Women in Seminary

Women and Church Leadership by E.Margaret Howe,
a Zondervan Publication, 1982, pp.161-184.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.

Seminaries and divinity schools throughout the United States are training church leaders of tomorrow. Attitudes toward women which they encourage are likely to be reflected in the churches which their graduates later serve. These attitudes find expression on a theoretical level, in curriculum content, and on a practical level in the way in which women seminarians are treated. This chapter gives insight into the present experience of a random sample of women seminarians.

A dramatic increase has been reported in the number of women enrolled in seminary and divinity school programs. Many of these women are not content to be channeled into traditional roles but are studying along with men in disciplines leading to the Master of Divinity, Doctor of Ministry, or Doctor of Philosophy degrees. They are thus earning qualifications which lead directly into the field of church leadership. Do these women embark on advanced training with a strong sense of call to ministry? Do the seminaries and divinity schools generally support women students by affirming their commitment and preparing them for leadership? How do these women handle problem situations, and what advice would they give to others contemplating professional service within the church? In order to search out information on issues such as these, questionnaires were circulated to a limited number of schools across the United States. In response, many women wrote at length about their motivation for entering theological schools and about their experience of study, worship, and service within these communities. The information contained in this chapter has been asssembled directly from these questionnaires. Although they are not equally representative of all denominations, they do provide an honest insight into the issues faced by women anticipating professional church ministry.(1)

Call to Ministry

The sense of call experienced by these women was, as one would expect, similar in most respects to that commonly known: to be experienced by men aspiring to Christian ministry. Many had felt from early childhood a strong desire to participate in church leadership, and some could look back to a specific moment when they became significantly aware of their destiny. A first-year student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary wrote, “I recognized this call as an elementary school child, playing ‘minister,’ dreaming of going to the Congo or pastoring a church (although my parents are not overtly religious).” And a graduating senior from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley recalled this memorable childhood experience: “At age eight, in a Catholic May procession, I had a powerful sense of being called. This call was nurtured through communication with strong women religious during my grade and high school years. They taught me to deepen in spirituality, to listen in faith, to believe in my giftedness, to name and claim my Christian heritage, to trust my God experiences.”

For some, the sense of call came to fruition only after they had already embarked on training for other careers and in some cases after many years of work in secular professions. One seminarian wrote, “I always had a sneaking suspicion that this was what I would like to do, but it was not until I had experienced approximately twenty years in the business world that I decided that now was the time for me to make a change.” Another was drawn toward Christian ministry after training and experience in secular journalism. She became aware of the poor quality of much of the religious press in the United States and felt considerable unease until she applied to seminary. She hopes to direct her call to ministry through literature rather than through the pastorate. A second-year seminarian wrote, “I believe that God calls all of us according to how we as individuals can best hear him. For me it was an increasing dissatisfaction with a career that I had at one time thoroughly enjoyed coupled with a hunger to know God more intimately and to serve him by entering a full-time Christian vocation.” Another ministerial candidate had spent fifteen years as a public school teacher before beginning seminary training. Her sense of call came about as a result of reading certain articles concerning women in ministry. “When I would read an article about women in the ministry, I would feel a definite push in that direction … it seemed a little unreal or impossible at first, but the assurances after reading Scripture and praying outweighed all doubts.”

Other seminarians have been drawn gradually toward ordination through active involvement in Christian leadership. Practical experience in a ministerial setting provided for them the guidance needed to direct them into professional training. This kind of experience was common: “I was head of our youth group while in high school, and because we were without a youth director, I became one. To see the way God could use me really influenced my decision to enter the ministry.” A second-year student at Fuller Theological Seminary observed, “Field education experiences as hospital chaplain and assistant pastor have shown me not only that I enjoy the ministry but that I can effectively minister.” And a first-year student at the Theological School, Drew University, wrote, “I am ruling elder, Sunday school teacher, Bethel adult education teacher, Christian education chairman, worship committee chairman, and have been elected to attend the General Assembly in the United Presbyterian Church. Throughout all my eight years involvement, I have felt a growing desire to enter the ministry in a professional sense so that I could reach more people in a different; way.”

