Regarding the Miraculous...

"The extreme greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering, but a supernatural use for it." -- Simone Weil



I’m not a Bible scholar by any means, but I do try to read something from the Bible every day. And right now, I’m plodding through the book of Matthew.


I say plodding not because I’m not enjoying it – I am, very much – and not because it’s taking longer than I want it to. It IS taking me a long time to get through, but not in a bad way. Rather, as I’ve been reading, I’m finding that Matthew is becoming one of my favorite books.


From what I’ve read, Matthew paints one of the most fascinating pictures of Jesus -- and there are so many passages that I find very slippery and mysterious, and I’m taking joy in my lack of understanding it all.


As the first of the four Gospels, you might think it would paint an easier, more direct picture of Jesus. And yet, the more I read, the more I find that, even as someone raised in a very conservative Christian church, there are more and more parts of it that I don’t remember reading before.


I’m about halfway through it right now, in Chapter 15, where Jesus, after again confounding the Pharisees, performs more miracles, including healing a Canaanite woman and feeding four thousand people near the Sea of Galilee. Earlier in the book of Matthew, he’d already healed the sick ‘throughout Galilee’, healed a man with leprosy, healed a Centurion’s servant, healed two demon-possessed men, healed a man with paralysis, brought the daughter of a ruler back to life, and healed the blind and mute.


I have read that many branches of Christianity read these stories of the miraculous in different ways. For some – like the church I was raised in – they are meant to be taken very literally; we see Jesus in a direct, overt way, bringing supernatural power to touch people and heal them. We’re supposed to use this as an example, to ourselves grasp that power and act as Jesus did. The fact that many of these people had suffered for years only demonstrates how the power of God is able to overcome any difficulty, regardless of history or circumstance.


But for some Christian traditions, the stories are meant as a kind of allegory. Maybe Jesus really did heal many of these people, but that isn’t necessarily the point – rather, the portrayal laid out in the four Gospel books is meant to provide a framework for the Church, a guide to what is possible through the power of God. Jesus brought compassion and healing to the lost in society, and we are encouraged to do the same in whatever way we can, though it isn’t necessarily supposed to mean we’re doing these things supernaturally.

Much of this was explained more eloquently and in better detail in Brian McLaren's book, "A Generous Orthodoxy."


Both views, I suppose, have validity, and there’s a danger inherent in being closed to either idea. On the one hand, if we ONLY believe these miracles are meant to be taken literally, at face value, then what do we make of instances in which people pray for healing and it doesn’t happen? And if we ONLY have an allegorical view of the miracles Jesus performed, is the Church selling itself short by not allowing the power of God to work to its full potential?


But beyond these ideas, a third one came to mind as I was reading. And that is, that it seems to me Jesus always granted the miraculous to those who had no other hope of finding healing or relief. When he feeds four thousand people in Chapter 15it isn’t just because they’re hungry: “I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.” (Matthew 15:32) They are perhaps miles away from any food source…


In contrast, the Pharisees and Sadduccees come to Jesus in the next chapter, and ask for a miraculous sign from heaven; and they are quickly rebuked. “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” (16:2-4)


I guess from all of this, I take away two ideas…first, I see the underlying message being spelled out that God helps those who help themselves – we’re not to rely on the miraculous when it isn’t necessary, because that isn’t what faith is about. Handling poisonous snakes for the sake of doing something dangerous to prove the power of God is beyond foolhardy – it’s in violation of what we’re meant to be doing with our time and effort, especially when so many people are suffering and need our help.


And second, I believe, the miraculous is real…it’s just that in the present age we live in, it’s becoming less and less necessary. Is there a necessity to miraculously stretch tiny amounts of our food to feed the hungry, when our real problem in feeding the poor in places like Africa is one of distribution? We have enough food to feed the world…how do we get it to people in countries ruled by dictators who refuse to give that food to those who need it most?


But that’s not to say it’s NEVER necessary. We still pray in my church. We still pray for the miraculous, for healing, for peace. People will always have needs that aren’t met by modern medicine or modern conveniences.


I hope we never sell ourselves short in this respect…