El diccionario en el aprendizaje de la Ortografía.

It is the task of Pastoral Care to help people find meaning and purpose (Louw 1999:337). In order to do this, pastoral care givers engage with other disciplines such as psychology, sociology and anthropology (Cole 2010:712), yet understand that its uniqueness is that pastoral care interacts with these disciplines in the context of “God as the comprehensible- incomprehensible One” (Tracy 1994:56). In Scripture, one is reminded of God’s sensitivity and compassion, as well as His encounter, intervention and involvement in our being human; this becomes our departure point for finding meaning in our humanness (Louw 2010). Finding

meaning and purpose, however, will always take place in the context of relationships, thus “pastoral care is fundamentally relational” (Wei 2016). Wei says that the relationship that comprises pastoral care is “a compassionate presence, modelled on Jesus’ care for people, especially those hurting and in need, and nurturing their growth toward wholeness. Young people need such care and are in turn called to actively care for others. This requires a higher order of authentic relationship and maturity” (2016); a caring relationship that could be defined as mentoring. When a more mature person, engages in a relationship with a less mature person, with the aim of the growth and development of the latter (i.e. the understanding of mentoring (Rhodes 2002), then the mentor becomes the pastoral care giver.

Cole (2010:712) suggests that there are two distinct qualities that Pastoral Care brings to “caring,” which other disciplines don’t contribute, of which the first is “soul-care” and the second, “storied care.” Traditionally the care and cure of souls included four ancient pastoral functions namely healing, sustaining, guiding, and reconciling: “To offer pastoral care—to care for souls—meant to foster healing, sustenance, guidance, and reconciliation, not merely for individuals but for communities of people” (Cole 2010:715). This view of pastoral care largely persisted through the medieval period and the Protestant Reformation, but started to take on a different form at the turn of the17th Century as the “Enlightenment era” brought about three changing influences:

•! Firstly, more systematic and formal training of clergy gradually became the norm.

•! Secondly, the Western world increasingly explained and understood life and the world without necessary references to God or religion

•! Thirdly, theological education began a fragmentation into various areas of specialized study within the modern research university.

These three influences led to the narrowing of pastoral care to primarily focus on individuals and their needs (as opposed to the needs of both individuals and groups). Pastoral Care became private in nature and by the early twentieth century pastoral care was often limited to one-on- one encounters among clergy and lay persons focusing on matters of mental illness and related problems. By the mid-twentieth century pastoral care was guided largely by perspectives tied to psychology, psychotherapy and related clinical disciplines and, to a lesser degree, guided by other human sciences (i.e., anthropology, sociology, and critical theory) and by hermeneutics. At the same time, pastoral care drew less on religious language and perspectives as a departure point and in a sense lost its primary concern for “souls”—at least as traditionally viewed—and

gave more attention to “personhood” as understood through the medical and human sciences. Pastoral care, once a concern to care for souls through fostering healing, sustaining, guiding, and reconciling for individuals and communities of people, today follows the trend where qualified ministers function as arm chair therapists (Cole 2010).

For not one moment can one assume that this ‘style’ of pastoral care is not needed for the day and time we live in. It seems evident that (2010:716) that this view of Pastoral Care has rightfully and appropriately changed throughout church history and there might even be danger in seeking a pre-modern view for a post-modern time. When one considers all the previous chapters of this thesis, drawing from many different disciplines from human sciences, concluding that mentoring defined as “...a relationship in which the adult provides on-going guidance, instruction and encouragement aimed at developing the competence and character of the protégé...” as an effective intervention approach to youth-at-risk (as individuals and community), one finds that it is not that different from the ‘ancient’ view of pastoral care. Before the 17th century an unqualified “church” fostered healing, sustenance, guidance and reconciliation for individuals and communities, having an outcome of the wellness of people’s ‘souls’ at heart. Is this ancient view of pastoral care not the differential and significant contribution theology can make concerning youth-at-risk intervention through mentoring? Even famous non-Christian psychiatrists such as Scott Peck questioned the modern-day approach of counselling and therapy when he says, “it is remarkable, almost incredible, that the voluminous professional literature in the West on the subject of psychotherapy ignores the issue of love.” (1990:161) He suggests that we have created all these rules, boundaries and regulations as to how to help people, gave qualifications so that some might become professionals in caring, yet forgot that caring for the soul is relational, and thus doable by all. To consider that all within the church are called to reach out to the souls of others, it is necessary to clarify what exactly is meant by the “soul.” Systematic theologians have long debated whether the essential nature of a human is a Trichotomy (spirit, soul and body), Dichotomy (spirit/soul and body) or Monism (man is one element) (Grudem 1994:473). The debate has been ongoing, since Scripture uses the terms soul, spirit and body in some instances interchangeably (e.g. John 12:27 vs. John13:21 also see Luke 1:46-47). Within theology, those arguing for a trichotomous understanding of human nature use 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 4:12, 1 Corinthians 2:14 - 3:4 and 1 Corinthians 14:14 as proof texts. All these texts imply that man is made up out of three parts; body, spirit and soul, and further imply that they ‘work’

distinctly from one another. “Trichotomists say that they have a spiritual perception [spirit] or a spiritual awareness of God’s presence which affects them in a way that they know to be different from their ordinary thinking [body] processes and different from their emotional [soul] experience.” (Grudum 1994:478) Dichotomists hold that the word spirit is another term for the word soul, and thus humans are made up of two parts: body and soul/spirit. Matthew 10:28, 1 Kings 17:22 and 2 Cor 5:1-4, according to dichotomists, clearly point to the two parts of a human that work distinctly from one another. Since it is the soul/spirit which is eternal, the soul/spirit is often the concerning factor for ministry. “A number of non-Christian philosophers have vigorously challenged the idea that man has any immaterial part at all such as soul or spirit.” (Grudem 1994:483) This leads us to the theory of Monism, a belief that man is only one element, and that the words soul and spirit are merely synonyms for life. This is a less popular view within the Christian tradition. In response to Monism, evangelical Christian theologians, emphasized texts in Scripture referring to death and the departure of the soul or spirit which once again strengthened the theories of dichotomy and trichotomy within the Christian tradition. Monism however, ‘triggered’ yet a fourth theory: Unichotomy.

Boarden (2000) explained in a lecture on the Essential Nature of Man that Unichotomy is a relatively new theory that states that humans have a body, soul and spirit, yet they interact and function as a unit. At death, a very unnatural process takes place when the soul or spirit leaves the body temporarily, to be reunited with a glorified body (1 Cor 15) which will interact and function together for eternity as a unit (September 2002). Although this theory is less familiar than others, it seems that it is, intentionally or unintentionally, the foundational understanding of a holistic approach to Christian ministry. In a lecture on HIV Intervention and the Church, Conradie (2001) stated that when a person is terminally ill [body] it often leads to depression [soul] which leads to feelings of alienation from God [Spirit]. Thus by treating the body, the soul and spirit will benefit (because they function together as a unit). However, one can also treat the depression [soul], which could lead to an understanding of purpose and meaning within the illness [spirit], that will lead to a positive attitude, which in turn, science has shown, will boast the immune system [body] (Dowling 2001).

When one considers taking care of the ‘soul’, one has to consider the wellbeing of the whole person. Barth said that “the human person is bodily soul, as he is also “besouled” body” (Sherlock 1999:215), implying that humans do not have souls, but are souls. Sherlock expresses the theory of Unichotomy with the idea of wholeness. He says that “anything which contributes

to holistic living is valued highly today, while dualistic impulses are vigorously avoided” (1999:212). He points out that the word sōtēria, normally translated within the Christian tradition as salvation, can also be translated as ‘health’ or ‘wholeness’ (Sherlock 1999:213). Within the Christian faith, “Jesus Christ is the example of a whole life lived in full integrity, ‘without sin.’ The distinct feature of the work of Christ is that he freely gave up his life, so that his wholeness might be offered to all” (Sherlock 1999:213). According to Louw:

“Wholeness in the Christian tradition implies more than healing and a condition of wellbeing. Wholeness refers to a new condition of being, to a radical transformation of our existence. It refers to a new direction, to life as determined by God’s grace and defined by the justification in Christ. Wholeness refers to God’s unqualified “yes” in Christ and implies the renewal of one’s relationship with God, one’s self, one’s body, with other human beings and with creation.” (2005:10).

