Progressive Christians as Neo-Literalists: The drive for “intellectual integrity” in contemporary Christianity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ChristianityContemporary religious discourses have inherited from modern secularised scientific debates a literalistic worldview in which statements and events are judged to be either true or false and religion is defined as the holding of counterintuitive beliefs.This Master's paper examines Progressive Christianity in Canada as a movement which has altered its approach to scripture as a direct result of the modern attempt to bring religious activity in line with scientific "truths".I show that the changing consciousness in modern religiosity in combination with the scholarly search for the historical Jesus has created a movement which promotes the idea of intellectual integrity and a new liberal, literalistic reading of scripture, which I call neo-literalism.communities.This section serves as a venue to discuss primarily the motivations and consequences for the scholarship, rather than the findings (about which there exists a plethora of scholarship).7 Likewise Bultmann;s work predated a generation of 1960s pop-theologians, such as John Robinson whose work will be discussed in Chapter Three.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".