Huckleberry Finn Teaches About Grace.

How can anyone not like Huckleberry Finn, the character or the novel? I empathize with him, I sympathize with him, I so want to educate him and help him along the right path.

If you've ever read the novel you might remember that the plot centers around Huck and Jim and their trip on a raft down the Mississippi River. Huck is running from his father and Jim is running away from his owner because he had heard he was about to be sold down the river (a fate worse than death). The story is related in the first person and in Huck's own voice. Twain captures the various dialects of the time perfectly.

Along the way they pick up a couple of con-men, known as the king and the duke, who use Jim, Huck, and their raft to further their scandalous trade. This brings us to the part where Huck really touched a chord in me.

The king and the duke are conning a local family into believing that they are long lost brothers to a man who has just died, arriving just in time for the funeral and, of course, the distribution of the will. The deceased's daughters are the ones being defrauded and Huck feels sorry for them. He begins working to foil the king and the duke in their plans. Finally he cannot contain himself and, in spite of his fears, he spills the beans to the oldest daughter that the king and duke are frauds and that he has a plan to expose them. There follows an emotional scene in which Huck expresses his admiration for her and she her gratitude toward him.

He writes her a note telling her all and hands it to her. Then this in Huck's voice:

It made my eyes water a little, to remember her crying there all by herself in the night, and them devils laying there right under her own roof, shaming her and robbing her; and when I folded it up and give it to her, I see the water come into her eyes, too; and she shook me by the hand, hard, and says:

"Good-bye--I'm going to do everything just as you've told me; and if I don't ever see you again, I sha'n't ever forget you, and I'll think of you a many and a many of time, and I'll pray for you too!"--and she was gone.

Pray for me! I reckoned if she knowed me she'd take a job that was more nearer her size. But I bet she done it, just the same--she was just that kind. She had the grit to pray for Judus if she took the notion--there warn't no back-down to her, I judge. You may say what you want to, but in my opinion she had more sand in her than any girl I ever see; in my opinion she was just full of sand. It sounds like flattery, but it ain't no flattery. And when it comes to beauty--and goodness too--she lays over them all. I hain't ever seen her since that time that I see her go out of that door; no, I hain't ever seen her since, but I reckon I've thought of her a many and a many a million times, and of her saying she would pray for me; and if ever I'd a thought it would do any good for me to pray for her, blamed if I wouldn't a done it or bust.

This is a natural human response to grace, i.e. undeserved kindness. While Miss Mary Jane is offering this kindness to Huck because she feels he deserves it, Huck knows better. He knows that he doesn't really deserve any such kindness at all, for, in spite of the fact that he has helped this girl, and in spite of his own warped conscience and sense of morality, he still has a keen sense of his own depravity. In a real sense, Huck's response to the girl's offer of prayer is the Christian response to any and all goodness God shows to us in this life. We deserve nothing from God at all for we have spent our whole lives in rebellion to him in one form or another. And, yet, God loves us, and is kind to us, and when we grasp that our response to that grace should be similar to Huck Finn: I don't deserve any of this but I'll strive to show some kind of love in return in any way I can.

Huckleberry Finn and Conscience

I'm just about finished with my re-reading of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. It has been a joyous read. I love Mr. Twain's work and after completing his Complete Short Stories last year I decided to give Huck Finn another twirl.

My first impressions were that it is not a children's book. Though it is the sequel to Tom Sawyer and Tom Sawyer is a children's book, Huck Finn is much more sophisticated and cerebral. It is a morality play.

I think Twain was fascinated by the southern culture he grew up in and he understood it well. In the book we find his view of it through the eyes of the title character, Huck. Twain is adept at showing us how skewed antebellum Southern society was in its thinking and its morality.

Throughout the book we find young Huck struggling against his own conscience when it comes to making decisions about right and wrong. Often he goes against his own conscience to do what we know is the right thing to do--for example, helping runaway slave Jim to escape his captors. Huck's conscience tells him that helping Jim re-escape is a horrible thing to do, something he could go to hell for. Meanwhile, another part of his conscience is remembering how good Jim has been to him and all of Jim's unselfish acts toward Huck. In the end, Huck decides to defy his conscience and help his friend Jim no matter what it costs him, even if it costs him his soul. He says to himself, "All right, then, I'll go to hell."

A few pages later Huck sums up what is wrong with the human conscience:

"So we poked along back home, and I warn't feeling so brash as I was before, but kind of ornery, and humble, and to blame, somehow--though I hadn't done nothing. But that's always the way; it don't make no difference whether you do right or wrong, a person's conscience ain't got no sense, and just goes for him anyway. If I had a yaller dog that didn't know no more than a person's conscience does, I would pison him. It takes no more room than all the rest of a person's insides, and yet ain't no good, nohow. Tom Sawyer he says the same."

In a few days I'm going to post something on the human conscience from a Christian perspective, so I won't say much here and now. But suffice it to say that just as all other parts of our nature are fallen, so is our conscience. And, as with Huck, it often misleads us when it is ill-informed or uninformed or tainted with error and/or immorality.

More to come.

Did Jesus establish a new religion?

I have a good Sunday School teacher and when he is gone he has a very good relief pitcher to take his place. Sunday School is always intelligent and spiritually challenging in our class. From time to time I email some thoughts to them about topics brought up in Sunday School sometimes to provoke thought, sometimes just for encouragement. The following is one of those emails from a few weeks back. I changed the names to take the personal element out.

Did Jesus Establish a New Religion?

Guys,

This is just something that has been in the back of my mind for a few weeks and I thought that now that we are taking a break from Acts it might be a good time to bring it up. I welcome discussion.

(Why the synagogue?)
Billy Bob, you brought it up and Jethro you echoed it, though I think both of you did so as a sort of reminder and I got the idea it was originally discussed in fuller detail in a class when I wasn't there. I'm talking about the question of why Paul would choose to proclaim the gospel first in the synagogue when arriving in a new town before taking it to the streets, as it were. I heard several reasons mentioned for this, things like how the Jews would already have a background understanding of the Scriptures and how the Jews would be better prepared to carry on in a new church after Paul left because of that Scriptural background, i.e practical reasons. Jethro, when you brought it up I think I raised my hand and mentioned Paul's great love for his people:

Romans 9:1-5 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (ESV)

Romans 10:1-4 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (ESV)

There were a couple of other reasons mentioned in class as well which I cannot remember at the moment. All of these, however, seem to me to miss the main point, sort of like pointing out the individual trees but missing the fact of the forest, to borrow from the cliche.

The forest is this. The Christian faith is the true Jewish faith. If the synagogues were to teach the Torah correctly, and with understanding, they would embrace the Messiah who has come and synagogue would now be church. This is and always has been the position of the Christian Church. If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah then the Jewish faith must embrace him or cease to be valid.

Paul was a synagogue elder and teacher before the road to Damascus. He was a known entity. He proclaimed a zealous brand of Pharisaism that was well-known throughout Judaism, even in these outlying areas. News of events in Jerusalem and Judea would have traveled slowly to the outer provinces (so to speak) and many of these places would have either not known about Paul's falling out with "orthodoxy" or may have been curious to know more about it or his side anyway. Paul had an open door to communicate in these venues and thus would use it (again the practical aspect).

But I do not think it was just pragmatism that drove them/him in this. I think all of the reasons brought up in class are accurate, yet mainly peripheral. The main reason would have been that ours is the true Jewish faith. We are modern Judaism. The Old Testament shows Christ's church in bud, the New Testament in bloom. The Old Testament shows Christ's kingdom in type, the New Testament in reality. Israel, as God's chosen people, were no different than we as God's chosen people. Outwardly they were all God's people, though inwardly it was only true of the remnant. In the same way, outwardly all who profess Christ are God's people but inwardly it is not so--we know that there are many tares among the wheat. We are the natural progression of the Jewish faith and in the most important aspect of all we are true Jews, according to Rabbi Saul of Tarsus.

Romans 2:28,29 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.  (ESV)

We are true Jews, you and I. Those physically descended from Abraham are not the children of the promise, Paul is very clear on this point. True Jews are those who are the descendants of Abraham by faith.

Galatians 3:7-9 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.  (ESV)

Follow Paul's thinking into all its implications and you will find that it is the Church and true believers who are the recipients of God's promises to Abraham, not unbelieving individuals who happen to be physically descended from Abraham.

Romans 9:6-8 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.  (ESV)

To go to a new town and not seek out its community of believers (for that's what a synagogue was) to proclaim to them that their Messiah had come would have been an act of horrid neglect. Just as the Father sent his Messiah to his own community of believers (Israel, ala John 1:11,12), so also Christ sent out his proxies to all the outlying communities of believers first. Those who embraced the Messiah showed their true colors as true believers. Those who rejected showed their true colors as well.

Jesus did not establish a new religion, he merely confirmed and expanded an old one.

