THROUGH HER LIFE
A COMMENT ON ENGENDERING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
Evangeline Anderson-Rajkumar
It is an appropriate moment to turn back to see how far we have come in the area of women’s studies in theological education and how much it has influenced the system, structure, programs, policies and practices in the Senate of Serampore College other affiliated colleges. I call it a kairos moment because I know that Rev. Dr. Prasanna Kumari, whose life and contributions are specially remembered on her first death anniversary, played a pivotal role in the formulation / formation of Women’s Studies in the theological curriculum of the Senate of Serampore College. As a mark of remembering her envisioning and critical role in making gender / women’s studies a reality and to thank God for her life and contribution, I chose to comment on the present state of awareness of gender issues in theological education and how it is promoted by the Senate of Serampore College in India.
I have chosen a novel way to comment on the importance of engendering theological education, at a time when the Senate of Serampore College is seriously engaged in the process of revising its theological curriculum. I am using the life-stories of two women. They are Sanniyasini Ponnammal, a woman about whom very little, yet vital, information is available in the archives of the United Theological College, Bangalore and the other of course is Prasanna Kumari herself. The life stories are critically viewed against the backdrop of the normal (patriarchal) social expectation or the construct of an “ideal woman” in Indian culture. The life stories reflect some of the contextual dominant theological themes that play a role in defining and constructing the role and identity of a woman in the Indian church and society. The life stories also speak aloud of the parameters that the church and society commonly draw, to define and name the contribution of any woman. These two life-stories are then used as a gender lens to identify and highlight some specific gender issues in theology and theological education in Indian context today. I have undertaken this task as a humble way of honouring the memory of a leader like Prasanna Kumari who played a pivotal role in engendering theological education in India.
1. Rev. Dr. Evangeline Anderson-Rajkumar is Professor in Theology and teaches in the Department of Women’s Studies at the United Theological College, Bangalore.
Life story of Sanniyasini Ponnammal
Here is a woman who writes herself into history. Sanniyasini Ponnammal narrates her life, mission and ministry and along with it, her understanding of core values of Christian faith and theology. Sanniyasini is a title given to a woman who has forsaken the world in order to be engaged in full time ministry. She is described as “Mannai Verutha Mangai” which means ‘a woman who despised the world’. Interestingly, this important document throws light not only on the individual or the contextual issues but also the social perceptions of the “self” of a “woman”, a “Christian”, a “Christian woman” and a “Christian woman missionary”.
Sanniyasini Ponnammal was born on January 28, 1908 in Kerala, in Tiruvalla, and belonged to the Jacobite tradition. She describes her childhood as ‘hard with bitter memories” because she grew up in a love-deprived ethos following the death of her mother who died at the age of 35, due to the complications that developed after child birth. Ponnammal sees the painful experiences of her early life as also within God’s plan as a way of preparing Ponnammal for the many struggles that was to come later on in her life. As a small child, she listened to a preacher at the Marthoma Sunday School telling her that for those whose names were missing from the book of life, death, destruction and hell awaited them (based on Revelation 20:15)!
When she was 16 years old, she proclaimed that she had a vision of God that motivated her to take up full time ministry. At the age of 20, she took a Bible in her hand and left home in the night. She remembers how she was beaten black and blue by her grandmother because Ponnammal had travelled with her friends Achamma and Deenama on mission work much against the wishes of her family. In fact, she attempted suicide several times because of untold miseries and the family gave up on her once she decided to live in an Ashram. The leader of the Ashram, Kochu Kunju, gave her the much needed protection and accepted her as an important member of the ashram. Her name was changed from Pennamma to Ponnamma after seeing her commitment to serve the people.
The story of Ponnammal is published by the Indian Gospel Team and Immanuel Prayer House, Kacherkanahalli, Bangalore – 560 084, 1996? and preserved in the archives of the United Theological College, Person 13. The publication is in Tamil. This original source provides glimpses into the social expectation and social roles prescribed as ideal and Christian for a woman in society at that time. This socio-biography approach to write women back into history is no novel method. It has been affirmed by many Asian theologians like Kim Yong Bock, Chung Hyun Kyung and others to be a credible and relevant way of theologising in Asian context.
