In protestant theological institutions: a critical appraisal of contextual challenges in kerala, india jessy jaison b b s., M d

CHAPTER 3: CHRISTIAN FEMINISM, CULTURAL HERMENEUTIC AND THE BIBLE

Christian feminist thinking cannot be ignored in the context of discussing women’s concerns in theological education. “Feminist theology is one key among others for women to achieve empowerment. It provides the opportunity to evaluate critically the theological curriculum, to present new proposals…”²³⁶ However, due to the enormous variety of perspectives and the overlaps between them, the following section limits itself to a concise account of views relevant to the discussion rather than providing a comprehensive analysis. This discussion presupposes that at the heart of Christian feminist thinking is the question of biblical interpretation, in which culture plays a significant role. A straightforward look at some of the scriptural references where women quite alienated or extraordinarily elevated will enhance the evaluation.

1. 
   Christian Feminist Thinking
   

The rise and phenomenal advance of the feminist movement from the 1960s doubtlessly shook the patriarchal structures in society and religion. While the Western Protestant church between the 1970s and 1990s focussed on awareness, survival issues and arguing for rights for women, from 1990s onwards the discussions on equality as a strong force has penetrated every sphere of human life. Feminist theology is informed not only by Scripture, but also by social theory, and economic and psychological analysis. It concerns itself with ‘praxis,’ the lived reality of women and men, rather than abstract ideologies. It brings the social challenges faced by women to the surface and looks forward to transformation. However, despite all the shared concerns, stand the disagreements on the question; ‘To what extent can feminist theologies agree or have common grounds to ensure transformation?’ Reaching an ultimate consensus does not seem feasible as the distinctions between feminist perspectives remain so persistent. Though the impact of feminism was not always positive, it shook every dimension of society-irrespective of the attitudes traditionally held regarding women.

Christian feminism has also been a challenge varying emphases in churches and institutions for over four decades. In Catholicism, the theoretical development was launched in 1995. According to Pope John Paul II, the need was to ‘acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women.’ Statements of affirmation were such as, “In transforming culture so that it supports life, women occupy a place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive.”²³⁷ The feminist task of creating awareness of the oppressed status of women in society and religion was done by documenting the case made against women. Feminism attacked the sexist practices that enslaved women by patriarchal prescriptions and aroused awareness in women of their own potential and rights as humans. There has also been an attempt to promote justice, peace and the care of nature and its resources. The hermeneutical task to liberate biblical and theological thinking from their patriarchal orientations has been outstanding in terms of the feminist contributions in Christianity.
Absolute classifications are not possible with feminist scholarship due to the methodological overlaps. Some names mentioned below can fall in different categories at the same time or those in the same category can approach the subject differently-either directly biblically or deeply linguistically. Within the hermeneutical tasks, feminist theologians such as Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Cathrina Halkes, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Letty M Russell and Phyllis Trible are classified as the ‘revisionists’²³⁸ who by rediscovering and reclaiming the liberating vision for women in the Bible, tried to revise the perspectives; they highlight neglected texts, to enable women to celebrate their redemption in Christ. Their scholarly tasks included re-reading, re-interpreting and re-constructing, looking for the liberating elements in the Bible. For example, Fiorenza was not discovering new sources but “re-reading the sources in a different key”²³⁹ for a historical reconstruction. They researched on words through their root meanings by which liberating elements could be drawn. Through interpretation tasks, some raised the perception of women and men towards the esteemed role of women in God’s plan. The Biblical feminists²⁴⁰-although some of them do not identify themselves feminists- such as Paul Jewett, Myrtle Langley, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott and Mary Evans- do not believe that the Bible is misogynist, but challenge some of the ways in which it has been interpreted. They re-examine the biblical material, emphasizing a careful exegesis rather than the cultural conditioning of the Bible. They aim to keep a balanced affinity to the Bible as God’s word and as relevant to the contemporary people. There are also post-Christian feminists, who, in the course of the hermeneutical task gave up their Christian faith saying that biblical accounts make no sense and that the patriarchal structure cannot be changed (the rejectionists) Mary Daly and Daphne Hampson left Christianity, believing that biblical redaction has totally erased women and therefore it is necessary to construct an alternative feminist religion.
Most Christian debates revolve on two concerns- women’s role in the family and in ministry of the church. In order to limit the span of discussion, this section restricts itself to that of ministry, which is more relevant in terms of theological education- the topic of this study. Role of women in ministry has been one of the most debated issues in theology for a long time and seems set to remain so for long. This research uses the term ‘ministry’ only to mean trained laity ministry rather than ordained ministry although, occasionally it refers to all dimensions of church’s ministry, which will be clear from the context. The ‘women debate’ has permanently affected the value systems and shaken the structures in church ministry, distant missionary endeavour and theological education. The three leading theological positions on women’s concerns are the radical, egalitarian and complementary views.²⁴¹ The original and foundational anticipation of all these positions were to liberate women from the patriarchal sexist structures that have denied life to women for centuries. But they now have developed distinctive values in their theological thinking and various methods suggested to reaching those values.
Feminist theological debates are not transparent even when they appear so. They are built on various spiritual, sociological and psychological assumptions. The complementarian and egalitarian are the leading views of evangelicals,²⁴² who claim to have a strong base in the authority of the Scripture as God’s unchangeable word for faith and living. However, classifying feminists on such a larger conceptual basis is notoriously difficult mainly due to the diverse shades of meaning each of them attributes to topics such as, equality, authority and submission. Each of their church association and the respective doctrinal positions also make a difference. For instance, “Complementarians and egalitarians agree that throughout most of history women have played a secondary role in church life. But the two groups disagree on the extent to which women have been marginalized and the historical significance of male dominance.”²⁴³ The following section lumps together feminist perspectives in a broader spectrum without analysing the specificity of individual thinkers.