Happy are those who find in their home church an environment which nurtures the leadership potential of both men and women. A student from Bethel Theological Seminary wrote highly of her home church: “Gifts of leadership were really developed here. My pastor gave me every opportunity to function—from in the pulpit, to committees, to financial help through college and seminary.” Other women, however, have been less fortunate. One seminarian wrote, “My home church supported me when I was planning to pursue youth work as a career. Now that I hope to do doctoral work, my pastor hardly acknowledges my presence when I go home.” And another commented, “My home church has helped support me financially, but it places me in a secondary position to the boys in the church who want to go into church work, even if they are in junior high school.” This kind of discrimination was commonly experienced: “When the deacons decided to license two young men who had made public commitments to preach, I was the subject of much debate. Several men were adamant that I not be overlooked. The final outcome—a homemade certificate proclaiming ‘to all men [sic!] our encouragement and prayerful support of her,’ but not so bold a step as licensing.”

Women entering seminary later in life have a similar problem: “When I decided to quit my job and go to seminary, the church had a rather ho-hum attitude (‘another restless housewife’). When my forty-year-old male counterpart does the same—this is a highly praised and sacrificial act.” Some churches communicate a confusing message to the women of their congregations. A first-year doctoral student wrote, “My home church was very frustrating. On one hand they acknowledged my gifts, on the other they forbade or blocked their usage.” Sometimes churches will manipulate a situation by subtly channeling gifted women into areas of service more culturally acceptable: “My home church has affirmed my teaching abilities but has discouraged me from seeking the pastorate.”

Unhappily, such tactics are sometimes employed even in the seminary arena. Women who have entered seminary with the intention of training for the pastorate find that at this stage in their career it is easy to become sidetracked. Women seminarians discover very quickly that they are affirmed when they indicate a calling toward areas of service which parallel those assigned to the female by Western culture, while they are gently discouraged when they indicate that they have other goals. Because people, whether male or female, need the strength that a supportive community gives, there is a strong tendency for women seminarians to move into these other spheres of service in order to gain approbation and acceptance. Many find that they must consciously grapple with this gravitational pull. They must learn to distinguish between those tasks for which God has equipped them and to which he is calling them and those tasks to which others might wish to conveniently assign then.

It takes courage to cross culturally established boundaries. A student from Duke Divinity School wrote, “For awhile I sought to ignore my call to the pastorate, seeking instead to serve God in other areas, such as counseling. By the time I reached my last year of college, I knew that I had to go into the ministry. At first I said ‘yes’ to the call if I didn’t have to preach, but that no longer stands. I know that I have been called to pastor a local congregation in all areas of responsibilities and duties, particularly in preaching.” Another student wrote, “I entered divinity school planning on teaching. I never thought at all of going into the parish ministry until I came into contact with other women who were going into it. I began to realize that the church needed women in its ordained ministry. I first heard my call the first time I preached.”

A student from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School struggled with the same issues: “I have felt drawn to full-time Christian work since the time I made a personal commitment to Christ in high school. I have considered meeting this through para-church work, overseas missions, or through being a pastor’s wife. I never considered the pastoral ministry myself because I had always been taught that this would be against the teaching of Scripture.” This student reported that a careful study of Scripture during her seminary training convinced her that she had been mistaken in these views and that as a woman and a Christian she was indeed free to participate fully and equally in church leadership. She and her husband are now anticipating a team ministry in which they share equally in mutual submission to one another. Patricia Gundry’s book, Woman Be Free (Zondervan, 1979), was especially helpful to her in reaching these conclusions.

The Hebrew Scriptures provide many examples of people who struggled with the reality of their call to the service of God and the nature of that call. Women seminarians also struggle. Behind them is a long tradition of the suppression of women’s gifts, and surrounding them sometimes is an atmosphere of questioning and suspicion. With few role models and much conflicting exegesis, women often fight a lonely battle. Some, however, find that they are not alone and that others are struggling with them. A Fuller seminarian observed, “My understanding of my call has grown out of a long and often painful struggle within myself as to whether women can be called to be pastors. I was helped tremendously . . . by my husband, by professors, by friends, and by my own pastor.” From Pacific School of Religion, a fourth-year student wrote, “I still have many questions about the validity of work as an ordained pastor, but I continue going toward that because it seems the best way, or the only way right now, to continue my call to serve.” And a third-year student from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary commented, “My ‘call’ became more refined as I entered seminary and began to get a glimpse of my talents and interests. The wife of a seminary professor and the dean of the theology school encouraged me to pursue doctoral work. I firmly believe that few people receive a clearly defined call from God. God speaks to them gradually through other people and through circumstances.”

