Should Christian Psychology Become a Profession?

Posted on January 31, 2010

(by Philip G. Monroe. Associate professor of Counseling & Psychology at Biblical Seminary. Dr. Monroe is our blogger for the month of February and this is his first post. Dr. Monroe maintains his own blog at http://www.wisecounsel.wordpress.com/)

Right now, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, lawmakers are considering a bill that would place more restrictions on who can provide counsel. Currently, the state has a number of mental health credentials. Among those is the Licensed Professional Counselor credential for those with a requisite master’s degree and post graduate supervised practice. If passed, the new bill will not only protect the title of “Professional Counselor” but also the practice of professional counseling. Per the law, one may not “style” themselves as a counselor unless they are licensed as such.

Who does this effect? This will especially impact the many Christian counselors who are not licensed but practice a form of counseling (aka biblical counseling, Christian counseling, etc.). While these counselors do not provide diagnoses or bill insurances they do collect fees, keep progress notes, maintain confidentiality, and provide counsel for those struggling with issues such as anxiety, anger, depression, marital conflict and the like. So, the 64 million dollar question: Do these unlicensed Christian counselors “style” themselves as professional counselors? And who decides the line between the two? As an aside, the bill does contain an exemption for pastoral counselors. Pennsylvania does not yet define that title but in other locales that title is reserved for those ordained, trained in a pastoral counseling graduate program, and doing work in church-related institutions.

Here’s where the bill gets interesting. It describes what typifies a profession that might overlap with counseling but have a separate (and thus exempted) identity and practice. Here are some of the criteria they might use to discern a separate profession (note my bolded text to emphasize interesting details):

1.  The group’s activity and focus must be based on an identifiable body of theoretical knowledge which, although it may include areas of common knowledge shared with social work, marriage and family therapy, and professional counseling, is demonstrably different, in the aggregate, from the body of theoretical knowledge underlying social work, marriage and family therapy, and professional counseling.

2.  The group must regulate entrance into professional membership by means of standards of knowledge, training and proficiency generally accepted by the profession with which it identifies.

3.  The group’s activity must be guided by generally accepted quality standards, ethical principles and requirements for an independent profession.

4.  The group must exhibit the ordinary accoutrements of a profession, which may include professional journals, regional and national conferences, specific academic curricula and degrees, continuing education opportunities, regional and national certification and awards for outstanding practice within the profession.

Thus, the state will consider whether one is a qualified member of a profession (and in compliance with that profession’s standards) AND counseling only in the scope of this profession.

This leads me to ask two questions. Does Christian psychology fit the definition of a profession? Should we seek to form our own credentials?

Like all good academics, we like to pose questions and avoid answering them. However, I do have some thoughts. First, we do have a theoretical knowledge base that is unique in its scope even if embryonic in its application. Second, while we do not have our own standards of practice, our parent organization, The American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC), does. And other Christian counseling membership organizations do as well. However, our biggest problem is that we do not limit members to only those who meet an observed standard of practice. There are no proficiency exams to hinder some from entry (again the AACC is now working to change this for their organization). Finally, there are many who would resist the separation of Christian psychology or Christian counseling as a distinct profession on the grounds that it would either ghettoize Christian counselors or lead to innumerable ideological authorities (biblical counselors vs. Christian psychologists vs. Reformed counselors vs. Catholic therapists, etc.). It is my opinion that our Society is enriched because we do NOT see ourselves as a profession. Thus, we have philosophers, theologians, psychologists, pastors, biblical counselors and many more within our ranks. We are well suited to avoid groupthink, in my humble opinion.

What do you think? Should Christian counselors seek their own professional identity and licensing body? What are the pros and cons of doing so?

Jesus and Mary: Overcoming Psychodynamic Fears, Part 2: The Crucifixion

Posted on January 24, 2010

[Paul C. Vitz is Professor of Psychology/Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences and Professor of Psychology Emeritus at New York University. He is our guest blogger for the month of January, and this is his fourth post].

The Issue of applying psychology to Jesus

Like the Virgin Mary we can also attribute basic human emotions to Jesus. The scriptures present Jesus showing love and friendship, fear and anger (for instance in the temple with the money changers). If he did not have normal human emotions he would not represent an adequate model and sacrifice for humanity. So for Jesus when facing the Cross for him to be afraid of death, pain and disfigurement is hardly surprising: he showed what can be interpreted as signs of his fear through his anguish.  Jesus was, of course, sinless so his emotions were not contaminated by sin.

However, there is the traditional Catholic theological dogma that Jesus is two natures but only one person thus there can be serious doubt as to whether the psychology of Jesus can be understood by analogy to human psychology. But, even if we rightly accept that the psychology of Jesus is intrinsically mysterious we can assume that Jesus did fully understand human psychology and sinfulness and that his words and actions spoke directly to them.

