Somewhere in the midst of debates about evangelical Anglicanism (or Anglican evangelicalism), as represented, e.g., in the comments to Michael Jensen's recent 'nerve-hitter' post, lurks a mischievous hidden premise!
The hidden premise is that this thing called 'evangelicalism' provides the perfectly sound foundation upon which to stand and pronounce judgment upon the state of both Anglicanism and evangelical Anglicanism/Anglican evangelicalism. One knows something fishy is going on - terrible pun about to be unleashed - when the conclusion reached by many from this perspective is that the Anglican church is 'a good boat to fish from'.
The premise is questionable and many evangelicals do not understand this! Evangelicalism is not a sound platform from which to judge other theological positions because (a) it is not itself one uniform position, thus the judgment boils down to 'my group of evangelicals' perspective' or even 'my perspective'; (b) it is a doctrinal amalgam new to the history of the church from after the time of the Reformation (but often confused as being equivalent to either the original Lutheran Reforming theology or even the theology of Paul himself); (c) even when in Anglican circles the implicit claim is that (true) Anglican evangelicalism is more or less Cranmer's theology, the reality is that Cranmer can be ditched to suit the needs of our day.
In other words the supreme confidence of many evangelicals that evangelicalism (accepting for a moment that it is one uniform body of theology) is the true theology revealed by God misses the point that for some 1500+ years this true theology was missing from the church of God! There has to be a better way to understand what it means to be Anglican, to be evangelical, and to be an Anglican evangelical or evangelical Anglican!
My view, in sketch form is this: the church of God and the theology of God grew out of the experience of apostolic churches and apostolic teaching; part of that growth occurred in the British Isles; with some chopping and changing here and there (Celtic mission; Augustine of Canterbury; Synod of Whitby; Magna Carta; Henry's revolt against the Pope; Cranmer's theology-via-liturgy) a way of being Christian developed which has become known as Anglicanism. At certain formative points Anglicanism has been reformed according to Scripture, the most prominent, decisive and influential of these being the English Reformation. But all along the heartbeat of Anglicanism was the heartbeat of Christianity itself, which has been scriptural at its core, exemplified and constantly renewed through weekly liturgical worship in which the liturgy - the great liturgy of the ancient church - has itself been a way of worshipping God in the language of Scripture. The English Reformation lopped off accretions inconsistent with Scripture, and, in revising the liturgy, made a theological statement about the centre of theology, namely the atoning action of Christ dying once for all for all of us on the cross, but it was not the birth of a new form of Christianity!
Evangelicalism, in all its varieties, is a special concern to do theology based on Scripture, with an organising centre for this activity in the doctrine of the atonement. From this perspective some aspects of Anglicanism today may be critiqued, but Anglicanism itself should not be judged as to whether it conforms or can be conformed to the requirements of evangelicalism so much as praised and appreciated as a way of being Christian which is soundly Scriptural and, with some failures, always has been through history. If evangelical Anglicans wish to speak to the Anglican Communion it should be to call the Communion to be true to itself - an ancient church founded on and continuously shaped by Scripture - not to question whether the particularities of evangelicalism are well served by the Communion or not.
The latter questioning has already answered the question 'where is the true church of God to be found, in Anglicanism or evangelicalism?' With that answer there will always be turmoil and tension for evangelical Anglicans, and the distinct possibility that the tension will be resolved by ceasing to be Anglican (as, say, the Puritans settling in America, or the Plymouth Brethren did). My suggestion is that a different way of looking at the core of Anglicanism resolves the tension in a different way: to be Anglican is to be evangelical!