Passionate Devotion II

A passionate devotion involves more than the intellect. Knowledge and reason inform our faith and devotion and are indispensable to it, but God spare us from a mere cold, intellectual Christianity. Knowledge inspires passion, not indifference. Knowledge inspires emotion, not coldness. To know that Christ died is one thing. To know that Christ died for sinful men and that this has always been God's plan and that I have always been one of those sinful men for whom God planned his eternal redemption, this inspires a panoply of emotion. It also inspires action.

Knowledge of the holy is the foundation upon which our faith and devotion is built. There is no better illustration of this than Paul's epistle to the Romans. The first eleven chapters are deep, deep theological teaching and argumentation. Having never been to Rome at the time of its writing and having had no intercourse with the Roman church up until that time, Paul wanted to ensure that their faith was laid upon the same theological foundation as his. But then Paul begins the twelfth chapter with this:

Romans 12:[1] I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. [2] Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (ESV)

Paul's appeal to them is based on "the mercies of God." This is the theme of his theological treatise of the previous eleven chapters. It's as if he says, "Now that you know all this, brothers, I appeal to you to do something because of it." Their presentation of themselves, their lives, their entire being to God is the reasonable response (King James) to their knowledge of God's mercy.

Here is the King James rendering:

Romans 12:[1] I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (KJV)(emphasis mine)

We cannot divorce reason from spiritual worship from Christian service. They are companions. They rely upon each other. The more we know of God, the more we love him. The more we know of his love and devotion toward us, the more we wish to devote ourselves to him.

Notice verse two of the above-quoted passage. First, we give ourselves completely to him, then we allow ourselves to be transformed by him. How? By the renewing of our minds. Again, our intellect informs our faith and devotion--inspires it. Knowledge of the holy is meant to change us, transform us. And how are we to "know" God's will, by what are we to prove it? On what is our discernment based? It is based upon that same knowledge of the holy.

So the more we know of God, the deeper our knowledge of him, the more devout and passionate we will be toward him, and the better our service will be.

James says something about a cold, dead theological knowledge which does not result in passionate devotion:

James 2 [19] You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! (ESV)

So you have an orthodox creed, James says. Wonderful. But so do the demons and at least it makes them shudder!

How much worse is a deep theological understanding with no emotional or devotional result at all?

Passionate Devotion

 WARNING:  the following post contains strong opinions of a religious nature and could be construed as offensive by people who normally view any sort of theological punditry as being unnecessarily dogmatic or confrontational.

To be devotional with and in the Scriptures involves both the emotions and the intellect. Too many modern "devotionals" are merely shallow, emotional dribble.

You may like chicken soup for the Christian soul. Wonderful. Please keep it to yourself over in the shallow end of the pool. I find it, frankly, annoying because it is shallow and, therefore, insulting. If we really want to have meaning to our devotional life we must go deeper.

The more we understand of the Scriptures, the more we understand about God. The more we understand about God, the greater our fear, awe, and need of him becomes. You may say you love Baskin Robbins 31 Flavors, but if you've never been inside and spent quality time enjoying each and every flavor, how much do you really love it? Maybe the truth is more like, "I like the vanilla that they sell at Baskin Robbins, but I don't really need to get into all those complicated flavors. Just give me the vanilla, thank-you."

We are too easily satisfied.

Most modern Christians think they know the Bible. They don't.

I know this because I have spent thirty years passionately studying it and the more I learn the more I realize how much I do not yet know.

I am speaking to evangelicals here . . . Don't think that just because you know almost as much as your pastor that this makes you pretty knowledgeable and pretty much an elite. The truth is, your pastor is probably pretty ignorant himself--to the shame of us all.
I'm not knocking pastors. I have a pretty good one.  His sermons are always scriptural and challenging.  Certainly there are many pastors who know a great deal, many who know a great deal more than I do. But, sadly, in our day they are the exception and not the rule. "My people perish for lack of knowledge" could have been written last week, or last month, or last year.

We need to know God, and if we are to know him it will involve the intellect as well as the emotions. We do not study God as a scientist might study the movement of molecular particles. We study him with zeal and passion and eager, emotional interest. Our hearts, our souls, our future, our joy is at stake. We want to know Him and we will never know Him without knowing his Word. But let us not forget that we must study Him if we are to know Him. We cannot divorce the intellect from our devotion.

So let us dive into his Word with a lust and a reverence like never before. Let us pore over it like Indiana Jones might pore over a map leading to an ancient Inca treasure city. And when we're done may we have a greater fear, and awe, and love, for God, and may we be able to say that we find our satisfaction in Him.

