- volver- ESPIRITUALIDAD Y PEDAGOGIA IGNACIANA artículos en línea

B A Gerrish. What do we mean by faith in Jesus Christ? - volver índice -
The Christian Century, Chicago, Oct 6, 1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume: 116, Issue: 26, Pagination: 932-937, ISSN: 00095281

Subject Terms: Theology // Jesus Christ // Faith // History

Abstract:

Gerrish acknowledges that there is a crisis in Christology today, produced, in part, by the modern habits of historical thinking: relativism and historical skepticism.
Copyright Christian Century Foundation Oct 6, 1999

Full Text:
CRISIS" IS an overworked word. But few will deny that there is a crisis today in Christology, the doctrines of Christ's work and person. What is not always so clearly recognized is just how long the crisis has been in the making. It is the product, in part, of two characteristics of our modern habits of historical thinking: relativism and historical skepticism.

For Luther and Calvin, there could be only one Savior of the world; outside of faith in Christ, they could see nothing but idolatry and the willful suppression of God's witness to Godself. And they had no serious doubts about the historical reliability of what the New Testament says of Christ. Whether true or false, neither of these two assumptions-the uniqueness of Christ and the historical reliability of the Gospels-can be taken for granted anymore.

It is astonishing to find doubts on the first assumption as early as the 17th century, in the confessions of a model Puritan. Here is John Bunyan's testimony in Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners:

The Tempter would also much assault me with this: How can you tell but that the Turks had as good Scriptures to prove their Maho-met the Saviour, as we have to prove our Jesus is; and could I think that so many ten thousands in so many Countreys and Kingdoms, should be without the knowledge of the right way to Heaven (if there were indeed a Heaven) and that we onely, who live but in a corner of the Earth, should alone be blessed therewith? Everyone doth think his own Religion rightest, both Jews, and Moor., and Pagans; and how if all our Faith, and Christ, and Scriptures, should be but a think-so too?

Bunyan's temptation expresses an early tremor of Christian complacency in a world not only of confessional pluralism but of religious pluralism, too: he has looked at the alarming possibility that all religions, Christian and non-Christian, are alike no more than "think-so," none of them having any special right to be set apart as alone true, or even placed on top as the truest there is. We remember, of course, that according to Bunyan, it was the devil who put these unnerving thoughts into his mind. But what to him was a passing insinuation of the Tempter became for the English Deists, who followed him, a sustained assault on any revelation addressed to all humankind from corners, as Deist Anthony Collins ironically put it. And for the present-day Christian theologian it has become a sober, unavoidable theological question: Is there only one mediator between God and humankind? If there are many candidates, how can we adjudicate between them? Or does religious pluralism necessarily imply a religious relativism in which what is good and true for us may not be good and true for everyone?

Theories constricted to assimilate the new data about other religions sometimes adjusted the old theology, sometimes broke with it; either way, a new theological agenda was quietly taking shape. Richard Baxter (1615-91) argued that if all nations of the world have some kind of religion then all may hope to obtain mercy for their sins. "Those that know not Christ nor his redemption, are yet his Redeemed." A staunch Puritan, Baxter could not suppose that the salvation of pagans nullifies the need for atonement; it must mean, rather, that the efficacy of Christ's saving work extends to some, at least, who have never heard of him. Christian theology thus retains its priority over the evidences of natural religion, which are simply incorporated into the old scheme with a minimal adjustment-all adjustment, by the way, that was not without precedent in the theology of the Reformation era. But the English Deists reversed the priorities: they incorporated Christianity into a general understanding of religion.

The Deists were not all Of one mind. But we find repeatedly in their writings the view that a pure religion is accessible to all bs nature and that Christianity, like every other historical religion, partly exhibits the religion of nature, partly obscures and corrupts it. The familiar scheme of Protestant orthodoxy is turned upside down. Revelation does not, after all, clarity our confused natural knowledge of God; quite the contrary, our innate knowledge of God enables us to judge every pretended revelation and to sort out truth and error even in Christianity itself. Such a revolutionary shift of perspective, typical of the Deists, nurtured a fascinating body of subversive literature, which actually began even before the heyday of Deism. Natural religion, or the religion of plain reason, was assumed to be an uncomplicated ethical monotheism, incompatible with trinitarian speculations and the imposition of other religious duties besides the duty to lead a virtuous life.

In the early 20th century, with imperialism was still at its height, Ernst Troeltsch observed that christocentrism is the theological counterpart of geocentrism and anthropocentrism in cosmology: an anachronistic absolutizing of our own contingent place in the scheme of things. That the center of our own religious history is also the sole hope of salvation for the rest of humanity could be a miracle of divine election, but to the rest of the wvorld it looks like another example of the Western will to dominate. And now that the supporting ideology of colonialism has collapsed, the absoluteness of Christianity appears ready to collapse with it. Christians face the adherents of other religions on an equal footing: the dialogue begins, in effect, witlh Troeltsch's contention that the history of religions reveals several nodal points, not one absolute center. And Christians must now ask: Is Jesus Christ the only redeemer, or are there many?

THIS, HOWEVER, is only the first reason that the present-day theologian has to rethink the meaning of Jesus Christ for faith. For what, in any case, can we claim to know about him?

On this problem, too, the dividing line between the Reformers and ourselves fell in the 18th century, the period of the Enlightenment; and the pioneers were again the English Deists, who turned a skeptical eye to the wondrous events related in the Gospels. During the same period New Testament scholars, especially in Germany, began to reflect critically on the fact that the four Gospels do not yield a consistent, unified narrative of the life of Christ. Of course, Christians had noticed from the earliest times that the Gospels have individual characteristics and present the story of Jesus with wide variations. But this had not given rise to much serious doubt concerning their truthfulness.

Even Calvin's ingenuity did not suffice for him to incorporate the Fourth Gospel into his Harmony of the Gospels; he commented separately on John. Yet he was confident that his arrangement of the Synoptics (as we call them) gave a generally accurate account of the words and deeds of Christ. Where the pieces seemed not to fit, he was content to shrug his shoulders and to grant that the Evangelists were not always concerned to provde a strict, chronological account. Neither was he bothered by what he admitted to be a few minor errors in the texts.

We find ourselves in quite another world when we turn from Calvin to the notorious Wolfenbuttel Fragments, which G. E. Lessing (1729-81) began to publish in 1774, thereby launching the so-called quest for the historical Jesus. H. S. Reimarus (1694-1768), the author of the fragments (not identified by Lessing), had been influenced by the English Deists and had decided that the Gospels were not merely inaccurate but fraudulent. Others took the view that the Gospels were not so much conscious fabrications as the work of naive believers living in a prescientific age: their credulity led them to misconstrue the testimony of their own eyes.

The attempt of early writers on the life of Jesus to unearth plain facts, and to reassure Christians that the facts were not really miraculous, went nowhere. One commentator on one such interpretation remarks that it retained the husk and surrendered the kernel. But the story of the quest for the historical Jesus is long, complicated, immensely fascinating-and still incomplete. We now have an Old Quest, a New Quest and a Third Quest. I cannot trace the story here. I simply venture to offer a theologian's comments on its apparent inconclusiveness. Occasionally, it is true, New Testament scholars have spoken of an agreed core of information about the words and works of jesus. But the consensus, when it is predicted, does not arrive; or if it is achieved, it does not last.

Recent years have seen an extraordinary flurry of new proposals, ranging from technical works of esoteric scholarship to racy publications that court a public sensation. Barbara Thiering's contribution, Jesus the Man (1992), attracted media attention chiefly by its argument that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had three children with her (two boys and a girl), divorced her and was remarried-this time to the Lydia of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles. (Acts 16:14 tells us that "the Lord opened [Lydia's] heart," which, being interpreted, means they fell in love.) Naturally, this presupposes that Jesus did not die on the cross: poison given him as an act of mercy only left him unconscious. In the tomb Simon the magician, one of the two offenders who had been crucified with Jesus, was able to revive him with the spices left by the women. He lived to a ripe old age, but there is no record of his last days. "He was seventy years old in A.D. 64, and it is probable that he died of old age in seclusion in Rome."

A banner headline in a British weekly caught my eye in October 1992: "Man and Myth-More Bad News for Believers." It was a review of several popular attempts, including Barbara Thiering's, to rescue the real Jesus from the church. But it is, I think, easy enough for believers to brush aside the entire genre of popular Jesus books. A senior New Testament scholar may speak for most believers when he remarks that "Thiering's exotic fantasy would be a rollicking good joke, were it not so sad that the public, ignoring the Gospels, lap up this total rubbish." The bad news for believers, if there is any, is surely the failure of the more sober scholars to reach a consensus on the historical Jesus: if they agree on anything at all, it is that the Gospels cannot be taken for historical or biographical accounts of what the Jesus of history said, did and suffered. And where does that leave believers?

