Jordan Peterson

[The Liturgist]

He claims he is a Christian and then he gets all emotional when people press him on if he believes in God (which is not even as big of a claim as believing in the resurrection of Christ). One time when he was on the Joe Rogan podcast he said he was agnostic about the resurrection and that's about as close as I have seen him get to saying he believes in the resurrection of Christ. Agnosticism does not save anyone. In fact, it's possible to believe in the resurrection and not be saved. Satan believes that, but he is described as the evil one.

His view sounds similar to the form of philosophical Christianity practiced by Thomas Jefferson and many Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists, some of whom are Christian Atheists.

 

[The Liturgist]

True, and it's worth noting that if Christianity were not divided then Peterson would probably have already converted. I think that is a big hurdle for him: choosing a 'side' amongst Christians.

That is so true. It is also why I unashamedly call myself an ecumenist, and why I also have a lot of sympathy for the Stone/Campbell movement, which did attempt a reunification around Eucharistic-centered worship in local churches. The Churches of Christ and the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ are descendants of that.

 

[All Becomes New]

That is so true. It is also why I unashamedly call myself an ecumenist, and why I also have a lot of sympathy for the Stone/Campbell movement, which did attempt a reunification around Eucharistic-centered worship in local churches. The Churches of Christ and the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ are descendants of that.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you can always sort out what "side" you want to take after making a commitment to Christianity. I'm someone who has been all over the map when it comes to my beliefs. I've been an atheist and a pantheist even though I was raised in the church. After my faith was confirmed, I spent the better part of 2 years just knowing a little theology and apologetics. Christianity is a religion that you do not need to be pigeonholed into one set of tradition. When I first got saved and started making arguments for Christianity, I made arguments for God based on Free Will and such. And then I became a Calvinist and I am no longer a Calvinist. It was when I started reading the Bible for myself that some of my beliefs started to solidify (writing a book about my faith helped a lot too). I've landed somewhere between a Calvinist and an Arminian (in soteriology at least). But I believe in lifelong learning and that you don't need to actually have all of your theology figured out before you make a commitment to Christ. If you did need to have all your theology mapped out before you could be a Christian, then no one would ever become a Christian. Anyways, at the end of it all, it really requires a person to be born again to be a Christian. Otherwise, it is just another religion.

 

[The Liturgist]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you can always sort out what "side" you want to take after making a commitment to Christianity. I'm someone who has been all over the map when it comes to my beliefs. I've been an atheist and a pantheist even though I was raised in the church. After my faith was confirmed, I spent the better part of 2 years just knowing a little theology and apologetics. Christianity is a religion that you do not need to be pigeonholed into one set of tradition. When I first got saved and started making arguments for Christianity, I made arguments for God based on Free Will and such. And then I became a Calvinist and I am no longer a Calvinist. It was when I started reading the Bible for myself that some of my beliefs started to solidify (writing a book about my faith helped a lot too). I've landed somewhere between a Calvinist and an Arminian (in soteriology at least). But I believe in lifelong learning and that you don't need to actually have all of your theology figured out before you make a commitment to Christ. If you did need to have all your theology mapped out before you could be a Christian, then no one would ever become a Christian. Anyways, at the end of it all, it really requires a person to be born again to be a Christian. Otherwise, it is just another religion.

Oh on this point I agree with you entirely. And I myself moved in and out of Calvinism.

However, it would be better if the Church were united, as it was until the schisms in the fifth century caused by the heresiarch Nestorius, and the later schism in 1054 caused by the Roman Catholics excommunicating the Eastern Orthodox, and subsequent schisms. I actually just wrote a post in Denomination Specific Theology on schisms which you might find interesting.

 

[mourningdove~]

I just sent @Carl Emerson a PM about how to do this technically, so before we discuss this further, I’d like to discuss that issue with him, but yes, you raise a valid point.

Frankly, I came into this thread to comment on the conversation, but I did not realize ... before doing so ... that some of you here are apparently serious about inviting Jordan Peterson to a discussion on CF about Christianity. That being the case, I best leave you all to your planning ...

