Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the time Christ chased the money changers out of the temple to recent televan-gelist scandals, spirituality has struggled with materialism. In this collection of essays, seventeen scholars (including nine historians and three others with expertise in economics) discuss evangelicals and money, with half of the sixteen essays examining different aspects of funding for organizations. Only one chapter deals substantially with consumerism and only one looks exclusively at women. Eight essays cover the period since 1945, four treat the turn of the century, and others focus on segments from the late nineteenth century to the present. The United States is the center of attention; only two essays discuss Canada. The quality of the scholarship is consistently strong. Definitions of evangelicalism are appropriately complex. Like any anthology, this work has the challenge of speaking with one voice. The editors and the authors achieve that with recurring themes. The overriding theme for the volume is the ongoing tension for evangelicals between the spiritual and the material. Michael Hamilton's essay poses evangelicals' dilemma regarding finances as one between faith, or dependence on God, and the entrepreneurial spirit, or raising money on one's own. Charles Ham-brick-Stowe concludes that evangelists had a mixed record: George Whitefield, Charles Finney, Dwight L. Moody, and Billy Graham maintained their integrity, while Sam Jones and Billy Sunday used money from revivals to increase their personal wealth. Robert Burkin-shaw notes that evangelical colleges rely more on the commercial model, and Barry Gardner adds that technology—radio, television, direct mail, the computer, and the telephone—has been an ally of evangelicals and has contributed to the entrepreneurial spirit.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".