Theological Education for Public Discourse on Theology in India

K. C. Abraham^[1]

David Tracy, a prominent theologian of USA, has identified three distinct but interrelated social locations of a professional theologian: the society, the church, and the academy. These social locations exercise certain pressures on the work of a theologian, thereby showing that theology is a public discourse. He writes:

Each theologian addresses three distinct and related social realities: the wider society, the academy and the church.... The reality of a particular social locus will, to be sure, affect the choice of emphasis. The tasks of theology in a seminary, in a church related university, in a pastoral setting, a program for religious education, in a small community, in a secular academy, in an involvement in a particular cultural, political and societal movement - each of these realities and others - will affect the self understanding of any theologian. Sometimes that influence will effectively determine the theology. More often the social location will provide "elective affinities" for a particular emphasis in theology, including the emphasis on what will count as genuinely theological statement." (Analogical Imagination, 4)

Both these aspects, the publicness of theology and the social location of a theologian, are important for theological education. We construct theology as a public discourse; a privatized theology is a misnomer. There are notable variations in theological construction depending upon the social location from which the theologian functions. These three locations are present in the Serampore System. Our attention in this essay is centred on the question: how to integrate sub-altern perspectives into the academic discourse in each of these? By sub-altern perspective we mean the insights gained from our commitment to the struggle of the marginalized � e.g. Dalits, tribals, women and rural poor - for their justice and human dignity.

In our system the social location of the church receives a special emphasis. It is not surprising since most of our candidates are sponsored by churches and they go back to pastoral ministry after their studies. Theological education is designed for ministerial training. The courses, syllabi, and even the pedagogical methods are selected keeping this in mind. The Serampore system strives hard to listen to the churches about their needs and periodically revises its curriculum to respond to them. I am not suggesting that there are no problems in this area. In fact there is a barrage of criticisms from church leaders about the training program of the Serampore system. At a consultation in Delhi on theological education in North India, one of the bishops vehemently argued that the Serampore training was not useful for his diocese. He said that he had no use of B.D. and M.Th. in the village congregations; he would be contented with leaders trained to conduct worship services and pastoral visits. He even added that his poor congregations could not afford to pay for the graduates. Apart from the "politics" of his statement there is some truth in his criticism. The Serampore training, by and large, equips the candidates for a pattern of ministry in the urban areas. The fact that graduate degree is a requirement for B.D. eliminates a large section of people who could fit better in rural areas. There are B.Th. colleges that admit undergraduates but they too want to upgrade themselves to B.D. colleges. This again underscores the pressure under which the Serampore system operates. If you make an analysis of the courses, again you will see the urban bias of our B.D. programme. How to rectify this situation? How do we equip leaders for rural ministry? Some of the dioceses start courses to train people for rural ministry, but they have no link with the Serampore. Certainly it is not wise or desirable for the Serampore to start a separate stream for rural ministry. But it can be an enabling body by providing a space for the different initiatives to come together. Practical measures for a coordinating role of the Senate of Serampore of such initiatives should be considered. Our intention should not be to dominate them or to coopt them but to make them face the challenge of the sub-altern perspectives. The sub-altern perspective will necessarily bring a critique of traditional perspectives, which we unconsciously adopt in our theological education. There is a need for a rethinking on the pedagogy we have been following.

Recently I heard one of the bishops pleading for a change in the pedagogy in theological education. His argument is that the students should not be burdened with all the contextual and critical study but emphasis should be on the pastoral context and how he or she could translate faith in that context. For this, a new approach to the learning itself is needed. It is true that the students are not equipped to face the ground realities in a pastoral situation. It is true that some of the seminary graduates could not pray a helpful prayer at the bedside of a terminally ill, or preach a funeral sermon that gives hope and comfort to the bereaved. We are all stunned at the massive suffering caused by the tsunami tragedy. Where is God in the tsunami tragedy? This question looms large in the minds of many in the congregations. How do we respond to it? We need empathy and a message of hope. Often we hide all our messages in the clich�, "the will of God". I may be permitted to quote Henri Nouwen:

