五饼二鱼 Five loaves Two fish
Thursday, 12 February 2026
📝 在残障处境中的信仰思考(三):Just As I Am, Without One Plea
📝 在残障处境中的信仰思考(二):关于“残疾出于上帝作为之彰显荣耀”的反思
📝 在残障处境中的信仰思考(一):从残障、尊严到上帝主权
Friday, 26 September 2025
「治愈」Curing「医治」Healing
从「治愈」到「医治」:残障神学如何重新诠释耶稣与瘫子的故事
在《马可福音》2:1-12的故事中,我们读到耶稣医治了一位被四位朋友从房顶缒下来的瘫子。传统的解读往往聚焦于耶稣的神性权柄——他能赦罪,也能使瘫子行走。这个神迹成为耶稣神圣身份的明证。
然而,残障神学 为我们提供了一个更具革命性的视角,它邀请我们不再只定睛于“神迹”本身,而是去审视神迹发生时的关系场景。这个视角揭示了一个更深层的真理:真正的“医治”,始于“共处”。
一、两种范式:从“治愈”到“共处”
要理解这个转变,我们首先要区分两个关键概念:
治愈(Curing):这是一个医学模式的概念,目标是消除疾病、修复身体功能,使个体恢复到所谓的“正常”状态。它关注的是“解决问题”。
医治(Healing):这是一个整全模式的概念,源于圣经中的 Shalom(平安/整全)。它关乎一个人在身、心、灵及关系上经历恢复与和谐,即使身体的限制依然存在。它关注的是“在脆弱中体验意义与平安”。
残障神学认为,教会和社会常常混淆了两者,急于追求“治愈”,却忽视了更根本的“医治”。
二、重新解读:瘫子故事中的“共处范式”
让我们用这个新的透镜,再看一次瘫子的故事:
传统解读:焦点是耶稣的权柄。瘫子的病得“治愈”是故事的高潮,证明耶稣有赦罪的权柄。
共处范式(The Paradigm of Mutual Accompaniment)的解读:
故事的起点是“共处”:故事的开端,不是瘫子的祈求,而是四位朋友“不离不弃”的行动。他们无法“治愈”朋友,但他们选择“与他同在”,并克服困难将他带到耶稣面前。
耶稣看见的是“关系”:经文记载,耶稣“见他们的信心”(可2:5)。请注意,是“他们的”信心——这是一个复数词,指代的是那个由瘫子和四位朋友组成的小共同体所展现出的忠诚、互助和盼望。耶稣回应的,首先是这个珍贵的“共处”关系。
医治的次序意味深长:耶稣首先说:“小子,你的罪赦了。”在当时的文化背景下,残疾常被错误地与罪挂钩,导致患者被社会与宗教社群排斥。这句宣告,首先恢复的是瘫子与上帝、与社群之间的关系,破除他的“罪人”标签和隔离状态。随后,“拿起你的褥子行走”的身体治愈,则是对这已然发生的、关系性医治的公开确认和印证。
这个解读实现了一个核心的转移:从关注“耶稣如何治好一个人”,转移到“信仰共同体如何成为上帝医治的媒介”。
三、神学意涵:伤痕中的整全
这个“共处范式”的解读,与复活耶稣的形像完美呼应。复活的耶稣并没有抹去手上的钉痕,反而以此作为祂身份的记号(约20:27)。这告诉我们:
完整(Wholeness)不等于无残(Wholeness without scars)。真正的整全,不是回到一个没有伤痕的“理想状态”,而是能够包容我们的伤痕与限制,并在其中找到新的意义与平安。
上帝的作为是“与人同在”。正如道成肉身的耶稣进入人类的具体处境,上帝的医治也常常通过具体的、彼此陪伴的“共处”关系来传递。祂的工作是重建联结,赐下Shalom。
因此,这个故事深刻地连结起“共处”与“医治”:信仰共同体(即“共处”本身)就是神圣医治工作的重要媒介。 真正的医治,始于一个包容、携伴的社群,在那里,每个人都能在彼此的脆弱中,经验到上帝接纳的平安。
这个“罪”,在这里主要不是指瘫子个人犯下的某个具体过错,而是指在当时的文化宗教背景下,他所处的一种“隔绝”的状态。
我们可以从以下几个层面来理解这个“罪”:
1. 文化宗教层面的“不洁净”与“隔绝”
在公元一世纪的犹太社会,普遍存在一种观念:严重的疾病或残疾是个人或家族犯罪所招致的神罚(参见《约翰福音》9:2,门徒问耶稣:“拉比,这人生来是瞎眼的,是谁犯了罪?是这人呢?是他父母呢?”)。
因此,这个瘫子所承受的,是双重痛苦:
身体的痛苦:无法行动,需要人照料。
社会与关系的痛苦:他被视为“不洁净”的、“有罪”的,从而被排斥在宗教和社会生活之外。他可能不能进入圣殿敬拜,在社区中被边缘化,人们对他避之不及。这种被社群抛弃的“关系创伤”,比身体上的残疾更令人绝望。
2. 耶稣的颠覆性医治:先恢复关系,再医治身体
耶稣的做法是革命性的,他颠倒了人们(包括那四个朋友)对“医治”的期待顺序。
人们的期待:四个朋友和瘫子本人,最直接、最迫切的需求是身体的治愈(Cure)——“让他站起来走路!”