Mary

There is good reason to believe that the greatest fear that most women have is the loss of a person or persons they deeply love, especially the loss of a child through death. In some respects even their own death is less feared by women than the death of a child or another deeply loved one. In part, the ferocious defense that mothers put up for their children testifies to this. In psychology the attachment literature identifies the strength of this connection.  In the scriptures Mary’s painful loss of Jesus is commonly understood to be predicted by Simeon: “And your self a sword will pierce”. (Lk 2:35) Certainly anything as painful as a sword piercing you is an excruciating notion and one capable of setting up great fear. At the Crucifixion Mary had to go through that fear just as she had gone through the earlier fear of stoning by accepting it as part of God’s will in spite of the obvious and unredeemable loss her son’s death apparently would mean. Mary has represented for countless women not only courage but the necessity for women to let go of their deepest loves in order to accept God’s will. Michelangelo’s Pieta is a world renowned symbol of this sorrow and fear. It is as though the Crucifixion means that all women must give up their strongest attachments in the form of their children in order for their own resurrection to take place. In ways this is what nuns and other consecrated women do from the start. This particular fear of losing someone you love dearly is not normally considered as a psychodynamic issue. Thus, Mary’s response here is not part of any psychoanalytic conceptual framework.

Certainly it is not just women who have this great fear of losing people they love but many men also. Nevertheless this fear seems to be more fundamental or basic in the case of women.

Jesus

At the Crucifixion Jesus is representing all humanity, but in some respects he also specifically represents the human male. Probably the greatest male fear is the fear of total public humiliation, in its most extreme form a kind of public castration. Freud’s “castration anxiety” is a familiar example of the psychodynamic interpretation of this primal male fear. The castration theme is very much in the atmosphere of the Crucifixion. We forget that Jesus on the cross was very likely naked and that the loin cloth that he wears in his many portrayals is a respectful convention. The Romans “definitely stripped their victims of all garments” (Fernandez, 1959 p. 729). One of the very distinctive characteristics of the Jews was circumcision and the fact that Jesus was circumcised would have been noted. Almost certainly mocking comments were made about his circumcision by Roman soldiers and other non-Jewish bystanders[1]. At the time Crucifixion was in a sense a kind of entertainment or spectacle commonly held near or even on a public thoroughfare. Recall also that the public trials of Jesus before Annas, Caiphas, Herod and Pilot twice, further underline his extensive public humiliating disgrace.

Jesus is quoted as reciting the start of Psalm 22 on the cross, a psalm well known by devout Jews. Jesus likely uttered the whole extraordinarily appropriate Psalm.  At the least its humiliating words were fully in his mind. The following verses are relevant here: “I am a worm, hardly human, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they curl their lips and jeer; they shake their heads at me.” (vs 7-8)[2] Symbolically, and almost literally, Jesus embodied the human male’s need to overcome castration fear by in fact giving up his body and his maleness to God, by being willing to let all that die. For example pride, arrogance and contempt are commonly found in humans and especially in men, often with respect to their maleness as a form of power and superiority. This kind of sinful castration anxiety was certainly not part of the psychology of Jesus. But, He no doubt was familiar with the “oedipal” characteristics found in human males and although not at all part of his nature the Crucifixion can be interpreted as aimed at this expression of male sinfulness. (Freud himself referred to oedipal motivation as “original sin”.)

Therefore although His own psychology was not of this type, Jesus can be understood as addressing his actions in the Gospels and, in particular, in the Crucifixion to all human fears, and among those would be, for men, castration anxiety. So, His Crucifixion was a message that men would have to bring their masculinity to the foot of the Cross. This is one of the reasons why Christianity is in many respects especially disturbing to men. Jesus warns his disciples in advance that they will be scandalized by the coming terrible events. (Mk.14:27)

At the Crucifixion, one sign of this symbolic meaning for men is that in the Scriptures it is only other men, not women, who are identified as judging, condemning, jeering and brutalizing Jesus. It is as though his courageous passiveness increased the men’s anger by touching this distinctive sinfulness of males.

The passiveness of Jesus is nevertheless a tough and hard passiveness that required great self control and attention to God’s will. Jesus was carrying out his commander’s orders in spite of painful distractions and temptations to the contrary. The natural way for men to sacrifice their lives is to die in battle for their people. In the days preceding his death Jesus speaks often of battle and destruction. He throws the money changers out of the Temple (Lk 19:45), there is one whole chapter in Matthew (Mt 23) consisting almost entirely of fierce denunciations of the Jewish authorities, and he predicts the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 24:2) He also informs the Sanhedrin “I tell you, you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt 26:64). With his words and actions Jesus has clearly drawn the battle lines.

Much of the imagery surrounding the Crucifixion has a military connotation and all of this can speak to male psychology in a positive and direct way; it shows the major transformation of war that Jesus is demonstrating.  At the Last Supper he declares his intention of shedding his blood; in his trial he is taken inside the Praetorium where he is dressed in a scarlet “military cloak” (Mt 27:23) and surrounded by a cohort of Roman soldiers, which commonly numbered at six hundred. (Mt 27:27)  Jesus explicitly states in the Garden of Gethsemane “Do you think that I can not call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels?” (Mt 26:53) Twelve legions at this time would have been equivalent to about half or more of the total Roman military force in the empire.

Ultimately, the death of Jesus is a warrior’s sacrifice as represented by the final spear thrust of the Roman soldier (Jn 19:34) and the centurion (a Roman officer) who made the respectful and admiring comment “Truly this was the Son of God” (Mt 28:54). Curiously, Jesus after his death even had an armed military guard stationed at his tomb (Mt 28:66).  For Jesus, his death was to be for all humanity, all humans were his people, and so obviously he could not die killing others, including his enemies for whom he commanded us to pray.  He had to renounce the usual method of killing others in war but he did die a brave soldier’s death. Therefore, Jesus does not renounce manhood which is after all a gift from God but as a soldier obeying His Father’s orders Jesus displays manhood at its best.

