From kingdom to kin-dom, three feminist interpretations of the Kingdom of God
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis works from two premises. The first is that the Kingdom of God functions as a concept of hope, hope for a better world, hope for justice, hope for wholeness. The second premise is that women's recent rereadings of the Kingdom of God are important and merit attention. My main search is to uncover hopes that women's interpretations bring to the Kingdom of God concept. This thesis limits itself to the interpretations of three feminist theologians. I have chosen to study works by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz. First, I introduce their specific interpretive principles. Next, I use these principles as the basis for exploring their ideas concerning the Kingdom of God. I argue that the hopes brought by these feminist theologians stem from their interpretations of the values of 'belonging, caretaking', and 'community '. From their interpretations I conclude that the re-interpreted Kingdom of God concept continues to function as a "project of hope," that from within the emerging feminist theology concerning the eschatological concept come great hopes for betterment of self and relationships, and, that there is good reason for letting old hopes die.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".