MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793865096 · doi:10.3138/tjt.2017-0204

Douglas Hall's Theology of the Cross as Contextual Theology in the Postcolonial Context

2018· article· en· W2793865096 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Charles J. Fensham

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTheological Perspectives and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberation theologyBlack theologyContext (archaeology)TheologyProtestantismArgument (complex analysis)Religious studiesGlorySociologyPhilosophyPhilosophical theologyEcclesiologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Figure: see text] In this paper I will examine the theology of Douglas J. Hall in light of the development of liberation and contextual theologies to see the similarities and differences between his approach and that of the larger movement of liberation theologies of the majority world. I will argue that Hall represents a particular Protestant Canadian form of contextual theology that establishes a methodological hybrid between theologies from the majority world and theologies with deep roots in the the European Reformation. To make this argument I will discuss the emergence of liberation and contextual theologies from the majority world and will draw on the work of Peter Phan and Clodovis Boff to discern some key elements of liberation theologies. I will then compare his theology of the cross within the Canadian context, a theology that he opposes to the theology of glory, to some of the key elements of liberation theologies. I will show how Hall's particular contextual theology of the cross intersects methodologically with liberation theology. However, his theology also represents some different assumptions about the horizon of theology and redemption than liberation theology. Hall's ultimate insistence on privileging an existential horizon for Christian redemption, rooted in his own middle-class status in Canadian society, risks obscuring the poor, the marginalized, and those who suffer most in the Canadian context. Yet in a creative twist in his argument, he re-engages such marginalities through the lens of compassion.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0170.053
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicTheological Perspectives and PracticesFrench-language works237,207