The preceding psychological interpretation nevertheless argues that men must bring their manhood to the foot of the Cross, just as women bring their womanhood there in the acceptance of the loss of those they love.  Both of these very natural fears – one for men and one for women – can be seen as part of the Adam and Eve in humanity and these common basic attachments have to be given to God. If these gifts have been made, resurrection then means a new nature for both men and women.

Women also can be afraid of a public humiliation and physical destruction but again this fear seems in its most fundamental sense to be more characteristic of men.

Behind all of the above particular male and female fears lies the fear of death, of nothingness itself where all being, all power and all love are lost. No doubt, this is the single greatest human fear to which much literature and history attest.  This fear, Jesus directly confronts and by accepting it on the Cross, as God’s will he passes through death and transcends it or triumphs over it by his resurrection. By facing this common and truly primal fear of all men and women Jesus confronts even a greater fear than the Virgin faced at the Crucifixion.

References(For Part 1 and 2)

Fernandez, A. (P. Barrett, Trans.1959) Life of Christ. Westminster, MD: Newman Press.

Jeremias, J. (1969) Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. (First published in German, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, 1962)

New American Bible, The. (1991). Trans. Catholic Bible Association of America. Iowa: World Bible Publishers.

Trilling, W., (1969). The Gospel According to St Matthew, Vol. 1. In New Testament for Spiritual Reading. Ed. J. McKenzie S.J. New York: Herder & Herder.

[1] The sign nailed at the top of the Cross which announced Jesus was King of the Jews was written in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. It implies a certain mocking of the Jewish ness of Jesus. And no doubt there was plenty of anti-Jewish feeling among Romans and other groups at the time. After all in forty years Rome was going to completely destroy Jerusalem.

[2] Psalm 22 begins with “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me?” (See Mat 27:46)

Mary & Joseph: The Overcoming of Psychodynamic fears, Part 1: The Annunciation

Posted on January 19, 2010

[Paul C. Vitz is Professor of Psychology/Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences and Professor of Psychology Emeritus at New York University. He is our guest blogger for the month of January, and this is his third post].

This article presents a psychoanalytic and at some points a more general psychological interpretation of some of the motivations of Joseph, Mary and Jesus at two central moments described in the Gospels. The purpose of this interpretation is to demonstrate how a well known psychological framework can contribute to an interpretation of important Christian events in a way that supports and enlarges the traditional theological understanding of them.

The issue of applying psychology to Mary

 The Virgin Mary within Roman Catholicism is understood as conceived without sin and was in her life sinless. And Jesus was not only without sin but also Divine. These unique characteristics raise the issue of whether human psychology of any kind can be applied to either of these two persons.

Although the Virgin was without sin, she nevertheless is assumed to have had normal human emotions – that is, she presumably felt love, fear, anxiety etc. To experience normal emotions even anger is not in itself to sin. To cultivate anger and fear is sinful, but such, it is understood, was not the case for Mary.  If she didn’t have these normal emotions she would be scarcely human. It can be assumed, for example, that the Annunciation by St. Gabriel caused her some fear. To be afraid of death by stoning or of social exclusion is certainly not sinful. Furthermore we assume she had freewill to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the Angel’s request.  Mary’s “Yes” is an example of faith and courage only if it was made in the face of natural human tendencies pushing in the opposite direction. So it is reasonable to believe that the psychological aspects of fear were experienced by the Virgin at the time of the Annunciation.

The Annunciation

Mary

The first event of interest here is the Annunciation and important psychological meanings that were presumably part of the response of both Mary and Joseph as given in the Gospels. As is well known in the Christian tradition, the Annunciation by the Angel Gabriel informed the Virgin Mary that, if she agreed, she was to conceive and bear a son. The Virgin was astonished by this announcement. She answered “how can this be since I have no relations with a man” (Lk 1:34). She was told not to be afraid and the child would be of the Holy Spirit. She is famous for her response, ‘Behold the Handmaid of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38). The Virgin had every reason to be seriously afraid for she knew that if she were found with child that she might be subject to stoning as was the custom at the time. She also knew that if this did not happen, she was still likely to be set aside or rejected by Joseph. This would mean she would be an unmarried mother, socially ostracized and her child would not be considered as a member of the Jewish community. (For a legalistic discussion of this kind of situation in the Jewish world of the time see Jeremias, 1969. p.337-344.)

This kind of fear derived from placing her life and her future in the hands of the male power structure or patriarchy of her world, is a major fear for many women.  In some ways this fear, which is often unconscious, is also related to what Freud called ‘penis envy’ – that is hostility towards men because they have power, fear that this power will be used against them, and envy of or desire for it. Contemporary feminism would say that in some respects this is still the major fear of women. The remarkable and impressive quality of the Virgin’s ‘Yes’ is in large part that she trusted in God in spite of what looked like a coming life of sorrow or even death as a consequence of patriarchal power.   However, Mary had no envy of male power or special hostility toward patriarchy as this would imply the presence of sin, but to fear such power would have been a realistic response. Hence no claim is made here that Mary did experience envy or resentment, motivations characteristic of the Old Eve. Although not found in the Virgin, these responses in most women are nevertheless addressed by her life and example, as the New Eve. Many women who have envy and resentment of male power find an answer to them in the courageous response of the Virgin Mary. It is also quite possible this is one reason why many radical feminists strongly reject Mary as a model appropriate for women.

