Summary
In reviewing the book “Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity” by David N. Entwistle (2010) the author poses many questions about integrating Christianity and psychology. The book begins with questioning the influence of religion on humanity in the example of the worshipers in the threating situation of sitting in a church filled with carbon-monoxide. The events of that occurrence lead the author to take a deeper look into integration. Entwistle goes on to explore the many challenges of the faith-based communities’ views and criticisms on the sciences and psychology. Entwistle poses one of the basic objections “Some people see Christianity only as a religious belief and psychology as a profession, with very little overlap between them.” (Entwistle, 2010, p.10). The author then goes on to state arguments against this belief as he further defines Christianity, philosophy, theology and psychology, allowing the reader to examine the differences and the likenesses between them.
To further analyze, Entwistle states “The term integration suggests that it takes effort to find connection between psychology and theology because they have been dis-integrated, or torn asunder” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 16). Appealing to the reader to see the word ‘integration’ as both a noun and a verb. Initial opposition to integration is reflected in the story of Galileo’s verdict by the Roman Catholic Church. Entwistle provides further evidence of the relationship between faith and reason from many historical views and including (from Gaede) that ‘many major figures in the early development of modern sciences were Christians’ (Entwistle, 2010, p. 24). Which in turn lays the framework for the conversation of the sciences to have come from Christianity.
In as much as the genesis of psychology might be inaccurately attributed to Sigmund Freud it was when he turned the science from just studying the mechanics to treating that the churches involvement increased (Entwistle, 2010). The Christians early attempts to harness, yield or manipulate psycho-therapies was in response to the misunderstanding of psychological findings. “As psychology moved from psychophysics to psychopathology, it seemingly encroached on the theology’s domain, the soul” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 42). Entwistle explains how throughout time the churches views were opposed to science, uncovers many of the different theological responses for the reader and displays modern actions which were made.
Although Pope John the XXIII didn’t live to see the impact of his Vatican II results, which he began, Entwistle points out how the relationship between Catholicism and psychology was directly impacted (Entwistle, 2010). In referring to the relationship between Freud and Osker Pfister the reader can also begin to detect an emergence of the “respect and dialogue” that can exist between psychology and religion (Entwistle, 2010, p. 50). The conversation continues in evaluating the perspective from many worldviews.
In the discussion of worldviews the author requires an in depth look into all the ‘ism’s”. It is through this perspective where Entwistle (2010) really discloses that one may be prone to faith based biases so as one becomes a counselor it may have an effect on their counseling techniques. So regardless of which worldview (ism) the reader may belong to; animism, syncretism, polytheism, pantheism, modernism or post-modernism, the author makes the case that worldviews are more inherited than chosen. In disclosing that your assumptions are guided by your world views Entwistle points out that one can then begin to maintain objectivity while counseling others (Entwistle, 2010).
However, consideration for truth, human nature and metaphysics may impose certain challenges to objectivity. All this provides for the understanding that the science of psychology will always reflect traces of its theorists (Entwistle, 2010). Similarly theologians’ will discern God’s word from their own interpretations. “A foundational assumption for the integration of psychology and Christianity is that we can gain knowledge about the nature of function of human beings both from Scripture and from science” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 114). The reasons of gaining knowledge to either treat, guide or heal that human behavior may be for different approaches. But, as the idea of psychology and theology sharing a common concern evolves in the book Entwistle goes on to explain the different integrative models.
The five disciplinary relationships that Entwistle lists are: enemies, spies, colonialists, neutral parties and allies (Entwistle, 2010). Entwistle proposes these models to broaden our ability to comprehend separate interactions. The enemies can be representatives of either Secular Combatants or Christian Combatants which protect religion against human reason. The spies, weather foreign or domestic, tend to have little or no religious allegiance and may care more about psychology, uses or benefits from faith for their own purposes. The colonialists’ model states that God’s work must be seen through God’s word, but in actuality it can only be seen through interpretation. The Neutralists maintain separate places for religion and science. The last of the models being the allies. The allies believe “Psychological and Theological methods are utilized to gain a more holistic and unified understanding of truth” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 154).
