If you type the phrase ‘Evangelicals in the Episcopal Church’ into your search engine, this blog comes up at the No 2 position; type ‘Evangelical Episcopalians’ and it’s number 8—which is quite a bit higher than a few weeks ago, for some reason. No 1 is the site for ‘Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches’ on Wikipedia, which describes a denomination started by some charismatic Episcopalians in the 1990s. Anything in a Wikipedia article always comes up No 1, I think because the biggest search engine, Google, has a financial stake in the Wikipedia service.
The rest of the sites returned by the search are not connected to the Episcopal Church. They are mostly old blog posts by people who are now members of various break-away ‘Anglican’ groups. In other words, this site is the only one that an interested person will find that deals with evangelicalism as it still survives in the Episcopal Church.
I guess we’d better get to work on a Wikipedia page…
Still an Evangelical in the Episcopal Church 
June 10, 2013 at 9:20 am
Sounds like a good idea to me. There will be different definitions of “evangelical Episcopalians,” I imagine, depending on the various contributors. Should be an interesting conversation. I feel much more comfortable with the type of Episcopal evangelicalism the Rev. Dr. Samuel M. Shoemaker “lived and breathed and taught” than with the Calvinist type, which emphasizes quickly (because one might die at any moment) fitting into a system (involving a verbal commitment, similar to the one accepted by Muslims as conversion to their faith: that is, pledging allegiance to Christ–in the case of Christianity–or Mohammed, in the case of Islam) relieving one’s anxiety over whether one will spend eternity in heaven, with Christ, or in hell, in non-stop torment. I’ve done it myself many times over, not out of fear of what will happen in eternity, but just wanting the connectedness in the here and now (and to look forward with happiness to eternity). I know there are verses in the Bible (a collection of documents extremely important to all Evangelicals, as the single-document Koran is to all Muslims) which indicate the necessity of getting people to make that commitment, with the reward of heaven and the fear of hell the motivating factors, but there are other passages which indicate a less dramatic, threatening choice. If you accept the Calvinist choice, you have to live with the possibility that a great many of your loved ones are in eternal torment. That’s not exactly “good news.” –I know many evangelical Episcopalians don’t agree with Jim Wallis’s claim to be an evangelical. Just learned that he’s married to one of the first women priests in the Church of England. –Anyway, Sojourners is another type of “evangelicalism” that I feel comfortable with, although I just read on a Google search that someone called Wallis a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” –Fine to argue and discuss, but it’s too bad religion–as politics, perhaps any fairly rigid belief system–sometimes brings out such meanness in people. –A prominent Sojourner died recently, in his 90s. He said something I’d never heard before: “I am enjoying dying.” He said he was sorry he couldn’t do the things he used to do, but he had time to pray and he was looking forward to eternity.
June 10, 2013 at 11:36 am
I think it’s a distraction to call it ‘the Calvinist choice’. It is the teaching of Jesus in the sermon on the mount and other places, and of the apostles in the rest of the New Testament. Calvin may have taught it as well, but to me it’s only what Jesus taught that matters, since only He is the Son of God. Those who believe in Him do indeed have to live with the possibility that a great many of our loved ones are in eternal torment. The gospel is only good news because life without it is bad news.
June 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm
I reread what you said above. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. But I do not believe that “living with the possibility that a great many of our loved ones are in eternal torment”is a necessary corollary of that belief. Yes, God requires holiness. But eternal damnation not because of wicked acts which hurt people, and offend God for that reason, but because a person has not taken a particular creedal statement to heart for some reason or another, simply does not go with the picture of Christianity that has sustained and guided me. That’s not what I ever hear–or ever heard–in any Episcopal Church. If there is a Wikipedia article on “Episcopal Evangelicals,” it will certainly have to be moderated and allow for various interpretations of what the term means (as do all Wikipedia articles).
