Edinburgh 2010: Mission Today and Tomorrow/The Church Going Glocal: Mission and Globalisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Edinburgh 2010: Mission Today and Tomorrow. Edited by Kirsteen Kim and Andrew Anderson. (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2011, Pp. vii, 450. £33.99.); The Church Going Glocal: Mission and Globalisation. Edited by Tormod Engelsviken, Erling Lundeby and Dagfinn Solheim. (Oxford : Regnum Books International, 2011, Pp. xiii, 262. £24.99.)These volumes are fifth and sixth to be published by Regnum Books International, imprint of Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, in connection with commemoration of one hundredth anniversary of 1910 Edinburgh Missionary Conference. The volumes previously reviewed made available an enormously broad collection of materials generated in preparation for, or in tandem with, 2010 Edinburgh Conference. The first of volumes reviewed here is in fact of that conference.Anyone who has ever participated in a large assembly which broke into small-group discussions and then re-assembled for feedback from each of groups has experienced exactly what reading this volume is like. There is inevitably much repetition, and readers may well find themselves with their eyes glazing over, only to be startled awake by an unexpected moment of disagreement or conflict, or by a surprising insight that changes course of conversation.It is not surprising that major concerns and perspectives already encountered in previous volumes related to Edinburgh 2010 play a significant role in proceedings of conference itself. Perhaps most significant of these is broad commitment to theological concept of missio Dei-the awareness that mission is not fully comprehended if it is limited to church's mission; rather, all Christian mission is response to, and cooperation with, God who has always been in a relationship of mission with creation. While its organizers would have rejected idea that Edinburgh 2010 was correcting shortcomings of 1910 conference, its agenda and especially roster of participants demonstrate intention to go beyond narrow conceptions of 1910, when all participants were Protestants or Anglicans, and overwhelming majority were white, male, and Englishspeaking. Edinburgh 2010 included voices of Roman Catholics (among them cardinal archbishop of Edinburgh); Eastern Orthodox, including Romanian, Greek, Russian, and Malakara Syrian Churches; and from Coptic Church of Egypt, as well as contributions from Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Evangelical, Pentecostal, and ecumenical churches and organizations drawn from every continent. The conference had three official languages (English, French, and Spanish); worship included music sung in eleven languages.Though many contributions stressed positive changes in understanding and practice of mission since 1910, cautionary words came from several directions. Tinyiko Maluleke of South Africa observed that African continent continued to experience dehumanization and disregard at hands of rest of world (74), and four participants from Canada, Australia, and Bolivia submitted a statement observing that Edinburgh 2010 failed to emphasize element of diversity implicit in Christian unity, by shortchanging participation of indigenous persons and those from Global South (349). Observers noted that the place of experience in formation of mission was one of most contested aspects of conference's preparatory materials: Some argued that how we experience God is prior to formation of doctrine and language of speaking about God, and is source of new discernment of God at work by Holy Spirit. Others argued that theology as articulated by church is prior to experience of God as individuals or communities (121).As voices of Edinburgh 2010 say clearly, world and church, have changed. This volume is a necessary one, if for no other reason than to preserve record of what many Christians from around world thought about mission in early years of this century. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.023 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".