{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019522776572668113, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.290909090909091, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Networks for faith formation: relational bonds and the spiritual growth of youth

This seems fitting, but appears less like an investing of the EC’s own theological content into this practice and more like the participant’s fuller awareness of the wider church’s historical understanding of the Eucharist. This is where practical theologians have something at stake in Wigner’s work: can a given community completely divorce a particular practice from the theology borne by it? In the end, Wigner concludes that the EC is experimentally appropriating mystic practices with the perspective that a practice is a container that can be ‘emptied’ of the old theology and ‘filled’ anew with their own theological distinctives. The possibility of separating theology from practice in this way stands in marked contrast to the embedded nature of theology argued for by practical theologians. Finally, Wigner does not explicitly claim that the use and adaptation of mystic practices from across various Christian traditions is unique to the EC. However, his study could be strengthened by considering the ways in which each of these Christian traditions, and indeed every Christian tradition (past and present), stands not as a pure, isolated trove of original practices, but rather as a hybrid mix of blended practices, many of which they themselves borrowed from other Christian traditions.