Oh no! Here we go again - at least, that's what I thought at first.
The issue of Christ's miracles has been one that has been wrestled with in our modern, western Christian context for some time. While reading Drane, I thought (if only for a moment) certainly that he was going to attempt what so man have done before him - rationalize Christ's works. Although the author starts off by challenging the dismissive tendencies of many who have come before him, calling attempts to define the undefinable (given our cultural understandings) "outmoded and defensive [forms] of intellectual and cultural imperialism," (p. 140) Drane uses language that feels as though he will "hedge his bet." He then continues to say that we must "take full account of whatever evidence might be available," (Ibid.) and that "people can look at the same event and depending on their perspective, make rather different assessments of what has taken place," (Ibid.) This where I thought he was going to break out in a form of rationalism.
I'd like to pause for a brief exploration of my own thoughts on this matter. When I look at the biblical stories of the miracles of Christ, I can come to one of three conclusions (that I can think of - perhaps there are more). First, they happened and a supernatural witness has been given. My second choice would be to rationalize the details: I might say Jairus' dau
ghter wasn't really dead - she was just asleep (Jesus even said so). Then the third choice I have is to say that it's all myth - not done to hurt anyone, but unreal stories all the same. As I try to work through these three options, I can deal with two of them, but I have trouble with a third. Please don't consider me a heretic until you get to the end of this little thought of mine. Now, from a simple logic I've built into my head, I might accept that the stories are talking about supernatural occurrences. Just because I haven't experienced something does not mean that I do not believe it to be a part of the human experience. As an example, I have never been to France, yet I have no doubt it is there - I consider the testimony of others to be credible. Then, on the other hand, I could also believe that the stories are myths - tales meant to point to a good lesson, but not documenting real events in any way. I don't think for even more than...well, two minutes anyway...that the fox was really clever enough to relieve the crow of its cheese, but I still get the point relevant to my ego!
But friends, I have trouble with the notion of rationalization. Here's the thing - the proponents of rationalization say that we have to look to the times and see that they didn't have science and understanding. Somehow, our invention of the atom bomb has given us brilliant insight into how simple of mind the people of biblical times must have been - so the miracles happened, but were just unexplained science. Here's the trouble I have with this thought: leaving the wonders of science and sliced bread aside - rationalization says the human experience is so substantially different now than it was then that we are all but different beings. Check it - Jesus is said to have healed the blind, returned the dead to life, and fed many thousands of people with a pack of fun buns and a box of Highliner Fish Sticks. Now blind has always meant blind, and that means (and meant) CANNOT see. I don't think the young man outside the Temple would tell you any differently. Not since Cain, has dead meant anything but NOT ALIVE. Folks in Jesus' time knew dead when they saw it - it had been around for a while and they too had to deal with diagnosing it, and treating it. The trouble for them remains our trouble today - it's not so good to keep the dead lying around the living room (especially in the summer). Finally, my family of six does well to keep everyone happy at the table with a half a haddock and a 10 pound bag of french fried potatoes. There is NO WAY that Jesus, the disciples, and a little boy all made the mistake of seeing only two little fish and five loaves, if there was really enough food there to keep a McDonald's restaurant going for a month.
We can no more today return sight to a man or woman born blind by spitting in the mud and wiping it on their eyes than regular people could 2000 years ago. Doctors are not able to command the dead to live again anymore than they could while Jesus walked the earth. And, I can split my sandwich with you, and we'll be okay, but in a crowd of 5000 (plus wives and kids) at least 4998 are going hungry. The stories of the miracles, along with the rest of the Gospels, leave us with a decision that can't find the middle ground of rationalism. Each of us must confess they happened as supernatural facts, or refute their historicity all together.
I believe in miracles, and in demons, and in the eternal life Jesus promised - I believe in the supernatural. The Gospels document these aspects of the human experience. Now I'm stuck working through what that means for my life on this side of the grass. I want to leave you with two verses that make my heart swell - I read these few words and I am humbled, and joyous, and courageous, and filled in ways I find hard to express. John 21:24-25.
Pretty amazing verses aren't they...I wish some more had been written, it certainly implies that many more incredible things happened.
ReplyDeleteI too think that we need to not underestimate the intelligence of the people during the time of Jesus, they knew the difference between demon possessed and and epilepsy (can we say the same thing about ourselves?) and dead has always meant dead, I've never heard of blindness or deafness being physcosomatic, although muteness could be. I'm a pretty rational person myself but even i can't doubt the validity of the miracles, too many witnesses, too much detail, and too much agreement by opposing factions (the Sadducees and Pharisees didn't deny he was working miracles, just when and by whose power he was doing them!)