Religion, Culture, and Disability in Namibia: Documenting Lived Experience of Stigma and Compulsory Cure

Abstract

This article seeks to highlight voices of experience of disability in Namibia, focusing on the religious and cultural perspectives and realities that often negatively influence such experiences, including experiences of stigma and compulsory cure. We present the results of three workshops that were held with persons with disabilities, organizations of persons with disabilities, clergy, and seminarians (variously, also attended by academics and representatives from UN agencies and the Government of the Republic of Namibia). The findings of the workshops—including the socio-economic, political, and public health dimensions of marginalization—are then situated within the current research landscape on disability in Namibia (and wider Southern Africa). Whilst recognizing that religious and cultural attitudes so often contribute to disability marginalization, we also propose that religious and cultural resources can usefully be harnessed to tackle stigma and discrimination. Here, we focus on the Contextual Bible Study methodology, which originates in South Africa, and its potential to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion for persons with disabilities and effect positive social change. Finally, and as this article has emerged from an international and interdisciplinary network of scholars (in Namibia, South Africa, and the UK), some reflections are offered about the collaboration between the theories, epistemologies, and methods of the Global North and Global South regarding religion, culture, and disability.

Keywords:

• African Traditional Religion
• Christianity
• Contextual Bible Study
• Disability
• Namibia

Introduction

The year 2020 marked 30 years of Namibian independence. In government since 1990, the SWAPO party states on its website that “today we are free” (http://www.swapoparty.org/swapo_historical_background.html), but the extent to which this claim is true for all Namibians, particularly those with disabilities or those of diverse embodiment (people whose embodied state is deemed to be in some way “non-normative”), is contested.

On the one hand, in 2015, a Department of Disability Affairs was founded by the then President, Hage Geingob, in a demonstration of political will of the highest office of the Land toward disability issues” (Republic of Namibia, 2020, p. 2), and which aided the construction of a Society for All agenda. This agenda supports the Namibian constitution, which has been deemed implicitly inclusive of people with disabilities due to its focus on nondiscrimination (Van Rooy, 2018, p. 1), insisting as it does that (1) “All persons shall be equal before the law,” and (2) “No persons may be discriminated against on the grounds of sex, race, color, ethnic origin, religion, creed or social or economic status” (Article 10; Republic of Namibia, 1990). In the Government’s recent Disability Mainstreaming Plan, it is noted that “Namibia also received an Ambassadorial Status Award in August 2017 from the African Disability Alliance (ADA) for progressive programmes and policies” designed to facilitate integration and inclusion for those with disabilities and is judged by the African Union Commission to be a “model” country in that regard (Republic of Namibia, 2020, p. 2).

On the other hand, Namibia is still largely a socially conservative context in which non-inclusive (ableist and patriarchal) attitudes, and oppressive religious and cultural narratives are prevalent, as was recently acknowledged by the Minister of Justice, Yvonne Dausab, at the 46^th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (Mbathera, 2021). Unchallenged, these narratives (along with their assumed religio-cultural underpinnings) have engendered a post-independence context in which (perceived) non-normative embodiment frequently engenders stigmatization and marginalization. Implicitly inclusive, perhaps, but the Namibian constitution does not explicitly protect against discrimination on the grounds of disability or gender (as opposed to biological sex). Stark inequalities therefore remain in Namibia over-and-above, and intersecting with, the divisions of race and ethnicity that one would readily expect in a post-Apartheid context. So, too, whilst “the Department of Disability Affairs has adopted Social and Human Rights Models as their operational frameworks,” people with disabilities continue to experience stigma, prejudice, and discrimination, marginalization and a lack of accessibility (Republic of Namibia, 2020, p. 3, 2). The Disability Mainstreaming Plan suggests that this is, at least in part, connected to “a deeply-rooted belief in the medical model, which is an individualistic and intrinsic view of disability, thus framing persons with disabilities within their impairments” (Republic of Namibia, 2020, pp. 2–3). Although Namibia is recognized for the strength of its policies/legal framework, which seek to protect and promote the inclusion of people with disabilities, there remains a problem in the level of implementation of these policies. Compounding the problem is the fact that “insufficient human and material resources in such sectors as education, employment, housing, sport, and recreation amongst others continue to impair the alignment of laws to practices that demonstrate competence in disability inclusion” (Republic of Namibia, 2020, p. 3). There is a need for further research concerning the intersectional relationships between religion, disability, and health, so that society can begin to understand the particular influence of religious organizations and religious doctrine on the lives of people with a disability, their families and caregivers. In addition, the potential of religious belief and practice to contribute to improved health and well-being of people with disabilities is noted (Selway & Ashman, 1998).

Definitions and figures

According to the Republic of Namibia’s Disability Council Act 26 of 2004 (Republic of Namibia, 2004), “disability” means “a physical, mental or sensory impairment that alone, or when combined with social or environmental barriers, affects the ability of the person concerned to take part in educational, vocational, or recreational activities.” This paper is written with this definition in mind. Moving toward full recognition and implementation of disability rights, Namibia acceded to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2007; including the Optional Protocol), although the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2015) has noted that there was little awareness of the convention in domestic institutions. Disability—as per the Disability Policy in Namibia—is viewed from a social model perspective (Haihambo & Lightfoot, 2010). This model hypothesizes that if the environment is designed for the full range of human functioning, and incorporates appropriate accommodations and supports, then people with functional limitations should not be viewed as “disabled” because they would be able to fully participate in society (Hughes & Paterson [1997] cited in Chichaya et al., [2020]).

Data collected by the Namibian Statistics Agency in 2011 (NSA, 2011) indicate a range of disabilities within the population: physical, sensory, and mental (Table 1).

Table 1. Types of disabilities. Source: NSA (2011, p. 13).

Type of disabilities	Number	Percentage
Blind	10 505	10.7
Visual Impairment	186	16.4
Deaf	5 684	5.8
Hearing Difficulties	7709	7.8
Mute/Dumb	5273	5.4
Impaired Speech	5180	5.3
Impairment of Hands	9508	9.7
Impairment of Legs	18090	18.4
Impaired Limbs	No data	No data
Mentally Disabled	12731	12.7
Albinism	1153	1.2
Autism	1146	1.2

A further study, conducted by the Multidisciplinary Research Centre (MRC) at the University of Namibia in 2018 (reported in 2019), concerned self-reported disability in surveys. It evidenced that physical disabilities were listed most frequently, with respondents describing their conditions as loss of upper or lower limbs, or paralysis of either side of the body, or from the waist downwards. Visual impairment was another frequently cited disability, variously reported as poor vision in one or both eyes, loss of one eye due to accident or disease, as well as blindness. Mental disability (which was viewed as being “bipolar” or having a mental problem) was also prevalent (MRC, 2019, p. 15).

And yet, the statistics regarding people with disabilities in Namibia do not reflect the true state of affairs or correspond with equivalent global figures. While the Namibia Statistics Agency estimated in 2016 that just 5% of the Namibian population have disabilities (NSA, 2016), the World Health Organization has judged the global equivalent to be 15% (https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report/en/; cf. Haihambo & Lightfoot, 2010, p. 76). The associated level of under-recording may be due, at least in part, to the stigma surrounding disability in Sub-Saharan Africa, with Brigitte Rohwerder (2018; see also Manombe-Ncube, 2019) emphasizing a lack of understanding and awareness regarding the causes of disabilities and their resulting characteristics, alongside misconceptions resulting from cultural or religious beliefs. Such stigma—and the discrimination that results from it—are not only the key determinants of the low disability population reported but also determinants of population health and health inequalities (Krnjacki et al., 2018).