Louw states that “reflection on our being human evokes a “soul-revealing” question: who am I? (2005:9). This question, “…forces one to ask: what am I doing here, in this space and place? What is the purpose of my life?” (Louw 2005:9). In the context of pastoral care, it is these questions that address the wellness and quality of the human “soul”, our wholeness.

Concerning youth-at-risk, we find that it is not well with their souls. Political, negative socio- economics, deviant peers and absent and abusive parents are answering these “soul-revealing” questions, more often by neglect than by intent, in the forming years of children, causing them, when they become adolescents, to merely live the answers they received. These answers are merely expressed through anti-social behaviour. As pastoral caregivers, however, the quest to communicate ‘better truths’ to these soul revealing questions, will inevitably lead to more whole young people which will result in healthy behaviour. It is at this point that Cloete (2012) alludes to the ‘intertwined’ relationship between pastoral care and youth-ministry when she challenges youth-ministry practitioners to make “Spiritual formation” a focus within youth ministry. As our young people battle with these soul revealing existential questions about their existence and purpose, their identity is being formed. And identity formation inevitably includes questions about their spirituality (Engeland 2006:54). Dean (2001:29) suggests that theology (spirituality) is rampant under youth. Just a switching on the TV and they are confronted with the gods of fame, gods of success, gods of heath, gods of good looks, gods of position, gods of wealth and countless others. There theology and spirituality is shaped by their contact with these gods, and thus the soul revealing questions are being answered. Cloete (2012:75), however, urges the church, particularly those within the area of youth ministry, to

journey with young people in their spiritual formation when she says, “when we meet the other, we discover ourselves as well as God. Then we are in a better position to discover where we fit into life and what contributions we can make to the greater good of creation, of which we are a part” and also, “[spiritual formation] will not happen along the way, youth need to be among believers to “catch” (see and experience) what it is to live as a believer in your everyday life...” (2012:75). This call is to all believers to engage in ministering to youth, and not only the qualified pastoral counsellors, youth leaders and pastors. Can this potentially be where a mentor, a believing adult, committed to journey with a young person, outside of the institutional boundaries of the congregation, in order to develop the person’s character and competence for life – helps with the spiritual formation and answering of the existential questions?

Professional clergy, educators and counsellors might question how qualified the “pastoral mentor” will be to lead a young person, especially those at-risk, on a journey of spiritual formation (Rhodes, 2002). To answer this question one may consider Cole’s (2010:718) second distinctive aspect of Pastoral care, called ‘Storied Care’. Cole suggests that it is important to remember that pastoral care takes place in the foreground of a particular story—the Christian Story. Even though the term “the Christian story” will represent different things to different people, it is generally understood as “the story of God’s creative, transformative and redemptive acts throughout history, which Christians have most frequently recognized in the history of Israel; the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit” (Cole 2008:172). The “Christian story” derives from many stories, including those recounted in Scripture and church traditions, but also those stories that we live out, historically and in the present, in the contexts of various faith communities and beyond. Life entails living intentionally in relationship to this story. Even though John de Gruchy (2006:11) suggests that how people understand and give expression to the Christian story will change over time as that story gets lived out in different contexts, Cole’s (2008:172) characteristics of the Christian story seems universal and relevant:

•! First, it makes claims about “the way things are,” what holds the greatest value and importance and what qualifies as moral, ethical, and just.

•! Second, it presents normative ways of carrying ourselves and being in relationships, including relationships with other people, with the created world, and with God.

•! Third, the Christian story calls those who embrace it to live by its claims and norms; and this entails locating “their personal stories within its story so that it moulds, guides, and sets boundaries for their personal stories.

