Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As a relative newcomer to world of academic ecumenism, I am honored to respond to such distinguished presenters. Jesus prayed for unity of church not as an end in itself but so that world may believe (Jn. 17:21). Our ecumenical work must never lose sight of this. I appreciated Michael Kinnamon's statement that, if he were listing his fourteen points in order of importance, he would put missionary nature of church near top. (1) We work for visible unity of church because continued lack of full communion among churches (expressed most visibly in not having a common eucharistic table) is an obstacle to our missionary calling and, as Bruce Marshall has argued, puts very credibility of gospel at stake. (2) The two presentations reflect two different starting points for task of ecumenical ecclesiology. Peter Bouteneff seems to suggest that goal of unity would be better served by staying with comparative ecclesiology method that was basis for foundational Toronto Statement of 1950. He prefers this model because it employs language that is ecclesiologically neutral and does not require mental gymnastics or internal adjustments of some churches in order to accept language of ecumenical texts. Kinnamon supports more recent model of convergence and consensus that is reflected in ecumenical texts such as 1991 Canberra Statement, 2006 Porto Alegre Statement, and The Nature and Mission of Church. His list of fourteen elements of an ecumenical consensus ecclesiology certainly serves as a helpful and concise summary of important work that has been done regarding nature and mission of church since inception of World Council of Moreover, basis of this consensus, he proposes that we are on threshold of a major theological shift--to an ecclesiology developed by churches together--and challenges member churches to consider how their own church's ecclesiological understanding measures up to emerging consensus. I would like to respond by raising two points, one that addresses a major disagreement in ways our various communions conceptualize church, and another that suggests some common ground from which to move forward. With Kinnamon, I affirm emerging consensus that is centered concept of koinonia or communion. ties being of church to God's own being as communion and enables church to conceive of unity in a dynamic, relational way that appreciates diversity. In my Lutheran tradition, there is an increasing use of this emerging paradigm in our ecclesial self-understanding. (3) The 1997 Statement Toward a Lutheran Understanding of Communion reflects much of ecumenical consensus regarding term and explores trinitarian basis for and forms of communion that should characterize ecclesial life, such as participation, diversity, and sharing. The Tenth Assembly of Lutheran World Federation in 2003 voted to expand its name to include concept of communion: the Lutheran World Federation--A of Churches. (4) The Lutheran confessions define church as the assembly of all believers among whom gospel is purely preached and holy sacraments are administered according to gospel. (5) Lutherans affirm that [i]n hearing gospel of God's grace in Christ and in experiencing it as truth of our own lives in Spirit we are called as justified sinners into communion with Triune God and with one another as Christ's sisters and brothers. (6) The sacrament of baptism is start of our incorporation into communion with God and with one another because in baptism we are joined to death and resurrection of Christ, receive Christ's saving benefits, and become members of Christ's body. In eucharist we share in Christ's death and resurrection and anticipate Christ's coming again to share in perfect communion of reign of God; (7) eucharist is a promise and foretaste of God's communion with all people in reign of God. …
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,020 | 0,044 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,011 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».