Ponnammal was quite obsessed with the thought of the second coming of Jesus Christ. The idea of sin, the need for repentance and forgiveness, the martyrdom complex were so intense in her mind that it constantly emerged in the content of her speech, thought and action. I have chosen only a few salient points in her life that defines as well as describes Sanniyasini Ponnammal.
1. She came to accept Jesus Christ as her personal saviour at the age of nine after listening to a revival preaching on the theme of second coming of Jesus Christ, convicted of her sinful status, to see her name written in the book of life, to be ever prepared to enter heaven (to die).
2. She gave up worldly pleasures in life; she denied her body of the bodily pleasures.
3. She was a very courageous woman in faith, who struggled to get out of the stereotypical patriarchal expectation that an ideal woman remains a private woman, indoors, and does not travel as an itinerant missionary with other women (or men!)
4. Her speech, preaching, singing, reflected her passion of faith. It was told of her that “her preaching would help the listener to acknowledge oneself as a sinner”. She was keen on a spirituality that underlined the importance of heavenly things, not earthly things (Col. 3: 2). She emphasised on forgiveness, not success; rebirth, not social transformation. Revival meetings, healing ministry, Prayer ministry were her main foci.
5. The sole aim of Ponnammal was to “harvest as many souls as possible for Christ and make India belong to Jesus Christ.” (see ch. 7). Recalling one of her experiences, she says that those who hurled abuses at her and other mission workers (their team) died in a week’s time! (see page 23) The image she has is of a vengeful God who reacts immediately and destroys the sinners in this world. This idea formed her personality, and was the ideological basis for her mission and ministry.
What makes Ponnammal’s life-story special? How does an almost forgotten story emerge from its silence, invisibility and an unknown status to become a story that can function as a gender lens? It is laudable that her life-story printed as a small booklet has been preserved with great care in the UTC archives perhaps with the idea that it will shed light on the history of the organisation - the India Gospel Team ministry. I would like to use the same document of her life-history to look into the impact of the prevalent dominant theologies and cultures in constructing the image of an “ideal Christian woman”. If the woman’s teaching and preaching was predominantly about sin, sinner, denial of her body, rejection of the world and worldly things, a yearning for life after death, second coming of Christ, this means also that a similar theology reverberated in the background as a common thinking. At the root is the question as to how she valued her “self”, her self esteem. If she believed that God favoured women only when they renounced / denounced their bodies, sex and sexuality in order to be accepted as a credible Christian woman missionary, it bears a lot of similarity to the expected image of “an ideal woman” that the Church Fathers constructed and favoured as we see in the History of Christianity and the Church. In Sanniyasini Ponnammal’s life-story, I see a commonly accepted social image of an ideal, normative, normal paradigm of a Christian, a woman, a single woman Christian missionary of that time. If she jubilantly declares that those who challenged her team of missionaries and ministers suffered due to some cause and died within a week, this attitude is also linked to a construct of uniqueness in identity that makes one to reject every other faith as well as people of other faiths. Claim to uniqueness is often constructed by denying equal worth to the other and this affects one’s social relationship in community.
Life-story of Prasanna Kumari
The book titled Tributes is a rich resource that highlights the life and contribution of a woman who was born almost five decades after Sanniyasini Ponnammal, on January 4, 1950 from a very ordinary family with humble beginnings but rose to great heights in leadership, mission and ministry. She was well known in the international and global ecumenical circles as an able leader and passionately committed to the cause of women issues and engendering of theological education. Though she did not have any ancestral heritage of theological education to claim as her own to benefit from, she was indeed a path breaker in many ways in envisioning new programmes and a new future for women’s studies, women’s leadership and development. Some salient features from her life are evident in and through her contribution and it is worth noting down the same to evaluate and analyse her life-story along with that of Sanniyasini Ponnammal.
