Models of Pentecostal healing and practice in light of early twentieth century Pentecostalism

This thesis offers an examination of healing theology and practice as found in early North American Pentecostalism. The thesis begins with a brief survey of recent scholarship and research on the subject of healing in America, establishing that little attention has been given to the theology and practice of the early Pentecostal movement. The first major section of the thesis is devoted to an examination of the Divine Healing Movement of the nineteenth century, providing the historical and theological background of the Pentecostal Movement's healing theology and practice. By examining the writings of five major practitioners of the movement (including A.B. Simpson, Andrew Murray and Carrie Judd Montgomery), a nineteenth-century theology of 'divine healing provided in the atonement' is articulated. A major portion of the thesis is devoted to an analysis of healing theology and practice in early North American Pentecostalism. An inductive approach is employed, examining the earliest (1906 to 1923) periodical literature of the movement, and where that is not available examining other extant materials, such as sermons, songs and tracts. This portion of the study consists of two major parts: Wesleyan-Pentecostalism and Finished Work Pentecostalism. The result of this examination is the identification of two distinct healing theologies and the attendant practices, which are consistent with each group's distinct soteriological characteristics. A models approach is then employed by which, out of the materials previously examined, these two distinct theologies of healing are constructed. A case study of Pentecostal responses to the 1918 Influenza Epidemic serves both to illustrate and test the two models of healing. A final chapter summarizes conclusions including contributions, clarifications, and implications of the research for further Pentecostal studies as well as a theological reflection on the findings

How Wide Thy Healing Streams Are Spread : Constructing a Wesleyan Pentecostal Model of Healing for the Twenty-First Century

Eternal depth of love divine, In Jesus, God with us, displayed; How bright Thy beaming glories shine! How wide Thy healing streams are spread! With whom dost Thou delight to dwell? Sinners, a vile and thankless race: O God, what tongue aright can tell How vas They love, how great They grace! The dictates of Thy sovereign will With joy our grateful hearts receive: All Thy delight in us fulfil; Lo! All we are to Thee we give To They sure love, Thy tender care, Our flesh, soul, spirit, we resign: O fix They sacred presence there, And seal the abode for ever Thine! O King of Glory, They rich grace Our feeble thought surpasses far; Yea, even our sins, though numberless, Less numerous than Thy mercies are

Implementing Social and Emotional Learning Standards by Intertwining the Habits of Mind with the CASEL Competencies

The New York State Education Department (NYSED) adopted a set of three standards for social and emotional learning (SEL) in August 2018. In doing so, they have paved the way for explicit instruction in and assessment of 21st-century skills. The three-goal framework selected by NYSED (2018) is modeled after the five competencies of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL, 2018). The authors are overjoyed by this movement to promote dual objective learning (Vermette & Kline, 2017) targeting affective and cognitive goals, but are hesitant to use the CASEL (2018) framework for such SEL standards. Prior to NYSED’s (2018) adoption of the new standards, the authors championed the use of Costa and Kallick’s 16 Habits of Mind (2000) as the best dispositional framework. Now, however, the authors argue that cross-walking the Habits of Mind (Costa & Kallick, 2000) to the CASEL (2018) competencies unlocks previously untapped potentials of both frameworks. This article outlines how such an overlap between the frameworks can be achieved, and proposes how the Habits of Mind (Costa & Kallick, 2000) can be directly used by the students as evidence of their development of the competencies

Analyzing a Piece of Teaching through the Lens of The ABC\u27s of How We Learn: 26 Scientifically Proven Approaches, How They Work, and When to Use Them

For the continuing development of quality instructional practices, educators must have access to the findings of research and be in a position to explore applications of those findings. We think we may have found such a resource: A 2016 book titled The ABCs of How We Learn: 26 Scientifically proven approaches, how they work, and when to use them by Schwartz, Tsang, and Blair is a concise, insightful, and applicable set of 26 short articles that explain key learning factors, provide examples, and identify the supporting scholarship. In this article, a first-year middle school science teacher and a veteran teacher educator collaborate and offer teacher educators and professional developers an overview of the 26 factors and an interpretation of how to effectively utilize this text. The article opens with a vignette of a middle school science lesson that readers may analyze anyway they wish. The debriefing offered in the article introduces the ABC framework by identifying the various principles as they are utilized in the learning experience. Then the authors describe and comment on the entire set of 26 factors and speak to the book’s great potential for helping teachers integrate research-supported findings into their daily efforts

Risk and Inchoate Crimes: Retribution or Prevention?

