Do not Un-disable the Disabled

In a nation like India where anything could easily be relegated to taboos there even disability cannot evade the stereotypical apprehensions. We might sound accommodating when we resort to the use of euphemisms like ‘differently abled’, ‘special child’ etc. but that is not true. Nancy Eiesland, pioneer of the Theology of Disability opines;

Euphemisms for persons with disabilities have abounded in recent years, including ‘differently abled’……These people maintain that Euphemisms deny the fact that disabilities do exist and reinforce the idea that disabilities must be camouflaged to make them acceptable for public.[i]

Our tendency to sanitize disability through euphemisms itself is the clarion call that there is absolutely no space in this world for something which is not ‘normal’. The ‘abled’ are engaged in the imprudence of making the disabled feel accommodative reprimanding the fact that the disabled are already an integral part of the diversity of God’s creation. It is not the benevolence of the ‘abled’ but the fundamental right of the disabled to feel inclusion tangible.   The disability of the abled to see the ability of the disabled is the root cause of all the existing misconceptions. The terms we often use for the persons with disability (PWD - which is the proper way to address the disabled) probably colloquially are offensive. Kindly look up the proper terms. For instance deaf is offensive, the more accepted one is hearing impaired; dumb is offensive, kindly use speech disorder; blind is offensive, please use visually impaired; mentally retarded is offensive, you may use intellectually disabled, people using wheelchairs or crutches may be addressed as mobility challenged/physically impaired etc. Be cautious to not offend the people with disability with your unawareness.    

Christians have prototyped Jesus as someone who Un-disables the Disabled. Heather Kirn Lanier through her article entitled “My daughter has a disability. I don’t want Jesus to ‘fix’ her” critiques Jesus for his act. She writes;

On the subject of disability, I found a Jesus that is, frankly, disappointing. He usually does precisely what disability advocates rail against. He reinforces the idea that the disabled body is broken, damaged. He treats the disabled body as something to fix. “Take up your mat,” he tells people who could not walk and suddenly they walk. He spits into his hand, touches a deaf man and the man can hear. The sick and lame touch the “fringes of Jesus’ cloak,” and, like that, they are “fixed,” transformed into the likenesses of their able-bodied brethren. I’ve got a bone to pick with Jesus. Why does his primary miracle have to be un-disabling the disabled?[ii]

With all due respect to her polemics, I would say that Jesus does not cure but heals. There is a massive difference between the two. Curing is treating a physical ailment but healing is a radical endeavour of reclaiming and reaffirming one's space and dignity hitherto unacknowledged in the social sphere. Jesus was a healer and not someone who simply cured. Minimising Jesus as someone who only cured would undermine his Christness.     

People with disabilities are indubitably objectified. To the most they are considered to be a resource for theology but not a source from which theology could be derived. John Swinton describes Disability Theology as;

Disability theology is the attempt by disabled and non-disabled Christians to understand and interpret the gospel of Jesus Christ, God, and humanity against the backdrop of the historical and contemporary experiences of people with disabilities. It has come to refer to a variety of perspectives and methods designed to give voice to the rich and diverse theological meanings of the human experience of disability.[iv]

This invites a new dimension of contextual theology. Theology of disability becomes a contextual theology only if it takes into consideration the uniqueness of the experiences of people with disabilities. A mere and naïve generalization of the experiences of people with disabilities would end up in contextualism and not contextualization of theology. To be precise the experience of each person with disability is unique and therefore valorization and generalization of these experiences might not cater to a sound theology of disability. Theology of disability cannot be static but it should discover new methodologies and hermeneutics according to the time and context. For instance people with disability understand and address God as Disabled just as the ‘abled’ taught us to address God as Almighty/powerful etc. If the ‘abled’ has the freedom to perceive God as ‘abled’ then why should not the ‘disabled’ have the liberty to identify God as ‘disabled’? Burton Cooper in his reflections on the idea of a disabled God puts it this way;

Our tendency is to think of divine power in the same terms as our power, except to extend God’s power unlimitedly. That is, there are limits to our power; there are no limits to God’s power. If we can do some things, God is able to do anything. Thus, human ‘ableness’ provides us with the image to think about God’s power. In this context, the image of a disabled God is not simply a shocker but also a theological reminder that we are not to think of God’s powers or abilities as simply an unlimited extension of our powers or abilities.[viii]

Lent could be a time to stop un-disabling the disabled. They do not need your sympathy but respect. Do not treat them as objects of charity. Being disabled friendly does not only mean constructing churches, schools, colleges and other establishments which could be easily accessed by the disabled (of course we could begin there) but also making them feel inclusive in all possible ways by ensuring equal opportunities. This needs a re-imagination of the power of powerlessness and the ability of disability. This should also challenge our efforts to identify God with human attributes. God is not an extrapolation of human attributes of power rather the fulfilment of human powerlessness and disability.  I conclude with a work by Karim Okiki. This man presented a symbolic sculpted cross to Pope Francis on his visit to the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Geneva.

This cross represents the people with disabilities across the globe. Three disability symbols carved on the cross represent the visually impaired, the physically impaired and the hearing impaired. At the centre of the cross is the sign language symbol for the inclusion of persons with disabilities in all aspects of the church and the society. He intriguingly remarks;

I would like this cross to speak to Pope Francis and the churches worldwide on the need to embrace persons with disabilities especially the deaf and hard of hearing as part of the church today. Being disabled is part of God’s diversity in creation. I would like to see a world where persons with disabilities’ spiritual needs are met just like those of any other person. They too thirst for spiritual nourishment but because there is no conducive environment for them to be part of our churches, they remain in their homes.[xiii]

Prayers

Dn. Basil Paul