1. Prasanna is described as “a gigantic positive phenomenon” by Dr. Rajaratnam, (which she was) because she transcended the social expectations of her time to carve a new
3. This article is not meant to provide exhaustive details about the two women’s life-stories but only capture a few glimpses into their personalities, an analysis of which leads us to critically look at the dominant images/ construct of women in the theologies, cultures, religions and histories that are taught / propagated in the Church and Society.
image, role and identity - a niche for herself- as a woman in the Indian church and society.
2. She never gave up in her endeavour of joining forces with like-minded people to initiate women’s studies in theological education at the Senate of Serampore College, though it was an uphill task. Her faith in God who created male and female in God’s own image as equals, her vision and commitment to gender-justice gave her that strength to bear any struggle that emerged in the process of introducing women’s studies in theological education.
3. Her personal engagement and involvement in and with the lives of women in the Slum Women’s Advancement Programme (SWAP) stands as a criteria to evaluate the seriousness of her commitment to gender concerns. The empowered lives of the SWAP women functions as an appropriate lens to assess the life and contribution of Prasanna.
4. Any woman’s body - irrespective of age, status, caste, creed, colour and race - is subject to policing and monitoring by a moralistic society/ community/ church, at any given time, in any context. Prasanna did not allow herself to be subjected to or affected by any opinion of the society, or set for herself the limits of her success but surged ahead because she was clear about her own body rights. She had the agency and rights over her own body, mind and soul, and did not allow the patriarchal social expectations to delimit her horizon of success.
5. Her reflections, hopes and theological reflections underlined the importance of Life, rather than get obsessed with sin, Sin and more SIN (like Ponnammal). New challenges were taken up boldly with a clear faith rooted in love, peace, gender-justice and partnership.
6. Prasanna challenged and redefined the concept of an “ideal Christian Woman” constructed within a patriarchal framework. She did not see liberation as something that she needed only for herself but as that which was connected with the transformation of other women and men in society. In and through her life, Prasanna described the potential of a society, community and the church to think beyond, act, and live beyond the parochial walls of patriarchy, caste, class, and gender and emerge as a community of equals and partners for justice.
Though Ponnammal and Prasanna were acclaimed leaders in the Indian Church in different ways, there is clearly a difference in the values, concepts and faith that they both internalised as social values and expectations from around them. In the case of Ponnammal, she succumbs to the patriarchal construct of an ideal woman that is spelt out and this is evident when she redefines herself, her freedom, her role and identity from within the expectation of a patriarchal framework. Prasanna, on the other hand, clearly challenges the basic patriarchal values that are inherent in the system, structure, programmes, policies and principles in church and society, and decides to demystify the power of patriarchy behind these and reject it.
Select issues in Engendering Theological Education in India
How do the two life-stories of the two women fit in while engaging in the task of commenting on the engendering of theological education in India? Before I use their life stories as the reference point to comment on the present status of engendering of theological education, I would like to focus on the existing disciplines in theological education followed by the Senate of Serampore College (SSC) such as the Biblical Studies, Theology, Ethics, History, Mission and Ecumenics, Religion and Culture, Christian Ministry, Communication, Social Analysis, Women’s Studies. I would like to focus on three specific areas to analyse and assess the level of importance given to engendering of theological education in India by the SSC.
a. Women’s Studies as an academic discipline in theological education
Women’ Studies as an academic discipline and as part of theological education has come a long way in the history of the Senate of Serampore College. One of the first courses that was taught from a gender perspective was “Women in Christian History”, a course offered by Dr. John E. Webster who taught History of Christianity at the United Theological College, Bangalore. Courses like Feminist Theology and feminist hermeneutics followed soon after, specially included as a separate subject and taught at the Tamilnadu Theological Seminary, in Madurai by Gabriele Dietrich and Bastian Wielenga. Prasanna Kumari played a crucial role in bringing together the “Feminist think tank” of that time, from various disciplines, colleges and church backgrounds who could contribute to the formulation of the syllabi of several Feminist courses that could be included as part of the formal theological education under the Senate of Serampore College. Prasanna was in-charge of the Women’s Desk of the UELCI, and she played a crucial role in the formation of the Women’s Studies syllabus . A separate department for
4. I was also part of the discussions and workshops that were organized in Gurukul.
Women’s Studies was first initiated at the Gurukul Lutheran Theological College, Chennai under the Senate of Serampore College. In South India, three seminaries, namely Gurukul, UTC and TTS have since then sustained the interest and commitment to women’s studies as a theological discipline. The Eastern Theological College, Jorhat the Serampore College, West Bengal and other seminaries soon picked up the importance of using feminist hermeneutical principles to look at the whole of theological education.
