In protestant theological institutions: a critical appraisal of contextual challenges in kerala, india jessy jaison b b s., M d
Yüklə 1,36 Mb.
|
The four broad areas of information gathered were: cultural challenges faced by women students; the church-related concerns; practices and theological position of seminaries regarding the training of women, and the desirable situation for women in seminaries. Since the order and pattern of questions differed in the schedules for each group of respondents, the section below presents the responses from each group separately before the section on data interpretation.
TABLE 1 Men-Women Distribution in Sample Institutions 2005-2006
Further details of the institutions: Out of the twelve, two seminaries had no women students. Another three seminaries limited their admission to a few married women, in most cases wives of faculty or currently enrolled students. Still another group of three seminaries seemed to be changing their recruitment focus (in terms of women) from Kerala to North Eastern and North Indian states. Only three among the leaders disagreed openly at the outset with the whole concept of women’s development in theological education and church’s ministry. One of them frequently changed his comments regarding women’s role in ministry and struggled with his own contradictory positions. Others in the sample preferred to keep a neutral position about the status of women, not appearing to be anti-women. Four of them said they personally did not oppose women taking up any role in ministry in spite of the fact that it was not practical in Kerala. The reasons for this attitudinal change could include many factors such as the absence of a theological position on the issue or the fear of cultural impact on their responses. This will be evaluated further in the section on data interpretation. 5.1.1 Different Cases in the Sample The unique cases in the sample of institutions restrict the data analysis from making generalized conclusions. The men-women student ratio was 31:1; this could be interpreted as an evidence of either the cultural constraints or the practical secondary role given to women. Nevertheless, in contradiction, a seminary in group ES(a) represented a church that ordained women and claimed to provide a fully equal status to their students both in theory and practice. The responses of the interviewee from that seminary sounded different from those of others. Another case that differs was a seminary from group NES(b) which functioned under a church that supported and practised women ordination internationally and in some cases nationally too. However, the data showed that this institution preserved a very conservative culture that neglected women and discriminated against them. It was a seminary that originally had women students, later stopped and is currently admitting just a very few, who are wives of men on campus. The role of cultural factors in this attitudinal diversity has to be further discussed. Still another different case was in group NES(d), a seminary that attempted many steps-see below-of affirming women in theological education in Kerala. Its external facilities for men and women were outstanding and equal in status. It also developed a Women’s Studies programme, employed many women on faculty and assigned qualified women faculty to teach theologically important topics. But the empirical data noted that the seminary maintained an unusually strict discipline to segregate women and men on and off campus during their course of study. Whether this phenomenon is a contradiction or a step of development could only be determined with the responses from various groups of respondents. The differences in settings and the diverse attitudes held by the interviewees made the interpretation of data complex. However, certain observations and conclusions had to be made from the analysis of the data. 5.1.2 Data from the Leaders Respondents were encouraged to talk in detail on each of the questions. Besides the interviews, the Prospectuses and/or Student Handbooks of all sample seminaries were collected to have a better knowledge of the rules and regulations for students. Responses were analysed with open and selective coding methods from which the key conceptual categories derived. These conceptual categories are used to group the major observations and to further explain each of them with actual words of the interviewees. Seminary leadership claimed that they were doing all that was possible to uplift women in theological education and ministry. TABLE 2 Responses on Acceptance of Women Students in Training
This table shows that women are being accepted and are becoming active participants in theological education. Seminary leadership is making conscious efforts to include women students in the system although the transformational efficiency of such attempts is to be compared with the data from other sources. Some of the interviewees admitted their limitations in promoting women’s theological training. Data also showed that the churches in Kerala were not supportive of the ministry of women. Distribution of these responses among the four major categories of sample institutions is shown in the table below: TABLE 3 Responses of Seminary Leadership on Church’s Attitude towards Women’s Ministry
