How Diverse Is Contemporary Theological Education? Identity Politics and Theological Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am always glad to visit Canada because in so many ways we as nationals of vastly different countries-Canada and New Zealand-actually share so much in common in terms of the kinds of national societies we each yearn to establish and maintain. Our societies are founded on the principles of liberal democracy. They are open societies where pluralism by any definition is to be celebrated. They are redemptive societies committed to reconciling and healing the devastating enduring outcomes of the colonial experience, especially as this has had an impact on indigenous peoples. They are also societies that must address tribalism and globalization. And the Anglican Church must be part of that discussion. But I confess that, even after much traveling in God's universe, I am not particularly confident in addressing the complex and ever-contradictory issue of globalization. Tribalism I can address-especially after living in a still highly tribalized indigenous community for just on fifty years, and especially as I have become an increasingly unapologetic irritant, an insider critic of some aspects of the less than godly behaviors emanating from within the communities with which I am most familiar. Identity and theological education I can most definitely address: they have been my life's work as a privileged, pioneering, lay, indigenous woman. So I will focus this discussion on the theme of contemporary and theological education. But first a glimpse into politics. One of the questions I always ask myself is, Who am I, to be addressing a global audience? There are various descriptions of me in circulation. And personal biographical pieces are always contrived: we are obliged in so many ways to make ourselves look impressive and credible, especially in the church, the academic world, and other monolithic institutions within which we struggle to pursue our professional careers. We endeavor always to appeal to others to be taken as acceptable, to be taken seriously, to feel a sense of belonging. And so in the politically laden process of self-definition, or identifying ourselves to others, we very selectively appropriate bits and pieces of identity-based data in order to build an attractive (or at least agreeable) image of ourselves. And we do so in such a way that we instinctively position ourselves advantageously against others. What we are asserting, of course, in snapshot form, is our current unique sense of identity. This is what differentiates me from you, in fact, from all others. Unself-consciously I am asserting that my is what prevents me from being identical to anyone else. Were I to consider every single dimension of my identity, it is impossible for there to be another me anywhere on God's earth. So is what emerges out of this milieu of identity-making through the claims and counter-claims for recognition, and for the rights for individuals and groups of similar individuals. If we were the tolerant and open societies we hope to be, these would remain relatively benign. But we live now in increasingly pluralistic societies characterized by complex layers of difference across religious, ethnic, gender, sexuality, and class divides (to name just a few popularly asserted signifiers of difference). But what a heavily loaded phrase identity politics has now become! I understand at its heart to be about the wide range of ways in which political activism and theorizing are consolidated around shared perceptions of the experience and/or the perception of injustice among members of certain social groups, such as women, gays and lesbians, indigenous people, people living with disabilities, and so on. These groups have been and generally still are marginalized, alienated, or oppressed within the larger sociopolitical context. These groups are committed to reclaiming their distinctiveness from the characterizations pressed upon them by a dominant group or system. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it