2
ENTWISTLE REVIEW
Summary
Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity (Entwistle, 2015) describes six
different models to explain the relationship between psychology and Christianity. These models
are general frameworks for thinking about the interaction of the two disciplines. While they are
imperfect, as Entwistle mentions, they are a good way to summarize different schools of thought.
Among these six are enemies, spies, colonialists, rebuilders, neutral parties, and allies (Entwistle,
2015, p.169).
Enemies
Enemies are the first group listed. This group consists of secular enemies and Christian
enemies. Regardless of which end of the spectrum the enemy falls on, they are marked by their
insistence that the other is an enemy to their camp. Entwistle calls these parties “secular
combatants” and “Christian combatants” (Entwistle, 2015, p.170). The secular combatants would
reject the healing nature of prayer that Christians would claim, meanwhile Christian combatants
would likely claim that antidepressants are a divergence from God’s design, that instead of taking
anxiety medication, the sufferer should simply “not be anxious”. A Christian combatant may be
heard saying “the Bible says do not be afraid 365 times, one for each day of the year!” There is
no reciprocity or appreciation of the other’s knowledge when it comes to secular and Christian
combatants. This “enemies” model is the only one that Entwistle labels “antagonistic”.
3
ENTWISTLE REVIEW
Spies
Spies are the next group, and they fall into the “intermediate model” section. Spies will
sit firmly in their camp (finding a base in either psychology or theology to inform their
worldview), but jump across the line, scout out the situation, and then return back to their base
worldview with a tidbit of knowledge stolen from the other side. Entwistle summarizes the
“spies” framework saying “The nature of espionage is such that, by definition, the spy removes
what he or she sees as valuable, and leaves the rest behind” (Entwistle, 2015, p.223). Entwistle
comments on this loss of context, saying that it is nearly always a degradation of both the
psychological framework and the theological framework when one side tries to pick and choose
aspects of the other. Left behind is the context that the aspect grows in. For example, prayer may
be similar to meditation, and so a psychologist may want to encourage prayer in a client, but they
would leave out the parts of prayer they don’t like—perhaps the dependency on another power,
or the hope that comes from prayer that may not appear in other forms of mindful meditation.
Colonialist
Colonialist modeling is when Christians use psychology as a means to an end. They use
psychology when it is convenient, as a sort of mix-and-match with Bible verses, but the messy
parts of psychology that don’t fit neatly are left to the wayside. A colonialist model takes a
glance at the “new land” and uses an understanding of the “old land” to interpret the “new land”.
“Colonization of psychological findings can be done either by selectively filtering psychological
conclusions by comparing them to Scripture verses, or by aligning psychological findings to a
Christian worldview” (Entwistle, 2015, p.226). Anything that doesn’t fit or doesn’t have a
Christian worldview comparison is likely left unspoken of.
4
ENTWISTLE REVIEW
Rebuilders
Rebuilders see psychology as a dominion to be conquered and restored by incorporating
Christian theology. “They propose an ambitious goal of developing uniquely Christian
approaches to psychological phenomena”, Entwistle says (Entwistle, 2015, p.228). In this model,
we are most likely to hear the phrase “Christian psychology”, a distinction between modern,
secular psychology. It is almost as if a rebuilding model supposes that Christianity has the purest
form of psychology, and that Christianity seeks to restore that by incorporating Christian
principles.
Neutral Parties
A neutral party model is the last of the intermediates. A neutral party model doesn’t have
conflicts between theology and psychology because it does not see the two as connected. Rather,
they are distinct spheres of knowledge with limited overlap. In this framework, both theology
and psychology can be right in their own sense, and adherents are mostly okay with the other
side believing they are right, as long as it doesn’t encroach on the other’s domain. The only time
theology and psychology overlap is when explicitly searching for it (Entwistle, 2015).
Allies
The final model is an integrative model, the allies model. For allies, psychology and
theology are seen as teammates. As a psychologist learns more about theology, an ally would say
that the psychologist would be better for it. Likewise, an ally would say that understanding
contemporary psychology would result in a richer faith for the Christian. Pope John Paul II
5
ENTWISTLE REVIEW
would be an ally, stating that there is “an urgent need for constructive dialogue between science
and religion” (Entwistle, 2015, p.263).
Interaction
I would firmly put myself into the “allies” camp. While Entwistle’s label of
“antagonistic” does not necessarily mean inflammatory arguing, I have observed that oftentimes,
that is what ends up occurring for individuals in the “enemies” camp. We are told “All this is
from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of
reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their
trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are
ambassadors for Christ” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20). Being
entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation and as ambassadors of Christ, I believe being
antagonistic is antithetical to the Christian way.