The Complementary View: The term ‘complementarians’ is used here to refer to those who argue for equality with hierarchy, as advocated by Wayne Grudem²⁴⁴ and many others such as Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, Robert L Saucy, John Piper, Judith K TenElshof, Peter Toon and Alexander Strauch. But this interpretation is questioned by those who use the same term to argue for equality without hierarchy, who too base their argument on the scripture and hold that in God’s design, women and men are not identical and they have complementary roles. Evangelical egalitarians prefer to address them as ‘patriarchalists’ rather than ‘complementarians.’²⁴⁵ The complementarian view holds that women and men are equal in worth but have different roles in ministry and family; men are given a primary responsibility to lead and that is not designed to suppress women but to advance order and peace.²⁴⁶ One major task undertaken by complementarians is to find how this view is substantiated from Genesis through Revelation. There are criticisms of the egalitarian argument that it will ultimately cause upheaval by its supportive elements to homosexuality, attitudes that might lead to loss of femininity and hence destruction of home, family and society.²⁴⁷

While the complementarian perspectives are sensible in terms of how relational structures work, still ambiguity remains on God’s overall plan for humanity. Within complementarian thinking are the strongly traditional view, the moderate view and the view with temperate restrictions. There has also been practical vagueness when these views fail to correspond to the cultural or social situations. The complementarian view that authenticates hierarchy also consists of the danger of preserving the structures that oppress women when applied in patriarchal contexts. It depends greatly on how people in such contexts interpret and practise the principles of it.

The Egalitarian View: Evangelical egalitarians stand for equality without a hierarchy of roles.²⁴⁸ They believe that the Bible supports women to come up in any role of ministry without restriction, although women and men are not identical. “…egalitarians do not affirm an equality of identity or sameness between women and men….sexual differences exist, and these differences make a difference.”²⁴⁹ Among them are, Paul King Jewett, William J Webb, Stanley Grenz, Rebecca Groothuis, Gordon D Fee, Gilbert Bilezikian, Richard T France, David Thompson, Ruth A Tucker, Aida Besancon Spencer and others. The peril in applying the egalitarian view will depend much on how women and men in the given contexts define the concept of equality.

The Radical View: Radical feminism does not see the Bible as the foundational and only authority on the issue. This view that went on to question the authority of the scriptures and the authenticity of God himself over the decades, eventually advocated the rejection of the male world altogether in defence of women’s freedom and acceptance; for them it is inevitable. Mary Daly, a Catholic feminist, left the church seeing it as irredeemably patriarchal.²⁵⁰ Daphne Hampson found no place for women in Christianity and became a post Christian.²⁵¹ Mary Hunt²⁵² developed ‘woman church’ influenced by liberation theology’s emphasis on ‘doing theology.’ As early as 1898, Elizabeth Cady Stanton published the first Woman’s Bible, where all anti-feminist passages were cut out.²⁵³ An incurable sexism that many identified within Christianity, made some women reconsider not only their ecclesiastical affiliation but also their sexual lifestyle. Carter Heyward presents herself as a Christian lesbian feminist and there are many more in the list. There were intentional moves towards male exclusion, woman centred ideology, goddess worship and getting rid of feminine reproductive functions.²⁵⁴

Discussion: Radical feminist thinking is not seen as a viable starting point in the context of this study, due to its discarding of the authority of the Bible and the varied concepts on human sexual freedom. This is, however, due to the need for a sensible approach in the context of Kerala and not merely based on researcher’s personal opinion. The current research not only keeps within the boundaries of evangelical thinking, but also bases itself on the principle that femininity and its distinctive bodily functions are God’s gift to women’s being, to be used for God’s plan for the human race and the kingdom work.

The complementary view seems to be a more sensible option in the current setting of Kerala where discussions on women’s issues are still to find a start. Yet, the prescriptive approach in complementarian thinking towards the ministry roles of women raises concern mainly because of its potential tendency to nurture the traditions that preserve the suppression of women. This view at times seems to undermine the sovereignty of God over situations, by limiting Him to rational ideologies. The scripture does not prescribe a comprehensive account of all that should be done in every single instance. Therefore, the overall vision and practice of the Bible must be considered as the standard. The Scripture portrays women raised in ministry, beyond human expectations in both the Testaments in the Bible for instance, Deborah in the role of judge (Judges 4) and for a New Testament instance, Jesus’ discourse with the Samaritan woman (John 4). God can do as He wills, without contradicting His eternal principles.

In the theological education and church contexts of Kerala, the egalitarian position seems in some areas still a luxury too far off. The religious communities are not yet prepared to envision a situation where women are on par with men, although in the secular arena this has been a growing reality. The egalitarian view, to be influential in the cultural setting of Kerala, has to correspond appropriately with the culture towards transformation. There are socio-political doctrines to be addressed alongside the theological underpinnings of the issue. Yet, for the believing community, there needs to be a theological vision beyond the limitations of the culture. Defining this theological vision is crucial for any step in the theological education and ministry training for women.
Therefore, it seems essential to have a middle pathway in which the Bible and theology interact effectively with the challenges of the contextual culture. This has to take in the workable elements from egalitarian and complementary views; carefully work out the persistent sexual prejudices in the complementary view and the risky women-centeredness in the egalitarian view and the inadequate cultural correspondence in both. There is a complementarity without hierarchy that helps us celebrate the gender difference and realize and practise the God-given strength of mutuality.²⁵⁵ But this too has many layers of meanings in contexts. It is, therefore, of central importance to look into the interaction between culture and biblical interpretation of the ministry of women. We, therefore recognize that there is no universally accepted feminist thinking and therefore, the ideology and practice of contextualization matters much in this discussion. In essence, this is that which connects feminism and the Bible in this research.

