What is the Current State
of the Jungian-Christian Dialogue?

If we compare the Jungian-Christian dialogue to the robust dialogue that can be found between Christians and Buddhists, we can say that the Jungian-Christian dialogue barely seems to exist. It lacks, for the most part, the formal structures of conferences and periodicals, and more importantly, a sense of adventure, and a hope for genuine discoveries.

It is true that many Christians are deeply interested in Jung?s psychology, and it is also true that Christian and Catholic Christian clergy and religious have become Jungian analysts, but neither one of these things, despite their great importance, has managed to create a thriving Jungian-Christian dialogue.

The Catholic Church has a tremendous need for a psychology like Jung?s which it could apply with great benefit to a multitude of pastoral issues, and to the spiritual life, as well. It has no empirical psychology, and has suffered greatly from this lack. It needs the tools by which it can analyze more deeply issues as diverse as psycho-sexual problems among the clergy, how women are treated in the Church, and the psychological lives of those who are proposed for canonization. But even this great need has not been enough to create a full-fledged Jungian-Christian dialogue.

What, then, has been keeping this dialogue from flourishing? There are two major factors. From the Christian side many Christians lack the kind of psychological knowledge that comes from a deep exploration of the unconscious of the kind that is found in Jung?s psychology. Therefore, they are not able to see how important this knowledge could be in the life of the Church. Further, a certain fear of Jungian psychology exists that feels that if Jungian psychology were admitted into the bosom of the Church, it would try to replace religion with psychology.

From the Jungian side, there is a certain Jungian attitude which can be traced to Jung, himself, that tends to look at Christians as belonging to some kind of "pre-Kantian" age in which they still naively believe in a knowledge of things beyond what psychic images can tell them. This tends to cut the ground from under Christian belief and reinforce the fears that Christians already possess about Jungian psychology.

Any dialogue that would have the courage to confront these issues would probably have the energy to succeed.

Now it is your turn to contribute to this discussion.

(from the innerexplorations.com web site; thanks to Jim and Tyra Arraj for this opening statement)

Jim, I see the issue you so clearly state as
a problem of authority vs. experience in a rather peculiar way.

Many of those in posts of authority within Christian church structures were trained theologically - as I was - in a system heavily dependent on philsophy and reason - but with a strong skepticism toward anything to do with psychology. A half term series of lectures in religious psychology was about all we got in our final year at mid-20th century.

In recent years, there has been as great improvement with many graduates having taken clinical pastoral education as well as theological training. Some went so far as to take advanced training as pastoral counsellors, as you noted. But these are not well-accepted in the higher echelons of power. One reason for this is that the medical/clinical model became the be-all and end-all for some counsellors to the neglect of biblical and theological studies, and spiritual formation and experience.

I quite agree that we need a new synthesis of all these fields. A beginning with the relating of Jungian psychology to Christian spirituality could be helpful. At the present time, however, I believe this will have to be another of those creative minorities rather than an ecclesiastically authorized movement. Personally. I have found much benefit from participating in spirituality discussions which wander inevitably into theology and biblical issues. I especially enjopy such things as lectionary discussions and e-mail groups like <julian@joinhands.com> discussing the *Showings* of Julian of Norwich in modern
translation and interpretation.

Perhaps the Internet with its manifold opportunities for global communication will help to change things as they become more widely used.

Good points, John.

One thought that comes to mind is how often, in working with people in spiritual direction, they seem to have this notion that whatever is going on in their minds is a consequence of God or the Devil. I get the sense that they see their Ego as uninhabited territory that God and the Devil are fighting over. There's not much sense of how their own unconscious could be influencing their motives, emotions, likes, aversions, and even numinous experiences.

I think Jung's psychology can help Christians understand more deeply the natural, human dimension of our own lives. I realize that there are some who take things too far, collapsing Christianity itself into Jungianism. But that's an extreme that seems pretty easy to avoid if one is operating in a perspective of faith and is grounded in a sound theology.

More on this later . . . Let's hear from others.

Phil

I like the image of the Ego as an empty territory over which God and Satan are in a life and d eath struggle. It recalls the "manifest destiny" we learned about in US history. Or is that a topic which is familiar to Americans as it is to Canadians?