The significance of religious and cultural perspectives in disability experiences

Colin Barnes and Geoff Mercer (1995), as cited by Arne Eide et al. (2011, p. 56), state that persons with disabilities experience levels of economic and social deprivation rarely encountered by other sections of society. This is true across the globe: “it has, for instance, been estimated that over 60% of people with disabilities in the United States and Great Britain live below the poverty level (Beresford 1996)” (Eide et al., 2011, p. 56). Because of barriers to inclusion, persons with disabilities often experience poorer health, higher poverty rates, and lower levels of employment and earnings, which ultimately all have implications on economic development. Poverty is here understood broadly, not only as “economic deprivation—lack of income” but also “the myriad of social, cultural and political aspects of the phenomenon. Poverty is not only deprivation of economic or material resources but a violation of human dignity too.” (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/DimensionOfPoverty/Pages/Index.aspx)

In Namibia, for example, unemployment among persons with disabilities stands at a record 39 percent compared to the national unemployment rate of 28 percent (Ikela, 2019). Due to stigmatization, children with disabilities are at a particular disadvantage when it comes to not only enrolling and completing school but also how much they learn while in school (Wodon & Alasuutari, 2018). The statistics on Namibia also indicate that higher percentages of persons with disabilities are impoverished in terms of school attendance and literacy (typically, they do not progress as far through the educational system as their peers who do not have disabilities and are more likely to be unemployed) (Namibia Statistics Agency, 2016). Tonderai W. Shumba and Indres Moodley (2018) note that other barriers to inclusion in Namibia are: a lack of policy orientation and training, which hinders full implementation of policies; poor coordination when it comes to access to health care services; a lack of review and/or updating of policies to include issues of HIV and sexual reproduction; a lack of or poor supply chain of assistive devices; absence of anti-discrimination clauses; non-standardized disability definitions; no adoption of the International Classification of Funding for disability grant assessments; and non-inclusion of disability studies in undergraduate and postgraduate training.

Previous research has contended that the interaction between disability and poverty, if not addressed, will stall economic growth (Banks et al., 2017). Caring for persons with disabilities in the household requires “more hands” and the associated tasks more often fall to female members of the family, which Eide et al. (2003) suggest may account for the higher mean size of Namibian households that include family members with disabilities. In addition, “households with disabled members are less likely to have an income than households without a disabled family member,” have less access to information by means of telephone, radio, television, and newspaper, have fewer possessions, and struggle to access the services that they need (Eide et al., 2011, pp. 59–64). Persons with disabilities are frequently viewed as financial non-contributors and/or as symbolizing “uselessness” (Haihambo & Lightfoot, 2010, p. 83). As Lauren Krnjacki et al. (2018) suggest, this perception is only enhanced when rates of unemployment or occupation of low-income/low-status jobs amongst persons with disabilities are high—a vicious circle of prejudice and discrimination both perpetuated by and leading to lack of opportunity. In general, state Cynthy Haihambo and Elizabeth Lightfoot, persons with disabilities are held “in lower esteem” (2010, p. 83) and parents of children with disabilities view their context as “overwhelmingly stigmatizing” (2010, p. 84). Theodore T. Bartholomew notes similar trends in relation to mental illness, which leads to “stigma and forced isolation,” poor treatment by the community, “insulting” labels, and an “ascribed state of otherness” (2017, p. 429). The arrival of COVID-19 has both highlighted and exacerbated these inequalities among persons with disabilities, stretching limited resources to breaking point and disproportionately disadvantaging the (already) socially-, educationally- and economically-marginalized of Namibia. In this context, Namibia would surely not have evaded the anticipated rise in the global extreme poverty rate from current levels of between 0.3 and 0.7 percentage points, to around 9 percent in 2020 (The World Bank Group, 2020).

It is clear from previous research that throughout Africa, negative attitudes towards disability are prevalent, with many having roots in religio-cultural perspectives. Focusing on Côte d”Ivoire, Mojdeh Bayat (2015) contends that there are at least two separate views of disability held: one that is held by the educated and professionals (i.e., the child is diseased), and the other that is held by the general public (i.e., the child is cursed). Both views are in fact intertwined with African cultural beliefs and religious practices, with Karen Bunning et al. finding that disability is attributed in some Kenyan contexts to external causal forces, such as the person with a disability having been placed “under or on a seat for demons or ghosts” (2017, p. 9) and Haihambo & Lightfoot noting of some Namibian contexts that a woman “having sex with a white man or a ghost” may be deemed an explanation for albinism (2010, p. 81). Other causal explanations concern witchcraft, God, ancestral curses, or breakdowns in social relationships (see, for example, Ogechi & Ruto, 2002, pp. 69–73, on disability in Kenya, and Haihambo and Lightfoot, 2010, on the Namibian context). Needless to say, the resulting stigmatization and exclusion of such people from education and full participation in their communities have negative knock-on effects for local and national development. Most of the negative attitudes (associating disability with evil) towards persons with disabilities are mere misconceptions that stem from lack of proper understanding of the origins of disabilities and how they impact upon those affected. These misconceptions stem directly from traditional systems of thought or magico-religious philosophies that some suggest should be labelled as “superstition” (Abosi & Koay, 2008). However, they also arise from interpretations of biblical texts and Christian thought in missionized contexts. As Claassens, Shaikh and Swartz. note (2019), co-writing from their respective positions as a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Atheist, their own traditions bear responsibility for the stigmatization of disability. Claassens suggests that the harmful effects of the Bible need to be recognized and challenged, not least because of the common biblical association of disability with sin, suffering and divine punishment. If someone is obedient and does the right thing, God will bless that person and make them prosper. They will be healthy and live a long life. Conversely, if a person finds him or herself suffering, poor, barren, and, according to this frame of reference, disabled, he or she must have done something to deserve this punishment from God. In the same piece, Swartz notes that the radical requestioning of religious ideas in the context of disability cannot but lead to more debate and to more unsettling views about the understanding of disability. However, while this might be challenging, it cannot be anything but good in a world in which there are so many unquestioned and unhelpful assumptions about disability and about the nature of humanness (Claassens et al., 2019). And there is no doubt that there are also beneficial impacts of religio-cultural beliefs and practices on experiences of disability. For example, religious involvement provides some protection against depression for vulnerable groups of deteriorating functional status (Idler & Kasl, 1992) and invigorate everyday life in the present, and to be a source of help for troubles in the future (Idler & Kasl, 1997). In addition, religious organizations may step in to provide care for children with disabilities who have been abandoned by their families (Sossou & Yogtiba, 2009). It is thus important to explore and interrogate the role of cultural and religious perspectives in the marginalization of persons with disabilities, as well as the potential role of religious and cultural perspectives, leaders, texts, and institutions in promoting inclusive and accessible environments.

Listening to voices of experience in Namibia

Over a series of three workshops held in December 2020, March 2021, and April 2021, the University of Namibia and University of Exeter project team¹ engaged with people/persons with disabilities, Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs),² the Government of the Republic of Namibia (GRN), representative from three UN agencies (UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA), academics from multiple countries and specialisms, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia (ELCIN), and two Namibian seminaries.

