3.3 Components of Contextual Bible Study related to the disability perspective
3.3.4 Socially engaged dimension
60
61
oppression has been revealed. The Christian community must respond to this oppression. One of the ways this response might occur is in the form of a critical liberation theology of disability”.207 Janet A. Lees attempts to extend this reflection by arguing that liberation theology could be developed by people with disabilities (people with communication disorders in her context), through Bible study. In her view, “[The liberation hermeneutic’s]
purpose would be that disabled people would be speaking for themselves, doing theology from their own experiences, teaching church and society what life is like from their perspective and working towards its transformation for justice for all people”.208 Lees’
concern is how the Bible would be interpreted and developed by and with people with disabilities. The key issue of my study is similar in that the Bible study has to be interpreted by ordinary readers, in this case people with disabilities, together with the socially engaged scholar (disabled or not).
Therefore, the socially engaged in this study are the church leaders and religion lecturers - those who are accepted as part of the struggle world of people with disabilities. Such an encounter between the world of the socially engaged and that of people with disabilities involves “reading the Bible and doing theology… [and] calls for dialogue and difference”.209
Dialogue in partnership implies that both parties recognize their “role as servants”, meaning that both serve the same greater goal, in this case justice, social inclusion and equality for those with disabilities and the apparently able-bodied. What is crucial in this dialogue between the two parties is that “their contribution may be distinctive and different, but it is not in any way better or more significant”.210 The encounter between ordinary readers and socially engaged biblical scholars entails complementary reading in the sense that the scholars contribute to critical resources for interpreting texts and contexts.211 Hence, the presence of socially engaged biblical scholars is an essential part of the process.
Lees argues however that, when interpreting the Bible from a disability perspective, “even trained biblical scholars start off as ordinary interpreters of the Bible”.212 This implies that socially engaged scholars, while experts on the Bible, may not be experts on disability.
207 Weiss, Copious Hosting, 2002, 95.
208 Lees, ‘Interpreting the Bible’, 1997, 14.
209 West, ‘Reading the Bible Differently’, 1996, 26.
210 West, ‘Reading the Bible Differently’, 1996, 28.
211 West, ‘Reading the Bible Differently’, 1996, 32.
212 Lees, ‘Enabling the Body’ in This Abled Body, 2007, 164.
62
Therefore, interpreting the Bible from a disability perspective requires the inclusion of
“PWDs as research partners rather than [as] the object of research...”213 West argues, “Indeed, this is what all biblical scholars do: they trace a line of connection between biblical texts and between biblical texts and other ancient texts; they also trace lines of connection between biblical texts and the worlds that produced them”.214 However, West goes on to argue,
“Socially engaged biblical scholars go further by overtly tracing a line of connection between biblical texts and contexts and the texts and context of present communities of the poor and marginalized”.215 This indicates that in disability studies and Biblical studies, biblical scholars should be informed about issues surrounding disability and “explore the development of theologies by and with people with disabilities”.216 An example is the Bible study that I conducted in Kinshasa with Presbyterian church leaders on Acts 3, 1-10, the details of which are discussed in chapter 6 of this thesis. The text deals with the “crippled beggar” sitting at the gate of the Temple called the “Beautiful Gate”. One of the questions asked was, “Why does this disabled man sit outside the Temple?” Most of the participants were apparently able-bodied people. Only two persons with disabilities were present. The participants were divided into six sub-groups: four of these were composed only of church leaders and their spouses; the other two sub-groups each had one person with a disability among its participants. It was noticed that the responses from sub-groups that consisted of only church leaders were based on the historical and sociological situation of people with disabilities in the ancient Jewish context where crippled beggars were considered impure and useless. Their responses were as follows:
Sub-group CL 2: “He sits outside because he is a disabled person (according to the Jews’
perception, this crippled man was impure and his place was with the gentiles)” and “he wants to beg as he is disabled”;
Sub-group CL 4: “He sits outside to beg; and he sits outside because at that time a disabled person was considered impure”;
Sub-group CL 5: He sits outside because he wants to beg money; and he is neither informed nor educated about the importance of being in the temple”;
213 Lees, 'Enabling the Body', 2007, 164
214 West, The Academy of the Poor, 2003, 57.
215 West, The Academy of the Poor, 2003, 57.
216 Lees, ‘Interpreting the Bible’, 1997, 10.
63
Sub-group CL 6: He sits outside because he is ignorant of who he is, because at that time disabled people were considered as cursed and impure. For those (family, friends) who carried him do not know who he is”.
However, the two sub-groups in which two people with disabilities participated responded according to the current realities of people with disabilities in the DRC. They responded as follows:
Sub-group CL 1: “He sits outside to beg and if he does not sit outside ‘who will care for him?’” (The last sentence is a local expression used by street children, reacting to attempts by persons to stop those among them who have disabilities from begging)”
Sub-group CL 3: “He sits outside, because he is being used by those who carried him for their own gain”. For example, today there are local or international organizations dealing with disability who profit from PWDs: apparently able-bodied people “use PWDs for begging in shops and on markets”.
The above example shows that the first sub-groups focused its understanding of the reading on a perception of the contemporary context of the text, using their experience of disability;
and without taking account of the current realities of people with disabilities.
The last sub-groups on the other hand referred to the lived experience of one of the participants and offered what it “had at hand: their own lives, experiences, and struggles”.217 Therefore, I argue that socially engaged biblical scholars need to engage with a liberation interpretation of disability which, from the perspective of people with disabilities,
“acknowledges our struggle against the discrimination that is pervasive within the church and society as a part of the work of coming to our bodies”.218
To end this discussion, what West says is clear:
Critical modes of reading the Bible enable ordinary “readers” to recognize the ideological nature of the biblical text (and their context) and to develop critical tools which will enable them to do their own critical analysis of the text (and context). The transfer of critical resources between their reading practice and the reality of their
217 Mesters, ‘The Use of the Bible’, 1981, 9.
218 Eiesland, The Disabled God, 1994, 86.
64
daily life…For some socially engaged biblical scholars, the contextual bible study process is primarily an opportunity to practice and rehearse for the real thing critical analysis of social reality.219
In conclusion, the interaction between the socially engaged and the poor and marginalized creates the need for both “community consciousness” and “critical consciousness”, which indicates that the critical analysis of social reality and the need to read the Bible systematically are crucial elements of Contextual Bible Study.220