What effects do conditions like autism have on the Christian life?
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder. As a spectrum disorder, the
experience and severity of symptoms of those affected varies. The primary symptoms associated
with ASD are impairments in communication and social interaction as well as restrictive or
repetitive behaviors and interests. Often, those with ASD struggle with sensory issues,
gastrointestinal disruptions, sleep disorders, and mental health issues like anxiety. The struggles
associated with autism can have an effect on the Christian life.
First, let us clarify that it is not a sin to have ASD. Various theories, including a genetic link,
have been proposed as to the cause of autism, but there is no one, specific, agreed-upon cause. If
we consider autism to be a “disease,” then we would say that it is generally a result of the fall of
humanity. That is to say, when Adam and Eve sinned, death and its effects entered the world.
This means that the human body is subject to illness and disease. The common cold is a result of
the fall, but it is not sinful to have a cold. People experience physical and psychological
abnormalities, many of which make life extra challenging. But, again, it is not a sin to have a
developmental disorder or abnormality.
In fact, if we simply think of autism as being in the category of “neuroatypical” as opposed to
“neurotypical,” we might even see the possible benefits it can have. For example, the restrictive
focus of those with ASD could be directed to develop helpful remedies to global issues like
poverty and hunger. Or the fact that people with autism tend to think differently than those who
are “neurotypical” could lead them to come up with creative solutions to challenging problems or
to brand-new ideas that benefit all involved.
That being said, there are, of course, myriad challenges associated with autism. Being a spectrum
disorder, the specific challenges will vary from person to person. For example, many with autism
are unable to live on their own, but that is not true of everyone who has ASD. Some of the
challenges associated with autism might make certain things about the Christian life feel harder.
For example, Jesus told His disciples, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know
that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34–35; cf. John 15:12, 17;
1 John 4:7). The New Testament is replete with instructions as to how we specifically love one
another. We are to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), speak the truth in love (Ephesians
4:15, 25), be kind to one another (Ephesians 4:32), forgive one another (Ephesians 4:32),
regularly meet together (Hebrews 10:25), and stir one another up to love and good works
(Hebrews 10:25). The command to love is not restricted only to loving other believers in Jesus.
We are also called to love all people, including our enemies (Matthew 5:43–48), do good to
everyone (Galatians 6:10; cf. Matthew 5:16), care for the outcasts of society (James 1:27), and
submit to our authorities (Romans 13:1–7). Since those with ASD tend to struggle with social
interaction, some wonder if they are able to follow these commands.
There is no reason why a person who struggles with social interaction cannot demonstrate love.
For each believer in Christ, loving others with God’s love is ultimately an act of the Holy Spirit
(1 John 4:8–12; Philippians 2:12–13). Godly love is agape love—a disposition toward the other
that acts on the other’s behalf, even when it involves personal sacrifice, as demonstrated most
clearly in Jesus (Romans 5:8). Those who have put their faith in Jesus can love others as Jesus
loved them because they have received Jesus’ love and because the Holy Spirit lives inside them.
These are realities for all believers regardless of any brain abnormalities or other diseases.
Christians are also called to put off sin (Ephesians 4:17–32; Colossians 3:1–17). The struggle
against the desires of our sinful flesh is a reality for all believers. Again, victory over sin is
ultimately made possible through the Holy Spirit. Paul told the Philippians, “Continue to work
out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in
order to fulfill his good purpose” (Philippians 2:12–13). We are called to yield to the work of the
Spirit and are to willingly “put to death” (Colossians 3:5) those things that are part of our sinful
nature. Hebrews 12:1–2 encourages, “Let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so
easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on
Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning
its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Though people with autism
might have a more difficult time letting go of certain thoughts or patterns of behavior, there is no
reason they cannot experience victory over sin.
