God, Archtypes, and Jungian Psychology

((((1oxbowgirl)))) i consider your presence here a blessing ... we are on good terms ...

my hand is up...though I don't have much to add at this point to the topic, since it is all new to me,I like to read what all you are writing

thanks coral... counting myself, thats 4.. close enough? i do want to continue but wanted to be sure it wasnt just me... thanks everyone..

I'll stay and listen if that's ok...I'm safe here.....bout the only forum I am safe.....

Jin

((((((((((Jinnyann))))))))))) please sit awhile... safe, friendly hugs...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
In mythology, and in the study of folklore and religion, a trickster is a god, goddess, spirit, man, woman, or anthropomorphic animal who plays pranks or otherwise disobeys normal rules and norms of behaviour.
While the trickster crosses various cultural traditions, there are significant differences between tricksters in the traditions of many Indigenous peoples and those in the Euro-American tradition:
"Many native traditions held clowns and tricksters as essential to any contact with the sacred. People could not pray until they had laughed, because laughter opens and frees from rigid preconception. Humans had to have tricksters within the most sacred ceremonies for fear that they forget the sacred comes through upset, reversal, surprise. The trickster in most native traditions is essential to creation, to birth".[1]
Native tricksters should not be confused with the Euro-American fictional picaro. One of the most important distinctions is that "we can see in the Native American trickster an openness to life's multiplicity and paradoxes largely missing in the modern Euro-American moral tradition".[2]

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

From definition of Archetypes (above):

"archetype [ar-ki-typ], a symbol, theme, setting, or character type that recurs in different times and places in myth, literature, folklore, dreams, and rituals so frequently or prominently as to suggest (to certain speculative psychologists and critics) that it embodies some essential element of ‘universal’ human experience."

The Trickster archetype in indigenous culture can be applied to deity, human, and animal. Very different from the European and Eastern concept of ‘God’ in that, for the latter, deities are held separate and independent of lower life forms.

I think it is interesting to think of the archetype as variable in forms. We say that God has many faces, yet I think it is usually in the context of different actions taken that we envision the different faces of God. For the ancient peoples of the Americas’, God may take different forms and perform any action. This is the definition of omni-potency.

I will not attempt to decipher First Nations Mythology. I am in no way qualified. My purpose is to show how archetypes exist in a variety of cultures and the similarities of them. I believe that in understanding and respecting beliefs of all cultures, we, as humans become more enriched and the circle of the human family draws closer.

Archetypes are familiar to cultures in a local theatre. Unless cultures cross paths, differences are seen by some as “strange” and “unusual”. I remember as a child when I first observed Eastern peoples involved in traditional celebrations. I was completely surprised by the colors, the costumes, the songs and dances of other, far away places. At that age, I couldn’t understand why people would worship those ways. I was so ignorant.

I’ve learned that I can be educated by others of different tradition. A right of passage. No more are those days of mocking and minimizing what at first appears different and strange.

If we are to transcend our differences, it is essential that we seek to understand each others culture and histories. Archetypes are one way to accomplish this mission.

“Trickster” symbolizes traits which dwell inside the soul of mankind. Tricksters’ stories are ancient and yet, still valuable today. I can learn much about the history of indigenous people, as well as learn about myself by studying the character type.

It’s important to note that the Trickster has separate definitions between Euro and Indigenous peoples. In European context, a trickster is considered somewhat of an annoyance, or a distraction away from that which is more critical and useful. My decipher relative to indigenous theory is that the Trickster may take the form of a Godhead, having above-human powers and even controlling our universe.

The stereotypical European might envision a child who plays tricks on his mother or teacher at school. Imagine a little prankster with that much control over the universe!

Indigenous mythology uses the English term ‘Trickster’(probably the closest to fit) to describe an entity present in daily and spiritual life. It appears that the early people of America saw no issue combining the Divine with the norm. How different would our own culture be if God was commonly referred to and easily recognized in our normal daily behavours? Instead, Europeans have sanctified God to almost unreachable heights beyond the grasp of average people. We must have qualified individuals to assist us or we fear error. Not so for the people of First Nations. For them, God, or Trickster, is available and present in all things.

Posting this now before it becomes a book. Thank you to everyone for reading and commenting.

another definition of archetype: sohttp://aras.org/whatarearchetypes.aspxurce:

What are Archetypes?

'Archetype' defies simple definition. The word derives from a Greek compound of arche and tupos. Arche or 'first principle' points to the creative source, which cannot be represented or seen directly. Tupos, or 'impression', refers to any one of the numerous manifestations of the 'first principle' (Joseph Henderson, from ARAS Vol.1: Archetypal Symbolism p.viii). Jung himself spoke of the "indefiniteness of the archetype, with its multiple meanings" (Collected Works of CG Jung, 16:497), and had many different thoughts about archetypes throughout his professional life. Just as in the process of using this online site it is helpful to circle around the diverse meanings of a symbol, perhaps it would be helpful to circle around 'archetype' by looking at some of the ways Jung described it in his collected works (volume and paragraph are cited).


Ways of Naming the Archetype
The contents of the collective unconscious…are known as archetypes (CW9(1):4).

…we are dealing with archaic or--I would say—primordial types, that is, with universal images that have existed since the remotest times (CW9(1):5).

…archetypes probably represent typical situations in life (CW8:255).

…qualities not individually acquired but inherited…inborn forms of perception and apprehension, which are the a priori determinants of all psychic processes (CW8:270).

It seems to me their origin can only be explained by assuming them to be deposits of the constantly repeated experiences of humanity (CW7:109).


