Jung sees the cross as the quaternary sign of wholeness. In fact, as everybody knows, it is the sign of torture, destruction, suffering and death. God hides in suffering, and a Christian shall always live in the shadow of the cross. Luther explains that "God can be found only in suffering and the cross". The quaternity of the cross tears the sinner apart. Only when he is hanging on the cross, metaphorically speaking, can he open the eye of faith. Alister McGrath says:
"Our moral and religious insights are all too often like Towers of Babel, human structures defiantly erected in the face of God [...]. The cross passes judgment upon these Towers of Babel, sweeping them away as mere fiction, and confronting us with a vision of the living God. Far from endorsing our natural insights, God contradicts them—not necessarily because they are wrong, but because they have been erected into a defensive wall which excludes God. The cross represents an act of God which is simultaneously annihilating and creative—it destroys our preconceptions of God, and in their place allows the living God to make his entrance. The cross places a question mark against our values, and directs our gaze away from ourselves, towards God. It assists us to remove the obstacle which we ourselves place in God's way." (McGrath, "The Mystery of the Cross", pp.167-68)
Is not Jungian psychology such a Tower of Babel? Although not necessarily wrong, it serves as a defensive wall against God. God must destroy before he can build, and that's why our intellectual and moral edifices must be swept away in the name of the cross.
Jung speaks of the cross in different ways, sometimes he takes a more theological angle (the quaternary and wholeness) and at other time a more psychological (and yes, he often confuses the two). In his psychological reading he stresses the cross as a symbol of the conflict of opposites, the tension, torture and suffering necessary for the development of the individuals psyche.
I would not say that Jungian psychology per se is a tower of Babel and/or only functions as a defensive wall against God. It all depends on how you read Jung and how you use his concepts. I would agree that Jung's theory read as theology can function in the way you describe, but as practical experience, as a psychology (and in analysis) I think it's one of the few disciplines today that gives suffering its right place in psychological development.
Jung's concepts can be used as protective "rails" (Shamdasani and Hillman makes this critique) to protect one the actual experience, just as the church experience, theology and dogma can be used as defensive structures for a Christian.
At the same time, these rails can be tremendously helpful for an individual to make sense of their suffering and can help them on their descent and ascent along "the way" and on their path of individuation.
As Jean Piaget has shown, in our psychological development, we begin as animists. Then we become polytheists, and in the next stage monotheists. Jung represents the polytheistic stage. Polytheism implies that the gods are this-worldly. Thus, in polytheistic cultures the sun is always regarded as a god. The polytheistic person still thinks that he is subject to a variety of divine forces, which are negotiable. This is Jungian psychology in a nutshell.
On the other hand, in monotheism all our conceptions of divine immanence are 'crucified', and all our Towers of Babel (staircases to God) are torn down. Instead, religion becomes faith-based. We are not divine, and no spiritual tower exists for us to climb.
Yet we are still in need of ritual. At the Church of St John Lateran in Rome there are these 'holy stairs' which pilgrims climb. In 1510, Luther climbed them on his knees. At the top he said to himself, "Who knows if it is really true?"
It isn't true; but nor is it false. It is only a ritual. The naive animal in us requires ritual. This is how we must look upon Jungian psychology. It represents an attempt to reawaken therapeutic religious ritual, similar to the ancient mystery cults. Few people take such ideas seriously anymore. We do not think that Kabbalah and alchemy really work. Nor do the Jungian ideas work. We must acknowledge that Jung's 'theology' is false. There is no individuation process that serves as a ladder to the Self.
Nevertheless, we can still practice the ritual, and we may still make alchemical paintings, for instance. We may still take the Holy Supper, despite the fact that it doesn't work. It is only a question of faith. Despite what Jung says, the Church rituals aren't in any worse shape than his own polytheistic conceptions. All that is required is faith. Jung thought that he could devise something that really worked. Of course, he couldn't. Without faith everything is empty.
