Consensus Volume 21 ssue 1 Women and Men n Theologcal Educaton: Explorng the Present, Creatng the Future Artcle 8 5-1-1995 Context and Content n Theologcal Educaton: A Creaton Dalectc Mary T. Malone Follow ths and addtonal works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus Recommended Ctaton Malone, Mary T. (1995) "Context and Content n Theologcal Educaton: A Creaton Dalectc," Consensus: Vol. 21 : ss. 1, Artcle 8. Avalable at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol21/ss1/8 Ths Artcles s brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurer. t has been accepted for ncluson n Consensus by an authorzed edtor of Scholars Commons @ Laurer. For more nformaton, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Context and Content n Theologcal Educaton: A Creatve Dalectc Mary Malone Professor of Theology, St. Jerome s College, Waterloo n some ways, feel rather lke an nterloper n ths gatherng. am not nvolved n Theologcal Educaton at the moment but n Relgous Studes, and the dynamcs of the two dscplnes dffer n ther presuppostons, the ntentonalty of the partcpants and the nstructors, and the context and content of the dscusson. do not, however, feel lke a complete stranger. For the purposes of ths presentaton, have mned my memores of over ten years n theologcal educaton at a Roman Catholc Semnary, have spoken purposefully to theologcal students from the Lutheran, Anglcan, Mennonte and Roman Catholc tradtons and have chosen four books and two artcles, n partcular, n order to focus my thnkng for ths event. 1 Of ts very nature, the topc s utopc and not patent of complete and exhaustve dscusson, so have chosen to break apart the concepts n the ttle of my presentaton, then to deal wth some specal ssues, and fnally to attempt a strategy for the future. My whole approach was formed a few decades ago at Teachers College when heard someone quotng George Leonard who defned all educaton as helpng partcpants to acheve moments of ecstasy. Ths would seem, at frst glance, to be partcularly apt for theologcal educaton, and occasonally ndeed t s. t seems to me that ths consultaton must focus on the less than ecstatc moments n ths tme of multfaceted transton, keepng n mnd the dffculty of attanng any real sense of perspectve, snce we are all so ntensely nvolved n some dmenson of the total dscplne. The presence of women n formal theologcal educaton s relatvely new. My own efforts to acqure a theologcal educaton were thwarted just
70 Consensus three decades ago, and, lke many women of the tradton used my ngenuty and got n through the back door of classcal studes. Women are now present n ncreasng numbers and welcomed f only sometmes for economc reasons but there remans a remarkable consstency about the context and the content of the dscplne. Changes have occurred n both context and content, but they are, for the most part, crcumstantal and accdental. The heavy weght of nostalga and tradton prevent the most radcally requred ntatves. Femnst scholars have developed a methodology for explorng varous aspects of the Chrstan tradton that moves n sx stages and ntend to follow that path. The frst step s to notce the absence of women from the feld. Ths may seem contradctory to the prevous observaton, but when the offcal, tradtonal, foundatonal theologcal documents and much current lterature about theologcal educaton are examned, women are ndeed absent. Women are absent n sgnfcant ways and the dong of theology tself has tradtonally been based on the absence of women. Besdes, as we shall see, the authortatve voce of women s almost entrely absent from tradtonal theology and therefore from the currculum of theologcal educaton. The second stage s to notce that when women are present t s most often n an apologetc, trval, crcumstantal or even hostle way. Women appear as after-thoughts or sub-sets. They need to be tacked on as extra courses. They have to be dscovered as the undersde of hstory, the objects of legslaton, not the subjects of achevement. Msogyny and andro centrsm form the backdrop to women s presence and the nsttutonal and educatonal patterns bult on these foundatons are stll, by and large, the context of contemporary theologcal educaton. The male monastc and unversty contexts stll loom large. The thrd stage s compensaton, whether n hstory, theology, sprtualty or currculum formaton. Attempts are made laudable and founded on good-wll to rectfy the stuaton. Courses are added as well as womens washrooms. A space s created for women s concerns or, as one author puts t, perspectval theologes. The mplcaton of all compensatory attempts s that there s an agreed-upon common base that s true theology and around ths s added a cluster of specal nterests for the beneft of the new consumers. But