How an Archetype Expresses Itself
The term 'archetype' is often misunderstood as meaning a certain definite mythological image or motif…on the contrary, [it is] an inherited tendency of the human mind to form representations of mythological motifs—representations that vary a great deal without losing their basic pattern…This inherited tendency is instinctive, like the specific impulse of nest-building, migration, etc. in birds. One finds the representations collectives practically everywhere, characterized by the same or similar motifs. They cannot be assigned to any particular time or region or race. They are without known origin, and they can reproduce themselves even where transmission through migration must be ruled out (CW 18:523).

…besides [the intellect] there is a thinking in primordial images—in symbols which are older than historic man, which are inborn in him from the earliest times, and, eternally living, outlasting all generations, still make up the groundwork of the human psyche (CW8:794).

As the products of imagination are always in essence visual, their forms must, from the outset, have the character of images and moreover of typical images, which is why…I call them 'archetypes' (CW 11:845).

…[Tribal] lore is concerned with archetypes that have been modified in a special way. Another well-known expression of the archetypes is myth and fairytale (CW 9 (1):5,6).

The archetype is essentially an unconscious content that is altered by becoming conscious and by being perceived, and it takes its color from the individual consciousness in which it happens to appear (CW 9(1):6).


The Archetype's Link with Ancestral Life
The collective unconscious comprises in itself the psychic life of our ancestors right back to the earliest beginnings. It is the matrix of all conscious psychic occurrences… (CW 8:230)

An archetype is like an old watercourse along which the water of life has flowed for centuries, digging a deep channel for itself (CW10:395).

…for the contents of the collective unconscious are not only residues of archaic, specifically human modes of functioning, but also the residues of functions from [our] animal ancestry, whose duration in time was infinitely greater than the relatively brief epoch of specifically human existence (CW 7:159).


The Value of the Archetype
It is only possible to live the fullest life when we are in harmony with these symbols; wisdom is a return to them (CW8:794).

[For the alchemists] they were seeds of light broadcast in the chaos…the seed plot of a world to come…One would have to conclude from these alchemical visions that the archetypes have about them a certain effulgence or quasi-consciousness, and that numinosity entails luminosity (CW8:388).

All the most powerful ideas in history go back to archetypes. This is particularly true of religious ideas, but the central concepts of science, philosophy, and ethics are no exception to this rule. In their present form they are variants of archetypal ideas created by consciously applying and adapting these ideas to reality. For it is the function of consciousness not only to recognize and assimilate the external world through the gateway of the senses, but to translate into visible reality the world within us (CW8, 342).

Trickster and Spirit Mounds... Missouri, USA

In Lakota (Sioux) tradition, Spirit Mound is also associated with the Can O’ti la. In the distant past, Iktomi (Trickster) persuaded the Raccoon people to try to change their nature. The Can O’ti la are descendants of two modified Raccoon children. As the Can O’ti la grew, they walked upright and used their paws like hands. They also became mischievous and played tricks on men. Men were led astray and sometimes died. Later in time at Spirit Mound, the Can O’ti la were transformed into spirit helpers of men. Spirit Mound is the origin point for the Wo’piye Can O’ti la, the Little Tree Dweller’s Medicine Bundle. This medicine bundle is still in use today by the Lakota of the Dakotas and Nebraska.



source: http://www.nps.gov/mnrr/historyculture/spiritmound.htm

Wow... now you are loosing me NW. Right on over my head. Very heady stuff. Not sure I'm following the interest in symbols. Is if for their role in transcending and transforming that peaks your interest? Their channeling and communication capacity? How do you see archetypes play out in your own sense of spiritual, mental, physical, emotional wellness? Do they play a particular role as a conduet in your relationship with God? Lot's of questions hey. Just curious about the significance of achetypes in your life and wellness.

In my experience the native trickster is more akin to that of a pest or a storyteller of parables -- transformation animals. I've not seen the trickster equated with Creator but I'm not an authority either. Spirits yes but diety... not so sure. The apearance of trickster varies from east to west, north to south in native traditions. In my territory he appears as a trouble maker, disturber, contrary thinker.

I'm a very visual person and traditional symbols do impact me, speak to me. Working with the ancient symbols of my native ancestors and those I have permission from others to use in my art and design work is always a spiritual experience. Prayer and blessings from spiritual authorities is always a part of the making of masks, regalia and any other application or reproduction of spiritual symbols and designs. Art, design, music and spirit are very close together. They express the balance of body, mind and soul.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I believe that in understanding and respecting beliefs of all cultures, we, as humans become more enriched and the circle of the human family draws closer.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I like how you said that. One can pray it will be so.

sorry about that chocolatelover, didnt mean to bombard, but it is a heady subject... hopefully i'll be able to unscramble it now..

thanks for the questions, i'll start with those..

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Not sure I'm following the interest in symbols. Is if for their role in transcending and transforming that peaks your interest? Their channeling and communication capacity? How do you see archetypes play out in your own sense of spiritual, mental, physical, emotional wellness? Do they play a particular role as a conduet in your relationship with God?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

yes... i'm learning about symbolism.. i started drawing mandalas about 7 years ago.. i had no idea what they were in the beginning... i was using symbolism without any knowledge of their historical significance... for me, it was an expression that needed to be released some way...

i was using rudimentary symbolism, raw, untrained... now i have more knowledge and am able better to focus and direct the associated energies...

for me, mandalas are healing tools and the symbolism is a point of transfer between the inner and the ethereal...

symbolism in character form (archetypes) is less of my concern though it will be different for others... what i gain from the archetype is a patterened and tested behaviour blueprint... if i follow the steps of previous individuals i can learn by their experience what obstacle i might confront in my process and as well learn how the "typified" character managed to transcend...

i can also 'choose' my process, what area i want to work on, and the archetype for that area can be used as a guide.. not an icon or Godform, but a human life form who has travelled that particular path and told his/her story about that experience.. think of the children involved in a specific story from the Trickster.. we all have an impression in our mind of the typical child... i can learn from the child in the story, or, i can choose to learn about the trickster..

in either case, i empathize, sympathize with the character.. i collect his/her thoughts and feelings by means of mentally processing those ideas, and file the emotions and teachings away in my memories for future use...

its learning in an interactive, imaginative way... similar to how you'd described the process of cognitive and imaginative absorbtion in a previous post during our discussion...

in the beginning of my journey, the mandalas and symbolism were very helpful in connecting to the higher sources.. it opened a channel of communication to those elusive spiritual wellsprings... something simple, like a mathematic plus sign came to have a deeper meaning and I directed my focus to the idea of positivity.. it was similar to opening a window in a hot, stuffy house... it was the symbol acting like the open window, allowing the fresh air in.. the symbol was not the essence, but the corridor to that which i was seeking..

a sloppily drawn heart shape began to symbolize love for me... in my drawings i would often put the heart in one area, and geometrically, i would put its opposite in the opposite area on the drawing.. this symbolized for me the balance of emotion and included the entire range (shades of gray) between the two opposites..

i could focus my meditation on these thought energies and draw a strength in the knowledge that these two extremes are very real in our present world, that the esoteric meanings of those same opposites are forces alive and well ... shaping our current world..

i could "absorb" the energies of the symbolism, hold the energy in my presence, and when confronted with an issue, obstacle, or concern relative to this particular abstract, the pre-formulated well of knowledge was already present in my conscience... ready and available for dispatch to heal either myself, or a situation i found myself in..

i have used a variety of symbols in this way..

using the symbolism, the archetype, mandalas, and meditations i have learned to transcend .. it is from these tools i have developed a pathway to higher consciousness and an easier connection to the greatest of all sources (imo)... a name which has been given by others before me..... popularly known as ... 'God' ....

<blockquote>
Hello nowheretorun,
I'm joining this conversation very late in the discussion and I've only just started to read through the 22 pages (!!!) of discussion. Just thought I'd mention I became interested in Jung several years ago -- not as a result of any religious or philosophical beliefs, but rather, because the work of the Jungians had proven to be the most insightful in terms of understanding my personal experience -- an experience that is known as "psychosis" and/or "schizophrenia" in this culture but also happens to have a striking resemblance to the processes outlined in the Rosarium Philosophorum, among others.

Basically, I spent roughly six weeks in a state of altered consciousness. You can read a brief summary of that account here should you wish to do so. Those with a background in depth psychology can likely recognize a number of archetypal elements--shadow, anima/animus, the Self, etc.

This article excerpt may also be insighful: Mental Breakdown as Healing.

I'll likely have more to say once I've worked my way through the backlog.

i welcome you spiritual emergency.. i'd noted some of your posts previously and had hoped you'd find this thread on your own accord.. thank you very much... i look forward to your contributions.. (ive visited your webpage and feel we are on similar courses) ...

<blockquote>
I'm going to attempt to wade in although I've not yet finished reading the entire thread. I'm not surprised however with the way it's rambled from Christianity to Hinduism to Buddhism to Native American forms of spirituality and everywhere in between. It would have to because archetypes encompass all cultures.

I'm a bit undecided as to whether or not this discussion is about religion/spirituality or about Jung. To me, spirituality is about our personal relationship with our understanding of Divinity -- however we may define that for ourselves. Religion is when a bunch of people who share similar beliefs and relationship structure come together in a group. In order to define what their group is all about they also need to define what they're not about -- this is where the exclusionary and, occasionally judgemental, aspect comes into play. Jungian psychology, on the other hand is a tool for understanding our relationship with ourselves and the larger world. It's not about religion or spirituality per se, although it certainly does wind in that direction if you follow it long enough.

Jung can and does get very weighty; most people, however can begin to grasp Jungian thought in its more basic aspects. For example--are you an extrovert or an introvert? The Myers-Briggs personality assessment is rooted in Jungian thought. Extroversion and Introversion are opposites. Whichever one you identify with, that means its opposing characteristic sits on the back burner. This in turn, introduces us to the Jungian model of the psyche. We all present a face to the world, a way of being who we believe we are (or should be). An extrovert presents an extroverted face; an introvert, an introverted face. Whatever face we present (our persona), it's opposing component can be found in deeper aspects of our total personality.

Jung defined five main aspects of the psyche: The persona, the ego, the shadow, the anima/animus and the Self. Most of us are quite familiar with the persona and ego; less so with the shadow and anima/animus. According to Jung, the first step in personal/spiritual growth comes about when we begin to embrace our shadow. The shadow contains all parts of ourself that sit on those back burners. Most often, we've stuck those parts there because there's something about them that we can't accept. Anyone here who is working on coming to terms with a loss in their past; trauma in their childhood, etc. -- you are doing shadow work. Pulling up those contents from your depths, seeing them, owning them as parts of yourself.

As many of you know, shadow work can be very painful, very difficult. It often means coming to terms with something that, on the surface, we don't want to see. It might mean acknowledging our vulnerability or our capacity to inflict harm and pain on others. If we don't have the ability or the courage to do this work we will see our shadow in others. Therefore, the mother who is disorganized and lazy might berate her children for being disorganized and lazy; the minister who is a closeted homosexual (and ashamed of it) might spearhead a public campaign designed to punish homosexuals; a terrified nation might become a terrifying one in a distorted attempt to create "peace".

