Ed Stetzer recently had the opportunity to interview McKnight about his book. In the interview, McKnight elaborates on his understanding of the relationship between the gospel and justification, clarifies his opinion concerning John Piper’s articulation of the gospel, and offers his thoughts on how to share the gospel with others. The King Jesus Gospel will continue to provoke conversations among evangelicals who care about gospel fidelity. Thanks to Ed and McKnight for a very helpful addition to that conversation.

I first discovered Francis Schaeffer as a college student, right about the time I was wrestling with whether or not I wanted to pursue an academic vocation. While I appreciated his apologetic writings, I was especially encouraged with how Schaeffer encouraged an earlier generation of evangelical students to traverse the path upon which I was soon to embark. Schaeffer’s ministry helped launch hundreds of evangelicals into academic careers. I’m especially thankful for this aspect of his legacy.

I’d encourage you to follow the CFC on Facebook and read what others such as David Wells, Timothy George, Danny Akin, Bruce Ashford, and Steve Lemke are saying about the ongoing influence of Francis Schaeffer. Be expecting several dozen more updates in the next couple of months.

Kidd serves as an associate professor of history at Baylor University, where he is also a senior fellow for the Institute for the Studies of Religion. He is a prolific author with expertise in American religious history and the colonial and revolutionary eras. His other books include God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution (Basic, 2010), American Christians and Islam: Evangelical Culture and Muslims from the Colonial Period to the Age of Terrorism (Princeton University Press, 2008), The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America (Yale University Press, 2007), and The Protestant Interest: New England after Puritanism (Yale University Press, 2004).

Nathan Finn: Most of what you’ve written before now has been in the field of American religious history. What led you to branch out and write a biography of Patrick Henry?

Thomas Kidd: Henry appears in my Great Awakening book as well as God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution, so it was not too much of a stretch to write a biography of him. Henry was the most outspoken Christian among the major Founders, and I was fascinated by the idea of writing a focused study of a well-known Founder about whom there is no question about the seriousness of his faith. Of course, since I work in the history department at Baylor, I routinely get to teach on American political and military history topics, so perhaps that eased the transition as well.

NAF: When we think about the Founding Fathers from Virginia who most influenced early American history, we tend to think of Washington, Madison, and Jefferson. Why do you think Henry frequently ranks behind these men in our historical memory?

TSK: Although many people know Henry for his “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech of 1775, he is less well-known than these other Virginia Founders. That undoubtedly has to do with positions that Henry took after the American Revolution in opposition to Madison and Jefferson, and in the case of the Constitution, to Washington as well. First, Henry believed in continuing public support for Virginia’s churches, while Jefferson and Madison pushed for Jefferson’s Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), under which the state would stop giving direct financial assistance to any denomination. Henry believed that faith was indispensible to the life of the republic, so he thought the churches deserved tax support. This was, of course, the traditional approach of most of the colonies, including Virginia, as well as mother England, which still has the established Church of England today. But Jefferson and Madison, with the support of many Baptist evangelicals, argued instead for putting religion on a voluntary basis, which in the long run helped to strengthen American Christianity by requiring churches to compete for adherents.

Then, in 1787–88, Henry became Virginia’s leading opponent of the Constitution. Americans today have a hard time understanding why Patriots such as Henry and Samuel Adams opposed the Constitution, butit is not difficult to see Henry’s logic. To him, the American Revolution was an uprising against strong centralized government power in Britain. Ten years later, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were trying to centralize the American government, too, giving it major new powers, including the dreaded authority to tax. Henry thought this was a betrayal of the principles that animated the Revolution.

So on these two issues, religion and the Constitution, Henry took positions that may seem peculiar today, but I think Henry’s views give us a better understanding of the contest between Founders to implement American independence. His positions illuminate paths not taken.

NAF:  Many contemporary conservatives resonate with Jefferson’s views about states rights, limited government, etc. Do you think Henry is also a role model for contemporary political conservatives?

TSK: In a way, Henry is a better role model than Jefferson for political conservatives because he was so thoroughly committed to limited government. Jefferson was in Paris in 1787–88 and never took a clear position on ratifying the Constitution. And Jefferson certainly did things as President that belie his reputation for favoring limited government. Where modern-day conservatives would balk at Henry, however, is his fundamental opposition to the Constitution. Conservatives today often say that our failure to abide by the Constitution has caused our political problems and the out-of-control size of government. Henry predicted that the Constitution itself, especially by granting Congress the power to tax, would allow the national government to become a monster.

