Models of Integration - Part 1 (Jan 2014)

My apologies for the short absence, as I've been away on a whirlwind of a November, finishing up a big report (possibly the most serious one I've ever written to date), had an adventure in North Carolina, attended a Glycobiology conference in Florida, and went deep-sea fishing in the Maldives! And yes, you've guessed it, I don't quite have any more leave for Christmas!

This is actually the fourth or fifth time I've attempted to put pen to paper, and is the only successful one (the other three posts were too ambitious for this piece-meal format). I've decided to make about 5 more posts on this topic, so I can move on to other topics. As before, I completely welcome any comments or discussion.

If everything before was just entrées, today we turn to the meat of the book.

These are models of how "psychologically committed" proponents and "religiously committed" proponents can decide to agree or disagree on their viewpoints. The list seems to be quite comprehensive, covering what seems to be most of the actions that two parties might make towards each other - fight, steal, conquer, ignore, unite. Have a read through the list...which group do you fall under?

This has been one of the more interesting...and personally more controversial chapters in the book. This is because the author was clearly pushing the argument towards "Allies", and I sometimes felt overselling it a bit too much. In fact, I found myself disliking what I felt was a snobbish disdain of the four other models. This disdain felt like something akin to two women watching some children disagreeing over toys, and whispering to each other, "oh look Martha, the two are at it again - a pity they can't get along like us; oh no, they're far too silly to ever play peacefully". Note again how the only real positive terms are awarded to his favourite model, Allies, and to the easiest one to debunk, Neutral Parties. I am probably being terribly unfair, because, surprise of surprises, I don't fall into the "Allies" model! 

I stress here that he is not addressing Christianity in its entirety, but the Christian theology of human behaviour. The Allies model sees both theology and the scientific field of Psychology as equals, with each one considering the data from BOTH fields, with appropriate methodology, in order to make increasingly accurate conclusions about the truth behind human behaviour. The ancients called this something like "reading aright from the two Books of Revelation and of Nature". 

I love that Entwhistle points out, rightly so, that theology is not the same as truth, and likewise the theology of human behaviour is most definitely not the same as God's truth about human behaviour. This guards us from picturing our theological understanding as an unassailable fortress - the first step, always in the name of dogma, towards heresy. 

But here is where I depart from his reasoning. I find my feet more firmly planted in the Colonialist camp - where theology dominates psychological understandings, and the only way to meet is by "conquering". Conquering by capturing psychological findings and transforming them by re-interpreting through a theological framework. Entwhistle diagnoses me well here, rightly blaming my stance as due to the twins of lack of working knowledge of psychological methods, and having no intention to contribute to psychological research. And so I find myself being labeled a "pilferer" and "Colonialist", which of course nobody born after Queen Victoria, in their right mind would ever want to wear such a title. Do you see how Entwhistle's use of emotive terms now work against him?

I find that my biggest pickle with his proposed Allies model is that, as data sources, the book of Revelation is put on equal footing with the book of Nature. Yes, his point is valid that they are both written by the same Sovereign. But just as one would hesitate to equate the biographical value of "An Autobiography of a Fireworks Technician" to his/her million dollar fireworks display on New Years' Eve, I likewise would hesitate before equating the books of Revelation and of Nature as to their informative value on behaviour. 

I strongly believe that the two books were written for two separate purposes (and now I reveal again my Colonialist colours), and hence have different value for the investigator seeking answers to human behaviour. But more on why I think this way...next time!