Skip to main content

The Tension Between The Goodness Of Bodies, And The Reality Of Disability

It is the goodness of bodies that an extremism of disability-worship denies, by asserting that there is something essential to me in the experience of my disability. This error explains why some people make themselves disabled, in some cases, maiming themselves for the purpose of receiving pity, attention, or any number of other reasons. We have to reject this kind of thinking. God has promised to restore that which has been broken, both in ourselves, and in this creation He made. At the risk of massive understatement, we cannot enjoy God's restoration of all things if we deny that there is anything that needs to be restored.

There is an example of this pernicious type of thinking in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation called, "Loud As a Whisper". Generally speaking, it is a great episode, filled with many examples showing the goodness of people with disabilities, and the goodness that can be found in overcoming those disabilities. The Enterprise is assigned to transport a mediator to a warring planet. When they arrive on the mediator's planet, they realize that he is deaf. Riva the mediator uses a unique form of communication called a "chorus". Its individual members are able to interpret Riva's thoughts and speak them. When the Enterprise crew questions Riva about his deafness, he says, "Born, and hope to die." Very subtly, the writers have communicated the idea that deafness is intrinsic to Riva's identity as a person. I don't know what it would be like to live without my disability, but it is a limitation. Even as I give thanks for the unique perspective that my disability affords me, and even for the difficulty I am invited to overcome, it is beyond reason to suggest that a lack of ability to do something is intrinsic, or even virtuous.

Another side plot within this episode involves Lt. Cmdr. Geordi La Forge. As you may know, La Forge is blind. He stopped in to Sickbay, reporting to the new doctor aboard the Enterprise, Dr. Pulaski. Pulaski has never met La Forge in person, but has heard of his case, and is understandably curious about his prosthetic, the VISOR. She tells La Forge that she may be able to restore his optic nerve, thus curing his blindness. There is a risk that she could fail, in which case he would lose all of his sight, including the ability to use the VISOR. La Forge hesitates, and this is a mystery to Pulaski. On the one hand, if Geordi is hesitating because of the risk of the surgery, this is legitimate. However, if he is hesitating because being cured of his blindness will eliminate the special experiences that experiencing his disability have created, then he is surrendering to the idea that disability is desirable or proper, and intrinsic to the human experience.

There is a fine line between thankfulness in spite of difficulties, and believing that defects are integral to our identity as individuals. This distinction is the difference between accepting suffering, and the celebrating of it for its own sake.

On a more personal note, I apologize for my vast array of sports analogies and references. Surely I could describe the goodness of bodies in other ways! Yet by God's grace, I am what I am, and if you've borne up thus far, perhaps you can make it the rest of the way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un