I was recommended this book a few years ago while taking part in a Christian Spirituality course led by John-Francis Friendship at the London Centre for Spiritual Direction, when the class got into an interesting discussion about the nature of evil.
John Sanford was an Episcopal Priest who became a psychoanalyst. In this book he looks at evil both from a Christian perspective (in which he contrasts the approach of Jesus and St Paul) by reading scripture through the lens of his subsequent training as a psychoanalyst in the Jungian tradition. He also delves into the mythology of evil, drawing on examples from a wide range of other religions and cultures. The book includes a fascinating chapter analysing Robert Louis Stevenson’s famous story of the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
His conclusion – as the title suggests – is that evil is a part of reality (not just the absence of goodness) but that it dwells in the shadows of our unconscious where we prefer not to look. Relating the psychological concepts of the outwardly expressed ego and the interior self, he explains that our journey as Christians is one that draws us towards wholeness and self-awareness. This means seeking to recognise and acknowledge our shadow side (the interior self) and bring it into our consciousness. Much of this language is familiar from more recent books by Richard Rohr.
John Sanford’s aim in this book is to show us that by gaining a deeper insight into the nature of evil we may come closer to understanding the nature of God.
Chapter by Chapter Summary
He begins by setting out some definitions – of natural evil (such as earthquakes and floods) and moral evil (which originate from man). He then explains the concepts of the ego (our narrow and limited viewpoint) and the self (the larger, fuller personality which is greater than the ego and, in Christian language, would include the ‘Christ personality’) and encourages us not to bury our head in the sand about evil and darkness but to address it head on. This means engaging with our unconscious self:
“No true healing ever occurs unless a person begins to see good and evil in his or her life from the broader viewpoint of the Self, instead of from the limited viewpoint of the ego.”
He explains how it is hard for us today to accept that anything in our unconscious can have any impact on how we live and act. In past times, mythology offered an outlet for talking about the ‘substance’ of evil. In Chapter Two he sets out a broad spectrum of different approaches used in different cultures, ranging from the dualist approach found in Norse and Persian mythology with one good and one evil God, to the approach of the Greeks, whose pantheon of Gods could each be good and evil in themselves (so there was no ‘devil’) and American Indian mythology which lacks a deity embodying evil because each person is thought to be a mixture of good and evil and transgressions are dealt with through shame or ostracism within the group or tribe. From this analysis, Sanford concludes that mythologies generally agree that there is an autonomous power of evil that is beyond man’s control and that there is a concept of balance – the more a light or positive side is stressed, the more likely it is that a darker side will appear.
Sanford goes on to analyse evil as it is depicted in the Old Testament, noting the limited instances of Satan referring to a specific being – whilst the word is used frequently to mean “persecution by hindering free forward movement” “an adversary” or “accuser”. He uses the story of Balaam in Numbers 22 to suggest that God himself appears as Satan – or an adversary – to Balaam; this appearance ultimately has a positive impact on Balaam through effecting a change in his behaviour (so the evil expressed is relative and not absolute). Sanford reads the conversation between Balaam and the Angel as a conversation between the ego and the self, suggesting to us the benefits of us recognising our unconscious ‘Self’ and bringing it into our consciousness – realigning the ego and the self to bring them closer to wholeness. Often, he claims, on closer examination, we find that the evil condition or darkness we initially perceive in the Self turns out to be a cure to wrongs in our conscious life. Our unconscious self can be expressed in dreams or our fantasies and can emerge through what we call ‘Freudian slips’ of the tongue.
In the New Testament, Satan plays a much more prominent role and John Sanford suggests this is due to a development in the understanding of evil amongst Jewish theologians during the centuries after the closure of the Old Testament canon and the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. Whilst, as the story of Balaam suggests, it had been commonly accepted that evil existed and that God could be both good and evil, by the time of Jesus this understanding became more dualistic in outlook. Neither Old or New Testament scriptures explain the presence of evil in the world – it is just accepted that it exists – for instance, several passages reference evil and goodness co-existing side by side, until the last judgement. For Sanford, this means that God allows evil to exist because it plays some role in the Divine Economy. If there was no evil, there could be no good. If there was no injustice, there could be no justice. How then can there be a morally meaningful life without evil? He cautions against the “it is what it is” attitude to the existence evil, because that implies complacency. Anyone who has been touched by evil can testify how real it is. Life may need evil to reach its highest fulfilment but often evil results in suffering, pain and death. This should not be ignored.
