Pulse
19 Oct 2026
As an ideological trend in academic discourse, wokeism has influenced almost every discipline including politics, economics, sexuality and gender and the law. It is therefore not at all surprising that it has made significant inroads in disability studies as well. Like many of the disciplines that have come in the grip of this ideology, woke disability discourse is nestled in the intersection of critical disability studies, social justice narratives and broader debates about language, identity and power.
At the heart of this discourse is critical disability studies (CDS), which represents a set of rhetorical and narratival moves that bear family resemblances to their cousins such as Critical Race Theory. Shaped by the works of scholars such as Dan Goodley of the University of Sheffield and Robert McRuer of George Washington University, CDS’s main dogma is that disability is not a medical condition. Rather, it is a social and political category governed by ableist norms and cultural representations.
Put differently, CDS is established on the social model of disability (in contrast with the medical model) which defines disability in terms of societal perception rather than physical and mental impairments. The woke approach adds to the mix the concept of intersectionality, which insists that disability is not a monolithic experience but a complex confluence of factors such as colour, gender, sexual orientation, and more.
Woke disabilities discourse therefore challenges traditional approaches to disabilities by arguing that ableism is often employed as an instrument of discrimination and subordination. It asks who gets to define normality and disability and interrogates how disability is framed in public policy, media, and institutional practices. In academia, journals such as Disability Studies Quarterly and the Journal of Disabilities Policy Studies critique disability discourse in policy, education, culture and law.
To be sure, woke disability discourse has uncovered real but hidden discrimination and prejudice against people with disabilities which frequently result in their marginalisation in society. Its emphasis on inclusivity and equity has also challenged prevailing cultural conventions and mindset and brought about a change in attitude and approach to people with disability. This has resulted in the creation and fostering of accessible environments and the intentional move to ensure diverse representations.
However, woke disabilities discourse has also come under considerable criticism. For example, some critiques have pointed out that such discourse could elevate a particular lived-experience narrative to the status of epistemic privilege. These narratives are sometimes regarded as morally decisive, which not only means that they are beyond critical evaluation and interrogation but also that they are the authoritative basis for public policy.
Woke disabilities discourse has also made its way into Christian reflections of disability, resulting in serious distortions in the doctrine of creation, theological anthropology and even eschatology. This is a concerning development that deserves serious attention.
One striking way in which woke disability discourse has impacted and shaped Christian reflection is its revisioning of the doctrines of Creation and Fall. According to the traditional account, disability in whatever shape or form was never the creational intention of God when he brought the world into being – a creation that he more than once pronounced as ‘good’ and ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:3, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). Disability is the consequence of the disobedience and the Fall of the first human couple.
Theologians such as Nancy L. Eiesland reject what they regard as a simplistic causal link between original sin and physical or mental disabilities. They maintain that the fact that the Bible uses the language of ‘good’ (or ‘very good’) but not ‘perfect’ indicates that there is a spectrum of abilities within the original creation. Thus, there is, they claim, a profound relational richness and diversity in embodied human life.
Once this premise is established, contemporary disability theology echoes the assertions found in the social model of disability which regards disability as the result of social exclusion, not the deficit of body or mind. It urges Christians to listen to the experiences, voices and narratives of disabled people instead of relying on traditional and often ableist conceptions of brokenness and healing as salvation.
One of the most arresting aspects of disability theology is its radical reinterpretation of the healing miracles of Jesus, especially those involving blindness, such as the man born blind in John 9. Traditional interpretations connect Jesus’ healing miracles to the original intention of God in creation as well as the reality of God’s eschatological kingdom which Jesus has inaugurated. Together with sickness and death, disability was not the intention of God in creation and will be eradicated when the divine kingdom is fully consummated.
Theologians such as Amos Yong critiques ableist interpretations of the healing miracles of Jesus, particularly where disability is implicitly associated with sin, deficiency, or diminished personhood. Drawing from John 9, Yong highlights Jesus’ explicit rejection of a causal link between sin and disability and interprets the healing as a revelation of the works of God that cannot be reduced to the restoration of normative functions.
Drawing from disability justice, some theologians further argue that the healing miracles in the Gospels should be carefully contextualised within the dynamics of the socio-religious dynamics of the first century. For them, the real issue that these stories address is not the healing of the disabled but their social exclusion from the temple.
Thus, some disability theologians argue that the church should not pray for the disabled to be healed. They should instead work towards the ‘healing’ of attitudes such as prejudice or discrimination and the social structures that support them, that is, for systemic change that accommodates diversity.
This brings us to the radical proposals of disability theology regarding the resurrection and eschatology. With determined consistency, disability theology insists that visions of glorification associated with traditional Christian teaching must be rejected because they smack of ableist bias.
Disability, it argues, does not signal lack, defect or failure which will be corrected by the resurrection. The bodies and minds of the disabled are already properly human, as are their lives. Disability does not signify deficiency or damage, only difference. Eschatology, then, must not be seen as what is sometimes pejoratively described as a massive cosmic rehabilitation project.
Alluding to the wounds of Christ that continue to scar his resurrected body, disability theology argues that this serves as a fundamental Christological basis for asserting that resurrection has to do with continuity, not erasure. Theologians such as Brian Brock, Francis Young and Amos Yong present nuanced arguments which broadly state that the bodies of the disabled (especially those who were disabled from birth) are part of their identities. Their removal (healing) at the resurrection may suggest that the individual raised may be different from the individual who had died.
For disability theology, eschatology has to do not with the removal of disabilities but with the eradication of biased and jaundiced social attitudes that fracture human relationships. This, of course, fits squarely into the mould of the social approach to disability.
Needless to say, this is a radical departure from the traditional teaching of the Bible and the Church. It is a view that is so burdened by the very real discrimination and ostracization of people with disability and so convinced by the liberating power of the social paradigm that it is compelled to reshape every doctrine.
However, in doing so, it has distorted – perhaps unwittingly — the message of the New Testament and indeed, the Gospel itself.
Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore).