-: So, I'm sorry, if you could pick up again
with the feminist theology, I'm not sure we
got all of that.
-: Okay.
I was in Hamilton College, and a woman
who had been a feminist in this red stocking
group they called me at University,
came to campus and formed a consciousness-raising group,
which I joined.
And we got very active.
I was serving in the chapel in Hamilton College,
and we started using inclusive language right way.
And decided the connection was just obvious
that it was true for much more than
just Columbia University.
They don't have you go into the church.
And got Mary Ruther started writing in 83,
I just started eating up whatever I could find to read.
-: That's wonderful, and I can hear it better.
I'll be honest with you, I'd heard of
consciousness-raising groups.
Would you mind saying a little bit about
what that meant, what you did?
-: If you were in a small group,
there are lots of people that are interested
in (mumbles) you do, get into several small groups,
not one large group.
And they talk about life using a feminist lens,
in a way that means all the minds in a group
can begin to work on it.
In our situation, we were all in a boy's college,
and as we continued to talk, we got (mumbles).
There ought to be a women's college.
And that kind of thing, and actually, one came.
We didn't help that.
We became an activist group as people grew into it.
At that time, I also did not-
I was going to go to a seminary,
but I made a pact with my girls that I would
leave if I did not discover a redeeming potential
for women in Christianity.
-: Wow.
And what was the ... I know this was a huge question
but briefly, what was your seminary experience like?
Did it help with that?
-: I had a wonderful time because I was 42
when I went to the seminary,
and I was as old as many of the professors,
and I was very persuasive at (mumbles).
So I actually was able to invent classes
to take classes at the University, Princeton University.
To do individual reading projects with people.
So if they were teaching hermineutics, they would
do reading projects with me on feminist hermineutics.
And they let me do my big project,
you had to do a sort of education on conversations
and a feminist model.
Which was a lot of fun.
-: Oh, interesting.
Could you say a little bit about that?
-: Yeah.
I was talking about inclusive conversation
of women of all colors and (mumbles) and
different sexual orientation.
And Lannie Russel, do you know her?
-: Yes.
-: Her name?
Lannie Russel begun something called the
Women's Interseminary Conference.
And she brought it to Princeton while I was there
and worked with my conversation model.
So we had Lannie and Ave Maria, (mumbles),
and Clock (mumbles), and not absolutely certain
knew who the woman was.
But we had a wonderful time.
And she wrote a book from that conference called,
Inheriting Our Mother's Burden.
-: Oh, okay, I read the book, but I didn't know.
That's a fascinating history, yes.
-: Yeah.
Plus, my name is in the presses.
-: Oh, Susan, that's really wonderful.
Sounds really exciting.
-: Yeah, Lannie is fabulous, she always giving, or was.
Always giving credit to other people
in the (mumbles) church, along other things.
-: Yeah.
So what was your relationship to the re-imagining community?
-: Well ...
Oh you mean after I went to school?
-: Yes.
-: The Women's Institute?
I'm just looking, I wrote something down here.
I just knew all kinds of people that had been
and also a number of the presenters.
So I stayed close that way.
And we had everything, it was like a breeding
place for more feminist theology.
So I stayed up that way.
Also, Marianne was moved to a different office
after (mumbles) centers, so she and I
could collaborate then sort of sub-rota.
Let's see.
I had already worked with her and found the
network of Presbyterian College Women,
so I knew her pretty well by then.
I'm trying to see if that really answers your question.
-: Sure, well you were saying earlier that
you weren't able to attend the 93 conference,
'cause you had a previous commitment.
-: Right.
Yeah, that's right.
I just wanted to say, though I don't remember
which year I was able to go.
Obviously I couldn't, I would have had to go
with a paper bag over my head if I went publicly
from the Presbyterian Center.
So it was within the first five years
that I did just go on my own.
And of course, Rebecca Walker.
And Chris Spence and Mary Daley were there,
that might be a way of figuring out
what year it was.
-: That was 2000.
-: I wasn't doing anything, writing anything, I just went.
-: What were your memories of that conference?
-: The issue that seemed to come up with
the first and second generation feminists.
What were the lines between younger feminists?
And they were already there, and having
a new generation of feminists.
And Rebecca Walker, I don't remember this
well enough to say very much, but Rebecca Walker
is the daughter of Alice Walker, and she
had written about the second generation
had some complaints I think, about her mother.