耶稣的洞察:耶稣一眼看穿了更深层次的问题。这个人的核心困境是与上帝、与社群的隔绝。他首先需要的是关系的修复(Healing),是重新被上帝和群体接纳的“身份确认”。
所以,耶稣第一句话“你的罪赦了”,是一句宣告性的赦免。其真正的含义是:
“我代表上帝宣告,那个导致你被排斥、被隔绝的‘罪案’已经被撤销了。你在上帝面前的地位恢复了,你不再是被诅咒的,你是被上帝所接纳的儿女。你现在可以重新回归社群,与上帝、与人共融了。”
这句话,首先医治了他被社会排斥的“关系创伤”。在精神上和关系上,他已经“站起来了”。
3. “赦罪”权柄的争议与印证
当时在场的宗教领袖们心里立刻质疑:“除了神以外,谁能赦罪呢?” 这正好点明了耶稣行动的核心。
耶稣知道他们的疑问,于是提出了一个精妙的逻辑论证(马可福音2:9-11):
“或对瘫子说‘你的罪赦了’,或说‘起来,拿你的褥子行走’,哪一样容易呢?但要叫你们知道人子在地上有赦罪的权柄”——就对瘫子说:“我吩咐你起来,拿你的褥子回家去吧!”
说“你的罪赦了”是“容易的”,因为这话的效果是看不见、无法当场验证的。
说“起来行走”是“难的”,因为这话的效果必须立竿见影,否则就是谎言。
耶稣用那个可见的、难以否认的身体神迹(让他行走),来印证那个不可见的、但更根本的关系神迹(赦免他的罪)。身体的痊愈,成为了关系修复的可见标志和 seal(封印)。
总结
所以,你故事中的解读非常准确:
“耶稣先对瘫子说:‘你的罪赦了。’这先医治了他被社会排斥的‘关系创伤’,让他重新共融于社群。”
这个“罪”,是一种因疾病而被错误赋予的“罪人”标签,以及由此带来的关系上的隔绝状态。耶稣的赦免,首先拆毁了人与人之间、人与神之间那堵隔墙,完成了最深层的医治。然后,“起来走吧”的命令,则让这内在的、不可见的医治,以一种震撼的方式显化出来,让所有人都能看见并信服。
参考文献与延伸阅读
Black, K. (1996). A healing homiletic: Preaching and disability. Abingdon Press.
这本书从讲道学角度出发,探讨了如何从圣经的医治故事中宣讲出包容与接纳的信息,而非强化对残障的偏见。
Eiesland, N. L. (1994). The disabled God: Toward a liberatory theology of disability. Abingdon Press.
南希·艾斯兰的这部开创性著作提出了“残疾的上帝”这一震撼概念,指出复活的基督带着伤痕降临,从而将残疾经验置于神学思考的中心,为残障神学奠定了重要基础。
Malina, B. J. (2001). The social world of Jesus and the Gospels. Routledge.
本书通过社会科学方法,重构了公元一世纪地中海世界的社会文化背景,帮助我们理解在当时的社会中,残疾为何以及如何与“罪”和“耻辱”相关联,导致社会排斥。
Swinton, J. (2017). Becoming friends of time: Disability, timefullness, and gentle discipleship. Baylor University Press.
