Skip to main content

I Believe in Miracles - Syncretism in the Western Church, Part 1

In my previous post I said that the Western church exhibits:

'A certain cynicism about miracles, so healing is thought not to be real, but in someone's imagination. This is a result of secularism, and what Paul Hiebert called 'the flaw of the excluded middle' in his article on the subject, which shows that Westerners don't believe in the middle realm between supernatural and natural. The Bible, however, constantly mentions dreams, angels, unclean spirits, and so on, which are very much to do with this middle realm.'

This shows itself in two, rather extreme ways. The first is to deny that miracles happen. This is the secular approach to miracles. They don't happen now, they didn't happen then i.e. in biblical times and therefore somebody must have made them up, we think. It is possible to find a whole host of literature in theological libraries that is written from this position. Miracles are something outside our experience, which is much more real and concrete, therefore we would like proof that miracles happen before we assent to some kind of belief in them. So, for example, Jesus didn't multiply the fish and bread, it is thought, rather everyone brought their sandwiches and shared them with each other. Wouldn't it be nice if we did the same today? Now,  you might say that this belief isn't part of our churches, but I would argue it is very much part of certain kinds of churches, and that it does creep into evangelical churches too, at least in the realm of what we might label 'doubts'.

The second extreme is to say that a miracle has to be i.e. it is defined as something that can't be explained by science, though at the same time (rather paradoxically) we would rather like to have scientific proof that it has occurred. So, for example, if someone is healed, it would be really good to have an X-ray or scan or something to show that the problem was actually there originally, and that it disappeared as an answer to prayer.

Probably it would be better to see the miraculous as something that happens all the time, often without our realising it because of our world view, which has been influenced by securalism, whether we recognise it or not. A miracle doesn't have to be inexplicable by science, rather it is the spiritual view of something that has occurred, albeit supernaturally. For instance, one miracle I experienced was being saved from a plane crash. I myself had re-booked my ticket to come back from South Asia a few days earlier than originally planned, but only God knew that plane was going to crash, and it was his purpose that I was kept alive. There is both a natural and a supernatural, or spiritual, explanation for what happened.

So, we need to avoid the two extremes above, and spend more time relying on God and believing that he can intervene in our lives. I believe in miracles!
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

One Person's Contextualisation is Another Person's Syncretism

I was in an interesting discussion full of anthropologists the other day. They were discussing syncretism. Most of them were of the view that outsiders cannot decide which practices are syncretistic and which are not. It has to be a decision made by local believers. This is because only local people can create indigenous theologies, that is, interpret Scripture according to the local worldview(s).  Not only that, some practices need to be tolerated in the short term, as we trust that new believers will gradually mature, and realise that those practices need to be weaned out of their lives. This can take time, perhaps years. Outsiders can, however, help local believers through the process of deciding for themselves which practices need to be rejected, which can be accepted, and which need to be modified according to (local formed) principles from Scripture. For example, ancestor practices, which my PhD thesis was on, are often continued by people after they have come to faith. They...
Post a Comment
Read more

Scripture Engagement for Translation Advisors

What do translation advisors need to know about Scripture engagement (SE), and why? Let's look at the 'why' first: Translation advisors (TAs) are often involved in day-to-day exegesis. They help mother-tongue translators (MTTs) prepare drafts. The MTTs they work with might not know Hebrew or Greek. The TAs then take part in the team check of that draft, which involves other MTTs in the project as well as the TA. Sometimes they are also involved in the coordination of the translation programme. They are very busy people. So why do they need to know about SE? Because: The translation is ultimately for an audience that has felt needs that are not being addressed by the translation programme. Analysing and meeting (or helping to meet) the felt needs of the audience should be the first priority of any mission worker, including TAs. Only about 30% of completed translations are well used. The initial set up of the programme needs to take SE into consideration (it's no good wai...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problems and Pitfalls of Proof-Texting

Why is it wrong to proof-text when making an argument?  Proof-texting is when someone simply quotes a verse from the Bible, out of context, to make a point. This can be in a book, a conversation, an essay, or a sermon, to give some examples. I just did a quick read of some other blogs on this topic, and none of them wowed me, so I thought I'd write my own. Then I had an even better idea: why not get you to tell me why proof-texting is problematic? In other words, I want to crowd-source the problem, and get lots of input. Since it is my suggestion, and I already did some research, let me get the ball rolling. Proof-texting is problematic because: It ignores the original context of the verse. There are actually two types of context: The literary context of the verse, that is, the verse is situated in a passage (that might be making an entirely different point) of Scripture that has a certain genre. For instance, the book of Acts is narrative, which means it is descriptive of what hap...
3 comments
Read more