What’s in a Name?

What’s in a Name?

It was December, December 6th to be precise, in Chicago, where those of us who had been wrestling for months to come up with a name for the baby we affectionately referred to as the “new Reformed body” returned to the table, committed to its Christening. We had come up with all kinds of names, but nothing had really stuck. To that point we had assembled collections of words, accurate in meaning but uninspired. We wanted a name that caused us to think and live differently, embrace a larger mission and higher calling with more creativity. We wanted a name that was God-inspired.

As we talked and prayed that morning, three descriptive words emerged – evangelical, covenant and order. Evangelical directs us to be witnesses to the hope of the gospel, engaged in our culture and planting missional communities. Order is a word rich in heritage but not typically used in American denominational circles these days. It conveys commitment to live life together around a common theological core. Covenant reminds us that God initiated a relationship with us that then connects us to each other. We added Presbyterian. Presbyterian certainly describes our style of government, but even more it describes our continuity with a larger, global family of faith.

As we continued our discussion, these words took hold of us. We began to see the beauty of the message they conveyed. We left Chicago in agreement on Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, ECO for short to bring to mind our desire to create an ecosystem for flourishing congregations. We announced the name at the January conference in Orlando. John Ortberg outlined the vision for ECO in his opening presentation. Since then ECO has taken hold of the imagination of many individuals and congregations.

Shortly after the Orlando conference, we were contacted by the Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC), a denomination of 800 congregations based in Chicago, expressing a concern that that our new name is too close to the ECC and has the potential to cause confusion. Our subsequent conversations with the ECC have been nothing but beautiful and respectful. We have looked at our core values and tried to live into our relationships as Christian brothers and sisters with mutual respect and affirmation of ministry.

Because we value this relationship and want to honor their concerns, we have agreed to modify our name slightly. We will keep the acronym ECO, but we will change the descriptors. Beginning today, April 9, 2012, we will be known as ECO: a Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians. It is a small change for us but has major significance for our partners in ministry in the ECC.

What’s in a name? A good name communicates identity. We are and want to be an accountable community of Resurrection people. ECO: a Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians.

18 Responses

  1. Gary Foster says:

    I like this a bit better. Give up the ECO thing. It never sounded good to me. The new name is a bit better.

  2. Barnabas Sprinkle says:

    Good change, to my mind. Honestly, I’d drop the ECO acronym (since it no longer fits). I love the words evangelical, covenant, and order–and what they mean for this group–but the ECO acronym was a challenge for some in our congregation. We live in an area that used to have a thriving timber industry, which was curtailed by environmental legislation. People asked me, “Are they going to be an environmentalist denomination?” As rich as oikos is to those of us who learned Koine Greek, eco means environmentalism ’round here.

    My only concern: using the phrase “evangelical Presbyterians” obviously brings to mind a different denomination…

    P.S. – Oddly, my father (also a pastor) planted a Covenant church, when I was a kid. If it’s the same group, it’s not a bad group to be confused for.

  3. David Freehling says:

    “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”

  4. Scott Welborn says:

    I would have opted towards something simpler not more complex, given the opportunity.

    • Kathi Busch says:

      I agree with Scott. This name requires so much explanation. And seems rather, well, high-falootin. Not sure of the spelling of that, but you get my drift. If we desire to reach people without a background in church and faith, it would seem we’d do better to meet them where they are and speak their language in terms that don’t require extensive theological interpretation.

    • Jonathan Hughes says:

      I concur with Scott. The point of a name is to clearly state an identity. This is muddy and kind of seems like a mouthful at this point. Still, in the end it is faithfulness to the gospel within the common life that matters.

  5. Matt Hilgaertner says:

    I agree with Scott Welborne — too complicated! Acronyms are always listing its descriptors in alphabetical order, right? FBI isn’t Investigators of the Federal Bureau. So now the ECO descriptors are going to appear, ironically, out of order. I appreciate the effort of wanting to respect the ECC, but I just don’t think this “fix” will actually be one. In the long run, I think the acronym ECOP will be fine just the way it was in its inception, and the ECC will be okay as well. Bottom line: You all conversed about it, prayed over it, and believed that’s what God was leading you to present — or rather, in your words, it was “God-inspired.” Do you not believe that anymore? I sure do!

