Negotiating Liturgical Space Through Receptive Ecumenism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cyclical relationship exists between liturgical space, liturgical action, and congregational identity. Some scholars have taken the additional step of exploring what happens when circumstances disrupt this equilibrium, such as when congregations close or begin to share space with other communities (Clark 2007; de Roest 2013; Goo 2024). In this paper, I raise the case of “ecumenical shared ministries,” defined as two or more congregations merging resources while retaining their distinct denominational affiliations, as an understudied crisis of liturgical space that is fraught with the question of whether and how to reconcile difference for the sake of receptive ecumenism (Beardsall, Budde, and McDonald 2018). Analyzing the websites of two ecumenical shared ministries in Canada as the first step of an ongoing qualitative project, I identify two approaches that congregations may take to narrating the negotiation of liturgical space in the process of merging their resources. First, taking Pinawa Christian Fellowship in Pinawa, Manitoba as an example, I consider how ecumenical shared ministries may downplay the significance of liturgical space if they choose not to remain in either of their existing buildings and instead worship in a space that is new to both participating congregations. Second, I observe how the Church of St. Paul in Barriere, British Columbia has sought ways to honour the loss of liturgical space for one of its participating congregations while it continues to worship in the other congregation’s space. Setting these contrasting examples in dialogue with existing literature on liturgical space and receptive ecumenism, including the work of E. Byron (Ron) Anderson and Hansol Goo, I demonstrate how there are merits and drawbacks to each approach in terms of how well they equip congregations to receive the best of each other’s traditions (Anderson 2024; Goo 2024).
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".