The desires of the soul are intimately bound up with the archetypes in the unconscious; one only has to remember the experience of falling in love, to understand this. Indeed I suspect that the archetypes within ourselves are responsible for all our enthusiasm for life. I suspect that life without their inspiration, is just a dull routine expediency. So it is entirely proper to consider the extent to which Jesus gave expression to the archetypes in his unconscious. And whether the expression he gave was the correct one, or a mistaken one? And if it was mistaken, how we should correct this in our own lives?
Now Jung says it is pathological in us if we identify completely with an archetype. So if Jesus did identify himself completely with the Father figure within himself, was he subject to the Rules that we have to obey, or was he excused them? If he was God, maybe he was excused. But we are then faced with the old problem, that if he was not bound by the Rules that bind us, we can admire him, but not follow him. He is no Saviour! He is only a Saviour, if we can follow him. This means that he was bound by the Rules that bind us. The converse of this is that we in our turn should do what we can to save the world, by making up for the deficiencies in his Ministry, where he fell short through no fault of his own. For the person who wants to think that Jesus did it all, and all he has to do is believe in him, it is a disaster to discover that Jesus must have made mistakes. For the person who is willing to complete the Salvation begun by Christ, it is an opportunity, and a privilege, to be able to make up for the occasions when Jesus got it wrong, because in his day it was not possible to do better. And as I have said, if the resurrection happened, as I believe it did, Jesus got enough right to win the divine approval. He would not have been a man, if he had not made mistakes.
I make no judgement on the decision of Jesus to identify himself apparently with the “Imago Dei” in his mind, beyond the comment that Jung says it tends to be pathological to identify with an archetype. Maybe we should all identify ourselves with an archetype, once in a lifetime? Though not make a habit of doing so? At best I think it is an adventure, of which you can never know how it will end, nor how it will change you for better or worse. At worst it is a disaster, which will utterly destroy you. Of course moderation in all things should be the general rule. But if you are not prepared to hazard everything once in a lifetime, do you ever graduate from the university of life? And archetypes are surely the only means we have of showing that inspired courage, which makes what seems impossible an accomplished fact?
So the arguments are evenly balanced. In retrospect, looking back those 65 years, was it really better to replace the Liturgy, remove the pews, and dispense with the need for thought in religion, and avoid the conversation; or would it have been better to have held this conversation, and if need be accepted inconvenient truth?