One of Jung's criticisms of Christianity is that, as a religion, it doesn't acknowledge its own shadow. Instead, Christianity splits off from its own dark side (i.e. the Inquistion) and projects its shadow onto an archetype called "The Devil". It then "sees" this demon in others and punishes them for it (i.e. Native Americans). Likewise, Christianity has a long history of rejecting the femininity of "God" except in a purified form that mortal women can seldom aspire to. This had led to the "demonization" of women. I'm not meaning to pick on Christianity here; the same or similar criticisms could be made of all religions. For example, Hinduism acknowledges the dual nature of the Creator, but it actively practices a caste system considered intolerable in the West.

Consider other forms of opposites: male/female; black/white; good/evil. Duality. Whatever aspect we identify with on the surface, the opposing component is hidden within. Depth psychology is all about exploring and uncovering those hidden aspects of ourselves and "bringing them into the light" so to speak. As a result of doing so, we become more conscious, more balanced, more whole.

In keeping with Jungian theory, by the time you get to the Self you are dealing with the God archetype -- a form of consciousness, energy, divinity that is beyond duality. "God" is both everything, balanced in perfect proportion, and beyond everything. To truly encounter "God" at this level of being is a shattering experience to the "human mortal". I recall reading somewhere that when Saul encountered "God" on the road to Damascus, it took him ten years to recover adequately enough that he could begin his ministry.

To give an example from my own experience... try to imagine a timeline that contains everything that has ever happened or ever will happen. Now, condense that line into a ball so that everything that has ever happened or ever will happen is happening in one exact moment that never ends. Our little human mortal minds can wrap itself around that concept. If we didn't have time organized into a past, present or future, we couldn't function. "God" is way beyond that and this is something we must bear in mind in attempting to speak of that force, or energy, or divine intelligence, or however we attempt to contain that within words.

Music of the Hour:

See also:

Archetypes &amp; The Individuation Process

How to Produce an Acute Schizophrenic Break

whew! what a help! ... thank you so much spiritual emergency.. i need time to process...

Thanks spiritual_emergency... Perfect timing! NW's going to feast on your contributions here.

I've been catching up with your blogs and wandering off with the links for a couple of hours now. Was great. So good to see you here. I always grow from the gifts you bring. Your seeds always engage, affirm, enlighten and inspired me. How blessed is that.

I kind of got off-topic with my wanderings there. I'll be back to catch up with the topic another time.

Thanks again... take good care

Speaking of the common desire that binds humanity....

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
a pathway to higher consciousness and a ..... connection to the greatest of all sources (imo)... a name which has been given by others before me..... popularly known as ... 'God' ....

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

....reflecting the diversity of pathways that we individually carve.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
using the symbolism, the archetype, mandalas, and meditations i have learned to transcend .. it is from these tools I have developed

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

We are spiritual beings having a human experience. Connecting and engaging the spirit world while having the human experience is natural and to some degree common place. In everyday life it goes by many names.... instinct, intuition, feeling, sensation, idea, preference, perspective.

Bumped up a few knotches and we may be seeking to engage in a spirit to spirit connection... to find the deeper reflections of the source of one's instincts, feelings, senations. To carry that spiritual wisdom back into the human experience.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
its learning in an interactive, imaginative way... similar to how you'd described the process of cognitive and imaginative absorbtion in a previous post during our discussion...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Don't remember saying that but I like how it translated for you. lol. It still describes for me the organic, creative, natural...instinctive, intuitive, inclusive essence of our whole consciousness -- mind, body and soul connected by our spiritness to the Great Spirit.

<blockquote>
And thank you as well, chocolatelover and everyone else who has contributed to this thread. I think discussions like this are important and appreciate that this one is unfolding in a spirit of tolerance. And I'm really enjoying the diversity!

I have never been a "religious" person, which is to say that I have never felt the need to gather in a group with other people according to the doctrine of a specific set of beliefs. I have found teachings that resonated at a personal level for me within Christianity, Hinduism, Sufism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Quakerism, etc. Like many others here I can appreciate that all forms of religion and spiritual practice share a number of common components such as extending love and understanding to that which is around us and appreciating that we come from a source much larger than ourselves. I don't know what to "name" that source, although I appreciate that some call it God, some Allah, some The Great Spirit, some The Mother, some The Father, some The All, some The Absolute. The name I use at this time that sits rather comfortably (for me) is Silence.

I can also appreciate that we have to be aware of dangers on a spiritual path, so I've appreciated the warnings to pay heed to what we're doing and where we're going. I've been known to issue some similar ones, particularly when I'm in the vicinity of young people who are experimenting with drugs as a means of exploring spirituality. I would agree that they may get more than they bargained for, although I wouldn't agree that kundalini is something that's intrinsically evil. It is a powerful force to be reckoned with, however.

Music of the Hour: Strange Days ~ Beautiful Midnight

<blockquote>
<center><font size=4>VOCATUS ATQUE NON VOCATUS DEUS ADERIT</font></center>

I just thought I'd note, Carl Jung had that statement carved over the door of his home. He also had it carved on his tombstone. It's Latin and means: Bidden or Unbidden, God is Present.

Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.

