MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132893305

Reconfiguring Asian Theology from the Ground Up: Watchman Nee and John Sung on Scriptural Interpretation

2022· dissertation· en· W7132893305 on OpenAlexaff
Chandra Wim

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicChristian Theology and Mission
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsInterpretation (philosophy)HermeneuticsExegesisPietismConstrualsNothing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Asian theology”, as a separate category within contemporary theological studies, has proven problematic on several fronts. Among the category’s most significant challenges has been its failure to engage fairly and substantively grassroots Asian Christianity. This failure has perhaps been due, first, to the category’s own conceptual captivity to the Western Enlightenment; and second, to its practitioners’ common unwillingness to take seriously the lived experiences of the ordinary people of God in Asia as a source of theological reflection. This is most clearly seen in “Asian theology’s” engagement—or rather disengagement—with Scripture: contemporary construals of Asian theology tend either to devalue Scriptural authority (for contextual/cultural relevancy) or dismiss the traditional figural reading of Scripture. This dissertation proposes that the theological hermeneutics of Watchman Nee and John Sung provide a rich and complementary set of resources for understanding a grassroots approach to Scripture that is both authentically Asian and faithfully Christian. While Nee and Sung were highly influential leader-preachers in China and Southeast Asia, their names almost never appear in handbooks of Asian theology and biblical interpretation. And while there are some serious recent studies on Nee and Sung’s work, scholarly evaluations of their theology and interpretation of Scripture are scarce, suggesting that either Scripture is not central to their overall theology or there is nothing particularly distinctive in their exegesis worth analyzing. This dissertation aims to address this scholarly lacuna by focusing on Nee and Sung’s interpretive practices, unearthing their cultural, hermeneutical, and theological assumptions, and then detailing their influence on and legacy among contemporary grassroots Christians in China and Indonesia. Ultimately, I suggest that their theology and interpretation of Scripture have had more influence on grassroots Chinese Asian Christians—perhaps even on the majority of Asian Christians—and have greater resonance and relevance for them, than does the work of many contemporary Asian theologians, especially those well-known in the West.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicChristian Theology and Mission→French-language works237,207→