Jordan Peterson's Dream of Christ and the Kings

On 26 January 2018, the University of Toronto hosted a dialogue on the meaning of life featuring philosopher William Lane Craig, psychology professor Dr Jordan Peterson, and philosopher and author Dr Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. Canadian journalist, author and editor Karen Stiller moderated the dialogue.

During the dialogue, Stiller posed a "Why do so many people then tussle with the question of ‘do I matter’? Why do so many of us struggle with the meaning of life then?"

Dr Jordan Peterson, in the context of his response to Stiller's question, shared and reflected on a very fascinating dream that he once had (at 1:33:28 of the video):

I had a dream once – and I’m speaking psychologically here, not theologically – I had a dream once.

I was in the cemetery of an old church, an old cathedral surrounded by the graves, and there were indentations in the grounds where all the graves were. And all of a sudden, the graves started to open and it was a graveyard where great people, great men of the past, had been buried.

And so [a] grave opened and an armed king stood up, and then another grave opened and another armed king stood up and just happened all around me.

And these were very formidable figures; they were the great heroes of the past. And after a number of them appeared on the scene, they looked around and saw each other and, being warrior-types, they immediately started to fight and the question is: What stops the great kings of the past from fighting?

And I had a revelation after the dream, I can’t remember if it was part of it… but, yes, it was part of the dream. They all bowed down to the figure of Christ and then I woke up and I thought, what in the world does that dream mean? What in the world could that possibly mean?

And then I understood it. I understood that, if you have twenty kings, let’s say, and you took the thing that was most king-like about each of them and then you combined it into a single figure, then you’d get a single figure of transcendent heroism, of transcendent Good and it’s a tenet of the Union School of Psychology.

Let’s say that that figure of transcendent Good is symbolised by the image of Christ and the purpose of that image is so that even the tyrannical king has someone to bend his knee to, and that’s absolutely vital.

I mean it does. You don’t have to approach it from a religious perspective, although you inevitably do, because when you speak of things at this level that’s what happens. But you need an image of the transcendent embodied Good to serve as something that unites the great tyrants of the past.

It’s something like that. It’s an emergent vision of embodied unity and it’s a psychological necessity, it’s a sociological necessity, and I think it bears very strongly on your question about why is it that people matter. It’s the classic Western answer to that. The Judaeo-Christian answer to that is because you have a spark of divinity within you and that divinity is a reflection of this transcendent Good and it’s obligatory for me to recognise that in you and vice versa if we’re going to inhabit the same territory without mayhem, peacefully, and with the ability to cooperate.

Now, you might say, “Well, the mere fact that a transcendent image is necessary as a uniting figure doesn’t prove the reality of that image.”

But I would say, well yes, but it doesn’t disprove it and it strongly hints at something more profound especially when you also ally it with the observation that the encounter with something truly admirable produces the instinct of awe. And that’s not a rational instinct, it’s an irrational instinct, but it’s a marker that you’re in the presence of something greater than yourself and it’s not something that you have voluntary control over. It’s something that overtakes you and it could easily be a reflection of the truth.

Now, you can make a biologically reductionistic argument about that, but it starts to become extraordinarily difficult because you enter into the realm where these transcendent experiences of religious significance and awe are phenomenological and psychological reality and it’s not easy to explain why that’s the case.

Although Dr Peterson was clear that he was speaking psychologically, there is a great deal of truth to Dr Peterson's dream (or vision) of the image of Jesus Christ, from a Biblical perspective. 

Paul tells us that Christ is the "image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (Colossians 1:15), and:

For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross. 

(Colossians 1:19-20) 

Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 20:16), and "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth" (Philippians 2:10).

More than an image (or statue) upon whom all the greatest king-like qualities are ascribed, Jesus Christ truly came as the Word made Flesh, died for our sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, and made various appearances to His disciples (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

God Calls Us to Holiness, Not "Heterosexuality"

There exists a page on Facebook known as "Heterosexual Awareness Month Singapore" (HAM SG), which appears to have been created on 26 June 2018. As of the time of this post, there are only 2 'likes' and 2 'followers' of the page. 

