New Reformed Body Unveiled
The new Reformed body has been named: Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians. Learn more about our vision and values.
The new Reformed body has been named: Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians. Learn more about our vision and values.
10 Responses
I was so impressed with all I heard and experienced at the Fellowship Conference in Orlando. So many people allowing the Holy Spirit to work through them to further His Kingdom! I am convinced that ECO will continue to develop into an amazing evidence in our temporal world of His eternal plan. I am impressed with the Theological and Polity statements. I’m wondering about the connection between the Fellowship and ECO, will the Fellowship be in effect a General Assembly of sorts for ECO?
Thanks for your consideration.
I am so confused and, I’m concerned maybe really disappointed. I had thought that this new Reformed body, the ECO was being designed so that people could be members of it and remain in the PC(USA) if they wanted. Everything coming out in the press is taking about a new break-away denomination. Is it not possible to be members of both? What happened to that vision for those who would want that option?
Please don’t be confused, concerned, or disappointed. There is a union or “joint witness” option that is available for individuals, congregations, and presbyteries.
Bravo! Bravo!
The polity structure is great. We need some Overtures to the 2012 PCUSA General Assembly that address dismissal to the ECO, affiliate memberships with the ECO, but most importantly Overtures addressing the Union Memberships of individual PCUSA congregations as well as Union Memberships of PCUSA Presbyteries. I would imagine that the Union Memberships will be quite popular, since the congregation (or Presbytery) can be full members and participants in both bodies, enabling them to build up in Christ. We need Overtures that require PCUSA Presbyteries to honor the votes of congregations that vote to become Union members with both the ECO and the PCUSA and that require the PCUSA Presbytery to respect the congregation’s participation in both bodies. The work has just begun, but Praise The Lord it has started.
In Christ,
John Almquist
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church (Newport Beach, CA)
Center-focused spirituality: We believe in calling people to the core of what it means to be followers of Jesus — what “mere Christianity” is and does — and not fixate on the boundaries. This value, said Crosby, is about “calling people to the core of life-giving, grace-filled life in Jesus Christ instead of patrolling the borders as truth cops.”
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
In the midst of those who claim to be of His flock, since Jesus is the truth thus embodying all truth (what “mere Christianity” is and does), what part of Jesus is not worth taking the trouble to stand up for? And if bits of Him are not worth standing up for (not central) then why form a new body? We might as well stay in the PC(USA); seems easier than becoming an E.C.O. non-warrior. Perhaps I cannot see the end in this beginning but it appears that when an enemy is at the gate we won’t know it because we are choosing to take the guard off the wall.
Who would have guessed that “patrolling a border”, being a watchman on the wall, would become something to mock and that standing up for the whole counsel of God would become a position to deride.
The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, speak to your people and say to them, If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from among them, and make him their watchman, and if he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people, then if anyone who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet and did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life. …
You were running so well don’t let anyone or thing hinder you from unabashedly proclaiming the whole truth. I will continue to pray for all of us as you courageously seek God’s will.
In the Essential Tenets document, it is not clear what is being called “essential”. In all the verbiage, some nonessentials seem to have been smuggled in, like a specific interpretation of how God created human beings and an assertion (where Scripture is silent) that life in God’s image begins at conception. Are the “essentials” only the things in bold print, with the rest as non-binding commentary? Or is every jot and tittle of the document “essential”? If the latter, will there be provision to take a “scruple” if, for example, I believe that God created humans by superintending the process that science describes as evolution?
I also wonder if there has been any conversation with our brothers and sisters in the Evangelical Covenant Church, with whom this name may cause confusion.
Thank you for your good question. The essential tenets piece is presented as neither confessional status (a new confession) nor a point of subscription. It is designed to articulate core theology in both a Reformed and evangelical accent. The whole of the theology project is intended to challenge people in The Fellowship and ECO to make ongoing theological conversation a much more central reality than it has become in our tradition, both within congregations and among peer groupings of leaders.
Thanks for the reply, and it is good to hear that the “Essential Tenets” document is not to be an object of subscription but rather a non-definitive articulation as a starting point for theological conversation.
However, that does not seem to be the way it works in the Polity document, which as I read it gives this Essential Tenets document a status HIGHER than the Confessions. It says
Ordaining bodies must ensure that all officers adhere to the Essential Tenets of the ECO. Failure of officers to continue to adhere to these standards is grounds for a session or presbytery to remove an officer from service …
Elsewhere the ordination vows say that I must adopt this document “without hesitation” [side note — some of us have personalities where we don’t do anything, including affirming that the sky is blue, “without hesitation”]
That sure sounds like subscription to me. It sounds like if I affirm 98% of this 4-page document, but disagree on 2% (even one of the nonessential bits like the manner in which God created humans), I could not continue as an Elder. I don’t see a difference between how this document functions in ECO polity and how Westminster functions in the PCA or OPC.
Was there perhaps a “disconnect” between the people putting together these two documents? If so, is there time for it to be repaired (either by paring out nonessentials from the document, or by making the polity less subscription-like)?
As I read through this website, I see a lot exciting stuff. However, it’s also a lot of familiar stuff. It looks a lot like some of the documents that came out of the New Wineskins movement in it’s earlist days- an attempt to let people live in both camps while still opening a door for churches who are prepared to leave the PCUSA.
I am one of the few women ordained as a pastor in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. And I should say right now that I’m just one person responding and thinking this through on a blog. I don’t speak on behalf of the EPC, nor would I attempt to do that. However, for my own part I have a few questions. I’m wondering if the major reason for forming the ECO is simply the women’s ordination issue. Or is it that PC(USA) churhes need an exit strategy that is less abrupt than simply leaving to the EPC?
Personally, while I am very committed to an egalitarian approach to ministry, I am not willing to cut myself off from those whose faithfulness to Scripture leaves them on the otherside of that debate. It takes some faith to walk beside sisters and brothers who feel uncertain about my calling, but I have found folks in the EPC willing, on the whole, to walk that road with me. And I feel that walking that road is worth it as a witness to Christian unity.
I believe that God is working through the ECO to free congregations to do the work of the building for the Kingdom. And I agree with Rev. Ortberg that there is more than just one room in Christ’s Church and that each room has a unique gift and mission. However, when two rooms have the same gifts and the same mission, their walking together in unity is a beautiful witness of Christ’s body on the earth. I hope that the formation of the ECO is not the loss of such an opportunity.
You are all in my prayers. I am excited that Jesus is moving in the Church to mobilize congregations to take more seriously our call to go and make disciples. Whatever else happens I believe that faithfulness to Christ and Christ’s teachings will yield such a harvest.
Is there any way to get the ‘essentials’ document in a word format? I’m working on an Employee Handbook for the church and want to insert it.
Comments are closed.