Imago Dei in Eastern Orthodox Statements and Implications for Inclusion of People with Disabilities in the Church: A Dissonant Relationship

Abstract

In the past two decades, official entities of the Eastern Orthodox Church have released two documents with implications for the inclusion of people with disabilities in the life and educational pursuits of the church. In 2008, the Russian Orthodox Church released a statement whose ambiguous treatment of the doctrine of the imago Dei runs the risk of having an alienating effect upon people with disabilities. In 2009, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America released a document that honors those with disabilities. This article examines how each document views the image of God and its ramifications for people with disabilities within the church. I argue that the theology of imago Dei in these documents differs, resulting in conflicting views of people with disabilities. To resolve these discrepancies, the Orthodox Church should continue to develop and express its theological arguments regarding the imago Dei and its significance for all people.

By and large, children and adults with disabilities are less likely to attend a religious service than their peers with no disability.¹ Moreover, children with disabilities are likely to be excluded at some point from activities in the church.² Though most churches would argue that people with disabilities should be included and welcomed in the church, this is often not the case.³ Many advocates for inclusion of people with disabilities within the Christian tradition base their argument, at least in part, upon secular acts and documents.⁴ For example, in 1986 the delegates of the Eighth All American Council of the Orthodox Church in America passed a resolution to encourage every parish in the Orthodox Church in America to establish a committee for the purposes of making facilities more accessible to the elderly and those with physical disabilities and to develop ways for people with disabilities to more fully participate in the life and educational programs of the parish. Although the delegates may have had theological intentions, none were declared. Rather, the resolution was passed “in cooperation with the Decade of the Disabled, proclaimed by the United Nations to be 1983–1992.”⁵ Such cooperation was the only stated motivation for the resolution.

Similarly, in 2004 the United Methodist Church adopted a resolution titled “United Methodist Implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act,” in which it “[urged] all [their] congregations to implement and enforce the provisions of the ADA and all disability-related programs within every area that members of The United Methodist Church reside with the same vigor and interest as they would any other law affecting their able-bodied constituency.”⁶ Though the statement does have biblical principles sprinkled throughout, the primary basis for such a resolution was an act dictated by the government, namely the ADA.⁷ Although most Christians may likely agree that churches should eagerly comply with such acts as the American with Disabilities Act, a secular foundation or motivation for any action is insufficient for the church.⁸ Additionally, the ADA merely seeks to set guidelines for accessibility of physical spaces for people with disabilities. Christians must consider if mere physical accommodation within the church is sufficient.⁹ This is a question that must be answered theologically. Theologian and scholar of ethics Hans Reinders demonstrates that secular mandates and reasoning, which he refers to as the disability-rights approach, serve as an insufficient ground for the church because they pose severe limitations for people with profound disabilities. He argues that the disability-rights approach produces a “hierarchy of disability” based upon self-representation, leaving behind individuals with intellectual disabilities, and challenges the church to consider “what a distinctively theological voice might contribute to the struggle for inclusion.”¹⁰ In their work on curriculum in the church, James Estep, Roger White, and Karen Estep contend that if theology does not provide the foundation for curriculum in the church, “Christian education risks becoming dualistic; advocating goals and objectives that are inconsistent with the church's theology.”¹¹ Likewise, Stavros S. Fotiou, Eastern Orthodox Professor of Theology and Religious Education, argues that the dogmas of the church should drive both the goals and content of Christian education in order to avoid heresies and distortions.¹² The same could be said for any aspect of function or practice within the church. Even when the church's goals may align with the world's goals, “theology must be the compass” for the church's actions.¹³

The church must lay a robust theological foundation for inclusion in order to truly integrate people with all kinds of disabilities into the life of the church, for the expression of one's theology will inevitably affect the way that people with disabilities are treated within the church.¹⁴ Disability in Judaism, Christianity and Islam demonstrates that varying theologies lead to varying treatment of people with disabilities within the religious community. The issue of disability should not be a minor one in the church, for as religious scholars Darla Schumm and Michael Stoltzfus reflect, “Disability touches directly on the question of a community's identity, on the meaning of transformation [and] on the very image people have of God.”¹⁵ Yet more importantly, as will be demonstrated, it is the image people have of God that will impact the image they have of people with disabilities. The barriers for the inclusion of people with disabilities in the church are complex, but until church leaders and members alike are convinced theologically of the necessity and the goodness of welcoming people with disabilities into the life and educational pursuits of the church, true integration will remain mere wishful thinking.¹⁶

Within the Orthodox Church, disability is not a new topic. Indeed, the integration of people with disabilities has concerned Orthodox Christians since the patristic era. Basil the Great (330–379), Gregory of Nazianzus (330–389), and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–c. 395), in particular, were concerned with integrating people with disabilities and other social outcasts into society.¹⁷ Yet despite the importance these Cappadocian Fathers gave to this topic, it is sorely underrepresented in the official literature of the present-day Orthodox Church. This is not to say that the people of the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Church have completely ignored the topic. Especially in the past decade, laypeople in the church have made significant efforts to speak to the issue of the inclusion of people with disabilities in the life of the church, both from a theological and a practical perspective.¹⁸ Ministers of the church have done so in some unofficial capacity as well.¹⁹ Furthermore, the Orthodox Church in the United States has provided significant resources for the full inclusion of people with disabilities in the life of the church.²⁰ However, these resources are largely practical, not theological.²¹ In contrast to the variety of resources offered from a practical standpoint, the Eastern Orthodox Church has released only one major document that directly addresses the inclusion of people with disabilities from a theological perspective, namely, “Disability and Communion” from the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, and a second that potentially impacts the inclusion of people with disabilities, “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights.”

Though there are a variety of resources from the Eastern Orthodox tradition that address the inclusion of people with disabilities, this article examines only those formal statements given by official Eastern Orthodox entities, not those that have been written by laypeople or church ministers in an unofficial capacity.²² Due to the hierarchical structure of the Eastern Orthodox Church, official statements hold more weight than those in a decentralized denomination that has no centralized authority and are used to guide local churches.²³ Although not monadic in structure, an “emphasis on conciliar oversight has been a characteristic of” the organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church “from its earliest days.”²⁴ Within the Eastern Orthodox tradition, dogma and practices are articulated in sobornost (community) through councils.²⁵ This does not mean that local bishops or congregations have no authority or place to articulate doctrine, theology, or practice, but rather emphasizes the importance of statements released by official entities of the church. The influence of such documents extends far beyond any single local congregation. However, it is ultimately the decision of each individual congregation how they will implement teachings advanced by statements of official entities of the church.²⁶