3.2 Feminist Contribution to Contextualization and Biblical Hermeneutics
The term ‘contextualization’ in the theological education sphere was first defined by Coe and Sapsezian, directors of the Theological Education Fund of the WCC in their 1972 report, Ministry and Context.
They suggested that the term ‘contextualization’ implies all that is involved in the term ‘indegenization’ but goes beyond it to take account of the process of secularity, technology and the struggle for human justice which characterized the historical moment of nations in the third world.²⁵⁶
Contextualization presumes hermeneutical tasks. But radical interpretations of contextualization deny that the Bible contains propositional truths and argue that since all scripture is culturally and historically conditioned, its message is relative and situational.²⁵⁷ Much conservative thinking, on the other hand, restricts itself strictly to faithful communication of the gospel, almost abandoning concern on the relevance of the message to the contemporary people. The challenge here is to avoid the radical attitudes of biblical hermeneutics-either making it only exclusively historical or merely contextual. Christian feminists have contributed much to the biblical hermeneutical tasks towards helping women to know their role and worth in God’s plan.²⁵⁸ The feminist scholarship in this area has already challenged the traditional structures of churches and seminaries. This has also forced them to review their internalized concepts of the theology of ministry.
Studies on gender differences show that women generally interpret their world differently to men.²⁵⁹ Modern religious feminism in America had the contributions on the problems of biblical interpretation and discrimination²⁶⁰ by women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sarah Grimke, Angelina Grimke and Frances Willard. This became a force through the latter half of the 20^th century. To have a quick historical overview, women started searching how they relate to the Bible in the middle of the 20^th century but “Some of the leading early efforts were done by men, an indication that women as biblical theologians were not at first granted the credibility they deserved.”²⁶¹ Works done in 1960s and 70s focused on biblical text-based studies²⁶² and in the mid 70s a more explicit feminist critique evolved.²⁶³ In the late 1970s to mid 80s, feminist scholars added new hermeneutical tools of literary criticism and liberation theology.²⁶⁴ Late 1980s feminist thinking used new insights and approaches such as archaeology and rhetorical criticism.²⁶⁵ 1992 marked the appearance of the first complete one-volume Biblical commentary²⁶⁶ by women. Nearing the end of 1990s, ‘women’s experiences’ gained more attention and feminist thinking of mostly white middle class gave way to others such as African-American and Hispanic-American.²⁶⁷ The first decade of the 21^st century witnesses enormous new approaches in feminist methodology and Women’s Studies departments in theological seminaries. Women’s theological education raised the issue of the impact of culture in the biblical interpretation of the ministry of women.

3. 
   Impact of Culture on the Biblical Interpretation of the Ministry of Women
   

The term ‘culture’ in this section does not mean the changing culture of the world today; rather it refers to “the total non-biologically transmitted heritage of man”²⁶⁸-about the ethnic heritage of people living in a specific context. Its role in the hermeneutic and application of the scripture is crucial. In fact, this is the area where consensus is at stake. Various cultural settings in the world are at different levels of thinking and practice as far as women’s status is concerned. For example, in an extreme patriarchal context, arguments for women’s clerical functions in the church or women getting away from their family roles do not make any sense. On the other hand, it is hard for those who are actually enjoying social freedom to comprehend why women in patriarchal cultures suffer degradations without resisting. “If ‘feminist theology’ were to mean only the theology of white Western privileged women, deluding themselves that they spoke for all women, this would be a catastrophic mistake. The language may seem to be the same, but the realities to which it refers may be profoundly different.”²⁶⁹ It is of prime importance to realize that generalizations on gender issues might cause more problems rather than solutions if not drawn from insights of actual contexts where the conclusions are to be applied.

There is a growing awareness in theological academia today that biblical interpretation needs to establish cultural variability. Feminist theology that requires an interdisciplinary approach²⁷⁰ is increasingly exploring this. Blount’s²⁷¹ construction of a culturally sensitive model of biblical interpretation could be a helpful example of this. In the second part of his text on ‘Cultural Interpretation’, he examines the vast meaning potential of the trial scenes in the Gospel of Mark to demonstrate how the cultural perspectives of different investigators shape the interpretative process.²⁷² Three core concerns arising here with potential to analyze the feminist methodology would be:

3.3.1 Cultural Embedding in Scripture as and when it was written

The Bible reflects its close affinity to the cultural settings in which the books were written. While some feminists see that cultural bindings in the scripture are for believers of all times, others believe they could be interpreted according to the contexts without contradicting the foundational theological standards of the scripture. The apostle Paul’s writings, for example, show how varied the cultural demands of his time of ministry were. Paul’s discussion on marriage in I Cori.7 was made in a context where a tendency to value single lifestyle was on its increase. He talked about head covering (1Cori.11) in a situation where it was customary for women to cover their heads or use face veils.²⁷³ Bevans presupposes²⁷⁴ that cultural differences are so intrinsic to human nature as to make a mockery of an attempt at articulating a single ‘universal’ theology and hence strongly suggests having theology contextualized. Paul definitely had to help women in the church to live their lives to fit the moral standards of the culture they were in. According to Storkey, “Paul himself, in his letters to the young churches, still stresses the propriety of recognizing traditional styles of relationship. At the same time Paul accepts and reinforces the new place women are to occupy in the kingdom work.”²⁷⁵ Such cultural discernments had deeper implications than what is immediately comprehensible to people, who do not belong to that cultural milieu.

