Models of Disability from Religious Tradition: Introductory Editorial

This focused issue of the Journal of Disability and Religion ponders what religious traditions, particularly Christian traditions, might have to offer in the way of reflecting on and developing models for thinking about disability. The essays in this volume come from new voices as well as better-known authors, and together they suggest fresh perspectives on the way we think and speak about disability.

Before entering into this specific conversation, it is worth reflecting on some past history and conversations: how disability models have been shaped, how the related field of disability studies arose, and what conversations have (and have not) been sparked between the more secular field of disability studies and theologians and religious studies scholars.

In the remainder of this introductory essay, we provide some introductory background for the work that this issue’s several authors will do. We first name some of the main theories or discussions arising in contemporary disability studies. Then we describe how theologians and scholars in religious studies have developed themes arising from disabilities studies.  Finally, we introduce the authors for this volume, set out some of the ways they challenge our current thinking about models of disability, and suggest how each of these authors might be pointing a way forward in considering some prominent questions in disability studies.

Disability theories and disability studies

One of the particular contributions of disability studies as a field has been the way it has identified models of disability, including those predominantly in use by theologians. As most readers of this journal will know, chief among these are medical models. The name indicates how intertwined thinking about disability has been with thinking about health care. At their best, medical models depict the ways that health care is instantiated in care for disabled people. Medical models of disability tend to focus on an individual’s medical needs, putting concern for a person’s pain and desire to enable a person to participate more in society at the heart of the conversation.

Medical models of disability have been largely discounted in recent years among disability theorists. A key difficulty with medical models is that they emphasize normalcy and presume a stable vision of a perfect body, against which all people, but especially disabled persons, might be measured. On a medical model view, people with disabilities might seem to be deviants and outcasts, people who cannot really be part of human society, unless they can be made to fit, conform, or pass.

Still, bioethicists and health care practitioners continue to write articles that frame disability within the limits of the medical model. For example, this often occurs in bioethical discussions of cochlear implants, where health care researchers and practitioners name cochlear implants as a great good because they fix or restore hearing. However, members of the Deaf community as well as others who are hard of hearing do not necessarily perceive cochlear implants as beneficial. Indeed, cochlear implants have been described as obliterating the whole of Deaf culture, which has particular languages, and important contributions for society (Bennett, 2017, p. 145). In the debate about cochlear implants, the medical model comes under criticism for failing to recognize the ways in which a medical “good” may result in the loss of other, perhaps less tangible, goods. As the general editors for this journal reflected in their first editorial (volume 21, issue 1), this journal was formerly entitled the Journal of Religion, Disability, and Health, a name that might be seen as giving primacy to the intersection of disability and health care or medical practice relating to disability. The general editors noted that the name change “was a recognition that discussions about disability were being increasingly shaped by a social model that emphasized the social and cultural dimensions of disability experience” (p. 1).

We might say that disability studies, as a field, arises from the critique of these medical models that focused too much on normalcy as a criterion for thinking about disability. In place of medical models, disability studies scholars have proposed social models of disability. Social models emphasize that it is society that fosters disability; the individual with an impairment does not have a disability unless and until he or she is prevented from participation or recognition in society. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been seen as landmark political legislation in the United States, which directed attention to the ways society prevents full participation of people with disabilities.

Wayne Morris (2008), author of Theology Without Words, articulated how a medical model of disability has “had devastating, at times fatal, consequences for Deaf people throughout history” (p. 9). By contrast, a social model has enabled further inclusion, and Morris extended a social model by considering what it means to read scripture and participate in liturgy as a Deaf person. In a different way, universal design has promoted the idea that there is a way to include all people—whether that involves the universal design of an office building or the universal design of a course syllabus (Crawford & Burgstahler, 2013).