 

[The Liturgist]

Frankly, I came into this thread to comment on the conversation, but I did not realize ... before doing so ... that some of you here are apparently serious about inviting Jordan Peterson to a discussion on CF about Christianity. That being the case, I best leave you all to your planning ...

Well no, you should continue with the discussion because the planning Carl and I are engaging is extremely tentative. So please, lets just table that one aspect of it. I would be happy to include you in that discussion as well, that I am having with Carl, if you want. We are also discussing some unrelated items.

But the discussion of Jordan Peterson should continue. I would for my part appreciate your thoughts on my opinion that at present he is reminiscent of a Unitarian Christian like John Adams, or someone like Thomas Jefferson.

 

[zippy2006]

Frankly, I came into this thread to comment on the conversation, but I did not realize ... before doing so ... that some of you here are apparently serious about inviting Jordan Peterson to a discussion on CF about Christianity. That being the case, I best leave you all to your planning ...

I think Peterson would be better served by continuing to speak with the Christians he knows personally, some of whom are bishops, priests, theologians, and scholars. It's a matter of personal, educated, authoritative Christians vs. anonymous, (largely) uneducated Christians who have no special authority vis-à-vis Christianity. And this is to say nothing of Paidiske's point (link).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is so true. It is also why I unashamedly call myself an ecumenist, and why I also have a lot of sympathy for the Stone/Campbell movement, which did attempt a reunification around Eucharistic-centered worship in local churches. The Churches of Christ and the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ are descendants of that.

... I used to belong to the Christian Church/Instrumental. And it's one reason (one) as to why I attempt a sort of ecumenicized trans-denominationalism. Not that folks from other denominations will accept me, but I tend to accept them in their Trinitarian commonality anyway.

Just thought I'd throw that in there even though we're talking about Jordan Peterson. If he becomes a Trinitarian Christian at some point, then I'll accept him too. [And Jordan, if you're out there and you've already done so.......my apologies .]

 

[All Becomes New]

Oh on this point I agree with you entirely. And I myself moved in and out of Calvinism.

However, it would be better if the Church were united, as it was until the schisms in the fifth century caused by the heresiarch Nestorius, and the later schism in 1054 caused by the Roman Catholics excommunicating the Eastern Orthodox, and subsequent schisms. I actually just wrote a post in Denomination Specific Theology on schisms which you might find interesting.

It's my belief that the church will be united before Christ returns based on Ephesians 4:11-13.

 

[The Liturgist]

... I used to belong to the Christian Church/Instrumental. And it's one reason (one) as to why I attempt a sort of ecumenicized trans-denominationalism. Not that folks from other denominations will accept me, but I tend to accept them in their Trinitarian commonality anyway.

I’d love to have a chat with you about that. There is a traditional parish of the Christian Church in Kentucky that I like. One dream of mine is to establish a Creedal Christian Church that would correct what I regard as the one error in the plans of Stone and Campbell, since the non-creedal nature of the movement occasionally has resulted in people on the fringe of Christianity becoming clergy. Indeed the Disciples of Christ are chagrined by the fact that they originally ordained (and later had to dismiss) Jim Jones. But I love aspects of the Stone / Campbell churches in terms of their Eucharistic centrality and inclusiveness. The anti-Catholicism in the Churches of Christ, liberalism in the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ, and non-creedal nature are the three main problems as I see it, but my desire is to set up some vessel to salvage the movement, a church that would be in communion from the start with other traditional Christian denominations, but which would be specifically set up to address the Stone/Campbell community.

I also love what you have to say about Trinitarian commonality, which is my attitude in general. Except for me, there are a few more things I really want to see of Christians in addition to faith in the Trinity - specifically, non-Nestorianism and non-Iconoclasm, as I regard the doctrine of the Incarnation as central to the doctrine of the Trinity, and I regard Nestorianism and Iconoclasm as catastrophic for the existence of the Trinity.

