Entwistle’s models

Choose 3 of Entwistle’s models (Enemies, Spies, Rebuilders, Neutral Parties, Allies, Colonialists) and provide the critiques of these models.

3 of Entwistle's models and their critiques: Enemies
  • Critique: This model is too simplistic and does not allow for any meaningful dialogue between psychology and Christianity. It also ignores the fact that there is much overlap between the two disciplines.
Spies
  • Critique: This model is also too simplistic, as it sees psychology and Christianity as two separate entities that can be mined for information without any regard for their underlying worldviews. This can lead to the distortion of both disciplines.
Rebuilders
  • Critique: This model is more nuanced than the previous two, but it still has some flaws. It assumes that psychology and Christianity can be reconciled by simply removing the "errors" from each discipline. However, this is not always possible, as the two disciplines have different starting points and assumptions.
In addition to these three models, Entwistle also discusses the Neutral Parties, Colonists, and Allies models. The Neutral Parties model simply acknowledges the existence of both psychology and Christianity, but it does not attempt to integrate them. The Colonists model sees psychology as the dominant discipline, and it attempts to use Christian theology to support psychological theories. The Allies model is the most comprehensive of Entwistle's models, and it sees psychology and Christianity as complementary disciplines that can be used together to understand human behavior. Entwistle's models provide a helpful framework for understanding the different ways that psychology and Christianity can be integrated. However, it is important to remember that these are just models, and they do not represent the only way to approach integration. Ultimately, the best way to integrate psychology and Christianity is to find a model that works for you and that is faithful to your own worldview.

Sample Solution

Enemies
  • Critique: This model is too simplistic and does not allow for any meaningful dialogue between psychology and Christianity. It also ignores the fact that there is much overlap between the two disciplines.