I am very pleased to be part of this list that draws folks from so many
parts of the world, so many cultural backgrounds, and so many religious
traditions. I am impressed by how many of us there are on this new list;
even if those who have already introduced themselves to the list
represent the majority of us (which seems unlikely), then this list is
well-subscribed. Our numbers speak to the importance of the topic this
list proposes. I will be interested to see how such a diverse group goes
about defining issues and questions across the distances of culture and
space. It seems to me that we're undertaking very important work here.
(I'm amused by the difference between this list and a history list I
signed on to the same day. On that list, nobody has introduced
her/himself, but they're already avidly debating the definition of
historiography.)
I am on the faculty of the Women's Studies Department at the University
of Arizona. I have an MA in (medieval) history and a PhD in English Lit.
I am a practicing Episcopalian (Anglican) trying to move the church's
theology, liturgy, and praxis to a more progressive, less androcentric
and hierarchical space from my vantage within the institution.
I respect those of you who have left a traditional, "dominant" path
altogether for new or revived practices, but I find my religious
tradition to be so entwined with everything else I do/think/value that I
cannot abandon it. I suspect that these two paths--leaving and
(re)inventing vs. staying and reforming-- represent a difficult choice
for most women today who are religious or spiritual seekers. I like to
remember what Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza says when folks ask her why
she hasn't left the Catholic Church. She points out that nobody ever
asks the Pope that--implying that the church belongs to those on the
margins who want to change it as well as to those at the center who are
impeding change, one might say. But of course that doesn't solve the
problem, which remains a very difficult almost daily choice.
|