I’ve been reading and enjoying Thomas Isham’s recent biography of Bishop McIlvaine, the best known of all the evangelical bishops of the Episcopal Church in the 19th century. He was Bishop of Ohio from 1832–1873, and a famous defender of the Protestant heritage of the Episcopal Church when Anglo-Catholicism was beginning to undermine it. He was also well known for his preaching (which caused a revival among West Point students when he was chaplain there), and his insistence that those who upheld the authority of Scripture had to support the abolition of slavery. Isham covers every aspect of McIlvaine’s ministry, and readers of this blog will find much in this biography to encourage their own witness to the authority of Scripture in today’s church. It’s also worth reading just for the joy of knowing that there once was a time when it was not unusual for a bishop to stand so publicly and uncompromisingly for that authority.
Isham is a member of the Episcopal Church, and was a member of EFAC-USA when that organisation was active. Thanks for keeping McIlvaine’s evangelical witness before the church!
The book is available here. The Banner of Truth edition of a collection of McIlvaine’s sermons, Preaching Christ: The Heart of Gospel Ministry, is also still in print, and available here.
Still an Evangelical in the Episcopal Church 
February 5, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Episcopal biographies can provide wonderful insights into Anglican culture, especially when one thinks of some of the more colorful 19th century diocesans.
Diana Butler Bass also gives a sympathetic treatment of McIlvaine in her STANDING AGAINST THE WHIRLWIND: EVANGELICAL EPISCOPALIANS IN 19TH CENTURY AMERICA, published in 1995.
February 6, 2012 at 10:46 am
Philip,
Many thanks for commenting on the McIlvaine book. He was a great man and a great Christian, with much to teach us today. As preacher, scholar, writer, revivalist, pastor, controversialist – his talents were multiple – his example is both inspirational and practical. Best, Tom Isham
February 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm
I agree very much with the above comments. I wish, though, that evangelical and Anglo-Catholic influences could be seen more often as complementary rather undermining each other (despite the historical record, which often had that effect). I say this having had rectors since 1972 who reflected both, and I’m personally grateful for their teaching and leadership.– I like Dr. Wainwright’s phrase “keeping McIlvaine’s witness before the church” in his thanks to Dr. Isham. –Dr. Isham, I’ll have to read your book to find out how he was a “controversialist.” (“Controversy” keeps things exciting, gives people the incentive to speak up, promotes not being afraid tell the truth as one sees it, but sometimes leads to unnecessary divisions if others sense that it is perhaps being pursued for its own sake.)
February 6, 2012 at 3:48 pm
McIlvaine explains why they cannot realistically be seen as complementary, no matter how much we might wish they were, in his book The Oxford Divinity. Not in print, but can be read on line or downloaded here.
February 6, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Maybe McIlvaine thought they couldn’t, but obviously much of the church today thinks they can (and periodicals like _The Living Church_. ) Are we doomed to a battle to the finish? Must Anglo-Catholics stay away from the Barnabas Project? I thought the project had “No Plan B.” What does Dr. Isher say about 21st century implications of McIlvaine’s work?
February 7, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Mrs. Scott, I believe Bishop McIlvaine was not interested in controversy for the sake of controversy. He did find himself compelled, however, to contend against views he deemed mistaken. My book discusses at length the differences between Evangelicals, Anglo Catholics/Ritualists, and Broad Church/Rationalists. For my part, I do feel a certain connection with conservative Anglo-Catholics, as there are doctrinal affinities between us as over against the prevailing ethos in TEC. I feel no desire to “battle to the finish” over our differences, but differences there are, and they are important to both sides. That being said, I do appreciate your interest in these questions, and believe you would find my book illuminating on what unites and what divides us. Moreover, I appreciate anyone who holds, on principle, to a doctrinal position. By the way, I am not “Dr. Isham,” but an impassioned layman gravely concerned about the future of the Episcopal Church.
February 7, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Disagreement is not battle; we are content to be in the same church, after all. The purpose of this blog is to commend evangelicalism in the purest form I’m capable of apprehending, and all are welcome to read and comment. In almost three years only one commenter has been banned, and he was an Evangelical. There are plenty of Episcopal-oriented blogs commending a mixture of the two churchmanships (which really deserves a name of its own), and a few commending pure Anglo-Catholicism, but I don’t know of another that commends undiluted evangelicalism, so there seems a certain obligation to keep at it.
February 7, 2012 at 11:48 pm
I’m trying to learn a bit about historic evangelicalism. (“pure” is a ruined word these days for me, so I like “undiluted”), and I can’t imagine a better teacher than Philip. But I can’t quickly get away from the irony that I see in that Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are today quite a bit less fearful of each other than they have been in the past. (no Pimlico-like riots happened on Mt Washington more than a decade ago) What they have in common (in the “undiluted”? form) is a certain seriousness that is lacking across most of the church today. And the “seriousness” is driven by their own beliefs more than their belief in the errors of others. Bring it on Rev’d Mr Wainwright!