Part of the call experience is the recognition by women seminarians that they have the kinds of gifts that would make them effective leaders in a church setting. These gifts fall into various categories. Some are related to the area of administration. Seminarians spoke of their organizational ability, their creative response to problem situations, their ability to identify the crux of a matter quickly and to act decisively. Others mentioned that they enjoy interacting with people and are able to delegate effectively and to include others in decision-making processes. An outgoing personality, self-confidence, assertiveness, and broad perspectives combined with a deep love for people and a desire to serve are qualities widespread among the seminarians questioned. Many were aware that they have good verbal skills and are able to communicate theological ideas effectively. A talent for public speaking made the preaching and teaching aspects of pastoral work attractive to these seminarians. Some mentioned that they are good listeners, able to empathize with others and to identify with their hurts and joys. Patience, optimism, and the ability to take criticism were also considered to be aptitudes that would enable a person to function well in a leadership role. When they are able to put these aptitudes to work within the context of the local church, women seminarians have found that they achieve an inner peace and a sense of fulfillment which creates within them a growing awareness that they are called to ministry.

For all of this, there are among the ranks of women seminarians some who are wondering whether in fact they will ever be able to use their gifts, knowledge, and expertise within their own denomination. One student wrote, “So here I am—soon with an M.Div. and some parish experience—waiting, praying that God won’t take too long to convince the males that I’m gifted and called by the same Creator who designed them.” Another spoke of her call to priesthood as “a prophetic calling for a woman in my Catholic tradition.” A second-year student from Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary found it necessary to change her denomination in order to fulfill her call: “My home church is a new one; I changed from Baptist to Presbyterian just this year because of the openness to women in the Presbyterian church.” Another respondent chose to stay within her denomination even though she found herself beset by problems: “Our Roman Catholic system is one I’m comfortable with, but it creates a tension in me because at times I don’t accept the official party line.”

Even those who feel strongly called to ministry are sometimes tempted to take a side-glance toward a career less fraught with tension. A second-year student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary reflected, “I am also interested in college administration. People are more open to women in that field than they are to women in church leadership.” Occasionally the stressful atmosphere proves too much and a woman seminarian will choose to enter another sphere of work: “I didn’t have the personal strength to cope with the criticism I got from evangelical Christians. It is easier to pursue a career in the business world, which I am doing. I may minister a little ‘on the side,’ but basically I’ve been scared away from serious Christian work.” It would be presumptuous to conclude that such a person was “never really called” to ministry. Rather, the church must accept with shame the responsibility for having discouraged from service one whom God had called and equipped.

The years of seminary training provide an opportunity to think and evaluate. Not every woman seminarian is 100 percent sure of her calling, but many feel a strong urgency about pursuing the matter of ordained ministry. A student at the Theological School, Drew University, expressed it this way: “God may not have tapped me on the shoulder to join the team, but I really feel this is ‘my calling,’ and I’ll continue until an equally clear message to the contrary comes through.”

Seminary Experience

Seminary faculty are influential people. They not only guide seminarians through academic studies, but they also provide role models in a variety of other spheres such as preaching, counseling, community involvement, and family relationships. It is to the faculty that seminarians look when they are seeking insight into the complicated issues relating to church leadership. Many of the seminarians who responded to questionnaires spoke very positively of the faculty with whom they had studied. They reported that a number of professors in their respective schools had affirmed them as women and as potential ministerial candidates, that their opinions were respected in the classroom, and that for the most part they found their teachers to be understanding, helpful, and encouraging. However, some students reflected sadly that they had little contact with faculty and that they were forced to seek affirmation and advice elsewhere.

Why do some women feel a lack of personal involvement with the teaching structure of their school? A possible reason may be that seminary faculty are often heavily loaded with teaching and research commitments and simply do not have the time to spend with individual students, whether these students are male or female. But this was not often perceived to be the case by the seminarians themselves.

Sometimes the faculty’s lack of interest was interpreted by the student as reflecting a judgment concerning the student’s ability: “They always work with the obviously gifted . . . therefore, they’ve never noticed me because I’m another ‘just average’ student.” Sometimes a seminarian sensed that faculty members, though well-meaning, seemed uneasy in coping with the situation of women in theological training: “The seminary welcomes us, but doesn’t quite know what to do with us.” “Some people, including professors, don’t know how to relate to women in new roles.” In order to compensate, certain faculty members adopt a paternalistic attitude toward women students—a stance that is much resented. Some are patronizing: “Overly nice, but not seeing us as intellectual and creative equals.” Others simply ignore women students: “It is humiliating never to be called on in class to pray. Some don’t recognize us when we raise our hand to ask a question.”

