I believe in miracles... kinda.

Believe it or not, but most church belief statements do not have a section that indicates that as Christians we have to believe in miracles. This may seem odd, because by definition don't Christians HAVE to believe in miracles? Surprisingly, not necessarily. It is a highly controversial matter, to be sure, but it is not without sound reasoning.

I want to set aside some wreckless criticism that some Evangelical theologians have lodged against this view. William Lane Craig has said that some "liberal" theologians have done away with miracles because they have a predisposition to physicalism. This is false. In fact, I think it can be turned around to apply in the opposite fashion. Those who all too easily believe in miracles cling to "evidences" which manifest themselves in the physical world making them cling all the more to a materialistic faith. It can be argued, granted perhaps very weakly, that belief in miracles is more indicative of physicalism then the non-belief in miracles. But it is not my position that miracles do not exist. Rather, I do not think they are necessary for the Christian narrative.

Now, I dare say that I believe that a willingness for miracles is necessary for faith. But this does not prove the existence of miracles. I believe in miracles to the extent that I believe they are possible and I desire to see them, but I do not believe in miracles in the sense that they are proven through a historical analysis. In fact, I think such ideas are silly when we take an honest look at the realities.

So I begin from a humble position. I accept that miracles are possible, but I need adequate evidence in order to affirm that a miracle has actually happened.

Let's begin with the most obvious question. How can I call myself a Christian and suspend belief in the historicity of miracles? For the lay reader I fear that my answer may seem like a parlor trick.

Let's begin with the resurrection. Jesus' body was not put in a tomb. It was buried and God exalted the spirit or soul of Jesus into heaven, and it was this exaltation which became a spiritual resurrection the moment Jesus "appeared" to his disciples. For all intents and purposes a spiritual body is the same in both narratives. And the "appearances" were private events. They could have just as easily been visions that received legendary embellishment through the Jewish practice of midrash.

What about Jesus' miracles? It was prophesied that the messiah would heal and cast out demons, so the disciples who knew Jesus to be the messiah because of his resurrection did not lie or decieve, but in a very Jewish fashion crafted the narratives of his life to already possess the qualities which they already knew existed in him. The miracles themselves are similar to previous miracles performed by Moses or Elijah. They were crafted with the intent of informing their audience that the same God who was with Moses was also with Jesus. Jesus is the new Moses, or the new Elijah.

What about prophecy? The books of the prophets represent a tradition of social justice that was realized after the exile in confrontation with the secular world stripping the Jews of their religious heritage. The Jews were thrust into the world of history and they had to craft a new narrative which demonstrated God's everlasting care and concern for his people, even though such an experience was not available to them. Prophecy casts the plight of the Jewish people in the framework of a timeless reality. Writing of events already past as though they were future events, or current events as though they existed as future realities built the framework for the Jewish people that their history, culture, and reality would be forever and timeless. The message of the prophets was to forge ahead with a broken faith. The Temple had been destroyed and their heritage lost. This reality given the interpretive problems of prophecy make it a plausible fact that there is no "future-ness" to prophecy at all, but a realization in the present moment of God's timelessness and our solidarity with man because of our infinite nature.

Surely creation was a miracle! I can agree to an extent, but we have no reliable scientific account in the Bible which affirms a physical creation. Genesis was written in the context of many competing origin myths. The writer of Genesis masterfully crafted this narrative to demonstrate aspects of God's love and compassion for humanity as opposed to other myths which are similar, and believe me, there are many similarities. So even if I can agree philosophically that physical reality was supernaturally created I have no indication that this is a part of the Christian narrative.

What about prayer, tongues of fire, signs and wonders, raising people from the dead, and so on that we see in Acts? Were there no miracles in the early church? Again, I am not doubtful of whether or not miracles existed at certain points in history. That will be discussed later. I am doubtful that these miracles are a part of the narrative of Christianity. I doubt that Acts records genuine miracles. Since we have established a way of speaking of spiritual activity as though it were "supernatural" in order to convey the message and hope that God is with us and working in us we have no reason to think that Acts would be any different. Tongues of fire when read in conjunction with the story of Babel paints an interesting story that rebuilds the Christian origins as undoing the catastrophes we read about in Genesis. The birth of the church is the new unity for mankind, just as Babel was the birth of its division. In this sense, no literal tongues of fire need exist. The power of the story is consistent with Jewish spirituality.