We are often tempted to �explain� suffering in terms of �the will of God�. Not only can this evoke anger and frustration, but also it is false. �God's will� is not a label that can be put on unhappy situations. God wants to bring joy not pain, peace not war, healing not suffering. Therefore, instead of declaring anything and everything to be the will of God, we must be willing to ask ourselves where in the midst of our pains and sufferings we can discern the loving presence of God. (Show Me the Way)

Pastoral wisdom does not come through exegetical study or technical skills necessary for the pastor. They are certainly essential for theological training, but spiritual maturity is attained in different ways. How do we provide for spiritual nurture? The hiatus between theological training and pastoral ministry should be bridged by a process of spiritual nurturing. A new sense of vocation, rooted and grounded in the freedom and power of the gospel alone, is the source of this.

In today's theological training, we seldom provide an opportunity to deepen our faith and the vision embedded in it. Henri Nouwen has said rightly: "pastoral care means offering your own life experience to your fellow travelers".

What are we offering to our brothers and sisters in the congregations as pastors? Has theological education helped us in discovering our faith experiences and sharing them with others? This seems to be the challenge we face with regard to our first theological location, the church.

What about the second location, the society? There has been a great deal of awareness about this location in our Serampore set-up. Many societal concerns have been brought into the mainstream of theological education. Social analysis is a required course, thanks to the pioneering work by Bas Wielenga and Gabriele Dietrich. The philosophy behind it is important. The social location from which theology is learned and taught decisively influences the process of theological education. The emphasis given for Dalit studies, women�s studies, and other related fields has brought about significant changes in theological education. Although new courses have been introduced in the curriculum, perspectives emerging from them have not been integrated into the main areas of teaching. This seems to be the fundamental question. Has the feminist perspective made any difference in the way we do theology? Has social analysis made any difference in the way we interpret biblical texts? Societal location has not made deep inroads into the learning process.

One of the ways by which such integration of insights gained by social location and the main line concerns is by taking seriously the interdisciplinary approach to theological learning. The disciplinary approach is the legacy of Western academia. We have mindlessly followed it. As someone has said, there is a vested interest that sheltered it. The professorial interest in safeguarding one�s own department for the sake of jobs or prestige is quite evident. Many of our teachers have been trained in that system and we too are afraid of deviating from the norm. It is ironic that in the research level we now talk about interdisciplinary research. To attempt something in that level is not easy if, all along, scholars have learned through disciplinary divisions. The reality, particularly the social reality, is multidimensional and a narrow disciplinary approach will not be sufficient to unravel the complexity of it. There is no reason why we should not introduce a multidisciplinary approach in the B.D. level. Take for example the issue of globalization. How do we study it? One may start with collecting some facts from one's experience, with the help of an economist and a social scientist; make an analysis; raise the biblical and theological perspectives; and conclude with some reflection on concrete action. An issue-centered approach will help us develop an interdisciplinary form of learning. When we attempt this at the B.D. level, it will be easy for other levels. Now students and teachers struggle about a few interdisciplinary courses that are prescribed for M.Th. courses. While we have made a good beginning in this area, we still have a long way to go. It is my hope that this will be taken up urgently.

I am not suggesting that we abandon all disciplinary approaches. A grasp of the basic disciplines is necessary. But at the B.D. level, we need to specialize in any of them. An overall introduction is sufficient but the emphasis should be on integrating different approaches. Do we need specialization of Old Testament and New Testament separately? Should we not leave the Bible as a unity and provide introductory courses? The study of biblical languages should not be made a requirement for all. The use of tools of social analysis should be required. There should also be provision for direct exposure to concrete situation and struggles by the marginalized. Case-study method, participation of marginal groups in the teaching sessions, and relevant reports and analysis of problem areas are some of the ways by which we deepen our understanding of this area.

The third location of a theologian is the academy. Here our record in Serampore is dismal. We have secluded ourselves from it either for theological reasons or for strategic considerations. It is however important for us to realize that William Carey, while founding the Serampore College, introduced two streams. Theological learning, according to this original vision, should consist in an interaction with secular learning. In his own personal life he was an avid student of philosophy, literature and sciences. I believe that he has taken the location of academy very seriously. But somehow this original vision has not been followed through. We may not fully share the mission perspective of William Carey and his rational for starting theological education in proximity to secular learning. But the fact that these two streams exist side by side is significant and I suspect he envisaged an interaction between them even for evangelistic purposes. An organizational link between two streams is still maintained in the Serampore College. But I doubt any serious theological encounter with secular learning is taking place.

