To even read this article and comment on it is above my own intellectual level. So hopefully I’m not speaking out of place. If I’m not adding anything to the conversation, feel free to ignore me.
When Paul admonishes us to pray for those in authority, so that we may be able to live a quiet and peaceful life, it has multiple motives and results. As a part of a civilization, we individually benefit by living at peace, but also, the gospel has opportunity to freely spread. So there are both penultimate and ultimate results. In recent decades it has been fashionable for the intelligentsia (and their gullible students) to denigrate historic Christianity (both personal faith and its effect on civil society), while many of us would actually credit Christianity as being the primary underlying force for the good of humanity, education, morals, anti-slavery, women’s rights, science, freedom, and even politics. So while it would be "fun" to have Peterson surrender to be a committed and transformed believer (and mold his pronouncements to be consistent with a Biblical worldview), I am pleased that he is at least one of the few public voices around the world that is advocating against the illusion that purely secular mankind can make a just and good civilization without a guiding concept of godliness. Hopefully an acknowledgment and awakening that godliness is good for society will lead to an acknowledgement and awakening that Godliness is even better.
[ I realize this Substack is advocating for the benefits of Natural Theology, but I also can’t help but give God thanks for His special revelation and the grace of having eyes to see and ears to hear. If God didn’t graciously enable us to think rightly, not Jordan Peterson, or you or I could understand ultimate truth. General revelation is good, important, and a part of God’s plan. But it has its limitations. Sola Deo Gloria. (You’re the Natural Theologian expert, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong in thinking Natural Theology is primarily thinking intentionally and deeply about general revelation, {which includes world history, anthropology, and philosophy} apart from revealed propositional Biblical revelation. { i.e. What we could/should understand about reality, including ultimate reality(God) if we didn’t have the Bible.} ]. Sorry, I’m educated enough to be dangerous but not enough to get it all right.
A change in the intellectual culture has significance - we don't need all the intellectuals to convert for a culture of more fertile soil for the gospel to develop. "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
I agree that Peterson's use of the word "sacrifice" is problematic. Isn't he really talking about balancing freedom with social obligations, and pleasure with patience, and if so, aren't these really part of natural virtue? Classical liberalism, alas (see "Why Liberalism Failed" by Patrick Deneen) is pretty much defined by unrestrained liberty--unrestrained by social obligations or a sense of community. This could be Peterson's Achilles' heel.
Yes, to the first two sentences! They are part of natural virtue, and I believe there's a unique kind of self-sacrificial love that Christ introduces which is supererogatory and requires the theological (supernatural) virtues.
But on classical liberalism, I don't believe that "unrestrained liberty" is at all an accurate description. I believe classical liberalism was much more concerned with distinguishing license from liberty then Deneen acknowledges. One source of this is a scholar who is a libertine, and opposes classical liberalism for that reason. Here's a clip: https://youtu.be/x4YxSGFqOH8?t=2703
Fair enough (I saw the podcast you provided of Thaddeus Russell, quite interesting!). Yes, John Locke, the grandfather of classical liberalism, was clearly not a libertine. At the same time, his notions have the effect of shredding the social fabric and leading inexorably to unrestrained liberty because they empower the individual at the expense of community. A close reading of Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" shows that he will give occasional lip service to more traditional notions of virtue--which in his time meant public-mindedness, or not letting one's own pursuit of prosperity harm the common good--but in subsequent paragraphs utterly undermines these token gestures. In the end, it's all about pursuing one's economic self interest regardless of other considerations, and in the end this also degenerates into sacrificing community and sexual virtue to the god of personal profit as well. And I suspect that Jordan Peterson's program is susceptible to the same degenerative dynamic. (Those who don't know their economic history are doomed to be swept downriver by it).
Jordan Peterson’s approach suggests that the survival and renewal of Western civilization hinge on a collective embrace of a Christian-derived framework—not as a religion in the traditional sense, but as a unifying cultural and moral foundation. The West is at a precarious tipping point: decades of secularization, postmodern skepticism, and the erosion of shared values have left us without a coherent story to bind us together. Without a majority anchoring itself in this framework, the risk is a descent into deeper fragmentation—tribalism, meaninglessness, or even authoritarianism as people grasp for order in the chaos.
