Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has been written about the changing paradigms of mission in recent decades, and about the centrality of mission to spiritual formation and ministry within parish churches. The Anglican Communion has contributed the Five Marks of Mission to this ongoing conversation. While these Marks are not meant to be a comprehensive definition of mission, they provide Anglican parishes and dioceses around the Communion with a practical and memorable “checklist” for missional activities. Beginning in 2017 every parish within the Diocese of Huron was asked to reflect theologically on these Five Marks of Mission and other aspects of missional church theology in order to create and deploy a Mission and Ministry Plan (MMP). How is the parish, however, to respond to this diocesan request to create a MMP when, for many, the practice of theological reflection and the framework of the Five Marks of Mission remains largely unknown? This thesis examines the practice of listening and how theological reflection is supported by listening to God, to one another and to the neighbourhood in two specific parishes within the Diocese of Huron, ultimately leading to changes in understanding and behaviour related to missional activities. While this study has a modest beginning, the findings support the importance of having within parishes both an intentional process and willing participants to explore the place of mission in the community. As well these findings show that small shifts in missional understanding can have a perceptible impact on parishioners’ language and behaviour over a relatively short period of time. Participants’ understanding and definition of evangelism can expand as their engagement with discipleship is examined. As well, participants’ stewardship of creation can be more fully embraced. Finally, the importance of an environment that makes room for listening and ongoing learning is essential. While still at the initial stages of their connection to the Marks and new ideas around mission, there is hope that participants, and indeed all parishioners will take personal ownership of these marks and concepts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".