Jordan Peterson seems to be a genuine seeker after truth, with an insatiable appetite to put the world together in a coherent worldview. Much of what he says is very “Christian friendly,” but his coherence breaks down when he finds inspiration in Carl Jung, one of the most powerful creators of today’s post-Christian, neo-pagan culture. 
In our angry, divided, and polemical society, young Christians, eager for measured peace, encourage us to accept the good things our society brings. Do we always have to see culture wars? This is a laudable desire. Nevertheless, Christians enamored of modern culture run the risk of ignoring its underlying anti-Christian ideology and diluting the unique truth of the Gospel.
Some have so adopted cultural norms that they are no longer even Christian. In my recent review of Brian McLaren’s The Great Spiritual Migration I quoted his statement that God must no longer be understood as the separate “omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent” (GSM 92) Creator and cosmic Ruler, and that Christianity must lose its monotheistic notions to embrace a “grander, inclusive [non-dualistic] God who demonstrates solidarity with all” (GSM 101). Once identifying as an evangelical, McLaren has followed our contemporary all-religions-are-one culture right out the door of Christianity: “Religions…will not survive if we believe that our religion is the only one true religion” (GSM 102). His version of Christianity is just an echo of a progressive social justice gospel. It defines itself as pure from anti-Semitism, rejection of women, racism and religious bigotry. The church should work to heal climate change by installing “solar panels” (GSM 172−3) or a “community garden” (GSM 173)—for “the common good” (GSM 168). I have solar panels on my house, but I don’t quite see it as mandatory for eternal salvation. With little exaggeration, McLaren’s “migration” could be called The Great Spiritual Apostasy.
John Seel’s book, The New Copernicans has a creative strategy to save the evangelical church: the Millennials’ love of the culture’s intuitive, “right brain” thinking, and its affection for pagan religious mysticism will deliver us from dead, “left-brain” theology. But we must not forget that Millennials have lived in the newly-minted version of pagan thinking that invaded the West in the Sixties. Do they now hold the key to spiritual revival? Should they be given authority to redefine genuine Christianity, as Seel believes? Not if the pagan, mystical culture serves as their norm for understanding biblical wisdom.
Young evangelicals eager for a truce in the culture wars have a new hero: Jordan Peterson, a charming, brilliant and entertaining Canadian professor with a myriad of fascinating things to say. I have listened to a good many of his lectures myself and stand in admiration of his ability to lecture for hours without notes, keeping his audiences in rapt attention. But I wish to issue a warning. Peterson’s fresh view of “faith” involves admiration of (at least) one dangerous thinker—Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychologist (d. 1961).
True, everyone is made in God’s image and we can learn things from unbelievers! Nevertheless, a great ideological conflict exists between biblical truth and the anti-Christian thinking of our culture. A naïve embrace of the spiritual usefulness of Carl Jung, [1] may give you a reputation of open-mindedness and sophistication. But you may also be in danger of unwitting and deep theological compromise.
Jordan Peterson seems to be a genuine seeker after truth, with an insatiable appetite to put the world together in a coherent worldview. Much of what he says is very “Christian friendly,” but his coherence breaks down when he finds inspiration in Carl Jung, one of the most powerful creators of today’s post-Christian, neo-pagan culture. Jung has been described as “the father of Neo-Gnosticism and the New Age Movement.”[2] Jung himself stated: “The possibility of a comparison with alchemy, and the uninterrupted intellectual chain back to Gnosticism, gave substance to my psychology.”[3] Gnosticism, as you may know, was the great apostasy opposed by the early Church Fathers. According to Jung, you could not call yourself a Jungian without being a Gnostic. According to the Fathers, you could not be a Gnostic and a call yourself a Christian.
Read More
Related Posts:

Moses appeals to God’s promise to the patriarchs. Notice that Moses does not make light of Israel’s sin. Indeed, in the remainder of the chapter, we will see Moses’ own wrath burning against the people. However, here he is set on turning away God’s wrath, and he does so by appealing to God’s own character in promising to bless the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who he very rightly calls by his new name here, Israel).

Looking back upon the large set of instructions that Yahweh gave to Moses for the construction of the tabernacle, we should again remind ourselves of the truth of Beale calling the tent of meeting “Eden remixed.” We have seen this with the garden imagery of the tabernacle, as well as the gold and precious stones that alluded back to Eden. Furthermore, just as the goal of creation as for humanity to dwell with God, the goal of the tabernacle was to restore something of that lost communion to God’s chosen nation and treasured people. Just as God created all things over the span of seven days through the word of His mouth, so too were the tabernacle’s instructions give through a sevenfold declaration of the phrase, “The LORD said to Moses…” Indeed, just as God rested on the seventh day and sanctified the Sabbath, the seventh instruction was for Israel to also keep the Sabbath as holy. Following the days of creation, Genesis 2 records Yahweh giving Adam two glorious gifts, the garden of Eden and his wife, Eve. Likewise, following the instructions for the tabernacle, Yahweh gave Moses two tablets of His covenant union with Israel.
Unfortunately, the similarities between these chapters and the opening chapters of Genesis do not end there. Just as the wonders of creation and Eden are followed immediately with Adam and Eve’s fall into sin, so too the instructions for the remixed Eden are followed by a similar fall into sin by all of Israel.
In our present passage, Moses brings our focus back to the base of the mountain to what Israelites have been doing over the course of his meeting with God. The event that is presented sadly sets the pattern for the remainder of the entire Old Testament.
The Idol // Verses 1-6
Verse 1 sets the scene for the following verses by bringing our attention back to the Israelites as they wait for Moses to come down from Sinai. Indeed, as we read what follows, we should keep in mind that Moses was hidden in the cloud of God’s glory upon the mountain; however, the cloud itself was certainly visible. All of their idolatry was committed under the shadow of the glory that once greatly feared.
With Moses not before them, the Israelites gather themselves together and go to Aaron, saying, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” Notice first that the Israelites gathered themselves together. While it could be simply that they gathered themselves around Aaron, one commentary argues that it is best to view at them gathering against Aaron, since the wording “always carries a menacing nuance.” As with all the world being gathered together at Babel and Israel later gathering themselves against Samuel to demand a king, this ought to remind us that unity is not inherently a virtue. People may be united and of one mind, while being together in rebellion against the Most High.
Second, we should consider the scorn that the Israelites evidently had for their both Moses and Aaron as their leaders. Their dismissal view of Moses is seen in how they distance themselves from him, saying this Moses and calling him the man. As Ryken notes, “Their language was dismissive and disrespectful. They would never say something like this to his face, of course, but now that he was gone, now that his ministry had failed to meet their expectations, they felt justified in setting him aside.” Likewise, they showed disrespect and scorn towards Aaron, who had functioned as Moses’ right hand throughout the exodus, by ordering him to make an idol for them. They had dismissed Moses while he was away, and now they were ready to bully Aaron into doing what they wanted him to do. Of course, while the people do not yet know that Yahweh has set Aaron apart as a high priest, they clearly saw him as authoritative. Thus, if they could get Aaron to make an idol for them, it would be imbued with a greater degree of credibility than if they had just made an idol for themselves.
Sadly, in verses 2-3, Aaron yields to their demands and commands them to give him the earrings from their wives and children. While there is potentially some connection between the earrings that the Israelites were wearing and idolatry, especially compared with Genesis 35:4 and Judges 8:24-27, the simplest connection seems to be with God’s command for the Israelites to give the materials required for the tabernacle. While Moses was commanded to give the command to all of Israel, Yahweh specifically said, “From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me” (25:2). God was specifically calling upon the men of Israel to give their treasures for the building of God’s tent, yet with this idol, Aaron calls upon the men to take the jewelry from their wives and children. This pattern continues generally today as well. True worship in the household ought to be led by husbands and fathers who give sacrificially of themselves just as Christ did for us. False worship, on the other hand, especially the kind seen in various cults, tends to absolve men of their responsibility and robs and abuses women and children.
Verse 4 then tells us that Aaron took their earrings and made them into a calf. Stuart notes that “collecting the earrings, melting them into gold, and shaping the gold around a wooden form to make an idol may have taken more than a day” (665). But whenever it was finished, the people were apparently pleased with the result, for they proclaimed to one another: “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” This seems to be an outright rejection of Yahweh as their God, which may explain Aaron’s actions and words in verse 5: When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.”
Ryken notes that scholars continuously debate whether the golden calf was a violation of the First or Second Commandment, but I agree with his answer: yes. It seems that the Israelites (at least a large portion of them) wanted to reject Yahweh entirely or at least to return to polytheism, which was clearly in violation of the First Commandment. Indeed, they specifically ask for gods, not for an image of Yahweh. Yet Aaron identifies the golden calf with Yahweh, building an altar and proclaiming a feast, both of which were commanded in the Book of the Covenant. Indeed, in verse 6, they offer both peace and burnt offerings. So, it seems as though Aaron was attempting to salvage and justify the situation by saying that they were really doing everything for Yahweh. Yet that is still a violation of the Second Commandment, for regardless of how Aaron tried to spin his actions as being worshipful, they were still against God’s will, which is sin.
