, who themselves have physical or mental limitations.

The survey was conducted over a one-month period in September 2019. A total of about 60 people were contacted. 46 online questionnaires were returned. 8 participants immediately reported that they did not understand the questions. This problem would have to be investigated again, as it also critically questions the accessibility of the online program and the questionnaire. 5 respondents did not feel represented in the questionnaire, due to very special realities that could have been covered by an extended study. The author explicitly apologizes for any inconvenience of this kind.

Unfortunately, only 23 questionnaires had been filled in from start to finish, the remaining 23 questionnaires were cancelled or could not be evaluated, because questions were overlooked or characters could not be identified. According to a two respondents, their operating system did not allow them to complete the questionnaires to the end. Since it is an external online system, the author was unable to solve these technical problems. At least 15 participants provided their email addresses in order to be personally informed about the results of the study, which happened in January 2020. This high number shows the interest in the topic and also the need to be in discussion about it.

Multiple answers were possible. Since some respondents also understood themselves in different realities, there are multiple counts. This includes e.g. one’s own disability and at the same time a parent of children with restrictions, or one being active in the Church’s International service and gone through theological training or being responsible for several teams in the Church service.

1.1. Personal data of respondents (evaluation)

The evaluation of the questionnaire can be viewed at URL: https://forschungsstiftung.­net/de/­node/103 under the link here as PDF or here as Word.docx [accessed 2020-02-04]. Approximately 35% (8/23) of the participants were parents or a parent of children with physical or mental challenges. 70% (16/23) describe themselves as physically or mentally challenged. The participants were divided into the following groups of age:

* 22-35 years of age:        4/23 (17.4%)

* 36-55 years of age:        11/23 (47.83%)

* 55+ years of age:           5/23 (21.74%)

Of the participants, 3/23 were retired that is 13.04%. The categories of physical or mental restrictions represented the most common in mankind. Multiple answers to the restrictions were possible because they correspond to the reality of life and can also change due to age or signs of wear. No participant with hearing impairment had participated.

Mobility restrictions (mobility):                         13/23 had 56.52%.
Visual impairments (visual impairment);        3/23 that is 13.04%.
Multiple constraints (combination):                 2/23 that is 8.70%.
Participants without physical limitation (not physically challenged): 8/23 that is

11/23 that is 47.83% of the participants were in theological training and one person also in Christian Development aid. So 9/23 worked in Christian development service that is 39.13%. 6/23 thus 26.09% were neither active in theological training nor in active church service abroad. The comments on this complex of questions presented that one participant was involved in pastoral care in the clinic and is operating a global network on disability and theology. A participant from Italy criticized the fact that disability studies there are only understood as a pedagogical subject with regard to teaching and the teaching of faith. A hospital chaplain works in a 750-bed hospital in the United States. One participant from Belgium is connected to the European Disability Network. One participant is working with an Australian organization that works for leaders with special needs. An African participant studied linguistics in Asia, but then had to return to his home country due to a deteriorating eyesight.

These examples show which range of human diversity the questionnaire study participants belong to and which life experiences were incorporated into the answers reflected here.

1.2. Size of the team and personal Feeling about the Work Environment

The chosen complex of question was meant to show in which sizes of teams the participants were placed. On the one hand, the team sizes represent the peer group, on the other hand they indicate how much responsibility has been transferred to a person with physical or mental challenges.

7/23 (30.43%) of the participants work with 5 teammates. With regard to this small size of the peer group, a participant notes that it is hardly/ not possible in this theology school and training to exchange information about disability-specific issues. The same number 7/23 (30.43%) works in teams of 20–49 teammates. More than 50 teammates crossed 6/23 (26.09%). Overall, the comments on this question showed that in today’s world responsible people move in so many different living environments, both privately and professionally, that the range is from very small peer groups (e.g. one-on-one discipleship) to large networks and it was difficult to restrict yourself to one certain living environment.

In addition to the team sizes, it was also asked whether the organization or institution endeavours to address the concerns of employees with physical or mental challenges through contact persons. 34.7% of those surveyed indicated that such a contact point for people with restricted mobility or for parents with children who belong to this group, 39% do not work in an organization with such a position and 26% do not care, because due to their physical or mental skills they need assistance, but have regulated this otherwise. Although it is very gratifying that 34.7% can turn to someone from their organization for their special needs, we must not forget that the respondents play very active roles in their organizations and are therefore also able to respond to their surroundings proactively to address their needs. However, the fact that 39% do not have such a contact point indicates a gap in the organizations. There is a need to catch up here.