the common base, the tradton s not touched, nor, ndeed, can t, n theory, be touched. Compensaton has ts values be- t does ndeed respond to the sprtual and educatonal j cause : needs Context 71 of a whole new consttuency of women and men. Much mportant ntegratve work s done. But a huge work of deconstructon also takes place because t s especally n such compensatory courses that a crtque (sometmes formally femnst, sometmes not) takes place. Compensatory currcula have become a watershed n the study of relgon and theology. One cannot just add a few courses on women n mnstry, the women mystcs, femnst theology or the churches response to women and expect everythng to proceed as usual. t s here that a sortng out process takes place among both students and teachers. Some fear the questons that are rased about contemporary dentty and ecclesal functonng and tuck ther new knowledge away n a safe compartment. Some are so dstraught at new perceptons on deeply felt present pan that they must wthdraw^ temporarly from the process of learnng. Some ndeed go to reject the tradton and all that t stands for Chrstanty seems rreparably patrarchal and autocratc n ts style. Some become ssue-orented and often a thorn n the sde of the educatonal admnstraton. Ther new knowledge and awareness are brought to bear on every concevable topc and commttees and classes get bogged down n anmated dscusson at best, and ad personam hostltes at worst. And others proceed to a wdole re-processng of the tradton and slowly develop a new awareness and a new crtque. Ths ntroduces us to the fourth stage. For the most part, theologates have not taken ths step. Much of the work of the frst three stages wll have fallen on the shoulders of wllng women faculty, most of whom wll not have encountered formal femnst theology and crtque n ther owu theologcal formaton. They have had to become experts partly for ther owm survval, partly n response to the needs and questons of women students. For the most part too, ths extra w^ork wall have gone unnotced or even wll have been ressted by the offcal admnstraton of the theologate. The work of the next three stages, however, demands consstent scholarly endeavour, an explctly supportve academc envronment and a progressve re-orderng of the theologcal currculum. What
: 72 Consensus s also requred s the publc problematzng of the ssue of women s presence n theologcal educaton, to borrow a phrase from Paulo Frere. Theologcal nsttutons have to come out on ths ssue. The contnung presence of women and men together n theologcal educaton s a concern of the whole nsttuton and of the churches served by these nsttutons. Today, a knd of wall has been reached that mght be called the lmts of nceness. Beng well-dsposed toward women s no longer adecuate. The tme has arrved for a radcal and consstent probe of the stuaton together wth long and short term plans for the re-drecton of theologcal educaton. There s no doubt whatever that some nsttutons wll consder themselves ncapable, for whatever reason, of takng ths next step. Nether s : there any doubt that many of the ecclesal communtes whch they serve actvely resst such a move, even whle many desre some of ts benefts. The fourth stage, then, s a recognton that a new approach! s needed, whch, n essence, s both relatonal and contex tual. Most Chrstan hstory and theology have proceeded as The mplcatons of f men were the only actors on the scene. celbacy are that ndeed they were. But, of course, that was never true at any tme n the hstory of Chrstanty, even when celbacy was the norm. The sxteenth century reformatons, n abandonng celbacy, rased the queston of the relatonshps of women and men n the Chrstan dspensaton but dd not solve t. But there never was a tme n Chrstan hstory when the nteractons of women and men were not central to the dong of theology. Theology was done aganst the backdrop of the excluson of women and ths theology has consttuted the tradton. The relatonshps of women and men are of the essence of the theologcal task. Men dd ther theologzng n a world marked by partcular atttudes toward women and also toward non-clercs of both sexes. Ther anthropology was crucal to ther theology. Everythng, from God-metaphor and God-language to human culpablty and human gracng was marked by ths context. Every person, from pope to peasant, as Augustne mght say, was partcpant n ths worldvew of graded partcpaton. The fourth stage s the stage of contextualzaton. No fur- ther steps can be taken unless ths s done and the journey s barely begun. t s at ths stage that the theologcal task becomes nterdscplnary n an entrely new way. The tred and
Context What fdes do we mean? Whose fdes are we presumng? Whch fdes s normatve for the tradton? And who does the quaerens! What resources are made avalable or consdered acceptable for ths quaerens! Were some, by anl quaerens!, by! studes t 73,true defnton fdes wth dffcultes. quaerens ntellectum becomes fraught thropologcal defnton, never allowed to take an actve role n Can some do the quaerens for all? And who decdes ths? And fnally, what knd of ntellectum! s ths an ntellectum to be shared and avalable to all? And are some, agan defnton, presumed ncapable of the act of ntellectum because they are carnal, or, as we mght say today, emboded? What exactly s the act of ntellectum! Many are famlar wth on women s ways of knowng. Do we know what men s ways of knowng are? The tradton, after all, focused on what consdered to be unversalst human ways of knowng. And fnally, what have sex and gender to do wth learnng? The cueston must be asked both personally, relatonal, contextually and nsttutonally, because tradtonal theologzng the very structures of the theologcal tradton have been presumed to be conducted apart from sex. An mportant pedagogcal queston rases ts head here. Are we educatng asexual students who are not really present? And are we gnorng the students who are actually present, emboded, nculturated and What relatonshps exst between faculty and stu- relatonal? dents? Has ths dmenson of the teachng/learnng transacton been explored n the context of theologcal educaton? Enough has been sad to demonstrate the entrely radcal nature of ths step n ths process. The scholarly lterature s volumnous and beyond the capacty of anyone as a knd of hobby or even an avocaton alongsde all the other tasks. And the lterature, whether n hstory, theology, socology, anthropology or sprtualty has barely begun. Theologate can no longer rely on the good wll of women and a mnorty (stll a huge mnorty, accordng to students testmony) of men to carry forward the task of facltatng the theologcal educaton of women and men together. A total nsttutonal commtment s necessary. And, as our tradtonal methodology and structurng of theologcal educaton was ntegrally lnked wth the shape of ecclesal lfe, so also wll any change n theologcal educaton profoundly affect the lfe of congregatons, parshes, mnsters and all belevers. And donors are not gong to lke t.
74 Consensus can be bref about the fnal two stages because they are so far ahead of us n terms of practcal mplementaton. The ffth stage conssts n the systematc challengng of the dscplne of dong theology. t s true that some of ths task has been begun, but almost entrely n ways perpheral to manstream theologcal educaton. Some of ths work s beng done n lonely and seldom affrmed studes of advanced degree students. Each one has to stake her (more rarely hs) clam to the effectng of a new methodology. New tools at the level of epstemology, research (n all the dscplnes) and evaluaton are only begnnng to be elaborated. The last mentoned evaluaton rases the queston of the end result of theologcal!: educaton. What knd of theologcally educated person are we producng? What knd do we wsh to produce? s t possble to be consdered theologcally lterate or artculate today wthout havng one s conscousness and one s relatonshps, not to menton the content of one s learnng and the qualty of one s fath, touched by the radcal mplcatons of women and men dong theology together? The fnal stage wll be, of course, the total restructurng of the theologcal enterprse. Not only s ths not beng attempted, but n numerous ways s beng actvely ressted. The role of the new worldwde relgous fundamentalsm plays a part here. Ths modern relgous phenomenon (not to be confused wth true conservatsm) s bent on polarzng tradtons and nevtably chooses as the enemes of relgon one s co-relgonsts rather than the real enemes of njustce, materalsm and all forms of domnaton and explotaton. The femnsts are among the perceved enemes n another classc example of blamng the vctm. A hnal few words wll conclude ths secton. One would presume that theologcal schools would be n the forefront of ths movement of radcal re-nterpretaton and renewed praxs. That, however, s not the case. t s salutary to see how other educatonal bodes even some engneerng schools, for example are engaged n a more ntentonal restructurng of ther nsttutons. t s also essental to remark that some steps have been taken. Even the compensatory tasks have been extraordnarly lberatng for faculty, students, and for theologcal educaton tself. When asked about the resources present n the tradton for nspraton and motvaton for a lfe of dscpleshp, women can be as wholeheartedly commtted as
( usually hdden dynamcs of partcpatng as a woman n theoj ; theologcal!j man s! to are men. Context 75 P But theologcal educaton has reached the pont of the two roads. The one not taken wll determne the future of the enterprse. t s tme now to take a very cursory look at some of the specal ssues nvolved n the current practce of theologcal educaton as a way of rasng to conscousness some of the logcal educaton. The presumpton here s that the world of educaton was desgned and contnues to be run as a world. Despte often sncere efforts at modfcaton of the structures, and despte heartfelt collaboratve ventures, ths remans the case. The presence of women has, so far, just rased some of the questons; t has not altered the structures. Gven ths stuaton, women faculty and students have some choces make about how they wll conduct themselves, choces that sometmes conscous, but largely sem-conscous. n many ways, all women go