Of course, part of the Christian life is our personal relationship with God. For every believer, this
is a relationship that grows throughout a lifetime. Just as our relationships with others look
different in different seasons of our lives, so, too, does our relationship with God. And, just as
our relationships with others are unique, so is our relationship with God. For example, one
person might feel especially close to God in nature whereas another is profoundly impacted by
traditional liturgy. That a person with autism might struggle in interacting with other people does
not necessarily mean he or she will struggle in interacting with God. Again, the precise
relationship every believer has with God is different. As Creator, God is certainly capable of
connecting with every human being. Each of us can know God through His creation, His Word,
and His Spirit (Romans 1:18–20; Hebrews 1:2–3; 2 Timothy 3:16–17; 1 Corinthians 2:10–16).
Those with ASD can know God by looking at Jesus, studying Scripture, communicating with
Him through prayer, obeying Him, and being part of a local church. Their struggles do not
preclude them from living a full Christian life that honors and glorifies the Lord (John 10:10; 1
Corinthians 10:31).
Hebrews 10:23–25 encourages all believers, “Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess,
for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward
love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but
encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” The body of Christ
is filled with a variety of personalities, people at various levels of Christian maturity, and people
with various struggles. No matter our personal struggle, we are called to love one another and
build one another up (Ephesians 4:29). There is a place in the body of Christ for every type of
person who has put his or faith in Jesus (1 Corinthians 12:7–27; Galatians 3:28).
Reading the bible in relation to autism: the problem
The dramatic shifts in awareness about the prevalence of autism within the population—which
have seen estimates move from 1 in 10,000 to anywhere from 1 in 200 to 1 in 50—demand that
Christians ask, “What does it mean to think biblically?”FparticularlyFin relation to this condition.
Yet, it is a condition that was not known or named as such in the ancient world and that is
nowhere explicitly described in Scripture. We cannot, then, simply find several relevant passages
and engage in exegesis, after which we pronounce, “This is what the Bible says about autism.”
We need to think more carefully about how the Bible, considered the normative and sacred
Scripture of the Christian tradition, should function to shape our thinking about autism.
This is, in fact, a principle of understanding how biblical authority operates that extends beyond
the particulars of newly identified or “hidden” disabilitiesFootnote2Flike autism to a massive
range of uniquely modern issues, and bears more broadly on how the Bible is used in relation to
disability studies.Footnote3FThe world is full of things that were unknown to our parents, far less
to the biblical authors, and one of the constant dangers that besets Christians who rightly
consider the Bible to regulate their thought and life is moving to facile assumptions of how these
ancient texts might speak to contemporary realities. This speaks, in turn, to the simplistic ways
that we often apply texts that clearlyFdoFinvolve a particular issue to contemporary ethics: we
often moveFimmediatelyFfrom the exegesis of this or that text to a pronouncement on the rights or
wrongs of a particular practice.
For those of us who occupy traditions shaped by the principle ofFsola scriptura,Fthis is a special
risk, not because that principle is questionable, but because it has frequently come to be
dislocated from the otherFsolasFwhich contextualized and controlled it in Reformed theology (see
Webster,FCitation2001, p. 10) and from the theological principles that informed and controlled
the reading of Scripture through the centuries of the church prior to modernity. Evangelicals, in
particular, are often unaware of the extent to which modernity has shaped their reading practices
and their ways of conceiving biblical authority, and just how different their approaches to
reading the Bible are from those practiced in the early church and, for that matter, in the Judaism
of the New Testament period. Consequently, we find it particularly difficult to bring the Bible to
bear on a problem that cannot be addressedFimmediatelyFby the exegesis of obviously relevant
passages, which is one of the reasons that while a fair bit of work has been done generally on the
Bible and disability studies, studying examples of disabled characters in the Bible (e.g., Moss &
Schipper,FCitation2011), little has been done with conditions like autism, which were
unknownFas suchFin the ancient world.