I admit that I am a mere dilettante in the historical field explored so closely by New Testament specialists. I can only stand by and watch as a church theologian intensely interested in the implications the quest has for faith. And if the significance of the Christian encounter with other religions is that it sets Jesus amid a crowd of competing redeemers, the significance of the many quests for the historical Jesus seems to be that they have taken away the Lord altogether: he disappears in a crowd of competing interpreters. Jesus is variously represented as a marginal Jew (John Meier), a Mediterranean Jewish peasant (John Dominic Crossan), a wandering Cynic preacher (Burton Mack), a Jewish revolutionary (S. G. F. Brandon), a Galilean holy man (G. Vermes) and so on.

And when we move from such general characterizations to matters of detail, it is again the lack of consensus that is most likely to strike the believer as bad news. Perhaps the best we can hope for are the results of Robert Funk's Jesus Seminar, which has now classified all the sayings attributed to Jesus as certainly inauthentic, probably inauthentic, probably authentic or certainly authentic. A sequel has followed on what Jesus really did. A great deal of fun has been poked at the method of deciding historical matters by majority vote of a select conclave, although that is how the church has usually, decided matters of dogma But the real question (for a theologian) is this: Can faith survive the wait, as the words and works attributed to the Lord are passed through the sorting office? And if it can wait, il,ill it then sur ive all the uncertainties about him that wll inevitably remain?

THE TWO PROBLEMS I have laid on the table are unavoidable. How deeply they have already affected Christians untroubled bv a theological education is hard to say. A lot depends on where they live and where, or whether, they go to church. In England church attendance is slight, but religious pluralism and the quest for the historical Jesus have been strenuously debated in the public news media. There are signs of a growing public concern in America, too, where a much higher percentage of the population is connected with one or the other of the churches. In any case, both the interfaith dialogue and the search for the real Jesus are gaining in intensity, and they promise to have repercussions in the churches not unlike the impact (in an earlier time) of the Darwinian controversy. Christian theology must clearly take up the new agenda, which in truth is not so new as is sometimes imagined.

Unfortunately, the problems are not only unavoidable; they are also difficult problems, in which Christian sensibilities are painfully exposed. I cannot hope to enter into conversation with all the various positions that are currently recommended, or even to say as much as I should like to say about my own position. I will only try to point out an approach to Christology, which, admittedly, is not itself a Christology.

The question before us is how faith, understood as as a total orientation of the self, is to be related to Jesus Christ in light of the problems of relativism and historical skepticism. Perhaps the instinctive Christian reaction to relativism and to skepticism about the Jesus of history is to insist: "But Jesus was God in human flesh! We believe in his divinity. This is what separates our Christian faith from every other religion, and it isn't negotiable. Salvation depends on it."

However understandable the instinctive Christian response (if such it is) maybe, it cannot be promoted to dogmatic status, or we will find ourselves back with faith as the Athanasian Creed understands it. The creed says: "The right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.... This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved." The objection we have to register, first of all, is that faith as belief, and even as belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, is something other than "saving faith" (as Luther and Calvin understand it).

But more than that: To begin with belief in the divinity of Jesus is also a dubious stand to take in the present situation of interfaith dialogue. It is dubious not simply because the tone of inflexibility tends to close off conversation, rather than to foster it, but also because the uniqueness of belief in Jesus as God-Man is one of the things that the conversation has placed in doubt. Elevation of the founder of a religion into a preexistent divine being, it nvill quickly be pointed out these days, has occurred also in Mahayana Buddhism. Further, there are remarkably close parallels et veen the stories that celebrate, respectively, the birth of Jesus and the birth of Octavius (the emperor Caesar Augustus). John Dominic Crossan concludes: "Jesus' divine origins are just as fictional or mythological as those of Octavius." The conclusion, I sld think, goes beyond the evidence. The stories about the divine origins of Jesus and Octavius may be fictional, but either one of them, or both, could still be in some sense divine, or of a divine origin, as could also the Buddha. The point, rather, is that belief in the divinity of Jesus does not settle the question of Christianity and other religions, and it raises again questions about the truthfulness, or (better) the literary character, of the Gospels.

A third difficulty with going straight to Chalcedon, so to say, is that it immediately raises the question of the scriptural norm. Whether the New Testament teaches that Jesus was God, like nearly everything else in biblical scholarship, is keenly debated. The expression "Jesus is (or was) God" occurs nowhere in the Gospels, or anyhere else in the New Testament, although it has sometimes been made into the watchword of Christian orthodoxy. The overwhelming weight of the New Testament's wav of speaking about Jesus is plainly on the side of distinguishing him from God. Paul's statement may be taken as an apt summary: "For us there is one God, the Father, . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 8:6). The sole uncontroverted instance of Jesus himself being named "God" is in doubting Thomas's confession, "My Lord and my God," addressed to the risen Lord (John 20:28); and the scholars si,ill immediately tell us that this is probably a formula from the Evangelist:5 own time, made in response to the claim of the Emperor Domitian to be "our Lord and God." The case can certainly be made for a few other instances-with varying degrees of probability or improbability. But that only brings us back again to our harried believers, waiting anxiously for the latest news about the historical Jesus.

For Roman Catholics, the problem is less painful than it is for Protestants. Raymond Brown begins an essay titled "Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?" by noting that he is not asking whether Jesus was in fact God. "This question," he says, "was settled for the Church at Nicaea." Brown also points out-superfluously, I suppose-that the constitutional basis of the World Council of Churches, formulated by the Amsterdam Assembly in 1948, is acceptance of Jesus Christ as "God and Saviour."

For Protestants, however, no decision of an ecclesiastical council is irreformable. It is true that the Protestant Reformers and the Reformation confessions often endorsed the trinitarian and christological definitions of the ecumenical creeds and councils. But the grounds on which they did so must be clearly understood. The Reformers did not share the view of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches that the pronouncements of a synod of bishops have, or can have, the status of dogmas that are free from error and binding for all times. (That would be a theor of church government quite alien to those churches, in particular, whose historic stand has been against episcopacy.) The Reformers reaffirmed Nicene orthodoxy because they thought it agreeable to the word of God, and this logically implies the possibility of second thoughts if scriptural exegesis so requires. Otherwise, the descendants of the Reformers would find themselves in exactly the error of which Karl Barth so relentlessly accused the Church of Romenot permitting the Bible to remain free, sovereign over all ecclesiastical interpretations of it, so that the church may be always and only a hearer, not the master, of the word of God.

BUT SUPPOSE we begin, not where Athanasius ended, but where Athanasius himself began, with the actual experience of new life in Jesus Christ; and that we do our best to understand the new life with the resources available to us, as he did with the resources available to him. We would then, I think, be following much the same path that Luther and Schleiermacher were to take later. For Athanasius, the divine life that came into the church from the incarnate word was imperiled when the Arians took God's word to be something less than God: if he "deifies" us, the Son must be of the same substance as the Father.

Luther said in one of his sermons (in that carefree style that can make even a Lutheran nervous): "Christ is not called Christ because he has two natures. What is that to men?" And in another sermon he said: "To believe in Christ does not mean to believe that Christ is a person who is both God and man. That helps nobody." At first hearing, this may sound like a rejection of the christological orthodoxy that Athanasius had labored to secure. But Luther was certain that it was God he met in Jesus Christ because his conscience told him that his sins were no longer counted against him. Christ is revealed as God by doing God's work. The scribes asked correctly: "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7).

I believe that Friedrich Schleiermacher discerned particularly well the logic of christological reflection exemplified in Athanasius and Luther. As I said in my little book on Schleiermacher: "He began neither with ancient dogmas nor with ancient history, but with what every Christian experiences, and he sought to give an honest account of it that would not run away from the intellectual problems of the modern world." What Christians actually experience in their encounter with Jesus Christ, according to Schleiermacher, is a heightened awareness of God, which is symbolized and celebrated in the joy of Christmastime: they are drawn under the sway of Jesus' uniquely powerful sense of God. "To ascribe to Christ an absolutely powerful consciousness of God and to attribute to him a being of God in him," Schleiermacher concludes, "are entirely one and the same thing."

Naturally, I had to admit in the Schleiermacher book, and I admit it again now, that "what every Christian experiences" is a question-begging expression. But that is only to concede the limitations of the approach, not to doubt its fundamental soundness. Schleiermacher believed one could make headway in dogmatics only by inviting the hearer's or reader's participation in the inquiry. He took the question, "What does Christ actually do for the Christian?" to be, as we say; existential or self-involving: it invites the Christian's reflection on her own experience. He knew well that there are varieties of Christian experience. But he remained convinced that, on reflection, a common faith would be discerned in them all, and it held the clue to a sound understanding of Christ's person.