约翰·斯温顿是当代残障神学的领军人物。本书深刻探讨了“治愈”与“医治”的根本区别,并阐述了“在时间中成为朋友”这一实践如何本身就是一种深刻的神学操练和医治。
Theissen, G. (1983). The miracle stories of the early Christian tradition. Fortress Press.
格尔德·泰森对早期的基督教神迹故事进行了深入分析,指出耶稣的赦罪行为首先是一种社会性的康复,旨在恢复个体在社群中的身份与地位。
Wright, N. T. (1996). Jesus and the victory of God. Fortress Press.
赖特在这部里程碑式的著作中论证,耶稣的事工核心是恢复神与人、人与人的关系。因此,在瘫子的故事中,赦罪(关系修复)优先于身体医治,后者是前者可见的印证。
Yong, A. (2007). Theology and Down syndrome: Reimagining disability in late modernity. Baylor University Press.
Amos Yong 是另一位重要的残障神学家。他从五旬宗神学视角出发,为在当代语境下重新想象残疾提供了丰富的神学见解。
Thursday, 25 September 2025
相逢在「東方」以外——神學與身心障礙的對遇
文|陈文珊/玉山神学院助理教授,香港中文大学名誉助理教授 2024年6月9日
真正适应身心障碍者需要的牧养,不存在于普遍的神学命题,而是在真实处境的生活中。
东方主义与障碍神学
萨依德(Edward W. Said)称用十八、十九世纪的欧洲殖民主义心态来理解东方,视其为对立的他者,并进行带有某种刻板印象化、本质偏见的理解为「东方主义」(orientalism)。然而,东方主义的视角不单侷限在地理空间上,对于那些仿若存在「异次元」的身心障碍者来说,身心健全主义(abelism)的凝视也是非常「东方主义式的」。
拿艾斯兰(Nancy Eiesland)著名的身心障碍神学先驱为例:她因患有先天性的骨骼缺陷,成长过程中不仅曾接受过多次无果的矫治手术,还曾这样描绘自己在教会中的「灵性关怀」:「在教会长大,又终身残障,让我得以了解宗教信仰对残障的诸多回应。那些卫教的说法可以用一些再熟悉不过的话来总结:『你在上帝眼中是特别的,所以你才会残障。』或是:『不要为你现今的痛苦忧虑,到了天家,你就会成为完全。』还有:『感谢上帝,情况没有更糟。』别人告诉我,上帝让我残障,好磨鍊我的性格;到了六、七岁,我相信我已经养成了受用一生的好品格了。我家人常带我去神医特会,我从未得医治。人们问我是否有隐藏的罪,但这些罪必定得隐藏得很好,以致于连我也不知道。我所听到的这些对于残障的宗教诠释,都不足以说明我的经验。」
相较于约翰福音里瞎眼得医治的叙事中耶稣门徒的反应:「这个人生下来就失明,是谁的罪造成的?是他自己的罪或是他父母的罪呢?」(约九 1~2)艾斯兰受到的「灵性关怀」已然友善、亲和得多;至少,没有再把犯罪的「连带污名」扣在身心障碍者的父母身上。
来自于罪?
究竟犹太/基督宗教如何可以把天生的缺陷与障碍者个人的犯罪因果关联起来,说天生目盲是因为这个人犯罪?这个缺失的神学建构,如今透过灵医特会,看似得到了补足;经常抱持成功神学假定的灵恩运动,面对没有什么身体「资本」可言的身心障碍者,既不能怀疑「灵师」的教导有误,又不能质问上帝干了什么,只好祭出想像出来的「犯罪」一说,把责任全推到障碍者身上——必定是因为有隐藏的罪,才没有得到医治。
但是,「因为人人都犯罪」(罗三 23),岂只是身心障碍者?为什么身体健全不会被怀疑是因为犯罪所导致?答案出在基督教信仰带有目的论色彩的自然观:「上帝看祂所创造的一切都很好。」(创一 31)因此,在一般人眼中,身心缺损明显不好!那么,只能得出这样的结论:身心缺损不是上帝造的,而是人犯罪的结果。的确,有的身心障碍与犯罪有关,小至酒驾、不负责任的亲职,大至战争,乃至阶级、殖民主义的体制暴力导致的医疗资源分配不均、卫教资讯不普及,甚或生活环境的污染破坏等等,但这些都必须有可以描述出因果关连的事实佐证。要命的是,神学或信仰上想当然尔的推断,往往缺乏这样的「证据」,还偏偏牢不可破;而它未必出于想「定罪」,更可能是以「关怀」为名!
