Posted on 02/06/2018 11:39:12 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.(I Timothy 6:20-21)
As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.( I Timothy 1:3-4)
I love the internet because of the open exchange of viewpoints, and the democratization of knowledge that it affords. For the time being at least, the gatekeepers can no longer control and dominate the public square, enforcing their sneering, leftist orthodoxy as the proscribed ‘prevailing wisdom’ of the day.
In place of the Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Katy Couric types foisted upon us for decades by the Northeastern Liberal Media establishment, refreshing voices from a wide perspective of view are available.
The internet has it’s own ‘stars’; some of them were already well known, and some come seemingly out of nowhere; Matt Drudge, Stefan Molyneux, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Sultan Knish (Daniel Greenfield), Jim Robinson, David Horowitz, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, the late Andrew Beitbart, James O’Keefe, Laura Southern, are among them. They come from the right, the left, Libertarianism, and even Anarchist perspectives .
One of the latest popular internet personalities is Jordan Peterson, a Professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and popular author, his latests book is named, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” (Jan 2018, Penguin Books).
Peterson is well known for his now classic book, “Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief”, which offers ,”a revolutionary take on the psychology of religion”. All of Peterson’s lectures on the subject are available on Peterson’s Youtube channel, which features 300 videos of his lectures, and has 550,000 subscribers, and 30 million views.
Peterson is an excellent communicator. Part of his popularity is that he takes on Political Correctness, to the point of running afoul of leftist groups on Campuses such as Antifa, who have rioted at campuses where Peterson was asked to speak.
According to the Guardian, in an article called “Jordan Peterson: The Pursuit of Happiness is a Pointless Goal”
Peterson, 55, is a psychology professor at the University of Toronto who shot into the headlines in 2016 after refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns at the university which new legislation, Bill C-16, compelled him legally to. Following this he was either hailed as a free-speech martyr or castigated as a transphobe. Demonstrations broke out on campus, and he has been the subject of a campaign of protest by trans activists. More controversy followed when he publicly defended James Damore, the sacked Google employee who suggested there were innate gender differences, as being no more than the scientific consensus.
Of interest to me, (and my readers) is that Peterson teaches about the Bible. Quite a bit about the Bible actually. He is very popular for his series on the Bible, Maps of Meaning , which features lectures on some of the more famous Bible Stories. This subject has turned out to be compelling in this postmodern environment, and at the Universities.
(Who knew that secularism doesn’t satisfy, and leaves a Nihilistic void? Hmmmmm!)
The problem is that Jordan is teaching the Bible from a Jungian perspective.
The Atheistic father of ‘psychology’ Sigmund Freud, once had a protege, named Carl Gustav Jung. They were the pioneers of the modern ‘science’ of psychology.Freud would develop Jung and they would develop this new knowledge.
The two eventually had a parting of the ways, because Freud was a materialist, and Jung was very spiritual in his outlook. This son of a Swiss Reformed Pastor, was raised in a home in which his mother believed ‘spirits’ visited her in the night, eventually having a nervous breakdown.
Jung believed that we (Humanity) all partake of a “collective consciousness”, a continuity of deep but repressed memories stretching back into the ‘millions of years” of human evolution.
Out of that consciousness come our various myths and religious stories, whose characters are called “archetypes”. These archetypes recur in our legends, stories, myths, literature, because they are spiritual realities, and they are universal because humanity all draws from the same well of repressed, distant memory.
The Archetypes consist of “the Hero”, “The Caregiver”,”The Ruler”,”Everyman”,”The Jester”, “Creator”, “Lover”, “the Explorer”,”The Magician”, “The Outlaw”, “Innocent”, and tree are yet others no doubt, which Jungians will ‘discover’. To Jung, (and his disciples such as Peterson) all of these figures are spiritual realities which reside in all of our subconsciousness.
In the Jungian model of the human psyche, any and all of these figures reside on our unconsciousness. This is bothersome to me as a Christian, because I believe in the biblical concept of Demonization and in some cases Demon Possession. Jungianism would give a ‘scientific ‘explanation, for the phenomenon, lending it respectability.
Is this persona a demon or an archetype?
According to Jungians, archetypes are why literature and ‘religion’ feature pretty much the same ‘stories’, which recur over centuries with different names and faces but the same basic features.
In Jungian thought, there are in literature, a thousand forms of the poem Odyssey, or the Iliad, Because man is always on a joinery into the unknown, and man can never return home. There will always be a self sacrificing hero, because ‘the Hero’ is merely an archetype, a figure who exists in our “collective unconsciousness” and constantly re-emerges in human experience.
Jordan Peterson is positive about Christianity. He believes that Judeo/ Christianity gave us western civilization, and he is an ardent opponent of Postmodernism. He even confesses to be a Christian, and his interest in the Bible, and opposition to the godless left, has made him quite popular with Christian young people.
But to Peterson the Bible is Myth, and the characters of the Bible are valuable archetypes, not historical figures. He considers it perhaps the greatest of all myths, but a myth nonetheless.
Christianity and Judaism (in the true sense) are historical religions. We believe that God entered into time/space history and intervened. The Resurrection is a historical event, and of historical consequence. There really was a tomb, as Christian apologist Josh MacDowell once said, “…if the stone that covered the mouth of the tomb had rolled over your foot, you would be in a cast!”
Our current mainstream churches are testament to what happens when one mythologizes Christianity. One hundred fifty years ago, had you showed up at nearly any Protestant Church, you were likely to hear some form of the gospel.