And then, Mary Daley, who hadn't bothered
to go to Rebecca Walker's presentation,
showed up and did something where she totally
braised out Walker, which is what you do.
But it seemed very insensitive after Rebecca's
sensitive discussion.
And then Chris Spence who is a good friend
from the seminary.
In her address, she said "Well Mary Daley,
"as usual, you have not ceased to astound
"and annoy and anger and excite us"
It was a very awkward moment.
-: Yes.
Well, do you recall what your experience
with that was like?
Of the whole conference or of that in particular?
-: That in particular was very uncomfortable.
I was annoyed with Mary Daley, because in the end
she hadn't done her homework.
-: Yes.
-: I think I enjoyed it once since I went with
my current spouse.
And I'm married to a woman.
And we liked it very much, and it was good to see
the people of the community there.
Good to be back in touch with Chris Smith
and folks like that that I knew.
-: Excellent, yes.
Well, I know you were aware of the backlash
after the 93 conference, being in Loorval,
so I'm curious, first of all, did it effect you directly?
-: Yes.
I sat in the office, then all this really
ugly mail came in.
And we worked it there and discussed it a lot
in our big meetings.
And we took together a packet of articles
and then we made distinctions between
people that wrote letters that seemed
to ask for more information or explanation,
people that wrote letters to us that
seemed to want more contact, and we sent
those folks the packs and wrote them nice letters.
I'm not aware that we heard of any of them again,
from any of them, but I was chastised
by the General Assembly Council for doing that
without asking their permission.
-: Really?
-: Yeah.
We also got some really ugly letters.
And I'm trying to remember, I know we
decided we'd just throw those away.
Not try to deal with them, but we may
have decided to send out one line answers
saying "We have received your letter"
-: Right.
-: But I'm not sure.
Oh, we had to make decisions because
(mumbles) for women should be end.
-: And I'm curious, you probably don't wanna
particularly remember this or some of it
you may not be able to say, but just to
get the tenor when you said they were unpleasant,
what kinds of things are we talking about
for the sake of the historical record?
-: Some of the ugliest.
They were always very brief.
And just very ugly comments about women
trying to change for church.
And how could we have imagined doing that.
Blah, blah, blah.
-: Yes.
-: And they really were not kind of things
that we would answer.
Wait a minute, I have a (mumbles).
Did I tell you that the Presbyterian Church
did not send its (mumbles) people?
Its reporters to the re-imagining?
-: Oh.
Say some more about that.
-: It was a huge mistake.
Though in women's ministries we always assumed
that they just blew us off,
they thought it was just gonna be
a little women's conference or something.
So they didn't go, whereas the Methodists
and the Lutheran physical presence were all there
writing very negative comment and commentary
on the conference, and that was the sorts of
problems to Presbyterians, that
their folk hadn't been there.
-: You think it really would have helped
if they had their press there?
-: Probably, I think the Presbyterians
thought they had egg on their face,
and shouldn't have been there.
I'm certain that the press weren't as angry as others,
but at least we would have had the possibility
of being in direct contact in conversation
with our own people.
-: Yes.
And how did you react to this whole situation?
-: Well I thought it was great.
I followed the conference, I was totally
in support of it, while I was there.
I was a follower of the Ecunemical Decade.
I had been throughout the decade.
This was re-imagining what the mid point, I guess, you know?
But we knew by then that the Ecunemical Decade
wasn't going very well, wasn't accomplishing its goals.
I guess it was the World Council of Churches,
sent out teams to go to different parts of the country
and check in the congregations,
then councils and churches and that was
their report in general.
But I had been in a place where there was
one of those groups from the WTC.
I also took a group of Presbyterian women
to the Beijing Conference in 1996,
which was a group of Presbyterian women,
which was another part of the decade.
It's where Hillary Clinton gave her speech
and said, "Women's rights are human rights".
-: Yes, and you were there, wow.
-: Yes.
-: When you say the goals weren't being accomplished
for the Ecunemical Decade, what did that mean?
Did that mean people just weren't organizing things?
Or what did that mean?
-: My understanding was that the goals were, again,
for women for power in the church,
equal representation in leadership,
but also outside of the church.
And that and several others which,
women weren't being paid as much, that kind of thing.
And the hope was that the Ecunemical Decade
would bring about the changes in the church
and especially to denominations that didn't
allow women to be ordained.
But also then it would accept more broadly
the lives of women outside the church.