June 11, 2013 at 7:05 am
I wouldn’t call it a corollary of the belief that Jesus is the Son of God. It is a corollary of ‘If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell’, and when the Son of God says that, I’m not inclined to argue. I don’t think He ever said or implied that hell is for people with the wrong creed, which is why most Evangelicals do not use the Athanasian Creed. The good news is that none of us need get what our sin deserves; if we repent of our sins and put our faith in Jesus our sins are forgiven. I pray fervently for my own loved ones who have not repented of their sins, and their eternal destiny is part of what I entrust to Jesus; but that doesn’t alter the truth of His words.
June 11, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Thanks–the part about repentance and faith helps, plus your prayer.
June 10, 2013 at 11:59 am
Wrestling with these issues of heaven and hell–eternal questions refarding salvation, I think bring us first to praying in earnest for those we love, and then plunging the depths of God. Ultimately in order not to despair, we come closer to Jesus in that we come to learn how to fully trust Him by leaning “not to our own understanding”. The reality is God’s holiness demands severe judgment and in His unending mercy He has already paid the price on the cross. How it appears some appropriate that sacrifice to themselves unto salvation and some appear to reject it unto damnation is beyond my mortal capacity. This throws me back on faith in Jeus–trying to understand it just takes away my peace. People who try to get off the hook by universalism or any kind of theory end up eventually losing their connection to Jesus and die on the Vine, and literally can bear no more fruit.
June 10, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Have read about “the anxious seat” (for those who feared eternal damnation–not because of any particular wrong thing they did, but because their beliefs may not be quite right) in Calvinist churches in the 19th century. All new to me since I took a course in the American Revolution at IUP a couple of years ago (starting with lead-up events in the mid 18th century) and had time to do most of the suggested and all the required reading and essay writing. Lots of interesting material on New Lights and Old Lights, the effect of collisions in teachings on village churches, and the Awakenings. I’ve been an Episcopalian since I was 12, but never heard the kinds of things Dr. Wainwright is talking about until that course. I must disagree with Fr. Wainwright that a serious reading of the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer requires a lifetime of anxiety about whether one’s loved ones who have gone before are being tortured or not. Or whether one’s dear friends, siblings, children and grandchildren will be damned for eternity. Or those who have significantly contributed to human welfare over the centuries burning in hellfire because they were Jewish or Quaker or agnostic or atheist. I’ve read and re-read the Bible many times, taken an NT course at the January term at TSM (and others), worship most Sundays, have been in adult studies for many years, but “anxiety” has never been the message. “Judge not that ye be not judged,” I think, and trusting in Christ and his sacrifice for us are sufficient.
June 13, 2013 at 7:23 pm
I am troubled by a theme you keep returning to, about people going to hell because “their belief isn’t quite right”. To me this indicates that perhaps you haven’t grasped the full import of the gospel and the meaning of grace. Without the substitutionary death of Jesus on the Cross all of mankind would be going to hell. You seem to indicate that god works is a way out and appear to be shocked or indignant that people who do good should be exempt. That is exactly what the Pharisees thought. Jesus frequently disabused them of that idea. The Bible clearly teaches that “all our righteousness is as filthy rags.” This teaching is not about making people feel bad or demeaning people. It is just a fact. This world is passing away–it is in fact doomed. Humanity is doomed. Unless we reach for the life saver–Jesus Christ–we will go down with the ship. He is the only one offering a way out.
June 11, 2013 at 7:11 pm
I mentioned in the post above that the position of this blog in the results for a search on ‘Evangelical Episcopalians’ had gone from a long way down the list (I don’t remember how far exactly) to No 8. I think that jump must have been because I added those words to the title in the banner at the top of the page shortly before posting the article. When I checked this morning it was actually at No 1, above the Wikipedia article, and I’m guessing that this is because of the title of this post and the number of hits it has had. The point is, of course, that we don’t need a Wikipedia page if we can get it to No 1! My goal will be to make it the No 1 result no matter what search terms are entered. So my next post will have the title ‘Evangelical Anglicans’—even if I can’t think of anything interesting to say about them—because at the moment we are low on the list resulting from that search, and if we move up it can only be due to the title of the post.
