Longing for God: Anglicans Talk about Revelation, Nature, Culture, and Authority
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longing for God: Anglicans Talk about Revelation, Nature, Culture, and Authority. By the Primate s Theological Commission, Anglican Church of Canada. Toronto: ABC Publishing, 2001. 108 pp. CDN $18.95 (paper). There are many intelligent and committed Christians who are theology, but I have often observed that they are doing so without (a) knowing that they are doing it (or admitting to it) or (b) knowing how to identify the limits or consequences of their particular theology, and hence, having the opportunity to challenge those limits. The purpose of the series Wrestling with God is to encourage Anglicans to participate in serious thought and generous discussion (p. 5) around issues facing the church today-issues that are made complex by religious and spiritual pluralism, secularism, ecumenism, and other challenges. This is not a how-to book that sets out a methodology of thought, but rather a workbook that and then invites readers to do the same. It is an invitation to theological exploration that leads by example. The committee responsible for writing and compiling this series is made up of Anglicans from various cultural, ethnic, and theological backgrounds, and includes Aboriginal representation. To date there have been two books published in the series; this review will deal with Book One, Longingfor God: Anglicans Talk about Revelation, Nature, Culture, and Authority. Longing for God is very simple to follow and use. It is divided into three sections: the first lays out the intention of the book as simply to engage in a theological discussion, coupled with an invitation to participate, and a list of resources. In the foreword, Michael Peers, primate of Canada, asks, What does do for us? (p. 6). He finds his answer in Genesis 32:22-32, the story of the night that Jacob wrestled with God. Peers invites the reader to consider that one way to understand this story is to recognize that Jacob is doing theology. The result is that we discover that theology opens wounds (Jacob is injured in this wrestling match), and it holds enormous potential for healing (Jacob's refusal to give up results in a blessing). Theology tells us who we are . . . [and] we are transformed (p. 6). The beauty of Peers's own wrestling with this story is that it highlights the fact that what might seem to be a very reasonable application of the story to many Anglicans may well raise the hackles of other, more literal, readers of the Bible. And when we know this, there is an irresistible challenge laid out before us to find out why-and in the struggle that ensues, relationships of trust are born that allow us to question our systems and attitudes of belief in a new way. …
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".