In the three testimonies we have just looked at, the key thought that brings it all together, so to say, changes: "life," "forgiveness," "the sense of God." But the question "What, as a matter of fact, does Christ do for Christians?" is still, I think, the crucial one to ask in any Christian community, if the christological project is to be duly launched. The proper approach, in short, is to begin not with the definition of Chalcedon (451), "truly God and truly man . . . in two natures," but with the actual experience of Jesus Christ that has led to the confession of his divinity, or of a unique being of God in him. We are surely on firm ground if we assert that what Christians actually receive from Jesus Christ is saving faith, meaning both 1) perceiving one's experience under the image of divine benevolence (fides) and 2) a consequent living of one's life out of an attitude of confidence or trust (fiducia). The work of Christ, we can now add, is the gift of saving faith, which is not belief about Christ, but confidence in God through Christ-a confidence that rests on the perception of a pattern in the events of one's life. What is believed about Christ is the implication, not the precondition, of this gift of faith. Hence the primary or initial interest of Christology is to understand the faith that actually occurs through Jesus Christ.

I have no wish to cut off the traditional christological assertions any more than Luther or Schleiermacher did. It is the duty of the dogmatic theologian to understand and, as far as possible, to retrieve the doctrinal formulas of the past-at the very least, to show their point. But a proper order must be observed. The Chalcedonian definition is not the foundation of saving faith, and unless one accounts for it genetically, it is more likely to mystify than to enlighten us, or else to become a mere shibboleth of doctrinal correctness.

B. A. Gerrish is John Nuveen Professor Emeritus at the University of Chicago and Distinguished Service Professor of Theology at Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education, Richmond, Virginia. This article, the first of a two-part series, is excerpted from his forthcoming book Saving and Secular Faith (Fortress Press).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.- volver índice -

Peter F Wilson. Core virtues for the practice of mentoring. - volver índice -
Journal of Psychology and Theology, La Mirada, Summer 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume: 29, Issue: 2, Start Page: 121, ISSN: 00916471

Copyright Rosemead Graduate School of Professional Psychology Summer 2001

Full Text:
Mentoring relationships in psychology and other fields are often long-term, complex, and multifaceted. Although mentoring is associated with a host of benefits and positive outcomes for proteges, excellent mentoring requires careful attention to potential ethical concerns. In this article, we review mentoring literature from the education and management fields, as well as spiritual-direction literature, with attention to the traits and virtues of mentors. We argue for the relevance of mentor character virtues and propose that three central virtues (integrity, courage, and care) offer a solid starting point for theory and research relevant to the significance of mentor character. We conclude with a discussion of implications for training and research in psychology.

During the past twenty-five years, scholars and practitioners in a range of fields have contributed to an extensive body of literature on the subject of mentoring. A centuries old practice, mentoring is most simply described as a relationship in which a younger or less experienced individual is trained and developed by a more experienced-often older-individual. In recent decades, research findings and practice models for mentoring have emerged primarily from business and academic settings (Kram, 1985; Torrance, 1984; Zey, 1991).

In spite of a burgeoning cross-disciplinary literature that largely supports the benefits of mentoring for both mentors and those who are mentored (proteges), relatively little attention has been given to the requisite qualities and characteristics of effective mentors. As long-term, multifaceted, and emotionally intense relationships, mentorships may pose unique ethical risks. Johnson and Nelson (1999) discussed the uniquely "multiple" nature of many longterm mentorships and recommended several principles for the professional practice of mentoring. In this article, we attempt to compliment Johnson and Nelson's (1999) principle ethics approach to mentoring by focusing on the person of the mentor-including foundational mentor character virtues. Integrating these principle and virtue perspectives may provide a coherent structure for enhancing the ethical competence of psychologists who mentor. Such integration may ultimately enhance the character of our profession (Meara, Schmidt, & Day, 1996).

In this article, we briefly summarize literature bearing on the practice of mentoring. We then highlight the unique nature of mentorships, including their strong potential for both benefit and ethical conflict. We argue for the addition of a virtue-based perspective on the requisite characteristics of ideal mentors, then briefly summarize the sparse literature relative to mentor qualities and virtues. Because character virtues are an inherent product of cultural and situational factors, we intentionally consider writings from the Christian tradition of spiritual direction, with an emphasis on discerning salient similarities to the secular construct of mentoring as well as perspectives regarding the importance of the character virtues and values of the spiritual director. Finally, we propose that three character virtues-integrity, courage and care-offer a useful starting point for developing a model of ethical mentoring for Christian professionals. We conclude by discussing implications of this model for the practice of mentoring in the field of psychology and future research on the topic.

MENTORING THEORY AND RESEARCH

Definitions

When Odysseus departed for the Trojan War, he charged his trusted friend, Mentor, with the education and development of his son, Telemachus (Fairchild, 1982; O'Neil, 1981). This education was comprehensive and included aspects of physical, intellectual, spiritual, social, and occupational development (Clawson, 1980). Master-apprentice relationships were institutionalized in the middle ages as trainees were occupationally mentored into life-long vocations (Little, 1990). Mentors have been characterized as models or exemplars of behavior (Anderson & Shannon, 1988), seasoned craftsmen (Little, 1990), facilitators (Shea, 1994) and quasi-parents (Levinson, Carrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978). Historically, mentors have been expected to model admirable personal traits and professional skills.

Although conceptions of mentoring vary widely (Jacobi, 1991), most agree that a mentor is usually oder than the protege and has greater experience in the world and skill in a profession (Levinson, et al., 1978). Thomas and Kram (1988) suggested, "A mentor is defined as any higher level employee who can be depended upon to share personal insights and to provide guidance and support that can enhance performance and career development" (p. 50). Following a review of the literature, Clark, Harden, & Johnson (2000) defined mentoring as a personal relationship in which an individual who is usually more experienced and older acts as a guide, role model, teacher, and sponsor of a protege who is less experienced and younger (p. 263). In essence, mentors are teachers, advisors, models, guides, and even protect those they mentor.

Mentor Roles and Functions

The range of role descriptions used in discussions of mentoring is extensive and includes trusted guide (Clawson, 1980), teacher, sponsor, advisor, host, counselor and supporter (Levinson et al., 1978), patron, godparent (Phillips-Jones, 1982), protector, promoter (Zey, 1991), trainer, role-model, talent developer, confidant (Gehrke, 1988), trusted colleague, supervisor (Bey & Holmes, 1990), encourager, befriender (Anderson & Shannon, 1988), champion (Parsloe, 1992), and leader-coach (Shea, 1994). Kram (1985; Thomas & Kram, 1988) broke new ground in conceptions of mentor functions when she divided these into career functions and psychosocial functions. Career functions include sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, and provision of challenging assignments. Career functions enhance the protege's career and smooth his or her journey through the professional world. In contrast, psychosocial functions serve to enhance one's sense of personal and professional competence and identity formation. Psychosocial functions include role-modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counseling and friendship.

Benefits of Mentoring

Research suggests that mentor relationships often prove beneficial to all parties involved. Proteges are particularly likely to accumulate benefits when mentoring occurs. Those who are mentored often report more rapid promotion, higher salaries, greater awareness of their organization's structure and politics, and higher ratings of both career and life satisfaction that those who are not mentored (Bolton, 1980; Jacobi, 1991; Kanter, 1979; Kram, 1985; Roche, 1979; Zey, 1991). Mentoring appears to create a fundamental transformation in the way proteges perceive themselves, their careers, and their relationship to and value within the organization (Zey, 1991). Mentoring is also markedly important for women and minority group members who typically have had less access to mentoring (Johnston, 1987; Shea, 1994). Underrepresented group members may effectively utilize mentoring as a means of gaining advantages equivalent to those traditionally afforded to junior members of the majority group.

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE PRACTICE OF MENTORING

Most authors on the topic of mentor relationships agree that mentorships are often long-term, complex, and multifaceted. In graduate school and other settings, they are personal relationships characterized by depth, caring, trust, mutuality (sharing of reciprocal feelings and values), comprehensiveness (broad coverage of many interpersonal and role characteristics), and sometimes emotional intensity (Hardy, 1994; Kram, 1985; O'Neil, 1981; Torrance, 1984). Levinson et al. (1978) had this to say about mentor relationships:

The mentor relationship is one of the most complex and developmentally important a [person] can have in early adulthood ... No word currently in use is adequate to convey the nature of the relationship we have in mind here ... Mentoring is defined not in terms of formal roles but in terms of the character of the relationship and functions it serves (p. 97-98).