I would better classify myself under the “coinherent model”, not found in Entwistle’s list.
“The coinherent model says, ‘Science and theology tell us many kinds of things about the same
things in the universe, by working together in different ways.” (Guenther, 2022, p.178). Dan
Guenther is the director of Chi Alpha Campus Ministries in the Pacific Northwest (and also a
member of my church!). Perhaps no place is better to examine the intersection of science and
faith than in public school campus ministries. On one hand, there is a value on higher learning
and scholarship, but on the other, there are living, vibrant faith groups. I’m not sure a campus
ministry could ever survive if it attempted to fit in with the “enemies” model. As its target
audience is educated students, that seems unwise.
6
ENTWISTLE REVIEW
While a campus ministry may be a great case study, the same issue presents itself in
society at large. America is moving towards a post-Christian culture, with the number of
Americans antagonistic towards the Bible nearly doubling from 2011 to 2013 (10% to 17%)
(Barna, 2013). It is necessary to consider these factors when we consider how we should interact
with others.
I also don’t quite understand the half-in, half-out mentality. Trying to cherry pick pieces
here and there of each realm seems odd. If I am a psychologist who does not believe the Bible to
be true, and God to be the creator of all things, I’m not just going to take prayer at face value. I
would dig until I found what made prayer effective. That is when I’d throw away the religious
aspect, once I fully understood the physical reasons that the spiritual phenomena worked. To say
“well, it works, but I also do not believe in the larger principles that it comes from” just seems
lazy to me.
There is another piece that doesn’t fit neatly with Entwistle but is still relevant. How
much does it matter? Some believe that the world was literally created in six days, some interpret
the Hebrew yom, which can mean “day” or “a period of time” to refer to millions of years. At the
end of the day, it does not really matter, in my opinion. I can rest in the fact that God did create
the world, and lean on the implications of that. Perhaps that means I have a degree of a “neutral
parties” tendency. I’m less concerned about who is more right, and more concerned about the
core principles. I am not sure that fits neatly in any category of Entwistle, but it does not have to
fit neatly.
All these models of knowing fall short. Even the allies model, which as I said I probably
identify most with of the six, does not seem to separate itself from psychology enough. What
happens when very apparent psychological concepts seem to be in direct conflict with scripture?
7
ENTWISTLE REVIEW
The allies model does not seem to have a robust rebuttal, yet there are times where science seems
to directly contradict what we believe to be literal scriptural truth. Sometimes these discrepancies
can be explained away (not in a dismissive way, rather a rational way). But when they cannot?
The allies model does not seem to have a resolution to that issue.
Application
While I was in the “allies” camp before reading Entwistle and remain so, this was
still informative and helpful. What I did not consider is where others that I counsel may land. I
may end up counseling a man who has a Christian worldview but had an affair on his wife, and
her ultimatum was that he must get counseling, or she would leave him. Perhaps he would be in
the “enemies” camp, only receiving counseling because of his wife’s demand. The way I would
have to interact with him would be much different than someone who comes to me saying “yeah,
theology is good and all, but ultimately I believe in science”. The level of explicit integration
would vary wildly between those two people. I’d be foolish to talk about the latest and greatest
psychological theory to the former, and asking the latter to open their Bible to an obscure Old
Testament passage would probably be the quickest way to have that client never return.
The ACA Code of Ethics (2014) requires counselors to respect the religious beliefs of
their clients. Part of an individual’s religious beliefs may have to do with what they believe about
psychology’s interaction with theology. If an individual is adamant that God heals and God takes
away, and that their anxiety needs to be fixed through prayer and that medication is taking the
sovereignty of God (a hermeneutically questionable argument, I would add), that is a gentle line
a counselor must navigate. Do I implore them to take the anxiety medication I think they need, at
the risk of infringing on their religious beliefs? Or do I leave it alone, putting to the wayside the
9
ENTWISTLE REVIEW
References
American Counseling Association. (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics.
https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2014-code-of-
ethics-finaladdress.pdf
Entwistle, D. N. (2015). Integrative approaches to psychology and christianity: An introduction
to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. Cascade
Books.
Guenther, D. E. (2022). Epic science, ancient faith: Essential attitudes for studying nature and the
Bible in a Noisy World. Truth in Creation.
What do Americans really think about the Bible?. Barna Group. (2023, August 16).
https://www.barna.com/research/what-do-americans-really-think-about-the-bible/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