Discussions, presentations, and academic papers on the topic of religion, culture and disability brought to the fore the central concerns of people with disabilities and OPDs in relation to religious and cultural norms, attitudes to and treatment of people with disabilities in church and community, and what churches and clergy ought to do (moving forward) both to tackle stigma and discrimination and to promote inclusive communities and congregations. Using indicative reasoning, the project team extracted emerging themes from extensive notes taken during in-person workshops (all of which took place in urban settings), as well as from the digital recordings of presentations and discussion sessions in the online workshop. The discussions were, of course, wide-ranging, but focusing here on the religion-culture-disability theme, they coalesced around three themes: Stigma, Compulsory Cure, and Inclusivity.

Stigma

Across all workshops, participants mentioned that people with disabilities continue to face stigma and associated discriminatory social, cultural, and religious attitudes, which lead to marginalization and exclusion from mainstream life in both community and church. Problems highlighted include ignorance about the causes of disability, and the association of disability with curses, witchcraft, sin, and punishment (originating from God or the ancestors). These myths about the origins of disability are not easily dispelled and are passed down the generations, meaning that families of those with disabilities continue to experience trauma, shame and marginalization because of community perceptions. A fear of difference and lack of acceptance may result from people in the community struggling to accept that a person is truly created in the image of God if they have a disability. This will hinder the ability of the person with a disability to accept themselves and be accepted by those around them. This also leads to untapped potential and wasted talent, with people with disabilities being underestimated. Even in contemporary communities, people with disabilities are considered inferior and eyebrows would be raised if, for example, a person who uses a wheelchair was elected headman, or if a non-sighted individual was on a council of elders.

Stigmatization of people with disabilities is sustained by intrinsically and etymologically pejorative and offensive terminology (in both English and Namibian indigenous languages), commonly employed to describe and define those who have disabilities. For example, in Oshiwambo, various terms reference a person (“omu-”) by their disability: omuposi (blind/ignorant person), omupwidhi (“mad”/possessed person), omupupulu (“dumb”/person without speech), or even refer to them as a “thing” (oshilema: “cripple”/bent thing; ethithi: “white monster”/albino). The use of such terminology may be accompanied by mocking, mimicry, insults, name-calling, and nicknaming (and even labeling of whole communities where disability is very visible). It was noted that “you even forget their names” (anonymous participant contribution), as people are often known instead by the name of the disability. It was also reported that in some cases, negative terms are used behind someone’s back, even if they are addressed by their name to their face. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that biblical texts also use negative terms and deviance labeling.

One result of the stigma surrounding disability was deemed to be the frequent hiding away of family members with disabilities, who may be deemed “not normal,” “sub-human,” “of less value,” “useless,” a community “disturbance,” or a “burden” (anonymous participant contributions). Children may be withheld from schooling (or choose to avoid it), whether due to unwelcoming attitudes, concern that they will encounter mistreatment, or because of issues surrounding the practicalities of getting to and from school. A pervasive sense of shame surrounds disability and means that a person with a disability may not be allowed out of the home, may be mistreated (lack of hygiene, clothing, food, water, subject to physical harm and/or hard labour), and made to be invisible when visitors are present. Children may be sent to rural areas to be cared for by grandparents, alleviating the “hopelessness” felt by some parents of children with disabilities (anonymous participant contribution). This sense of shame and a fear of difference may contribute to the under-reporting of disability in Namibia. Crucially, hiding people away also means that the voices of experience are not often heard, and people experience isolation, both within and beyond the household (only compounded in the current pandemic situation). Participants with disabilities reported that they (or others with disabilities) are not consulted, involved, or considered in community matters and discussions. Even when heard, the voices of people with disabilities are dismissed, and their contributions are not valued.

The disability grant provided by the government has meant that people with disabilities are, more recently, less likely to be hidden away by family members. However, it was suggested that financial gain rather than affirmation of those with disabilities may underlie this new-found visibility. It was noted that in some cases it is not even people with disabilities themselves who benefit from this grant—a person with a disability may now simply be seen as a source of income.

Further stigma and discrimination due to misinformation about disability also means that people with disabilities may be told not to marry each other. Participants reported that in Owambo contexts (one of Namibia’s many indigenous language groups) disability is deemed to propagate further disability, so people with disabilities would be dissuaded from “multiplying” through marriage and children. The community’s preference is, as it was phrased, to “minus” not “multiply” (anonymous participant contribution). Even where relationships do develop, some men may be willing to engage in a sexual relationship with a woman with a disability but will not be willing to acknowledge any resulting children. A woman may well be abandoned after the birth of a child with a disability, or the paternity of their child may be denied, thus leaving her socially and materially disadvantaged.

Highlighting the intersection of disability and gender issues, it was suggested that when a woman becomes disabled after marriage, a man may be encouraged to “move on” (anonymous participant contribution) and leave her family to step in and help, as cultural roles dictate that he may well be unable to provide the requisite care. A woman in an equivalent situation would not be encouraged to “move on” because of the established cultural expectation that she would care for her husband. There is therefore a gender imbalance in experiences of acquired disability. This gender imbalance is also exemplified by the burden of blame that usually falls on women for having “caused” disability in their offspring by contravening socio-cultural norms by, for example (again, in Owambo contexts), attempting to bewitch/curse others (and receiving a “cursed” child in return), not being faithful to their husband (causing deformity) or having intercourse with a white man or a ghost (causing albinism).

Resulting from stigma, participants deemed there to be a genuine risk of physical harm to people with disabilities (including the incapacitated elderly) from their own family members, who are not well-prepared for the caretaking demands. Reportedly, there have been instances in which those born with a visible disability, or the elderly, are killed because of being a source, respectively, of shame or “burden.” In addition, it was suggested that persons with a mental illness may be the victims of revenge treatment for accidents caused in the home. For example, if someone experiencing mental health issues accidentally sets fire to food in the homestead, their share of that day’s food might be withheld as punishment. Fearing further retribution, such a person with a disability may be reluctant to report such mistreatment.

Compulsory cure

Many voices of experience told our workshops that they experience negative attitudes when attending church or encountering members of the clergy, sometimes leading to them preferring not to attend church at all (once again rendering people with disabilities less visible, more isolated, and more marginalized). They reported that it is all too common for clergy to focus solely on their disability, even spotlighting them with undue attention in front of the congregation and offering prayers in the hope of achieving “cure.” This perpetuates the negative labeling of disability and assumes that disability is necessarily a “sickness” being “endured” or “lived with,” that needs to be “fixed” in some way. Such an approach makes people feel that the ministers and/or communities of faith only see the disability, not the person themselves, and means that the spiritual needs of people with disabilities are often not met. For, whilst it was acknowledged that some might be searching for a cure, many go to church (just like the rest of the community) to hear the Word of God and enrich their spiritual lives.

