The Bible is brimming with examples of faith healing. Jesus performed a number of miraculous healings in all four canonical gospels, and later his apostles performed similar healings. In his epistles Paul speaks of faith healing as a gift of the Holy Spirit that can be bestowed on potentially any faithful Christian. Miracles, including the miraculous healing of the sick, were reputedly quite common during the era of Early Christianity and were not exclusive to the apostles or church leaders. Many Evangelical Christians today declare belief in the continual existence (or at least the possibility) of legitimate, New Testament-style miracles including faith healing, often bearing witness from personal experiences.
If this is so, then why do Christians never pray for the miraculous healing of amputees? Why should believers in faith healing refrain from asking God to grow back lost limbs? There seems to be a very pronounced disconnect between the outlandish miracles of the scriptural account, the professions of the faithful regarding miracles, and the actions they will or will not take to generate miracles. If God is capable of anything, from softening hearts to raising the dead from the grave, why do the vast majority of Evangelical Christians restrict themselves to asking for more pragmatic miracles? Prayers for cancer to be healed are common, prayers for limbs to grow back are virtually nonexistent. Why?
It would appear that the faith Evangelical Christians in America have in miracles is bound within the realm of the everyday. An essentially irrational concept, faith healing, has been subjected to modern rationality. People of faith claim that we don’t see miracles, such as an amputee’s limbs growing back, because of a lack of faith, or simply because no one ever prays for the truly outlandish and extraordinary. But could it be that Evangelicals don’t pray for limbs to grow back because, secretly, they understand it is impossible? Could it be that we don’t see New Testament-style miracles in the 21st century because they do not exist?
Interesting post. I admit that I carry a great deal of skepticism about “faith-healings” even though I profess to be a Christian. It is possible, in response to your post, because Jesus (or the Apostles) do not heal any amputees in the texts that modern Christians do not attempt such miraculous feats. Or, as I am sure has been the case before, is the amputated limb in response to some other perceived miracle? For example, what if a person has cancer and the church prays for the cancer to be stopped. The cancerous person has to have a limb removed in order to stop the cancer. This could be viewed as an answer to prayer, or even a miracle. All in all, I would say that claims of miraculous things happening are poor ways of providing “proof” to outsiders. Paul even states in 1 Corinthians that some of the Spiritual Gifts are meant for “insiders” and not “outsiders.”
Jesus and the apostles performed a number of miracles (turning water to wine, healing the blind, walking on water, teleporting, etc) that no “rational” Evangelical Christian would attempt today. If the criterion for what miracles they are willing to attempt is scriptural example, why do they not believe teleportation is possible or ever attempt it? My understanding is that the vast majority of American Christians believe in faith healings, and miracles in general, as long as they are bound within the contemporaneously observable.
It is an interesting question, to say the least. Like J. I think part of the issue is precedence. There is no prior witness in the text of the regrowth of limbs or replacement of anything body part that has fallen off that does not already regrow naturally. Does this mean that it cannot happen? That god cannot make it happen? I think not, but it does raise the question of how – that is, by what means – “micracles” occur in the world.
I had a friend ask me a similar question in high school. After reading some article about how divers had found evidence of a rupture under the Red Sea, he asked if this was a better explanation – rather than a miracle of god – of what might have happened at the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus. I responded to him what I think I would respond to you as well, is it necessary for a miracle to be unexplanable by science in order to be counted a miracle? I think the answer is, “no.” Is god “able” to act outside the physics of the universe to make something happen, I am not sure but I would hazard that he chooses not to. To say it more succinctly, god works within the laws of the universe. It is currently against the biology of human beings to regrow limbs, thus such “miracles,” as you put them, don’t happen.
What is interesting to me, though, is your logical leap from:
“It would appear that the faith Evangelical Christians in America have in miracles is bound within the realm of the everyday.”
which I think is true, to:
“Could it be that we don’t see New Testament-style miracles in the 21st century because they do not exist?”
J. already established that its not really accuate to call the healing of amputee’s a “New Testament-style miracle[s].” But does claiming that “miracles” operate within the laws of the universe necessarily equate to a “secret” belief that they don’t exist? I think not. Could you expound more on this?
When I say “New Testament-style miracle” what I am primarily referring to is a miracle that is outlandish and extraordinary, like many of those that are recorded in the New Testament. Most modern Evangelicals claim belief in the validity of past miracles, that is the miracles of the Old and New Testaments, and in the possibility of miracles today. They believe that people can be raised from the dead, that natural disasters can occur on command, and all sorts of varying ailments can be healed. And yet there is a limit to what genre of miracles Evangelicals are willing to ask for. When it comes to faith healing the ailments that can spontaneously disappear, such as cancer, are often prayed for, while amputations are not. Why should modern Christians feel that they must limit their faith when, reportedly, historical Christians and Biblical figures did not? True miracles, phenomena that cannot possibly be explained within natural laws, are outside the bounds of what the vast majority of Christians, including Evangelicals, are willing to ask for.
