He made it clear in that video he was thiiiiiiis cloooooose to believing. Since then he's always pointedly refused to answer the question if he is a believer. At some point the whole dancing on the edge shtick has begun to get tiring.
While I like Peterson, his following sort of reminds me of the Beatles back in the 60’s. Yeah I was there, but not a fan. They claimed they were more popular than Jesus. They are dead (as a group), but He is alive!
I’m not sure what this whole focus on “enchantment” is about. The gospel in itself is enchanting and the historical account from Genesis through Revelation is the most wonderful story of all times. There is no need to detract from it.
What I find dissatisfying about my radical protestant upbringing (Plymouth Brethren) is the hyper-suspicion of all claims of miracles, charismatic gifts, not to mention the paranormal or anything "spooky" that happened starting five seconds after the last apostle died. The era of miracles, I was taught, is OVER. And yet, these people will defend to the death every miraculous claim if it's in the Bible. And use the most extreme interpretations to force themselves into defending things the modern mind finds unbelievable.
This is the attitude, which was very common in the church I grew up in, that gives some people whiplash. These people would never accept this criticism but I believe they've mostly absorbed the Enlightenment contempt of "Popish superstition", only stopping their skepticism and cynicism once the Bible is involved. It's a very odd place to draw the line and defending that line is exhausting. Why not be open to the surprising things the Holy Spirit might be up to today? Not to mention having some humility about our knowledge of the spiritual world and the many surprising ways angels, or demons, or God might interact with the world of our senses?
I would concur. Part of the problem with modern day natural science is that they only believe in what can be captured by our senses and the technology we use to assist. The word "supernatural" has been given a bad rap, because without the aid of microscopes, telescopes, etc. a lot of the universe was chocked up to be "superstition". Just because we cannot discern doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like a deep-sea creature has no idea that there are creatures living in an environment that is encompassed by water so are we. When God "reveals" Himself, He is showing us things we would never come to know on our own. The church in many cases has absorbed the surrounding culture that is rooted in natural, modern and I would say - pagan - science.
'...We see all the same themes here. The vague, New Age-y spirituality - living in the truth and aligning with the “force of reality.” It’s about letting what’s inside you out - the voice of God leading to self-actualization. It’s a call to adventure. It’s deployed therapeutically to avoid cynicism and bitterness. '
...."The best way to view Jordan Peterson’s religious perspective is as New Age. That is, he believes in a sort of vague spirituality that has implications for how we are supposed to live our lives.
..."What’s unique about Peterson is how he takes his New Age/therapeutic approach, and combines it with a view that how we live life is a matter of the utmost moral significance."
Given the authors title - the first so-called Christian that came to my mind - and it was re-enforced over and over throughout this bitter and envy ladened missive was DAVID FRENCH, an ardent fellow traveler with the authors 'DARK AGE' views. But so much for the Gnostic habit of reading the tea-leaves of a fellow - self avowed Christian's professed belief. I will leave that to those with a better vocabulary and an established following, even if it came out of diversity training rather than the church.
I don't believe this is genuine analysis...other than...Jordan is way more followed and enumerated than the Author.
I think your points 1 and 3 are very closely related. Part of an enchanted world is good and evil, and recognizing behaviors and objects as such. Our liberal society no longer treats many actions, lifestyles, etc. as morally serious in any way.
I think the post-liberal turn in politics will naturally bring re-enchantment with it. As people are once again punished for their behaviors and 'rights' are stripped away (against whom depending on the winning side), a politics of good and evil will arise. This is much more conducive to mystical thinking than our current managerialism.
I'm still trying to fully understand what is and isn't re-enchantment.
I like Scott N's Reformed answer. I also think the Reformed emphasis on God's sovereignty creates a lot of opportunities to see and experience God's work everywhere. My understanding is that Jonathan Edwards often contemplated the symbolism that God built into nature, describing nature in ways that we're not so accustomed to nowadays.
But if I can propose some Protestant things that don't appeal to me so much, how does something like Pentecostalism and a heavy emphasis on spiritual warfare factor into the idea of re-enchantment? What about the gathering at Asbury College last year?
Reformed here. A couple of things specifically come to mind.
From the Second Helvetic Confession: THE PREACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD. Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, *we believe that the very Word of God is proclaimed,* and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.
Quite literally and seriously, you should go to church not to hear funny stories, inspirational messages, or get chewed out for what a screwup you are but because God actually promises to show up and you get a chance to hear from Him. It's great if God decides to meet you on your nature walk or in your garden, but that's like the difference between running into your friend on errands vs scheduling a regular time to get coffee and keeping that appointment.
---
The Calvinist view of the Lord's Supper is that by the work of the Spirit, we are drawn up to dine with Jesus who is reigning at the right hand of the Father.
