How to Use Jordan Peterson, We Who Wrestle With God: Perceptions of the Divine

In my previous essay I made some suggestions about how to read Jordan Peterson, We Who Wrestle With God. In that essay I asserted that we should not read the book as if it were Christian theology, philosophy, psychology, or sociology. It is rather a “phenomenology of homo religiosus” or religious man; that is to say, it is a study of the ways in which human beings perceive and respond to the divine. In this essay I will suggest a few ways in which the book can be useful to Christians.

Why Read Peterson?

First, it is important not to be afraid to incorporate the wisdom of non-Christian thinkers into our thinking. Of course, we must do this with care. But faithful church leaders and even apostles have done this from the beginning. In Acts 17, Paul quoted two Greek poets, Epimenides (6th century B.C.) and Aratus (4th and 3rd centuries B.C.), approvingly: “In him we live and move and have our being” and “We are his offspring.” Paul taps into the near universal belief and experience that the divine is near, around, within, and active everywhere. The pressing question within the religious horizon of the Old and New Testaments was not “Is there a god?” but “What is the true nature of the divine?” and “Who is God?” And that is what Paul proclaimed to the Athenians that day.

We, however, cannot presume that our contemporaries experience the overwhelming, self-evident presence of the divine. They do not. It is doubtful that even we who believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit experience it as well as the pagans in Athens did. We wrestle with the question of the existence and presence of God in a way no ancient person did. For many people, belief requires heroic effort. This modern feeling of divine absence is why we need to listen to Jordan Peterson and other thinkers who can awaken us to the universal divine presence felt so vividly by the Athenians and all premodern people.

The Question of God is Inescapable

As I argued in the first essay, Peterson reads biblical texts for their witness to the universal experience of the divine. Human beings are by nature religious, that is, human consciousness is so constructed that we cannot help but raise religious questions, questions of meaning, of life and death, being, eternity, and divinity.  Unless we are taught otherwise, we experience the power and beauty of nature, the inner call of conscience, the threat of death, and the lure of love as intimations of the divine. We feel the tension between the upward call toward the good, true, and the beautiful and the downward pull into sensuality and chaos. Peterson criticizes such modern errors as scientism, race and gender ideology, and utopian revolutionary theories (“idiocy” he would say) that blind us to what lies open before us: We live in Someone else’s world and we can never become what we could be unless we respond sacrificially to the divine call.

From a Christian point of view, Peterson does not provide satisfactory answers to the two questions Paul posed and answered in Acts 17: (1) “What is God?” Paul’s answer: “God is the Creator of heaven and earth!” And (2) “Who is God?” Paul’s answer: “God is the One who raised Jesus Christ from the dead.” But Peterson sets the conditions wherein these questions make sense. If we come to perceive the divine all around and within us, and if we feel compelled to choose between seeking the divine and falling into chaos, the next step naturally appears before us. It is to ask: “What and Who are you, Lord? How may I seek you and find you? What would you have me do?”

Peterson and the Bible

Peterson does not read the Bible as the canonical text for the Christian church. Nor does he read it according to the modern historical critical method, which seeks, not to hear the religious/moral message of the text with a view to obeying it, but to uncover the history of the composition of the present texts and to reconstruct the “true” historical events behind the text, neither of which we can know for sure. Peterson takes the biblical texts seriously as speaking universal truth learned in genuine encounters with the divine. Unlike modern historical interpretation, Peterson finds an existentially relevant and religiously compelling message in the Bible. It articulates a command built into human nature that we must obey or disobey. Once we have heard it, we can never return to our naive secular existence.

The church, like Peterson, reads the Bible for its religious/moral message. Unlike Peterson, however, the church reads the Bible as its authoritative scripture, as the normative story by which it measures all its teaching, theological and moral. But it does not contradict the ecclesial reading of the Bible to read it also as a witness to the universal human “perceptions of the divine” as does Peterson. Believers read the Bible as more but not less than Peterson. And this is why a person who is not a Christian can recognize their experience in many biblical texts and a Christian can recognize their experience in some pagan and secular texts. God has not left himself without witness in nature and in human consciousness! Peterson is on the side of the angels here. In my view, then, Christian preachers, teachers, apologists, and theologians could make good use of his work and the work of others like him.

Next Time: Perhaps I will follow up these essays with some reflections on Peterson’s moral and social ideas.

