Interesting thought about the "Christian Perspective"

[mattd]

From a book I'm reading for a class.

"Often we talk about the “Christian” perspective on all kinds of topics, e.g., the Christian perspective on ethics, truth and science. When we use the phrase Christian perspective, we imply that there are other ways of looking at something that are equally valid as our own. This is a dangerous and irrational way of speaking, for it allows individuals and groups to isolate themselves to their own way of thinking. When describing a circle, there is no Christian or non-Christian perspective on what a circle is. A circle is a circle. When mathematicians assert that 1 + 1 = 2, it matters not that the mathematicians are Christians or atheists. Likewise, there should be no Christian perspective about rape, adultery or some other moral matter as if such acts could be right from non-Christian perspectives."

[scooteraz]

No disrespect intended, but I am going to parse this because I think there is a false premise here,that is that all things for all have to be viewed from inside the faith. Even for those outside the faith. That will ultimately be true, but is not necessarily true today.

From a book I'm reading for a class.

"Often we talk about the “Christian” perspective on all kinds of topics, e.g., the Christian perspective on ethics, truth and science.
Yes, because there are other (false) religions that have different perspectives. And many around us listen to those perspectives. It is our perspective that brings the truth.
When we use the phrase Christian perspective, we imply that there are other ways of looking at something that are equally valid as our own.
No, we are not stipulating anything about the perspective other than it's existence. The validity of that perspective, as with any other opinion, is open to debate. Replace the word "Christian" in this sentence with any other group or idea, and see how little sense it makes. Try "Viking". Try "Moslem". Try "Michigander". There are lots of opinions out there, but only one truth. The advantage of the Christian perspective is that it contains the truth.
This is a dangerous and irrational way of speaking, for it allows individuals and groups to isolate themselves to their own way of thinking.
The above sentence is in itself isolationist and irrational. There are obviously many perspectives. But only one with the truth.
When describing a circle, there is no Christian or non-Christian perspective on what a circle is.
That is because we have stipulated with others a common language on geometry. And in the math that supports that geometry. But before the concept of pi, and later limits and calculus, there were empirical methods to describe circles, but no common language.
A circle is a circle. When mathematicians assert that 1 + 1 = 2, it matters not that the mathematicians are Christians or atheists.
Because they have both accepted the same language of math, not because there is no other possible way to look at the the topic.
Likewise, there should be no Christian perspective about rape, adultery or some other moral matter as if such acts could be right from non-Christian perspectives."
As a matter of fact, rape and adultery are acceptable in a variety of other cultures. I don't remember the Vikings having much problem with rape of conquered peoples. Nor, frankly, the Romans or the pre-Christian, tribal eras of Europe. That was a perspective. One that did not contain the truth, but a perspective.

We need to treat the Christian perspective as the only one that has the truth. We need to acknowledge that there are other perspectives out there, but that we are unique in that we have the truth. and indeed, without the truth our perspective contains, almost all that is accepted as morality makes little sense. For example, how can there be an atheist position on adultery? If there is no ultimate arbiter of morality, why would I decide to only be with one woman, or indeed one gender? That would be a personal position, not one with a larger moral issue.

I personally find the writing of the quoted author as pretty sloppy thinking.

Not the only book that I have seen required for a class (including some I read) that had sloppy reasoning and assertions. I think I understand what he was trying to say, but...well not very well stated, in my opinion.

[mattd]

in the larger context his point was that there is only one truth, and I think he implies that the Christians know that truth. I think the key to understanding this whole passage is in the second block of text that your quoted, where he says that saying something this way implies that other perspectives are equally valid. If he believes that that's what the implications are, then great, this needs to be said. I'm more inclined to agree with you though.

The bad part is that the teacher wrote this book (actually not published yet, we're just getting a few select chapters out of it) so if I choose to make something out of it I better be on top of my game and really be sharp when I dispute it.

[scooteraz]

You know, after I posted the above, I thought of the old movie, The Princess Bride. In that movie there was a character, Vizzini, the supposed brains of a criminal enterprise, who when confronted with information that is counter to his wishes always says "inconceivable!" At one point, when it is obvious that something is not inconceivable, one of his underlings says, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". Your professor, in think, is mixing up the word perspective with the concept of truth. I copied the definition of perspective from the online of the Cambridge dictionary:
perspective noun (THOUGHT)
/pəˈspek.tɪv//pɚˈspek-/
[C] a particular way of considering something
Her attitude lends a fresh perspective to the subject.
He writes from a Marxist perspective.
Because of its geographical position, Germany's perspective on the situation in Eastern Europe is rather different from Britain's.
get/keep sth in perspective
to think about a situation or problem in a wise and reasonable way
You must keep things in perspective - the overall situation isn't really that bad.
put sth in(to) perspective
to compare something to other things so that it can be accurately and fairly judged
Total investments for this year reached £53 million, and, to put this into perspective, investments this year were double those made in 2001.