This is where a scientifically researched observation comes into play: the larger a church or Christian development aid organization is, the better church employees feel cared for in the service abroad. This was found out in the context of a global study on the termination of their foreign service by church development aid workers (abortion in foreign Church service; Blöcher 2007: 9-22). It was therefore reasonable to assume that large organizations could better cater to the special needs of the group of people examined here. Unfortunately, the relationship between team size and organizational size could not be determined. The group size of the respondents by team size was on average too small to make meaningful statements. This would have to be determined in a follow-up study.

Overall, it was astonishing that a third of the participants stated that they work in organizations that are geared to the needs of employees who have special physical or mental needs. Overall, these participants rate their organizations as “inclusive”. This is shown in the average of 40.65% with a range of 12–60. This is supported by the feeling that the organizations convey “inclusive values”, which is evident by an average of 20.83% with a range of 6–30. 19.83% of those surveyed, recognize “inclusive structures” in their work environment by a range of 6–30. This is reflected in the size of “equal treatment” by an average of 10.22% within a range of 3–15.

The finding is contrasted by the major shortcoming of almost two thirds of the organizations that either do not have a specific inclusive institution or to which the respondents did not assign such a position. However, the abstention can also be interpreted positively and evaluated as already inclusive, because the respondents are part of an ideal work environment in which their restriction would be completely insignificant. However, this would be very unusual given the need for employees with physical or mental challenges to reflect human diversity in the global Church.

The next set of questions dealt with the sensitivity and the support within the working environment, i.e. how is the peer group regarding the disability? Almost 50% say that they are treated with sensitivity in the workplace. Well, such statements rely on subjective assessments, but they contribute significantly to the feeling of inclusion, since the recognition of one’s performance and personality play a role. It is striking that 6/23 that is 26.1% do not comment on this and at least another 26.1% negatively modest it. This group of more than 50% therefore either assumes they have no expectations on their colleagues, they had such bad experiences that they do not want to testify at all, or they are exposed to situations that add additional stress to their general work stress due to their restrictions. Obviously, there is a need for clarification and awareness-raising among Christian Development services.

Based on the above-mentioned possibility of a contact person, it was also important to find out whether the organizations offer help or assistance to compensate for special needs? At least 55.2% of the participants answered in the affirmative. 30% answered no to this question, which indicates that there is a need for clarification or that these participants have found their own ways outside their organization, which would also indicate a discontinuation with these matters within the organization.

The second part asked how much personal assistance is required. It was 73.9% who needed such assistance. Of which 30.4% all day, 43.5% once or twice a day. Of those who need 24-hour assistance, it was 57.2% who received this within their organization, for those who need help once or twice, this was 80%. It is striking that the 24-hour assistance represents a major hurdle for 30% of the participants, since they have to cover this need outside of their organization or may not get it at all. 20% of those who need help once or twice do not experience it in their organization. This deficiency could be reduced, but is still an overall pleasing figure. In addition, this should be assessed from the point of view that 47.83% did not want any help if they were asked directly whether they needed it, while 52.17% said they wanted it.

What about the delegated responsibility in the organizations? Here 13% say that they have the feeling or the experience that due to their impairment they were not expected to be given certain responsibilities. However, 65.2% saw no problem with this and were satisfied with the work areas that were assigned to them. This is a gratifying finding, as it indicates mutual agreements regarding the work. The rest of the participants, 21.8%, understood this question as irrelevant.

Finally, it was asked how the participants think about biblical evidence on the subject of disability. After all, 17/23 that is 73.911%, understand the statements of the Bible as a whole positive. Only 3/23, 13.04% find this not currently relevant and just as many see the biblical basis as rather negative, when it comes to disabilities or people with disabilities. The extent to which hermeneutic stereotypes were adopted or the religious consolation by the Holy Scriptures covered a too critical perspective as would have to be clarified in a personal conversation.

1.3. Considerations for the Questionnaire Study

The aim of the questionnaire study was to find out whether Christian organizations in global service abroad, or theological training institutions that prepare church staff for this service, are geared towards people with physical or mental limitations. In addition to external accessibility, this also means the inner conviction that this group of people belongs to the global Church and reflects the social diversity of human realities. 46 questionnaires were returned out of a total of 60 respondents. The questionnaire was evaluated based on 23 responses. With just under 50% of participants, a range was reached that would have to be improved in future surveys, nonetheless it allows indications for this first study that are meaningful.