This article examines how each document views the imago Dei and its ramifications for people with disabilities, especially within the life and educational pursuits of the church. When referring to the “life of the church,” I am referring to any activity that may happen in the church or in conjunction with the church. This includes social aspects of the church as well as those that are meant for explicit instruction. It could be argued that all activities of the church are educational, even those seemingly social aspects of the church. Therefore, if one is unable to participate in any type of church activity, one is missing out on the opportunity not only to experience community, but to learn and grow.²⁷ Anton Vrame, director of the Department of Religious Education of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, contends for such a paradigm within the Eastern Orthodox Church, arguing that the curriculum extends “beyond the printed textbook,” such that the life of the community actually becomes the curriculum. Vrame delineates those aspects of the church community that serve an educational purpose as “worship and sacramental life (leitourgia), the way we organize ourselves and live among one another (koinonia), the way we serve one another (diakonia),… the way we …, witness our faith to one another (martyria), and the value we place on learning and teaching (didache or matheteia).”²⁸

I will first present a brief constructive argument for the interrelation of imago Dei, image and likeness, theosis, and disability. Based upon this relationship I will examine these themes in “Disability and Communion” and “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights.” I argue that the theology of imago Dei in the two documents differs, resulting in conflicting views on people with disabilities, particularly individuals with intellectual disabilities.²⁹ While the statement from the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops honors those with disabilities, the statement by the Russian Orthodox Church runs the risk of having an alienating effect on people with disabilities. In order to resolve these discrepancies and welcome people with disabilities into every aspect of the church, the Orthodox Church should continue to develop and express in an official capacity its theological arguments concerning the imago Dei, specifically in its significance for people with disabilities.³⁰

Imago Dei and Disability

In his work, On the Making of Man, Cappadocian Father Gregory of Nyssa asked, “In what then does the greatness of man consist, according to the doctrine of the Church?” to which he responded, “Not in his likeness to the created world, but in his being in the image of the nature of the Creator.”³¹ The concept of imago Dei may be the most important and foundational concept in Christian theology (and beyond) for what it means to be human.³² Reinders states that “within the Christian tradition, one cannot address theological anthropology without speaking about the doctrine of imago dei.”³³ Similarly, Russian theologian Vladimir Lossky speaks of the importance of the image, stating that “everything which touches the destiny of man—grace, sin, redemption by the Word made man—must also be related to the theology of the image.”³⁴ Due to the paucity of specific references to imago Dei in Scripture and the lack of an explicit explanation of its meaning, various interpretations have been offered throughout history.³⁵ Drawing upon historical examples, John Kilner, distinguished scholar of bioethics and theology, demonstrates that varying understandings of the meaning of imago Dei throughout history have produced varying results, both positive and negative for humans.³⁶ Individuals with disabilities have been especially susceptible to the effects of varying interpretations of the image of God.³⁷

Theologian Amos Yong outlines three basic views of the image of God and how each relates to individuals with disabilities. The substantive or structural view identifies the image of God with certain capacities or qualities, with the intellect “(persisting) in the Christian tradition as the primary feature of the imago Dei,” which may lead to the exclusion of people with intellectual disabilities and even individuals with physical impairments such as the deaf-mute.³⁸ Secondly, “the functional view holds that the imago Dei consists not in what human beings are but in what (they) do,” such as exercising dominion over the created order.³⁹ Again, this understanding of the imago Dei can result in the view that individuals with certain intellectual or physical disabilities possess less of the image of God.⁴⁰ Finally, Yong describes the relational view, which, according to Yong, proposes that the imago Dei consists in a human's “relationship with God,… interrelationality with other persons, and … embodied interdependence with the world.”⁴¹ The relational view, according to Yong, is the most hopeful for individuals with disabilities.⁴²

The doctrine of imago Dei is drawn primarily from Genesis 1:26-27 in which God declares to make humanity in his own image and likeness. The distinction between image and likeness has been an important component in Orthodox theological anthropology from the time of the early Church Fathers.⁴³ Although some Christian traditions have not heavily emphasized the distinction between the two, the distinction has been especially prominent in Orthodox theology, and “references to the distinction are ubiquitous throughout the patristic tradition.”⁴⁴ Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 120/140–c.200) was “the first Christian writer to comment extensively on the divine image and likeness” and led the way for the common distinction among the Fathers between the image as “an inalienable gift” and the likeness as a “calling to be realized.”⁴⁵ Though the Fathers did not all agree upon the exact meaning of image and likeness, scholars of patristics Mark Edwards and Elena Ene D-Vasilescu note that the “distinction between the abiding image and the forfeited likeness (became) canonical in the eastern church.”⁴⁶ Any serious discussion of imago Dei in the context of the Eastern Orthodox tradition necessarily entails, then, a discussion of the meaning of image and likeness.

Reinders argues that to understand what it means to truly be human, one must not only consider origins, but telos. That is, what it means to be truly human stems not only from whence we came, but from the “purpose or goal of our existence.”⁴⁷ If imago Dei constitutes what it means to be human in the sense of our origins, then theosis, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, constitutes the telos, or end goal of life.⁴⁸ According to Eastern Orthodox theology, then, for one's life to be purposeful, one must be able to fulfill or pursue theosis. The first definition of theosis (also known as deification) was given by Dionysius the Areopagite (c. 500), who wrote, “Deification … is the attaining of likeness to God and union with him so far as is possible.”⁴⁹ Thus humanity's origins and purpose are intricately entwined: the telos, or goal of existence, is derived from our origins, that is imago Dei, as theosis is attaining God's likeness.⁵⁰

The meaning and various interpretations of theosis will be discussed in greater detail later in this work in relation to the documents examined. Suffice it to say now that as with imago Dei, various interpretations of theosis carry diverse implications for all people, but especially for individuals with disabilities. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, one's interpretation of theosis carries with it the very meaning of life. Thus, if one is unable to obtain theosis, one is unable to fulfill life's very purpose. As Clemena Antonova, art historian specializing in iconography, states, “If theosis is the goal of human life, then the question of how one achieves likeness to God and union with God becomes of primary significance.”⁵¹ This significance is crucial for both one's fulfillment of life's purpose and one's participation in the church. The relationship between the interpretation of theosis, participation in the church, and a person's ability to achieve theosis are intricately entwined, for as Orthodox theologian and bishop Timothy Ware states, “Deification presupposes life in the Church.”⁵² Thus, if one is excluded from the church, they are excluded from theosis. Conversely, if one is unable to achieve theosis due to their own limitations, then their participation in the church may be questioned.⁵³ Throughout the writings of the Church Fathers, theosis is intimately connected to the church. According to Dionysius, theosis is a means of salvation and occurs within the boundaries of the church.⁵⁴ Similarly, for Saint Maximus (c. 580–662), deification is the culmination of an individual's salvation and is “distinctly ecclesial.”⁵⁵ According to Gregory of Nazianzus's understanding of deification, “The Liturgy complements the spiritual life … (and) the priest is a mediator, deified and deifying.”⁵⁶ Thus, one's understanding of theosis carries with it important implications for individuals both inside and outside of the church, and an individual's participation within the church.