Although graduate faculty may have concern about the appropriateness of mutuality or multiple types of interaction with students, graduate students themselves rate mutual support and comprehensive relationships that extend beyond the graduate school environment as two of the most important factors in successful mentoring (Wilde & Schau, 1991). Mentorship effectiveness often hinges on mutual trust, and mutual trust is facilitated by selfdisclosure on the part of the mentor (O'Neil & Wrightsman, 1981).

Johnson and Nelson (1999) showed that mentor relationships in graduate education often pose unique ethical challenges to psychologists. In addition to their emotional intensity and mutuality, these relationships are less formal than psychologist-client relationships. For this reason, they are less often scrutinized, leaving the mentor with greater responsibility for independently safeguarding the relationship without peer review or consultation. At the same time, very little in the American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethical Code (APA, 1992) appears to have direct bearing on mentoring. At times, mentorships may contain elements of academic advising, teaching, counseling, and even bonded emotional friendship. Johnson and Nelson (1999) suggested that clinical models for avoiding dual-relationships (Gottlieb, 1993) are less useful when applied to mentorships. In contrast to clinical relationships, mentorships naturally involve an inherent power imbalance between student and faculty member, are long-term in nature, and seldom have any clear termination or ending point.

Although there are currently no guidelines for the ethical practice of mentor relationships, several core ethical principles have bearing on this enterprise (Brown & Krager, 1985; Kitchener, 1992). Johnson and Nelson (1999) applied Kitchener's (1992) principles to the practice of mentoring. These included the principles of (a) Autonomy (How can I strengthen my prot&ge's knowledge, maturity, and independence?), (b) Nonmaleficence (How can I avoid intentional or unintended harm to those I mentor?), (c) Beneficence (How can I contribute to the welfare of my protege and facilitate his or her growth?, (d) Justice (How will I ensure equitable treatment of proteges regardless of variables such as race, age, and gender?), and (e) Fidelity (How can I keep promises and remain loyal to those students I mentor?). Although such ethical principles provide useful normative standards of professional behavior, they say little about the person of the mentor.

Johnson and Nelson (1999) also offered several recommendations for graduate programs relevant to promoting ethical and excellent faculty-student mentoring. These included (a) careful evaluation of the competence of faculty to mentor, (b) explicit training of faculty in the art and science of mentoring, and (c) development and articulation of guidelines for mentors to use in forming, structuring, and conducting mentor relationships. Most relevant to our discussion is the issue of assessing mentor competence. Mentor competence in psychology may be defined on the basis of a number of salient criteria such as personal maturity, history of ethical behavior, familiarity with the developmental stages and milestones common of graduate students, and focused knowledge and sensitivity in areas such as cross-gender and cross-cultural mentoring (Johnson, Koch, Fallow, & Huwe, 2000; Johnson & Nelson, 1999). We suggest, however, that knowledge and skill with respect to mentoring must be complemented by undergirding character virtues that inevitably shape one's knowledge and skill. In the section that follows, we attempt to make the case that virtue must be included in discussions of ethical mentoring.

VIRTUES FOR THE PRACTICE OF MENTORING

Character is typically defined as the unique or distinctive mark made by some engraving instrument (Flexner, 1987; Simpson & Weiner, 1989). Character is the sum of the moral and mental qualities that distinguish an individual (Simpson & Weiner, 1989). Walton (1988) describes character as more complex than a collection of traits and values; he states, "emphasis on character shifts attention from the act performed to the performer of the act, from an emphasis on thinking to an emphasis on being ... Character becomes the conduit through which an individual's past and present flow and the future is designed" (p. 177).

At the heart of definitions of character is the concept of virtue. Virtues are historically defined as distinctly good or admirable human qualities that denote moral excellence, righteousness, or uprightness in the way one lives (Flexner, 1987; Simpson & Weiner, 1989). Virtues reflect the internal composition of one's character (May, 1984) which are nurtured habits that mature in the context of a formative community that includes family and church. Most concepts of human virtue refer to the moral or natural virtues of which humankind is capable, rather than innate theological or supernatural virtues which are qualities or graces infused into the human intellect and will by special grace of God. For the purposes of our discussion, the source of virtue is less significant than its expression in a mentor relationship.

How might virtues inform and influence the practice of mentoring? If character development hinges on the formation and strengthening of persistent manifestations of moral selfhood (Campbell, 1982), then these moral manifestations or virtues become salient indicators of the course and outcome of human relationships, including mentor relationships. In an important article, Jordan and Meara (1990) argued for virtue ethics as the foundation for professional ethics in psychology. Virtue ethics focus on the historically formed character of identifiable persons; such character development provides the basis for professional judgment. In contrast, ethical codes are often based primarily on principle ethics (i.e., approaches that emphasize the use of rational, objective, universal, and impartial principles in the ethical analysis of dilemmas) (Jordan & Meara, 1990). Principle ethics often focus on the question, "What shall I do?" In contrast, virtues emphasize the agents or actors themselves. "Through the formation of internal qualities, traits, or mature habits, virtue ethics attempt to answer the question `Who shall I be?'" (Jordan & Meara, 1990, p. 108).

Meara et al. (1996) noted that virtue ethics serve as another relevant criteria for the development of an ethical professional life. Virtue ethics calls upon individual professionals to aspire toward ideals and to develop virtues or traits of character that enable them to achieve these ideals. The practice of mentoring, like other professional relationships, is seldom either totally absolute or completely relative. Therefore, virtuous, competent psychologists must exercise careful professional judgment (Meara et al., 1996). Principles and virtues must function in a complimentary manner for maximal ethical accuracy, and virtues are especially important in those circumstances in which there are equally justifiable alternatives to a mentoring practice dilemma.

Character in the Psychology and Management Literature

Authors in the area of mentoring have described excellent mentors as possessing various characteristics. Good mentors are described as available and invested (Roche, 1979), respected by others and altruistic in motivation for mentoring (Aryee, Chew, & Chay, 1996), ethical (Kitchener, 1992), and intentional role-models (Gilbert, 1985). Women have been encouraged to seek mentors who effectively balance professional and personal role demands and who embody feminist values of equity, reciprocity, and cooperation (Gilbert, 1985; Richey, Gabrill, & Blythe, 1988). Although there is no empirical evidence that specific personality characteristics effectively discriminate between effective and ineffective mentors (Alleman, Cochran, Doverspike, & Newman, 1984), survey research indicates that certain personality traits are consistently noted as important to proteges. Cronan-Hillix, Gensheimer, Cronan-- Hillix, and Davidson (1986) found that personality characteristics were rated as extremely important to prospective proteges. Good mentors were described as humorous, honest, dedicated, empathetic, compassionate, genuine, patient, nonsexist, flexible, and loyal. Of course, several of these factors might be considered character virtues, versus mere personality traits. Similarly, Clark et al. (2000), found that mentored clinical psychologists most frequently mentioned the following important characteristics of their mentors: supportive, intelligent, knowledgeable, ethical, caring, humorous, encouraging, and honest. In sum, proteges tend to endorse both positive personality features and desirable character virtues in valued mentors.

Within integrative doctoral programs (that intentionally blend faith with training in psychology) recent research has shown that specific characteristics of faculty have substantial bearing on how graduate students learn to integrate faith with the science and practice of psychology (Sorenson, 1997; Staton, Sorenson, & Vande Kemp, 1998). Specifically, a faculty member's ongoing relationship with God, emotional transparency, and sense of humor were rated by students as most important in helping them learn to integrate clinical psychology and faith. Other important faculty characteristics included openness to new thinking and tolerance for different points of view.

Attention to values has also been emphasized in recent literature from the management field bearing on mentoring and leadership (Covey, 1992; Peters & Waterman, 1984; Rosen, 1996). Rosen (1996) noted that "healthy" organizations have leaders who prize organizational integrity and who hold core values such as trust, integrity, honesty, and an emphasis on balancing corporate needs with those of employees and stakeholders. Little (1990) emphasized that the finest management mentor programs are those that select mentors with demonstrated professional competence and personal character virtues. Mentors who intentionally commit to proteges and voluntarily subordinate themselves to higher purposes and principles (Covey, 1992) are most likely to produce good mentor outcomes for organizations. Leaders in business environs who ignore foundational ethical concerns and principles such as fairness and honesty can cause economic disaster for organizations (Rosen, 1996); we hypothesize that relational disaster will result for those they lead and mentor.

Character in the Spiritual Direction Literature

Spiritual direction is a long-practiced form of Christian ministry in which a newer Christian is aided in his or her development as a Christian by a more experienced believer. Spiritual direction has roots in the monastic tradition of the Christian church. Following the declaration by Constantine that Christianity was the state religion of the empire, many devout Christians withdrew to the wilderness to avoid the inevitable compromises that would accompany a state religion (Fairchild, 1982). Spiritual directors who were appointed to minister to these hermits were precursors to formal monastic commu nines (McNeill, 1951; Merton, 1960).

The practice of spiritual direction became associated with terms such as the "cure of souls" or the "care of souls" and it was most actively practiced ir the Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions. Although spiritual direction is an ancient practice. much of the literature regarding spiritual direction is modern (Fairchild, 1982; Leech, 1992; Merton. 1960; Nouwen, 1981; Peterson, 1990).

The concept of spirituality was greatly enhanced by several monastic communities that developed specific schools of spiritual direction during the first five centuries. Mystical forms of spiritual direction are evident in the writings of Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, and John of the Cross. Benedictine, Carmelite and Franciscan traditions of spiritual direction evolved, and several Protestants such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Augustine Baker, and George Fox also advocated the necessity of spiritual direction (Fairchild, 1982; McNeill, 1951; Nelson, 1972).

Merton defined spiritual direction as "a continuous process of formation and guidance, in which a Christian is led and encouraged in his special vocation, so that by faithful correspondence to the graces of the Holy Spirit, he may attain to the particular end of his vocation and to union with God" (Merton, 1960, p. 13). Merton was clear about the distinction between spiritual direction and psychotherapy: "Spiritual direction is not merely the cumulative effect of encouragements and admonitions which we all need in order to live up to our state in life. It is not mere ethical, social, or psychological guidance. It is spiritual" (Merton, 1960, p. 14). More recently, Stanley and Clinton (1992) wrote, "a spiritual guide is a godly, mature follower of Christ who shares knowledge, skills, and basic philosophy on what it means to increasingly realize Christ likeness in all areas of life" (p. 65).

Spiritual direction is clearly distinct from mentoring, in that the primary objective of the relationship is to develop the directee's spiritual resources with an intent to prepare him or her for Christian ministry. Although both spiritual direction and contemporary mentoring are typically rooted in a relationship with a more experienced person for the purpose of growth and development, the focus is primarily spiritual.

A striking feature of the literature bearing on spiritual direction is the relative dearth of attention to the person of the director. We were unable to locate any research on the traits or values of spiritual directors. Still, a few authors have postulated important values underlying the process. For example, Merton (1960) stressed honesty, sincerity, humility, godliness, and the gift of prayer. He emphasized that the relationship should be based on love, simplicity, and trust. Hendricks and Hendricks (1995) emphasized the spiritual mentor virtues of faithfulness, honesty, humility, godliness, service, patience, and wisdom (p. 245). Edwards (1980) similarly identified several qualities thought to be necessary for effective spiritual direction. These included: personal spiritual commitment, experience, knowledge, humility, and an active prayer/meditation life.

Attempts to describe essential virtues for the practice of mentoring or spiritual direction are well intended but are generally without clear rationale. In the remainder of this article, we offer a preliminary discussion of the ideal character virtues of professionals who mentor. In our view, character virtues undergird the entire mentoring enterprise, and we hypothesize that good mentor outcomes are positively correlated with the presence of certain core mentor virtues. Because conceptualizations of character virtues are naturally shaped by culture and context, we intentionally offer a Christian perspective on ideal moral virtues.

CHARACTER VIRTUES FOR THE PRACTICE OF MENTORING

We propose a preliminary model of mentoring which addresses the character virtues of exemplary mentors. We offer it as an initial attempt to shape subsequent theory development and research on mentoring. Although we provide a biblical/theological rationale for our focus on virtues, we believe the model is also useful for secular mentors interested in explicitly considering character as the basis for sound mentor relationships.

Core Mentor Virtues

Authors from the field of management have identified some character virtues relevant to the practice of mentoring in organizations (Covey, 1992; McCollum, 1998). For example, Bell (1998) identified several qualities of a mentoring partnership that we view as mentor virtues. These include balance, trust, generosity, passion, and courage. Although these authors often describe the importance of modeling and the mentor's behavioral demonstration of various moral and ethical principles, there has been little attempt to define the core character virtues relevant to managing or mentoring.

Many virtues have been proposed as important for professional practice. For example, May (1984) described the importance of the following virtues: fidelity, prudence, discretion, perseverance, courage, integrity, public spiritedness, benevolence, humility, and hope. Meara et al. (1996) proposed that a virtuous agent is one who is motivated to do good, discerning, self-aware, and cognizant of the role of both emotion and culture in ethical decision-making. With respect to the professional practice of psychologists, Jordan and Meara (1990) noted that virtues such as discretion, integrity, and benevolence were especially relevant to the client-psychologist contract (i.e., informed consent) and various constructs in psychology such as genuineness.

Although many character virtues may be relevant to the mentoring enterprise, we propose that the virtues of integrity, courage, and care form a reasonable foundation for the practice of mentoring from a Christian perspective. These virtues are somewhat synonymous with the apostle Paul's list of the three greatest virtues, faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13:13). Faithful men and women are often trustworthy and act with integrity. Courage is a manifestation of optimism held by those who have hope. Finally, care is a facet of the most important of the virtues, love.

Integrity. All relationships, including those between mentors and proteges, hinge upon the establishment of an undergirding sense of trust. Trust is seldom feasible when integrity is absent from the character of the participants. Several authors have affirmed the salience of trust in professional relationships. Krasner and Joyce (1995) asserted, "trust is to committed relationships what food is to the sustenance of life" (p. xxii). Similarly, Sonnenberg (1994) said, "trust is the fabric that binds us together, creating an orderly, civilized society from chaos and anarchy" (p. 187). From a business perspective, both Covey (19940 and Bell (1998) hold that trust is the foundational principle in all relationships, particularly mentoring partnerships.

Trust originated in the German word trost, which means comfort. This suggests that trust is a state of confidence and comfort in relation to another. Trust is distinct from care or affection, however, in that one can trust deeply without liking. As in any interpersonal relationship, trust is essential in mentoring. Ideal mentoring relationships are characterized by honesty and some degree of self-disclosure and mutuality (O'Neil, 1981). When a mentor demonstrates integrity to the protege, trust can be established and maintained. Integrity is characterized by both honesty and behavioral consistency over time and contexts (Bell, 1998; Sellner, 1990; Shaw, 1997). For example, a mentor who respects privacy and simultaneously holds protege disclosures in strict confidence, is demonstrating integrity and enhancing trust. Merton (1960) described one facet of integrity as honest expression in relationships: "we must learn to say what we really mean in the depths of our souls, not what we think we are expected to say, not what somebody else just said" (p. 37).

Courage. We propose that courage constitutes a second foundational virtue for the practice of mentoring. The word courage comes from the French Coeur, or heart (Cory, 1998). To take courage is to take heart versus giving in to fear. In our view, mentoring often requires courageous thought and action. In addition, proteges often borrow from the courage of their mentors as they face the anxiety that accompanies new challenges and unfamiliar demands.

Courageous mentors must understand, address, and accept themselves as persons and professionals. This requires integration of painful life experiences such as failures at work. Excellent mentors are courageous in accepting their shortcomings-including their tendencies toward irrational self-disturbance (Johnson, Huwe, & Lucas, 2000)-and working diligently to avoid making mistakes repeatedly. Mentors must be courageous enough to know and manage themselves if they are to successfully assist proteges with weaving an integrated professional identity that includes their salient flaws and errors.

Strong mentors demonstrate courage in their optimistic view of the future (Lee, 1997; Shaw, 1977; Stanley & Clinton, 1992). More than Pollyannaish wishful thinking, we are referring to a courageous optimism that is a measured choice of perspective. Cynical, pessimistic, or self-deprecating mentors are unlikely to produce confident, self-assured proteges (Bell, 1998). Principled mentors appreciate the impact of their perspective on proteges. In addition, courageous mentors take time to mentor. In academia, business, and other environments, patient courage is often required to look beyond immediate demands and devote precious time and energy to the nurture of juniors.

