Enemies see the theology and psychology as exclusive of each other and will only seek truth from one book, not both. Spies take from religion the pieces they can use to benefit psychology or practice “a watered-down religion and are interested in proclaiming its psychological benefits” (Entwistle, 2010 p. 141). Colonists see psychology as beneficial but do not possess knowledge of psychology. A colonist takes from psychology what can be forced to conform to the theological system he or she holds allegiance to. Neutral parties appreciate and compare information from both disciplines and identify the similarities. Allies recognize that all truth is God’s truth and God is sovereign over all things. Allies are aware of the influence a person’s worldview has and therefore emphasize the formation of a Christian worldview. Allies seek truth from both books.
Within the psychology field and in society, there is a common belief that theological principles, scripture, Christianity, and psychological principles are not compatible. Instead they believe that modern psychology is secular, scientific, and sacrilegious. However, many Christian psychologists and counselors, organizations and associations such as the Society for Christian Psychology, are striving to unite, integrate and incorporate Christian values, principles and knowledge into modern psychological counseling, research, and practice. Two of the main perspectives that tries to merge the two principles and theories is the Integration perspective and the Christian Psychology perspective.
Jones begins his book by giving the baseline foundations of the Christian belief system and tying those into the baseline foundations of Christian counseling. He says that the Christian faith used to play a larger role in all of the sciences, counseling included, but is “no longer motivated by a desire to glorify God, but rather a desire to serve the self and others”. Once that shift took place, it pervaded past the physical sciences and into the social sciences. Since
In this paper, I discussed my personal theory regarding the integration of Christianity and psychology, as it relates to my beliefs, and how the summation of these two components will be reflected in my future counseling practice. I considered several factors that were critical to my personal counseling theory. First, I considered the human personality, such as, individual differences, motivations, and human development. Each person is unique; however, both Christianity and psychology have discovered common threads that are woven throughout the human race, and I believe that information is imperative to the counseling process. Next,
Mark R. McMinn’s (2011) Psychology, Theology, and Spirituality in Christian Counseling establish a way to bring Psychology, Theology, and Spirituality to Christian Counselors. He introduces a replica of how to integrate the three disciplines in the counseling office. The purpose of the book is to instruct counselors how to integrate categories of Psychology, Theology and Spirituality into Christian Counseling. McMinn (2011) contends that many challenges both professional and personal face Christian Counselors on the frontier of intradisciplinary integration. (Intradisciplinary integration is the new emerging frontier for Christian Counselors).
Interdisciplinary integration is of utmost importance and the best usually comes from those “who have formal and informal preparation in both psychology and theology” (McMinn, 1996, p. 9). McMinn carefully describes the meaning, likeness, and distinction between psychology, theology, and spirituality. His manner of writing makes it easy for students, professionals, or lay persons to digest the information. Challenges that Christian counselors are
Bob Kelleman, in his book Gospel-Centered Counseling, suggests that a study of human mind is not a product of modern psychology. However, men’s attempt to know and understand human suffering and problems began even far back from Greek philosophy. Thus, Paul rightly says in Colossians 2:8, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (KJV).” However, it is certainly true that rise of psychology in modern era restricted the use of counseling to a secular world, while breaking a tie between counseling and religion in its usage. Secular society claimed counseling has no place in religion, its usage and methodology can be utilized and systemized only by pure science. This is how Christian ministry began to lose a counseling in its domain.
Enwistle’s book, Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration (2010) is a text that explores integrating psychology and Christianity. We start out by learning about integration related to both psychology and Christianity. Is this a thing? Is integration between these two subjects a subject itself? Enwistle explores through time to reveal how psychology and Christianity have been both closely studied and intertwined throughout time. Enwistle (2010) defines Christian psychology as “ a commitment to a Christian worldview that shapes how psychology is studied and applies, and that recognizes that there are specific Christian resources that uniquely reveal crucial aspects of what it means to be human (p. 14). Those in the psychology or counseling field who are also Christian have unique and different approaches but they draw from both Christianity and psychology to help them succeed.
Today, the integration of Christianity and psychology is becoming more increasingly recognized. The integration begins with understanding the sinful state of the human condition as viewed from a biblical perspective. It continues with being faithful to Christian stewardship and not only embracing theology but also the psychology of human behavior (Entwistle, 2015). A more accurate and complete understanding of human nature and function is provided through the integration of Christianity and psychology. The Allies model confirms that Christian theology and psychology are both subject to God’s authority, and exemplifies the best integrative relationship between Christianity and psychology (Entwistle, 2015). This paper will discuss the integration of Christianity and psychology through the Allies model. It will define integration, review reasons and explanations of why Christianity and psychology should be integrated. As well as look at different methods of knowing, the Allies model concept, and the two books idea along with strengths and weaknesses of this model.
This paper will be reviewing the book “Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: an introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations and models of integration, by David N. Entwistle. As the title states, this book discusses how to integrate psychology and theology. It also dives into to why it is so important to be able to integrate the two. Entwistle explains that just because the two are different does not mean they should be separated and that we have to use both our worldviews. “Weaving together perspectives from psychology and Christian theology can help us understand and appreciate humanity more fully than we could either perspective alone.” (p.3)
David Entwistle’s (2010) book, Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration, opens the reader’s eyes to unexpected possibilities, beginning with the often combative regimes of faith and reason using Tertullian’s symbolism of Athens as the seat of reason and Jerusalem as the seat of faith; which is the basic ongoing battle between science and religion (Entwistle, 2010). What Entwistle addresses is his belief that integration of the disciple of psychology and Christianity is possible, each contributing to the
Due to differences in worldview, speculation of the possibility of integration of Christianity and psychology exists. Although these differences seem to cause conflict, or undermine integration between psychology and Christianity, some scientific data can be complimentary to the Christian worldview and provide us with a better understanding of humans as a whole. Some problems can arise when attempting to integrate theology and science, such as some Christians having contempt for secular science or secular science believing the Christian worldview is based on irrational thought. Rather than throwing out a view over differences, the differences can be examined and good aspects of psychology that align with the Biblical truths can be found.
The first position by David G. Myers titled, “A-Levels-of-Explanation View,” who is a psychological scientist who supports that Christian theology and psychology are two very distinct disciplines, but they do share similar goals. Myers defines psychology as,
The book Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity second edition by David Entwistle introduces the text by explaining how psychology can go in a direction, and Christian theology approach can lead in a different direction. He continued by stating the need for understanding and studying human behavior because people come from different walks of life and different expectations. It leads us to form unique perspectives to help give us an understanding of the individuals you encounter. The Entwistle 's book addresses the relationship between Christianity and culture, Christianity and science, and Christianity and psychology.
It is amazing that in this book, the topics addressed which for many; perhaps they will not have much sense. Nevertheless, instead for those who for some reason their field of work is what being refers to the integration of psychology with theology, this book becomes an immeasurable help. Although some are not in agreement with the principle of integration of these two sciences, it is interesting what Entwistle mention in his book when he says that: “…if we are to study this mystery as Christian scholars, then we must unapologetically admit that a Christian worldview informs our understanding of persons and our approach to the discipline of psychology.” (Entwistle, 2010, pp. 220-221)