e-Book Jung and Christianity: The challenge of reconciliation download

Providing an overview of Jung's struggles and interactions with Christian thought and theology, the book provides the reader with a very approachable account of Jungian thought and psychology. Addressing the concepts of the Quaternary and Good and Evil, as well as the role of religion in the modern psyche, the book will provide the reader with a good overview, and a path for further exploration.

For the first time in my long life, the rituals & symbols used in Christianity make deep logical sense!
That's the first of many insights offered by this book.

A very good analysis and synthesis of Jungian paradigms with regard to traditional Christian constructs of spirituality and theology. I especially liked his idea that the Christian construct of Jesus the Christ as being the example of the reconciliation of opposites experienced by man in a dualistic, finite existence.

Great!

Much of this book is a good, solid read. Yet, this treatise suffers from a fundamental problem, related to the issue of evil. Clift relates that Jung reminds us that Clement of Rome taught that God ruled with both "left and right hands" (the former being the power of Satan)....a very provocative idea, considering that the deity of the OT, Yahweh, is not--by any means--simply a supportive, compassionate being, but often exhibits an irrational, vengeful character. What's more, this view of God--says Jung--this is an example of "true monotheism," while to split off the "dark side" of God is to leave us with the problem with duality.

Incidentally, we are also reminded that Carl Jung was dissatisfied with "privatio boni," the idea that evil is nothing more than merely the absence of good.

Like many, the author is convinced that evil exists as a malevolent, real and compelling force in the world. Yet he supplies but a partial Jungian perspective on this issue. According to the Gnostic viewpoint, there is a higher, much more transcendent God, sometimes referred to as Abraxas, and a lower one known as the demiurge, with the latter being the one described in the O.T., and having a very problematic character. Clift mentions none of this...a serious omission.

Now, what might be a satisfactory explanation of evil in the world? One explanation might be that evil originates from this demiurge, this lesser god. What I find much more credible and satisfying is the idea developed by another of the Greats of Depth Psychology, Wilhelm Reich, who explained at great length, in books such as “The Mass Psychology of Fascism,” that evil originates in people whose personalities have become keenly warped…and develop what Reich called the “Fascist Personality.” People like Hitler, Genghis Khan, Idi Amin, Stalin…and yes, the U.S. generals of the sixties who recommended nuclear attack on Cuba and the USSR…and others who push for never-ending military conquest and occupation (you know “Shock and Awe” and “Blitzkrieg” tactics) and all kinds of “cover ops” around the world.

Author, Clift, never arrives at either of these answers, which I find not exactly harrowing, but certainly mystifying. Perhaps he had intended an honest explication of Jungian psychology, but ultimately found himself hamstrung by his grounding in Christian doctrine/dogma. I will end by adding that while he does—just in passing--mention that Jung held that each individual is meant to use Christ as a model—or archetype--for his own salvation and transformation (rather than the usual Christian vicarious use of J.C. for his salvation), he truly does not seem to “get” this concept, to which any Gnostic would immediate nod his head, in happy concurrence.

Wallace Bruce Clift, Jr. (born 1926) is professor emeritus at the University of Denver, where he chaired the Department of Religion; he has written other books such as Symbols of Transformation in Dreams,The Hero Journey in Dreams,How to Make Love and Other Godly Thoughts, etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1982 book, "Many Christians are put off by psychology. It seems to them to dismiss the reality of their experience.... On the other hand, many people who have found solace in Jung's psychology have felt Christianity to be at least one-sided and, in its institutional expression, quite unnecessary. Can these positions be reconciled? My answer to this question is both 'yes, in part' and 'no, not entirely.' However, the book suggests that a dialogue between the two---Jung and Christianity---can be constructive for both sides... I also offer a critique of psychology from the standpoint of Christian experience." (Pg. xii)

He states that Jung "viewed the psyche as a system regulating itself by virtue of a compensatory relationship existing between conscious and unconscious. As a self-regulating system, the psyche maintained its equilibrium just as the body did. Any process that went too far immediately and inevitably called forth compensations. For Jung, the theory of compensation was a basic law of psychic behavior." (Pg. 12) Later, he adds, "While Jungian psychotherapy has much in common with any other psychotherapy, it is this particular understanding of the psyche as a self-regulating system that accounts for the main differences." (Pg. 33)

He says, "In the course of the maturation process, which Jung called the path of individuation, there are a number of 'steps' or encounters that can be discerned. One of the first psychic entities usually encountered in an investigation of the unconscious is what Jung called the shadow. It is a composite of personal characteristics and potentialities of which the individual is unaware. Usually the shadow contains inferior characteristics and weaknesses that the ego's self-esteem will not permit it to recognize; however it does not always have a wholly negative content. In many cases, positive potentialities of the personality may reside, unlived, in the shadow." (Pg. 20-21)

He admits, "Jung has sometimes been criticized for his lack of attention to developmental factors in his theory of personality... The criticism that Jung paid no attention to developmental factors is justified only in the sense that Jung was not greatly interested in child psychology. His writings and therapy proposals focused on the development of the mature person." (Pg. 24)

He observes, "It was Jung's conclusion that myths and fairy tales gave expression to unconscious processes. The retelling of stories caused those processes to come alive again and be recollected, thus reestablishing the connection between the conscious and the unconscious." (Pg. 58) He adds, "Jung taught that the psychic experiences that give joy and meaning in life, that indeed make life possible in any meaningful sense, involve a union of opposites, a reconciliation of opposing possibilities. If Jung is right, his observation constitutes a major contribution to the psychology of religion." (Pg. 67)

He recounts that "Jung wrote of his early irritation with the Church... because of its failure to meet his father's needs. Jung... once overheard his father struggling desperately in a prayer to keep his faith. Jung said he himself was shaken and outraged at once, because he saw how hopelessly his father was entrapped in 'theological thinking.' The Church, he said, had blocked all avenues by which his father might have reached God directly... [At Jung's first Communion] He had expected, apparently, an encounter with God's presence, but had experienced only absence. He resolved not to participate in the ceremony again." (Pg. 115)

This is an excellent and very useful exposition of Jung's thought, and its relationship with Christianity (not of the fundamentalist sort, however) and religion.