Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity

¶ … integrative approach to psychology and Christianity

Entwistle, David N. An Integrative Approach to Psychology and Christianity. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004.

Faith and science, in contemporary culture, have been constructed as polarized hermeneutical frameworks. Psychology, an analytic discipline that sprang from science, is similarly seen as incompatible with faith and Christianity. This puts pastoral counselors in something of a bind, according to David Entwistle in his text an Integrative Approach to Psychology and Christianity. How to reconcile "Athens and Jerusalem" or faith and the practice of psychological analysis and interpretation? (Entwistle 2004: 9) This sense that an individual must 'choose' between faith and reason can be traced back to Galileo, who was condemned by the Catholic Church for questioning its view of the universe (Entwistle 2004: 23). In Galileo's case, dogma held sway over empirical observation (Entwistle 2004: 23). Today, it is assumed that a scientist sees an individual suffering from schizophrenia as a psychopathological condition, and Christian sees someone possessed with a demon (Entwistle 2004: 85).

Because psychology emerged from science, Entwistle devotes the first chapters of his text to demonstrating the fact that the relationship between faith and science is far more complex than is usually portrayed in popular culture, psychology journals, or Christian media. In fact, it is just as easy to say that the concept of scientific observation arose from the rational discourse deployed by Early Christian theologians, such as Anselm and Aquinas (Entwistle 2004: 26). Entwistle writes: "Much of Christendom saw science as a noble and godly calling" (Entwistle 2004: 47). Today, sometimes faith and science may be in conflict but they are not necessarily incommensurate.

The original domain of pre-scientific psychology was theological in nature, the interior life of the individual was the provenance of religion for "the church was the prime vehicle for the care of the soul" (Entwistle 2004: 44). As the new science of psychology moved in its focus to psychopathology, however, it seemingly encroached on theology's domain of the soul (49). Initial resistance to Freud within the theological community, Entwistle writes, was not due to Freud's true teaching, but a misunderstanding that Freud's focus on sexual repression meant that Freud was calling for an end to all social inhibitions, and for all human beings to unleash their "darkest" impulses (Entwistle 2004: 49).

Contemporary fundamentalist critics, in contrast to liberal Protestant denominations tend to take an "anti-intellectual, anti-social action, and anti-ecumenical stance," that fails to address the actual content of psychological research and theories (Entwistle 2004: 55). Entwistle is highly critical of theologians who refuse to see the benefits of scientific insight in helping others, as well as psychologists who see religion as anathema to psychological health. Yet true to the title of his text, Entwistle is equally critical of individuals who do not outright condemn the opposite camp of believers or therapists, although "fail to discern any fundamental unifying structure that is common to both disciplines" of psychology and Christianity (Entwistle 2004: 207). Rather, Entwistle calls for an acknowledgement of the integrative worldview of psychology and Christianity, which both see the essence of human beings as imperfect, yet good.

He calls foundational integration that allows for the interrelationship between faith and science. He seeks a systematic approach to the soul and human life, a scholarly and applied integration within the academy and a public end to the hostilities between psychology and religion (Entwistle 2004: 243-245). Both lines of reasoning seek to create a sense of psychic wholeness, and address social issues. Psychologists cannot ignore the quest for meaning felt by the human species, "conversely if a pastoral counselor admits that human beings are biological beings, yet persists in using only religious interventions in a case where there is in need for biological intervention," such as if a schizophrenic requires medical intervention, "there has been a failure of interdisciplinary integration," and this will result in a failed treatment plan (Entwistle 2004: 244).

Personal Reflection

Religion has caused the death of thousands of people," said the girl in my high school history class. When I pointed out that the same objection could be raised in regards to Darwinism, given the inequities that Social Darwinism was used to excuse, she simply brushed me off. I tried to explain that both religion and science had been used as an excuse for violence and oppression, but that did not change her point-of-view. In her eyes, supporting religion was tantamount to supporting oppression.

Cut to another scene with the same girl, in my high school cafeteria. Now we are sitting side-by-side, talking like friends. She talks about how pressured she feels by her family to enter the field of law, but she would prefer to study something more meaningful than political science when she goes to college. She criticizes members of our generation for not caring about what is going on in the world, and our lack of social responsibility.

Ironically, it is the members of my faith community that seem to have used their belief as a touchstone of social activism to reach out and to help others. A concerned interest in the point-of-view of other people, and a desire to help them is the essence of the selflessness of faith, and it is also the essence of the dispassionate yet personally focused and proactive discipline of psychology.

I believe it is because religion has been constructed by our culture as intolerant, or as hostile to thought, that people in my age group tend to reject the concept of faith. The ideas and concepts of both religion and psychology can be used for negative purposes, but that does not mean that the disciplines themselves are bad. Psychology and science must stop trying to shut religion and faith out, especially as people articulate the need for a more meaningful life than current cultural circumstances offer them, but likewise religion must acknowledge the ability of science and psychology to help and to heal, whether it is through surgery, psychotropic medication, or even traditional therapy.

Critical Reflection

Even if the disciplines of the social and natural sciences are not hostile to the pursuit of human truth, what to make of the fact that our culture has polarized these two forces in such a way that they are seen as incompatible? Doesn't the fact that they are seen as incompatible make a difference have an effect upon their ability to heal individuals seeking truth and understanding? For examine, imagine a Goth teenager walking into a therapist's office, complaining about her school and how family does not understand her, and how the people at her school and at home are all false and superficial. Treating this girl with therapy for her depression, or more negative behaviors like self-harm, with Cognitive Behavioral techniques, antidepressants, and other medications in conjunction to a more spiritual approach, while still taking her questions of 'why am I here' seriously might be the ideal approach, according to Entwistle's text. And this indeed might be the case in an ideal world. However, there is a problem with the cultural resistance that might arise in the girl's mind, when she hears about spiritual concepts, given that she associates faith with indoctrination and conversion. The therapist, by broaching the subject of spirituality, might completely alienate the girl from the therapeutic process.