Integrative Approaches To Psychology And Christianity Summary

1819 Words8 Pages

This paper will summarize the main concepts of David Entwislt’s Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity. This paper will begin with the history between psychology and theology, there will also be an explanation of the tension between the two. Also in the summary, there will be a brief description of the five models of integration: Enemies, Spies, Colonialists, Neutral Parties, and Allies. The next section of the paper will share a concrete response to the book. While reading this book a traumatic memory in my life came to mind. This section will describe what that memory was and how it is related to this book. It will have very personal details. The reflection of the paper will follow next, this section of the paper will state …show more content…

The main concept of this book was integrating theology and psychology. Historically there has been tension between theology (faith) and psychology (science). According to Entwistle (2010) eighteen hundred years ago Tertullian asked the question, “What indeed does Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?” Tertullian believed that there had to be a choice made between human reason (Athens) and faith (Jerusalem), he thought that these two beliefs were irreconcilable (Entwistle, 2010). Entwistle had a wise response when he stated “The interaction of psychology and theology is virtually inevitable due to their mutual interest in understanding the ambiguities and mysteries of human behavior, and healing human brokenness” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 51). Entwistle’s view is that psychology and Christianity cannot only coexist but can integrate with one another. This entails the theme for this book how psychology and Christianity are integrated. Entwistle (2010) identifies 5 models of integration: Enemies, Spies, Colonialists, Neutral Parties, and Allies. The Enemies model is just as it sounds, this model’s idea is that psychology and Christianity are incompatible (Entwistle 2010). This model has an either/or perspective. One must choose either psychology …show more content…

In Christian Combatant the Church perceives psychology as the enemy. The next model is the Spies model this model is made up of two types of spies the foreign spies and the domestic spies. The foreign spies are not committed to a religious system, however, they want to learn about the religious system so they can use its resources (Entwistle, 2010). The domestic spies participate in the religious system but they are more committed to the psychological benefits from the religious system (Entwistle, 2010). Both the foreign and the domestic spies try “to find the good psychology in religion” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 183). In the Colonialists model useful information or resources are taken from psychology to use with religiously committed people. Entwistle referred to Colonialism