Answer to Job – Intro

So as my first foray back into blogging after some time, I decided to go easy on myself and blog through C.G. Jung’s Answer to Job.  Actually, this will be quite a challenge (both in the material and in the blogging), and I am going to really work at being consistent in my writing of new posts.  

A little about Answer to Job from the back cover:

Considered one of Jung's most controversial works, Answer to Job also stands as Jung's most extensive commentary on a biblical text. Here, he confronts the story of the man who challenged God, the man who experienced hell on earth and still did not reject his faith. Job's journey parallels Jung's own experience--as reported in The Red Book: Liber Novus--of descending into the depths of his own unconscious, confronting and reconciling the rejected aspects of his soul.

Some preparatory comments on style and language are in order.  The book is broken up by section (I, II, III, etc) and by paragraph number (557,567, etc.).  When I quote the book, I will use the following designation: (VII,643).  Also, Jung, as a product of his culture, uses exclusively masculine pronouns.  When quoting, I will use Jung’s words, with the caveat that I personally avoid the use of such pronouns in my own writing.  He also refers to God with masculine references.   Same caveat applies for me in this case as well. 

Worth the Read

Grab some friends, open some wine, and read and discuss this. I think you might find it interesting.

http://thomstark.net/copan/stark_copan-review.pdf

It will take some time to read through, but it's worth it.

Great Perspective

I enjoy reading the HBO website for In Treatment, where 3 psychotherapists discuss each episode. In discussing Frances' final episode, Rachel Seidel, MD has this perspective, which really resonates with me:

...if we are to live our limited-run lives well, we have little choice but to accept uncertainty and loss, and in the face of that, to find and create ethical and meaningful love where and when we can, so that we can live our lives as fully and as humanly as possible.

Vulnerability, In Treatment, etc

So, as many of you know, I have an strong interest in psychology, particularly depth psychology and Jungian and post-Jungian approaches. One of my favorite shows right now is In Treatment on HBO. I've been following the blog of a Jungian analyst, who provides outstanding play by play from each episode, as well as her thoughts on it from a psychotherapy perspective. Her blog is here: http://www.jung-at-heart.com/jung_at_heart/in-treatment-season-3/

Her commentary on this week's Jesse session was interesting. She is talking about how Jesse is dealing with being adopted, and making himself "bad" to avoid the pain of the choices that were made that were out of his control (by his real parents for example), and she makes this statement: "Many of us unconsciously prefer to be bad rather than weak."

I would offer that the "bad" could be replaced with a lot of things. Many of us unconsciously prefer to be…fill in the blank…rather than weak. We prefer to be driven and active, we prefer to be the leader, we prefer to be apathetic, we prefer to be a follower, etc etc. Not that being weak means you can't be a leader or be active. I'm talking about when that gets in the way of our vulnerability. Why is being weak so disdained in our culture? I define weakness as vulnerability, as not having to live life according to an agenda…either yours or someone else's. Planning is good, being driven by agenda…not so good. It is making yourself so vulnerable in a relationship (marriage, friendship, whatever) that you give a voice to the "other". It's an egalitarian view of relationship, where there is mutuality to the voices that speak within a relationship. The voice of the other is vital as we seek what Jung called individuation: to make the unconscious conscious and integrated in to a holistic life.

Why is weakness so disdained??? Or do you disagree that it is disdained??

Lim-beck-annity

Thanks Rachel for saying what I've been thinking!

http://rachelheldevans.com/beckianity

Great Post on Stage 4 Faith

http://notreligious.typepad.com/notreligious/stage-4-faith.html

One of the best things I've read in awhile. Really speaks to me as a stage 4 person.

Glimpses...part 1

In the first post on this deconstruction/doubt topic, I talked about how I’m in a state of deconstruction, with only glimpses of what a reconstructed faith would look like. In this post, I would like to talk about some of those glimpses, i.e. what are characteristics that we comprise a reconstructed faith. Think of it as puzzle pieces. At this point, I’m not sure how the pieces will come together and what the reconstructed faith will look like. Here are the glimpses:

A Continually Deconstructing Faith – Whatever the reconstructed faith looks like, it will always be subject to further deconstruction. Sounds oxymoronic, but it’s true. Even after my faith is reconstructed, that doesn’t mean I’ve arrived and finally have it nailed down. As I said previously, there are always human constructions that are built up around our core (relationship with God, others, self) that inhibit the full expression of love in those relationships. Some call it sin, missing the mark, whatever. To continually allow the Other (God, others, self-reflection) to challenge our core is the path towards wholeness.

A Post-Foundational Faith – Previous to my deconstruction, the Bible acted as the foundation of my faith; or stated more accurately, MY interpretation of the Bible acted as the foundation of my faith. I believed that “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it”. I believed that the Bible had the last word on all matters, including science, sociology, psychology, etc. As I began to re-evaluate this, I discovered that I was operating under what philosophers call Foundationalism. It is a belief in an indubitable (beyond question and self-evident through reason) foundation that all other beliefs are built upon. I think this understanding of the Bible is a product of the Enlightenment and would be foreign to the original writers/hearers of the Scriptures. Coupled with postmodern interpretation theory and the role of community in interpretation, the indubitable foundation of the Bible and my individual interpretations is no longer valid for me. Much more could be said about the tie between Enlightenment rationality, individualism, and it’s affect on interpretation, but that will suffice for now. My foundation is God’s love (but…even that needs to continually be deconstructed….what is Love? What does it look like? How would the oppressed hear the message of God’s love?)

A More Holistic Faith – This sort of ties to what I said above about the Bible. After studying the cultural, historical, and generic understandings of the Scriptures, I now see that the Bible is a very mysterious, sometimes paradoxical, sometimes violent, beautiful collection of stories, laws, poetry, myth, etc that details the God/human interaction throughout history and during specific cultural and historical settings. It’s not the final word on all matters of science, psychology, etc, nor was it intended as such. When I say holistic, I mean a faith that sees all truth as God’s, whether it comes from science, sociology, literary theory, etc. I’m still processing through how the Bible fits with all that. Some, like Wesley, used a quadrilateral of scripture, reason, tradition, experience…with Scripture being primary. Others, like John Franke, use terms like “norming norm” for the Scriptures in light of culture, tradition, reason, etc. Not sure where I land on this yet. If the Bible is to be primary, or the mediating source (which I’m not convinced of at this point), how is it to be so? Is it based on the story it tells, the authority of it (a whole other can of worms), something else??

A Move from Believing the Right Things to Believing in the Right Way – Stole this one from Peter Rollins, but I like it. It’s a move from rationality and mental agreement with doctrines to how what I believe affects me. Does what I believe make me more loving towards God and others? If not, then no matter what the “doctrine” is, I am not believing it in the right way. It is believing with a humble open hand instead of a dogmatic closed fist. It’s moving from either/or dualistic thinking to both/and thinking.

Four is good for now. More to come. Thoughts anyone???