In pastoral life and ministry I have frequently been asked about a philosophy of ministry and epistemology known as “triperspectivalism” (aka multi-perspectivalism). It is a way of thinking developed by John Frame and Vern Poythress accredited to the teachings of Cornelius Van Til. John Frame first coined the term and published his work in his 1987 The Doctrine of The Knowledge of God.
Anytime anything new comes on the scene, The Bible calls its adherents to “test everything and hold fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5:21).” A few upper level critiques have already been written on triperspectivalism.1 Thus, I do not necessarily intend for this to take that format but rather offer a few guidelines for studious church members and leaders regarding the helpful and potentially harmful repercussions concerning this form of thought.
Triperspectivalism has two main branches, one being epistemological and the other being ecclesiological.
The epistemological version begins with the affirmation of the Christian God as a Trinity. It is argued on the basis of God as a Trinity, one being in three persons, that the one truth or reality to be correctly seen and understood must be perceived through three different perspectives: the normative, the existential and the situational.2 The normative concerns God’s law or principles. The existential concerns the human experience and emotions. The situational concerns applications or actions in the world.
The ecclesiological version begins with John Calvin’s affirmation of Jesus Christ holding a trifecta offices: prophet, priest and king.3 From there it is extrapolated into a church leadership model. On the grounds of Jesus being the only perfect leader who exercises all three offices, it is argued all subsequent church leaders will then excel primarily in only one of the offices. The prophetic leader enjoys and is good at speaking. The priestly leader enjoys and is good at mediating. The kingly leader enjoys and is good at organizing.
The Helpful
Triperspectivalism has been touted as a grid through which to identify and develop leaders.4 Where it can be useful for leadership is in terms of assessing one’s strengths as areas of natural gifting and determining where a leader needs to grow and strive to become more like Jesus in the areas which do not come as easily.
One who excels in a desire and ability to lead with his speaking (prophet) necessarily must grow in his pastoral (priestly) care and concern for the lives of individuals and grow in his ability to manage (kingly) well the number of people he is caring for. A compassionless and unorganized leader inevitably ends being a disconnected solitary person who cannot sustain his leadership position.
One who excels in a desire and ability to lead with his counseling (priestly) necessarily must grow in his communicative (prophet) skills and grow in his ability to properly place (kingly) information gleaned from multiple individuals and be able to see how it relates to other people. An unclear and inarticulate leader who cannot collate and put together what is being shared from his counselees becomes a poor leader who does not really listen.
One who excels in a desire and ability to lead with his administration (kingly) necessarily must grow in his ability to inform (prophet) workers of needs and expectations AND grow in his ability to be attentive (priestly) to those people’s needs. An overseer who cannot communicate well and proficiently be attuned to concerns will end up with a disenfranchised and confused group of people under his supervision.
Recognizing these three common differences and strengths in varying leaders can be a great aid in the aim to fully develop men into great leaders with great teams. Good leaders need to strive to excel in all three areas AND they need to strive to surround themselves with other men who are more naturally talented in their areas of weakness.
In addition, having Jesus as the supreme model is helpful not only due to the overall Christian goal of being conformed to his image (Rom 8:29) but it re-places a man-centered model wherein men strive to mimic the model of other successful men. Jesus is the ideal and the head (Eph 4:15) of any sound ecclesiastical model of church government.
The Unhelpful
Triperspectivalism as an epistemology has some significant and serious possible dangers. There are real questions about whether or not it is self-refuting, opens the door to postmodern relativism, exercises a practical denial of the unity of the Trinity, can be used as an outlook on all of life, or how it can be a model for running a church.
Triperspectivalism As An Epistemology
The nature of self-refutation is sound. The law of non-contradiction states “nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same respect.”5 Without launching into an overly inundated discussion of philosophy, the principle of this simple syllogism is any proposition can easily be tested by attempting to apply its own claim upon itself. Therefore, if triperspectivalism were true then it must hold up when it’s own theory is applied to triperspectivalism itself. However, when this is done triperspectivalism fails for what can be the three modes of truth within each of the three modes of truth? What is the normative, existential and situational perspective of the normative perspective, the existential perspective, and the situational perspective? It really becomes nonsensical here as an avalanche of three-fold analysis ensues at each new division.