Reflecting on this finding, some pastors reported that they are actively approached for miraculous cure (a difficult expectation to manage) and that people expect them to be able to perform miracles in the same way as Jesus reportedly did. Some said that this may draw people away from the ELCIN (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia) community, which instead focuses on acceptance of disability. Concern was raised about the false promises of cure offered by some charismatic and African Independent churches, or “false prophets,” who were said to stage disingenuous healing “performances” in order to draw people in and gain financially. Participants reported that it is not uncommon for a person with a disability to be approached on the street and encouraged to attend a particular church in order to be cured by these “predatory pastors” (anonymous participant contribution). It was emphasized here that this approach works against the very important process of self-acceptance. Additionally, when an expected cure fails to materialize, the person with a disability meets another set-back when they are once again stigmatized, this time for their supposed lack of faith, or their insufficient financial contributions to the church that they have attended.

Moving away from the idea of cure, and toward notions of healing, ELCIN pastors reported directing people toward forms of assistance, which might be medical care (medical treatment, prosthetics, and wheelchair provision were given as examples) or the provision of accessible resources and services (Braille, Sign Language). ELCIN views these avenues as the contemporary equivalent of biblical healings. An amputee can be healed and brought back into full community through the provision of a prosthetic, someone else through the provision of a wheelchair, another through access to Sign Language interpretation, and so on. In this case, the Holy Spirit may be seen to be acting today by providing gifts to professionals that enable such forms of assistance.

Inclusivity

Although an under-researched area, participants felt that the issue of religion and disability is a particularly important one because (in general) Namibian churches and their services are not, at the moment, welcoming and inclusive environments for people with disabilities. It was suggested that inclusive measures need to be deliberately and preemptively undertaken—churches ought not to wait for a request to accommodate members of their communities with diverse needs. Just as in any other sphere of life, people (including youth) with disabilities should be heard at all levels and their voices of experience should lead efforts to promote inclusion. A powerful point made was that we are sometimes “unconsciously incompetent—we need to show greater awareness and spend more time reflecting on what we are doing that is not inclusive. Otherwise, we risk maintaining exclusive practices simply because we have not thought carefully enough” (anonymous participant contribution).

All churches need to consider issues of accessibility, as accessibility “heals” a fragmented community—one which unthinkingly excludes some of its members. The Hosianna Church in Windhoek (of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia) was held up as a positive example. A Sign Language interpreter was made available for all services and, as a result, a significant number of worshipers who have hearing impairments have joined the congregation. It was pointed out that not only does this benefit the worshipers with hearing impairments, but that this enables others to learn about the Deaf community, and “puts a face on disability,” putting (anonymous participant contribution) persons before disability.

Envisaging further inclusive measures, participants suggested that Sign Language provision should also move beyond church services (through marriage guidance, confirmation classes, and so on) and texts should be made more accessible (suggestions included Braille Bibles, hymn books and orders of service, large font texts, and accessible language texts, and visual alternatives, such as picture cards or comics. More broadly, community members would benefit from Sign Language training, as private services may be prohibitively expensive at upwards of 400 Namibia Dollars per hour, whether in the service of individuals or congregations.

Other inclusive measures have to do with the physical accessibility of the church building and its facilities (such as toilets). The provision of ramps would offer easy access for those with limited mobility (whether age or disability-related) or those who use wheelchairs and would eliminate the indignity of being either carried into church (“like a baby” [anonymous participant contribution]) or facing total exclusion. A raised altar also presents problems, making the receipt of communion problematic for some congregants (potential or existing). The terrain in rural areas also precipitates accessibility issues—sandy tracks in villages and the distances between homes and churches often mean that people with disabilities have difficulty accessing church (not all have the luxury of a family member with a vehicle), and pastors have difficulty reaching out to people with disabilities and their families in their homes. In addition, noted the pastors themselves, there is a lack of (more than superficial) training in Sign Language and communication with people with mental illness or cognitive diversities for them to minister effectively.

Situating the workshop findings

In a context where the majority of the population identify as Christian (over 90%), the influence of this tradition and its sacred book, the Bible, should not be overlooked. The Bible has functioned as a potent force throughout history and culture in both northern and southern spaces in the construction and perpetuation of stigma, ableism (prejudice against non-normative bodies), and sane privilege (invisible advantages accrued to those who have never experienced or been diagnosed or perceived as mentally ill) (Wolframe, 2012). Although not well-documented hitherto, it is also likely that Namibian experiences of disability will have been shaped in allied ways to other areas in Africa through specific interpretations of biblical texts. Pauline A. Otieno (2009) in her work on biblical and theological perspectives on disability in Kenya, for example, notes how many discriminatory acts against people with disabilities in that context are religiously related:

The Bible is intermingled with texts that have been interpreted in oppressive ways and together these continue to reinforce the marginalization and exclusion of PWD [people with disabilities] in the social, economic, political, and religious life of the society.

(Otieno, 2009, unpaginated)

In Namibia, people with disabilities continue to face discriminatory social, cultural, and religious attitudes, which lead to their marginalization and exclusion from mainstream life. Problems highlighted include ignorance about the causes of disability, the association of disability with witchcraft and sin, and the continued hiding away of children/family members with disabilities. Families of those with disabilities experience shame and marginalization because of community perceptions—it is often believed that the parents (most often the mother) have sinned in some way, which has led to their child having a disability. It may be because of this that disability is under-reported in Namibia.

Citing Nancy Eiesland’s classic work on The Disabled God, Otieno notes the frequent conflation in Kenya of disability and sin and/or moral imperfection (for example, “Rabbi who sinned? This man or his parents that he was born blind?” John 9:13). Otieno also identifies stereotypes of disability—such as virtuous suffering, and people with disabilities as objects of charity—as elements of “disabling theology.” In constructing alternative theologies, like the Disabled God model, communities could be enabled to challenge discrimination. Moreover, Otieno (akin to our project in Namibia) believes the church in Kenya has a part to play in this endeavor in “the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities”: “Just as Jesus Christ broke down the cultural barriers and attended to the needs of persons with disabilities, so should the church in Kenya” (Otieno, 2009). In a similar vein, Jacobus Kok, notes that:

In the future, scholars from Africa will have to face the challenge of reading the Bible in Africa, and to take part in the transformation of the symbolic world of Africa’s understanding and handling of illnesses. Therefore, the pendulum will again shift to a fresh reading of the Gospels and hermeneutically applying the principles of scripture in an African context where illnesses like blindness are often still linked to sin and punishment.

(Kok, 2012, p. 37)

In relation to African Traditional Religion and culture in Namibia, Haihambo and Lightfoot (2010) consider “cultural beliefs regarding people with disabilities,” Bartholomew (2017) investigates the conceptions of “Madness (Eemwengu) and its sources,” and Elina Tobias and Sourav Mukhopadhyay (2017) reflect on “Social Exclusion: Experiences of Individuals with Visual Impairments.” As is noted by Tobias and Mukhopadhyay (2017, p. 38), “more empirical research is needed to critically investigate issues of disability from socio-cultural perspectives.” Haihambo and Lightfoot determine that experiences and perceptions amongst parents of children with disabilities in Namibia are predominantly negative, with causes of disability understood under two broad categories (2010, p. 80): (a) the supernatural (“witchcraft, ancestors or God”) and (b) improper relationships by the parents of children with disabilities (usually the mother). Identifying 8 causes of disability, they deemed the responses to be indicative of a “duality” and “continuous mobility” between “beliefs that were in flux” (the traditional and the scientific) (2010, pp. 81–2):

