In protestant theological institutions: a critical appraisal of contextual challenges in kerala, india jessy jaison b b s., M d
Theologically Trained Women- Focus Group
Yüklə 1,36 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 5.4.3 Women Students in Seminaries-Focus Group
- 5.5 Findings and Interpretations
- 5.5.1 Cultural Dimension Finding 1.
- 5.5.1(a). Segregation is Essential
- 5.5.1(b) Motives of Women Challenged
- 5.5.1(c) Seminaries Offer the Best for Women
- 5.5.1(d) Criticism on Women’s Passivity
- 5.5.1(e) Complexity of Cultural Aspects
- 5.5.1(f) Women- the Helpless Aliens in Theological Education
- 5.5.1(g) Cultural Paradoxes in Women’s Training
- 5.5.1(h) Discriminatory Practices in Seminaries
- 5.5.2 Theological Dimension Finding 2
- 5.5.2(a) Increasing Entry of Women in Theological Education
- 5.5.2(b) Bias in Women’s Potential Level of Contribution
- 5.5.3 Ecclesiastical Dimension Finding 3
- 5.5.3(a) Negligence of Churches on Women
- 5.5.3(b) No Ministry-Placement Liability on Seminaries
- 5.5.4 Structural Dimension Finding 4
- 5.5.4(a) No Need of Gender Policy
- 5.5.4(b) Men’s High Profile in Ministry
- 5.5.5 Pedagogical Dimension Finding 5
- 5.5.5(a) Financial Constraints and Flexibility in Course Designs
- 5.5.5(b) Priority to Fulfil Academic Requirements
- 5.5.6 General Factors Causing the Secondary Status of Women
- CHAPTER 6: THE ROLE OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES IN MEDIATING THE CULTURAL IMPACT ON WOMEN: A THEOLOGICAL-CULTURAL HERMENEUTIC
5.4.1. Theologically Trained Women- Focus Group The participants were five women with Master of Theology; all of them wives of faculty in various seminaries and all of them working where their husbands are employed. Initially there was no interest shown in the topic and therefore, I had to build a good rapport with them by:
The discussion covered four themes such as, their views about women’s theological education, their theological understanding of women’s role in ministry, their opinion of the effect of culture on the theological education of women and their experiences as theologically trained women. The group was given freedom to talk as openly as they could so that new themes on the topic could be identified. Their disagreements were noted without attribution and hence they all enjoyed the freedom to share their feelings and experiences. The open and friendly atmosphere in the room helped the participants to speak their views without fearing any negative consequences. The major ideas derived from the focus group were as follows;
There was a consensus on this opinion in the group. The way they explained it was that churches do not promote women. But some non-episcopal churches are forced to recognize women preachers and missionaries who by force of their own commitment overcome the cultural limitations. Even when such women are accepted after a long journey by themselves, theologically trained women are always undervalued and avoided by the church. A husband and wife, who are equally committed, qualified and serving in the same seminary will be treated very differently by a church. Churches act as if theological training is harmful to people and it is worse when women get trained.
This was a realization of a majority in the group during the final year of their education. According to them, only if a woman carves out her own ministry and works it out in her own way without waiting for anyone’s permission, may she succeed in carrying out something. For this she may have to dare to set aside her marriage and the financial support from parents. She must be determined to operate while suffering criticism. When a woman is employed to work in the shadow of her husband, she has to evade such attempts to carve out her own ministry.
Despite the concerns about the meanings of change and the implications for the church, society cherishes what has been practised for long. For example, in churches, members expect that their pastor’s wife should behave, dress, and talk in a certain way. There is an assumption that the traditional values of the church are questioned and judged in seminaries and therefore, seminary education may not be doing any good to the church. There is a resistance to the assertiveness and openness, women develop from education. This is a tough journey where changes are quite unlikely.
At this point the participants chose not to respond openly. They said there are valid points in arguments for equal, complementary and submissive roles. But they expressed their difficulty in holding on to a specific position and defending it in the group when required. There was a general feeling expressed that the Bible and the culture of the place restrict women from taking up leadership roles in the church. But none of the participants appear to argue that out. They also opined that the majority of leaders in seminaries and churches did not clearly disclose their standpoint about the ministry of women. This might be because it is safer for them to change their position as and when needed.
In the Episcopal churches that have kept women away from any role, women for many decades have gone to their own fields of contributions such as social service, mission fields and publications. They realized the attitude of the church to women and without fighting for approval they set up their own way of service. There are non-Episcopal churches that give no freedom to women for any ministry. But from some of them, women are stepping forward as evangelists, missionaries and preachers and now they conduct meetings and seminars exclusively for women to mobilize them. But it is worth noting that even in such groups theologically trained women are not much accepted.
The group identified this phenomenon more within the same seminary and rarely across seminaries. There is an increasing interest among the wives of men faculty in seminaries as some seminaries offer them teaching posts. This phenomenon has grown in some institutions as an extreme attempt by women to immerse themselves in long years of continual theological education which undermines their responsibilities in other areas of life. The situation leads some to disappointment when they are denied key vacancies while others take over.
Women in the group felt that their role in theological seminaries is passive except in the area of lecturing. They usually make no comments or suggestions for improvement even in a staff meeting because that is the way in which women are expected to conduct themselves especially in the seminary environment. Except one, all seminaries have on their women faculty either the wife or daughter of the Director or wives of the members of faculty. Wives of male faculty members just carry out their daily teaching assignments and often do not exercise the courage to speak out their views. 5.4.2 Data Summary Theologically trained women were not keen about sharing their theological standpoint on women’s role. They admitted that their current role is passive and they are unable to break through the system, other than carrying out the assigned daily duties. They are content with the opportunity they have and show no real concern to address the issues faced by women students. While a man is in key roles in a church and its seminary, his wife has to be cautious enough not to spoil his societal acceptance by her involvement. They openly expressed their grievance at churches that have written off theologically trained women from any part in ministry. There was consensus that women need emancipation, but the group was pessimistic about their contribution to working it out. They spoke about their identity crisis as people who do not really belong either to church or to the seminary.
