G. C. Jeffers

It should surprise absolutely no one who knows me well that I spend way too much time putting myself and others in boxes. In fact, I once wrote a post in which I confessed the sin that is sometimes present in doing just that. In any case, since my return to historically orthodox Christian theology in Lent of 2013 or so, I’ve wrestled with finding my people.

In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis explains that one can’t actually be a mere Christian. Mere Christianity is just a hallway off of which distinct Christian traditions hang like rooms. You really shouldn’t just hang out in the hallway; for the sake of your spiritual formation, you need to enter a room. I’ve described elsewhere that I hail from the Churches of Christ. While there is quite a lot of good about the Churches of Christ (they sure love the Bible and affirm the centrality of Communion and Baptism), there is also quite a bit amiss. The central issue I have had with the Churches of Christ as someone who cares about church history and historical theology is that the Churches of Christ, as a whole, are largely ahistorical. Among other things, this has meant that the Churches of Christ are unbound by any kind of confession or even broader sense of basic orthodoxy.

If there is “no creed but the Bible,” then we are lost forever in the maze of pervasive interpretive pluralism. Of course, as a matter of practice, Churches of Christ have largely been unified in their readings of Scripture, but I have known folks (not many, of course, but it is telling that they were considered members in good standing) who denied the Trinity (the word is not in the Bible) or (more commonly) who insisted that since Sunday school, kitchens, and missionary boards (to name a few) are not authorized by Scripture, then they are forbidden. Aside from dangerous heresies (like denying the Trinity), this approach is a large exercise in missing the point. Since going to college, I have sojourned in non-denominational (both charismatic and cessasionist) churches, more moderate Churches of Christ, and the Episcopal Church. However, about four years ago, my wife and I made the decision to leave our (cessationist) non-denominational church and join Restoration Anglican Church. What a homecoming for me! (I had been a covert Anglican for about a decade before this).

Since moving to the Austin area, we have been attending The Church of the Cross, an Anglican parish in the same diocese as Restoration. The sacramental and liturgical life has become deeply important to us and, though I have found myself theologically and liturgically drawn to Anglo-Catholicism, this (liturgically) low-church, orthodox Anglican parish has become an oasis. Indeed, Church of the Cross happily accommodates (as Anglicanism does generally) a variety of theological orientations.

I have been asked at least a few times in recent years why I’m not a Roman Catholic. The question usually follows me explaining my embrace of Catholic natural law ideas about sexuality or after I recount my personal spiritual practices (praying the canonical hours, making use of icons and candles, crossing myself, using sacramentals, invoking the saints, etc). And, to be fair, it is a question I’ve asked myself over the years. So, for clarity on that point, take a look at this post.

Anyhow, my post today is an attempt to set out, in general, where I find myself on matters of secondary importance within orthodox boundaries.

