Peace psychology has reached a crossroad. There is now greater interest in peace psychology, particularly among a new generation of researching and practicing psychologists. Growth in peace psychology is reflected in national and international meetings, as well as publications, including introductory textbooks (Blumberg et al., 2006; MacNair, 2012), varieties of edited volumes (Bretherton & Law, 2015; Christie, 2011; Christie et al., 2001; Seedat et al., 2017; Webel & Galtung, 2007), and innovative papers in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Christie et al., 2008; Gibson, 2011). This promising momentum in the field has created an opportunity and a choice: should we continue on our present path, or rethink peace psychology and move toward a more integrative, dynamic discipline? How should we position ourselves, within the positioning that takes place in conflict studies broadly (Moghaddam et al., 2008)? In my final editorial in this journal, for which I have served as editor since 2014, I propose that we move boldly on the second path, toward a more “Integrative and dynamic Peace Psychology.” From among the many possibilities of how to become more integrative and dynamic, I discuss four below. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)