4 thoughts on “How to Use Jordan Peterson, We Who Wrestle With God: Perceptions of the Divine

  1. Jasper :P's avatarJasper :P

    It’s true that wisdom can be derived from unorthodox places. However, Peterson spreads many harmful ideologies, and such analysis without the critical consideration of this is careless. Especially as someone who many look to as a religious/spiritual leader.

    My suspicion is that Highfield consumes The Daily Wire for his own personal reasons, which makes me question his intentions when writing this piece.

    He chooses to hide behind Peterson’s words – calling race and gender ideology “errors” – which regardless of your personal beliefs, these fields are simply an exploration of thoughts and behaviors that have already been occurring among humans for centuries.

    This is either an oversight, or just a lack of integrity. Both of which are disappointing.

    The message that both religious and secular parties can find wisdom from each other is a good message, and one that I agree with. However, again, making this advocation, with the intention of promoting a specific political viewpoint, and not exploring the complexities of that – not only isolates those with differing viewpoints, but also misrepresents the message or Christianity.

    Just as Ron would like us to reconsider where we derive our wisdom from, I would urge him to reconsider the material he uses for his essays. Does the church really need to hear about Peterson in order to understand that secular texts can be useful? Or does Highfield simply want to talk about him?

    Like

    Reply
  2. ifaqtheology's avatarifaqtheology Post author

    Would you like to know why I read this book and wrote on it? I was asked to do so as part of my job. I would not have done so on my own. I found the book too long and repetitive. By page 250, I was looking forward to the end. As to whether the church needs to read Peterson or not: The fact is many people are reading him. I wanted to help them read him more intelligently.

    I’ve written about 440 essays on this blog. My aims, priorities, and viewpoints are amply displayed for readers to judge. No one can judge their own deepest motives. So, I will not try to refute your questions.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Dr Jonne Smalhouse's avatarDr Jonne Smalhouse

    Hi Ron.

    “Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu”.

    ‘Somebody’ wrote this two millennia ago. And 1500 years later it was Jefferson who formed great ideas upon another tennet of John Locke’s, namely his ‘Theory of Causal Perception’…

    My feeling, is that Ron wants everybody he touches (or indeed, blesses with education) to be well-informed, but also an independent thinker. In my view God did not make us all to be automatons, did He? Nor blind church believers?

    What Ron speaks about here, in my view, shouts out to me loudly (Locke) “we must be ‘willing to will the will to will”. St Paul discusses the weaknesses of the human will without God. And Jesus says “not my will, but thy Will”.

    I’ll explain this seeming riddle for Ron’s audience, it’s not as jibberish as it sounds; there is an active/passive sense in the verb and both a subject and an object. All of which are worthy of discussion!

    “To will” is the business end, infinitive verb, that is the critical thing done ( or intended to be done). “The will” is the object, the part being controlled, willed. And “willing to will” is the movement of a passive intention or thought consciously awakened to achieve the action i.e. exercising divine free will. This topic of ‘perception’ hinges around what reality is in actuality, existence in this world and our primary beliefs, and the ability to perceive things by our understanding of ourselves. To complicate this discussion in a way not intended- perception (or lack of) is an important precursor, not just to knowing God, but to understanding all fundamental doctrines of theology.

    Thanks for all of this Ron. It is interesting! And i do feel that there is much to understand, whether it’s Jesus Christ, Thomas Aquinas, Locke or all of those enlightened thinkers and philosophers who ponder what this topic teaches those who think. Ha!

    Lastly, my university encyclopaedic memory is poor, but i recall John Locke certainly didn’t start firmly with his mighty idea about perception. Only when challenged ( by a christian friend), did his partial logic move from the secular towards a greater search for God.

    Oh! To be so perfect at church, in your faith, that you can never be wrong, nor need a gentle push towards our Father in heaven…

    blessings JS

    Like

    Reply
  4. ifaqtheology's avatarifaqtheology Post author

    Thank you Dr. Smalhouse for giving me the benefit of the doubt (as you always do!). I do have a viewpoint. But if I have any self-knowledge I would never want anyone to accept my viewpoint as a matter of authority. I think I try to give reasons for my conclusions, admitting that I am fallible and that my readers possess intelligence, free will, and good will. If my thoughts benefit others, may God be praised. I hope I am fair to those with whom I disagree. I do not think unfairness is very persuasive; and it is also wrong. rch

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Jasper :P Cancel reply