Postmodern relativism is unsound. Paul Feyerabend succinctly encapsulated the claim of postmodernism in his well known statement, “The only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths.”6 The problem according to this proposition is, if it were true then its very claim itself could not be true. It commits that which it condemns. It makes an absolute truth claim but says no absolute truth claims can be made. It blatantly fails the principle of non-contradiction’s test for truth claims. In addition the motivation for the postmodernist mode of thought is widely recognized as an attempt to validate every person’s unique perspective and experience as authentically offering truth regardless of whether or not these offerings are contradictory at their core.
Numerous works have thoroughly debunked the self-refuting nature of postmodern relativism.7 The trouble with triperspectivalism is it seems to open the door to this deceptive way of thinking. In effect, triperspectivalism must at least tacitly presume the authenticity of the postmodern proposition that there can be different perspectives which may even be contradictory but nonetheless are equally valid. If we accept triperspectivalism as an epistemology then we have inherently accepted postmodern relativism, which in effect gives away the nature of there being any objective truth. In common practice triperspectivalism approves of the person dismissing objective, propositional truth claims because it’s merely one person’s perspective or mode of seeing things. Triperspectivalism seems to begin the slide down the slippery slope of relativism where any real truth is lost.
Triperspectivalism From The Trinity
Asserting the Trinity as a basis for triperspectivalism seems highly suspect. The orthodox Christian confession of the Trinity as articulated in the Quicumque Vult focuses it’s attention on both the threeness of God in persons AND the oneness of God in essence.8 While tripserpectivalism focuses on threeness, it lacks an emphasis on oneness which is equally important in the established understanding of the Trinity. In addition, if the Trinity is a true expression of the nature of God revealed in the Bible, which Christians affirm, then the authorial intent of God revealing the Trinity is a most pertinent question. Theologians have regularly understood the Trinity to be a revelation of the economy of God wherein he reveals himself working in tandem in his nature and in redemption.9
Did God reveal the Trinity in order that it might be adopted as an epistemology?10 Classical arguments over epistemology are normally caught up in a tension between general and specific revelation (also known as the debate between “faith” and “reason” or “presuppositionalism” and “evidentialism”). Tripserspectival epistemology in effect attempts to say it’s both and introduces a third source of revelation with the “situational.”
Regardless of one’s position on the classical debate, both sides agree true or full knowledge cannot be obtained apart from the specific revelation of God’s written Word (The Bible). Neil Postman once stated God’s uniqueness among the ancient image based religions of the world was that he is the God who was to be known “in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking.”11 Therefore the question must be: does the Bible teach triperspectival epistemology? If so, was triperspectival epistemology the theory of truth communicated and instructed by Jesus and the apostles? It may sound like a straw man argument, but it’s simply very difficult to imagine the logos who became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:1,14) not frowning in utter confusion at such a conception as triperspectivalism since he so clearly stated, “Thy word is Truth (Jn 17:17).” In these words it seems Jesus wanted his followers to solely look to God’s Word as the source for truth rather than their personal experience or situational ethic.
Triperspectivalism In Everyday Practice
If triperspectivalism is a correct epistemology then it rightly ought to be applied in all facets of life. Thus, it is no surprise there is now talk of “triperspectival hermeneutics,”12 “triperspectival prayer,”13 “triperspectival evangelism,”14 and “triperspectival ethics.”15 Triperspectival hermeneutics calls for different, yet equally valid interpretations of a text from various person’s perspectives akin to the theory of “interpretive communities” and “reader-response criticism” developed by Stanely Fish.16 Triperspectival prayer calls for praying to the three sides of Christ expressed in his divine offices. Triperspectival evangelism develops a tactical approach in how to properly proselytize. Triperspectival ethics says a triad of thought must be analyzed before proper action can be commenced.
Latent within each one of these applications appears to be an anti-authority clause, which whether by intent or effect softens and subtracts from the truth-obedience expectation of biblical revelation. For example, historical-grammatical interpretation seeks to understand the meaning of a text regardless of how one feels, sees or applies it. The Lord’s Prayer seeks to submit to Jesus’ instruction to pray, “Our Father, who are in heaven...” rather than treating prayer as a philosophical undertaking of the mind. Evangelism seeks to declare the good news message of who Jesus is and what he has done about sin rather than formulate tactics for converting people. Ethics is acting in accordance with the direct instruction of God’s word, which we either obey or disobey not internally analyze and vacillate over.