At the root of this, I think, is a curiously defective identification of the task of exegesis in
relation to the object of study, the Bible. For all our talk of the Bible as the Word of God,
something that must be listened to humbly, we typically approach exegesis as if it were an
exercise in “fracking”: provided we apply the right machinery with the right methodology to the
text, we will be able to extract its meaning from it and then apply it to our contemporary
situation. Exegesis is simply analysis, and if we do it well we will own or possess the content of
the text, which is reduced to a single extractable thing. But if the Bible is identified as the living
Word of God, then exegesis is just one element in a careful (and prayerful) act of listening and
reflecting, one that is attentive to how the text speaks to us, as well as to what it says, and that
recognizes the capacity of the Bible to speak as a living voice into our ever-changing
circumstances.
Misreading the bible in relation to autism
Before outlining the practices that ought to be embodied in our interpretative activity, I will
consider three examples of attempts to think biblically about autism that I consider to be
fundamentally flawed. Identifying the flaws in each will allow us to think a little more maturely
about how the Bible should function properly in our theology.
The first example is, on one level, fairly innocuous, but it still opens up important issues for us to
reflect upon. In a 2010 article, S.K. Mathew and J.D. Pandian “diagnosed” a number of biblical
characters as having what are known today as neurological or psychiatric conditions (Mathew &
Pandian,FCitation2010). Among the diagnoses proposed was one of autism: Samson was
considered to be autistic, “which would precede the first known case of autism by centuries”
(Mathew & Pandian,FCitation2010, p. 164). Without needing to rehearse any of the detail that
was drawn into this proposed diagnosis, the approach taken by Mathew and Pandian can be
compared with the process of clinical diagnosis that would be experienced by a person with
autism today. This involves lengthy interviews, both with the person considered to be autistic (if
they are able to communicate) and with family members. A detailed picture of their background
and development is constructed, shaped (as far as possible) by the testimony of the person
themselves concerning their sensory and social experiences. In some cases, the process may take
more than one day of interviews and is regulated by very detailed, carefully developed questions
of agreed diagnostic value. It is simply impossible to replicate this with the limited third-person
narrative detail of a biblical story contained in four short chapters of the Bible.
The approach engages the biblical story as a means to access a historical reality that lies behind
the text and is obtainable through it; that is, the principal thing the scholars in question are
seeking to obtain through their reading of the text is access to the historical reality of Samson’s
neurotype. This neglects the real character, function, and purpose of the narrative and the
discourse, which are intended toFcommunicateFto readers something that will shape their own
lives in relation to God. This is not to question the historical veracity of the text—that is a debate
for elsewhere—but to emphasize that the text is not principally intended as a vehicle for
historical documentation, but rather for edification. As such, whatever historical details the text
contains are rendered to us in an edifying and theological narrative that is much more concerned
with the demands of serving Israel’s God and the dangers of idolatry than with the neurological
health of its characters. Put bluntly, the approach to the text of the book of Judges taken by
Mathew and Pandian is not appropriate in relation to the character of the text.
The second example is dramatically more disturbing; I feel the need to issue a trigger warning
that what follows may be upsetting. I do not include a link to the relevant websites, as I do not
want to promote the source in any sense. In the course of my research, I came across a website
that compared the symptoms of autism (actually, profound autism, although no such
differentiation was made in the discussion itself) to the biblical accounts of demon possession.
Mutism, fits, spasms, destructive behavior,Fet cetera: these were represented as significant
parallels between the descriptions in the gospels of people who had demons driven from them
and the behaviors seen in autistic children. The conclusion reached was that what is seen as an
epidemic of autism today is actually evidence of demon possession. The correct way to treat this,
therefore, is with prayers for deliverance or exorcism. As disturbing as this claim was in itself, it
was overshadowed by the comments that readers had posted to the website about their own
experience as parents. They affirmed the conclusion that identified autism with demon
possession and, in many cases, spoke about their own experience of praying (unsuccessfully) for
their own children to be delivered from the demons that possessed them.
