Pentecostal Historiography in Canada: The History behind the Histories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2019 is the centenary year of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC), and therefore it is both timely and appropriate to reflect on the historiography of denominational histories that have been produced for and promoted by this, the largest of Canadian Pentecostal denominations. Between 1958 and 2018 five different books were published about this denomination, with the PAOC’s endorsement. The authors of these books were clear about the purposes they hoped their work would accomplish, including inspiration for current and future members of the PAOC churches. Writing denominational histories is no easy task. Bruce Guenther, a Canadian Mennonite Church historian and past president of the Canadian Society of Church History, critiques denominational histories in general, saying that many “are poorly written works of triumphalistic hagiography in which well-intentioned amateur historians have copiously compiled as much detail as possible concerning the people, places and events they wish to celebrate or commemorate.” Guenther concedes that while such histories are “an invaluable source of information,” they usually fail to “situate a denominational story within larger social-cultural, national or theological trends.” Pentecostal history books suffer those same weaknesses identified by Guenther. Yet by exploring officially endorsed histories published by the PAOC, one can trace identifiable trends in those books over time. The historiographer’s task is to analyze what has been written and to explain why the presentation of the narrative changes over time. This paper analyzes each of the history books published by PAOC to identify the messages behind the narrative. The paper also provides some context for each book to explain why particular approaches to the history were taken and what the denomination hoped those history books would accomplish.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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".