June 11, 2013 at 7:14 pm
PS—I’d be interested to hear if you get the same results when you search, because I think to some extent Google tailors its search results to what it can see are the interests of the searcher. Before writing the post, I went to the local library and used their computer, just to be sure, but I haven’t been back to check the No 1 result.
June 13, 2013 at 3:13 pm
Following would be a pretty traditional–and I would say appropriate and successful broad-brush definition of “evangelical.” I don’t “Episcopalian Evangelicals” would be “less” than this, but my observation is that Episcopalians generally have an additional “distinguishing mark”in an openness to the imagination and emotions–with impact on the experience of reading Holy Scripture and of Christian worship. The aesthetics of faith, which strike at a different level than the doctrines of faith. And to this extent Episcopalian Evangelicals have often been influenced “additionally” by the Wesleyan and Anglo-Catholic/Sacramental movements in the wider church. Anyway:
*********************
“Evangelicals believe, first of all, the gospel as it is set forth in the Bible. The word evangelical is derived from the biblical term euangelion meaning “good news.” It is the Good News that God became man in Jesus Christ to live and die and rise again from the dead in order to save us from our sin and all its consequences. The Savior’s benefits and his salvation are bestowed upon us freely and graciously and are received through personal faith in Christ. They are not conditioned on our merit or personal goodness but are based wholly on the mercy of God.
Evangelicals are also to be identified by what is sometimes called the material or content principle of evangelicalism. They hold to all of the most basic doctrines of the Bible: for example, the triuneness of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; the pre-existence, incarnation, full deity and humanity of Christ united in one person; his sinless life, his authoritative teaching; his substitutionary atonement; his bodily resurrection from the dead, his second coming to judge the living and the dead; the necessity of holy living; the imperative of witnessing to others about the gospel; the necessity of a life of service to God and human kind; and the hope in a life to come. These doctrines emerge from the Bible and are summarized in the Apostles’ Creed and the historic confessions of evangelical churches.
Evangelicals have a third distinguishing mark. In accordance with the teaching of their Lord they believe the Bible to be the final and authoritative source of all doctrine. This is often called the formative or forming principle of evangelicalism. Evangelicals hold the Bible to be God’s Word and, therefore, completely true and trustworthy (and this is what we mean by the words infallible and inerrant). It is the authority by which they seek to guide their thoughts and their lives.
These then are the three distinguishing marks of all evangelicals. Without constant fidelity to all three marks, evangelicals will be unable to meet the demands of the future and interact effectively with the internal and external challenges noted in these affirmations.
Evangelical churches also hold various distinctive doctrines that are important to them; but nonetheless, they share this common evangelical faith.”
– Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry, Evangelical Affirmations (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1990), 37-38.
****************************
Bruce Robison
June 13, 2013 at 8:15 pm
I think that’s a pretty fair description of evangelicalism—I’ll add it to the collection on the ‘Evangelicalism’ page. Not sure about what you call the ‘aesthetics of faith’. It seems harmless, but for so many the aesthetic experience gets confused with faith. Personally, I keep away from it as much as I can in worship, although enjoy it as an aspect of God’s creation, of course. Still can’t get enough of the Beach Boys’ most recent album.
June 14, 2013 at 7:07 am
I do agree that the “beauty of holiness” can be traded for the “holiness of beauty.” A tough line to walk sometimes. But human beings are complex and highly nuanced creatures, with hearts as well as minds, and in addition to essays of exposition there will need to be always poetry and song. Vested choirs and plainchant, or fuzzy-headed rockers and their praise band. And old Screwtape can work his nefarious work as well in the austerity of the Meeting Room as under the vaulted ceilings of the cathedral . . . .
