¹ Andrew Whitehead found that overall, children with chronic health problems are less likely to attend church services than their peers without chronic health problems. More specifically, children with “autism spectrum disorders, developmental delays, learning disabilities, depression, anxiety, speech problems, and conduct disorders are consistently more likely to never attend religious services.” Whitehead, Andrew L., “Religion and Disability: Variation in Religious Service Attendance Rates for Children with Chronic Health Conditions,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 57, no. 2 (2018): 392CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In regard to adults, “The ADA, 20 Years Later” demonstrates that twenty years after the Americans with Disabilities Act, adults with disabilities are less likely than adults without disabilities to attend a religious service at least once per month, with a seven-percentage-point gap separating the two groups. See Humphrey Taylor, David Krane, and Kaylan Orkis, “The ADA, 20 Years Later: Final Report,” Advancing States (New York: Harris Interactive, 2010), 17, http://www.advancingstates.org/hcbs/article/ada-20-years-later-2010-survey-americans-disabilities.

² Elizabeth O'Hanlon found that 53.3 percent of parents reported that their child with disabilities was excluded from activities in their spiritual community. See O'Hanlon, Elizabeth E., “Religion and Disability: The Experiences of Families with Children of Special Needs,” Journal of Religion, Disability and Health, 17, no.1 (2013): 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ For an extensive list of resolutions and position statements regarding the integration of people with disabilities into faith communities, see Collaborative on Faith and Disability, “Position Statements from Denominations, Faith Groups, and Other Organizations,” https://faithanddisability.org/resources/position-statements-from-denominations-faith-groups-and-other-organizations/.

⁴ Hans Reinders laments that much of the Christian literature on Christian theology and disability “is strongly influenced by the disability-rights approach.” See Reinders, Hans S., Receiving the Gift of Friendship: Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology, and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2008), 159Google Scholar. He also references Deland, Jane S., “Breaking Down Barriers So All May Worship,” Journal of Religion in Disability and Rehabilitation 2, no. 1 (1995): 5–20Google Scholar, which “presents steps and documents from various churches and their organizations from the 1970s indicating that church initiatives were developing at the same time the disability-rights movement got into gear.” See Reinders, Receiving the Gift of Friendship, 159–60n.

⁵ Stephen Plumlee, “The Handicapped and Orthodox Worship,” Orthodox Church in America 1 (1986), https://www.oca.org/parish-ministry/parishdevelopment/the-handicapped-and-orthodox-worship.

⁶ United Methodist Church, “United Methodist Implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act,” The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church—2004 (Nashville, TN: United Methodist, 2004), http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=4&mid=6558. This is not a critique of the Orthodox Church nor of the United Methodist Church. Many other examples could be given from various denominations that demonstrate the same tendency. Neither are these examples exhaustive of those statements on disability from the Orthodox Church nor the United Methodist Church. Such examples merely demonstrate that Christians sometimes tend to rely upon secular mandates rather than biblical theology in their statements regarding the inclusion of people with disabilities in the life of the church. It should be noted that the ADA and other secular acts were not the only impetus for churches in the Christian tradition to include individuals with disabilities. Several Christian traditions developed documents regarding the inclusion of individuals with disabilities that predate the “Decade of the Disabled” beginning in 1983 and the ADA of 1990. Most notably, the US Catholic Conference released a specifically theological document advocating for the integration of individuals with disabilities into the life of the church in 1978. See United States Catholic Conference, Pastoral Statement of U.S. Catholic Bishops on Persons with Disabilities (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1978). Other Christian traditions, though they did not develop robust theological documents, released resolutions prior to the “Decade of the Disabled,” which advocate to varying degrees the inclusion of or concern for individuals with disabilities. See, for example, resolutions by the Southern Baptist Convention (1978 and 1981), American Baptists (1978), and the Episcopal Church (1982). Southern Baptist Convention, “Resolution on the Handicapped,” (adopted at the 1978 Annual Meeting), https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-the-handicapped/; Southern Baptist Convention, “Resolution on Ministry to the Developmentally Disabled and Mentally Ill” (adopted at the 1978 Annual Meeting), https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-ministry-to-the-developmentally-disabled-and-mentally-ill/; Southern Baptist Convention, “Resolution on the Mentally Handicapped,” (adopted at the 1981 Annual Meeting), https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-the-mentally-handicapped/; American Baptist Churches, “American Baptist Resolution on the Church and Ministry with Persons with Disabilities,” (adopted by the General Board of the American Baptist Churches, June 1978), http://www.abc-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Disabilities-The-Church-and-Persons-with.pdf; General Convention, “Establish a Task Force on Disabled and Handicapped Persons,” Journal of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, New Orleans, 1982 (New York: General Convention, 1983), C-142, https://episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=1982-D120.

⁷ The body of the text of “United Methodist Implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act” is full of biblical principles. However, these are general Christian principles about love, service, discipleship, growth, and the like and do not specifically address individuals with disabilities nor their inclusion in the church from a theological perspective. Though many could be cited, one such example should suffice. The resolution states, “Showing Christ as being real and important for others, we all must live authentically as our serving Christ gives our hands to Christ by making a friend, being a friend, and introducing our new friend to the friend of all friends—Jesus Christ.” The only section that pertains specifically to individuals with disabilities, namely the conclusion, does so mainly in reference to the ADA.

⁸ For extensive information on the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 as well as the document itself, see US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, “Introduction to the ADA,” https://www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm.

⁹ Reinders notes that “space is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion” because in order for true inclusion to occur, one must be committed to the other and want that person to be part of their life. Reinders, Receiving the Gift of Friendship, 161. Brian Brock highlights this issue in the introduction to his book Wondrously Wounded: Theology, Disability, and the Body of Christ, noting that “accessibility modifications have made everyone's lives easier without demanding more substantive change.” Brock, Brian, Wondrously Wounded: Theology, Disability, and the Body of Christ, Studies in Religion, Theology, and Disability (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019), 1Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Reinders, Receiving the Gift of Friendship, 160. For a more in-depth discussion of how secular disability studies cannot serve as a Christian foundation for the inclusion of individuals with disabilities as it creates a “hierarchy of disability,” see Reinders, Receiving the Gift of Friendship, 49–87. John Swinton also demonstrates the insufficiency of sociology as a starting point for theological engagement with disability. Swinton, John, “Disability, Ableism, and Disablism,” in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology, Wiley-Blackwell Companions to Religion, ed. Miller-McLemore, Bonnie J. (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 446–49Google Scholar.

¹¹ See Estep, James, White, Roger, and Estep, Karen, Mapping Out Curriculum in Your Church (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2012), 46Google Scholar.

¹² Fotiou, Stavros S., “Christ, the Theanthropos the Christological Dimension of Christian Education,” Phronema 16 (2001): 53–54Google Scholar.

¹³ Estep, White, and Estep, Mapping Out Curriculum in Your Church, 46.