Most respondents made specific comments on the disinterest of the church on the ministry of women. Five of the representatives of leadership in the DS (Denominational Seminaries) showed little concern about the whole topic since they traditionally let no women be in the ministry of the church. One response from ES(a) was, “Trying to copy the focus of the western culture for equality is no good for Kerala women. Let our women work in their own spheres rather than making vain attempts to do all what men are doing.” Another respondent from the same group, attempting to counter all equality aspirations said, “People have only a ‘male figure’ in mind as the representative of Christ in the ministry of the church. Hundreds of men are waiting in Kerala for that job, so women are not accepted and will not be welcomed.” “Women are much respected within homes; no other part of society accepts them as influential. Society will soon thrust aside a church that acts against this cultural norm” was the response of a leader from NES(d). Interviewees from group IDS (Inter denominational Seminaries) differed in their personal views and it seemed that some of them were critical about the practices of seminaries regarding the training of women. Nonetheless, the general data they provided had many factors in common. Unlike the leaders of DS, three in the group retained their personal views very strongly, believing that women can come up in any role in ministry. Continually failing in his attempts to bring women to the forefront, the Principal of a seminary in group NES(c) three times said he was ‘fed up’ by not seeing any sign of transformation in the system. Being a native of Kerala, having spent four decades overseas, he shared his view that most women join seminaries with a genuine desire to serve God. But also, “Nothing seems appropriate in this community; and nothing is accepted. Once I decided to ask a woman to say the opening prayer in a meeting I myself had organized. I soon realized that such initiatives are much criticized by people and I was forced to drop that idea for ever” he added. He also talked about his realization about the community’s negative feeling when attempting to have a lady faculty member translate his speech from English to Malayalam (Kerala’s vernacular) in the seminary’s chapel. Sometimes during interviews, there were contrasting responses made by the same person. For instance, from group ES(a) this response was reported, “Churches cannot initiate women’s development in ministry in any way; let women themselves try and get it for themselves.” To another question the same person said later, “Even if church leadership initiates some steps for women, change depends on the culture of the local church.” This shows the helplessness on the part of churches and leadership towards the whole issue of women’s ministry and their negative attitude shown by holding others responsible. TABLE 4 Responses of Leaders on Factors Affecting Full Acceptance of Women in Training
The factors that restrict seminaries from developing women’s theological education are identified by seminary leadership as above. A Principal from NES(b) explained his reason for avoiding women’s training thus, “Providing accommodation for men is not that demanding; they can live in any situation. But accommodating women in Kerala demands a very separate and safe location with all facilities for them.” Two seminaries in group ES(a) said they admit only the women who are sent by their own churches so that seminaries do not need to worry about their future. But they also admitted that they get only a very insignificant number of women applicants. One of them said, We need a number of women to help out in our social service schemes and women’s ministries. But no one is interested; most of our young women are now joining nursing or other professions where they think they can have a better hope for life. Church leadership is not intentionally doing anything in this regard. Another Principal’s response from NES(b) was, “A girl who scored 85% marks in her 12th school year, i.e., pre-degree finals, came to me seeking admission for a theology degree saying she was called to ministry. I advised that seminary may not give her a bright future and offered her a substantial financial support for a B Sc nursing course.” Such divergent responses point to some underlying factors that divert women from coming to theological education. This response could also imply that ‘theology’ is not for the brilliant people. A leader from NES(b) said, “I admit some women not because of any real interest in their education but just to keep up with the common impulse for women’s development in the secular society.” Ministry placement for women was a large concern for many seminaries; it included concerns not only of safety but also of funding as most churches were not supportive of the ministry of women. However, 8/12 leaders expressed their concern about more disciplinary problems as more women joined theological education. They said that from previous bad experiences of ‘unhealthy interactions between girls and boys’ (making of friendships) in a seminary environment they fear more disciplinary issues would surface. To control this, some seminaries separated women’s training, others stopped training women or significantly reduced the number of women admissions or even limited their training to married women. Leaders seemed to be more concerned with the social reputation of the seminary rather than their mission itself and spoke as if what they fear the most were societal criticisms. Respondents generally lacked clarity on the theological foundation for the training and ministry of women. TABLE 5 Responses Supporting the Secondary Status of Women in Theological Education
