Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is to examine a short history of how both the missionary work representing as IMC(International Missionary Council) in 1961, New Delhi and the churches representing as WCC(World Council of Churches) were integrated into one organization, and a short history of discussion for the Missional Church since the integration of both organizations. The discussion for Missional Churches in ecumenical history have been raised ceaselessly. Specially, the missionary duty of churches has been a main issue for discussion since IMC was instituted in 1921. And it has materialized as bringing the issue for integration with IMC steadily after the conference was held by ‘Faith and Order’ and ‘Life and Work’ together in 1938, Utrecht.Although the ecumenical history was started concretely after WCC was instituted in 1948, Amsterdam, there were not any tangible results of integration with the churches and missionary work. Also, they still existed separately in two organizations because there were many different viewpoints between them. Even if IMC was closely connected with WCC, there were some problems to make it difficult and not to be solved for the integration before the Whitby’s general meeting in 1948, Canada. As a result, IMC could not formally participated in the establishment of WCC in 1948. However, both WCC and IMC were integrated completely in 1956, Herrenalb.This integration was positively regarded as both the missionary work and churches symbolically became one, but there was a criticism of opponents insisting that the missionary work will be a secondary issue of churches. With regard to the integration of IMC and WCC, Lesslie Newbigin emphasized the necessity of new paradigm for missionary work and the combination of churches, saying “the whole Church, with one Gospel of reconciliation for the whole world.”The missionary structure of churches, which is based on missio Dei in the Bible, should be ‘the whole life of the Church’ as well as ‘the Life of the whole Church’ as a disciplinant of missio Dei. The ultimate contribution about ecumenical studies for Missional Churches is the missionary work as a structural principle, and it is from the ecclesiology by D. Bonhoeffer, who presented an important issue for theological discussion. That issue is ‘the church for others.’ D. Bonhoeffer tried to understand pro me(for me), which is a slogan of religious reformation into pro nobis(for us) and pro nobis into pro aliis(for others). His understanding for churches was taken as the meaning of Shalom in a biblical notion. J. C. Hoekendijk made its notion much clearer. Shalom to him was because of a social matter for human communities transcending the individual salvation. Consequently he insisted that the churches should not be separated from the world, which is with God, and should aim at ‘ecumenical,’ that is, oikoumene. So the focal point of God’s plan is found in the world, not in the church, for the church is defined as a part of the world.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".