Comments on: The Theology of Disability

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 02:09:12 +0000

[picking up at the end of the extra-long comment above...]

…curing or healing of disability is similarly effacing, unless a criterion for whether a healing from disability is effacing or not is that healing must stem from the will of the disabled person, not from something external to that person’s will. Which brings me to…

2). “Continuity of identity” as construed in this piece seems alien to Christian soteriology. We are called to be imitators of Christ; Scripture is full of the language of self-effacement; and Revelation 21 describes the resurrection not only as a “making new,” but also as a “passing away of former things.” Resurrection implies the possibility of losing some aspect of our earthly identities in order to have our original identities renewed; in fact, it suggests that only when certain aspects of our earthly state are effaced can we become glorified selves.

In the soteriology suggested in parts of this piece, if a disabled person does not embrace their disability as constitutive of identity, are they resurrected healed, while those who do so embrace it are not—thus making us the arbiters of our glorified persons, not God? And what about psychological disability? Does a person suffering from sociopathy who embraces such a disability as part of their identity retain their sociopathy after the resurrection? Or are only certain disabilities constitutive of identities, while others are not?

By: Joseph

Joseph — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:50:38 +0000

I think it’s absolutely vital for us to think through theology and theodicy in light of disability. The theology of the cross–in its multiple forms–is most certainly at the heart of such a project. However, although I find much to agree with in the original post, I must say that I find the piece’s emphasis on the importance of self-identity in connection to the resurrection puzzling. In constructing the binary between “non-redemptive liberation theology” and what he construes as an unhelpful theology of the resurrection, Carlson describes the latter thus:

“The opposite danger [to non-redemptive liberation theology] is to collapse disability into a grand narrative of sin in such a way that redemption of disability becomes redemption from disability. For those suffering with chronic disabilities, this means that their continuity of identity is effectively destroyed by an anomalous resurrection. Resurrection as conceived this way is not a renewal and transfiguration of an old creation, but an erasing of the old to make way for something completely new. This leaves those with lifelong disabilities left with no theological anchor by which they can live out their experience in relationship to God and the world.”

The suggestion here, as in the conclusion of the piece, is that a final resurrection that fully heals the disabled person somehow effaces that person’s identity. Two points:

1). There seems to be no justification for the claim that a resurrection that fully heals disability automatically effaces individuality or produces an “anomalous” (anonymous?) person. Would such a premise mean that a person previously suffering from tremendous disability finally cured by purely medicinal/surgical means would be somehow harmed or effaced? Surely if a resurrection that completely heals us from disability is “anomalous” (anonymous?), then a purely earthly…

By: Kelby Carlson

Kelby Carlson — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:53:59 +0000

I feel very privileged to be mentioned on this blog. This is a dialogue that I hope continues. And to the commentor above: you addressed something that was latent in my post that I wasn’t able to write about at length–namely, the way we should view treatment of disabilities in light of this kind of theological enterprise. I have little to add other than a hearty Amen.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:17:27 +0000

“Disability is a symbol or metonymy of the larger experience before God: one of weakness, alienation and dependence. . . .”
“Grace is seen as a means of living in and through suffering. Chronic weakness is seen as real strength. In fact, it is the only way to truly approach God in faith.”

In light of these two affirmations especially, we recognize that the disabled remind us of our ontological dependence on God, the world and others. Although one’s dignity is non-contingent upon one’s ability to exercise initiative, since human persons, even at their healthiest and strongest stages, are naturally dependent, and thus formal-autonomous independence is an illusion, this doesn’t dispense the responsibility to seek treatment for disabilities. In fact, the very awareness of one’s dependence and whole reliance on Another inspires many to humbly seek to treat, comfort and care for those–especially at the earliest and latest stages of life–with severe mental and physical disabilities. In truth, only such an ontological view of human being can foster an environment of care. A cultural environment informed by a relational-ontology is less likely to view a currently incurable disability an intolerable condition that’s only humane answer is ending the suffering. Furthermore, such a culture is more likely to invest the time, resources and risk necessary to develop potential treatments or simply care for disabilities. A culture informed by a relational-dependent-ontology is a realist one that seeks treatment for real pathologies as far as possible, but nonetheless recognizes that human limits are a naturally intrinsic condition of human being and flourishing. Such limits include suffering and death, the complete abolition of which is humanly impossible, possible only through life in the Alive Man, and all human efforts at thus can only end in the abolition of humanity.