No there are not. There are evangelicals that are leftist and/or don't agree with the tactics of the Christian right, but that doesn't make them liberal. You cannot endorse the Bible and its inherently authoritarian dictator God as THE authority that should guide society and be liberal, and you're not an Evangelical in any meaningful sense unless you do that.
There are "liberal Evangelicals" only in the vacuous sense that their are "Catholics" whose views on God, the Bible, and the Pope are largely the same as Richard Dawkins'.
Keep in mind that the first modern-era politician famous for being Evangelical was Jimmy Carter. Just because you accept God as the authority that should guide society doesn't mean you think any of His self-appointed representatives speak for Him. As long as you figure it's up to each individual to decide what God wants him to do, where's the conflict with political liberalism? Sure, there's an abstract sense in which, for example, God having the right to send you to Hell for not worshiping Him correctly is in conflict with freedom of religion; but as long as the penalties are restricted to people who are safely dead, that sort of theological authoritarianism is compatible with thinking Congress has no right to respect an establishment of religion -- Congress after all is not God and cannot be trusted to carry out God's will.
"The US Congress is not Stalin and cannot be trusted to carry out Stalin's fascistic authoritarian will to control all humans."
By your argument, any person who holds this view and wants Stalin to rule all humanity is a "liberal" with respect to US government.
By my argument, such a person is an highly illiberal authoritarian who merely defers to the unquestionable will of an brutal dictator other than the US government. IOW, they happen to agree on policy positions with actual principled liberals, but for purely pragmatic reasons and not because they share liberal principles and values. Note that there are extremist conservatives who would be happy to support policies shared by liberals against government force, so long as other non-governmental entities get to use force and the threat of force to undermine rational thought and basic liberty to decide without coercion rooted in threats. The Evangelist who prefers God to have all the control is no more a liberal than the Mob boss who also prefers a weak government, despite the fact they both may often side with the policies favored by actual liberals.
The common definition of "Evangelical" is taking the Bible seriously, thinking salvation comes from belief in Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection, thinking people should be "born again", and actively trying to make the world more Christian.
And you cannot take the Bible seriously, unless you accept it most objective foundational features of promoting a purely fascistic authoritarian worldview where every private personal act is and should be dictated by a brutal unquestionable master who uses force and threat of force to crush all human liberty. To the Evangelist, that authority is every bit or more real as Hitler was to die hard Nazis and thus there is little difference in terms of actual ideological core values and principles. IF Hitler supported a US government that had no control over people's private lives because he wanted to have that control, does that make him a "liberal" with respect to US government?
As long as you do that last part by changing hearts and minds and not by force,
They fully support the use of violence and force. They simply prefer that one particular authority get to wield that force.
what's to stop an Evangelical from being a liberal in a meaningful political sense? If you're going to argue that a guy whose opinions are indistinguishable from a liberal's on all policy matters isn't really a liberal merely because he worships the Supreme Fascist, that sounds like a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
No, you are engaging in the false-equivalence fallacy of treating one's core values and principles related to human liberty as the same as which policies by which governments you trust to enact your values. Which particular authority you want to enact those values and thus which governmental party and policies you support is a pragmatic byproduct of three separate interacting factors: 1) your core values related to individual human liberty and reason versus faith and authoritarianism (which are inextricably linked); 2) which particular authority if any you want to be in charge; 3) Which humans (if any) you trust to carry out that authorities will.
Different combinations of these 3 factors can produce a similar stance with regard to support for various policies by different governments or levels of government, including a shared stance by the most accepting liberals and the most intolerant authoritarian conservatives. Those you call "liberal Evangelicals" are the same as the most right-wing fundy Christians but the opposite of principled liberals on factors 1 and 2. They happen to share liberals lack of trust of human authorities on factor 3, but for a very different reason (liberals don't accept any authority in part 2 so part 3 is moot, whereas "liberal" Evangelicals think their authority in pt 2 is so superior to all humanity that they don't trust any human to carry out his will).
In sum, there are some Evangelicals who happen to share the political policy positions with actual liberals, but for completely different reasons, and they are the opposite of liberals in terms of core moral values and any principles related to respecting human reason and liberty and not wanting it to be undermined and coerced via authoritarian threats of any kind.
IF that difference isn't central to what it means to be liberal, then the word has no relation to underlying psychological/philosophical underpinnings of political action, and merely means "Do you support policy X, for whatever reason."
