Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Windsor Report challenges Anglican ecclesiology on multiple fronts. Autonomy and interdependence; worldwide structures and contextualized mission; episcopacy and ministry of baptized; centralized accountability and dispersed authority: these matters and more are brought to fore by Windsor Report and by events and discussions that prompted it. This issue of Anglican Theological Review presents essays on these topics by authors taking a wide range of stands and writing from a variety of theological perspectives, mirroring in part diversity of Anglican Church of Canada and Episcopal Church in U.S.A. Though differing in their assessment of current situation, helpfulness of Windsor Report, and prospects for Anglican Communion, all of authors are demonstrably committed to unity of their own churches and of Anglican Communion worldwide. The challenges set by Windsor Report are not new. Nor do seem susceptible to any permanent resolution. Paul Marshall notes the curious vocation of churches in Canada and United States to forge paths for evolution of Anglican heritage. From North America have come beginnings of Anglicanisms synodical structure its strong lay voice; missionary focus of episcopacy; first efforts for formal establishment of full communion among Anglicans; and first experience of church as separate from state. Such precedents cast a different light on current Anglican crisis than does Windsor Report. Losing sight of these contributions, as Marshall suggests Report does, can cost Communion dearly in times that creativity is needed-times such as these. George Surnner finds North American modernity less admirable because of its surrender of claims to ultimate truth. Relativism reduces truth to cultural specificity, so that it is no longer possible to adduce grounds for distinction and judgment. Sumner urges a return to catholicity grounded in the specific claims Christians make. The Windsor Report embraces catholicity in its act of judgment and that thinks with tradition. The Anglican tradition is marked by a minimum of doctrinal definition and formal magisterial structure, and so inherently conservative doctrinal model is necessary. And this Windsor Report presents, in Sumner's view. But does Windsor Report resort too much to structure, and too little to relationships? Ian Douglas argues that by taking an instrumentalist approach, Windsor Report misses significance of missiological orientation it embraces early in document. Unity for sake of God's mission of comes about through relationships that cross lines of theological, sociocultural, and ecclesiological difference to reach for and restoration. Like Douglas, Paul Zahl is critical of Windsor Report's attempt to contain difference rather than exploring it. By refusing to engage presenting issue of human sexuality, Report ducks substantive issue, setting aside core gospel issues in favor of process. This is nothing other than doublespeak that may be characteristic of Anglicanism qua Anglicanism. Ultimately, for Zahl, current crisis calls into question the Anglican project as a whole. Authentic cannot take place unless chief points of difference are brought out into open. Facing both ways prevents this from happening. Steven Charleston sees Windsor Report as opportunity for genuine reconciliation only if we are willing to stand on soft but common ground of processes in which members of church take personal responsibility for one another. From this vantage, Windsor Report is best read in light of what serves, heals, and welcomes not us but them-those whom we disagree and from whom we are alienated, no matter who they are. Gospel narratives of servanthood, forgiveness, and discernment shed a different light on Report which, Charleston notes, has much to teach about dangers and opportunities of Christians seeking shared understanding and communal life. …
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 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».