Sanford suggests that in the New Testament there are two viewpoints on evil. The first is that of Jesus and the Gospels, which he calls ‘monistic’. The second is that of Paul’s writings, which is dualistic and which, he says, characterised much of the thinking about evil in the early Church (and influences the attitude of the church today). The Council of Constantinople in 553 rejected views of Origen that the devil would be saved at the end of time (a monistic view) and from that point on the church has adopted a more dualistic outlook (expressed in the Book of Revelation). Something he returns to, with a critical eye, later in the book.
Sanford suggests that in the New Testament there are two viewpoints on evil. The first is that of Jesus and the Gospels, which he calls ‘monistic’. The second is that of Paul’s writings, which is dualistic and which, he says, characterised much of the thinking about evil in the early Church (and influences the attitude of the church today). The Council of Constantinople in 553 rejected views of Origen that the devil would be saved at the end of time (a monistic view) and from that point on the church has adopted a more dualistic outlook (expressed in the Book of Revelation). Something he returns to, with a critical eye, later in the book.
There are cultures and beliefs which are neither dualistic or monistic in terms of evil – such as Hinduism – where good and evil are considered to be an illusion and not of any concern to God. The principle of karma is the fate we have brought upon ourselves as a result of evil or ignorance in previous existences. He suggests that this seems a poor explanation for the atrocities that take place in the world, such as mass murder and genocide – and reminds us that Christians believe that God created a good and perfect world.
In Chapter Five, Sanford explores the shadow in more depth, describing it as “that part of the personality which has been repressed for the sake of the ego ideal.” He explains that while we may consciously select features of our ego –much of it is also informed by context; in Judaeo-Christian culture, stealing and murder are forbidden and we are commanded to be loving, giving and sexually chaste. In conforming to these deeply entrenched ideals, the part of us that gets angry, is vindictive or has uncontrolled sexual urges finds its place in the shadow – which can be thought of as our ‘unlived life’. Releasing the shadow in a controlled way can provide qualities that are vital to living life to the full:
“We especially need the energies of our unlived lives when we reach our middle years, for at that time the energies that we have been using for a long time are beginning to run out.”
In Chapter Five, Sanford explores the shadow in more depth, describing it as “that part of the personality which has been repressed for the sake of the ego ideal.” He explains that while we may consciously select features of our ego –much of it is also informed by context; in Judaeo-Christian culture, stealing and murder are forbidden and we are commanded to be loving, giving and sexually chaste. In conforming to these deeply entrenched ideals, the part of us that gets angry, is vindictive or has uncontrolled sexual urges finds its place in the shadow – which can be thought of as our ‘unlived life’. Releasing the shadow in a controlled way can provide qualities that are vital to living life to the full:
“We especially need the energies of our unlived lives when we reach our middle years, for at that time the energies that we have been using for a long time are beginning to run out.”
Whilst there my be some exceptions (such as criminals) for most of us who seek to live a life being loving and giving in accordance with the ego ideal we (influenced by culture society) have created, our shadow side will be our darker side. In Romans 7.15-20 St Paul gives a clear explanation of his shadow side but he denies that it is part of himself – characterising it as sin within him – something ‘other’ or ‘distant’.
“I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.”
We often deal with our shadow by ignoring it or projecting it onto others in this way. Religious groups have been particularly good at this. One reason for recognising and acknowledging our shadow is so that we are not overcome by it. Becoming a whole person, Sanford says, does not mean giving everything over to the shadow, but recognising it. As Jesus said in Mark 10:18, we are all good and bad:
Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
Sanford goes on to compare the approach of Jesus and Paul to the problem of evil, suggesting that Paul is like a parent who adopts the do as I say not as I do approach. He encourages his followers to adopt a collective persona (one of righteousness and high moral standards) and seeks to repress anything that contradicts this. Sanford suggests that Paul is a sort of psychological gnostic – seeing emotion as evil and warns again of the dangers of focussing on an unattainable moral standard and repressing anything which fails to meet it, as psychologically dangerous.
“There are few more dangerous people in the world than those who set out to do good. This is because in exceeding our natural capacity for goodness, we accumulate darkness in the unconscious.”