A salient goal of mentor relationships is empowerment of proteges (Bell, 1998; Covey, 1992; Lee, 1997). The mentor has empowered the protege to the extent that he or she provides the protege with the resources, opportunities, and motivation to success. Empowerment includes encouragement to literally replace lost courage due to the stressors of living. As proteges grow and develop, they often lean on mentors during times of developmental crisis (Erickson, 1994). For example, the developmental identity crises, which often accompany the graduate school experience, are made manageable through a courage-by-proxy process. That is, the mentor's encouragement, support, and protection allow the protege to grapple with the stress of development, borrowing from the mentor's courage. The goal of this encouragement and support is the ultimate independence and self-sufficiency of the protege. The mentor's courage allows the protege to face adversity, ultimately boosting self-confidence and solidifying a new identity. In this atmosphere of courageous empowerment, mistakes are not viewed as critical, but are welcomed and processed (Bell, 1998; Wolterstorff, 1994). If the mentor refuses to lose courage or catastrophize, the protege creativity can be nurtured; thus, we hypothesize that performance will be enhanced, and significant errors are likely to decrease in frequency.

Care. We propose that a third core virtue for the practice of mentoring is care. In our view, care is a facet of love and, like the Apostle Paul, we suggest that it is the "greatest" of the virtues. At the heart of any successful mentor relationship is genuine care and concern for the protege. This virtue is clearly promoted in both secular literature on mentoring (Kram, 1985) and in writing from the spiritual direction literature (Cavies, 1993). Bell (1998) noted that the original Mentor (from the Odyssey by Homer) knew that his young protege, Telemachus, "needed both the wisdom of experience and the sensitivity of a fawn, if he was to be a king" (p. 7).

As is true in marriage or parenting relationships, the mentor may express care in many ways. Caring mentors value the distinct personhood of their proteges (Wolterstorff, 1994), devote considerable time to hearing and understanding them (Shaw, 1997), work to discern their specific talents and vulnerabilities, provide an affirmation-rich environment for them to experiment with new identities, and weather the tribulations that accompany crisis and growth. Caring mentors clearly communicate valuing of the protege and consistently work to further the protege's best interests and ultimate goals.

IMPLICATIONS OF CORE VIRTUES FOR THE PRACTICE OF MENTORING

Character virtues unavoidably undergird all that transpires in mentor relationships in psychology and other disciplines. In our view, it is possible for a mentor to have technical expertise and experience without having the requisite character for the mentoring enterprise. Character virtues such as integrity, courage, and care serve as the core from which the mentor's relational and field-specific technical skills are expressed. We hypothesize that specific mentor functions (Kram, 1985) will be most impactful when delivered by a mentor whose character virtues are positive and clearly evident to proteges. Jacobi (1991) wisely noted that role-modeling, rather than a mere psychosocial function, is important enough to the mentoring process that it constitutes an entirely distinct category of mentor function. Proteges are likely to benefit maximally from mentors who model integrity, courage, and care in their relationship with the protege, their relationships with others, and in their professional practice.

A virtue-focused model of mentoring also has important implications for ethical concerns unique to mentor-protege relationships (Johnson & Nelson, 1999). Whereas ethical code-based models cause the mentor to ask, "What should I do in relation to my protege," this model causes the mentor to ask, "Who shall I be in relation to my protege?" Further, the core virtues of integrity, courage, and care would lead the mentor to avoid harming the protege at all costs while simultaneously and diligently seeking to maximize the protege's development and ultimate benefit from the relationship. We emphasize again that both virtues and principles have intrinsic value. They are necessary equals and counterparts in the practice of ethical professional behavior (Meara et al., 1996). Mentors are not only called upon to perform certain functions, but to be certain kinds of persons as well.

SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING AND RESEARCH

The primary implication of the foregoing discussion is the identification of a need for accelerated model-building relative to mentoring and the character of exemplary mentors. We hypothesize that mentor character virtues will shape the delivery and amplify the effect of both the career and psychosocial mentor functions (Kram, 1985). Our review of mentoring literature from education and management, as well as literature from the Christian discipline of spiritual-direction, suggest a current deficit in theory and research relative to both the personality traits and character virtues of effective mentors. Although several authors refer vaguely to character features, no well-developed model of mentoring exists that accounts for the mentor's character.

An important implication of this discussion for training in graduate settings is the need for careful attention to the character and traits of potential faculty mentors. Mentor relationships in graduate school are often uniquely complex, intense, and mutual; and current clinical models for minimizing dual relationships (Gottlieb, 1993) may be only moderately relevant to mentoring (Johnson & Nelson, 1999); therefore, we suggest that attention to character virtues among graduate faculty is particularly important. Although we agree with Jordan and Meara (1990) in hypothesizing that positive character virtues will predict more ethical mentor behavior in psychologists, it is not at all clear how these virtues might be assessed. It appears that contemporary methods for evaluating the presence of important virtues among prospective faculty members are vague at best. Attention might be given to methods of operationally defining and assigning behavior anchors to the virtues of interest in a particular graduate program.

The issue of mentor character may be even more prominent in religious graduate programs. A recent survey of professional psychologists from both religious and secular Psy.D. programs indicated that religious program graduates were more likely to socialize with their mentor outside of the academic setting, and were more likely to view their mentor as a "friend' (Fallow & Johnson, 2000). Graduates of religious programs also rated the spiritual maturity of their mentors as significantly more important than graduates of secular programs, and they rated the mentor functions of "providing spiritual direction" and "integrating spiritual/religious faith with professional training" as significantly more important than secular program graduates. Thus training in religious doctoral programs may pose unique dilemmas to faculty members who may feel pressure to blend several roles, particularly the roles of faculty advisor and spiritual director, within a single mentor relationship. At the same time, these concerns must be balanced by evidence that graduate students in integrative training programs are most likely to learn integration via intentional modeling and personal faith transparency on the part of faculty (Sorenson, 1997; Staton et al., 1998).

A final implication for training is the need for prospective student proteges to become more proactive in initiating and assertively managing mentor relationships (Clark et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2000). In the recent survey by Fallow and Johnson (2000), only 51% of Psy.D. graduates from religious programs were mentored, compared to 56% for the secular sample. It seems that mentoring is not the norm in graduate education, and most students who are mentored report initiating the relationship themselves (Clark et al., 2000). We recommend that graduate students actively seek mentorships and that they carefully consider indices of important faculty character traits during the mentor selection process. Students might seek multiple methods such as personal interaction and discussions with the faculty member's previous proteges for considering whether virtues such as integrity, courage, and care are evident.

Finally, we offer several recommendations for exploratory research in this area. In general, we recommend that research on mentor traits and characteristics include an attempt to evaluate character virtues. Initially, this might best occur in the form of ratings by proteges or students and professional colleagues. It will be essential for researchers to clearly operationalize potentially nebulous terms such as "integrity" and courage."

It will also be important to differentiate personality traits from virtues. It is often difficult to distinguish core virtues from fundamental personality features. For example, several researchers have asked proteges to describe the primary personality features of their mentor (Clark et al., 2000; Cronan-Hillix et al., 1986); however, proteges often list what might arguably be character virtues and not personality traits (e.g., honesty, dedication, caring, compassion, and loyalty). We believe more work is needed to ferret out these distinctions.

Once the assessment issue is addressed, it will be important to evaluate the relationship between mentor virtues and the various benefits usually associated with being mentored (Bolton, 1980; Jacobi, 1991; Kanter, 1979; Kram, 1985; Roche, 1979; Zey, 1991)1 Of course it would also stand to reason that important mentor virtues should be negatively correlated with negative mentoring outcomes (Clark et al., 2000; Johnson & Nelson, 1999; Kram, 1985). On the whole, research is needed to determine which if any virtues appear vitally relevant to good mentoring and how such virtues contribute to mentoring outcomes.

REFERENCES

Alleman, E., Cochran, J., Doverspike, J., & Newman, 1. (1984). Enriching mentoring relationships. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62, 329-332.

American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611

Anderson, E. M., & Shannon, A. L. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of mentoring.Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 38-42. Aryee, S., Chew, J., & Chay, W. J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerial employees. Group and Organization Management, 21, 261-277.

Bell, C. R (1998). Managers as mentors. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.

Bey, T M., & Holmes, C. T. (1990). Mentoring: Developing successful teachers. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. Bolton, E. (1980). A conceptual analysis of the mentor relationship in the career development of women. Adult Education, 30, 195-207.

Brown, R. D., & Krager, R. L. (1985). Ethical issues in graduate education. Ethics and Behavior, 2, 151-163.

Campbell, D. M. (1982). Doctors, lawyers, ministers: Christian ethics in professional practice. Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Clark, R. A., Harden, S. L., &Johnson, W B. (2000). Mentor relationships in clinical psychology doctoral training: Results of a national survey. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 262-268.

Clawson, J. (1980). Mentoring and managerial careers. In C. B. Derr (Ed.), Work, family, and career (pp. 144-165). New York: Praeger.