所幸,随著障碍运动及其人权的兴起,犯罪想像明显「政治不正确」,使得一般教会不再敢明目张胆质疑身心障碍者个人或其亲族犯罪;即便在遇到个案的确是因为犯罪而导致身心障碍的情况下,也多半三缄其口。
化了妆的祝福?
然而,这种把他者仅仅视为客体的「东方主义式」神学想像的幽灵,仍旧以其他样貌一再还魂。在与身心障碍的对遇中,目的论自然观不再扮演要角,主导的是教牧关怀的正向心理学基本预设,让教会不能停止教育身心障碍者要「往好处想」,或是在此世心怀感恩:「还好没有更糟」;或是寄望于来生:「到了天家就成为完全」;或者视「不好」的身心障碍为手段或工具,以达成「好的」,即「化了妆的祝福」:比如让自己拥有好品行,或是成为他人的信心楷模。
这样的说法未必人人都愿意买单。天主教方舟团体创办人范尼云(Jean Vanier),曾经感性地描述智能障碍者如何也能在灵性上教导他人,不少人认为其中不乏过度想像,淡化了障碍对其个人乃至原生家庭带来的重荷。而肢障者史黛拉.杨(Stella Young)亦曾在 TED 中现身说法,质疑身心障碍者为什么非得为别人而活不可?非得成为他人眼中的榜样不可?过度美化身心障碍者,推崇其为天使或圣人般的存在,不但剥夺了身心障碍者个人犯错乃至犯罪的可能,更易使人们对身心障碍的真实生活与边缘处境无视。
圣人或天使岂会有如下的困扰?肢体障碍者可否因为性需求,而要求政府补助召妓?生活无法自理的智能或精神障碍者能否结婚生子,再交给他人抚养?以身为聋人为傲的父母,可不可以透过基因筛选或人工生殖技术协助,选择生下跟自己一样的子代?又或者,身心障碍者是否可以选择安乐死?身体完整性认同障碍患者可否要求动手术切除未罹病的肢体,以满足心理需求?这些艰难的课题,都不是靠把身心障碍浪漫化便可以轻易解决的。
超人类 vs 多元社会
不管是祝福或罪恶,将其侷限在身心障碍个人身上,即是一种本质论立场,视身心障碍为个人的不幸或苦难,从而附加神学的想像与解释。在医疗科技日新月异的现今,身心障碍者在人类历史上首次被想像成为 「超人类」,例如丹尼尔.基什(Daniel K i s h ) 教导盲人使用回声定位(e c h olocation)的方式来骑乘脚踏车,或像约翰.布兰比列(John Bramblitt)以触觉来绘制三度空间、色彩缤纷的绘画,以及「刀锋战士」南非田径选手奥斯卡.佩斯托瑞斯(Oscar Pistorius)用碳纤维义肢打破奥运世界纪录。这种新类型的身心障碍想像,早已出现在「金刚狼」系列描写变种人的电影中,这也说明了为什么具有强大异能的 X 教授,其人设仍旧是坐在轮椅上。倘若未来出现这样的科幻片——宣称使用晶片植入可大幅改善人类选择,解决智能障碍或精神障碍者理性判断或意志自主的限制,应该也不会太令人跌破眼镜。
然而,「谁」会用「什么判准」来判定「哪些」算是残障,常随文化而异。建构论者喜好用「社会或少数模式」(social or minority model)来理解残障,主张身体的缺损并不必然导致障碍,其障碍成因系源于社会对不同身体的歧视与压迫。障碍作为一种近代兴起的人口分类范畴,并没有不同障碍别共享的经验。身心障碍对个人未来生命的影响互异,再加上年龄、性别、种族、性取向,以及阶级种种因素的交互影响,社会对不同身心障碍的接受度与处遇也大不相同。如果真要说不同的残障经验有什么共通之处,那就是都被建构成身体健全主义的对立物。用女性主义身体现象学者艾莉斯.杨(Iris Marion Young)的话来说:个别残障的身体是「处境中的身体」(body in situation),即活生生的在特定社会文化脉络中行动、经验的肉体,它既受到处境限制,同时亦是具有行动自由的能动者。「障碍」根本指的是一种由结构性的不平等制度所形成的社会位置:「限制的结构包括成套的资产分配、规则、规范,以及让哪些人比其他人得到更多自由与谋利的优先排序。限制为个体界定了有效的选项范围,或界定追求一些选项而非其他选项所需的成本」。
建构论主张:身心障碍的改善未必非得藉由医疗作为来达到不可,更何况人类科技也未必真能摆脱所有自然加诸身体的限制,譬如因老年而导致的缺损、失能,乃至障碍,恐怕是身为人永远无法突破的极限处境。一个更具包容且多元的社会,「现在――无需未来」就能够透过资源及机会的重新配置,去除加诸在身心障碍者处境上的诸多限制。在为重度阿兹海默症患者专门打造的荷兰侯格威村(De Hogeweyk),居民买东西忘记付款、不认得回家的路、不知道自己今年几岁,完全不构成障碍。近年来,许多人更希望这样的实验可以推广至实验村外,打造完全无障碍的社会。肢障牧师陈博文生前曾在教会大力推广听人学习手语,方便为聋人打造无障碍沟通的教会及社会环境,则是另一个本土实践神学的例证。
道成肉身的相遇
身心障碍家庭对待障碍的孩子,往往出现「过犹不及」两个极端:一种是「过份保护」,另一种则是「排斥或抛弃」。这种极端也存在于基督教神学中:将障碍者直接排除在牧养之外,拒绝提供适应于他们不同障碍程度及生命阶段的牧养关怀;又或者未经同意,便代为作出包括受洗、认信,乃至求学、求职、结婚、生子等大小决定,以避免他们做错事或犯罪。
神学与障碍是否可能摆脱东方主义式的想像?答案是肯定的!真正适应身心障碍者需要的牧养,不存在于普遍的神学命题,而是在真实处境的生活中;不在于让障碍者作为被照顾的客体,而是让他们成为有喜怒哀乐、能犯错并负责任的主体;不在于教导他们按著刻板印象来发展,而是让他们个别的生命差异及选择能被尊重。
基督教会和神学能否效法基督,真正道成肉身活在障碍者当中?端看我们如何反思与抉择!
God walks at three miles an hour
摘自:God
walks at three miles an hour
05 April 2019
In a culture that prioritises
speed and productivity, we should remember that love takes time, says John
Swinton
THE theology of disability
begins with a question: what does it mean to be disabled — sometimes profoundly
disabled — to be made in God’s image, to be fully human, and to be beautiful,