In recent years, disability studies has taken social models still further. Indeed, some have seen social models of disability as still presuming a “normal” way of being embodied—such that the “fixes” to society, such as the development of the ADA or universal design, still emphasize the sameness, rather than the diversity of bodies. Rather, these theorists ask, what if we envisioned disabled bodies as freed from constraints of any idea of normalcy? For example, drawing on the work of Michel Foucault, and of queer theorists, some write about a crip/queer way to envision disability. David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder’s (2015) book The Biopolitics of Disability: Neoliberalism, Ablenationalism, and Peripheral Embodiment suggests that we do not quite see the extent to which peoples’ bodies are being controlled and approved by the nation-state—a theme very much evident in much of Michel Foucault’s work. Mitchell and Snyder hope for “a nondialectical materialist account of disability… [that] pursues disability as something other than the oppressed product of social constraints” (p. 5). They argued that disabled bodies, like queer bodies, resist and disrupt notions of bodies—especially by aiming to prevent creating “docile bodies” that move, live, and exist at the behest of the nation-state, corporations, or any other entities that might have a stake in emphasizing particular kinds of bodies. On this reading, queer bodies and disabled bodies share in being nonhomogenized bodies that can help people critique contemporary nation-state and economic patterns of thought. Theories that draw on this common characteristic of disabled and queer bodies advance revolutionary modes of thinking about, accepting, including, and promoting disability as a force for positive good.

Intersections of theology, religious studies, and disability studies

The burgeoning field of disability studies has driven much of the conversation about models, theories, or ways of envisioning disability. Disability studies often makes use of secular voices that regard religious thought as having no place in thinking about disability. In part that has been due to rightly placed concern about the troubling ways in which religious traditions have viewed disability. For example, Albrecht, Seelman, and Bury’s (2001) Handbook of Disability Studies discusses a few religious traditions and notes their contradictory points: “Writings from the Old Testament suggest paradoxical attitudes, which exhorted society to be generous and kind toward individuals with impairments, while also declaring that impairment was a mark of the wrath of God” (p. 17). Christianity developed places of care and opportunity for people with impairments (e.g., job prospects at the community of St. Dymphna’s shrine), but also narrated impairment as connected to demons and witchcraft. The Handbook’s consideration of Eastern traditions, especially Hinduism, notes, “Religion—over time and across societies—has been a particularly potent force in separating people as abnormal” (p. 528).

Criticisms of religious traditions have also, and crucially, come from insiders. Landmark disability theologian Nancy Eiesland (1994) explained how Christian tradition often demonized disabled people, or at least named disability as physically marking a demonic character. This kind of attitude toward disabled people singles them out as unworthy of God’s love or unfit for participation in the worshipping community. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that a disability studies colleague of theologian Thomas Reynolds (2008) warned him about working at the intersection of theology and disability: “You’re venturing into a troublesome area” (p. 23). The colleague continued by describing a prayer and healing service that emphasized disabilities as “faulted and pitiable anomalies” (Reynolds, 2008, p. 24).

At the same time, some argue strongly that religious traditions need to be part of conversations about disability. For example, Sarah Imhoff (2017) argued that disability studies scholars need to pay more attention to religion. Imhoff noted that most disabled people consider themselves to be people of faith; moreover, and more damning, she noted that disabilities studies has frequently misinterpreted her own Jewish tradition when it comes to considering disability, to its detriment. Thus, even secular disability scholars need to consider religion for the sake of disabled people, as well as for the sake of being truthful about traditions.

Theologians using disability models have often reflected on whether and how Christian thought aligns with one model or another. Reynolds’ work begins with reflection on the difficulties with medical models of disability. His contention is that

Christians commonly adopt the prevailing medical model of disability. This model is based on what non-disabled people think is best for persons with disabilities. For example, it is assumed that disability indicates a deficit or flawed human condition, a bodily deviation due to a “loss” of capacity in one way or another, which holds a person back in society. (p. 25)

Hence, the healing services that we mentioned previously, and which remain a strong part of many worshipping communities, attest to a mainly medicalized view of bodies—one that does not necessarily reflect Christian thought.

On the other hand, many theologians have recognized the potential of, and engaged fruitfully with, social models of disability. Thus, Nancy Eiesland (1994) named and advances a social model of disability, which she drew together with a liberation theology approach to seeing God as disabled. Thomas Reynolds (2008) similarly spoke of direct engagement with disability studies:

Keeping in line with the general thrust of disability studies, then, this book shall bring literature on disability into conversation with a range of sociological, philosophical, and theological sources in order to challenge non-disabled person and resist the disabling principalities and powers that afflict our societies and our church communities. (p. 27)

In his landmark study, Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity, evangelical scholar Amos Yong (2007) engaged the medical model of disability, tracing the medicalization of Down syndrome. While understanding Down syndrome as a medical condition has led to life-saving medical treatment (Yong’s brother Mark would have died without medical intervention), Yong advocated “explicitly theological models” as the best means “to empower the social liberation of people with disabilities” (p. 150). Drawing fundamental Christian doctrine into conversation with disability studies, Yong challenged both theologians and disability theorists to reconsider some basic assumptions. With his later volume, The Bible, Disability, and the Church, Yong (2011) pursued his project of reforming Christian thinking about disability through a sustained interrogation of the biblical text.

