Thinking Alternative Theological Education

 Education has to be an agent of transformation. It should bring transformation to the life of the people, especially to marginalized communities who are struggling for survival of life. However, one will notice that education system, content and pedagogy are all controlled by the privilege class to protect their interest ignoring the larger issues and needs of marginalized communities. In many contexts, education system has thus become an enslaving agent for the peoples in the margins.

From the time of colonial era, many Asian countries followed "downward filtration" education system. Education was first imparted to traditionally affluent communities assuming that in turn they would impart education to masses. This approach benefitted only the elite community creating a vast gap between the rich and the poor. This approach to education was not only detached from the real life experiences of the people, but also did not provide much scope for community transformation.

Since the present education system is controlled by the bureaucrats and ruling political elites, the driving force in formulating education process is designed to protect their interest. The curriculums reflect dominion ideologies, neoliberal capitalism, religious values and patriarchal worldviews. It is designed to promote urban values, affluent peoples' ideologies, competitive consumeristic life-styles and white collars' job. Marginalized peoples' cultures and their experiences are underrepresented or excluded in mainstream values of knowledge making. What the students learn in the classrooms are elitist knowledge and values which is detached from their social realities and problems. This pattern brings a sharp division between urban and rural, between rich and poor, between privileged and underprivileged people.

The present education system is also highly commercialized, costly and located mostly around urban cosmopolitan cities. Only affluent families can send their children to such costly schools. Economically poor children can never be able to attend such schools. In many places, public schools in the rural places are for the poor and marginalised people. One will see very poor infrastructures and in pathetic condition. Thus, education system further alienates the marginalized people to the periphery and does not respond to the needs of the marginalized communities. Can theological education offer an alternative paradigm?

With the introduction of Christianity, theological education also made inroads to Asia. The history of Protestant theological education in Asia has a history of 300 plus years. During the last several decades, there have been tremendous developments in terms of increase in numbers of theological institutions, degree programs, and promotion of ecumenical, interfaith relations, ecological concerns and experiments in indigenous, contextual methodologies largely within the inherited western European model of theological education. The attention given to concerns of marginalized communities, women's studies and other emerging socio-cultural, economic and political issues have brought about significant changes in theological education. Thus theological education and formation has contributed much in sustaining and nurturing Christian communities and their engagements with neighbouring communities.

However, during the last two decades, in several major cities of Asia with sizable Christian populations, a number of new theological education institutions and programs have emerged claiming to prepare leadership to promote a genre of Christianity that focuses on 'prosperity gospel' and 'self-help' Christian religion. This phenomenon of unrestrained growth of theological schools is often referred to as "mushrooming or proliferation of theological education." These neo-theological institutions are also engaged in marketing of theological education justifying that their specific goal is for preparing leaders to promote the message that the Christian gospel is about promise of salvation and prosperity to the faithful followers through health, wealth and spiritual bounty. With the claim that there is an urgent need to prepare leaders for various segments of ministries, mission and mentoring, trainings are offered with greater flexibility and diversities. Some even establish theological institutions as business enterprises in a free market ethos, concentrating in urban centres. A range of theological degrees including Master and Doctoral degrees are awarded often with the support and link to similar theological training programs overseas. Often, such educational programs operate ignoring Asian contextual realities. One of the ironies is that some of the faculty members of these institutions are those trained in the historic seminaries with formal academic programs.

Simultaneously there is establishment of theological institutions focusing on exclusive community identities: tribal, linguistic, denominational and varieties of neo-Charismatic Christian fellowships. That has resulted in the establishment of more than 100 theological colleges in metro cities like Seoul, Manila, Jakarta, Chennai, Bangaluru and Yangon is an unhealthy sign for Christian witness. Apparently such proliferation of theological education is meeting the quest for theological education by different segments of Christian groups. Is it due to the reality that the prevailing historic theological seminaries and colleges are predominantly denominationally focused and continue to offer inherited curriculums from the missionary past with little flexibility? However, without some means of cooperation both the established and emerging programs of theological education would contribute to weakening of the quality of theological education and formation and perpetuation of unhealthy competition and fragmentation.

Most of the historic theological colleges and seminaries continue the legacy of giving prime importance to transmitting theological insights as philosophical and theoretical discourses and continue to make use resources developed in European and North American contexts. As a result theological curriculum is overloaded with the so-called fundamental and classical theologies, histories and biblical interpretations emanated in the West. Students are expected to devote considerable time to study and master them which have almost nothing to do in their ministerial context and their lived experiences. Discourses and topics on social transformation of Asian masses that are forced to live in dehumanized situation are not given importance.

As per the present demographic projections, that in twenty years more than half of Christian communities would be living in the non-Western world. However, in Asia Christianity would continue to be a minority religion except in countries like the Philippines and South Korea. Besides the notion that Christianity in Asia is an imposition from the West closely related to colonization continues to be the attitude of the people of other faith communities in Asia. These realities, global and Asian, mandates that the non-Western and Asian contemporary realities need to reorient the theological education system transcending the inherited western European model. If theological education has to go through such a transformative process, some key questions have to be raised and to be addressed. What has to be the core purpose of theological education in Asian context? Should theological education exclusively focus on preparing leaders to safe guard the inherited traditions and institutions? What types of curriculums and pedagogical methods need to be developed? Why there is a declining interest on the part of the graduates to serve in rural congregations? Why there is declining interest in pastoral ministry in some historic denominations? Are the most of prevailing theological education forming the candidates as educated elite professional suited more for urban congregations and church institutional management? How do to evolve a theological education that is people-oriented, especially people in the margin in both rural and urban setting? How to re-capture and promote prophetic, transformative and movement character of theological education? How to transform theological education become a force to protect diversity of culture, language and spirituality? What should be the core and contingent courses of study? What is the pedagogical process to make a shift from prevailing cognitive and philosophical discourse in theological education to community transformative formation? How do we promote theological research which is truly Asian in its content and character?

The PTCA-FTESEA conference in Sabah issued a press note that:

A crucial concern in Asia is the need of contextualization of theological education. The inherited traditional western fourfold curricula (Bible, theology, church history and practical ministry) patterns of theological education is still prevailing in Asia and it is not liberative and transformative. Asian contextual issues are different and it is difficult to insert/integrate new emerging courses within this paradigm. Asian theological educators must thus seriously engage in developing curricula relevant to Asian Christian context, since majority of Christians are from socially and economically poor backgrounds. We cannot talk about transformative theological education without addressing the problem and issues faced by the people in the margins. The issues, problems and context of the people in the margins are crucial in transformative education. This calls for restructuring or developing alternative theological curriculums viable to Asian realities as life-affirming and transformative.

The crucial challenge for today is continued promotion of contextual theological education for needed transformation in various aspects of Christian and wider communities in Asia for holistic life for all. That calls for remodeling theological education program aiming not only for training of denominational leaders, but also training them as community leaders, with skills in community development, transformation and spiritual nurturing.

Further discussion:

1. multi-forms theological education that cater to the needs of both urban and rural contexts,
2. new curriculum and pedagogy relating to Asian religio-cultural and social context.
3. restructuring or developing alternative theological curriculums viable to Asian realities as life-affirming and transformative.
4. an ecumenical structure for higher theological research network.