A Disabled Lord? Continuity and Legibility in the Resurrection

Within the diverse field of Christian disability theology, a particular reading of the resurrected body of Jesus Christ as a disabled body—one which continues to bear the ongoing wounds of the crucifixion even in its glorified state—can be observed. Such a position, often supported by both exegetical interpretations of witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, is undergirded by assumptions about both the continuity and legibility of resurrected, eschatological life. Such readings of a “disabled Lord” are thus employed to promote a fuller understanding of the dignity and personhood of people with disabilities. This paper draws on the queer theology of Linn Tonstad to argue that such assumptions are misplaced. The danger with such approaches to disability and the resurrection is that they repeat logics of continuity and legibility which entrench rather than disrupt continuums of dis/ability and personhood. Drawing off antisocial and nonnormative forms of queer theologizing employed by Tonstad and others, this article instead seeks to attend to the inherent instability and fragility of Christian hopes for the future. I therefore argue that disability theology can be better served by nonlinear, noncontinuous accounts of Christian resurrection.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Disability & Religion
Published
2025-04-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/23312521.2025.2495004
Primary Topic
Biblical Studies and Interpretation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Disabled Lord? Continuity and Legibility in the Resurrection

Andrew Clark‐Howard
Journal of Disability & Religion
Biblical Studies and Interpretation
article

A Disabled Lord? Continuity and Legibility in the Resurrection

Andrew Clark‐Howard
article en

Abstract

Within the diverse field of Christian disability theology, a particular reading of the resurrected body of Jesus Christ as a disabled body—one which continues to bear the ongoing wounds of the crucifixion even in its glorified state—can be observed. Such a position, often supported by both exegetical interpretations of witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, is undergirded by assumptions about both the continuity and legibility of resurrected, eschatological life. Such readings of a “disabled Lord” are thus employed to promote a fuller understanding of the dignity and personhood of people with disabilities. This paper draws on the queer theology of Linn Tonstad to argue that such assumptions are misplaced. The danger with such approaches to disability and the resurrection is that they repeat logics of continuity and legibility which entrench rather than disrupt continuums of dis/ability and personhood. Drawing off antisocial and nonnormative forms of queer theologizing employed by Tonstad and others, this article instead seeks to attend to the inherent instability and fragility of Christian hopes for the future. I therefore argue that disability theology can be better served by nonlinear, noncontinuous accounts of Christian resurrection.

Journal of Disability & ReligionVol. 30(1)
Charles Sturt University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Biblical Studies and Interpretation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A Disabled Lord? Continuity and Legibility in the Resurrection — Andrew Clark‐Howard · Journal of Disability & Religion (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS