Psychology and Theology: Worldview Issues, and Models of Integration

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Ways of Knowing
Neutral Parties Model
The Two Books Concept
Strengths of the Neutral Parties Model
Limitations of the Neutral Parties Model
Conclusion
References

Psychology and theology are often viewed as two opposing forces with no common ground and the proponents of which deny the merits of each others disciplines. Nevertheless, the two fields of studies have a long-standing history, although the relationship between the two can be described as problematic. Many people who subscribe to religious teachings argue that psychology is unnecessary as Scripture provides all the needed insight into the human psyche. Whereas non-theists believe religion can be damaging and, in extreme cases, lead to mental health problems in its followers (Papaleontiou-Louca, 2021).

It is crucial to examine the relationship between Christianity and key Christian commitments and psychology and its many theories and tenets. Religion is an integral part of the human experience and should be recognized as such by psychology; meanwhile, psychology helps illuminate and alleviate issues people encounter in their lives. Thus, both disciplines are dedicated to studying the nature of truth and reality, and their correlation should be analyzed carefully. Overall, it can be argued that the neutral parties model is the most comprehensive approach to the relationship between Christianity and psychology.

Ways of Knowing

Knowledge and ways of knowing can be classified according to how new findings are evaluated. According to Entwistle (2015), the main ways of knowing are appeals to authority, empiricism, logic, and hermeneutics. Thus, knowledge can be passed down from authority figures, gathered from experience, and arrived at by separating fact from belief or interpretation of authoritative texts (Entwistle, 2015). It can be argued that these ways of knowing are acceptable to Christians to a certain extent. For example, the trust in appeal to authority is evident in Psalm 119:66, where an appeal to God for wisdom and knowledge is made (Bible Gateway, 2022a). In Luke 1:3-4, careful investigation of facts and reliance on experience are promoted (Bible Gateway, 2022b). An argument can be made that those religious beliefs are not fact from the point of view of other branches of science. However, this way of knowing can be accepted by Christians in some models of examining the relationship between theology and psychology. Thus, the neutral parties model that considers theology and psychology as two separate entities with valid independent methodologies can accept logic and reliance on fact instead of belief.

Neutral Parties Model

The neutral parties model offers an intermediary approach to the relationship between religion and psychology. It argues that the two domains should remain separate while emphasizing the validity of both. Thus, the model focuses on the protection of theology and psychology as distinct branches of science through disciplinary isolationism (Entwistle, 2015). The neutral parties approach insists that there is little overlap between the two disciplines under consideration but does not exclude similarities in the outcomes of theological and psychological studies. In particular, the advocates of the isolation version of the model assert that Christianity and psychology have no intersection (Entwistle, 2015).

Meanwhile, the correlation version aims to identify areas of overlap between the two disciplines and encourage interaction if complementary conclusions are reached (Entwistle, 2015). Thus, the neutral parties model contends that theology and psychology are two parallel fields of study with little overlap and, due to this, there should be no conflicts between the supporters of the disciplines.

Furthermore, the notions of psychological and Christian neutrality should be addressed when discussing the neutral parties model. Psychological neutrality occurs when persons who hold deep religious beliefs and work in psychology actively and effectively separate their views from their professional life (Entwistle, 2015). Similarly, Christian neutrality arises when a person within the psychological profession subscribes to Christianity (Entwistle, 2015). Thus, the neutral parties model insists that although ones religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise, hold an important place in their life, they should remain separate from their place of work. Any religious commitments should be compartmentalized from the practice of psychology, respecting the unique set of methods offered by the latter and its validity as a branch of science.

