Potting Christianity: Ecumenical Worship in Its Multicultural and Multi-Ethnic Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the gardening world, potting refers to the cultivation of plants by cutting, layering, and replacing nutrients-depleted soil with new soil in larger pots to accommodate the growth process. This understanding seems helpful in describing ecumenical worship. There are two perspectives about this phenomenon. On one end of the liturgical practice spectrum, it is perceived as a “least-common-denominator” worship form where contested expressions are cast aside and replaced by elements that are acceptable by everyone. As a result, ecumenical worship is held up as a product of complex negotiation but displays a remarkable lack of spiritual depth in its outcome. On the other end, there is the World Council of Churches—a fellowship of 350 churches that is regarded as the epitome of ecumenism in practice particularly its worship celebration. The assembly, convened every eight years, is seen as a “best practice” showcase for ecumenical worship. In fact, many of the “global songs” being sung by our congregation were premiered in this ecumenical setting. How might we make sense of these perceptions? To that end, this article seeks to describe a suitably appropriate method in planning ecumenical worship and to identify elements that this worship genre needs to consider in its rendition. The efforts of the 2022 assembly worship planning committee of the World Council of Churches serves as the case study. Theo-liturgical principles that define this worship design are examined and discussed. By this, insights may be garnered to help local congregations appreciate this distinctive liturgical form that has its raison d’etre as an expression of Christian reconciliation and unity and to understand what is needed to successfully design such services. In so doing, the work of congregations may be strengthened to face the resurgence of racism and xenophobia in their local contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".