through the stages already dentfed. Some ether choose to gnore or actually do not see the operatve dynamcs. They are happy, profess no dscomfort, and are ntent on learnng the tradton as presented to them. Sometmes they are conscous of suppressng questons or of needng to work twce as hard to get nsde the system, but, on the whole, they fnd ther studes satsfyng. Often, the frst glmmerng of nequty comes wth a frst pastoral experence. t s clear that the socalzaton of women condtons them to be cooperatve, even sometmes to be ngenous n dscoverng how to survve as creatvely as possble. One of the most general copng mechansms of women students s cauton. One learns to queston cautously, to trust sparngly, to seek precse nstructons so as not to get caught n msunderstandngs. One learns to ask the rght queston and to hold oneself n readness for any exgency. One s cautous n the use of one s own voce and learns not to use the woman s voce as the voce of authorty. One learns to authentcate and annotate what one says so that one wll never be caught as the sole authorty for what one says. Besdes, women have had to learn cauton n relatonshps, whether wth faculty or other students. Women walk cautously around the campus and choose cautously whom to st besde and whom to befrend. Women choose the tmes of classes cautously so as not to get caught around campus after dark unnecessarly. For
j 76 Consensus most women, faculty and student, cauton s so much a habt j of mnd that we rarely notce. For other women, cauton s a h panfully learned behavour n the aftermath of hurtful experences. For other women students, the opton taken s to engage n low-grade murmurng, whch occasonally breaks out n full force. Ths s a choce for margnalzaton and such women experence both the advantages and dsadvantages of choos- < ng the margn as the locus of ther beng. On the postve jt sde, the margn as a place of perspectve provdes some clar- M ty of vson. One sees much more clearly how the nsttuton ;t functons; patterns of acton/reacton become apparent, and a 1 certan amount of safety s experenced. On the other hand, : the margn elmnates the experence of belongng, puts one contnually on the defensve and creates the need for other as- 1 1 socatons for mutual support. Ths, n turn, often gves rse to [ nsttutonal suspcon, further aggravatng the sense of beng l( outsde. Beng margnalzed, whether by choce or desgn,!1 n terms of locaton, also ndcates margnalty n terms of the content of theologcal educaton. Truth s elusve and one s j{ constantly n the poston of re-nterpretaton of language, b concepts, fath statements and vocatonal commtments. Ths common ecclesal experence of women s not only replcated t n theologcal educaton but also ntensfed. c A fnal opton to be consdered for women students s namng oneself as femnst and clamng to operate from the per- spectve of a femnst crtque. Though ths leads to nstant t vsblty, t s often a more comfortable poston than the mar- ( gn. Chrstan femnsts have evolved an elaborate, yet smple, jl but all-pervasve crtque. The ground s frm. One can ds- a cover a voce of authorty whch can be personally appropr- la ated and often completely resonant wth one s own experences. j( Femnsts are also margnalzed by the domnant tradton, but jv adopt as part of ther crtque that they are n the process of e re-clamng the centre. The experence can be much more lb- eratng than the constant loose- tooth qualty of the low-grade murmurers. Femnsts see themselves as peers, engage more k easly n dalogue, sometmes abrasve, but from a stronger o poston. Once a stand has been taken, a Chrstan femnst b woman can move from the seducton of ssues to the effort n- volved n personal transformaton. The strong bblcal current jt ft la tl u jo;
: tme-consumng, Women Context 77 n femnst theology also allows femnst women to experence a more consstently postve converson experence. t s obvous that such categorzatons do not exhaust the possbltes or even descrbe any one ndvdual or group of ndvduals. They smply allude to some of the optons that women face nearly all the tme. faculty have ther own optons to make. As well as any one of the above postons, many women faculty choose to be specal advocates of women students. Ths advocacy s emotonally dranng and can also be costly n terms of the faculty woman s poston and authorty wth other faculty. Occasonally, ths task s assocated wth a presumed typcally femnne behavour of motherng, occasonally t nterpreted as crossng the lnes of authorty n an nterferng way. There s no doubt that ths knd of advocacy work can gve women faculty a great deal of nformal power n the nst tuton. They hear the stores. They become confdants. They! learn a great deal about the undersde of the nsttuton. Forjtunately for most nsttutons, women treat ths power wth professonalsm and skll. They add enormously to the trustworthness of the nsttuton n the eyes of the students. Such actvty often puts women faculty n a dffcult poston. Choosng to promote the sense of