After enjoying the podcast done by Tim Challies and David Murray on Tuesday I thought I would look for other podcasts on this subject of disability and faith.
That was a mistake. At least so far.
The first one I found was this one. I don’t recommend it. No, let me be stronger – it is terrible. If you wanted to conduct a case study on unbiblical, illogical, unfair treatments of scripture, the seven minutes that Reverend Guy Pujol spoke could be the primary example. He managed to distort Leviticus 21, John 9, Mark 2 and 2 Corinthians in his few short minutes.
John 9 might have been the most egregious example of his distortions in that he quotes the disciples’ question about who sinned, and then he completely neglects Jesus’ response:
As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.” John 9:1-3
I can only conclude that his mistreatment of scripture was intentional and that he did not want his audience to hear the whole text. What he was afraid they might hear, I can only guess.
I didn’t listen to the Muslim scholar or the Rabbi who were also part of the podcast. I wanted my seven minutes back by the time he was through.
But we have NOTHING to fear from this kind of treatment – his argument was so weak a child could answer it. In fact, I asked one of my children (Hannah) how she would respond to someone who said that John 9:2 proves that the Bible equates sin and disability. Her confused reply (she was truly confused about the question) was, “well, the next verse sort of answers that.” Her younger brother paraphrased Exodus 4:11 for his response, “God says he makes some to live with disability.”
That made me happy.
Let us be Biblical Christians on this subject. God certainly is not ashamed of his sovereignty over disability as proclaimed in his word, and neither should we.
The Works of God 
John,
I also listened to Challies and Murray’s podcast on disability. Very good stuff coming from these guys. I loved that it involved a forum of men. As you pointed out there is a lot of bad biblical advice out there (usually coming from people who are not personally touched by disability). I thank God for men like you, Justin Reimer, Paul Martin and many others who live out 2 Corinthians 1:3-4.
I also just read your post over at Desiringgod this morning. Loved your adaptation of Psalm 139.
Greg Lucas
“Wrestling With An Angel”
Mr. Knight,
I read your blog of May 6, “Now that was a mistake…” with mixed emotions. I do not disagree that the segment of the podcast you listened to contains “unbiblical, illogical, unfair treatments of scripture,” but that is exactly the point I was seeking to make; and, I would like to offer some explanation in defense of my remarks.
First, the podcast contains only a small portion of the panel discussion on Theology and Disability; it is only the first 32 minutes of a 90-minute forum. And by your own admission, you only listed to the first 7 or 8 minutes. As the discussion continued, I return to several of these passages and seek, as I stated, “to offer some redemption to some of these passages and show how they can guide us to full inclusion” of persons with disabilities in the life and ministry of the church. Unfortunately, the entirety of the discussion is not posted in podcast format; and, as a result you heard only about one-fourth of the presentation. So, in a sense, my comments are heard somewhat out of context (though I take full responsibility for what I said).
Second, the audio podcast does not allow the hearer to see the presentations given or fully appreciate the context in which they were delivered. I admit that—based on what you heard—I do not state explicitly that the overview of scriptures I offered at the beginning of that presentation intentionally represents an interpretation of scripture and a theology that is not my own. Had I known that the session was being recorded for a podcast, I probably would have been more explicit and tried to make that clear. But I was using a rhetorical or presentation device that was clear to the audience present at the forum.
I was asked by the conference organizers to discuss theological traditions that both help and hinder congregations as they seek to welcome and include people with disabilities, and to consider some of the barriers that people with disabilities have historically encountered when they have sought to be included as full participants in the life and ministry of the church. And that is how I began my presentation—the part you heard.
So, for example, you are right that I did not finish the story of the man born blind (John 9) with Jesus’s answer. In my reading of this story, Jesus does not dignify the question with a direct answer. Instead he reframes the discussion with his response—as your daughter rightly points out—that God works though all of humanity to fulfill the gospel imperative. Jesus’s response, however, was not germane to my argument. I use the John 9 story to demonstrate that the fact that the question was even asked illustrates how the equation of sin with disability is a dominant belief in biblical times; and, sadly, many churches today still equate disability and illness with sin.
In my presentation, I offered an overview of understandings or interpretations of scripture that I find problematic in some Christian traditions. I am not arguing that all Christians think this way; but, I do contend that this view of scripture is a dominant belief in Christian thought—both historically and presently—and, as such, must be countered whenever possible. Theologies of divine healing—prosperity theology or the “health and wealth gospel” being chief among them—are a growing movement in US churches, and these theologies are dangerous in how they portray people with disabilities and physical or mental illnesses.
The other three segments of my presentation not only critique these theologies but also offer a constructive and “redeeming” use of select biblical passages which I find affirming and fully inclusive of persons living with disabilities.
If there is a way to send you my presentation in its entirety, I would be more than happy to do so. And I would welcome any feedback—positive or negative—that you or your readers may offer. I do not mind criticism of my work; in fact, I appreciate it. It helps me to continue to grow as a person and as a pastoral caregiver. But I do want my work to be critiqued in its entirety and not just a portion that may be misinterpreted outside of its full context.
On a more personal note, I am sorry that you were troubled by the portion of my comments that you heard. As I prepared my presentation, I knew that even restating a harmful theology or a misuse of scripture carried the risk of injuring or offending someone in the audience. But I do not believe that we can fully move forward on this important issue until we are able to name honestly these problematic interpretations of scripture. Unless we can identify the problem, we cannot fix it. So, I took a personal risk in trying to name and describe the problem honestly; fortunately, the people who attended the forum understood my argument and were receptive to the presentation. [The podcast, however, creates an entirely new audience that I did not take into account.]
But if I in any way upset or offended you, I am genuinely sorry. I apologize here publicly, for it was not my intent. With what I have seen of your website, The Works of God, and my own pastoral interests, I truly believe we are on the “same page,” so to speak, and strive toward the same goal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
In faithful service,
Rev. Guy Pujol, D.Min.