NAF: So if Henry opposed Jefferson and Madison on disestablishment, did he not believe in religious liberty? Did Virginia Baptists appreciate Henry like they did those other political leaders?

TSK: Henry was a beloved figure for Virginia Baptists through the 1760s and 1770s, because Henry reportedly defended Virginia Baptists imprisoned for illegal preaching, and may have even bailed out a preacher or two at his own expense. Henry also helped Madison write the sixteenth article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), which guaranteed Virginians freedom from persecution on the basis of religious beliefs. So Henry certainly believed in religious liberty, in the sense that no one should suffer penalties or disadvantages because they do not comply with the established state denomination’s doctrines. But he did not believe that religious liberty required the government to stop giving tax support to churches.

In 1784 Henry proposed a “general assessment for religion” as an alternative to Jefferson’s Bill for Religious Freedom. Henry’s general assessment would have allowed taxpayers to designate a church of their choice to receive their religious tax. Therefore, Henry would have moved to a system of Christian pluralism (as opposed to exclusive support for the Church of England, or Episcopal Church, as it was called after the war) but he would have maintained public support for religion. This was not only to bolster their purely religious functions, but the churches in the Revolutionary period were the chief agencies of education and social welfare in Virginia — Henry thought that dropping support for the churches was a strike against virtue and learning in the state. The Baptists disagreed, having fresh memories of the official religious persecution that lasted into the early 1770s. They thought that government involvement necessarily corrupted religion. So on this issue they fell out with their old friend Henry.
NAF:  Was Patrick Henry an evangelical in the sense we think of that term today?

TSK: Henry had a deep family background in the Great Awakening of the 1740s in Virginia, as his mother would take him to the revival meetings of Presbyterian pastor Samuel Davies, and reportedly required him to repeat the biblical text and essence of the sermon to her on the wagon ride home. I do not know for sure whether Henry ever had a conversion experience, in which he consciously asked Christ to forgive his sins and to be his Savior and Lord. This may have happened, but no documentation of it survives (and we should remember that the documentary record of Henry’s life is relatively paltry—he just didn’t save much of his personal papers). One relative also recalled that Philip Doddridge’s evangelical classic The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul was Henry’s favorite religious book. If that is true, then we could probably classify Henry as an evangelical.

NAF:  Besides your biography, what other books would recommend to those who might be interested in learning more about Patrick Henry?

TSK: One would be the first biography of Henry, William Wirt’s Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (1817), which helped to secure Henry’s reputation as the greatest orator of the American Revolution, and which re-created the “Liberty or Death” speech from recollections of people who were present on the occasion (the original text of the speech, amazingly, did not survive). A modern book would be Pauline Maier’s remarkable Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788 (Simon & Schuster, 2010), which paints in vivid colors the efforts of Henry and other Anti-Federalists to derail the Constitution, and James Madison and the Federalists’ work to save it.

It’s also a question I get asked all the time, both by college and seminary students and by members of my local church. I’ve participated in some lively discussions in both contexts. For those of us who are Baptists, a closely related question concerns the appropriate age to baptize children. I’ve addressed the baptism question before. While I don’t claim special insight, I want to briefly delve into the conversion question before pointing to a helpful resource.

In my own experience, I see two extremes when it comes to childhood conversion (and baptism). On the one hand, I meet some Christian parents who, in my opinion, are too quick to pronounce their child as converted because the kid has a sweet disposition, likes going to Sunday School, and is eager to pray a simple sinner’s prayer. While I concede it is quite possible for very young children to exhibit these traits and actually be converted, I think it’s difficult to discern whether these sorts of inclinations and actions constitute authentic faith or simply “mirrors” the faith of parents and teachers. I realize discerning conversion is an inexact science and even the most careful parents and pastors get it wrong sometimes, but I think we all agree we don’t want to push anyone of any age into a place of false assurance. I’ve seen many very young children, sometimes under age five, who’ve been rushed down the aisle and into the water, only to disappear as soon as they hit puberty, get a driver’s license, enroll in college, etc.

On the other hand, I meet other Christians who, in my opinion, are too hesitant to acknowledge that their child seems to be converted. Sometimes, they expect their kid to be a theologian before he can be considered regenerate. Other times, they expect their child to show remarkable progress in sanctification to prove whether or not she is converted. I think these tendencies tend to collapse discipleship into conversion, expecting more of children than we often ask of adult converts to the faith. I’ve seen many teenagers who were convinced they’d been Christians since they were nine or ten, but whose parents were hesitant to acknowledge this reality and were (in my opinion) artificially prolonging baptism until they discerned the “right” sort of fruit in their child’s life. Some of them aren’t baptized until well after their college years, even though their testimony is that they’ve been a Christian for a decade or more.