I guess Revelation is just a book of made up non-sense! Not exactly. Many of the aspects of Revelation represent current trials the Christian church was facing at that time. Persecution, martyrdom, and exile. Revelation is like any other apocalyptic book written in that time frame. It was common to depict current trials as though they existed as future cosmic events of ultimate significance and meaning. A king who persecuted Christians would become the embodiment of the anti-Christ and he would have to do battle with the forces of haven to ultimately loose. This kind of story telling provided comfort and meaning for the first Christians and is in many ways an embodiment of the prophetic spirit during the Jewish exile.

So you see. We can cast our Christian narrative in a light that possesses no miracles. Whether or not we are justified in doing so is another issue. This will largely depend on whether or not the use of Higher Criticism is an appropriate hermeneutical method, or not. But this article is not about that.

So why would I believe that miracles as historical events are improbable?

This is a much more nuanced response. And there is plenty of philosophical debate concerning the matter. I wish I could give it more attention, but to put simply I am more inclined to believe that miracles can only be accepted on a personal basis. I have to experience the miracle in order for it to be valid, and in such instances only the miraculous can be preserved in me. Certainly, my experience can pass through the ages and be seen as a watershed moment for my life, but the reality of the miraculous ends with my personal experience of it.

Why would I hold to such a limited view? The difficulty for this comes from the fact that no matter the descriptions we supply for the miraculous we have no way of distinguishing a miracle from an illusions, conspiracy, or deception. And in the end, all these other "highly improbable" events are still more likely to have occurred rather then an actual miracle. And the biggest reason for this is because if God were a miracle-inducing God then why would his activity be limited to a singular event at a particular time and specific place. God has the power to literally appear to everyone at the same time and at all places at once, but he works in such a way where is activity can be doubted. This is the oddest of all miraculous circumstances. Now historically we have to consider the limitations of finite events, but God is an infinite Being so we have to consider that there are literally no limits to his power. Thus, if God were to move at a particular time for the benefit of a particular person and such an event were included in God's saving activity of man to the degree that future generations would need to believe that such events took place in a miraculous context then one is completely validated in asking why God would limit such activity to that moment and that person. If God truly desired to save us, and belief in miracles is necessary for that saving activity then why not perform a miracle for each person so they can experience it for themselves. Obviously, God has no problem performing miracles, if we believe he did them in the past. Obviously, He had no moral taboos about human freedom and relational integrity in the past as it concerns man's free and willing choice.

Theologically there is no logical reason to think that miracles are necessarily a part of a salvation narrative. God could simply perform miracles randomly without an overall plan to save mankind. And we have no reason to think that in order to save mankind a miracle must be preformed. The association of the miraculous with salvation is only incidental at best. People claim that in order for God to save mankind he would have to act on our behalf, but even if this were true how does this indicate that miracles happen? God could spiritually act on our behalf. If he were to simply forgive us, this would be a spiritual act. But! we would have no certainty of that forgiveness, you might object. And this brings us back to the problem of certainty and why God wouldn't just appear to all of us at once to inform us of his forgiveness. The basic problem is not avoided by including a salvation model.

There is a positive reason to think that miracles are not an aspect of Christian spirituality. The Bible!!!

Jesus was tempted to prove himself through miracles by the Devil. Jesus rejected him. This reveals to us the negative side of miracles. Jesus' critics asked for miracles and he denied them. Jesus told parables deriding miracles, even a physical appearance of a resurrection body! Paul warns of an appeal to the miraculous as being a pagan practice. Paul emphases a simple acceptance of God's grace without an appeal to the miraculous and in fact teaches that the miraculous would detract from the event of God's forgiveness and not the other way around.

So the Bible gives us no positive reason to believe in miracles. Theology gives us no positive reason to believe in miracles. Salvation gives us no positive reason to believe in miracles, and most importantly our experience of the physical world gives us no positive reason to believe in miracles, as it concerns historical events. And we do have a positive reason to not believe in miracles as it concerns the Christian narrative and that is the Christian spirituality taught in the New Testament. Thus, it seems to me that the only reason to believe in miracles as being a part of the Christian narrative is because of previous tradition.

This previous tradition does not include any creedal formation. It does not include any repetitive revelation. Nor does it include any practice or form of spirituality that has been seen as necessary, but for some reason fundamentalist Christians consider it the greatest offense to the Christian faith when you question the reality of miracles.

I believe in miracles. I believe God is a God of the miraculous. I consider everyday and every moment a gift of God and for me that is a miracle. I find meaning and depth in the miraculous that surrounds me at every moment. But this has nothing to do with the narrative I believe in, nor does it have to do with a theological distinction between God's saving activity and normal activity. It has to do with my faith. My experience of faith confirms the miraculous for me. My experience of religion and my relationship with God is what serves as the basis for a miracle. I have no way of "proving" these miracles to you and I have no interest in doing so. I have no belief that this is even possible or necessary.