A purely Jungian approach to Jesus will consistently fail to reckon with the deeply subversive message that sits at the heart of the Christian faith. The cross cannot be fully understood from "the outside," as one archetype among archetypes. The cross is the Crisis of Jungian psychology, the Contradiction of all mythology, and the Subversion of the hero archetype. When Christ confronts the Chaos, in allowing the dragon to slay him, he interrupts and negates everything you thought you knew about dragons and how they might be killed.
I want to explain a bit more about what it means to say that the cross is the "crisis" of Jungian psychology, and therefore of Jordan Peterson's entire project.
The point is easily made. I have no doubt that Jungian or mythological systems can approach and describe the crucifixion of Jesus. As we all know, divine figures who die, descend to the underworld, and return to life abound in ancient myth, narrative, and drama. But when we approach the cross in this way, as a mythological specimen within a collection, our classification scheme and its associated analytical apparatus is taking epistemological priority over the cross. The cross has to play the game of the Jungian analyst, which means the Jungian system holds all the truth cards while the cross serves as mere illustration. Jung plays the music and Jesus has to dance.
So when I say the cross is the crisis of Jungian psychology, or the crisis of any intellectual/philosophical system, I'm simply switching the epistemological positions. Of course Jungian analysis has considered the cross. My point, however, is that, as a Christian, it is the cross that pins Jungian analysis in the specimen case, as yet another illustration of the "wisdom of this age" that has been exposed as puffery and foolishness (1 Cor. 1.20).
And this is why, despite my admiration for his Bible lectures, epistemological friction exists between Jordan Peterson's work and the Christian faith. Currently, Peterson uses the cross as an illustration for his larger system. He is not, at present, submitting his system to the cross. And this it amply illustrated in Maps of Meaning where Peterson doesn't have to use the Christian myth to make his points. In fact, in the parts of the book we've been looking at, Peterson has been mainly working with Egyptian and Babylonian myths. Any myth will do, really, because it is the Jungian system that matters in the end. The interpretive system holds the truth cards, not the myths.
For a Christian such a situation poses a problem, as any epistemological subordination of the cross is a form of idolatry. A human theory is being used to pin the cross in a specimen case. The proper prophetic response when you see that happen is to reverse the roles: Jung doesn't get to say what the cross may or may not symbolize. The cross isn't a prop in his show, or a bit part in his drama. The situation is quite the reverse: The cross calls Carl Jung into question.
Now, to be clear, this doesn't mean that Jung and Peterson are not illuminating thinkers and guides. As I've shared in many of these posts, there is a lot we can learn from Peterson, ways of looking at Scripture that are fascinating, compelling, helpful, and relevant. I have enjoyed and learned from Peterson's lectures about the Bible, and have repeatedly called churches to pay attention and learn from him. Peterson is up to something important. But we also have to monitor when our systems of interpretation are being privileged over hearing the Word of God afresh. Which is a problem much bigger than Jordan Peterson. For example, one of my big problems with both progressive and evangelical Christians is that neither group listens to the Bible as each already knows exactly what the Bible has to say. Why read the book when you already know all the answers? Both groups pin Jesus in the case as a specimen of their preferred politics. Neither group realizes that Jesus is their critic and crisis.
