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

1.5.2 Traditional Concept of Teaching and Teacher

Much feminist thinking on education believes that there is a need to liberate teaching and learning styles. Firstly, the emphasis is on the ‘relational’ approach of women and reflective praxis. “Feminist studies have searched for educational processes that foster articulation and analysis of experiences, critical thinking, interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary learning, cooperative work and anti-hierarchical, democratic leadership.”⁷⁰ Both the Cornwall and Mud Flower Collectives emphasized a feminist theology of teaching based on praxis. Chopp calls it “the saving work” (as she titled her book), her concern being to know how reflective practice affects women. McAvoy advocates hospitality in classrooms with a similar analysis.⁷¹ The concept of ‘hospitality’ was already introduced by Nouwen,⁷² which might lead to a conclusion that the concept is not necessarily a feminist one; rather, feminists have a real interest to build on it. Gnanadason contends, “Theology needs to change gears, and speak a language of the heart, that will be more everyday and earthly so as to provide a word of hope for the ordinary Christian for the disenfranchised of the world.”⁷³ Feminists argue that the concept of the teacher as the custodian of knowledge should disappear.

Secondly, the relational style is essentially in opposition to the ‘banking-model’ of education. Feminists’ praxis-oriented education includes narrativity, human experience, critical thinking, interdisciplinary and non-hierarchical learning. The pedagogical models such as, the banking-model (the teacher owns information and the student is a passive recipient of the knowledge), expert-apprentice model (the teacher is the master who moulds and trains his/her disciple), consumer model (the student is a consumer and the teacher is a sales person; the student buys whatever interests him/her), and the therapeutic-individualistic model (the teacher helps, gives wise counsel to select courses that would help the student to find satisfaction and personal edification) function within a patriarchal-capitalist paradigm of theological education.⁷⁴ Students have little share in the actual production of knowledge. Over and against this, a democratic feminist paradigm develops a model that is problem-oriented, critical, constructive, collaborative and dialogical.
However, the contributions of male scholars such as Knowles⁷⁵ (andragogical learning), Kolb⁷⁶ (experiential learning) and practical theologians such as Stephen Pattison,⁷⁷ Ballard and Pritchard⁷⁸ are all of significance in this regard. Students participate in the actual production of knowledge as an ecumenical and cooperative task. Cully challenges seminaries to begin the task of being biblical interpreters of women’s issues. The teacher’s role and quality is as central as the students who frequently regard their teachers as models by whose attitudes they are reassured, antagonized, reinforced or encouraged to change. Cully maintains that ‘students can discern attitudes in the voice or manner of an instructor.’ She criticizes the trend that ‘highly educated people like to read about issues and digest them intellectually, but often prefer to avoid becoming inwardly affected.’⁷⁹ For feminists, therefore, the resources of knowledge and the way of passing them on to the students is not a matter at the periphery. Some specific suggestions Cully makes are:⁸⁰ the teacher should act as a catalyst in restructuring perceptions among faculty, increase female representation in training, enrich educational perspectives on feminism, encourage campus visits of women who represent new roles for women to aspire to, develop courses on women and religion and the conscientious use of non-sexist language.

1.5.3 Criticism of Inclination to the University Model

The university model speaks of the organization of disciplines and ‘objectivity’ in approach, which, according to feminists, do not enhance to the ‘formation’ aspect of education. The criticism of foremost importance regarding the university model is targeted at the absolute call to ‘objectivity’, which is widely discussed in theological education.⁸¹ The Cornwall expressed its concern over this, perceiving that such a model would not contribute to the measure of spiritual formation in theological training. With regard to the focus on women’s experiences, it is worth mentioning that feminists criticise the university model of education basically due to its hierarchical and competitive style (although this is not exclusive to feminists). Basic to the feminist approach to theological education is the understanding of education as a holistic process. Holistic learning involves cognitive, affective and psychomotor aspects, and can be expressed in part by such phrases as ‘knowledge is total experience’ or ‘knowing embraces theory and practice.’⁸²

Theological seminaries are said to impute importance to the organization of disciplines, to rely too heavily on claims of ‘objectivity’, and use a model of university education that fails to integrate various objectives of education effectively.⁸³ The criticism has been that education based on university models remains by and large teacher-centred, hierarchical, and fragmented, while the need has been for a holistic approach that is learner-centred, experience-based, espouses open-access and is cooperatively-oriented. A deliberate attempt towards consciousness-raising is deemed essential. The Mud Flower Collective⁸⁴ evaluated seminaries as arenas where lukewarm faith and uninspired scholarship are peddled. Although true to some extent in terms of women’s struggles in seminaries, this will be too sweeping a judgement on training as a whole. Chopp identifies that there have been other attempts to transform seminary education in similar directions as the feminists: “Farley calls for theological education to be reformed around a recovery of ‘Theologia’ as a reflective wisdom of faith.”⁸⁵ Liberationists have recognized that,
Seminaries have adopted the university model of education, claiming ’objectivity’ as the rationale for a supposedly value-free approach to scholarship. In fact, scholarship is never value-free, and in the schools under discussion it reflects the attitudes and stance of white, middle-class men. Furthermore, the university model itself, derived from the nineteenth century Tubingen (and before that from thirteenth century Paris) is hierarchical, competitive and heavily weighed with class, race and gender bias.⁸⁶
The feminist perspective calls not for fragmentation but integration that could only help effective ministry formation of students.

Perhaps the failure of theologians to do the work of symbolics- that is, to speak of God in our midst-is connected to their failure to read deeply the needs and desires of the culture. But the failure to offer symbolic visions is also related to what some have called the academic captivity of theological education. Theologians in recent years, living amid academic guilds, have become bound by a particular nature of academic theory in which method dominates. In what Terry Eagleton has called the “fetishization of criticism”, academic theologians in recent years have enjoyed the debates about the theory of theology much more than theology itself.⁸⁷

Meadow-Rogers, discussing the issues of field education and ministry preparation of women, identifies the task women have undertaken,
Women are struggling to create a new paradigm; one which spans both challenges, one which both recalls the goal of integrated wholeness which is at the heart of the Christian gospel, and at the same time challenges the departmentalized structures and objectivized theology which inhibit that new integration.⁸⁸
Rogers suggests three areas for the effectiveness of field training of women: peer and supervisory support advocacy (on the part of the institution), and skill-building.⁸⁹
In summary, education has to be holistic. Feminists challenge the university focus on specialized disciplines. The Cornwall Collective called for theological education to be more holistic, more aware of its political nature, more community-oriented. Farley’s ‘Theologia’⁹⁰ was a high point in the whole arena of thinking on theological education, challenging the specialization of disciplines, the technical transformation of knowledge into strategic ‘know-how’ techniques, and the clericalization of theological education. Chopp, however, evaluates that Farley, although coming very close to the issues raised by feminists on theological education, did not use feminism as a resource for rethinking the structure of theological study.⁹¹ The adaptation of the university model of education with the focus on objectivity is judged to be undermining the real life experience and this led to attempts that advocate transformation in the structure.