With 47.83%, the 36–55 year olds are the focus of the respondents. With just under 20% younger and older, an overall average is reached, which brings up different age groups. 18/23, 78.26% were physically or mentally challenged. 8/23, i.e. 34.78%, did not fit into this category, but they had to do with disability studies and people with physical or mental limitations in the context of globally active Church Development Service organizations. The majority include parents of children with physical or mental challenges.

The high number of those who in their organizations have inclusive structures, such as assistance, contact persons or sensitivity to physical or mental restrictions, determined an inclusive relationship and working conditions. They also find that the transferred areas of responsibility are engaging. For most questions, more than 50% of those questioned found these conditions to be positive. These answers are not in correspondence regarding personal conversations with people with physical or mental limitations as well as personal experiences and observations. There seems to be a discrepancy between the expectations of these groups of people and the real possibilities of the mostly financially strained organizations and their implementation of inclusive measures. In other words, the ignorance of church organizations in foreign ministry is often criticized by persons with physical or mental limitations, in regard to

inclusive measures (physical and digital accessibility, personal assistance),
the inclusion of church employees with physical or mental challenges, when they apply or are deployed or
the orientation towards people with physical or mental challenges in the field of evangelism, diakonia (Christian social welfare) and church planting.
Such criticism is not brought in critically by persons with mental or physical challenges, because they are forced to set aside their own needs. A lot seems to be balanced here on a personal level, based on the assumption that their

expectations regarding the organizations are not set very high,
own needs, which are put back, or
capacities are not recognized.
The opportunities of many Christian Development that are in global service depend on voluntary donations or very limited budgets. The lack of interest in Church Service abroad has been evident since the 1970s. The turning away of many people from the Church, modern atheism and an increasing local responsibility of churches in the non-Western world, due to post-colonial developments, means that Christian Development aid focuses on special areas. These include medical service, Bible translation, or social services such as micro-self-employment.

Disability studies and the interest in people with physical or mental disabilities is closely related to the medical field, which is why the Christoffel Blindenmission (CBM) or the Hildesheimer Blindenmission (HBM) specialize in the medical care of visually impaired people. If more cultural mediators with physical or mental challenges now work abroad in Christian Development aid, then people are challenged by the cultural mediators’ limitations to rethink their own physical or mental challenges. In this way there are completely different social groups reached. The participants of the questionnaire confirmed this by going about their work with great willingness and also accepting restrictions that prevented them from being ignored, discriminated against or rejected.

1.4. Summary of the Questionnaire Study

The majority of the 23 participants, just over 50%, in the study indicated that their organizations were sensitive to their needs. In this sense, inclusive approaches are recognizable. This refers to a contact person, to assistance and to the sensitivity on the mental or physical challenge during the application process and the employment. The other 50% were reluctant to comment on their problems. It is therefore interesting to concentrate on the question, which areas are not yet covered. Here are obvious deficits that need to be addressed concerning

more extensive assistance,
the promotion of Christian Development services for people with physical or mental challenges and
the focus on groups of people with such restrictions.

2. Transcultural-anthropological considerations

Intercultural communication is based on the mentioned functional principles, which are generally found in communication processes. The model used here is based on the model of communication as presented by Shannon and Weaver in the field of information technology (Shannon & Weaver 1949). In addition, the ostensive-inferential communication processes used in Relevance Theory are considered. Communication is researched in speech act theory act by Austin, Searle and Grice. Their research is from the seventies of the last century. They brought up the four principles of quality, quantity, relevance and modality. Only the principle of relevance was considered in Relevance Theory, all the other principles were declared as negligible. Relevance refers to hand on all information on the part of the speaker (ostensive part of relevance). The listener, in the context of relevance theory she is determined feminine, has all the (inferential) knowledge to derive the information. The en- and decoding process is only used, for describing the transmission (transformation) of information (Sperber & Wilson [1986] 1995 summarized in Wilson & Sperber 2004). This initial part of communication is not an independent communication process in itself as in the Code model of communication (see above). Regarding the translation practice in intercultural communication processes, Gutt applied Relevance Theory to translation principles (Gutt 1992 and 2000). Functional translation, as propagated by Nord, competes with Relevance Theory (Nord [1997] 2001). It relies on the Skopos model introduced by Vermeer (1978). A combination of these models is nowadays established in communication sciences, since each model now refers to the others and they originally all turned away from the dominant information technology Shannon-Weaver model (detailed Werner 2011).

