Jonathan Pageau is Wrong About Jordan Peterson
Why the distinction that Peterson won't confess Christianity isn't enough.
Interesting fact: before Jordan Peterson’s infamous viral Jubilee video, there was some mischief by the Jubilee organisers. The guests were apparently told the video would be “1 Christian vs 25 atheists” and the Christian would be Jordan Peterson, while Peterson was told it would be “Jordan Peterson vs 25 atheists,” and the original video title (now changed) was uploaded as “1 Christian vs 25 atheists.” It’s not like me to defend Jordan Peterson, but it must be said this is sneaky and very bad form, and clearly a lot of the early effect in the video’s viral response was due to the title, as if Peterson was being outed as a Christian and had agreed to it, then wouldn’t admit it in the video, giving heft to a lot of the reactions (I wrote my article on it before they had even changed the title). While I think most if not all of the criticism he got for his attitude and responses was deserved, he came off worse because of the titling and because of the confusion that came from what the guests thought he was claiming, and Jubilee owe him at least an apology if not clarification that this is what they did.
Anyway, I know that because Jonathan Pageau said Jordan told him this shortly after the video was done. Interestingly, in the same interview in which he said this Pageau was also asked about his thoughts about the video, to which he responded with laudable clarity and honesty:
“I don’t hide it, I don’t think that Jordan Peterson is a Christian. I think that Christ told us what it means. Christianity is not an ethical system, Christianity is not a bunch of rules that you follow, it’s not a prioritization of morality, it’s actually first and foremost a form of relationship with God, a form of worship, and it includes certain things…to be baptist, to enter into the body. We know we have people who were willing to die in order to not deny that they were Christians, in order to not deny Christ, professing of your faith, professing of your allegiance to Christ is an important aspect of your allegiance to Christianity, so someone who doesn’t do that but then also thinks that he could be secretly a Christian…I think it’s a very idiosyncratic view of what Christianity is.”1
To his credit, this is a clear distinction and one reason Pageau and Peterson in spite of having a shared style and vocabulary are not the same person. Jonathan is moored to something confessional and corporate, Jordan is not. Jonathan is a Christian, and as everyone has long since worked out, Jordan is not.
Unfortunately this clarity ends when Jonathan then goes on to say that actually the clip in which Jordan won’t say if he was a Christian was in reality just the other debater being a “jerk” and that for the rest of the debate he “nails it,” and that “everything Jordan says is brilliant as usual…most of what Jordan says is great, it’s just that one clip that’s annoying.”
Naturally, I agree with Pageau’s clarification about Peterson, and to say that so clearly is important and considering they are friends it’s not necessarily an easy thing to do. But I think he’s wrong to think that Peterson can somehow be right about everything else and be talking about Christianity in a way that is “brilliant” and it somehow not in any way reflect the complete confusion that arises when he is actually asked whether he is a Christian. In fact I think there is a danger to which Peterson stands as a kind of reductio ad absurdum of Pageau’s work, and pointing out that he is a Christian and Peterson clearly isn’t, isn’t quite enough to make clear why Peterson is in such a state of confusion.
After all, confession is an extension of some form of definition. One of the reasons Peterson won’t admit to being a believer is not because he doesn’t exactly believe anything, it’s because, as he claims ad nauseum he “doesn’t know what you mean by God” and so he will only say that he believes in what he defines it as. So if he does believe in what he defines it as, and Pageau thinks everything he says is brilliant and he’s nailing a description of what God is that none of the atheists get, wouldn’t him not saying he’s a Christian more directly be a kind of surface semantic difference?
Peterson’s contention in the debate was that atheists don’t know what they are rejecting when they reject God. But if, as Pageau says, Peterson is not a Christian even though he seems to kind of believe he is because—as Pageau puts it— he believes he can show it by his fruits rather than his confession, isn’t it the other way around? Peterson would be the one actually rejecting Christianity but not knowing what it is he’s rejecting because he thinks he’s a real believer, and the atheist who confessionally reject Christian beliefs would be the ones being transparent with themselves and with other people.
But I think if you accept most of what Peterson says his position on Christianity makes sense. It’s not as if he’s making a robust argument for Christian doctrinal faith and then stopping short of confessing it: everything he argues infers precisely the confusion and semantic obstacles that he finds himself in. In fact, I think at times some of the stuff Pageau himself says infers this position because he essentially shares much of Peterson’s vocabulary, style, content and arguments. He himself says Peterson is brilliant.