Radical Theory Change in Science

In light of the recent (November of 2009) revelations about the doctoring of records and data by global warming scientists at East Anglia University for the stated purpose of shaping public opinion for the advancement of a political cause, and in the face of the arrogance of those on the Left who insist that we all believe their global warming theory because of "consensus" and because the evidence is in and the debate is now over, and because making this sentence even longer will probably succeed in annoying every English teacher I ever had, I dredged up this old post from an old blog to present it to you, here and now, still relatively fresh and relevant.

Alister McGrath is a scientist and Christian theologian. He has written several books including at least two answers to noted atheist Richard Dawkins. I found the following quotations in one of those books and used them as a catalyst for the post. Enjoy.

Professor McGrath brings up an interesting observation in chapter three of his Dawkins' God--Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. In that chapter he has a section entitled "The Problem of Radical Theory Change in Science." Here is a quotation:

When I was learning physics at school, I gradually became aware of an awkward contradiction within what I was being taught. On the one hand, I was being assured that the theories of modern physics were completely reliable, the most secure form of knowledge that humanity could ever hope to possess. Yet every now and then, we would venture into a strange, twilight region in which it would be explained to us, in hushed, conspiratorial tones, that "physicists once used to believe this, but don't now." . . . At first, I thought that these old-fashioned views dated back to the sixteenth century. But the awful truth soon became clear. The acceptance of these new ideas dated from about forty years earlier. "Once" turned out to mean "quite recently."--Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, p.102, paperback, Blackwell Publishing.

Yep. I've noticed that sort of thing myself. No, I'm no scientist, but I am a television nerd--which means I watch all the nerd channels. You know what they are--the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, NatGeo, Discovery Science, History International, etc. I watch shows dealing with astronomy, cosmology, dinosaurs, you name it. One cannot watch many of these programs without coming across statements like the one McGrath notes above. Scientific theories are always changing, always being revised, many being completely discarded and replaced. They are always getting it wrong.

Now is that a bad thing? Of course, not. Scientific discovery is a road paved with wrong ideas, but as we learn and discover further, we grow. Isn't that wonderful?

There's something else I've noted in the scientific community from watching those nifty little nerd channels. Scientists are always arguing with each other. They seldom all agree on their theories and some are even ridiculed for their ideas by their colleagues. Sometimes even, the ones who are ridiculed turn out to be right. Sometimes a scientist comes along who challenges the prevailing opinions, is ridiculed, but in the end, through his diligent experimentation and research, it turns out that he was right and he changes the face of science for a few decades (until the next guy comes along doing the same thing).

All of this is easily evident to the untutored layman like me. Yet at the same time it is astounding how arrogant the scientific community is. Imagine, for instance, a guy like Richard Dawkins. An intelligent man by all accounts, well-learned, articulate, funny, thorough, logical, Dawkins is also arrogant--arrogant to the point of expecting people to radically change their worldview because of a scientific theory. Of course, as McGrath points out, even if one were to accept the theory of evolution as genuine it does not then necessarily follow that one's theism or Christianity be discarded.

Nevertheless, here is Dawkins--who cannot prove his theory. He may be able to point to a mound of scientific evidence, yet the necessary proof is as of yet un-produced. But Dawkins ridicules those who do not accept the theory as fact, even though scientific theories have a way of being found wanting and, after being replaced by new and better ones, being cast upon the forgotten heaps of antiquated errors that litter the landscape of scientific history.

Please, guys. Keep studying, keep learning, keep discovering. I shall watch with an interested eye. But, at the same time, how about adding in a dash of humility to that theoretical cauldron? The stew you are offering will go down much better if you do.

A little more from McGrath:

Historians and philosophers of science have produced long lists of scientific theories, each of which was believed by one generation to be the best possible representation of reality, yet which were abandoned by later generations, in the light of new discoveries and increasingly precise measurements of what was already known. Some theories have proved remarkably stable; many have been radically modified, and others abandoned altogether.--Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, p.104, paperback, Blackwell Publishing.

And:

Scientific theorizing is thus provisional. In other words, it offers what is believed to be the best account of the experimental observations currently available. Radical theory change takes place either when it is believed that there is a better explanation of what is currently known, or when new information comes to light which forces us to see what is presently known in a new light. Unless we know the future, it is impossible to take an absolute position on the question of whether any given theory is "right." What can be said--and, indeed, must be said--is that this is believed to be the best explanation currently available. History simply makes fools of those who argue that every aspect of the current theoretical situation is true for all time. The problem is that we don't know which of today's theories will be discarded as interesting failures by future generations.

If theories are thus subject to erosion, what of worldviews that are based upon them? . . .Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, p.104,5, paperback, Blackwell Publishing.