Religion in Western culture and functional impairment have an awkward relationship. This awkwardness stems from theological and cultural prejudice, theological prejudice as far as functional impairment is considered a consequence of original sin, which will be taken away in future life, cultural prejudice as far as functional impairment is looked upon as a relict of a lower stage of evolution. The author of this article analyses the views of theologians who have a functional impairment themselves, and derives from this analysis (...) three starting points for theological reflection on functional impairment are derived: the deconstruction of the concept of disability, functional impairment as a world generating state, and contingent human persons as an image of God. He formulates a viewpoint in which the image of God is not only understood on the level of individual persons, but rather as the ideal inclusive communities of people aspire to achieve when they answer to the calling that stems from God's covenant with humankind. (shrink)

Communities of Deaf people consider themselves a minority with its own language, Sign Language, and culture. Two basic characteristics of Deaf Culture, its orientation on community and the awareness of an own Deaf worldview different from hearing people's worldview, are often not recognized by Christian Churches. This article tries to find a theological answer on this dramatic situation, formulating a theological foundation of the legitimacy of Deaf people's experience of God's presence in the Deaf community, and the thesis that God's (...) presence can take place even in a very secular environment. The legitimacy of the experience of God's presence in the community is supported by statements of exegetes, Fathers of the Church, spiritual theologians, and Church historians about Jesus' presence amongst two or three. This presence needs of a new Pneumatic religious culture, which is based on the quality of relationship. (shrink)

Often hearing parents and adults belonging to the Deaf community have very different and opposite views regarding central themes in treatment and education of deaf children: cochlear implantation versus rejection of medicalization of deafness, oral communication versus Sign Language, and mainstreaming in regular schools versus education in deaf schools as the most natural learning environment for deaf children. The striking divergence of hearing and deaf people’s ethical judgments is a consequence of deafness and having normal hearing being “world-generating states,” conditions (...) that not only lead to a different understanding and perception of the world, but also to different courses of life that make the worlds of hearing and deaf people also really different.The views of hearing and deaf people stem from different worlds and different cosmologies, within which they have their own validity. The conflict between these two views is not resolved by arbitration or the choice for a middle course, but by negotiation. The basis for this negotiation may be an ethical analysis based on a Christian personalism that tries to combine full respect for the diversity of the negotiating partners with the effort of bringing their widely divergent worlds in communication with each other. (shrink)