I have been spending all day dwelling on what the early dictation called “the impersonal nature of miracles.” I have been spending a lot of time with that early dictation lately, and discovering all sorts of fascinating things.
My current thoughts began with one of the very early miracle principles. It now (in the FIP version) says “Consciously selected miracles can be misguided.” However, what Helen originally wrote was “Selective miracles can be dangerous, and may destroy the talent.” “Selective” got replaced with “consciously selected” as early as the Urtext, but it definitely should have stayed in. A later comment seems to assume that “selective miracles” is still in there. It says, “Miracles are selective only in the sense that they are directed towards those who can use them for themselves.” Notice how this statement looks like a qualifier of the earlier blanket statement, “Selective miracles are dangerous.”
(Based on that thought, I just looked up the original dictation of that statement, to see if the word “only” was emphasized. Sure enough, it was. It originally read, “Christ-controlled miracles are selective only in that they are directed towards those who can use them for themselves.” The emphasis on “only” makes this statement look very much like it assumes the earlier remark about “selective miracles.”)
In connection with this, there are a number of references to the “impersonal nature of miracles.” Based on their context, it is clear that “impersonal” here means “not recognizing differences between people; geared universally toward everyone rather than selectively toward particular people.”
It turns out, then, that “impersonal” is really the opposite of “selective.” To be selective in miracle-giving means that you decide to give miracles to ones you prefer. You are preferential in your miracle-giving. “She looks nice; I’ll give a miracle to her.” “He looks wealthy; maybe if I give a miracle to him, some of his wealth will come my way.” “She looks like an innocent victim; surely we should all give her a miracle.” Or, “He looks rather unkempt, unintelligent, and self-absorbed; no miracle for him.”
These reflections have made the phrase “the impersonal nature of miracles” come alive for me today. In fact, that’s what I’ve been practicing as my lesson for today. It sounds kind of dry, I expect, but based on its real meaning it is anything but. As I’ve looked at various people while I’ve said it, it has meant to me something like this: “It is the nature of miracles not to recognize any differences between people. In the miracle’s eyes, this person is every bit as deserving of receiving a miracle as anyone else. It is just as important that she receive a miracle as me, as my loved ones, and as people considered important socially, politically, spiritually, or otherwise.”
When I repeated the phrase “the impersonal nature of miracles” with this meaning in mind, it often had a very strong effect. I could suddenly picture that for this nondescript stranger to receive a miracle was every bit as vital and important as it would be for, say, a world leader to receive a miracle.
What came to me mind is that this is how doctors and hospitals are designed to work. If someone comes into the hospital and is mentally handicapped or is a murderer, that person is meant to get the same treatment as anyone else. That person’s healing is still worth the efforts of doctors, nurses, and other staff. No one says, for instance, “Well, you smoked and brought on your own lung cancer, so you just aren’t worth our effort.”
That’s how the miracle is. We are meant to pass on miracles, but the miracles themselves carry within them their own thought system. In that thought system, everyone is supremely important, everyone is supremely deserving, no questions asked. I think in the back of my mind I have thought that the ideal is for miracles to be impartial, to be impersonal in this sense. What I am seeing now, though, is that this is not the ideal. This is the very nature of miracles. They are born color-blind, gender-blind, status-blind, intelligence-blind, sin-blind. They do not actually possess the equipment to recognize and regard these differences that mean so much to us.
My goal needs to be to bring my mind up to this level. If we can picture miracles being like packets that I receive and pass on, then I need the content of that packet to also be the content of my mind. Of course, to regard everyone as supremely important and deserving would overturn my entire mindset. On the other hand, I strongly suspect that living in a world of “unimportant” and “undeserving” people is at the root of all my ills.