In a post published at 3.06pm on 28 June 2018, the page purported to describe "some benefits of being hetero", including being "STD Free", "Healthy" and "Make Babies". The post added that "Heterosexuality is the Way, the Truth and it creates Life."

It is not clear who the creator of the page is, or whether there is any organisation behind this, religious or otherwise. Further, it is unclear what the motivations behind the creation of the page are, whether this is a "troll" page meant to mock and ridicule Christianity or conservative sexual perspectives, or a genuine page seeking to advocate for "heterosexuality".

In any event, the direction and message of the page is quite misguided, and completely misses the mark in its discourse on sexuality or faith.

The idea that "Heterosexuality is the Way, the Truth and it creates Life" is clear and utter heresy. The language of the post draws from, or at least parallels, John 14:6 where Jesus Christ said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, not "heterosexuality".

Further evidence of the page's error in idolising "heterosexuality" can be seen from the caption of its post at 3.25pm on 27 June 2018 'sharing' the video of Tamae Iwasaki where she spoke about her sexual abuse as a child, and her subsequent struggles with sexual attraction to both sexes, even during her marriage, and how God saved her. Rather than acknowledging God, HAM SG's caption was instead, "Heterosexuality heals."

The concept of "sexual orientation", including "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", are recent inventions originating from the 1800s. In a thoughtful article aptly titled "Against Heterosexuality" (March 2014), Michael W. Hannon argues against adopting such categories:

They are recent inventions that are utterly foreign to our faith, inadequate for justifying sexual norms, and antithetical to true philosophical anthropology. The time has come for us to eradicate sexual orientation from our worldview as systemically as we can manage—with all due prudence as to complicated particular cases, of course.

Neither is it true that simply being "heterosexual" would make a person "STD Free" or "Healthy" or would "Make Babies". Sexual immorality, whether with the same or opposite sex, is a problem. For instance, according to the Ministry of Health statistics, out of 434 new cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in 2017, 417 cases acquired the infection through sexual intercourse, where heterosexual transmission accounted for 36% of all cases. Furthermore, many Singapore couples are not having children, or having fewer children. Singapore's fertility rate was also at a 7-year low at 1.16 in 2017.

Ultimately, God does not call us to "heterosexuality". Instead, the call of God to every single believer in Jesus Christ, and to all of humanity, is a call to holiness through faith in Jesus Christ, who clothes us with a new identity as children of God. As Christopher Yuan said:

God says, “Be holy, for I am holy”. I had always thought that the opposite of homosexuality was heterosexuality. But actually, the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. God never told me, “Be heterosexual, for I am heterosexual”. He said, “Be holy, for I am holy”.  

And God told me, “Don't focus upon your sexuality, don't focus upon your feelings but focus upon living a life of holiness and living a life of purity.”

Addressing Biblical Teaching on Sexuality the Master's Way

During a dialogue on race and religion earlier this year, there was a question the Christian stance on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues. The Straits Times reports in "Tough questions posed at dialogue" (28 January 2018):

Why do Taoists have a practice of burning joss paper? What is the Christian stance on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues? Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? 

Such questions were posed during a one-hour dialogue at the first National Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circle Convention at the Suntec Convention Centre yesterday, titled "Inconvenient Questions on Race and Religion". 

Asked about the Christian stance on LGBT issues, Reverend Malcolm Tan of Covenant Community Methodist Church explained that traditional biblical sexual morality teaches faithfulness in marriage and celibacy outside of marriage, and defines marriage as something that should always be between a man and a woman. 

"However, this does not mean that we become adversarial with people who are different or disagree with us," he said...

I do not know whether Reverend Malcolm Tan said more than had been reported in the article or if the article merely summarised his comments. Thus, I would refrain from addressing his specific comments at the dialogue, but focus on the more general issue of the Christian response on Biblical teaching regarding LGBT issues or any other issue of sexual brokenness.

