From where I sit, one significant obstacle to healing the problem you're describing is the stranglehold penal substitutionary atonement still has on the faith of a lot of folks. In many spaces it seems like kenosis+resurrection isn't a core understanding of the heart of God - it only gets lip service (if that), because PSA is still the definition of the "gospel" in many churches. PSA leaves people susceptible to other gods because it's not strong enough to out-story them.
I think I understand your connection with Peterson's Jesus-less Christianity and PSA. But can you add a sentence or two? I think you're saying that the vindictive God is more aligned with JPs victorious heros?
Thanks for asking - I think I'm making a point more about how theological narratives form us. On the level of ideas, I've come to believe that PSA is incompatible with kenosis+resurrection+new creation. But regarding formation, in my experience, vast numbers of Christians have been formed within the narrative of PSA, which is a small story about a small vindictive god. PSA is not a big enough story to heal tiny allegiance narratives from other kingdoms. New Creation (God With Us +kenosis+resurrection) is the only narrative that is large enough with robust resources to heal smaller, corrupted stories.
The metaphysics of hope, through kenosis, is one of the best directions from which to critique Peterson. His thought is powerfully Christ-less, but filled with heroic fantasy. It seems, then, there two sides. One side lifts up Jungian fantasies of mythic heroic archetypes. The other side pursues Jesus, the Christ crucified. Or, perhaps a theology of the cross versus a theology of glory.
I don’t understand the critique. What exactly is a ‘metaphysics of resurrection’? After listening to Kingsnorth, I’m left with similar questions as heard at the tail of his lecture: why is this not a false dilemma? I mean, agreed we should live like Christ with self-sacrificing love. However, why does this mean we wouldn’t also seek to build a culture that points as an icon to our eschatological hope?
Otherwise we’re not left with some neutral, negative freedom. No! There is always some level of paternalism at play. So how do we want to order society? You have to be blind not to feel the shifting of values, the evolution of meaning, the shifting of words. What is love? What is harm? What is fairness? We don’t need heroes but we do need meaning makers. Much of the ‘be Christ-like’ sentiment seems to say be meek (where meek equals weak), mind your own business—de-center yourselves.
I’m not sure what I think of Peterson. He seems to talk well outside of his area of expertise. But what I think people are attracted to is his instinct that the liberal ethos of the 20th century has given way to something more acidic—like a cancerous version of Christian compassion. There is something oddly religious about secular progressive movements.
Many of us were functional liberals a decade or so ago. We reveled in satire and sarcasm that laughed at old ways, calling truth to power. We highlighted the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of society. But something changed. There was something in the dialectic of legalism versus grace before. There was some unseen foundation that both sides seemed to agree on. That has all but melted away. The salvation offered by progressives asks for something 'more'.
Nietzsche provides some of the best negative advise to Christians today: "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil)
Ultimately, I think Peterson suffers from the same historical amnesia that we all do. From my perspective, historian Tom Holland is far greater than Peterson. I think it hits the ego hard of most modern "Christians" that they don't actually really know what the "gospel" is: https://honorshamebible.substack.com/p/what-was-the-gospel-in-the-first-bd6
Peterson has to revise Christianity because in the eyes of most of his followers, Jesus' movement died with his crucifixion. They wanted a political messiah, not a spiritual one.
"We were hoping that he would be the one to free Israel. But then all this happened." Luke 24:20 (while talking to the risen Messiah, they were blinded to who he was because their perception of who he was was incorrect).
Sadly many people in the west are looking for a restoration of "Christian" America (whatever they imagine it to be politically), not understand that Jesus himself said that his Kingdom was not of this world and that following Jesus means living in a way that transcends the politics of the left and right.
I think it is wise to be a critical thinker regarding what Jordan Peterson says and for some reason I remember him identifying himself as more of a pragmatist then Nietzschean. I think he goes into this in some detail in one of his first conversations with Sam Harris. He admits that his views are not as fluid as he would like because Harris points out some problems with his views. Regarding Christianity I was surprised and disappointed in his interpretation of Pinocchio in the context of his lecture series which he turned into a book "maps of meaning". Peterson offers some really interesting ideas but at the end he just kind of skips over the fact that Pinocchio is transformed into a real boy. Like that part of the story wasn't really very important. I remember watching his whole lecture series expecting this transformation at the end of the story to get into some interesting comments or discussion and then it just kind of ended without much of a mention. I am guessing for myself this is because me being a Christian I have this perspective that there is place for literal metaphysical transformations. There is a way in which I hope to be made "real" and that this is not simply some moral or intellectual transformation but a spiritual/metaphysical transformation. To enter into the kingdom of God and to triumph over death and to gain eternal life can't just be the result of having a higher IQ or being more disciplined. There must be some categorical change to my heart and my being. Pinocchio in some sense already has a pure heart and the transformation of him into a real boy, in my estimation, while miraculous is really an alignment of the internal with the external (as above so below). All that to say I don't really see Peterson as Nietzschean. He probably appears that way because he energetically voices his support for the masculine and evangelicals are so annoyingly "meek". I don't see in what Richard has written here a clear explanation of how Peterson is Nietzschean other then something about him missing an eschatology of hope, which seems vague and probably inaccurate since Peterson is a therapist who has been deeply influenced by Rogers (unconditional positive regard seems pretty hopeful to me).
