By Kate Hanch
When Brian first approached me to be a regular contributor, at first I was hesitant. My specialty is not biblical studies, and my interests appeared different from regular contributors. As I scrolled through the blog, I saw the disclaimer on the right hand side of the page that encouraged readers to look at the date of the post, as the authors may have changed their mind on the subject. I felt assured of this—much of my academic and Christian journey has involved ongoing transformation. Plus, I had deleted my previous two blogs because my mind had changed.
For this first posting as a regular contributor, I thought I would outline some things that I value in theological construction. This will help you know a bit about why I ask certain questions, and where I’m coming from. In studying theology, we can have a critical distance, although I’m unsure if we can ever be fully objective. Therefore, I admit my partial perspective in outlining my approaches and questions, trusting in the community of the great cloud of witnesses and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
As a Christian I’d like to think all of life is theology, even if we don’t realize it or reflect on it. Because I believe in the Holy Spirit’s working in the whole of creation, everyday actions can become sources of theology. For example, our views on eschatology and creation impact how we view water usage or who has access to fresh food. By claiming this, I reflect Anselm’s “faith seeking understanding” as a general definition for theology. Further, I don’t limit the study and practice of theology only to academics—all Christians are students of theology. My goal in pursuing academics is to help people do thoughtful theological reflection.
I believe the task of theology is to do thoughtful theological reflection to discern the will of God and our response in the world. My advisor reminds me that will of God is that all of creation should flourish. Thoughtfulness takes time, discernment, prayer, reading, and conversation. We need thoughtfulness to discern how God is working and how we can participate. I see theology as an act of worship and an act of justice—the two aren’t necessarily separated.
I am Baptist. I was ordained in a church affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and consider it my denominational home. It is difficult to make a general statement about Baptists, because no two Baptists churches are alike. The diversity stems in part because congregations usually govern themselves. For more information about the variety of Baptist perspectives, see A Global Introduction to Baptist Churches by my M.Div. Christian History professor Robert Johnson. To claim my Baptist-ness means that I embrace the evangelical identity that accompanies it. I also establish myself as someone doing theology in concert with and in service to the church.
I am a Christian feminist. Christian feminism isn’t simply about replacing male images/pronouns/etc. with female ones, but it’s a justice commitment to seek out, emphasize, and honor God’s giftedness to all of humanity. Thus, for example, in ecclesiology, Christian feminism would not only encourage women pastors, but reexamine critically liturgy and congregational practices and perhaps offer new practices of worship that are life-giving for women. There is a multiplicity of Christian feminisms, including Catholic, womanist, Latina, and Mennonite. To see the variety of approaches of Christian feminisms, check out the anthology New Feminist Christianity: Many Voices, Many Views. By claiming to be a Christian feminist, I seek to honor and uplift women’s roles in the biblical narrative and Christian history. In addition, I hope to be aware of and uplift those whose voices are continually unheard or oppressed, believing that the Spirit speaks especially through them.
Some of my coursework includes: Global Feminist Biblical and Theological Interpretation, Christology and Trinity in the Early Church, Derrida, and Reformed Theological Readings.
I hope for my contributions to include thoughts about what I’m reading or pondering. I’m grateful to be here at Near Emmaus on the journey with you!
the archives near Emmaus 
Welcome Kate! I’m so glad you’ve chosen to join us and I’m sure that there are readers of Near Emmaus who look forward to hearing your perspective, myself included. I really like approach you take to theologizing and I’m sure that I’m going to learn a lot from you as you blog here.
I know you stated that being a Baptist doesn’t mean the same thing to any two people, but is there any thing specific you’d say about your Baptist affiliation that allows you to theologize as you do, whether it be that very fluidity you mention, or the so-called “low” Ecclesiology that seems to have the potential to navigate around some of the problems associated with rigid hierarchy? At one time I felt like I was leaning Baptist (during my post-Pentecostal days) but the fluidity of the term unnerved me because “Baptist” like “Evangelical” is often understood by the public to associate more with the loud Fundamentalists types than any of the voices with which we’d feel most comfortable. How have you navigated this challenge?
Thanks Brian!
You are correct in the Baptist faith being unfairly pigeon-holed into fundamentalism. My adviser reminds me that I can claim categories such as “Baptist” or “evangelical” and subvert them to mean something different than the stereotypes.
One thing I’m appreciative about my Baptist tradition is its tendency to incorporate a variety of sources and traditions in theology.Unlike those from the Reformed or Arminian and Wesleyan traditions, Baptists don’t have that one “guy” from history who is preeminent in theological formation. This gives me the freedom to reflect on a variety of theological resources. I
In his Global Introduction to Baptist Churches that I referenced above, Dr. Johnson offers: “responsible freedom of conscience exercised in Christian community and informed through a personal relationship with God by faith in Christ through the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit and guided by the Bible’s revelation would be the closest statement possible to what Baptists believe.” (p. 388)
From that definition, Baptists generally emphasize freedom of the believer to interpret the bible and live out his/her faith with the guidance and help of the Triune God and in concert with the community of faith.