The Senate of Serampore is still making an attempt to secure for itself a place in the University system in this country. I sincerely hope it will succeed. Serampore degrees have been accepted by several secular universities as basic requirements for further studies in religion, philosophy and history and many of our graduates pursued and continue to pursue their studies in secular universities. We have departments of Christian studies in some of the major universities � e. g. Chennai and Mysore. The cumulative effect of all these exchanges cannot easily be gauged in a vast country like ours. But we have not given any focused attention to a dialogue with secular disciplines. According to the framework of this article, one may say that the academic location of theology has not been taken seriously in India. Theological construction in India is by far a private affair or at best a communal affair. How do we broaden the scope of theologizing and interact with secular learning? Without getting into practical and organizational dimensions of the question, may I suggest broad areas of concern.

First is the focus on "common good". In an essay reflecting on theology in the modern German University, Moltmann writes that theological faculties in the universities are expected" to have an eye on the common good of the whole society in its wider ramifications, and not just to look to their own religious communities. For even the particularist religious communities participate in the common good and contribute to the' good life' of the community. "It is developed in open discourse" (God for a Secular Society, 256). He further adds, "the specific contribution of theology cannot be to reiterate secular options. Taking the categories of what is in correspondence and harmony with God and what is in contradiction to him, it has to set the common good in the light of the kingdom of God and his righteousness and justice".

Translating this into our multi-religious context one may say that discourse on common good should be centered on the idea of secular, which serves as the foundation of our national life. Secular is not understood as anti-religious. In India, thanks to the legacy of Nehru, the secular is open secularism embracing a humanistic vision. It is in this sense that MM Thomas also used the same term. He repeatedly argued for a non-communal, secular form of involvement by Christians in the national life. A humanistic/secular vision gives different religions and ideologies a common basis for cooperative action. Today this secular legacy has been grossly ignored. Fundamentalist forces are making an organized attempt to foist their partisan agenda in the educational field. A theological critique of this, borne out of our commitment to the liberative message of the gospel, is imperative.

Second, theology in interaction with the secular learning process should be able to reinforce the commitment of moral and ethical values. Education in our country is increasingly coming under the influence of market forces. Skills-oriented education is sought after. Computer technology and out-sourcing are more lucrative and the best brains are sold in the market. There are no resources or personnel for fundamental research. The ethos of our university has been drastically changed. What Moltmann says about his context is true for us:

Today what is on the agenda is the defense of scholarly and scientific freedom over against the claims and bids of industry and commerce. In the sphere of applied research there has always been co-operation between universities and the various branches of industry, and this will always be the case if whole sectors of research are not to emigrate from the University altogether. But the sphere of basic research must and can be kept free of exploitative economic interests as well. (God for a Secular Society, 257). Theology should be able to challenge the secular education to maintain its integrity and freedom and to succumb to exploitative forces.

Third, an interaction between theology and secular learning is necessary for a vibrant and holistic spirituality. Spurious spiritualities are thriving. When they are brought to the critical scrutiny of academic research, wholesome elements in them will have better credibility and strength. At the same time the superstitious elements will be exposed. A search for authentic spirituality is quite evident in the modern context. We have reports of people from different walks of life, politicians, IT, company chiefs and others thronging to receive blessings, 'hugs' from Matha Amrithnandha or Benny Hinn. Secular thinkers and theologians alike should take note of this phenomenon. It represents a deep-seated yearning for a spirituality that is comforting and consoling. This search should be directed towards a life-affirming, holistic spirituality. It is articulated in the biblical tradition. But it is part of other religious traditions as well. The web of life has to be sustained by a spirituality of life.

