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

10 Reasons to Make Scripture Impact a Priority

This is a response to some recent posts about the importance of Bible translation in fulfilling the Great Commission. Yes, there is much truth in that, but more is needed. It really helps to have Scripture impact (or 'engagement') the top priority, the 'car' as it were, with translation the engine that sits beneath the bonnet. Not all drivers need to know all the details of the engine, but they need to be able to control the vehicle. The most important thing is to be able to get from A to B (see point 2), rather than knowing how the engine works. These are the ten reasons to make Scripture impact a priority: To help people flourish in their communities. There are all kinds of needs that need to be met for people to flourish. One is clean water. Another is good sanitation. Peace (lack of war), and freedom of religion. Access to education etc. etc. For a community to truly flourish they also need access to the Scriptures in a language (or languages) that they understand a...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Asking the Right Questions in Bible Translation and Scripture Engagement Planning

If you want to get useful answers you have to ask the right questions. Do you agree? Yes, of course you do. In the Bible translation world we often ask a very narrow question when planning for the next stage of work: 'What would you like to see translated next?' Now, if you simply want to translate, and that's it, that question is fine, but what if you want to see some kind of result from your translation work? What if, for instance, you want to see transformation occur? Then a more powerful question to ask the community and positive stakeholders in the project would be: 'What kingdom goals would you like to see reached?' These kingdom goals should meet felt needs of the community - they should solve problems that are apparent to most or all in the community. See below on how those can be met. If that's too abstract, then try, 'What kinds of things, in your extended family, do you tend to worry about?' This will help establish some felt needs, from which...
7 comments
Read more