Jordan Peterson examines the Gospels

My father has been a philosophy professor at a public university for almost 30 years. He’s worked with many brilliant colleagues, most of whom are not Christians. One day, in conversation with one of them, he casually mentioned “the four Gospels.” His colleague stared blankly. Dad tried to jog his memory: “You know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?” It didn’t ring a bell.

In The Daily Wire’s new video seminar titled The Gospels, Dennis Prager speculates about what percentage of Harvard students could name them or even understand the question. He wagers it’s well under half. I wouldn’t be shocked if he was proven right.

Against this post-Christian landscape, the conservative media outlet collaborated with renowned clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson and an eclectic range of co-panelists to record a seminar series on Exodus last year. A similarly handpicked crew has embarked on this new deep dive into, in Peterson’s words, “the text upon which, for better or worse, the West is founded.” The notable religious faces include Roman Catholic Bishop Robert Barron and Eastern Orthodox artist Jonathan Pageau. The secular panelists include cognitive scientist John Vervaeke and novelist Gregg Hurwitz, a collaborator and former student of Peterson’s. While there are no Biblical scholars at the table per se, British Anglican philosophers James Orr and Douglas Hedley bring deep reading and a strong command of the original languages.

The panelists repeat their common goal throughout: to approach the Scriptures “with fresh eyes” and illuminate it in a way that will reenchant the “nones”—those viewers with no religious affiliation who would otherwise never set foot in a Bible study.

Conservative Christians may understandably approach this sort of project with caution, given Peterson’s ongoing tendency to confuse exegesis with eisegesis as he handles the Scriptures. Reviewers of his latest book raise the concern that while he’s undoubtedly sincere, he still appears very far from a proper understanding of how God has revealed Himself to man. So what does that mean for a video seminar like this, confronting the Story that refuses to be explained away as anything but history?

So far, I’ve been pleasantly surprised to find that while Peterson and other panelists remain too enamored of alternative readings, there is still a healthy degree of engagement with the text as it is. This is chiefly driven by Bishop Barron, who always points back to the basics of who Jesus was and what He did for us. Sometimes, even a secular panelist will come out with a surprisingly beautiful piece of insight.

Among the secular contributors, Vervaeke is the most intense and complicated, as someone who grew up Christian but no longer finds established religion “viable” and now identifies as a “Neoplatonic Zen Buddhist.” His readings are a curious blend of cognitive science jargon, Eastern mysticism, and process theology. One worries that his door might be too open for something dark to slip through, like a mad scientist in C.S. Lewis’ Space Trilogy.

Meanwhile, Pageau highlights symbolic parallels between the Old and New Testaments, some of which align with standard little “o” orthodox commentary, though other times his readings are tenuous. Discussing Jesus’ healing of the demoniac, he refers to demons as “fragmented, incomplete aspects of our psyche.” He sits both literally and figuratively at Peterson’s right hand, but it’s not clear that he’s offering the corrective someone like Peterson really needs, especially given the ambiguous way he’s previously handled the Resurrection accounts. The absence of a more evangelical Protestant voice is significant. Unnecessary digs at a “fundamentalist, literalist” perspective go by unchallenged.

However, the perspectives around the table are still varied enough to generate some intriguing give and take, as panelists sometimes bluntly push back on each other. Christians interested in evangelism should consider how they would answer if put on the spot by some of the theologically rich questions discussed here: Why did Jesus need to be baptized? What did it mean for Him to be tempted? What does it mean for us to follow Him now like the disciples did then?

In the end, though, the social parameters of the project are such that the most dubious readings will be generously tolerated in the name of politeness, making it a mixed bag as an evangelistic tool. Peterson praises all the panelists’ willingness to surrender their “tyrannical presuppositions,” but one wonders just how he defines “tyrannical.”

And yet, a restless “none” might just be pierced by the gospel truth that still clearly breaks through. At one point, Prager, who is Jewish, asks all the believers what they see when they see Jesus on the cross. Bishop Barron answers, “God’s love goes all the way to the limit of God-forsakenness. So, as I’m running away from the Father, I’m running into the arms of the Son.” Peterson himself, tragically, has yet to grasp the nettle of what it means to run into the arms of the Son. Yet this project continues his curious practice of opening the door for others to take the leap he still finds impossible. May it bear fruit despite its flaws.