OTOH, I heard a replay of an interview with
the famous myth-interpreter (whose name escapes me at the moment) who was saying that one myth about Satan was that he was thrown our of heaven because he loved God too much. He tried to prevent humans from
getting to close to God and God punished him
by throwing him out.

It seems to me that Satan and the Ego are quite closely linked, especially when the False Ego becomes dominant as establishes itself in direct opposition to God. That is how I understand the sin against the Holy Spirit. Refusing to acknowledge our humanity
and dependence on grace, we make our own will the final determinant rather than accepting God's will in all moral issues.

This morning's Daily Seed re forgiveness brought to mind the thought that forgiveness begins by forgiving ourselves and acknowledging our own sinfulness, accept its humiliation and follow this up by making our apologies to those we have wronged. These may or may not be accepted and that is when forgiveness becomes real.

I am not sure h ow all this links to our main topic except that the False Ego is a major moral and spiritual problem of which most of us are quite unconscious most of the time. Only when subjected to the Spirit can
the Ego attain it true destiny of union with God.

Originally posted by John Shearman:
I like the image of the Ego as an empty territory over which God and Satan are in a life and d eath struggle. It recalls the "manifest destiny" we learned about in US history. Or is that a topic which is familiar to Americans as it is to Canadians?

There is still controversy about why we stopped at the Canadian border? Some of the more militant MD-ers thought the North Pole should have been our northern limit.

OTOH, I heard a replay of an interview with the famous myth-interpreter (whose name escapes me at the moment) who was saying that one myth about Satan was that he was thrown our of heaven because he loved God too much. He tried to prevent humans from
getting to close to God and God punished him
by throwing him out.

It's certainly been a prevalent theme in demonology that Satan hates human beings, but also that Satan thought he knew what was better for the universe than God did. Sounds like this myth has elements of both.

It seems to me that Satan and the Ego are quite closely linked, especially when the False Ego becomes dominant as establishes itself in direct opposition to God. That is how I understand the sin against the Holy Spirit. Refusing to acknowledge our humanity
and dependence on grace, we make our own will the final determinant rather than accepting God's will in all moral issues.

OK, only the Jungians would say that the Ego is not merely a false self or false ego, but the responsible center of the psyche. As such, Ego is not a bad thing, and without a healthy Ego, one cannot even make choices about refusing to cooperate with false self conditioning. Your later point about the Ego attaining its true destiny in God is one I can go with, for sure.

Phil

Phil wrote: There is still controversy about why we stopped at the Canadian border? Some of the more militant MD-ers thought the North Pole should have been our northern limit.

***********

That's why we formed the Royal North-West Mounted Police and welcomed Sitting Bull from the Montana Territory. The RNWMP are now the vaunted RCMP complete with their stunning showpiece, the Musical Ride.

OTOH, you are buying us out so fast that you may soon own us lock, stock and barrel.

To get back to Jung & Ego: IS there such a thing as a Social or Corporate Ego? What I am thinking of is that which one applies to the individual as applied also to the community. For instance, we speak of our United Church of Canada having a particular ethos or way of thinking and doing theology that is different from the Anglicans or Roman Catholics. Would you also say that there is a UCCan Ego, a Jesuit Ego, a Dominican Ego, etc.?

LOL about that Canadian effort to stop our manifest destiny. Like it or not, the world is becoming Americanized, isn't it?

To get back to Jung & Ego: IS there such a thing as a Social or Corporate Ego?

I think that could be said, John, only a more precise terminology would be Canadian conditioning, Jesuit conditioning, etc. The "I" or subjective awareness of the Ego is given form by its Self-concept, which is how memory organizes our experiences in the light of our values and beliefs. The geography about us, family traditions, national traditions, perceptions concerning our appearance, skills, etc. all go into the make-up of the Self-concept. And so it only makes sense that developing a Self-concept in Canada in a Methodist family will give a different form through Self-concept to the Ego than growing up Buddhist in the Himalayans. Nor do I consider any of that conditioning to be the False Self, unless we are too attached to it and think it makes us superior or inferior to others.

Does this make sense?

Phil

Phil wrote:

And so it only makes sense that developing a Self-concept in Canada in a Methodist family will give a different form through Self-concept to the Ego than growing up Buddhist in the Himalayans. Nor do I consider any of that conditioning to be the False Self, unless we are too attached to it and think it makes us superior or inferior to others.