June 14, 2013 at 7:53 am
I have not worked this out thoroughly, but I do think some forms of music and worship seem more honoring to the Lord than others. Personally I cannot abide Christian rock or folk music in any form–I inwardly cringe when I watch people performing it. Rock music is so self-glorifying and self-idolizing as a form I just don’t understand how it could even be used to praise God. For some reason, on the other hand, I find what is called “Gospel Music” / “Blue Grass” music uplifting and joyful but not something I would use as part of a formal worship service. The sort of thing you would engage in after supper with the church family in an informal setting.
June 15, 2013 at 8:01 am
Can and does. And very few Evangelicals have dispensed with the arts entirely; their traditional approach is to use them sparingly, and to make sure the congregation knows why that’s important. Some succeed in this more than others…
June 18, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Yes, of course he does. Screwtape will use anything as an occasion of sin–after all he quoted Scripture to the Son of God!
June 14, 2013 at 8:12 pm
What can we do to rejuvenate Evangelical Episcopalianism?
I, myself, am more of an High Church Evangelical, in the sense of maintaining the old Calvinism of the divines but maintaining a zeal for the “Protestant Reformed Religion” such as exemplified by Archbishop Whitgift, among others.
June 15, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Whitgift, like his successor Bancroft, has a bad name among low church Evangelicals because of his dedication to forcing the conscience of others in the matter of ceremonies that have no biblical authority. Bancroft’s successor George Abbot was much more tolerant. As to rejuvenation, we must trust that God will do it, and to speak the truth about His word, and live by it ourselves, in the meantime.
June 19, 2013 at 6:59 am
Stay faithful personally to the Word. Read Fenelon. I know he was a French Prelate, accused of Quietism, but his writings to those seeking to live the Christian life in times of moral corruption are so appropriate for in those of us who wish to follow Jesus in these days of cultural decline and ecclesial apostacy.
June 19, 2013 at 9:12 am
Ah, Fenelon (1651-1715). I was a French lit major and read Fenelon in the first French lit course I took at Cornell. He’s in Morris Bishop’s wonderful _Survey of French Literature_ (1955) along with Bossuet as a representative of “pulpit eloquence” and “the arts of the Church.” He was also quite an educator, writing in 1699 _Les Aventures de Télémaque” “to show students “by indirection, the rewards of righteous behavior and good government.” He was not much in favor of higher education for women. Fenelon was “”le cygne de Cambrai” (the swan of Cambrai) in contrast to Bossuet, “l’aigle de Meaux” (the eagle of Meaux). They argued a lot. –We read Fenelon’s 1694 letter to Louis XIV, very sincere, very critical. He blames Louis XIV for “the sorry state of France,” “for absolutism has its responsibilities as well as its privileges.” It’s not known if the king ever saw the letter. –“Quietism” is quite a subject on its own, which I read a lot about some years ago. A definition Bishop quotes from the London Times Litt. Supplement, which I don’t know whether you would agree with or not: “the soul should renounce all acts, all concern with the possibility of sin, and await the coming of grace in a state of complete passiveness.” On the other hand, Capecod, what you say above certainly rings true.
June 19, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Re: definition of Quietism. That may be the definition of it, but I don’t believe Fenelon was a Quietist, not from my reading of him (in translation anyway). I’ve been reading him in The Complete Fenelon from Paraclete Press. I do know that he lost his place in court because he would not back down from defending Mdme Guyon, who was actually imprisoned as a heretic. His teachings on the interior life, as far as I can tell are in line with what Christ taught in the Gospels about dying to one’s self, carried out in one’s every day life. They are similar to those of St. Therese of Liseux (The Little Way), or Brother Lawrence (Practicing the Presence of God). In modern Protestantism you might find them expounded in Andrew Murray or Watchman Nee. He writes how seeing God’s hand work personally in the hurts, losses, dissapointments and humiliations of daily life will bring us closer to God and is how He accomlishes His Life in us. It helps make sense of suffering rather than just seeing it as evil or random. An abuse of this idea becomes quietism or fatalism. However, when one has a lively relationship with Jesus one can truly see that all things come from His hand, out of His love for us. Then we can eventually even “rejoice in our sufferings” because they help us detach from even the good things of this world in order that we may be more fully united with Jesus. This type of teaching must always be built on a strong foundation of knowing one is loved and valued and saved by God. That is my understanding of his writings and teachings. I do not have your intellectual breadth, by any stretch. My experience with these writers is only as one who as read them for actual help in my own life out of spiritual and emotional need, so I don’t have the same understanding that you do of where the stand in history. I greatly admire your learning and admit that I may be way off in some of my statements historically or intellectually speaking.