¹⁴ For the effective inclusion of people with disabilities in the church, both practical and theological resources are needed. As previously discussed, however, praxis must be built upon theology. At this point, it is helpful to distinguish between practical theology and systematic theology. Systematic theology is “the study of Scripture (aided by other disciplines) for the purpose of enabling us to understand the Bible's holistic teaching on central doctrines of the Christian Faith,” while practical theology is the application of systematic theology. Bruce Ware, email message to author, October 15, 2022. In order to have a biblically faithful practical theology, one must first establish a solid and robust systematic theology for the doctrinal issues related to the topic of practical theology. Beeke and Smalley note that “practical … theology must never be detached from systematic theology, lest the practice of the church and her ministers be loosed from its moorings in the truth of God's Word.” Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 51. Pastavos makes a similar claim regarding the relationship between pastoral ministry and the Orthodox canonical tradition. He argues that one must study the theology of the tradition and “remember that pastoral ministry divorced from theology is reduced to a technique. As such, it differs little from empty moral rules and obligations with no relation to the pastoral theology of the Church, which is always theologically grounded.” Lewis J. Patsavos, “Ecclesiastical Reform: At What Cost?,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 40, no. 1–2 (1995): 9. Swinton emphasizes the need in the field of disability theology for practical theologians and systematic theologians to collaborate together in order to “develop a creative interface between academic theology and the practices of church and world.” Swinton, “Disability, Ableism, and Disablism,” 450.

¹⁵ Darla Schumm and Michael Stoltzfus, eds., “Editors’ Introduction: Broad Themes and Book Overview,” in Disability in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Sacred Texts, Historical Traditions, and Social Analysis (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011), xviii. For more examples of how varying theologies produce differing views and treatment of people with disabilities, see Darla Y. Schumm and Michael Stoltzfus, eds., Disability and World Religions: An Introduction, Studies in Religion, Theology and Disability (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016).

¹⁶ Erik Carter, Professor of Special Education at Vanderbilt University, identifies five barriers to inclusion: architectural, attitudinal, communication, programmatic, and liturgical. Erik W. Carter, Including People with Disabilities in Faith Communities: A Guide for Service Providers, Families, and Congregations (Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, 2007), 8–16. Vogel and colleagues list similar barriers but add to the list “theological barriers,” citing at length Nancy L. Eiesland's work The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability. Jeannine Vogel, Edward A. Polloway and J. David Smith, “Inclusion of People with Mental Retardation and Other Developmental Disabilities in Communities of Faith,” Mental Retardation 44, no. 2 (2006): 104–05. Eiesland states that “the emergent experience of people with disabilities … have wide-ranging implications for theological interpretations of central Christian beliefs and practices” and speaks on behalf of individuals with disabilities, calling upon the church to “take a leading role in promoting our full humanity,” a theme closely aligned to those explored in this article. Nancy L. Eiesland, The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994), 20. In addition to his highly practical guide to inclusion of people with disabilities into faith communities specifically focused on overcoming the aforementioned barriers, Carter provides ample resources for service providers, families, and congregations from various religious perspectives in Appendix B. Carter, Including People with Disabilities in Faith Communities, 209–28. It should be noted that there are a variety of robust theological defenses for the inclusion of people with disabilities in the church and works that seek to establish a theology of disability more generally from a variety of Christian traditions. However, none address the topic from a specifically Orthodox position. As will be demonstrated, some topics central to Orthodox doctrine, such as image of God and deification, warrant special consideration in light of their implications for individuals with disabilities. Additionally, many of the works in disability theology approach the topic from a progressive Christian stance, which may not be satisfactory for more traditional branches of Christianity such as the Eastern Orthodox Church. For works that seek to establish a theology of disability, see Brock, Wondrously Wounded; Reinders, Receiving the Gift of Friendship; Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2008); Amos Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity. Studies in Religion, Theology, and Disability (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007). A seminal work in the field of disability theology is Eiesland's The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability. It is important to note, however, that Eiesland's work is geared toward physical disabilities, not intellectual, social, or emotional disabilities (27–28). Molly Haslam notes that “the bulk of theorizing on disability in Christian theology addresses almost exclusively the concerns of those with physical disabilities, and little attention is given to the concerns of those with intellectual disabilities.” Molly Claire Haslam, A Constructive Theology of Intellectual Disability: Human Being as Mutuality and Response (New York: Fordham University Press, 2012), 2. Additionally, most works that do address individuals with intellectual disabilities, though seeking to form an inclusive theology that is “life-giving for these individuals … each in various ways betrays a bias toward a level of intellectual ability unavailable to individuals with profound intellectual disabilities” (3). For Haslam's critique of leading works in disability theology engaging individuals with intellectual disabilities see Haslam, A Constructive Theology of Intellectual Disability, 2–9. Yet even Haslam herself does not base her theology of disability primarily in theology, but rather in phenomenology and dialogical philosophy. The Bible and Disability: A Commentary, though not seeking to establish a comprehensive theology of disability, offers commentary on various biblical texts through the lens of disability from a “variety of methodological approaches and a spectrum of attitudes and assumptions related to the nature and authority of Scripture.” Sarah J. Melcher, “Introduction,” in The Bible and Disability: A Commentary, Studies in Religion, Theology, and Disability, ed. Sarah J. Melcher, Mikeal C. Parsons, and Amos Yong (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017), 13. For works that focus more on inclusion of people with disabilities in the church from a theological perspective, see Brian Brock, Disability: Living into the Diversity of Christ's Body, Pastoring for Life: Theological Wisdom for Ministering Well (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021), and Amos Yong, The Bible, Disability, and the Church: A New Vision of the People of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2011). From an Eastern Catholic perspective, see Myroslaw Tataryn and Maria Truchan-Tataryn, Discovering Trinity in Disability: A Theology for Embracing Difference (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2013).

¹⁷ Almut Caspury, “The Patristic Era: Early Christian Attitudes toward the Disfigured Outcast,” in Disability in the Christian Tradition: A Reader, ed. Brian Brock and John Swinton (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2012), 29–30. See also Nonna Verna Harrison, “The Human Person as Image and Likeness of God,” in The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, Cambridge Companions to Religion, ed. Mary B. Cunningham and Elizabeth Theokritoff (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 84–86. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa are considered the “Three Cappadocian Fathers.” John A. McGuckin, “Cappadocian Fathers,” in The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, vol. 1, ed. John Anthony McGuckin (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 107–08.

¹⁸ Two such examples are Summer Kinard and Charlotte Riggle. Summer Kinard, “Special Needs Resources,” https://summerkinard.com/special-needs-resources/; Charlotte Riggle, “Disability and Special Needs,” https://charlotteriggle.com/disability-and-special-needs/. The most extensive source of resources from a layperson may very well be the website Arms Open Wide by William Gall. Arms Open Wide—Orthodox Christian Disability Resources, https://armsopenwide.wordpress.com/. See also Christina Lappa, et al., “Teaching the Christian Orthodox Mystery of Baptism to Adults with Moderate or Severe Intellectual Disability,” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention 7, no.3 (2018): 64–74, for an example of teaching Orthodox doctrine to adults with intellectual disability. Aside from Summer Kinard, Of Such Is the Kingdom: A Practical Theology of Disability (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2021), which is a practical theology of disability, most of the resources for inclusion of individuals with disability found within the Orthodox tradition do not fall under the category of theology, neither practical nor systematic, but rather are practical in the sense that they address the how of inclusion (praxis), without first thoroughly addressing the why (theological basis).

¹⁹ For example, clergyman, theologian, and author John Chryssavgis authored a small booklet encouraging Eastern Orthodox Christians to welcome people with disabilities into the church. John Chryssavgis, The Body of Christ: A Place of Welcome for People with Disabilities (Minneapolis, MN: Light & Life Publishing, 2002).