If triperspectivalism is truly meant to be applied in all areas of life, then there is nothing off limits and everything needs to be redefined and re-evaluated. We must then establish triperspectival parenting, triperspectival work, triperspectival sex, triperspectival money and so on. Triperspectivalism in effect calls the individual to start looking for threes in everything. Not only is such a thing impractical but it really is impossible to truly put into practice and therefore becomes an unlivable philosophy of life much like the imperative of eastern philosophy to consider all “atman as brahman.”17 It simply doesn’t work in every day living no matter whether you’re a sophisticated adult or a four year old child.
Triperspectivalism In Church Leadership
Above many of the helpful aspects of triperspectivalism were noted in regards to leadership. At the same time there can be some unhelpful consequences of employing triperspectivalism as a model for church ecclesiology.
The biblical call is for the primary church leaders to be elders (synonymous with overseer and pastor). Nowhere in Scripture are those who lead the church called to be kings, priests or prophets.18 Instead, in the New Testament Jesus and Jesus alone is the returning king (Rev 19:16), the great high priest (Heb 4:14), and the prophet who rose from the dead (Lk 24:19).
There are communicatable offices of Christ and incommunicatable offices.19 Jesus as the chief pastor (1 Pet 4:4) is a communicatable office of Christ. All pastors are to pastor like Jesus and under Jesus, hence the codified term “undershepherds.”20
King, priest and prophet are incommunicatable offices not meant for individual roles of church leadership. The church and world as a whole submits to the rule of Jesus kingship (2 Tim 4:1), is to mediate the grace of Jesus as a whole kingdom of priests (1 Pet 2:9), and is to wholly submit to and follow the prophetic word of Jesus (Mt 28:19). Thus the New Testament relates the prophet, priest king roles to the church as a whole but never to individual leaders of the church.
What can happen in the implementation of these roles, particularly within a plural eldership model of church government, is leaders can each begin to function in and identify themselves with their roles of natural strength (either prophet, priest, king) and then neglect to exercise their primary responsibility and calling to oversee the church by pastoring the flock.
General statistics have stated eighty percent of pastors will never lead a church with more than 150 people.21 In such a context this pastor will necessarily need to exercise all the qualities of a good prophet, priest and king in the way he pastors, though never taking on any of these titles. As the church grows such a pastor will need to surround himself with other pastors who complement his strengths by excelling in his areas of weakness.22 Thus, for example a prophetically oriented leader will need to surround himself with priestly and kingly oriented men. However, even in this, the pastor never ceases to be a pastor and the other leaders he brings in must also always be committed to pastoring.
This means none of these leading men are ever relieved from their pastoral responsibilities of: protecting the flock from moral and heretical wolves (Acts 20:28-30), feeding the flock with sound biblical doctrine (Acts 20:27; 1 Tim 4:13; Tit 1:9), disciplining the flock in a labor of love (1 Thess 5:12; 2 Cor 2:4), praying for the flock with spiritual alertness (Acts 20:31), courageously leading and sacrificing for the flock (Deut 31:6; Jn 10:12-14), and managing and ruling over the flock (1 Tim 3:4-5; 5:17; 1 Pet 5:5).
Simply put, the danger of a triperspectival approach to church leadership is men pursuing being a prophet, priest or king at the expense of being a pastor, which is the primary New Testament calling. Triperspectivalism can being helpful in making a pastor a fully well rounded pastor but it can be dangerous if its use eclipses the main responsibilities Jesus left to his leaders.
Conclusion
There are some helpful things triperspectivalism brings to the table and there are some potentially harmful things. The thoughtful Christian and leader needs to sift through he key issues involved and submit them to the sieve of Scripture. As with many ideas, movements, and strategies there are good things and bad things and the discerning person takes the good and throws out the bad.
In what we have reviewed it appears triperspectivalism may be useful as a pedagogical tool in developing fully rounded Christ-like leaders in the church. As it has been assessed by the rubric of reason and Scripture it appears there are some significant challenges triperspectivalism has in order to be a viable epistemology.
Too often we tend toward the two errors of either being overly critical or under discerning. Rather than being quick to fight or slow to protect my intent has been to fairly and earnestly assess triperspectivalism according to the command of Scripture (1 Thess 5:21) and thereby help those I lead and appeal to some of my friends and heroes. May God be pleased, the gospel be advanced and Jesus’ church flourish.
* Duane M. Smets is the lead pastor and planter of The Resolved Church and holds three theology degrees, a B.A. in Religion from PLNU, a B.TH. from L.I.F.E. and an M.A. in Theology from Talbot School of Theology.