The doctrine of theosis is intimately connected to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of imago Dei, and together the two constitute what it means to be human and fulfill the goal of life. Although these doctrines hold crucial implications for all humans, the varying understandings of these doctrines can have an even greater impact on individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with intellectual disabilities. The implications of one's interpretation of imago Dei and theosis may impact the inclusion of individuals with disabilities and their participation in the church. Yong asks the question, “How does our wrestling especially with intellectual disabilities such as Down Syndrome affect the historic view of human beings as created in the image of God?”⁵⁷ More importantly we may ask, what does our view of human beings as created in the image of God mean for persons with disabilities? Is it possible to have an understanding of humanity in the image of God that is both faithful to the Scriptures and honoring to individuals with disabilities? The remainder of this article will examine the first question in the context of “Disability and Communion” and “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” and challenge the Eastern Orthodox Church to pursue the second.

The Russian Orthodox Church

The Russian Orthodox Church is one of the largest autocephalous Orthodox churches, whose jurisdiction extends beyond Russia to Moldova, Ukraine, and Belorussia, among other places, giving it a far-reaching influence.⁵⁸ Among the patriarchal churches, it stands as the fifth most honored and is one of the most important voices in modern Orthodoxy.⁵⁹ On June 26, 2008, the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a statement titled “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” (hereafter, ROS).⁶⁰ The statement itself was a push against the secular notion of human rights, which often advocates for stances on issues that the Russian Orthodox Church views as sinful and contrary to Christian teaching, such as sexual lechery, violence, and abortion.⁶¹ The document was released at the end of a transition period within the Russian Orthodox Church in which the church shifted from completely rejecting the Western notion of human rights to accepting it as a concept, while repudiating the liberal trends prominent in the international human rights movement.⁶² ROS is the fruit of the Russian Orthodox Church's “[endeavor] to make a contribution to the development of the universal character of human rights” in such a context.⁶³

The present purpose is not to examine every aspect of ROS, but rather those sections that expound upon the theology of imago Dei and human dignity. Although the teachings of the statement extend far beyond the scope of people with disabilities, the implications potentially have direct bearing upon the treatment of people with disabilities in the Russian Orthodox Church and beyond. In ROS, the Russian Orthodox Church addresses the subject of human dignity within the context of the aforementioned discussion concerning human rights.⁶⁴ Because the treatment of people with disabilities is intricately tied to the concepts of human dignity and human rights, the statement's teaching on human dignity should not be divorced from the conversation of treatment and inclusion of people with disabilities within the Orthodox Church, especially considering that ROS contains “the most sustained Orthodox theological analysis specifically on the word ‘dignity.’”⁶⁵ Section V.2 of ROS outlines current “human rights efforts” by the Russian Orthodox Church, among which is “concern for the respect of the dignity and rights of those who are placed in social institutions and penitentiaries with special attention given to the disabled, orphans, the elderly and other powerless people.” Though concern for people with disabilities is only one of numerous concerns, a careful examination of the imago Dei in ROS reveals that it does not necessarily lead to a theological foundation for such dignity and treatment. The following is not an assessment of the Russian Orthodox Church's attitude toward people with disabilities, but rather an assessment of the potential ramifications for people with disabilities based upon its theology of the imago Dei as portrayed in ROS. Though ROS itself claims to be a defense of people with disabilities, I argue that its ambiguous interpretation of imago Dei runs the risk of having an alienating effect upon people with disabilities in the church rather than building a theological foundation upon which they should be included in the activities and life of the church.⁶⁶

Imago Dei as Qualities

The first way ROS's view of the imago Dei runs the risk of degrading or alienating people with disabilities is its confinement of the imago Dei to certain qualities in humans. ROS makes clear that the sole basis for a human person's inherent dignity is humanity's creation in the image and likeness of God, which is described as the endowment of human nature by God “with qualities in His image and after His likeness.”⁶⁷ This statement seems to suggest that God's image and likeness are found in certain qualities that God has granted to humans rather than being found in the wholeness of one's being. Nicolae Răzvan Stan, Romanian theologian, argues that “nowadays Orthodox theologians unanimously agree upon the belief that man in his perfected entirety (i.e., body and soul) was made in God's image,” which stands in contrast to the notion of man merely possessing qualities that bear God's image.⁶⁸ However, ROS seemingly reduces the concept of imago Dei to mere qualities.⁶⁹

Though there is no definitive list, Nonna Harrison, Orthodox nun and theologian, summarizes those human characteristics identified by the Fathers as bearing the image and likeness of God to include “freedom and responsibility; spiritual reception and relationship with God and neighbour; excellence of character and holiness; royal dignity; priesthood of the created world; and creativity, rationality, the arts and sciences, and culture.”⁷⁰ These qualities, however, are not specified in ROS, nor is clarification given as to what it means for those, such as people with disabilities, who may lack some of these qualities or possess them in a different capacity. Such a lack of clarification on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church may be due to the view that the image cannot be defined, as argued by Lossky and developed by Stan.⁷¹ Regardless of the reason, the reduction of the image to certain qualities carries ambiguous implications for people with disabilities, for if God's image and likeness are found only in certain characteristics, and not the entirety of one's being, one could surmise that those people who lack said qualities do not possess the image or likeness of God, or do so only by the same measurement with which they possess those qualities.⁷² Kilner also argues that associating the imago Dei with particular qualities in humanity leads to the view that people with intellectual disabilities possess less of the image of God.⁷³ Throughout history this has subjected them, at best, to social disadvantage, and at worst, to persecution and violence. Sadly, the church and Christians have not been immune to such theology and its resultant behavior.⁷⁴ Though the Russian Orthodox Church expresses in its statement a desire to help people with disabilities, its ambiguous presentation of the imago Dei as qualities allows for the conclusion that people with disabilities do not possess dignity or are of less dignity because they may lack certain qualities that bear the image of God. Such a conclusion could cause people with disabilities to be excluded from the life of the church or disadvantaged in their participation.

Distinction between Image and Likeness

A second understanding of the imago Dei presented in ROS that bears a potentially alienating effect on people with disabilities in the life of the church is the distinction between the image and likeness of God in humans. ROS contends that the image and likeness of God are present in humans in distinct ways, yet this distinction is neither entirely clear nor consistent, causing contradictory views on the dignity of humans. According to the Russian Orthodox Church, “The dignity and ultimate worth of every human person are derived from the image of God, while dignified life is related to the notion of God's likeness achieved through God's grace by efforts to overcome sin and to seek moral purity and virtue.”⁷⁵ Here a distinction is made between dignity and worth, which is derived from the image of God, and a “dignified life,” which is achieved through conforming to God's likeness by one's own effort.⁷⁶ However, the distinction between “dignity” and a “dignified life” is not thoroughly expounded upon in ROS. Though the emphasis moving forward seems to be a “dignified life,” ROS uses the terms “dignified life” and “dignity” almost interchangeably, causing ambiguity.⁷⁷ This ambiguous distinction between image and likeness leads to an unstable relationship between human dignity and the image and likeness of God in humans. Such an interpretation of the distinction between image and likeness could lead some to surmise that people with certain disabilities possess dignity through the image of God, yet are unable to live a dignified life due to their limited ability to intentionally strive for moral virtue and thus attain the likeness of God, bringing into question the validity and purpose of their participation in the life and educational pursuits of the church.