Five students were selected from five seminaries; all spinsters between 21-26 years; from M Div and BD final year classes. It was easier, compared to the first focus group, to get them oriented to the topic. They spoke out their thoughts and feelings without fearing anything. They discussed the cultural and ecclesiastical challenges of women in seminaries, their experiences and aspirations in theological education. They brought to light the ideas shown below.
All of them agreed that they had a very different picture of seminary training when they first applied after college education. They said their only intention was to have a better understanding of the doctrines of the Bible so that they can grow spiritually and they can help others to understand it. They also wanted to develop a disciplined life-style whereby they can serve their own family, church and the community. But they found seminary as neither purely a secular institution nor entirely a spiritual centre. They said as women they expected better acceptance in a seminary environment as people of God’s family learning and living together but it was not real.
According to the participants, theory was entirely different from daily practice. If the accrediting agency insists on liberation theological thinking, students’ assignments will show many liberating contents; but that does not mean they personally support it. Likewise, the claims to promote women cannot be taken at face value. Culturally set standards are often more right than any argument towards emancipation. There are many churches that consider seminaries as institutions where persons are trained to question, criticize and change everything. They look at the whole system and the products of it with suspicion. Therefore, it is better to keep ourselves from participation unless formally invited to do so.
Participants who were at the final stage of training said they were more aware of the cultural limitations in life and ministry. The situation in seminaries is changing slowly. For example, there was a time when women were admitted mainly to do the domestic chores; women were told to wear only a particular dress not to expose their bodies and they had no freedom to get involved in public activities with men. But now all that has changed to a great extent. Therefore, it is advisable not to mess up the system with demands for immediate change.
The most hurtful experience according to the participants was men’s attempt to misuse Scriptural portions to put women down. It is done not just in class rooms and informal talk; they do it in public addresses where women are present, but not able to respond or make a further clarification. This practice leaves many of the hearers in confusion. As long as the leaders in seminaries have no clarity and unity regarding the standpoint they hold, such situations will stay uncontrolled.
The group thought that Kerala girls are living in shells of unhealthy attitudes, from which they need to be released. They opined that seminaries can play a significant role in this. They also mentioned that seminaries are failing themselves biblically if they abstain from addressing and taking up this challenge. Especially when women’s right motivation to join seminaries is questioned, women must be assertive even if it may be interpreted as antagonism. When women take bold steps for mission fields and social services, the seminary should stand up for them and make churches support them.
Though the talk was very short on this, all participants agreed that negligence in this area can do much harm to the lives of girls in seminaries. Hostel-in-charges should be educated and experienced in theology, ministry and counselling so that their influence would create innovation, confidence and a new perspective in ministry for women.
There were comments on the negligence shown by some male members of faculty who use outdated teaching notes, never make sure on the development of students and have no experience of practical ministry. Participants felt that the traditional outlook in theological education should change. There is an immediate need to bring in women who are experienced in various areas of ministry to seminaries to communicate that women too are effective in ministry. There was a consensus that such women can make a difference even though they had no idea who would deliberately begin such activities.
Participants said that the practice of marriage arranged by parents has a number of good aspects in it. Marriages remain very strong; very few divorces, women take good care of their children and parents will have an overall care for the family. Since parents do not want their girls to be cheated by a wrong relational affair, they make sure seminary is responsible for the safety of their daughters in this regard. And also the group said there is a growing trend among the men seminarians to marry someone from medical or governmental profession mainly to secure their economic status. Therefore, seminaries’ attempt to segregate men and women cannot be fully criticised in the cultural set up. But at the same time, seminaries should critically assess their objectives, courses and ministry practices in view of the secondary status of women in the cultural context. They suggested that once women are admitted to a training programme, seminaries should make sure they are not humiliated in anyway. 5.4.4 Data Summary The focus group with women students brought forth a different perspective. The participants seemed to be more realistic about their limitations and hence more accommodating of what is happening. Yet, there was a strong feeling against the degrading of women in seminaries. This group’s specific feature was a withdrawal tendency which they have developed from their disappointment that change in the situation is unlikely and therefore it is better to cope with it rather than attempt to change it. Unlike other informants, this group seemed to be justifying to an extent, the inactive role of women in public activities in seminaries and churches, the segregation between men and women in seminaries and parents’ active control over their young daughters in the culture. Though there was no enthusiasm shown for suggesting transformation in the system, the group specifically criticised all efforts at putting women down in a seminary context. They pointed mainly at the misuse of Scriptures, verbal embarrassments and the tendency to overlook the contributions and role of women in ministry. Their major suggestions were for women students to be more assertive of their calling and that more experienced women should be brought to seminary campuses to make a lasting impact on the community. 5.5 Findings and Interpretations Six major findings identified from the previous section of the presentation of data are listed below. Each statement of finding is followed by the main refuting views that emerged from the responses. These views are further discussed and the explanation of the finding stated. Culture-related thinking was found to be a leading dimension in the findings. 5.5.1 Cultural Dimension Finding 1. Instead of being agents liberating women to grow to their highest efficacy in life and service, theological schools tend to acquiesce to cultural structures that set diverse constraints on women. (Tables-6, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22 Figure- 4, Focus Groups) All the five groups of data generation contributed to this finding at some point in the interviews and focus groups. But there are certain responses as below that do not fully integrate with this and they require further review. Shown in brackets are a few example locations where these arguments have been derived from. 5.5.1(a). Segregation is Essential This has been a strong view shared throughout the gathering of data. (e.g. Tables 4,6). Principals of seminaries admitted their limitation in developing women to the best of their effectiveness. It is important to state that most of the causal factors they pointed out are reasonable and sensible in the given context. For example, parents’ control over their daughters, society’s critical concerns to find fault with the institution, the requirement to discipline the interpersonal relations on campus and the administrational challenge to keep balance within the system are all sensible reasons. A seminary that discredits these will not have a long life in the society. Therefore, from