The mixture of these models in view, intercultural communication offers some peculiarities that are important for intercultural theology, since people meet each other with different “codes, conventions, attitudes and everyday behaviors” (Maletzke 1996:37). Above all, ethnocentrism, which presents itself as nationalism, creates an additional hurdle in the area of disability studies because it uses the obvious difference between people with physical or mental limitations to underpin prejudices (:26). This applies to church development services, both for disabled Christian development workers and for people with physical or intellectual challenges that are encountered in the field. The social constructs of “foreign” and the “other” meet here and want to be overcome constructively (: 30). In intercultural communication, Maletzke demands a high degree of “intelligence, tolerance, strength of personality; Ability and willingness for positive social relationships; Task orientation ”(: 132). In particular, he sees the ability to deal with new needs and changes as inevitable. A special feature that Maletzke mentions are the social attractions of so-called “inter-cultures” or “third cultures”. This corresponds approximately to the attractiveness already mentioned, as was established in the context of the Homogenous People Principles for homogeneous ethnic groups (Homogenous Units Principle HUP), by McGavran (Maletzke 1996: 155; McGavran 1968: vi, 1, 3, 91). It was observed that people with the same ethnic or social background are receptive to external impressions as a group, non-verbal elements play a considerable role (Maletzke 1996: 76). Maletzke does not explicitly name this, but he seems to mean the deeper interpersonal communication as such a point of attraction within the framework of the cultural encounter. In other words, it is not the spontaneous encounter that is taken up here, but the establishment of social networks that serve to carry out life in a specific or several areas of life. In the church development service, such social networks are the starting point for Church social welfare activities. Overcoming linguistic-cultural hurdles is the basic requirement to build trust. This “intercultural adaptation” reduces the “culture shock” in the encounter of the parties (Maletzke 1996: 159-160, 166). Values provide the theoretical framework within which the members of a group adhere, but customs and norms determine the concrete level of everyday behavior (:91). Violations are to be understood as taboo and are only granted to the outsider, they are sanctioned fundamentally (:97).

Modern hermeneutics on the biblical account testify its complexity as open to surprises. In the age of intersubjectivism, the interpreters’ biographical experiences flow into the subjective interpretation as ethnographic observations.[1] These interpretations are also suitable to allow for a changing image of God. This phenomenon results from diverse readings at different times, which led to changing hermeneutic interpretations. Inclusion-oriented hermeneutics represent an intersubjective model that is based on the reciprocal coexistence of people with and without physical or mental restrictions, demonstrating differentiality (e.g. diversity) and convalescence (restoration) in one. The biographical-ethnographic discourses described above are the starting point for such a hermeneutics (see Kathy Black in theology of interdependance 1996: 34-41).

Previous examples of inclusive hermeneutics are mentioned here. The key to all-inclusive approaches lies in the integration of those addressed. The feminine qualities of God were only emphasized by the participation of female exegetes, until then they were also known, but hardly played a role in interpretation (Du Mez 2015:1, 27, 39). Katharine Bushnell (*1855–†1946) became a feminist theologian, when she realized that the male over interpretation of the biblical text in Chinese Bible translations at that time was largely due to a Western paternalistic interpretation (: 39-41). This is one of the examples of how a scientific discipline perceives its own “thinking glasses”, when various social groups are involved.

Linguistic prejudices are another narrow link. The term δοῦλος doulos “slave”, still common in German Bible translations in the Middle Ages, has become an English keyterm over the past few centuries. “Servant” (see NAS in contrast to KJV) or German “servant, servant” (e.g. Einheitsübersetzung) as it is attested in e.g. John 15:15. The developments surrounding Afro-American slavery and the associated racism as well as segregation have increasingly focused the term “slave” on this problem area, which is why, over time, it add additional and now serious negative semantic connotations. Today’s use of “servant” was always included in the term δοῦλος doulos, but it only was translated as “slave”. Linguistic-cultural development can continue as well as discontinue in reverse. It is therefore possible that applications of new terms will develop (e.g. “serf”; “colleagues”) as well as those that have already been used (e.g. “freelancers”; “slaves”).

The hurdles in language and culture are the most important challenge in the transcultural encounter within the framework of the global Church Development service. If the actors are additionally challenged by physical or mental limitations, then additional barriers have to be mastered. It is the encultured encyclopaedic knowledge of the world (Kess 1993:6) and the cultural tradition of an ethnic or social group that shape their collective and individual environment. Within this reality of life, the living spaces of people with physical or mental limitations are perceived as areas of “norm deviation” or “abnormality”. Both perceptions of this anomaly by people without or with physical or mental challenges as well as the way of life in the coexistence of both groups shape the framework of an “inclusive hermeneutics from the ecclesiastical center, which does justice to human diversity”.
If one looks into the church’s development service, then the church’s representation of Christian charity, as exemplified in Jesus of Nazareth, performs the motivation for the Church social welfare service. Transcultural encounter is thus under the impression of church activism. One of the teachings that we take out from historical colonialism in postcolonial studies is that the Church Development service is not following military, economic or political interventions. In this case, national sovereignty is not compromised, but the church’s intervention is to be developed in cooperation. Both teachings are deeply based on an inclusive thought. It is based on the leadership concept of the primus interpares[2] and the so-called Golden Rule. Consequently, where transcultural actors plan with each other, this must not be done under political, economic or military influence, but is based on a strong relationship and does not lead to a shift of forces in favor of non-indigenous forces, i.e. the influence from outside.

