Should We Still Read
Eugene Peterson?
Update (July 13, 2017, 3:30 p.m. EDT): In a retraction
published by Christianity Today, Eugene Peterson
affirms a biblical view of marriage.
“I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one
woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything. . . .
When put on the spot by this particular interviewer,
I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection
and prayer, I would like to retract that. That’s not
something I would do out of respect to the congregation,
the larger church body, and the historic biblical
Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said,
I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d
be welcome at my table, along with everybody else.”
This week Eugene Peterson—pastor, translator of
The Message, author of numerous books—revealed
in an interview with Jonathan Merritt that he now
embraces same-sex marriage and has abandoned
the historic Christian sexual ethic. I can’t say that
I am surprised. Peterson, after all, has remained in
mainline Protestantism, fairly comfortably, even
after the last embers of orthodoxy on marriage
matters in these communions have burned out.
Still, I cannot overstate just how disappointed I am,
as one who writes this next to a shelf full of highlighted,
book-flag-adorned works by Peterson.
As a matter of fact, just this week, I finished
reading what I said to almost everyone around
me that I believe is his finest book yet, a collection
of edited sermons titled As Kingfishers Catch Fire:
A Conversation on the Ways of God Formed by
the Word of God. In this volume, Peterson did
what he does best—cast the Bible in terms of what
he calls an “incarnational imagination,” a moral
imagination awake to the literary meaning of the canon.
As I read the book, I would text various lines to a
friend. I sent along where Peterson points out, for
instance, that the Revelation to John has 404 verses
in total with 518 references to earlier scriptures, but
all in allusions or echoes, none in direct quotation. In
fact, Peterson argues that the Revelation references
every book, without exception, of the Old Testament
canon. Could be (though I find it hard to find Ezra
or Esther in there). “Here is a pastor who is absolutely
immersed in Scripture and submits himself to it,” Peterson
writes of John the Revelator. “He does not just repeat,
regurgitate, or cite proof texts. He first assimilates
Scripture, then lives and preaches the Scripture
he had internalized.” I follow along with Peterson’s
practice of reading a Psalm aloud, one assigned for
each day of the week, as part of my devotions, after
I heard him recommend it in a radio interview.
This is the same sort of conversation had a few years ago among
those of us who’ve been taught much by novelist and poet
Wendell Berry when he, too, embraced the zeitgeist on
marriage and sexuality. Some said we should throw out our Berry
books and never read him again. Others, I’m sure, seeing how
much they’d
benefited from Berry on place and memory, probably decided
to follow him right into this viewpoint. Maybe the same will
happen with Peterson now.And now Peterson says he’s willing
to walk away from what the Scriptures and 2,000 years of
unbroken Christian teaching affirm on the conjugal nature of
marriage as the one-flesh union of a man and a woman reflecting
the mystery of Christ and the church. I can’t un-highlight or
un-flag my Peterson books. I can’t erase from my mind all the
things he has taught me. Should I stop reading him, since he has
shown a completely contrary view on an important issue of
biblical interpretation—and, beyond that, of the very definition
of what it means to repent of sin?
Update (July 13, 2017, 3:30 p.m. EDT): In a retraction
published by Christianity Today, Eugene Peterson
affirms a biblical view of marriage.
published by Christianity Today, Eugene Peterson
affirms a biblical view of marriage.
“I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one
woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything. . . .
When put on the spot by this particular interviewer,
I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection
and prayer, I would like to retract that. That’s not
something I would do out of respect to the congregation,
the larger church body, and the historic biblical
Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said,
I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d
be welcome at my table, along with everybody else.”
woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything. . . .
When put on the spot by this particular interviewer,
I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection
and prayer, I would like to retract that. That’s not
something I would do out of respect to the congregation,
the larger church body, and the historic biblical
Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said,
I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d
be welcome at my table, along with everybody else.”
This week Eugene Peterson—pastor, translator of
The Message, author of numerous books—revealed
in an interview with Jonathan Merritt that he now
embraces same-sex marriage and has abandoned
the historic Christian sexual ethic. I can’t say that
I am surprised. Peterson, after all, has remained in
mainline Protestantism, fairly comfortably, even
after the last embers of orthodoxy on marriage
matters in these communions have burned out.
Still, I cannot overstate just how disappointed I am,
as one who writes this next to a shelf full of highlighted,
book-flag-adorned works by Peterson.
The Message, author of numerous books—revealed
in an interview with Jonathan Merritt that he now
embraces same-sex marriage and has abandoned
the historic Christian sexual ethic. I can’t say that
I am surprised. Peterson, after all, has remained in
mainline Protestantism, fairly comfortably, even
after the last embers of orthodoxy on marriage
matters in these communions have burned out.
Still, I cannot overstate just how disappointed I am,
as one who writes this next to a shelf full of highlighted,
book-flag-adorned works by Peterson.
As a matter of fact, just this week, I finished
reading what I said to almost everyone around
me that I believe is his finest book yet, a collection
of edited sermons titled As Kingfishers Catch Fire:
A Conversation on the Ways of God Formed by
the Word of God. In this volume, Peterson did
what he does best—cast the Bible in terms of what
he calls an “incarnational imagination,” a moral
imagination awake to the literary meaning of the canon.
reading what I said to almost everyone around
me that I believe is his finest book yet, a collection
of edited sermons titled As Kingfishers Catch Fire:
A Conversation on the Ways of God Formed by
the Word of God. In this volume, Peterson did
what he does best—cast the Bible in terms of what
he calls an “incarnational imagination,” a moral
imagination awake to the literary meaning of the canon.
As I read the book, I would text various lines to a
friend. I sent along where Peterson points out, for
instance, that the Revelation to John has 404 verses
in total with 518 references to earlier scriptures, but
all in allusions or echoes, none in direct quotation. In
fact, Peterson argues that the Revelation references
every book, without exception, of the Old Testament
canon. Could be (though I find it hard to find Ezra
or Esther in there). “Here is a pastor who is absolutely
immersed in Scripture and submits himself to it,” Peterson
writes of John the Revelator. “He does not just repeat,
regurgitate, or cite proof texts. He first assimilates
Scripture, then lives and preaches the Scripture
he had internalized.” I follow along with Peterson’s
practice of reading a Psalm aloud, one assigned for
each day of the week, as part of my devotions, after
I heard him recommend it in a radio interview.
friend. I sent along where Peterson points out, for
instance, that the Revelation to John has 404 verses
in total with 518 references to earlier scriptures, but
all in allusions or echoes, none in direct quotation. In
fact, Peterson argues that the Revelation references
every book, without exception, of the Old Testament
canon. Could be (though I find it hard to find Ezra
or Esther in there). “Here is a pastor who is absolutely
immersed in Scripture and submits himself to it,” Peterson
writes of John the Revelator. “He does not just repeat,
regurgitate, or cite proof texts. He first assimilates
Scripture, then lives and preaches the Scripture
he had internalized.” I follow along with Peterson’s
practice of reading a Psalm aloud, one assigned for
each day of the week, as part of my devotions, after
I heard him recommend it in a radio interview.
This is the same sort of conversation had a few years ago among
those of us who’ve been taught much by novelist and poet
Wendell Berry when he, too, embraced the zeitgeist on
marriage and sexuality. Some said we should throw out our Berry
books and never read him again. Others, I’m sure, seeing how
much they’d
benefited from Berry on place and memory, probably decided
to follow him right into this viewpoint. Maybe the same will
happen with Peterson now.And now Peterson says he’s willing
to walk away from what the Scriptures and 2,000 years of
unbroken Christian teaching affirm on the conjugal nature of
marriage as the one-flesh union of a man and a woman reflecting
the mystery of Christ and the church. I can’t un-highlight or
un-flag my Peterson books. I can’t erase from my mind all the
things he has taught me. Should I stop reading him, since he has
shown a completely contrary view on an important issue of
biblical interpretation—and, beyond that, of the very definition
of what it means to repent of sin?
What We Can Learn
So can we still learn from Eugene Peterson?
I probably wouldn’t now give his books to a brand-new believer,
seeking to find a starting place in discipleship, for fear the
new brother or sister might embrace the whole package—a
s some of us did with whomever it was that was influential in
our early Christian lives, whether C. S. Lewis or J. I. Packer or
John Stott or John Piper. That’s especially true, given our sexually
confused culture where the definition of marriage is what’s used
to tear away at a Christian anthropology. I wouldn’t now have
him speak at my church or event—for the same reasons and for
the fact I would never want to confuse anyone about the call to
repentance.
Confusion here is a sin not just against God’s righteousness
but also against God’s mercy. If we are not clear on what sin
is, we cannot be clear on what God’s grace is. If something is
not sin, it needs no forgiveness. Consciences know better, however we try to rationalize them away.
But that doesn’t mean we should throw away our Peterson
(or Berry) books.
Peterson is wrong about a huge issue, with massive implications
for the eternal lives of people and the witness of churches. George
Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards were wrong on the sin of human
slavery. We never read anyone who is right on everything, except
within the covers of our Bibles. Everything else we ought to read
with a certain level
of skepticism and discernment, including (maybe especially?) the
things we write ourselves.
that evangelist say? Yes. Would I have him preach for me, or send
anyone else to his church? No. Was the gospel I heard from him
any less than the power of God unto salvation, whatever his
personal sin? Not at all.
I am not equating the situations; Peterson has lived a long life
that is morally above reproach. I am saying we can learn from
one who has been in grievous error at some point or other. We
can sing the hymns of someone who turned out to be doctrinally
heterodox (looking at you, “God of Grace, God of Glory”). But
as we do, we must be honest about where such voices held fast to,
and where they deviated from, the Word of God.
So can we still learn from Eugene Peterson?
I probably wouldn’t now give his books to a brand-new believer,
seeking to find a starting place in discipleship, for fear the
new brother or sister might embrace the whole package—a
s some of us did with whomever it was that was influential in
our early Christian lives, whether C. S. Lewis or J. I. Packer or
John Stott or John Piper. That’s especially true, given our sexually
confused culture where the definition of marriage is what’s used
to tear away at a Christian anthropology. I wouldn’t now have
him speak at my church or event—for the same reasons and for
the fact I would never want to confuse anyone about the call to
repentance.
seeking to find a starting place in discipleship, for fear the
new brother or sister might embrace the whole package—a
s some of us did with whomever it was that was influential in
our early Christian lives, whether C. S. Lewis or J. I. Packer or
John Stott or John Piper. That’s especially true, given our sexually
confused culture where the definition of marriage is what’s used
to tear away at a Christian anthropology. I wouldn’t now have
him speak at my church or event—for the same reasons and for
the fact I would never want to confuse anyone about the call to
repentance.
Confusion here is a sin not just against God’s righteousness
but also against God’s mercy. If we are not clear on what sin
is, we cannot be clear on what God’s grace is. If something is
not sin, it needs no forgiveness. Consciences know better, however we try to rationalize them away.
but also against God’s mercy. If we are not clear on what sin
is, we cannot be clear on what God’s grace is. If something is
not sin, it needs no forgiveness. Consciences know better, however we try to rationalize them away.
But that doesn’t mean we should throw away our Peterson
(or Berry) books.
(or Berry) books.
Peterson is wrong about a huge issue, with massive implications
for the eternal lives of people and the witness of churches. George
Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards were wrong on the sin of human
slavery. We never read anyone who is right on everything, except
within the covers of our Bibles. Everything else we ought to read
with a certain level
of skepticism and discernment, including (maybe especially?) the
things we write ourselves.
for the eternal lives of people and the witness of churches. George
Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards were wrong on the sin of human
slavery. We never read anyone who is right on everything, except
within the covers of our Bibles. Everything else we ought to read
with a certain level
of skepticism and discernment, including (maybe especially?) the
things we write ourselves.
that evangelist say? Yes. Would I have him preach for me, or send
anyone else to his church? No. Was the gospel I heard from him
any less than the power of God unto salvation, whatever his
personal sin? Not at all.
anyone else to his church? No. Was the gospel I heard from him
any less than the power of God unto salvation, whatever his
personal sin? Not at all.
I am not equating the situations; Peterson has lived a long life
that is morally above reproach. I am saying we can learn from
one who has been in grievous error at some point or other. We
can sing the hymns of someone who turned out to be doctrinally
heterodox (looking at you, “God of Grace, God of Glory”). But
as we do, we must be honest about where such voices held fast to,
and where they deviated from, the Word of God.
that is morally above reproach. I am saying we can learn from
one who has been in grievous error at some point or other. We
can sing the hymns of someone who turned out to be doctrinally
heterodox (looking at you, “God of Grace, God of Glory”). But
as we do, we must be honest about where such voices held fast to,
and where they deviated from, the Word of God.
The Message
Sometimes even the big doctrinal errors of our teachers can, in
God’s providence, teach us the very things those teachers once
imparted to us. Peterson has warned for years about the kind
of preaching that appeals to the consumer instincts of a crowd,
rather than to what Karl Barth called the “strange new world
of the Bible.” And now, Peterson—like so many others—tells us
he’s changed his views, not because of some new insight from
Scripture but because he’s met people who reject an historic
Christian sexual ethic, and they are good people.
There is much I’ve learned from Peterson, and much I am sure
I will learn in the future. But one of those things is this: if a wise
man who has translated and written commentaries on the prophets,
on Romans, on Revelation, can make that sort of turn, with that
little revelatory authority behind him, then I could easily talk
myself into some error too (1 Cor. 10:12).
Eugene Peterson is a wise, gentle Christian. He may well rethink
this, and I hope he does. Christian teachers have made errors
before—sometimes massive ones (think of the Simon Peter of
Galatians 2). The church still stands. The Message marches on,
whether The Message does or not.
Sometimes even the big doctrinal errors of our teachers can, in
God’s providence, teach us the very things those teachers once
imparted to us. Peterson has warned for years about the kind
of preaching that appeals to the consumer instincts of a crowd,
rather than to what Karl Barth called the “strange new world
of the Bible.” And now, Peterson—like so many others—tells us
he’s changed his views, not because of some new insight from
Scripture but because he’s met people who reject an historic
Christian sexual ethic, and they are good people.
God’s providence, teach us the very things those teachers once
imparted to us. Peterson has warned for years about the kind
of preaching that appeals to the consumer instincts of a crowd,
rather than to what Karl Barth called the “strange new world
of the Bible.” And now, Peterson—like so many others—tells us
he’s changed his views, not because of some new insight from
Scripture but because he’s met people who reject an historic
Christian sexual ethic, and they are good people.
There is much I’ve learned from Peterson, and much I am sure
I will learn in the future. But one of those things is this: if a wise
man who has translated and written commentaries on the prophets,
on Romans, on Revelation, can make that sort of turn, with that
little revelatory authority behind him, then I could easily talk
myself into some error too (1 Cor. 10:12).
I will learn in the future. But one of those things is this: if a wise
man who has translated and written commentaries on the prophets,
on Romans, on Revelation, can make that sort of turn, with that
little revelatory authority behind him, then I could easily talk
myself into some error too (1 Cor. 10:12).
Eugene Peterson is a wise, gentle Christian. He may well rethink
this, and I hope he does. Christian teachers have made errors
before—sometimes massive ones (think of the Simon Peter of
Galatians 2). The church still stands. The Message marches on,
whether The Message does or not.
this, and I hope he does. Christian teachers have made errors
before—sometimes massive ones (think of the Simon Peter of
Galatians 2). The church still stands. The Message marches on,
whether The Message does or not.
.jpeg)