Gordon Fee suggests that we should derive “theological positions by implications, and not by explicit scriptural instructions.”²⁷⁶ So a deeper analysis of the purpose of biblical passage, intended audience and their concerns and language and its implications in the larger scenario is fundamental for theology. When scripture is interpreted in this manner, it will communicate the simple message of God’s kingdom plan to people so that they will have life in abundance. Though demanding, this might be what Lehmann commends as the ‘running conversation’ between instructions for biblical situations and the always contemporary ethical context.²⁷⁷

2. 
   Cultural Embedding of the Readers of the Scripture
   

When isolated biblical passages are read on man-woman relationships in the Bible, they sound as if they are endorsing paternalism. It is natural for people to interpret the biblical passages in their own limited understanding of the terms and not exactly addressing the syntax or overall context. About the need of hermeneutics, Fee writes,

But the possibility of misunderstanding is increased as one is distanced from his/her hearer / readers- for example, monologue replaces dialogue or the speaker is unknown to the hearer(s), or writing replaces speaking. When one adds other distancing factors- especially time, culture and a second language-the possibility of misunderstanding is heightened all the more, unless the writer has tried to be particularly sensitive to such distancing factors.²⁷⁸
Interpreting the scripture as it fits to the traditional cultural stereotyping or to suit the personal interests within the limited sphere of knowledge is the handiest way for many. The theological ultimatum today is to help people develop perspectives rather than isolated interpretations.
As far as meaning and effectiveness are concerned, it is even argued that it is not the writer but the reader who is in control. German philosopher Hans George Gadamer, whose name is associated with a relativistic approach to interpretation, went on to give the impression that truth in interpretation is a matter of personal taste.²⁷⁹ Though his argument that ‘prejudice’ cannot be eliminated would have some significance in the discussion, this cannot be overemphasized. Yet, it is undeniable that scholars have been increasingly acknowledging the role of the reader in the making of meaning of a message.²⁸⁰ Western contribution to the spread of Christian faith and the development of theology has been invaluable, yet time and time again, it had to undergo the question of its impact on various cultures in the world. Feminist theology is not an exception in this. Clifford wrote, “What is included under the gender-blind term “Christian Theology” is actually male theology, done with an almost exclusive focus on questions of interest to European or Euro American, well educated, middle class males.”²⁸¹ Boyd, who acknowledges the western contributions to theology, opined that they are not the only expressions.
Western male dominance in the making of written theology too is worth mentioning. For Boyd, the Indian church must develop its own confessions understanding of the deepest Christian insights into the very nature and being of God, Christ, man and the world, and their expression in Indian language which can be understood and so accepted.²⁸²
This is applicable, however, not just to Asian, African or any contexts with such distinctive features, but significantly to the changing cultures and emerging challenges in the western society itself. Therefore, this is a universal need to have our theology-what is traditionally perceived as the set of doctrines- able to communicate to the people of the current times. Facilitating this is actually the task of theology and thus central to theological education, especially to serve women in male-biased contexts.

2. 
   Culture in which Conclusions are Applied
   

Unless the Bible is interpreted in culturally understandable terms, it does not accomplish the mission of transformation. On many occasions, theologians including the feminists, place themselves in the paradigms of contexts that are different from theirs. Many of the Asian or African contexts cannot easily apply certain western paradigms of feminist theology such as goddess religion or woman churches or neglect of feminine reproductive functions. Gabriele Dietrich says from an Indian point of view, “the whole debate on goddess religion makes little sense in a country teeming with goddesses and yet as boomingly patriarchal as ours.”²⁸³

Every culture is on an ongoing path of change and as that occurs, the new cultural challenges emerge and theology has to help bridge the gaps. This is not, however, proposing a change in theology so much as culture changes; rather pointing to the need of theology to have its message in communicable forms to cultures in their unique challenges. When people live with the idea that biblical passages are to be followed literally and every word of scripture should have permanent value that transcends time and culture, they fail to recognize the voice of God that speaks to the current challenges of the world. Without twisting the biblical message to fit into the cultural demands, we are to see beyond the ‘letters’ of the scripture to sense the ‘spirit’ of it. This is a move from scripture to theology; as Marshall puts it, “the combination of (1) searching for basic theological and ethical principles, (2) interpreting individual passages in the light of the scripture as a whole and (3) recognizing that there is a progress in revelation is a method of interpretation that is based on the Bible itself.”²⁸⁴ As already stated, the call is to be sensitive to God’s will regarding the inimitable challenges that lie beneath every cultural setting. Since each culture embodies amazingly diverse elements, no generalized principle can suggest a common viable solution to contextually pertinent issues. For instance, Storkey, while commenting on the Equal Rights Amendments said, “As in Britain, the law and constitution provide only the legal framework in which we live. Attitudes and stereotypes will need greater transformation than that afforded by the law alone.”²⁸⁵ Cultural relevance and the authorial intent of the scripture are crucial in hermeneutics. God’s word communicates to the original and the current situations with the same authority.
The Christian theologian is, therefore, to discover and apply God’s meanings (as best they can be determined) in each contemporary context as well. Just as the author’s intent….so the theological transculturation of God’s message through the Word to today’s contexts should be specific to those contexts.²⁸⁶
This is the prophetic mission of the church, which needs to be recognized by theological institutions. Fiorenza’s triple hermeneutic of suspicion, remembrance and celebration is a helpful framework to approach the problematic and yet rewarding challenge of reading the Bible as women.²⁸⁷ These hermeneutical principles help people to appreciate the balance of the biblical vision, to explain why different orientations rule the scriptural materials and to reaffirm the commitment to the biblical truth. The contextual distinctiveness, however, suggests evolution and not revolution. ‘Theology’ often develops as too complicated to help people in their actual problems. Therefore, a simple journey through the scriptures is favoured to throw more light into the role of culture between principles and practices.
3.4 Women in the Bible-A Distinctive View
3.4.1 The Old Testament and Women
There are scholars who argue that the Old Testament presents the idea that men and women are not created for a perfect, equal relationship.²⁸⁸ There are also those who believe that, rather it presents the view that God designed man and woman for a perfect equal relationship and that great design collapsed with the fall and its results²⁸⁹ in Gen. 3. A distortion in human relations has been marked throughout the history of humanity. That alteration led itself to the domination of man over woman, which in essence nourished patriarchy along with its structures of oppression of women. In the Old Testament, it was men who passed on blessings to the next generation, not women; women only received blessings. It was men who took the primary responsibility in family, society and religious functions; not women. Women in the Old Testament had to observe various purification rules whether cultural or religious. What women were supposed to do was to submit without recourse. To draw a few instances, the Levite, who killed and cut the body of his own concubine into pieces (Jud.19), Lot, offering his daughters to cruel men to guard a male guest (Gen 19:8), Amnon, who raped his half-sister Tamar (2 Sam.13) and Jepthah who sacrificed his daughter to keep to a vow he made (Jud.11:29-40). Women were excluded from priestly functions (Lev.15, 21); women had less inheritance rights (Num. 26, 27, 36; Job 42:15).