An inclusive anthropology as required in various places (Ulf Liedke 2009) contrasts theological premises. This includes divine

Omnipotence (unlimited power; Genesis 17:1; Rev. 21:22),
Omnipresence (ubiquity; Genesis 28:15),
Timelessness (postulate of eternity; Numbers 3:15, 15:18; Neh 9: 5) and
Perfection (Deuteronomy 32: 4; Mt 5:48).
The latter describes the abundance that is the ideal, of all aesthetic, emotional and physical attributes.

Divine properties
Human attributes
Omnipresence
Local spatial constraint
Omnipotence
Human influence on the environment
Timelessness
time obligations
Perfection
Aesthetic-physical imperfection
These divine properties, as articulated in the biblical accounts, are breaking through the physical-physical limitations of the person who is bound to space and time. Jesus of Nazareth shows besides absolutely human qualities, grief, compassion, fear, care also the ability to walk through groups of people or on the water or to heal. These divine properties mentioned above perform antitheses to human impermanence and limitation. Although physical and psychological transgressions are described in the biblical report using divine miracles, both living environments remain separate as realities. This also plays an important role for inclusive anthropology and hermeneutics.
Including missiological-theological ideas basically begin with a form of theology of suffering. These arise from the theological concept of liberation, which reflects the transience and limitations of man in the image of the death on the cross by Jesus of Nazareth (Beyerhaus 1986:39, 41, 47). Pope John Paul II sees people with physical or mental challenges as heralds of a new world transformed by the light of Christ. This is rightly emphasized by the Roman Catholic theologian Jean Vanier. However, it presupposes that practical life has to be adjusted to the limitations that sometimes occur through illness, accidents or other incidents, since otherwise the socially constructed “abnormality” of these people cannot be leveled in the kingdom of God. This can happen both in the church and in the meeting realms of people with and without physical or mental limitations. This perspective developed for Vanier after having had the experience of living together in the living facilities of the L’Arche communities. Here Vanier’s practical theology goes beyond the papal notion, which derives from theological theory. It defines the enrichment of the transcultural encounter of people with and without physical or mental challenges, both from mutual learning, as well as in the perception and complementary exchange of mutual life experience (Reinders 2000:3-5, 13, 15). These experiences form the bridges between the living environments of people with and without physical or mental impairments. Such bridges are apt to complete the Church as a whole, as a realm of God, within the framework of human diversity. In return, where these stoops are not bridged, social living spaces of this ecclesiastical realization remain closed and do not represent the entirety of the church in eschatological perfection (Newbigin 1979: 23).
At this point, the most important linguistic-anthropological questions from a missiological point of view with regard to inclusive hermeneutics should be touched on from within the church. After a summary, we turn to the question, what about political correctness and inclusive language as linguistic categories of an inclusive hermeneutics?
3. Summary – Questionnaire
It was shown here that the driving force of inclusion, however, is the diversity of social structures. Social coherence develops in the diversity of its members under conditions in which the different social classes complement or support one another. The economic, personal or political boundaries were discussed here taking into account postcolonial aspects.
A global questionnaire study, in which 23 participants from a total of 46 took part, was designed to show how inclusion by Church Development aid organizations is practiced. This study was aimed both at church workers who have a physical or mental disability and at the parents of children with such characteristics. The respondents work in such church organizations abroad. The perception and assessment of about half of the participants confirm structures that show the inclusion in their organization. This was noted particularly in the areas of contact persons and assistance regarding the physical or mental challenge. The other half should not be overlooked. In particular, complex assistance around the clock is a problem. Here the respondents are looking for help from outside. A contact person or sensitivity to the different life formats is also a difficult topic for half of the organizations. Overall, however, the subject of inclusion is currently represented in the organizations by the respondents themselves. This factor also represents a limitation of the survey, since it is not a cross-section of all organizations, but only a section from the perspective of the group of people concerned. In this regard, it remains to be hoped that the encouragement to hire, integrate and deal with the physically or mentally challenged will also affect other organizations.
In addition to a post-colonial, cultural-anthropological considerations with regard to disability studies have also stimulated linguistic discourse. The theological discussion of hermeneutics with exegetical knowledge is particularly challenging. Examples such as the terms “woman” or “slave”, which have been exposed to language and cultural change for centuries, demonstrate the hermeneutic challenge. This can be transferred to the cultural-linguistic Othering (being different) due to the Ableism rejection of disabled people) by people with physical or mental limitations.