Dr. Carl Jung (1875-1961)

yesterday i felt lost about where to go next with this discussion... i knew i could toss out some interesting tidbit, but, i felt i had lost direction in some ways..

i analyzed what to do next and came up with a so so idea and decided i would just wade in and do my best and hope someone caught something interesting and breathed some new life into my passion and intentions...

dont get me wrong, i love all of you for being involved and for keeping the discussion alive, but i somehow felt out of touch with my Source on this suddenly...

before i went to bed i prayed that God would help me. i asked for assistance in finding a direction and to regroup and re-energize and feel the way i did when the thread began... as if there were a sense of mission..

today my prayer was answered in the most surprising way. i dont know what direction this will go from here... i think i'll let someone else do the leading on it awhile.. maybe i'd just like to read and respond to you all now...

its been 17 days straight working on this for me and its been an important project to me and still is..

there is still something more i hope to gain by all this, and something i hope to give...

but i am relieved that today my prayer was answered and again i am re-affirmed that there is a real God, not a theoretical or psycholgical God, but the real God is out there and still answers prayers...

thank you all... (i'll have more to add later)

<blockquote>
<center>Snow...

White are the far-off hill,
And white the fading forests grow;
The wind dies out amongst the tides
And denser still the snow,
A gathering weight on roof and tree
Falls down scarce audibly.

The meadows and far-sheeted streams
Lie still without a sound;
Like some soft minister of dreams
The snowfall hoods me around;
In wood and water, earth and air,
Silence is everywhere.

Save when at lonely spells
Some farmer's sleigh is urged on,
With rustling runners and sharp bells,
Swings by me and is gone;
Or from the empty space I hear
A sound remote and clear;

The barking of a dog,
To a cattle, is sharply pealed,
Borne, echoing from some wayside stall
Or barnyard far afield;
Then all is silent and the snow
Falls settling soft and slow

The evening deepens and the grey
Folds closer Earth to sky
The world seems shrouded, so far away.
Its noises sleep, and I
As secret as yon buried stream
Plod dumbly on and dream.

And dream
And dream
I dream
And I dream…

Loreena McKennitt</center>

Music of the Hour: [youtube video]

just want to say i'm re-centering myself... i remembered why i started this thread...

cause its healing me.... thank you everyone...

It is a widely recognized today that the Christian concept of God as Father is under attack. Specifically, various religious writers, primarily feminists, have proposed that God should be called Mother, or possibly the androgynous Father/Mother or Mother/Father. In some instances the term God as Parent has been proposed. This paper will, however, explore the psychological case for the orthodox understanding of God as Father. Obviously, this is a sensitive subject today-but where angels fear to tread, psychologists rush in.

But before getting to our primary subject it is well worth summarizing some a priori reasons for not accepting the androgynous or feminized notion of God. To begin with, it should be clear that when people change the name for God, they have changed their religion. If a small group began to refer to God as "Zeus" we would know that something non-Christian was going on. Likewise, when neo-pagans begin speaking of the "Horned God," this modification is not without significant theological impact, to put it mildly. Changes in the name of God, therefore, are truly great changes because they mean that you are changing religions. For example, to reject God the Father as a name is to deny the basic Christian creeds. It is to deny the language of baptism, and of course to deny the entire theology of the Trinity upon which Christianity and its theology have been constructed.

But we can get even more specific. Jesus himself gave us the terminology for referring to God as Father. He expressed himself in this language often, clearly and with emphasis in the Gospels, and it is obvious that the notion of God as Father is a major new theological contribution of Jesus himself. This means that to deny the language of God as Father is to repudiate Jesus and his message. Therefore, whether one admits it or not, to do this is to reject Christianity.

Aside from such theological considerations, there are also historical a priori reasons for not changing the name of God. Looking back, we see that the history of Christian heresies has been the history of succumbing to the spirit of different ages. Ours is the age of modernism, which includes a great emphasis on egalitarianism and on sexuality. These two elements have combined to create the modern emphasis on androgyny. Androgyny or unisex is the notion that sexuality, male and female, is not fundamental to our nature but is arbitrary, and that all forms of sexuality are equivalent and basically arbitrary. From an androgynous perspective, male and female are not part of the nature of reality-much less of the nature of who each of us is.

Since modernism was founded to a large extent on hostility to Christianity, it should not be surprising that ideas coming out of it-particularly in extreme forms-are also hostile to the faith. Rationalism, materialism, individualism, nationalism, communism, evolutionism, fascism and positivism are all examples of modernist movements that created Christian heresies or involved explicit rejection of important Christian beliefs.

Although the history of heresy has been the history of giving in to the spirit of the age, nevertheless heresies have been useful because they often attack an important but previously undeveloped aspect of our theology. As a consequence, Christian theology has often developed in response to heresies. In any case, when the spirit of the age, in some extreme form, presses for changes in theology, this is an a priori reason to say "No thanks!"

Another reason is that modernism itself is dying. The list of ideologies given above is also a list of exhausted world views. These are now has-been ideas which have lost their cultural energy, which have been thoroughly critiqued and which exist primarily in college courses on "The History of Ideas: from the 18th through the early 20th centuries."

In the context of the death of modernism, let us look at feminism, which arose in the mid-19th century and is clearly modern in origin and character. The major ideas which had to develop first, before feminism, were individualism, egalitarianism and socialism/communism. This is not the place to describe how these ideas lay the groundwork for feminism, but perhaps on some reflection it is obvious. In any case, many of the important feminists were Marxists or socialists (for example, Simone de Beauvoir, Rosa Luxemburg, Bella Abzug, and the many explicitly Marxist feminists). Feminism took the basic idea of class warfare and used a similar rationale to interpret the conflicts between men and women. Marxism is known to be dead, or at the least, mortally wounded. Socialism and the welfare state are well past their peak and literally facing bankruptcy. Individualism has been criticized for some 30 years, from both the Left and the Right-the Left longs for community while the Right (and sometimes the Left) is now advocating ethnic purity (as in former Yugoslavia and in some Black movements), tribalism or some other localism.