Being ignored is only one part of the story. Experiencing a negative attitude in the classroom is another. A large number of seminarians commented that such negative attitudes were often communicated by inappropriate jokes. “One professor has a very negative attitude toward women in ordained ministry, and to women in general. Some of his jokes in class have put women down. . . . We spoke to the academic dean, and things have improved.” “The jokes get irritating and reflect what I believe is a lack of genuine understanding on the part of many of the males.” Women feel at times that they are being “put down” unfairly: “On one occasion I heard a professor say that some women seek ordination because it is an ego trip for them. I spoke up and said, ‘Why is it that the same question cannot be asked of men?’ The professor dismissed the class without responding to my question.” Some respondents complained of the tacit assumption that the women students in classes are either the wives of ministers or are preparing for the mission field. One student felt that inadequate reasons were given to account for the number of women entering seminary: “Some have said that the reason women are encouraged to come to seminary is that not enough men heed the call for them to come! My response has been that hopefully seminaries encourage women because they have something vital to contribute to the ministry.” A quite widespread phenomenon was the exclusion of women and their concerns from class content and presentation. One seminarian commented: “If professors would expand their views of ministry to include women, it would help. Not just tack on a comment at the end of a lecture.” Many complained that noninclusive language was used persistently by instructors in spite of requests to the contrary: “Some professors use all male terms in lectures, and when they give examples they use male subjects. It is discouraging and causes one to feel left out.” Criticism was also made of visiting professors who displayed crude attitudes and showed a lack of sensitivity to the issues. It was stated frequently that church history courses by-passed the contribution made by women and concentrated only on male personages as though they alone had contributed meaningfully to the history of the church.

It was felt by some seminarians that more discretion should be used in the selection of textbooks. One school uses a textbook on preaching which assumes throughout that the preacher is a man. It discusses how “he” should dress, stand, speak, etc. The text was published in the 1970s! Instructors, too, can make the same mistakes: “Sometimes in pastoral counseling the professor will start talking about how it is bad news to counsel a woman when there is no one else in the church building, or about how women sometimes fall in love with their counselors. There is not much commensurate time on how women counselors deal with the special problems of male clients.” This seminarian commented, “The best thing I know to do in a situation like that is to talk with the professor.” Another seminarian reported that instructors may sometimes allow unconscious prejudices to influence their grading system. “My husband gets higher grades in classes he takes with me. Some are deserved—some are not. Several professors have problems giving me a higher grade.” A professor who changed his examination policy from named papers to social-security-number identification found that women scored much higher on essay questions than when names were used.

Some seminarians felt that the seminary curricula neglected broad areas of concern to women. When it came to exploring feminist theology, for example, some women seminarians found that they had to seek this out for themselves. Many suggested that seminaries should inaugurate courses on women’s issues as part of the core program for men and women. These courses would encompass such matters as the place of married couples in ministerial settings; the particular challenges faced by single women in ministry; celibacy as a positive asset in church leadership; preaching and mental health; handling personal conflict; the menstrual cycle and its effect on professional performance; and the years of child-raising as a background to ministerial function.

Perhaps the most frequent complaint of seminarians was the lack of women faculty: “We are surrounded by male faculty members all the time.” It was felt that having women professors would be an affirmation of the scriptural authority women have as teachers. Some respondents sounded quite desperate over this issue: “If we can’t get a full-time woman on faculty, it would help to have an inter-term course with a woman … we don’t see ordained women in a way we can get to know them and discuss issues. It would be good for the men to see a positive woman model.” “They say they have tried in the last three positions they’ve filled—but I wonder. It’s desperately needed.” All were agreed, however, that only fully qualified women should be appointed and that they should be appointed to mainline positions, not merely to peripheral concerns and supportive services. It was clear that this desire was in no way to be interpreted as a criticism of the male faculty: “I have had classroom experience of ten or a dozen terrific male professors over the past two years.” It was simply a matter of acquiring balance and providing a dimension of the educational experience that no male, however gifted, could provide.

