The Disabled God Revisited

Many Christian communities prioritize the inclusion of persons with disabilities in their common life. Theologians are assisting in this effort by attending to how the lives and experiences of persons with disabilities might change traditional articulations of Christian doctrine, and thus transform congregational practices. Nancy Eiesland’s The Disabled God: A Liberatory Theology of Disability (Abingdon, 1994) was one of the earliest attempts to rethink Christian doctrine in light of disability. The book’s lasting influence largely stems from Eiesland’s exegesis of Jesus’ appearance to his disciples in the Upper Room (John 20:19-29). Jesus invites Thomas to touch “scars” or “wounds” (the translation of the Greek word is fiercely contested), the marks of crucifixion that remained on Jesus’ body. Eiesland argues that these “marks” show that the resurrection does not “perfect” physical bodies and hence physical disabilities might persist in the resurrection.

Lisa Powell’s The Disabled God Revisited: Trinity, Christology, and Liberation returns to Eiseland’s argument, which is the subject of numerous critiques. Some argue that Eiesland’s focus on physical scars sidelines questions of intellectual disability. Others question if the marks on Jesus’ body indicate a remaining disability. Powell argues that classical doctrines of resurrection “project” the current social order onto doctrines of resurrection, critiquing Eiesland for not including intellectual disability. This criticism is unfair, since Eiesland notes that her reflections were based on her own experience of physical disability, and Thomas, at the center of her account of disability, only encounters physical scars as well. Still, Powell revists some of Eiesland’s arguments in light of the conversations now ongoing in theology, combining insight with rigor to move the conversation forward.

Powell focuses on how the experiences of persons with disabilities can transform the doctrines of God and the Trinity. Traditionally, Christian theologians ascribe independence and self-sufficiency to God, and so Christians consider both to be virtues. However, self-sufficiency and independence are difficult for some disabled people because of a lack of societal accommodations. Divine independence entails that God’s existence depends on nothing or no one. Powell employs a contested reading of Karl Barth put forward by theologian Bruce McCormick, which argues that God self-elected God’s own triune nature, such that God’s nature is conditioned by something that is not God. Hence a relationship with creation through Christ and the Holy Spirit is constitutive of God’s being from the beginning, not simply a response to human sin. I wish that Powell had engaged more directly with other authors advocating for supralapsarianism. At the same time, the book’s reliance on Barth may not be compelling to readers who do not consider themselves Barthians. It is important to remember Eiesland’s work was influential because it relied on Scriptural texts shared by all Christians.

 Powell passionately argues for rethinking traditional formulations of the doctrines of God and the Trinity. She articulates clear links between disability, liberation, and “queer” theologies. Theologians in these movements all interrogate who creates and enforces definitions of “normal.” While this link is made in political theory, Powell shows theological links as well. Her treatment of Linn Tonstad’s Trinitarian theology is one of the most significant engagements of Tonstad to date. Powell uses Tonstad to address concerns raised by disability theologians, although the argument is highly technical and might be too obscure for readers who do not follow current debates in academic theology.

Despite Powell’s creativity and rigor, she makes several difficult-to-defend claims. Most offensively, she argues that individuals with disability only desire healing because they “fear dependency and loss of productivity, and our eschatological visions glorify notions of independence and self-sufficiency" (121). This physically disabled reviewer seeks healing to experience the ability to move and rest freely, desires unrelated to economics. Perhaps Powell is correct in observing that our hopes are formed by culture, but they can also be the result of discernment and prayer. A more nuanced and less definitive answer to why some people with disabilities desire healing in this life or eschatologically would strengthen this book. Postures of receptivity can open one to the gift of care, from which we can learn grace. However, care given in the wrong spirit can humiliate a careseeker and no caregiver or community of caregivers can be so present to prevent all physical struggles. As a clinician, I hear experiences of both grace and humiliation, and I experienced both while receiving care as a physically disabled man. Powell challenges the notion that people with disabilities are asexual and lack embodied passion, despite the complexities physical intimacy with a physical disability.

One can disagree with portions of Powell’s arguments while appreciating her many insights. The book’s strongest contribution is its sophisticated exploration of the doctrine of God in relation to diverse experiences of disability. Some individuals with disabilities struggle with their condition, some cry out for healing even while experiencing grace, community, and pleasure. Our desires for healing are not simply the result of economic pressures. Powell paints a compelling picture of God as constituted for relationship with the bodies God “fearfully, wonderfully made” and defends embodiment’s goodness and the communal nature of liberation. This is an important contribution to the literature on theology and disability and will move conversations forward.

Aaron Klink is chaplain at Pruitt Hospice in Rocky Mount, North Carolina.

Aaron Klink

Date Of Review:

February 27, 2024