@Kate: That is a great observation regarding Baptist tradition not having a Luther, Calvin, or Wesley figurehead. It has always felt weird to align with a movement that is “of so-and-so”. Baptists don’t have that problem, nor do Pentecostals, but most Protestant traditions do seem to have it.
The only part with which I struggle is the danger of biblicism. As many of our RCC, Orthodox, or Anglican friends might remind us: the Bible didn’t appear out of the sky but took formation within the episcopal Church. I haven’t figured out a way to think of the Church’s Bible that allows me to easily dismiss the ecclesial structures that helped determine what would become canon. Sometimes—as someone inclined to a low ecclesiology—it feels hypocritical to use the Bible established by the Church’s hierarchy while then advocating for the dismissal of that hierarchy and the democratization of the Bible’s interpretation. Does this make sense? Any thoughts?
@Brian,
You make a good point and a valid criticism. I think pneumatology might be one approach to help us with the issue (admittedly, Baptists have not dwelt on pneumatology). It really has never been sola scriptura–interpreting scripture includes tradition, the community of faith, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, there perhaps can be democratization without relativism. Perhaps the Spirit can prevent biblicism or bibliolatry.
As for your comment on the bible (particularly the New Testament) as established by the Church’s hierarchy, I’m wondering how that process differed from the formation of the Hebrew Bible. It seems that in the formation of the New Testament, individual communities already had a history of using certain texts as scripture before they were brought to the hierarchy. To go any deeper, I would have to go back to my notes and books to comment further.
@Kate: I want to be careful to avoid the image of a bunch of Bishops huddled together choosing the canon using colored beads like The Jesus Seminary. I think you are right that, in part, the formation of canon does have a lot to do with the communities adopting texts that resonated with the Gospel that had been preached to them. That said, I don’t know that these communities could have done this with any catholicity if not for the fellowship of the episcopate. In this sense it is much like the selection of texts for the Hebrew Bible with the more widely used books being those that seem to have had the stamp of approval of the Jerusalem hierarchy. Maybe there is a parallel in that the hierarchy may be used to bring coherence and familiarity to the idea of canon, but it is the content of these canons that help the people critique that very hierarchy when it doesn’t live in accordance with these Scriptures. I’m just thinking out loud here.
I do think Pneumatology is key, and that is the avenue I’ve sought to travel, though my thinking on this remains a bit muddled, admittedly. Pneumatology may be the paradigm that helps us discuss canon formation, authoritative texts, and the use of a helpful-but-not-always-necessary hierarchy, i.e., the Spirit used the episcopate of the early Church for a specific purpose, but didn’t intent for the episcopate to be the highest or best ecclesiology available to the Church at all times and places.
I hope this isn’t a ramble. Your thoughts are sparking some of my own here so I’m trying to feed off of what you said.
@Brian: I think I was having trouble with what you mean by “episcopate.” I understand better know. Thanks!
I also wonder what the difference is (or if there is any) between hierarchy and episcopacy. Or, for that matter, leadership and hierarchy. I know this is a matter of semantics, but it could be helpful. Leadership was necessary for the canon to form. Along with this is the acknowledgement of sin in hierarchy and leadership, as well as in individual interpretations.
Also, some Baptist communities (particularly neo-Calvinist types) are moving away from democratized leadership. They use the elder/deacon/lay model, similar to some Presbyterian counterparts. They may adopt an official creed or confession, such as the Westminster Confession
It appears as if an implicit pneumatology could be studied in this regard. Although, can implicit pneumatology be studied?
One thing that has intrigued me is the difference in Pneumatology and Ecclesiology between the Corinthian correspondences by Paul and the Pastoral Epistles attributed to him. It seems as if in Corinth Paul allowed the Church to be a “Spirit-Cult” if you will whereas the Pastorals begin emphasizing a Church that identifies as a group of people loyal to a figure who has the authority of being chosen by an Apostle, like Paul. This tension seems to reflect what we’ve seen through time and into the present between episcopal-led Churches like the RCC, Orthodox, and Anglicans and the more congregational, democratic movements like the Baptists and Pentecostals (with Presbyterians, Methodists, and others somewhere in-between). So right there in the early Church, and preserved in the Canon, we see this tension.
Maybe the Church needs to exist in various forms in order to have her greatest impact in the world? For some their edification and fidelity depends on being tied to something more established, more of a hierarchy. For others their edification and fidelity depends on being able to flow with the uncontrollable Spirit, going here and there within a sort of secure chaos. What do you think of this “both/and” Ecclesiology?
Pneumatology is difficult to study as an informative doctrine for practice because it feels like studying wind patterns: we may see some consistency, but we have no control. I think people like John R. Levison who has mixed both a study of ancient pneumatology with current theology of the Spirit provides a good model. Others like Amos Yong and Jürgen Moltmann may be helpful as well.