Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Correlational Approach to Theological ReflectionHow are we to speak of God and the life of the world in relation to God? Canadian theologian Paul Allen notes that "if one's theological method is consciously chosen, then the scope and precision of the theological claims being made are bound to be clearer." 1 The research within this book has been consciously shaped by critical correlation methodology.This appendix outlines the development of this methodology and identifies objections regarding, challenges inherent to, and strengths of this methodology.My tracing of the development of critical correlation begins with Paul Tillich, possibly "the most theologically attentive theologian of the twentieth century." 2 An existentialist philosopher and German-born theologian, Tillich emigrated to the United States in 1933 after conflict with Nazi authorities; he taught at Union Theological Seminary, Harvard, and the University of Chicago.Tillich became convinced that Christian theology must address the moral and existential questions of each generation.He referred to his approach as an answering theology.3 If the task of articulating a body of understanding by which people can live meaningfully in the contemporary world is integral to theology, then theologians must engage with the dilemmas that preoccupy people, and advance responses that are both theologically authentic and culturally relevant.Tillich described this process as correlation.4 Tillich's correlative attempts involved a variety of spheres, including existentialist philosophy and psychotherapy; he identified points of convergence between the languages of therapy and of faith.5 Tillich contrasted a correlative approach with that of the kerygmatic theologians and their emphasis on eternal truth over against the relativities of the human situation.In his Systematic Theology he affirms the attempts by Martin Luther and Karl Barth to rediscover the eternal message within Word and tradition, in opposition to a "distorted tradition and a mechanically misused Bible" (1:6).Yet Tillich remained concerned that if theology did not participate courageously in cultural searches for understanding, it would establish an "exclusive transcendence" which failed to grapple with the creative self-interpretations generated by culture (1:6-7).Tillich's approach to correlation assumed that culture would supply the questions and theology the answers.His statement of theological method does not allow for the possibility that culture may provide real answers to its own questions.6 Other scholars advocated for a reciprocal process.Among these was pastoral theologian Seward Hiltner, a University of Chicago colleague and an "important forerunner" of the discipline of practical theology.7 While Hiltner was significantly influenced by Tillich's correlation method, he argued that
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.162 | 0.034 |
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".