1. I am a small “o” orthodox Christian
2. I am a catholic. That is, I believe that there is one historically continuous Church and thus reject all restorationist attempts to “recover” or reconstitute the primitive Church. The Church was, is, and will always be where the Word of God is rightly preached and the Sacraments are duly administered, and this Church is visible and institutional.
3. While I am sympathetic many Protestant theological positions, I don’t consider Anglicanism fundamentally Protestant. Unlike Protestant churches that broke completely with Catholic structure and tradition, the Church of England maintained apostolic succession, the historic episcopate, and much of its Catholic heritage. Christianity in Britain has ancient roots, with both Celtic and Roman traditions shaping its development long before the Reformation. When the English church separated from papal authority in the 16th century, it retained its Catholic order and sacramental theology while reforming certain practices and doctrines. This is why I view Anglicanism as occupying a unique position – reformed Catholic rather than Protestant in its essential character.
4. I affirm the normative and authoritative nature of scripture, especially for matters of theology and practice. Scripture is the final authority. However, the bible tells the truth according to the literary, cultural, and historical conventions of its time and place and must be interpreted. This is why “Church tradition has a valid standing along with Scripture. In any matters, except those necessary for salvation, what Scripture does not forbid may be allowed. In this lie life and liberty. Furthermore, the Bible, while not the source or origin of doctrine, has a most important function of being the test of doctrine. No doctrine can be taught as necessary to salvation unless it can be proved by Scripture. It is the safeguard against those additions to the faith such as Rome has made and can continue to make independent of Scriptural warrant.” (taken from this article).
5. I affirm that God genuinely calls all people to come to him and makes this possible via his prevenient grace. I further affirm that God pursues all people to such an extent that, though he does not override creaturely libertarian freedom, he does make use of his middle knowledge to effect the salvation of people. This makes me a Molinist.
6. I affirm the vicarious atonement in which Christ serves as our substitute, though I reject penal substitution as a sub-biblical distortion of the way vicarious atonement works. It is an innovation of the Protestant Church at the hands of Luther, Calvin, et al in which God is overcome by his wrath at sin and takes it out on his innocent son. Rather, Christ fulfilled the Law on our behalf thus overcoming our sin (Satisfaction Theory), gave his life to purchase our freedom from the Powers thus overcoming Satan (Ransom Theory), and stormed the barred gates of Hades thus overcoming death (Christus Victor Theory). Those who have gathered to his banner pledge their allegiance to him and pass into his family via baptism in which they identify with his death, burial, and resurrection. His Spirit is sent to call all people to his cause, to indwell those who come, and to equip them for service in his kingdom.
7. I am a moderate charismatic. I affirm that the ordinary charismatic gifts (tongues and prophesy, namely) are operative today, but I largely believe that the signs and wonders that authenticated the Gospel proclamation by the Apostles have ceased as the ordinary means of operation. They remain most active on the mission field.
8. I reject dispensational theology outright (especially the distinction drawn between Israel and the church), though I think a strict covenant theology is also too narrow. Patristic and medieval typology is just as important as the historical-grammatical and historical-critical methods of biblical interpretation.
9. I am an amillennialist in that I believe that the millennium described in St. John’s Revelation is coextensive with the age of the Church. I am also a partial-preterist in that I believe that the prophecies in Daniel, Revelation, the Gospels, and elsewhere were fulfilled during the first century, specifically in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. The first century witnessed various types that would be fulfilled in greater degrees later, like the persecution of Christians in Asia Minor, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the diabolical actions of an emperor like Nero. However, I don’t think that the types were completely fulfilled (though I wouldn’t be surprised if I were wrong). Thus, I am also a futurist in that I believe that before Christ returns, the Gospel will have been preached to all, large chunks of the Church will fall into apostasy, there will be a period of intense persecution and suffering, and the Antichrist will arise. I specifically deny dispensational premillennialism and “rapture” theology as an innovation and as built on poor exegesis.
10. I am a complementary-egalitarian in gender roles for the church and the home, affirming that both men and women can be called as deacons, presbyters, and bishops in the church and that marriage ought to be ordered toward non-hierarchical mutual submission while simultaneously affirming the complementary ways that men and women relate to each other out of their essential gender characteristics. I’ve written about this here. Moreover, despite my endorsement of the ordination of women, I do think that the way in which the Anglican Communion began ordaining women to the priesthood and the episcopate to be bad for the unity of the Church. If the Church is to be truly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, then no province should act without at least consulting the other branches.
11. I affirm the three-fold order of ministry (deacons, presbyters, and bishops) as accepted by nearly every Christian since the first-century (for more on the three-fold order and sacramental theology, see this post). Though Christ did not explicitly ordain such an order in scripture, and “the functions of each order may vary somewhat in different times and places, . . . the principle of delegated authority is not thereby violated. Whatever differing types of organization might be found in different localities, the principle of a commissioned ministry was maintained, and survived in the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons, while all others disappeared.” In this I see the guidance of the Holy Spirit (taken from this article).
12. I affirm the two dominical sacraments (rituals ordained by Christ that communicate grace to the recipients): Baptism and the Eucharist as generally necessary for salvation. In baptism, we enter the life of the believing community and are sealed with the Holy Spirit by dying and then rising to new life in Christ. I thus affirm baptismal regeneration. As a lifelong credo-baptist, paedo-baptism was foreign to me experientially, though I have no specific theological objection to the practice. And, indeed, I find it hard to argue with scriptures that seems to support infant baptism (Acts 2:39, Acts 10:48, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, Col 2:11-12). Additionally, while accepting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I do not correspondingly accept transubstantiation as the explanation as to how Christ is really present in the Eucharist. I deny the theory of Receptionism which holds that only those who have faith truly receive Christ. Rather, as St. Paul holds in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, I affirm that all who partake of the elements partake of Christ himself (body, soul, blood, and divinity), though those who partake in an unworthy manner bring judgement on themselves. I also affirm five ecclesial sacraments (rituals ordained by the Church that communicate grace to the recipients): Confirmation (which is related to Baptism), Ordination, Holy Matrimony, Reconciliation (Confession), and Unction (anointing the sick and the dying). For more on my take on the Sacraments and Ecclesiology, see this article.
13. I accept the pious practice of praying to the saints. More on that here.
14. I am hopeful that all will be redeemed. I am partial to Origen’s account (known as apokatastasis). However, apokatastasis is clearly a minority report in Christian history. If it is logically possible that all are redeemed, then my intuition says they will be redeemed. However, given that God’s love requires that he respect our free will, it is more likely that not all are redeemed as some people most likely would persist in their sins. Given this, the account of Hell that makes the most sense to me is annihilation. I have written about that here.