In this book chapter we give a definition of inchoate crimes and argue that inchoate crimes, so defined, are not culpable and do not deserve punishment. Our argument against the culpability of inchoate crimes is based on several points: the ability of the actor who intends a future act that might be culpable if performed to change his mind prior to the act’s performance; the conditionality of all future-oriented intentions; uncertainty regarding the culpability-enhancing or culpability-mitigating circumstances that will exist at the future time of performance; and the roles of vacillation and duration in assessing culpability. We argue that punishment for inchoate crimes should be regarded as preventive rather than retributiv

Culpable Acts of Risk Creation

In our view, an actor deserves punishment when he demonstrates insufficient concern for others, that is, when he engages in a culpable act of risk creation. In this essay, we address how we would rethink the actus reus so as to track the actor\u27s culpability and blameworthiness. Part I sets forth our view that defendants deserve to be punished for culpable acts. Briefly put, an actor is culpable when he risks others\u27 legally protected interests for insufficient reasons. In Part II, we turn to the question of how we would formulate a unit of culpable action. We argue that with respect to criminal acts, the criminal law should focus on the willed bodily movement as the unit of culpable action. We believe, however, that some omissions are also the appropriate targets of the criminal law, and we discuss how our view places significant reliance on omissions. We also add an additional element to our criminal law arsenal-we argue that the duration of the risk (as the actor perceives it) also affects the actor\u27s culpability and thus the punishment he deserves. In Part III, we turn to the question of how to individuate crimes. We begin by defending our view that we should abandon crime types in favor of a general prohibition against risk creation to legally protected interests. We also argue that this approach eliminates bedevilling act-type individuation problems created by complex action descriptions. We then turn to how to individuate tokens of risk creation. Here, we argue that each willed bodily movement is a new action; that multiple criminal acts are not subject to volume discounts, but the degree of premeditation may affect the actor\u27s ultimate culpability; and that continuous courses of conduct may be but one act of extended duration. We conclude by arguing that our view is more perspicuous because the number of crimes an actor has committed is but a rough proxy for his overall blameworthiness. In contrast, our account which includes risks reasons, quality of deliberation, and perceived duration of risk fully captures all the aspects of an actor\u27s blameworthiness

Confused Culpability, Contrived Causation, and the Collapse of Tort Theory

What justifies tort law? Once we identify a domain that is central to if not co-extensive with “torts,” we will find that it consists of a motley collection of doctrines that are impossible to justify under any recognizable and attractive normative principles

Danger: The Ethics of Preemptive Action

The law has developed principles for dealing with morally and legally responsible actors who act in ways that endanger others, the principles governing crime and punishment. And it has developed principles for dealing with the morally and legally nonresponsible but dangerous actors, the principles governing civil commitments. It has failed, however, to develop a cogent and justifiable set of principles for dealing with responsible actors who have not yet acted in ways that endanger, others but who are likely to do so in the future, those whom we label responsible but dangerous actors (RBDs). Indeed, as we argue, the criminal law has sought to punish RBDs through its expansive use of inchoate criminality; however, current criminalization and punishment practices punish those who have yet to perform a culpable act. In this article, we attempt to establish defensible grounds for preventive restrictions of liberty (PRLs) of RBDs in lieu of contorting the criminal law. Specifically, we argue that just as a culpable aggressor becomes liable to defensive force, an RBD can become liable to PRLs more generally. Although there are many examples of PRLs of RBDs currently in operation, the principles, if any, that justify and limit such PRLs have yet to be satisfactorily established