Jung sees the cross as the quaternary sign of wholeness. In fact, as everybody knows, it is the sign of torture, destruction, suffering and death. God hides in suffering, and a Christian shall always live in the shadow of the cross. Luther explains that "God can be found only in suffering and the cross". The quaternity of the cross tears the sinner apart. Only when he is hanging on the cross, metaphorically speaking, can he open the eye of faith. Alister McGrath says:
"Our moral and religious insights are all too often like Towers of Babel, human structures defiantly erected in the face of God [...]. The cross passes judgment upon these Towers of Babel, sweeping them away as mere fiction, and confronting us with a vision of the living God. Far from endorsing our natural insights, God contradicts them—not necessarily because they are wrong, but because they have been erected into a defensive wall which excludes God. The cross represents an act of God which is simultaneously annihilating and creative—it destroys our preconceptions of God, and in their place allows the living God to make his entrance. The cross places a question mark against our values, and directs our gaze away from ourselves, towards God. It assists us to remove the obstacle which we ourselves place in God's way." (McGrath, "The Mystery of the Cross", pp.167-68)
Is not Jungian psychology such a Tower of Babel? Although not necessarily wrong, it serves as a defensive wall against God. God must destroy before he can build, and that's why our intellectual and moral edifices must be swept away in the name of the cross.
Jung speaks of the cross in different ways, sometimes he takes a more theological angle (the quaternary and wholeness) and at other time a more psychological (and yes, he often confuses the two). In his psychological reading he stresses the cross as a symbol of the conflict of opposites, the tension, torture and suffering necessary for the development of the individuals psyche.
I would not say that Jungian psychology per se is a tower of Babel and/or only functions as a defensive wall against God. It all depends on how you read Jung and how you use his concepts. I would agree that Jung's theory read as theology can function in the way you describe, but as practical experience, as a psychology (and in analysis) I think it's one of the few disciplines today that gives suffering its right place in psychological development.
Jung's concepts can be used as protective "rails" (Shamdasani and Hillman makes this critique) to protect one the actual experience, just as the church experience, theology and dogma can be used as defensive structures for a Christian.
At the same time, these rails can be tremendously helpful for an individual to make sense of their suffering and can help them on their descent and ascent along "the way" and on their path of individuation.
As Jean Piaget has shown, in our psychological development, we begin as animists. Then we become polytheists, and in the next stage monotheists. Jung represents the polytheistic stage. Polytheism implies that the gods are this-worldly. Thus, in polytheistic cultures the sun is always regarded as a god. The polytheistic person still thinks that he is subject to a variety of divine forces, which are negotiable. This is Jungian psychology in a nutshell.
On the other hand, in monotheism all our conceptions of divine immanence are 'crucified', and all our Towers of Babel (staircases to God) are torn down. Instead, religion becomes faith-based. We are not divine, and no spiritual tower exists for us to climb.
Yet we are still in need of ritual. At the Church of St John Lateran in Rome there are these 'holy stairs' which pilgrims climb. In 1510, Luther climbed them on his knees. At the top he said to himself, "Who knows if it is really true?"
It isn't true; but nor is it false. It is only a ritual. The naive animal in us requires ritual. This is how we must look upon Jungian psychology. It represents an attempt to reawaken therapeutic religious ritual, similar to the ancient mystery cults. Few people take such ideas seriously anymore. We do not think that Kabbalah and alchemy really work. Nor do the Jungian ideas work. We must acknowledge that Jung's 'theology' is false. There is no individuation process that serves as a ladder to the Self.
Nevertheless, we can still practice the ritual, and we may still make alchemical paintings, for instance. We may still take the Holy Supper, despite the fact that it doesn't work. It is only a question of faith. Despite what Jung says, the Church rituals aren't in any worse shape than his own polytheistic conceptions. All that is required is faith. Jung thought that he could devise something that really worked. Of course, he couldn't. Without faith everything is empty.