MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2018827811 · doi:10.1353/rpc.2012.0044

Whose Gospel?: A Concise Guide to Progressive Protestantism (review)

2012· article· en· W2018827811 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cara Lea Burnidge

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGospelProtestantismContext (archaeology)Religious studiesHuman sexualitySocial GospelChristianityHistorySociologyPhilosophyTheologyGender studies

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Whose Gospel?: A Concise Guide to Progressive Protestantism Cara Burnidge Forbes, James A., Jr. Whose Gospel?: A Concise Guide to Progressive Protestantism. New York: The New Press, 2010. 176 pp. $23.95 (USD). ISBN: 978-1-59558-397-0. In this slim volume, Reverend Dr. James A. Forbes Jr. faces six controversial subjects—sexuality, gender, race, poverty, war, and the environment—in order to outline the contours of a Progressive Protestantism in the twenty-first century. Written especially for fellow practitioners, Whose Gospel? reads like a gentle yet resolute exhortation. In his forward, Bill Moyers highlights the context in which Forbes writes by reminding readers of the terror induced on September 11, 2001. Moyers situates Forbes against the startling words of conservative Christians such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Ann Coulter who noted the wrath of God and condemned Islam; Forbes, in contrast, opened his church to all faiths and exhorted Christians to ecumenical thought and action. Forbes invites his readers "to join a spiritual awakening in our nation" (1) through confrontation with and reflection on the most contentious issues facing American Christianity. Wasting no time, chapter one takes readers on "A Lifelong Course in Sexuality," emphasizing the fluidity of authoritative sources and the importance of individual experience. While Scripture and Christian fellowship shape the boundaries of what behaviors are permissible, Forbes insists that individual sexuality must be balanced by freedom on one hand and responsibility on the other. Although the first chapter is explicitly about sexual orientation (and Forbes contends that "our sexual orientation is a gift of God's creativity" [43]), this and subsequent chapters provide an implicit directive about proper authority. Falling in line with the history of progressive Christian theologians in America, Forbes explains that authority is not "fixed" to one tradition, a single institution, or even particular passages in the Bible; instead, religious authorities belong within the individual and his or her attention to "the Spirit" (42). This principle manifests itself in the following chapters as Forbes lends his interpretation to contemporary topics. For instance, chapter two, "Gender Equality: For God's Sake and Ours," provides a brief contemporary history of the increasingly accepted use of gender-neutral or inclusive language, yet also notes that "the changes in language and worship have not been taken seriously enough" (53). Chapter three, "Which Gospel Do You Believe About Race," continues this theme as Forbes critiques the continued persistence of what he calls "race religion." Centering on his own personal experiences with racial difference, prejudice, and the Gospel, Forbes prompts readers to recall the ways in which Christianity was—and, at times, is—used to claim superior status over others. He contends, "We [still] stand at two gospels about race—the gospel of racial exceptionalism and the gospel of human race equality of being" (93). Like with gendered language, race exceptionalism can be used by the "in" group to describe the attributes of God, passively claiming superior status and assigning inferiority to other people and groups. Forbes encourages the continued revision of gendered and racial language to actualize a more inclusive human experience. [End Page 469] In chapter four, "Economic Justice: Are All the Children In?," Forbes proclaims in no uncertain terms that Christianity is on the side of economic justice, including universal health care. Forbes compares the Christian ethic of love to his mother's dinner routine. Just as she always prepared a plate for family members missing from the dinner table before serving those present, Forbes exhorts readers to be compassionate and considerate of those less fortunate. In a nation still struggling with the 2008 economic collapse, he urges equity and a gospel of "enough"—not wanting or receiving more than what is "enough." Chapter six, "Critique, Confession, and Ecological Consciousness," examines the ecological role the Church can play. From appreciating God's creation on the Sabbath day to seeking eco-justice, Christians must, Forbes argues, apply the Golden Rule to all of God's creation, human and non-human. This same message continues in the epilogue as Forbes encourages readers to consider themselves a part of an Abrahamic tradition that is not insulated to Christianity, but rather is inclusive of other traditions...

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,028
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,094

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0280,016

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,344
Écart entre enseignants0,329 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureMême sujetAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207