©ARC Page 27 Charismatic Pentecostal Churches in Kenya: Growth, Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Charismatic Pentecostal churches in Kenya started in the cities and have now extended to the rural areas. The highest percentage of members in the charismatic Pentecostal churches in Kenya as this study established were formerly members of the mainstream churches. This implies, the charismatic churches offer what seems to lack in the mainstream churches. Worldwide, charismatic movements such as the Welsh Revival, Azusa Street Revival, Latter Rain Movement, the Third Wave and the Toronto Blessings began in the early 21 st century with a motif to reach the entire globe with the Gospel. Speaking in tongues, singing praises to God, dancing for the Lord and healing among others became the identifying features for the movements. In East Africa, the movement arrived in 1960s and 70s through the ministry of evangelists such as Bill Graham and T.L. Osborne. In Kenya, Joe Kayo, David Kimani, Bethel Mission and Margret Wangari became the first proponents of the movement. This paper examines the growth, culture and orality of the charismatic Pentecostal churches in Kenya. Specifically the paper analyzes the start and development of charismatic Pentecostalism worldwide, distinctive features of the charismatic Pentecostal churches in Kenya and the interpretation of the theology of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Further, the paper
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".