The percentage of women faculty members in the schools represented was found to be incredibly low. The ratio of male to female faculty reads something like this: 30-0, 20-1, 34-6, 65-4, 46-0, 40-2, 21-3, etc. Unfortunately, it is rare to find the women faculty members in central teaching positions, such as theology. They are usually in positions such as counseling, Christian education, and music. This situation gave rise to such comments as: “Our one woman faculty member teaches Christian education. I strongly desire to see a woman with a theological background on the faculty. I do not know any woman personally whom I respect for her scholarship.”

Apparently seminarians are informed that the reason for this lack is that as yet few women are academically qualified for these positions. While acknowledging that this may be true, seminarians still felt that women are not being given the prominence they deserve. Many suggested that women should be invited more frequently to preach in chapel or that qualified women should be hired to visit on campus for short-term lecture series: “Cynthia Jarvis, who is a professor at McCormick Seminary in Chicago, preached at our seminary for a week. It was a great experience.” Some felt that resistance to this came from the administrators of their schools, and they suggested that schools should hire administrative personnel who are sympathetic to the cause of women.

Attitudes expressed by faculty naturally influence the male seminarians. One woman commented, “My first semester I was informed that women had a role in the church as teachers but not in leadership positions. When a seminary professor projects such a bias, how can one expect male students to feel different?” In fact, some male students arrive in seminary with a strong bias against women, and these occasionally make life difficult for women seminarians: “Sexism of male students is a greater problem than sexism of professors.” Occasionally male students take it upon themselves to “caution” their female counterparts: “I’ve been taken aside to discuss the scriptural basis of my being here.” Sometimes the men feel threatened by the high academic performance of women seminarians: “I know that my language abilities have threatened some guys who struggle with languages, and I’m sorry they feel that way.” Ironically, the social and personal pressures women experience in seminary often drive them to greater endeavors in academic studies: “Many male students seem to feel a woman should be docile and submissive. As a result, I tend to excel academically but am hesitant to function on a spiritual or personal level.” Sometimes women themselves encourage the development of hostile attitudes by the way they present their cause: “We have a problem with rather ‘militant’ female seminarians who are out to claim their ‘right’ to preach and exercise authority. . . . Women who try to claim the pastorate as a vocation by rights rather than as a calling of God make things difficult for the whole issue of women at seminary.”

Such biases were also seen in social attitudes. Women seminarians often mentioned that while on the one hand it is assumed that a woman in seminary is there because she wants to marry a minister, on the other hand male seminarians are reluctant to date a woman whose career goals are similar to their own. In career guidance, some women felt that they are being encouraged into the types of positions which will “fill in” between seminary and marriage, on the assumption that marriage will terminate their careers, while men are treated as though they are seeking lifelong vocations. Women also found that when they do contemplate marriage, it is assumed that they will lower their academic goals: “The spring of my first year I became engaged to a fellow junior. We married that summer. I heard later that there were some men in school who believed I would change my program to an M.R.E. . . . they were wrong. I think they were responding out of their own insecurities and from their inability to conceive of a marriage in which both partners could ably and happily serve the church in an ordained capacity.”

A quick look at seminary catalogs revealed that men and women are still featured in sex-stereotyped roles. For example, a photograph in the catalog from one very progressive seminary shows a group of male students hunched over books in the library. Above them are several life-sized portraits of men who were probably past presidents of the school. Another photograph features three women; they are sitting on the grass outside the library, talking. When a man and a woman are photographed together, the man is usually assuming the role of instructor. He is speaking (pleasantly and caringly) to the woman student, usually looking down at her from a podium. Such pictures communicate very clearly the hidden agenda behind the educational opportunities offered in any given seminary, and would-be seminarians might well take note.

Advice to Women Considering Seminary Training

In offering advice to incoming seminarians, respondents were realistic. Many recommended that the seminarian should search out a seminary supportive of women candidates so that studies might be undertaken in a healthy environment. The choice is not always an easy one. One seminarian wrote: “Consider carefully your seminary. If you choose a conservative one, you will face greater hurdles as a woman. If you choose one open to women, you may have to work out conservative theology on your own. You must evaluate which set of difficulties you would rather live with.”

Because problems are bound to arise, the new seminarian is advised to maintain “a willingness to work through problems rather than to avoid them.” In doing this, “acquaint yourself as well as possible with human nature.” On the one hand, a woman seminarian should not be “defensive and easily offended”; on the other hand, she should be prepared to work to change those aspects of seminary life that stand in need of change. One respondent advised: “Work to get what you need. Talk with supportive male professors and develop seminars to deal with issues women face.” Patience is needed if long-range goals of cooperation between men and women are to be realized: “Sometimes it takes time and caring and sharing to help break through people’s preconceptions and prejudices, but the effort is usually mutually beneficial.”

