The Conversion of Paul Darst: or a Conflict Between Love and Infidelity Paperback – July 31, 2018

Daniel R. Lucas was a younger contemporary of both Charles Darwin and Alexander Campbell, and Lucas shows awareness of both of them in The Conversion of Paul Darst. This is a 19th century theological romance that takes on rampant Christian sectarianism (denominationalism) as well as atheism.Darst intends primarily to communicate theology, but still it does exhibit flashes of charm and brilliance. The style is wonderfully analytical (reminiscent of Hawthorne). The narrator playfully opts at times to divulge information while, other times, judiciously refuses to go any further. The contrasting of two evangelistic meetings is delicious—one of them revivalistic and the other rationalistic. Character development is weak, but that is a given in a work of 200 pages. Still, there are intriguing characters that will draw you in to share their thoughts, feelings, and aspirations. The plot, though fairly predictable, is carried along with wit and astute insight. There is even a Shakespearian twist.Some readers will be disappointed to find the racially offensive “n-word” used in the story. Such usage was found in contemporary writings, such as Mark Twain, and it seems preferable to retain the original expression for several reasons. First, as narrator, Lucas puts the word in the mouth of a lesser character, Ike Loar. He is a thoroughly uneducated, low-level politician who serves to exemplify deplorable ignorance. However, the narrator/author (Lucas) refers to black people with a respectful term and then uses another character, Job, to confront the ignorance that issues forth in racism and bigotry. I would imagine that Lucas included this incident to directly confront and denounce the racism that was then lively in some sectors of American culture. The “n-word” here shames any reader with racist tendency because it marks you as of the same ilk as Ike Loar! Retaining a word, that is now rightfully inappropriate, also serves to demonstrate the advance of racial progress in our culture from then till now. Authors like Lucas fostered that progress. Also, were the offending word to be struck from the historical record, it would have the undesirable effect of sanitizing our history of its failures. That would be more inexcusable than risking offense by including the word.Most readers would have benefitted from an introductory chapter or preface that set Darst in its context:• Biographical data on Lucas• Time and place of the writing of Darst• Theological explanation of why Restorationism was important then, and what the key drivers were that emerge in Darst• Description of how the manuscript was found, and description of any stylistic or substantive emendations that were made to the originalDarst repays the reader with humor and theological insight, and particularly so for those with Restorationist sensibilities. The same issues driving denominational sectarianism back then are still lively today. So also are the issues driving rationalistic atheism. At the end, an unlikely theological hero emerges. She is alone capable of championing a thoroughly Restorationist solution to the conflict driving the plot, though many of the characters fail to see and accept that solution: immersionist baptism into Christ and submission of every individual will to the single Divine will. The words in this climactic conclusion, however, fit poorly on the heroine. Transparently, the voice and words belong to Lucas. And the author demonstrably is a clear and deep thinker and theologian. I remain intrigued at the distinction Lucas raises between God’s “moral commands” and His “positive commands”, which alone are capable for demonstrations of faith. Darst still has me thinking, and that qualifies it as a good read, even a century later. The book retains value historically, theologically, and aesthetically.