Fourth, secular learning has to be challenged by the perspective of the marginal. At present, secular learning is being co-opted by the dominant paradigms of learning. The role of theology is to bring to bear upon this situation the insights drawn from the struggle of the marginalized. From the foregoing it may be surmised that a serious encounter between theology and secular learning is mutually beneficial. But the question is how to accomplish this effectively? This interaction will not happen by merely situating theological faculty in or near a secular college or university. An intentional effort should be made by identifying common areas of concern and by developing structures and programs for dialogue. It is my hope that the Senate will consider this as a priority area and move ahead partly as a way of reclaiming its heritage in modern times.

Theological education is a process and not merely teaching a set of courses or providing some skills for ministry. Curriculum and courses are tools for enabling students to initiate a process of empowering the people of God. There ought to be a new way of learning and knowing. Feminists unmasked the falsity of the claim that knowledge gained by a middle-class intellectual is objective and universal. They have pointed out the androcentric bias of the so-called knowledge and showed that in established pursuit of knowledge women and the marginal groups are kept out. They are therefore asking for a holistic model of knowing in which the knower participates and is moved for action. This is praxis.

Distinction is made between theory and practice on the one hand, and praxis on the other. The traditional pattern of theologizing, as in many other disciplines, has been, first to enunciate a theory (as in biblical or systematic theology) and then apply it (practical theology, ethics, etc.) The assumption hidden in this procedure is that pure and true thought about reality can occur only when it is removed from act; and practice follows theory: doing is an extension of knowing. Praxis-thinking challenges this assumption of western Christianity, which is the hidden assumption of much of our educational system. It insists that thinking that occurs apart from critical involvement ends up in constructions of theories about existence that keep us from the real world. "Praxis is though emerging in deed and deed evoking thought". Latin American theologians call this "hermeneutical circle". Juan Segundu sees four integrating factors essential to this methodology:

Firstly, there is our way of experiencing reality, which leads us to ideological suspicion. Secondly, there is the application of our ideological suspicion to the whole ideological superstructure in general and to theology in particular. Thirdly, there comes a new way of experiencing theological reality that leads us to exegetical suspicion, that is, to the suspicion that the prevailing interpretation of the Bible has not taken important pieces of data into account. Fourthly, we have our new hermeneutics that is our new way of interpreting the fountainhead of our faith (i.e., Scripture) with the new elements at our disposal.

The same method can be applied to theological study in general. It takes the students where they are and helps them to take a look at the people of the situation, their stories and myths. This leads to a process of critical reflection. To enable the students to make this critical reflection, an in-depth social analysis becomes necessary. A new way of perceiving the meaning is then possible which becomes the basis for action. Tradition and scripture goes through a process of critical reflection and action.

In conclusion, I want to give a few excerpts from an article by A. P. Nirmal in honour of K. Rajaratnam on the topic, "Pattern of Theological Education for a Pluralistic Ministry in India."

�only when we re-discover the meaning of Christian ministry� will we understand the Christian conception of ministry in India today. I suggest that Christian ministry, Christian diakonia, Christian spirit of service is a fundamental Christian attitude that the Christian brings to bear upon whatever task he applies himself to. Christian ministry is a fundamental Christian attitude, the spirit of service in which any particular task is undertaken. We are the people of God who "serves". Of course, the word "service" by now has been completely domesticated. It has become commonplace. It has lost its sting.

It has become far too easier to "serve" than to become a "servant". And that precisely is the point. Ours is a servant God. Our God is a servant. Perhaps that too does not shock us enough. Let us reword that statement, "A servant is our God". Imagine you have a maid-servant in your house, who sweeps, washes dishes and clothes and does other odd jobs; are you willing to call her your God? Perhaps not. But that precisely is the point. Our God is a servant in this sense. We worship a servant. That is truly shocking and unless we begin to re-discover this original meaning of the term service, we will have entirely missed the point of the expression, "a pluralistic ministry in India". It is easier to confess that Jesus is Lord than to confess that he is a servant who washes his disciples' feet.

Theology should be an educative process for the whole people of God, the church which is a "people's movement". This means that theological colleges and seminaries must reach out to the whole people of God and collaborate with our parishes and church leaders to educate God�s people theologically and "re-inculcate" in them the spirit of service which is the real Christian ministry.

1. K. C. Abraham is the former Director of South Asia Theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India. He has been a visiting lecturer at Tainan Theological College and Seminary in Taiwan.