Response-1 indicated a conscious avoidance of the significance of the subject while Response-2 was one of outright rejection. The third response sounded as if the respondents liked to be above reproach while refusing to take responsibility for what was happening. The fourth response promoted segregation of women. The Prospectuses of seminaries generally used an inclusive language e.g., ‘training the people of God for service’, ‘men and women in the church’. But institutions that had men and women enrolled together gave much emphasis in their Prospectuses on the segregation of men and women. None of the sample seminaries had developed a concrete position on the theological /Biblical foundation they follow regarding the ministry of women. Specific objectives for training women were not stated either, which eliminated the possibility of testing out their effectiveness. While all interviewees in NES(c) said they had no difficulty with women becoming involved in any form of ministry, the evidence was not supportive. An interviewee from NES(c) said reluctantly, “We don’t think there should be a special statement and special set of objectives for women. They are in and are part of the system. They can avail themselves of what is offered and that’s all.” Another leader said unenthusiastically, “We cannot concentrate on women’s training; churches need only men. Therefore, to be frank, women are just attached to the system; they are not our primary concern.” Two of the interviewees who refused to respond on this said that their women had already realized their own possible areas of service and that they would never ask for more involvement. In the third response in Table-5, four interviewees from IDS expressed their neutrality by saying that they personally had no problem in having women in any role of ministry. However, three among the rest of the respondents were not willing to make any judgement on the current practices in theological education; they rather preferred to silently follow what was already in place. There were also a number of comments on the cultural factors that negatively affect women’s theological education and ministry involvement. TABLE 6 Responses Regarding Marriage, Family and Safety Concerns
There were limitations on the part of seminary leadership in developing women in theological education and ministry. Two seminaries in group ES(a) admitted only those women students sent by their own women’s auxiliaries. Though only a few women joined theological education this way, seminaries were confident about the commitment of these students in ministry. The women’s department of the church had to make sure these girls were called for service and had to guide them and place them in some sort of mission later on. Other seminaries functioned differently. No one knew what the future of the girls who join theological education would be. All respondents talked with similar emphasis of the control of marriage in deciding women’s future in Kerala. An interviewee from group NES(b) said, Just three months from commencement of a three year course, parents came and took their girl back home saying they had arranged a marriage for her. We lose all that we spent on that girl. Girls usually have no say on it; and there is no guarantee that they will be married to someone who is in ministry. A response from NES(d) supported the parents, “We cannot blame the parents. Christians sometimes show the worst examples of greed. The dowry and other things they demand from the girls’ parents are usually too much for them to pay off during their life time. In that case, whenever an affordable marriage proposal comes, they will go with it. No one can stop them.” Though giving and taking dowry is legally banned, this leader with much experience in leadership realised that it is still being practised. 11/12 responses held that girls outside Kerala experience better cultural freedom. Unemployment is a major problem in India. If the girl is not earning, she has no other choice than to obey what others who support her decide. The only one non-Keralite –though Indian- Principal in my sample spoke from his many years of experience in church ministry in another Indian state, saying, “In the State where I come from, the situation is much different. Parents will send their girls to seminaries only if they are convinced of their call into full time ministry. Once a girl joins a seminary, we are sure that her single focus is ministry and that she will be married only to someone who is in ministry. For example, out of the 25 women we trained over the years, 24 are in full time service with their husbands. Even before marriage these girls made sure they will be in ministry full-time.” The repeated comments such as ‘Kerala is different’ and ‘parents need training’ demand more discussion. Interviewees generally felt that women are criticized for anything they do. A Principal from group NES(b) said, “Even the smile of a woman could be misinterpreted in a