Jordan Peterson Scolds The Christian Churches

Right now, as far as I can tell, there are two people running for king of the world, Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson. As I noted yesterday, Musk recently visited Pope Francis to talk about his ideas on improving the world and humanity. Jordan Peterson has occasionally done the same with Bp Barron, but yesterday he scolded NATO, the EU, and the whole Western alliance for wanting to start World War III if they don't appease Putin in Ukraine.

Today he turns to the Christian churches. His heavy-lidded pose at the start of his video above verges on self-satire. Indeed, I wonder if he isn't just running for king of the world; he must be running instead for philosopher-king of the world.

What intrigues me about Peterson and Christians -- whether he is a Chrstian of any identifiable type has been, and continues to be, open to debate -- is that his arguments for Christianity, or for that matter any religion, track mainly with Jonathan Swift's An Argument Against Abolishing Christianity (1708):

[I]t may perhaps be neither safe nor prudent to argue against the abolishing of Christianity, at a juncture when all parties seem so unanimously determined upon the point, as we cannot but allow from their actions, their discourses, and their writings. However, I know not how, whether from the affectation of singularity, or the perverseness of human nature, but so it unhappily falls out, that I cannot be entirely of this opinion.

. . . I readily own there hath been an old custom, time out of mind, for people to assemble in the churches every Sunday, and that shops are still frequently shut, in order, as it is conceived, to preserve the memory of that ancient practice; but how this can prove a hindrance to business or pleasure is hard to imagine. What if the men of pleasure are forced, one day in the week, to game at home instead of the chocolate-house? Are not the taverns and coffee-houses open? Can there be a more convenient season for taking a dose of physic? Is not that the chief day for traders to sum up the accounts of the week, and for lawyers to prepare their briefs? But I would fain know how it can be pretended that the churches are misapplied? Where are more appointments and rendezvouses of gallantry? Where more care to appear in the foremost box, with greater advantage of dress? Where more meetings for business? Where more bargains driven of all sorts? And where so many conveniences or incitements to sleep?

. . . For the rest, it may perhaps admit a controversy, whether the banishing all notions of religion whatsoever would be inconvenient for the vulgar. Not that I am in the least of opinion with those who hold religion to have been the invention of politicians, to keep the lower part of the world in awe by the fear of invisible powers; unless man kind were then very different from what it is now; for I look upon the mass or body of our people here in England to be as Freethinkers, that is to say, as staunch unbelievers, as any of the highest rank. But I conceive some scattered notions about a superior power to be of singular use for the common people, as furnishing excellent materials to keep children quiet when they grow peevish, and providing topics of amusement in a tedious winter night.

Peterson's argument in brief is that elite opinion, which denigrates the male role or male archetypes, is demoralizing to boys and men and bodes ill for the future of an ordered society. The role of the Church -- which, given Peterson's scolding tone, it has long neglected -- should be to welcome these boys and men, encourage them to play a positive role, get married, have children, earn a living, and live responsible lives. The idea of a superior power that encourages them to do so will be of singular use in this project.

By the same token, we may extrapolate that setting aside a particular day of the week to encourage these boys and men to clean up, dress well, network with their peers, catch up with their obligations, and court potential wives will be of great use to society at large.

Over the past couple of years, Bp Barron has had a dialogue with Peterson where they explore areas where they agree, and it doesn't really suit Bp Barron's purpose to focus on potential disagreement. But I would at least start by pointing out that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, where the bishop recently served, has a strong program of fostering vocations to the priesthood, with a full time staff of priests, all male, who counsel and encourage local boys and men to seek out that purpose in life, which is reserved exclusively for males. The prayers of the faithful are directed weekly toward increasing such vocations.

Indeed, a powerful male role model leads their worship and provides words of encouragement and advice, based on Jungian scriptural archetypes that Peterson himself finds salubrious, in each service.

It's intriguing that Peterson doesn't differentiate among Christian denominations, or indeed among the Christian denominations that claim to be non-denominational. What about the problem of evanglicals who claim to be born again but see no need to attend church? What about those who've accepted the Lord as Savior but remain unbaptized? Would Peterson ever attend a Christian service of any sort and recite either the Apostles' or Nicene Creed with any degree of mindful assent?

Whom does he claim to be addressing? All the main line denominations ordain women as pastors or priests. Most accept transsexuals to the priesthood. Should they stop doing this? On the other hand, if Peterson is in some way encouraging the unaffiliated to consider becoming Christian, does he think they should review and consider each denomination's teachings on sexuality? And what of the role of women at all? Are they now to be subordinate to men? He has nothing to say, just that the Christian churches should be more positive to men and boys in some unspecified way.

It sounds very much as though he doesn't think any of the serious ingredients of Christian belief, such as doctrine or sacraments, are of any importance, but the purpose of Christianity should be as some sort of assertive YMCA type of NGO for the purpose of rehabilitating males.

I was thinking about posting on his messsage yesterday on the Ukraine war, especially stressing his stated reliance on John Mearshimer and Frederick Kagan, two highly credentialed yet highly irrelevant thinkers on military strategy. Peterson's problem in addressing both Christianity and the Ukraine war is that he seems incapable of serious thought. I briefly considered that maybe he could spend more time talking with Bp Barron, but really, the bishop is busier and busier these days, and as far as Christianity is concerned, maybe Peterson could more profitably spend his effort on a diocesan RCIA program -- which I'm convinced he will never deign to do.