Advice offered frequently took the form of a caution. “Don’t go in with a chip on your shoulder and view all men as chauvinistic.” “Don’t go into it [ministry] unless you feel the call and it stems from love. The church is not the place for you to grind your ax.” “Seminary is not a place to find your faith, or a husband.” “Women who are in seminary to prove a point help neither God nor women’s rights.” However, it was acknowledged that anger will arise from time to time and that it should be allowed to surface.

“Challenge the system prophetically—own rage and righteous anger as being necessary and important.” A woman entering seminary must have “the ability to control and use her anger—I’m convinced it is an integral part of us, and perhaps our best hidden strength.”

Overall motivation is an important factor with women seminarians: “I would advise them to have a goal to reach, a dream in which they see themselves living and working every day.” “To survive in an almost male world you will need singleness of purpose and the assurance of God’s support.” Because of the wide gulf between “the dream” and “the seminary situation,” an incoming seminarian should “learn to maintain a balance between idealism and reality. Loss of such will result in either bitterness or obliteration.”

It was considered essential that a woman seminarian have a good self-image. An example came from one respondent: “I am confident, usually, and if I don’t feel particularly confident, at least I dress well and speak clearly. I like people, and I think that shows. I can be organized. I feel I am approachable for criticism, new ideas, and friendship. I am always well-prepared.” The new seminarian should be confident about herself and her role: “I feel that rny attitude about my role greatly affects men’s attitudes toward me—if I believe in myself, they do too.” “Expectation,” another seminarian wrote, “can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Because the seminary has traditionally been considered a man’s world, there is a tendency for women to feel they must act like men in order to survive. Consequently many seminarians advised that new entrants should work to maintain their femininity at all costs. “Try not to be masculine in dress, approach, or style.” “Be assertive without being aggressive.” “Be gracious and earn respect carefully.” The woman seminarian should “use the mind that God has given her to gently and reverently stand behind her call from God.” Rather than measuring herself by her male peers, the woman seminarian is advised, “Keep your eyes on your own calling: realize you are unique and incomparable.” She will need “wisdom and discernment as to what things should be ignored and what things should be politely but firmly addressed.”

It is generally thought that women must be superior to men in order to achieve seminary goals. One commented, “Right now she has to be better than men at everything in order for people to accept her. I do not think this is a fair expectation, but it will pass in time.” This, however, is not seen by some as too much of a deterrent: “A woman has to be better—a superior preacher, a good administrator, and a loving pastor. Unfortunately, with the current state of the ministry, no great effort is required for a woman to excel over the majority of clergy!” One respondent pointed out the dangers of encouraging only very capable women to enter seminary: “If only super-women dare seek the ministry, what of the common women God has more frequently called and gifted? Let’s not be out to prove something.”

By way of encouragement, new women seminarians are exhorted to “look straight in the eye, love, and never back down.” It was suggested that they should express appreciation for the gradual changes which have come about for women and that they should build on these. In times of difficulty they should “remember that Christ, too, was not accepted as God’s appointed one. He did not give up, but continued to proclaim.”

Retrospect

The chapter which follows this one surveys the opinions of women who have graduated from seminary and are now actively involved in church leadership. In addition to the material covered there, these women provided significant reflection on their seminary experiences. They were asked if there were any ways in which the seminary of their choice might have done a more effective job in preparing them for ministry. Their responses fell into three categories. One group of ministers felt that seminary had prepared them well for their profession. A second group suggested improvements in seminary education in general, though not in particular for women seminarians. A third group gave recommendations for changes geared specifically to women students. (The schools these women had attended were diverse, and any overlap with the seminaries mentioned in the previous pages of this chapter was coincidental.)

The women ministers who felt that the seminary in which they had trained had done an excellent job in preparing them for professional work saw no areas where change is necessary. Their memories of the seminary experience were good: “I loved seminary, and I think that probably the best thing that happened to me was that I gained self-confidence and assurance about myself—this has served me well.” “The faculty of my seminary were very supportive of the women and included women’s issues as a matter of course.” Some thought that one should not expect too much of a seminary education: “We can learn the theory of ministry, but the actuality of pastoring is practice and experience, and there can be no substitute for that.” Some felt that the seminary should concentrate on academic training, giving a sound basis in all areas and leaving the student to apply this knowledge in the years of professional service: “The best preparation is the best academic training one can get … so that you have facility in all areas. The real world comes after that.”

