Thursday, July 30, 2020

"Deus Aderit": Learning from Carl Jung

Thinking Friend Dick Wilson in North Carolina didn’t know about my intention to write this article on Carl Jung when he ended his comments on my July 25 blog post, “vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit [Invited or not, God shows up!],” words long associated with the famed Swiss psychoanalyst. 
Jung’s Formative Years
Jung was born 145 years ago (on July 26, 1875) in a city about 50 miles northeast of Zürich, Switzerland. His father was a Swiss Reformed Church pastor, and his mother was the daughter of a distinguished churchman and academic—but she was also emotionally unbalanced when Jung was young.
Carl initially wanted to become a pastor, but he decided against the path of religious traditionalism and decided instead to pursue psychiatry and medicine. Consequently, at the age of 20 he began to study medicine at the University of Basel.
In 1900, Jung moved to Zürich and began working in a psychiatric hospital. Three years later he married Emma Rauschenbach, the daughter of a wealthy industrialist.
Jung met Sigmund Freud in 1907 and the two psychiatrists had a close relationship until 1912. They met for the last time in 1913, when Freud wrote, “We took leave from one another without feeling the need to meet again.”
In 1908 the Jungs bought land near Lake Zürich in Küsnacht, Switzerland, and had a large three-story house constructed there with money Emma had inherited. That was Carl’s home until his death in June 1961. (Emma died in 1955).
Above the entrance doorway, the Jungs had these words permanently inscribed: VOCATUS ATQUE NON VOCATUS DEUS ADERIT. An alternative translation to that given by Dick (above) is: “Invoked or not invoked, God is present.” Those Latin words are also engraved on Jung’s tombstone.  
Entrance doorway to Carl and Emma Jung's house
Jung’s Productive Years
During the first half of his adult life, Jung developed an approach toward understanding the human psyche that contrasted that of Sigmund Freud. His important books during this time are Psychology of the Unconscious (1912), Psychological Types (1921), and Psychology and Religion (1938).
During these productive years, Jung introduced such terms as archetypes, collective unconscious, introvert and extrovert (originally extravert), persona, and shadow.
Unlike Freud, who understood God as a human fabrication, the infantile projection of the human need for protection, Jung was primarily positive toward religion and the reality of God.
(Click here to access my 10/15/14 blog post titled “Was Freud a Fraud?” In that article, I question Freud’s assertion that belief in God is just wish fulfillment and that religion is ““the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity.”)
Jung’s Reflective Years
While Jung’s concept of God wasn’t necessarily that of traditional Christianity, neither was it oppositional. His position seems clearly to have been starkly in contrast to Freud’s.
In 1952, when he was past 75, he wrote to a clergyman, “I find that all my thoughts circle around God like the planets around the sun, and are as irresistibly attracted to Him” (cited here in 2016).
Seven years later in a BBC “Face to Face” interview, Jung was asked if he believed in God. He replied, “I don’t need to believe, I know.”
According to psychologist Steve Myers (see here), in that statement Jung affirmed God as “a certainty” that was “based on evidence. His practice as a psychotherapist and his mythological research had convinced him of God’s existence.”
It was my reading of the highly respected (by me and many others) Richard Rohr that prompted this article on Jung. In his 2019 book The Universal Christ, Rohr has a three-page subsection about Jung and later cites the Latin inscription above the doorway to Jung’s house.
In his “daily meditation” for 1/2/15, Rohr writes about his “wisdom lineage.” He refers to “the brilliant psychology of Carl Jung,” and that is the only twentieth-century name mentioned.
The world would be better off if more people would spurn Freud and learn from Jung. Everyone needs to realize, as Jung evidently did, that Deus aderit: God is present, whether invoked or not.