²⁰ Orthodox Church in America, “Orthodox Perspectives on Disability Focus of International Consultation,” October 16, 2015, https://www.oca.org/news/headline-news/orthodox-perspectives-on-disability-focus-of-international-consultation. For resources on disability from the Orthodox Church in America, see Orthodox Church in America, “Parish Development,” https://www.oca.org/parish-ministry/parishdevelopment. For a list of resources from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, see Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, “Families of Children with Special Needs Resource List,” November 15, 2014, https://www.goarch.org/-/families-of-children-with-special-needs-resource-list. For resources geared toward youth, see Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of America—Orthodox Youth Directors in North America, “Youth with Disabilities Resources,” http://www.orthodoxyouth.net/youthworkers/resources/youth-with-disabilities. The Congregational Accessibility Network has compiled a variety of resources on disability from various Orthodox entities. Congregational Accessibility Network, “Orthodox Disability Resources,” https://canaccess.org/faith-communities/christianity/orthodox/. Although many of the resources on these sites overlap, the variety demonstrates that the Eastern Orthodox Church has taken practical steps to include people with disabilities in the church. One inspiring example of an Orthodox Church including and educating people with disabilities is Archangel Michael Church of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, which offers a liturgy designed especially for the “physically and mentally challenged.” Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, “Ministry Profile: Ministering to Those with Special Needs: A Divine Liturgy for Physically and Mentally Challenged Orthodox Christians,” October 14, 2008, https://www.goarch.org/-/ministry-profile-the-challenge-liturgy?inheritRedirect=true.

²¹ Makrides has the same observation concerning the Orthodox Church's lack of official teaching on social issues. Although some individual theologians, clergy, and laypeople have voiced their opinion on such matters, very little has been done in an official capacity by the official entities of the Orthodox Church to express explicit theological teaching on social issues. As is the case with people with disabilities, the Orthodox Church has been somewhat involved pragmatically with the issue, yet there is very little interaction theologically. Makrides argues that this lack of systematic teaching by the Orthodox Church is possibly due to the Orthodox Church's dislike of systemization and organization of theological matters, though he himself does not find that argument completely convincing. See Vasilios N. Makrides, “Why does the Orthodox Church Lack Systematic Social Teaching?” Skepsis: A Journal for Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Research 23 (2013): 281–312.

²² Eastern Orthodox entities have released other statements that address the present topic. Already mentioned is Stephen Plumlee, “The Handicapped and Orthodox Worship.” However, this was only a one-paragraph resolution and included no theological treatment of the topic. In addition, there are other statements that for various reasons will not be discussed in this article. In 2006, the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate released a statement that was received by the Tenth World Russian People's Council titled “The Orthodox Declaration of Human Rights: Declaration on Human Rights and Dignity.” It is not being considered in the present discussion because it is a short document and is greatly expanded upon by the document released by the Russian Orthodox Church in 2008. Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate, “The Orthodox Declaration of Human Rights: Declaration on Human Rights and Dignity,” April 6, 2006, http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/human_rights/declaration_ru_en.htm. In 2016, the Holy and Great Council, a Pan-Orthodox Council, released an official document titled “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today's World.” Although it does not specifically address people with disabilities, it includes a short section titled “The Dignity of the Human Person.” It bases human dignity on the creation of humans in the image and likeness of God and contends that on this basis the church should cooperate with the broader Christian community and society at large for the protection of human dignity. However, the subject of human dignity is treated at a very basic level and thus is not useful for the present discussion. Holy and Great Council, “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today's World,” https://www.holycouncil.org/-/mission-orthodox-Church-todays-world. In addition to the aforementioned statements, the Eastern Orthodox Church has participated in the formation of two other major documents of theological nature regarding the inclusion of people with disabilities in the church through their membership in the ecumenical World Council of Churches. All Eastern Orthodox Churches, apart from the Georgian, Bulgarian, and Estonian churches, are part of the World Council of Churches. World Council of Churches, “Orthodox Churches (Eastern),” https://www.oikoumene.org/en/Church-families/orthodox-Churches-eastern. In 2003, the World Council of Churches adopted an interim statement written by the Ecumenical Disability Advocates Network titled “A Church for All and of All.” This statement addressed major theological themes related to inclusion of people with disabilities in the life of the church, particularly the imago Dei and healing. Ecumenical Disability Advocates Network, “Document No. Plen 1.1: A Church of All and for All” (statement delivered at the World Council of Churches meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, August 26–September 2, 2003), https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/commissions/faith-and-order/ix-other-study-processes/a-Church-of-all-and-for-all-an-interim-statement. In 2016, the World Council of Churches adopted another statement written by the Ecumenical Disability Advocates Network titled “The Gift of Being: Called to Be a Church of All and for All.” This statement goes beyond the scope of ascribing dignity to people with disabilities through the interpretation of imago Dei to basing their value upon a theological interpretation of the act of creation itself. Ecumenical Disability Advocates Network, “The Gift of Being: Called to Be a Church of All and for All,” Ecumenical Review 68, no. 2–3 (November 2016): 316–43. Although these two documents are important treatments of the topic, they cannot be considered purely Orthodox in their theology nor hold the same authority within the Orthodox Church as a statement coming directly from an official entity of the Orthodox Church.

²³ The intention of official statements to hold sway over entities within the Eastern Orthodox Church is confirmed by the Russian Orthodox Church's comments in two major documents: “The Basis of the Social Concept” and “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights.” At the conclusion of “The Basis of the Social Concept,” the Russian Orthodox Church declares that the statement is intended “to serve as a guide for the Synodal institutions, dioceses, monasteries, parishes and other canonical church institutions … be used by the Church authorities to make decisions … [and] shall be included in the curriculum of the theological schools of Moscow Patriarchate.” Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church” (adopted by the Bishop's Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in August 2000), http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx. Very similar sentiments are expressed in “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” (adopted by the Bishop's Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in June 2008), http://orthodoxrights.org/documents/russian-church-freedom-and-rights. According to Saint Basil, the hierarchical structure of the Eastern Orthodox Church is reflective of the Trinity. See Boris Bobrinskoy, “God in Trinity,” in The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, 60. For the importance of the hierarchy and its role in forming the teaching and theology of the Orthodox Church, see Matthew Steenberg, “The Church,” in The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, 123–26. For a description of the hierarchy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, see Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition, 3rd ed., trans. Seraphim Rose (Plantina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2009), 251–59.

²⁴ Steenberg, “The Church,” 126.

²⁵ Steenberg goes on to explain that “the articulation of dogma in the Church is conciliar in nature. The ecumenical councils, like the local councils . . . are forums of discussion and discernment amongst hierarchs; while presided over by the highest-ranking bishop of the assembly, they are nonetheless meeting places of canonical equals, determining in sobornost the articulations and practices of the Church.” Steenberg, “The Church,” 126. See also Lewis J. Patsavos, Primacy and Conciliarity: Studies in the Primacy of the See of Constantinople and the Synodical Structure of the Orthodox Church (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1995), 31.

²⁶ See for example John Chryssavgis's reflection on the balance between ecumenical and synodal authority and the guidance of the Spirit. John Chryssavgis, Soul Mending: The Art of Spiritual Direction (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2000), 101–09, esp. 105.

²⁷ Estep, White, and Estep assert that “instruction within the congregation is accomplished by experience within the life of the congregation (socialization) as well as through the intentional instruction provided by the congregation (teaching).” Estep, White, and Estep, Mapping Out Curriculum in Your Church, 60.

²⁸ Anton C. Vrame, “The Orthodox Basis of and Perspective on Education,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 49, no. 1–2 (2004): 41–42.

²⁹ Although the expression of imago Dei from these two documents carries implications for people with various kinds of disabilities, including but not limited to physical, social, sensory, and developmental, the implications are often most salient for those who have intellectual disabilities.

