MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W240704418

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

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

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œMennonite quarterly review · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfession (law)AnabaptistsFaithContext (archaeology)Church historyConstitutionProtestantismTheologyHistoryLawSociologyReligious studiesPolitical scienceClassicsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œMennonite quarterly reviewSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207