There are many other reasons to admire the Virgin but certainly her courage and trust in God in this matter is one of them. An example of her trust is that she never presented her case or her religious experience to Joseph to justify herself to him or convince him to accept her. Instead she kept all of this in her heart.  For the Virgin, her “Yes”, was her way of going through the fear of patriarchal power by trusting God to overcome it and thus she was able to transcend this fear and leave it behind. And she serves as a distinctive example for all women in this respect.

            Now, Mary’s proposed psychological fear of patriarchal power and related psychodynamic interpretations does not have to be interpreted as a necessary part of her situation. A conscious realistic fear of death by stoning or of social ostracism certainly is adequate to make her response a courageous and humble negation of Eve’s original “yes” to Satan’s temptation to power, i.e. “You will be like Gods.” (Gen.3:5)

Of course Mary’s general fear is not one just restricted in its primary sense to only women. It may be more characteristic of them, but men also have fear of getting caught up in a legal system and, of course, fear of death. Men also fear saying ‘yes’ to any ambiguous, perplexing open ended serious request, God’s or anyone else’s.

 Joseph

            The other part of the Annunciation event of interest here is the psychology of Joseph, her husband who learns “before they lived together she was found with child” (Mat1:18). Being found with child strongly suggests that one or more adults discovered or learned of her condition, presumably her mother and maybe other family members including members of his family. Thus, Mary’s condition is semi-public at least from Joseph’s perspective.

           Joseph’s first response as a devout Jew was one of justice, namely to consider an official divorce according to Mosaic Law but his next response of a more charitable kind was to avoid public condemnation and likely stoning by putting her aside privately. This second response, unlike the first “justice” response, placed Mary’s and the child’s physical good before any desire he might have for public self-justification and protection of his reputation. That they were betrothed meant in Jewish law that they were essentially married. Even so, for Joseph to set aside his new wife whose condition would soon become apparent might imply cruelty on his part and adultery on her part.

       However, in a dream, he received a message from the “Angel of the Lord” that the child was conceived through the Holy Spirit and that Joseph should take Mary into his home (Mt 1:20-21), which he did. Joseph was not only just but also holy and thus he accepted the message in this dream. Assuming his earlier decision to divorce was not publicly known, his taking her into his home would have avoided that scandal. However, this would not have prevented his personal awareness of the scandalous situation as well as the awareness of those in the family who knew of Mary’s condition. It is also likely that such a “secret” might have been leaked into the community. In any case, most men after they woke up from such a dream would soon begin to doubt it! The Virgin Mary’s “yes” set up for Joseph a very distinctive male fear, namely that he was a cuckold— that he had been sexually betrayed, and he would be raising another man’s child. A related example of the mental cost to Joseph of accepting Mary was his losing the right to name his son. The name “Jesus” was chosen by God and given to Joseph in his dream. It was also given earlier to Mary in the Annunciation. The Jews of the time placed real importance on the naming privilege by a child’s father as being part of his “rightful dignity.” Naming a child was seen as “a creative act since for the ancients the name signified the essence and the calling” of the child (See W. Trilling, 1969 p.10). . But Joseph put all his male fears or “castration anxiety” aside and by trusting in God he overcame and transcended his fear. There is no evidence that his earlier concern in any way affected his commitment to Mary or his fathering role in respect to Jesus.

            Women do not have exactly the same kind of fear that Joseph did of being a cuckold but they can understand Joseph’s fear as the fear of being sexually betrayed by a spouse and of losing status in the community. Such betrayal and loss of social respect is hard to accept by both sexes.

We see here in the preceding two fears a kind of complimentary male and female psychological anxiety, both brought on by the same event, namely the Virginal conception and birth.  However, we assume Joseph’s fear was less strong or deep than that of the Virgin. Granted he is afraid of being a cuckold and all that would mean, but this does not present him with death or social exclusion. In contrast Mary had to overcome both the fear of the possibility of death by stoning and if not that, then a life of public disgrace. Her fiat then was in the face of a greater fear than that faced by Joseph.

It is claimed here that the distinctive fears of Mary and Joseph were overcome or transcended by each one’s trust in God. That is, God is not only showing others that we can trust him when faced with primal fears, but that in trusting God we let go of such fears and through receiving grace we leave them behind.  Perfect love shown through trusting behavior drives out fear. That “Fear is useless” (Mk 5:36; Lk 8:30) is something the Scriptures show us many times.

 

References

Jeremias, J. (1969) Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. (First published in German, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, 1962)

New American Bible, The. (1991). Trans. Catholic Bible Association of America. Iowa: World Bible Publishers.

Trilling, W., (1969). The Gospel According to St Matthew, Vol. 1. In New Testament for Spiritual Reading. Ed. J. McKenzie S.J. New York: Herder & Herder.

 

Correspondence for Dr. Vitz should be sent to: I.P.S., Suite 511, 2001 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202

A Proposal for Female Archetypes for Christian Women

Posted on January 12, 2010

[Paul C. Vitz is Professor of Psychology/Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences and Professor of Psychology Emeritus at New York University. He is our guest blogger for the month of January, and this is his second post].

            As described earlier in my previous blog for this month what is sometimes called “The Men’s Movement” has used Jung’s psychology to develop an understanding of male archetypes. Here I propose that there are analogous female archetypes which are very clearly exemplified in Christian and especially Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology and history. To the best of my knowledge these female archetypes have not previously been suggested.