³⁰ It is necessary to clarify that although ample works have been written on disability theology (cited previously) and are valuable for anyone considering issues surrounding disability and theology, the purpose of this article is not to evaluate “Disability and Communion” and “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” from the perspective of these works. As stated, the purpose of this article is to examine how each statement views imago Dei and its implications for individuals with disabilities in the church. Although I may interact with these works insofar as they speak directly to the issues at hand, to interact with these works in an in-depth manner is beyond the scope of this article. Neither do I seek to propose theological solutions to the various views presented in the two Orthodox statements. As will be demonstrated, it is incumbent upon the Orthodox Church to develop its own theology of disability, taking into account the doctrines and dogmas of Orthodox tradition.

³¹ Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man, XVI.2, in The Patristic Understanding of Creation: An Anthology of Writings from the Church Fathers on Creation and Design, ed. William A. Dembski, Wayne J. Downs, and Justin B. A. Frederick (Riesel, TX: Erasmus Press, 2008), 348.

³² John F. Kilner, Dignity and Destiny: Humanity in the Image of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2015), 4–6.

³³ Reinders, Receiving the Gift of Friendship, 227. See also Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome, 169–70, and Nicolae Răzvan Stan, “Human Person as a Being Created in the Image of God and as the Image of the Son: The Orthodox Christian Perspective,” International Journal of Orthodox Theology 2, no. 3 (2011): 122.

³⁴ Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (London: Mowbray Publishing, 1975), 126.

³⁵ J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005), 16–17.

³⁶ Kilner, Dignity and Destiny, 6–37.

³⁷ Kilner, Dignity and Destiny, 19–21, 101; Reinders, Receiving the Gift of Friendship, 227–31.

³⁸ Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome, 172.

³⁹ Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome, 173.

⁴⁰ Orthodox theologian Christos Yannaras makes similar observations, noting that if the image of God is confined to rationality, free will, or dominion, then those with intellectual disabilities or mental illness do not reflect the image of God but rather are demoted to the status of animal. See Christos Yannaras, Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, trans. Keith Schram (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 57.

⁴¹ Yannaras, Elements of Faith, 174.

⁴² See also Brock, Disability, 106–10. My purpose here is not to propose which view is correct, but rather to lay the foundation for how one's understanding of the image of God can affect one's understanding of individuals with disabilities, to be examined further in relation to the two documents from the Eastern Orthodox Church.

⁴³ Aristotle Papanikolaou, “Dignity: An Orthodox Perspective,” in Value and Vulnerability: An Interfaith Dialogue on Human Dignity, ed. Matthew R. Petrusek and Jonathan Rothchild (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2020), 199.

⁴⁴ Papanikolaou, “Dignity,” 199. See also Harrison, “The Human Person as Image and Likeness of God,” 78. Reinders notes that most modern scholars read likeness to be explanatory of image rather than the two terms conveying distinct meanings. Johannes S. Reinders, “Imago Dei as a Basic Concept in Christian Ethics,” in Holy Scriptures in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Hermeneutics, Values, and Society, Currents of Encounter 12, ed. Hendrik M. Vroom and Jerald D. Gort (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997), 191. See also Kilner's discussion of image-likeness as a single concept, Kilner, Dignity and Destiny, 124–33.

⁴⁵ Peter C. Bouteneff, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 80. See also Papanikolaou, “Dignity,” 199, and Jules Gross, The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers, trans. Paul A. Onica (Anaheim, CA: A & C Press, 2002), 120–24. For a discussion of Basil's view on the distinction between image and likeness, see Bouteneff, Beginnings, 137; Philip Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994), 341–46; Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 210.

⁴⁶ Mark Edwards and Elena Ene D-Vasilescu, “Introduction,” in Visions of God and Ideas of Deification in Patristic Thought, ed. Mark Edwards and Elena Ene D-Vasilescu (London: Routledge, 2017), 5.

⁴⁷ Reinders, Receiving the Gift of Friendship, 52.

⁴⁸ Clemena Antonova, “The Visual Implications of Theosis,” in Visions of God and Ideas on Deification in Patristic Thought, 208, 216; Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 220; Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity (London: Penguin Books, 2015), 225.

⁴⁹ Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 1, 248.

⁵⁰ Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 233; Ware, The Orthodox Church, 225. The understanding of deification as the attainment of God's likeness traces back to the Cappadocian Fathers. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 13.

⁵¹ Antonova, “The Visual Implications of Theosis,” 209.

⁵² Ware, The Orthodox Church, 231.

⁵³ These limitations will be discussed in further detail in relation to the documents to be examined but are mainly connected to intellectual limitations or limitations of self-agency.

⁵⁴ Filip Ivanovic, “Union with God and Likeness to God: Deification According to Dionysius the Areopagite,” in Visions of God and Ideas on Deification in Patristic Thought, 118–19, 127.

⁵⁵ See Torstein Theodor Tollefsen, “Like a Glowing Sword: St. Maximus on Deification,” in Visions of God and Ideas on Deification in Patristic Thought, 158, 165.

⁵⁶ Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 219. Similarly, Gregory of Nyssa viewed the sacraments as the means by which humans participate in deification. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 229. In their introduction to the English edition of The Divinization of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers, Kerry Robichaux and Paul Onica note that the connection between the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, and divinization is common and characteristic of the patristic writings. Kerry S. Robichaux and Paul A. Onica, “Introduction to the English Edition,” in The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers, xii.

⁵⁷ Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome, 157.

⁵⁸ Konstantin Gavrilkin, “Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Russia,” in McGuckin, The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, 2: 493. An autocephalous church is a self-governing church that chooses its own head. That does not mean, however, that it is independent of the other churches, “since all canonical churches are in communion with one another and are provisionally responsible to one another in matters of faith.” Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, and Michael D. Peterson, Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church, Religions, Philosophies and Movements 9 (London: Scarecrow Press, 1996), 52. In addition to the Russian Orthodox Church's influence within its own ecclesiastical jurisdiction, it also exerts considerable influence on Russian society and politics. See Zoe Katrina Knox, Russian Society and the Orthodox Church: Religion in Russia after Communism, BASEES/RoutledgeCurzon Series on Russian and East European Studies (London: Routledge, 2005). However, Niklolay Mitrokhin argues that the Russian Orthodox Church has lost much of its influence in Russian society and politics. See Niklolay Mitrokhin, “The Russian Orthodox Church in Contemporary Russia: Structural Problems and Contradictory Relations with the Government, 2000–2008,” Social Research 76, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 289–320.

⁵⁹ See John Anthony McGuckin, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to the History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 47. A patriarchal church is one that is both autonomous and autocephalous, “of great antiquity or national importance, [and] headed by a patriarch.” There are currently nine patriarchal churches (440). Prokurat, Golitzin, and Peterson suggest that, though debatable, the patriarch of Moscow is, for all intents and purposes, the leading spokesperson for Orthodox Christianity in the world today, but the most honor is given to the patriarch of Constantinople. Prokurat, Golitzin, and Peterson, Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church, 5.

⁶⁰ Russian Orthodox Church Department for External Relations, “Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching.”

⁶¹ See Russian Orthodox Church, “Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. III.3.

⁶² See Kristina Stoeckl, “The Russian Orthodox Church as Moral Norm Entrepreneur,” Religion, State and Society, 44, no. 2 (2016): 134. In her article, Stoeckl argues that the Russian Orthodox Church, through its influence and participation in the European Court of Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Council, the Council of Europe, and various nongovernmental organizations, acts as a “moral conservative norm promoter at the international level” in response to the liberal “international human rights system” (136).