Cory, D. (1998). The killing fields: Institutions and the death of our spirits. In L. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership (pp. 209215). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Covey, S. (1992). Principle centered leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Cronan-Hillix, 1, Gensheimer, L. K., Cronan-Hillix, W. A., & Davidson, W. S. (1986). Student's views of mentors in psychology graduate training. Teaching of Psychology, 13, 123-127

Davies, J. A. (1993). Patterns of spiritual directors. Christian Education journal, 13, 49-66.

Edwards, T. (1980). Spiritual friend: Reclaiming the gift of spiritual direction. New York: Paulist Press.

Erikson, E. (1994). Identity and the life cycle. New York. W. W Norton.

Fairchild, R. W. (1982). Guaranteed not to shrink: Spiritual direction in pastoral care. Pastoral Psychology, 31, 79-95.

Fallow, G. O., &Johnson, W B. (2000). Mentor relationships in secular and religious professional psychology programs. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 19, 363-376.

Flexner, S. B. (1987). The Random House dictionary of the English language (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.

Gehrke, N. (1988). Toward a definition of mentoring. Theory Into Practice, 27, 190-194.

Gilbert, L. A. (1985). Dimensions of same-gender student-faculty role-model relationships. Sex Roles, 12, 111-123.

Gottlieb, M. C. (1993). Avoiding exploitive dual relationships: A decision-making model. Psychotherapy, 30, 41-48.

Hardy, C. J. (1994). Nurturing our future through effective mentoring: Developing roots as well as wings. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 196-204.

Hendricks, H., & Hendricks, W (1995). As iron sharpens iron: Building character in a mentoring relationship. Chicago: Moody Press.

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505-532.

Johnson, W. B., Howe, J. M., & Lucas, J. L. (2000). Rational mentoring. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 18, 39-54.

Johnson, W B., Koch, C., Fallow, G. O., & Huwe, J. M. (2000). Prevalence of mentoring in clinical versus experimental doctoral programs: Survey findings, implications and recommendations. Psychotherapy, 37, 325-334.

Johnson, VP B., & Nelson, N. (1999). Mentor-protege relationships in graduate training: Some ethical concerns. Ethics and Behavior, 9, 189-210.

Johnston, W B. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the twenty-first century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute. Jordan, A. E., & Meara, N. M. (1990). Ethics and the professional practice of psychologists: The role of virtue and principles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 107-114.

Kanter, R M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57, 65-75.

Kirchner, K. S. (1992). Psychologist as teacher and mentor: Affirming ethical values throughout the curriculum. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 190-195.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Krasner, B. R, &Joyce, A. J. (1995). Truth and relationships: Healing interventions in contextual therapy. New York: Scott Foresman.

Lee, B. (1997). The power of principle: Influence with honor. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Leech, K. (1992). Soul friend: An invitation to spiritual direction. San Francisco: Harper.

Levinson, D. J., Carrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York: Ballentine.

Little, J. W (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching. Review of Research in Education, 16, 297-351

May, W. F. (1984). The virtues in a professional setting. Soundings, 67, 245-266.

McCollum, J. N. (1998). The inside out proposition: Finding (and keeping) our balance in contemporary organizations. In L Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership (pp. 326-339). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McNeill, J. T. (1951). A history of the cure of souls. New York: Harper.

Meara, N. M., Schmidt, L. D., & Day, J. (1996). Principles and virtues: A foundation for ethical decisions, policies, and character. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 4-77.

Merton, T. (1960). Spiritual direction and meditation. Collegville, MN: The Liturgical Press.

Nelson, B. (1972). Systems of spiritual direction. Criterion, 11, 13-17.

Nouwen, H. (1981). Spiritual direction. Worship, 55, 399-404. O'Neil, J. M. (1981). Toward a theory and practice of mentoring in psychology. In J. M. O'Neil & L S. Wrightsman (Chairs), Mentoring: Psychological, personal, and career development implications. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

Parsloe, E. (1992). Coaching, mentoring, and assessing: A practical guide to developing competence. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, IL H. (1984). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best run companies. New York: Warner Books.

Peterson, E. H. (1990). The contemplative pastor: Returning to the art of spiritual direction. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Phillips Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and proteges. New York: Arbor House.

Richey, C. A., Gabrill, E. D., & Blythe, B. J. (1988). Mentor relationships among women in academe. Affilia, 3, 34-47.

Roche, G. R. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 57,14-28.

Rosen, R H. (1996). Leading people: Transforming business from the inside out. New York. Penguin Books.

Sellner, E. C. (1990). Mentoring: The ministry of spiritual kinship. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press.

Shaw, R B. (1997). Trust in the balance. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Shea, G. E (1994). Mentoring: Helping employees reach their full potential. New York: American Management Association.

Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sonnenberg, E K. (1994). Managing with a conscience. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sorenson, R. L. (1997). Doctoral students' integration of psychology and Christianity: Perspectives via attachment theory and multidimensional scaling. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 530-548.

Stanley, P. D., & Clinton, J. R. (1992). Connecting: The mentoring relationships you need to succeed in life. Colorado Springs: Navpress.

Staton, R., Sorenson, R. L., & Vande Kemp, H. (1998). How students learn integration: Replication of the Sorenson (1997) model. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 26,340-350.

Thomas, D. A., & Kram, K. E. (1988). Promoting career-enhancing relationships in organizations: The role of the human resource professional. in M. London & E. M. Mone (Eds.), Career growth and human resources strategies: The role of the human resource professional in employee development (pp. 49-66). New York: Quorum Books.

Torrance, E. P. (1984). Mentor relationships. New York: Bearly. Walton, C. C. (1988). The ethic" of character: The personal dimension. In C. C. Walton (Ed.), The moral manager (pp. 167194). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Wilde, J, B., & Schau, C. G. (1991). Mentoring in graduate schools of education: Mentees' perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 165-179.

Wolterstorff, C. K. (1994). Listening to another, listening with another. Perspectives, 9, 19-20.

Zey. G. (1991). The mentor connection: Strategic alliances in corporate life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

PETER F. WILSON: George Fox University. W. BRAD JOHNSON: United States Naval Academy
Address all correspondence to W. Brad Johnson, Dept. of Leadership, Ethics & Law, United States Naval Academy, Luce Hall Stop 7B, Annapolis, MD 21402.

AUTHORS
WILSON, PETER F. Address: 3729 SE 168th, Portland, OR 97236. Title: Psychology Resident, Clackamas County Mental Health. Degree: PsyD, George Fox University. Specializations: Clinical psychology, consultation, integration of faith and practice.
JOHNSON, W. BRAD. Address: Dept. of Leadership, Ethics & law, United States Naval Academy, Luce Hall, Stop 7B, Annapolis, MD 21402. Title: Assistant Professor of Psychology. Degree: PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary. Specializations: Mentor relationships, professional issues, clinical psychology.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.-volver índice-

Arthur Jones. Jesuit high schools aim for heaven, with fewer Jesuits. -volver índice-
National Catholic Reporter, Kansas City, Mar 30, 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume: 37, Issue: 22, Pagination: 34-37, ISSN: 00278939

Subject Terms: Religious education // Catholicism // Secondary schools //Religious schools

Geographic Names: California// Arizona
Companies: Company Name: Society of Jesus

Abstract:
The gathering's keynote speaker, Jesuit Fr. Stephen Privett, president of the Jesuit-run University of San Francisco, got straight to the point: "Just do the numbers - whatever else Jesuit schools will be in this third millennium, they will not be schools run by members of the Jesuit order. We're all concerned about strengthening the Ignatian character of our schools."
Copyright National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company Mar 30, 2001

Full Text:
CATHOLIC EDUCATION
It's not what parents paying $5,100 a year in tuition for Loyola High School freshmen expect to hear. At their introductory session with the Los Angeles Jesuit prep's lay principal, Bill Tomason, he tells them, "We think our mission is to get your sons into Heaven, not Harvard."

In San Jose, at a Jan. 11-13 faculty and staff gathering for the California Jesuit Province's five prep schools - four in California, one in Arizona - Tomason told NCR that pushing heaven "really is a challenge, because I don't think there's too many 13- to 14-year-olds who walk in our door with that vision in their own mind. We have to instill and cultivate it, nurture it. But when they leave we hope they own it," he said, "and that's a much tougher job than teaching them foreign language and science."

Naturally, Tomason, principal for nearly four years, is not abashed when Loyola's graduates do head for Harvard and other top Ivy League and Catholic universities. That isn't his point. Ensuring their faith endures is.

The gathering's keynote speaker, Jesuit Fr. Stephen Privett, president of the Jesuit-run University of San Francisco, got straight to the point: "Just do the numbers - whatever else Jesuit schools will be in this third millennium, they will not be schools run by members of the Jesuit order. We're all concerned about strengthening the Ignatian character of our schools." And the heart of it, he said, is faculty, staff, students and parents working in partnership "to produce what Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises intends to produce: persons of profound integrity with the courage of their well-- tested and tempered convictions."