            These four proposed parallel archetypes are: the Queen, the Wise-woman/Magician, the Defender, and the Lover. Some might find it surprising that women have archetypes so clearly analogous to those of men, but I believe they do, although they take a strong feminine gendered form.

            Let’s start with the Wise-woman/Magician and look at the great female saints. Many of them were famous in their time, and still are today, for extraordinary wisdom and prophet­ic gifts. Many of these saints were also miracle-workers. And all saints, male and female, are believed to have performed miracles after their death; this is, indeed, an important ele­ment of the Catholic canonization procedure. Three of the great female saints are honored as “Doctors of the Church”: Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux.

But the female saints understood them­selves to be pale exemplars of the extraordi­nary wisdom of the Virgin Mary, honored in the Litany by such titles as “Seat of Wisdom,” “Mother of Good Counsel,” “Virgin Most Prudent” and “Mirror of Justice.” In any case, the archetype of the Wise-woman is honored and found abundantly in the Catholic and Orthodox tra­dition and more recently in Protestant understanding as well.

(My references to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Mary and female saints is quite weak and I welcome examples from that tradition. Recent Protestant examples are also most welcome.)

            As to the Defender (not Warrior), we need to reflect on what is meant by this female power as distinct from those exercised and practiced by men. Women have historically been defenders of their children, their family and sometimes their people, rather than attackers of the enemy or warriors against evil. But they have fought mightily in their capacity as defenders of those they love. As most people know, don’t ever mess with a bear cub. Why? Your might run into momma bear!

            Let’s look again at the saints and the Virgin.  Perhaps the best known female saint­ly warrior is Joan of Arc, who took up the sword to defend her people against foreign oppression. She carried a sword but never used it against an enemy although she led the French forces. Another very early French saint is Gene­vieve, Patroness of Paris, who is said to have defended Paris when it was besieged by the pagan Franks under Childeric in the fifth cen­tury; Genevieve made a personal sortie with an armed band to obtain provisions for the Parisians. Later she won Childeric’s respect, as well as that of Clovis. She is also credited with having kept Attila the Hun from attack­ing the city, through prayer and fasting.

But again the Virgin Mary is the very prototype of the archetype. The Battle of Lepanto, a major turning point in the defense of Europe against Islam-against the Ottoman Turks-in 1571, was put under the protection of Our Lady; the memory of that victory is still celebrated in part by honoring her. One of Mary’s titles is “Our Lady of Victory” which commemorates mili­tary victories achieved in various places under her patronage. But in her litany she has other similar titles, which emphasize both her power and her strong defense of her devotees: “Virgin Most Powerful,” “Tower of David” and “Tower of Ivory.” Catholic tradition affirms that Jesus refuses his mother nothing.

            As for the Queen, Mary has from early cen­turies been understood as the Queen of Hea­ven. Her litany confirms her queenly nature many times. Let us recall those magnificent titles that Catholics know: “Queen of angels, Queen of patriarchs, Queen of prophets, Queen of apostles, Queen of martyrs, Queen of con­fessors, Queen of virgins, Queen of saints, Queen conceived without original sin, Queen assumed into heaven, Queen of the most holy Rosary, Queen of peace.”

            The Lover is left. This is an easy one for this archetype fits women extraordinarily well. We all know about women’s capacity for love and devotion to others. We know the great number of Christian women whose love of God and of other people has deeply impressed the world. Love often takes different forms in men and women, but the basic archetype is the same. The last two archetypes of Lover and Queen are very powerfully summarized in the fifth Glorious Mystery-the Coronation. Here in heaven Mary is met in love by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and crowned a queen. And Mary, with her love and trust in God and her love for her Son, is the only human so honored; and she is the model of the soul’s journey for all Christians- women and men.

            Finally, these four great archetypes are, I believe, best summarized and integrated in the term and role of “Mother”-just as “Father” had the same function for men. A Mother is an archetype of the wise, the queen, defender of her fam­ily and lover of husband and children. And all women are called to be mothers, although like Mother Teresa of Calcutta they might have no natural children.

The Church as the Mother and Female Archetype

            In Christian imagery the Church is represented as feminine and the Church was also often pictured as Queen. Some of the early Church Fathers explicitly call Ecclesia- the Church and the Virgin as one-an immortal universal Queen. (See White, 1961) This claim then suggests that the four archetypes of Mary are also appropriate for the Church as well.

  In the writings of the fourth Gospel by St. John the Church is the Bride of Christ. St. Paul goes further declaring marriage not merely a metaphor for the relationship of Christ to the Church but an actual instance of what marriage is, the existence of “two in one flesh”(Ephesians 5:27). The well known hymn at Vespers for the Feast of the Dedication of the Church exemplifies this feminine character of the Church. “She is his new creation, by water and the word; from heaven he came and sought her, to be his holy Bride; with his own blood he brought her, and for her life he died.” Here in these images we see the complimentary nature of male and female grouped as to make a new unity.

It is relevant to note here that according to Victor White (1961), a Jungian analyst and colleague of Jung, the “virtual elimination of any feminine figure from religion(had), in Jung’s view, bought grievous impoverishment to the Protestant world, and set it serious psychological and social problems” (p 134).