Other theologians have made a more direct plea for giving theology its own voice in the conversation. Deborah Creamer (2008), author of Embodied Limits, engaged both the medical and social models of disability. Yet she also argued for the limited nature of both models, and proposed a theological understanding that emphasizes the human limits intrinsic to our created nature. John Swinton (2011) has written incisively about the need to think about a social model/disability rights model in theology, with the caveat that this is penultimate knowledge. Theologians need to recognize that disability theories are helpful for theological work, but not the main purpose of our work. Put another way, he suggested, “Disability rights are important, but only as they relate to the goals of the coming Kingdom” (Swinton, 2011, p. 305).

In the current issue, we have wondered whether it might be possible to push contributions of religious thought further. Might we more fully take up the work of people such as Creamer and Swinton, to see religious sources as fruitful, indeed primary, sources for thinking about disability theories, models and visions? Perhaps, in relation to Swinton’s words, we might wonder whether we can think theologically about the goals of the coming Kingdom—and the Christian traditions that the Kingdom suggests—in relation to disability.

What would happen if people were to approach religion not just as an occasional source for thinking about problems observed in disability studies, but as a set of traditions and discourses, sustained by authoritative sources, that hold promise for creative thinking about disability? Are there untapped resources that might provoke substantive conversations that could shape disability studies in even more fruitful ways?

The current issue’s authors

The authors in the current issue furnish a starting place for thinking about some of these questions. They have thought broadly and creatively about Christian tradition in relation to their own fields of study. Given the close connections between health care and politics for thinking about disability, we sought participation from health care professionals and political scientists. Given the varied ways that culture shapes our thinking, we sought historical and literary approaches that paid attention to cultural strands.

Each of this issue’s authors has thus written about and drawn from Christian tradition to articulate a vision for thinking about disabilities. Most name aspects of concern in disability studies, and suggest how theological thinking or narratives enable different, better visions of disability. The contributors are representative of the broad and diverse community of readers of this volume. For example, they are Anglican, United Methodist, Catholic, and Baptist. They come from health care fields, they are pastors and Christian educators, they are academics. They speak to theology in a number of ways, including not only to fields of historical, systematic, and liturgical theology, but also to fields as diverse as literary theory and political science.

All of the authors in this issue are convinced that Christianity has more to offer than the idea that disability is deviance; they are interested in asking what Christian theology has to say about disability. Each author reflects on specific people, practices, or doctrinal ideas in Christian thought, and suggests both benefits and pitfalls.

Nicole Reibe is a visiting assistant professor at Loyola University Maryland.  She has published on the theology of the Victorines and her current research focuses on the intersection between theology, class, and disability within converso communities of 15th century Spain. Her essay in this volume examines a 15th century deaf nun, Teresa de Cartagena, to propose a new way of describing disability in Christian life.

Miguel J. Romero is an assistant professor of religious and theological studies at Salve Regina University. Romero’s research interests include moral theology, Catholic social teaching, philosophical and theological accounts of disability and mental illness, and the theology of Thomas Aquinas. His written work includes essays such as “Happiness and Those Who Lack the use of Reason” Romero (2016) and “The Goodness & Beauty of Our Fragile Flesh: Moral Theologians and Our Engagement with Disability” Romero (2017). He has also written for Nova et Vetera and Church Life. His essay for this volume describes the life and work of Fr. Juan Gilabert-Jofre and his role in founding a psychiatric hospital in the 15th century.  Romero uses this account to reflect on and critique ways that 21st century people tend to see people with disabilities as exceptional, which thus distorts our relationships and responses to disability.

