Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines Luther’s theology of the cross in relation to his treatment of vocation and explores the contemporary utility of both. It is argued that theologians who reduce Luther’s theology of the cross to an existential descriptor fail on two accounts. First, they do not comprehend the manner in which a theology of the cross does not describe anxiety but rather induces it so as to create theologians of the cross out of theologians of glory. Second, a reduction of a theology of the cross to an existential descriptor fails to apprehend the public significance of the same insofar as a theology of the cross is intimately related to Luther’s treatment of vocation and its concomitant explication of the two reigns of God. Luther’s treatment of vocation points to the manner in which the Christian is shaped by the cross in the give and take of human community. This is not to gainsay certain deficiencies in Luther’s treatment of vocation. Chief among these are Luther’s tendency to restrict language of vocation to individuals and his insistence on vocational intransigence. A contemporary engagement of the cross and vocation entails both a critical analysis of the manner in which the private has now eclipsed the public and an attempt to move beyond Luther by way of Luther in underscoring the gift of ecclesial vocation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".