Who is a Disable? What is Disability?
Generally people refer to this community as Handicapped, Disabled people, mentally retarded
(mentally challenged), Differently abled people – People with Disabilities and Crippled –
Wheelchair Users. One Billion People or 15% of the world’s population, experience some form
of disability. According to the UN Development Programme (UNDP), 80% of persons with
disabilities live in the developing countries. The World Bank estimates that 20% of the world’s
poorest people are disabled and tend to be regarded in their own communities as the most
disadvantaged. 70% of people living in poverty worldwide are FEMALE! Women with
disabilities are more likely to be poorer, less healthy, and more vulnerable to abuse than men
with disabilities or non-disabled women. Women with disabilities are recognized to be doubly
disadvantaged, experiencing EXCLUSION on account of their gender and their disability. That
all members of society enjoy equal rights and opportunities and are able to fully participate in
civil, political, economic, social and cultural spheres of life.
In the Universal declaration of Human Rights Article 23 (1) states that:
“Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions
of work and protection against unemployment”. National Policy on Disability for Sri Lanka
promotes and protects the Rights of People who have Disability in the spirit of social justice.
They will have opportunities for enjoying a full and satisfying life and for contributing to
national development through their knowledge, experience and particular skills and capabilities
as equal citizens of Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka the School for Deaf and Blind in (Northern part in
Sri Lanka), School for Deaf and Blind Rathmalana Colombo, VALVAGAM (giving life) in
Jaffna are the education Centers concerned about the education of the disabled Children. Deaf
Link Methodist Church, Siva Boomi (Land of Shiva) are the institutions concerned with the
empowerment of Children. The House of Hope in Vavuniya and new light Centre they are
concerned about the employment of the people.
When we come to religion an exclusive way of reading the bible (Exodus 4: 11, Leviticus 21: 14-
16, John 9: 1-3), Doctrine of Sin (Mark 2: 1-12), Interpreting the Miracle in the light of faith
(Mark 9: 14-29) places an important role of exclusion of the disabled people. Giving
opportunities, respecting human dignity, inclusiveness are key figures of the social and economic
stigmas.
The Understanding of the Old Testament
Scripture such as Leviticus 21:16-23 has often been used as justification for excluding disabled
people from taking a leadership role in the Church. In Hebrew times, people with disabilities
were heavily stigmatized and excluded from society; priests were no exception to the rule. To
serve at the altar a priest was expected to be bodily whole and without blemish, much like the
animals presented for sacrifice. Bodily perfection was an external symbol of God’s holiness and
the holiness of the temple sanctuary. Any bodily defect rendered the person imperfect and
therefore unfit to perform priestly duties.
Priests were appointed by virtue of birth; those born into the tribe who had impairments
presented a difficulty. However, although the priests with physical disabilities were excluded
from worship at the altar, they were not excluded from performing duties entirely. Priests with
impairments were permitted to eat the food presented for offering like the other priests, but were
not permitted to approach the altar. (1 Leviticus 21:22)
This passage implies that people with disabilities lack perfection and wholeness. It is therefore
easy to understand how the attitude of disallowing priests with impairments from presiding at the
altar due to ritual impurity has been historically carried over in the exclusion of people with
disabilities from leading worship or presiding as a minister in the Church. However, Leviticus is
not entirely negative about disability, referring specifically to visual and hearing impairments;
19:14 prohibits anyone from ridiculing or causing harm to people with disabilities. This shows a
certain amount of inclusivity towards people with impairments although it could also be
perceived as pity.
Jesus and Disability
Jesus’ message in the gospels was one of inclusion. On a number of occasions, Jesus interacted
with, healed and restored people with disabilities. The gospel of Mark gives several accounts of
interaction between Jesus and people with impairments. As in ancient society, people with
disabilities during Jesus’ time were stigmatized and excluded from society. This was true in the
case of the man with leprosy (Mark 1:40-44). According to Mosaic Law, anyone with a skin disease was
deemed unclean and therefore disallowed from coming into contact with anyone else. On being
relieved of the illness, the person with the skin disease must present themselves to the priest who
would prescribe the appropriate rituals before pronouncing the person clean (Leviticus 13 & 14).
Yet Jesus not only healed the man of leprosy, but also touched him thereby rendering himself
unclean. This was unheard of since it was forbidden in Jewish law to touch someone who was
unclean. Jesus, in healing the man who could only be made clean by a priest, tackled the root of
the problem thereby demonstrating his power and authority. In this act Jesus broke the stigma
attached to skin disease and identified himself with the man; thus demonstrating true inclusion.
In the following chapter, Mark recounts a further healing story. In this narrative a paralyzed man
was presented to Jesus for healing. Due to large crowds around Jesus, the man had to be lowered
through the roof of the building which Jesus was in (Mark 2:1-12). As a result, the passage can be understood both positively and negatively. Firstly, in relation to the paralyzed man, Jesus saw beyond his
physical disability and dealt with the man’s spiritual condition before addressing his bodily one.
This indicates that Jesus addresses the needs of the whole person and not just the physical
condition. It was only when the Pharisees showed shock that Jesus had taken it upon himself to
forgive sins that Jesus demonstrated his power by healing the man. There was no expectation
that the man needed to be healed of his physical condition other than as an illustration of Jesus
capabilities.
It was commonly believed that disability was a consequence of sin in either the life of a person
or their parent’s lives. Mark links the concepts of healing and forgiveness in this story, thus
reinforcing society’s assumptions. The idea that disability is a result of sin has been passed
down throughout Christian history and is still a commonly held belief amongst some sections of
the Church today. This has been particularly damaging the Christians with disabilities who have
felt guilt, shame and uncleanliness because of their impairment.
