In defense of Jordan Peterson’s latest book: We Who Wrestle with God
By: Charles Lincoln
My defense of Peterson’s new book.
I finally finished my review of Peterson’s book. I’m considering posting it on Goodreads, but who knows if defending Peterson is a good thing:
Peterson. A name hardly fails to bring up visceral emotions. So everyone dislikes Peterson. Even my friends who like him for standing up for whatever he stood up for 3/4 of a decade ago, they dislike what he’s turned into. I’ve yet to meet one person who wholeheartedly currently defends him and his writing. Fine. I’ll do it.
As of two days ago, I have read almost every book Peterson wrote — except the children’s book — and my favorite remains his Maps of Meaning (1999) book written for an academic audience and explores his ideas in the most concrete detail possible filled with citations. That book was not a self help book.
But neither is this book a self help book. This book is an exegesis of the Bible. Rowan Williams — the former Archbishop of Canterbury — an intellectual I greatly admire and disagree with theologically. I have no ostensible reason for disagreeing with him. But I might as well because I have no way to criticize him other than “cuz he ain’t the same religion as me.” In Williams’s critique of Peterson, I identify three main points (1) Peterson does not define God, (2) Peterson does not engage with the past 100–1000 years of theological academic analysis of the Bible, and (3) Peterson can’t write well and could benefit from an editor. Maybe the author of this review could benefit from an editor too.
I’ll concede (3), Peterson could benefit from an editor. Maps of Meaning was much better written and I doubt Peterson had half the resources currently available to him to find help. Still, I can understanding wanting the product to be one’s own. All I can say, this is one of the hardest books stylistically I wanted to get through this year. Well, I guess we can all agree Peterson did not use ChatGPT and for that we should applaud him. What really may have happened is that he used his speeches and dictated what he wrote. In that way, isn’t Peterson’ writing like St. Paul did? Aren’t the letters of Paul really dictated to a scribe? (The evidence is clear in Galatians 6:11, Romans 16:22, and 1 Corinthians 16:21 show he was often using a scribe and at times points out that he is not using a scribe.) Admittedly, saying something was dictated is not a good defense for bad grammar. But it shows that Peterson free-associates a lot. It’s annoying, but it’s defensible in that it’s authentic. Personally, I like the weaving in and the random tidbits that Peterson brings in. But I also struggled.
Williams’s point (2) is that Peterson does not engage with theological academics of the past 100 years — or even the past millennia. That is true. But Williams is being a bit unfair asking for Peterson to engage with intense academic theologians for a book aimed at the general populace. Moreover, Peterson’s points tend to go towards Jungian analysis. Carl Jung studies has not picked up in many academic circles nor has he picked up in academic theological circles. But Peterson has picked up Jung and the ideas of a monomyth. Such an attempt mirrors one of the key characters’s attempts in George Elliot’s Middlemarch (1871–1872): The Reverend Edward Casaubon tries to show how all myths have a common element and origin. Casaubon’s methodology is different from Jung’s attempt because Casaubon’s attempt is theological. But as is shown — outdated. Still, there’s probably some justice to be had for Casaubon’s ambitions — even though he’s a deeply flawed complex character. Granted, if I may free-associate beyond the scope of this review, that’s precisely what makes Elliot’s characters so interesting. Casaubon is a real person with human flaws but he’s trying — even though we wish he’d try better. What I’m trying to say is — even though the person may not be your favorite and is flawed — the agenda is a good one and has monumental importance. The more attention brought to this idea of a monomyth, the better.
Still, I don’t think Williams explicitly disagrees with Peterson — he just is arguing that Peterson’s analysis is dated.
Finally, Williams’s point (3) that Peterson does not define God. Again, Williams is right. Peterson approaches religion in general and the definition of God with incredible opacity. But even Williams’s suggestion for a definition of God seem opaque as best — “source of agency and of love independent of the universe we can map and measure.” There are many “God is” sentences throughout Peterson’s corpus that one can latch on to. Some are more nebulous than others. Outside of this book, Peterson has stated, “God is how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence and action of consciousness across time, as the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of time frames but are not necessarily apprehensible as objects in the here and now.” I like both Peterson’s opacity and his clearer definitions of God. I like Williams’s obliqueness and perpendicular definitions too. But both of these authors seem to lean into the idea of God as representing the logos inherent in Ancient Greek theology. Overall, I think a better result would be if Peterson did one of his podcasts with Rowan Williams and they inspected their words with clarity and tried to dissect what they meant. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening. But it would be nice.
Did I like this book stylistically? No. Will you? Probably not. Did I enjoy the substance? Yes, quite a bit. Will you? I think if you can push through the sentence construction, you will. And, while I wish I could write like Rowan Williams off the cuff, I acknowledge my writing too can improve. Still, like the young artists in the Louvre, we can appreciate masterpieces while not yet reaching the highest level of invention.
Did my review try to write in the style of David Foster Wallace? Yes. If only I could write like Wallace. The title of my review should be “At Least He Didn’t Use ChatGPT.” But in line with my other reviews, this week you can find me at the Beverly Hills Hotel eating pancake taquito.
© Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln IV
