Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, 4th edition: An Introduction to Worldview Issues, Philosophical Foundations, and Models of Integration
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).
Concrete Responses
I grew up in a performance based home environment. My father was a world-class pistol shooter and a member of the United States pistol team for almost two decades. His performance coach, Dennis Waitley, was the sports psychologist at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs. I remember the training tapes and books my father brought home maintaining that positive thinking and visualization techniques create champions. The mantra that still rings in my ears is “If you see and believe it, you can achieve it.” Waitley’s alignment with other Christian thinkers, including Robert Schuller, Norman Vincent Peale, and W. Clement Stone, caused much confusion in my young mind as I listened to sermons that seemed, at times, to oppose the positive message of the Domestic Spies (Entwistle, 2010).
A compelling interest in both psychology and Christianity led me to a Christian university where I planned to make ministry my vocation. However, I quickly realized my worldview, influenced by the Domestic Spies, did not align with the Enemies model espoused by the strong Arminian theology of the university. Accordingly, I changed majors, became a Certified Public Accountant, worked for an international consulting firm, and then used Waitley’s principles to create a thriving business. However, I must confess the confusion of my youth continued to exist, which led me to further my education. Fortunately, Entwistle’s (2010) Allies model provides a viable, orthodox alternative to the Domestic Spies or the Enemies model and allows me to better understand a calling I felt over two decades ago.
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.
Application
Although the philosophical foundations presented by Entwistle are mostly review for those with a theology and apologetics background, the models of integration are powerful tools for assessing and developing counseling methods. Personally, the models have already changed the lens through which I view counseling and discipleship. Specifically, I now have a framework to understand and appreciate different perspectives of counseling as I continue to develop my own. Furthermore, by understanding the risks of the various models, I have an enhanced ability to discern both God’s Word and God’s Works and their relationship to each other in my spiritual growth process.
I am currently involved in a counseling and discipleship ministry that provides curriculum to Christian liberal arts universities regarding Christian Convergence Therapy (CCT). CCT integrates psychology and theology by converging cognitive therapy and other psychological constructs with identity formation based on Judeo-Christian principles. Specifically, I will synthesize the philosophical underpinnings and presuppositions of the Allies model as detailed by Entwistle into the curriculum. Furthermore, I will document the location of CCT on the integrative map between the Christian combatants and secular combatants in order to provide students with a better understanding of CCT as well as alternative approaches to integration.
_____________________________________
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.