Does this make sense?

************

Yes, it does. It is particularly helpful in distinguishing an appropriate Self-concept from a False-Self concept. The former is positive and give one a clear sense of who one is. The latter established the basis for judgmentalism and prejudice based on a sense of superiority.

I am reminded of the beautiful image of the ascended and enthroned Christ in Coventry Cathedral in England. It reaches from the level of the altar up the full extent of the wall to the exceedingly high roof. At his feet is the life-size figure of a man symbolizing all of humanity. Only as we stand humbly before him does all our falseness disappear.

Your comments are helping a novice to understand some, but I have yet to really make the connection between Jung and Christ. I guess what I'm hoping to find is how Jung's psychology can help us to connect to "God within" us. I don't necessarily see a battle going on between good and evil within the subconcious, but more like a struggle for the 'neglected' parts to be heard in our search for completeness. It is longing for wholeness which brings this thought back to seeking God within. Is this the connection I'm supposed to get?

I'll wait to be sure I'm not all the way off the track before I make further comment.
Peace,KK

quote:

Originally posted by Karen Kay:
[qb]Your comments are helping a novice to understand some. . . It is longing for wholeness which brings this thought back to seeking God within. Is this the connection I'm supposed to get?[/qb]

Karen, you certainly are on the right track. And, in addition, Jung's psychology (and others, to be sure) can help us become more self-responsible and self-accepting.

But Jung's psychology has a particularly significant role to play in helping us understand some of the dynamics in our interpersonal relationships. His work on psychological types and especially how that plays out in relationships between men and women can be helpful.

Can one develop a relationship with Christ without Jung's psychology? Of course; people did it for centuries.

Another interesting question is if people can realize the wholeness Jung describes without spirituality? Jung didn't think so, which points up a connection between the two.

So let's hear your next questions and comments on this--and anyone else's as well.

Phil

John S. mentioned in his argument about the problem of the False Ego that "Only when subjected to the Spirit can the Ego attain it's true destiny of union with God"....

As I understand Jung's teaching so far, there is a sort of necessary banter between our concious and subconcious, both of which, in my mind anyway, need the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Phil sums it up as "the responsible center of the psyche". That makes sense, and I would even say perhaps that may be the spiritual role here: however, there is something so beautifully mysterious about what God may be doing in us...through us...with us...which we have no knowledge of (or no need to know). If that really is the case, and I believe it is, then the Spirit would have to be more than a "referee" of sorts.

John S. said "Is there such a thing as a Social or Corporate Ego?"

I most definitely have to say "yes"...but not in the same sense that Phil summizes it
"the geography about us, family traditions, national traditions, perceptions concerning our appearance, skills, etc all go into the makeup of the self concept"

I don't see the corporate ego as a "within", but more like a collective conciousness of a given group. Yes, I think an Episcopalian in Mississippi will "see" things differently than a New York Jew, but that is not corporate ego. That is perception based on our environment, but it is personal. I think of corporate ego as a RESULT of our individual contribution. This is the one place, (so far anyway) where I can see that our study of Jung and personality types, etc, can be fruitful in our attempts to help others know Christ.

The stem-cell issue (not one I want to get into at this point by the way) is a good example. The President wanted to know the Pope's opinion. Why? Because he represents the "Corporate Ego" of the Catholic church, and thereby many of his constituents.

Lastly, regarding Phil's question if people can realize the wholeness Jung describes without spirituality....

Absolutely not. The spirit was there in the beginning. Whether we listen or not is our choice.

Peace,
Karen

All good reflections, Karen, and I agree with your points about the coproate Ego. In fact, Jung described what he called "Collective Consciousness," which is the counterpoint to his "Collective Unconscious." The face of the Ego turned toward this Collective Consciousness is the Persona, or mask. It is the face we show to the world, and since the world is a collective consciousness, we tend to show them something that can interact. This Persona is part of the Ego structure, however, and can be very difficult to change--especially in the face of pressure from the collective consciousness to conform. That's where an "alternative community" like the Church can come in--to support this change and call forth a more authentic Persona.

Just a few notes. Let's keep going if there's a need, and anyone else, just jump in.

Phil