Religious and theological ideas revolve around the idealization of the ideas of “divinity” as the perfect counterpart to human beings. Terms such as omnipresence, omnipotence, perfection or eternity are used to create biases towards people with physical or mental limitations with regard to aesthetic, moral, ethical and emotional perceptions. An unconscious or subliminal segregation of the imperfect, unaesthetic or physically broken takes place in mind and speech. This is expressed in the different categorization of the living environments of people with and without physical or mental impairments. Separation is declared as being “different”. As a result, only a few or one-sided bridges can be built, the latter following the power gap from the disabled (Engl. The Abled) to the disabled (Engl. Disabled).

The Golden Rule was proposed as a life principle, as a hermeneutic bridging of the different living environments of people with and without physical or mental challenges. It serves as a leitmotif, because in order to bridge the power gap, the social benefits of an inclusive hermeneutic must become clear from the center. The theological construct “Trinity” plays a not insignificant role here, since even a variety of very different and at the same time complementary natures come into play (Tataryn & Truchan-Tataryn 2013:62). Since the Biblical Trinity reflects “unity in diversity”, the Church can be described as a “community in diversity”. Only in this constellation does it live up to its mission to all nations and the people that is the believing members.

References

Beyerhaus, Peter P. J. 1986. Theologie als Instrument der Befreiung: Die Rolle der neuen “Volkstheologien” in der ökumenischen Diskussion. Giessen: Brunnen. [Engl.: Theology as a Tool to Liberation: The role of the new “Folk Theologies” in the ecumenical discussion.].

Black, Kathy 1996. A Healing Homiletic: Preaching and Disability. Nashville: Abingdon.

Blöcher, Detlef 2007. What reMAP I said, did, and achieved, in Hay, Rob et. al. (eds.): Worth Kee­ping: Global Perspectives on Best Practice in Missionary Retention, 9-22. Pasadena: William Carey.

Derrida, Jacques 1967. Of Grammatology. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

Du Mez, Kristin Kobes 2015. A New Gospel for Women: Katharine Bushnell and the Challenge of Christian Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fragebogenstudie. URL: https://forschungsstiftung.net/sites/all/files/uploads/­Fragebogen%­20Print-Version.pdf [Stand 2020-01-20]. Gießen.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg [1960] 1972. Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. (translated in English: Gadamer, Hans-Georg 1989. Truth and Method. 2nd rev. edition. Trans. J. Weinsheimer and D.G.Marshall. New York: Crossroad.).

Gutt, Ernst-August [1991] 2000. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. 2nd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Liedke, Ulf 2009. Beziehungsreiches Leben. Studien zu einer inklusiven theologischen Anthropologie für Menschen mit und ohne Behinderung. APLH 59. Göttingen. [Engl.: Relational Life. Studies on inclusive theological anthropology for People with and without disabilities.].

Maletzke, Gerhard 1996. Interkulturelle Kommunikation: Zur Interaktion zwischen Menschen verschiedener Kulturen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. [Engl.: Intercultural Communication: On the Interaction of Humankind from different cultural Backgrounds.].

McGavran, Donald A. [1955] 1968. The Bridges of God: A Study in the Strategy of Missions. 2nd printing. New York: Friendship Press.

Netzwerk Disability Studies und Interkulturelle Theologie 2020. Auswertung Shannon, Claude L. & Weaver, Warren 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

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 2018-06-04].

Nord, Christiane [1997] 2001. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Ex­plain­ed. Reprint. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Reiß, Katharina & Vermeer, Hans J. [1984] 1991. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Trans­la­tions­­theorie. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Engl.: Establishment of a general Translation-theory.].

Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre [1986] 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Stuhlmacher, Peter 1986. Vom Verstehen des Neuen Testaments: Eine Hermeneutik. 2. neubearb. und erw. Auflage. Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament. Das Neue Testament Deutsch. Ergänzungsreihe Band 6. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Tataryn, Myroslaw I. & Tataryn, Mira Truchan 2013. Discovering Trinity in Disability: A Theology for Embracing Difference. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Vermeer, Hans J. 1978. Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie. Lebende Sprachen 23/1, 99-102. München: Langenscheidt.[Engl.: Framework for a General Theory of Translation.].