a very practical point of view, I do not see the essential precautions of segregation as discriminatory. The focus group of women students endorsed this. In view of the practice of marriage and the cultural expectations on women’s character and behavioural style, the argument of Principals cannot be overlooked. The culturally rooted concern about the safety and moral uprightness of a woman has generated an extreme level of control and fear on the family over their girls, which exerts a binding influence wherever the girls are. This has taken on detrimental emotional outcomes such as suspicion and oppression as evident in the data. This condition has its origins not only in the cultural heritage of the land, but also in the traditions of the Christian church, as has been evident in the data. Thus it is deeply rooted in the minds and lives of people in families, worship places, educational institutions and in the work place. Segregating men and women on campus, therefore, becomes contextually essential. But it is very important to judge whether this segregation becomes a pathway to suppression. More than as a means to ensure security for the life of women students, schools can practice segregation in ways in which the attitude of secondary status of women is more nurtured. The task here is to judge if this is the case with the seminaries in Kerala. 5.5.1(b) Motives of Women Challenged View that questions the motives of women who join seminaries in such a cultural setting that is not supportive to them. (e.g. Tables 10,11,13 Figure-2) Men students identified numerous external factors that motivate women to join theological education such as poverty, parents’ vows, marriage or time-pass purposes. These responses cannot be rated low when viewed against realities. When compared with secular education settings, seminaries are relatively more affordable to parents for their girls; girls with less formal education qualifications also can find a place in seminaries and earn certificates or degrees after a few years; seminary is the best possible place to find a spouse for women who definitely wish to have some involvement in ministry in the future; there is no safer and better place than seminaries where parents can place their daughters during the ‘gap period’-between their formal education and marriage-all these are real in the context of Kerala. The criticism of men students gets to its prime focus when they question the arrival of more women in seminaries realizing that they are only secondary in seminaries and they could probably have no future in the churches. This case too cannot be ignored due to its contextual validity. In Kerala where economic and social factors matter much, gaining admission in a study programme would definitely take on diverse interpretations. But respondents mentioned that there are also men who join seminaries with such unspoken agendas. In this case, it raises questions about how effective the screening processes of seminaries at the time of student recruitment are. Moreover, men students said that there are women who join theological education with genuine interest in learning and ministry. Most respondents in leadership did not question the genuineness of women students joining seminaries. Whatever might be the factors that bring women to training; the primary issue here is to check if seminaries are efficiently carrying out their mission for the cause of their women students. 5.5.1(c) Seminaries Offer the Best for Women View that seminaries are offering their best for the women in the societal context of Kerala (e.g., Quantitative data, Tables-1, 2, 8, 18) This is another voice against Finding-1. Not just the men leaders and men students, but all categories of women agree that seminaries provide a better place for women in many areas when compared to churches. Seminaries accept women candidates in various courses; a number of seminaries let women have co-education with men which itself is a hopeful move in the cultural context; unlike churches, most seminaries provide women with opportunities to sing and preach in the chapels; seminaries do their best to provide them with safe accommodation and take every precaution to put off societal criticism against their good name. While this is all true, there is still ambiguity on how transformative these efforts are for women towards a more effective life and ministry. Data from women students and theologically trained women confirm this uncertainty. Interview reports from seminary leaders too support this as most of them openly admitted their choice to withdraw from concerns relating to this rather than to get involved. 5.5.1(d) Criticism on Women’s Passivity View that women themselves choose not to develop and that’s why they remain secondary (e.g., Table-13) This sounds reasonable especially when assessed with the ‘confessions’ of women students about their own immobility. Whatever the reasons be, so long as women consciously move away from opportunities, development is unlikely. Women do not prove their competence in academic presentations even within the secure atmosphere of a classroom; they do not respond well in discussions; they stay shy and reserved. It is crucial for them to rise up to the occasion especially when seminaries provide them with an amount of acceptance that they cannot expect from a church in most cases. Although this perspective seems to be convincing, the cultural complexity in Kerala as reflected through the data provided by the men informants calls for a closer scrutiny. Leaders stay content with what has been already done for women students and they do not seem to be committed to make any further step to help women in the challenges they face. Their conscious suspension of many positive steps towards women’s development raises challenges to women’s own developmental efforts. Men students said that the academic statements and the pro-women thinking they project during the training would be very different from their personal view. This portrays how multifarious the situation for women who try to come up on their own would be. Therefore, it is crucial to look at the diversity of the cultural setting in order to reach a comprehensive view on the issue. 5.5.1(e) Complexity of Cultural Aspects (from all sources of data) The negative attitude towards women does not always directly manifest itself in the given context; rather it mostly takes subtle forms. The tug-of-war between the cultural sentiments and the ministry dreams of women causes contradictions in people’s perspectives and practices. Respondents often seemed to be more attentive in providing data that were culturally acceptable than what they personally thought. But this was verified with the help of further questions in the schedules. Parents are more concerned with a culturally decent marriage than the life’s ambitions of their daughters. Seminaries are more concerned with cultural acceptance than innovative methods to develop their women students in ministry. Women graduates are more apprehensive about following a style acceptable to the culture, rather than being assertive of their convictions and needs. Men students theoretically support women’s development in ministry, but always within the cultural parameters. The issue here would be to discuss in depth how the theological views of people or their applications affect the cultural standards. Women employed in the secular firms and those living in urban areas have a different view about this. Cultural expectations of a virtuous woman have been emotionally putting Kerala women in a rather inactive role. Due to the decisive control of parents over children, theological education does not and cannot guarantee to take women students to the ministry vocation they dream of. Instead of getting more strength through education, girls become more powerless during and after their education. As long as women students creep off to the non-contributing and non-responding end of the situation; unrealistic about the cultural and ecclesiastical predicaments, change is unlikely. The following section lists the limitations that women identified. 5.5.1(f) Women- the Helpless Aliens in Theological Education Unlike the style of analysis employed so far, this section attempts to list the key points. Since all these ideas were already presented in the data, a concise listing of notes seems to be best here to avoid repetition.
