D ESEMPEÑO COMO ANTICUARIO Y ÚLTIMOS AÑOS

Clark’s alarming statement highlights the question whether the local church could ever effectively respond to those youth that are at-risk? Can youth-at-risk intervention ever become a typical Friday-evening-programme with games and a lesson? All four traditional approaches above depend on one’s understanding of the local church, thus our understanding of what the “local church” is has an essential influence in this discussion.

Should Youth Ministry be understood as a function of an institution, organization or, as Williams (1988:2) suggests, “a place where the Scriptures are preached and taught,” and a church member as someone that conforms to the doctrine and liturgy of it, then youth-at-risk intervention will not be served best by the church. These youths that are at-risk, because of feelings of distrust, attachment problems and perceived ideas about themselves and others, do not view the church as a viable sanctuary for stability, peace and hope. In what is considered a classic (Models of the Church), Dulles (1974) presents various models of the church, and their strengths and weaknesses. These models have been built upon examining Catholic and Protastant churches of the past centuary and remain the dominant philosophies used to plant and manage churches within the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, as will be discovered, all of the models resemble an institution, organisation or as Stanley suggests (2016), a temple system.

The first model is that of a ‘Political Society’ which portrays the church as an institution or organization that represents a ‘perfect society.’ It is perfect in that it is not subordinate to any other society and lacks nothing from an institutional point of view. The word ‘political’ is used since it is “as visible and palpable as the community of the Roman people, or the Kingdom of France, or the Republic of Venice” (Dulles, 2001:26). In this model there is a great emphasis placed on the church’s constitution, set of rules and governing body. Its members are viewed as subjects of the authority of its officials. Members are those who accept the aproved doctrines, receive its sacraments and obey its apointed pastors. This model thus resists any idea of an ‘invisible membership’, since membership is clearly verifiable. In the Political Society model of the church, the beneficieries are its own members and a means to eternal life its ultimate goal. Even though this model creates a strong sense of corporate identity, institutional loyalty, clear lifestyle guidelines and a strong push for missionary work (by bringing people into the organisation), it presents many weaknesses. One such weakness, and a definite threat concerning mobilizing members of a church as mentors to intervene in the lives of youth-at- risk, is that the control of dominant clergy normally leads to the passivity and non-involvement of its members. This model tends to have its focus on “law and order” and lacks attention to relationships. It is for this reason that congregations with such a model are often regarded as a ‘closed community’ which is out of touch with the demands of its time and not in dialogue with non-Christian communities (Moloney, 1990). Besides being regarded as “closed” and out of touch with its communities, the mere emphasis on rules and regulations is a strong deterrant to any youth-at-risk known for defying authority (Larson and Brendtro 2000:92).

The ‘Church as a Communion’ model is very much the opposite of the above. “Love, acceptance, forgiveness, commitment and intimacy constitute the church’s very fabric” (Fuellenbach 2002:152). It is understood within the analogy of the Body of Christ, where the members constitute the body and the Holy Spirit the soul of the church. Its goal is a spiritual union with God where members share in the love of the three Persons in one God (Fuellenbach, 2002:151). In this model the beneficiaries are the members of the church themselves whose lives are touched by the Holy Spirit living in the church (Dulles 2001:50). This model presents many strengths such as being democratic, ecumenical and a dependance on all members to contribute (Dulles 2001:50). The greatest weakness of this model, i.e. “being wrapped up in the joy and blessings of Christian fellowship may mean forgetting the church’s mission as servant of the kingdom of God,” resulting in members feeling at home among themselves and regarding others as outsiders and intruders, seems problematic towards youth-at-risk

intervention. A church model that has its focus inward, seems to be resistant to reaching out. Dulles (2001:52) also refers to the fact that within this model there is a risk that the spiritual are regarded more important than the practical aspects of the church. Mentoring youth-at-risk, is much more than just an exercise of spiritual prayer and fasting. Practically, face-to-face meetings need to be organized, indemnity forms signed, one needs to plan one’s week, are faced with continuous great disappointments and in a sense makes one’s proverbial hands ‘dirty.’ The practicalities of mentoring do not feel spiritual at all.

The ‘Church As Sacrament’ model, which is a more dominant model within a Catholic theology than a Reformed theology, holds that the Church is a sign and instrument of the presence of Christ. It aims at bringing the internal (spiritual) and external (structural & organisational) together. As a positive, it has a strong missionary focus, since its visibility to the world is a priority. As a weakness, this model includes difficulties in communicating exactly what the function and purpose of a sacrament is (Dulles 2001:67). The visibility of this model and the difficulty to understand it, poses a problem in reaching out to youth-at-risk. Youth-at-risk avoid institutions in general, thus the more dominant and visual it is, the less attractive it is to them.