Indeed I would argue they are more poisonous than Carl Jung, in that one could subscribe to some of Jung’s ideas about philosophy, while rejecting his religious speculations and his neo-Gnosticism. But Iconoclasm and Nestorianism have the effect of creating an implicit refutation, and are also at least superficially credible, whereas I find the work of Carl Jung to be laughable and absurd, even more so than Freud, and neither of them is relevant among serious practitioners of mental health these days.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’d love to have a chat with you about that. There is a traditional parish of the Christian Church in Kentucky that I like. One dream of mine is to establish a Creedal Christian Church that would correct what I regard as the one error in the plans of Stone and Campbell, since the non-creedal nature of the movement occasionally has resulted in people on the fringe of Christianity becoming clergy. Indeed the Disciples of Christ are chagrined by the fact that they originally ordained (and later had to dismiss) Jim Jones. But I love aspects of the Stone / Campbell churches in terms of their Eucharistic centrality and inclusiveness. The anti-Catholicism in the Churches of Christ, liberalism in the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ, and non-creedal nature are the three main problems as I see it, but my desire is to set up some vessel to salvage the movement, a church that would be in communion from the start with other traditional Christian denominations, but which would be specifically set up to address the Stone/Campbell community.

The desire to establish another form of Christian group is one that I've sometimes kicked around in thought as well. The only problem is that I'm an Existentialist and a philosopher, and like Pascal and Kierkegaard, I in my own way am considered by many fellow Christians to be on the "fringe." Other Christians might even think I'm a heretic thrice over. I don't know that I really am a heretic, nor do I classify myself as a "Progressive," but like the Stone and Campbell movement that I associated with for a few years (and to whose college I went to for a year of my life decades ago), my own view of Christianity doesn't require taking much of what ancient Christians have said after, say, the first 100 years after Christ all that seriously. On the other hand, I don't quite agree with the Stone/Campbells that Christian faith is made up of belief and faith in the Lord via "the Bible only." But then again, the additional currents of extra-biblical information that I take into consideration in order to arrive at faith isn't strictly or even mainly the "Tradition of the Church."

So, as you can see---some will think I'm a heretic, worse than a Jordan Peterson, worse than a Unitarian, mainly because I purposefully put all of the power of the environs of Philosophy at my disposal BEFORE I even pick up the Bible for consideration in my life. On the converse of this, however, is the fact that for me, Philosophy also comes before "disbelief," and I think I'm more than amply able to smash the hell out of [maybe not quite that hard ] fallacious reasoning whereever I see it, especially and not lastly among skeptics and atheists. I just don't go in for overripe truth claims of any sort, from any angle, from any institution, or from any singular guru from on any political or epistemic "side"---whether they're the likes of Richard Dawkins or Jordan Peterson. I will, however, listen and consider any valid points that someone like Richard Dawkins or Jordan Peterson may make from within the retinue their respective fields, as long as they don't place too many toes over the epistemic line and mosey too causualy over into Epistemic Tresspassing where they don't belong.

Personally, I go in for a more highly ecclectic, diverse and existential approach toward a more primitive Christianity: let's call it a "Bare Minimum Trinitarian Position," all the while allowing other Trinitarian Christians to live out their own epistemic and spiritual journeys ---- as they see fit to do within the denominations they see fit to join themselves too. I also take this conciliary approach toward other Christians out of mutualitly and in the expectation of reciprocity. I don't "Lord it Over Other Brethren," because I recognize in myself that I'm skeptical, questioning, and philosophical to met out dogma or to passively accept the authority of "the Church" without deep seated qualification. So, I don't hover with any authority over other people's Trinitarian faith because I don't want them to hover very long over me; however, I will defend my own point of view, and I will do so most academically and most vociferously, if attacked and disputed with.

Ironically, I'm not anti-Traditional. I have no bone to pick with fellow Christians in the Traditional Churches. I'm just not Pro-Traditional. I'm also not Pro-Sola Scriptura. I'm something else. And, more importantly, I think the effort to love and understand others FIRST before dogma, comes as a priority.

I also love what you have to say about Trinitarian commonality, which is my attitude in general. Except for me, there are a few more things I really want to see of Christians in addition to faith in the Trinity - specifically, non-Nestorianism and non-Iconoclasm, as I regard the doctrine of the Incarnation as central to the doctrine of the Trinity, and I regard Nestorianism and Iconoclasm as catastrophic for the existence of the Trinity.

