Women, Priests and the Anglican Church in Southern Africa: Reformation of Holy Hierarchies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introductory RemarksWe trust it will give women new possibilities of leadership in the Church of the Province of Southern Africa (Cape Times: 1992).he Anglican Church in Southern Africa (ACSA) 2 is celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the ordination of women to the priesthood in 2017.The quotation above is a statement made by the South African Council of Churches following the announcement that the Anglican Church in Southern Africa voted in favour of the ordination of women at the church's September, 1992 Provincial Synod. 3 This was a newsworthy event given the currents of change and rhetoric of freedom in apartheid South Africa.4 Under the heading "Women priests for SA" the Cape Times (August 15, 1992:2) reports that seventy-nine percent voted in favour of the ordination of women.This result complied with the two-thirds majority required on an issue declared "controversial."5 The controversial issue was (and remains?) undergirded by the gender of clergy justified (explicitly or implicitly) by the gender of God. 6 For example, in an article Hear God calling women by Revd Mike Mc Coy it is clear that those who are against women in the priesthood believe that "male character as distinct from female character is necessary" for priesthood.7 This theology of exclusion appears to have been justified by the ways men in authority use the Christian Bible.Bishop Thomas is quoted to have said, "no part of the New Testament testifies that a woman could be, in a public and authorised T 1 Pillay: Reformation of Holy Hierarchies
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".