The Queen’s visit to Ireland has been, by all accounts, a great success, symbolising a real decline in animosity between two groups that have until recently been dedicated to ending each other’s existence. Colm Toíbín, whose grandfather took part in the 1916 Easter Uprising, wrote an article in the Guardian and pointed out that among the many who have helped bring about this decline were
historians, who had begun to write about the sheer complexity of the relationship between the two islands over many centuries, insisting that the campaign of violence in the name of history misrepresented history in all its layers, nuances and ironies.
Partisan history is still one of the biggest difficulties Evangelicals face, no matter where they are in the Anglican Communion, but especially here in the Episcopal Church. One of the most important tools of the 19th Century Anglo-Catholic revival was a view of history that supported the cause. The Anglo-Catholic History Society played a major role in this, and there is, as far as I know, an evangelical equivalent only in Australia. But it’s also true that most of the partisan history was written in previous generations, and what we face now is merely the assumption, even by Evangelicals, is that the received story, which portrays Evangelicals in the Episcopal Church as illegal immigrants, if not hostile invaders, is true.
The Ecclesiastical History Society’s annual conference this year is on the theme The Church on its Past, and will begin with a discussion on the question ‘What has Church history ever done for the Church?’ For most of the history of the Christian Church, the answer would have to be ‘provide ammunition for factional wars’. We have already noted on this blog some signs that historians may be interrupting the supply of the ammunition that has been used against Evangelicals in the past (here, for instance), but there is a long way to go before the complexity of the relationship between the various parties in Anglicanism over the centuries will be fully examined.
But the current movement is in the right direction; anything that Evangelicals can do to contribute to it, and to acquaint themselves and others with the results of it, will be well done.
Still an Evangelical in the Episcopal Church 
May 23, 2011 at 9:31 am
Thank you so much for starting this thread. I envy anyone who gets to go to the EHS’s annual conference–I’d sign up in particular for the session on the history of church/state relationship, separation, etc. 19th century German theologians who had such hopes for the Christianizing of the world through the unity of church and state seem so naive in retrospect (little did they know how Hitler, for one, would twist the relationship). –And a whole conference on the history of Evangelicals in the Episcopal Church would maybe be the next step for the Barnabas Fellowship. Maybe at VTS. Maybe moderated by Robert Prichard, whose book “The Nature of Salvation: Theological Consensus in the Episcopal Church, 1801-73 (Studies in Angelican History)” I just ordered from Amazon.com. It should not be forgotten, for starters, perhaps, that Diarmaid MacCulloch calls Thomas Cranmer an “Evangelical” in his 1996 biography. Again, thanks so much for starting this thread.
May 23, 2011 at 9:33 am
Please read “Anglican History” above, not “Angelican History.”
May 27, 2011 at 2:13 pm
There is, of course, a huge range of church-state options. At one end the theocracy desired by some Muslims, where the church runs the state, and at the other the current establishment in England, where the state has the authority to intervene in church affairs, but almost never does so. And at the latter end of the range, there are governments whose occasional intervention is in genuinely ecclesiastical matters, as when Margaret Thatcher (they say) appointed George Carey ABC over the church’s choice of someone else, and governments that would only intervene to preserve public peace when the church is getting disorderly. Constantine the classic example there, ordering the bishops to settle the controversy over the relationship between the Father and the Son, but not having his own preferred solution. Although some historians have argued that he wasn’t as disinterested as the church always said he was.
I’d argue that this latter sort of establishment is more helpful than unhelpful to the Christian cause, if it only intervenes to prevent burnings of the Koran, ‘God loves dead soldiers’ banners, deposed bishops absconding with the endowments and so on.
May 27, 2011 at 4:45 pm
What do you think about the possibility of a conference on the history of Evangelicalism in the Anglican tradition (both UK and US) as something for the Barnabas Project to offer? Dr. Robert Prichard at VTS would be a good leader, I think; church history is his field, and I enjoyed hearing him at the last conference. I think you’re right that some present day historians act as though the evangelical wing were some sort of interloper. In my opinion they are distorting the historical record. It would be good to have reputable historians setting the record straight, and a conference on the topic might be a good one. Maybe ask for papers, as the British conference you wrote about is doing.
May 27, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Trying to ask the question again in the last part of my post, but even though I added to it (maybe include a request for papers) I was told my post was a duplicate.