June 19, 2013 at 9:27 pm
I tried to find out more about quietism long after I read Fenelon in college, for the same reason, I think, that you appreciate Fenelon. The Anglican Fellowship of Prayer and organizations like it (Daughters of the King is one of them, also Cursillo) help me fill that “spiritual and emotional need.” Organizations like that –where you can be with people who also have that need, and pray and study together–are sometimes suspected of the kinds of things people reproached Mme Guyon for, whether she deserved it or not. EFM said in a succession of its teachings that organizations like the AFP (inspired and begun by the Rev. Samuel Shoemaker and his wife Helen in the 1950s)–the “small group” movement–could be traced to German pietismm which “was not for everyone.” In later teachings EFM didn’t mention the AFP at all. — Blaise Pascal was the writer who made me glad I was studying French; he was a brilliant scientist and mathematician, but he also had a deep Christian faith. His _Pensées_ are better known than the _Lettres Provinciales_, but in the latter he did much the same thing Fenelon did in his letter to Louis XIV. He criticized people in power for not taking their faith seriously, and for applying certain standards of behavior to the poor, but being lenient with the wealthy when they did the same things.
June 14, 2013 at 8:57 pm
Is this the Archbishop Whitgift you are talking about (see following)? I’ve just been reading about my noncomformist forebears who left Braintree, England in the 1630s because they didn’t like the Stuart suppression of their faith which I guess Whitgift encouraged. I imagine Whitgift was followed by Laud? Will check. (Am going to be in Braintree in a couple of weeks–it’s near the Stansted Airport which is a stop for us on our way to Denmark). Confusing; I’d wrongly equated Calvinism and Puritanism. –Am reading an old copy we have of _Pilgrim’s Progress_ . John Bunyan wasn’t born until 1628, long after Whitgift was Abp. He was imprisoned for preaching w/o permission, as everyone knows.
“John Whitgift, English Archbishop, was born in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, c. 1530. He studied at Cambridge, was ordained a minister in 1560, and served as a professor of divinity at Peterhouse, Cambridge (1567-1569), and as Vice-Chancellor (1573). He was made Dean of Lincoln in 1571, and Bishop of Worcester in 1577. Whitgift was nominated as Archbishop of Canterbury by Queen Elizabeth I in 1583.
“Whitgift, whose religious views were Calvinistic, found Puritan writings heretical, seditious and dangerous as harming the uniformity of the Church of England. In 1586, he became a Privy Councillor, and secured a decree from the Star Chamber for increased censorship. With it, Whitgift did his best to suppress Puritan writings. This, naturally, caused an uproar in Puritan circles, and gave rise to the Martin Marprelate controversy (1588-1589).
In 1595, Whigift founded the Whitgift School at Croydon, still today a prestigious institute of learning. Whitgift, well favored by Elizabeth, attended the queen on her deathbed in 1603, and crowned the new king, James I. Whitgift died on February 28, 1604. “
June 23, 2013 at 6:46 pm
An Internet search is how I found you. I searched on “evangelical and Episcopalian” —- up your blog came.
June 28, 2013 at 9:43 am
Hope you found it interesting and even encouraging–google us again sometime
June 28, 2013 at 11:27 am
Actually it would be good to visit with you or correspond since I am being given opportunities to influence some Episcopal parishes for the good and ideally a biblically sound way. I assume you have my email address from my comment form.
