4-Mat Review
4-MAT Review: Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity
Charlee Alan-Evans
University
4-Mat Review: Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity
SUMMARY
In David Entwistle’s book, Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity (2010), he explores two potentially divergent disciplines: psychology and theology. He then considers whether integration of these two disciplines is attainable, desirable, or necessary
(p. 16). The author points out that regardless of the discipline being discussed, everyone formulates their belief system based on their own particular worldview. Entwistle cites a definition of worldview given by James Sire which is particularly apt: “A worldview is a set of presuppositions, (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic make-up of the world” (p. 57). Essentially, each of us views the world through the lens of our own beliefs, assumptions and experiences; each of us, though not accurately so, assumes that the worldview with which we were raised is correct. In our attempt to ascertain what is actually truth, Entwistle states that there are limitations, such as individual worldviews, the finite nature of humans, human weakness, sin, personal assumptions, methodological limitations, and the availability of information, among other things.
Although there have been times in history when psychology and theology have worked cooperatively, they have mostly been at odds. Psychology relies primarily on empirical and rational methods; it assumes the world is knowable and predictable. The goal of psychology is to improve life by minimizing suffering and maximizing the positive. On the other hand, theology asserts that the Bible is the ultimate source and guide for faith and practice. In addition
to natural, there also supernatural explanations. Theology claims that humans are
Charlee Alan-Evans
University
4-Mat Review: Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity
SUMMARY
In David Entwistle’s book, Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity (2010), he explores two potentially divergent disciplines: psychology and theology. He then considers whether integration of these two disciplines is attainable, desirable, or necessary
(p. 16). The author points out that regardless of the discipline being discussed, everyone formulates their belief system based on their own particular worldview. Entwistle cites a definition of worldview given by James Sire which is particularly apt: “A worldview is a set of presuppositions, (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic make-up of the world” (p. 57). Essentially, each of us views the world through the lens of our own beliefs, assumptions and experiences; each of us, though not accurately so, assumes that the worldview with which we were raised is correct. In our attempt to ascertain what is actually truth, Entwistle states that there are limitations, such as individual worldviews, the finite nature of humans, human weakness, sin, personal assumptions, methodological limitations, and the availability of information, among other things.
Although there have been times in history when psychology and theology have worked cooperatively, they have mostly been at odds. Psychology relies primarily on empirical and rational methods; it assumes the world is knowable and predictable. The goal of psychology is to improve life by minimizing suffering and maximizing the positive. On the other hand, theology asserts that the Bible is the ultimate source and guide for faith and practice. In addition
to natural, there also supernatural explanations. Theology claims that humans are