As for egalitarianism, it too is being rejected in recent years, even-in fact, particularly-by many recent feminists. Modern feminism was very much about equality between men and women and was opposed to any emphasis on differences between the sexes. But in the last 15 years or so a new kind of feminism has arisen which might be called "post-modern" feminism. These feminists very much emphasize sexual difference-indeed some of these radical feminists argue not only that women are different from men but are psychologically and morally superior to them. This kind of emphasis on difference rather quickly led, in theology, to goddess-worship and to explicit rejection of Christianity.

Much less extreme examples of this post-modern feminism would include Carol Gilligan's (1982) work on how men and women demonstrate different approaches to the moral life and even such popular works as Deborah Tannen's (1990) You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation and John Gray's (1992) Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. In short, egalitarianism in its extreme forms is decidedly on the way out. For Catholics to buy into this kind of individualist egalitarian logic at such a late date is just another example of Catholic intellectuals trying to catch up with a dominant secular trend-with timing that is absolutely abysmal. Such Catholics show the intellectual equivalent of the stock-market victim: Buy high and sell low.

Three models of sexuality

But let us set aside these theological and historical considerations, however important. Our primary concern here is with the psychological significance of the concept of the Fatherhood of God. To set a context for this we address the major interpretations or "models" of sexuality. Probably the most familiar model of sexuality is the exploitive model in which men have traditionally dominated and taken advantage of women. This model has been rightly criticized, especially by feminists. I will call this the "Exploitation Model." Throughout the world, men have dominated and exploited women in all the societies of which we have any historical record. Sometimes the treatment has been relatively benevolent, but in any case the general picture is familiar to all.

The second model is what has already been termed the "Androgyny" or "Unisex" Model. This is an understanding of sexuality as basically arbitrary, and that male and female are not only equivalent but more or less interchangeable, except for minor differences in external genitalia and associated sensory pleasure. Some people seem to assume that a unisex understanding of sexuality is less exploitive of women. There is, however, no evidence for this, and instead there is good reason to believe that the androgynous understanding does lead to exploitation of both men and women. After all, in the unisex model, sex is essentially each individual's personal search for sexual pleasure, however experienced. It is this model which provides today's general rationale for pornography. The androgynous understanding of sex means that any form of sexual pleasure is okay since there is no natural character to sexuality; it is an arbitrary social convention defined by each person. Once sex as recreation, rather than as procreation, is established, individual moral relativism goes with it. The result is the world of today's pornographic exploitation, in which sex with either sex, including-even especially-sado-masochistic sex, sex with children, and now sex with animals is justified; if you enjoy it, it's okay. But the logic that relativizes sex to each individual also relativizes power to the individual. That is, power can now be utilized in the service of pleasure with no more restraints either. In short, if you have the power you can get away with sexual exploitation.

That is, a feature of the current situation with regard to sex and power is that now exploitation is without any "principled" rationale. Men can exploit women, and occasionally women can exploit men, because those who have the power to exploit do so. In the "old days"-under the old regime-you had exploitation justified by bad social philosophy; in the androgynous situation we have exploitation in a philosophical vacuum in which "anything goes." Does anyone really believe that the amount of sexual exploitation in the last 30 years has been significantly less than that under the old "exploitive" macho system?

The third model which I believe to be the traditional Christian model will be called "The Complementary Model." Here, maleness and femaleness are seen as important and positive differences, and as fundamental to reality and to the nature of each person. God created us, male and female, and it was good. This emphasis on the reality and importance of sexual differences contrasts with androgyny. But masculinity and femininity-maleness and femaleness-are seen as cooperating in a mutually supportive fashion. This also contrasts with the exploitive model. No doubt, the complementary model is hard to maintain and to live up to, but then so is much of the rest of Christianity. We all know that the Christian faith is not about how to live the easy life. Instead, it is a faith that challenges us to rise to a higher way of being.

What I will try to show now is how the psychological significance of the fatherhood of God helps to maintain the complementary understanding of the sexes, for both men and women.

Dealing with macho psychology

The psychology of men, influenced by the exploitive model, can be seen as the problem of correcting what can be called "macho" psychology. It is, I believe, easier to see the importance of God the Father if we see male psychology in the absence of such a concept. As noted, historically the predominant idea of male psychology has been one of male superiority, dominance and exploitation. We'll call this kind of male "the macho."

The answer to macho psychology, provided by God the Father is shown in the life of Jesus. The style of Jesus has been well described as "servant leadership." Jesus was a tough man, living in what today we would call a rough blue-collar world, filled with fishermen, farmers and carpenters, as well as the tough competitive world of the marketplace, e.g., tax collectors and moneylenders, and an even tougher world of politics dominated by unsentimental physical power. But all of his authority with which he spoke and with which he led, all of the power which he manifested in his miracles, his mental power shown in his intellectual confrontations with the scribes and Pharisees, was put in the service of others and of God. He did not come to do his own will. Servant leadership is the only model I know of that is strong enough to remove the sin of male exploitive psychology.

God the Father figures into this explicitly in Scripture. For example, when the disciples ask Jesus to show them the Father, Jesus is somewhat taken aback and then says, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." The concept of fatherhood as involving sacrificial leadership is further underlined by the fact that Jesus as the image of the father had no natural children and indeed was not involved in sexuality itself. Therefore, Jesus and God the Father model masculinity in its highest forms, independent of sexual activity or behavior. All children are God's; all children are Jesus'.

