So the Evangelicals of the internet had a medium-sized explosion this past week as Matthew Barrett announced that he is becoming Anglican. The whole thing was interesting, and I’ve been thinking about it and the broader matter of Anglican identity, who and what the ACNA is, and how we should think about these sorts of transitions.

Now, before I go too far here, there are about a dozen reasons why I maybe shouldn’t write this. After all, I just became Anglican about three years ago. Any critical remarks are going to basically look like the Spiderman Pointing meme. Additionally, my circles overlap with Dr. Barrett’s. That was probably already the case even when he was a Baptist, but it’s definitely the case now. And so Dr. Barrett, if you read this, I want you to know that I liked your overall project before this big week, and I hope to continue liking your project in the weeks, months, and years to come. I would love for us to be friends. I am not trying to be mean or attack you, and I am going to try move away from you towards the bigger picture. But hey, you did kick this whole thing off. I can’t not talk about that for at least a minute.

So, two points about Barrett’s announcement and then I’ll move on to the bigger ideas that stands above everything else.

While I am glad to have you in the ACNA, you would have been much better off not giving those parting shots against the SBC. I think you’ll come to agree after a bit of time has passed. And the things you said about the SBC not being able to handle disciplinary situations because it is too worried about its image are 1000% going to come back around and be applied to the ACNA by hostile critics. If you haven’t heard about it yet, we are in the middle of a major crisis involving precisely those sorts of accusations. We’re all under a lot of scrutiny these days, and not every committee or group within an organization responds well. Church discipline cases are always hard, and correcting big institutions takes time, a lot of time.

Secondly, there were a few claims that you made about Anglican worship and the great tradition which are not actually representative of the classic Anglican tradition. I am just going to pick one, which might seem like a small one, but it’s objective and illustrative of how tricky these things can be.

In discussing the sacrament of Holy Communion, you wrote:

…the BCP petitions God to sanctify bread and wine, as well as the people to receive it. “Receive”is the optimal word. For when the people come forward, they do not take but receive the bread and wine from the rector himself (his presence providing accountability and counsel).

Now, I think I see what you are getting at here, but you should know that the older BCPs actually instruct the priest to say to the people, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.”

These words are in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The 2019 BCP also has these words, but it places some of them in brackets, allowing the minister to abbreviate or omit as he chooses. Your stated contrast between “taking” and “receiving” doesn’t really work here.

On its own, this is a minor detail. But I point it out because there’s a bigger issue that you will encounter in the ACNA. A lot of the most common liturgical elements, ceremonies, clerical dress, lectionary and calendar observances are not actually “traditional” when it comes to the classic Anglican tradition. They are instead a product of the post-Vatican 2 ecumenical liturgical renewal project. This doesn’t mean that they are automatically bad, but it does mean that we need to be very careful before we pronounce them to be ancient or a part of “the great tradition.” Entering into the church with a cross was once highly controversial. Crucifixes would have been prohibited. Weekly communion was typically only found in the cathedrals. The parishes would hold Morning Prayer with the Litany and then the Antecommunion portion of the service. And Communion was typically “closed” rather than open. (The 1662 BCP has a rubric which says the people who intend to communion must inform the minister by at least the day before. A little later it says that they must be confirmed or desirous to be confirmed in order to partake in the sacrament.) A fair amount of what happens in “liturgical” churches today is not actually all that old. You’ll want to take some time really digging into this. This place we call “Anglicanism” is a very particular wing of the old Christian house.

Now, moving from the Barrett case to the question of people becoming Anglican in general. Here are some of my thoughts:

First, Anglicanism is going to continue to pick up folks from other Christian traditions, including high profile academics and writers. There are a lot of reasons why our present context is going to produce these stories, and we need to be hospitable and grateful. Our first message needs to be “Welcome.” We’re glad you’re here. You’re one of us now.

Second, even with that said, we still need to be super careful that we don’t think of this as the only or even the primary way that Anglicanism grows. We need to make sure we are evangelizing the lost and reaching out to folks who are not affiliated with Christianity. Anglicanism at its best is a truly missionary movement. In the US, we need to relearn how to do this.

Third, all of this is going to continue to happen in a multi-denominational America. In fact, denominational identity is going to become increasingly less clear and less familiar to the broader population. While our denominational distinctives are important, most people won’t know them or understand them. And in many cases, our traditions are fractured. There are some Anglicans who have more in common with some Baptists then they do with other kinds of Anglicans, especially when you consider the worldwide Anglican Communion. Let’s keep that in mind when we talk to and about each other in public.

Fourth, when someone does come into Anglicanism after having a public ministry in a different tradition, they need to take it upon themselves to hang out for a bit and really get to know the Anglican story. This may involve spending a bit of time in the drama which gave birth to the ACNA. But more importantly, it should involve learning about the Anglican Formularies, reading all of the homilies in the two Books of Homilies, working through Nowell’s catechisms, familiarizing yourself with the Canons of 1604, and then, for Americans, brushing up on the early decades of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States (a lot of cool stuff about this is free online). And oh yeah, be sure to read Cranmer’s essay “Concerning Ceremonies.” Read some Harold Brown and WH Griffith Thomas. Go find Canon Henry Jansma, somewhere in his garden no doubt, and ask him to tell you stories. Don’t try to be an Anglican expert. Enjoy being a “newbie” again.

Fifth, to the outsiders watching all of this– you probably don’t understand any of this. That’s ok. We don’t understand it all the time either. But you might also consider slowing down. I saw more than one statements that implied a move to Anglicanism simply equals a move to Rome. Other folks didn’t seem to know that the ACNA is not the Episcopal Church. And then when they did talk about ACNA-relevant items, they didn’t understand the differences between the dioceses. (There’s a lot of diversity here!) We have to show you guys grace, and you have to show us grace.

There’s a lot more to say, but that’s all for now. I hope that eventually all of this will work out towards the truly big picture, the broader kingdom of Christ. As we seek to know our own traditions better, may we come to know Him better. And I pray that we can find the best way to work together in the common mission of the gospel.

Glory be the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.