Why "Message To The Christian Churches" Is Important To Hear (Even If I Don't Agree With It)

 

I tend to be a little slow in getting around to commentating on whatever the Big Issue Of The Day is on the interwebs.  Usually I find that if I wait a couple of days what I would have said in the beginning has already been said by far more erudite persons than myself and so I can contribute nothing fresh, or has been undone by the revelation of further facts leaving me feeling rather glad I held my tongue and am not among those having to humbly walk back (or quietly delete) what was initially written in the haste to lead the conversation.  One of the joys of being a systematician is that my tribe are happy to mull a problem over for decades (or centuries) without the fear of becoming irrelevant.  On top of that, as a busy pastor with plenty of other outside distractions I am less inclined to put a lot of time in social comment.  Think lots, say little - that's the usual pattern.

However, this week I am inclined to break with the usual pattern and dip the proverbial toe in the murky water of contemporary debate.  It is safe to say that the video "Message To The Christian Churches" by Canadian psychologist and public philosopher Jordan Peterson has inspired a larger than usual amount of comment in the Christian community (which no doubt would please him greatly).  Of course, Peterson has his rusted on fans and critics, and their respective reactions we can take as read.  What was more interesting to me was the state of commentary in and among broader Christian networks.  Honestly, most of it was disappointing to a degree that gives me a great deal of fear with the state of our contemporary apologetics.

Let's get one thing right out in the open - I do not agree with much of the thesis which Peterson puts forward in his video.  I believe that some of his social observations are trite, his understanding of the role of the church (even from a social perspective) is misguided, and there is a gaping absence of the person of Christ either in a redemptive role or even as a general model for masculine or public virtue.  Still, none of that really surprises or bothers me.  Peterson has been open with the fact that he is not a committed Christian.  He is interested in Christian ideas from a social or psychological perspective, and perhaps spiritually is best classified as a seeker within his broader search for cultural truth.  So when critiquing Peterson it cannot be on the basis of his not affirming premises that we do not share.  That is simply not a fair way to approach the matter.  However, it is a trap that many others seem to have fallen into.

When I started to read social media comments that purported to engage with Peterson's video there was a general attitude of dismissiveness that in more than a few occasions bordered on snarky.  Some of this was worked out more fully in longer articles such as this or this.  The view seemed to be that Peterson was wrong or even inappropriate in putting forth views on what the church should or could be in society.  His perspective could be dismissed, his observations (even with all their faults) unworthy of serious consideration.

To me this seems like not merely short-sighted but a fundamental misunderstanding of how Christians must expect to engage with and even transform culture by their witness.  To live as lights for Christ in a darkened world is to reach out in faith and weakness (of personal substance and method) to invite the world to engage with and know a God who is more perfect and more loving than we could possibly be.  The "jars of clay" of our lives (2 Cor 4:7) have been sanctified by the presence of the Holy Spirit, who we trust will communicate to some whom we witness to a greater truth that we can only reflect in part.  To do this, we invite all to consider and wonder aloud whether a divine reality they assumed to be true (or absent entirely) may in fact be constituted quite differently, if the truth may be found in imperfect forms through imperfect witnesses, and to subsequently ask what might life be like if Jesus really was Lord and Saviour.  It means moving forward sometimes by great steps, sometimes by inches, teaching and correcting with gentleness and respect, remembering that God is sovereign and able to work though imperfect forms and so to call those who have not yet been fully redeemed.

Dismissing Peterson's views in a way which has been all too obvious over the last several days creates two very negative consequences for ongoing social witness.  The first is that the Church (once again) is unable to have a conversation about the nature or effect of its existence without being in sole control of the terms of the engagement.  If the Church doesn't set the premises, then the argument can be dismissed.  It doesn't matter if the argument contains anything pertinent for cultural engagement or mission strategy, because if we're not running the game then we don't want to play.  Now, if you want to assume that posture that's totally fine, but don't then start pretending that cultural engagement (or even evangelism) is high on your list of priorities.  You're only interested in talking to those who share your presuppositions.  The second is that dismissing partially-formed or incomplete spiritual thoughts in such a total way has a terrible effect on the appetite for active witness in our churches.  My Reformed Evangelical tradition has as one of its central tenets a passion for active witness to the world through the Priesthood Of All Believers.  How many times have we heard sermons that conclude with "Go out and be bold in sharing Jesus with your friends and family!"  However, we have a TERRIBLE track record in actually following through on supporting our people in doing this.  They have to Stick To The Script provided for them at their evangelism training.  They must share the resources they've provided and serve in the spaces carved out for them.  Because if they don't, if they step out and share what they think on their own and it doesn't happen to be the exact way The Minister would have had it done, then their attempts will be undermined and they'll be personally unsupported if things go sour.  Jordan Peterson has said that he's not a Christian but is engaging with Christian ideas and community on an intellectual level.  He shares his thoughts on what be believes the Church could do to make a positive cultural difference, and he's told in as many words that he should keep his mouth shut.  If that's the way the Church deals with outsider comments, how would they deal with someone on the inside who may stray (intentionally or otherwise) off script?

Even though I stated earlier that I did not agree with much of what was put forward by Peterson in his video, I still believe that there are some important social and missional points that the Church would do well to consider.  To use a restaurant analogy, Peterson in my opinion is not really telling us what sort of food we should be serving but how to better help them find the front door and what might help them feel welcome if they choose to come for a meal.  I could engage in a deep analysis of Peterson's video at this point, but I think instead I'll leave that for a few days when I will have more time to order my thoughts.