1. Witchcraft (mentioned by 49 out of 62 respondents)

2. Punishment from God (for transgressions such as sin, laughing at people with disabilities, or not being charitable)

3. Curses by the ancestors

4. Gift from God (for the parents and/or community to learn lessons)

5. Inappropriate relationships (such deliberate misidentification of the biological father)

6. “Having sex with a white man or a ghost” (resulting in a child with albinism)

7. “Having sex with a man other than the father of the child in the presence of the child or whilst breastfeeding”

8. Other “rare beliefs or myths” concerning food consumed during pregnancy, walking in the shadow of a vulture, leaving shoes outside the hut during sex, and the cultural taboos surrounding twin birth

Bartholomew’s assessment of the etiology of mental illness returns similar themes and the same predominance of witchcraft-related explanations for disability (2017, pp. 430–432):

1. Witching and curses

2. Disconnecting from ancestors

3. Religious explanations (demons)

4. Persons ‘“just sick’ or emotionally distressed”

5. Social conflict

Whilst Haihambo and Lightfoot note that some parents considered their child(ren) with disabilities a “gift from God,” the responses of community members to people with disabilities were deemed to be generally negative (2010, pp. 82–3). Perhaps “because of the association of disability with witchcraft, persons with disabilities and their families tend to be isolated, rejected, or even harmed” (2010, p. 80). A common theme is that there are considerable feelings of shame surrounding people with disabilities in southern Africa, whether from the person themselves or family/community members (Rohwerder, 2018). Particular examples from Namibia include people with disabilities being “kept out of the public eye,” associated with “witchcraft and evil spirits,” “dumped” with grandparents in rural areas, experiencing a lack of care (or even abuse) as well as social isolation (Haihambo & Lightfoot, 2010, pp. 80–85).

Harnessing religio-cultural resources to promote inclusivity

Moving forward, further research is needed on social, cultural, and religious attitudes to disability in Namibia, as well as the behaviors that they engender in communities. Haihambo and Lightfoot suggest that “cultural interpretations of disability” need to be considered, in order to advance inclusivity (2010, p. 77). Tobias and Mukhopadhyay (2017, p. 26 and pp. 38–9) also point to the need to tackle the “root causes” of discrimination, including “deeply rooted socio-cultural norms,” with Bartholomew urging consideration of “local concepts” and “local definitions” so that cultural beliefs do not “become obscured” (2017, p. 422). They argue that that “both pastors and traditional healers” ought to be involved—and could be the “key ingredients”—in sensitization campaigns and other efforts toward an inclusive society (2010, p. 85), a call echoed by Bartholomew in relation to mental illness (2017, pp. 434–5), and by Tobias and Mukhopaphyay in relation to social exclusion, lack of freedom, and lack of agency of those with visual impairments (2017, pp. 37–8).

Both positive and negative aspects of the abovementioned cultural beliefs are evident in proverbial wisdom. Local proverbs echo the stigmatizing attitudes reflected in terminological reference to disability whilst also appearing simultaneously to challenge to the depiction of persons with disabilities as “useless.” Returning again to the (northern Namibian) Owambo context, we find stigmatization in such sayings as oshilema oshi vule ombila (“disability is better than the grave”), ho ende oshilema no tina (“if you walk with a cripple you will limp”), egoya nenge dhenga uugoya walyo itowu mana (“even if you beat a fool, their idiocy will not cease”), and ino huhulukitha ethithi shampa lyuuvu uupyu ota li ku lipo (“don”t offer an albino [“white monster”] warmth because once they are warm, they will eat you up”). Disability is here (respectively) depicted as one step up from death, as a contagion, insurmountable, dangerous and destructive. Nonetheless, there is a notable thread of inclusivity in the body of Owambo proverbs (see Kuusi, 1970, and Haapanen, 2000). They certainly perpetuate stigmatizing language and negative disability tropes) but they may also be understood as at least partially challenging the “narrative of uselessness” surrounding disability in Owambo (Haihambo and Lightfoot, 2010, p. 85). For example, the saying okakangwa wu tonde oko no zigitha (“the pottery shard you despise will rescue you later” [by assisting in sloughing off dry skin]) encourages the hearer not to dismiss so quickly that which they might initially deem “incomplete” or “broken,” as it is inherently useful. Similarly, omuposi ohaku tiwa keelela po (“a blind person can look after the mahangu flour”) promotes inclusivity and acceptance by reminding the hearer that blindness is not equivalent to either ignorance or uselessness. Despite negative terminology, the proverbs “a fool saw war” (egoya lya monene iita) and “an idiot can take you there” (elayi nalyo ota li ku falako) also point to the positive contributions that can be made by those some may be inclined to marginalize. This communal spirit of ubuntu—oneness in community – is helpfully disruptive. The use of such resources in the tackling of stigma harmful narratives around disability has yet to be explored in the Namibian context. We suggest here that there is perhaps potential not only to provide a contextually-appropriate and decolonial in-road to sensitization discussions and resources but also to act as a counterbalance to imported, Global North-centred approaches to both “dis-”ability and inclusion. However, such resources must be utilised alongside biblical resources, given the contemporary contextual realities of religious adherence on the ground.

In specific relation to the use of the Bible as an enabler of inclusion or liberation for people with disabilities in Namibia, contextual Bible Study methodologies (transformative community readings) may hold promise as an additional Global South-focused approach. Contextual Bible studies (CBS) have already been used in selected African contexts to challenge disability-related social injustice through biblical interpretation and to enable forms of liberation. For example, Micheline Kasonga Kamba initiated a holistic educational programme centered on CBS among people with disabilities in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Kamba, 2013). Centered on Exodus 4:1–17, 2 Corinthians 12:1–10, and Acts 3:1–11, the CBS encounters encouraged participants to understand disability not as something to be cured or abolished in eschatological futures, but rather constituent of present and future experiences and identities. Healing (rather than cure) was often a focus of biblical texts: thus, identification and challenge of sources of stigma and oppression imposed by socially unjust structures within society were key. In an allied vein, Thinandavha D. Mashau and Leomile Mangoedi in their CBS encounters on Acts 3:1–10 (the story of a man lame from birth outside the temple) among the homeless and those with disabilities in the city of Tshwane, South Africa, also encouraged faith communities to be “transforming agents to those in the margins”:

The encounterological reading of Acts 3:1–10 by both trained and ordinary readers of the text, which led to a synthesis of their understanding and interpretation, unmasked the reality of social exclusion perpetuated by faith communities in the City of Tshwane; a reality which is experienced by the homeless and persons with disability as faces of those in the margins. Whilst those in the margins had negative views about faith communities and how they are responding to their challenges of social exclusion, homelessness and disability, it became clear that they remain optimistic that the church can still turn the tide and attend to their issues in transforming ways - serving as agents of transformation. Their presence, therefore, is not one that overwhelms and overshadows the margins, but one that transforms the margins and integrates them in the mainstream of social, economic, political and religious wellbeing of all.