Similarly with Baptism, the language of sign and seal we use is not just like a checkmark. It's like a royal wax seal and a promise you can and should lean on that Christ your Savior has bought and redeemed you.
---
The Sabbath Day as a foretaste of heaven not as a stop doing stuff but as a "we get to do so much" is another one. None of this stuff is flashy or glitzy but there's serious weightiness and awe that comes with worship.
It's distinctly Anglican, though with significant bleedover into other Reformational churches and arguably more broadly, but another is the fact that you don't change corporate prayers in Morning or Evening Prayers (or the Lord's Prayer for that matter) if you are praying solo to the singular. That's intentional, and for the hundreds of thousands to millions of Anglicans who pray Morning or Evening Prayer, there's something extremely powerful in praying with brothers and sisters you've never met.
Within Reformed worship, there's a lot of talk about a Dialogical principle of worship, that we go to meet God in worship and then there's a back and forth aspect where the Congregation says or sings something and the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Lord says things back, such as Reading of Scripture, Prayer, the Sermon and the Sacraments.
I would be interested in hearing what a uniquely Protestant kind of enchantment (or re-enchantment) looks like. Roman Catholic and Orthodox forms seem more obvious, but not really compatible with Protestant theology. Symbolism (and what it means for something to be a symbol) seems to me to be the most important thing. It's strange that Baptists (and other low church types) views on what we call the ordinances are often dismissed as "mere" symbolism. Only disenchanted people think of symbolism as "mere".
I would recommend reading Emil Brunner and Dietrich Bonhoeffer as sources! Brunner talks about viewing the secular as already sacred: "For us there are no holy places, times, persons, acts. There are no special 'religious' regulations. The cultus, divine service, our turning towards God, is to be found in life itself." ("Chapter XIX. Service, The Divine Imperative, Emil Brunner.)
Bonhoeffer talks about the loss of the category of the natural in Protestantism. For both thinkers, following Luther's and Calvin's doctrine of vocation, the Protestant reenchantment is recognizing that the secular is already sacred. It does not need to be transubstantiated.
Hmmm....I "thought" I saw a YouTube video where JP...was in tears...and came to Christ. I guess he was not genuine ???
He made it clear in that video he was thiiiiiiis cloooooose to believing. Since then he's always pointedly refused to answer the question if he is a believer. At some point the whole dancing on the edge shtick has begun to get tiring.
Aaron, what was the prediction you made about Peterson a while back? It sounded rather pessimistic.
While I like Peterson, his following sort of reminds me of the Beatles back in the 60’s. Yeah I was there, but not a fan. They claimed they were more popular than Jesus. They are dead (as a group), but He is alive!
I’m not sure what this whole focus on “enchantment” is about. The gospel in itself is enchanting and the historical account from Genesis through Revelation is the most wonderful story of all times. There is no need to detract from it.
What I find dissatisfying about my radical protestant upbringing (Plymouth Brethren) is the hyper-suspicion of all claims of miracles, charismatic gifts, not to mention the paranormal or anything "spooky" that happened starting five seconds after the last apostle died. The era of miracles, I was taught, is OVER. And yet, these people will defend to the death every miraculous claim if it's in the Bible. And use the most extreme interpretations to force themselves into defending things the modern mind finds unbelievable.
This is the attitude, which was very common in the church I grew up in, that gives some people whiplash. These people would never accept this criticism but I believe they've mostly absorbed the Enlightenment contempt of "Popish superstition", only stopping their skepticism and cynicism once the Bible is involved. It's a very odd place to draw the line and defending that line is exhausting. Why not be open to the surprising things the Holy Spirit might be up to today? Not to mention having some humility about our knowledge of the spiritual world and the many surprising ways angels, or demons, or God might interact with the world of our senses?
I would concur. Part of the problem with modern day natural science is that they only believe in what can be captured by our senses and the technology we use to assist. The word "supernatural" has been given a bad rap, because without the aid of microscopes, telescopes, etc. a lot of the universe was chocked up to be "superstition". Just because we cannot discern doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like a deep-sea creature has no idea that there are creatures living in an environment that is encompassed by water so are we. When God "reveals" Himself, He is showing us things we would never come to know on our own. The church in many cases has absorbed the surrounding culture that is rooted in natural, modern and I would say - pagan - science.
'...We see all the same themes here. The vague, New Age-y spirituality - living in the truth and aligning with the “force of reality.” It’s about letting what’s inside you out - the voice of God leading to self-actualization. It’s a call to adventure. It’s deployed therapeutically to avoid cynicism and bitterness. '
...."The best way to view Jordan Peterson’s religious perspective is as New Age. That is, he believes in a sort of vague spirituality that has implications for how we are supposed to live our lives.
..."What’s unique about Peterson is how he takes his New Age/therapeutic approach, and combines it with a view that how we live life is a matter of the utmost moral significance."