Cole concludes:

“as we claim it and live by it, the Christian story claims us and makes claims upon us; it offers promises to us and informs how we make meaning of life, including how we view the world, our relationships, ourselves, and ultimately God. We could go so far as to say that the Christian life is a lived story. A story giving us our identity, constituting our selfhood, and commissioning our way of being and acting, this story makes us who

we are.” (2008:172)

When the pastoral caregiver is the mentor, and youth-at-risk the soul in need of attention, then the mentoring of youth-at-risk as an intervention, is a pastoral function. It is, however, the understanding of the Circle of Courage, that gives it reference to the field of pastoral care. Symbolically the Circle of Courage represents wholeness. It suggests that should one develop a healthy identity in how one belongs to others (belonging), about what one is capable of doing (mastery), grow in becoming a good decision maker (independence) and understand one’s purpose and therefore reach out to others (generosity); it will enhance wholeness (Larson 2000). If the circle is broken, the person will be broken; or have a broken identity. Ultimately, the Circle of Courage is understood in light of identity formation, or spiritual formation. Many suggest great synergy between spiritual and identity formation, since both seek answers to the same existential questions, and provide the answers in synergy with each other (Gushiken 2010:319). Spiritual formation is considered “an organic process that goes far beyond the mere behavioural tweaks to deep fundamental changes at the very core of our being” (Barton 2009:28). Cloete reminds one that just as the circle has no beginning and no end, so is Christian spirituality; it is an “ongoing process, something that is holistic and never static” (Cloete 2012:71). Thus at its core one may argue that the Circle of Courage is concerned with spiritual formation.

Another fundamental “truth” that is part of the Circle of Courage philosophy, is that wholeness can only come for a person in relationship with others. According to Canadian anthropologist Inge Bolin (2016), "rituals of respect" permeate the values and child rearing practices of traditional indigenous cultures. She says that when needs for Belonging, Mastery,

Independence, and Generosity are met, children and youth thrive and achieve their full potential. Unfortunately, in modern society, since young people are ‘disconnected’ from caring adults and hyper-influenced by peers, the ‘ecology of childhood’ is disrupted, basic growth needs go unmet and youth present a host of problems and risky behaviour. It is the ‘reaching out’ task of missiology and the “including task” of youth-ministry that makes the ecclesia the context for development of our young people’s spirituality and healthy identity formation. Cloete concludes that spiritual formation, where the Christian community is involved, guides youth with regards to life issues and focus on God in the “ambiguous messiness and beauty of everyday life” (2012:75).

Lastly when considering the Circle of Courage philosophy, Larson explains (2000:72) that all youth-at-risk behavioural problems, stem from their beliefs. Larson (2000:178) suggests that one cannot present simplistic approaches to troubled youth, rather it should be acknowledged that their needs are critical and complex, and effective intervention needs to encompass every dimension of a young person’s life, including their spiritual formation. Larson argues (2000:175) that most intervention organizations work on the first of four levels of intervention namely ‘behaviour.’ When anti-social behaviour is noticed within a young person, intervention organizations try to alter the behaviour by addressing the behaviour (i.e. drug use = drug rehabilitation). Unfortunately, behaviour is only an expression of ‘attitude,’ something that calls for a deeper level of intervention. Since behaviour is influenced by thoughts and feelings, attention to these factors can make intervention much more impactful. But, “neither behaviour nor thinking (attitude) fully address the heart of the matter (Larson 2000:177). A bolder and more effective approach is to focus on how a person’s values and philosophy of life directly influence a young person’s attitudes and action. Some moral development and character education programs seek to instill human virtues and values such as respect, responsibility and caring for others. Larson says, “any serious discussion on values inevitably turns to deeper spiritual questions about the purpose and meaning of life.” - questions the researcher believes Louw (2005:9) calls “soul-revealing questions,” which is according to him the essence of pastoral care. Larson suggests (2000:177) that interventions at this level help youth understand how their theology – view of God – informs and directs every other area of their lives and gives