In his work Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Michael Pomazansky directly addresses whether there is a distinction between the image and the likeness of God in humans. He confidently affirms such a distinction, stating that “the majority of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the church reply that there is.” The teaching of the ROS is consistent with Pomazansky's assessment that “the image of God is in the very nature of the soul, and the likeness in the moral perfecting of man in virtue and sanctity.” According to Pomazansky, the image of God is granted to humans, while the likeness must be acquired by one's own doing.⁷⁸ Orthodox theologian Emil Bartos describes the distinction between image and likeness as an “essential [mark] of Orthodox theology,” noting that renowned Romanian Orthodox theologian Dumitru Stăniloae consistently held that “image speaks about man's dignity, while likeness about his ethical duty.”⁷⁹ Although this same concept is reflected in ROS, complications for people with disabilities arise out of ROS's interchangeable use of “dignity” and “dignified life,” causing unclarity for the relationship among image, likeness, and dignity.⁸⁰ Maican argues that ROS “operates with a distinction between what might be called ‘basic’ and ‘full dignity.’ Basic dignity refers to the dignity of origin (imago dei), while full dignity describes the actualisation of this basic dignity through freedom (likeness).” He rightly notes that this distinction thus “leaves at its bottom the most vulnerable categories of people (i.e., persons with severe cognitive disabilities or those struggling with various addictions).”⁸¹ Even so, the distinction may not be as clear-cut as Maican argues because ROS seems to use the terms “dignity” and “dignified life” interchangeably, blurring the lines between what Maican labels “basic” and “full” dignity. The difficulty for people with disabilities stems not necessarily from the distinction between image and likeness but more so from the ambiguity of “dignified life” and “dignity.”⁸²

Responsibility for Dignity

As a result of this unstable relationship between dignity and the image and likeness of God, the agent of responsibility for human dignity becomes unclear. ROS seems to contradict itself, at some points stating that human dignity is an irrevocable gift from God dependent upon the imago Dei, yet at other times placing the burden of responsibility for dignity upon each individual human. Such ambiguity can be seen in two statements that are presented side by side. Section I.2 states that one's dignity “is not [one's] own achievement but a gift of God,” seeming to imply that nothing humans may do or not do can change their dignity. Yet merely two sentences later it states, “Clearly, the idea of responsibility is integral to the very notion of dignity.” This is one instance where the authors may be referring to a “dignified life,” but have chosen instead to use the term “dignity.” We therefore must take the authors at their word and assume they mean exactly what they have said: dignity is tied to responsibility.

If human responsibility is integral to human dignity, then human dignity rests not upon something inherent within humans, but rather something that humans do or do not achieve.⁸³ As a result, then, anyone who does not do these things or fails to achieve these goals does not possess dignity. So then, once again, the notion that one's dignity may be dependent upon the measure to which one possesses certain qualities is reinforced by this treatment of the bearer of responsibility for human dignity. Such a perspective, however, places the responsibility not on God having granted certain qualities to an individual, but rather, on the individual taking responsibility for their own actions. Responsibility, insofar as it relates to dignity, is that of personal, not communal responsibility. ROS clearly states, “Personal dignity implies the assertion of personal responsibility.”⁸⁴ People with disabilities, then, may be perceived to have a double disadvantage according to the teachings presented in ROS: they have neither been granted certain qualities by God that bear his image, nor are they able to take the necessary responsibility to achieve the likeness of God and thus maintain their dignity. This is especially salient, as will be demonstrated, for individuals with cognitive or developmental disabilities.

Those responsibilities that humans must take to achieve or maintain dignity, according to the Russian Orthodox Church, are that of morality, self-determination, and deification. ROS repeatedly emphasizes the importance of morality in maintaining one's dignity, so much so that morality constitutes the foundational meaning of dignity. Accordingly, ROS states, “In the Eastern Christian tradition the notion of ‘dignity’ carries first of all a moral meaning, while the ideas of what is dignified and what is not are bound up with the moral or amoral actions of a person and with the inner state of his soul.”⁸⁵ Furthermore, the Russian Orthodox Church contends that without morality, dignity is not attainable, stating, “A human being preserves his God-given dignity and grows in it only if he lives in accordance with moral norms.”⁸⁶ Therefore, one's dignity is clearly contingent upon one's morality.

Morality, according to ROS, is not achieved passively, for one must put forth intentional effort to live a moral life. Referring to the link between morality and dignity, the ROS states, “The acknowledgement of personal dignity implies the assertion of personal responsibility.”⁸⁷ So then, in order to possess personal dignity, one must assert personal responsibility. If one is unable to assert personal responsibility, one is therefore unable to obtain personal dignity. The dependence of dignity upon an assertion of personal responsibility degrades those who, due to intellectual or developmental disability, are unable to assert personal responsibility.⁸⁸

The Russian Orthodox Church deems not only personal responsibility as necessary for a morally virtuous life, but also self-determination. Self-determination implies a level of intentionality and rationality beyond that required by personal responsibility and could prove even more challenging for some people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Self-determination is linked directly to dignity through one's morality in the statement: “The image of God can be either darkened or illumined depending on the self-determination of a free individual, while the natural dignity becomes either more apparent in his life or obliterated by sin. The result is directly dependent on the self-determination of an individual.”⁸⁹ Therefore, one's dignity directly corresponds to the level at which one exerts their will to achieve purity. Here again we see the ambiguity of the distinction between the image and likeness and its implications for dignity in humans. Whereas in the statement previously discussed and found in section I.2 of the document, “dignity and ultimate worth” are derived from the image of God, and likeness is that which must be achieved through virtue, this statement from section II.1 states that it is the image of God that is maintained or distorted through virtue or sin. This ambiguity compiles even further the difficulties faced by people with disabilities for it seemingly places upon them the responsibility to maintain both the image of God and the likeness of God, leaving no avenue for dignity for those unable to assert such responsibility. The dependence of dignity upon morality, which in turn is dependent upon personal responsibility and self-determination, poses difficulties for those with cognitive disabilities who may not possess the capacity to assert such intentional “[effort] to overcome sin and to seek moral purity and virtue.”⁹⁰ Reinders bluntly states, “If human beings with profound intellectual disabilities are to be dignified, then the ground of their dignity cannot be found in human agency.”⁹¹ Placing the responsibility of dignity upon the individual could potentially cause people with disabilities to be viewed as possessing less dignity, resulting in alienation from fellow church members or exclusion from the educational pursuits of the church.⁹²

It should be remembered here that the Russian Orthodox Church is reacting to what they perceive as an incorrect view of human rights, which often advocates for actions contrary to the teaching of Scripture and seeks to justify immoral activity by appealing to human dignity. Their argument against a nonreligious understanding of human rights is summarized well in section III.3 paragraph three, of ROS, which states:

It is inadmissible to introduce in the area of human rights the norms that obliterate or altogether cancel both the Gospel and natural morality. The Church sees a great danger in the legislative and public support given to various vices, such as sexual lechery and perversions, the worship of profit and violence. It is equally inadmissible to elevate to a norm such immoral and inhumane actions towards the human being as abortion, euthanasia, use of human embryos in medicine, experiments changing a person's nature and the like.