"Nietzsche was right it's either Christ or Anti-Christ. And...Peterson's on the wrong side..."
I would like to suggest a more generous approach to Peterson, which strikes me at least as more reasonable than the one outlined above (the sense of "reasonable" will be explained).
The idea of a "praeparatio evangelica" has roots well before Eusebius's book of that name (313). Greek philosophy and Roman roads typically head the lists of historical contexts that made the spread of Christianity possible. But the competing counterclaims of Caesar Augustus and Jesus to being son of God (dive filius)/Son of God (Messiah) respectively seems foremost in my estimation. Mark 12, in which Jesus famously displays the denarius with Augustus's image on it makes it hard to claim otherwise, both because the context juxtaposed both Jesus and Augustus and the duties of faithful persons to state and to God. Moreover and more significantly, and more relevantly to this post, Augustus and Jesus represent the dichotomy you set up between Christ (agape love, one might say will to love, but that leaves out pathos) and Nietzsche's will to power.
But then believing in Jesus in the first century would have a powerful association with the stark Christ/Anti-Christ antithesis that you claim. But even with that concession, I think that there is a more reasonable (and gracious) way to interpret Peterson's faith status.
If the cultural context in the first century would have in effect counterposed Christ/Anti-Christ in the minds of prospective believers, then it is reasonable to think that the difference between organizing beliefs in accord with a commitment to egalitarian love versus a will to power that is antithetical to the former, would have been the practical difference between the two choices (with a muddled middle between). But then the metaphysical side of 1st century Christian faith is secondary to the practical side.
In fact, I believe because I feel that I can trust my "heart's" response to the practical antithesis, whereas I think theists and atheists alike are left to elevate their theoretical beliefs far beyond what their rationales justify.
Or in short, I can enthusiastically claim faith in Jesus, because it' does not depend on a capacity to understand a transcendental metaphysical hypothesis.
How could it? If Peterson balks at affirming what cannot be known I will not, for that reason, claim he's on the wrong side of faith. In fact, metaphysical faith on its own is the greater error. IMO.
From where I sit, one significant obstacle to healing the problem you're describing is the stranglehold penal substitutionary atonement still has on the faith of a lot of folks. In many spaces it seems like kenosis+resurrection isn't a core understanding of the heart of God - it only gets lip service (if that), because PSA is still the definition of the "gospel" in many churches. PSA leaves people susceptible to other gods because it's not strong enough to out-story them.
I think I understand your connection with Peterson's Jesus-less Christianity and PSA. But can you add a sentence or two? I think you're saying that the vindictive God is more aligned with JPs victorious heros?
Thanks for asking - I think I'm making a point more about how theological narratives form us. On the level of ideas, I've come to believe that PSA is incompatible with kenosis+resurrection+new creation. But regarding formation, in my experience, vast numbers of Christians have been formed within the narrative of PSA, which is a small story about a small vindictive god. PSA is not a big enough story to heal tiny allegiance narratives from other kingdoms. New Creation (God With Us +kenosis+resurrection) is the only narrative that is large enough with robust resources to heal smaller, corrupted stories.
The metaphysics of hope, through kenosis, is one of the best directions from which to critique Peterson. His thought is powerfully Christ-less, but filled with heroic fantasy. It seems, then, there two sides. One side lifts up Jungian fantasies of mythic heroic archetypes. The other side pursues Jesus, the Christ crucified. Or, perhaps a theology of the cross versus a theology of glory.
I don’t understand the critique. What exactly is a ‘metaphysics of resurrection’? After listening to Kingsnorth, I’m left with similar questions as heard at the tail of his lecture: why is this not a false dilemma? I mean, agreed we should live like Christ with self-sacrificing love. However, why does this mean we wouldn’t also seek to build a culture that points as an icon to our eschatological hope?
Otherwise we’re not left with some neutral, negative freedom. No! There is always some level of paternalism at play. So how do we want to order society? You have to be blind not to feel the shifting of values, the evolution of meaning, the shifting of words. What is love? What is harm? What is fairness? We don’t need heroes but we do need meaning makers. Much of the ‘be Christ-like’ sentiment seems to say be meek (where meek equals weak), mind your own business—de-center yourselves.
I’m not sure what I think of Peterson. He seems to talk well outside of his area of expertise. But what I think people are attracted to is his instinct that the liberal ethos of the 20th century has given way to something more acidic—like a cancerous version of Christian compassion. There is something oddly religious about secular progressive movements.
Many of us were functional liberals a decade or so ago. We reveled in satire and sarcasm that laughed at old ways, calling truth to power. We highlighted the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of society. But something changed. There was something in the dialectic of legalism versus grace before. There was some unseen foundation that both sides seemed to agree on. That has all but melted away. The salvation offered by progressives asks for something 'more'.
