Alastair told me over on X that he primarily meant to criticize Peterson‘s biblical exegesis. However, I still think this amount to criticizing Peterson for not interpreting as a believer would. Given Peterson‘s perspective, he is bound to neglect the objective questions of the history of redemption.
Sounds more like Roberts is criticizing a postmodern relativism, even if it is subtle; whether something is objectively true is not as important to Peterson as it should be, Not a question of whether Peterson agrees with Christian theology; does he believe in truth in this subject area at all?
I don’t think “postmodern relativism” is accurate as a description of Peterson at all. Peterson thinks that a focus on the objective, historical truth or falsity of biblical stories often distracts us from their moral and psychological import.
My experience in church persuades me that we evangelicals frequently do that. At least Reformed or gospel-centered churches succumb to this. Peterson is a pragmatist in the sense that he thinks the stories are important even if he is not sure whether they are true.
I think we are correct that he can’t hold off those objective truth questions forever. But I think we all need to learn that the questions of the moral and psychological teachings of scripture can be considered by people who do not yet believe. Check out William James and “The Will to Believe” for this kind of pragmatism.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I have Peterson's new book and am about to read it and so I've been checking out the reviews to get a sense of where evangelicals are at with it and have been disappointed (haven't read Alastair's yet). My suspicison has been that evangelicals are missing the mark and that Peterson probably fits into a more allegorical sense of scripture seems to be confirmed by what you say in this post. Looking forward to reading the book now.
I haven't read it, but I attended his lecture in STL. He basically began with a critique of his evangelical critics. He said that they all effectively want him to cry, "Lord, Lord" on the street corners. And he said that that is what Jesus says not to do.
Peterson has an important critique of evangelicals that we need to be willing to hear. We are so focused on literal belief we neglect the allegorical sense of Scripture and the actions of living as if God exists. Perhaps - we can do both!
Ha, I forgot said that! Maybe I shouldn't have purchased a copy then. We'll see if I crack it open. I really enjoyed Maps of Meaning, but I'm not sure about his recent canon.
“The fruit this has borne, from my observation, is that many young secular people are reconsidering faith. This begins with Peterson, precisely because he is saying that Christianity would be worth following even if it wasn’t exactly true. But for most people, Peterson’s wife and daughter included, this leads to the further question, “But is it true?”
Is the real issue in all of this the fact that it seems like many Christian thinkers/theologians/preachers aren’t taking up from where Peterson has left off in leading people to the Truth?
Perhaps! I think Christians don't understand the idea of preparation for the gospel. The *preparatio evangelium* was the idea that, what the Old Testament did for the Jews, philosophy did for the Greeks and Romans. It was good ideas from nature, about God and man, that prepared the way for the Christian message.
We don't have to denigrate Peterson or philosophy or Jews for coming from a non-Christian worldview. We need to, as you say, pick up where they leave off!
Roberts said "Peterson also seems to neglect the importance of actual convictions about the objective state of affairs."
I don't think it is accurate or fair to say that Roberts is criticizing Peterson for not being a Christian believer. That is not what that quote says.
Alastair told me over on X that he primarily meant to criticize Peterson‘s biblical exegesis. However, I still think this amount to criticizing Peterson for not interpreting as a believer would. Given Peterson‘s perspective, he is bound to neglect the objective questions of the history of redemption.
Sounds more like Roberts is criticizing a postmodern relativism, even if it is subtle; whether something is objectively true is not as important to Peterson as it should be, Not a question of whether Peterson agrees with Christian theology; does he believe in truth in this subject area at all?
I don’t think “postmodern relativism” is accurate as a description of Peterson at all. Peterson thinks that a focus on the objective, historical truth or falsity of biblical stories often distracts us from their moral and psychological import.
My experience in church persuades me that we evangelicals frequently do that. At least Reformed or gospel-centered churches succumb to this. Peterson is a pragmatist in the sense that he thinks the stories are important even if he is not sure whether they are true.
I think we are correct that he can’t hold off those objective truth questions forever. But I think we all need to learn that the questions of the moral and psychological teachings of scripture can be considered by people who do not yet believe. Check out William James and “The Will to Believe” for this kind of pragmatism.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I have Peterson's new book and am about to read it and so I've been checking out the reviews to get a sense of where evangelicals are at with it and have been disappointed (haven't read Alastair's yet). My suspicison has been that evangelicals are missing the mark and that Peterson probably fits into a more allegorical sense of scripture seems to be confirmed by what you say in this post. Looking forward to reading the book now.
I haven't read it, but I attended his lecture in STL. He basically began with a critique of his evangelical critics. He said that they all effectively want him to cry, "Lord, Lord" on the street corners. And he said that that is what Jesus says not to do.
Peterson has an important critique of evangelicals that we need to be willing to hear. We are so focused on literal belief we neglect the allegorical sense of Scripture and the actions of living as if God exists. Perhaps - we can do both!
Ah, that makes sense, given that your March article you linked to said that you wouldn't read his books! :)
Ha, I forgot said that! Maybe I shouldn't have purchased a copy then. We'll see if I crack it open. I really enjoyed Maps of Meaning, but I'm not sure about his recent canon.
“The fruit this has borne, from my observation, is that many young secular people are reconsidering faith. This begins with Peterson, precisely because he is saying that Christianity would be worth following even if it wasn’t exactly true. But for most people, Peterson’s wife and daughter included, this leads to the further question, “But is it true?”
Is the real issue in all of this the fact that it seems like many Christian thinkers/theologians/preachers aren’t taking up from where Peterson has left off in leading people to the Truth?
Perhaps! I think Christians don't understand the idea of preparation for the gospel. The *preparatio evangelium* was the idea that, what the Old Testament did for the Jews, philosophy did for the Greeks and Romans. It was good ideas from nature, about God and man, that prepared the way for the Christian message.
We don't have to denigrate Peterson or philosophy or Jews for coming from a non-Christian worldview. We need to, as you say, pick up where they leave off!