2
Colonialism
The Colonialist model ostensibly recognizes the value of psychology, but it does not
typically result in deep engagement with the findings or methods of psychology. How might
this be applied to a topic such as eating disorders or depression? What would be some of
the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?
The Colonialist model views the use of psychology in the relationship between
Christianity and psychology as a foreign land to be exploited to the full advantage of the
Christian faith. In this model, Christian believers find psychological ideas and theories as mines
from which valuable resources can be dug. Still, they would not engage in them on a deeper
level, either in their methods, assumptions or the worldview of this science itself (Entwistle,
2019). This selective appropriation of psychological insights is one that Christians might make
just to advance that kind of jeremiad critique: that the findings of psychological research seem
only to advance or strengthen religious beliefs when the findings threaten to subvert them.
Applied to mental health issues like eating disorders and depression could result in
problematic interventions. For example, when dealing with a medical problem such as the
treatment of eating disorders, a likely Colonialist perspective would focus solely on the use of
cognitive-behavioural strategies, e.g., changing pathological thinking patterns and behaviours, to
the exclusion of other therapies and the importance that psychological models on disordered
eating assign to sociocultural or body image issues (Entwistle, 2019). Colonialist interventions
would likely consist of prayer and reading scripture to the depressed, seeing the causes of
depressive disorders to emanate from spiritual rather than psychological, biological, and
environmental causes documented by research.
3
For instance, the approach to dealing with depression would subscribe solely to the
Colonialist; it would be the kind of approach that only utilizes spiritual interventions like
prayers, readings from the Scripture, and church activities but does not consider the
psychological, biological, and environmental causes of depressive disorders that have been well
researched and documented (Entwistle, 2019). The advantage to this is that it allows Christians
to hold very tightly to their theological grid, cherry-picking psychological research that seems to
either confirm their position or be helpful and complement their stand.
It does, however, have significant drawbacks in that if failing to engage with the
psychological disciplines properly, Christian practitioners will subject themselves to over-
conceptualizing very complex human experiences and, in the process, may provide interventions
of limited effectiveness or even harm. On the other hand, the colonialist approach may lead to
attitudes of compartmentalizing faith and science, where the two are viewed as entirely different
and not supplementing one another as ways of looking at the human condition.
Again, the Colonialist model shows a telling nature that Christian theological
interpretations are better than those obtained from scientific inquiry. This is a discredit to
empirical research and maybe, at best, disqualification or, at worst, the vital psychological
findings that may even dare to threaten or offer alternatives to mainstream Christian beliefs. It
hopes to draw strengths from Christian faith and psychological science to provide a more
integrative perspective of the human person and effective interventions for mental health
problems (Entwistle, 2019). That may include thinking of how spiritual practices such as prayer
and community support may be integrated within psychological interventions for depression,
thinking about how to understand the social-cultural factors that most affect body image and
disordered eating can make Christian approaches to these issues better, and other things.
4
In sum, then, it seems that while the Colonialist model may at least be said to appreciate
the possible value of psychology, its lack of deeper involvement in the discipline and tendencies
to put theological understandings before scientific proof serve to undermine its overall ability to
grapple with complex human troubles such as eating disorders and depression. Perhaps a more
redemptive path might aim at integrating and engaging Christian faith and psychological science,
each utilizing the other's strength in ways more totally alive to the way humans are put together
and mended.
