Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a relative newcomer to world of academic ecumenism, I am honored to respond to such distinguished presenters. Jesus prayed for unity of church not as an end in itself but so that world may believe (Jn. 17:21). Our ecumenical work must never lose sight of this. I appreciated Michael Kinnamon's statement that, if he were listing his fourteen points in order of importance, he would put missionary nature of church near top. (1) We work for visible unity of church because continued lack of full communion among churches (expressed most visibly in not having a common eucharistic table) is an obstacle to our missionary calling and, as Bruce Marshall has argued, puts very credibility of gospel at stake. (2) The two presentations reflect two different starting points for task of ecumenical ecclesiology. Peter Bouteneff seems to suggest that goal of unity would be better served by staying with comparative ecclesiology method that was basis for foundational Toronto Statement of 1950. He prefers this model because it employs language that is ecclesiologically neutral and does not require mental gymnastics or internal adjustments of some churches in order to accept language of ecumenical texts. Kinnamon supports more recent model of convergence and consensus that is reflected in ecumenical texts such as 1991 Canberra Statement, 2006 Porto Alegre Statement, and The Nature and Mission of Church. His list of fourteen elements of an ecumenical consensus ecclesiology certainly serves as a helpful and concise summary of important work that has been done regarding nature and mission of church since inception of World Council of Moreover, basis of this consensus, he proposes that we are on threshold of a major theological shift--to an ecclesiology developed by churches together--and challenges member churches to consider how their own church's ecclesiological understanding measures up to emerging consensus. I would like to respond by raising two points, one that addresses a major disagreement in ways our various communions conceptualize church, and another that suggests some common ground from which to move forward. With Kinnamon, I affirm emerging consensus that is centered concept of koinonia or communion. ties being of church to God's own being as communion and enables church to conceive of unity in a dynamic, relational way that appreciates diversity. In my Lutheran tradition, there is an increasing use of this emerging paradigm in our ecclesial self-understanding. (3) The 1997 Statement Toward a Lutheran Understanding of Communion reflects much of ecumenical consensus regarding term and explores trinitarian basis for and forms of communion that should characterize ecclesial life, such as participation, diversity, and sharing. The Tenth Assembly of Lutheran World Federation in 2003 voted to expand its name to include concept of communion: the Lutheran World Federation--A of Churches. (4) The Lutheran confessions define church as the assembly of all believers among whom gospel is purely preached and holy sacraments are administered according to gospel. (5) Lutherans affirm that [i]n hearing gospel of God's grace in Christ and in experiencing it as truth of our own lives in Spirit we are called as justified sinners into communion with Triune God and with one another as Christ's sisters and brothers. (6) The sacrament of baptism is start of our incorporation into communion with God and with one another because in baptism we are joined to death and resurrection of Christ, receive Christ's saving benefits, and become members of Christ's body. In eucharist we share in Christ's death and resurrection and anticipate Christ's coming again to share in perfect communion of reign of God; (7) eucharist is a promise and foretaste of God's communion with all people in reign of God. …
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.011 |
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".