The second group of women ministers did acknowledge that there are areas of seminary education that need improvement, but these are not necessarily related exclusively to the preparation of women ministerial candidates. One commented: “Frankly, it isn’t the women who need the special preparation half as much as it is the men who need to be exposed to the theology which includes women. It is the male ministers who have the problem.” Some felt that not enough is being done in seminary to confront both men and women with the sex stereotypes that influence their thinking and acting: “More needs to be done in terms of putting both men and women in touch with the sexist stereotypes out of which they operate and the influence they have on all our lives.” “The problem is that our classmates accepted us and cared for us, but when they left the institution, they took their own stereotypes with them.” It was widely felt that in providing only male models the seminary is depriving both men and women of a healthy exposure to ministerial function. It was recommended that the cultivation of positive attitudes toward both male and female seminarians be encouraged: “It seems to me that simply fostering equality and acceptance is the best way to serve not only the women but the church as a whole. The attitude of male ministers is crucial to the welfare of women ministers. If men go through seminary seeing that women are just as competent, that will eventually foster more acceptance in the churches.”

With regard to course content, some in this second group saw the present system of “options” as being a built-in weakness for the seminary. Even students intending to enter the pastoral ministry might, if they so desired, opt out of such basic courses as those in Christian education or preaching—even theology. One would assume that this is not the case in every seminary, but evidently it is in some. A desire was expressed that seminaries might better prepare candidates with respect to practical matters such as church administration and financial affairs. Some felt that spiritual leadership is not being effectively cultivated. For example, not only are seminarians sometimes inept at leading a group Bible study, but they are sometimes at a loss to understand how theology, worship, and “real life” connect and intertwine. They have not come to terms with their own experience of God and are therefore unable to communicate this effectively to others. “We learn a lot about theology and religion, but few of us have a clear sense of our own spirituality. We do not know how to talk about God, short of giving a testimonial about being ‘saved.’”

Other areas in which these women ministers felt that seminaries would do well to strengthen their programs included human sexuality, group dynamics, and job placement. In the area of human sexuality, some would like to see “more direct dealing with sexuality issues and how these will affect ministry.” It was recommended that more courses include sections on the psychology of men and women, in order to provide a base for mutually supportive relationships. Some felt that they had not been well-prepared to deal with the many aspects of human sexuality with which they were later confronted in their congregations. In group dynamics, a need was expressed for training both with respect to team ministry and to working cooperatively with a congregation. Some felt that the seminary fosters an attitude of separation between the congregation and the minister rather than identity: “I found that there was a tendency to refer to congregations as ‘they’ (vs. ‘us’). We need to come to terms with the fact that real people make up a congregation, people who are hurting and who need pastors to care for them, to listen to them, to be present with them.” In regard to job opportunities, some would like to see the seminary communicate “more sophisticated knowledge as to how the placement system works, and especially concerning how to use ‘informal’ helps.” This would include an honest assessment of financial remuneration to be expected: “Seminaries need to help all students see the realities of life in the parish, including the competition for parishes that pay a living wage. As a student, I often found seniors disillusioned by the salaries they were offered. They need to know the realities all along.”

The third group of women ministers felt that there are ways in which seminaries might better focus attention on the specific needs of women. It was suggested that more opportunities should be granted to women in the wider aspects of seminary life, including chairing of committees, development of publications, and involvement at all levels of decision-making. Not only would this give women much-needed experience in areas from which they may previously have found themselves excluded, but it would also “enable more of our male colleagues to be able to deal with us in constructive ways once we are out of the seminary.” Some longed for the day when women seminarians would be given equal opportunities for field work. As a means to this end, it was suggested that seminaries should take a tougher line over this issue and that they should “refuse to send interns, pulpit supply, youth workers, etc., to any congregation which refuses women candidates for these posts.”

Conferences and causes dealing with women’s issues were highly recommended. One respondent wrote, “U.C.C. clergywomen recently held a national gathering at which they considered the uniqueness of their ministry because of their gender. Such meetings are helpful.” Another respondent suggested that it is sometimes possible to integrate into the curriculum a full-length course dealing with women’s concerns: “Three of us ordained women taught a semester course on Women in Professional Ministries. Sixteen women said it was very helpful. We tried to cover all the areas not covered in the standard curriculum . . . areas we wished had been covered when we were in seminary.” In ways such as this it is possible to address specific problems that women will face and to provide some techniques for dealing with these.

