D. A. Carson And What He Calls, “Lowest Common Denominator Theology”

A clip appeared on youtube under the channel, Tribute to Don Carson.  Carson appeared at Liberty University in a symposium on February 20, 2012, over thirteen years ago.  In this video, a faculty member asks Carson about whether it is appropriate to divide over dispensationalism or covenant theology.  After a brief, decent and actually surprising answer, Carson then begins mainly to discuss a related subject, and says the following (which I will break into sections).

Section One of Carson Answer

Moreover, you see behind the question, I think, is another question.  It’s it’s bound up with this new view of tolerance again.  There are many many people today who are saying anything that doesn’t directly affect your salvation is not an important doctrine, so that they’re saying in effect provided somebody can believe that and still be saved it doesn’t matter a twig.  I think that’s hugely mistaken.  What that’s looking for is really the lowest common denominator theology.  It’s constantly asking the question, “What is the least I can believe from the Bible and get away with it?

Whereas there are so many biblical texts that say that the righteous person loves the law of the Lord and meditates on it day and night, to this man will I look he who is of a humble spirit and who is contrite and who trembles at my word.  So that it seems to me that the right approach to scripture is how I can understand and believe more accurately, so that I can think God’s thoughts after him.  Not asking purely pragmatic questions, what’s the least I can believe and get away with it?

Section Two of Carson Answer

If God didn’t think it was important why did He give it for all eternity.  We’ll be thinking through the glories of God as he has disclosed them.  And so in the name of seemingly being generous and and tolerant in fact what we’re advocating is the debasing of knowledge of God.  That’s idolatry.

Now, once you say that you still have to recognize that some genuinely sincere informed, well-instructed Christians may disagree with each other on this or that and agree to be civil with each other, but to part company on some issue or other, it doesn’t mean that, because you disagree with a genuine believer in Christ Jesus, that that that that that, therefore, there’s no context in which you can pray together have fellowship or whatever.

Section Three of Carson Answer

But the constant panting after lowest common denominator theology ultimately gives you nothing to think about, or very little, nothing to glory in, nothing to delight in, nothing richly to proclaim of all of God’s most holy word.

I guarantee, you cannot be an a faithful expositor of scripture if you’ve already adopted a lowest common denominator theology.  You cannot do it.  If you are going to commit yourself to the exposition of the word of God the whole council of God to the whole people of God, estu (?) hate lowest common denominator theology.  You ought to take pride not in how little you can believe, but how much, and still do so with a kind of civility and courtesy and humility of mind that wants to learn from other people and does not want to become judgmental.

I published this clip and comment on it, because this seems to contradict the long time understanding of The Gospel Coalition, partly led by Carson.  Maybe he never wanted the coalition to embrace what he calls, lowest common denominator theology, and they did.  Perhaps he takes the time to warn about this.  It was and continues to be popular to rank doctrines and fellowship only on what’s deemed important.  This degrades biblical teaching and obedience.

Essential or Non-Essential or Tertiary Doctrines

Evangelicalism long time submits doctrine to what Albert Mohler coined, a theological triage.  He portrayed an emergency room where the medical staff divided patients into the serious to the less serious.  Someone enamored with Mohler, Gavin Ortlund, wrote on the very subject an entire book, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage.   I’ve too written much on this:

