Book Review
In the last dozen years, theologians have seriously
attempted to examine human disability and its implications on anthropology,
culture, religion, and society. Deborah
Creamer (director, accreditation and institutional accreditation for ATS) tackles these issues head on in Disability and Christian Theology, first
by rejecting traditional perspectives on disability, both medical and social,
considering recent proposals of liberation theology, and then introducing a
newly constructed theology of limits. Her target audience is the theological
academy – she calls for a re-examination of long held assumptions informed by
the normalcy of disability. Only once
humanity is seen within its finite scope, does the experience of disability
become a normative lens through which to examine all other inquiries.
Summary
In the short monograph, the first chapter is devoted to warrants
underlying claims that both the medical and social models are inadequate –
neither takes fully into account the embodiment of humanity and the richness of
multiple imputed identity. In other
terms – what does it mean to be a person?
She then proposes a model which recognizes the daily lived fluidity of experienced
limits. As limits are an integral part of the human life, she no longer views
them as challenges in attaining perfection nor punishment for sinful
nature. From this constructed
perspective, sin becomes redefined as an inappropriate attitudinal response to
limits of self and others. While not
completely jettisoning visionary gains made through medical or social
constructions of disability, she suggests this model serves as the complement
which ties the other two together. From
this vantage point, the remainder of the book critiques existing theories of
disability and suggests further refinement.
Chapter 2 serves as brief historical review from Plato and
Aristotle, through the Biblical writings, and into contemporary discussion. She
finds hope contained in the lived experiences of both Old and New Testament
caricatures of persons with disability – there was a place provided for them.
Embodiment theology as a subset of the medical model is the
focus of chapter 3. Humans do not just have bodies, they are bodies in a particular locus of time and space. While reviewing environmentalist McFague’s model of the world as the body of God, she critiques it for not
reflecting on diversity of disabled embodiment. Creamer identifies the three
categories of sin (Us vs Us, Us vs Them, Us versus It) as crucial in McFague’s anthropological
model, yet contributes a fourth (Me vs. Myself). It is here, Creamer suggests, that persons
lie to themselves about their own limits, constructing binary adversarial
categories (abled, disabled). Those
lies, Creamer suggest, eventually leads to further perpetuations of injustice
against oneself, others, and the world.
In chapter 4, Creamer addresses liberation models of disability through theological critiques of the writings
of Jennie Weiss Block, Kathy Black, and Nancy Eisland. The Accessible God (Block) lacks depth beyond
indignation, the Interdependent God (Black) does not address power and
responsibility, and the Disabled God (Eisland) leaves little room for those not
comfortable in their disability. Noting that each of the authors are not trained theologians, she suggests that their arguments, while promising, need additional depth.
Having weighed both medical and liberative theologies as
promising but insufficient, Creamer allows chapter 5 to explore limits as a
characteristic of humanity – her emphasis lies on the "leaky" boundaries, not the
bounded set. The focus is not on a
deficit model of lacking, but a positive model of gifting. She suggests this is
similar to the Pauline model of spiritual gifts – how each are for different
purposes, having boundaries, yet are necessarily fit together for the
construction of a vibrant Christian community.
Disability is then seen as a vital part of the human experience and one
that rejects ancient dualist approaches.
Comment &
Critique
The limits model proposed in Disability and Christian Theology opens areas for new theological
reflection. Recognizing that limits are
different for each individual reveals the complexity of the spectrum yet also
allows for multiple, various, and competing interpretations of embodied
disability among different people.
Limits will be shaped along the other identifying lines (religion,
politics, race, culture, economics, and gender) as each contributes to
self-identity. Unlike the medical or
social models, this model is particularly helpful within the intellectually disabled
population – a people not easily seen as a community or with liberative agency.
The limits model contributes much in anthropology, yet
raises unanswered questions in soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.
Future theologians will need to wrestle with these questions and see if this
model is productive in furthering the canonical gospel or run the danger of
constructing new religion.
Overall,
however, the model appears promising and serves as a refreshing reminder of
everyone’s limited existence. While
primarily aimed at the theological academy, this book is also suggested for
those with experience in pastoral settings who desire a refreshing approach to
spiritual care and ministry.