Thus one can see a gradual rise in the level of gender sensitivity within theological circles that resonated with the spirit of the spreading of women’s studies in secular colleges, more visible participation in activism and women’s / people’s movements outside theological colleges. Despite the hovering of the “spirit” of feminist / womanist liberation within and outside theological colleges, engendering of theological education or the system was neither automatic nor guaranteed. For some, gender simply meant an uncritical inclusion of women, and relevant statistics, and record their contribution. That is, gender was understood as something that one could ‘add on’ without doing much to critique the overarching patriarchal system, the knowledge construction, the method of doing, learning, living and teaching theology.
Perhaps it can be shared now in a different atmosphere and a lighter vein about how the course on Patriarchy was voted in as part of theological education, with one of the members who voted for, pleaded later on that he voted for the subject because he thought it was a course on “patriarchs”!!! After the then revision of BD theological curriculum in 1990, a course titled ‘Women in Religion and Society’ was offered as an interdisciplinary paper but unfortunately listed as one of the three courses that had to be offered. It is a fact that can be easily ascertained that many Senate affiliated seminaries did not choose ‘Women in Religion and Society’ but one of the other two courses that were listed as options. In my opinion, if gender perspective / gender justice is made optional, it is indicative of the least level of importance accorded to it.
b. Role of the SSC in implementing Gender Justice
The Senate of Serampore College (SSC) has shown in clear terms that it will delimit its role in implementing gender justice. Whereas it offered ‘Women in Religion and Society’ course at the BD level, but did not insist that the affiliated colleges should implement the new curriculum requirement. The fact that the Senate of Serampore College chooses to be silent on the issue of denying women a place in ordained ministry of different churches, and that it overlooks the reality in those colleges that have discriminatory rules for women shows that Gender justice is still looked upon as an option left to the individual churches and seminaries. In many minds, especially among those who are seen as the voice of the SSC, one has heard the following questions repeated in different for a: How can we tell the seminaries that they should ordain women? Or that they should employ women in their seminaries? It is their cultural, traditional, denominational freedom that individual churches / seminaries exercise”.
While it is true that the Senate of Serampore College has played a crucial role in engendering theological education by including course (s) on women, and corrected the existing bibliographies / syllabi and included feminist sources, much more needs to be done. The SSC tried to emphasise the need for all seminaries to appoint women also on the faculty of theological colleges so that Gender- justice talk can combine with Gender-justice action but there is no thought given to make it as a regulation. In other words, it is optional. The Senate of Serampore College also needs to redefine its own vision and mission statement clearly stating that Gender-justice is not an option but a faith mandate. One of the most striking changes that came about in the SSC is the amendment made in the Constitution of the Senate of Serampore College and its Bye-laws that was passed unanimously at the Board meeting of the BTESSC in February 2005 that there would be at least 25% of women inducted in all the committees of the Senate and the Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore College.
c. Women’s Studies in the ongoing Curriculum Revision Process
I would also like to look at the current process of curriculum revision that is going on in the Senate of Serampore College and take a second look at the “pink” document that has been circulated to all the Principals of theological colleges and members of the Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore College titled “Initiating Revision of Curricula” which the Registrar of the Senate has very ably compiled, putting together the reports of different seminars, consultations, and academic council committee meetings that met for curriculum revision in the last two years. I am commenting on this document because it is an important document in the process of engendering of theological education. I have chosen to use this booklet as the framework to analyse whether the importance of engendering of theological education is truly understood by the SSC, because it contains the feedback and reports of the regional and national seminars on Curriculum Revision in addition to the feedback from people who have dwelt upon the issue seriously, both formally and informally.
