Alan Coates Bouquet (1884-1976): Twentieth-Century Foundations for an Anglican Theology of Religion
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The second half of twentieth century may be seen as a time when Western Christians truly began to come to terms with religious pluralism. On international level, World Council of Churches (founded only in 1948 and very much creature of theological streams converging in earlier part of twentieth century) set up its Sub-Unit on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies in 1971, and moved with some speed to promulgate its Guidelines on Dialogue in 1979. These had been preceded by some fourteen years by Vatican II document Nostra Aetate. Both these pioneering statements urged a new relationship between Christians and those of other religious paths and obediences. National churches were somewhat slower to respond, but respond many eventually did. Acting together through British Council of Churches, major denominations and missionary bodies in U.K. created Committee for Relations with People of Other Faiths (CRPOF) in 1978 and appointed David Brown, Bishop of Guildford, to be its first moderator. This committee enjoyed immense goodwill of all churches; these had twice affirmed in BCC Assembly that presence of people of other faiths in Britain and Ireland was gracious purposes of (a brave and prophetic statement given sinister nationalist currents then, as now, endemic in U.K.). The churches were looking to new committee for help and guidance on many national issues: shape of education, social policy, health care, chaplaincies, and so on. CRPOF saw all these issues within its remit, and might have simply contented itself with focusing on such practical matters.But there was another set of challenges that neither WCC Guidelines on Dialogue nor Nostra Aetate had confronted. Their eloquent calls for respect and tolerance were hardly inappropriate given history of Christian defamation and depreciation of Jews and Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, indeed of all religious others. But if take just take example of WCC document can see a reluctance to take seriously theological and missiological dimensions that a new relationship between Christians and those of other faith traditions must be built upon. So find in Paragraph 23 of Guidelines these two formulations cast in interrogative mode:What is relation between universal / creative redemptive activity of God towards all humankind and particular creative / redemptive activity of God in history of Israel and in person and work of Jesus Christ?Are Christians to speak of God's work in lives of all men and women only in tentative terms of hope that they may experience something of Him, or more positively in terms of God's selfdisclosure to people of living faiths and ideologies and in struggle of human life?1I have described elsewhere twists and turns in turmoil of debates in world ecumenical circles.2 Suffice it to say that WCC Assembly meeting in Vancouver in August 1983 could get no further than to reaffirm the uniqueness of birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and then somewhat grudgingly to Gods creative work in seeking for religious truth among people of other faiths. The words of an alternative resolution, that we recognize God's creative work in religious experience of people of other faiths, were firmly rejected.3Immediately contrast with British situation becomes apparent, and nowhere more so than in response of General Synod of Church of England in 1981 to British Council of Churches' Guidelines for Dialogue in Britain. In commending these Guidelines, Synod asked its Board of Mission and Unity for an extensive study of the theological aspects that should underlie interfaith dialogue. This was duly prepared by Board's Inter-Faith Consultative Group under chairmanship of then Bishop of Wolverhampton, Barry Rogerson, with Mary Tanner as its secretary, and was presented to Synod in November 1984. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».