Given the authors title - the first so-called Christian that came to my mind - and it was re-enforced over and over throughout this bitter and envy ladened missive was DAVID FRENCH, an ardent fellow traveler with the authors 'DARK AGE' views. But so much for the Gnostic habit of reading the tea-leaves of a fellow - self avowed Christian's professed belief. I will leave that to those with a better vocabulary and an established following, even if it came out of diversity training rather than the church.
I don't believe this is genuine analysis...other than...Jordan is way more followed and enumerated than the Author.
Peterson at his best. Tells you very succinctly what you ought to do and exactly why.
I am overdosed on him at the moment but this article reminded me of what he is great at.
I am sometimes under the impression Peterson thinks Christianity is true and doesn't want to go there, but maybe that's not correct.
He is a force for good.
I think your points 1 and 3 are very closely related. Part of an enchanted world is good and evil, and recognizing behaviors and objects as such. Our liberal society no longer treats many actions, lifestyles, etc. as morally serious in any way.
I think the post-liberal turn in politics will naturally bring re-enchantment with it. As people are once again punished for their behaviors and 'rights' are stripped away (against whom depending on the winning side), a politics of good and evil will arise. This is much more conducive to mystical thinking than our current managerialism.
I’m a Catholic and I would also want to know what Protestant re-enchantment looks like.
The Reformations (German, Swiss, English) all did away with a lot of what would be in the realm of Christian enchantment/re-enchantment.
Eager to hear what others think!
I'm still trying to fully understand what is and isn't re-enchantment.
I like Scott N's Reformed answer. I also think the Reformed emphasis on God's sovereignty creates a lot of opportunities to see and experience God's work everywhere. My understanding is that Jonathan Edwards often contemplated the symbolism that God built into nature, describing nature in ways that we're not so accustomed to nowadays.
But if I can propose some Protestant things that don't appeal to me so much, how does something like Pentecostalism and a heavy emphasis on spiritual warfare factor into the idea of re-enchantment? What about the gathering at Asbury College last year?
Reformed here. A couple of things specifically come to mind.
From the Second Helvetic Confession: THE PREACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD. Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, *we believe that the very Word of God is proclaimed,* and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.
Quite literally and seriously, you should go to church not to hear funny stories, inspirational messages, or get chewed out for what a screwup you are but because God actually promises to show up and you get a chance to hear from Him. It's great if God decides to meet you on your nature walk or in your garden, but that's like the difference between running into your friend on errands vs scheduling a regular time to get coffee and keeping that appointment.
---
The Calvinist view of the Lord's Supper is that by the work of the Spirit, we are drawn up to dine with Jesus who is reigning at the right hand of the Father.
Similarly with Baptism, the language of sign and seal we use is not just like a checkmark. It's like a royal wax seal and a promise you can and should lean on that Christ your Savior has bought and redeemed you.
---
The Sabbath Day as a foretaste of heaven not as a stop doing stuff but as a "we get to do so much" is another one. None of this stuff is flashy or glitzy but there's serious weightiness and awe that comes with worship.
It's distinctly Anglican, though with significant bleedover into other Reformational churches and arguably more broadly, but another is the fact that you don't change corporate prayers in Morning or Evening Prayers (or the Lord's Prayer for that matter) if you are praying solo to the singular. That's intentional, and for the hundreds of thousands to millions of Anglicans who pray Morning or Evening Prayer, there's something extremely powerful in praying with brothers and sisters you've never met.
Within Reformed worship, there's a lot of talk about a Dialogical principle of worship, that we go to meet God in worship and then there's a back and forth aspect where the Congregation says or sings something and the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Lord says things back, such as Reading of Scripture, Prayer, the Sermon and the Sacraments.
It looks like Lutheranism, but I might be biased...
I would be interested in hearing what a uniquely Protestant kind of enchantment (or re-enchantment) looks like. Roman Catholic and Orthodox forms seem more obvious, but not really compatible with Protestant theology. Symbolism (and what it means for something to be a symbol) seems to me to be the most important thing. It's strange that Baptists (and other low church types) views on what we call the ordinances are often dismissed as "mere" symbolism. Only disenchanted people think of symbolism as "mere".
I would recommend reading Emil Brunner and Dietrich Bonhoeffer as sources! Brunner talks about viewing the secular as already sacred: "For us there are no holy places, times, persons, acts. There are no special 'religious' regulations. The cultus, divine service, our turning towards God, is to be found in life itself." ("Chapter XIX. Service, The Divine Imperative, Emil Brunner.)
Bonhoeffer talks about the loss of the category of the natural in Protestantism. For both thinkers, following Luther's and Calvin's doctrine of vocation, the Protestant reenchantment is recognizing that the secular is already sacred. It does not need to be transubstantiated.