MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6923582581 · doi:10.14288/1.0422132

Neo-Charismatic Movement : Third Wave Charismatic Movement

2022· article· en· W6923582581 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen Collections · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePentecostalism and Christianity Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCharismaBaptismProtestantismChapelWorshipVeneration

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Pentecostal and Charismatic practices of speaking in tongues through the Baptism of the Holy Spirit had become accepted within many mainline Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church by the 1960s and 1970s. However, many evangelical traditions and churches continued to resist charismatic renewal practices and theologies during the rise of the Second Wave Charismatic Renewal Movement. Charismatics were viewed with suspicion and their practices were critiqued and mocked within evangelical circles. Yet, evangelicalism was not immune to change during the 1960s and 1970s. The hippie-led Jesus People Movement took hold in the United States during this time. Young barefoot preachers would encourage their peers to turn away from drugs, accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and join a new type of church that emphasized a come-as-you-are vibe with casual dress and provided rock and roll as part of their worship liturgy. In addition, many of the new hippie converts were interested in Charismatic practices of healing and witnessing through signs and wonders. The Jesus People Movement led to the formation of new independent evangelical churches that identified as nondenominational and some of these churches embraced Charismatic theology and practices. One of the church movements that emerged in the late 1970s was the Vineyard Church in Southern California. The Vineyard was a collection of churches that broke away from Calvary Chapel due to the Vineyard’s desire to emphasize Charismatic practices and theology. On Mother’s Day in 1980, Pastor John Wimber of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Orange County, CA and invited a former Calvary Chapel pastor and the face of the Jesus People Movement, Lonnie Frisbee, to preach. Frisbee’s message on healing and the subsequent ministry of healing that took place that morning launched the start of the Vineyard Movement and subsequent Neo-Charismatic movement. This new Neo-Charismatic movement blended evangelical theology with charismatic practices of healing, supernatural prayer languages, and an emphasis on miraculous signs and wonders as a component of evangelism. John Wimber began to teach at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA and was influenced by C. Peter Wagner’s research on church growth as well as George Ladd’s Kingdom of God theology. Wimber was able to influence numerous people to start their own independent charismatic churches and ministries as a faculty member and through his conferences that he hosted where he taught on how to minister using supernatural signs and wonder. Wimber developed the concept of “power evangelism” where adherents evangelized using signs and wonders rather than Bible tracts that were popular in the 1960s and 1970s. By the 1990s, new independent churches and movements that were evangelical and charismatic were rapidly emerging throughout North America. These included the Toronto Blessing Movement began in 1994 at the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church. Bethel Church in Redding, CA installed Pastor Bill Johnson as their senior pastor in 1996. The International House of Prayer Kansas City was founded in 1999. These Neo- Charismatic churches and others have become popular and controversial for their encouragement of the miraculous, their non-formal style of liturgy, and theological stances on healing, anointing, and supernatural power. C. Peter Wagner coined the term “Third Wave” charismatic movement to describe these new churches and ministries. Their emphasis on power evangelism, charismatic forms of worship, healing, prayer languages, operating in signs and wonders, and their emphasis on anointing leaders as apostles and prophets made them distinct from traditional Pentecostal churches and Charismatic Renewalists within mainline traditions.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,056

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,007
Communication savante0,0040,002
Science ouverte0,0010,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,235
Écart entre enseignants0,190 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen Collections→Même sujetPentecostalism and Christianity Studies→Travaux en français237 207→