The Apostle Paul and His View of Unity and “Non-Essentials”
The Artificially Manufactured ‘Majoring on Minors’ Controversy
The Artifically Manufactured “Major-Minor” Controversy pt. 2
The Artifically Manufactured “Major-Minor” Controversy pt. 3
The Damage of the Non-Essential Doctrine to the Gospel
Deconstructing Fugate and Schaap and a Conclusion about Ranking Doctrines (J)
The Delusion of the Fundamental of the Faith: Relating It To Rocky Top at Bob Jones University
En Protois and 1 Corinthians 15:3: First of All, First In Order
The “Essential Doctrine” Doctrine Is Just Being Assumed with No Proof (J)
Essential Truths, Secondary Issues
Evangelicals Move the Goalposts on Adiaphora
1 Corinthians 15:3: En Protois, First in Order or First in Importance, and Ranking Doctrines
Gospel Minimization: Is Paul Saying in 1 Corinthians 15 that the Gospel Is Merely the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ?
Hard to Be Understood
Incremental Conservatism?
Is Sanctification a Secondary Doctrine?
Is the Doctrine of Major Doctrines a Major Doctrine? The Rapture as a Case Study
Majoring on the Minors
A Majorly Minor Break
“Negotiable Matters of Indifference”
Phil Johnson: Tertiary Doctrines Dovetailing with the King James Version Issue
The Point and Presumptuousness of Ranking Doctrines (J)
“Primary” and “Secondary,” Biblical Separation, and Application of Scripture: Johnson, MacArthur, Driscoll, and Murray pt. 1
“Primary” and “Secondary,” Biblical Separation, and Application of Scripture: Johnson, MacArthur, Driscoll, and Murray pt. 2
Ranking Doctrines (J)
Secondary, Tertiary, or Essential?
Secondary, Tertiary, or Essential?  Part Two
Secondary, Tertiary, or Essential?  Part Three
Secondary, Tertiary, or Essential?  Part Four
Secondary, Tertiary, or Essential?  Part Five
Separation and Ranking Doctrines
Separation with the Gospel as an Essential: Imagination of and about Jesus Dipping Below a Saving Quality
What Did Charles Spurgeon and H. A. Ironside Say About the Tertiary or Primary Doctrine View?
When An Exegetical Fallacy Becomes a Translation and then a Philosophy

I’ve also called this a form of “left-winged legalism.”  The Pharisees reduced what God said to the lowest common denominator so they could keep God’s law on their own.  They asked Jesus, “What is the greatest commandment in the law?”  The idea was the whatever were the least of God’s commandments, they could ignore those.  Carson expresses dissatisfaction at this idea.

Tolerance or Intolerance

Ironically, Carson wrote the foreword to Ortlund’s book, one published by The Gospel Coalition.  In the preface to Ortlund’s book, Carson writes this sentence:

Of course, some believers distance themselves from such triage grids. If the Bible asserts something, they avow, it is God’s truth and not to be relativized or declared more (or less) important than any other part of God’s truth.

I could say that I know one of those believers:  D. A. Carson — as said in a 2012 interview.  His inside voice becomes his outside voice.  The triage approach really does move people into “lowest common denominator theology.”  If you watch Ortlund through the years, he is a purveyor of this theology.

I’ve never read it, but Carson published a book in 2012, the same year as this interview, entitled, The Intolerance of Tolerance.  He speaks of the intolerance of those who continue to hold to their beliefs.  2012 was also the twenty-fifth anniversary of the classic 1987 Alan Bloom book, The Closing of the American Mind.

Bloom has a similar theme as that declared by Carson here.  Carson and Bloom are professors perhaps with the same concerns.  When someone tolerates everything, he closes his mind to everything.  He will not believe anything when he opens his mind to everything.  This is the enemy of education, truth, and discernment.

Perspicuity

Evangelicals and other religious folk have pushed and promoted “lowest common denominator theology.”  Every organization of Carson has done so.  This especially enables a bigger tent, a very inclusive view of unity.  Unity becomes toleration.  No one will approach truth with passion if he is unwilling to bite down and swallow when he sees it.  Just sampling is not enough.  A college education is not an exercise of perpetual tasting with no eating.  In essence, this is a rejection of truth.

At its root, what Carson calls “lowest common denominator theology” is a rejection of the perspicuity of scripture.  It undermines the certainty and conviction of God’s Word.  Someone can always excuse his behavior and even his faithlessness, because he couldn’t know.  Even if he does know, he could embrace the label of “non-essential,” and excuse his behavior or provide deniability to his laxity.  This is now the norm.  Some even blame this on the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of truth.  The Holy Spirit didn’t provide the necessary conviction or feeling to believe or stand strongly enough.

Yoking on the Truth

I agree with Carson that every doctrine might mean separation or division from someone.  It considers the biblical doctrine of separation and unity.  Also, it answers, “what is fellowship?”  Fellowship is not a conversation or a cup of coffee.  It is yoking together, as described in 2 Corinthians 6:14-16.  As someone preaches or teaches through every verse in his church, he should emphasize every single thing that God says, take it all seriously as Carson explicates in the answer to the question.  This acquiesces to the sovereign power of God and encourages love for Him.

Others must know that the truth comes before a relationship with them.  Jesus commanded this.  The Apostle John endorses it in his epistles.  Someone doesn’t really love another person without a wholehearted embrace of all of the truth.