Colonialism And Neutral Parties

The Colonialist model is intent on proclaiming the superiority of theology over psychology (nearly to the exclusion of psychology, in some cases). What aspects of the relationship of theology and psychology can you affirm in this model, and what do you think is in need of critique?
The Colonialist model ostensibly recognizes the value of psychology, but it does not typically result in deep engagement with the findings or methods of psychology. How might this be applied to a topic such as eating disorders or depression? What would be some of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?
Entwistle distinguishes between scriptural authority and theological interpretation. Do you agree? Why might this distinction be important? Support your view with an example.
Why do people who adopt a Neutral Parties model think that we should keep theology out of psychology, and why do their critics contend that it is dangerous to keep theology out of psychology? Which is the stronger position? Use an example to support your view.
The Neutral Parties model is intent on proclaiming the independence of psychology from any ideology, including Christian theology. What about the relationship of theology and psychology can you affirm in this model, and what do you think is in need of critique?

At least 500 words in response to the provided prompt. You must support your assertions with at least 3 citations in current APA format. You may use the course textbook Chp 10 Entwistle and Chp 2, 4, 6 Johnson and scholarly articles only and the Bible as sources.

Entwistle, D. (2015). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration (3rd ed.). Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN: 9781498223485.