These are tricky questions, and even substantially like-minded families and churches debate the best way to handle childhood conversion, baptism, membership, etc. I’m thankful that Brian Croft has weighed in on this issue. Brian is gifted with unusual pastoral wisdom, which he frequently shares through his blog Practical Shepherding. His latest post is “How Do You Discern the Conversion of a Child.” Drawing on the insights of Jonathan Edwards, Brian offers some helpful thoughts on an important topic. I’d urge you to read the post. And while you’re at it, you ought to consider becoming a regular reader of Practical Shepherding.

There are already many rumors circulating about which Democratic leader will emerge to challenge McCrory. Both parties are also already spinning Gov. Perdue’s announcement as advantageous to their respective agendas. It will be interesting to see what transpires in the coming weeks. You can read more about Gov. Perdue’s decision at Politico, Carolina Journal, and the Raleigh News and Observer.

It’s also worth noting that Rep. Brad Miller (D) will also not be seeking re-election, apparently due to the new district maps drawn up by the Republican-controlled NC General Assembly. Rep. Miller currently represents the part of Wake County in which we live, but under the new map he’d have to run in the primary against Rep. David Price (D), who represents most of Wake, Orange, and Durham Counties. It’s unknown which Republican will challenge Rep. Price for his seat in the House of Representatives.

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary sponsors a research center called The Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry. The Baptist Center was founded by Stan Norman, now provost at Oklahoma Baptist University, and is currently led by NOBTS provost Steve Lemke. The Baptist Center publishes a journal titled The Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry (JBTM), which is available online for free. Over the years, I’ve read almost everything published in JBTM; they’ve engaged many interesting and helpful topics, often representing a variety of Baptist perspectives. I’d encourage you to make a habit of reading JBTM.

The most recent issue of JBTM is dedicated to “Calvinist, Arminian, Baptist Perspectives on Soteriology.” This has been a perennial topic for the journal in recent years, perhaps in part because of Dr. Lemke’s own well-known interest in these matters. The JBTM always includes a range of voices when they address soteriology (or other controversial topics), and that’s again the case with the new issue. Contributors include several NOBTS faculty members, respected Free Will Baptist and Presbyterian scholars, and the pastor of a historic Baptist church in the Deep South. At least one of the contributors is a Calvinist, while a couple of others are self-confessed Arminians. Most of the contributors imply or openly advocate a so-called Baptist approach that is somewhere in between Calvinism and Arminianism as the soteriological “best practice” for Southern Baptists. It would be fair to say that the bulk of the essays are critical of Calvinism, but they are by no means uncharitable to Calvinists.

As a historical theologian, I was especially encouraged by the journal’s forum on Thomas Grantham, the influential General Baptist theologian who is experiencing something of a renaissance among scholars. Contemporary Baptists have been greatly blessed by renewed interest in Andrew Fuller, Charles Spurgeon, James P. Boyce, and John Dagg over the past generation. While Grantham is very different from these brothers, we need to hear from him, Daniel Taylor, and other voices from the more Arminian Baptist theological stream. And while we’re at it, I think it would be worth giving more controversial theologians such as John Gill and E.Y. Mullins a fresh reading as well. All of Baptist theology is our theology–even the parts with which we may disagree. A renewal of Baptist theology will only be advanced by a careful reading and critical appropriation of all of our theological forebears, alongside other theological voices from the wider Christian tradition.

Back to the journal. While no one is likely to resonate with every article in the latest issue of JBTM, each of them is worth considering. Lots of folks are interested in this topic, and anyone who reads Baptist blogs with any regularity knows that this discussion evokes great emotion (and frequently bombast), often generating at least as much heat as it does light. Though the new issue of JBTM makes no claim to be a balanced point-counterpoint forum on these issues (and it doesn’t have to be), it’s certainly a constructive contribution to the ongoing soteriological debates among Southern Baptists. While consensus may not be forthcoming, I’m hopeful that these types of conversations will contribute to greater fraternal appreciation and gospel cooperation among Southern Baptists of different soteriological persuasions.

