Carl Jung, Jordan Peterson, and the Gospel: A Deep Dive

By Dr. Tim Orr

This is the second of four articles that deal with Jordan Peterson and the gospel. To determine whether Jordan Peterson understands the gospel, one must delve into his intellectual roots, particularly his profound reliance on Carl Jung’s psychological framework. Jung’s theories of archetypes and the collective unconscious have heavily influenced Peterson’s approach to meaning, morality, and even Scripture. While these ideas help Peterson explore profound truths about human existence, they also create significant limitations when applied to the gospel, transcending psychology and entering the realm of divine revelation and grace. This exploration will examine how Jung’s influence shapes Peterson’s understanding of Scripture, why it falls short of the gospel, and how the gospel uniquely addresses humanity’s deepest needs.

Jung’s Influence on Peterson: Archetypes and the Human Psyche

Carl Jung viewed religious symbols and myths as archetypes—universal patterns embedded within the collective unconscious that reveal shared human experiences (Jung, 1968). These archetypes bridge personal experiences and the shared human psyche, offering insights into universal themes like growth, conflict, and transformation. Individuals can uncover deeper psychological truths and navigate their journey toward self-discovery and integration by engaging with archetypes. According to Jung, Christ represents the archetype of the "Self," the ultimate symbol of psychological wholeness and integration. Jung interpreted the crucifixion and resurrection as metaphorical processes: the death of the ego and the subsequent rebirth into a unified, individuated self.

Jordan Peterson builds on this Jungian framework, using archetypes to interpret Scripture in his lectures and writings. He views biblical stories as mirrors of human psychology, revealing universal patterns of thought and behavior. By framing these narratives psychologically, Peterson draws out life lessons that resonate deeply with individuals seeking meaning and guidance.

For example, in his analysis of Cain and Abel, Peterson (2017) interprets Cain’s resentment and eventual murder of Abel as an archetype of unchecked envy and bitterness. He sees this story as a stark warning about the destructive power of negative emotions when left unchecked. The tale illustrates the profound psychological and relational costs of failing to confront life’s challenges and the internal chaos that festers when one succumbs to resentment.

Similarly, Peterson’s interpretation of Noah’s Ark focuses on human responsibility. He views the ark as an archetypal symbol of the need to prepare for life’s inevitable chaos. Just as Noah constructed the ark to survive the flood, Peterson likens this to modern individuals taking practical steps to fortify themselves against future challenges. For instance, a student preparing for a demanding career might "build their ark" by developing strong study habits and acquiring relevant skills. By emphasizing psychological and moral readiness, Peterson transforms the biblical narrative into a timeless lesson on resilience and accountability, resonating with audiences seeking actionable strategies to navigate uncertainty.

Peterson’s approach reaches its pinnacle in his reflections on Christ. Drawing from Jung, he describes Christ’s crucifixion as the ultimate archetype of sacrifice, an image of voluntarily confronting suffering to bring meaning and redemption (Peterson, 2018; Jung, 1968). He interprets the cross as a universal symbol, representing the transformative power of facing life’s trials with courage and responsibility. However, Peterson frames this within a psychological rather than theological perspective, viewing it as a metaphor for personal growth rather than a divine act of salvation (Peterson, 2018). While Peterson acknowledges the profound significance of this archetype, he stops short of embracing Christ as the Savior who provides atonement for sin. Instead, he views the narrative as offering practical wisdom on enduring and transcending suffering rather than a pathway to reconciliation with God (Peterson, 2018).

The Gospel: More Than Archetypes

The gospel’s message transcends Jung’s framework and Peterson’s interpretations. While Jungian archetypes highlight universal human struggles, the gospel addresses humanity’s ultimate problem: sin. Sin is not merely psychological dysfunction or moral failure but rebellion against a holy God (Romans 3:23). It separates us from God and brings eternal consequences (Romans 6:23). Unlike archetypes, which offer symbolic representations, the gospel confronts the real, pervasive condition of sin in every human heart. This sin creates an insurmountable chasm between humanity and God, a gap no archetype or psychological model can bridge. Only the gospel reveals the depth of this separation and offers the solution through divine intervention.

The gospel declares that humanity’s reconciliation with God is not achieved through self-effort, moral improvement, or psychological wholeness. Instead, it is accomplished through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Christ’s death on the cross was not a symbolic act but a real, historical event in which He bore the penalty for sin and satisfied the demands of divine justice (Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 3:18). This act of atonement addresses not just personal guilt but the cosmic consequences of sin, restoring the broken relationship between humanity and God. Unlike human-centered attempts to achieve enlightenment or self-betterment, the gospel offers a divine rescue that no human effort could replicate. Through Christ’s finished work, believers find true hope, forgiveness, and restoration.