In an effort to fight against the elevation of immoral norms and inhumane actions in the name of human rights, however, the church has thus implied that morality, based upon responsibility and self-determination, is necessary for dignity.⁹³ Regardless of the reasoning for making such an argument, the fact remains that if one's dignity is dependent upon morality, personal responsibility, and self-determination, then those who lack such abilities, or possess them to a lesser degree, therefore lack dignity or possess it to a lesser degree.⁹⁴

Deification as the Purpose of Life

The Russian Orthodox Church deems the pursuit of morality not only necessary for dignity but as constituting the essential purpose of human life. Quoting Saint John of Damascus (c. 675–749), ROS states that “human life … lies in seeking ‘God's likeness in all virtue so far as it is possible for man.’”⁹⁵ ROS refers to this effort to achieve the likeness of God through moral virtue as the patristic tradition of deification, also known as theosis.⁹⁶ The idea that theosis is the goal of human life is a common Eastern Orthodox belief, both among the Cappadocian Fathers and modern Orthodox scholars.⁹⁷ Noting that many modern scholars adhere to the dogma of deification, Bartos describes it as “the ultimate and supreme goal for human existence.”⁹⁸ Although there is consensus among the Fathers that theosis is the goal of life, there is not consensus among them as to its precise meaning. In his analysis of Gregory of Nazianzus, Donald Winslow, scholar of historical theology, concludes that theosis “escapes strict definition.”⁹⁹ In a broad sense, theosis refers to humankind's effort and potential to become like God, based upon the imago Dei.¹⁰⁰ Beginning with Athanasius the Great (c. 296–373), the Fathers often spoke of theosis as God the Word becoming human, “that we might be made God.”¹⁰¹ This is the essence of theosis “[which underlies] most Orthodox reflection on the doctrine of deification,” despite the varying approaches to theosis among both modern and patristic writings.¹⁰² Orthodox theologian Norman Russell identifies four distinct uses of deification language in the patristic tradition: nominal, analogical, ethical, and realistic. In the nominal usage, the title “gods” is granted to human beings “as a title of honour.” When used analogically, theosis refers to humans “[becoming] sons and gods ‘by grace’ in relation to Christ who is Son and God ‘by nature.’” The ethical approach to deification refers to the attainment of the likeness of God through imitation of divine attributes. Finally, in the realistic approach, humans “are in some sense transformed” to participate in God.¹⁰³

ROS appears to employ the ethical approach to theosis by emphasizing the responsibility of each person to seek purity and virtue. ROS states that God's likeness is “achieved through God's grace by efforts to overcome sin and to seek moral purity and virtue.”¹⁰⁴ Although God's grace is active, the sustained emphasis throughout the document is upon morality, personal responsibility, and self-determination. Within the ethical paradigm of theosis, various explanations are offered by theologians as to the process of theosis. However, ROS does not expound upon the intricacies of deification, but only relates it to man's effort to achieve the likeness (or image) of God through the pursuit of moral norms that are “set forth in the divine revelation [and] reveal God's design for human beings and their calling.”¹⁰⁵ Some modern theologians, such as Stăniloae, employ a combination of models to describe deification. According to Bartos, Stăniloae “often combines the ethical and realistic models” whereby a person is restored to God then continues to achieve divine likeness through a “renunciation of all that is not of God” and thus participate in the life of God.¹⁰⁶ In his reflection upon the distinction between image and likeness and its ramifications for the dignity of humans, Papanikolaou agrees that “it is not simply by virtue of creation that all humans have equal worth.”¹⁰⁷ However, he critiques the notion that one's dignity is tied to the level of one's morality and connects it instead to communion with God, for which all humans were created. He thus contends that theosis, and therefore dignity, is available for everyone, no matter their capacities.¹⁰⁸ However, ROC clearly puts emphasis on those qualities such as rationality and intentional pursuit of morality, which may not be available to everyone in the same manner. Though the view of deification as a pursuit of moral norms is valid in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, ROS emphasizes morality to the exclusion of other aspects, causing difficulties for any who may not be able to intentionally pursue moral norms, such as those with intellectual disabilities. If the only path to theosis is the pursuit of moral norms, then those people who are unable to intentionally strive toward those norms are left with no avenue by which to achieve theosis.

Consistent with patristic ethical usage of deification language, the modern understanding of theosis views it as the pursuit of the likeness of God. As such, the concept of theosis in the Orthodox understanding is dependent upon the distinction between the image and likeness of God in humans. Abbot declares, “Having been endowed ‘in His image,’ man is called upon to be completed ‘in His likeness.’ This is Theosis.”¹⁰⁹ Likewise, Orthodox theologian Stephen Thomas describes the image as one's potential to become like Christ, the perfect image of God, and likeness as the actualization of that potential.¹¹⁰ In its one explicit reference to deification, however, ROS describes it as an “elicitation of the image of God” (italics added), not the likeness of God.¹¹¹ Though ROS seems to be referring to the process that it previously described as seeking to achieve the likeness of God through moral virtue, such inconsistency further compounds the ambiguity regarding human dignity and its relation to the imago Dei. If the image of God must be elicited, it is not indelible. If it is not indelible, dignity is at risk for those who cannot achieve conformity to the image of God because, according to ROS, dignity is derived from the image of God. ROS is not the first to confuse or use interchangeably image and likeness when referring to theosis. According to Stăniloae, Gregory of Nyssa also interchanged the two.¹¹² However, if one is tied to man's dignity, and the other is not, as is the case in ROS, using the two alternately inevitably causes confusion and difficulty for those who may not be able to work toward or achieve deification.

