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

1.5.1 Hierarchical Structures

Women, the latecomers in the theological system, no longer want to be silenced by the structures that have perpetuated various forms of alienating practices. Feminists who are concerned for women in theological education contend strongly that women must demand justice; it will not be given otherwise. There are two main ways in which women’s integrity is likely to be undermined in an educational system as described in poet Adrienne Rich’s classic article entitled ‘Toward a Woman-Centred University’ published in 1975 and cited by Zikmund. First, through the content of the educational programme that obscures or devalues the history and experiences of women as a group. Secondly, through the context of training that assumes an unchanging hierarchical image, structure of relationships, styles of discourses, ends and means, process and goal-which uses women only as means to the end of male work.⁵⁸ Zikmund categorically states that seminaries do not hold on to an egalitarian theology rather “they draw heavily upon the patriarchal legacy of Christian and Jewish tradition…Life for women in our theological schools (as students, as faculty, as administrators and even as the president) continues to confront some very troublesome realities.”⁵⁹

Perspectives on women’s theological education have a clear epistemological link with liberationist theological thinking. Like Latin American Liberation Theology and North American Black Theology, Feminist Theology too has been the voice emanating from the pain that women have suffered under structures of domination for centuries. Feminists challenge the styles of reasoning and they question “the western paradigm that separates reason from emotions to produce detached, objective, impartial knowledge.”⁶⁰ Feminist methods of critiques and reconstruction reinforce a new approach as Fiorenza writes, “an intellectual conversion…to see old data in a completely new perspective.”⁶¹ In particular, at least two areas need further examination: clericalism and marginalization.
With the clericalization of theological education, women automatically become alienated. The feminist view of theological education dares to make open confrontation with elite-oriented ministry formation in theological education that fails to hear and respond to the cries of the suffering world. The Cornwall Collective speaks of theologians who have the advantage of participating in a monopoly of knowledge as ordained elite who “fail to realize the far greater needs of the millions who are starving and homeless.”⁶² In the West, where feminism has already established itself, feminists are still engaged in an ongoing struggle to obtain an equal standing in the formal organizational structures of education. In spite of this, “Over the past two decades… feminists have both expanded the boundaries of their disciplines and contributed to an autonomous body of work, which is now recognized as feminist scholarship, taught in women’s study programs and although less perceptible, integrated into departmental curricula.”⁶³
The interdisciplinary and oppositional character of feminist scholarship causes scholars in departments to live out a ‘personal tension’ of being both insiders and outsiders, rooted in the contradiction of belonging and not belonging’ ... For those scholars not in departments’ but in women’s studies programs, the tension takes on a different hue: these scholars are clearly in a marginal organizational positions with respect to academic power and some are situated more closely to the non-academic communities from which their feminist agendas emerged…. Since the control resides in formal organizational structures, the participation of feminist scholars in standard academic practices has become more salient.⁶⁴
Feminists argue that mere acceptance of women in theological seminaries does not necessarily imply full training rights. A gap is observed between the procedures and the outcome. Church-based seminaries tend to confirm exactly what their male leadership traditionally holds on to. Chaves, who has studied women’s ordination and the structural gaps in church organizational frames, uses the expression ‘loose coupling’, which he explains, quoting Meyer and Rowan thus,
Structural elements are only loosely linked to each other and to activities, rules are often violated, decisions are often unimplemented, or if implemented have uncertain consequences, technologies are of problematic efficiency, and evaluation and inspection systems are subverted or rendered so vague as to provide little coordination.⁶⁵
How far the formal rules reflect themselves in actual practices in theological education has to be appraised in the specific context of this study. Lehman points out that sex and sex differences are not favourite topics of public discourse in religious organizations. He adds that women in seminaries have been suffering various forms of discrimination,
Since about early 1960s, increasing number of women in ‘mainline’ Protestant denominations have entered theological seminaries to prepare for the pastoral role. While in the seminary and especially when seeking placement in pastoral positions after graduation, these women have experienced prejudice and discrimination in the form of sex-stereotyping, refusal to take their call to ministry seriously, denominational hesitancy to press their cause forcefully, and efforts by lay search committees (church members) to avoid giving them equal access to pastoral openings.⁶⁶
After having successfully gone through a theological education, many women might find themselves in uncertainty with a helpless realization that their contributions are not much valued. The Cornwall Collective believed that, “a woman is apt to emerge from theological education, more or less alienated, laden with content that systematically ignores her own existence and downgrades her possibilities of achievement.”⁶⁷ Such women’s alternative space or the next option is literally, ‘a room of one’s own.”⁶⁸ Feminist concepts of education usually have a strong liberative element to them: “A feminist theology of education insists that faith requires an understanding of economic and political reality in order for ministry to be engaged in an ongoing process of liberation.”⁶⁹ It is in sharp disagreement with the distinction made and nurtured between men and women regarding the material and the spiritual. Women find it hard to comprehend the purpose of having a theological training that equips them only for the gender-stereotyped chores in the church.