  6. Ellen says:

    I agree with Scott. It’s unfortunate – I know that much energy was invested before rolling out the name/logo/acronym in Orlando. And much energy has since been invested with individual congregations who are trying to sort through a tangle of denominational issues and options to discern God’s leading for them. I don’t suspect that this latest change will add any clarity.

    At the risk of sounding too, “wordsmithy,” I notice that one of the reasons cited above for making the change was to, “honor the concerns,” of the ECC. While I obviously don’t know all of the conversations that you’ve had with ECC folks (very good folks, no doubt), I have to wonder when honoring fears has ever taken us down a good road?

  7. Becky says:

    I don’t get it– what does ECO stand for now? And aren’t y’all still gonna go by ECO? How does this change things with relation to the ECC’s? It’s the same problem. This doesn’t make much sense you guys. And I agree with the other commenter– go more simple, not more complex.

  8. Michael Neubert says:

    I would have picked CO-OP as in Covenant Order of Presbyterians

  9. Kay Van Klinken says:

    Sounds like the loyal order of Eagles to me 🙁

  10. Greg Wiest says:

    The name is not the same as the ECC. No more confusing then the PCA, PCUSA, EPC, OPC. The name change should have been left up to the governing body of the new denomination once it is established. This was done too quickly and right on the cusp of trying to be established.

  11. David Bierschwale says:

    As a fair number of TEs and congregations are poised to leave the PCUSA, I always thought E-COOP very appropriate–as in those who “flew the coop” of the PCUSA.

    🙂

    I do wonder if, now, some spiritual seekers who see names such as:

    Covenant Network

    and

    Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians

    may experience GREAT confusion and, in fact, could visit a congregation
    with totally different theology than what they may have anticipated.

    Then again, one of the great shining lights for evangelical & reformed theology in
    the southern stream was The Covenant Fellowship of Presbyterians.

    God bless you in the leadership who carried on the conversations with our ECC brothers and sisters! This serves as a great model of loving conversation before that segment of the watching world that is just waiting for all the incidents (be they large or small) of Christians failing to love one another.

  12. Lots of comments on the name and none on the process by which you all gracefully worked with ECC to agree to make a name change. That says a lot, I think, about ECO or CO-OP or whatever catchy name we choose to use–that we are careful in moving forward.

    I hope we are just as careful with our congregations–many of whom are life-long PCUSA members, like myself–in carefully moving forward.

    Bill

  13. Keith Davis says:

    I will raise my hand as one of the “confused.” What is the Fellowship of Presbyterians? How does agreeing to join it and agree to its essential tenets relate to ECO? If you sign the documents on this website, are you “joining” the FOP or the ECO?

    I raise a relatively minor point, but there appears to be much to be clarified before one could expect many PCUSA members to throw off that mantle in favor of something that is so unclear – regardless of how much they might be seeking for something more closely akin to these documents.

    • fellowship-admin says:

      The Fellowship of Presbyterians is the “umbrella” organization that has drafted the Theology Project including the Essential Tenets. This is for people who are staying in the PC(USA) and maintaining a clarified evangelical witness as well as for those who are seeking release from the PC(USA) to join ECO. ECO, as a separate organization, has its own polity but shares the theological position of The Fellowship.

  14. Uneasy Disciple says:

    While there is now a name change, along with prior changes in essentials and polity, where do you see the ECO next year as far as finalizing their clarification of these theological essentials, polity, etc?
    Today, the concern rests in this — How can a church, in good conscience, join a denomination that is still forming, not fully knowing in the end what they have agreed to be a part of today?

    • fellowship-admin says:

      The Essential Tenets and Polity are what they are. The first time possible changes would be made would be at the January 2013 meeting of the The Fellowship and ECO. ECO functions the same way any organization functions. You join it for what it currently is and then you lend your thoughts, prayers, and leadership to help make it even more of what God is inviting it to become.

Comments are closed.