Nietzsche provides some of the best negative advise to Christians today: "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil)
Ultimately, I think Peterson suffers from the same historical amnesia that we all do. From my perspective, historian Tom Holland is far greater than Peterson. I think it hits the ego hard of most modern "Christians" that they don't actually really know what the "gospel" is: https://honorshamebible.substack.com/p/what-was-the-gospel-in-the-first-bd6
Peterson has to revise Christianity because in the eyes of most of his followers, Jesus' movement died with his crucifixion. They wanted a political messiah, not a spiritual one.
"We were hoping that he would be the one to free Israel. But then all this happened." Luke 24:20 (while talking to the risen Messiah, they were blinded to who he was because their perception of who he was was incorrect).
Sadly many people in the west are looking for a restoration of "Christian" America (whatever they imagine it to be politically), not understand that Jesus himself said that his Kingdom was not of this world and that following Jesus means living in a way that transcends the politics of the left and right.
I think it is wise to be a critical thinker regarding what Jordan Peterson says and for some reason I remember him identifying himself as more of a pragmatist then Nietzschean. I think he goes into this in some detail in one of his first conversations with Sam Harris. He admits that his views are not as fluid as he would like because Harris points out some problems with his views. Regarding Christianity I was surprised and disappointed in his interpretation of Pinocchio in the context of his lecture series which he turned into a book "maps of meaning". Peterson offers some really interesting ideas but at the end he just kind of skips over the fact that Pinocchio is transformed into a real boy. Like that part of the story wasn't really very important. I remember watching his whole lecture series expecting this transformation at the end of the story to get into some interesting comments or discussion and then it just kind of ended without much of a mention. I am guessing for myself this is because me being a Christian I have this perspective that there is place for literal metaphysical transformations. There is a way in which I hope to be made "real" and that this is not simply some moral or intellectual transformation but a spiritual/metaphysical transformation. To enter into the kingdom of God and to triumph over death and to gain eternal life can't just be the result of having a higher IQ or being more disciplined. There must be some categorical change to my heart and my being. Pinocchio in some sense already has a pure heart and the transformation of him into a real boy, in my estimation, while miraculous is really an alignment of the internal with the external (as above so below). All that to say I don't really see Peterson as Nietzschean. He probably appears that way because he energetically voices his support for the masculine and evangelicals are so annoyingly "meek". I don't see in what Richard has written here a clear explanation of how Peterson is Nietzschean other then something about him missing an eschatology of hope, which seems vague and probably inaccurate since Peterson is a therapist who has been deeply influenced by Rogers (unconditional positive regard seems pretty hopeful to me).
"Nietzsche was right it's either Christ or Anti-Christ. And...Peterson's on the wrong side..."
I would like to suggest a more generous approach to Peterson, which strikes me at least as more reasonable than the one outlined above (the sense of "reasonable" will be explained).
The idea of a "praeparatio evangelica" has roots well before Eusebius's book of that name (313). Greek philosophy and Roman roads typically head the lists of historical contexts that made the spread of Christianity possible. But the competing counterclaims of Caesar Augustus and Jesus to being son of God (dive filius)/Son of God (Messiah) respectively seems foremost in my estimation. Mark 12, in which Jesus famously displays the denarius with Augustus's image on it makes it hard to claim otherwise, both because the context juxtaposed both Jesus and Augustus and the duties of faithful persons to state and to God. Moreover and more significantly, and more relevantly to this post, Augustus and Jesus represent the dichotomy you set up between Christ (agape love, one might say will to love, but that leaves out pathos) and Nietzsche's will to power.
But then believing in Jesus in the first century would have a powerful association with the stark Christ/Anti-Christ antithesis that you claim. But even with that concession, I think that there is a more reasonable (and gracious) way to interpret Peterson's faith status.
If the cultural context in the first century would have in effect counterposed Christ/Anti-Christ in the minds of prospective believers, then it is reasonable to think that the difference between organizing beliefs in accord with a commitment to egalitarian love versus a will to power that is antithetical to the former, would have been the practical difference between the two choices (with a muddled middle between). But then the metaphysical side of 1st century Christian faith is secondary to the practical side.
In fact, I believe because I feel that I can trust my "heart's" response to the practical antithesis, whereas I think theists and atheists alike are left to elevate their theoretical beliefs far beyond what their rationales justify.
Or in short, I can enthusiastically claim faith in Jesus, because it' does not depend on a capacity to understand a transcendental metaphysical hypothesis.
How could it? If Peterson balks at affirming what cannot be known I will not, for that reason, claim he's on the wrong side of faith. In fact, metaphysical faith on its own is the greater error. IMO.
Are we talking about kenosis or Kenosis?
Have you seen this? https://youtube.com/shorts/HmbmQpJKMBk?si=Rz6nNN3TMqXSfE-s Almost he believeth.
Thank you for saying this so clearly. Ever since I read his Rules book this has seemed crystal clear to me.