MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W240704418

The Reception of the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective in the Canadian Context

2007· review· en· W240704418 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helmut Harder

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œMennonite quarterly review · 2007
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueAgriculture and Farm Safety
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConfession (law)AnabaptistsFaithContext (archaeology)Church historyConstitutionProtestantismTheologyHistoryLawSociologyReligious studiesPolitical scienceClassicsPhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract: In the summer of 1995 the General Conference Mennonite Church and the (Old) Mennonite Church adopted the new of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective. While this action included all Canadian congregations holding General Conference membership and also the two Mennonite Church area conferences in Canada, the following summer the Conference of Mennonites in Canada followed up with its own decision to endorse the confession. With this, the stage was set for the new statement of faith to play a major role in the formation of Mennonite Church Canada, one of the bodies that resulted when the General Conference-Mennonite Church integration came to fruition in 1999. This paper reports on how the confession was received by the Conference of Mennonites in Canada constituency and by its successor, Mennonite Church Canada, and how it contributed to the formation of Mennonite Church Canada and its programs after 1999. THE ROLE OF CONFESSIONS IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CONFERENCE OF MENNONITES IN CANADA From the time of its origin in 1902-1903, the Konferenz der Mennoniten in mittleren Canada (Conference of Mennonites in Central Canada), as it was originally named, (1) seems to have taken its of faith in stride, without much deliberation. A five-member Constitution Committee, appointed at the first annual sessions (1903), assumed responsibility for recommending a confession of faith for the new church. At the annual sessions a year later the Constitution Committee came to the delegate body with its proposal. While the committee made use of the constitutional model of the General Conference Mennonite Church, (2) they did not choose the General Conference's brief Common Confession of 1896. (3) Rather, the committee recommended the Glaubensbekenntnis der Mennoniten in Preussen und Russland (4) (Articles of Faith of the Mennonites in Prussia and Russia). This statement, brought to Canada by Mennonite immigrants from Prussia and from Russia in the latter years of the nineteenth century, seemed appropriate for the new organization, as it linked them with their German-speaking mother church in the old country. The Glaubensbekenntnis had already been widely used for catechetical instruction among Mennonites in Canada before 1903. There is no evidence of debate over the decision to adopt a confession of faith from the old country. Indeed, there is little evidence of debate over as such or particular articles of faith in the early decades of Conference of Mennonites in Canada (C.M.C.) history. The ministers and preachers (Altester and Prediger) of Conference of Mennonites in Canada congregations assumed responsibility for the church's beliefs and practices. Until well into the 1950s, this ministerial group composed the bulk of the delegate body at annual sessions, where matters of faith and practice were typically discussed at a meeting of ministers the day preceding the conference business sessions. These pre-conference ministers' meetings dealt with theological and ethical issues of the time. But in the early decades little if any consideration was given to the question of revising the accepted confession of faith or formulating a new one. (5) This has led General Conference and Conference of Mennonites in Canada historians to comment that there has been some hesitancy among Conference of Mennonites in Canada and General Conference constituents to ascribe much importance to confessional statements. Some years ago, historian S. F. Pannabecker made this point when he wrote: As a matter of fact, the General Conference has not been too much concerned about precise statements of faith or their elaboration. (6) A C.M.C. historian, Adolf Ens, corroborates Pannabecker's point with respect to the Canadian constituency. In his recent history of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada, Ens observes that confessions of faith have an ambivalent place for churches in the Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition. …

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)0,005
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: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,179
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,952

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0520,039
Communication savante0,0130,003
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,304
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · 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
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œMennonite quarterly reviewMême sujetAgriculture and Farm SafetyTravaux en français237 207