Caring for Those Hoping for a Miracle: A Conceptual Taxonomy
Trevor Bibler, Ph.D., MTS, Postdoctoral Fellow, Baylor College of Medicine
Clinicians have recently developed practical strategies for dealing with families who imagine that a miraculous event will heal their loved-one. According to these practical strategies, the clinician may: reassess the patient’s understanding of her prognosis, work with the patient to redefine the nature of “miracle,” emphasize the communal aspects of a just use of medical resources, or constructively question the features of a God who rescues individuals. These responses are helpful insofar as they are practical suggestions for overworked clinicians, but these responses are inadequate as they do not take into account the robust and often fluctuating nature of “the miraculous” as used by patients and their loved-ones. In this paper I construct a theoretical taxonomy of “the miraculous,” as found in the experiences of those near death.
Four distinct invocations of “the miraculous” comprise this taxonomy: the political, doxological, existential, and tragic. The political (1) use of “miracle” has little to do with observable theological struggles. When people employ theological concepts politically, questions of authority become paramount. These patients or families are not struggling with Divine Action or their place in the world; instead, the term affords an opportunity for influence. The doxological (2) use of “miracle” occurs when one responds to traumatic illness with uncritical praise of God or God’s Plan. We find such accounts in pop-spiritual memoirs and news reports featuring “miracle babies” and their assured parents. Firm and confident conceptual schemes buttress both the political and the doxological invocation of “miracle.”
When a patient uses “miracle” in the existential (3) sense, we find her trying to reconcile illness with previous conceptions of God, suffering, and death. The speaker questions and doubts Providence. She finds no easy answer to the question, “Why would God do this to me?” Although the miracle hoped for never occurs, the afflicted person eventually comes to integrate self, God, and world into a coherent scheme from which to live. Therefore, in this sense, disappointment and confusion serve a pedagogical function, eventually. With the tragic (4) use of the term, we find the patient or the patient’s loved one unable to integrate suffering into a coherent conception of self and world. Here we find a sense of self dissolving—as she cannot understand how such events could be part of Providence. Tragic events occur when the world of the afflicted no longer makes sense; that is, he cannot find a foundation from which to act, believe, and live.
If health care teams hope to adequately respond to invocations of God’s healing powers in clinical settings, they must first discern how the term functions for the patient or her family member. Theological terms are intricate and complex. They have been colored by experience, and concepts such as “miracle” exist as facets of a system. Clinicians are mistaken when they treat every mention of God, prayer, or miracle as a monolithic or simple assertion that can be addressed with pre-established strategies.
Clinicians have recently developed practical strategies for dealing with families who imagine that a miraculous event will heal their loved-one. According to these practical strategies, the clinician may: reassess the patient’s understanding of her prognosis, work with the patient to redefine the nature of “miracle,” emphasize the communal aspects of a just use of medical resources, or constructively question the features of a God who rescues individuals. These responses are helpful insofar as they are practical suggestions for overworked clinicians, but these responses are inadequate as they do not take into account the robust and often fluctuating nature of “the miraculous” as used by patients and their loved-ones. In this paper I construct a theoretical taxonomy of “the miraculous,” as found in the experiences of those near death.
Four distinct invocations of “the miraculous” comprise this taxonomy: the political, doxological, existential, and tragic. The political (1) use of “miracle” has little to do with observable theological struggles. When people employ theological concepts politically, questions of authority become paramount. These patients or families are not struggling with Divine Action or their place in the world; instead, the term affords an opportunity for influence. The doxological (2) use of “miracle” occurs when one responds to traumatic illness with uncritical praise of God or God’s Plan. We find such accounts in pop-spiritual memoirs and news reports featuring “miracle babies” and their assured parents. Firm and confident conceptual schemes buttress both the political and the doxological invocation of “miracle.”
When a patient uses “miracle” in the existential (3) sense, we find her trying to reconcile illness with previous conceptions of God, suffering, and death. The speaker questions and doubts Providence. She finds no easy answer to the question, “Why would God do this to me?” Although the miracle hoped for never occurs, the afflicted person eventually comes to integrate self, God, and world into a coherent scheme from which to live. Therefore, in this sense, disappointment and confusion serve a pedagogical function, eventually. With the tragic (4) use of the term, we find the patient or the patient’s loved one unable to integrate suffering into a coherent conception of self and world. Here we find a sense of self dissolving—as she cannot understand how such events could be part of Providence. Tragic events occur when the world of the afflicted no longer makes sense; that is, he cannot find a foundation from which to act, believe, and live.
If health care teams hope to adequately respond to invocations of God’s healing powers in clinical settings, they must first discern how the term functions for the patient or her family member. Theological terms are intricate and complex. They have been colored by experience, and concepts such as “miracle” exist as facets of a system. Clinicians are mistaken when they treat every mention of God, prayer, or miracle as a monolithic or simple assertion that can be addressed with pre-established strategies.