Dr I John Mohan Razu
Professor of Social Ethics
One of the reports on Christian participation in the recent protests of the students was candid which stated “… its visibility was real yet uneven. Several major Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical and Orthodox bodies publicly supported the students during the June-July 2026 agitation over examination failures, paper leaks and police action in Delhi, Christians were also physically present at Jantar Mantar through prayer, visits, food, water, medical supplies and volunteer service.”
The report continued that “However, it would be inaccurate to say that the whole Church in India, irrespective of denomination, appeared as one united national body. Some prominent churches and ecumenical organisations responded clearly; many other denominations, dioceses, theological institutions and local congregations were either silent or not publicly documented.” Protestant theological institutions, ecumenical agencies, and Christian youth organisations were mum and remained silent. Why and for what?
Home Minister Amit Shah knows well that the best way to make these to kneel down. The weapon he uses is FCRA. This was reason that these organisations and institutions muted and shut by not responding to the impending issues/problems that the students and faithful followers face. When questioned why? —the response has been FCRA. Union Home Ministry has instilled fear which seemingly working amongst these institutions. If you are scared, then close your shops and go. You’re irrelevant—lost the vision, purpose, and thus deviated.
I am reminded of the phrase Jesus uses “neither hot nor cold” in Revelation 3: 15-16. Jesus tells the church in Laodicea that they are lukewarm, meaning they are spiritually lazy and indifferent, and states that he will spit them out of his mouth. It is a powerful metaphor meaning ‘temperature as a symbol for spiritual action and commitment’. This is the state of these institutions and organisation existing for themselves and not responding to the struggles. As against the background I’m dealing on the fiasco of the Indian theological education.
It is unfortunate that theological education is endowed with all sorts of fissures. It is in isolation and thus compartmentalized. Theological education in essence and in character is not an abstract subject-matter that can be attempted and reflected in abstract manner. It requires a context. “Context is the starting point of theological reflection. Context is the here and now of the present situation, which ensures that theology will heed to the “cry for the recognition of the significance of this time and this place.” As of now theological education is ghettoized.
Hence, theological education requires “... a context into which we interpret the “Text”. It is the context in and through which we can discern and respond to the signs of the Spirit, where we can discern the presence of God, where God reveals God’s self in the lives of the people--in the society and in God’s own creation.” It is the context that provides raw materials and bases for de-constructing and re-constructing our learning and theologizing. So, “The extensive context of theology includes the political, economic ... Social, religious, and cultural realms ... Beginning with the context rather than with the text ensures theology’s relevance to any situation in which theological reflection is undertaken.”
Theological education in India has never been context-prone and thus not context-driven. In the curriculum, disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, economics, psychology, few issues in natural and medical sciences are clustered, but while offering segregated as foundational courses and non-foundational. Further, methods and pedagogical process that are employed does not reflect any integration that takes all the parts into the whole. In the current theological scheme, students learn something especially some theories and concepts, but the integral way of understanding and viewing the subjects and issues in wholistic mode hardly happens. What it does is, the knowledge is segmented and compartmentalized into parts and pieces. Each course stands as separate subject without any connectedness and linkages.
Theological education per se is premised on certain assumptions with an objective of producing the students for ecclesial ministry. The administration and the congregation expect their pastors to do only the pujari jobs. Whether that job is done well is again a question post a question mark. Most of the theological institutions and sponsoring bodies expect their candidates to be trained only to serve as traditional pastors. Accordingly, the curriculum is tailored to suit the objective of the churches. For instance, the inter-disciplinary and integrated courses that are offered both at the graduate and post-graduate levels do not reflect the purpose for which these courses have been created.
These courses are basically designed to enable the students to look at the issues or problems from integrated/inter-disciplinary perspectives, Integrated approach is another method/ method and how to go about has not been taught in practical ways because students are taught to handle problems from teachers’ areas of specialization. As a consequence, the so-called integrated or inter-disciplinary papers end up in superficial ways choosing methods manifesting surfing at surface levels by amalgamating a few disciplines positing artificial merger of disciplines.
It is unfortunate that the system of theological education views at everything in disjointed manner. What we see is the total negation and absence of synergy between disciplines. Pedagogues should be open to use of integrated approach. Emphasizing on one approach leaving aside the other dimensions blurs the whole, and only allows parts. It should be taken into account that there is no single theoretical and practicable solution to any theological or ethical problem because issues are locked with each other.
The basic thrust of education theological is to transform the learners, the church and the world as just, inclusive, humane and inter-dependent. But, while applying knowledge, the crude measures that the “custodians” of education employ is to mask the epistemic sterility of the curriculum, the pedagogy process and examination, all in the name of accountability. The research should unfold a process of inquiry to solve problems as well as to induct the young into a community of inquiries. Instead, the system continues to create a veil, so that episteme perpetuates the status quo and thus fails to break new grounds.
In our system of education there is no scope and space for the students to keep their research interests alive. Over and above, seldom we see students who bring fresh questions and perspectives to ongoing inquiries. Theological education symptomatic of deeper problems entrenched in structures that govern the entire system. There is a vast gap that separates theological education from society.
Theological institutions that impart theological education are viewed by the echelons of the church as mere repositories of churning out traditional pujaris to carry on the routine functions. These institutions are not viewed as centers of training organic pujaris and organic intellectual. So, the nomenclature needs a radical change which in turn become as centers of organic intellectual resource. Unless and until synergy between disciplines and methodological integration takes place within and between diverse areas of study and disciplines, theological education will continue to remain as the watershed between the church and the society.