-: Yes, and-
-: (mumbles)
-: Oh, I apologize, I thought were done, go ahead, yes.
So was it meeting those goals?
-: The other thing under the backlash
was that we did put out the Church and Sobriety Magazine
which I really think is good.
-: Yes.
I've read that and it's very impressive.
Lot's of the speeches are in there.
-: Most.
But it also goes through the goals and things.
-: Exactly, it puts it in context.
-: Yeah.
-: How would you describe the mood
in the Women's Division while all this was happening?
-: I think we often felt beleaguered.
But it didn't seem necessarily because of re-imagining.
It felt bold, the way it has always been in the church
and stuff, but just kind of a reflective
lack of interest, and reflective attempt
to keep us from making much change.
We sapped our energy, and enjoyed ourselves
but we didn't get all that far.
At some point, we actually really (mumbles).
-: Yeah.
Well I'm curious, were you or other people
surprised by the backlash to re-imagining?
-: No.
I don't think so.
It happened so quickly that I can't remember
a time when I didn't know about it.
I did want to tell you that (mumbles),
and her mother and best friend did go to re-imagining.
And they loved her.
And when they came back, they wrote a report
to their Presbytery, and they were called
on the carpet side to man in the Presbyterian question
about what they had done there and what it was like.
So that premise stuff was going on as part of the backlash.
-: I'm glad they went and they
had such a positive experience.
-: Yeah, 'cause Bear wasn't able to go,
and I wasn't, as I said.
So I'm so glad they were.
-: And I think you were starting to answer
this already, but just to ask, so how
do you account for this backlash,
you said it seemed part of a longer event
or process, but how would you account for it?
-: I think re-imagining was explosive.
I think it was, I suppose that's maybe
the next question, but it was a huge turning point.
And I think that the misogyny and the male
theology of the churches, although it was
being challenged everywhere, there wasn't a focal point.
And it wasn't all that scary, but after re-imagining,
I think the people who benefited from
male theologies knew that their time
in charge was up.
And they wanted to fight to see if that
they could tamp it down, but there was no way,
the genie was out of the bottle.
-: What about re-imagining made it
such a turning point, and so explosive?
-: I think the fact that it was global,
that it was ecunemical, that it was very public,
that it was very publicized.
You can't deny something that's that big, I think.
You can't say, "Oh, that's just the Luterhans".
It was all the women who knew and cared,
and it was sponsored by the World Council of Churches.
I think the global aspect was very important.
-: You know, before you move on, I did wanna ask you
if you were at the general assembly
that discussed re-imagining, and or what you thought,
if you remember, about the report, or what
your reaction was to what happened there?
-: Wow.
I must have been there and I haven't thought about that.
I don't have answers.
I will think about it, and if I ...
I'll talk with Claire about it.
And if I can come up with anything, I'll write you.
-: Thank you, I appreciate that.
Well it has been a long time now (laughs).
But thank you.
-: Yeah.
-: Susan, how would you define re-imagining?
-: I think it's so obvious that it's hard to say.
I like the story on Sally Hill.
Sally Hill's typo?
-: Yes.
-: When it was supposed to be "re-imaging".
As you know that's "re-imagining".
Do you have that story?
-: I do, and several people have told it.
It is so important, and I wanna know
why you love that story.
-: Well, because she told it in a very funny way.
But I like Sally Hill.
I know I don't have anything much bigger than that,
but re-imagining is about re-imaging.
And re-imagining, both of which are theological/spiritual,
(mumbles), and explorations, and that's
what it means to me, just looking at it all.
Looking at everything we've been taught,
and told and seeing whether it conveys
a redeeming potential for women, or requires
that it be re-imagined so that it does.
Is that helpful?
-: It is, that's excellent, that's a great way to put it.
Absolutely.
And every time I ask, I get a slightly different answer,
and that's really helpful, that's good.
-: Yeah, you have to look at everything they do.
-: Say some more about that.
-: Well, I'm thinking of things that work with
other inclusivities, like racism
and then Black Lives Matter.
We have to look at everything.
We white people have to look at everything
that reviews not just human rights for gender,
or who we vote for.
And I think as time goes by, it's also true
for sexuality, it's got ...
You have to look at those whole,
across-the-board things in order to
make new and make deliberative what we
used to think what were the good old days.
-: Do you think re-imagining was doing that?
Or is it something that needs-
-: Oh yeah.