Medi Ann Volpe is a Catholic moral theologian who teaches theology and ethics at Durham University (UK), having earned a PhD from Duke University. Volpe’s work explores the intersection of ecclesiology, spiritual formation, and disability. Her first book, Rethinking Christian Identity, Volpe (2013) probes theological accounts of Christian identity that unintentionally marginalize or exclude people with intellectual disabilities from the practice of Christian faith. Her work has appeared in journals and handbooks, including the International Journal of Systematic Theology, Modern Theology, and the Oxford Handbook of Catholic theology, which she is co-editing with Lewis Ayres. Most recently, she has published in the Journal of Moral Theology an article that explores the role doctrine plays in Christian communities, given that most communities include members who may not understand doctrinal discussions. Her current book project (Resurrecting the Body, forthcoming from Fortress Press) examines the kind of Church we must be if we are truly to honor the weaker members. Her essay in this book interprets the healing of the paralytic as exemplary for the way communities of able-bodied and disabled people approach God.

Elizabeth Agnew Cochran is an associate professor of theology at Duquesne University. Much of her research centers on virtue theory and the history of moral thought, particularly in Protestant traditions, and she has authored two books, Receptive Human Virtues: A New Readings of Jonathan Edwards’s Ethics (2011) and Protestant Virtue and Stoic Ethics (2018). She is active in the Episcopal church. Her interests in disability have emerged in conversation with family members on the autism spectrum. Her essay in this volume brings together some of her thinking about virtue with some discussion of Jonathan Edwards’ theological vision of beauty. She argues that one offering from our Christian tradition is a deeper engagement with beauty, and hence a better way for thinking about bodies, disabled and abled.

Kylee-Anne Hingston lectures for the English Department at St. Thomas More College, a Catholic college at the University of Saskatchewan. Her upcoming book focuses on the intersection between narrative form and disability in 19th century fiction to discover how the developing shape of Victorian fiction both informed and reflected the era’s developing notions of disability. While working on this book, Hingston became particularly interested in the imbrication of theology and disability in Victorian thought, kindled in part by her evangelical background and her interest in ecumenism. Therefore, her current research project examines prominent mid-Victorian religious periodicals from various denominational backgrounds to uncover religious doctrine’s vital involvement in the Victorian conceptualization of disability and illness. In her essay for this volume, she proposes a view of disability that draws from historical literature. Using the Victorian author Charlotte Mary Yonge, she suggests that while Christian tradition has sometimes oppressed those with disabilities, it also has resources for acceptance—sometimes in the self-same pages.

Victor J. Hinojosa is an associate professor of political science in the Honors Program at Baylor University, where most of his teaching and research center around Latin American politics and U.S.-Latin American relations.  He has long been interested in interchurch conversations and is a member of the Anabaptist Scholars Network and serves on the Board of Directors of the Ekklesia Project. He is a member of DaySpring Baptist Church, where he serves in children’s formation.  He and his wife are the parents of two daughters, the youngest of whom has significant intellectual and physical disabilities and complex medical needs. His essay in this volume examines some of the political complexities of the ADA together with theological accounts of rethinking what it means to be in community with all people, including those with disabilities.

Brian Volck is a pediatrician and lifelong Catholic who received his undergraduate degree in English Literature and his MD from Washington University in St. Louis and his MFA in creative writing from Seattle Pacific University. He is the author of a poetry collection, Flesh Becomes Word, Volck (2013) and a memoir, Attending Others: A Doctor’s Education in Bodies and Words, Volck (2016) and co-author of Reclaiming the Body: Christians and the Faithful Use of Modern Medicine Shuman, & Volck (2006). His essays, poetry, and reviews have appeared in The Journal of Moral Theology, The Christian Century, DoubleTake, Health Affairs, and IMAGE. He does his clinical work on the Navajo Nation and teaches theology and medicine at St. Mary’s Seminary and University in Baltimore. In this volume, he brings his medical background in conversation with Christian practices of baptism, prayer, and contemplation to reflect on cognitive disabilities. In his essay, Brian raises questions about a medical model of disability—but suggests how Christian tradition might better engage questions about profound disability through the practice of Christian contemplation.

Jana M. Bennett
Department of Religious Studies, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio
[email protected]

Medi Ann Volpe
Department of Theology and Religion,Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
[email protected]