⁶³ Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, “The Experience of Viewing the Problems of Human Rights and their Moral Foundations in European Religious Communities: Presentation at the ‘Evolution of Moral Values and Human Rights in Multicultural Society’ Conference, Strasbourg, 30 October 2006,” Europaica Bulletin, no. 108 (November 2006), http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/108.aspx. In his presentation to a forum representing the Council of Europe, Kirill gave an introductory statement on the Russian Orthodox Church's view of human rights and announced the decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church to “produce a document reflecting its view on human rights and the advocacy of human rights.” “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” is the product of this decision.

⁶⁴ For an in-depth treatment of the Russian Orthodox view of human rights, see Kristina Stoeckl, The Russian Orthodox Church and Human Rights (London: Routledge, 2014). Though not an official statement from the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarch Kirill of Moscow compiled into a book his thoughts on human rights and human dignity, with “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” included as an appendix. This work is especially helpful in understanding the Russian Orthodox Church's struggle to reconcile the liberal (Western) view of human rights with Orthodox tradition. See Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, Freedom and Responsibility: A Search for Harmony, Human Rights and Personal Dignity (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 2011). For an examination of human rights from a more general Eastern Orthodox as well as the Russian Orthodox perspective, see Alfons Brüning and Evert van der Zweerde, eds., Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, Eastern Christian Studies 13 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012).

⁶⁵ Papanikolaou, “Dignity,” 207. The World Health Organization views disability as a human rights issue. See World Health Organization, World Report on Disability 2011 (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011), 9.

⁶⁶ In his assessment of ROS, Papanikolaou makes clear that though it may seem that the Russian Orthodox Church “does not affirm an inherent value to human life,” this is not the case. At no point does the Russian Orthodox Church declare that any human may have no worth, and therefore “no entitlement to rights until a certain period of development.” Papanikolaou, “Dignity,” 197. I too do not make the case that the Russian Orthodox Church, in ROS, does not affirm the inherent value of human life. I am, however, tracing the implications of the claims of ROS regarding imago Dei and dignity for individuals with disabilities.

⁶⁷ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.1.

⁶⁸ Stan, “Human Person as a Being Created in the Image of God and as the Image of the Son,” 133.

⁶⁹ Throughout the entire document, ROS specifies only two qualities that are manifestations of the image of God: freedom (of choice) and creative ability. “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. II.1 and IV.5. Both of these qualities may be diminished in individuals with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual disabilities, leading some to conclude that individuals with disabilities do not possess the image of God or possess it to a lesser degree.

⁷⁰ Harrison, “The Human Person as Image and Likeness of God,” 81. Harrison contrasts the view of the early Fathers, which emphasized the imago Dei as human characteristics with the tendency of modern writers to “underline that the totality of the human being is created in the divine image” and notes that those features of the divine image that she identified are “only a starting point” (89). For a more detailed discussion of the qualities composing the image of God according to the Cappadocian Fathers, see Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), 127–31.

⁷¹ See Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976), 115–16; Stan, “Human Person as a Being Created in the Image of God and as the Image of the Son,” 133.

⁷² In his assessment of ROS, Maican goes so far as to state that “those who do not exhibit these attributes cannot be considered humans.” Petre Maican, “Overcoming Exclusion in Eastern Orthodoxy: Human Dignity and Disability from a Christological Perspective,” Studies in Christian Ethics 33, no. 4 (2020): 501.

⁷³ For a similar argument, see Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome, 172–73, and Brock, Disability, 106–07.

⁷⁴ Kilner, Dignity and Destiny, 18–21.

⁷⁵ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.2.

⁷⁶ Papanikolaou helpfully notes to readers that the concept of dignity did not exist in “Greek patristic tradition, whose texts are authoritative for Orthodox theology.” Papanikolaou, “Dignity,” 198. ROS is thus attempting to use patristic tradition and theology to address a modern concept, especially as it exists within the conversation of human rights. Papanikalaou refers to this as a “clash of civilizations,” elaborating that the Russian Orthodox Church “denies a clash of civilizations by demonstrating that it is not against modern liberal notions of human rights and dignity; it affirms a clash of civilizations by rejecting the dominant Western liberal understandings of these concepts” (196).

⁷⁷ Brüning also notes this distinction between image and likeness in ROS, as well as the tendency of the document to emphasize the implications of likeness far more than those of image. See Alfons Brüning, “Can Theosis Save ‘Human Dignity’? Chapters in Theological Anthropology East and West,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 71, no. 3–4 (2019): 240.

⁷⁸ Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 139.

⁷⁹ Emil Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology: An Evaluation and Critique of the Theology of Dumitru Stăniloae (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999), 136.

⁸⁰ Lossky echoes a similar sentiment, stating that “God's image in man is indestructible,” though he may “stray from God and lose His likeness in his nature.” Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction, trans. Ian Kesarcodi-Watson and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1978), 128. Although Lossky refrains, at this point, from tying these concepts to dignity, he clearly distinguishes between the image and likeness in humans, emphasizing that one (the image) is irrevocable and the other (likeness) may be lost.

⁸¹ Maican, “Overcoming Exclusion in Eastern Orthodoxy,” 497.

⁸² The notion of a distinction between image and likeness, though characteristic of Eastern Orthodox theology, is not unique to Eastern Orthodox theology. Drawing upon the usage of the two terms in the Old Testament and the ancient Near East, Old Testament scholar Peter Gentry and theologian Stephen Wellum have also noted a distinction between the two terms. See Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishing, 2018), 226–38. However, the meanings they ascribe to image and likeness differ vastly in their content and resultant consequences for people with disabilities. Gentry and Wellum conclude that likeness describes a relationship between God and humans such that each human is a son of God. This sonship was given to Adam and is subsequently passed down from generation to generation. Image, on the other hand, bestows upon humans a royal status, as a result of which humans rule over creation. Gentry and Wellum describe the imago Dei as a covenant relationship “characterized by faithfulness and loyal love, obedience and trust … between God and humans on the one hand, and between humans and the world on the other” (230). Through this understanding of image and likeness, all humans are the divine image; each individual is a son of God and a servant king (236). Therefore, a distinction between image and likeness does not necessarily present difficulties for people with disabilities. The difficulties in ROS arise out of the meaning ascribed to the words “image” and “likeness” and more so, the ambiguity and interchanging of the two terms. Maican seems to agree that a distinction between image and likeness is not necessarily problematic, though deriving human dignity from that distinction is. Maican, “Overcoming Exclusion in Eastern Orthodoxy,” 502.

⁸³ Matthew Petrusek expresses a similar observation in his response to Papanikolaou's account of dignity, based upon ROS. Reflecting upon the difference between image and likeness, and the meaning of likeness as that which humans are “called to become,” Petrusek states that “although God's grace plays an indispensable role in transforming the human being from the image of God, which is disfigured by sin, into Christlikeness, which is liberated from sin, human action, in the form of freely choosing to live according to God's will, is equally indispensable.” Matthew R. Petrusek, “Protestant and Orthodox Perspectives on Dignity: A Response,” in Value and Vulnerability: An Interfaith Dialogue on Human Dignity, 220.

⁸⁴ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.5. Though a clear connection is not made in ROS, one may deduce that this personal responsibility is a result of freedom of choice, a quality granted by God. This freedom may be used for good or evil and can only be used for good by God's help and “in close cooperation” with Him (sec. II.1). It may be surmised, then, that personal responsibility is enacted through God's help, and more so in the context of the church. ROS states, “It is impossible to find freedom from sin without the mysterious unity of man with the transfigured nature of Christ that takes place in the Sacrament of Baptism (cf. Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 3:10) and becomes ever stronger through life in the Church, the Body of Christ (cf. Col. 1:24).” In this sense, there may be both a communal and divine aspect to personal responsibility. However, the clear emphasis in ROS is that of personal, individual responsibility. The emphasis on self-determination, to be discussed in the following section, strengthens this argument.

