The Theological Meaning of Jesus’ Resurrection: A Content Analysis of Mainline and Conservative Protestant Easter Sunday Sermons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This Canadian study qualitatively analyzed the texts of 35 conservative and 34 mainline Protestant Easter Sunday sermons. With the goal of indentifying similarities and differences between the conservative and mainline texts, the sermons were examined to determine 1) what they said about the purpose and meaning of Jesus’ resurrection and 2) the degree to which those explanations more broadly reflected adherence to the doctrine of Biblical authority. Among other findings, it was determined that sermons in both groups linked Jesus’ resurrection to supernatural boons for believers (i.e., eternal life, divine power in this life, or both). However, when referencing these supernatural gains the two groups differed in terms of proportion and manner of explication. All the conservative Protestant sermons referenced one or more supernatural benefits but less than two-thirds of the mainline sermons did so; the remaining mainline texts posited that the resurrection’s theological meaning was metaphorical and served to reveal a key existential lesson. Furthermore, conservative Protestant sermons always supported their theological claims with scriptural proof-texts while the vast majority of mainline sermons did not (the exception being sermons preached in rural mainline churches). Overall, strong adherence to the doctrine of Biblical authority was evidenced in the conservative Protestant sermons while the mainline sermons did not evidence strong adherence to that doctrine. Implications and possible explanations of these results are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".