This is from the Directorium Anglicanum, to which I commend your attention in general. It is by J.D. Treat. His main interlocutor is Fr. Harmon from Titusonenine.
Evangelicals' ability to embrace the ordination of women while simultaneously expressing horror at the consecration of Gene Robinson is incomprehensible to catholic Anglicans. To many Anglo-Catholics, the former is a matter of ontology and represents a fundamental change in the understanding of the appropriate matter of a sacrament while the latter is a matter of morals. While many Anglo-Catholics might find the selection of Gene Robinson troubling, none who have been properly catechized can doubt the validity of his consecration. To the catholic mind, any sinfulness in Gene Robinson's lifestyle is a personal moral matter more closely akin to Fr. Harmon's serving breakfast before mass than it is to attempting to confect a sacrament with novel matter.
Read the whole thing here.
Now I don't consider myself and evangelical, but I think this article is a little too polemical, a little overzealous, a little too self-consciously effete anglo-catholic. There's plenty that anglo-catholics can learn from evangelicals. We could stand a little of what is often called (with marked disdain) "sentimentalism". The Holy Spirit can operate within the psyche of the individual, thank God, and the catholic life is full of consolations and emotion. Granted, the catalyst is usually not electric guitar-driven, but its there nonetheless.
Anglo-Catholicism is a wonderful aesthetical experience, but too often anglo-catholics get wrapped up in the aesthetical experience, to the neglect of the charity. We can become arrogant, condescending, perfectly content to congratulate ourselves for how many decades we regularly pray, for the strictness of our observance of the Kalendar, our avoidance of breakfast before mass, and our never-failing to avoid sherry after mass. But to dwell on such things, wonderful as they are, is to take the first steps down the road that leads to the high-church veneer covering a "broad" church rotten to its core. Bp. Griswold, I'm told, likes incense too.
I agree that Bp. Robinson's lifestyle is a "personal moral matter". But evangelicals are right in their recognition that it is not just a personal moral matter. The main problem is not Bp. Robinson's lifestyle, but the ECUSA's corporate consent to his election, given his lifestyle. Anglo-catholics and evangelicals should be on the same page on this point. ECUSA's false teaching is far more problematic than any individual's sexual sin.
Finally the notion that the Bible ought to be read by "the Church" and not by individuals is ridiculous given Anglicanism's painful lack of any magisterial function. Its true: left unchecked, people read the Bible and come up with nutty, nutty stuff. The Church properly sets the interpretive boundaries. But the ECUSA hierarchy has made it perfectly clear that the last thing they are interested in is the setting of interpretive boundaries. When one's Church provides no guidance, or what's worse, when its own teaching is far beyond the pale of Catholicity, what is the individual believer to do?
I think the thrust of this article is right. I think most evangelicals have a rather impoverished ecclesiology. They have no notion of the prerogatives of apostilicity. But then, neither do the apostles' heirs in ECUSA.