 

 

[1] The hermeneutic discussions around Gadamer’s new hermeneutics (1990), Derrida’s deconstructivist intersubjectivism (1967: 25) or the traditional hermeneuticl view of Stuhlmacher (1986) only flow into this work insofar as they are helpful to the ethnographic-biographical analysis. Gadamer’s “merging of horizons” and the intersubjective representation of Derrida are excellent tools for exposing the subjectivity of colonial writings.

[2] Lat. “First among equals” is a management structure in which the leader is on an equal footing with the others, but may assume responsibility from this group (Werner 2018 Power Point Inclusive Leadership).

Missiology and Theology – Best Friends?

Eberhard Werner (werner(a)forschungsinstitut.net)

Abstract

The relationship between missiology and theology was and is not always an easy one. Theological education and the dominance of theological presence and orientation on the university level let Missiology appear as a pansy. However, a mutual interaction is undisputed. Missiology is considered a “fruit of theology” (Kasdorf) or its practical branch, but at the same time it forces theology to integrate missiological insights and experiences into local and sometimes even global (glocal) theological orientations. A ratio determination will not easily made finally. The ongoing interaction with each other on the same scientific level should be the actual reason for the fundamental determination of the respective (in)dependent discipline.

Intercultural Theology, Missiology and Missionary Sciences

With the introduction of the discipline Intercultural Theology (see position paper of the German Community for Missiology – DGMW – and the Scientific Society for Theology – WGTh from 2005) as a subject relevant to higher education, the relation to the established mission science, to the in the anglophone area located missiology ( missiology) and to theology needs to be determined. A wide variety of opinions collide when it comes to determining whether it is a new subject, whether it is only replacing mission sciences or whether a complementation or supplementation in the disciplinary discourse is sought. In the aforementioned position paper, a complementation is proposed. Religious studies, mission sciences and ecumenical theology should be closely interlinked within the framework of intercultural theology. Transnational, transcultural and interreligious discourses require this extension due to globalization and digitization.

These observations, however, are not new and refer to the history of Christian Development science. While Christian Service and church history takes on a written form for the first time in Acts, its oracle is anchored in the Hebrew Bible and the life and traditions of Jesus of Nazareth. In the Hebrew Bible, the future-oriented field of action by the Israelite deity YHWH is already being anticipated in the election of a “holy” people. Thus, YHWH pretends that the future order of election and salvation is based solely on this deity. It is JHWH who determines the framework for salvation and election. Worldly kingdoms of Israel and Judah formed the kingdom of God, that is the sphere of activity of YHWH. The prophetic orientation (e.g. prophets, visions and miracles) and Israelitic priesthood of the Hebrew Bible continues in the priestly and prophetic direction of the global Church. The open canon of the New Testament and the lack of a final and legal basic text are indications that the history of the Church and Christian Service will not end, but will last until the “completion of times”. Thus, the ethical-moral development of the global Church becomes a progressively-evolving realization of the divine influence of power on and in man(kind). The (in) indirect divine effect (Holy Spirit) reveals the ideal Church, which moves in a reflective and ascending way in the history of the world towards an eschatological cumulation point.

A look back at the Christian Service sciences and their separation from theology gives hints on how these developments are to be valued. Until the late late Middle Ages, Christian Service sciences were part of applied theology. Christology and theology were interlinked. With the pietistic detachment of diakonia and sending the scientific possibility of specialization emerged outside of theology. Pedagogy (Spehner), religion and active service, as was necessary with the expiring monastic and order life due to the emerging industrialization found their way into the theological endowment and justification. Foreign assignments and an emerging Christian development service through scripture translation (Bible translation) as conducted by Wiliam Carey, Zinzendorf or American (Z. B. ABCFM) and British (eg BFBS) organizations asked for justifications. Christian Service science was born. At the present time, mobility, the digital revolution and ecumenical and interfaith dialogue have not joined this development.

Intercultural theology is therefore in a position to form an interdisciplinary interface between the auxiliary disciplines of linguistics, anthropology, sociology, psychology and pedagogy in order to do justice to the task of transcultural, transnational and interreligious exchange. In anglophone space, missiology (missiology) is so operated.

Whether Christian Service science, because of its unilateral Christian orientation, encourages subjectivization or whether it can not accomplish the interdisciplinary challenge in its Western interlinking remains a speculative question.

