Christian Pastors and Alleged Child Witches in Kinshasa, DRC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Against earlier predictions, witch accusations are proliferating and flourishing in many modern, urban, and Christian environments. And they are taking new forms. One dramatic change involves who is accused, with children now often the prime suspects when misfortunes occur. Another dramatic change relates to who is consulted when witch suspicions are present. Rather than non-Christian diviners or traditional healers, many now consult Christian pastors and prophets for help in identifying witches and dealing with them. Based on a survey of 713 pastoral leaders in Kinshasa from all major church traditions, and on supplemental qualitative research, this report 1) explores the profile of accused children, 2) identifies what these children are accused of, 3) identifies what sorts of evidence are used to establish the guilt of the accused child, and 4) considers the consequences to the child of being labeled a witch. Furthermore, this report explores what it is that church leaders believe, teach, and practice in relationship to child-witch allegations—considering the role of church tradition and theological education on their patterns of understanding and engagement. Specifically, we identify and examine two broad paradigms widely present in Kinshasa churches—a “witch diagnosis and deliverance paradigm” and a “child protection paradigm.” We consider some grassroots strategies of transformative engagement engaged in by l’Équipe Pastorale auprès des Enfants en Détresse [EPED] leaders, and end by inviting African theological and pastoral leaders into a conversation about the impact of theological understandings, congregational discourses, spiritual disciplines, and pastoral practices on the well-being and flourishing of vulnerable children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".