Dangers with Archetypes

            One of the problems with archetypes is that as mental representations of natural concepts even instincts they can easily be projected, that is, to be understood as existing separate from the person and given a kind of external existence. One consequence of this tendency is to revive a pagan religious consciousness. Kelsey (1983) explicitly notes that the images and motifs of archetypes have a powerful appeal to the imagination and that they “act like spiritual beings with a life of their own” (p.76). Critics such as Satinover (1996) have also noted the tendency for archetypes to turn into projected deities.  In this process a polytheistic neo-paganism often gets revived. (This can be a danger sometimes even with Mary and the saints as Protestants have noted.)

The origin of the religious and gnostic foundation in Jung’s writings is well documented by Richard Noll in The Aryan Christ: The secret life of Carl Jung (1997). This issue with respect to Jung’s archetypes has become explicit. One prominent French Jungian analyst Ginette Paris in her book The Sacrament of Abortion (1992) has stated that she is a pagan and worships Artemis (Diana for the Romans). For Ms. Paris the ancient Greek goddess Artemis “chooses only to belong to herself” and to reject “fusion with another” in particular to reject “the connection between a mother and her young children.” She advocates extreme autonomy and as a consequence concludes that since a child inhibits this, that the child should be aborted. It is no accident that Artemis (Diana) is often shown as a huntress with a dead stag. No doubt part of the autonomy created by an abortion is freedom from the man responsible for the pregnancy. For such a worshipper the very idea of becoming “one flesh” would be a horror. Again we see the absence of any worked out much less convincing moral system for Jungian psychology.

In summary of both blogs, I propose that a deep understanding of Jung’s archetypes provides a good rationale for the basic or primal archetypes of father and mother for men and women, respectively. Father combines king, warrior, lover, and wise man magician.  Mother combines queen, defender, lover and wise woman. Furthermore, these archetypes are best morally and psychologically represented by Jesus (you have seen the Father) and by the Virgin Mary( Mother of the Church and all Christians).

References (for both “Jungian” blogs)

Arnold, P. (1991). Wildmen, warriors, and kings: Masculine spirituality and the Bible. NY: Crossroad

Bly, R. (1990). Iron john: A book about men. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley

Kelsey, M. (1983). Companions on the inner way: The art of spiritual guidance. NY: Crossroad

Moore, R and Gillette, D. (1990). King warrior magician lover: Rediscovering the archetypes of the mature masculine. San Francisco: Harper.

Noll, R. (1997). The Aryan Christ: The secret life of Carl Jung. New York: Random House.

Paris, G. (1992) (Trans.J. Mott). The sacrament of abortion. Dallas,TX: Spring.(Original French edition 1990).

Payne, L. (1995). The healing presence: Curing the soul through union with Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker

Rohr, R. (2004). Adam’s return: The five promises of male initiation.

Satinover, J. (1996). The empty self: C.G. Jung and the gnostic transformation of modern identity. Westport, CT: Hamewith Books

White, V. (1960). Soul and psyche. London: Collins & Harvill.

Jungian Archetypes for Men: Jesus

Posted on January 4, 2010

[Paul C. Vitz is Professor of Psychology/Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences and Professor of Psychology Emeritus at New York University. He is our guest blogger for the month of January, and this is his first post].

            After Sigmund Freud certainly the most influential psychological theorist has been the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. The two major concepts in his writings about personality are archetypes and the psychotherapeutic goal of individuation or self realization. Self realization proposed as the goal of Jungian therapy and indeed of life in general is certainly not for Christians where the goal instead is Christ realization. After all, the Gospels focus on “not my will but God’s be done.” Instead, the original temptation found in Genesis is for each of us to “become as God”. Thus, to propose self realization as the goal of life or psychotherapy is a foundational error for any Christian. Jung’s proposal is a modern form of salvation through special esoteric psychological knowledge and hence a Gnostic answer to the purpose of life. This critical understanding of Jung from different perspectives has been made by various authors. Some of the most interesting for Christians are “The Aryan Christ: The Secret life of Carl Jung” (1997) by the psychologist and historian of science Richard Noll; “The Empty Self: C.G. Jung & the Gnostic Transformation of Modern Identity” (1996) by Jeffrey Satinover a psychiatrist and former president of the American C.G. Jung Foundation; “The Healing Presence”, especially chapter 14, (1995) by a leader in Christian healing Leanne Payne. In my own writing I have also identified the serious conflict between Christianity and major assumptions of Jung in Vitz, 1994.          

The essential dilemma in Jungian psychology is to use the self to realize or individuate the self. This circular logic leaves the person trapped in subjectivity and narcissism and incapable of responding to the nature of external reality, to an objective moral system and much less to a transcendent God outside of the self. The Jungian purpose of life, self realization, in any case is not part of science but is an ideological, philosophical and even theological addition to his presumably more objectively based psychology.

