|Jung had an extensive Christian background. His
father was a pastor in the Swiss Reform Church, and eight of his maternal uncles were
clergymen, as well. Thus, his whole upbringing was steeped in the institutional church,
and it was almost inevitable that he would have to struggle with how to relate his
psychology to his Christian roots. This struggle only seemed to intensify as he got older,
for it was in his later years he wrote some of his powerful works on subjects like the
suffering of Job and on the meaning of the Trinity.
But when all was said and done, it is hard to make a case that Jung, however deeply interested in Christianity and sympathetic to Christians he was, could really be called a Christian, himself. It was not as if his psychology was one thing, and his religious outlook quite another. His psychology was his religious outlook, and the limits of his psychology as a way of knowing were his own personal limits.
This, I believe, comes across in Jungs own writings, and can be examined in detail in books like Murray Steins Jungs Treatment of Christianity. I dont think that the facts of the matter are in dispute. The real issue is whether we agree with Jungs identification of the way psychology knows with the limits that ought to be imposed on how religion knows things. If we know no more than what is knowable by Jungs psychology, then Jungs psychology is as much of a religion as any religion can be, and indeed, is more of one because it is more objective and less presumptuous about what it knows. Christianity in this view is no more than the process of individuation written in the language of Christian symbols. This, of course, doesnt leave much room for a genuine Jungian-Christian dialogue.
Now it is your turn to contribute to this discussion. Send us
your questions and comments: firstname.lastname@example.org
" I think that one of the greatest barriers to a
dialogue between Jungian thought and Christianity lies in Jung's attacks on the view of
God as all-good, put forth in his controversial treatise "Antwort auf Hiob"
(1952). This flies in the face of what many orthodox Christians believe, and indeed, in
the face of the theology of the Johannine epistles. What I think Jung is trying to do in
this book is take a position that is actually closer to the Old Testament views of God
than New Testament views of God (heretical as such a claim may seem, there are passages in
the Old Testament - some arguably dating from as late as the time of Isaiah - that would
justify such a view). A difficulty that I have with "Antwort auf Hiob" (aside
from the fact that it is one of Jung's most poorly structured works - evidence that he had
serious liver trouble shortly before the book was published) - is that it rests too
strongly on the assumption that the John who wrote the Book of Revelation was the same
John who wrote the Johannine Epistles. There is no evidence that he was - in fact, modern
Biblical scholars are more likely to argue that he was not - but if the author of the Book
of Revelation and the author of the Johannine Epistles were different people, it seems to
me that some of the key arguments in "Antwort auf Hiob" have to be discarded.
How to contribute to this discussion