Misconstruing Miracles
By Ronald F. Marshall
In his high profile
Newsweek article, “Why I Don’t Believe in Miracles,”
Professor Philip Hefner of the Lutheran School of Theology at
Chicago since 1967 stumbles and falls.
In this article which was part of the cover story on miracles,
he argues against miracles and in favor of blessings.
Blessings he proposes are to be preferred over miracles
because they – unlike miracles – do not contravene the laws of
nature.1
Yet in the course of pursuing his startling thesis he is
incoherent, inconsistent and even blasphemous.
As a result he not only weakens his case but also
seriously misconstrues miracles.
Hefner’s article is incoherent because even though he favors
blessings because they – unlike miracles – do not violate the
laws of nature, he still goes on to say these blessings
themselves occur “unexpectedly.”
But how would he know that unless these blessings also
violated what David Hume famously called “the common course of
nature?”2
For them to be unexpected they would have to go against
the ordinary.
Hefner’s blessings would have to push against reality as it
usually goes if they were to manifest the unexpected.
So on Hefner’s own account, blessings would need – just
like miracles do – what Richard Purtill calls a “contrast idea”
in order to be coherent.3
If no expected pattern is violated, then it would be
incoherent for Hefner to say blessings occur “unexpectedly.”
So by insisting that blessings occur unexpectedly he
renders his argument incoherent.
Next his argument is inconsistent.
Hefner in part condemns miracles because they occur
unevenly – leaving many who suffer without the help they so
desperately long for.
This is because many prayers appear to go unanswered.
This uneven distribution he vilifies as “blasphemous”
because it gives God a bad name.
If God helps one he should help all.4
“That’s where the blasphemy comes in,” howls Hefner.
Due to the spotted, selective occurrence of miracles God
comes off looking less loving than he actually is.
Due to our belief in miracles God appears arbitrary and
cruel.
But blessings are no different – even on Hefner’s account!
They too occur sporadically.
Blessings are not uniformly distributed throughout
reality. Feast and
famine strike farmer and entrepreneur alike.
So throwing out miracles for blessings does nothing for
God’s image. “Even
though we cannot…understand why so much of human life involves
sorrow and evil,” Hefner insists we should still “be grateful
and render praise” for whatever blessings come our way.
But this is inconsistent.
It is special pleading.
If irregularity strikes down miracles, then it should –
if one were to be consistent – strike down blessings as well.
But Hefner abandons
consistency, falls on his own sword and unwittingly flays his
argument to pieces.
Finally
Hefner himself blasphemes when he says he has “no confidence”
that his prayers actually “change the course of nature.”
But as Lutherans we are to confess that our prayers are
“assuredly heard and granted."
Whoever denies this “grossly dishonors” God!5
Hefner goes where angels fear to tread all because of the
common experience of not getting what we pray for.
But there is a better way of handling that disappointment
than committing blasphemy.
Down through the generations Christians have learned to “be
exercised in prayer.”6
This means changing your mind about what you pray for.
Then what we want gives way to what God wants.
Longing and praying for one’s heart’s desires trails off
into affirming God’s will instead.
Indeed, “how could the prayer of the children of adoption
be centered on the gifts rather than the Giver?”7
So when we pray for the sick we should not pray for
healing alone. We
should also add that God’s will be done and that we learn to
accept whatever it is.
Our prayers must never go beyond the tax collector’s
humble prayer: God,
be merciful to me a sinner!” (Luke 18:12).
This is because in the end we are all beggars.
Wir sind alle
Bettler is our only motto.8
Thomas Fuller (1608-1661) catches this humility wonderfully well
in his prayer:
“Lord, teach me the art of patience whilst I am well, and give
me the use of it when I am sick.
In that day either lighten my burden or strengthen my
back. Make me, who
so often in my health have discovered my weakness presuming on
my own strength, to be strong in my sickness when I solely rely
on thy assistance.9
The impression Professor Hefner gives in his attack on
miracles is that this prayer would make him choke.
Because this humility is missing from Hefner’s account he
stumbles and falls the way he does.
If he had incorporated humility into prayer we would then
have been able to see how they are answered over and over again.
By missing this he also drains his account of the
following wisdom: “Do not be troubled if you do not immediately
receive from God what you ask him; for he desires to do
something even greater for you, while you cling to him in
prayer.”10
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1Philip
Hefner, “Why I Don’t Believe in Miracles,”
Newsweek (May 1,
2000) 61.
2David
Hume, “Of Miracles” (1758),
In Defense of Miracles: A
Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History, eds. R.
Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove: Inter
Varsity Press, 1997) 33.
3Richard
L. Purtill, “Defining Miracles,”
In Defense of Miracles,
63.
