Contemplating the given statement begs the question, what does “sinfully thinking” actually mean?  As Entwistle (2004) unpacks in the text, human nature is affected by the Fall and therefore the statement is correct in its declaration that humanity is sinful.  This will always be the true when referring to the nature of humanity.  To say that contemplating the inner workings of humanity, that is, what makes men and women think, act, and make a choice is a sinful act, asks for further definition.

Looking back into the history of the Church in regards to psychology will find that the care and healing of the soul was central to Christianity and the Church, long before our modern view of psychotherapy came into being (Entwistle, 2004).  Viewing psychology, or soul care, as sinful is to make the statement that the Church of antiquity was wrong in its mission to care for human beings.

Entwistle (2004) proposes that the study of psychology is a study of God’s works and is therefore a way to learn about the God who created the universe and its inhabitants.  What should be asked of this original statement is how one interprets psychology based upon worldview perspective.  Defining psychology as a sinful endeavor lies in a Christian combatant perspective from Entwistle’s (2004) Enemies model.  The perspective that theology and psychology must be in opposition with clearly defined territory stems from a fairly recent debate after the Enlightenment and Darwinism (Entwistle, 2004).  Thus, one must recognize that this statement does not stem from a Biblical concept, but from a territorial debate from the very recent nineteenth century.

References

Entwistle, D.N. (2004). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.