seminary context. Therefore, women’s presence alters the whole pattern of life.” Another response was, When women are on campus, we have to make strict rules that they must not visit faculty quarters; they should not be seen with men students or faculty anywhere on or off campus. Society is looking for a reason to blackmail the institution. Therefore we have to safeguard ourselves against any move that might affect the culture in which the seminary functions. These words showed that the freedom of movement and action given to women in such a cultural set up was strangely limited. Having said this, the respondents did not forget to mention the high status they believe women exercise within families. This idea was not hinted anywhere in the interview schedule but 50% of respondents made specific comments on this. One from NES(c) asked, “Who said women have no freedom? In reality they are the rulers in homes. Think about the early mothers in law; their word was final; everyone including husbands and sons had to follow what they said. Kerala’s early matrilineal system and the leadership of mothers-in-law are strong evidences of women’s high status within families.” This is another area of discussion specifically brought to light by the field data – the conceptual conflict of women as goddess figures who were adored on one side and women as temptresses who were hated as the source of all evil on the other side. According to the last response in the above table, seminaries had much concern regarding the safety of their women. The Principal of a seminary from group NES(c) said, “If a girl is physically abused before her marriage, it will become known to all. She will find no possibility for getting married or to lead a normal life again. Because the culture observes strict segregation between sexes, people often tend to violate rules. Parents worry much to keep them safe until they get a decent marriage. If something happens to a girl while she is in seminary or if she creates some problems, seminary is held responsible and must give an answer to that. Therefore, it is not an inconsequential matter to have more and more women in training. We prefer married students in training, who come along with their husbands.” There were also comments on why seminaries preferred married women in theological education and how the spinsters became a liability for them. See the diagram below, with those comments. FIGURE 1 Seminary Leaders’ Views on Married Women Students in Training 
FIGURE 2 Seminary Leaders’ Views on Unmarried Women Students in Training 
5.1.3 Summary Observations According to the leaders, seminaries have a variety of reasons for restricting the development of women by way of theological education and ministry placements. Although there is the lack of adequate facilities and financial back up, it cannot be concluded that the situation is totally adverse to women. Disinterest of churches in women’s training and ministry makes the situation worse. The general expectation of women is to be submissive and segregated from men; churches are self-sufficient without the ministerial input of women. The emphasis on segregation of men and women is particularly evident in the prospectuses of seminaries that admit both. The social alertness about the safety of women, the practice of marriage arranged by parents and girls’ economic and cultural dependency make most women vulnerable and defenceless. Most leaders prefer to live with these limitations rather than attempting any transformation. Fear of men and women pairing up in a seminary context and the fear of women becoming a ‘distraction’ make seminaries develop a negative attitude towards women. Leaders in official positions of church denominations did not show any active interest in this subject although all of them patiently answered every single question. Denominational seminaries remain strong in their view of women’s secondary status though they have some people who think differently. They do not seem challenged by the issues on women’s theological training or ministry. Interdenominational seminaries, despite all their innovative efforts to develop women, admitted their powerlessness in implementing them due to the pressures of society, church and the family. Some in this group are now admitting women from other states of India or limiting their admissions to married women, gradually leaving the girls from Kerala behind. The tendency to see women merely as the second priority in theological training and ministry was apparent throughout the talks. The dual attitude towards women-one of approval in family and the other of total subordination elsewhere-was also notable. For leaders, running the institution without social criticism seems to be the most important thing. 5.2 Data Gathered from Men Students 5.2.1 Interviewees and the Data Two men students were randomly selected by the Principal’s office staff from each of the twelve sample seminaries. All 24 respondents –age range from 20 to 32 years- were natives of Kerala and the sample consisted of 10 pastors and 14 laity. Among the interviewees, 4 were married and 20 bachelors. Two among the bachelors from ES(a) had committed themselves to be celibates. Distribution on their course of study was- B Th (10), B D (9) and M Div (5). TABLE 7 Yüklə 1,36 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|