Although one intent of the Russian Orthodox Church may have been to advocate for people with disabilities through its teachings on dignity in the statement “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” the implications of these teachings achieve the contrary effect.¹¹³ By attributing the imago Dei in humans to mere qualities, those who do not possess such qualities, such as people with disabilities, may be viewed to possess less dignity. The distinction and subsequent confusion of image and likeness, and correspondingly, “dignity” and “dignified life,” may lead to the conclusion that people with disabilities lack dignity or are unable to lead a dignified life. In addition, the necessity of morality, personal responsibility, and self-determination to achieve the likeness of God and thus to maintain dignity likewise put at risk the dignity of people with disabilities. Finally, the interchanging of image and likeness in reference to theosis, and the emphasis upon the moral aspect of theosis to the neglect of other aspects, puts at risk the dignity of those who cannot achieve theosis through moral attainment. As a result, people with disabilities may be excluded from the life of the church or be viewed as second-class members of the church.¹¹⁴ Although many of the issues raised here may seem to extend beyond the scope of the purpose of ROS to “recall the basic affirmations of Christian teaching on the human person and to assess the theory of human rights and its implementation,” the views of imago Dei, theosis, and dignity presented in ROS nonetheless carry implications for individuals with disabilities and potentially their participation in the church, especially considering the close connection between theosis and the church.¹¹⁵ It is likely that it was not the intention of the Russian Orthodox Church to portray individuals with disabilities as possessing less dignity than others, nor to exclude them from the life of the church. If so, it is incumbent upon the Russian Orthodox Church, theologians, and local congregations to address these issues theologically and to clarify the ambiguities present in ROS.¹¹⁶

The Assembly of Bishops

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America (ACOB), formerly known as the Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA), consists of “all the active, canonical Orthodox bishops of the United States of America, of every jurisdiction” and was formed by a decision of “all the universally-recognized autocephalous Orthodox Churches.” The ACOB exists to “preserve and contribute to the unity of the Orthodox Church by helping to further her spiritual, theological, ecclesiological, canonical, educational, missionary and philanthropic aims.”¹¹⁷ The highest organ of authority within the Orthodox Church is a council of bishops.¹¹⁸ Therefore, any statement proceeding from the ACOB should carry substantial weight in the Orthodox Church, especially within the United States.

On June 25, 2009, the Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops released a document titled “Disability and Communion” (D&C).¹¹⁹ D&C is the only major theological statement to date from an official entity of the Eastern Orthodox Church that is devoted solely to the topic of disability. D&C begins by recognizing that parishes have not consistently fulfilled their calling to welcome in people with disabilities. In order to fulfill the mission of the church as a welcoming place, D&C thus sets forth “fundamental theological principles” to guide the church. After offering a brief overview of disability, D&C examines the image of God, followed by Christ as healer and savior, then goes on to give practical implications for the church on how to include people with disabilities in the life of the church. Though I will briefly touch on several sections, I will focus on D&C's treatment of the image of God and will demonstrate how its view of the image of God honors people with disabilities and lays a theological foundation to welcome them into the life and educational pursuits of the church.

Image of the Trinitarian God

“Disability and Communion” (hereafter “D&C”) emphasizes that God's very nature as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is trinitarian and is “characterized and defined by communion or interdependence, not exclusion or independence.”¹²⁰ Therefore, community and interdependence do not simply describe God but are an essential part of God's very essence. From the time of the Cappadocian Fathers, the concept of the relational nature of God has played a key role in Orthodox theology.¹²¹ Reflecting upon the patristic doctrine of the being of God, influential Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas describes the relational nature of God as so integral to his being that “without the concept of communion it would not be possible to speak of the being of God.”¹²² Because humanity is created in the image and likeness of God, D&C reflects, then humanity is also characterized and defined by communion and interdependence. D&C thus describes the image of God in humans as a reflection of the Trinity, which leads to the view that people with disabilities are a valued and integral part of humanity.

Although the idea of humankind as the image of the Trinity finds its foundation in the patristic tradition,¹²³ Orthodox theologian Aristotle Papanikolaou claims that it wasn't until the twentieth century that “human ‘personhood’ [came to] be defined in terms of relationality and communion” due to humanity's creation in the image of the triune God.¹²⁴ In that spirit, the late French Orthodox theologian Boris Bobrinskoy describes human beings, created in the image and likeness of the Trinitarian God, as “a trinitarian communion … who are by nature and vocation beings of communion.”¹²⁵ D&C thus depicts humanity as “comprising an icon of Trinitarian communion.”¹²⁶ In Eastern Orthodox theology, an icon typically refers to a physical image such as a wooden panel or a fresco that serves as a “window of eternal meaning” into that which it represents.¹²⁷ Taken figuratively, then, humanity is an image that reflects the community of the eternal Trinitarian God. According to traditional Orthodox theology, the church is an icon of the Trinity, not humanity as a whole.¹²⁸ Although the notion of the church as the living expression of the Trinity is also expressed in D&C, the document refers only to all of humanity as an icon. The view presented in D&C of humanity as an “icon of Trinitarian community,” then, is much broader than the traditional Orthodox view. If, however, the concept of icon simply refers to a reflection of some greater reality, then humanity could be considered an icon of the Trinity, though theologians may not have employed that specific terminology. As it has already been demonstrated, though not a part of traditional Orthodox theology, humanity was seen to ontologically reflect the communion of the Trinity, beginning in the twentieth century. D&C highlights that as a reflection of this community, humanity is enriched by the unique gifts of each person, including people with disabilities. More so, our differences and our community together define humanity, just as God's Trinitarian community defines him. Through this view, then, people with disabilities become an integral part of the very definition of humanity.

Though D&C depicts all of humanity as reflecting the Trinity, its focus is the church as the image of the Trinity, which serves as the theological basis for the inclusion of people with disabilities in the life of the church. D&C calls the church “to become the image of the Trinity” by living in communion and unity with one another and by welcoming everyone.¹²⁹ As the Trinitarian God is not characterized by exclusion, neither should the church be characterized by exclusion, reasons D&C. While D&C describes humanity, in its essence, as reflecting the Trinity due to its creation in the image and likeness of God, the church is “called to become the image of the Trinity” (italics mine) through welcoming others and living in community. The notion that the church is called to become the image of the Trinity is not without warrant among Orthodox theologians. In some sense, Stăniloae regards the church as both being and becoming a reflection of the Trinity. He views the church in its essence as “[reflecting] the perfect reciprocity within the Holy Trinity,” yet also deems it a responsibility of the church to reflect the Trinity. According to Stăniloae, the church becomes the “depiction of trinitarian relationships” by reflecting the truth of unity in diversity within the life of the church.¹³⁰ Similarly, D&C deems inclusion as so central to the identity of the church that to exclude any who are a part of the church would be to “inflict injury on the very structure of the Church.”¹³¹ Such a perspective suggests that for the church to fulfill its calling to become the image of the Trinity it is necessary that the church intentionally includes people with disabilities in the life of the church.

Although D&C is careful to honor those with disabilities through its interpretation of the image of God, it fails to address the meaning of the imago Dei beyond the assertion that the image and likeness of God in humanity reflect the Trinity. D&C addresses the creation of humanity as a whole in the image and likeness of God yet makes no effort to explain how the image of God applies to individuals. From the limited reflection provided in D&C, one may conclude that it is only as a whole that humanity reflects the image of God, but that each person individually does not.¹³² This would bear implications not only for people with disabilities, but for all people, and such a discussion lies beyond the scope of this article.¹³³ In addition, D&C neglects to address an essential mark of Orthodox theology related to the image of God: the distinction between the image and likeness of God in humans. By essentially ignoring these matters, D&C avoids the complications encountered by the Russian Orthodox Church discussed previously; by maintaining the focus of the imago Dei on community and inclusion based on the Trinity, D&C clearly honors people with disabilities.

