The author responds to John R. Haule (1986) and Morton Kelsey (1986), who have written reactions to his article, Analytical Psychology and the Dynamics of Human Evil. While tempted to defer to their expertise, the author attempts to clarify three main objections to the use of Jung's works as a platform for the integration of psychology and theology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BuberM. (1952). Eclipse of God, studies in the relation between religion and philosophy.New York: Harper and Brothers.
2.
DourleyJ.P. (1984). The illness that we are: A Jungian critique of Christianity.Toronto: Inner City Books.
3.
HauleJ.R. (1986). Integrating psychology and theology with bricolage: A response to Griffin. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 14, 278–281.
4.
HillmanJ. (1983). Healing fiction.New York: Station Hill Press.
5.
HillmanJ. (1985). Archetypal psychology.Dallas: Spring Publications.
6.
KelseyM.T. (1986). Reply to “Analytical psychology and human evil.”Journal of Psychology and Theology, 14, 282–284.
7.
LiebermanJ.E. (1985). Acts of will: The life and work of Otto Rank.New York: The Free Press.
8.
RicoeurP. (1974). The conflict of interpretations. D. Ihde, (Ed). In EdieJ. (Ed.) Northwestern University studies in phenomenology and existential philosophy.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
9.
RieffP. (1966). The triumph of the therapeutic: Uses of faith after Freud.San Francisco: Harper and Row.
