Decolonial Cruciformity: A Political Theology for Transformative Non-Indigenous Evangelical Engagement in the Context of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Relations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis asks how non-Indigenous evangelicals can chart a path for political engagement in the context of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations in Canada that avoids the failures of the past and present, that can respond to Indigenous peoples appropriately, and that fosters creative action in a way that is faithful to the call of Christ in the present context. To answer this question, the thesis focuses on how non-Indigenous evangelicals can be transformed to become the kinds of people and communities that can participate well with Indigenous peoples in the transformation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations in Canada. Utilizing a contextual theological method and engaging with settler colonial studies, decolonization studies, Indigenous resurgence scholars, and Indigenous theologians like Randy Woodley in conversation with Michael Gorman’s participatory approach to Christian faith and discipleship, the thesis develops a theology of cruciformity set in the context of God’s mission to restore shalom in the Canadian context. The thesis argues that this political theology, which it calls decolonial cruciformity, encompasses transformation in four dimensions—a holistic, relational approach, commitment to justice with Indigenous peoples, an integrated, decolonial ethic, and resolve to see radical social and political change—and provides a pathway for non-Indigenous evangelical political engagement in the context of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations that is continuous with important trajectories in evangelicalism, is more deeply accountable to Indigenous peoples, and has the potential to foster creative participation in the (re)creation of shalom-oriented, respectful relations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".