Is John Frame’s Triperspectivalism a Third Way for Critical Race Theory?

Jon Harris has wrote a book titled “Social Justice Goes to Church.” He has a recent video for his show “Conversations That Matter” titled “CRT and Triperspectivalism.” Here is the video:

In the video he asks “Is Triperspectivalism a Third Way for CRT?” Specifically he wonders if John Frame’s Triperspectivalism is something that would be problematic when it comes to approaching Critical Race Theory.

I appreciate Jon Harris this past year for raising concern of various unbiblical idea that have creep into the church from our culture, especially with items that the elites in the West push for politically. Things like Woke ideology/theology, gender/identity politics, compromises, etc. But here I do think his view of Triperspectalism as potentially a risk that aid the advance of Critical Race Theory by either Frame himself or those who follow Frame (example would be Timothy Keller) is problem. I do want to note Harris seem to use the term “Critical Race Theory” to refer to the social justice movement/woke ideology in general rather than the specific legal theory. I appreciate Harris’ overall tone when he talks about controversial issues. I also appreciate Harris’ nuances to say he doesn’t know if John Frame or certain followers of Frame who would use Triperspectivalism to promote Critical Race Theory. In addition Harris has the humility to say where he doesn’t know what Frame’s view is.

My post wishes to clarify some things about Triperspectivalism itself, second how Triperspectivalism can help clarify ethics in general and finally how Triperspectivalism help in critiquing Critical Race Theory.

Clarifying about Triperspectivalism

I’ll be focusing more on Harris quotation of James Anderson’s essay of Presuppostionalism and Frame’s Epistemology.” This is actually a chapter from the book Speaking The Truth In Love: The Theology Of John M. Frame which is about Frame’s theology from the input of others.

I wished Harris could have quoted from John Frame’s writing itself to understand Frame’s Triperspectivalism instead of Anderson. Not that Anderson is a problem but the best person to understand someone is the person himself.

So what would be a good place to read from Frame’s work? I think the best introductory work to understand John Frame’s Triperspectivalism method is his book Theology in Three Dimensions by John Frame which I reviewed here. Frame’s Triperspectivalism covers vast areas from the attributes of God, epistemology (how you know what you know), and ethics and the article that Harris interacted with from the article by Anderson was on Epistemology. If one want to interact with Frame as primary source for the our discussion I think it would fall under the domain of ethics and Frame’s book The Doctrine of the Christian Life is the source to read about Triperspectivalism with ethics. My review of that book can be found be here.

Looking at the video of Harris’ discussion about Triperspectivalism I think the impression one can get towards the end of Anderson’s video is that Triperspectivalism is about relative perspectives and that other perspectives is permissible even if it contradictory or wrong. Harris in 6:14-34 minute mark gives us one of his quibble with Triperspectivalism:

Now if you have a perspectivalism where God is creator and different people have limited perspectives but God is the one with the one true perspective and He gives us revelation by which we can know things through general and special revelations I don’t know if I have a problem with it. But I don’t know if in this paragraph as least we don’t see this come out as much.”

But that is inaccurate description of Frame’s Triperspectivalism. From the second minute to minute 6:37 Harris quotes Anderson’s essay from pages 436-437. Then he quotes after that from page 438 from minute 6:38 onwards. But Harris skips two paragraphs and the second paragraph he skips actually clarifies that Frame’s method of Triperspectivalism isn’t relativism.

Let me quote it:

The critics thus conflate relativism and relativity; the former is self-defeating nonsense, whereas the latter ought to be self-evident common sense. IN any case, Frame is careful to point out that the very basis for objectivity is the existence and self-revelation of an absolute God. SInce God’s knowledge is comprehensive and determinative, it is constitutive of objectivity for humans.

Page 638

Anderson in that same paragraph also note how a distinctively Christian epistemology reject postmodernist epistemologies, a concern that Harris rightly have with postmodernism.

So what is Triperspectivalism?

In regards to ethics specifically it is the view that ethics has normative, situational and existential dimensions, and that these dimensions are inter-dependent in any ethical system.

I agree with Jon Harris at the 9 minute mark where Harris said the name “perspective” might be confusing and he said “A perspective requires all three things.” It is better to call “perspective” as “dimension,” “aspects,” etc.

I give the definition of this triade from Frame’s Doctrine of the Christian Life:

“The Situational Perspective. In this perspective, we examine situations, or problems. This study focuses on God’s actions in creation and providence that have made the situations what they are, hence God’s lordship attribute of control.” (Page 33)

“The Normative Perspective. From the normative perspective, we focus on Scripture more directly. Our purpose is to determine our duty, our ethical norm, our obligation.” (Page 33)

“The Existential Perspective. The existential perspective focuses on the ethical agent, the person (or persons) who are trying to find out what to do.” (Page 34)

Triperspectivalism is helpful to clarify things in ethics

Why is this important? It helps clarify things.

All three dimensions are inter-dependent. Think of the action of going to church. We know going to church is the right thing as believers to do. This is obeying God’s law to fellowship with one another (the normative dimension). Of course this takes place in a specific place and time (the situational dimension). And we must do it with the right motive, to worship God (the existential perspective). Our decision can be unethical if we have a wrong perspective. For example in terms of the normative dimension someone can be unethical in thinking they don’t go to church because God’s commandments doesn’t matter. Or they do go to church but they don’t consider the situational perspective of when is the church service; they arrive late and always misses it. There is a culpable negligence if it is one over time. Or they do go to church but on the wrong day and no one is there; they didn’t satisfy the fellowship to exercise loving one another. Still someone might go to church with the wrong motivation: internally it is so others can see them, they think its done to earn righteousness iwth God, etc. The existential dimension is ethically flawed.