Now you are as likely to be greeted by a female Bishop, and could hear a sermon denying the resurrection, the teaching of Christ about marriage and gender, and calling for ‘social justice’,( whatever that is).
What happened? Liberal Theologians began saying, that it wouldn’t matter whether or not there was really a Paul or a Jesus, or a resurrection, (After all, how can we really believe in all of that in the day of the electric light bulb?) all that matters is the ideas and goodwill that they promoted.
I worry about the popularity of Jordan Peterson by many an unsuspecting millennial, as well as a good many other people. I see why he is popular, I celebrate his calls for free speech, and his standing up to the gay nazis and other forms of political correctness.
Jordan Peterson is not a teacher sent by God to expound on the Gospel, once and for all delivered, He doesn’t believe in it’a historicity, therefore in a tue biblical sense, he doesn’t believe at all!
I am not arguing over this man Truth-seeker, I am having a provocative and civil discussion about him, and it is worthwhile because there are millions of people who go to hear his lectures and teachings, about the Bible. Is challenging me on the validity of this a good use of your time?
LOL!!! Have you ever seen the film, “What about Bob” ?
With all due respect he also states uneqevically that he is a Christian. Believing the bible to be myth can’t be rationalised logically with being a christian.
totally agree
Except that in many cases, such believers are not ignorant at all about the Biblical theology, for they (especially in independent fundamental immersionist assemblies) have spent far more time in close study and expository preaching/learning than one will ever find in denominational churches that focus on the "social gospel" in 20-minute sermons in perversions of doctrine that support it, thus tending toward a supercilious attitude in those who do not want to be a part of the Bible-based "subculture." Don't confuse Bibliolatry with the use of the Bible as the Spirit doing His counseling and directing to the believer from its pages. If one hears a spirit advising opinions and actions not supported His Bible, you are listening to another spirit of a different kind.
And I know, because I was raised in the parsonages of various Methodist churches where Dad was the minister; and I was not saved until the age of thirty-four, though I heard such messages for many years.
I mean no offense, I was referring to the KJV only people she was referencing
I know you meant it that way, and I was not offended, just addressing your answer as well as implicitly including her assertion that is offensive, to which you were responding.
“I am not arguing over this man Truth-seeker, I am having a provocative and civil discussion about him, and it is worthwhile because there are millions of people who go to hear his lectures and teachings, about the Bible. Is challenging me on the validity of this a good use of your time?”
Sure it is. I reached 24 years sober yesterday. I was helped immensely by AA, and their concepts of spirituality. Jung is a part of that.
So when I speak with troubled newcomers, thanks to Jung and the AA attitude on “higher power,” I have a better chance to reach him.
It is real world practical “works” not philosophical debate.
A matter of degrees and not totally lost but a eloquent elucidation nonetheless. I thinkthe pastor will appreciate it which i do.
Congratulations Truth-seeker on being sober and clean for so long. I am seriously happy for you. I didn’t know Jung was part of what they teach at AA. I wouldn’t want to try to build a spirituality on Jung, nor would I be evangelizing for him,. As you say, when you were desperate and seeking a lifeline, AA was there, and all that is involved in it....it was preferable than being in bondage to drink, but that doesn’t even mean it is of ultimate truth. One day we will all be brought up before the throne of God in judgment and his standard is perfect righteousness. Only Jesus can answer God for us and save our souls, not Bill Wilson, AA or Jung.
indeed I do
Last summer I watched a video someone recommended of a seminar or speech he gave, and he talked quite a lot about the Bible. I don’t remember what he said about his own beliefs, but definitely what he said about the Bible wasn’t Christian. Come to think of it, too, it was probably Jungian, like the Bible as some “useful myth.”
It’s not much different than most who teach the bible in universities these days since most of them are not believers.
No Holy Spirit = no qualification to teach God’s word .
Psychology creeping into pulpits/churches is a huge problem.
It basically works opposite of how the Holy Spirit is suppose to work in your life (die to self is not in psychology it actually teaches the opposite)
Feel good about yourself sermons never saves a soul nor does it set anyone free of bondage .
Only Jesus can set someone free. Christians need the word of God ministered to them and prayer . The church should not be putting bandaids on things like the world does.
Never heard of Jordan Peterson before, but your insights about Jung and trends in the church and society are informative, as always.
We can only know about God that which he chooses to reveal of himself. And he reveals this by general and special revelation. The general revelation is what he reveals about himself through his creation. One thing God clearly reveals in his creation is that he (God) exists. Thus, we can and should assume the existence of God because he is clearly reveal by the objective revelation of his creation.
It is not clear what you agree to.
What pastorbillrandles (PBR for short) wrote concerning the "Bible teacher" under consideration, and questioning your views on what the Bible is, knocks your suppositions galley west. And what I wrote implicitly addresses and exposes your prejudicial pronouncements regarding the prevalence and positions of Bible belt believers, as well as supporting PBR's valuation of Peterson against yours.
So what is it that you agree with? The demonstrated idiocy of your contrary opinions? (PBR has been a lot kinder to you than I would be.)
But that's not how I was talking about.
It is impossible to follow your grammar here, let alone the meaning. Please explain the presence of the adverb "how" in this sentence. I'm figuratively scratching my head on this.
It can be both.
The Bee Explains: Who Is Jordan Peterson?
http://babylonbee.com/news/bee-explains-jordan-peterson/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.