-: Yeah?
-: I think it did as much as you can do in a few days.
But that what it set in motion ...
All of this stuff was in motion was before,
but it brought so much together, and named it,
that I'm forgetting the end of my sentence!
(interviewer laughs)
-: It brought so much together and named it,
and I'm curious, what are you thinking of
when you say that?
You're on to something (laughs).
-: Well I think it goes back to the important idea.
That nothing was the same afterwards.
For everybody.
For those who cared, nothing was the same.
And for those who were furious, nothing was the same,
or I hope nothing was.
-: Right.
For you, what aspects of re-imagining
where most significant?
-: Well, I like a lot of the big stuff.
So liturgies, the music, the secret society,
all the books that people kept on writing.
Because of that resource, all of us
could not be writing because we were pastors.
Or whatever.
And so that helped it grow, and by providing resources,
to spread the change I think, push rate,
accepting the places where you couldn't change anything.
But that's not the (mumbles), says nothing about.
-: And you think those resources were actually used?
-: Oh yeah.
Well, I'm speaking for myself in part,
but certainly the books that I have,
for seven years written books of liturgies,
and I used them when I was writing church services,
that sort of thing.
And even before I went to seminary,
I got a great big bottle of white out,
and so did the minister.
And we would white out all the masculine words,
and all the exclusive language.
In church services, even anselms and stuff,
that we were involved in.
-: And I'm curious in how-
Go ahead.
-: No, that's okay.
-: I'm sorry, I was wondering how people reacted to this?
-: You know, they didn't.
The people that were in that church in the small college
chapel, they were ready for it, and none of them
were women that were in the group I was in.
So yeah.
-: That's great.
Did your involvement in re-imagining
change your perspective on feminist theology
or the church at all?
-: What I would say is that it aided my appreciation
of its inclusivity, it's global nature led me
to think of being inclusive of other religions
than just Christianity.
We do a lot of interfaith stuff here now.
And for me, it helped answer the question
of if there's not a redeeming potential for women,
I won't go there.
It helps make the church become popular,
become wonderful.
And you don't go to the ones that didn't change.
-: Yeah.
Wow, okay, that's great.
Can you think of specific contributions
that re-imagining made Christian theology or liturgy?
-: I put (mumbles) on this question.
I think it turns theologies around.
I may be being a little grandiose about it,
but I don't think ...
The people that we care about, the male writers,
as we care about good (mumbles) again, I think,
write the sort of books that they have.
I think that it changed writers and thinkers
and liturgists in a big way.
I've also, we've mentioned the resources there,
and of course language, where we have continued to grow.
-: So despite the backlash, you think that it really
did have an impact?
-: Yeah, because so many of us carried it with us.
-: Yes.
-: And we're able to ...
We call it something like an infectious disease.
(interviewer laughs)
It spread (laughs).
It's like a flu.
So yeah, it spread, we became walking re-imaginers.
-: And so what I hear you saying is,
so I wanna make sure I'm hearing you right,
is that even for people who didn't attend,
but the people who did sort of just spread it out
from there, so it went beyond the people
who actually attended, is that correct?
-: Oh yes.
-: Great.
-: I'm American, there are a whole lot of people like me
and my spouse who were not able to go.
-: Right.
-: So and all of us were primed to drink it up
and carry it on our backs.
-: Yeah.
Now this might be a tough question,
but I'll try it, what do you think
is the greatest legacy of the re-imagining community?
-: (mumbles)
(interviewer laughs)
It's really a hard choice, isn't it?
-: You don't have to list just one I don't think.
-: I had forgotten the global impact,
and its improvement, racially, includes all
the inclusivities, racial denomination, all that stuff.
But I also think it got a big influence,
our best legacy beyond the church.
-: That's interesting, what do you think
its legacy was beyond the church?
-: Well, we talked a little bit about
kind of measuring the Ecunemical Decade's goals
and whether they were being achieved at the
five year point.
I think that much has been achieved.
Its re-imagining was theological/spiritual.
We are carrying it on our back,
there are people out there in the real world
involved in social justice and (mumbles)
classes, issues for women.
And I think that over time, since 1993,
that those are making a change,
and I also think that they help people
that think that social justice has
nothing to do with our spirituality,
to put together the fact that it is
our spirituality, just as it grows from our spirituality.
People say, "Justice is the activity of love".
And to my mind, love is the activity of religion.
So I think changes are being made.