4So
much for Psalm 115:3 which says our “God is in the heavens; he
does whatever he pleases,” and Romans 9:18 which says “God has
mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of
whomever he wills.”
By excising this raw contingency from divine nature Professor
Hefner flattens out God and renders him languid.
All that this leaves us is a useless “prettified God”
[Gerhard O. Forde, On
Being a Theologian of the Cross, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997) 85.]
5Martin
Luther, Large Catechism (1529), III.20, 21,
The Book of Concord,
eds. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2000) 443.
6Catechism
of the Catholic Church, Revised Edition, (London: Geoffrey
Chapman, 1999) 2737.
7Catechism
of the Catholic Church, 2740.
8These
last words of Luther’s translate: “We are all beggers.”
On this motto see James M. Kittelson,
Luther the Reformer: The
Story of the Man and His Career, (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1986) 297.
9The
Oxford Book of Prayer, ed. George Appleton, (New York: Oxford,
1985), (437) 130.
10Catechism
of the Catholic Church, 2737.
dialog: A
Journal of Theology
Volume 39, Number 4 •
Winter 2000
______________________________________________________________________________________________
A Moratorium on Miracle-Talk?
______________________________________________________________________________________________
….The words of Psalm 115:3, “God is in the heavens, God does
whatever [he] pleases,” do not go down easily.
There are those who are moved by these words rather to
deny God than to bow down in worship.
This is the experiential and pastoral context in which talk
about miracles takes place today.
By referring to miracles, we assert our belief and our
hope that the God who sends afflictions upon us will also rescue
us. The article I
wrote in the May 1, 2000, issue of
Newsweek, to which
the Reverend Ronald Marshall responded in this journal (Winter
2000, vol. 39:4), elicited fifty letters.
Most were written by lay people and they expressed the
context I have just described – some of them very poignantly.
Six of these letters (5 by Lutherans, 4 by clergy) were
in the slashing mode that Marshall adopted; the rest revealed
the serious probing of men and women who are struggling on their
way, seeking help wherever they can find it.
….Some responses to my original article judged the quality of my
faith according to whether or not I accept miracles.
Some, like Marshall, suspect that I have no faith because
I question miracles.
Others took my skepticism as a sign that my faith was
strong and wholesome.
One letter published by
Newsweek (May 8,
2000) wrote that my “vision implies a God acting always and
everywhere through natural law rather than fitfully and
arbitrarily countermanding natural law.
A professor offering an argument of scientific and
theological sophistication in clear, elegant language –
now that’s miraculous!”
….There are those who express doubts about miracles to their
pastor, priest, or Christian friends, only to be met with the
kind of judgmental invective that Marshall hurled at me.
These people expressed gratitude for my article; it
actually seemed to strengthen their faith and perhaps even their
churchgoing.
When I think about miracle-talk, these experiential and pastoral
issues seem most important.
Frankly, in light of the ambiguities and
misunderstandings involved, I question the usefulness of the
idea of miracle.
More often than not, such talk is not a clear witness to the God
who rescues. I
suggest a moratorium on such talk.
What should we do in a period of moratorium?
Let us promote serious reflection and conversation in our
communities about how we see God at work in our lives and what
forms that work takes.
Let us be as honest as Scripture about our difficulties
and agonies when we reflect on God’s presence in our lives and
in our world. Let
us be specific about those things we want to give God thanks and
praise for: I
suggested in my article that we might use the term “blessing” to
speak of these things.
Let us speak candidly about what things about God
bewilder us and what things might prompt us to cry out with
Psalm 22: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”, as well
as the later verses of that psalm: “God heard when I cried out….
Posterity will serve God; future generations will be told and
proclaim God’s deliverance.”
The Reverend Marshall will probably not consider these comments
a worthy response to his piece.
However, I do not see much connection between my original
Newsweek article and
his response to it.
I encourage readers to retrieve my original article and draw
their own conclusions.
P.S. I will gladly
send copies of the article to readers who request it (fax:
773-256-0682; e-mail:
zcrs@lstc.edu).
Careful readers will note several mis-readings in
Marshall’s piece.
For example, I say that blessings are “often” unexpected, not
always. His
insistence that “blessing” refers to events that “go against the
ordinary” puzzles me.
Consider that most births are without calamity, but we
still consider a healthy newborn to be a blessing.
I question Marshall’s tone, as well.
His article represents a far too-frequent attitude in the
church and in our society that one ought not simply disagree on
occasion with certain opinions, but also destroy the persons who
hold them. When
combined with careless analysis, such a stance is dangerous to
all concerned, especially in the church.
–Philip Hefner
dialog: A
Journal of Theology
Volume 40, Number 1
• Spring 2001
(Reprinted from the January 20, 2019 Sunday bulletin insert)
|