(Mashau & Mangoedi, 2015, p. 8)

Generating stories via CBS in Namibia, not only of stigma but also of liberation, will likewise be central in plotting more integrated and inclusive theologies and futures for all-bodies. One of our network’s aims is to produce a suite of CBS resources as an outcome of the project; as a result, universal design—a principle often employed to enhance access for those with disabilities—will need ongoing consideration (Mcguire et al., 2006, p. 166). We must consider the levels of literacy levels that can be expected in certain groups, and the formats that resources and encounters need to take in order to include those with sensory impairments. Of course, Universal Design is itself contextual, so our research methodologies will need to take cognizance of this fact. One example could be that of Lawrence’s work (2013) in constructing resources for use with d/Deaf communities in Britain (using British Sign Language), although the situation could be very different in Namibia. As Davíð Bjarnason reports (2012), many deaf children and adults in rural Namibia have not had access to signed language. As a result, the Finnish Association of the Deaf, in collaboration with the Namibian National Association for the Deaf (NNAD), have recently been seeking to redress this by training interpreters, and producing a Namibian Sign Language (NSL) dictionary, and raising awareness of deaf issues (including a deaf theater group performance for school children across Namibia, a documentary on deaf workers, and NSL educational materials) (Bjarnason, 2012, pp. 190–201). To our knowledge, little has been done with NSL translations or interpretations of biblical material hitherto, though some attempts to “translate” the South African Signed Bible (only itself released in 2019) with Namibian specific signs is ongoing (see the Bible Society statement on signed translations across the globe: https://www.biblesociety.co.za/index.php/take-action/projects/19-projects/80-english-bible-for-the-deaf).

This example of deafness also raises another important issue: namely that disability is not a monolithic category within all contexts. Sensory, physical, mental, and other disabilities may all have different cultural constructions, and be experienced differently according to different intersectional identities, socio-economic levels, geographical location and the like. These differences need to be explored and critically analyzed. Contextual variables are central factors that impact upon the experience of those with disabilities and, thus, will also be central factors in any research and practice that hopes to address stigma and promote more inclusive, universally-designed resources and attitudes.

Collaborating across the global north-global South divide

Many theorists and activists have noted that there can be no significant division between “the racialized subaltern” and the “disabled subaltern” in the colonial system (Erevelles, 2005, p. 425). Accordingly, Shaun Grech forcefully talks of “perpetuated coloniality” in relation to disability, development, and community in the global south (2011, pp. 87–100):

[The] tenets of Western disability studies are exported to the majority world backed by a discourse of inferences, generalisations, and myths [and as such] communities in the majority world are often bypassed or repositioned to accommodate the neoliberal development project.

(Grech, 2011, p. 87)

Grech petitions against the “exportation of epistemologies and strategies from North to South,” campaigning instead for the construction of a “global disability studies” in which southern views are fully integrated into the intellectual project. Xuan Thuy Nguyen similarly notes through the lens of southern theory, that “the experiences of disabled people in the global South” have often been rendered “invisible” by northern patterns of knowing. However, by “engaging indigenous ways of knowing about disability experiences,” disability studies can function as potent sites of decolonization (Nguyen, 2018, unpaginated). As we have suggested, it is perhaps here that the mining of local proverbial wisdom for nuggets of resistance might prove fruitful. This is because more positive and inclusive models are also likely to have more traction if founded within Namibian and/or Africa-centric cultural resources (Haihambo & Lightfoot, 2010, pp. 76–87). Colleen Howell, Theresa Lorenzob, and Siphokazi Sompeta-Gcazab, for example, in their construction of a social model of disability advocacy and liberation (not just stigma and exclusion) cite the African conception of Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu (You are who you are because of other people) as such a model of disability activism and inclusion which could underscore that:

Human beings do not thrive when isolated from others; therefore this [African] framework requires the consideration of values such as: personhood, morality, respect, human dignity, group solidarity, compassion and collective unity. Africa is a melting pot of differences and an African model of disability should be ageless, universal, transcultural, indigenous and humanitarian while fostering social consciousness and disability confidence.

(Howell et al., 2019, p. 1724)

Raewyn Connell, too, proposes more inclusive practices would include interacting with southern literature, poetry, and film, in order to start to construct a “world-centered” as opposed to “northern-centered” model of disability (Connell, 2016, pp. 303–318). Directed by Florian Schott, the 2015 Namibian film production, Katutura (a township in Windhoek) features cultural and religious narratives surrounding disability, including contested legacies of Christian Western missionary endeavors is a potentially interesting source in this respect. So, too, are works of disabled Namibian artists,³ writers, performers, and activists, whose work might be used as prompts for wider reflection in research.

Contextual Bible studies on religion, culture and disability in Namibia

The key themes explored in the workshop discussions (stigma, compulsory cure, inclusivity), which are echoed in the wider research landscape, also came to the fore in Contextual Bible Study (CBS) sessions conducted with people with disabilities, representatives from Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs), church pastors and seminarians. We chose to use CBS as a tool to explore the intersections between religion, culture, and disability and the role of religion and/or culture in shaping experiences of those with disabilities. We saw in two embodiment-related texts (Mark 10:46–52 and 1 Corinthians 12:12–31) the potential to stimulate productive discussions around disability, which was borne out in brief discussions in the (broad audience) December 2020 workshop. In addition, we suggest that they might act as resources through which communities and congregations could, through identifying both problematic and positive aspects of the texts, (i) recognize negative experiences of people with disabilities on the ground in Namibia, and (ii) carve out liberatory interpretations and affirmative-inclusive practices to tackle disability marginalization. We therefore decided to trial them in extended form, in the first instance with clergy from Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia (ELCIN; March 2021) and, in April 2021, with Windhoek-based students from the Paulinum Seminary (which feeds ELCIN and ELCRN [the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Republic of Namibia]) and the Namibian Evangelical Theological Seminary (which feeds a broad range of denominations).⁴

Following the See-Judge-Act focus of the CBS approach (see West, 1993, 2003, 2007, 2015; Ujamaa, 2015 [Parts 1 and 2]; and West & Dube, 1996), we embraced Gerald West’s suggestion that in “contextual Bible reading … the Bible is read for change … real, substantive, systemic change” (West, 2015, p. 240). This is an approach that originated in the Institute of the Study of the Bible, with that mantle now carried by its successor, the Ujamaa Center at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Their manual explains the CBS See-Judge-Act process:

… the Bible study process begins with analysis of the local context (See), and then re-reads the Bible to allow the biblical text to speak to the context (Judge), and then moves to action as we respond to what God is saying (Act). Social analysis enables us to understand our reality; re-reading the Bible enables us to judge whether our reality is as God intends it to be; and our plan of action enables us to work with God to change our reality. This process is an ongoing process, it is repeated, as each action leads to further reflection (See), etc. This is the cycle of praxis.

Ujamaa, 2015, p. 4

Interpretations

In Mark 10:46–52, we find the story of Bartimaeus, a “blind beggar” on the fringes of society in Jericho, who appeals to Jesus for assistance. Participants across the workshops identified potentially problematic aspects of this text as well as counter-cultural, “protest,” or affirmative aspects. As in Namibian contexts, Bartimaeus’s identity was dictated by his disability: he is described, and thereby stigmatized, as a “blind beggar,” which seems to cancel out his name (at least, in the English/vernacular translations). The participants recognized that a condition related to just one of his senses had rendered him useless and unimportant in the eyes of his community. The condition dictated his social location as a beggar and emphasized the link between disability and poverty experienced by many people with disabilities in Namibia.