Nevertheless, there is another side to the Old Testament narrative offering a redemption and reformation to women’s lives. God has been at work in restoring human lives to the original peaceful and harmonious design. It was promised in Genesis that the offspring of women will bruise the head of the serpent. All people of God along with the prophets looked forward to the greater fulfilment of it.²⁹⁰ The great event of Exodus was inaugurated by the committed service and courage of some women such as, Shiprah, Puah, Pharoah’s daughter, Miriam, Jochebed and other women who worked alongside them. (Exo.2) It is noteworthy to mention a few names of women in the Old Testament, who lead the Israelites on various occasions. Miriam (Exo.15:20,21), Deborah (Jud. 4:4, 5, 6-7) and Huldah (II Kings 22:14-15) took up specific tasks and the community accepted their service. Israelite community that relegated women to a secondary role had women participating in various functions of the ministry of the temple as Leviticus records it. The futuristic assurance was uttered by Prophet Joel that in the day of the Lord, “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy…Even on my servants both men and women, I will pour out my spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28-29). In spite of all restrictions we see a series of God’s supernatural intervention that held women’s role and service great in God’s plan. This could be what Webb terms as ‘moderated patriarchy with fewer abuses.’²⁹¹ Genealogy in the Old Testament had no notable focus on women, but Ruth, the Moabite woman gained central significance. The settings and writings of Bible books were male centred, but the book on Esther was an outstanding account of a woman becoming the deliverer of a nation. Though living in a cultural setting where men made decisions for women, both Ruth and Esther made their own initiatives and implemented those in quite unconventional ways. Their methods were so insightful that they kept an extraordinary balance between the cultural expectations and their alternative actions of courage. Ruth’s decision to go to Bethlehem despite Naomi’s resistance and her submission to Naomi in that place and Esther’s decision to go to the King’s presence uninvited and her obedience to Mordecai’s charge to keep her Jewish identity secret are examples of balance in their decisions. Barak refused to go to war without Deborah, such was his confidence in her ability to lead (Jud.4:8). These are all evidences of God’s progressing restoration plan for human living, though the final fulfilment is yet to come. The current pattern where one group functions as exploiters and the other as the exploited is actually following the deformation of the original relationship in God’s design for humanity.

2. 
   Jesus’ Approach to Women
   

The New Testament depicts Jesus’ birth as a beginning of God’s mission of restoration to humanity. Isa.61:1-2 records a messianic prophecy, “The spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives…to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” There is a lot to discover and learn from Jesus’ attitude towards women and their role in the kingdom service. The approach here is not to make the case exclusively through the practices of Jesus; rather his unique attitudes and methods that transformed both men and women in the patriarchal setting he worked in. This takes more than a literal interpretation to identify the transforming power his methods had.

