Okay, I bit the bullet and finally watched Jordan Peterson’s lecture on The Logos in Ephesus. To my surprise, it was genuinely interesting, albeit verbose and even abstruse in parts. People might ask, “Why watch anything by Jordan Peterson?” To which I say, I think Peterson is an interesting cultural and intellectual phenomenon and I’m interested in what he says and why he garners such a massive international following.
Many thanks. This was a treat to read and I really appreciated your insights.
Some initial thoughts: I managed to watch Peterson's lecture and, on the whole, I agree with what you have said. Peterson would really benefit from these insights and he seems as though he would be amenable to them. Nevertheless, I keep thinking that Peterson’s messages, though from a psychologists’ perspective, may serve to bring a very wide audience (perhaps mostly secular) to a belief in God, and may act as a kind of apologetic. No doubt it could be done in a way that is more faithful to core messages of the Bible. Despite this, at least he is putting the Bible back on the radar of a much wider audience, and hopefully people will want to explore this treasure in a faithful manner.
Peterson’s lecture certainly tried to cover a lot with the broad sweep of subjects and his attempt at connecting them. I have not read his book “Maps of meaning: the Architecture of Belief” which may have also provided some insights into his way of thinking. Despite this, him not at least taking the time to discuss the Logos of John was a glaring gap.
Many thanks. This was a treat to read and I really appreciated your insights.
Some initial thoughts: I managed to watch Peterson's lecture and, on the whole, I agree with what you have said. Peterson would really benefit from these insights and he seems as though he would be amenable to them. Nevertheless, I keep thinking that Peterson’s messages, though from a psychologists’ perspective, may serve to bring a very wide audience (perhaps mostly secular) to a belief in God, and may act as a kind of apologetic. No doubt it could be done in a way that is more faithful to core messages of the Bible. Despite this, at least he is putting the Bible back on the radar of a much wider audience, and hopefully people will want to explore this treasure in a faithful manner.
Peterson’s lecture certainly tried to cover a lot with the broad sweep of subjects and his attempt at connecting them. I have not read his book “Maps of meaning: the Architecture of Belief” which may have also provided some insights into his way of thinking. Despite this, him not at least taking the time to discuss the Logos of John was a glaring gap.
Thanks again for your insights.
James, thanks. Yeah, I found him interesting, but inadequate for what I thought one would say on the subject.