Nate, if we are going to water down the word miracle until it means nothing more than and event that is out of the ordinary yet still perfectly within the realm of natural laws, then we might as well start calling sunsets and rainbows and wildflowers and dewdrops “miracles.” That seems to be the next logical step. You are rendering the word miracle completely useless, as well as condemning your faith forever to the realm of wishful thinking and willful ignorance.
I’d like to briefly point out that apparently God caused our limbs to grow once, and I see no reason he could do it again. This is especially poignant when one considers just how close human scientists are to artificial biological generation.
However, let’s talk New Testsment miracles: restoring crippled limbs, healing blindness, turning water into wine, causing an earthquake that breaks you out of prison with hymns… and bringing people back from the dead. This caliber of miracle is just not seen today, nor I think asked for often, if at all.
Your arugment doesn’t make any logical sense. How does it follow that if my definition is:
“event that is out of the ordinary yet still perfectly within the realm of natural laws”
then perfectly ORDINARY and NATURAL “events” like “sunsets and rainbows and wildflowers and dewdrops” would not be miracles by nature of their being repetitive and ordinary. Thus I am not sure that either your “slippery slope” argument has been demonstrated accurately or that the stuff about wishful thinking or wilfull ignorance been effectively argued. You can claim that, if you want, but as it stands I have yet to see a persuasive argument for it.
If by the growth of limbs you refer to the narrative of Genesis 2, then you might be right. Still, according to that text god “formed” humans, not made them grow. I guess in theory god could create a new limb and attach it to someone, but I dont think that is what you are getting at. What is interesting about the science of fetus growth to me is that we aren’t entirely sure yet why certain cells grow in specific ways. Why, at a certain stage, do cells decide to be neurological cells, and others epidermal cells? What we DO know is that at some stage cell decision ceases and all you have is multiplication. So while some could claim that god causes cells to grow in these ways in the womb (I don’t necessarily claim this), it is clear that at some point those cells stop working to “grow” or “reproduce,” say, limbs. So in this sense one could argue that god, too, ceases to “allow” (I dont like this word but I cant think of another) the regrowth of limbs in nature and thus doesn’t himself participate in it.
I agree in all aspects on your last paragraph.
What I mean by calling butterflies and wishing stars miracles is that this would be the next logical step in the use of the word miracle if you are willing to dilute it to the point of meaning something that is merely out of the ordinary, a fluke, a serendipitous coincidence, and entirely confined to the natural realm.
If God cannot (or does not) work supernaturally, or at least by manipulating nature in extraordinary ways, then what is God? Simply a part of the universe, mysterious and distant but still finite? If he simply chooses not to work in these ways, it seems to me that this force or being is either impersonal or takes little to no interest in human affairs (deism, I suppose). I know you’re not interested in orthodoxy or what is commonly known as Christianity, but if one agrees with any of what I just wrote I really fail to see how one can use the word “Christian” to describe oneself, while still maintaining that the word retains anything like a meaningful definition.
This is a good critique because it helps focus the issue. So I think that god operates within the realm of the universe, using the laws of the universe. For example, when Exodus says that a strong wind blew back the sea for the people to cross over I don’t think that god’s face appeared in the sky and a breath from his “lungs” came out – that is, I dont think a wind appeared from an extra-universal place where god resides. God caused the earth’s wind to blow harder than normal.
What this necessitates is that there is some interaction between the Divine and the universe. I accept that. Where that interaction begins I can’t say, but I don’t believe god breaks the laws of the universe to do it. So your statement that god works by ” by manipulating nature in extraordinary ways” is accurate.
But I don’t see any reason to believe that god must act outside the bounds of universal law (whatever form that takes) in order for an event to be categorized as a miracle. By necessity miracles are rare things, so rare that they defy explanation on most levels. Thus if a cancer patient recovers even though they have a million to one odds, it may well be possible to explain it as a biological achievement, but it could – in my view – be one which was caused by god.
I fear it would be physically impossible for any person to withstand winds of that force without being hurled about like a rag doll. It seems to me that for a massive group of people to traverse such a wind tunnel without harm would be a breach in physical laws.