⁸⁵ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.2.

⁸⁶ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.5.

⁸⁷ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.5.

⁸⁸ This could also be true for individuals with mental illness who are unable, permanently or temporarily, to exert personal responsibility.

⁸⁹ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. II.1.

⁹⁰ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.2.

⁹¹ Reinders, Receiving the Gift of Friendship, 11.

⁹² Brüning identifies the dependence of dignity upon morality as the most “problematic issue” in ROS. Brüning, “Can Theosis Save ‘Human Dignity’?,” 239. He also notes that sin and morality become categories by which to measure one's dignity, or at least “the extent to which it has become manifest and visible” (240).

⁹³ In this regard, Papanikolaou contends that the Russian Orthodox Church's main mistake is that they are trying to apply the rules of the ecclesial/sacramental domain to the public domain. Papanikolaou, “Dignity,” 207–08. Because ROS is written in the context of the public political sphere, it is even more necessary for the Orthodox Church to clarify these matters and their implications for individuals with disabilities for the ecclesial/sacramental space.

⁹⁴ John Slotemaker, scholar of Medieval Christianity, comes to a similar conclusion when discussing the idea that the imago Dei belongs to the human intellect, as put forth by Augustine of Hippo (354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), and William of Ockham (1287–1347). Slotemaker concludes that if the imago Dei is confined to the intellect, rationality, and will, or in acts of understanding and willing, then those who are unable to will and rationalize thus cannot bear the image of God. Such a theology bears “extremely unfortunate [consequences]” for those with cognitive disabilities. John T. Slotemaker, “The Imago Dei/Trinitatis and Disabled Persons: The Limitations of Intellectualism in Late Medieval Theology,” in Disability in Medieval Christian Philosophy and Theology, ed. Scott M. Williams (New York: Routledge, 2020), 121.

⁹⁵ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.3.

⁹⁶ In his introduction to an edited work on theosis, Vladimir Kharlamov highlights the importance of the works by Vladimir Lossky and Dumitru Stăniloae and their key contributions to the understanding of deification in “modern Orthodox thought.” See Vladimir Kharlamov, ed., Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology, vol. 2, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 3. Kharlamov's introduction offers a helpful and thorough yet concise review of theosis literature. Although this current work cannot offer a complete review of theosis, Kharlomov presents a helpful guide. Andrew Louth also identifies Emil Bartos's work on Dumitru Stăniloae (Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology) and Norman Russell's study of deification (The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition) to be important studies on the doctrine of deification in Orthodox theology, both of which I reference. Andrew Louth, “The Place of Theosis in Orthodox Theology,” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, ed. Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007), 32.

⁹⁷ Norman Russell states that the Cappadocian Fathers “took for granted that the attainment of likeness to God was the telos of human life.” Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 233. Basil put only giving glory to God as preeminent above deification. See Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 211. According to Russell, Gregory of Nazianzus viewed deification as “the fundamental purpose of the Christian life.” Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 215, 220. For a more in-depth discussion of Nazianzus's view of deification as the goal of life, see Donald F. Winslow, The Dynamics of Salvation: A Study in Gregory of Nazianzus, Patristic Monograph Series, no.7 (Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979), 56–60. Russell notes that “deification became established in the Byzantine monastic tradition as the goal of the spiritual life” through Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 15, 296. Antonova quotes Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662) as stating in epistle 24, “For this is why he made us that we might become partakers of the divine nature and sharers in his eternity, and that we might appear to be like him through deification through grace.” Antonova, “The Visual Implications of Theosis,” 209.

⁹⁸ Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 7. Bartos lists the following modern scholars as adhering to the idea of deification as “man's destiny”: Afanessieff, Bulgakov, Bobrinskoy, Olivier Clément, Evdokimov, Florovsky, Karmiris, Lossky, Nellas, Nissiotis, Schmemann, Kallistos Ware, and Yannaras (7). See, for example, Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, 98. Of note as well are Michael Pomazansky and George Abbot. Pomazansky argues that “the first purpose of man is the glory of God,” which is achieved through deification. Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 140. Archimandrite George Abbot describes theosis as “the ultimate purpose for which our Maker and Creator moulded man.” George Abbot, Theosis: The True Purpose of Human Life, 4th ed. (Mount Athos: Holy Monastery of Saint Gregarios, 2006), 21.

⁹⁹ Winslow, The Dynamics of Salvation, 193. Winslow observes that Gregory was the first of the Fathers to consistently employ the term “theosis” and the ideas contained therewithin (179). The concept of theosis was so important to Gregory that it appears as a major motif in all types of his writings, “whether theological, christological or soteriological, whether contemplative, pastoral or ascetical” (178).

¹⁰⁰ See Stephen Thomas, “Deification,” in McGuckin, The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, 1: 183.

¹⁰¹ Athanasius of Alexandria, article 54, in Athanasius: On the Incarnation of the Word of God, trans. T. Herbert Bindley, 2nd ed. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1903), 142.

¹⁰² Augustine Casiday, “Church Fathers and the Shaping of Orthodox Theology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, 168. See also Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 7.

¹⁰³ Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 1–2. Russell further divides the realistic approach into two aspects: ontological and dynamic. The ontological aspect refers to the transformation of one's nature due to the Incarnation of Christ, whereas the dynamic aspect refers to one's “appropriation of this deified humanity through the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist” (2–3).

¹⁰⁴ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.2.

¹⁰⁵ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.3. For a comprehensive treatment of deification, see Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. For a brief description see Stephen Thomas, “Deification,” in The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, 1: 182–87. For a treatment of theosis and human dignity, see Brüning, “Can Theosis Save ‘Human Dignity’?” Brüning also addresses the discrepancies present in “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” among which is the link between morality and dignity.

¹⁰⁶ Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 10.

¹⁰⁷ Papanikolaou, “Dignity,” 200.

¹⁰⁸ Papanikolaou, “Dignity,” 200, 206.

¹⁰⁹ Abbot, Theosis, 21.

¹¹⁰ Thomas, “Deification,” 183. Bartos describes Stăniloae's view in strikingly similar terms, using the words “potentiality” and “fulfilment.” Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 136.

¹¹¹ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” sec. I.3.

¹¹² Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 159n193.

¹¹³ For a similar argument regarding the intention of the Russian Orthodox Church and the implications of the teachings in ROS, see Maican, “Overcoming Exclusion in Eastern Orthodoxy,” 500, 508.

¹¹⁴ In her article on Christian faith and autism, Olivia Bustion argues against the widely held notion that individuals with autism lack a sense of self, which can lead to the conclusion that individuals with autism cannot have true theistic faith. Though not necessarily in the context of the Eastern Orthodox Church, one man with autism confessed that “because of his intermittent inability to speak,” some members of his church deem him as “unspiritual.” Olivia Bustion, “Autism and Christianity: An Ethnographic Intervention,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 85, no. 3 (2017): 19. Other Christians with autism expressed similar feelings of being misunderstood and marginalized in their church (18–19), suggesting that at least some people in their church view them as second-class members or possibly do not see the need or purpose of including them in the life of the church.

¹¹⁵ “The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights,” introduction.