Actually, nowhere in the definition is the idea of truth. It is all about how something looks to the individual observer. When an observer is standing on a platform of truth, things look way different than they do when he is standing on the ever changing seas of falsehood, but each location provides a specific perspective.

I have flown over the ocean, been on a fair sized boat in the ocean, sailed smaller boats in the ocean, been in a kayak on the ocean swam in the ocean and been diving in the ocean. From all those experiences, I have a perspective of the oceans that is probably more true than if I had only flow over, where I would think it a pretty flat surface and big, but not that big. And if I had only swam in the ocean I might think it an endless expanse of huge waves. But because I have had many more experiences, I have a better understanding of the ocean, a perspective that is closer to the overall truth of the ocean. God has infinite experiences with the ocean, and therefore knows the total truth. If I would stand on His understanding, then I would know the total truth as well, but that doesn't mean that I had no perspective as only a swimmer. Just that my perspective was very limited.

To my way of thinking, the instructor has started with a conclusion, then went from there. But, I understand not challenging the teacher. I didn't work that way, but ended up having to drop a couple of classes and re-taking them because I so irritated some instructors and professors. OTOH, a couple of the best profs I had rather enjoyed the challenges. But those were the ones that were there to impart critical thinking skills vis-a-vis their area of expertise. The indoctrinators were the ones that I had problems with (and they with me...imagine that:dunno:). It is possible that your teacher is looking for criticism so that he can sharpen his arguments for the final version of the book he is writing,. and may welcome the debate. You will have to pray for discernment on that one.

Good luck.

BTW, you said it was your teacher. Is this a teacher/instructor, or like an adjunct professor, or a full professor that you are dealing with? Just curious.

[Kitty]

Anybody want a peanut?

[mattd]

I'm actually reading this for a critical thinking class. And I never said I wouldn't challenge him. In fact, I probably challenge teachers on what they say more than other students. I'm sure he would welcome the criticism if I gave it in the right way.

I'm not sure what the guy's job actually is. He teaches for the university, not the seminary and is just crossing over to teach this one class so I'm not familiar with him at all.

[stephen]

My "perspective" on it is...........

Sorry, I couldnt resist.

Ironically, I do have a perspective on it.

Moral Relativism attempts to compartmentalize Christianity as a "perspective", and a "Christian Perspective" is only valid to a non free-thinking Christian, and is abhorrent to the Moral Relativist.

In my opinion, the term, "From a Christian Perspective" is a designed to hinder, rather than to adequately describe Christian thought and insight. I its meant as a ridicule, rather than a laudable title.

imho.......

[scooteraz]

My "perspective" on it is...........

Sorry, I couldnt resist.

Ironically, I do have a perspective on it.

Moral Relativism attempts to compartmentalize Christianity as a "perspective", and a "Christian Perspective" is only valid to a non free-thinking Christian, and is abhorrent to the Moral Relativist.

In my opinion, the term, "From a Christian Perspective" is a designed to hinder, rather than to adequately describe Christian thought and insight. I its meant as a ridicule, rather than a laudable title.

imho.......
That is a valid point. At least today. But that speaks more to the corruption of language, than it does to the realities of perspectives. I believe the term can be a useful tool for spreading the Word. Particularly in situations where straight out proselytizing would be frowned on, you can still preach the word as an argument from "a Christian perspective". While many may think it ridicule, to paraphrase Paul, let's use their ridicule for Christ.

[mattd]

I did talk to the teacher about it. we had maybe a 30 minute phone call, mostly talking about this paragraph. His answer followed along what Stephen had to say, that it seems like a paralyzing phrase to him. We argue for our view and then say something like "but, that's just my perspective." That's where he drew the implication that that phrase means that all views are equally valid. I certainly don't think that, and I told him that I just don't agree with that implication, and he did acknowledge that there are other perspectives, even other "Christian" perspectives, but still stood by his words. And I think that we're on the same page, words (and maybe even the tone of voice that he heard it in) mean something different to him.


But that phone conversation sparked another question in me. The heart of the passage is dealing with Christian relativism, the idea that our own view is good, but not necessarily 'true', at least not true enough to try and convince others that we are right. But is that a bad thing? Think about what we thought to be truth (as far as ethics and morals go) ten years ago. Are they all still intact today, in exactly the same form? If truth is truth then they wouldn't change, we're either right or wrong. I'm not calling into question if we still see Jesus as Lord or fundamental doctrines like justification by faith or anything like that. Those are what make a Christian "Christian", and if anything in that set of doctrines change then we will not be Christian.
What I am saying changes is our view on drinking, women in leadership, any other question about how we should live. Sometimes they are different for people: "I have a conviction not to do XYZ." Does our conviction mean that nobody should do it? And if no, then isn't that a form of relativism?