Endnotes
1 See Jim S. Halsey, “A Preliminary Critique of Van Til: The Theologian.” Westminster Theological Journal: 39/1 (Fall 1976). Meredith Kline, “A Paper Pursuant to the Faculty Forum of February 28, 1986 at Westminster Seminary California.” http://www.meredithkline.com/files/articles/Kline_Critique_Perspectivalism.html. Mark W. Karlbergy, “On The Theological Correlation of Divine and Human Language: A Review Article.” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society: 32/1 (March 1989) 99-105.
2 John Frame, “A Primer On Perspectivalism.” Available at: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/PrimerOnPerspectivalism.htm
3 John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) Vol II, Ch.15, 425-432.
4 For example, see Micahel McKinely, “Tripserpectival Leadership,” IX Marks EJournal, 2009. http://www.9marks.org/blog/triperspectival-leadership
5 Aristotle. Metaphysics. Book III, Pt.2.
6 Cited by Massimo Pigliucci, Nonsense on Stilts (Chicago: Chicago University Press) 253.
7 For a few references see, D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). Paul Copan, True For You, Not For Me (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998). Millard J. Erickson, Truth or Consequences (Downers Grove: InterVaristy, 201). Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000).
8 Also known as the Athanasian Creed. See Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Chistendom (New York: Harper Brothers) 187. The technical terms of persons and essence are “hypostases” and “ousia.”
9 Jonathan Edwards writes, “That there is a subordination of the Persons of the Trinity, in their actions with respect to the creature, that one acts from another, and under another, and with a dependence on another, in their actings, and particularly in what they act in the affairs of man’s redemption. So that the Father in that affair acts as Head of the Trinity, and the Son under him, and the Holy Spirit under them both.” Jonathan Edwards, “The Economy of the Trinity” The Works Of Jonathan Edwards Volume 20, Miscellanies 1062 (Yale: Yale University Press, 2002). For other sources on the Trinity see: Brian Edgar, The Message of the Trinity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity: 2005). Millard Erikson, God In Three Persons (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004). Peter Toon, Our Triune God: A Biblical Portrayal (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Press, 1996). James White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998).
10 In “A Primer on Perspectivalism” John Frame admits both the danger of Sabellianism and recognizes the “division of labor” within the Godhead, yet he then proceeds to merely redefine this labor as perspective in its very “nature.” Such a move is unsubstantiated. A recognition of roles does not equate a mode of knowing.
11 Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves To Death (New York: Penguin, 1985) 9.
12 David Fairchild, “Triperspectival Hermeneutics.” http://www.pastorfairchild.com/2007-06/14/triperspectival-hermeneutics/
13 Timmy Brister, “Triperspectival Prayer.” http://timmybrister.com/2011/04/01/triperspectival-prayer-daily-communion-rhythms-through-the-mediatorial-offices-of-christ/
14 Kevin Ring, “Triperspectival Evangelism.” http://www.kingdomstrategist.com/triperspectival-view-of-evangelism/
15 John Frame, “Loving God With Your Mind Without Being an Intellectual Pharisee.” http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2004Loving.htm
16 Stanely Fish, Is There A Text In This Class (Harvard: Harvard Press, 1982).
17 Uddalaka Aruni, “Chandogya Upanisad” Upanisad 3.14,4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). On unlivable philosophies see Ravi Zacharias, “The Inextinguishable Light.” http://www.rzim.org/usa/usfv/tabid/436/articleid/6573/cbmoduleid/881/default.aspx
18 Alexander Strauch writes, “We, then must view apostolic, Christianized elders to be primarily pastors of a flock, not corporate executives, CEOs, or advisers to the pastor.” Biblical Eldership (Littleton: Lewis and Roth) 17. On the non-existence of “P”rophets today see Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998). In addition, what is not mentioned in the triperspectivalistic leadership model based on John Calvin’s grouping of prophet, priest and king is Calvin did not limit the offices of Christ to these three. In fact the very next chapter in Institutes is devoted to the “office of redeemer.” John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) Vol II, Ch.16 (433-459).
19 Communicatable offices being ones that he communicates or passes on to men. Incommunicatable offices being ones he does not communicate or pass on to men.
20 See Cornelis Van Dam, “The Human Undershepherds,” The Elder (Philipsburg: P&R, 2009) 21-26.
21 Kent and Barbara Hughes. Liberating Ministry From The Success Syndrome. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1987) 22.
22 See Alexander Strauch, “Shared Leadership” Biblical Eldership (Littleton: Lewis and Roth) 35-50.
