The Challenge of Autism for Relational Approaches to Theological Anthropology

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that autism places an important restraint upon the use of relationality in theological anthropology. This argument proceeds by outlining how the appropriation of dialectic personalism, which initiated ‘the relational turn’ in twentieth century theological anthropology, has struggled to escape the capacity or property‐based focus on individual subjects. As such, this relational account remains discriminatory against those who do not or cannot enact a particular kind of relationality, as some models of autism suggest. Moreover, attention to interpersonal relationships as a key human capacity within twentieth century theological anthropology closely parallels and may even have informed the development of autism within psychology as, in part, a social impairment. The devastating collision of these two intellectual trajectories is made apparent in explicit references by contemporary theologians to autism as a condition that prevents some humans from bearing the image of God, developing fully into persons, or receiving God’s grace by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Divided Minds and Divine Judgement:

“…37 Van Inwagen (1995), 264. 38 This outline is drawn from Leidenhag (2021). Leidenhag critiques the I-Thou understanding for its inability to accommodate autistic persons.…”

“…Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, among others. See Leidenhag (2021) for further discussion. 39 Güell et al (2017), 110.…”

The Relational Turn in Understanding Personhood: Psychological, Theological, and Computational Perspectives

“…That is not contradicted by the lives of those who choose to be hermits, as the human relations from which they are choosing to be absent are still significant in constituting their humanity; hermits have often had a good deal of interaction with visitors and those who support them, and they position themselves in cross‐temporal spiritual relationships with predecessors from their traditions. Neither is the centrality of relationships for human nature contradicted by those with special modes of cognition such as neurodiversity, that gives a particular quality to the human interactions (Leidenhag 2020)…”

“…That is not contradicted by the lives of those who choose to be hermits, as the human relations from which they are choosing to be absent are still significant in constituting their humanity; hermits have often had a good deal of interaction with visitors and those who support them, and they position themselves in cross-temporal spiritual relationships with predecessors from their traditions. Neither is the centrality of relationships for human nature contradicted by those with special modes of cognition such as neurodiversity, that gives a particular quality to the human interactions (Leidenhag 2020) Theological Anthropology Theology seems to have reached relational assumptions largely through its own internal resources, drawing implications from Trinitarian theology. There is a large recent literature in theological anthropology emphasizing relationality and personhood, dating from John Zizioulas' Being as Communion (1985) and Alistair McFadyen's The Call to Personhood (1990).…”

Autism and Biblical Studies: Establishing and Extending the Field beyond Preliminary Reflection

“…But that challenge needs to be supplemented by a critique of the adoption of the medical model in fields beyond which its terminology ought to be considered applicable. Already, some important theological critique of this sort has begun to emerge (Leidenhag, 2020). If biblical scholarship is to contribute in a constructive way to the discussion of autism, it must ensure that the place of models in driving the discussion is kept in view.…”