Summary Entwistle (2010) basically deals with an idea of integration of psychology and Christianity. At the beginning of this volume, the author outlines a purpose of this book, which is to help readers to understand the issues that establish integrative scholarship. The author depicts both sides of an argument about integration, describing Tertullian’s thought that human reason and biblical truth are irreconcilable and Blamires’ view that Christian thinking should be done in dialogue with secular thinking. The author provides historical views on faith and science, describing “a worldview from which God’s handiwork could be studied as an ordered creation fashioned a favorable environment for the rise of empirical science” (Entwistle, 2010, …show more content…
The Enemies model describes an antagonistic relationship between them, and rejects one of the two books of God: His Word or His Work. Spies model tends to be psychologically reductionistic and to ignore the theological contents, while colonialists declare their allegiance to theological view, but engage psychology through theological interpretation from biblical fact. Rebuilders, on the other hand, are critical of the secular foundations of psychology, while Neutral parties model aligns theological and psychological conclusions, failing to provide holistic understanding of human behavior (Entwistle, 2010). Allies model highlights psychology and Christianity can jointly give a more accurate picture because both are concerned with truths revealed by God in His Work and in His Word (Entwistle, 2010).
In conclusion, the author emphasizes that the Allies model is most appropriate based on the presupposition that all truth is God’s truth. Since God is the author of both books, truth can be found through theological and psychological investigation, and both cannot contradict each other (Entwistle, 2010).
Concrete
…show more content…
The author proposes several types and tasks of integration. Based on his suggestion, above all, the student-writer will develop an understanding of the historical and philosophical foundations of psychology and theology, recognizing that some of their assumptions overlap, while others differ based on the unique perspective (Entwistle, 2010). In addition, the student-writer will pursue disciplinary and scholarly integration, acknowledging that theology and psychology can and should critique each other. For instance, psychology can critique theological attempts to consider humans only as spiritual beings, which fails to appreciate other dimensions. When counseling a client who sees human beings only in terms of spiritual reductionism, the student-writer can help the client to understand that human beings are also biological, psychological, and social beings and to have a balanced
Science and faith are generally viewed as two topics that do not intermingle. However, Andy Crouch’s work, Delight in Creation, suggests that there is an approach to both faith and science that allows support of scientists in the church community. There is an approach that can regard science as a career that can reflect the nature of God.
Faw mentions two important questions that come up when psychology and Christianity is combined. The first being “the bible’s own claims to sufficiency” (Faw, 1995, p. 18) and the second questioning if nonbelievers can understand and learn the truth. The bible’s sufficiency says that no outside source can be used or relied on however; we still use technology and medicine as it keeps us healthy but if we do use it we should use it wisely and in the eyes of God and his Word. The second concern, that nonbelievers can not understand the truth, states that God is the only one who knows the whole truth and we are just made in his image. I believe that we are all taught something different determinant on how we are raised and this leads to everyone having different viewpoint and differing opinions. This can be a positive thing and can also relate to our views on knowing what is right and what is wrong. We all had a distinctive upbringings and if we were raised to believe one thing is right, someone else in the world may be taught that it is wrong. Even thought we all have differing views on many things, it does not mean that we should not hate, we should accept people for who they
The authors Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey's essay is credible because they both have knowledge and experience regarding the topic and researched various parts of the topic using reliable sources. Along with this essay, Charles Colson has written thirty books which have received much praise among the Christian community. He has also received many awards including the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1993, the Presidential Citizen's Medal
Spies are religious systems that seem to take on the information of psychology. Colonialist are different from domestic spies they represent the true revelation of God to human kind about the human condition and God’s plan of salvation. The neutral parties allows for a level of collaboration that seems not to be present in enemies model. This model is not like any other model due to the fact that it encourages the exploration of the exceptional content of both the methodologies that they employ. The allies’ model tends to agree with the spies model that good psychology can be found in religion, but it also rejects that religion is only valuable as a vehicle to express psychological truth and psychological benefits (Entwistle, 2010). Entwistle ended this book by putting us on the right path to a better understanding of the integrated approaches to Psychology and
Entwistle explains that our worldview greatly impacts how our Christian and psychology worldviews. God created us all differently; some of us grew up in small towns, large families, different countries, large cities. We all come from different homes lives, have different family units and the list goes on. Because we are all created differently our opinions and reactions are all different, making our worldviews all unique. Entwistle believes that our worldview is not something chosen for us or something we choose. He believes that it is created by our life experiences. He begins by introducing 5 models that involve integration. These models are enemies, spies, colonialist, neutral parties and allies. He states that the models “represent different ways of conceptualizing the relationship between psychology and religion in general or psychology and Christianity, in particular.” (p. 136) Those that follow the enemy model take an “either/or” (p.137) position. They agree that both topics should be separated at all times. There is no in between on the two. With the...
