Cognitive Disability and the Hebrew Bible

Abstract

Knowledge is a major theme in the Hebrew Bible, and raises both challenges and possibilities for theology and cognitive disability. This paper will focus on these issues with particular reference to disability theology, and the Psalter. Pervasive negative portrayals of ignorance and folly, of dullness of mind or heart, become problematic in light of cognitive disability. I will suggest that these negative construals pertain to willed ignorance, rather than those who live with cognitive disabilities. On the other hand, cognitive disability encourages broader reflections on YHWH’s care for those who are vulnerable and marginalized, whatever form that might take. In social conditions such as ours, where cognitive agency is so prized, those with cognitive disabilities are weak and vulnerable—orphaned, so to speak, by our institutions and practices. The Psalms, in particular, remind us that God cares for them—and so should we. Cognitive disability may also help us rethink our assumptions, and so gain fresh insight from biblical texts in relation to identity, vulnerability and agency (and its absence), and the need to name human brokenness and avail ourselves of the resources Scripture gives us to address it. Finally, dealing with people with cognitive disabilities requires that we reconsider our epistemology and the values inherent in it. If the knowledge of God is (fundamentally) relationship with God and not mere cognition, then we must consider both how people with cognitive disabilities might exemplify that knowledge, and how their patterns of knowing might contribute to the fullness of human knowing.

Keywords:

• cognitive disability
• epistemology
• Hebrew Bible
• Psalter
• theology of medicine
• vulnerability

Notes

1 This is a consistent, if not universal, theme in much work on disability and biblical studies and theology, as evident in Melcher’s survey of the literature (Melcher, 2018b, pp. 1–13). For other examples, see (Belser, 2015, pp. esp., 181–183; Couey, 2018; Koosed, 2018; Moss, 2011, 2018; Yong, 2011a, pp. 49–80, 118–142).

2 For a contrasting view of Jesus, eschatological healing, and inclusion in the Christian community see (Albl, 2018; Watson, 2018). For a nuanced reading of Leviticus that challenges the assumed equation between ‘ritual impairment’ and ‘ritual impurity’ and its implications, see (Tabb, 2018).

3 For definitions, see https://www.aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition; http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/mental-health/news/news/2010/15/childrens-right-to-family-life/definition-intellectual-disability. For the DSM-5 classification and its limitations, see (D. G. W. Smith, 2019, pp. 504–505).

4 For the notion of control beliefs (both methodological and substantive), see (Kellenberger, 2020; Sloane, 2003; Wolterstorff, 1984).

5 See (Albl, 2018, pp. 427–430; Koosed, 2018, pp. 189–190).

6 Analyses of the different approaches presented below, and problems associated with them, can be found in (Albl, 2018, pp. 427–430; Creamer, 2012; Eiesland, 1994, p. 27; Messer, 2013, pp. 55–79; Petro, 2016, pp. 363–369; Swinton, 2012, pp. 27–69; Watson, 2018, p. 305).

7 This relates to my broader understanding of the nature and goals of medicine, and my critique of nations of ‘health,’ for which see (Sloane, 2016, pp. 54–58, 93–111).

8 Recognizing our inherent vulnerability allows us to recognize both that particular conditions expose the inherent vulnerability of the human condition, and also that there are degrees of vulnerability associated with particular conditions or stages of life (and associated diminution or complication of agency associated with them) that rightly elicit different responses from us as individuals and communities who seek to care for our vulnerable fellow creatures.

9 For this notion of inherent vulnerability see (Hauer was, 1986, 1990; MacIntyre, 1999; Messer, 2013). Similar notions can be found in disability readings of Exodus 4 (seeing Moses as having a speech impediment) in which disability is subject to divine control, but is also seen as “an unsurprising aspect of creation” (Melcher, 2018a, pp. 53, and the extended discussion on pp.47–51). See also (Reynolds, 2012, pp. 38–43). For this as a phenomenon in the Psalms, see (Koosed, 2018, pp. 199–200).

10 For this, see (O’Donovan, 1994; Pally, 2020; A. Plantinga, 2000). It is important to note that this ‘design plan’ does not entail a state of static individualistic ‘perfection’; rather, it affirms our bodily, vulnerable and relationally dependent nature as inherent in the creational design plan. For this, see (Estes, 2016).

11 An illustrative example is (Parsons et al., 2018), which contains little discussion of cognitive disabilities. As is often the case in the literature, it identifies places in Scripture where cognitive disability is presented (such as Saul’s torment, p.107). Otherwise, it is mentioned in passing in a list of the kinds of disability attended to in disability theology (e.g., pp.109, 304), or deals with cognitive disability in/as the same category as mental illness (which seems deeply flawed to me—see pp.194–195 re David, pp.116, 262, 452). This is reflected in the limited entries in the index under cognitive disabilities (14 entries, p.490), intellectual disability (5 entries, p.493) and mental disability (23 entries, only 8 dealing with cognitive disability as opposed to mental illness p.494). I should note that this is an observation regarding a relative gap in the literature, rather than a criticism of this volume in particular. For this as a pervasive problem in disability theology and its relationship to the relative value given to rational cognitive agency, see (Reinders, 2008, pp. 25–27; Staley, 2012, pp. 387–389; Volpe, 2009, p. 493).