Sanford draws on parables including the Prodigal Son and the story in Matthew 5.25-26 when Jesus calls on us to come to terms with our accuser on the way to court – and reads these from a psychological perspective. The Prodigal Son he argues, has brought his shadow into the conscious and returns home. The passage in Matthew 5.25-26 is, Sanford argues, about the adversary (the shadow) within us – and a call for us to become psychologically conscious people – for the cost of not doing is much higher. He makes clear that this is not the only way of reading this – or any of the other – passages. Addressing the line in Matthew 5.48 “You must therefore be perfect just as your Heavenly Father is perfect” Sanford explains that the Greek word translated as perfect is teleios, which means ‘brought to completion. For us this completion involves recognition of our shadow as part of our totality – a call into spiritual maturity.
“I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.”
We often deal with our shadow by ignoring it or projecting it onto others in this way. Religious groups have been particularly good at this. One reason for recognising and acknowledging our shadow is so that we are not overcome by it. Becoming a whole person, Sanford says, does not mean giving everything over to the shadow, but recognising it. As Jesus said in Mark 10:18, we are all good and bad:
Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
Sanford goes on to compare the approach of Jesus and Paul to the problem of evil, suggesting that Paul is like a parent who adopts the do as I say not as I do approach. He encourages his followers to adopt a collective persona (one of righteousness and high moral standards) and seeks to repress anything that contradicts this. Sanford suggests that Paul is a sort of psychological gnostic – seeing emotion as evil and warns again of the dangers of focussing on an unattainable moral standard and repressing anything which fails to meet it, as psychologically dangerous.
“There are few more dangerous people in the world than those who set out to do good. This is because in exceeding our natural capacity for goodness, we accumulate darkness in the unconscious.”
Sanford draws on parables including the Prodigal Son and the story in Matthew 5.25-26 when Jesus calls on us to come to terms with our accuser on the way to court – and reads these from a psychological perspective. The Prodigal Son he argues, has brought his shadow into the conscious and returns home. The passage in Matthew 5.25-26 is, Sanford argues, about the adversary (the shadow) within us – and a call for us to become psychologically conscious people – for the cost of not doing is much higher. He makes clear that this is not the only way of reading this – or any of the other – passages. Addressing the line in Matthew 5.48 “You must therefore be perfect just as your Heavenly Father is perfect” Sanford explains that the Greek word translated as perfect is teleios, which means ‘brought to completion. For us this completion involves recognition of our shadow as part of our totality – a call into spiritual maturity.
"The greatest ethical value, according to Jesus, is to become a free person and this means being a conscious person. Paul’s ethic takes away man’s freedom. When we are told to conform to a standard of goodness imposed on us by collective authority and to repress everything from our consciousness that contradicts this, we have lost our freedom.....Growth in consciousness is valued more highly by Jesus than conformity to goodness....It may well be that this is why we are created with such dual natures, since duality is the precondition of conscious psychological development."
Sanford spends the next chapter setting out a precis of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and provides an analysis to show how the story illustrates the dangers of being possessed by evil.
In Chapter Eight we return to look at the devil in post biblical mythology and note that how many of the symbols associated with the devil (goats heads and witches) are those of pagan and other practices which were banned – suggesting that the devil is personified through aspects of the human psyche and culture which have been repressed. Sanford explores further Origen’s claim that ultimately the devil himself will be saved at the end of times and evil will no longer exist – suggesting that since these views were rejected, the attitude of the church has not been to win back that which is feared or repressed, but to deny it. In this chapter we also learn of a number of fascinating Jewish and Christian myths, such as the story of Lilith, the first woman born (in Genesis 1) who becomes bride of the devil – many of these stories found outlets in the medieval mystery plays.
Sanford suggests that the devil is the personification of the power drive of the ego – a sort of collective shadow figure. But the shadow side of ourselves cannot be said to be ‘evil’ because recognising it can lead to good. The devil therefore, as a collective shadow, can only be regarded as relatively evil, not absolute. For this reason he rejects Jung’s call that the devil should be added to the trinity – to create what he describes as a ‘more natural’ quaternity.
Sanford suggests that the devil is the personification of the power drive of the ego – a sort of collective shadow figure. But the shadow side of ourselves cannot be said to be ‘evil’ because recognising it can lead to good. The devil therefore, as a collective shadow, can only be regarded as relatively evil, not absolute. For this reason he rejects Jung’s call that the devil should be added to the trinity – to create what he describes as a ‘more natural’ quaternity.
Links
Review of Falling Upwards by Richard Rohr
No comments:
Post a Comment