INTRODUCTION

Faith and science have both been ways of viewing and interpreting the natural

world with different worldviews, assumptions and conclusions. These different

worldviews help us to understand nature as it expressed through different

perspectives. Historically, faith and science have had opposite and somewhat

polarizing viewpoints and ways of seeing human nature. The last century has

seen the beginning of an intense debate regarding the relationship between faith

(religion) and science. However, the assumptions underlying these worldviews

have more historical foundations. Efforts however, have been made to

understand competing worldviews and to formulate models which outline the

relationship between religion and science. Out of this debate came the

relationship between Christian theology and psychology. In order to understand

the relationship between Christianity and psychology, several models have been

formulated to capture different viewpoints and options as to how these two

discipline can reconcile their relationship, to utilize the best practices of each

discipline to better understand human behavior and to adequately address

emotional and psychological issues. While Christianity and psychology have the

same goals of understanding human nature and alleviating human mental and

emotional problems, there is divergence in each discipline’s worldview and

assumptions about the nature and constitution of humans.

Relationship Between Christianity and Psychology

The first model is considered antagonistic model, which is based on the idea

that psychology and Christian theology are mutually exclusive. They believe

that psychology and Christianity are fundamentally opposed to one another.

While theology uses Scriptures as its primary source, psychology uses reason

and observation of nature as its primary source.

The next model of the relationship between Christian theology and psychology

is termed the Spies Model. This model does not reject theology or religion but

“its primary focus is on religion as a repository of psychological truths dressed

in priestly robes . . . using this approach, theological findings are revised from

the perspective of psychological findings” . This model is not a truly integrative

model because it does not accept the unfiltered ideas of each discipline. It

embraces the ideas that the supernatural elements of Christian theology must be

rejected or that psychology is a mere expression of Christian truths.

The third model of the relationship between Christian theology and psychology

is called the Colonialist Model. Those who embrace this model “borrow

selective findings from psychology, but they do so as outsiders and pilferers”.

They continue to embrace a conservative brand of Christian theology and hold

to Scriptures as superior to psychology, which is valuable only to the extent that

it can be reconciled with Christian theology. Most Colonialists have a solid

commitment to Christianity theology with little commitment to the field of

psychology. Colonialists usually have little training in the field of psychology

and “appropriate psychological methods that can illustrate or buttress the claims

of their theological proclamations”

The fourth relationship model is termed the Neutral Parties Model by

Entwistle. This model “represents a truce between the two disciplines. It is

prefaced on the idea that the two do not to be in conflict as long as they respect

each other’s territory”. Those who embrace this model believe that these

disciplines are relatively autonomous and respect the values and rules of both

disciplines without attempting to subjugate one discipline to the other. Another

version of this this model seeks to separate the disciplines from each other and

later compare the findings theology with those of psychology. This version of

the Neutral Parties Model “insists on disciplinary sovereignty. However, once

the disciplines have been allowed to run independently, it recognizes that they

may have independently come to some conclusions that can be compared,

correlated, or seen in parallel terms”.

The final model of the relationship between Christian theology and

psychology has been termed the Allies Model, which “recognizes the

underlying unity of human nature and the legitimacy of both theological and

psychological investigation . . . and that all truth is known by God, who is

sovereign over all things” This model emphasizes a Christian worldview

through which to view all of nature, including psychology. Both Christian

theology and psychology are seen as allies that are under the sovereignty of God

is it ideas and practices. In this model, neither discipline is subjected to the

other, and the worth of each is recognized. “Although theology and psychology

are separate with their own sources, methodologies and findings, they both

express truth about human nature and functioning”

CONCLUSION

As the relationship between religion and science has become more

cooperative and the discourse between the two philosophical worldviews has

increased, it has led to a more open dialogue between the disciplines of

Christian theology and psychology. While there are still some individuals and

schools of thought within both the Christian theology and psychology

disciplines, new relationships models have been developed, taught, researched

and put into practice that are a reflection of a more cooperative and respectful

stance toward one another. Various models of integration have arisen which

recognize the differences in the worldviews, assumptions, methods and

practices of both Christian theology and psychology while comparing or even

integrating the two. This process will enable Christian psychologist to develop

integrative models and practices which benefit the endeavor of understanding

human nature and behavior and providing appropriate counseling interventions

and techniques which addresses human mental, emotional and spiritual health.
Christian psychologists and scholars must be vigilant in continuing its efforts at

integration so that both disciplines can advance and people can take advantage

of a more holistic counseling approach. Christian psychologists must also be

flexible enough to adapt to the ever-changing cultural landscape in American

society.