Multiple comments could be made in response to this, some of which will be reprised in the
positive proposals outlined below. For one thing, stories of demonic possession within the Bible
are actually relatively uncommon and are particularly clustered within the Synoptic Gospels and
Acts. There are a few stories outside these, but not many. That has some bearing on the
proportional significance of the demonic within the Bible and relates to one of the proposals
below, namely that we need to allow biblical proportions to play some role in our biblical
interpretation, to respect the shape of the Bible as a whole. Second, the association of a demonic
presence with a non-verbal (mute) person is really confined to two stories (Matt. 9:32–3/Luke
11:14, Matt. 12:22); only by conflating these stories with others involving demons and violence
(Matt. 8:28–33) can one construct something that shares superficial characteristics with autism.
Third, “mutism” or “non-verbalism” is more commonly represented simply as a physical
disability, listed alongside lameness and blindness as people come to Jesus for healing (about
which we will say more below), as in Matthew 15:30–31. The final point, though, is perhaps the
most important. The problem with this approach is that it does not take seriously the need to
understand what we are bringingFbackFto the Bible to be understood in its light. It ignores the
evidence that autism is associated with genetic factors and with demonstrably different
neurological features; it does not take seriously that these are necessarily part of what the
condition is and involves. Those who contributed to the website mentioned above might accuse
me of putting modern science “before” the Bible, but it is actually a basic principle of biblical
truthfulness that we expect to see a coherence between the physical world that science
investigates and the world as it is rendered to us in Scripture. The two involve different
identifications and therefore different principles of investigation,Footnote4Fand cannot be
collapsed into each other, but we expect to see some kind of coherence, which means we cannot
ignore the physical dimension of autism (genetics, neurology,Fet cetera) by labeling it as demon
possession. I will say more below on how we negotiate the technological present in relation to
the pre-technological past, but at this point the main problem with this approach can be
expressed in these terms: its advocates do not take seriously the evidence for the physical causal
factors known to be associated with autism.Footnote5
The third problematic use of the Bible is more subtle, although it may be nearly as disturbing as
the one just considered. For some, autism is a problem to be “healed,” a view that takes its
warrant from the various stories of healing that we find in the Bible, particularly in the New
Testament and most extensively within the context of the gospels and Acts. In some cases, this
can be married to what is sometimes referred to as a “health and prosperity” understanding of the
gospel, where those who have true faith in God enjoy a flood of blessings that ought typically to
include the healing of illnesses and the provision of material prosperity. Sometimes, this is traced
to a view of sickness and suffering that link them very closely to the problem of sin: where sin is
properly dealt with, healing and prosperity should follow. For reasons that I will outline below,
this approach should be seen as highly problematic. In other cases, though, the view of where
healing and blessing fit into the Christian experience may be less sweeping and less thoroughly
problematic; they may be affirmed as things that often, but not always, accompany God’s life-
giving presence, to be prayed for and hoped for, but not considered to be routine.
Any reflection on this must affirm that the Bible includes stories of healing, sometimes involving
people who are disabled in some sense. It must also recognize that some of those healings appear
to have a programmatic significance, representing the decisive change that has taken place with
the coming of Jesus and closely linked to the realization of his work of deliverance from sin. In
Matthew 11, for example, Jesus responds to John’s question about whether he is indeed the
Messiah in part by referring to his work of healing:
When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word by his disciples and said to
him, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” Jesus answered them, “Go
and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are
cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. And
blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.” (Matt. 11:2–6)
The references to those who are healed are generally understood to evoke the expectations of the
prophet Isaiah about the figure of the Servant, so that their function is not to indicate that healing
will now be the new normal, but rather to demonstrate that Jesus is, indeed, the Messianic
Servant. This is in line with other parts of Matthew that similarly link the revelation of the
Davidic king with particular acts of healing (Novakovic,FCitation2003). Nevertheless, the
healings are described as real events, and we should take this seriously. We must also
acknowledge that there are points in the Bible, notably in the Psalms (e.g., Ps. 51:8), where the
language of sickness and affliction is used by people who are burdened by a sense of their own
sin, and who identify their suffering as some kind of divine chastening.
