Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: An Introduction to Worldview Issues, Philosophical Foundations, and Models of Integration

by David Entwistle

SUMMARY

David Entwistle’s book, Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: An Introduction to Worldview Issues, Philosophical Foundations, and Models of Integration, published by Cascade Books in 2010 is an analysis of the integration of psychology and Christianity, organized in four sections. First, the author examines the historical context of the integration of psychology and Christianity, and then provides its philosophical underpinnings, followed by a section that explores various models of integration. Entwistle concludes by proposing his preferred integrative solution. The following provides a brief summary of Entwistle’s four sections.

Entwistle (2010) launches into the first section with a reference to Tertullian’s famous quote, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” (p. 8). However, the author quickly answers the question by introducing his primary presupposition that “All truth is God’s truth,” in other words, “wherever and however truth is discovered, its author is God” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 13). Entwistle (2010) then unfolds a historical context of theological integration with references to Augustine, the Middle Ages, and medieval Scholasticism prior to transitioning into a history of psychology.

The second section lays a philosophical foundation for integration, critical for an orthodox perspective of integration, by probing the topics of worldview, epistemology, metaphysics, and anthropology. First, Entwistle (2010) introduces the concepts of worldview and then identifies four ingredients of a Christian worldview – creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. Second, a discussion on epistemology ensues with an investigation of its history, perspectives on certainty, and relevant methodologies (Entwistle, 2010). The author suggests four epistemological methodologies that support integration, which include logic, empiricism, revelation, and hermeneutics (Entwistle, 2010). Next, Entwistle (2010) tackles metaphysics by exploring the origin of the world and the topic of supernaturalism, followed by analysis of the reality of ethics and beauty. Entwistle (2010) concludes by focusing on both psychological anthropology, which includes biology and behaviorism, as well as theological anthropology that includes humanity’s finiteness, fallenness, and its imago Dei.

Entwistle’s (2010) third section explores five models of integration of psychology and Christianity, which include the Enemies, Spies, Colonialists, Neutral Parties, and Allies models. The Enemies model assumes that psychology and theology are incompatible (Entwistle, 2010). The Spies model rests on either psychology or theology and selectively extracts elements from the other discipline to further its position, which places orthodoxy at risk (Entwistle, 2010). The Colonialists model attempts to maintain orthodoxy, but borrows from psychology (Entwistle, 2010). The Neutral Parties model views psychology and theology as completely independent, but acknowledges certain parallels (Entwistle, 2010). Finally, the Allies model relies on the “unity of truth,” which presupposes that all truth originates from one sovereign God (Entwistle, 2010, p. 147).

In the final section, Entwistle (2010) argues that the Allies model is the most appropriate integrative solution based on the presupposition that God’s truth exists in both “God’s Word (Scripture) and…God’s Works (creation)” (p. 205). Accordingly, since God is the sovereign creator of all subjects, the disciplines can cooperate (Entwistle, 2010). Finally, the author furnishes a framework to resolve integrative conflicts between the disciplines such as Galileo’s famous heliocentric theory controversy (Entwistle, 2010). Specifically, solutions for interdisciplinary conflict result from a sensitive approach toward the differences between fact and interpretation (Entwistle, 2010).

REFLECTION

Entwistle’s greatest strength may be his ability to encapsulate hundreds of years of conflict between two disciplines in a rather concise and objective manner. Entwistle (2010) also shines brightly in supporting the Allies model of integration and masterfully resolving many potential integrationist conflicts through his “quest for faithful reading” view of disciplinary integration (p. 243). However, one wonders if Entwistle’s desire for friendly integration may overemphasize the details of reconciliation at the risk of minimizing the gospel message. Specifically, Entwistle (2010) attempts to balance the priority of theology and psychology by suggesting the primacy of theology due to its influence on one’s worldview, but simultaneously suggests neither have primacy because God is the source of all truth. It appears Entwistle’s logical high wire act of commensurate priority is unnecessary and may even be risky. By suggesting the possibility that neither have primacy, the risk increases that one may minimize the fact that a Christian worldview must specifically understand humanity as a new creation in Christ or the entire system fails. Alternatively, a misunderstanding of God’s truth of psychology does not automatically cause the system to fail. In other words, although Entwistle references Millard Erickson’s suggestion that general revelation is critical, Erickson (2007) also notes the antecedent nature of a “new birth,” which is a “supernatural occurrence” within individual Christians (p. 958). Without question, Entwistle would agree with Erickson’s “new birth” assertion, but it is bothersome that the author extends so little effort in emphasizing this specific cornerstone of his theoretical foundation.

REFERENCES

Entwistle, D. N. (2010). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: Cascade.

Erickson, M. J. (2007). Christian theology. (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.