A Student’s Thoughts on D. A. Carson
I have been privileged to sit under the teaching ministry of Donald A. Carson during my studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in suburban Chicago. Dr. Carson’s skill as a teacher was one of the reasons I chose to enter the Doctor of Ministry program at Trinity. After two all-day, week-long courses under his tutelage—not to mention attendance at a number of conferences where he was the keynote speaker—I have come to deeply appreciate this unique servant of Christ. Although Dr. Carson is a man who deserves a tremendous amount of respect, I don’t want to merely adulate. What follows are my honest observations.
Dr. Carson is perhaps the most brilliant man I have ever met. I can say by experience that feelings of inadequacy proliferate among his students. He is a gracious man, but not particularly sensitive. I once asked a question in a way he did not appreciate, and he was neither slow nor gentle in letting me know it. He told our class one day, “I do not much care what people think of me.” I suppose he exaggerated, but not much. God has graciously equipped him with the thick skin requisite for those who contend for the glory of God in the arena of intellectual battle. Wearing that thick skin in the classroom, Dr. Carson does not waste much time worrying about how his students feel. He is, however, quite anxious to influence how they think. And for this I will forever remain in his debt.
Like many brilliant men who are also gifted leaders, Dr. Carson can prove less than patient with anyone who lags behind his theological position, as well as with all who move beyond it. Those who lag behind (typically the more conservative) seem to bear the brunt of his sternness; those who run ahead (typically the less conservative) tend to rile his genius. Neither position is very comfortable. Yet Dr. Carson has a well deserved reputation for relating to both his critics and to those he criticizes with fair, accurate, thorough, respectful, level-headed, self-controlled, God-honoring dialogue.
Dr. Carson reads over 500 books per year—you fill in the blanks! In an innocently casual aside I heard him refer to the 300 books he read while researching for one of his books. (I’m hoping no one heard me gasp). Dr. Carson sleeps approximately four hours per night—sometimes less. He has written a book on Greek accents that is unsurpassed in the field (at least I believe this is the case; I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary, and this is one of his books I have decided plans never to read myself, much less to compare against other offerings in the field).
Though Dr. Carson is a top student in science and mathematics, he has a deep appreciation for poetry and is known, in the midst of a lecture, to recite from memory an extended passage from the works of some great poet. One day in class he complained that there simply are not enough theologians writing hymns. I scoffed a bit, wondering what on earth he had done about it. I was duly humbled when I walked into the Trinity book store during a class break only to find a published collection of hymns written by none other than Donald Carson! In the midst of his many endeavors, you will occasionally find him on public television defending the historicity of Jesus and the fidelity of the gospels against America’s most learned antagonists. (And as graciously as I can bring myself to say it, he makes each one look like a monkey in the process).
Despite his obvious acumen, I would have far less interest in Dr. Carson’s teaching if it were not for his earnest desire to shepherd souls. Carson is no ivory-tower theologian. He spends roughly half of every year traveling throughout the world to minister the Word in virtually every imaginable situation and location. He has a particular love for shepherds who minister in difficult places. He faithfully evangelizes at secular universities. He is also an able and sought-after counselor—often recruited to minister to prominent Christian leaders who have ruined their lives and devastated their ministries.
Dr. Carson also possesses a warm, devotional orientation. He is a man of prayer. His faithfulness to the truth of God’s Word is legendary. He has fought many theological battles without compromising his position. When the critics of Scripture start shooting, Carson is the guy Bible believers want in their fox hole. Nonetheless, his zealous defense of the faith does not emit primarily from a passion to engage in theological debate. His zeal flows from a genuine passion to honor his Lord.
Dr. Carson loves to talk. What is so unusual is that almost everything that comes from his mouth exudes wisdom. This wisdom is not always packaged in serious tones, mind you. Carson has a quick wit and routinely takes an almost boyish delight in telling a humorous story. He is a scholar who knows how to laugh.
Dr. Carson was raised in French Canada in a pastor’s home during a stretch of history in which evangelicals there were persecuted. This upbringing profoundly influenced Carson and he speaks of it often—earnestly, sometimes with tears. He saw pastors jailed. He saw the persecution lift. He saw response to the gospel explode in glorious triumph. During these formative years Dr. Carson’s rudder was set to defend the faith against strong opposition.
