The media referred to two events as "miracles" this week:
1. Plane crashes in Toronto, all aboard survive.
2. A premature but (all things considered) healthy child was born to a braindead mother.
Converting water into wine at a wedding reception is a miracle - 100% great, 0% sad, unless you're an unlucky Caananite teetotaler. Raising a man from the dead is a miracle - sure, you'd probably prefer the man never died in the first place, but his life's complete restoration is the definition of "no harm, no foul".
Clearly, these two news items do not meet miracle status. How can you call these miracles when they're at least 50% sad? It's great that no one died when the jet crashed, but wouldn't it have been even greater if the plane started to struggle, almost hit the ground, but recovered before any damage was done? Or if the braindead woman recovered from her terminal state? Wouldn't that be the miracle?
It may be time for another moratorium, this time on bestowing "miracle" status to only somewhat fortunate events.
No comments:
Post a Comment