Disintegration for Successful Integration: Psychology and Theology

“Dis-integrating Psychology and Theology” In this article, Leron F. Schultz explains his belief in the necessity of dis-integration for the success of integration between psychology and theology. Written in the first person, Schultz shares his thoughts and those of his colleagues as well as the evidence surrounding the idea of disintegration. While acknowledging the provocative nature of his article title, Schultz makes the claim that one must first let things fall apart to properly have them go together. Schultz first addresses the need to dis-integrate psychology, which he considers not a fixed object, but a multi-faceted and broad discipline. Schultz states that psychology is “not an integrated whole, now should it be”. He cites the ongoing

Schultz cautions that the “gods” held by people all over the world are vastly diverse, and often differ from our Christian view of God. While initially these considerations feel wrong, or against the grain, I remember that Schultz is discussing integration with theology, not just Christianity. I believe everyone worships something, regardless of how atheistic they may be. It is important to identify the objects of their adoration; whether they are religious in nature or even an aspect of culture idolized. While my view of God is solidified, I do recognize that recognizing the dis-integration of “gods” and considering the things or being people consider god is

Whereas Seligman offers no distinction between pleasures that may cause positive emotion, the ancients of the like of Aquinas would argue that positive emotion must come from righteous enjoyment. I think this shows the distinction between the more collective views of Aquinas or Aristotle, and the individualistic emphasis of positive psychology. I believe we have to be weary of the “moral neutrality” advocated by some psychologists. In integration, we can draw from the insight of the likes of Seligman without abandoning Christian ideas of right and wrong. Seligman, Aquinas, and Aristotle all emphasize the importance of relationships in achieving happiness. Aquinas held that true happiness required, “love, love of God and love of neighbor”. I found it interesting that Aquinas and Seligman, but not Aristotle, cited marital friendship as a source of happiness. I think that perhaps as a Christian, Aquinas recognized this and modern psychology has also come in line with the importance of a healthy marriage. As anticipated, Aquinas considers the most important relationship that between man and God, differing from Aristotle and