The Two Books Concept

When discussing the relationship between theology and psychology, it should be noted that the two disciplines study different source materials and, therefore, employ distinct methodologies. Theology studies the language, history, philosophy, and content aspects of Scripture with the purpose of understanding the word of God (Entwistle, 2015). Meanwhile, psychology examines the natural world and human experience through thorough observation and application of reason (Entwistle, 2015; Märtsin, 2020). Although the sources of theological and psychological knowledge are separate, Orthodox Christianity poses that Scripture and nature are both created by God (Entwistle, 2015). From this point of view, Scripture can be considered a book of His word and will, while the natural world is the book that illustrates His power and is the embodiment of the Divine will. Thus, it can be argued that the discussed disciplines have the same object of study but consider it via different sources and from distinctly different perspectives.

Both versions of the neutral parties model generally accept the two books comparison that views Scripture and nature as two separate but equally important works of God. The model suggests that both books should be dutifully studied but contends that their examinations should remain separate. Thus, theology should study Scripture, its meaning, and its relation to contemporary human life, while psychology surveys the observable natural world. The similar conclusions to which the two disciplines might come should be viewed as a further indication of the legitimacy of the two books proposition.

Strengths of the Neutral Parties Model

The neutral parties model of the relationship between theology and psychology has several distinct strengths. The models main advantage is that it avoids theological domination over psychology (Entwistle, 2015). The model does not reduce either of the disciplines to the terms of another and argues for their validity. Secondly, the model argues that separating the two disciplines is natural as they both have different sources of knowledge and methodologies. Thus, the model respects the variety of research methods offered by theology and psychology and acknowledges their effectiveness and legitimacy. Thirdly, the treatment of theology and psychology as disciplines with few overlaps allows aligning the theological and psychological conclusions that are reached independently. According to Entwistle (2015), these findings complement each other and help better understand human behavior. In addition, they facilitate a constructive dialogue between the two disciplines, with each preserving their unique methodologies, principles, and approaches. Overall, the neutral parties model insists on theology and psychology existing separately and engaging in a dialogue when similar conclusions are reached.

Limitations of the Neutral Parties Model

Nevertheless, there are also limitations to the neutral parties model. The primary disadvantage of the model is its basis on the modernist assumptions about objectivity, neutrality, and independence. Specifically, it argues that the only path to the truth is through observation and rationality, discarding other ways of knowing (Entwistle, 2015). It is also argued that it lacks objectivity as Christian theology makes specific claims about human nature that inevitably impact how one views the world. The admittance of such worldviews translates to the model being inconsistent with its stance on remaining objective (Entwistle, 2015).

In addition, the model rules out the integration of theology and psychology as it insists on preserving their distinct methodologies. The model does not search for concepts that can unify the disciplines but focuses on identifying overlapping findings in theological and psychological research studies. Thus, the model fails to integrate the two disciplines, lacks impartiality, and relies on modernist teachings and limited ways of knowing.

Conclusion

In summary, the relationship between theology and psychology is examined from the point of view of various models. The neutral parties model of exploring the two disciplines and their correlation insists that theology and psychology are distinct branches of science with independent methodologies and leading principles. Although this model precludes full integration of the discussed disciplines, they often reach the same conclusions providing a more comprehensive and multifaceted insight into human behavior. The model excludes the domination of one discipline over the other while facilitating an open dialogue between theology and psychology, specifically, on similar findings of the disciplines independent research. However, it is over-reliant on the modernist assumptions about independence and impartiality.

In addition, it lacks partiality as religious beliefs govern most of ones life and form the principles that cannot always be suspended for ones profession. Nevertheless, the model views theology and psychology as valid disciplines that should not be in conflict as both contribute to the contemporary understanding of human nature and psyche.

References

Bible Gateway. (2022a). Psalm 119:66 New international version. Web.

Bible Gateway. (2022b). Luke 1:3-4 New international version. Web.

Entwistle, D. N. (2015). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration (3rd ed.). Cascade Books.

Märtsin, M. (2020). Psychology: A discipline in need of reflective foundations. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 694700. Web.

Papaleontiou-Louca, E. (2021). Effects of religion and faith on mental health. New Ideas in Psychology, 60, 18. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!