I too don't like the Iconoclasm that is expressed by some Protestant, Reformed, and/or so-called "Restoration Movement" churches. I think they go overboard in eschewing the Arts. As for Nestorianism--------------------------I'd agree with you that where true error is present, it can be disputed. But where Christology and even Mariology are concerned, everyone has to work these out for themselves. I firmly think we should do so with as much academic and epistemic fervor and honesty we can must as a part of our personal devotion and hermeneutic. Personally, I'll be a bit lighter handed on Nestorians because ... I don't believe in being heavy handed. I think the Church should have refrained from as such, too, through the centuries. But, history is history now.

Indeed I would argue they are more poisonous than Carl Jung, in that one could subscribe to some of Jung’s ideas about philosophy, while rejecting his religious speculations and his neo-Gnosticism. But Iconoclasm and Nestorianism have the effect of creating an implicit refutation, and are also at least superficially credible, whereas I find the work of Carl Jung to be laughable and absurd, even more so than Freud, and neither of them is relevant among serious practitioners of mental health these days.

On this point, I'm not a fan of Freud or Carl Jung. Of course, I've read some of them, but I am rather influenced by other figures like Kierkegaard and Wittengenstein, and where psychology comes into play in our theology making, I'd aver toward listening to those like Malcolm Jeeves and a litany of other scholars with a similar mind.

But Jordan Peterson just isn't one of "those guys" for me.

 

[The Liturgist]

The desire to establish another form of Christian group is one that I'm sometimes kicked around in thought as well. The only problem is that I'm an Existentialist and a philosopher, and like Pascal and Kierkegaard, I in my own way am considered by many fellow Christians to be on the "fringe." Other Christians might even think I'm a heretic thrice over. I don't know that I really am a heretic, nor do I classify myself as a "Progressive," but like the Stone and Campbell movement that I associated with for a few years (and to whose college I went to for a year of my life decades ago), my own view of Christianity doesn't require my taking much of what Christians have said after, the first 100 years after Christ all that seriously. On the other hand, I don't quite agree with the Stone/Campbells that Christian faith is made up of belief and faith in the Lord via "the Bible only." But then again, the additional currents of extra-biblical information that I take into consideration in order to arrive at faith isn't strictly or even mainly the "Tradition of the Church."

So, as you can see---some will think I'm a heretic, worse than a Jordan Peterson, worse than a Unitarian, mainly because I purposefully put all of the power of the environs of Philosophy at my disposal BEFORE I even pick up the Bible for consideration in my life. On the converse of this, however, is the fact that for me, Philosophy also comes before "disbelief," and I think I'm more than amply able to smash the hell out of fallacious reasoning whereever I see it, especially and not lastly among skeptics and atheists. I just don't go in for overripe truth claims of any sort, from any angle, from any institution, or from any singular guru from on any political or epistemic "side"---whether from the likes of Richard Dawkins or of Jordan Peterson. I will, however, listen and consider any valid points that someone like Richard Dawkins or Jordan Peterson may make from within the retinue their respective fields, as long as they don't place too many toes of the epistemic line and jaunt over into Epistemic Tresspassing where they don't belong.

Personally, I go in for a more highly ecclectic, diverse and existential approach toward a more primitive Christianity: let's call it a "Bare Minimum Trinitarian Position," all the while allowing other Trinitarian Christians to live out their own epistemic and spiritual journeys ---- as they see fit to do within the denominations they see fit to join themselves too. I also take this conciliary approach toward other Christians out of mutualitly and in the expectation of reciprocity. I don't "Lord it Over Other Brethren," because I recognize in myself that I'm skeptical, questioning, and philosophical to met out dogma or to passively accept the authority of "the Church" without deep seated qualification. So, I don't hover with any authority over other people's Trinitarian faith because I don't want them to hover very long over me; however, I will defend my own point of view, and I will do so most academically and most vociferously, if attacked and disputed with.

Ironically, I'm not anti-Traditional. I have no bone to pick with fellow Christians in the Traditional Churches. I'm just not Pro-Traditional. I'm also not Pro-Sola Scriptura. I'm something else. And, more importantly, I think the effort to love and understand others FIRST before dogma, comes as a priority.