Bartimaeus’s community was felt to have marginalized him and treated him as “less-than” in several ways: First, they had left him to beg, or perhaps treated him as a source of income and made him beg, a situation not unknown in Namibia (this feature was also compared to families of people with disabilities seeking to benefit from the state disability grant); second, being poor and blind, he is in no position (social status) to make decisions or change the status quo, which was a situation left unchallenged by his community. They had perhaps made his blindness a problem and rendered him unable to accept his condition, for he was not pleading to those around him; third, they had physically marginalized him by casting him out (possibly labelled as unclean, possibly abandoned as if “to be bumped by a car” [anonymous participant contribution]), and by leaving him at the roadside. This was felt to mirror Namibian communities” unwillingness to interact with or include people with disabilities; fourth, they actively silenced him when he tried to speak out, deeming his voice unimportant and his presence an irritant, perhaps. This was compared not only to the hiding away and silencing of people with disabilities in Namibia but also to social/cultural norms that dictate appropriate ways of approaching persons of importance; fifth, the crowd/community does not try to help the blind man, or to seek assistance from Jesus (or anyone else) on his behalf. Even though he is clearly in need, he is told to be quiet. He has been rejected by his community and seems to be invisible. And yet, Bartimaeus regains his sight through Jesus, who allows his approach. Whilst this countered the community’s rejection of the “blind beggar,” discussions focused on whether the “fix” or “cure” aspect of the narrative could contribute to a sense that people with disabilities in Namibia should seek equivalent cure or miracle through church pastors. In particular, the pastors and seminarians discussed at length the challenge of responding to congregants seeking such a miracle cure when pastors are unable to heal in the same way.

Several potentially subversive, counter-cultural, and/or empowering aspects of the text were highlighted. For example, whilst the crowd (compared to Namibian communities) marginalized and tried to silence Bartimaeus, Jesus valued and listened to him, recognizing his faith. Jesus treats him as a person to be known, not as a disability to be shunned, which was felt to be a useful example to emulate. Through the interaction, Jesus empowers Bartimaeus, in direct contrast to community efforts to put him or keep him down. Bartimaeus’s faith motivates him to seek fellowship and community and he does not hold back but repeatedly shouts out his needs (it was suggested that it might be considered “un-African” to make so much noise [anonymous participant contribution]). Various aspects of the text further emphasize Bartimaeus’s agency throughout the narrative and drive home the point that just because he lacks one sense, he is not rendered incapable or stripped of honor. Bartimaeus is active in his call to Jesus, who “stood still” (passive) and asked him to approach. In response, Bartimaeus throws off his cloak and approaches Jesus. In throwing off his cloak (perhaps serving as a manifestation of his identity as a beggar), he is throwing off the burden of his community’s judgment and determination of his status. And, despite the burden of the attitudes of his community, Bartimaeus is persistent, determined, and resilient—all positive attributes and strengths (“disability is not inability” [anonymous participant contribution])—and he does not give in to attempts to silence him or the noisy crowd who want to drown out his voice.

Bartimaeus’s honorable status is further confirmed by his name: Bartimaeus means “son [bar] of honor.” This is doubly emphasized by the added reference to his parentage: he is “son of Timaeus,” son of a man who was himself called “honor.” This title links him to Jesus again through the “son of …” titles used in the text. That Bartimaeus deserves respect is illustrated in the manner in which Jesus asks, “what can I do for you?” (even though it was felt that Jesus knows what Bartimaeus needs). Crucially, this resonated powerfully with voices of experience requesting that no one assume what a person with a disability needs. Allies should ask what (if any) assistance is required rather than assuming to know, thereby echoing the disability activism mantra “nothing for/about us without us” – persons with disabilities should be consulted and be the ones to determine their own needs and treatment by others.

Bartimaeus has his sight restored and follows Jesus, thereby being welcomed into a/the community, contrasting with his previously othered and marginalized status. Participants felt that welcoming someone into the community and bringing them in from a position of marginalization could be seen as a form of healing, irrespective of whether a disability is “cured.” And, complicating the idea that the text was suggestive of miraculous cure, some participants noted that Bartimaeus’s sight is restored, as he could see at some point previously.

As a result of the points above, it was put forward that the narrative could be read as a protest text. In summary, Bartimaeus protests against the system, acting counter-culturally in voicing his needs to a person of status. Jesus, likewise, acts counter-culturally in breaking social norms and engaging someone on the margins, thereby seeming to change the minds of the “crowd” and respond to the needs of the stigmatized man. This was compared to the need to challenge and improve the attitudes of community members in Namibian society, who themselves “disable” people with disabilities through negative community attitudes, stigma, and marginalizing and discriminatory treatment. Indeed, protest against and lack of adherence to socio-cultural norms, or to social “decorum,” is sometimes what it takes to make positive change.

Our second text, 1 Corinthians 12:12–31, discusses Christ’s body as “like a single body, which has many parts,” each with their complementary functions. Again, not every aspect of the text, or possible interpretation, was seen to be affirmative for those with disabilities. One participant remarked that they had previously understood the text to be signaling that people should stay in their place and accept their situation and position in society. In addition, the text could be determined to propagate ableist norms: it tends to focus on what a part of the body “cannot” do, potentially reinforcing ideas of “dis”-ability and a divided community.

Overall, however, the messages taken from this text, and in the context of disability experiences and issues, were empowering and affirmative ones, particularly of unity and interdependence. This text therefore exhibits the spirit of ubuntu (“I am because we are”)—the ideas of collective identity and shared humanity, complementarity of skills, and the celebration of diversity and difference—and the idea that together we can achieve more. It recognizes the need to value, support, and embrace one another rather than judge and discriminate. For example, we find emphasis on the fact that each part of the body needs all other parts, just as different roles in the church rely on other roles, and people in society need others. Together, the organs and body parts act as one, in unity and cooperation. This related to the ability of people with disabilities make an important contribution to society (as can anyone else), despite a perceived “lack” of ability in some areas. Participants noted that we do not all serve the same purpose, and we are all differently gifted and talented, with strength to be found in diversity. It would therefore be a waste if communities fail to celebrate and make use of the wisdom, talents, and experiences of people with disabilities, who are also examples of God’s glory. Instead, participants recommended teamwork, mutual care, unity, equality in diversity and difference, and co-dependence of all community members. When one person in the community is hurt, all are affected because the community/body includes all of its parts, whether perceived as weak, strong, sick, well, able-bodied, or disabled. All are needed and none needs to be altered or corrected as none is superior or inferior. All are created in the image of God with their different gifts. The text was therefore seen to promote respect and the recognition of the dignity of all.

Pathways forward

Communities are diverse, incorporating the old and young, women and men, people of different talents and professions and it was stressed that, looking forward, the ideal would be that a person’s disability (or lack of) would be seen simply as a feature of that diversity. People would be, it is hoped, valued for their strengths, skills, and unique characteristics, not for any perceived “lack” or “limitation,” not least because we all face challenges in life, whether related or unrelated to issues of disability. In that context, feeling a sense of belonging in community, and being part of a church congregation, is therapeutic and should not be denied (deliberately or inadvertently) to anyone.

Representatives from the Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs) stressed that the church must play an active role in spreading awareness of disability issues, in tackling negative attitudes, and in fostering inclusive and welcoming communities and congregations. They are community leaders with good access to communities (not least in rural areas that government initiatives and representatives may not reach). The church should also have people with disabilities embedded in its structure (voice), included in lay worship roles (visibility), and fully consulted and considered in its drive to increase accessibility (“nothing about us without us”).