5.5.1(g) Cultural Paradoxes in Women’s Training The data reveal that it is not easy to exactly locate the elements that relegate women to the secondary status in theological education. It is ironic to note an assumed perfection on the surface of the theological education system and dilemma within; women’s ministry aspirations versus reality in the church and the society; expectations of women for a change versus their response to such recommendations. Women stated their restraints during interviews and focus groups which could be summarized as follows:
5.5.1(h) Discriminatory Practices in Seminaries Focus group with women students made comments on the misuse of Bible verses and theological points to negate women in seminaries. The comments on gossiping, destructive public criticisms, alienation in the dining hall and in other service environments on campus, mockery at women’s public involvements were all reported against men students. There were also discriminatory attitudes traced on the part of faculty and the institution such as their conscious negligence of the public ridicule of women especially in chapel service, hurting comments in the class on women’s inabilities, more manual work for women especially with cleaning and works in the kitchen and total negligence of open attention to women’s concerns. Doors are closed to them to actually share their concerns, especially those towards change. Appointment of wardens who are not trained or helpful, ineffectuality in making the Principal’s wife the approach-person to share problems with, lack of financial resources to sort out women students’ needs and the lack of focus on women’s development- all these together make life in seminaries quite despondent for women. Students also mentioned the lack of opportunities for women’s practical ministry. 80% of men interviewees expressed their opinion on the lack of precision of seminaries regarding the training of women as a decisive factor that leave women in dilemma. They too identified a void while talking about the leadership that sees women students as an added liability in theological education, lack of adequate facilities for women and lack of encouragement to discuss women concerns. Most respondents representing seminary leadership took the problems of women lightly despite their personal ‘no problem’ opinion on women’s development. Instead of taking responsibility for what is happening, leadership showed a tendency to creep off from addressing the real issues, believing that women’s sphere of life and service are different. In view of the evidences of prejudices, neglect and alienation against women as students have spoken out; the research requires a reconsideration of the credibility of seminaries that assume to be communities manifesting the principles of God’s kingdom. The data from women students and theologically trained women bring out diverse forms of oppression that enchain women in underestimation, frustration and damage to their identity. The interviews with men students and men in leadership rather confirm this, despite all attempts to pass their blame on to situations. Cultural practices and values are only intended for the good of women and therefore, completely forsaking them will upset the entire system. Being compressed by the ecclesiastical and cultural limitations, women ultimately yield to a low self-esteem and hence eventually retreat to be indifferent and non-achievers in life. Seminaries are not interacting with church even when church seems to be a conserver of the dehumanizing practices and attitudes of the culture against women. So long as the structures and practices of theological education are not reflected on in the light of these challenges, theological education for women will not be promising. 5.5.2 Theological Dimension Finding 2 Training appears to be a mechanical activity- that is, not centred around a defined purpose – which will not change until schools become transparent in their theological position on the role of women in ministry. All respondents in the research said that the Bible accords a secondary status to women. But none of them produced a satisfactory response to the question of a theological position on women’s role in ministry. Seminaries associated with churches that totally disregard the ministry of women in the church had specific statements on the secondary status of women in the church. The leaders of seminaries who must have a view on this, the would-be pastors and priests and the women who envision a better involvement in ministry- all of them were rather reserved at this point. This shows either theological unawareness or the fear of speaking it out. This, however, does not appear to be a dynamic structure and function of theological seminaries. The ambiguity was felt even deeper when leaders spoke about the diversity between their personal theological position and what is being held up by their churches and seminaries. It is crucial for the interpretation task here to identify the perspectives in the data that might possibly refute the above finding. 5.5.2(a) Increasing Entry of Women in Theological Education View that more women are joining theological education, even without seminaries being transparent on the theology of women’s role (e.g., Tables-5, 12) It is noteworthy that the number of women in seminaries is steadily increasing. In Kerala, despite all the set-backs in women’s training in the previous years, seminaries that provide admission for women are getting an enormous number of applications, which is encouraging. It seems that the increase in the entry of women into seminaries is not being affected by the theological uncertainties. But the context of Kerala further raises concerns over the laxity of seminaries in this area. The representation of women in theological education does not seem as satisfactory as it should be. Table-1 showed that seminaries employed very few women on their faculty. Most of these women are wives of the members of faculty and are not always the best contributors to the system. The tendency of seminaries is sadly towards more alienation rather than approval as shown in the data. However, neither the influx of women into seminaries nor the purposeless acceptance of candidates into the theological education system can automatically do any good for those involved. Every step in training should be worked out with a strong theological basis so that what is being done will be worthwhile. Otherwise, both seminaries and women students will be held accountable for the misuse of resources. The blame on women for their aimless coming into seminary needs to be assessed against the contextual realities. In a context where girls have only limited freedom of choices, they may respond to opportunities without analysing the contents or prospects. Most women join theological seminaries in their late teens or early twenties, where they are still under the strict controls of the family. As the data from women show, most of these women do not have any clear idea about theological education other than their simple desire to have a better understanding of the Bible or be better Christians through seminary education. It is, therefore, not the responsibility of students, but of the seminary to be transparent in their view so that effectiveness can be enhanced. If there is ambiguity in the theology of theological education for women, the training and its outcome will undoubtedly reflect it and prove void. It would be a serious fault on the part of seminaries to admit women without a proper screening process and a sound theological foundation. 