Theosis as Communal

Community also serves as the basis for theosis in D&C. Rather than viewing theosis as an individual responsibility, D&C frames it within the context of community, that being the body of Christ. Though each person within the body strives for perfection, perfection is not viewed as an individual accomplishment, but rather as a communal accomplishment, with each member making an important contribution. The Body of Christ values each member and views each member as a means through which the other may achieve deification so that together all may become like Christ. Such a view of theosis honors people with disabilities and opens for them an avenue by which they too may participate in deification.

Various Orthodox theologians echo similar, though not identical, sentiments as those put forth in D&C regarding the communal nature of theosis. Matthew Steenberg, scholar of patristics and early church history, views theosis as both “intensely personal” and communal. The communal element of theosis, according to Steenberg, is based upon the relational being of the divine. Accordingly, the work of the church is that of transfiguration and deification, and is the realm where the personal and relational elements of theosis merge.¹³⁴ Likewise, according to Bartos, Stăniloae contends that deification is “man's personal communion with God,” while the church is the “locus of [one's] deification.”¹³⁵ It is within the church that “the communion of love transforms the essence of our natural love by deifying it.”¹³⁶ So then, according to Steenberg and Stăniloae, each individual must attain theosis, though it cannot be accomplished isolated from others; theosis is only possible within the community of the church. D&C, however, overlooks the individual component of theosis, focusing only on the communal element. In addition, its treatment of theosis lacks considerable depth and is unsustainable without further elaboration.

Zizioulas's views may be considered most closely in line with those expressed in D&C regarding the communal nature of theosis. Though not speaking explicitly of theosis, Zizioulas expresses the idea that a human being can only become like God in the context of the community of the church. He writes that when a human being joins the church, “he takes on God's ‘way of being.’ This way of being is not a moral attainment, something that man accomplishes. It is a way of relationship with the world, with other people and with God, an event of communion, and that is why it cannot be realized as the achievement of an individual, but only as an ecclesial fact” (italics original).¹³⁷ Similar to D&C, according to this statement expressed by Zizioulas, theosis is not only attained within the community of the church, but as a community of the church; theosis is a communal achievement. Regarding theosis as a communal achievement differs vastly from the view expressed in ROS, which emphasizes the individual accomplishment of each individual to achieve theosis and presents fewer barriers to people with disabilities.

In the same vein, according to D&C, the Body of Christ serves as an equalizer, for only together as one unit, the body, is everyone made equal and valuable. In the Body of Christ, all live in dependence upon one another, both those with disabilities and those without, for all “bring specific and special talents to the Church.”¹³⁸ In addition, everyone is dependent upon one another so that each member's gifts may be revealed. Therefore, as members of the Body of Christ, people with disabilities, just as every other member, have something valuable to offer to the Body of Christ, both in their giving and receiving.¹³⁹ Without the inclusion and contributions of people with disabilities, “the entire body is incomplete.”¹⁴⁰ Thus, people with disabilities are an integral part not only of humanity, but of the church.¹⁴¹ This emphasis upon community, both through the image of the Trinity and the Body of Christ, honors people with disabilities by esteeming them as valuable and equal contributors to the life of the church. In addition, through community, people with disabilities take part in achieving theosis. Such a view invites them to fully participate in the life of the church and places the responsibility not solely on themselves but on the community.

Full Participation in the Church

Upon this theological foundation of community, section 4 of D&C offers concrete ways to accommodate and include people with disabilities into the life of the church. Practical steps such as modifying facilities to make them accessible, using inclusive language, and “relating to people with disabilities” in a spirit of “communion and openness” rather than “mere compassion or pity” serve as a starting point for true integration. However, inclusion of people with disabilities must go beyond these basic steps to enable “every baptized Orthodox Christian,” no matter their condition, to live a “full life of faith and ministry, including worship, leadership, education, and service.” Therefore, people with disabilities should be included in the church's education through “liturgical occasions and catechetical classes,” should be ministered to through the pastoral ministry of fellowship and visitation, and should be given opportunities to serve others through participation in ministries, administration, and leadership as they are able.

The primary way in which people with disabilities should be included in the church is through “the common worship of the congregation.” D&C instructs local parishes to make necessary accommodations and to encourage people with disabilities to “participate in [the] services, in [the] choirs, or in the many non-verbal elements of [the] worship.” It also highlights those nonverbal elements common in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy that may be particularly appealing to people with disabilities, such as the “rich … [colors], [sounds], [smells] and [movements] which appeal to all [the] senses.”¹⁴² Most importantly, churches must ensure that all necessary accommodations are made so that people with disabilities can readily participate in Holy Communion (Eucharist).

Though D&C does not expound upon the importance of the Eucharist as a theological basis for the inclusion of people with disabilities, further elaboration is warranted, as the Eucharist is of supreme importance in Orthodox theology and richly adds to the current discussion. Influential Greek philosopher and Orthodox theologian Christos Yannaras defines the church by the Eucharist; without the eucharistic meal, there is no church.¹⁴³ Thus, to exclude people with disabilities from the Eucharist would be to exclude them from the church itself. Conversely, to include people with disabilities in the Eucharist is to include them in the church. More so, in Orthodox theology, the Eucharist exemplifies what D&C has highlighted as the theological basis for the inclusion of people with disabilities in the church. That is, the Eucharist is the manifestation of “the mystical communion of the individual believer with God, of believers with one another, and of the unity of the Church.”¹⁴⁴ Yannaras describes the sharing of the Eucharist as “communion with our brothers and with God” and “an image and manifestation of the triadic mode of existence.”¹⁴⁵ D&C is right, therefore, to highlight the necessity of making any necessary accommodations for people with disabilities to participate in Holy Communion, for if they were to be excluded, the church would not fulfill its calling to become an image of the Trinity; rather, the church would exclude people during the very act which is meant to unite.¹⁴⁶ In addition, the Eucharist “[serves] as the highest point of union” between God and humanity, and according to some theologians, is a means of deification.¹⁴⁷ This view traces its origins back to the Cappadocian Fathers, such as Gregory of Nazianzus.¹⁴⁸ Likewise, Dionysius the Areopagite, the first to define deification, views a moral life as complimentary to deification; deification itself, contends Dionysius, is effected by God through the Eucharist.¹⁴⁹ The view of the Eucharist as the effectual means of deification finds support in modern theologians as well. Stăniloae maintains that through participation in the eucharistic meal, communicants are transformed with the deifying energies of God and thus experience a “mystical union with Christ.”¹⁵⁰ A similar sentiment is echoed by Yannaras, who contends that through the Eucharist individuals experience an existential change by which they participate “in the triadic fulness of life.”¹⁵¹ Through sharing in the Eucharist, then, people with disabilities are welcomed into the church and participate in deification.

