"Why was Jesus hanging out at a party when he could have been healing lepers?"

This continues some thoughts on a New Atheist book arguing against miracles which was a topic at Tom Gilson's blog, and in particular Matt McCormick's chapter on whether God would do miracles. He notes:

Christine Overall makes a step toward the same conclusion, “If Jesus was the Son of God, I want to know why he was hanging out at a party, making it go better [turning water into wine], when he could have been healing lepers, for example. (quoted from Gilson, who I'm hoping is quoting McCormick quoting Overall ... clear as day, right?)

This seems to be McCormick quoting another author. For the original quote, it's hard for me to relate to someone fault-finding attending a wedding reception. With a straight face and a sanctimonious tone, the author speaks as if healing (for example) and similar things are the only legitimate use of time and attending a celebration is not; as if Jesus hadn't healed far more lepers than those of us who have been to many parties without ever having healed a single one. That particular argument smells like posturing, of striking a pose that no one can honestly hold.

But aside from my personal reaction: Have the writers forgotten the time that Jesus went for dinner to the home of Simon the Leper? (It may be that Simon was no longer a leper, though the backstory isn't given.) Healing and celebrating aren't mutually exclusive. They are both legitimate -- both necessary -- parts of living in a world that is part broken and part triumphant, and giving due consideration to the whole of life.

Our age has a kind of killjoy piety in which we are urged to focus only on the negative, to allow no rest to ourselves or anyone else so long as any problem exists. The fact that it's unhealthy on a personal level isn't the real problem; we can legitimately fault our own weakness and limitations for the personal part. The problem is that the narrow focus on evil is used to undercut all the celebration-worthy events, and allows any evil in any context to upstage every good in the world. If you'll pardon an outdated term, it swag-jacks all the good in life -- not only that but it lays claim to the right to do that. It comes close to claiming a moral imperative to stop celebration (as we "could have been" doing something else). The original evil itself isn't able to delegitimize the good; but this approach to "morality" sets out to delegitimize any recognition of the good in life, or any time spent participating in it. Which I hope is all the explanation needed for why "morality" there is in perspective-check quotes.

Jesus' miracle at the wedding feast is a healthy corrective to the angstier-than-thou ethic of our age. Granted, for the feast to come (that's an allusion to the kingdom of God, for those who aren't familiar with the good news) -- nobody will enjoy the feast to come until all the lepers are healed. In this age, there are appropriate times when a foretaste of that feast, a celebration here and now is more than permitted -- it is good and right. The Bible teaches that "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven. ... A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time to mourn and a time to dance." Evil has not defeated good; we will not allow evil to upstage good on an enduring basis. The complaint contains unspoken premises that so long as any evil continues then it should upstage all good for the duration, and that the good in life is frivolous or trivial rather than vital. From a Christian point of view, both of those are serious mistakes.

When we see ills in the world, we work good: the work to heal. So when instead we see good in the world, how much more should we work good by joining in that good. The main reason that I would call leprosy (for example) "evil" is that it deprives someone of that primary good, the participation in the good of life. It follows that not just leprosy but anything that would disable us from participating in the good of life is itself an evil. And here we have an argument that implies it is immoral to participate in the good of life. I would whole-heartedly reject the premises under that line of argument. I would contend that the participation in the good of life is the primary good, and the lack of that vital thing is what causes us to call leprosy evil.

Side-note: there also seems to be a dig about whether the omniscient one forgot enough wine for the party. I get the impression that part was played for laughs, and the fact that Jesus wasn't in charge of the wedding reception is beside the point of mocking its target. If we take the complaint seriously (even if meant as a taunt), the Omniscient is benevolent enough to cover the party and continue the celebration, all without embarrassing the host. But it's difficult to respond to something as a serious piece when it seeks laughs that weren't earned because they were bought by misrepresenting the facts. It's in line with the original setup where going to a wedding reception is de-solemnized and trivialized as "hanging out at a party", so I think it wasn't an accident that the author traded accuracy for laughs.

Overall, I think "shame-on-Jesus-for-going-to-a-wedding" if taken as an argument is faulty in its premises. "The omniscient one forgot the wine" is merely a taunt, and an inaccurate one at that. Unfortunately, what people want from a taunt is that it provides an opportunity to make fun of someone they dislike; it may have filled the bill for some.

I've set this section as a separate post to bracket it from the basic syllogism of the argument per se in the prior post. The remaining point that seems to resonate with common sense and common experience is the planned topic for next weekend's post: where all the hurting people of the world want to know, "Where's my miracle?"