They don't look at other people as being theological,
they look just like justice.
-: Wow, thank you.
Well, and I think we're starting to move in that direction,
but what do you think re-imagining means today?
And I don't mean just that particular community,
but what needs to be re-imagined today?
-: What I have answered was ...
I think it's words to the years (mumbles) everywhere.
That it's an activity that needs to be used continuously.
Continually.
We need (mumbles) they do, (mumbles),
maybe that's some good news.
And whether we're stuck some place
and not noticing that our behavior
is injurious to other people.
So I think that's what I think.
It needs to be a continuous way of being.
-: Oh, that is great.
I have one last very specific question for you.
We're working on a re-imagining website,
and I'm wondering if you had ideas about
what could be included in it or who
would benefit from it?
Any ideas you have about the website
would be really helpful.
-: Okay, I think the non-liturgy for book reviews
or books of liturgies.
The same for music, some of the people
who don't know anything about this,
the next generation can have resources
for their church services or women's groups
or whatever.
I tried to get the church's society on (mumbles)
that may become outdated.
Book reviews in general of feminist theologies.
And I think if there are (mumbles) communities
of re-imaginers in different areas,
or whole big ones, they put down contacts
that people can be in touch with,
if they want to learn more or be in a group themselves.
-: That's great.
Those are all good ideas, absolutely.
That's, I think we're picturing it,
sort of a resource, and those are good ideas for resources.
Is there anything that we haven't discussed
that you would like to add, Susan?
-: (laughs) I would get people to go
to the website if they don't know it exists.
-: Yes, that's the problem.
It hasn't been online yet, but-
-: Yeah, I know, I tried.
-: Yes, it'll be the end of the summer.
We're hiring someone to design it.
And so I think the main idea that we have
at the moment is to try to spread the word
every way we can think of, for example,
we had this distribution list,
and we're kind of hoping other people will do it,
use social media.
And using the contacts of the people
I've been interviewing, hopefully they
will help to spread it.
I don't know, do you have other ideas?
Because I think that's gonna be huge.
And of course, the issue too is not just
bringing it to the next generation as you said.
-: Yeah.
I think I had a thought that just left my head.
Oh, maybe on the website, you could
ask the people there to spread the word.
-: Yes.
-: And particularly their pastors that are using it.
Pastors that are working with liturgists,
to tell them that's a good place go.
But you get the word out that way.
-: That is a great idea.
I think we're gonna have to be really explicit
about that, you're right.
-: Yeah.
-: Yeah, maybe the same thing for people
who are teaching, as well, teaching theology,
colleges and seminaries.
-: Oh yes, I haven't said enough about teachers,
professors, I still think it's fabulous
that I was able to do a feminist theology class
round 1990, in a little Methodist college.
-: Yeah, what was that like, Susan?
Were the students receptive, how did that-
-: Yes, but they had weekend college there
for older people, and so that's the group
that I taught.
And they (mumbles).
I didn't give them really heavy assignments
but we kept journals and wrote poems
and I tried to teach them obviously in a feminist way.
So it was really good.
We had great parties.
(interviewer laughs)
-: Was it women and men?
-: No.
-: It was all women?
-: Uhuh.
-: Yeah, and do you think that the older students
were more receptive than the more traditional-aged
ones would have been?
-: I will bet so.
I was teaching ethics to traditionally-aged children,
ugh children, students there.
And they had such a hard time getting the concepts.
I finally went to a psychologist
and said, "What's up? Why aren't these students
"doing better?".
At least his opinion was that typical
college-aged students aren't really good
at complex thinking yet.
But putting things together, most
of them aren't really ready to think ethically
or anyhow, I don't know if that's really true
but it's the knee-jerk thing ...
I would (mumbles) older people and just women.
-: Yes, sounds like a great experience.
-: Yeah.
-: Is there anything else that you wanted to add?
-: I don't think so.
-: (laughs) Well ...
-: Anything else you want to ask?
-: I don't think so, I think that you
have done a great job, you've obviously
thought about these questions and you've
added a lot to the history and the conversation,
I really appreciate it.
-: Well, for one who didn't go,
perhaps that's important, (mumbles)
somebody who'd go.
-: Absolutely, and to hear about it impacted people
who didn't go, that's an important part of the story.
-: Uhuh.
-: I'm gonna turn the recorder off now.
So just give me a second.
-: Okay.
-: Here we go.