Key to progress was deemed to be that the findings of discussions such as these (and, in particular, their unique focus on disability and religion in Namibia) reach beyond our discussion bubbles. Suggested routes for disseminating included discussion forums within and amongst OPDs, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia’s current and future leaders (engaging, particularly, the ELCIN’s Department of Diaconia and Social Services), and beyond, through the Council of Churches in Namibia.

It was recognized that an ideal community and congregation would provide a platform for persons with disabilities to share experiences and skills, to take on prominent roles, and to be included in community and congregation. However, prior to that, community education and sensitization were deemed paramount in raising awareness about disability issues and to address the discriminatory religio-cultural attitudes and behaviors documented above. In particular, people should be encouraged to reflect on the fact that they themselves could encounter disability any day. Thereafter, communication about the whereabouts and needs of people with disabilities should be improved. The clergy noted the difficulties presented in ministering to those hidden and when families do not want to engage or cooperate with pastors. The difficult conditions in which some people with disabilities live means that there is a considerable demand on pastors to offer practical assistance (food, clothing, and so on) alongside spiritual ministry. This is a significant financial challenge and has only been made worse during the pandemic (as pastors rely for their living on congregational support through the collection).

Certainly, training provisions to up-skill pastors in communication and sensitization are viewed as vital in any effort to equip them to challenge stigma, tackle discrimination, and promote inclusivity. This could also include training them better to prepare community members for encounters with disability: couples in marriage guidance, for example, could be encouraged to think about catering for a child with a disability and affirmative responses to such a situation.

Moving forward, key to all discussions are the core issues of accessibility and inclusivity. Not least amongst these is embracing the language of (a) Universal Design, and (b) Reasonable Accommodation. The principles of Universal Design remind us that inclusivity and accessibility depend on “for all” (universal) considerations from the outset. Where diverse (or, more simply, everyone’s) needs have not been considered in the design of a building, process, or event, we must move toward undertaking restorative measures—happily accepting the costs associated with re-working/re-designing/modifying spaces and ways of working that very deliberately accommodate the needs of everyone (tall/short, male/female, Adult, child, “disabled”/”able,” etc.) in the community. This accommodation in spaces of worship, as the workshops have shown, needs to be deliberate and reactive.

Finally, and perhaps addressing many of the aforementioned concerns, we need to strive to expand the roll-out of appropriate disability-related etiquette. Participants suggested that it would be useful to have a booklet or manual on disability-related issues to be shared with communities, churches and traditional leaders. This could serve multiple purposes in education, sensitization, and practical measures to make communities and churches more inclusive:

1. To inform and educate about different disabilities and dispel harmful myths

2. To promote the use of disability-respectful terminology

3. To promote respectful behaviors and interactions with people with disabilities

4. To show precisely how clergy and churches can achieve Universal Design and Reasonable Accommodation

Tackling negative attitudes needs to come from the bottom up, which means utilizing grassroots approaches like Contextual Bible Study (CBS) and equipping churches and communities with the tools to include, affirm, and empower their members who happen to have disabilities. In this case, out workshops and CBS have provided forums in which we recognize the injustice of focusing on limitations and of hiding away family members with disabilities. We have focused on healing not cure, acceptance not othering, and on strengths not limitations. In ministry and preaching, the clergy could be encouraged to emphasize “healing” over “cure” and to pursue the idea that healing for people with disabilities does not need to involve “fixing” the disability but must include healing of communities: promoting inclusive attitudes, practices, and environments, raising people with disabilities to equal status with people without disabilities, promoting accessibility, and making sure that the community itself is not disabling its own members by silencing and hiding them.

Conclusions

The Government of the Republic of Namibia (GRN) has thus far treated disability as a “human rights and development issue” through the lens of its Society for All vision (Haihambo & Lightfoot, 2010, p. 77). The sole focus on human rights and development may be responsible for the “slow pace” of implementation of “inclusive and progressive policies” (Haihambo & Lightfoot, 2010, p. 78), and leaving exclusionary “infrastructure, education and employment” systems in place (Tobias & Mukhopadhyay, 2017, p. 38).

However, discussions in our December 2020 workshop, in particular, encouraged us to recognize that disability is, in itself, a matter of perception, which cannot be tackled solely through a human rights lens. Focusing on a person’s disability (including defining them by it through the use of negative terminology) leads to a perception of “deficit,” and ignores the uniqueness of the individual, their abilities, and potential for full participation in, and contribution to, society. Religio-cultural perspectives, though hitherto infrequently considered in relation to experiences of people with disabilities in Namibia, undoubtedly play a significant role in undergirding and sustaining such perceptions and, therefore, contribute to the perpetuation of disability discrimination within the country. These traditions, however, need not be flatly dismissed as unhelpful in moves toward equality and inclusion. On the contrary, religio-cultural perspectives also provide constructive counter-narratives which can be foregrounded in order to promote liberating interpretations. They can thus contribute to the promotion and delivery of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. In a context where religious adherence and religiosity are high, the use of resources that already resonate with the population has the potential to deliver promising results and boost the efficacy of government efforts to carve out its Society for All. The UN documentation on Namibia suggests that “a more targeted approach to addressing discriminatory social norms” is apposite, as is a focus on “dialogue” and “the most vulnerable groups including persons with a disability,” engaging a range of nonacademic and activist-advocacy partners and supporting them to “speak out and share their stories.” Further, the country report recommends “South-South cooperation” (UNFPA, 2018, I.10, II.A.16–17, II.B.18, II.15). This article proposes such an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach that will amplify voices, have the potential to provide inclusive opportunities for engagement between academia, religious and traditional cultural leaders, activist-advocates, policy-makers, and the public, and complement the Human Rights activism already underway, all in line with UN recommendations.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was granted for this study by the College of Humanities Ethics Committee at the University of Exeter. All participants gave informed consent verbally at the workshops attended. Their comments have been anonymised in this article.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Funding

This article was funded by a Networking Grant from the UK’s Arts and Humanities Research Council under Grant AH/T008407/1.

Notes

1 This is a genuinely co-authored article and does not have a “lead author”. We have therefore chosen to list the authors in alphabetical order.

2 Over the three workshops, representatives attended from the following OPDs and umbrella organizations for OPDs: the National Federation of People with Disabilities in Namibia, the Namibia Albino Association, the Namibian Organization for Youth with Disabilities, the Namibian Federation of the Visually Impaired, the Namibian Association of Wheelchair Users, and the National Association of Persons with Physical Disabilities. Full summaries of the discussions are available online at: https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/disabilitynamibia/.

3 See, for example, an article in The Namibian newspaper by Martha Mukaiwa (2018) about disabled artist, Tweyapewa Mbandeka: “working on an image of an African map with a person holding his hands in a symbol of peace, the artist wants to motivate Africans to live in harmony. ‘Especially nowadays our own people seem to be turning against each other. From different tribes to GBV. You also see people turning on people from different countries, so my work is about peace’. Happy to be a featured Heritage Week artist because it is an opportunity for visitors to see what he is capable of while he advertises both himself and the gallery, Mbandeka is an artist often underestimated but always a standout when considered in artistic groups.”

4 The fact that this project was being undertaken during the Coronavirus pandemic meant that a more widespread trial with grassroots communities—the route we had planned—was not felt to be appropriate.