Fr Mike:

> We obviously don't run in the same circles.  I assume you're using the word
> "Evangelical" as a synonym for "low church" 

Nope.  Historically, Evangelicals have defined themselves by what they believe, not their ritualistic practices.  I admit that the vast majority are high-church-adverse, but that is not because they are (at least in theory) against ritural, but because certain rituals imply assent or dissent from certain doctrines.  Thus, we have both Cranmer, who retained a lot of ritual, and Calvin, who did not, are both Evangelicals.

> since I know a few very
> ritualistic (i.e., "high church") fellows who are definitely Evangelical in
> theology.

i are one.  I love the "smells and bells".  I genuflect, cross myself, etc.  Yet I am a 5-point Calvinist.

> 
> And if you think the ECUSA is A/C friendly, just go into one and say, "You
> shouldn't have women in the Altar."  

I'm confused because you seem to be proving my point, not yours.  EG, both you and most of ECUSA call the table an altar, while we Evangelicals are much more apt to call it, along w/Cranmer, a table.  We eat the sacrifice meal, but it's not something we offer to the Father.  It is being offered to us.  While ECUSA may buck tradition and install women priests, that seems to me to simply prove that they are disobedient Anglo-Catholics, not non-Anglo-Catholics.  They certainly are in no way Evangelicals, and they seem to share many points of doctine w/my more conservative Anglo-Catholic friends: sacerdotal priesthood, justification by faith and works, Tradition and Scripture are equally authoritive, 39 Articles not binding upon Anglicans, etc.  Yes, they differ on a few points, such as women in the priesthood, but that just makes them bad Anglo-Catholics, not non-Anglo-Catholics.  Ritually and doctinally they appear very close.  

At least, that's how it appears to me here in Texas.