¹¹⁶ One movement in this direction is Petre Maican's interpretation of deification (perfection) as “the moment when someone becomes a vessel of God's revelation for another person,” thus creating an avenue for individuals with profound disabilities to achieve deification. Petre Maican, “Human Perfection and Profound Cognitive Disability in Eastern Orthodoxy” (paper presented at the Conversation Days organized by the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge, April 2019), 7. Though Maican's interpretation may not align with traditional Orthodox interpretations of deification, it is an important step in opening the conversation among Orthodox theologians. Additionally, in a more recent article titled “Overcoming Exclusion in Eastern Orthodoxy: Human Dignity and Disability from a Christological Perspective,” Maican proposes that Christology, rather than imago Dei, serves as the basis for human dignity. Drawing upon the Eastern Orthodox concepts of recapitulation and theology of the icon, Maican argues that “human dignity is the result of the transfer of dignity from Christ to the entire human race, bestowed upon them despite their sinfulness or qualities.” Maican, “Overcoming Exclusion in Eastern Orthodoxy,” 502–03. Papanikolaou also offers valuable theological reflections that interpret dignity and theosis in ways that are favorable toward individuals with intellectual disabilities. Papanikolaou, “Dignity.” In his response to Papanikolaou, however, Petrusek notes that according to Papanikolaou's interpretation of dignity and theosis, “Dignity is not a static gift of the divine; it becomes more or less depending on how the individual responds to the divinely initiated and sustained relationship that generates it in the first place.” Petrusek, “Protestant and Orthodox Perspectives on Dignity,” 221. Such an interpretation continues to place on unstable ground the dignity of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Despite the commendable efforts of Maican and Papanikolaou, these theological issues warrant further investigation from an Orthodox perspective. Though himself not from the Eastern Orthodox tradition, Amos Yong draws upon Gregory of Nyssa's understanding of epectasis (the soul's perpetual journey) to propose an understanding of deification that is inclusive of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome, 274–78. This view does not limit the work of deification to this life for in the afterlife the individual undergoes an “unending journey … as he or she is transformed from perfection to perfection into the glorious knowledge, beauty, truth, and love of God” (277). Such an argument is worth considering on the part of Eastern Orthodox theologians as it draws upon their own patristic tradition.

¹¹⁷ Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, “About the Assembly of Bishops,” http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/about/.

¹¹⁸ Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 257.

¹¹⁹ Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops (SCOBA), “Disability and Communion,” Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, June 25, 2009, http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/news/scoba/disability-and-communion. Although SCOBA authored the statement, I will refer to the ACOB throughout the article because they have essentially replaced SCOBA and the statement is found on the ACOB website.

¹²⁰ SCOBA, “Disability and Communion,” sec. 2.

¹²¹ Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus developed a robust doctrine of the Trinity that articulated the unity and diversity of the Trinity. See Casiday, “Church Fathers and the Shaping of Orthodox Theology,” 169; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 100–600 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 211–25. Tataryn and Truchan-Tataryn state, “We probably owe the greatest debt to the Cappadocians (Macrina the Younger [330–379], Basil the Great [330–379], Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa) for articulating what today is regarded as the orthodox teaching on the Trinity.” Tataryn and Truchan-Tataryn. Discovering Trinity in Disability, 62. John Zizioulas writes, “There seems to be an exact correspondence, particularly by the Cappadocian Fathers—especially St. Basil—and Orthodox ecclesiology.… Instead of speaking of the unity of God in terms of His one nature, he prefers to speak of it in terms of communion of persons: communion is for Basil an ontological category. The nature of God is communion.” John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church, Contemporary Greek Theologians 4 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985), 134. For a more detailed account of the Cappadocian Fathers’ articulation of the Trinity, see “The One and the Three” in Pelikan, Christianity and Culture, 231–47.

¹²² Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 17. Zizioulas goes on to say that “the substance of God, ‘God,’ has no ontological content, no true being, apart from communion” (17).

¹²³ Harrison notes that the Fathers, especially Basil, connect the activity of the Trinity with “the creation of the human person,” and it is this connection that “provides a patristic foundation for twentieth-century reflections about humankind as image of the Trinity.” Harrison, “The Human Person,” 79. It does not seem, however, that the Fathers themselves, though recognizing the activity of the Trinity in creation of the human person, specifically connected the Trinity with the image of God in humans. Rather, when discussing the image of God in humanity, the Fathers seemed to focus on specific qualities. See, for example, Pelikan's discussion of the view of the image of God by the Cappadocian Fathers in Pelikan, Christianity and Culture, 120–35. Winslow counters the argument by Lossky that the Greek Fathers did not identify the image of God with specific qualities, emphatically stating that Gregory of Nazianzus clearly identifies the image of God with the rational soul or mind. See Winslow, The Dynamics of Salvation, 51. However, Gabrielle Thomas argues that Gregory of Nazianzus seems to put less emphasis on specific qualities and approaches the image of God functionally, ontologically, relationally, and ethically, and views the image of God as encompassing the “whole human person, including the flesh.” Gabrielle Thomas, The Image of God in the Theology of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 57. This argument is developed throughout Gabrielle's entire book, but see especially pages 66–68 regarding the entirety of the person as imaging God. Additionally, she notes that Gregory of Nazianzus focuses on Christ as the true image of God (Eikon), with the human person being the image (eikon) of Christ and “does not infer that the human person is the eikon of the Trinity” (41). Khaled Anatolios recognizes that the modern attempt to derive a theology of being from patristic trinitarian theology is not without its dissenters. However, he argues that such a “tendency of modern Eastern Orthodox theology to invoke categories of personhood and personal communion in trinitarian theology is fundamentally sound but requires more solid ground in claiming to base itself on the legacy of patristic theology.” Khaled Anatolios, “Personhood, Communion, and the Trinity in Some Patristic Texts,” in The Holy Trinity in the Life of the Church, ed. Khaled Anatolios (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 163.

¹²⁴ Papanikolaou, “Personhood and Its Exponents in Twentieth-Century Orthodox Theology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, 232. See also Papanikolaou, The Mystical as Political: Democracy and Non-Radical Orthodoxy (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012), 99.

¹²⁵ Bobrinskoy, God in Trinity, 59.

¹²⁶ SCOBA, “Disability and Communion,” sec. 2.

¹²⁷ Mariamna Fortounatto and Mary B. Cunningham, “Theology of the Icon,” in The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, 136.

¹²⁸ See McGuckin, The Orthodox Church, 241; Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 254.

¹²⁹ SCOBA, “Disability and Communion,” sec. 2.

¹³⁰ Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 254–55.

¹³¹ SCOBA, “Disability and Communion,” sec. 2.

¹³² Kilner notes that image of God language used in Genesis 1 uses both the singular and plural pronouns, demonstrating that the image of God has implications for both individuals and humanity as a whole. He also points out that “New Testament passages connecting people with the image of Christ also tend to have a corporate entity (group) in view rather than just separate human beings.” Kilner, Dignity and Destiny, 86.

¹³³ Kilner directly addresses the understanding of relationship as the constitution of God's image in humans, labeling it a “misconception.” Kilner, Dignity and Destiny, 210–26. He argues that most “relationship-oriented concepts of creation in God's image” tend to reduce the concept to a human's actual relationships or the capacity to have relationship, which itself can cause problems (216). Moreover, Kilner contends that “focusing exclusively on community rather than also on the members of that community … undermines the appreciation for and protection of each human being that the status of being in God's image explicitly provides” (217). D&C somewhat, though arguably not completely, avoids this pitfall by esteeming each member, including those with disabilities, as essential members of the Body of Christ.