The model presenting the ‘Church As Herald’ (Dulles, 2001:67) sees the church as the herald of God’s word. It views the church as having received the official message of God and the commision of making it known and passing it on. In this model statement of belief, liturgies and leadership is of lesser importance compared to the proclamation of the word of God and the response of people to it. It holds that only God can convert people and only God can let his kingdom come. Thus the beneficiaries are those who hear the word of God (because of the proclamation of the word through the church) and put their trust in Him as the source of salvation (through the work of the Holy Spirit). The strength of this model is that it leads to a strong sense of identity of its members and call to missions, yet as a weakness it claims no responsibility to convert people or build the Kingdom of God. This model seems problematic concerning the mentoring of youth-at-risk. As expressed in chapter 2 and 3 of this thesis, long term relationship is required. Menoring youth-at-risk requires a commitment to a relationship regardless of the immediate positive response one sees. Mentoring does not allow for the “proclamation of God’s word” to a youth-at-risk and then handing over to God, but asks mentors to keep building relationship regardless if the person is responding to God’s word or not.

Another prominent model Dulles (2001:163) refers to is that of the ‘Church As Servant.’ The joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of people of our time, especially of those who are poor or afflicted, are the joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ as well. The goal of the church is to help human beings whereever they are and keep alive among them the values, such as love, truth, compassion, forgiveness, reconsiliation, peace and joy, found within God’s Kingdom. Even though some critics hold that the word “servant” denotes that work is done under orders and not freely, and even questioning the fact that serving others can lead to self gain by boosting selfworth, thus less about others and more about self (Dulles 2001:91), it seems that this last model as presented by Dulles, holds most merit concerning youth-at-risk intervention through mentoring. The strength of this model is that it is outward focused and has at its core the need to meet people where they are and help them towards a better life. The church becomes the agent for social change. Since youth-at-risk is a social problem, it is in desperate need of a social change agent, a local church, which views itself as servant.

Even though the local church, understood as a change agent or servant to the community, seems a model that potentially allows for and even promotes youth-at-risk intervention, Viola and Barna (2002) suggest that the problem is within the “packaging” of any of the above mentioned models. Unfortunately hierarchical leadership (2002:105), pews or chairs facing pulpits or stages (2002:9), high steeples with leaded glass windows, or modern day sound and lighting (2002:157), all contributes to the local church being seen as a ‘place’ to go to and participate as a spectator, it promotes passivity of its members, few relationship building opportunities and a disconnect between spirituality and “real life.” Viola suggests that our view of the church being a place and not a people is evident in our modern day languange (i.e. we say ‘we go to church’ or ‘that is a beautiful church’). Stanley (2016) supports this idea when he says that the word “church” (derived from the German word ‘Kirk’) means House of the Lord, refering to a specific “sacred place” which is normally organized by “sacred men” using “sacred” texts. This is very different from the word that Luke (Acts 19:32, 39, 40) and Paul (1 Cor 12:28, Rom 16:1) used in the New Testament, Ekklesia, which denotes a gathering of people, or those who respond to a call. MacMaster distinguishes between social capital (the people – bonding, bridging & linking) and physical capital (buildings, leadership structures, etc) and points to how elements of the “institution” assist in connecting people:

“Church buildings have been significant in developing social capital, as places where people can cross boundaries, meet others, share activities and build trust. In townships that lack basic communal places for recreation and meeting, church

buildings often provide the only place where the community can gather. They provide the space for celebrations (e.g. birthday parties and wedding receptions), and are also the places where people come together for their schools’ parent meetings, political protest meetings and service groups (e.g. women and senior citizens).”

That said, it seems like the “physical capital” does not appeal to youth-at-risk (Clarke 2001:78) and that even though it might promote an inward connection between people, it does not promote a reaching out to people (Viola and Barna 2002). Divorcing the physical capital from the social capital completely, thus understanding church as only “invisible” might be more effective when considering youth-at-risk intervention. Both Viola & Barna and Stanley see the church as invisible, in the sense that it is not a building, institution, a membership or denomination, but a group of people called to be ‘counter cultural.’ If the local church is understood as a faith community living with purpose in a specific context (Grudem 1994:853), then youth-at-risk intervention is nothing else than a ministry to the youth around us, of whom some are more at-risk than others. In his discussion on the purpose of the church, Grudem understands the “purposes of the church in terms of ministry to God, ministry to believers and ministry to the world.” (1994:867) Reaching out to youth-at-risk, then, might be interpreted as this third purpose of the church. Grudem suggests that reaching-out-to-the-world (those outside of the faith community), was implied by Jesus’ affirmation (Luke 6:35-36) that it is good to help unbelievers even if they do not respond with gratitude or acceptance of the gospel message. It is because of God’s mercy, that we, the faith community (church), are called to be merciful and love everyone (Grudem 1994:868). Viola and Barna (2002:xxviii) suggest that so many pagan and Jewish influences shaped the local church (institution) to what it is today and suggest that, should the local church be effective, one needs to revisit the first century church who functioned without a bible, without bible seminaries, without church buildings or worship teams. The first century church was merely a group of people that was overflowing with their newfound belief in God, through Jesus, and organically started to reach out and include others.

Dean (2001:17) suggests that reflecting on what this “new found belief,” is the first task of practical theology, and hence, should be the first task when one considers the faith community, our ministering to youth and our reaching out to youth-at-risk. One such belief that was held by the first century church and is still held by most churches (Christian faith communities), directly relevant to the topic of mentoring youth-at-risk, is that God is a merciful and relational

God that has manifested himself to humanity through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This relational and merciful nature of God is often understood as the reason and need of a relational or incarnational theology.