18 comments:

  1. Yep! There ain't no place where God ain't! Although I do think we should be both Freud and Jung.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Anton, for your comments. The problem is, as I'm sure you recognize, the disparate understandings the nature of the "God"—the God you referred to, the God Adler (or Freud) spoke about, or the God I wrote about. Just because the same word/name is used, that doesn't mean we all are talking about the same thing.
      I don't disagree that we should read both Freud and Jung--and several years ago I carefully read Freud's "The Future of an Illusion" (1927) again. But the "God" that Freud regarded as an illusion, based on the infantile need for a powerful father figure, is far different from the "God" Jung seemed to see/experience as an objective reality. So, as a God-believer, I still think we need to spurn Freud and learn from Jung--and I am referring especially to their "theological" ideas, although I think Jung's psychological ideas are also superior to Freud's.

      Delete
  2. In response to my reply (above), Anton sent me the following email (which I post here with his permission):

    "Well, I’ve read almost everything Freud wrote, much of Jung’s stuff, and some of the correspondence with a clergy psychotherapist, trained by Freud, between him and Freud. To readily dismiss Freud based on one argument in a small book, as you seem to do seems a bit . . . Uh . . . knee-jerk to me. Do you dismiss out of hand every thinker with an argument against religious faith? Marx? Nietzsche? Russell?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for responding, Anton, for this gives me the opportunity to clarify/amplify what I think are important points.

      First, let me say that for all of my adult life I have been an aspiring "theologian" / "philosopher of religion," so my main interest in Freud has been what he wrote about religion/God. As far as I know, his views on religion/God are summarized in "The Future of an Illusion" more than anywhere else, a book that was published when he was past 70 years old. So, no, I don't think it is a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss Freud's "theology" based on a book published on that subject in the mature years of his life.

      (BTW, Part III of Trueblood's "Philosophy of Religion," which I wrote about appreciatively in my 7/25 blog post, is "Challenges to Faith" and the second chapter in that Part is "The Challenge of Freud." My negative view of Freud’s “theology” goes back to my reading/studying that chapter in 1957. I have never had any reason to think that Trueblood was wrong in what he wrote about Freud there.)

      Almost all I know about Freud's psychology, which is quite limited, is based on reading secondary, rather than primary, sources. But I have negative views of his psychology as a whole not because I reject his "theological" views but because I generally don't accept his psychological views--and maybe for basically the same reasons Jung didn't. (Actually, I much favor the logotherapy of Viktor Frankl, which stands in rather stark contrast to Freud's emphasis on psychotherapy.)

      Concerning, Marx, Nietzsche, and Russell: in the same way I object to Freud's "theological views" I object to the "theology" of those thinkers--but that does not mean I reject their views in other arenas. For example, just recently I wrote in favor of the Black Lives Matter movement even though the founders of that movement allegedly have ties to Marxism. And I long have had a positive view of South American liberation theology, even though it is based to some degree on the Marxist analysis of society. Like those liberation theologians, I affirm much in Marx's sociological understanding while rejecting his theological understanding.

      But in the case of Freud, in addition to rejecting his theological ideas, I find his psychological position objectionable for reasons unrelated to his "theology."

      Delete
    2. I'd recommend the chapter on Freud in my book, Religion and The Critical Mind, for a somewhat sympathetic but also critical evaluation of Freud's view on religious faith.

      Delete
  3. Here is a question and comment from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky--who celebrated his 89th birthday last week!

    "Leroy, have you read Morton Kelsey’s writings? He was an advocate of Jung, especially for his contribution to Christian spirituality."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember reading just a bit by Morton Kelsey years ago, but I haven't thought of him for a long time and didn't remember that he was a Jungian. I see that Wikiquote says, "Morton Kelsey (1917-2001) was an Episcopal priest, Jungian therapist, counselor and religious writer." I also found that he was a very prolific writer and perhaps someone I need to take a look at again.

      Delete
  4. Local Thinking Friend Marilyn Peot writes,

    "I appreciate your sharing this morning. I just came from reading for the umpteenth time Judy Cannato's "Field of Compassion"--she builds on Jung's spirit for sure. I didn't realize that until I have her words and yours together this morning."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Marilyn. I may have heard her name from you before, but I don't remember knowing of Judy Cannato. I found that Cannato (1949~2011) was a Catholic "author, retreat facilitator, and spiritual director best known for her work connecting the New Cosmology with Christian spirituality."