self among women students, choosng to help them speak n ther own voce, choosng to hear these voces as authortatve s all n tself subversve actvty. t provdes an alternatve way of beng for the nsttuton, whle t s free to contnue n ts tradtonal mode. Often, ths very actvty margnalzes the faculty member and leaves her as the lone voce speakng for women on commttees and councls. All n all, there s often lttle tme left over for creatvty n one s feld or even for socalzng wth other faculty. One must also rase questons about the authortatve voce of women faculty n students eyes and what students come to expect from them. s there an expectaton of parentng rather than professonal academc behavour? One other set of ssues needs to be named and that s the recognton and namng of the myths that govern the runnng of the nsttuton. Each nsttuton has ts own set of these, but theologcal nsttutons tend to have some characterstcally updated versons of ancent myths. Among the most notable of these s the myth of collegalty. Some analyses speak of s
j 1 ; ; 78 Consensus! the tyranny of the collegal. Ths s an old myth wth a new name. t refers to male socablty and gves the mpresson that r the central operatonal dynamc of the nsttuton s not about power. Pronouncements n the name of collegalty conceal the power dynamcs of the nsttuton and can shroud a multtude of sns. Those n power are free to be at one tme flexble, at! another nflexble, all n the name of collegalty. Collegalty s nvoked as a postve Chrstan alternatve to other forms of decson-makng and often only succeeds n creatng an ngroup whch gudes the rest of the group to preformed decsons n the name of collegalty. s An nterestng aspect of collegalty j that forms of women s collegalty are seen as unfar and no j 1 longer necessary n such collegally-mnded nsttutons. After all, are we not all colleagues now? The myth of objectvty may be the most frequently nvoked : myth n academa. t s used to descrbe real theology as op- posed to perspectval theologes. t s used surrepttously j, as a form of moral and theologcal absolutsm to nhbt open dscusson on certan subjects. t s nvoked to stem attempts at real nsttutonal self-crtque, and to plead the exstence, of at least some truths that should not be tampered wth, m Most often t s not even used conscously, but s the presumed 1 1 back-drop to every class n theology. t s often called, wth- ( out qualfcaton, the TRADTON, as f the tradton were formed wthout context, perspectve or bas and not n need ( of any unmaskng or exegess. Closely alled to ths are the js myths of farness and mertocracy. Theologcal nsttutons n- s voke such hgh deals that they are presumed to be far and unbased n hrng, promoton, and all personal dealngs. Se- ( crecy walks hand n hand wth these myths and s seen as the m natural way to assure farness to all. Whle some women expe- f rence ths as crazy-makng, t can be almost unconscous to those who most beneft from t and often great dsappontment s expressed that motves are questoned and results suspected. Ths mythology has enormous and pervasve nfluence on jo the pedagogcal practces of a theologcal nsttuton. Collab-!g oratve and partcpatory procedures are often encouraged at p the theoretcal level, nevertheless there s a narrow band of posg sblty, because theology, especally, s seen to create the need e for ts own partcular knd of authortatve pedagogy. Closure e on dscusson s easly nvoked and the experence of women as one theologcal locus s easly dscounted. \
Context 79 Whle the recognton of the nner dynamcs of power n an nsttuton s always a frst step toward a new future and educaton and theology are always about power t s tme to try to pn-pont some partcular strateges that may provde a map for the journey toward the nsttutonal nclusvty of women and men n theologcal educaton. Ths exercse s fraught wth perl because such maps by ther very nature need to be worked out collaboratvely. Theology exsts at the ntersecton of past fdelty, present call and future commtment. f t s not an enterprse conducted n an atmosphere of trustworthness and self-worth, the whole process s vtated. Whle currculum s mportant and must be under constant revson, perhaps the most mportant task s that of teachng students to thnk theologcally and to evolve an effectve praxs of Chrstan love and justce. Such a task s always contextual, and the current context of theologcal educaton s the sde-by-sde presence sometmes arm-n-arm presence of women and men. n other words, unlke past theologcal educaton, t takes place n the context of full female/male human nteracton. A four-fold process for facltatng ths change has been elaborated n dfferent places, wth slght varatons. Ths process now has the status of beng n the publc forum but was frst elaborated n 1983 at the Anglcan Sheffeld Conference on The Communty of Women and Men n the Church. Despte fears of separatsm artculated by both women and men, the frst step s the nteracton of women wth women. Conventonal socalzaton and normatve