The text concludes with discussion related to the understanding of truth incorporating the mentality of both faith and reason. The basis of this information is used to further the discussion and analyze all the basic points covered in the book. Entwistle sets up different scenarios which can be used to decipher pro’s and con’s. Entwistle (2010) states that the road ahead challenges counselors to not only rely on the views of theology and psychology but broaden the views of integration of both world views, while at the same time leaving the door open to new research and techniques.
Concrete Response
The text was able to trigger a time in my early life when I was vulnerable to the worldviews of others. When I was a young child my mother passed away, it was a devastating blow to my family. My mother was active in the church and we were brought up with a religious background. My father was not involved with the church but supported my mother’s desire to bring us up with Christian values. These important events dramatically impacted and shaped my worldview. Entwistle’s description of a worldview is” how one understands the world and how one acts in the world” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 61). In my case, I would eventually be influenced by both a secular and theological worldview due to the events following the passing of my mother.
When I was in my teen years I began to suffer from anxiety and panic attacks (later I would learn it was a reaction to my mother’s passing). I didn’t know what was wrong with me, nor did my father. I was taken to a doctor and nothing physically was found so it was concluded that whatever was wrong was ‘in was in my head’. My father’s approach was from a secular view point that I just needed be stronger, mentally. I found that trying to be mentally strong was not very effective. From my grandmother’s theological view point, I needed to pray and be stronger with God, my faith wasn’t strong enough. I did go to God and asked for help and prayed and even though it helped I still suffered from anxiety. Entwistle (2010) points out that elements of different worldviews can be combined. These aspects of the story are important because it lead me to the worldview which I hold today. Because I didn’t understand why I was going through anxiety and panic I decided to research psychological reasons on my own. I went to the library (this was before internet) and researched all I could find on psychology related disorders. This stirred up controversy from both worldviews because psychology was viewed as either weakness of mind or spirit. I remember two parishioners I admired talking amongst themselves, stating how mental illnesses was a fight for that person’s soul. I grew older and realized that I wanted to be a psychologist to help those in need from both a secular and a spiritual stand point, I found it comforting that this text understands this. I see myself in the allies’ worldview, psychology as well as theological methodologies are used to obtain a more holistic approach to truth (Entwistle, 2010).
Reflection
In critiquing Entwistle’s book it might be difficult to understand how to implement many of the philosophical views. Although the author does a great job in analyzing many aspects of theology the actual integration process isn’t so easily spelled out. The word impressive comes to mind in describing the vast information incorporated from the several sources that were utilized. It may have been more helpful to the reader if the text would have included more direct approaches. As a student of psychology a case study scenario might be more easily interpreted. However it could be considered a strength that the author maintains neutrality while defining and explaining the many worldviews, assumptions and different human behaviors. A reader gains much insight about the author’s life story through his personal perspectives (Entwistle, 2010). In beginning the chapters in this way one is experiencing the points that are being made while evoking one’s own personal journeys. As a counselor entering their perspective field of work Entwisle makes a great contribution with the knowledge of integration. As a participant willing to learn the many different facets of psychology and theology and its integration, Entwistle (2010) discloses tremendous insight. However as for a student of theology or for example, even a pastor, the text might be perceived as weak in conveying the vast psychological views. The closest the book comes is in the discussions of the psychological and theological approaches and in giving the psychological perspective. In summing up a common basic concern might be that “our deeper struggle is that good and evil reside in every human heart, including our own” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 113).
Action
The first action step is to incorporate the different world views into the counseling practice. The world view that I would implement is the allies world view, which takes a more integrative approach to theology and psychology (Entwistle, 2010) Viewing the client as a whole person is necessary to completely help that person. Making sure the client’s mental, spiritual and physical health is considered in order to fully help the client transform. The second step would be to insure that the clients Christian and non-Christians benefit from an understanding of their world views. This will be an important aspect of counseling the client. Knowing and understanding the clients world view can help determine how to effectively counseling them. This would lead to the third step which would be to look at scientific theories of psychology, and integrate them into the most effective way of helping the client. God’s word will allow the use of a psychological method to gain an understanding of how to help clients. The way we live our lives before God is an example of how we treat each other (Entwistle, 2010).

References
Entwistle, D. N. (2010). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. ISBN: 9781556359446