D&C lays a theological foundation for inclusion of people with disabilities into the life of the church and offers practical suggestions that local parishes should implement to welcome them into the community. The theological foundation is based upon humanity and the church as the image of the Trinitarian God, whose very nature is communal, and upon the foundation of the church as the Body of Christ, which together as one unit achieves theosis through the important contribution of every member, including people with disabilities. Upon these theological foundations, people with disabilities are honored and welcomed into every facet of the life of the church. The final words of D&C summarize its message well: “Our mission is, in humble cooperation with the Holy Spirit, to render the Church as a whole body, a human reflection of Trinitarian communion, an earthly image of the heavenly kingdom. Let it be so among us.”¹⁵²

Looking Ahead

In order to ensure the continuation of the values of inclusion and communion and future implementation of the suggested steps, D&C recommends that those clergy studying in seminaries be trained “regarding aspects of inclusion for people with disabilities.”¹⁵³ The theological teachings laid forth in D&C are a useful starting point for such training but represent a shallow reflection rather than a well-developed theology. A more robust theology is needed to effectively train clergy. As demonstrated, the foundation of D&C's teaching for the inclusion of people with disabilities is largely based upon the Trinity. If further developed, the theology of the Trinity has the potential to serve as a distinctly Orthodox basis for inclusion in the church.¹⁵⁴ More so, Lossky contends that the Trinity is the basis for all Christian theology.¹⁵⁵ In his article on Eastern Orthodox ethics, theologian Richard Gaillardetz demonstrates how the Trinity lays the foundation of the just treatment of marginalized people and social justice. According to Gaillardetz, the Trinity serves as a framework for Orthodox ethics by illuminating “(1) the nature of love in human relationship, (2) the communal structure of human relationships, and (3) the character of human personhood.”¹⁵⁶ D&C loosely bases its argument for inclusion upon the first two of the three, yet further depth is needed for a more comprehensive theology.

Additionally, the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist may serve as a robust theological basis for inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the church. Though D&C touches on the Eucharist and other important issues and lays a basic theological foundation for the inclusion of people with disabilities in the church, it avoids many topics that are central to Eastern Orthodox theology and bear directly on people with disabilities, namely the distinction between image and likeness and the meaning of theosis for individuals. The late Nancy Eiesland, professor of sociology and religion, traces how a resolution adopted by the General Convention of the American Lutheran Church failed to fulfill its purpose of inclusion of individuals with disabilities and actually resulted in their exclusion, specifically from ministerial roles. One of the reasons she lists for the failure of this document to fulfill its purpose in the life of the Lutheran Church was “a restricted theological focus that (failed) adequately to address the fundamentals of Lutheran theology, that is, ministry, Word, and Sacraments.”¹⁵⁷ In order to effectively include individuals with disabilities in the church, the topics of the Eucharist, image and likeness, and theosis, central to Eastern Orthodox theology, should not be ignored, but rather delved into so as to develop a distinctly Eastern Orthodox theology of disability to train clergy and guide churches.

The Russian Orthodox Church is also concerned with the equipping of its people and intends for the document “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” to be studied in its theological institutions and to guide clergy and local churches. In speaking of the ability of the church to live a life according to the faith and tradition while still remaining meaningful to the community and simultaneously provide answers to contemporary problems, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, a leading figure in the formation of ROS states, “The most important theological task in this regard is the development of the social teaching of the Orthodox Church, which, rooted in tradition and responding to the issues facing modern society, will serve as a guide for priests and laity, and will give the outside world a clear idea of the Church's position on the most important issues of our time.”¹⁵⁸ However, the ambiguous nature of the theological teachings regarding imago Dei and human dignity presented in ROS do not provide a clear path for people with disabilities, especially those with intellectual disabilities, to be included in the life of the church. Further theological clarification is needed for the benefit of clergy, people with disabilities, and the church as a whole. This challenge is not unique to the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Haslam recognizes that most attempts to form a theology of being that is inclusive of individuals with intellectual disabilities fail to truly meet that goal.¹⁵⁹ Christians of all traditions must continue to wrestle with these issues. The Eastern Orthodox tradition has a unique contribution to make in this area, both for themselves and to the wider Christian community. The challenge for Christians is to remain faithful to their Christian faith traditions while also seeking to include individuals with disabilities.¹⁶⁰

Reverend Leonid Kishkovsky speaks of the need for the Russian Orthodox Church, “after decades of state atheism and the oppression and suppression of religious faith,” to develop its theology so that it might be “fully adequate in its inner life and in its public witness.”¹⁶¹ The theology of imago Dei and its implications for people with disabilities is one of many areas that the Russian Orthodox Church may need to address. The Russian Orthodox Church is indeed making efforts toward this end. On March 11, 2020, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church met. During this meeting they approved an agenda for the Commissions of the Inter-Council Presence in 2020–2022. The Commissions of the Inter-Council Presence, which is led by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and consists of “bishops, clergy, religious and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church,” conducts preliminary studies on crucial issues in the church life and its relations to entities outside of the church, in order to assist the Russian Orthodox Church in decisions concerning these issues.¹⁶² One of the topics listed for discussion by the commissions is the “organization of educational and catechetical work among people with disabilities.”¹⁶³ Such an agenda is the ideal opportunity for the Russian Orthodox Church to lay a clear theological foundation for the inclusion of people with disabilities into the life and educational opportunities of the church, then to build upon that foundation a practical framework to do so.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has within its rich tradition the belief that all people are equally created in the image of God. Speaking of the sick and disabled, Gregory of Nazianzus writes that they have “the same portion as [sic] the image of God as we do … whose inner nature has put on the same Christ and who have been entrusted with the same guarantee of the Spirit; who have been given to share with us the same … liturgies, sacraments, hopes … who are fellow heirs of the life in heaven.”¹⁶⁴ Careful thought must be given to the way in which the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Church expresses its theology to support such a view. When done so thoughtfully and carefully, people with disabilities can fully participate in the life of the church and share with the Body of Christ the same liturgies, sacraments, and hopes.

Summary

“The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” and “Disability and Communion” are the two major documents released by official entities of the Eastern Orthodox Church that significantly address those theological issues that potentially affect the inclusion of people with disabilities in the life of the church. Although ROS is broader in its scope, D&C directly addresses the topic of inclusion of people with disabilities in the church. This article examined each document's view of the imago Dei and the ramifications of that view for people with disabilities. It demonstrated that although both claim to hold a positive stance toward people with disabilities, the two documents stand in dissonance with each other. The teachings found in “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” are ambiguous and can lead to the exclusion of people with disabilities in the life of the church, whereas “Disability and Communion” lays a theological foundation for the full inclusion of people with disabilities in the life of the church. D&C, though presenting a positive theological stance toward people with disabilities, requires additional elaboration. Likewise, ROS, due to its ambiguities, needs further clarification. In order to resolve these discrepancies and welcome people with disabilities into every aspect of the church, the Orthodox Church should continue to develop and express in an official capacity its theological arguments regarding imago Dei and its significance for all people, especially those with disabilities.