5.5.2(b) Bias in Women’s Potential Level of Contribution View that women’s maximum contribution will be the role of wives of pastors or priests. No theological statement is essential for women (e.g., Tables- 5, 7, Figure 1, FG TTW- Point 2 and FG WS- Point 2) The data lists certain areas of ministry where women might be able to contribute. But ultimately, the role of women graduates is identified as mostly limited to being wives of pastors. In a male directed environment where women’s views are not valued, whatever is decided by the leadership will be the ultimate end. When leadership have no exigency for a theological understanding of the role of women in ministry, seminaries are unlikely to make any move towards that. Such practical avenues are kept closed for women lest they interfere with the usual way of doing things in seminaries. Women on theological faculty are restricted by the hidden cultural sentiments from influencing the theological education enterprise due to their fear that their husbands’ reputation will be at stake. This is a context where women have not yet raised their voices at any seminary or church against the negative attitudes and practices directed at them. The scenario is static due to the lack of individual and corporate initiatives from women to discover and speak for themselves the theological vision that neither dehumanizes them nor forms any foundation for their oppressive status. Data reveal that the cultural demands often trounce the theological principles that seminaries assume to hold. As seminaries do not explicitly state their theological position about women’s role, there is no means to measure effectiveness. Everything is assumed rather than stated clearly. Therefore, nothing can be questioned authentically. The sample seminary with seven women on faculty has a focus on Women’s Studies that uphold the women-affirming values even though men-women segregation is central to their training. In all other seminaries including the ones that are not open to women, women issues are not believed important. This could be called a repressive practice since women are silenced and left with no right to know what they could expect at the end of it all. Data showed that the women respondents were desperate to know the theological position of seminaries, although they knew that the views of seminaries might vary much on this. Churches have explicitly downgraded women to an inactive role by the doctrinal positions they hold. But seminaries that maintain a different outlook by admitting women students and offer courses to promote women in ministry are held accountable by women students to explicitly state their official position so that students can expect only what they are supposed to expect from training. The concealing of theological position promotes the suffering of women. It lets people make their own theology according to situations by which women are dehumanized. The need is not just for a course on feminist theology or even a separate department for women, but for a profound self-realization of seminaries on the objectives of training for women. When I say ‘theological position of seminaries regarding the role of women in ministry,’ I expect answers to questions like, ‘why do seminaries in Kerala admit women?’ ‘What is the vocation they are equipped for?’ ‘What are the theologically approvable ministries for these women?’ ‘Why are women enrolled for various courses and what difference will they make in the life and ministry of women students?’ ‘Do seminaries in Kerala squeeze women in a male system, assuming that women will benefit in their life and ministry by the same courses men take?’ Although these questions are both theoretical and practical, they cannot be answered unless seminaries have a focus on the theology of the ministry of women. Therefore, it should be stated that this absence of a definite theological statement forms the foundation of most challenges women face in theological education. It sets seminaries free from any serious commitment to the training of women including the stating of its rationale and outcomes. It helps seminaries change their values as the situation demands. It causes leaders to make obscure comments that let them escape from being responsible for what is happening in women’s training. It shuts down every possibility for women to raise their voices against hurting practices or towards better endorsement. It shatters the lives of women students by not giving them any hope for the future ministry vocation which they can equip themselves for. Without such a comprehensible theological statement for women’s training, seminaries can never influence churches or the community to appreciate the worth of women. 5.5.3 Ecclesiastical Dimension Finding 3 Women students are left in a psychological dilemma by the lack of a reciprocal work plan between seminaries and churches. Without a single exception, all respondents agreed that churches relegate women to a very passive role in Kerala. Interviewees generally saw no possibility for a change in church’s attitude towards women. As women are secondary in theological education, their experiences and feelings are not considered crucial for its function. Men respondents both from the leadership and the students, held women responsible for finding out their own fields of ministry despite the fact that women might not find any support in that process. As in the data, it is not only that no one shares the emotional dilemma of women regarding their challenges, but also that women are constantly criticized for it. However, there were hints of counter opinions to the above finding in the data as stated below. 5.5.3(a) Negligence of Churches on Women As far as churches are not in need of theologically trained women, a meaningful communication and mutual work plan is not feasible in the context (e.g., Tables-3, 11, 20 FG TTW-Point 1 and FG WS- Point 2) Seeing the situation from the church’s point of view, this appears to be convincing. All informants from various constituencies in data generation said that churches are not only alienating women but also eliminating their theological development. Churches seem to be trying to be loyal to their doctrinal authorities. Ministry as perceived by the church has been a purely male enterprise where women have nothing to do other than the womanly duties to help its daily function. Simply creeping into it will not help women to contribute anything significant. The areas women can contribute in a church usually fall outside of the core ministries of the church and the direct male control over it gets too rigid at times. The large number of theologically trained ministers working all over the place does not make any difference in the attitude of the church towards women. This indicates that the church’s position is too fixed to be reviewed. However, churches appreciate the attendance of women and let them be involved in certain areas of service though strictly controlled by the leadership. But theologically trained women usually have no acceptance in any of this. In such a situation, seminaries might find it difficult to initiate dialogues with churches. But inviting women to be part of theological education and then ignoring them becomes an ethical concern