WHY MIRACLES?
John H. Paterson
"When the fulness of the time came, God sent forth
His Son, born of a woman ..." Galatians 4:4
EVEN those of us who do not worship in the Church of England must be aware that, within it, there have recently been wide-ranging discussions about the content of the historic Christian faith. In particular, the question has arisen as to whether it is necessary to believe that the miraculous occurrences in the Gospel record really happened as they are described by the writers.
This debate, of course, is actually one of long standing: the only special feature of its 1985 version is the number of bishops involved in it! But it is an issue which confronts us all. How important are the stories of Jesus which involve miracles -- His birth; His own signs; His resurrection? Since, inevitably, they make belief more difficult for sceptical people to whom the Gospel message is presented, are we at liberty to discard them? Can we say, in effect, "Don't worry if you can't swallow all those miracles! They are not essential to belief."
Between those who can believe and those who, for whatever reason, cannot, there is another group who take the view it doesn't matter whether the things reported by the Gospel writers happened or not. No doubt they mean well -- they want to soften the stark either-or that otherwise confronts us. But they are in an impossible position. I remember a sermon in which the preacher announced as his theme Christ walking on the water. After explaining that some people believe that this really happened while others do not, the preacher said, "But it doesn't matter whether it happened or not: the message for us is that, if we are in trouble, Christ will come to us." But that is ridiculous! If it did happen, then indeed Christ may come to us, but if it did not, then how do I know whether there is a real Christ who will really come to me? Somebody just made it all up.
So this is something about which we must decide for ourselves. Part of the problem, I believe, is that the reasons usually suggested for the inclusion of the miraculous element in the Gospels by the Holy Spirit are not very compelling. Unless, obviously, that element serves some very important purposes then we are indeed better off without it, for it can only put off enquirers and raise doubts in believers' minds.
What 'important purposes' are there? I want to suggest three. Please note that I am not offering these as three reasons for believing that the miracles happened just as they are described -- although that is my personal belief -- but three grounds for holding that it is vitally important for each of us to resolve the question as to whether or not they did.
(1) The Argument from History
The first reason is that, as human beings, we live in time and history, and God does not: He is eternal. We cannot penetrate into that world where He is -- we can never reach Him. Consequently, if there is ever to be any contact between God and man, He must enter our world, a world of events. As soon as He does so, in whatever way, He enters our history; His coming becomes an event, at a specific place and time. To us, with our time-based lives, there is no other way of identifying or describing His presence.
Now this, of course, is exactly how the Gospel writers portray the coming of God in Christ: the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). But because that coming, and all other comings of God, were from outside our world of place and time, they must by definition have been miraculous, for a miracle is simply an event for which there is no earthly explanation. You cannot have God intervening in the events of our history without it being a miracle! So the question is not: was the intervention of God in Christ done in a miraculous or non-miraculous way? It is: did it happen or not?
It is a little surprising that those who see God-in-Christ as a myth, or simply as a message or emphasis, have not recognised this. To have any "word from the Lord" is a miracle, however it is delivered, but to distinguish it from mere imagination, or hallucination, or dreamland, it must [41/42] be accompanied by event; otherwise, tomorrow's dream or vision may reverse or extinguish today's. In short, to speak of a message from God to man which has no miraculous element, and consequently no miraculous event, is a contradiction in terms.
Ordinary believers have, of course, been holding this event-centred view ever since the apostles first stated it: "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you" (1 John 1:3). But we need, perhaps, to remind ourselves of it in the present context. The Gospel is more than message: it was history. The cross is more than symbol: it was event. It is surprisingly easy to be caught out over this! The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer was fond of pointing out that in Salvador Dali's famous crucifixion painting, which hangs in a Glasgow art gallery, and which many believers profess to admire, the cross of the Lord Jesus is depicted as standing not on the earth, but in space. That is the cross as symbol, not as event!