Peterson’s bet is that the Christian narrative, with its emphasis on individual responsibility, the pursuit of meaning through struggle, and the balancing of chaos and order, is the most battle-tested system we’ve got. It’s not just a nice-to-have; it’s the bedrock for what’s to come.
For this to work, though, the majority doesn’t need to buy into every theological detail—Peterson’s genius (or gambit) is making it accessible to a broad swath: the religious can see their faith reflected, while the secular can embrace its psychological and ethical utility.
Imagine a society where most people, regardless of their stance on God, agree that living as if you’re accountable for your actions, as if your choices ripple outward, and as if meaning is worth wrestling for is the way forward—a kind of cultural consensus that doesn’t demand uniform belief but a common operating manual. It’s crucial because without it, competing ideologies or nihilistic apathy could fracture us beyond repair, leaving no foundation for the next chapter.
The urgency here ties to scale: a minority adopting this might inspire pockets of resilience, but only a majority can reset the trajectory of a whole civilization. Think of it like a critical mass in a network—once enough nodes adopt the signal, the whole system stabilizes. Peterson’s framework, rooted in Christian archetypes but flexible enough for a pluralistic West, could be that signal. It’s not about enforcing conformity; it’s about agreeing on a starting point so we’re not all shouting past each other as the ground shifts beneath us. What’s to come—whether technological upheaval, cultural clashes, or existential challenges—demands a collective footing.
Yes, so important: "Peterson’s genius (or gambit): the majority doesn’t need to buy into every theological detail."
And the flip-side is that, the embrace of full, theological affirmation of Christianity by no means bestows one with political wisdom or will. It just as often leads people to pietism or anti-civilizational radicalism. ;)
To even read this article and comment on it is above my own intellectual level. So hopefully I’m not speaking out of place. If I’m not adding anything to the conversation, feel free to ignore me.
When Paul admonishes us to pray for those in authority, so that we may be able to live a quiet and peaceful life, it has multiple motives and results. As a part of a civilization, we individually benefit by living at peace, but also, the gospel has opportunity to freely spread. So there are both penultimate and ultimate results. In recent decades it has been fashionable for the intelligentsia (and their gullible students) to denigrate historic Christianity (both personal faith and its effect on civil society), while many of us would actually credit Christianity as being the primary underlying force for the good of humanity, education, morals, anti-slavery, women’s rights, science, freedom, and even politics. So while it would be "fun" to have Peterson surrender to be a committed and transformed believer (and mold his pronouncements to be consistent with a Biblical worldview), I am pleased that he is at least one of the few public voices around the world that is advocating against the illusion that purely secular mankind can make a just and good civilization without a guiding concept of godliness. Hopefully an acknowledgment and awakening that godliness is good for society will lead to an acknowledgement and awakening that Godliness is even better.
[ I realize this Substack is advocating for the benefits of Natural Theology, but I also can’t help but give God thanks for His special revelation and the grace of having eyes to see and ears to hear. If God didn’t graciously enable us to think rightly, not Jordan Peterson, or you or I could understand ultimate truth. General revelation is good, important, and a part of God’s plan. But it has its limitations. Sola Deo Gloria. (You’re the Natural Theologian expert, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong in thinking Natural Theology is primarily thinking intentionally and deeply about general revelation, {which includes world history, anthropology, and philosophy} apart from revealed propositional Biblical revelation. { i.e. What we could/should understand about reality, including ultimate reality(God) if we didn’t have the Bible.} ]. Sorry, I’m educated enough to be dangerous but not enough to get it all right.
