Evangelicals Now
Christian news worldwide
magnifying glass Search archives
home Home check the archives Archives Subscribe Subscriptions Advertising Information & booking of classifieds Adverts Find a local evangelical Church Find a church for the search engines and extremely curious! About us Contact us Site Map
Printable
Version

Deaf perspectives

Challenging Dominant Christian Thought Conference papers from Deaf Christian Link UK and The London School of Theology

Protesting too much?

DEAF PERSPECTIVES
Challenging Dominant Christian Thought Conference papers from Deaf Christian Link UK and The London School of Theology
DCL and LST. 56 pages
Available from London School of Theology (formerly London Bible College)

How would you cope with church if you were deaf - not just hard of hearing but profoundly deaf? Would you like to know what it feels like? These papers will help you to understand. They were given at a conference held in November 2003 by Deaf Christian Link UK and The London School of Theology.

In my three decades of engagement with disability issues I have found some recurrent themes whenever Christians attempt to relate Scripture to disability. One is the wish to shape a 'theology of disability'. Somehow it is thought that this will help to show how Christians should respond to disability. It is always disastrous. However well-intentioned it may be, it quickly degenerates into special pleading, question begging, and sometimes anger - the latter usually directed at churches that are perceived to fail people with disabilities. All these tendencies are evident in the material which came from the conference.

Questionable

The paper by David Flynn is particularly characterised by these weaknesses, which is surprising considering that he is not deaf. His brand of 'radical Paulinism' is in itself questionable, but it leads him to make statements which, even if they have a grain of truth, are made absurd by over-statement.

Using Galatians 2 as his text he argues a parallel between Paul's struggle for the acceptance of Gentile believers in the church and the struggle of deaf Christians to be accepted in hearing churches. (Along the way he accuses Luke of 'spin' in his account of the disagreement between Paul and Peter.) Another contributor uses the same passage to bewail the fact that deaf Christians have 'lost the opportunity of developing our own theology and I feel that our situation is similar to the Gentiles of the early church in that we are expected to become what we are not...We need to develop our own way of following Jesus, a deaf way.'

Take heed

While there is much else to criticise in this collection of papers, equally there is much to heed. The anger at Christian attitudes towards deaf people is palpable and, given the evidence offered, understandable. Failure to accommodate the needs of people who cannot hear, even if there is a loop system, whose first language is British Sign Language rather than English, who struggle to adapt to a 'hearing culture', results in, at best a sense of alienation and, at worst, deep resentment.

But the frustration they express is as short-sighted as the thoughtlessness they berate. Churches find it difficult to adapt to the very diverse needs of people with disabilities because the solutions frequently counteract one another. It is not only lack of concern. For example, deaf Christians plead for more visual content in services but while that helps them, it impairs the involvement of people who are blind! There seems to be a place for the distinctive needs to be separately addressed and for the different groups also to come together for fellowship and worship in ways that can include all people - whatever their disabilities, or none!

To me the most illuminating and thoughtful chapter was Bob Shrine's on healing. Having become profoundly deaf at 30 he was subjected to many attempts at healing. The result is a real perception of what it means to be whole - and deaf. This chapter will challenge the thinking of many, especially when one reads that some deaf people hope that they will still be deaf in heaven!

Closing the gap

My own conclusion is that disability is best approached by considering first how alike human beings are. The reason for this is that they are made in God's image. Focussing on how we differ serves only to widen the gaps between us, leading to one or other group regarding themselves as special. (This is reflected in these papers by the way a capital D is used for Deaf people.) Only when we see how alike we are will we be moved to support and help each other where we are different.

David C. Potter, MBE,
Devon