Discussions are welcome: werner@forschungssinstitut.net

Bible translation and Disability Studies

Bible translation and Disability Studies

Eberhard Werner (werner (a) forschungsinstitut.net)

 

Bible translation and Disability Studies, how is that related? At first glance, “disability” in the Bible seems to be within the framework of a discourse that reflects exclusively on the lives of the non-disabled. The living worlds of people with and without disabilities emerge in the biblical text by the authors as interface out of the perspective of the non-disabled. We will not find a life picture of a “handicapped person”, which would allow to make any decision on the question of the physical or mental restriction with respect to the divine reality. The book of Job could be an exception here, if it would not leave the impression that it is a religious doctrine of justification. In particular sections like

Chapter 1 V. 1: In the land of Uz lived a man named Job. This man was blameless and righteous; he feared God and avoided evil. or V. 12 The LORD said to Satan, “All his possessions are in your hands, but your hand is not enough for him!”

or at the end

Chapter 42, 9 And the LORD answered Job, 10 and the LORD turned the fate of Job as he asked for his friends. And the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had. 17 And Job died old and full of life.

we get the impression that disability and illness are divine punishments. Even though the origin is placed on the work of the divine adversary, ultimately the divine causality of punishment and pedagogical means of education remains. Another text, no less difficult to understand in hindsight of Disability Studies, is 2 Samuel 5:6-8:

6 But they said to David, Thou shalt not come in here, but the blind and the lame will drive you away. By that they said that David could not get in there. 7 David conquered the castle of Zion; this is David’s city. 8 And David said in that day, He who smites the Jebusites, and reaches the well, and slays the lame and the blind that hath hated David, shall be captain and chief. Joab, the son of Zeruiah, first ascended and became captain. Therefore one speaks: Do not let blind and lame in the house!

While in the first part of this text (v. 6) one could still speak of sheer discrimination based on social prejudice against visually impaired and physically handicapped people, as also shown in the New Testament parable of the rich host (Luke 14:16-23) , the second part shows an extreme form of Ableismus (hostility on disability). The consequence of the rejection of King David to the afore mentioned group of people leads to a proverb and then to an action. The latter being at least justified in the eyes of the author. How would such a text be understood and interpreted by visually and physically limited persons? The intention of King David was probably to convict the enemies of their own arrogance. From a strategic point of view, this included to demonstrate royal power on the cost of the marginalized. That this happens at the expense of “the marginalized” is incomprehensible under today’s human and martial law and was so probably even back then. But it is laudable and helpful for Disability Studies that this episode is reported unvarnished. The stigmatization, exclusion, and rejection of those with physical limitations is a reality of their life well reflected in this Biblical text. Worse, it is inducted through the intervention of a “chosen” actor acting in divine service (1 Samuel 16). Contentwise, Jerusalem becomes stylized as the center of salvation at the expense of the marginalized The literary antipode narrative is identical with the already mentioned parable of the rich host, whose sumptuous banquet is filled up with the marginalized because of the ignorance of the “normals” (friends, acquaintances). In a certain sense, the spell of 2 Samuel 58 became reality here and was unreflected reported. Unfortunately, the unpleasant sensation remains that it the marginalized are second choice used as a stopgap to avenge the ignorant friends and acquaintances. The text reflects them as rear-employment, second-rate (second choice) and an emergency solutions, as Dorothee Wilhem, handicaped herself , points to the discriminatory and exclusive effect of the text. She asks Who Heals Here Who? And above all: About Biblical Healing Stories and Other Annoyances. (Schiefer-Ferrari 2014:12-14 (Un) disturbed reading).

Popular Bible translations ignore these side effects It is to be expected that a keen spiritual eye on these sensitivities will also influence the choice of words. Highlighting this second choice would reveal the literary approach as an antipode. Allow to make two translational suggestions at this point on 2 Samuel 5:6-7:

6 And the king went with his men to Jerusalem to fight against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land. They said to David: You can not come in here, the castle can be guarded even by non-combatants who are free from military service due to their physical condition (FN1). They wanted to put him off. 7 But David took the castle of Zion, which means the city of David. 8 David said on the same day: He who beats the Jebusites and gets to the aqueduct, and beats the non-combatants (see FN1), who were thus rejected by David …! (FN2) Therefore one speaks: A person with a visual or mobility restriction should not enter your house.

Footnote 1: Visually and physically disabled people.

Footnote 2: which are hated by the soul of David  …!

Luke 14: 21-23:

21 The servant came back and told his master. Then the landlord became angry and said to his servant: Then go quickly out into the streets and alleys of the city and bring in at least the poor, the physically impaired, as well as people with limited visuality and mobility. (FN1)

Footnote 1: Crippled and blind and lame.