      On one of her websites (which is still available), she wrote, "By weaving the timeless and contemporary understandings of Teilhard de Chardin, Mysticism, C.G. [Carl] Jung and Community, we’ll discover the voice of the Cosmos present within our own voice."

      Delete
  5. I have found Kelsey's book The Other Side of Silence to be very Jung in its content. It is a great book and focuses on reflection and meditation. I use a portions of the book in my Spiritual Formation retreats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for this further word about Kelsey, Frank. I am planning to get a copy of his book that you recommended.

      Delete
  6. Humanity is a musical species. We distinguish pitch, rhythm, chords, melody, etc. Except when we do not. Science has found that a variety of brain regions are involved in the complex processing of music, and due to various defects, some people cannot comprehend music. Would another species with different brain structures relate to our musical experiences? Would they believe in music?

    In "Timmaeus" Plato wrote "Man is a religious animal." Now this is not nearly as famous as Aristotle's "rational animal," but I think thousands of years of empirical data have been kinder to Plato than to Aristotle. Aristotle has been Trumped! Just like music, God is hardwired into most of our brains. Now, does that make God an illusion? Is music an illusion? Some have even argued the "self" is an illusion; that consciousness is an illusion. At what point in throwing out the illusions have we reached the point of throwing out the baby, too? What sort of a piece of work is man?

    Carl Jung was not interested, as far as I can tell, in arguing metaphysics about God. He was interested in delving into the very human experience of God. Some, like atheist Richard Dawkins, have never had an experience of God, and never expect to. Some hear nothing but noise when they try to listen to music. On the other hand, Beethoven wrote his Ninth Symphony long after going stone deaf. What kind of an illusion was that?

    I have great respect for Jung and his search into the depths of consciousness. Following in his footsteps others such as Joseph Campbell explored the world of mythology looking for basic patterns and metaphors. If Campbell's "hero's journey" is an illusion, then what is reality? Freud, on the other hand, was so bound up in his modern mechanical model of existence, that he could not, even metaphorically, hear the music of the spheres.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, excellent comments, Craig! I wish I knew how I could publicize them more widely. There are not many who could read my feeble attempt to write something meaningful about Carl Jung and then link him so fruitfully to Plato, Beethoven, and Joseph Campbell!

      Delete
  7. Leroy, I checked the two entries connected by “Cosmic Christ” is the labels list. As you know you wrote on “Christ is not limited to Jesus” and “Becoming Inclusive”.

    I am inclined toward hearing/reading/seeing/experiencing the Jesus story as an incarnation of the “Cosmic Christ” who (which?) calls/leads/invokes us toward inclusiveness in the way of Jesus.

    “But we make [God’s] love too narrow
    By false limits of our own
    And we magnify [God’s] strictness
    With a zeal [God] does not own” [Frederick W. Faber (1814-1863)]

    Or as the Chalice Hymnal (1995) has it [hymn #73, stanza 3]:

    “For the love of God is broader than the measure of our mind;
    and the heart of the Eternal is most wonderfully kind.”

    “Draw the circle wide, draw it wider still.” [Gordon Light]

    As, I think, Craig suggests: “the music of the spheres” is a very wide circle indeed!!
    All are welcome! Shalom, Dick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Dick, for last week anticipating this new blog post, and now with these comments you are anticipating my planned blog article for Aug. 25. That will be based on Chapter Seven of "The Limits of Liberalism" in which I write briefly about the "cosmic Christ."

      And thanks, too, for the reference to Faber's great hymn, "There is a wideness in God's mercy." That is one of my favorite hymns.

      Delete
  8. I was happy to receive these comments from local Thinking Friend Bob Carlson:

    "Thanks for the article on Jung. I really appreciated Jung’s work during my years in mental health. He seemed to envision an experience with God that many could personalize.

    "I’m grateful that 'Deus Aderit' is an experience I can affirm."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Leroy, I was for several years quite enamored with Jung, as shown in my books _Word and Soul_ and _"My Name Is Legion"_. I'm not so much anymore. I even got rid of my copy of Jung's Collected Works. Right now, though, I'm on vacation, and I will respond more fully soon. Peace, Michael

    ReplyDelete