While it is not wrong to address LGBT or other sexual brokenness issues by talking about the proper context of sex within marriage of a man and a woman (and this certainly reaffirms Biblical teaching), I would like to suggest that there is a better way to address Biblical teaching in sexuality. And who better to learn from than the Master Himself?

In the Gospel of Matthew, we see Jesus's response to the Pharisee's question on divorce:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'  and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

(Matthew 19:3-6)

To be sure, there were many passages in the Old Testament on divorce, and Jesus could have given a straightforward answer on the question by pointing to passages such as Malachi 2:16 where God declares "I hate divorce." However, He did not do so.

Instead, He began by referring to God ("the Creator"), human nature ("made them male and female"), the beauty of marriage ("a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"), followed by how marriage has gone wrong in the context of divorce ("what God has joined together, let man not separate").

This order seems to reflect Jesus's priorities in how Biblical teaching on sexuality ought to be addressed.

Rather than sexual conduct per se, the core issue is that of God and human nature, of Dei and Imago Dei.

And some of the leading advocates on LGBT issues have likewise pointed out the centrality of one's understanding of human nature in debates over such issues.

Ryan T. Anderson wrote in "Same-sex Marriage and Heresy: The Importance of Anthropology" (16 July 2015), that the most pressing heresies today "center on the nature of man". He explains that "the sexual ideology that has battered the family and redefined marriage" springs from "a faulty humanism", "faulty anthropology [and] a misunderstanding of the nature of man".

Ever since the Fall, all of humanity has been attempting to define human nature apart from God, removing the Dei from Imago Dei.

The very notion of "LGBT" assumes that a person is and can be defined by one's "sexual orientation" or "gender identity", such that a person is defined by one's sexual desires or feelings about oneself. A person can be a "man trapped in a woman's body" or a "woman trapped in a man's body", presenting the idea that one's body is like a prison, rather than part of oneself, and can be altered and changed at will.

Modern society, shaped by the Sexual Revolution, has made sex into an idol. It has defined sex as such an integral part of human identity and fulfilment that - to quote Sam Allberry's paraphrase of the modern idea - "life without sex is no life at all".

Professor Robert P. George identifies in this the resurgence (or persistence) of the old Gnostic heresy, which sees the body as inferior and sees the human person or "self" as a spiritual or mental substance. As a result, according to post-Sexual Revolution sexual ethics, all forms of sexual conduct (with anyone or anything) are permissible as long as they are consensual, since what ultimately matters is connection on the emotional, mental or "spiritual" level.

It goes without saying that all of this is contrary to the vision of human nature (and thus human sexuality) presented in Scripture.

Human beings are made in the image of God, male and female, and are thus not "accidentally" placed in the wrong bodies. (However, in a sinful world, we must be aware that there are disabilities and abnormalities which may affect the development of one's sexual organs.) Our identities are accordingly defined by God's design, rather than according to our sexual desires or feelings.

As Sam Allberry said in his address to the Church of England General Synod in 2017, "I am same-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that, I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex. I choose to describe myself this way because sexuality is not a matter of identity for me. And that has become Good News."

Since our bodies are important and part of who we are, what we do with our bodies in sexual behaviour affects us on a personal level, and are not merely emotional, intellectual or "spiritual" connections. Marriage is thus a comprehensive union, uniting a man and a woman in heart (emotional), soul (spiritual), mind (intellectual) and strength (physical).

Yet, in a world marred by sin, we should recognise that we are not only sinners, but also victims of sin (whether sins of others or our own sins), whom Jesus Christ came to seek and to save. And even as sexual brokenness affects us all in different ways, Jesus came as a Bridegroom for His beloved Bride, the Church, giving Himself up for her "to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to Himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless" (Ephesians 5:27).

Through His sacrifice on the cross, He frees us from the shackles of our pasts, such that we are no longer defined by our sexual desires, sexual history, or any sin that once held us. Christopher Yuan, who is same-sex attracted and left his former lifestyle, said it well:

My identity should never be defined by my feelings; my feelings should not dictate who I am. My identity is not gay or homosexual or even heterosexual for that matter, but my identity as a child of the Living God must be in Jesus Christ alone. 

