It seems as I read Jung and post-Jungian folks, there is a splintering of consensus as to whether religion/faith/spirituality is a neurosis, an immature interpretation of the ways of the Psyche, or a valid path to that same Psyche. Jung states that if an individual is following a faith with a certain intensity, then most problems of the Psyche are contained, yet he is highly suspicious of the collective consciousness, which can be interpreted as the Church or any other "organized" religion.
How do you see depth psychology relating to faith traditions?
Religion: Could we say that religions are formed when the inner archetypal energies "rise" through the collective unconscious to meet the social contructivism of the collective consciousness in the varying societal contexts of culture and history? In cultures that valued such inner information, a rich cultural expression of these images emerged - religion as an example. In cultures where such information was not valued, such created imagery was ignored or condemned (although condemning a thing gives it its own life in the culture). Even Jung, I believe, stated that if religions had remained "whole" and healthy, there would be no need for analytical psychology.
As to modern day versions (or perversions) of Christianity, I believe this particular religion is fragmenting under the weight of many years/generations of being co-opted by the ruling classes as a means to manipulate the masses. Yes, I do believe, with Marx, that religion as it is used and abused by those in power is the opium of the masses. A religion closer to its essentials will have to address the daily experiences of the world here-and-now rather than retreat to platitudes, dogmatics, and unexamined myths. I'm not giving up on my understanding of the gifts Christianity (indeed, any religion that has stood the test of time) has to offer much as Jung did not give up trying to rectify Christianity by spending so much time responding to its strengths, weaknesses, and archetypal images.
Amen = So Be It