The pink document consciously or unconsciously exposes how and to what extent engendering of theological education is considered important. In fact, I would say that gender perspective / gender justice is not yet fully understood, acknowledged or accepted. I would like to substantiate my point by calling one’s attention to the language used in this document to refer to women’s studies while analysing the need for curriculum revision. This pink document, a compilation of opinions as well as official reports of seminars is a mirror to what many individuals, institutions and structures have as their level of understanding the importance of gender. Let me substantiate:
On page 8, while referring to the last few disciplines that were added to the list of branches of study, (among which, women’s studies is one) the addition is referred to as “creating a burden for the students “at the expense of foundational and advanced courses, thereby reducing the depth on the one hand and overburdening the students on the other” (p.8). The statement continues as this: the “trend of proliferation of courses/ branches was thus introduced at different times and the Senate could do nothing to check the trend. This has resulted in introduction of eleven branches at M.Th. level and a demand for introducing more courses at BD level in those branches” (p.9, point 7, para 29.) Women’s Studies is the eleventh branch! On page 13, para 35, it says: “In view of the new branches introduced at the M.Th. level, some colleges included a few courses in these branches and offered them as optional or compulsory. Since the provision for an extra period for courses in new branches of studies prior to M.Th. studies was made, it was easier for the student but since it is withdrawn from 2006, the students are now either burdened with three extra courses or have to appear in qualifying examinations”.
It is important to note that the requirement of three courses in the respective branch during B.D. studies in order to pursue one’s studies (M.Th) in any other branch is not referred to as a “burden” unlike for women’s studies where it is repeatedly referred to as “burden”, “proliferation of courses”, “recent trends”, “contextual issues”! Is it a slip of the tongue or is it indicative of the attitude / lack of understanding of the perspective?
5. Italics mine. The repeated reference to the word “BURDEN”, extra courses, proliferation etc when it comes to Women’s studies clearly indicates the underlying non-acknowledgement of the importance of engendering theological education.
Language is the speaking eye. The language used to elaborate on the need for curriculum revision indicates that the importance of engendering of theological education is not yet understood fully. Only when gender perspective/ Women’s studies is understood as a major corrective to the existing theologies, dogmas, doctrines, methods of study, and pedagogy, any realistic change can be envisaged. On the other hand, if gender perspective is accommodated merely because it is in vogue, or because the ecumenical partners demand that gender be given serious importance, then it is time ask: What do we perceive as the importance of engendering theological education and what are the implications of engendering theological education?
What we need is a thorough overhaul of theological curriculum which gives the needed space and the spirit to go beyond a cosmetic touch to the existing curriculum and keep the lives of the poor, weak, the discriminated and the marginalised as priority and in focus. If the theological education helps a person not only to understand and explain how injustice and discrimination occur because of gender, caste, class, race, identity or afflicted by any physical disease but helps one to challenge and address the same as a justice issue, this could be a way of creating a touchstone for the process of curriculum revision. At this point, I shall look at the life-stories of the two women to underline the importance of engendering theological education.
‘Through their lives’: Critical look at Engendering Theological Education
One cannot critique patriarchy unless one’s eyes are opened to the overt and covert influence of patriarchy in our day to day life. Gender perspective is not something that can be memorised / applied if one was not conscientised about the pervasiveness of the oppressive system. Let me use the two life-stories of Ponnammal and Prasanna that we analysed earlier, to elucidate my point about where the SSC stands with regard to gender perspective/ women’s studies in theological education. It is also necessary to show how the content, method and pedagogy of our present theological education could become more gender sensitive and help in locating the places where patriarchy lies dormant, uncorrected, unchallenged in theological education. It is the aim of this reflection to show that gender perspective / women’ studies is an indispensable, integral and invincible part of theological education. It cannot be reduced to a sub-section in the syllabus of every course. Rather, the gender/ women’s perspectives should seep into the whole of theological education, in every branch of study as well as become a separate branch of study on its own. The aim of women’s studies and gender perspective is to first of all highlight how women’s experiences were discounted, discredited, devalued, discriminated and denied in the history of Christianity, Church and society. What is stated as content of women’s experiences should also be thoroughly subjected to critical analysis to see how much of these experiences are constructed according to the cultural expectations of a patriarchal society. A separate branch accorded to women’s studies would be helpful to do the creative and constructive task of envisioning theology from a holistic perspective that values the experiences of women and men as equally important. In order to examine where the Theological curriculum of today stands with regard to engendering of theological education, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to a sample of three issues from the life-stories of Ponnammal and Prasanna.
a. Agency of a Woman’s Body
One of the things that follow an awareness of gender issues and sensitization is the gift of new and critical questions to the existing ideological superstructure, the way we have experienced reality and the possibilities of change and transformation. Such critical questions are suppressed if one’s eyes are not opened towards the issue of patriarchy and gender. For example, in the story of Sanniyasini Ponnammal, we find that she believes that by denying herself the right to express her bodily desire, she can prove to the larger society that she has a real missionary zeal. Without a gender perspective, this can be repeated as a statement of truth, as a historical statement uncritically. However, gender perspective demands that one critically raises the question as to why the woman’s body is devalued. Why does it become necessary for a woman to deny her body, sex and sexuality in order to convince her society of her missionary zeal? Where is the space for the woman to choose marriage or reject marriage, to be accepted as a missionary? Why does the society decide that a woman’s priority in life should naturally and only be marriage and motherhood? The “Ideal role and identity of a woman” that is projected is either a “married” woman (at one pole) or a “virgin” / “missionary”/ devotee (at the other pole). What is most interesting is that even in the history of Christianity, we see that there was an obsession of the Church Fathers with the idea that an ideal woman can be either a mother or a virgin. The body of the woman was considered as a source of sin, temptation, from which a man has to be protected.
Prasanna Kumari, on the other hand, was mobile, and chose to be where she wanted to be without allowing the society to dictate her mobility. Engendering theological education means not only including the stories / contribution of women, (though that is important) but also problematise the absence as well as the presence of women, the silence as well as their voice and speech, their visibility as much as their invisibility, their succumbing to patriarchal and stereotypical role models as well as of those who challenge the basic constructs of ideal woman. We need to ask: ‘does our theological curriculum give space to the naming of women’s experiences and also lead to an analysis of their contributions? Both Ponammal’s and Prasanna’s experiences are experiences in history; whereas one hardly critiques patriarchy, the other does. Women’s experiences need to be critiqued before stating, restating and re-using the same as a primary source in theology. Now how does this knowledge challenge the existing process of engendering theological education in Indian context?
b. Self Image and Self-Esteem of a Woman
There is an indelible link between Gender-Talk and God-Talk. The way a woman perceives her “self” is linked to the theologies that she is most familiar with, indoctrinated with. In the case of Sanniyasini Ponnammal, her biographical sketch is very emphatic about the importance that she gave to the understanding of sin, the need for the other world, a spirituality that looks forward to the second coming of Jesus Christ so much so that she is oblivious to the imminent presence of the reign of God in our midst, here and now.
When a woman does not question patriarchy - or the social and religious values that are linked to patriarchy - that define her as an ideal woman, any notion of liberation and transformation is secondary and imagined. In the case of Prasanna who allowed herself to grow in gender sensitivity, patriarchal social values was not understood as something one should uncritically abide by or compromise with but challenge and overcome. The criteria to evaluate is LIFE, to ensure that one’s potential that God has given to a person is allowed to blossom to its fullest capacity. By this, I do not mean that it is not necessary to know about the doctrine of sin. It is indeed important to know about the acts / ideologies perpetuated by individuals, systems and structures that hinder the fuller life of a person in this world / community. Theology, self-esteem, daily life and transformation are all integrally and mutually connected. It is evident from the life-story of Ponnammal how the theology one hears, imbibes is linked to the construct of one’s self-image and self-esteem. Prasanna spoke a lot about new Life, Hope, challenges and opportunities for women (and men) to become a different / gender-just community.