tradtonal semnary and theologcal formaton have made ths a necessty. Women have to dscover ther voce. t s a delcate and long drawn-out task. Researchers report that t takes a commtted femnst at least fve years to alter her patterns of speakng n the drecton of nclusvty. For the foreseeable future, then, the gatherng of women wth women ntentonal and fully encouraged gatherng as an explct part of theologcal educaton needs to be on the agenda of theologcal nsttutons. Women have always gathered at the frnges, precsely because ther voces were not heard nor ther concerns fully addressed by ther groups. The gatherng advocated here s n contnuty wth these experences but as explct polcy n the nterests of sound theologcal educaton. The next step s to explore the normal nteractons of women and men n the theologcal communty ncludng mn-
, j j 80 Consensus stry and worshp experences n a full and open crtque. Here agan, the voces of women need to be attended to wth specal care. Certan forms of church lfe are stll consdered normatve. Women are, at best, new; at worst, ntrusve. Many forms of clncal pastoral educaton have tackled ths topc, but the classroom, the nteractons of women : students wth male faculty and of male students wth women faculty have not been part of the dscusson. The nteractons of varous relgous authortes also come under revew here. Maybe nothng can be done to alter some stuatons, but the qualty of the nteracton must be open to examnaton. A necessary thrd step s the nteractons of men wth men where ths nteracton s rased as the subject of theologcal : dscusson, and not of personal pque or socologcal nterest. deaton s easly dstrusted by the excluded sde. The temp- n many ways, ths s uncharted terrtory. One-sex commu- taton s usually to skp ths stage on the plea that men have been talkng wth men for ever. That, however, s not the case, The exploraton of masculnty and ts nterconnectons wth theology has rarely been the subject of dscusson among men. Ther allegance to the tradton artculated by generatons of male theologans needs to be examned and explored for ts blnd spots. The seducton of a too-easy exercse of recon- claton n the nterests of humanty needs to be ressted manfull}^ at ths stage. The full meanng of humanty awats the nput of many unheard voces and reflecton on many uncharted experences of the rejected segments of humanty. And Anally, we return to women and men together. The bblcal vson of the church manfestng a new communty of women and men s beng tested daly n our classrooms as well as n our congregatons and parshes. n our classrooms, especally, we can have a tral-run of a new ecclesal model. Our own vson wll always dctate our praxs and our vson wll be based on our own fath and ecclesal experence. Here, thnk, we have two choces ether the choce of beng perspectval, that s, takng tradton as s and Alng t out n compensatory ways, hopng aganst hope and beng constantly grateful for small merces: really thnk thngs are changng or The Bshop smled today, maybe.... Or we can espouse a much more radcal choce rooted n what have come to call antcpatory fldelty. We can try!
exhlaraton. to ever Context 81 to envson, magne a world, church, theology school, congregaton free of sexsm, racsm, homophoba and then begn to evolve an effectve praxs for the mplementaton of ths vson. Ths step s often preceded by a perod of profound despar. One feels that the nsttuton s ntractable, that nothng s gong to change. Patrarchy and androcentrsm are too strongly embedded. Lke the Roman emperors of old, we have a wonderful future behnd us. n many ways, thnk that ths s an accurate descrpton of our stuaton. t s unlkely When we then set about creatng an alternatve way of lvng accordng to a vson of nclusvty, then despar can turn to that the grp of patrarchy wll ever be completely loosened. The nsttutonal context remans but t ceases exert ts power on our lves n destructve ways. Ths lfe of antcpatory fdelty s as demandng as t s thrllng and as frustratng as t s nsprng and profoundly satsfyng. t demands the knd of radcal converson that can only be called evangelcal. t remans as a choce to be dealt wth by every school of theology whch ams to educate theologcally women and men together. Notes 1 Books consulted: Paula Caplan, Lftng a Ton of Feathers: A Woman s Gude to Survvng n the Academc Worlds Unversty of Toronto Press, 1993. Alce Frazer Evans, et al. Pedagoges for the Non-Poor^ Orbs, 1987. George Schner, Educaton for Mnstry: Reform and Renewal n Theologcal Educaton^ Sheed and Ward, 1993. The Sheffeld Report on the Communty of Women and Men n the Constance Parvey, Ed., World Councl of Churches, 1983. Churchy
82 Consensus Artcles consulted: Phylls Kamnsk, Teachng Women and Sexualty n the Chrstan Tradton: Mutual Learnng and Pedagogcal ssues of Voce, Authorty and Power, The Councl of Socetes for the Study of Relgon^ February 1992. Lnda Brskn, Femnst Pedagogy: Teachng and Learnng Lberaton, Socal Scence Dvson, York Unversty, 1989. (Unpublshed Paper)