There is a tendency for some women to feel inadequate in the areas of administration that concern finances and the upkeep of church property and equipment. The reasons for this are obvious. Society has tended to protect women from such areas of concern, and they have not been exposed to these in the same way that male seminarians have in their upbringing. One woman wrote, “The area of administration seems to be a problem for some of my friends as well as for me. We have a hard time believing we have the power we actually have and acting on it. A course in administration designed specifically for women would be good.” Some felt that women should try harder to equip themselves in the more technical fields so that they would have more competence in the general running of a church.

Training in homiletics and counseling should also take into consideration the special problems women may face. Women would benefit from voice training classes: “High-pitched, untrained voices are unpopular no matter how dynamic the woman is otherwise.” Opportunities to develop specific gifts as a woman would be appreciated: “It would have been good for me to know that as a woman I might have a different technique of counseling from that of men.” Women also need to be given latitude to develop a homiletic style that is not based on male models but is their own.

Many women had found that all too soon in their ministry they encountered various forms of opposition, and there were times when this opposition was the direct result of their being female. They felt that the seminary would be doing a good preparatory job if it would give some guidance to women in “how to sort out the ‘flack’ that occasionally comes. Is it directed to me personally, to women in general, or to women ministers in particular?” And if there is any way in which seminaries could help women cultivate the ability to “turn away a put-down with a smile and without inward wounds to self-esteem,” then it would certainly be valuable to attempt this. In these ways the woman seminarian would be prepared for the “discrimination and pain within the parish” with which she will probably meet: “To me, knowledge is a way to conquer fears, and being forewarned makes any struggle more constructive in the long run.” “Being prepared or ‘aware’ helps us not to personalize too much.” The seminary is doing a fine job if it can enable women seminarians to achieve “self-understanding, so that we do not become easily threatened or overly aggressive.” And when opposition does come, the woman minister is going to need a supportive community around her. Seminaries could help “by encouraging women to be an intentional support network with one another. Many of us did not perceive the value of this till we had gotten out ‘on our own.’ Any woman who thinks she can make it without the sisters’ support is fooling herself.”

It was suggested that seminaries could definitely improve in the area of developing realistic expectations for the future. “Tell women the truth—that they will have to work hard for acceptance, twice as hard as men,” one respondent recommended. Seminaries should also “quit encouraging women that the church in the world is ready and waiting for their talent and abilities”: “Young women seem to be naively unprepared for the fact that by and large the churches do not want women ministers, and it will be a long time before they do.” Looking ahead to the time when seminarians assume parish responsibilities, the seminary might well attempt to “make them aware of the difficulties of communicating with people who are set in their ways and unwilling to accept them as leaders, let alone as pastors.” The gulf between seminary life and the realities of the parish was sometimes found to be frighteningly wide: “Somehow impress upon us that seminary is radically different from the world of ministry. Inclusive language, creative worship, equal opportunity for work, which are, in my experience, more the ‘norm’ in divinity school are unknown or infrequently realized elsewhere.” One minister wrote, “I feel like I was so sheltered in a feminist cocoon that I was unprepared to serve a congregation with no raised consciousness at all—or any desire for such.” And another commented, “It’s a bitter blow to face the world equipped and encouraged, only to be shattered by the cold, hard facts of unacceptance as a minister.”

The suggestion was made that seminaries might consider preparing students for small-church ministry in isolated settings in addition to the present emphasis on “steeple churches.” Many women find themselves in small churches, and they need to be alerted to the special challenges of such ministry.

Finally, it was widely recommended that in view of the present shortage of female professors, ordained and experienced women clergy should be brought onto the campus on a regular basis for formal and informal meetings with women students. It was felt that this would enrich the seminary experience immensely. Women ministers also recommended that seminary professors should encourage academically gifted women seminarians to pursue careers in teaching, so that in the future the imbalance in this area might be redressed.

Notes

1. Students from the following institutions participated in this project: Asbury Theological Seminary; Bethel Theological Seminary; Columbia Theological Seminary; The Theological School, Drew University; Duke Divinity School; Fuller Theological Seminary; Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley; Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary; Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Pacific School of Religion; Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville; and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. The questionnaire used is printed in Appendix A.