Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Windsor Report challenges Anglican ecclesiology on multiple fronts. Autonomy and interdependence; worldwide structures and contextualized mission; episcopacy and ministry of baptized; centralized accountability and dispersed authority: these matters and more are brought to fore by Windsor Report and by events and discussions that prompted it. This issue of Anglican Theological Review presents essays on these topics by authors taking a wide range of stands and writing from a variety of theological perspectives, mirroring in part diversity of Anglican Church of Canada and Episcopal Church in U.S.A. Though differing in their assessment of current situation, helpfulness of Windsor Report, and prospects for Anglican Communion, all of authors are demonstrably committed to unity of their own churches and of Anglican Communion worldwide. The challenges set by Windsor Report are not new. Nor do seem susceptible to any permanent resolution. Paul Marshall notes the curious vocation of churches in Canada and United States to forge paths for evolution of Anglican heritage. From North America have come beginnings of Anglicanisms synodical structure its strong lay voice; missionary focus of episcopacy; first efforts for formal establishment of full communion among Anglicans; and first experience of church as separate from state. Such precedents cast a different light on current Anglican crisis than does Windsor Report. Losing sight of these contributions, as Marshall suggests Report does, can cost Communion dearly in times that creativity is needed-times such as these. George Surnner finds North American modernity less admirable because of its surrender of claims to ultimate truth. Relativism reduces truth to cultural specificity, so that it is no longer possible to adduce grounds for distinction and judgment. Sumner urges a return to catholicity grounded in the specific claims Christians make. The Windsor Report embraces catholicity in its act of judgment and that thinks with tradition. The Anglican tradition is marked by a minimum of doctrinal definition and formal magisterial structure, and so inherently conservative doctrinal model is necessary. And this Windsor Report presents, in Sumner's view. But does Windsor Report resort too much to structure, and too little to relationships? Ian Douglas argues that by taking an instrumentalist approach, Windsor Report misses significance of missiological orientation it embraces early in document. Unity for sake of God's mission of comes about through relationships that cross lines of theological, sociocultural, and ecclesiological difference to reach for and restoration. Like Douglas, Paul Zahl is critical of Windsor Report's attempt to contain difference rather than exploring it. By refusing to engage presenting issue of human sexuality, Report ducks substantive issue, setting aside core gospel issues in favor of process. This is nothing other than doublespeak that may be characteristic of Anglicanism qua Anglicanism. Ultimately, for Zahl, current crisis calls into question the Anglican project as a whole. Authentic cannot take place unless chief points of difference are brought out into open. Facing both ways prevents this from happening. Steven Charleston sees Windsor Report as opportunity for genuine reconciliation only if we are willing to stand on soft but common ground of processes in which members of church take personal responsibility for one another. From this vantage, Windsor Report is best read in light of what serves, heals, and welcomes not us but them-those whom we disagree and from whom we are alienated, no matter who they are. Gospel narratives of servanthood, forgiveness, and discernment shed a different light on Report which, Charleston notes, has much to teach about dangers and opportunities of Christians seeking shared understanding and communal life. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".