These observations mean that we cannot ignore theFapparentFbiblical warrant for the view that
autism, like any other disabling condition, might be (or even “should be”) healed. But the same
can be said of every view that, through the centuries, the church has come to consider wrong or
even heretical: all can point to particular Scriptural texts for warrant. The proper response to
these must always be to highlight that other parts of the canon of Scripture contain important
corrective or balancing truths that must be brought to bear on such assertions. In relation to
healing in general, stories of healing, as with those concerning exorcism, are particularly
clustered within the gospels and Acts where they continue to have exceptional significance. The
miracles of Jesus continue to be “miraculous” and not commonplace; they are exceptional
interventions, rather than the norm. The same is true of the miracles in Acts: only a small number
of healings stories are recounted, which must be consideredFexceptionally significant. James,
certainly, speaks of the prayer offered in faith that will make the sick person well (5:15), and
does so in a way that suggests he is speaking about regular practices of prayer, but his words
need to be read alongside the passages in Paul’s writings that speak of suffering and sickness as
things that continue to be present in the life of the believer and that are vital to our manifestation
of divine grace:
But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power
belongs to God and does not come from us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed;
perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not
destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be
made visible in our bodies. (2 Cor. 4:7–10)
This leads toward one of the core principles that must inform the use of Scripture, which simply
recognizes that any given text or passage needs to be considered within the wider context of the
Bible as a whole. One of the most basic problems in contemporary Christian uses of Scripture is
a tendency to move immediately from the exegesis of an isolated text (or even a small set of
texts) to making a moral or theological claim that is asserted as “biblical.” This problem becomes
visible quickly when we seek to deal with an issue like autism, but it actually affects our moral
and theological reasoning much more broadly. As we will see below, such an approach fails to
show proper respect or reverence to the character of Scripture as a complex work of divine
communication.
One further point can be made on the topic of healing and on the use of Scripture in relation to it.
As readers, we need to be sensitive to the ways in which our basic assumptions are colored by
the social and intellectual context of late modernity, and we need to allow Scripture to challenge
those assumptions. One of the subtle issues that we face concerns our perception of what it
means to be healthy and whole. Within the modern context—in which we have come to cherish
the idea of the self-contained, self-reliant, autonomous individual (see MacIntyre,FCitation1981,
p. 228; Taylor,FCitation1989)—we tend to think of health and well-being in individualist terms,
assuming that the healthy individual is one who needs no care and who can live a productive and
constructive life. We may even map the need for care and support onto a theology in which the
image of God has been compromised and damaged by sin.
Without necessarily dismissing this view, we need to be open to the possibility that we are
refracting the biblical material through a distinctively modern account of human being, which
neglects the possibility that one can live a joyful life of flourishing while being entirely
dependent on the caregiving of others.Footnote6FOften this accompanies a particular conception
of the image of God (imago Dei), one that links it to the possession and manifestation of certain
properties or capacities by the individual. Such an understanding can be traced back into pre-
modern theology, but becomes radically more dominant in the modern era, in the wake of the
Enlightenment and the influence of humanism. At this stage, I am not seeking to offer an
alternative way of thinking about theFimago Dei,Fbut simply to alert the reader to the possibility
that they may be working with a set of very modern assumptions about what it means to be a
flourishing human being, and may think of healing (and, for that matter, our ultimately destined
condition) in ways that are shaped by this.
The problems with both of these approaches—the identification of autism as demonic and the
expectation that it should be healed—are complex, but generally emerge from a tendency to read
certain biblical passages without due consideration for the teaching of the wider Bible and its
proportions, rather than misreading the passages in themselves.