Already, each of the five prep schools - Bellarmine (San Jose), Brophy (Phoenix), Jesuit High (Sacramento), Loyola (Los Angeles) and St. Ignatius (San Francisco, the only coed prep) -- has a lay principal, though all still have a Jesuit president and up to a half dozen Jesuit faculty and staff.

The California province, in gathering its schools together as a unit, is picking up on a process successfully inaugurated a couple of years ago by the Oregon province, said Gail Harrison, California province's coordinator for secondary education.

The tradition continues

Under these circumstances, how do Catholic schools founded by religious orders "pass it on"?

Jesuit Fr. Ed Fassett, a fulltime administrator and admitted "nerd" at St. Ignatius, explained: "Jesuits started out with our first school in Messina, Sicily, in 1548. As Jesuits we're formed in the Spiritual Exercises, the heart of the Ignatian way of teaching. As our numbers have diminished and more and more lay people join us in this work," he said, "there's been one thing missing all along. We've kind of relied on osmosis for the Ignatian spirituality we share to enliven our staffs. It's important we give them a kind of Jesuit mini-formation."

Faculty and staff, Catholic and non-- Catholic, engage in "evenings" using Ignatian heritage videotapes produced by St. Louis University. Plus, "this year, for the first time," said Fassett, "we had a one-day seminar for new faculty: Ignatius in the morning and pedagogy, why we teach the way we teach, in the afternoon."

Loyola's Tomason tells new faculty members, "We're not hiring you just to teach. You have to get deeper than that: How is this experience going to change [the student] as a person, to be more open to growth, to develop as a leader?"

NCR asked Bellarmine principal Mark Pierotti why non-Catholic administration people and kitchen staff would even care about the school's Ignatian heritage. "They know it's part of the mission of the school. Many have been here a long time. They remember when the place was filled with Jesuits, and now we're some Jesuits and a majority of lay people. They understand the culture from earlier days and see it changing, and see the lay people being asked to take a more hands-on approach."

The culture of a Jesuit school centers, Pierotti said, on the "value of reflection - taking time to think back on what is happening in your own life and in the life of the community, as St. Ignatius would do, and then to set a plan for the future - here-are the things I've done well, here are some things I need to work on."

"Another value of reflection," he said, "is that often in life you're faced with a lot of good options. Rarely does evil confront you. You have to choose among many goods to find God, to find what you're supposed to be doing."

It goes beyond prayer, said Pierotti. It has to do with "being inspired through prayer to work for others - as in social justice ministry. All our schools do that. We're witnessing to the community in very practical ways that keep the charism alive and the school alive, keep us centered. "These kids today, compared to the mid-'80s, are more socially responsible. I've found that not only here in the West but in the East, too, at Georgetown Prep and Loyola in Baltimore," where Pierotti previously taught.

They're more politically aware, too, he said. "We've students who've gone to Fort Benning [Ga.] to protest, students who spend weekends in homeless shelters - you would not have seen that 15 years ago, and not 25 years ago when I was in high school. There was talk of community service then but it wasn't given this practical reality."

"It's a different kind of political acuity than in the late '60s, early '70s," said Kim Cavnar, who has been in Jesuit education for 24 years - the past six at Brophy in Phoenix where she's taught theology, and is a campus minister and administrator. "In the '60 and '70s, they were much more aware of things going on in the country. These kids think globally. Credit the teachers for that."

Cavnar added, "Our kids are concerned about how they can both make money and make a difference. They're trying to do both - and that's a constant tension in themm. They're not anticapitalist like the '60 and '70s, but they're certainly savvy about seeing the loopholes and problems in the capitalist system."

Ballarmine's Pierotti said, "Ignatius would say wealth is not bad as long as it's used for good purposes. I hope we provide them with a moral compass so that if by chance they are wealthy, they're not owned by it."

"More and more," Cavnar said, "I notice that our kids, by the time they leave, have the notion they've been fortunate. Quoting scripture, they know that of those who have been given much, much will be asked. They really believe that that's true, that they're really going to be asked. Plus, by the time they're juniors and seniors, they're starting in leadership roles very seriously."

Diversifying student mix

Though markedly upper middle class, all five preps have concerted outreach efforts to attract a diverse student mix. At Brophy, for example, where 25 percent of the students benefit from some $750,000 in annual financial aid, they've created a program to assimilate into the school "kids relatively new to that culture," said Cavnar.

Sixty percent of Brophy's 1,200 students are Catholic. A further 20 percent are mixed Christian faith, with one Catholic parent. The others are primarily Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu.

Of the Catholics, she said, "about 20 percent are hard chargers - their relationship with Jesus is central to who they are. They tend to be very service-- oriented, very involved in the worship community as leaders, leading retreats - key positions in Christian service.

"The other 60-80 percent, the Catholic/Christian kids, are really searching to make sense of the teachings of Catholicism. Within a Jesuit high school they probably know everything inside and out about St. Ignatius, about the Spiritual Exercises. They might hesitate to name themselves Catholic, but they have a very strong religious identity that they cherish and claim."

At this first gathering of all five schools, Cavnar said, "we'll go back and forth a lot on how do we minister iii our schools: Are we Jesuit schools, Ignatian schools, Catholic schools?"

Cavnar said she "detects less and less interest in a traditional religious vocation, but more and more are empowered to take roles and responsibility in their church/parish." The majority of the Catholic/Christian kids "are a sort of puzzle, they've got the zealous attitude, got the desire, love the retreats, love being part of prayer groups. It's almost this fine line of adolescence, being afraid to name themselves. They're very spiritual, and very tolerant."

In an all-male school of 1,200 boys, they may not be quite as tolerant as their peers regarding homosexuality. "I'm not certain how I feel about this," she said, "but at Brophy a number of them at the adolescent level have come out naming themselves as gay. Because relationships have already been established, their friends and their peers are less willing to walk away and say I don't want anything to do with you - they've already come to care for them, and respect them as friends."

They all question a lot, about birth control, abortion, vocations. "That you need to be a celibate male is a hassle for them," Cavnar said. "They don't understand that, challenge it. And they say, in terms of a commitment to the sacraments, 'I don't need to go to church on Sunday to be a good Catholic.'"

Yet "they're very proud to be Christian," she said. "The semester has just started -- everyone in class has to take turns, come up, state a belief about anything, what has brought them to that belief, and give us an example.

"The first volunteer said: 'I believe in God and this is why.' Second kid, 'I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, here's why.' They could have chosen anything. When I asked them why they'd share this with their classmates, they said it was because 'I've really been grappling with this. I've really come to this conclusion.' I said to myself, this is amazing."

At Jesuit High, 80 percent of the students are Catholic, and preference is given to Catholics and Catholic feeder schools. "As Catholics," said Joanne Castronovo, at Jesuit High in Sacramento for 16 years, "they're questioning the difference between what the church tells them and what life tells them. As a Catholic institution, we're counter-cultural. We're fighting the tide. These kids watch MTV, they've got really easy access to drugs, alcohol and sex. Then they go to a church or school that says abstinence is better, or that's sinful behavior. They're questioning religion. But I don't see many of them questioning God."

Castronovo, who taught English until five years ago, now teaches a social justice class, arranges service projects for all 1,000 students, including "urban plunges" - overnight weekends in homeless shelters -- and trips to Mexico and El Salvador.

This generation finds priests somewhat amazing, she said. "They see clerics as making the supreme sacrifice. They can't have sex, they can't go where they want to go. They're giving all this up for us." These kids also ask, "Why would anyone want to live that lifestyle?" Castronovo said she provides the larger context, that many lay people -- such as their parents - may be making all or many of the same sacrifices to have and raise families. She finds some students "less tolerant - of race, of sexual orientation -- than in my generation, but then we have a school that is all male and typically upper middle class," she said. "Your hope is that they're going to college, into the bigger world, and that we're laying the foundation for change and tolerance.

"Ambitious for money? Some are," she said, "but a minority - which is different than when I started. It was much more middle class, kids coming there because it was the ticket to the right university and the right job. Somewhere about 10 years ago it was the faculty that started grumbling - that we would rather have less top-- notch kids who were more open to growth and faith to work with. And we had a principal who reached out for diversity."

Castronovo also put into words what others had said about the Millennial Catholics, that generally, "these are really nice kids - very trustworthy, honest, doing the best they can."

By ARTHUR JONES , NCR Staff, San Jose, Calif .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.-volver índice-

-volver índice-