Different theories and practices have attempted to explore the holistic psychology of persons. One such practice is the Christian faith. When exploring human behavior as an element of psychology, the holistic unity of personhood perspective held by Christians is an ideal point of view (Entwistle, 2009). The Christian perspective views the behavior of an individual as the results of a combination of that individual’s biological, psychological, spiritual, and social make-up best expressed as his or her "biopsychosocial” make-up (Entwistle, 2009). However, even yet as ideal as it may be, this perspective is not conclusive when it comes to explaining how these biological, psychological, spiritual, and social elements act as the root source of a person’s behavior. It is the perspective held by D. N. Entwistle in his 2009 journal article “A holistic psychology of persons: Implications for theory and practice.” This self-reflection paper explores the sentiments enlisted by Entwistle in this article and reiterates what the author finds as agreeable. The study also outlines what the author finds to be beneficial for his practice now and in the future from Entwistle article.
It is important to note that as much as much as the Christian practice may emphasize the application of spiritual faith as a form of intervention when dealing with expected behavior outcomes in an individual, there may exist other acceptable legal secular approaches that may exist (Entwistle, 2009). It is thus of worth to identify how far as a practitioner one is allowed to practice his or her faith without facing potential legal implications as a result of neglecting the legally acceptable secular medical interventions. It is possible for a practitioner to be sued on ethical grounds for negligence in the event that a situation gets out of hand when spiritual intervention becomes the priority of a practitioner whereas an acceptable secular intervention is relegated or not used at all.
Keen consideration needs to be taken especially when deciding how to best approach and evaluate a situation in which impairment in an individual’s behavior has been diagnosed without bringing in the possibility of religious and secular conflict (Entwistle, 2009). The Christian perspective holds the ideology that a relationship exists between psychological and spiritual influence for which it proposes spiritual intervention as a priority in the event of a psychological illness (Entwistle, 2009). It is a greatly disputed perspective by those who hold on to the opinion that every occurrence takes place under natural settings and thus there is no relationship between mental health and spiritual influence (Entwistle, 2009). The strong naturalists’ perspective has been termed as thus of naturalistic metaphysical extremism while that of staunch Christians has been termed as thus of spiritualistic metaphysical extremism (Entwistle, 2009). Entwistle (2009) argues that there have been noted fatalities in instances where only spiritual interventions, especially by those belonging to spiritual sects, were applied whereas there were secular medical interventions that could have prevented such deaths.
Use of “biopsychosocial” as an approach in psychology, however, bridges the enmity that exists between the naturalists and the spiritualists. Biopsychosocial view approaches the issue of mental health from a combination of both the naturalists and the spiritualists’ perspectives in the sense that it explores both the possible influences of the natural and the spiritual forces on the biological, psychological, and social elements concerning human behavior (Entwistle, 2009). It does not consider one being superior over another and does not discredit any as being illogical. In fact, it marries both the two and breaks the deadlock of extremism held by the two perspectives. The holistic nature of the Biopsychosocial view entails the approach of human behavior from the intrinsic human cognitive perspective and their relationship with each other (Entwistle, 2009).
Therefore, to be safe especially as a Christian psychology practitioner, it is important to embrace the perspective of the rational, holistic approach to psychological health. Knowing the fundamentals of correlating the human behavior from a Christian perspective and the acceptance that human beings exist in a natural world as much as spiritual forces may exist is important. This way, one can seek a holistic psychological intervention model that incorporates both the elements of spiritualism and naturalism in understanding the etiology of human behavior (Entwistle, 2009). With such a background and approach, a practitioner will thus be able to make a rational decision on the appropriate choice of required intervention for a given situation. Appreciating the perspectives of both the naturalist and the spiritualist and incorporating them in the process of coming up with the most effective intervention to psychological health avoids the practitioner the stand-off that exists between the two extremes (Entwistle, 2009). As a result, holistic care that can generate positive health outcomes is guaranteed.
Concisely, both the naturalistic metaphysical extremism and the spiritualistic metaphysical extremism on their own may lead to dire consequences if applied as standalone psychological health intervention perspectives. Nevertheless, the combination of these through the Biopsychosocial approach to psychology can save a life or prevent damage that would have otherwise been experienced if only one of the perspectives was used to formulate an intervention.
References
Entwistle, D. N. (2009). A holistic psychology of persons: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Psychology & Christianity , 28 (2), 141-148.
