Transformative Reading: An Evangelical Metamodern Approach to Understanding Biblical Interpretive Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like many denominations in the secularized West, the Canadian Baptists of Ontario and Quebec have been engaged in debates regarding sexuality and marriage over the past decade. As these debates have developed, it has become increasingly clear that at their center are differences in biblical interpretive practice. Yet it is my experience that, by and large, many evangelicals, particularly in the Canadian Baptist context, do not know how to discuss their interpretive practice. In order to work through difficult topics, such as the one mentioned above, Christians need to develop the ability to reflect both on how they are interpreting Scripture and how they see others interpreting Scripture, so that they can coherently and constructively discuss their interpretations with others with whom they disagree. In this dissertation, I utilize a hermeneutic theory, metamodern cultural theory, and a proposed revision of an integrative theological method, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, to develop a a paradigm for observing and describing differences in biblical interpretive practice. Using the aforementioned debates concerning sexuality and marriage as an illustrative example, the project reveals that metamodern interpretations of scripture are complex and tension-filled, and that amidst this complexity, the prioritization (or lack thereof) of theological reflection sources prompts particular interpretive applications. When they are able to perceive the multivalent nature of interpretation, readers are better equipped through this work to think carefully and critically about how they come to their interpretive conclusions and how those conclusions draw them towards faithful living in Christ via situational application of the biblical text.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".