Not necessarily. Then why do we discuss anyone or anything secular on this site? What I've heard from JP has affirmed what I've known abou t the fallen nature of men and the necessity of carrying the suffering of life with faith and belief in Christ. Nothing is 'in lieu' of Biblical teaching and there's plenty to disagree with fundamentally with these men without calling them (JP) some of the horrible things leveled against them. The vitriol leveled against Peterson is incongruent with his perceived offenses.
The twelve step program in Alcoholics Anonymous is considered secular and for all practical purposes is but it affirms Christian principles very well.
I think that argument falls flat once you consider the whole gatekeeping thing. Yes, Peterson's talking points are better than materialism and closer to Christianity, in the same sense that Jehova's Witnesses are better than materialist nihilism, but both wouldn't even make a splash in the first place if traditionalist positions weren't excluded from public debate. I also benefited from Peterson in my early 20s, but the reason is that surface content was moderated so strongly that only a guy like Peterson would get through, and also a lot of his hype was astroturfed to begin with because he signed up with a powerful Jewish talent agency. By the same line of argumentation you could praise Ben Shapiro into heaven, because at least he's a lot better than the overtly satanic leftism we encounter daily. However, Ben Shapiro was lifted into his position from being a relatively unpopular blogposter to chief of a media empire solely because of his gatekeeping function and ethnicity. Now plenty of people regard Shapiro and Peterson as the furthest to the right you're allowed to be and that's what the whole MSM discussion is about. Andrew Anglin has controversial opinions, but he doesn't get to argue with Piers Morgan.
Jordan Peterson really doesn't hold any traditionalist views outside of "maybe traditional societal rules are okay if we view them from a Jungian/evolutionary psychological perspective". He's a progressive liberal for all intents and purposes and he knows it and yet he gatekeeps to the right, and harshly so, as exemplified in the cases of Faith Goldy and Ricardo Duchesne.
Also, and this point also has to be made, he is definitely into occult practices. Michael Witcoff has commented on it, JBP has many times cited M.P. Hall and Albert Pike and yet never speaks to the issues of Masonry and Luciferanism. That's literally occult in every sense of the word. It's covert and manipulative.
My prediction is that we are going to see him fall apart both mentally and morally in the next few years, as it seems to me that he shows some signs of early onset dementia (his speech patterns have lost a lot of their fluency and his gestures seem kind of blocked, but that's speculation on my part) and he has leaned to deeply into religious Zionism with his whole city on the mount speech that it appears likely that he won't be able to convey coherent messages any more.