here. Seminaries as the most credible entities that can stand for the cause of women consciously creep off from the scene, leaving women in a dilemma. Instead of causing women to be doubly oppressed, seminaries should enable women to celebrate their worth as people of God. From yielding to the cultural constraints that make women the most vulnerable, seminaries should turn to publicly upholding the theological values that are spoken only in class rooms. Seminaries that resist to be learning organizations need to withhold the admission for women until a clear work plan is made to solve this issue. The current situation in seminaries also directs attention to the reality that as seminaries are becoming organizations where people are appointed as employees, there is little ideological precision and unity in commitment on dealing with issues like this. Seminaries are not functioning as integrated institutions where ideologies and applications are inseparably linked. This blocks the smooth working out of innovative plans. Not only that, seminaries are getting students from churches that hold on to diverse doctrinal positions and therefore, they are forced to be sensitive to their feelings. However, the issue here is the mission of theological seminaries. Any seminary that does not take into account and respond to the contextual challenges cannot prove to be a valid educational enterprise. Seminaries that flee from their responsibility to women are actually challenging the very basis of their mission. 5.5.3(b) No Ministry-Placement Liability on Seminaries It is the responsibility of women students and not of the seminary to find places for their future ministry (e.g., Tables 6, 13 Figure 2) It is true that generally seminaries have no liability to follow up their graduates. It is not viable either, in such a context where survival of seminaries themselves itself is at stake. But the voice above was heard frequently during the interviews with men. Ambiguity on the type of feasible ministry for women prevails. It calls for discussions and research on vocation-based training that would help women develop in their cultural setting. Setting of learning objectives becomes vital. But in the exceptional case of Kerala, where women are trained but not released into ministry; where women are admitted but not affirmed, it is only seminaries that can possibly take the first practical step to help out in this. Therefore, theologically it would be an unjustifiable escapism for seminaries to remain totally reticent on this. The situation gets harder for women with the realization that churches are doubtful to accommodate theologically trained women in their life and ministry. There are evidences in the responses from men that this might be due to the negative impact churches have gained from feminist thinking over the years. Topics of ‘women’ or ‘women issues’ make a negative impact that can further alienate women. This is an area where the deliberate intervention of seminaries would be essential to make the church realize its loss of sight on the mission of women. The narrow concept of ministry may be yet another reason for the negative attitude towards women. The ideological gap between seminary and church on women’s ministry seems to have an important role in this. Since both institutions abstain from talking about the theology or the viability, the numerous ecclesiastical challenges faced by women are left unattended. Indifference of leadership on both sides hinders the possibility of efforts towards consciousness-raising. Churches strongly believe and practice the God-ordained subordinate status of women. In principle, seminaries are forced to teach and talk against the conscious degradation and oppression on women. Data reveal that this is done to an extent but seminaries are often prevented from applying it in real life, caged by the traditions of church and the society. Because of the church’s inflexibility, seminaries tend not to be open about their theological stand lest survival will be at stake. Hence, as the data show, theological education causes a further estrangement for the women involved. 5.5.4 Structural Dimension Finding 4 Seminaries that function within the culture of deep rooted gender bias have failed to provide a transformative training due to the dearth of a gender policy. (Tables-6, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22; Figure-4, Focus Groups) Data show that seminaries in Kerala are not practically committed to providing a platform for its women to be affirmed, valued and developed into their roles in ministry. It seems that seminaries simply do not realize that just granting admission does not make any difference. On the other hand, occasional efforts have little power to help it either. It demands a structural review and reconsideration of the purpose and practice of women’s theological education. Possible counter thoughts to this might be, 5.5.4(a) No Need of Gender Policy There is no need of a gender policy for women in the seminaries; let them learn and go (e.g., Tables-5, 6,9, 15) No doubt, the thinking concerning women in Kerala has not developed to the level of speaking for a gender policy in theological education. The data show that seminaries associated with different denominations and accrediting agencies in Kerala do not take into account the cultural challenges of women and hence fail in serving their actual needs. Thoughtfully developed graduate profiles become a necessity in seminaries. Educational institutions in the West are generally giving much emphasis to the idea that degrees must reflect the needs of the work place, irrespective of the academic discipline. But in Kerala, even if the needs of the ministry fields are considered, it might also become male oriented because ‘ministry’ is understood in terms of church office that is exclusively the men’s sphere of work. Here arises the need to define ministry in its broader sense where all people of God will have their unique roles to play. Seminaries have not set specific learning objectives for women to serve their distinctive needs in ministry. A major concern would be that the causal factors remain subtle rather than evident. Women in this context live in a situation where superficially everything goes exceptionally well. Systems on the exterior are supportive and women seem to be comfortable living by them. Until the undisclosed paradoxes are identified and challenged, women’s learning will continue to be hollow. This has to do with the structures of seminaries as most of the respondents indicated in their suggestions. The structure and function of seminaries are not centred on the well being of women students who are like ‘surplus beneficiaries’ in the system. Women will be the last to avail of any benefits offered. Their needs are less important. A key aspect is the lack of any stated guiding principles to direct the decisions on women’s training. Even wherever women are being trained, there are concerns for the interpersonal discipline of students, women’s safety and practical ministry placements. The often heard voice at this point (as the responses of seminary leadership show) is that women are just a part of the seminary as men; therefore, a special focus on their training is unnecessary. This would have been a credible argument if the contextual and ecclesiastical challenges of men and women were the same. But the issues are too dissimilar to be taken for granted. The reality that expresses itself well through the data is that seminaries do not really consider the presence of women in theological education as a matter of contemplation. Therefore, the practically prevailing basic attitude is ‘let them have their degrees and go.’ As the challenges of the context demand, seminaries should have a gender policy in order to be effective in their mission. Insights for such a policy can be drawn from the suggestions made by the informants. 5.5.4(b) Men’s High Profile in Ministry Women cannot be on par with men in ministry; therefore there is no question of special assistance to them (e.g., Tables 3,6,11, 12, 15 Figure 2 FG TTW Points-2,3) Men are doubtless the priority (and in many cases the only priority) in theological education as the data showed. More over, churches need only men as ministers. Seminaries that function on this principle see no point in the above concept of a gender policy. Absence of research, open talks and reflective practice have been creating in the seminary communities a judgmental attitude towards one another, which only help retain the discriminatory practices. Everyone involved in training knows and internalizes that women’s role in seminaries is perceptibly secondary. But the undeniable fact is the growing interest of women to join theological education despite the low acceptance rate. From a stage where women had no place in seminaries, now ten out of the twelve seminaries selected have been admitting women students although the men-women ratio in seminaries indicates that the situation still remains dim. Because of the cultural, theological and ministerial pressures, seminaries many times reconsidered their decision to admit or continue to keep their admission and this is still going on. As explained earlier, there were seminaries that stopped women’s training, some separated campuses for men and women, some reduced the number of women from Kerala to admit more from other states of India, others reduced the number of women and yet some limit their admission to married women. It becomes a real concern when this upheaval is rising rather than subsiding in theological seminaries in Kerala. A gender policy might prove to be of some concrete help in this. It could create awareness of the challenges of women in theological education; reduce the intensity of discriminatory practices in seminaries and contribute to a better recognition of women in ministry during and after their training. How flexible and adaptive seminaries are for such structural reviews would be a practical issue ahead. 5.5.5 Pedagogical Dimension Finding 5 This situation calls for a shift in its focus from mere intellectual orientation to an integrated, reflective learning that centers on the intricacy of contextual challenges of women students. The challenge here is also the lack of focus and vocational training. The absolute male orientation in the delivering of theological education produces insensitivity to the need of a holistic learning that can give meaning to people’s lives. Any training that fails to take into account the needs and challenges of the context, fails in itself-as is happening in Kerala. Teaching of various subjects goes on as a routine and learning as mere accumulation of information is taking place, leading to the award of a degree and nothing for life. This is a reason for the amount of frustration expressed by women students in the focus group, who realized that training did not make a difference and it probably cannot. Therefore, the pedagogical rigidity in theological education should be addressed seriously. There might be arguments against this, 5.5.5(a) Financial Constraints and Flexibility in Course Designs There is no more possibility of flexibility due to the financial constraints on the institution (e.g., Tables 3,4) Principals of seminaries opined that flexibility in academic courses involved demands on finance and human resources and therefore, are not viable. This is very relevant in Kerala where seminaries are mushrooming and a competition is developing in terms of campus facilities and higher courses. But, the challenge at the moment is not essentially to form a women’s department and offer all varieties of courses for women, taught by guest lecturers. The need here is just to introduce and enhance the grass-root level uncovering of the obscurity of contextual challenges through the courses and aspects of training that currently exist. More than starting to do something new, it can be about reconsidering ways to manage the current activities more effectual by making them relevant to the needs of students particularly in terms of their ministerial and cultural concerns. Statements on financial constraints might become a lame excuse for inactivity. Seminaries do not bother about the primary need of women for maintaining equality of worth in the learning environment. Women students said they are admitted in seminaries but formally excluded from celebrating theology as lived reality. Practices of humiliations are both obvious and obscure as apparent in the data. Women are hard-pressed between the liberating theological thoughts on one side and the cultural practices that subjugate them on the other. Hence the seminary environment creates an unrealistic situation for women students leading them to an incompetent state afterwards. There were reports of mockery, public insult and verbal abuse with scriptural quotes that need immediate attention. The pedagogical challenge here is not to have more technicalities but to develop through every day activities in seminaries, an attitude that values women as persons of worth as in God’s design. 5.5.5(b) Priority to Fulfil Academic Requirements Seminaries are trying to fulfil the academic requirements of the syllabus; nothing more seems essential (e.g., Table 2,12) The mechanical style in teaching endangers women by its vast emptiness. But no one is committed to attempt anything more than what is officially required; it cannot be demanded either. Data showed that there is a move to incorporate feminist thinking in theological education. Men respondents talked down the influence of feminist theology though some of them admitted they now have gained a better knowledge of it through seminary education. Lectures on feminism and advanced arguments of equality would only let women further realize their alienation in churches and seminaries. Men students made sophisticated pro-women statements in their assignments just to score better grades. This nature of training shows that learning in this context is not turning out as a conscious activity. Women’s concerns are altogether disregarded without identifying the simple need to appreciate the worth of women in God’s plan. This is the challenge which seminaries in Kerala should take immediate notice of. It is understandable that the academic syllabus does not always address the minute details of learning. But seminaries that claim to be committed to develop the believing community cannot escape from their moral commitment to provide its students with a training that is practically effective. The amount of effort taken by seminaries in formulating the syllabus is a significant issue here. Finding administrative limitations as a mask to cover up the ineffectiveness of training will not rationalize the profundity of the theological task of seminaries. Data reveal that in seminaries that practise co-education, women are encouraged to take part in class discussions and presentations. This is revolutionary but the issue of the content of teaching requires closer evaluation. Theological education in general has easily sidelined women’s concerns from its arena. It has developed a critical eye at the rich perspectives and experiences of women, as women students repeatedly said during the interviews. Seminaries have consciously overlooked how such perspectives and experiences can bring in constructive changes in society. By excluding women from its core concerns, theological education has developed an overall prejudice against women. Seminaries in Kerala tend to neglect the voices raised for the cause of women just to remain with the pervasive tradition that counts women as inferior humans. Seminaries should not confine themselves to a curriculum that disregards human needs; rather they should intentionally work for transformation. 