I do not agree with every theological position Dr. Carson holds, nor with some of the decisions he makes in the outworking of his Christian life. But I have found in him a man of fervent faith, fidelity to Christ, and a man of kindred spirit. I trust his heart and have been profoundly influenced by his mind. He has taught me how to read the Bible. For this I will remain forever grateful.
I have no doubt Dr. Carson’s influence will be felt for generations to come, should the return of Jesus be delayed. I have no doubt Dr. Carson will hear, “Well done good and faithful servant” from his Lord. Knowing what a thrill it has been to study at Dr. Carson’s feet, my heart thrills all the more with the prospect of sitting together with him at the feet of our Master in glory. (I still hope Jesus puts Carson in his place a time or two, though. His former students would enjoy that immensely!)
Editor’s note: D. A. Carson is Research Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL. and author of many articles and books. A few important recent volumes are
Christ and Culture Revisited
,
Evangelicalism: What Is It and Is It Worth Keeping?
, and
Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus (Re:Lit)
. He does not claim to be a Fundamentalist.
Dan Miller has served as the Senior Pastor of Eden Baptist Church since 1989. He graduated from Pillsbury Baptist Bible College with a B.S. degree in 1984 and his graduate degrees include a M.A. in History from Minnesota State University, Mankato, and the M.Div. and Th.M. from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. He is nearing completion of D.Min. studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dan is married to Beth and the Lord has blessed them with four children: Ethan, Levi, Reed and Whitney.
- 266 views
I have benefited from everything I’ve read from him. That includes the Sonnets, the hymns, the commentaries, and challenges like the Call to Spiritual Reformation. I appreciate the gifted balance of scholar and shepherd. His classes were the highlight of my DMin work at Trinity. May God raise up more gifted and committed servants. May God keep us all faithful.
Richard Glenny
Richard Glenny
That said, he’s been a thorn in the side of a great many evangelicals because his commitment is to the Scriptures as he understands them, not to evangelical fashion. So he’s a conservative evangelical to be sure and continues to be a very valuable force.
I personally benefited greatly from [amazon 0801020867]. It was a life changer in many ways for me and I hope to use it in the future in teaching opportunity that may open up.
Anyway, as for D.A., I’d love to see him embrace Fundamentalism, but regardless, may his tribe increase.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Carson is truly an amazing man of God, a David-type who stands up to the Goliaths.
The only bad point, however, is that he makes the rest of us look bad!
"The Midrash Detective"
I would see Carson as a classical Type C Fundamentalist! 4 years ago I postulated three “types” (or moods) of fundamentalist/fundamentalism that historically stem from the original batch of fundamentalism in the early 1900’s.
Type A would be fundamentalists that care the most about the “movement.” They see fundamentalism as a noun (“It is what we are, or who we are”). To them you are either a fundamentalist or you are a newevangelical. Nothing in between. For most here, separation is “all or nothing.” Type A’s will not have co-ministry with conservative, militant evangelicals….because they don’t see separation as the Type A does. This makes the conservative evangelical not just different but disobedient in their eyes. Secondary issues such as music genre, worship style, polity are often placed as a “first level issue” right along core doctrine such as the fundamentals. In my view the FBF would be a group that has represented this approach (in fairness that may be changing with new leadership but that is the FBF I remember from the 80’s and 90’s). This group has had a kind of a George Patton approach to militancy.
Type B would be fundamentalists that see fundamentalism as an adjective. It describes a portion of what they are. We would not be as loyal to the movement as our Type A friends would be. For us, separation is not “all or nothing.” Unity and separation is to a large degree connected with the type of agreement/disagreement one has. Differences are not viewed as being automatically “disobedient.” Type B’s could have some co-ministry with some conservative, militant evangelicals. In my view the GARBC has been a group that has represented this approach. This group has had more of a George Washington approach to militancy.
Type C’s would be conservative, militant evangelicals. Think Dever and MacArthur-ish. Fundamentalism to these guys is an action verb because they actually do “stuff” with their fundamentalism. That is they actually contend in a context (larger evangelicalism) where the gospel is threatened to one degree or another. I suppose in one sense that makes these guys the closest type of fundamentalism to the original group. Now see the Type A’s don’t like that statement….but I stand by it! These “C-guys” contend from the inside of groups such as the NEA, SBC, CBA, etc….In my view groups like FIRE represent well the spirit of this approach.
