Integration Mixing Psychology And Christianity By David Entwistle

1490 Words6 Pages

Integration: Mixing Psychology and Christianity
Latoya Alston
Liberty University

Summary
In the book Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, David N. Entwistle (2010) forces readers to question whether or not psychology and Christianity can be integrated. As the book begins, he argues that integrating the two disciplines is difficult because there are two perspectives in which a person can view the world: from a secular perspective or from a Christian perspective (Entwistle, 2010). Secular thinking contradicts Christianity because it consists of a worldview that is limited to the earthly realm and is based on things that can be tangibly proven (Entwistle, 2010). Christian thinking, however, reaches beyond the physical, …show more content…

My parents first became Christians when I was 2 years old; however, in 1992, at the age of 8, my father became a preacher. I remember him quoting the scripture from 2 Corinthians 6:14 (NLT) that says, "Do not team up with those who are unbelievers. How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness?" He would go on to remind me that in Romans 12:2 God said that although we live in this world, we should not be of the world. For a long time it resonated with me that the career choice that I had planned in social sciences was one that would not bring any glory to God, in his …show more content…

The empirical evidence that was given made his argument of integration more credible. It was also informative to read about the five models of disciplinary relationships which included: enemies, spies, colonists, neutral parties, and allies (Entwistle, 2010). Entwistle (2010) suggest that enemies are people who have an allegiance to a worldview, spies lack commitment to religious systems, colonists use psychological methods when necessary and have allegiance to religion, neutral parties accumulate knowledge and protect the disciplinary sovereignty, and allies are people who see human purpose being a reflection of one’s relationship to God. What troubles me about this model is that it is so concrete and oversimplified. In my opinion, human nature is so much more complex. So I wonder, are there people that fit between more than one