A core group of mainly Jungian analysts have contributed to an ongoing archetype debate in the Journal of Analytical Psychology since the 1990s. Most of the participants have provided some sort of scientific definition for Jung's archetype-as-such. However, to view the archetype as a property of the dynamic inherent in complex formation, as in Saunders & Skar (2001), is quite different from what others have proposed. This has led to misunderstandings of our theory. The current paper examines some of these misunderstandings alongside other issues that have arisen in the debate. For example, some writers have suggested that we could get rid of the term archetype altogether and still retain the important aspects of Jung's psychology. While this may be true, for some Jungians archetypes may serve symbolically as progenitor gods acting within a system that is a good substitute for traditional religions. Others may simply consider the term useful for their clinical work. A key feature of Saunders and Skar's theory is that it requires no progenitor archetypes for complexes to form. It permits us to keep the concept of the archetype firmly within the Jungian canon while at the same time respecting the findings of modern science.