By reducing Christ to an archetype, Jung’s framework—and Peterson’s adoption of it—fails to capture the gospel’s historical and theological reality. Archetypes may illuminate human experience, but they cannot save. The gospel offers not merely psychological insight but transformation through grace. While archetypes provide a lens to view recurring themes in human stories, the gospel proclaims God's unique and unparalleled story entering history to redeem His creation. Unlike archetypes, which rely on human interpretation, the gospel is grounded in divine revelation and power. The salvation it offers is not theoretical or symbolic but tangible and life-changing, addressing both the human condition and the soul's eternal destiny.

Jung’s Limitation: The Problem of Sin

Jung redefined sin as a failure to integrate the "shadow"—the darker, hidden aspects of the psyche—and believed that individuation, the process of harmonizing the conscious and unconscious mind, was the solution (Jung, 1968). This view of sin focuses on personal growth and psychological balance rather than spiritual rebellion and alienation from God. By redefining sin psychologically, Jung shifted the focus from humanity’s accountability before a holy God to internal self-discovery. While integration of the psyche may bring temporary harmony, it cannot address the eternal consequences of sin. Jung's perspective reduces sin to a manageable human issue, ignoring its cosmic and relational dimensions as rebellion against the Creator.

Peterson echoes this emphasis on personal responsibility in his teachings. He frequently challenges individuals to confront their shadow, take responsibility for their lives, and carry their burdens (Peterson, 2018). While these principles align with certain biblical themes, such as stewardship and moral accountability, they cannot address the depth of humanity’s spiritual needs. Peterson’s focus on self-improvement highlights the human desire for meaning and order but stops short of addressing the root problem of sin. Though his teachings inspire practical change, they lack the gospel's transformative power, which goes beyond self-help to offer divine redemption. Without the foundation of grace, personal responsibility becomes too great for humanity to bear.

The Bible teaches that sin is not merely a psychological problem but a spiritual reality. It alienates humanity from God and cannot be resolved through self-awareness or effort. As Paul writes, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The solution to sin is not individuation but reconciliation through Christ’s death and resurrection. Only the cross provides the ultimate answer to sin, offering forgiveness and restoration through Christ’s sacrifice. Unlike individuation, which relies on human effort, reconciliation through the gospel is a gift of grace freely given to those who believe. This divine solution addresses the guilt of sin and its power, offering freedom and a restored relationship with God.

The Gospel and Grace: A Radical Contradiction

Jungian psychology places the burden of transformation entirely on the individual, believing that wholeness can be achieved through self-integration. Peterson’s philosophy emphasizes human agency, urging people to bear their cross, confront chaos, and build moral order (Peterson, 2018). Both frameworks highlight the human capacity for growth but fail to address humanity's deeper spiritual need for redemption. While self-integration may bring psychological clarity, it cannot reconcile individuals to God or restore their broken relationship with Him. Human agency, though valuable, is insufficient to bridge the gap between fallen humanity and divine holiness, leaving people burdened by a problem they cannot solve alone.

The gospel, however, offers a radically different message. It declares that salvation is not the result of human striving but a gift of grace through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9). Grace lifts the burden of self-reliance and replaces it with freedom in Christ. The gospel does not call individuals to integrate the old self but to die to it and be made new (2 Corinthians 5:17). This transformation is not about refining the human condition but a complete rebirth initiated and sustained by God’s power. Unlike self-help philosophies, the gospel offers rest for weary souls by redirecting reliance from human effort to divine sufficiency. It replaces the impossible task of self-perfection with the liberating assurance of God’s finished work in Christ.

Peterson’s struggle with this concept is evident in his reflections on Christ’s resurrection. In his conversation with Jonathan Pageau, Peterson admitted that fully believing in the resurrection would transform everything and that such belief is terrifying (Peterson, 2021). His hesitation reveals a tension between admiration for Christ and the gospel’s demand for surrender. This struggle underscores the challenge of accepting a truth that requires relinquishing control and embracing dependence on God. While Peterson acknowledges the transformative potential of the resurrection, he hesitates to move from intellectual admiration to personal faith. This tension highlights the stark contrast between human-centered philosophies and the gospel’s call to trust in Christ’s finished work.