5.5.6 General Factors Causing the Secondary Status of Women Finding 6 Factors that contribute to the secondary status of women in theological education are varied, interrelated and complex (from all sources of data generation)
These are too varied and complex to be put in specific categories, but still remain interrelated due to their basic relation to culture and theology. Because of this reason, each group in data generation identified one or more of these. Sample groups found it difficult to explain their theological or biblical standpoint on the role of women. It was either because there were no open talks or initiatives on the topic or due to fear of criticism. The structure of seminaries needs to be analysed to see how effective they are and why they should evaluate the training of women. Significant aspects here would be; women faculty, dean for women students, courses offered to women and students’ opinion about them, funding for field ministry experience, attitude of men faculty and students towards women and use and misuse of the Bible and theology. While seminaries think they are doing their best, women students are firm that seminaries can do a lot more. Men say change should start from families; women expressed absolutely no optimism about it. Seminaries claim to have done all that is feasible in the system. Unlike the past, now they provide training to women, allow them to study in the same class along with men, offer courses that are affirmative of women, give them ministry opportunities in corporate chapel and admit them to all variety of degree programs without discriminating. It is recognizable because seminaries are carrying this out without the active support of the churches. Churches with their narrow concept of ministry are unable to foster the involvement of women while seminaries at least supposedly affirm it. At the same time there are dimensions requiring attention within seminaries to ensure women’s training is relevant to the cultural context. This covers areas such as, Prospectus, recruitment process, appointment of faculty, theological statement, funding and contacts for placements and so on. A reconsideration of prospectus information has to deal with aspects like admission criteria, objectives, rationale for degree programmes and courses offered and regulations on acts on the basis of gender. The immediate conceptual needs are twofold: making a theological statement on women’s role and status as approved by the seminary and a working plan to develop ministerial cooperation with churches towards the development of women. Churches are not in need of a change; they have no pressure to reconsider their policies on the role and status of women in ministry. They are neither sending women to seminaries to be trained in theology nor are they backing them financially. There is no real interest in women’s theological training and no placement guarantee offered to women graduates. Although churches cannot be held accountable for the concerns of women in ministry, they can be seen as responsible for the continued inhibition of women that keep them unwelcome and unwanted in matters relating to ministry. By alienating women to unrecognized areas of the ministry of the church and to the daily stereo-typed jobs, women are made captives of the tradition. Churches keep themselves closed at the theological perspectives that uphold women and the secular society’s rapid attempts towards women’s emancipation. In the given cultural context, parents are to be extremely caring and responsible for their daughters and their physical security. Focal attention is to the safety and marital future of their daughters. But this over-concern often serves to spoil the proper psychological development of the girls. This study brings out a few areas where parents need to be attentive with regard to the progress of their daughters who join seminaries- the gender practices within family environment, commitment to the ministerial call of their children and proper communication with the leadership of seminaries. Constraints of a girl’s marriage involve a huge economic liability often causing parents to make their own decisions as and when appropriate, at their discretion. Families have largely failed to set confidence in their girls regarding a successful future apart from an early marriage. However, it is clear that the social expectations and values contribute significantly to this situation. It is obvious from the data that women are of secondary status in theological education and ministry of the church. This is a socially and ecclesiastically accepted reality. Therefore, the current practices are not criticized as wrong; rather could be justified as fitting in the context. Any move towards further advancement for women is not easily endorsed. Theologically trained women need to understand the cultural set up they are in and the means to make an effective way within it. Society does not pay attention to theological arguments; so it should begin by theologically trained women modelling themselves as people of personal worth and quality in service. When compared with the lay women developing as missionaries and preachers, theologically trained women are less approved in Kerala. Theological education is somehow perceived to be making students more aggressive and argumentative rather than forming in them the qualities of a servant. The identity crisis of theologically trained women in this situation is exigent. At the cultural and ecclesiastical hurdles, they find themselves unable to instigate any concrete move in the system. But women have to be firm about their vocation and worth in Christian ministry; they need to get rid of their pessimistic attitude and at the same time learn to be realistic about the cultural factors to turn them wisely towards transformation. On the other hand, seminaries instead of defending themselves on women’s concerns have to explore positively why they should have women in theological education and in the ministry of the church and judge how much their loss would be in their educational mission when the contribution of women is ignored. The following chapter analyzes the need and role of theological seminaries in mediating the theological and cultural impact on the women students. CHAPTER 6: THE ROLE OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES IN MEDIATING THE CULTURAL IMPACT ON WOMEN: A THEOLOGICAL-CULTURAL HERMENEUTIC Yüklə 1,36 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|