MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998132162

The Prosperity Gospel and Money: Plundering the Devil's Den?

2019· article· en· W2998132162 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David A. Reed

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsperityGospelCharismaTheologyPolitical scienceSociologyLawPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The charismatic stream popularly called the “prosperity gospel” lives uncomfortably on the edge of the Pentecostal movement. Its location is in part due to controversy surrounding its teaching and practices. It is scorned by non-Pentecostals and Pentecostals alike for its apparent shameless appeal to material wealth. The animus against the prosperity gospel by mainstream Pentecostals in particular is judged in part due to weak biblical exegesis, over-claims for results, temptation to greed, and absence of a theology of suffering. This essay is a brief case study of Kingdom Covenant Ministries, Toronto, and its Jamaican founder and pastor, Pat Francis. The purpose is to explore her understanding of the prosperity gospel and how it is lived out in her ministry in Canada’s largest multicultural city. I begin by reviewing the two historical movements which have shaped the prosperity gospel: its Pentecostal roots and neoliberal economics. This will be followed by an overview of Francis’s prosperity gospel theology and its outworking in her ministry. The paper concludes with a series of reflections intended to locate her Kingdom theology and ministry within a broader typology offered by theologian, Howard Snyder, and raise questions regarding the strengths and dangers of the robust promotion of wealth accumulation, even with the most laudable of motives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of Pentecostal-Charismatic ChristianitySame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207