For the purpose of our post one of the reason why it is important is that it provides a framework to critique unbiblical ethical systems.

Triperspectivalism help in critiquing “Critical Race Theory”

One way Triperspectivalism help in apologetics is the framework to critique unbiblical ethical systems and worldviews.

This can be done in two ways. First is the analysis of each dimensions in an ethical system. For example: Are the norms correct? Does this ethical system grasp the situation correctly? And does the ethical system properly motivate one to do the right thing? Secondly awareness of these three dimensions also provide awareness of when an ethical system equivocate one dimension for another. For example what some people call situational ethics can confuse situation for norms/rules/laws. Or people can believe in moral subjectivism since they confuse the existential for the normative. Still one can also have the right norms; but they misapplied it to the wrong situation.

I want to give a sketch of Triperspectivalism being a critique of the “Critical race theory” that Harris speaks out against (social justice/woke ideology).

Situational dimensions of Critical Race Theory

Advocates of Critical Race Theory often make certain historical claims. These historical claims are the basis to say there needs to be a need for change. Some of these historical claims can be true and some can be false.

One often hear Christianity is a tool of European imperialism and colonialism. See my post Is Christianity a Tool of European Colonialism?

Yes America did have racism in its history. But that doesn’t mean every claim about injustice is accurate. I’ve read one article in a publication made the assertation that Asians came to benefit from slavery of African American. My historical response can be found here: Asians coming to America to benefit from Slavery? 

A pastor with a big platform even said to me that the Constitution explicitly declared African Americans are not human beings. My response can be seen here: Discussion with a Pastor about US Constitution and 3/5 Compromise and lesson of correcting others.

Normative dimensions of Critical Race Theory

Sometimes the norms themselves are a problem.

There can be the case of a different standard of what is justice. See 4 Lectures on Biblical Worldview of Economics specifically the fourth lecture in which the speaker goes over biblical justice in contrast to the popular idea of justice today in the economic realm.

Sometimes a new norm is advanced by advocates because they believe it will help increase good and justice for more people. While norms shouldn’t be equivocated with the situational dimension still there is a place for talking about the situational, specifically with what are the outcomes for a policy, law and rule, and whether its a good or bad idea to have it as a new adopted norm. There can be unintended consequences with a proposed norm that bring about more bad than good; space doesn’t permit to go into more details but I highly recommend The Quest for Cosmic Justice by Thomas Sowell that does question whether it is wise to adopt certain policies by the New Left in the name of Social Justice.

We can critique various advocates of Critical Race Theory by asking the fundamental questions of what their view of ethical norms based upon. In other word, by what standards? I am concern for the frequency of the answer I see that ground ethical norms on subjectivism and relativism. We must also beware of those who equivocate the existential for the normative. Right and wrong is not based upon individual opinions but from God. Relativism is a bad foundation for ethics.

This is not with everyone with Critical Race Theory but some believe in actions that presupposes an ethical norm that two wrongs can make something right. I think that is unbiblical and highly counter-productive as an anti-racist strategy.

Existential dimensions of Critical Race Theory

Beware also of Critical Race Theorists equivocating subjective experiences with situational claims. One often see “lived experience” utilized to say there is racism. This past year there has been some people telling me about their stories of dealing with racism. These include believers I know and love. I believe the Christians that have told me their stories. But we must make a distinction between individual racism someone faces and that it is always a structural racism involving institutions systematically. Just because one did or did not experience something personally doesn’t mean someone else’s experience isn’t true; yet also we need to look at larger sample size and studies to make a claim about society doing something beyond someone’s individual experience.

When it comes to proposed solutions by Critical Race Theorists sometimes they are not accounting for what the Bible teach about the sinful nature within man. Man really is sinful and that should lead us to be cautious with any proposed solutions that grant anyone or any institution so much power without recourse of appeal and checks and balances. For instance Ibram X. Kendi proposes a Federal Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism that cannot be removed to go after local, state and federal public policies. More frightening is his view that there is to be no political appointee in this department when political appointee is typically the mechanism for checks and balances: “the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees” (Source). But with much power and also the fact that all is sinful should the solution be the increase of the power of government without accountability? Kendi’s solution would be ripe for abuse when his DOA has more power than any other branch of government and lack accountability when he said “The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas” (Source). It would be ripe for Kendi’s definition of racism: racial prejudice committed by those in power.

Of the three ethical dimension I think today’s social justice can downplay the importance of existential dimension of virtues. Yet Scripture often emphasize the existential dimension more than the other dimensions in the face of injustice and suffering, where we bear person fruit of sanctificatoin such as patience, Self-control, etc. We see Scripture often encourage the cultivation of these inner character that is born out of sanctification to those who are oppressed, be it wives to unbelieving husbands, subjects to the government, slaves to bad masters, etc. The Bible teaches us that the motivation is to please Christ because of the Gospel of Christ dying for our sins. And with that I’ll end the post for now: Christ coming to die for sinners is the message the world needs to hear the most for the sake of people’s salvation.