The subject of miracles has come up a few times in the past week, and it got me thinking about it. First off, I spent Friday and Saturday attending a series of lectures by Marcus Borg, a well-known scholar of the Historical Jesus and a proponent of what he terms ‘liberal progressive’ Christianity. The lectures were very interesting, and I agreed with a lot of what he had to say.
For example, he laid out a few ways that the free gift of God’s grace towards humanity has often been overshadowed in the history of the Church by fear of heresy or conflict. In any study of the early church, it quickly becomes apparent that the standard of salvation was to believe what was pronounced as ‘orthodox’. These propositions tended to be put forth by people who often had just as much political power as ecclesiastical.* During the Reformation, Martin Luther railed against the late medieval version of this behavior and reminded us of that gift of free grace. Unfortunately, within a short period of time, the ongoing conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and various Protestant groups led to Luther’s original idea being corrupted so that it was the belief in the theological concept of free grace (as opposed to works) that made one saved, not actually the grace itself. This is a subtle but important difference in how we as human beings approach God. Free grace means that there is no ‘if…’ statement, but that, first and foremost, God loves us just as we are. I can very much agree with Borg’s point here.
However, when it came to miracles, he described how, in most modern biblical scholarship, such episodes in the Bible are generally regarded to be factually untrue, and in fact are unhelpful to modern Christian faith since they ask people to believe in “the factuality of the spectacular.” He says that this is something that no modern Church, grounded in the scientific age, should expect people to believe. In this he includes such things as the virgin birth, Jesus walking on the water, and Jesus curing a man blind from birth (although curiously he does say that he thinks Jesus could have healed a man who became ‘blind’ for other reasons than simply not having the correct ocular equipment — no real explanation of the distinction though).
The next sign was a post made by my friend Fr. Nick Knisely, regarding a new book in the UK that does very much the same thing, speaking specifically about the ‘nature miracles’ such as Jesus turning water into wine or calming the storm at sea and also the creation story in Genesis.** He also links to an article by Ruth Glendhill in The Times about a teaching document put forth by the Roman Catholic bishops of Great Britain a few years ago that makes very much the same point.
This led me to recall a sermon I preached last year where I discussed miracles. In it, I said the following:
… as some of the most far-reaching branches of science, especially theoretical physics and cosmology, are teaching us, what we can see or experience in our three-dimensional universe is not necessarily what is true. To us, the miracles in the gospels seem, well, miraculous. But to God, miracles are not miraculous. They are normal. God subsists in such a way that the divine nature is not bound by the constraints of our human existence … The reality of God is not above our reality or beyond our reality in any kind of spatial or dimensional terms that we can express. The reality of God is, by definition, completely and profoundly different than our reality. We have to readjust our perspective of the universe in light of the radical change worked by God in the Incarnation …
What I find interesting is that Fr. Nick makes a similar and related point in the comments responding to some questions about his post:
As a scientist (and more so as a physicist) I’ve never had any problems believing in the miracles described in the Bible. Quantum Physics (or at least the classical understanding of it) would say that such things are explicitly allowed to occur - they are just highly unlikely. If the Lord of all Creation is walking around, then selecting out a specific outcome of an observation of reality (even if VERY unlikely) is then pretty much even more allowable.
Speaking more as a believer - and one who’s spirituality leans towards the mystic end of the spectrum - I’ve always understood this as something that can only be viewed through eyes of faith. The same eyes that let us see more deeply into the truth of reality than would the eyes of a skeptic.
It’s really a modernist behavior though to insist though that something did or did not happen specifically.
I feel that this expresses the point I was trying to make in another way (and from a perspective of someone with rather more formal scientific training than I possess).
To conclude, the part of Borg’s lectures that troubled me the most was his fairly clear statement that he cannot accept the traditional understanding of the doctrine of the Incarnation. He believes that Jesus was a ‘Jewish mystic’ and that God did not send him to Earth for any specific purpose but that, after the crucifixion, God said ‘Yes!’ to Jesus and his life and teachings in a special and ‘decisive’ way through the resurrection, and that is how we end up with our Christ-centered Way to God. As should be clear by the excerpt from my sermon, the Incarnation is very important to me, and while I can go some of the way with Borg regarding Jesus’ human characteristics, I must fit that in with the definition of Chalcedon where Christ is divine as well.
While I would agree with Borg that “God never wants anyone to be crucified,” I do not think that precludes the idea that God might have made the Word flesh in the incarnation in order to begin the rebuilding of creation. We humans had managed to screw it up already fairly well, and we just went one step further in crucifying Jesus. However, as always, God is able to take what we screw up and do more good with it than we can possibly ask or imagine. Even, perhaps, with a miracle.
* I should make it clear here that by this statement, I am not saying I do not believe that good, true statements about the nature of God and Jesus Christ did not come out of these deliberations and councils, but perhaps rather that the Holy Spirit worked in spite of them instead of through them at certain points.
** The Genesis story is, of course, a myth. ‘Myth’ is a term that I have come to appreciate more and more over recent years. It is NOT, as much of the modern world believes, the same as fiction. Rather it speaks to a much greater and deeper truth about humanity. In words attributed to the 4th century Roman philosopher Sallustius: “a myth is a story about the way things never were but always are.”
