In Defense of
the Miraculous:
A Clarification
By Robert M.
Price
I welcome the opportunity for
clarification provided by Dr. Carter’s interesting response to my
“The
Centrality and Scope of Conversion.” First, I would like to follow up a
couple of Dr. Carter’s less serious objections. He regrets that I paint
evangelicals with too broad a swath, implicating them all as
"hard-liners.” But of course the whole point of the article is that
there are at least two groups among evangelicals, the "hard-liners" and
the “soft-liners.” And these two designations are meant as "ideal
types,” implying that most evangelicals would fall somewhere in between
the two axes. Beyond this, my analysis is supposed to be "severely
flawed" by my militant antipathy to the "hard-line" believers whom I
describe. Yet he doesn't explain how my vitriol distorts my picture of
things. As for myself, I fail to see the distortion, but of course I
would. But if the “hard religious line” is as psychologically dangerous
as I believe it is, why not get a little indignant about it?
Next, I would like to address the
most serious difficulty noted by Dr. Carter. I had not supposed that my
train of thought was so hard to follow. Basically, the point was that
conversion is commonly conceived as a miracle in the sense that, in
conversion the action of God overrules normal psychological
cause-and-effect to produce rebirth. When some “soft-line” psychologists
become uncomfortable with this understanding, they seek to redefine
subtly the concept of miracle so that divine action is seen as parallel
to, and not disruptive of, normal cause-and-effect. In so doing, they
open Pandora's box theologically by inviting an essentially Liberal
understanding of God’s "mighty acts in history," similar to that of
Schleiermacher and Bultmann. Yet some kind of redefinition of
evangelical conversion would seem to be in order, since many converts
expect the ensuing processes of sanctification and maturity to come
about in analogously miraculous fashion. This expectation leads them to
shun the inevitable processes of growing up in the world, and in their
faith. So some reconception of "conversion" seems desirable, but the
price seems too high if the “miracle” concept is thereby weakened
theologically.
This much, Dr. Carter feels is
probably valid, if the average reader can manage to find some order in
my confusing tangle of ideas. His real difficulty is with what he
believes I am proposing as a solution. I join him in rejecting the
“double upper-story leap” he describes, since I never meant to propose
it! I have somehow inadvertently misled Dr. Carter (and perhaps some
other readers as well) into believing that I wish to remove the
miraculous from the realm of actual events. In fact I did not suggest
that “miracle" be restricted to the saving efficacy of doctrinal truths.
On the contrary, I sought to make it clear that my solution would leave
the meaning of “miracle" intact, as a divine intervention in the
ordinary process of cause-and-effect. Thus we can leave undisturbed the
traditional conservative understanding of events like the parting of the
Red Sea or the Resurrection of
Christ.
As for conversion, we should refrain
from calling it "miraculous" in any sense at all. Instead, we should say
that in conversion, one turns (in normal psychological fashion) toward
belief in saving truths founded upon truly and literally miraculous
events (e. g., the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ). No theological
compromise is entailed since "miracle" is not being redefined. Though I
wish I had been even clearer, I do not believe that I was so unclear as
to grossly confuse the reader. For example, I remarked, "One need not
revise or weaken the concept of 'miracle.'” Again, "So ‘soft line
supernaturalists’... do not need to trouble themselves about redefining
and compromising the miraculous quality of conversion. They would be
well-advised instead to leave the meaning of 'miracle' intact and deny
that conversion is miraculous at all! ... The decision to believe the
Gospel message is 'merely' a decision like any other decision.” In my
brief remark about Calvinism, I also underlined this point, suggesting
that conversion, like any other decision, be considered an instance of
God's general everyday providence, unlike the Resurrection of Jesus
which must be deemed a special act of divine causation (a miracle)
discontinuous with the normal laws of nature and circumstance
established by God.
So I do not mean to challenge the
idea that God may work through both natural law and its occasional
suspension. I believe that Dr. Carter's viewpoint is not very far from
mine. I regret that he did not recognize this, though I am not sure I
understand the occasion for the confusion. Yes, Virginia, there are
miraculous events, but conversion is not one of them.