If theologies play such a vital role in both understanding the issues in society as well as in transforming a society, let us take the example of one course that is taught as “Introduction to Theology”. What is the method, methodology and content of this course that is taught in many seminaries? As one who taught theology in Serampore College, and as one who followed the syllabus prescribed by the Senate of Serampore College, I can say that Marcus Ward, Owen C. Thomas, Paul Tillich or even Robin Boyd’s theologies and theological work is followed much more than Asian / Indian theologians’ methods or theologies. People’s theologies would rather be included under the section on Contextual or contemporary trends in theologies! There will be a serious problem in the theologies imbibed if the source, method, content, methodology, authority are rooted in those that have been repeatedly stated, and presented as normative and dominant sources of theology, unchanged and uncritiqued. Along with Feminist Theology, the people’s theologies, Liberation theology, Dalit theology, tribal theology often get reduced to either a sub-section of the present syllabus or listed as a separate course in many colleges. How can we allow the importance of “Experience” as a primary source of theology to critique the dominant paradigms, method and content of theology? The two life-stories hold up a mirror to tell us that “experience” is a crucial corrective in theological education. It has to be critiqued from a feminist/ womanist perspective before accepting the same as a source or resource for theologising in context.
c. Re-reading women’s lives in history
Now how do we apply this gender perspective in theological education? How can we link the life-stories of women in Christian history with women who are present today, in our own local churches? Gender perspective cuts through the given content of history and brings to fore, the invisible, the silenced and the marginalised. Historiography is as important as history. Gender perspective and women’s studies play a vital role in not only making the silence and the invisibility of women’s experiences heard / visible but also play a corrective role in every discipline of theology, challenging the content and method of doing theology.
If the subject, content, interlocutor and perspective of history changes, then what we have is not simply additional information about an event, a person and personality or a time, but a whole different history. If theological education in India can move from the level of describing, explaining and understanding history to a level of critiquing, reconstructing and rewriting history, the situation and history of our present church would change drastically. The life-stories of Ponnammal and Prasanna point to the reality within the Indian Church and Society. Like Ponnammal, many women who have internalised their painful experiences calling it God-given foundation to face entire life, hardly critique the violence at home, church and society but accept it as part of reality. Perhaps in a way, one’s experience of surviving violence does influence the person but what happens when violence is absorbed uncritically?
This has implications for engendering theological education in Indian context. The present syllabus cannot take the subject of history lightly. The present situation in the church is well influenced by patriarchal structures and ideologies that are bound together. It is not enough for the theological syllabus to help a student to explain and understand the present reality but also help them to critique the same in every way so that it leads to transformation and gender justice. For example, the Senate of Serampore College cannot claim that it has finished its task of engendering if it adds new courses in women’s studies or even a department or a desk. This has to be followed up by the BTESSC taking a proactive role for gender-justice, making it a faith mandate for all. The ordination of women into priesthood today may seem a cultural question and a cultural option for many. In truth, it is only one of the criteria to ensure that women experience equality in the Church and society. If patriarchal culture is given greater priority than God, and if the SSC offers the choice of practicing of gender justice or not to individual institutions and churches, it would amount to a partial commitment to gender justice.
Engendering of theological education begins with a note of realisation and repentance of our worshipping of patriarchal God - a false God! Any practice, or structure or doctrine that does not contribute to the affirmation of women and men as fully human, is suspect. Engendering of Theological Education is a commitment that we are called to make in every step, to correct the injustices and foster a gender-just relationship throughout. It is a demand of the GOSPEL. It is my vision and hope that the new revised curriculum would help in overcoming patriarchal biases at home, church and society. I am sure Prasanna would smile in peace if the BTESSC renews its commitment to engendering theological education in its curriculum revision process!
6 I called this moment of writing the article for the first death anniversary of Prasanna Kumari as a kairos moment because it is important to know exactly where we stand with regard to women’s studies and gender perspective before we move on in our commitment to engendering theological education in India.
