![]() ![]() In other words, there is a strong Judeo-Christian ethic and an invigorating call to arms based on the canon in Peterson’s message, but it denies essential elements of Scripture, like miracles, the resurrection, and the supernatural in general. He interprets the Bible using the methods common among theological liberals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Peterson is well-versed in Western culture and has a good grasp on the Bible as literature. ![]() On the other hand, Peterson represents a dangerous temptation to some Christians who are more interested in a certain place in society than truly orthodox belief. He speaks with a sort of compassion and in that way represents a good and helpful voice for our time. Also, Peterson seems to be honestly seeking the good of his audience, particularly young men who have been told they are oppressive and evil simply for being men. He has showed that it is possible to resist the current manias of our day and yet survive. It depends on why Peterson’s message is received and what the recipient is intending to glean.įor example, Peterson’s resistance to the cultural tide of the domination of supposedly oppressed ideologies is helpful. There is good reason for both positive and negative reception of Peterson’s message. However, among orthodox Christians, the opinion of Peterson is widely varying. Among revisionist Christians who generally accept and promote whatever counter-Christian social mores the culture adopts as a matter of course, Peterson is anathema for not agreeing with them. The reception of Peterson among Christians has been similarly mixed. However, we’ve so deeply drunk from the well of belief that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the friend of my enemy is my enemy that Peterson serves as a scapegoat or talisman for groups that haven’t really considered what his message is. In fact, he is careful to set limits on what he is and is not saying. To be clear, based on my reading of Peterson and what I’ve seen of his videos, he does not support the ideologies of nationalists, overt racists, and conspiracy theorists. This increases the left’s hatred for him and may draw some well-meaning Peterson fans beyond what he seems to intend. These groups are cheering Peterson as a long-awaited hero. One danger for Peterson and his fans is getting sucked into the vortex of sewage in the nationalist right and alt-right. Some like Peterson because he delivers what they most want-liberal tears. Of course, his resistance to the identity politics of the left, including his open scorn of some of the pseudo-disciplines in academia like feminist studies and its variants, has made him a darling of a growing, vocal, and toxic group of people on the political right. He communicates clearly and his words are carefully chosen and well-considered. He manages to hold well-reasoned views publicly and generally not get drawn into shouting matches or bluffed into silence. If there is only one thing Christians can learn from Peterson, it is how to manage controversy in this age of garbled communication and bloviating. ![]() Most cultural rebels spontaneously combust in confrontation because they lack the self-control and reasoned care that Peterson demonstrates. In an extremely hostile BBC4 interview, where the interviewer intentionally misrepresents his position repeatedly, he remains calm, corrects her, and even manages to get her to stop and think. Instead, his appeal has broadened, he has weathered the storm, and he continues to have a voice in the public square.Ī significant reason Peterson has been able to maintain his position is that he seems uniquely equipped to handle the rhetoric and bustle of our knuckle dragging media culture. Even tenured professors like Peterson are usually subdued, squashed, and even fired after expressing cultural opinions like the ones he has offered. This sort of rejoinder tends to result in being celebrated by one cable news channel, ridiculed by another, and disappearance after a week or so. Normally this sort of resistance to the Zeitgeist comes from people that are quickly exposed as “uncultured,” “boorish,” or “ignorant” by the media. This resistance was widely publicized even though Peterson made it clear that his opposition is to the legal mandate of a certain accepted civility rather than a disapproval of transgenderism or even a desire to offed-in fact, he indicated he would use people’s preferred pronouns when they requested. He indicated that he would resist the law requiring him to use sexually dysphoric people’s preferred pronouns. Peterson’s rise to public notoriety came when his resistance to a speech control law in Canada hit the news. He seems to a sort of Rorschach Test that draws predictable reactions from the same old crowds. The reaction to Peterson has been polarized both from Christians and non-Christians. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |