All good posts with great points by all.
For those of us who are true believers, there are many inconsistencies and cringe moments we can nitpick. Have at it if you wish.
But we must understand that he is not on our playing field.
I believe as Christians we should give the benefit of the doubt and focus on the good, especially in the absence of deliberate calls away from God.
I will offer the following thoughts.
If an intrepid journalist uncovers a massive scoop of a very unsavoury nature in regards to Peterson, or he is proven to be collaborating with the Clintons, Bill Gates and (((insert other name here))) for the satanic annihilation of our planet, then I'm all for standing beside everyone and giving him a hearty thumbs down. But in the absence of such evidence, I choose to take him at his word.
Peterson as a 'gateway drug' to Christianity...
That some might not make it all the way and remain suspended in a sort of gnostic, neoplatonism, while unfortunate, is mostly irrelevant. I think Peterson's work has done more good than harm, and that most people will eventually make it all the way home. We can't expect everyone to go from 0 to 100. We can't expect people drowning in secular sin to just enthusiastically pick up the writings of the church fathers out of nowhere and have a radical transformation overnight. Although this is ideal. We should look at our own cringe past as examples, and not forget the log in our own eye.
Our own resident truth-slinger Michael Witcoff has spoken out on his involvement with occultism and masonry, and I enjoyed his book On The Masons And their Lies. I believe he stated something about always seeking truth while on his spiritual journey (and not intentionally inviting evil) but just being misguided and led astray by delusions of secret, mystical knowledge. The same critique applies to Peterson.
Getting further into the weeds of Jungian psychology and it's influence on Peterson...
He seems to view everything through that archetypal / evolutionary / mystical lens. I have read everything by Jung and I will admit there is much insight into the human mind to be gleaned from him. He is superior to Freud, who was in my opinion a degenerate and a complete fraud. He created a dishonest system to justify his passions and delude people (this is similar to my critique of Luther).
That Jung may go down a dark or redundant or fruitless road now and again doesn't mean we have to blindly follow him there. We can exercise our critical thinking and moral boundaries. It doesn't mean we have to dispense with the entirety of his work or dismiss his insights because he wasn't explicitly Christian enough (although he was Christian, and the son of a minister). It would be like scoffing at the idea of reading Father Seraphim Rose because he was once a homosexual, for example. I know this is different as he eventually and unequivocally accepted Christ as the ultimate truth and dedicated the rest of his life to him. Still, there could be entire threads dedicated to why his conversion was insincere because of the way his beard looked in that one photo, etc. That because he was American he wasn't pro-Russian enough and didn't care about the plight of the Slavic people. Or how Michael Witcoff is a Mossad agent sent to infiltrate and destroy the Orthosphere. It all just comes across as silly.
So on the alchemical and mystical stuff -- I agree Jung's attempts at making these kinds of connections were ultimately futile at best or blasphemous at worst. Before Christ, people were clawing at the void. Some more successfully than others. The 3 wise men who visited baby Jesus were Persian astronomers. Ancient Greeks were philosophers and physicists. The Hebrews had a moral law. Not everything pre-Christian was undeniably bad, it's just that we had to alloy those things with a greater understanding of Christ as the logos incarnate and the ultimate truth. Christianity absorbed and improved these things. We didn't abandon mathematics or sports after the arrival of our Lord and saviour. We just now orient the pursuit and true meaning of these things towards God and the wonder of his creation. Hence the moral universe we cannot evade, no matter how flowery our language or how much we try and delude our conscience.
So things can still bubble up from our pagan / pre-Christian past, and Jung was curious how to engage with and reconcile these things. That he ultimately missed the mark is a valid point.
I don't believe the whole 'integrating the shadow' thing as discussed by Peterson is to deceive people or perform evil acts. He views this as a means to strengthen oneself and help heal unnecessary suffering -- standing up to a tyrannical boss, gathering the courage to ask for a raise, etc. Eliminating unnecessary suffering and helping people function is essentially the whole MO of a clinical psychologist. I understand the term can be off-putting for some as it can denote darkness or invocation. I just don't see it that way.
I agree that prayer is superior, and God is the ultimate 'life coach'. But I wouldn't automatically attribute sinister motives to Peterson until proven.
On his avoidance of addressing the JQ, who knows? He might not want to bite the hand that feeds him (big entertainment industry $). He might also not genuinely understand it, not having the fortune of being raised as a Catholic or Orthodox (the traditional opposition and tab-keepers of Jews). If the former, and he is a practising Christian, it would be dishonest. If the latter, he should invite Dr. E Michael Jones on his show for a thorough red-pilling on the matter.
Christ still remains the ultimate truth to which we hope Peterson, Pageau et al will eventually arrive.