Dismissal to the ECO is going to be no easier for individual churches than dismissal to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) and the property question remains. Many had hoped that the FOP would negotiate a national dismissal plan for churches to leave en masse with their property. That hope has not be realized. Churches who feel led to join the ECO will still have to negotiate their way out of the PCUSA.

ECO is the acronym for The Fellowship of Presbyterian’s (FOP) new Reformed body. Spelled out the name is Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians. Fun has been had on various blogs about what the acronym might have been: E-COOP which brings to mind chickens, E-COP which sounds like a police state, ECO-OP which sounds very green and depending which syllable you emphasize, is either a clandestine operation or a co-operative.

But ECO it is: A vision of a spiritual ecosystem in which congregations can be planted and flourish and in which authentic disciples of Jesus Christ will grow and bear abundant fruit for the Kingdom of God. Who wouldn’t want to be in a denomination like that?

“How far ‘out’ of the Presbyterian Church (USA) can you get” and “how far ‘in’ ECO you want to be,” are the presenting questions.

Three options were presented to attendees at the FOP/ECO Convenanting Convention in Orlando.

1. Join the FOP and remain in the PCUSA.
2. Join ECO and move fully out of the PCUSA.
3. A hybrid option currently conceived of by ECO as becoming a union church in a union presbytery with one foot in the PCUSA and one foot in the ECO.

Deals still need to be brokered to achieve the second and third options as the ECO is not yet recognized by the PCUSA as a “Reformed body” to which presbyteries can dismiss congregations and the stated clerk of the PCUSA has issued Constitutional Musing #25 which suggests that a constitutional change would need to be made in the PCUSA Book of Order to allow for union congregations as conceived of by the ECO.

Examining each option
One might liken joining the FOP as a combination of joining the Confessing Church Movement, Presbyterian Global Fellowship and committing all elders to the PCUSA’s “A Pastoral Rule,” a resource designed “to identify the theological practices that will sustain us for the next generation and which we must, therefore, commit to and sustain.”

It is a way of saying “here we stand,” being missional and measuring ministry and discipleship against a standard. It is acknowledged that this option is intended in part to mollify members who churches aren’t leaving the denomination but who do not want to be associated with the liberal trend of the PCUSA. FOP gives congregational leaders in those churches the ability to say to disaffected members, “Yes, we’re in the PCUSA, but we’re differentiated from the denomination by being a part of this particular fellowship.”

Option #2, joining the ECO, requires the same processes of dismissal or disaffiliation currently being utilized by churches departing the PCUSA for other branches of the Presbyterian and Reformed family. Dismissal to the ECO is going to be no easier for individual churches than dismissal to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) and the property question remains. Many had hoped that the FOP would negotiate a national dismissal plan for churches to leave en masse with their property. That hope has not be realized. Churches who feel led to join the ECO will still have to negotiate their way out of the PCUSA.

The proposed “union” option is going to leave churches limping between two opinions. As currently described, a union church would live under both the PCUSA and the ECO constitutions. As both denominations will use the full Book of Confessions as their confessional standard, there is no conflict in terms of the espoused theology. However, where the two polities are in conflict (property, ordination standards, per capita/financial support requirements, participation in BOP plan, etc) the more restrictive or less permissive polity takes precedence.

Translated that means that although the union option helps churches hold the line on sexual standards for ordained leaders, it negatively:

• Binds them to the PCUSA property trust clause as the more restrictive of the constitutions.
• Requires ½ of 1 percent of the entire church budget be paid annually to both the PCUSA and ECO. Under the PCUSA polity, per capita is purely voluntary. Under the ECO polity, although not called per capita, financial support of the higher governing body is mandatory. Meaning that union congregations who have not paid PCUSA per capita would now be constitutionally bound under the ECO polity to pay both denominations.
• Continues mandated participation in the BOP plans without relief of conscience while also mandating into the ECO medical plan all full time church employees (which the PCUSA constitution does not require).

All options require signing the FOP covenant. And although the theology statement is not described as “subscriptionist” there are commitments (like that to a Biblical tithe and full participation in the “order”) contained in the covenant.

For churches and church leaders, the discernment questions have really not changed. The FOP and ECO options just multiply the possible answers to questions that churches have been asking for many years:

“Is God calling us to remain in the PCUSA?”
• If the answer is yes, “Shall we align ourselves with the FOP?”
o If the answer is no, then a church continues in the PCUSA with business as usual.
o If yes, they sign the covenant and begin living as an FOP church, asking, “Shall we also seek union status with the ECO?”
• If yes, “What are all the ramifications of living under both polities?”
• If the answer is no, “What are our options for denominational realignment?”
o “Do we find greater affinity with the EPC’s list of essential tenets, mission, vision and polity or with the ECO?”
• If the answer is the ECO, “Does the ECO qualify as a Reformed body to which our presbytery would consider dismissing us?”
• If no and that’s where we want to go, “What overtures should we send to the General Assembly to create that avenue?”

These are just some of the questions that churches need to be asking as dramatic shifts take place in our common life. There is no longer a question about whether or not a new Reformed body will be launched. The question remains as to how many churches will seek to populate it and how aggressively the PCUSA will resist it.

Theologically, ECO finds greater affinity with the PCUSA than with the EPC. The polity of ECO is intentionally designed to place high emphasis on missional calling and relational accountability. How hard elders are willing to work to transform existing modes of operation into the new thing will determine its vitality and viability. The next meeting of the FOP and the ECO is planned for late August 2012.

Carmen Fowler LaBerge is president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and executive editor of its publications. This article first appeared at The Layman website and is used with permission.

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]