The question is, does Peterson not represent an image of what happens if you flatter the kind of language and discourse Pageau and Peterson spend many hours indulging in? Pageau is inclined to do exactly what Peterson does, use stories to come up with an interpretation of what they ‘really’ mean that ends up boiling them down to something that falls short of their actual content and turns into a trite psychological truism or some kind of symbolic-waffle. There exists a commonality in both of their work that confuses interpretation and a kind of dubious literary criticism with epistemology. If Peterson is spending his time making interpretation of the bible and Pageau thinks those interpretations are all the work of a genius, and he believes and acts like those things are true, why is he not a believer? The obvious answer is because those things are a self-indulgent and secondary part of belief and that Peterson is entirely missing the point. Peterson is simply lost not because he won’t make a confession but because he takes his own rationalising of everything seriously and because he’s spent years in a labyrinth of terrible interpretations.
And Pageau has a slight habit of sounding equally as bad. When I had a discussion with him it required some pushing to get him to be clear about the historicity of Jesus, the first time he replied with “history is symbolic,” and went on to compare its truth to Santa Claus. Even though he is not Peterson, at times he sounds a lot like him and his tendency to mix the sandbox can be equally as infuriating. To be clear again, Pageau is absolutely in a different category to Jordan, but often his definitions are as unclear and confused and his symbolic interpretations are no different. There is a reason he calls Jordan a “genius.” It’s a strong word to describe a man who wears suits emblazoned with saints, conducts seminars on the bible and gives speeches at his conservative conference that are basically sermons that do nothing but flatter his own ego. I think hypocrite would be a far better word.
Indeed if you take what Pageau says seriously, is that not what it is? If Peterson is clearly not a believer, isn’t the saint-wearing, book-selling, seminar-selling, conference-selling bible-preaching just an enormous act of either hypocrisy or else grandiose self-delusion? I find it almost absurd to justify the idea that he’s a misunderstood genius who just can’t quite get over the line and that anyone pointing that out must be the “jerk.”
Not only that: the idea that the only clip in the Jubilee video that was a problem was the one where Peterson refuses to say he’s a Christian simply isn’t true, it’s been pretty universally observed that Peterson came across as both angry and confused, and even other guests on the show called him “intellectually disingenuous,” he changed his definitions every time his arguments weren’t working and scowled with anger at everyone who didn’t agree with his meandering descriptions.
And while the setup of Jubilee is pretty awful, either way it’s generally the case that in spite of the bad format the people who engage in the best spirit end up coming across the best. Charlie Kirk, for example, who I have many issues with, came across far better in his Jubilee video because he engaged politely and the guests were all hysterical and rude. One made a personal and unprovoked insult about his daughter and then stormed off. Whatever you think of Kirk, in this instance he came across better because he engaged in better faith. Peterson simply came across badly because he spoke angrily, evasively and appeared disingenuous in the way he responded. The guest that Pageau called a jerk seemed to simply be snapping at that point in the discussion at how evasive Peterson was being, and while his debate approach was more kamikazee than it needed to be, I think a lot of viewers might have had some sympathy with him.
And you know what, I’d like to see Pageau himself do more stuff like this. The problem with both of these two is a certain kind of language-use only works in a context where no one is objecting or pointing out its flaws. Peterson’s Jubilee appearance was such a disaster because he’s spent years dealing with criticism from people who caricature and misrepresent him, and he actually had to deal face to face with people who offered considered and reasonable objections. Yes, the format is mostly garbage, but I think in spite of Jubilee’s disingenuousness in titling the video as they did, it actually served to expose how far Jordan’s thinking on religious subjects has wandered into the weeds. I think it’s a shame Pageau is one of the few who doesn’t see this.
I used to think Pageau was a genius (his brother seems more worthy of that title to be honest) but after hearing over and over: "How can I say this so that people understand." I started to realize he thinks he cracked the code and has 'secret' knowledge nobody else has.
His entire discourse is framed as him being an enlightened prophet explaining 'too complicated' things to the simple minded.
“The problem with both of these two is a certain kind of language-use only works in a context where no one is objecting or pointing out its flaws.”
Bingo. Wander around on stage spouting this stuff to people who purchased tickets because they believe you are a modern day prophet, and receive a standing ovation. Try it with a spunky college kid who’s used to late night debates in the dorm lounge, and get pwned.