Basic Jungian Archetypes    

As noted, besides self realization the other major concept of Jungian psychology is the “archetype”. Archetypes are proposed as actual psychological realities capable of being known and a great deal of the popularity of Jung’s work derives from the many people who accept the reality of archetypes. Briefly, an archetype is an inherited mental structure with a latent content which is brought to a specific content by the person’s actual experience in his or her family and culture. Most of the archetypes are characters such as the “hero”, the “earth mother”, the “wise old man”, etc. The primary four Jungian archetypes, however, are more abstract but even they are typically experienced as characters. For example, the persona archetype which represents the public mask or face of a person may be symbolized in a man’s dream as a shallow salesman. The archetype of the self might be symbolized in a woman’s dream as a car driving recklessly out of control. A person’s shadow, the archetype of one’s unknown and in part dark or evil nature might be symbolized by dreaming about a waitng spider or raging bear attacking others; the archetype of a person’s animus or anima likewise would commonly be represented as a character. The animus archetype represents a woman’s unconscious male personality and symbolic representations of men and likewise the anima is a man’s unconscious female personality. Jungians often simply assume that each sex should get in touch with their animus/anima and integrate it into their personality. This proposal involves the assumption that such an inward looking often narcissistic preoccupation is a positive thing.  For a man to get in touch with his female archetype is to encourage androgyny at a time when men are commonly interpreted as not masculine enough. It seems far more reasonable that a man should start relating to a real woman outside of himself in order to appreciate women and femininity rather than cultivate some internal “female”. After all, just because men have nipples does not mean that they should take breast enhancement medicines.

 Jung did not provide a clear definition of an archetype so that one could reliably identify a new proposed archetype nor did he provide a standard list of archetypes, however, the concept has in a general way been accepted by many as valid. In proposing archetypes Jung was saying that in an important sense humans are born with  specific predispositions toward a limited set of human ideas normally symbolized and experienced as characters in dreams, myths, art and in stories found in all the worlds cultures.

            Although, the existence of Jung’s archetypes has been questioned, it will be assumed for present purposes that archetypes do have some validity in that they exist as important innate properties of the mind  and that the major archetypes identified by Jung and his followers can  be given credence. There are, of course, dangers associated with this assumption some of which will be discussed later. Keep in mind that should archetypes be rejected by subsequent research and reflection then the proposed Christian interpretation of archetypes would become irrelevant. That is, Christianity itself is in no way affected by the truth or falseness of the archetypes.

Four Archetypes and Male Psychology

 Certain contemporary Jungians, active in what some call the “Men’s movement” such as Robert Bly (1990), and especially Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette (1990), and Patrick Arnold (1992) have proposed four pri­mary archetypes as underlying male psychol­ogy. These are referred to as the archetype of the King, the Warrior, the Lover, and the Wiseman/ Magician. These archetypes are proposed as psychological representations of male personality that need to be experienced and reinforced in a  contemporary culture that no longer adequately recognizes and supports male psychological needs. Men have become confused about male identity in our androgynous or unisex society and need to get back in touch with these four innate masculine psychological structures.

            The first is the King archetype. By this Moore and Gillette mean a basic energy in men, focused on ordering-on the content of creating Right Order through wise ruling. The King archetype is also concerned with providing fertility and blessing. The King must have children and he must bless his Kingdom’s children. The King symbolizes the life force and balance; he is also a mentor.

            The Warrior archetype stands for male energy and aggressiveness, clear thinking in the presence of death, plus training to develop aggressiveness in a disciplined way. The Warrior shows loyalty to a transpersonal ideal -his God, or leader, or nation or another cause.

            The Magician archetype is the knower and master of technology. He is usually an initiate-that is, part of a secret religious world. He is an archetype of awareness, insight, thought­fulness and introspective reflection.

            The Lover archetype stands for passion and love. The Lover is very aware of the physical world, of sensations, sensuality and feeling. The Lover’s energies are close to those of the mystics. Artists and psychics represent com­mon professions of the Lover.

As described, any of these four archetypes can be distorted in a macho manner, or in a weak, wimp-like fashion. Moore and Gillette very clearly acknowledge that each of these basic male archetypes can be used for evil. They explicitly note that the King can be a tyrant or a weakling (macho or wimpo, if you will). They also admit that the Warrior can be cor­rupted into a sadist or masochist; the Magician can be a prideful manipulator or an envious weakling; the Lover can degenerate into an addicted, promiscuous Don Juan; or he can be impotent, depressed and uncommitted.

            The problem with this Jungian understand­ing of male archetypes is that however much these theorists decry the serious, harmful dis­tortions of these male archetypes, they offer no convincing method or model for avoiding the ways in which men have distorted these male tendencies to exploit or harm others-often women. These writers do attempt to give rationales in which the moral failures of men realizing their archetypes can be controlled but these moral positions do not naturally flow from Jungian theory and as noted above they are not convincing. A writer quite sympathetic to Jung, Morton Kelsey (1983) identifies the basic problem as follows “The archetype must be honored for what it is, an image outside of the self that calls us to growth, change and awareness. In its negative form it can equally call us to evil and destruction” (p. 8).

What is important and relevant here is that Jesus, who is our model of God the Father, is the perfect integra­tion of these four archetypes within a frame­work of servant leadership. This model also provides a clear answer to the moral issues raised by men expressing their archetypes. The moral framework is demonstrated in both his many actions and in his words about loving God and others, even one’s enemies.