The problem is that it is not entirely clear what the text is describing. There is no mention of a “wind tunnel” as you say but that the wind pushed the sea back. There is certainly plenty of evidence in nature of winds pushing the tide of the sea/ocean back dozens or more feet. Whether or not a group could withstand that I don’t know but it also isn’t clear how the Israelites got by if it was through the middle (I suspect not even though modern renditions portray it that way) or by way of the “beach” or shallow water marshes. But don’t take my word for it, go read it yourself and see what you think.
Removing a limb to stop cancer is not a miracle or an answer to prayer (unless of course the sick person wakes up one morning without a limb, but cancer-free). It is a wonder of science, a product of human ingenuity. It’s a disgrace and an insult to the doctors and scientists who worked so hard to bring about an age in which limbs can be safely amputated to save a life to call it something so trite, so insipid as a miracle. I think the point that Sam is making here is that when Christians pray for healing, they only pray for certain “realistic” favors from God. No one asks for a limb to be regrown or someone’s scalded skin to return to smoothness, or a dead child to be raised days after the fateful event, or a life-long blind person’s eyes to receive sight. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO CHANCE OF IT EVER HAPPENING. Now, when praying for some invisible, internal disease to be healed, strange things do happen, and sometimes the person recovers mysteriously. How many times do they never recover? It doesn’t matter! Those are never counted, only the recoveries. Never has any of these healed individuals been subjected to medical tests, critical study, intense observation. Because those who pray for small, reasonable miracles rely on real medicine and chance, and those who claim the truly miraculous are charlatans.
By the way, miracles would be a truly invaluable tool in bringing salvation to this doubting soul.
“It’s a disgrace and an insult to the doctors and scientists who worked so hard to bring about an age in which limbs can be safely amputated to save a life to call it something so trite, so insipid as a miracle.”
~I dont think J. meant to say that an amputation is a miracle. Like you said, an amputation is something that doctors, human beings, do. I think what he meant – and what I think you also caught on to – is that if the amputation WORKS it could be considered by some as a miracle. I am not personally one of those people, but I think we just talking in generalities.
Is it accurate to call a person who believes their prayer worked a “charlatan?” It seems to me a charlaton is someone who deliberately tricks someone into believing something for their own, usually monetary, gain. I will readily admit that there are people out there that fall into this category and use prayer in this way. I find this to be deceptive and utterly dispicable. But does this apply to ANYONE who prays for a miracle?
I suppose I meant those who do make miracle claims of an extraordinary sort, such as your Benny Hinn, your many Hindu gurus, your occasional “inconquorable” martial arts master. I suppose there are those who genuinely believe in the miraculous (thousands in Central America every year report mass sightings of a floating Holy Virgin) who I would not classify as charlatans, but as merely duped or delusional.
Then I heartily agree. Don’t get me wrong here, I am with you and Sam if what Sam’s intent is is to show how American evangelical theology is not as mystical as it appears and to poke holes in their often ridiculous theological ideas. This is why I am not evangelical….
“True miracles, phenomena that cannot possibly be explained within natural laws, are outside the bounds of what the vast majority of Christians, including Evangelicals, are willing to ask for.”
~I find this an interestring statement. Is this your definition of miracle? As I explained above, I dont think this is a philosophically or theologically tenable position. There is no reason, in my view, to assume that miracles are apriori outside the laws of the universe. Again that is just my take, and I could be wrong.
Does that make a difference for you? I guess I am somewhat confused concerning what you are getting at. I agree with most of what you and Zerbage have said. The only issue I take with your original post is the logical leap from
a) Christians believe – subconciously – that miracles are bound by reality —> b) miracles dont actually exist. Could you go further a bit?
I agree with Zach that your personal rendering of the word “miracle” removes all the key properties that, for me, constitute a miracle. I don’t think that most Evangelical Christians would argue against my definition that miracles are supernatural, that is they are outside the laws of nature.
Total suspensions of natural law are, according to scientific observation, not possible. I believe modern Christians subconsciously understand this, and yet continue to claim that such phenomena are not only possible but are within the ability of any faithful individual to preform/request. My post simply states the obvious, that there is a substantial dichotomy between what most Christians claim is possible and what they themselves are willing to ask for, between the orthodoxy and the orthopraxy.
So you are arguing that my rendering of miracle is inaccurate, but do not allow for reasonable notion of miracle? You are right that evangelicals would believe the way you are arguing, but that doesn’t make it theologically viable. I could find plenty of theologians or philosophers to agree with my rendering.
I love your last paragraph in this reply and I think it is dead on. Again, though, I think your argument in the post is strong until the last sentence where I think the argument is stretched too thin. Still, good post.