Indeed, it is also worth noting that Aaron is absent from verse 6. Although he may have attempted to contain the people, they have broken out of whatever limits he aimed to impose. We have sadly seen this all too often, especially in regard to the sexual revolution, in churches. Pastors, churches, and whole denominations yield to the demands of the culture and go against their conscience, arguing that it will be the only concession that they make. Yet disobedience defies being “managed.” A measure of compromise with sin always breaks away leads to more sin.
And that is indeed what seems to have happened. In saying that the Israelites rose up to play, the notion is, as the NIV translates, revelry. There was probably a heavy emphasis on dancing and sexuality.
What the Israelites were doing was indecent. Their idolatry led to immorality. Their worship was vulgar and debauched. It degenerated into a wanton orgy of lewd dancing. They weren’t worshiping; they were partying. And it wasn’t for God’s glory at all; it was just for their own sinful pleasure. This is what happens when we do things our way rather than God’s way.
Read More
Related Posts:

Catherine was frustrated with the new queen’s compromises in the matter of religion. She supported preachers such as John Hooper, John A Lasko, John Field, opening to them the parish of the Holy Trinity Minories in London, which was under her jurisdiction. In her home, she employed as preacher and tutor for her children Miles Coverdale, who is known as an early Puritan.

When fourteen-year-old Catherine Willoughby married Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, in 1533, she became one of the wealthiest and most powerful women in England. Thirty-five years her senior, Brandon had been married three times before. His latest wife had been Mary Tudor, Henry VIII’s sister – a marriage that had greatly increased his sphere of influence.
We don’t know how Catherine felt about her marriage, but girls of her status didn’t usually have a choice. With Brandon she had two sons, Henry and Charles. In a painting by Hans Holbein the Younger, the boys looked charming, their golden hair fashioned in the typical pageboy haircut.
The family’s estate increased when Henry VIII abolished the monasteries and divided the church’s properties among his nobles. When, in 1536, a group of Roman Catholics rose in a protest known as the Pilgrimage of Grace, Charles Brandon was chosen to quench the rebellion.
Slow Religious Transformation
If Brandon’s main motivation was obedience to the king and material prosperity, by this time Catherine was becoming increasingly influenced by the Protestant ideas that were infiltrating England and even her own household. In fact, in spite of his traditional views, Brandon tolerated the Protestant views of some of his helpers and administrators. For example, Pierre Valence, chosen by Brandon as tutor for his children, agreed with Luther’s protest against indulgences. Even the family’s chaplain, the Scottish Alexander Seton, believed in justification by faith alone.
Catherine’s Protestant convictions were strengthened at Henry’s court, where new religious ideas circulated, in spite of the king’s adherence to most Roman Catholic doctrines. There, she became a close friend of Katherine Parr, Henry VIII’s sixth and final wife. In fact, she was at court when the queen was accused of possessing banned books and narrowly escaped execution.
It’s hard to determine when Catherine fully embraced Reformed views, but she enthusiastically supported the Protestant King Edward VI after Henry’s death. By then, her husband had also died and left her with enough wealth to be able to finance causes she considered important, including the publication of Katherine Parr’s Lamentation of a Sinner, a controversial book that left no doubt on the former queen’s stand on justification by faith alone. Her correspondence around that time also makes reference to her study of the Scriptures.
Catherine also promoted the circulation of Bibles in English and encouraged bishops to bring protestant clergy to local churches, particularly in her region. Between 1550 and 1553, she invited bishop Hugh Latimer to preach to her household at Grimsthorpe, Lincolnshire. In fact, most of his sermons, pregnant with the gospel message of justification by faith alone, survived thanks to Catherine, who financed their publication.
When her sons grew old enough to attend university, Catherine placed them at St. John’s College, Cambridge, under the tutorship of Martin Bucer. Later, when Bucer became ill, she took care of him at her home.
Learning to Trust God’s Providence
The toughest time in Catherine’s life was in 1551, when her two sons died hours apart. The cause was the so-called sweating sickness, a contagious illness that affected England, in a series of epidemics, from 1485 to 1551. It was probably a viral pulmonary disease.
When the sickness broke out at Cambridge, Catherine moved her sons to one of her properties where they could isolate. But they had already been infected. Upon hearing of their illness, Catherine, also unwell, rushed to their side. She arrived too late to see Henry alive. Charles died soon after. They were 15 and 14 years old, respectively.
Apparently, the boys had some premonition of death, as they each spoke, in their last days of life, of leaving this world.
Read More