 Specifically with respect to the archetypes themselves, that Jesus was a King is acknowledged in the liturgy at the last feast of the Christian year: Christ the King. At his birth, the Magi, and at his crucifixion he was identified as King. Jesus also is commonly referred to as our Lord. As a Warrior Jesus said that he had come to bring the sword; recall his attack on the money-changers in the Temple, his fierce crit­icisms of the Pharisees-all Warrior behaviors. Of course the primary battle that Jesus led was a spiritual battle. St. Paul frequently refers to our life as one of spiritual warfare, and so do many of the saints. That Jesus represents the archetype of Lover is essentially a “no brainer” as the expression goes. For Jesus the core of his message is one of love. In the Gospels that “God is love” is given prominence. He showed kindness and concern for the suffering of oth­ers so strong that it is no wonder that one of the great spiritual classics is titled “This Tremendous Lover” and a famous Protestant hymn is “Jesus Lover of My Soul.” He showed explicit love toward children-implicitly all children.

As for the archetype of Wiseman or Magician, Jesus was known as a rabbi or teacher who brought new teachings and who spoke with authority and great wisdom. He was also a frequent and great miracle worker.

 In short, Jesus represents, summa­rizes and integrates all these basic archetypes, most especially when he says “I and the Father are one.”  That is, the summarizing archetype for all men is that of “Father“. For a father is called to bring all four male archetypes together and live out all of them. He is the lover of his wife and children, a warrior for God and his family, a servant king within the household and at work, and a source of knowledge and wisdom about the world. So we see in these archetypes the model of Jesus as servant leader speaking to the needs and highest aspi­rations of male psychology. We also emphasize that Christian fatherhood is a genuine model for disciplining and controlling the strong tendency of men either to abuse oth­ers or to betray their masculine gifts through weakness and cowardice. Thus, the archetype of Father which combines the other four male archetypes and integrates them is the overarching male archetype to which all men are called. And, of course, in being called to the father archetype all men are not restricted to natural fatherhood with biological children. Instead, they are called to the role or archetype of fatherhood with its focus on strong, mentoring love expressed through the King, the Warrior, the Wiseman and the Lover. For example, Pope (which means papa) John Paul II was a father for millions but he had no natural children. 

Jesus and other male archetypes

            There are three other archetypes that are commonly mentioned in connection with male psychology: the Hero, Initiation Rites and the Wildman. The Hero sets out upon a quest going through three stages – separation, ordeal and return – all aimed at making a great contribution to society or his people through an extraordinary deed. Jesus clearly fits this model well. He begins his ministry with a forty day separation in the desert and then comes his ministry climaxing in the ordeal of the Crucifixion, followed by his resurrection and return in the Last Judgment.  And the enormous benefit for the whole world being Salvation. In short as a man he lives out the archetype of Hero to a kind of perfection. Finally, any serious Christian setting out on the journey toward sanctity or sainthood is also following the model of the Hero archetype.

            The archetype of Initiation is obviously found in the life of Jesus. (For this archetype see R. Rohr, 2004.) His first initiation was presumably at the age of twelve when his parents took him to the temple and later he was recognized as a rabbi or teacher by the Jewish community. His status as a rabbi was never challenged by the Jewish leaders. However, his specific Initiation Rite with respect to his ministry was his baptism by John the Baptist combined with his forty days of fasting in the desert. Representatives of these archetypical events also are present in the life of the ordinary Christian, for example baptism, confirmation, fasting and retreats.

            The last male archetype given some emphasis by the theorists noted earlier is that of the Wildman. This archetype represents a man’s basic animal energy and contact with the forces of his own body and of nature without feminizing restrictions. For example, in a fairy tale, a boy might discover a hairy, terrifying wild man who lives in the forest. The Wildman’s raw energy and closeness to animals and the natural world then entices the boy to leave his mother for exciting adventures in the wilderness.

            For all men the Wildman archetype may have appeal and it may be a good starting point but the other male archetypes and personality development require that the man learn how to control and move beyond the Wildman  although the Wildman’s basic energy and freedom should always be maintained. After all, the King, the Wiseman, Lover and even the Warrior all demand freely chosen discipline and restraint.

There is one clear way in which Jesus expressed the Wildman. Jesus was at home in the natural world.  He was in a sense a homeless man without a place to call his own and thus he was wilder than the foxes and the birds who had fixed places to go “home” to.  He traveled by walking great distances, climbing to mountain tops, praying in deserted places, fasting in the desert.  In short, much of his last three years was lived outdoors. Also in freely choosing God’s will he expressed an enormous amount of power but almost always in quiet and constructive ways, such as miracles.  In his words and actions he demonstrated a kind of power and freedom that created more revolutionary changes than any human Wildman ever did. For example, consider what he did to the money changers in the temple. However, the primitive often pre-human animal aspects of this archetype Jesus did not express. Hence Jesus is not a solid example of the Wildman.

(For female archetypes and the Christian faith see my next blog posting.)           

References

Arnold, P. (1991) Wildmen, Warriors, and Kings: Masculine Spirituality and the Bible. NY: Crossroad

Bailie, G. (199x)

Bly, R. (1990). Iron John: A Book about Men. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley

Kelsey, M. (1983). Companions on the inner way: The art of spiritual guidance. NY: Crossroad

Moore, R and Gillette, D

Paris, G. (1992) (Trans.J. Mott). The Sacrament of Abortion. Dallas,TX: Spring.(Original French edition 1990).

Payne, L. The Healing Presence.

Rohr, R. (2004) Adam’s Return: The Five Promises of Male Initiation.

Satinover, J. (1996) The Empty Self: C.G. Jung and the Gnostic Transformation of Modern Identity. Westport CT: Hamewith Books

White, V. (1960). Soul and Psyche. London: Collins & Harvill.

Designed by Business Broker