d d I disagree that “psychology is just sinful human beings sinfully thinking
about other sinful human beings” (Entwistle, 2015, p. 13). The injection of
the word “just” transforms the statement, which I deem as accurate, into a
dismissive reductionism on the development and contributions of psychology.
As humanity is corrupted by sin, all theoretical constructs inherit the
limitations and flaws of human rationality. Yet for centuries, people have
turned these ideas into reality, to which societies have embraced and thrived
off of through engineering, medicine, technology, and more. Psychology is no
exception to this, so despite its roots from “sinful human beings”, it is
nonetheless useful. In practice, it has provided systematic methods to
effectively counsel and care for people as a demonstration of love and
service.
d d d I hold an integrative worldview that closely aligns to the
“Colonialist” paradigm (Liberty University, 2021). There is a hierarchy to the
sources of my presuppositions as they are prioritized according to my
perception of their veracity and reliability. I give full authority to the truth of
the Bible because it is from God who possesses perfect knowledge and is
unchanging. Keeping in mind the effects of sin on human thinking and the
constant changes to current scientific theories, I cautiously augment theoretical
understanding with psychology’s discoveries and conclusions, given that the
findings have been carefully tested, well reasoned, honestly interpreted, and
noncontradictory to the revelation of the Bible.
d d d One of the criticisms of the “Colonialist” perspective is its
propensity to “cherry pick” ideas from psychology. There is neither complete
agreement nor uniformity of assumptions across leading ideas in this field,
so one must make a subjective selection within the study itself. As it is
acceptable to adopt subsets of concepts within the field, the same liberty
should be extended to do so across fields as long as the logical
consistency remains intact after the incorporation of these concepts. Thus, I
do not see much validity to this criticism.
d d d In conclusion, there is much to gain when supplementing
theology with knowledge from psychology in the “Colonialist” manner since
the small overlap between them is addressed by yielding authority to the
Bible. As C.S. Lewis comments, “psychoanalysis itself, apart from all the
philosophical additions… is not in the least contradictory to Christianity. Its
technique overlaps with Christian morality at some points…but it does not
run the same course all the way, for the two techniques are doing rather
different things” (1952, p. 89). My integration is not about one versus the
other but rather focused on enrichment of understanding in my journey for
truth and meaning.
References
Entwistle, D. N. (2015). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity:
An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of
integration (3rd ed.). Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere Christianity (Rev. ed.). HarperSanFrancisco.
Liberty University. (2021, August). Watch: Models for Interdisciplinary
Integration [Video]. Kaltura.
https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/117651/pages/watch-models-for-interdisciplinary-
integration?module_item_id=13237353