When masculine capacities are put in the service of others, neither women nor children, nor community are likely to object. The basic point of the Christian model about God as Father is that it allows a boy to identify strongly and positively with masculine ways of life but it removes the sting of selfishness-of what psychologists call "narcissism"-by placing male abilities in the service of others. The notion of God as Mother or androgynous Parent makes male identification psychologically not just difficult, but essentially impossible.

Another serious psychological problem in talking about God as father and mother is the strong implication that God is two people, just as our parents are two people. We would be setting up yet another Jupiter/Juno, Moloch/Astarte pair.

How does the concept of God the Father help men who are drifting toward androgyny, the other pathological model of sexuality? Since in this unisex model, men and women are seen as essentially the same, this has led to the development of a new kind of man commonly called "the wimp." In many respects the wimp is based on the attempt to reverse the traditional logic of sex roles. In rejecting his basic masculine nature, this type of man is left in severe conflict and confusion about how to live. The result of this uncertainty is the psychological weakness of the wimp-man.

Today American men very often seem to fall into one of these two categories-or to vacillate between them. The macho remains a man but does not care much for others; he devotes his energy, strength and intelligence exclusively to his own individual well-being. He looks out for his career. He looks out for Number 1. The macho treats women as sex partners; he understands marriage as something to be avoided or as a temporary arrangement to be maintained until something or someone better comes along.

Many other men-the new wimps-are nice androgynous creatures who are fun to go shopping with, but they are also indecisive, unreliable and weak. In short, men are opting for one of two ways of being-the strong man who leads and exploits or the weak man who is ineffectual but nice. Recently, it seems as though the latter is the fastest growing category. We all know "the great American wimp." He feels uncomfortable around strongly masculine men because they sense that he is squishy. The wimp needs to be loved at all costs, and the typical cost of the need to be loved is the truth. Holding to the truth in the face of social pressure, in response to political correctness, often means rejection by friends or parishioners. The easy way out is to compromise truth for social acceptance. In particular, the truth of manhood embarrasses him, and therefore he acts as though it doesn't exist.

This new type of sensitive American, "the wimp-man," was at first welcomed by many women. But now the complaints have come in loud and clear. The wimp, like the macho, fundamentally avoids commitment to others. He can't be counted on; often he is still dependent, too much like a child-a Peter Pan. Hence both the macho and the "wimpo" avoid true commitment to women-and of course women know it. The final result is that a good man becomes even harder to find. All this only increases the disappointment, frustration and anger of many women-which only leads to further criticisms of men and manhood, which further pushes men away. Talk about a vicious circle! Again, the answer is the strong man who serves, who sacrifices for others.

By Paul C. Vitz

For women, caught up in a society of exploitive men-which seems to be the historical rule-the psychological problem is different. They need to receive more power, encouragement and autonomy. How is this psychological need met by the fatherhood of God, mediated through Jesus? It is met very simply by receiving the power of God through the Holy Spirit. For example, consider nuns and consecrated women. A woman who has God as her Father, Jesus as her Husband, and the Holy Spirit as her best friend is pretty much of an irresistible force. The history of many great female saints attests both to their womanliness, and to their extraordinary power. They recognized that their power had been lent to them and was not "theirs," thus they remained feminine. We need think only of Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and Thérèse of Lisieux-and many others that history may not have noted but God has. Indeed, there is nothing equivalent to the great tradition of female saints in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. In no other religious or secular tradition in the world do we find so many examples of women who were both truly holy, truly powerful, and truly women-and honored by men for being all three.

Individual autonomy and sexual identity for both sexes

In a developmental sense, each child, male or female, has two major tasks in front of it. Psychologists refer to one of these tasks as "individuation." This is the process of separating oneself from others, especially from the mother or mother-figure. For a variety of reasons, male children find this task easier than female children. In part, it is because both the mother and baby boy recognize the boy as different, and therefore separation and autonomy come more easily to the boy. A contributing factor is that male children are relatively less interested in people and in relationships, and more interested in objects and spatial exploration than female children (e.g., see Moir and Jessel, 1991). As a result psychologists generally agree that autonomy and independence come more easily to boys than girls.

For the daughter, who is similar to the mother and closely tied to her, individuation can often be a problem (e.g., Chodorow, 1990). One of the important natural functions of the father is to help his daughter separate from the mother; to help the daughter form her own identity, and to keep her from remaining "merged" with her mother.

The other major task for both sexes is the development of sexual or gender identity. This task is reliably understood by psychologists as more difficult for males than females. Males may separate from their mother fairly easily, and recognize the mother as "not-me," but that does not tell them who they are as males. They must find this male identity elsewhere-through their father or other father-figures who are often unreliable or unavailable, and in any case are usually not around much in the first few years of the child's life.

However, from the beginning, and apparently in all societies, little girls see in their mother the meaning of womanhood every day in very concrete ways, and understand this as basic to their identity. They have an adult woman close by to model the meaning of femaleness for them. What fathers do qua fathers is far less obvious.

God the Father, however, gives men a model with which to identify, even if their own fathers have been inadequate. Thus, the model of God the Father is a fundamental psychological support for this essential masculine need. It seems to me bizarre to the point of pathology at this time in our culture to be trying to remove God the Father from our theology. We are just now aware of the widespread social pathology, especially the increase in violence, resulting from fatherlessness in families-and the data are staggering! (See Blankenhorn, 1995, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem.) What worse moment could there be to diminish fatherhood in our theology? We have enough absent fathers without trying to send God the Father away too! To remove God the Father is to remove a major support for positive male identity. In a church that is already far more popular with women than with men, this means the removal of one of the few remaining supports for men.

