Why would I be insulted by a strawman attack? I agree that the early Church fathers were cynical about their religion, thinking allegorically, mystically, and philosophically (atheistically) about their theology, while preaching literalism to the unwashed masses and persecuting anyone for deviating an iota from the script. Is that what you were trying to say? Or were you whitewashing the divide between what scholars and the religious masses think and have always thought?

What's this myth of the war between science and faith that I supposedly subscribe to? That religious people can never be scientific or reasonable? That the human brain isn't capable of dealing with cognitive dissonance by a host of devious mental maneuvers?

Your phrase "the marriage of science, faith, and reason" is ambiguous. If you're talking about the above psychological matter, I never say otherwise. But if you're talking about whether plain Christianity is in fact compatible with science and philosophy, I beg to differ. Moreover, there's no such scholarly consensus about that except the biased one from Christian scholars and a politically correct one from feminized liberals who want to avoid conflicts.

"Able partners"? Again, are you talking specifically about faith in the Christian creed or religious faith in general? Assuming the former, I fail to see a worthy partnership. You can allegorize any nonsense to avoid the implications of what you're saying, but that's an unfalsifiable word game that only Machiavellians would play in their bid to dominate and exploit the ignorant laypeople (in an anti-Jesus manner, needless to say).

The thrust of Christian faith is opposed to reason in so far as reason is what Paul calls "natural" as opposed to spiritual discernment. The risen Jesus belittles empiricism when he says that although doubting Thomas got his proof, it's better to believe without proof (as later generations would be forced to do).