Search

In response to van Holten and Walton’s critique (van Holten & Walton, 2020, 2022) of John Swinton’s theological approach to time and disability (Swinton, 2016, 2020), John Swinton is joined by the theological ethicist Professor Brian Brock. Swinton and Brock argue that while van Holten and Walton claim to be attempting to open up a dialogue, this is debatable. Dialogue is necessary for conversations such as these, but the thrust of their work has been focused on criticism and argument, without any constructive proposals for theory or practice. This might be acceptable if we were simply discussing concepts and ideas. It is less convincing when we are dealing with real people. As per their previous work, van Holten and Walton constantly attempt to push their ideas into practice without actually taking experience into consideration, which leads to significant contradictions and problems. In this article, we explore van Holten and Walton’s approach to theology and doing theology – what theology is, who should be allowed to participate in its formation and what approaches are considered appropriate, and, importantly, who makes that decision. We examine some of the significant problems with their position when it comes to examining complex real-world issues such as the experience of dementia and disability. The current article engages with the various criticisms and concerns that are put forward, and highlights some of our concerns and worries about the flaws in their approach and their lack of awareness of or attention to its implications for practice. Despite the fact that we are far apart on many issues, the article concludes that there may actually be a way forward if the desire for dialogue is taken seriously. The article ends with a constructive proposition that has the potential to positively ground and encourage future conversations between practical and philosophical theology.

Designating disability as an object of research was both the condition for the emergence of the field of disability theology and a paradoxical source of its continuing aporias. One such problematic...

Jean Vanier's life and teaching bore good fruit, but what is good was wrapped up from the very beginning with manipulative and abusive behaviors justified in theological language. For those of us who do not have access to the voices of the victims themselves, it is important to at least analyze the long-public writings of Fr. Thomas Philippe and Jean Vanier. Until now these were all that was available to those interested in the theology of L’Arche, and in them their erotico-mystical theology was hidden in plain sight. A close reading of these texts points to a deformed eschatology as the fatal theological doctrine Vanier inherited from Philippe. More precisely, eschatological concepts were deployed in order to declare traditionally prohibited sexual activities as licit, in being concieved as taking place beyond the mundane domain of everyday morality. A nuptial union taking place outside the ethics of normal Christian life brought affectionate union with God down into the contingency of everyday ethics in a manner that circumvented well-known church teachings about sexual ethics.