Entwhistle's Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity - Book Report/Review Example

4-MAT Review of Entwhistle’s ‘Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity’ Table of Contents Summary Concrete Responses Reflection Action References Summary The book aims at providing the theological and philosophical foundations for integrating Christianity on the one hand and psychology on the other. To do this, Entwhistle surveys the scholarly literature on the integration work, being undertaken by researchers in psychology. Among other things, the book undertakes an examination of five different paradigms that relate theology and psychology to one another. One value of the book, therefore, in this context, is that it is able to relate the various assumptions of readers and presupposed notions relating to the various points of contention relating to the act of bridging psychology and Christianity. As the book title suggests, it is about providing a solid theoretical/philosophical/theological underpinning for the work of integrating Christianity and psychology, covering integration models, philosophical underpinnings, and issues relating to the worldviews that frame personal perspectives on integration and issues tied to marrying psychology and theology/Christianity. In the words of Entwhistle, “This book is an attempt to bring about a more adequate and sophisticated answer to the question of how Christian faith intersects with the field of psychology (Entwhistle, 2010, p. x). Entwhistle argues that a more complete picture of humanity and the human being emerges from taking the perspectives of both psychology and Christianity, in ways that recognize the differences in approaches and methods between the two, but also recognize how the two disciplines can inform each other and the integration practitioner about the nature of being human. That said, for Entwhistle Christianity is more than dry intellectualism, but something that “a commitment to follow God with heart and soul and mind” and something that he insists “will orient our understanding of what it means to be human”. As such, the integration is done in the spirit of finding ways to view psychological insights in a way from the lens of a Christian faith (Entwhistle, 2010, pp. 2-3). He prefaces the integration exercise, and the frameworks and philosophical discussions that follow, by noting that Christianity has had a long history and tradition of ministering to the psychological and psychiatric needs of people all throughout its existence as a religion, and especially before the advent of modern psychology (Entwhistle, 2010, pp. 36-40). He also asserts that because both theology and psychology seek to better understand the inner workings of man, that both naturally will intersect in terms of practitioners from both fields naturally interacting as they seek to restore broken people, for instance, and make them whole again spiritually and psychologically (Entwhistle, 2010, pp. 50-52). The gist of Entwhistle’s message, after going through epistemological issues and approaches for the two disciplines and the philosophical aspects of human anthropology, is that there are approaches, frameworks and models to integrate theology and Christianity on the one hand and psychology on the other that is rigorous and respectful of the underlying processes and approaches of the rational sciences, while at the same time being also consistent with Christian worldviews and ways of being (Entwhistle, 2010). Concrete Responses To me implied in the message of Entwhistle is the message that a psychological understanding of man that takes away a spiritual perspective and a Christian perspective in particular is barren and cold, and amounts to a misunderstanding. I believe that a true understanding of myself and of my loved ones entails viewing them first and foremost as spiritual persons whose identities are bound up to Jesus Christ and to God’s love. This is clear to me in moments when I feel totally helpless and totally dependent on Jesus Christ. No matter how much intellectual knowledge I accumulate, in moments of extreme pain, for instance, I understand that a prior relationship with Jesus Christ is more important than any psychological insight that I can gather from the psychological theorizing. This relationship comes first. In fact in moments of prayer I am aware of this, that my understanding of my life and my small and big pains and suffering is always incomplete, and that there are limits too to what the psychological theory can do to make me understand where I am and what the purpose of my pains and sufferings is. These insights from moments of pain and helplessness come to me as I read the book, and I recognize what Entwhistle is trying to do, marrying faith and theology, which comes first, with psychology, which is secondary to a genuine Christian relationship with Jesus Christ and those around me (Entwhistle, 2010). Reflection Among the things that I like about this book is that it undertakes the work of marrying two seemingly polar opposite disciplines without sidestepping and glossing over the many issues that are tied to the effort of integration. Entwhistle rightfully notes that psychologists and priests/theologians seem to compete when it comes to coming up with diagnoses for what ails a man psychologically and spiritually, and the issue is one of turf wars. Entwhistle does not flinch here, and recognizes the existence of that turf war. On the other hand, Entwhistle does not stop there, but goes in and attempts to provide philosophical underpinnings and approaches that can end the turf war and point to a way for the two disciplines to cooperate and inform one another, to the benefit of the broken person or the person in need of psychological and spiritual help. My question meanwhile concerns the usefulness of Entwhistle’s insights to the non-Christian, and to the practitioner who shuns any religious or Christian perspective on psychology as a scientific discipline. How does he convince the psychologist who refuses to acknowledge Christian language and perspectives on integration? Can integration be achieved without first supposing that Christian ideals constitute a vital starting point for any integration discussion? I think this is a weakness, that in a way one can say that the book is written for a Christian home crowd so to speak, rather than to a general audience of both Christians and non-Christians (Entwhistle, 2010). Action The book makes me aware that different people come to the negotiating table, so to speak, bringing with them various biases and worldviews that color the way they perceive issues relating to the marriage of Christianity/theology and psychology. My reflection in the previous section illustrates some of the problems that can arise from different people looking at integration issues from their own subjective lenses. This being the case, a point of action for me would be to try and determine exactly where people are coming from when I deal with them and discuss these things with them. Are we on the same page philosophically and in terms of our fundamental religious beliefs? If we are different, is there common ground that we can first cover in order to see where we can start working to resolve differences? Where is the other party coming from emotionally, and how does the other person’s personal history and upbringing factor into his perspectives on the integration of theology and psychology? In short the action plan is to implement this checklist of questions that can help determine where another person is coming from, by way of better understanding the underlying worldviews and assumptions that color that person’s perspective on the integration, as outlined in the book (Entwhistle, 2010). 1 2 References Entwhistle, D. (2010). Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: An Introduction to Worldview Issues, Philosophical Foundations, and Models of Integration (2nd Edition). Eugene, Or: Cascade Books/Wipf and Stock Publishers Read More