just the way you are, without having to change anything? Striving to answer
such a question takes one into places and ways of thinking that are not
available by other means.
One of the things that
disability theologians have noticed is that the questions that are asked of
theology tend to come from a certain group of people: theologians. That in
itself is not the problem. The issue is whether theologians have taken the
fullness of human experiences into consideration as they have reflected on the
things of God over time.
If we think about the way in
which academic theology is constructed, it tends to be developed by
well-educated people, usually within a university context. The questions that
academic theologians ask are important. But the questions that they don’t ask are
equally as important. Certain questions that come from other perspectives and
other places within creation are often not asked of the tradition. One of these
other places is the human experience of disability.
Disability theology desires to
explore what happens when the different perspectives and questions that emerge
from human disability are placed alongside scripture and tradition and the
practices of the Church. What does the gospel look like if we ask such
different questions?
AT THE heart of disability
theology is the idea of illumination. John Calvin talks about it, St Augustine
talks about it, Aquinas talks about it. Illumination occurs when something from
scripture suddenly changes the way that you see everything. Illumination is a
mode of revelation; it is a movement of the Spirit wherein we suddenly come to
see a different angle on the way that things are. When we see things
differently, we are illuminated. When we are illuminated, everything changes;
nothing can ever be the same.
Illumination is
action-oriented. It leads to revised understanding and revised practices.
Disability theologians use scripture and tradition to illuminate the human
condition in ways that are sometimes dissonant and surprising.
Think, for example, about the
calling and vocation of Moses. He has a significant speech impediment. God
says, “Listen, I’ve got a big job for you.” What does Moses respond? “I can’t
do it because I’ve got this speech impediment. Could you not send somebody
else?” God basically says to him “Do what you’re told!”
What God does not do is say,
“Oh, hold on a second, I’m going to heal your speech impediment and then you
can go off and fulfil your vocation.” He says: “I’ll send people to help you,
but nothing of you is going to change.” And Moses, that powerful disabled
leader of God’s people, discovers his vocation through that encounter.
