Elizabeth B.
Naturally, anyone is who is a believer has their own personal image of their God. Whether you be a man, a woman, or a person of color, everyone has their own idea of their God. With different backgrounds, education, experiences, and even up-bringing’s not everyone is going to have the same picture as another person. For me what I’ve interpreted from the reading of Nancy Eisland, in “The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability”, is trying to say is who’s to say it’s not the same idea for someone who is disabled? Although I think she is a bit repetitive, I do understand what she’s trying to point out.
Basically Nancy Eisland is a woman who is trying to argue equal rights for the disabled when it comes to symbolism. “With the emergence of African American, feminists, gay-lesbian, and Latin American liberation theologies in recent history, models of God have proliferated.” [pg. 314] Once reading this quote you realize her main concern is that she just wants symbolism to be even more equal, not just for a person of skin color or gender, but for also one with disabilities or any “able-bodied” people.
Nancy Eisland seems to be arguing anyone who disagrees, it sounds like someone has even disagreed with her on her own image of God as well, as if she was silly for thinking her God could be disabled even when she provided her view of evidence. As well as for any gender or person of color, the author believes that we should “change the values and hidden rules that run through present linguistic practices, social codes, and psychic orderings, women, persons of color, and other oppressed groups will be forced—by language, discourses, and practices available to them—into conforming to ongoing practices, to babbling nonsense, or to not speaking at all.” [pg. 308] Although its obvious she doesn’t have a hidden agenda, you can see that she thinks that the modern day Christian should learn to expand