12 On this, in relation to medical power (including expert knowledge, access to particular resources, and so on), see (Pellegrino, 2008; Pellegrino & Thomasma, 1997; Sloane, 2016, pp. esp., 73–92, 159–181).

13 On Proverbs, see (Melcher, 2018c, pp. 159–164); on the prophets, see (Couey, 2018).

14 Specifically, it focuses on knowledge of ‘concrete particulars’, grounded in location in time and space, arising out of and aiming at the development of the practical knowledge of faith and loving relationship (Vall, 2007, pp. 36–41).

15 (Kellenberger, 2013, p. 454) Argues that Prov 17:21, 25 deal with congenital intellectual disability.

16 (Craigie, 1983, p. 147; Goldingay, 2006, pp. 212–213; Mays, 1994b, pp. 81–82; McCann, 1996, pp. 729–731; Tanner et al., 2014, pp. 166–167; Weiser, 1962, p. 165; Wilson, 2002, pp. 287, 292).

17 Similarly, in 74:18 they are the violent who flout God and God’s cause in the destruction of the Temple.

18 (Goldingay, 2008, p. 79; Longman, 2014, p. 336; McCann, 1996, pp. 1057–1059; Tate, 1990, p. 491; Tucker & Grant, 2018, pp. 390–391; Weiser, 1962, pp. 623–624). Similarly, in 49:10 the ליסִ כ‧ִ is contrasted to the wise (although both of them die); and in 92:8 (Eng. v.6) they fail to recognize the true end of the wicked.

19 (Kellenberger, 2013, p. 359).

20 I recognize that a simple and straightforward identification of people with disabilities as ‘vulnerable’ or ‘marginalised’ perpetuates ableist assumptions that are directly contrary to the force of this paper—for vulnerability is, as I have argued, fundamental to the human condition.

21 See also (Grant, 2004; Martin, 2007).

22 It is important here to recognize the crucial connection between the Psalter’s anthropology and its theology proper. If humanity is inherently, universally weak and vulnerable, God is inherently, universally, understood to be the one on whom weak and vulnerable humans depend. The “David” of the Psalms typifies the human pole of dependence; YHWH as king and as the one who exhibits דֶסֶח (ḥesed), the one in whom humans take refuge, typifies the divine pole of dependability. See (Firth, 2016; Kraus, 1992, pp. 137–154; Mays, 1994a, pp. esp., 2–22, 25–39; McCann, 1993, pp. esp., 25–50; 1996, pp. 666–672). Such an appreciation goes a long way to countering the sense that presenting God as able fosters an ableist ideology, as some disability theologians have contended (Koosed, 2018, pp. 195, 198–199 is a typical example).

23 As an aside, there is growing awareness that many young adults with cognitive disabilities are finding themselves stranded for years in nursing homes due to lack of suitable accommodation options. See, for instance, https://www.agedcareguide.com.au/talking-aged-care/younger-people-with-disability-in-aged-care (accessed 21/05/2020).

24 While naming in the OT has frequently been taken to be an act of dominion (especially in discussions of OT perspectives on gender roles), a compelling case can be made for it being an act of discernment. See (Ramsey, 1988).

25 For this notion and its connection with health, see (Messer, 2013). While I disagree with him about the importance of defining ‘health’ for a theology of medicine, his discussion is nonetheless insightful.

26 In Christian theology, power of any kind is a gift given by God to the vulnerable through those who are entrusted with it. See, (Gaudet, 2017, pp. 47–48).

27 See (Healy & Parry, 2007; Johnson, 2014, 2016), and for a more general treatment (Smith, 2009).

28 This is being explored from a number of different directions, and is, to some extent, a return to early Reformation notions of the knowledge of God. See (Calvin, 1960, 1.1.2; Johnson, 2014, 2016; Meek, 2003; Yong, 2011b, pp. 167–171).

29 Something hinted at in (Kellenberger, 2020, p. 136). For reflections along similar lines (even if including mystical elements that I find unhelpful), see (D. G. W. Smith, 2019, pp. 506–511; Staley, 2012).

30 For which see, with some caveats, (Kellenberger, 2013; 2020, pp. 117–119, 122, 129).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Andrew Sloane

Andrew is Lecturer in Old Testament and Christian Thought at Morling College (2002–). He teaches in the areas of Hebrew Bible exegesis and interpretation, integration of faith and work, philosophy of religion and bioethics. Andrew qualified in medicine and practiced briefly as a doctor before going into Baptist ministry. He taught at Ridley College in Melbourne (1996–2002). He has published in Old Testament and hermeneutics, ethics, philosophy, and theology. His most recent book is Vulnerability and Care: Christian Reflections on the Philosophy of Medicine (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016). Andrew is married to Alison, and they have three adult daughters. They attend Harbourside Church, a recent Baptist church plant in Mosman.