When we consider the roles of women in the Jesus’ movement and in society, there are two sorts of possibility and it is useful to be aware of both. One is that women should step outside their accepted roles or that women and men together should step outside their accepted social roles; the other is that women (or again, women and men together) should discover new possibilities within the socially accepted framework of their lives.²⁹²
There is danger in the insistence on assimilating all the evidence to one or the other possibility because the scripture has both in it.
Women did not fear condemnation while following Jesus; rather they felt security and affirmation. Women were his disciples and they stayed faithfully and actively until crucifixion. Matt. 27:55-56, 27:61-28:1, Mk 15:40-41, 47-16:1 Lk 23:49, 55-24:1 Jn. 19:25-27, 20:1 “The verb used to designate their following of Jesus is akoloutheo (or its compounds), a term which occurs over 75 times in the gospels and normally meaning following Jesus in the sense of being a disciple.”²⁹³ Jesus affirmed women’s learning of God’s word and simultaneously encouraged those who struggled with burdens from the traditional role of homemaking. Example are, the account of Martha and Mary (Lk.10:38-42) and Jesus’ interpretation of those blessed in Lk.11:28. His comments were radically inclusive and his wisdom in speech silenced his critics. Jesus rose above the cultural stereotyping of women as seducers and causes of all evil; he discarded the cultural taboos that set women aside from the main stream of life. He set people’s minds on things above rather than on earthly laws that kills. Jesus in an unconventional manner affirmed doing the will of God before anything else, which minimized the claims of gender differences (Matt.12:46-50).
Gaining strength from such principles, women proclaimed Jesus and his mission, not because they had already gained approval, but out of devotion to him. Mary, Elizabeth and Hanna interpreted the meaning and purpose of Jesus’ birth. (Lk.1:5-2:40) The amount of women’s emancipation and approval in the Lukan account stands out from other books in the New Testament. The very content of the New Testament shows how God trusted women in learning the divine mysteries. Jesus “in fact, left no teaching at all concerning women as a class of people.”²⁹⁴ This affirmation on learning had extraordinarily far reaching effects. Despite all the ‘difficult’ statements on women, the apostle Paul also might have tried to follow this pattern of Jesus although in a different style and measure.
Jesus entrusted his message to people irrespective of their gender, class or caste. It was a Samaritan woman to whom Jesus first explicitly revealed himself as Messiah. That trust must have been the source of strength and confidence to her to proclaim Jesus and through which many turned to Christ (Jn.4: 4-42). It was a woman (Martha) to whom Jesus explicitly said, “I am the resurrection and life” (Jn.11:24-27). Jesus did not wait for male disciples to arrive to reveal himself as the risen Lord. Rather, he not only revealed himself, but also commissioned for evangelism, Mary the Magdalene who had been faithfully and expectantly waiting so long. His approach was not controlled by human principles of alienation (Matt. 28:1-8). Men in the then society could not comprehend that as evident in Lk. 24:10-11, 22-24.
Public endorsement was yet another dimension of Jesus’ method in restoring those fettered by the society. Jesus publicly endorsed the faith and service of women. The Canaanite woman was praised for her ‘great faith’ (Matt.15:28). He gladly received the service of women and interpreted the theological significance of their action without keeping it a secret. Jesus recognized the woman who anointed him with oil, for her foresight of the mystery of His death (Matt.26:13). Jesus safeguarded women whenever they were unnecessarily criticised or misunderstood. For instance, the woman caught in adultery and the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet with oil. The assumptions, such as all women should be guarded against unchastity, and women’s role is homemaking alone were efficiently dealt with. Among the crowd, Jesus commended a widow for her true understanding of love in giving (Luk.21:2). He also disclosed to the crowd, the depth of faith of the woman with haemorrhage. Jesus ensured that his moral principles apply to women and men alike rather than privileging just one sector of the society, as demonstrated in his approach to the woman caught in adultery. Yet, there are questions remaining.

3.4.3 No Woman among the Twelve

Above and beyond all these, stands the fact that Jesus had no women among the twelve or among the seventy he sent later in his ministry. In view of all the examples listed above, the reason for this would not be that he accorded women a secondary status. Rather, in societal involvements he was wisely employing cultural sensitivity and common sense so that his message would not have contradicted the cultural legacy of the society. It is opined,

However, it would not have been culturally possible to have included women in that most intimate group of Jesus’ followers…. It has often been observed that all of the twelve were Jews, yet the early church, as it developed in other social contexts, included gentiles in leadership. Thus, the precise composition of the twelve should not be pressed too far.²⁹⁵
The Samaritan woman said, “You are A Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (Jn.4:9). Disciples were surprised to see Jesus talking to a woman (Jn.4:27). In the cultural setting of Palestine where women had nothing to do with public affairs, it would have been the worst testimony that Jesus could make by having women being with him among the close twelve disciples. Though Jesus discerned that to honour women and value their service to the kingdom of God was to emancipate them through alternative ways that would not cause total disorder in the culture but bring forth decisive transforming effects. “Being Jesus’ disciples did not lead these women [those followed Him] to abandon their traditional roles in regard to preparing food, serving etc. Rather it gave those roles new significance and importance.”²⁹⁶ Within the system, Jesus credibly raised the status of women and gave them confidence and approval that they could not expect from any other source, as what Fiorenza terms “discipleship of equals.”²⁹⁷ Although it is never easy to classify Pauline statements on women into a single, convincing perspective, the following section makes a simple attempt to see a balance in his approaches too.

4. 
   4 Apostle Paul’s Attitude towards Women
   

Certain texts of Apostle Paul caused much of the intensive confusion regarding the role of women in God’s plan. Women should not teach or have authority over men, should be silent, should cover their head and should be submissive. ICori.14:34-35; Eph. 5:22-33; Col.3:18; ITim.2:8-15, 5:14 and Titus2:4-5. There were examples of cultural reflections in Pauline writings such as, “For it is disgraceful to a woman to speak in the church” ICori.14:35b. “If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off.” ICori.11:6a. Paul’s such injunctions, to some scholars, might have been to counteract the misuse of freedom women receive in the faith community. For example, “Paul’s injunction about head coverings sought to regulate the use of spiritual gifts in accordance with cultural norms.”²⁹⁸ Jewett distinguishes between what Paul said as an apostle from what he said as an unreformed Jewish rabbi.²⁹⁹ Yet, it is admittedly hard to conciliate with some of the sentences of Paul as those mentioned above. To balance the amount of excitement women might gain from their new roles with the ultimate purpose of glorifying God and edifying the church, Paul might be using a mixture of recognitions and injunctions. Evans says that although Paul’s proclamation of liberty and equality for all in Christ,