Jung and the Cross: Symbol vs. Reality

For Jung, the cross is a powerful symbol of sacrifice and transformation. He interpreted the crucifixion as a psychological metaphor for the death of the ego and the integration of conflicting aspects of the self (Jung, 1968). This perspective resonates with Peterson, who often describes the cross as an archetype of voluntary suffering for the sake of meaning. While this interpretation provides a lens for understanding personal growth and resilience, it falls short of addressing the cross's ultimate purpose. The cross is not about achieving inner harmony but dealing with humanity's separation from God. Though insightful in its psychological application, Jung's view fails to capture the spiritual magnitude of the crucifixion.

While this interpretation is insightful, it misses the gospel’s central truth. The cross is not merely a symbol but a historical event with eternal significance. Christ’s death was a substitutionary atonement for sin, fulfilling God’s justice and providing the only means of reconciliation with Him (Romans 5:8–10). To reduce the cross to an archetype, strip it of its saving power. The gospel proclaims that Jesus’ death was a demonstration of self-sacrifice and the ultimate act of love that conquered sin and death. This historical and theological reality transcends human attempts to ascribe mere symbolic meaning to the event, offering salvation no metaphor can achieve.

Peterson’s reliance on Jungian symbolism limits his ability to see the cross as more than a metaphor. The gospel invites him—and all of us—to move beyond symbolism to the reality of Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection. This invitation requires a shift from viewing the cross as a source of personal inspiration to embracing it as the foundation of eternal hope. The cross demands intellectual acknowledgment and faith in its power to transform lives. By stepping beyond metaphor and archetype, one encounters the profound truth that the cross is the centerpiece of God’s redemptive plan, offering forgiveness, restoration, and reconciliation with Him.

Moving Beyond Jung: The Gospel’s Invitation

Jung’s insights into archetypes and the human psyche have undoubtedly enriched Peterson’s understanding of Scripture. They provide a bridge for secular audiences to engage with biblical themes. However, Jung’s framework falls short of the gospel’s ultimate message. While archetypes offer a compelling way to connect with universal human experiences, they cannot capture the divine truth of Scripture. The gospel is not merely a story of self-discovery or integration but the revelation of God’s redemptive plan. By limiting Scripture to psychological interpretations, Jung’s framework risks reducing eternal truths to temporal applications.

The gospel is not a call to psychological integration but to spiritual transformation. It invites individuals to die to themselves and be raised to new life in Christ (Galatians 2:20). This invitation is not symbolic but deeply personal and profoundly real. The new life in Christ goes beyond self-improvement, offering a complete renewal of the heart and mind through the Holy Spirit. Unlike psychological frameworks, which rely on human effort, the gospel transforms from the inside out, reconciling believers to God. This transformation is the essence of salvation, bringing lasting peace and purpose that no archetype or philosophy can provide.

For Peterson to fully embrace the gospel, he must move beyond Jungian archetypes to the living Christ. Christ is not merely the ultimate archetype; He is the Savior who conquered sin and death. His resurrection is not a metaphor but a historical reality that changes everything. This truth demands a response—not just intellectual assent but personal surrender to the Lordship of Christ. The living Christ invites all to move beyond symbolic interpretations and experience the power of His resurrection. Only by embracing Christ as Savior can one truly grasp the depth and transformative power of the gospel.

Conclusion

Carl Jung’s influence on Jordan Peterson has shaped his approach to Scripture, enabling him to articulate profound psychological truths. His emphasis on archetypes has helped many engage with biblical themes through a psychological lens, making these ideas accessible to a secular audience. However, Jung’s framework limits Peterson’s grasp of the gospel’s transformative power. Psychological insights, while valuable, can only address surface-level struggles and cannot penetrate the depths of humanity's need for spiritual renewal. The gospel goes beyond mere archetypes, offering a divine solution to the problem of sin and brokenness that no psychological model can resolve.

By interpreting Christ as an archetype rather than the Savior, Jung, and Peterson miss the heart of the gospel: salvation through grace by faith in Jesus Christ. Christ is not simply a model for human behavior or a symbolic figure; He is the incarnate Son of God who bore humanity’s sins and conquered death. Reducing Him to an archetype strips the gospel of its power and eternal significance. The gospel proclaims that salvation is a gift, not a psychological achievement, and is available to all who believe. Only by moving beyond archetypal interpretations can one fully experience the life-changing reality of Christ’s grace and truth

References

Jung, C. G. (1968). Psychology and religion: West and East. Princeton University Press.

Peterson, J. B. (2017). 12 rules for life: An antidote to chaos. Random House Canada.

Peterson, J. B. (2018). Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. Routledge.

Peterson, J. B. (2021). Jonathan Pageau interview. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com

The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan.

Tim Orr is a scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, the University of Tehran, Islamic College London, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including articles in Islamic peer-reviewed journals and three books.