And, more than that, what does
God say? He says: “Well, who, do you think, makes blind people blind? Who, do
you think, makes speechless people speechless?” There is something mysterious
about this statement. What on earth does it mean, that God is somehow
implicated in what we choose to call human disability? Some of us might say
that disability is a product of the Fall, or the product of sin and evil, but
God says “No, I did it.”
There is no indication here
that God does this in judgement. God simply says that he does it. I don’t know
what that means, but, at a minimum, it indicates that the God who creates the
universe and loves it into existence, the God who is love, is
deeply implicated in human difference, not in terms of judgement, but as a
loving, creating presence.
So, when we begin to read a
passage like that in the light of human disability, and allow it to illuminate
us, things begin to change.
BESIDES reflecting on
scripture, disability theologians take broader theological ideas and place them
alongside the experience of human disability. Take, for example, the nature of
God’s love.
In the 1960s, a Japanese
theologian, Kosuke Koyama, wrote a book, Three Mile an Hour God (SCM
Press). He noticed that the average speed that human beings walk at is three
miles per hour. Jesus, who is God, walked at three miles per hour. God, who is
love, walks at three miles per hour. Love has a speed, Koyama says, and that
speed is slow. That speed is gentle. That speed is tender.
When you begin to think about
that, it challenges those who think that God is only interested in speed,
productivity, and efficiency. Jesus, who created the universe, the God who
throws the stars into the heavens, is a slow God — a God who takes time to love.
When you begin to recognise God in this rather counter-cultural way, things
begin to change.
I spoke to one of my
colleagues, who works in a busy hospital, about the three-mile-an-hour God. He
said: “This place means that I have to move at nine miles an hour!” I said to
him, “Well, who are you following?” If Jesus is walking at three miles an hour,
and you’re walking at nine miles an hour, who is following whom?
In a culture of speed, we
forget that love takes time, and that love is slow.
If you place that way of
thinking about God-as-slow and time-as-for-love, and place it beside the
experience of people living with advanced dementia, we can begin to see how
important it is to be Christlike in the ways in which we care.
To be with people living with
dementia, you need to slow down and take time for those things that the world
considers to be trivial. When you do this, you will be surprised — and probably
amazed — at what you discover, as you encounter people in the slowness of God’s
love. There is a deep beauty in such illumination.
Jesus talks about gentleness.
In the Beatitudes, he says “I am gentle.” Think about that: “I am gentle.” The
God who creates the universe, the one who is all-powerful, who knows
everything, is not only slow, but is also gentle. A fundamental aspect of being
made in the image of that God is gentleness.
Think what it would be like if
we did our politics gently — even, if we did our church politics gently. Think
what it would be like if we did our relationships gently. You may say, well
it’s impossible; but then you turn to someone such as Jean Vanier, and the
L’Arche communities where people with and without intellectual disabilities
live together, and you begin to see that a gentle way of life may actually be
possible.
Stanley Hauerwas says: “Because
Jean Vanier exists, because the L’Arche communities live slow lives, living
gently is possible.” Perhaps the gospel of gentleness is not so ridiculous
after all.
WHEN we begin to think
differently about scripture in the light of human difference, it opens up a
whole new way of understanding humanness. John Hull, a practical theologian
who, sadly, died a few years ago, lost his sight in his early fifties. In his book Touching
the Rock, he lays out what it is like to lose your sight.
One of the things that he
concluded, eventually, after much grief and lament, was that being blind was
not so bad: it was just another way of being in the world — not a lesser way,
just different. Sighted people assume that looking out on the world is the only
way of being human, and they try as hard as they can to rehabilitate people so
that they can receive as close an approximation of sight as possible. In doing
this, they risk colonising the diversity of humanness.
Hull concludes, however, that
there is no single way of being human. To be human is a wide range of
possibilities, all of which teach us something about how to love. It is only
when we learn to value and appreciate the diversity of the human condition that
we begin to understand the beauty of the diversity of being human — and the
beauty of the diversity of participating in that community that is Jesus’s
body.
The Revd Dr John Swinton is
a former nurse, a minister in the Church of Scotland, and Professor of
Practical Theology and Pastoral Care at the University of Aberdeen. His books
include Dementia: Living in the memories of God, which won the
2016 Michael Ramsey Prize, and Becoming Friends of Time (Reading
Groups, 8 September 2017), both published by SCM Press.