Fowler, James W. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for
David Entwistle's (2010) Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity is geared more towards Christians with conservative evangelical views and provides the reader an outline to different worldview disputes and truth-seeking groundwork that surround the connection that underlies psychology and theology. In addition to analyzing the possible connection of psychology and theology, Entwisle discusses the consideration of integrating Christian faith with the practice of psychology. “Christian understandings of person-hood, the purpose of human life, our need for God, and the ethical teachings of Christian faith are integral to psychology, not merely parallel to it” (p. 199). Entwistle’s viewpoint on this matter is stated clearly. He believes that it is necessary for theology and psychology be integrated in order to fully understand human nature.
The automatic and first context of an assessment of the New Age, as a ministerial student, is religious. For the purpose of this paper, however, I shall endeavour to limit the assessment of the New Age to the primary context of social psychology.
There are several aspects to consider when exploring the Christian worldview. There are many facets or denominations and they each have their own distinct beliefs and practices, but they all share the same fundamental beliefs. In this Paper we will explore the character of God, His creation, humanity and its nature, Jesus’ significance to the world, and the restoration of humanity, as well as my beliefs and the way that I interact with Christianity and my personal worldview.
Science and Religion dialogue has been a bitter-sweet topic for many people over the years. The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. The beliefs held about these topics has the potential to personally effect an individual, whether it be positively or negatively. In the United States, we draw only a fine line between religion and science, often failing to realize that the two benefit each other in copious ways but are not meant to interpreted in the same way. Due to this perspective, people seem to be influenced to pick one or the other, when in reality we should treat both science and religion with the same respect and recognize that they are completely separate from one another, along with having individual purposes. John F. Haught, a distinguished research professor at Georgetown University, published a book titled, “Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation”. In it he evaluates each side, persuading the reader that the truth is that both realms may benefit from each other despite the differences emphasized. John F. Haught introduces his audience with four approaches on Science and Religion. Haught’s third approach, contact, is of major significance to aid in the response of: “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”
In recent research, I have discovered that some people think that science and Christianity cannot go together and some may argue that science and Christianity may go hand and hand. This paper is going to discuss what science is. It will give information about the areas of which science cannot give information. My personal opinion, on the reasons the average person considers science as applicable to everything, will also be discussed. Lastly, I will cover some implications to the Christian regarding the limits of science.
...wever, in the best interest of advancing education and an enlightened society, science must be pursued outside of the realm of faith and religion. There are obvious faith-based and untestable aspects of religion, but to interfere and cross over into everyday affairs of knowledge should not occur in the informational age. This overbearing aspect of the Church’s influence was put in check with the scientific era, and the Scientific Revolution in a sense established the facet of logic in society, which allows us to not only live more efficiently, but intelligently as well. It should not take away from the faith aspect of religion, but serve to enhance it.
Kerr, H. (1990). Readings in christian thought (2nd ed.). H. T. Kerr (Ed.). Nashville: Abingdon Press.
When considering the basis for the understanding of both science and religion it is interesting to distinguish that both are based on an overwhelming desire to define a greater knowledge, and comprehension of the universe that surrounds us. Now while, science has based its knowledge of experimental basis, researcher, and scholarly work; religion
Faith has several strengths and weaknesses when used as a basis for knowledge in religion and the natural sciences. In order to fully analyze these strengths and weaknesses and determine which of the two is more prevalent, faith, religion, and the natural sciences should be distinguished from one another. In The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary faith is defined as the “belief and trust in God” or “allegiance to duty or a person” (270), religion as “an organized system of faith and worship” (617), and science as “knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method” (650). Faith may be considered a strong basis for knowledge in religion as religion is usually built around the concept of faith. However, faith may be a weak basis for knowledge in religion as certain teachings in a religion may not have a direct link to the concept of faith. Similarly, in the natural sciences, faith may also be seen as a strong basis for knowledge as a scientist has faith in the hypothesis he may be testing. Likewise, faith may be perceived as a weak basis for knowledge in the natural sciences as faith and the natural sciences tend to offer incongruous solutions to the same problem.