Relevant to this point is the current situation in the world of religion. Those religions and denominations that have been most affected by modernism and feminism are those which are visibly in decline. Liberal Protestant denominations and Reform Judaism are good examples of this phenomenon. In contrast, evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism, with their energetic male leadership and their traditional theology, have been growing substantially and continue to do so. In Judaism, the very masculine Orthodox and Hasidic groups are growing with almost explosive vigor. In Roman Catholicism, those orders which have been most affected by modernism and feminism are those with the smallest number of novices and the highest average age. In contrast, the orders and groups that are doing well are orthodox and clearly endorse the traditional Christian understanding of sexuality. Here are such orders or groups as the Legionaries of Christ and the Missionaries of Charity, Opus Dei, Communion and Liberation, etc.

Finally, the religion of Islam is probably the most rapidly growing religion in the world today. And it is not just growing in Third World countries. In the United States, it is growing through immigration and in the Black community, due to the conversions of large numbers of black men. Recently I heard a report that Black Baptist women were urging their husbands to become Muslim because they thought their men should have a religion and thought Christianity to be inadequate for men. The African American community has suffered greatly from fatherless families, and many Blacks who have become Muslims openly claim that Islam restored their manhood to them.

In my own judgment, the American Black community has been an early warning system for the rest of our society. The African Americans were the first to feel the scourge of drugs, but a decade or so later whites caught up; the same is true with regard to family-breakdown and illegitimacy. The African American illegitimacy rate is leveling off at a high level, and the white rate is just beginning to accelerate. Sociologists are predicting that the result will be the development of a white under-class in American society. This under-class will also be a "fatherless society." In short, the potential for the growth of Islam among white male Americans should be taken very seriously. They too will need to regain their manhood. After all, God gave men their manhood, just as he gave womanhood to women. Christianity must recognize that manhood is a gift from God and that it must be honored as such-by the Church, not just by the National Football League.

What about female psychology, in a unisex society? We have already looked at how feminine autonomy and power are enhanced through a relationship with their father or spiritually with God as Father. Now we turn to the problem of the psychology of female sexual identity and God the Father. In general, as already mentioned, women have an easier task at forming their sexual identity.

But how does the fatherhood of God enhance feminine identity? I propose that it is analogous to the way in which, through love and support, a good father enhances the sexual identity of his own daughters. A good deal of research has shown that girls raised without fathers tend to be less sure of their lovability and femininity. As a result, they are more vulnerable to pathologies ranging from depression to promiscuity. Here let me expand somewhat on what I see as a special feminine capacity for the spiritual life.

From the time they are born, little girls are much more responsive to people than little boys. Girls respond earlier and more strongly to the human face and the human voice. They smile sooner. As noted, boys are much more responsive to objects-apparently primarily to objects that move or make noise. We have all noticed that the great majority of girls are more likely to play interpersonal games, often of a cooperative nature, and girls' playing with dolls exists in every culture. Boys are much more drawn to competitive games where there are winners and losers, rules to argue about, and to playing with things like balls, sticks, and trucks, etc. Women are not only more sensitive emotionally-which means to interpersonal messages-they are more sensitive to different degrees of temperature, to different kinds of touch, to different tones of voice, different odors, and the like. (For a good summary of the many differences between men and woman now known to be rooted in biology and brain differences, see Moir and Jessel, 1991.)

Not only interpersonal relations but that kind of relationship described as "intimate" is something on which many women place great value. In short, it is in concrete interpersonal relationships and intimacy that the majority of women seem to find their greatest rewards.

Since God made women that way, since he finds it "good," there is every reason to believe that he would honor this need. That is, that God would honor women's special needs and abilities to have deep and intimate interpersonal relationships. Perhaps this is what is meant when Jesus told Martha that Mary had the better part; perhaps this is much of what is meant by the "contemplative life." In any case, the lives of the female saints have been filled with language describing the intensity of the personal relationship with Jesus and with God. It is as though the capacity of women for spiritually intense relationships is rooted in their capacity for many and intense relationships in the natural world. I do not wish to imply that the relationship of Christian men to God the Father is less rich, but themes of union, themes of love and intimacy seem to me to be much more typical of the female saints. And it seems to me that this is a good way to explain the great number of impressive Christian women throughout history. That is, women find something emotionally extraordinarily satisfying about their relationship with God, as Father, or as Son, or as Holy Spirit. And as far as a woman's identity goes, how can she doubt her femininity, her womanhood, if it is acknowledged and honored directly through the love of God, her Father.

Yes, but what about the psychology of all those feminists? If things are this fine, why all the tremendous criticism? This question raises the issue of the special psychology of the radical feminists. First, it is important to note that such feminists represent a clear minority of women, although they are common in academic and religious settings.

Second, a significant number of feminists are responding to their experience of abuse or lack of respect from men. Psychological recovery from these experiences and associated emotions requires the sympathetic and positive support of men. Spiritual resources available in Christianity include the Virgin Mary and Jesus who can serve as spiritual models of holiness, and in time lead the woman to God the Father. As tradition has long held, Mary leads such women to Jesus, who can then lead them to a glorious affirmation of their womanhood by God the Father. In short, for women with a solid feminine identity but negative associations with men, especially fathers, there are available answers. In any case, such women often have little desire for God as mother-they are just fearful and distrustful of God as father.

nowhere...." don't be self centered "...just kidding, I understand what you ment, LOL

Nothing wrong with returning back to your pivot point...IMO