June 24, 2013 at 2:40 pm
I just read this definition of evangelicals and wondered what you all thought of it. I had Googled “non conformists and Evangelicals” (we will be in Braintree, England July 1, where my non-conformist Loomis ancestors lived before they left for Windsor, CT in 1638 because of the “inconveniences” assoc. with Abp Laud’s policies towards them). Again, would very much like to know what Phil+ and others think of it.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/evangeli.htm
June 24, 2013 at 5:17 pm
I can’t say I found it particularly helpful. In my experience the idea of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is found far beyond the borders of evangelicalism, and the commitment of Anglican Evangelicals, at least, is to the whole of Scripture, not just the New Testament. Calls on the hearer to ‘confess his or her sin and believe in Christ’s forgiveness’ is evangelism, conducted outside the church, rather than preaching, which is expounding Scripture for the building up of those inside. That’s my $0.02.
June 25, 2013 at 6:31 am
Agreed. + $.02 =$.04?
June 25, 2013 at 7:04 am
I noticed the NT emphasis as opposed to all of the Bible also, and re-read Fr. Robison’s summary from Kantzer and Henry above. –Question about the phrase “far beyond the borders of evangelicalism” in Phil’s+ comment: what do you mean by “far beyond the borders”? Another question: could you place “Anglican evangelicalism” in history? Was Wyclif considered one? In later centuries, what about the noncomformists and pilgrims and puritans? I imagine they were a mixed bag, but could you give us some names of those who were? What about John Bunyan and _Pilgrim’s Progress_, which reached so many people in his time? What about Oliver Cromwell? Is the English Civil War at least partly about a conflict between evangelicalism and sacramentalism (viewed as too close to Roman Catholicism)? Moving up to the 20th century: doesn’t sound as though Billy Graham qualifies, with his emphasis on a personal relationship with Christ. Or Samuel Shoemaker+, who also emphasized that relationship, and working with the Holy Spirit. I’m guessing John Stott+ would be the modern example, with his willingness to leave the existing church if it didn’t square with the Kantzer and Henry list. About C.S. Lewis: even though he’s mentioned in _A Strategy the Changes the Denomination_, I imagine he would not really count. _The Screwtape Letters_ and _Four Loves_ are my favorite books by Lewis, but they do not name the parts of the Bible which support their advice. C.S. Lewis doesn’t say “act like this because Holy Scripture says to,and every word of Holy Scripture is equal” which, according to the definitions in Kantzer and Henry, must be made clear. The supportive framework Lewis uses is more pragmatic, in a very deep and long lasting sense, than authoritative.
June 25, 2013 at 10:06 am
Sorry I wasn’t clear—I should have said ‘also found’. It never occurred to me that I might be taken as implying that Evangelicals don’t commend a personal relationship with Christ. It’s just that others also have and commend such a relationship, so it shouldn’t be thought of as an evangelical distinctive. Some years ago I was ministering to an old-school Anglo-Catholic priest nearing the end of his life, and I was amazed at how personal a relationship with Jesus he had.
I should also correct the record concerning John Stott: he was famous for refusing to leave the established church despite its failings, and urged his fellow Anglican Evangelicals to stay in no uncertain terms. C S Lewis never described himself as an Evangelical, but his concept of ‘Mere Christianity’ is such an evangelical idea that he has always been popular with them. The phrase was actually first used by Richard Baxter, the 17th century Puritan who was as strong a believer in staying in the established church as Stott was. Lewis believed that one should attend the church of the parish in which one lived, regardless of churchmanship, which used to be an evangelical idea, but hasbeen largely abandoned by 20th century Anglican Evangelicals, even in the C of E.
The post at https://barnabasproject.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/anglican-dna/ was one of many attempts to place Anglican evangelicalism in history. The nutshell statement, I suppose, would be that the history of Anglican evangelicalism is the history of Anglicanism, and/or vice versa.
June 25, 2013 at 11:09 am
Thanks for expanding above on your understanding of “evangelical”. Very helpful to me as one new to the Episcopal church.