Despite this, in John 9:3, Jesus makes it clear that disability and sin are not linked. The disciples,
on encountering a man born blind, immediately linked the man’s impairment to sin in either his
or his parent’s lives. Jesus answered by categorically stating that sin was not the cause of the
man’s disability. Jesus then healed the man without offering forgiveness as he did with many of
his healings. This passage suggests that disability and sin are not linked which is contrary to
society’s understanding at that time.
Paul and Disability
Whilst disability in the gospels can be understood both positively and negatively, Paul, in the
epistles, is largely positive. For Paul, physical weakness was not a symbol of exclusion,
stigmatization or second class citizenship. In fact, God specifically chooses people who are
physically weak to shame the able-bodied strong (1 Corinthians 1:27). It is highly speculated whether Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was a disability (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). Although the precise nature of the “thorn” cannot be determined it is clear that Paul experienced this irritation as a disability and a “functional limitation” in his ministry.
Theology of Access
Erik W. Carter suggests in Including People with Disabilities in Faith Communities several
indicators of a welcoming congregation. He proposes that people with disabilities must be able
to participate in the activities offered at the church and access the facilities available. The
congregation must make all people feel welcome and included in all activities, striving at all
times for a “common community”. An inclusive congregation recognizes the contribution, gifts
and talents of all members in the church and are willing to facilitate the use of those gifts
regardless of the perceived ability of the person.
Whilst these suggestions for inclusion are commendable, the Church must also address its
theology in relation to disability in order to become a fully inclusive community.
A theology of access is one such attempt to develop a theology that creates full inclusion within
the church community. Weiss Block proposes that the purpose of a theology of access “is the
inclusion of people with disabilities in the Body of Christ”. Creating access for those on the
margins is not supplementary to the Christian faith but is an imperative of it. “The gospel of
Jesus Christ is a gospel of access; creating access for those on the margins is a Christian
mandate”.
Jesus had an inclusive ministry; he cared about and gave access to all people no matter what their
ability or social standing. Therefore, excluding people with disabilities from full inclusion and
participation in church life actually threatens the ministry and gospel of Jesus Christ. Creating
access for people with disabilities involves more than providing facilities of a practical or
physical nature. It additionally involves providing access for people’s spiritual and theological
needs.
The process of creating an accessible community is demanding and costly: financially,
emotionally, ethically, physically, spiritually and theologically. It requires church congregations
to examine critically their practices, beliefs and assumptions, to study them in light of the gospel
and to come up with strategies for change in their practices.
Weiss Block acknowledges, “A theology of access demands that we search our community with
truth and face the serious reality that some people of God have been systematically denied access
to the community”. Churches in Sri Lanka therefore must also admit that we are individually
responsible for excluding people from participating fully in church life through our attitudes and
actions.
These are not easy truths to face; however if the Church is ever going to become the inclusive
community it is called to be, then it must embrace the reality that it is responsible for the
systemic exclusion of marginalized people. The Church must recognize that it has used the Bible
to exploit and exclude people with disabilities, including neglect and prejudice of individual
needs. From this, a new theology may develop; one that embraces the spirituality of disabled
people and allows them to teach the Church something about God from their perspective.
Weiss Block admits that the practical realities of inclusion are daunting. Developing a theology
of access will require the Church to consider who it is and what it stands for. It will challenge
the Church to re-define long held theologies, traditions and beliefs. It will put strain on limited
financial and human resources as church buildings are modified and adapted. A theology of
access will potentially lead the Church to develop new models of hospitality and mission in areas
that they had not anticipated or expected. Yet this is surely the challenge of the gospel, to
“make disciples of all nations” regardless of race, gender or ability.
Conclusion
The Church must be aware of and address current stigmatizing behaviors. These behaviors can
manifest themselves through low expectations of people’s individual abilities or by using
language that demeans the value of the human being. The Church must also acknowledge that
the Bible has often been used to uphold past and present exclusive practices against people with
disabilities.
The Bible contains a mixture of messages regarding disability. Some of these readings have
been good whilst others potentially bad. Bad readings of scripture have traditionally contributed
to the oppression and exclusion of people with disabilities within the life of the church.
The church needs to witness the vulnerability of God and the God who is disabled through Jesus
on the cross. The crucified image as a suffering servant is an empowering and liberating image
for the disabled and all those who care for the disabled. The wrong notion of perfecting and
ability is to be replaced with relational encounters of all human begins. Inclusion and
accommodation are not the solutions for accepting the people with disabilities but remaining of
traditional space, envisioning new methodology and mission to have multi spaces where all can
have equal rights to participate. It is here that the ecumenical churches in Asia along with other
communities stand as an alternate ethical community that recognizes the realities of people with
disabilities.
Developing an attitude of inclusion and access in church will be costly, demanding and at times
painful. Yet it is also radical, adventurous and at it is the core of the Christian calling. The
Church is called to be an inclusive, gracious people, following the example of the risen and
disabled Christ.
Living out the calling will require the Church to put aside old values that have historically
oppressed people with disabilities. It will require honest and truthful confession. It will possibly
require the modification of much loved church buildings. Yet in doing all of this the Church will
grow nearer to the vision of the body of Christ as an inclusive people, each uniquely different but
complimenting each other in worshipping the God who became disabled for us. In order to step
towards this vision the Church must take disability theology seriously. It is at the heart of
becoming a fully inclusive community and only when the deeper issues are addressed will people
with impairments feel fully included and welcomed in Christian communities.
Rev. Stephen Arulampalam.
Church of Ceylon.