would automatically lead to changes in the attitudes and behaviour of those within the church, he never calls directly for an overturn of the order of the society outside the church. Christians must live and work within that society. Thus like all Christians, women were to relate to and behave in the society in which they lived in such a way, that they would ‘adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour’ Titus 2:10 within that society. Perhaps if this was done, it was inevitable that the society too, would change.³⁰⁰
Paul’s concern regarding structures may appear ambiguous, but that is precisely because of their ultimate irrelevance. Cultural structures simply exist-as the ways sociological groups maintain their identity and live within their comfort zones. In Paul’s view, one can serve Christ within such limits. What he disallows is giving significance to structures and roles as such.³⁰¹
But his overall theological vision went beyond the cultural restrictions as read in Gal. 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Among the women who were his fellow workers and deaconesses, Paul mentions Phoebe (Rom.16:1-2) as a servant, to whom administrative responsibilities were entrusted.³⁰² Among the most significant ministers, he had Priscilla, who joined Aquila in instructing Apollos (Rom.16:3-4; Act.18:18-26). Paul lists his fellow apostles Andronicus and Junias (Rom.16:7) and Euodia and Syntyche (Phil.4:2-3). These affirmations of Paul in such a patriarchal society were an outstanding contribution to the emancipation of women. In this line, it might be suggested that the New Testament has a high regard for egalitarianism. Bauckham said, “While in many respects this egalitarianism successfully resisted the highly hierarchical structures of the early churches’ social environment, the strategy of radical opposition to such structures was not uniformly applied.”³⁰³
Paul’s encouragement for women to ‘learn’ is another exceptional contribution for women’s role in ministry. Holding that learning ‘quietly and submissively’ will definitely make a difference in due course of time, he focussed on a stable development rather than causing anarchy by discarding the cultural values in which the believers lived. Witherington thus explains the balance in the approach through the New Testament, “Jesus was attempting to reform, not reject, the patriarchal framework of his culture, then it is understandable why Paul and other New Testament authors sought to redefine, not reject, concepts of male headship or leadership in light of Christian or biblical ideas.”³⁰⁴ All the specific cultural statements of Paul should only be interpreted with his stated ideal in 1 Cori.14:40 where he says, “Everything must be done in a proper and orderly way.” At the same time, his statement “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28) transcends the cultural limitations he struggled with within the community of believers.
Paul was more than aware of the need of contextualization of the message he preached.³⁰⁵ “The difference in theological emphasis between Paul’s address to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch (Acts13:16-41) and his address to the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:22-31) are but a few notable illustrations of the sociological and theological inevitability of contextualization.”³⁰⁶ Paul’s vision looked forward to the corporate development of the ‘new creation’ in Christ for the kingdom mission. In his exhortations to husbands, Paul explicitly states the necessity of operating the reciprocal love and of avoiding the tendency for self-regulating governance. However, these historical/biblical instances are not necessarily able to correspond to the diverse cultural situations of the world today. Jesus ministered in a setting where religion and culture were inseparably linked together. The apostle Paul had to be conscious of a much more diverse audience.
Reverting to the hermeneutical challenge of this research, the Kerala context has been influenced by the Christian hierarchical traditions, the philosophy and practices of other religions and the values of the local culture. Since the New Testament presents an approach that sometimes seems to be radical, sometimes reformational and sensible to the cultural context though controversial in most cases, the current study also focuses on larger perspectives rather than literal practices. Before getting in to this hermeneutical task, it is worthwhile to consider how the central theological concepts of authority and submission have been used and misused on the topic under deliberation.

5. 
   Central Issues of Authority and Submission
   

According to Bauckham, the New Testament advises the superior partner in each hierarchical relationship of the household towards relativization and transformation of hierarchy. He states that,

1. 
   There are attempts to relativize the hierarchy by reference to God’s or Christ’s authority. Eph. 6:9, Colo. 4:1
   
2. 
   Attempts to ensure that hierarchical relationships operate benevolently and beneficently not oppressively or exploitatively Col. 3:19, Eph. 5:25, I Pet. 3:7
   
3. 
   Attempt to transform relationships of dominance into relationships of mutual subordination Eph. 5:21-6:9³⁰⁷
   

Authority, according to the New Testament, is not tyranny; it is all about service to develop the maximum potential of others for the common good. It speaks of servant leadership rather than dictatorship. Exercise of authority in the Scripture is closely linked to love. A woman is to submit not to someone who oppresses her, but to her own husband who is always exhorted to love her sacrificially and unselfishly.³⁰⁸ Jesus did not strive to exercise authority; rather he washed the feet of his disciples. He taught and showed his disciples the joy in servant leadership. Life’s balance is at risk when the essential gender difference and the sense of mutuality in God’s design for humanity are abandoned. Therefore, practical decisions have to be made in the light of interactions between theology, ethics and praxis. This is not a clash where the ‘who wins’ decision is made; rather it is for a balanced work plan where both women and men can serve in partnership to glorify God.

When submission is imposed rather than given, it becomes oppression. An Indian feminist theologian, Aruna Gnanadason, calls the theological construction that supports this, “the imposed theology of sacrifice and suffering.”³⁰⁹ The Scripture condemns all forms of oppression. It is noteworthy that many people have mistaken submission for irresponsibility or inactivity. But submission in God’s design is a dynamic response to love. In this sense of mutuality, submission warrants a better endorsement for women. Jesus who submitted himself to the Father wilfully and joyfully, had specific tasks to accomplish. Every one lives under some form of authority and accountability. Leaders of organizations are also under the authority of a committee to whom they are accountable. There are exceptional instances of women being requested by men in patriarchal societies to teach and lead despite their harsh criticisms of women on the basis of Pauline words. Therefore, men’s acceptance of women is not merely determined by the Bible, rather the realization of the personal balance with which women perform as appropriate in the context. The psychological and cultural dynamics in this are vital. Paul calls all believers to submit to one another (Eph.5:21). Unwillingness to submit to authorities, whichever kind they are, lead to revolt against God and others and hence create disorder in the longer run. Submission in its proper sense and function, will safe guard women from getting shattered by extremisms of self-centredness that are contrary to Christian faith. However, the danger lies in the fact that when one submits, the other might tend to exploit and that would spoil the relational effectiveness.

