Spiritual Care as the Foundation for a Child’s Religious Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article outlines spiritual care as the foundation for a child’s religious education. The elements of spiritual care are described by identifying how God concepts form in the young, by naming children’s inherent spiritual needs, by offering perspectives from human spirituality research over the last 60 years, particularly as it applies to children, by analyzing the way meaning forms through experience as it finds its way into worldviews each of us holds by early adolescence, and finally, by depicting four types of literacy (cognitive, emotional, imaginative and social) at the basis of spiritual care and as the groundwork for a child’s future development within various religious traditions. The purpose of spiritual care is to focus on the humanity of children and to situate their education within a framework built on their spiritual needs. This article is deeply embedded in assumptions associated with the Christian tradition. However, a fundamental assumption of spirituality research is that every person is spiritual. As a result, the intention to educate the human spirit as a first step to initiating children into a faith tradition is well founded; it also raises the possibility of spiritual care as undergirding secular education, but that question is beyond this article’s purview. The intention is to spark a conversation among religious traditions as one way to meet the deepest spiritual needs of children, which is an urgent dialogue to engage in at present. If French philosopher Jean Baudrillard was correct, the age we are living in is well described as a revolution of confusion. A response to confusion requires [meeting] the spiritual needs of children and creating a broad theoretical and practical approach to how they think and act, as they move into a tradition that they take on board, along with their developed capacity to reflect on that tradition from personal and socially informed perspectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it