I too don't like the Iconoclasm that is expressed by some Protestant, Reformed, and/or so-called "Restoration Movement" churches. I think they go overboard in eschewing the Arts. As for Nestorianism--------------------------I'd agree with you that where true error is present, it can be disputed. But where Christology and even Mariology are concerned, everyone has to work these out for themselves. I firmly think we should do so with as much academic and epistemic fervor and honesty we can must as a part of our personal devotion and hermeneutic. Personally, I'll be a bit lighter handed on Nestorians because ... I don't believe in being heavy handed. I think the Church should have refrained from as such, too, through the centuries. But, history is history now.


On this point, I'm not a fan of Freud or Carl Jung. Of course, I've read some of them, but I am rather influenced by other figures like Kierkegaard and Wittengenstein, and where psychology comes into play in our theology making, I'd aver toward listening to those like Malcolm Jeeves and a litany of other scholars with a similar mind.

But Jordan Peterson just isn't one of "those guys" for me.

I am going to PM you

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Has anyone made it through Maps of Meaning?

 

[InChristAlone525]

Nothing wrong with being liberal.

What we're dealing with today are not liberals by definition, but leftist. See Denis Prager's description of what a
liberal is verses a leftist.

Left or Liberal? | PragerU

Dennis Prager reveals how true liberalism aligns more with conservatism than modern leftist ideology.

www.prageru.com

To me it sounded as if he was so liberal as a parent he didn't have good boundaries for his children... of course now he teaches kids need structure... because he learned it the hard way that's why he preaches it. I also preach kids need boundaries and structure because I also learned the hard way you can't raise healthy children by giving them ultimate freedom.

 

[stevevw]

Hi There,

I notice Dr. Jordan Peterson is getting a lot of air time.

My concern is that he not only has some appeal among the intellectual elite but from many in the body of Christ also.

I am not convinced that he has moved on from his Jungian philosophical base which is subtly deceptive and dismisses the heart of the Gospel.

I would love to be corrected if anyone can give hard facts that he has a living faith in Christ.

A wealth of common sense and a sharp mind is admirable but when 1500 including many believers fly to London to hear him I feel uneasy.

My take is that he is unlikely to embrace the Gospel until he renounces the Jungian atheistic concept of "archetypes" in which God is merely a concept that man needs to believe.

Its hard to say. As far as Christian belief in Christ he has said he thinks that actions express a persons belief and not just words. I think thats his conflict that he finds it hard to accept that faith alone is enough. But I think he expresses faith in his life as in upholding Christs truth which he interprets as the key to becoming more Christ like.

What I like is that he has an understanding of how this happens in real life. How behaving more like Christ, upholding the age old truths in how we became who we are.

I think his use of Jungian archetypes has mellowed into a broader base. That is his advantage in that he understands many of the theories behind human psychology. But I think through experience he has gained a broader understanding. But I think Jung has a place. The archetypes he often mentions are often valid insights into how humans use our experience and story telling to pass on the truths we have learned. They underpin much of our life today.

Ultimately Peterson traces this all back to the Bible and Christ as the ultimate archetype to live by. That is why much of his lectures are on the Bible seen through Psychology which is really trying to describe the mind set of how the teachings of Christ are the best way to achieve some stablity in the chaos of life.

I think if Peterson becomes a committed Christian I hope he doesn't lose his insights as I believe this actually helps with faith in that we can see the practical sense of Christs teachings which strengthens trust in his Word. But also helps get insight into the battles we all face between our flesh and spirit.

 

[Sunflower39]

This thread is not about attacking Jordan.

No, but it’s a thread that’s judging him. There’s only one judge and you should know that.

 

[RDKirk]

No, but it’s a thread that’s judging him. There’s only one judge and you should know that.

And I'll say, this thread judges him in the worst possible way, the very way Jesus warns against.

What's being judged here is whether Peterson is or will ever be a Christian...and whether he will be a "real" Christian even if he professes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, but it’s a thread that’s judging him. There’s only one judge and you should know that.

Some of us just want to make sure everyone knows to stand on the other side of the Jordan ...

 

[Sunflower39]

Only God knows what’s in his heart

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Only God knows what’s in his heart

This is true. Which is why I haven't said anything in the way of judgment of Jordan ...

And who knows? Maybe I'll decide to read one of his books one of these days when I have time and find he's the best thing since sliced bread.