Not that there is anything wrong with being a Baptist. Indeed there is a notable point about being a Baptist who calls oneself a Baptist, namely that all is as honest as the Baked Beans label on a can of ... baked beans. Whereas one trouble with Anglicans is that we can use the label when the contents on the tin are otherwise (Catholics, E. Orthodox, Baptists, Brethren, Presbyterian are all possible realities inside the can labelled 'Anglican').
John Watson writes a lovely, straightforward essay on the question of whether we are Anglicans or Baptists in respect of the Covenant. What do you think?
Thanks to Fulcrum for publishing it and H/T to Bryden Black for drawing my attention to it.
Incidentally other stuff is going on around the Communion. A little row brewing, for example, in the C of E, as Cranmer discusses. This row relates to the article above inasmuch as the deeper issue at stake is what Christian 'communion' means.
Do we Anglicans have a "needs lots of work" understanding of communion? What does 'Communion' refer to as the label on our can of beans?