Speaking in signs: Communicating the gospel with deaf people in Zimbabwe

Kimion Tagwirei

doi:10.4102/ve.v42i1.2322

Abstract

Churches in Zimbabwe have excluded deaf people, limiting their access, presence and participation in Missio Dei and Missio Ecclesiae. So far, there is minimal Zimbabwean theological scholarly attention to communicating the gospel with deaf people. Much of the available related literature focusses on education for deaf people. This article applies a critical disability theory, which is explanatory, practical, normative, and promotes equality and inclusion. In this contribution, communication of the gospel with deaf people is explored. Against the backdrop of marginalisation of deaf people and the inconsideration of the hearing Church, this study interrogated the gospel communication gap that needs to be bridged between deaf people and the hearing Church. The culture of deaf people and communication of the gospel in Zimbabwe were examined. Reflecting through a topic ‘Speaking in signs: Communicating the gospel with deaf people in Zimbabwe’, using a qualitative research methodology through interviews with 20 participants from different institutions for deaf people and Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe, this research observed that very few denominations have reached out to deaf people with the gospel, whilst the majority have not. The study challenges traditionally exclusive Zimbabwean ecclesiology, missiology and communication of the gospel. It recommends inclusive and contextualised communication of the gospel through the incorporation of sign language and deaf culture towards effective evangelisation and discipleship of deaf people.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The trainers of deaf people, Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe and deaf people themselves provided an example of an interdisciplinary approach to communicating the gospel with deaf people in Zimbabwe where Ecclesiology, Communication and Disability Studies collaborate towards inclusive sharing of the gospel, and the realisation of Missio Dei and Missio Ecclesiae in Zimbabwe.

Highlights

For a long time, deaf people have been marginalised, discriminated against and isolated (Ncube 2017; Park 2009:28; Tamez 2007:105) globally and in Zimbabwe by the Church whose culture, language and symbols have remained separated from those of deaf people (Broesterhuizen 2005:308; Lopez 2015)
This article observed that the majority of churches in Zimbabwe have not yet reached out to deaf people with the gospel, and that there is a wide gap that needs to be bridged between deaf people and the hearing Church
There is a dire need for deaf people to be included in Missio Dei and Missio Ecclesiae

Summary

Introduction

Deaf people have been marginalised, discriminated against and isolated (Ncube 2017; Park 2009:28; Tamez 2007:105) globally and in Zimbabwe by the Church whose culture, language and symbols have remained separated from those of deaf people (Broesterhuizen 2005:308; Lopez 2015). Mutswanga and Sithole (2014:25) concur and add deaf people have varied hearing losses and use varied means of communication They use sign language, assistive listening devices or sign language interpreters. The term deaf is used to mean all people who have varied hearing challenges, people who have their culture with sign language as their major means of communication. Churches in Zimbabwe have excluded deaf people from its services and programmes and thereby have deprived them of the gospel for ages Churches, in their inconsideration towards deaf people, neglect sign language and deaf culture and exclude them from Missio Dei and Missio Ecclesiae. Deaf people appreciate having hearing people signing with them but need empowerment and freedom to evangelise, disciple and develop each other with the gospel. This article probed into ecclesiastic communication with deaf people highlighting the need for contextualisation, evangelisation, discipleship and edification of deaf people to communicate the gospel amongst themselves locally and beyond Zimbabwean borders

Research methodology

Conclusion

Findings

Ethical considerations