¹³⁴ Steenberg, “The Church,” 129. Steenberg specifically relates the communal aspect of theosis in the church to the relational nature of the sacraments of the Eucharist, confession, baptism, chrismation (“anointing with the ‘seal of the Holy Spirit’”), unction (“anointing of the sick”), marriage, and ordination (129). However, he goes on to argue that “the whole of [the Church's] work, and not only certain acts, [are] deifying and transfiguring” (130).

¹³⁵ Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 252.

¹³⁶ Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 258.

¹³⁷ Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 15. For a reflection upon and development of Zizioulas's work as it pertains to individuals with disabilities, see Reinders, Receiving the Gift of Friendship, 248–75, and to a lesser extent Papanikolaou, “Dignity,” 204–06.

¹³⁸ SCOBA, “Disability and Communion,” sec. 2.

¹³⁹ This perspective echoes that of Amos Yong in his explanation of reading 1 Corinthians 12 toward a disability-inclusive theology of the church. See Yong, The Bible, Disability, and the Church, 90–96. Such a reading demonstrates that people with disabilities are not “weaker, less respectable, or less-than-necessary members of the church with little to contribute,” but rather are “considered necessary” (93) and that the “one body of Christ is centrally constituted by people across the spectrum of dis/abilities” (94). From this perspective, “people with disabilities are by definition embraced as central and essential to a fully healthy and functioning congregation in particular, and to the ecclesial body in general” (95). For another in-depth treatment of 1 Corinthians 12 from a disability perspective, see Brock, Wondrously Wounded, 201–24. From 1 Corinthians 1, Brock argues that the church should be a place that is “beyond’ disability” (218).

¹⁴⁰ SCOBA, “Disability and Communion,” sec. 2.

¹⁴¹ For a similar argument concerning the necessity of the contributions and presence of individuals with disabilities in the church, see Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome, 218–22, especially 222.

¹⁴² In his reflection on why he chose Orthodox Christianity, Michael Robert, on the autism spectrum, echoes this sentiment of the appealing nature of the sensory rich elements of the Orthodox liturgy. Michael Robert, “How My Faith and Autism Activism Go Hand in Hand,” The Mighty, February 21, 2018, https://themighty.com/2018/02/autistic-and-eastern-orthodox/. It should be noted, however, this may not be the case for everyone with autism or other disabilities that may cause sensory overload. In her reflection as an Orthodox Christian on the autism spectrum, Monica Spoor reports that sensory overload is common among people with autism in the Orthodox Church. See Monica Spoor, Spirituality on the Spectrum: Having Autism in the Orthodox Church (Brave New Books, 2017), 7. For similar sentiments expressed by Christians with autism, see Bustion, “Autism and Christianity,” 18. Sensory processing issues are especially prevalent in children with autism spectrum disorders, attention deficit disorder, attention hyperactivity deficit disorder, and cognitive disorders. See Critz, Catharine, Blake, Kiegan, and Nogueira, Ellen, “Sensory Processing Challenges in Children,” Journal for Nurse Practitioners 11, no. 7 (2015): 711CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is estimated that between 40 and 88 percent of children with disabilities have sensory processing challenges. See Ahn, Roianne R., Miller, Lucy Jane, Milberger, Sharon, and McIntosh, Daniel N., “Prevalence of Parents’ Perceptions of Sensory Processing Disorders among Kindergarten Children,” American Journal of Occupational Therapy 58, no. 3 (2004): 287CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

¹⁴³ See Yannaras, Elements of Faith, 122. This view is reflective of the late Russian Orthodox theologian Nicolas Afanasiev's “eucharistic ecclesiology.” He states, “As the body of Christ, the Church manifests herself in all her fullness in the eucharistic assembly of the local church, because Christ is present in the Eucharist in the fullness of his body.… Where the Eucharist is, there is the Church of God, and where the Church of God is, there is the Eucharist.” Afanasiev, Nicolas, “Una Sancta,” in Tradition Alive: On the Church and the Christian Life in Our Time: Readings from the Eastern Church, ed. Plekon, Michael, trans. Plekon, Michael (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), 14Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ Prokurat, Golitzin, and Peterson, Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church, 122.

¹⁴⁵ Yannaras, Elements of Faith, 125. Zizioulas also views the Eucharist as the incarnation of the communion of the Trinity. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 114.

¹⁴⁶ It is important to reiterate that D&C itself does not address the Eucharist as a theological basis for including individuals with disabilities in the church, but rather commends accessibility of the Eucharist to individuals with disabilities as a necessary practical implication of the theological foundation of humanity in the image of God. I am arguing, however, that within the Orthodox tradition, the meaning of the Eucharist holds potential for a theological basis of full inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the life and liturgical aspects of the church. Based upon an Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist, to exclude individuals with disabilities from the Eucharist would violate a theological foundation already laid in D&C, that is, that the church is called to become an image of the Trinity.

¹⁴⁷ See M. C. Steenberg, “Eucharist,” in McGuckin, The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, 1:230, 1:235.

¹⁴⁸ Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 222.

¹⁴⁹ See Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 248, 252, 255.

¹⁵⁰ Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 302.

¹⁵¹ Yannaras, Elements of Faith, 129.

¹⁵² SCOBA, “Disability and Communion,” sec. 5.

¹⁵³ SCOBA, “Disability and Communion,” sec. 4.

¹⁵⁴ Tataryn and Truchan-Tataryn develop a theology of disability based on the Trinity in their book, Discovering Trinity in Disability: A Theology for Embracing Difference, written from an Eastern Christian perspective. Though not explicitly Orthodox, given Tataryn is a Ukranian Catholic priest, it draws from the Eastern Orthodox tradition and many similarities shared by the two Eastern Christian traditions, such as the Cappadocian Fathers, deification, and iconography. See Tataryn and Truchan-Tataryn, Discovering Trinity in Disability.

¹⁵⁵ See Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 67.

¹⁵⁶ See Gaillardetz, Richard R., “Can Orthodox Ethics Liberate? A Test Case for the Adequacy of an Eastern Ethic,” Horizons 17, no. 1 (1990), 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵⁷ Eiesland, The Disabled God, 77. For the full discussion of the resolution, see 75–86.

¹⁵⁸ Kirill, Freedom and Responsibility, 14.

¹⁵⁹ Haslam, A Constructive Theology of Intellectual Disability, 2–9.

¹⁶⁰ This challenge is one that likely resonates within the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Theodore Stylianopoulos outlines the Orthodox approach to Scripture, based upon the patristic tradition, and notes that “the chief concern is how to be faithful to the revelatory witness of scripture, and its authentic application in the life of the Church, in harmony with the scripture's own purpose, nature and saving message.” Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, “Scripture and Tradition in the Church,” in The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, 30. Stylianopoulos goes on to state that modern Orthodox theologians have been faithful to the patristic hermeneutical principles but that “the challenge has been how to reclaim the patristic heritage effectively in the context of modern culture in order to advance the mission of the Church” (31). One challenge that Orthodox theologians must continue to grapple with are the issues of imago Dei, image and likeness, and theosis and their implications for individuals with disabilities and their inclusion in the church.

¹⁶¹ Leonid Kishkovsky, “Russian Theology after Totalitarianism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, 273.

¹⁶² Official Website of the Moscow Patriarchate, “Regulation on the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church (from 11.03.20),” http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5605826.html.

¹⁶³ Official Website of the Moscow Patriarchate, “Topics for Consideration by the Commissions of the Inter-Council Presence,” http://www.patriarchia.ru/en/db/intersobor/temy/.

¹⁶⁴ Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 14.14, in Select Orations, The Fathers of the Church, trans. Martha Vinson (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 49.