None of the apologies or qualifications are necessary -- a very important comment! I once made the same application from 1 Tim:1-4: https://open.substack.com/pub/joelcarini/p/biblical-political-theology-what?r=k9yk0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
A change in the intellectual culture has significance - we don't need all the intellectuals to convert for a culture of more fertile soil for the gospel to develop. "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
I agree that Peterson's use of the word "sacrifice" is problematic. Isn't he really talking about balancing freedom with social obligations, and pleasure with patience, and if so, aren't these really part of natural virtue? Classical liberalism, alas (see "Why Liberalism Failed" by Patrick Deneen) is pretty much defined by unrestrained liberty--unrestrained by social obligations or a sense of community. This could be Peterson's Achilles' heel.
Yes, to the first two sentences! They are part of natural virtue, and I believe there's a unique kind of self-sacrificial love that Christ introduces which is supererogatory and requires the theological (supernatural) virtues.
But on classical liberalism, I don't believe that "unrestrained liberty" is at all an accurate description. I believe classical liberalism was much more concerned with distinguishing license from liberty then Deneen acknowledges. One source of this is a scholar who is a libertine, and opposes classical liberalism for that reason. Here's a clip: https://youtu.be/x4YxSGFqOH8?t=2703
Fair enough (I saw the podcast you provided of Thaddeus Russell, quite interesting!). Yes, John Locke, the grandfather of classical liberalism, was clearly not a libertine. At the same time, his notions have the effect of shredding the social fabric and leading inexorably to unrestrained liberty because they empower the individual at the expense of community. A close reading of Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" shows that he will give occasional lip service to more traditional notions of virtue--which in his time meant public-mindedness, or not letting one's own pursuit of prosperity harm the common good--but in subsequent paragraphs utterly undermines these token gestures. In the end, it's all about pursuing one's economic self interest regardless of other considerations, and in the end this also degenerates into sacrificing community and sexual virtue to the god of personal profit as well. And I suspect that Jordan Peterson's program is susceptible to the same degenerative dynamic. (Those who don't know their economic history are doomed to be swept downriver by it).
Jordan Peterson’s approach suggests that the survival and renewal of Western civilization hinge on a collective embrace of a Christian-derived framework—not as a religion in the traditional sense, but as a unifying cultural and moral foundation. The West is at a precarious tipping point: decades of secularization, postmodern skepticism, and the erosion of shared values have left us without a coherent story to bind us together. Without a majority anchoring itself in this framework, the risk is a descent into deeper fragmentation—tribalism, meaninglessness, or even authoritarianism as people grasp for order in the chaos.
Peterson’s bet is that the Christian narrative, with its emphasis on individual responsibility, the pursuit of meaning through struggle, and the balancing of chaos and order, is the most battle-tested system we’ve got. It’s not just a nice-to-have; it’s the bedrock for what’s to come.
For this to work, though, the majority doesn’t need to buy into every theological detail—Peterson’s genius (or gambit) is making it accessible to a broad swath: the religious can see their faith reflected, while the secular can embrace its psychological and ethical utility.
Imagine a society where most people, regardless of their stance on God, agree that living as if you’re accountable for your actions, as if your choices ripple outward, and as if meaning is worth wrestling for is the way forward—a kind of cultural consensus that doesn’t demand uniform belief but a common operating manual. It’s crucial because without it, competing ideologies or nihilistic apathy could fracture us beyond repair, leaving no foundation for the next chapter.
The urgency here ties to scale: a minority adopting this might inspire pockets of resilience, but only a majority can reset the trajectory of a whole civilization. Think of it like a critical mass in a network—once enough nodes adopt the signal, the whole system stabilizes. Peterson’s framework, rooted in Christian archetypes but flexible enough for a pluralistic West, could be that signal. It’s not about enforcing conformity; it’s about agreeing on a starting point so we’re not all shouting past each other as the ground shifts beneath us. What’s to come—whether technological upheaval, cultural clashes, or existential challenges—demands a collective footing.
Yes, so important: "Peterson’s genius (or gambit): the majority doesn’t need to buy into every theological detail."
And the flip-side is that, the embrace of full, theological affirmation of Christianity by no means bestows one with political wisdom or will. It just as often leads people to pietism or anti-civilizational radicalism. ;)