Gospel "versus" miracles...

...and how my thinking has been changing.

Start uni: weak gospel with an interest in miracles.
Uni years one and two: stronger gospel with an interest in miracles.
Uni year three: getting annoyed at gospel, wondering if ignoring miracles too much.
End of uni: confused.
Now: read a friend's post called "Olive Branch" (read it) and thinking about the following quote from the post:

No one, not even any of the apostles, is on record as having done greater miracles than Christ; if they had done, it would prove they had a higher relationship with the Father than Christ himself. But telling others of Christ is far greater than miracles; it is greater in importance and greater in value.

In thousands of years of Christianity a lot of fights "A versus B", "C versus D" have developed. When discussing these with friends, we'll normally finish with an unsatisfying (for me) "well, it's somewhere in the middle isn't it?"

Where is the middle on this issue? Is there a middle, or should I embrace the gospel and not seek miracles of healing, supply, demonic powers and nature? Is it one versus the other, or can both sides be valid at the same time?

--
Update 3rd January 2011: Dave Bish has blogged on a somewhat related topic