Natural?

Consider with me, what do we mean when we call things "natural", "unnatural", or "supernatural"?? I've heard more people than I can count lately speaking of miraculous occurances. They always attatch the phrase "supernatural". As though a "natural" miracle would not count . . . for some reason it has to be beyond nature's capacity. Why? The funny thing is, that nature, at least in the sense we're speaking of here, is a modern category. Before the Enlightenment, nature was not an entity that the miraculous had to go beyond.

Martin Buber says there are two ways to approach reality. Objectively where all becomes an object which is limited and subject to manipulation. Or, relationally where all things are unbounded and free. Objectively we call all things "It". Relationally we call them "You". In pre-Enlightenment culture, and still in many Easter cultures today, the tendency was to refer to most things relationally. Especially Nature was understood this way. In modern thought we have objectified Nature. Now Nature is an enclosed sphere of chemical reactions and laws that make life predictable and explanable.

The only way to refer to God is relationally. He cannot be objectified: that would be the essence of idolatry. So, it is totally understandable from this standpoint why people of faith would attack the concept of "nature" to prove that God is not contained by its laws and expectations. But, this goes back to the fact that we're taking up the inferior perception of nature and attacking it.

Truthfully, Nature is much more that we know. It is much more that science can rationalize. The details of nature are so subtle, that they refute any reduction to a chemical formula. All people eventually come to the vast difference between a scientific reduction of a sunset explaining the refraction of light rays by atmospheric particals, and the indescribable experience of the human senses at dusk. (and I imply more senses than the 5 we discuss in Biology classes) Ultimately objectification can be wonderful in its usefulness, but death when it substitutes for relationships.

Nature when unbounded by objectivity need not exclude God, in fact it can't. God is the prevading presence by which nature becomes more than nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen cycling through the heavier elements. It is God's very breath causes the order which we have categorized into the laws and interpretations of nature. They were God's laws first. This God also breaths into us his very presence which causes our nature to relate, and so experience the unlimited potential of all life experiences. And, for this the realm of the miraculous IS natural, and more. Miracles are not against nature, and they are above it (meaning supernatural) only as far as we have reduced nature to a lifeless chemistry set.

I don't think the world we live in needs testimony that there is a realm outside of our own that is above nature. I think we desperately cannot live without the realization that nature is in fact more than we understand. We need to know that God is in nature, and therefore nature is free from our laws.

When we experience a healing, a connection to the spiritual world, a liberation of the soul, we are experiencing what Nature truly is: the unbounded realm in which God moves and in which, relationally, all things are possible.

One problem I have is how people of faith down natural healing. I'm a nurse so maybe its a vested interest. Here's my question: My friend Marcos found an article about fasting which revealed that long fasts can actually cure cancer. Eventually your body's process of purification will attack unhealthy cells. This is a "natural" process, so does that exclude God? The fact that our bodies appear to be geared towards this activity, does that mean God was any the less responsible?

Here's another question: when someone is 90 and has achieved peace with their life, is death natural? I agree 5 year olds should not die. I agree fathers should live to see their grandchildren. Yet, is death a part of God's will, ever? I'm interested to hear what people think. Personally, I think death in it's proper place is natural, and by that I mean that it is not God's will that we live eternally in this earthly existence. I believe that death is the course of nature for those who have lived fully and achieve God's purpose in their lives. Yet, for a child, death is un-natural. Therefore I have no problem with Jesus raising the child, or Lazarus. Both died in circumstances which I can understand as unnatural.

I've been listening to this preacher named Bill Johnson. He feels the need to point that all sickness is from the Devil. I can follow to a certain extent. I agree that "Health" is the will of God. Health is natural. It is the way things are meant to be. But, health is relative also. There is a different standard for "health" depending on if a person is 20 or 80. I wish this would be recognized.

We studied hospice care in nursing school. Hospice care is a matter of being with people as they walk through the reality of death. Hospice is a process of helping people close the final chapters of their life. They must make ammends, say goodbyes, find peace with their actions. As an outsider the process is sad, but surprisingly normal as well. To me this seems to be part of nature, as they pass on to what lies beyond this existence.

I can't wrap this one up neatly. Furthermore, it needs to be a conversations anyway. I can say nothing definitive of Nature and what is natural. I can only say that it is much more than we know, or will ever know. Responses are welcomed.