Jung says it is pathological to identify oneself with an archetype, but I regret to say one often has to do it, in order to lead an effective life. Another way of putting it is to say that occasionally in life one has to hazard everything, including the hazard of doing something, which some people think is pathological. One does not do it every day of the week; if one does, then very soon one will come a cropper. One does it when the stakes are sufficiently high. Probably once in a lifetime is enough for most people. In a sense, making the risen-Christ a daily companion is identifying with an archetype. But for most Christians a better choice is an indwelling with the Creator himself, confident that Jesus’ cross and passion make this a legitimate choice. I am sure it does; I do not understand why, but I am sure it does. One can then get to grips with the modern world.
If one thinks about it, the Creator must have watched mankind for at least a hundred thousand years, living as a hunter-gatherer, in small family groups. Probably He had watched this for many hundreds of thousands of years. And He must have wanted Man to progress to living in larger communities, to develop a culture, learn to work metals, precious metals to create art, develop language, writing, eventually civilization, and above all Law and Order, without which nothing is possible, not even the life of the Saviour. This gospel cuts right across the ethos of the Sermon on the Mount, with its emphasis on non-resistance to violence. So there must be great tensions in heaven; but that is none of my business. It is sufficient that it is a legitimate choice for me.
You need choice. You need both the alternatives. The rigid harshness of the Common Law needs to be modified by the flexibility of Equity. Justice needs to be tempered by Mercy; not endless Mercy needing to be stiffened occasionally by Justice. That is putting it the wrong way round. Here even Cranmer stumbles once, although normally he gets it right! Probation should not be the automatic recommendation for every criminal offence, even if serious. Without choice, without the need for judgement, one follows automatically.
And if you think about it, the ethos of the Sermon on the Mount is utterly hopeless for someone entering the legal profession, which is all conflict, never mind the Army which is all training for violent conflict. Business is competitive and involves conflict; even teaching if the maintenance of discipline is involved. In all these instances an indwelling with the Creator is infinitely to be preferred to a wholly ineffective communion with Jesus. An indwelling with him is suitable for medicine, and the ministry of healing outside medicine, in some teaching, and for the do-gooders, genuine and sanctimonious. The prayer of humble access invites us to have this indwelling with Jesus; but its elegant prose should not blind us to the truth that Jesus’ promise actually was different.
This is the prevalent assumption that no clergyman, or woman, dare question. But the simple fact of the matter is that if one wants an indwelling with God, which is what the communion service is all about, an indwelling with the Creator is a far more sensible choice for anyone who envisages having a career involving conflict. It is a view I have held for more than 50 years.