In ministry aspects too, the authority-submission conflict prevails despite the policies and ideals set against it. The aftermath of the Genesis event is still powerfully operating in human lives. Women and men in Christ are to work it out daily in their Christian walk to get to the ultimate restoration God intended for people. This covers not only physical, but spiritual and emotional restoration as well. This is only possible through the constant yielding to the Spirit of God as people interact with one another in ministry and family. Paul explains the current struggle in Rom. 8:20, 21 as a groaning for final liberation.

Women who know they are truly liberated in Christ (not referring to a woman-centred life or extreme autonomy but a life of mutuality where God’s kingdom concerns take the focus) have to work out true reconciliation towards the ‘final liberation’; this is a groaning experience. But those in Christ (Gal.3:28) should not dispute for authority because it is the manner in which kings of gentiles behave (Lk.22:24,25). God in his sovereignty is raising those who learn with Mary’s zeal and seek to serve with Mary Magdalene’s devotion at the tomb. On the other hand, the concept of ministry may not always be the leadership roles in the church as such. Women leaders from strictly patriarchal cultures have come up in leadership as in the example of Sara Chakko from Kerala, who became the first woman president of the WCC. It is also important to note that all women are not called to or strive for leadership roles-nor are men. Yet a large number of women from caste, colour, racial and cultural differences rise up to give leadership as true service.

4. 
   Summary Observations
   

From a general evaluation of the scriptural direction, it could be considered that God’s design for women and men is one of equal worth, although roles may not be identical. By the fall in Genesis, that harmonious mutuality was deformed and God has been at work in restoring it throughout history. The concept of authority and submission is not practised by people as God intended it; many exploitative elements have been added. The sex stereotyping within cultures and oppressive structures of sexism are all to be overcome by the pattern Jesus followed in his earthly mission. His prototype contained profound wisdom in handling the cultural sentiments and at the same time not falling prey to the traditionally practised sex discriminations. Above and beyond the disturbingly oppressive statements of Paul on women, stands his overall vision that raises women’s equal worth in ministry and family as God’s redeemed people. God’s design that accords women and men equal worth and dignity is not to be bluntly reinforced. Even the scripture makes its instructions for life gently and in understandable terms to people in their own life’s settings. The cultural specificity and sensitivity in the Old and New Testaments as discussed in the sections above show how effective the balance in their practices was.

God gave individual and corporate functions to men and women. Their physical and psychological nature helps them to suit the specific roles they perform. Superiority of one sexual category over the other is not substantiated in the Bible because woman and man are created in the image and likeness of God. In the family, in the church and in the society, women should be accepted and equally valued as men although there are roles that are not transposable. Radical feminists hold that because of role difference, men would never accord an equal status to women. But discarding of the role differences, especially roles relating to motherhood, pregnancy and child rearing would be a dangerous escapism from the realities of life to confuse individuals and cause social deterioration. The basic challenge for Christians is to remain on the Christian principles amidst all these issues. It is a tragic reality that women are alienated and counted less human. But when women get rid of their role as wives and mothers (except those called to be single), they are rebelling against God’s basic design for women’s life; family roles should be carried out as a God-given mission.
Women issues are being addressed in a number of ways- sometimes it sounds like androcentrism (women as threats to men), on other occasions, misogynism (express contempt and fear of women) and at yet other times, patriarchalism (see women as dangerously ignorant beings that must be controlled).³¹⁰ Revelation of God’s will to humanity is on-going with full acceptance of the authority and finality of God’s word. It is not God’s way to demand an indiscreet application of the literal verses in the Bible to various human situations. It is theology, the overall schemes and principles of God for humanity, which should decide the aspects of application in cultures that keep on changing. In other words, the intention is not altering God’s word to suit human interests, but seeking the wisdom of God that can correspond to any/every human cultural situation. Such an understanding is not a mere human construction, but what derives from the entirety of God’s word, which has not yet been fully comprehended by human minds. God allows culture to modify the applying of the principles of his word. As culture changes, God’s large principles find new expressions without contradicting his word. This should be the core in ‘doing theology.’ The Bible did not make any direct prohibition, as a principle, for women from learning or getting involved in ministry. But discerning what was right more or less depended on the sensibility and sensitivity of the decision in the specific context where it had to be applied. Both men and women should employ the concept of ‘love’ and mutuality in their roles, which would ultimately enable them to develop to their full potential to serve the kingdom work.
Therefore, coercion on the basis of sex difference is unbiblical. Men and women are created in the image and likeness of God, are equal in worth and value. Those who hold on to role differences should safeguard themselves from practically defining sexual difference as grounds to victimize and abuse each other; while those arguing for equality should safeguard themselves from moving to the extremes that uproot the authority of the Bible and Christian faith. The biblical view of women’s ministry, therefore, is a balanced view. It is not absolutely prescriptive of either entirely identical equality or irrational submissiveness. The biblical view has exceptions on both sides and therefore it ultimately rests on God’s sovereign activity and humans’ appropriate response to it which will liberate human beings “into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” Rom. 8:21.
The scripture is realistic about cultural diversities and God is at work “till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:13) Our choices must, therefore, lead the cultural contexts not to turmoil but redemption of the original design of God for humanity. Though Jesus restored women through his mission, the task still continues with men and women, who should work it out in mutuality. Human beings are groaning for final liberation; to regain their perfect, oppression-free relational status. This is, however, still an eschatological vision, towards which the church is called to work. The methodology and conduct of this research have a number of practical and theoretical underpinnings, which the following chapter discusses in detail.