You see, God says, “Be holy, for I am holy”. I had always thought that the opposite of homosexuality was heterosexuality. But actually, the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. God never told me, “Be heterosexual, for I am heterosexual”. He said, “Be holy, for I am holy”.  

And God told me, “Don't focus upon your sexuality, don't focus upon your feelings but focus upon living a life of holiness and living a life of purity.”

Jesus clothes us with a new identity as children of the Most High, and we look forward to the great wedding between Jesus and His Bride at the end of days (Revelation 21).

So, how do we address Biblical teaching on sexuality the Master's way?

A better way of engaging on Biblical teaching on LGBT issues or any other issue of sexual brokenness should, in order of priority, address the following:

1. Begin with God, the Creator of heaven and earth and all that is in them, including humanity ("the Creator"), 
2. Explore the wonders of human nature, as male and female made in the image of God ("made them male and female"), 
3. Present the beauty of marriage according to God's original design as a "one flesh" union between a man and a woman ("a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"), 
4. Recognise how marriage and sexuality have gone wrong in a sinful world, and that there are forms of sexual conduct which are contrary to God's laws ("what God has joined together, let man not separate"),
5. Finally, present the Gospel of how Jesus Christ redeems and makes us holy and blameless through His sacrifice on the cross, and He will return one day for His beloved Bride.

Seeing God's Back

In Exodus 33:18-23, Moses asks to see God's glory. God grants Moses's request in part, permitting Moses to see His back but not His face: 

Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” He said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

In a podcast on 15 June 2018, Ben Shapiro cites his father's exposition (D'var Torah) to provide an interesting commentary on the passage, in response to a question from one of his listeners:

David says, “Dear Ben, from your perspective, how well do you think human intellect can understand God? The ancient Greeks seemed to believe human intellect was the key to understanding God. If God is beyond understanding [through] intellectual tools, what other tools can be used to understand God and God’s will?”

So, I’m writing an entire book about this right now, David. And my view of this, is that it is our job to use reason to try and understand the universe that God built in order to understand God’s logic. Right, I believe in this sort of Greek teleology that the universe was designed with certain purposes in mind and that it’s our job to try and find those purposes. That said, God operates from a different plane, so trying to understand the mind of God completely is never going to happen.

I think the most beautiful exposition of this happens in the Book of Exodus when Moses asks to see God’s face. And what the commentators explain is that when Moses asks to see God’s face, what he’s really asking is, “Can I understand the universe?”

And God says, “You can’t look at my face. If you look at my face, then you’ll die. But I will let you see my back.”

And He puts Moses in a cleft in the rock, and then He goes by Moses. All of this is anthropomorphic, just because human beings can’t understand completely spiritual imagery. And my Dad has a very nice, kind of, what we call D’var Torah on this. He has a very nice, sort of, exposition on what this means.

He says that, people that you know – right, people that you love and you know – you can recognise them from behind. Right, if I saw my wife I could recognise her from behind. If I saw my kids I could recognise them from behind. But I can’t tell what’s on their faces. I don’t know what they’re thinking, because I can’t see what’s on their face. But I certainly can tell that they are there.

And that’s I think what the intellect can comprehend. The intellect can comprehend that God is there. We can see sort of shadows of what God wants from us. Through revelation I think we can see more than shadows. But just through pure intellect, through pure reason, I think we can gather a couple of things. I think that we can gather, you know, the idea that there is a God; I think there are good arguments for a God. The idea that there is a God who is the Creator of heaven and earth. I think that we can pick up on certain interactions between man and man that don’t even require belief in God necessarily to logic yourself out to.

As far as understanding what God wants from us, I think that that’s only going to take you so far. You can get to the Aristotelian logic of: God wants us to use reason. God wants us to act in accordance with right reason, which amounts to virtue. But that is relatively vague.

Aristotle did as well as anybody. Even Aristotle’s philosophy has some flaws in how he brings out virtue.