So….the reason I believe all three groups can historically and legitimately be viewed as part of the “Fundamentalist Family Tree” is that the original group were committed to two major ideas: 1) Orthodoxy 2) Militancy. The original group contained both “stay in and fight” types as well as “fight from the outside” types. These two groups while different respected and even had occasions of co-ministry. After the development of New evangelicalism (late 40’s throughout the 50’s), Fundamentalism for the most part determined that militancy should be expressed with a certain approach to secondary separation. I believe that was the right decision then and the wrong decision now. Why? It was right then because evangelicalism in the main was demonstrating a consistent “non-discernment” about Billy Graham Ecumenicalism. Why is wrong now? It’s wrong now because a growing majority within conservative evangelical circles are going militant. That is they are admitting that Billy Graham type of Ecumenicalism was wrong and the separatist approach to ecumenicalism was right. (Parenthetical Thought - Many of these guys are new to ecclesiastical separation so at first it’s a bit messy. Most of the Type A’s will not venture a relationship with these guys until they act and look like them. More of us will be quicker to reach out and encourage them in the direction they are headed). So once again, just as we had in the 20’s and 30’s, we have a growing group of evangelicals who are contending earnestly and militantly from the inside of groups for the gospel. The differences between A - B and C are enough that it would be difficult to have a continual close working relationship. But the differences are not enough to warrant total separation from each other.
I said all of that to say, Carson (in my view) is a Type C fundamentalist. He’s in the club! Well, He’s at least in God’s club. The one that matters.
Shalom and Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
” He is a gracious man, but not particularly sensitive. I once asked a question in a way he did not appreciate, and he was neither slow nor gentle in letting me know it. He told our class one day, “I do not much care what people think of me.”
How does this attitude reflect what the Scriptures say in 2 Timothy 2:24 (NKJV)
“And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient,”
Just curious?
I guess when you are an evangelical bigshot, you can act however you please and you are given a free pass….
Staight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I understand what you are saying. Reading that account reminded me of a story told by one of my current professors who was soundly rebuked by another well-known professor for asking a question. It was a turn-off and that account that I quoted reminded me of it. I am definitely not an advocate of being a people pleaser, but I think that there is room for being a Christian gentleman and being gracious and kind to those whom you are tasked with the responsibility of teaching. I think these situations strike a nerve with me because I have seen this happen all too often within Fundamentalism.
…not that it really matters all that much. But it would be interesting.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I understand the nerve hit when leaders are not careful about response.
I would also agree that even though I call guys like Carson A Type C, they themselves would not claim the movement.
Straight Ahead guys!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Whether we call Carson a type-C fundamentalist, a militant conservative evangelical, or Charlie’s jestful “type C Reformed,” Carson is what he is. Thus, it boils down to how we define the term “fundamentalist.” Although Carson would not label himself as such (and I perosnally do or do not, depending upon who I am talking to — and Charlie probably is the same way), but by the “agreed upon” SI definition of fundamentalist, Carson IS a fundamentalist, whether he likes the term or not.
If you recall your church history, Gregory the Great is considered the first pope, but refused the title.
This is why I love Joel’s A-B-C classification. It does the job. And who else fits the “type C” category better than Carson?
"The Midrash Detective"
who else fits…Maybe you, Ed? Not “better,” but I’ll bet Joel would put you on the cool kid I’d like to have in my group list. ;)
As an aside, some folks have expressed great irritation to me (and in other forums) about the whole business of classifying people. But it’s one of those things where if you find it useful and don’t mean to impugn, why not classify? And some of us just sort of enjoy it. Not like “I enjoy slapping a derogatory sticker on you” but we enjoy the analysis. So… to those who find it tedious, it’s OK, just ignore us and let us have our fun (we’re not trying to hurt anybody).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Welcome Ed Vasicek and Aaron Blumer, type-C Reformed. Joel T. has elders at his church and some kind of inter-church fellowship, so he is now officially type-C Presbyterian.
(I’m thinking this type-C thing is functionally similar to an honorary degree.)
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] The nice thing about the type C label is that no matter how much the so-labeled may deny it, his or her denial is, by definition, irrelevant. :)What would you call me, then? :)
Welcome Ed Vasicek and Aaron Blumer, type-C Reformed. Joel T. has elders at his church and some kind of inter-church fellowship, so he is now officially type-C Presbyterian.
(I’m thinking this type-C thing is functionally similar to an honorary degree.)
[Brian Jo]The uneasy Baptist.
What would you call me, then? :)
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion