Antiracism as Inclusivity: The Racial Justice Paradigm of White Progressive Churches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Observations in White progressive churches across the United States and Canada reveal antiracism as grounded in a “Theology of Inclusivity” framed by a Golden Rule morality. In attempting to integrate antiracism with broader inclusionary initiatives historically focused on LGBTQ+ affirmation, leaders and members view racism as a “deeper” issue, rooted in Christianity's historical complicity and societally pervasive social injustice. Although antiracism programming fosters dialogue and reflection, the emphasis on inclusivity often stalls in abstraction amid disagreement, delaying substantive congregational decisions. The burden of consensus creates an “awareness trap” where continuous deliberation replaces decisive action. While forging shared priorities, the antiracism focus prods members toward an individualized ethic, encouraging members to address racial justice through personal roles outside the church beyond any collective congregational efforts. In the process, these progressive congregations increasingly reframe individual antiracist initiatives as ecclesial action, allowing churches to view any member efforts as valid extensions of their antiracist identity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".