If you’re interested in the debate over the doctrines of grace, especially as it pertains to the contemporary SBC, I’d encourage you to read the latest issue of The Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry. If you have time, I’d urge you to read it in conjunction with the Spring 2010 issue of the same journal, which included several review essays of Ken Keathley’s Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach and Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, edited by David Allen and Steve Lemke. I’d also encourage you to read the multiperspectival Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialog, edited by Brad Waggoner and Ray Clendenen, as well as Tom Nettles’ By His Grace and For His Glory, an overtly Calvinistic treatise that is part historical survey and part doctrinal exposition. For other reviews, you should check out the Summer 2010 and Fall 2010 issues of Founders Journal, which includes Calvinist critiques of the Keathley and Allen-Lemke books, and Allen’s lengthy non-Calvinist review of the Waggoner-Clendenen book, which was published as a white paper for Southwestern Seminary’s Baptist Theology website. There are also loads of bloggers who’ve engaged this issue (including yours truly), but blogs need to be read discerningly on this issue for the reason mentioned earlier.

(image credit)

Unfortunately, every healthy trend sometimes includes unhealthy elements—such is to live in a fallen world. We gospel-centered types need to be reminded of our own shortcomings. In fact, there’s something profoundly gospel-centered about understanding the depths of your own sin so that you can rest anew in the good news of all that God has done through the person and work of King Jesus.

In his excellent book Gospel: Rediscovering the Power That Made Christianity Revolutionary (B&H, 2010), pastor J.D. Greear includes a helpful appendix titled “A Gospel-Centered Warning to Young Zealous Theologians.” Like me, J.D. is a thirty-something Southern Baptist who talks about the gospel all the time. He’s also the pastor of a megachurch whose membership is largely comprised of gospel-centered collegians and young professionals. J.D. also teaches adjunctively at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a school blessed with a student body that, on the whole, very much wants to be gospel-centered. All this to say, his convicting words should be read and heeded by everyone who regularly visits the Gospel Coalition website, follows Tullian Tchividjian on Twitter, reads Jerry Bridges books, and soaks up Tim Keller sermons. You know, people like me and J.D.

J.D. and our friends at B&H Books have kindly granted me permission to make “A Gospel-Centered Warning to Young Zealous Theologians” available online. I’ve reprinted it below. I hope you find this material as helpful as I have. I also hope it encourages you to purchase a copy of Gospel and read the whole book. For those of you who are pastors or other ministry leaders, Gospel would make a great book for a church staff to read and discuss together.

“A Gospel-Centered Warning to Young Zealous Theologians”

By J.D. Greear

I’ve noticed that many of us who grasp this concept of “gospel-centeredness” can have a tendency to be more excited about the “theory” of gospel-centeredness than we are about the gospel itself. At least I’m that way. I have gotten pretty good at identifying non-gospel-centered preaching, and can pretty ably point out the shortcomings of certain ministries. The point of gospel-centeredness, however, is not the shrewd ability to critique others. The point of gospel-centeredness is to adore God and worship His grace.

Many of us who love to talk about gospel-centeredness seem to possess very little of the humility that should go along with it. You can see that in how self-promoting we are and how ungracious we are with others. It always amazes me that we can be proud because we understand the very things that should lead us to humility.

My mind has often burned hotter with the latest theological trend than it has passion for the God who gave Himself for me at the cross. Knowledge that does not lead, ultimately, to love and humility is “worthless,” Paul would say. What really counts, he says, is not knowledge by itself, but the love that our knowledge of the gospel should produce (1 Cor. 12:1–3).

One of my fears in writing this book is that it might contribute to a growing self-righteousness among younger theologians who feel like understanding gospel-centeredness makes them more special in the eyes of God (oh, the irony!) than those who can’t articulate it, and who judge everyone else by whether or not they use the same terms that they do.

Recently, I talked with a little old lady who had been my Sunday school teacher at the very traditional church in which I grew up. She said, “You know, as I lose more and more friends to heaven, I often wonder what it is really like up there and what I should be looking forward to. I know they say there are streets of gold, but that doesn’t seem to excite me very much. The one thing I really want to do is see Jesus.” This lady has never heard of John Piper and has no idea what the Gospel Coalition is, but she has been changed by the gospel. She loves Jesus, and that is the whole point of gospel-centeredness.

There are many little old ladies serving in church nurseries who may not understand how to articulate the theories of gospel-centeredness or have the ingenuity to dazzle our minds with psychological insights, cultural observations, and Christocentric interpretations of obscure Old Testament passages. Their hearts, however, burn with love for Jesus and overflow with gratefulness for His grace.

Their humble, gospel-rich love for God is worth more than all the books you or I can write on this subject.

So don’t be quick to judge them. Be humbled by them. Mastering the theory of gospel-centeredness is not the point. Loving the God of the gospel is.

See J.D. Greear, Gospel: Rediscovering the Power That Made Christianity Revolutionary (Nashville, TN: B&H Books, 2010), pp. 253–55.

(Note: This post is also published at Between the Times.)