What is ECOT? 
Understanding Faithful and Welcoming Churches of the UCC and who they claim to represent
© 2007 Rev. David B. Roberts, Austintown Community United Church of Christ, Youngstown, OH
Introduction
ECOT.
It's not a perfect label, and some might argue against the very use of labels since they tend to delimit people with inflexible expectations and stereotypical presuppositions. However, for the sake of convenience, we need to have a workable label in order to talk about the divide that we believe is rending the UCC. And so, "ECOT" has emerged out of the discussions that led to the January 2006 formation of the Faithful and Welcoming Churches of the United Church of Christ (FWC). At that time, those of us who dissent with the current direction of the denomination were simply trying to identify the common denominator that was drawing us together as "the loyal opposition" within the UCC.
ECOT is an acronym combining four descriptors: "Evangelical, Conservative, Orthodox or Traditional". Before FWC was officially born, we discussed each of these labels in order to determine whether any of them adequately or appropriately described the kind of UCC members, clergy and congregations that were expressing dismay, objection and frustration with the recently concluded General Synod 25 (specifically responding to the Equal Marriage Rights resolution) and the ongoing "God is Still Speaking" marketing initiative. In examining each label, we found no unanimity among us. Although we each seemed to prefer one term or another, we also were uncomfortable with the connotations that any single term might bring with it to the group. Therefore we tabled the issue. Later, in our correspondence with one another, we began out of necessity to list all four. Naturally over time the list was shortened into the current four-letter, pronounceable result.
For the sake of engendering greater understanding, this paper attempts to give clarity to how we, who are dissenters within the UCC, use each of the terms in our particular context. We do not attempt to define the terms for all UCCers, nor to claim exclusive rights to them. We merely want to help our partners in ministry and our brothers and sisters in the broader UCC to understand who we are and how we see ourselves. This is the label that is helping us talk about a large segment of the UCC community, which even though it may be a minority, we feel is often underrepresented, misunderstood and at times maligned within the denomination as a whole.
Evangelical
"Evangelical" in our usage does not refer to our heritage in the UCC and its predecessor denomination, the Evangelical Synod of North America, nor to any broader usage and definition that is often employed within the UCC. Instead, we use the term as it came to be used in the second half of the 20th century for people such as Billy Graham, Chuck Colson and John Stott among others. Christianity Today might be considered the representative magazine for this particular understanding of the Christian faith. UCC theologian Donald Bloesch and UCC New Testament scholar Royce Gruenler fall into this category.
Sometimes, the media and others mistakenly assume that "evangelical" is a synonym for "fundamentalist". This is not accurate. Most of us who identify ourselves as evangelical would prefer to distance ourselves from many of the connotations and associations that accompany fundamentalism per se. For example, most evangelicals do not consider themselves to be strict biblical literalists, which is a key component of fundamentalist Christians. Also, fundamentalists are especially distinguished from evangelicals by their separatist theology, which does not allow them to cooperate with or even acknowledge Christian fellowship with leaders and churches that do not conform to their strict standards. Evangelicals tend to seek and affirm ties across denominational lines with any and all who confess Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord as the basis of their fellowship.
John Stott, the former rector for All Souls Church in London, is often looked to as the spokesperson for evangelicalism. He says that there are two particular things evangelicals emphasize: the concern for authority and salvation. [1]
We mean that we are evangelical primarily with regard to the issue of personal salvation. There is a basic assumption among evangelicals that all people are "lost" due to their sin and therefore are in need of "salvation". Thus "redemption" and "deliverance" from "eternal damnation" or "hell" is offered in the unique Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of God incarnate, who offered himself unto death on the cross as the "substitutionary atonement" for sin. As a result we evangelicals place great emphasis on the proclamation of the "gospel". Whether we use these exact terms or not, they refer to concepts which are rarely, if ever, discussed in our UCC-based conversations; but, to us they are essential truths that cannot be compromised or buried away.
A banner scriptural text for evangelicals might well be Romans 10:13-15 (NIV):
for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"
Conservative
The particular term "conservative" is problematic. Many would confuse its usage to imply a specific approach to politics, to economics or to societal issues as a whole. Some might assume that we mean right wing or Republican. This is not our intent. To say that we are conservative does not necessarily mean that we voted for George W. Bush or that we support the war in Iraq or that we subscribe to Reaganomics. There are ECOTs who may well be registered Democrats. Nor do we mean that we are necessarily conservative with regards to worship style or ecclesiology.
When we use "conservative", we mean that we lean toward a conservative approach in our reading, interpretation and application of the Scriptures. We also are conservative in our theology as well. We are prone to conserving that which has been revealed and discerned and agreed upon as the core doctrines of the Christian Church over the full course of its two thousand year history. We are less inclined to pursue what might be called progressive theology, or evolving theology, which tends to introduce novel ideas derived from what, we would say, is an inappropriate hermeneutic and which, in our eyes, results in diminishing the sovereignty, authority and immutability of God. To us, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. [2] God's mercies are new every morning, but his truth is not.
John Stott has said:
For evangelical people, our authority is the God who has spoken supremely in Jesus Christ. And that is equally true of redemption or salvation. God has acted in and through Jesus Christ for the salvation of sinners.
I think it's necessary for evangelicals to add that what God has said in Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ, and what God has done in and through Christ, are both, to use the Greek word, hapax—meaning once and for all. There is a finality about God's word in Christ, and there is a finality about God's work in Christ. To imagine that we could add a word to his word, or add a work to his work, is extremely derogatory to the unique glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [3]
With regards to applying the Scriptures to our daily lives we are not likely to embrace new-fangled readings and interpretations. The Apostle Paul advised Timothy to be conservative and to apply it for moral correction:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:17 (NIV)
As theological and biblical conservatives, we can affirm that God is still speaking for He is indeed the living God and we attest that the Holy Spirit still actively guides us, but in our view God's canon of revelation is complete. As conservatives we might emphasize the following passages of scripture.
"I the LORD do not change." Malachi 3:6 (NIV)
Long ago I learned from your statutes
that you established them to last forever. Psalms 119:152 (NIV)
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Luke 21:33 (NIV)
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV)
Orthodox
Here, we obviously do not mean Orthodox with a capital "O". Our usage of this term is not meant to represent a specific branch or tradition of the Christian Church such as the Russian or Greek or Serbian Orthodox Churches
Literally, orthodox means "right teaching". Its usage suggests that there exists something else called "wrong teaching" or what the Bible calls "false teachings" or "false doctrines". The Bible warns us to be on our guard against such distortions of the truth:
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1 (NIV)
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8 (NIV)
If we are careful to be orthodox, then we will automatically be guarded against any teaching that contradicts the established teachings, which have been handed down to us. This again is our conservative nature at work. But, how do we know if what we are currently teaching is right? How do we know that the new teaching being introduced to us is wrong? In humility we dare not trust any one human source, not even ourselves. People are not perfect and are prone to promoting ideas of their own invention rather than the truth. As the test for orthodoxy, we humbly rely on the consensus of a broad spectrum of Christian thinkers from many diverse cultures and across the centuries rising above the temporal fads and trends of Christian debate. This is Congregationalist theory at its best: the Holy Spirit will not contradict Himself, but will lead the Church of Jesus Christ (as a whole) into all truth. [4]
The Church encountered and confronted many false teachings (heresies) from the very start. No doubt Jesus had to overcome many false assumptions and attitudes even in his most devoted followers. But over time we believe that the Apostles and the New Testament authors gained a worldview and an understanding of the truth that is consistent with that which Jesus wanted them to have. We trust that the ancient creeds (Apostles' and Nicene) captured the truth and repudiated errors that continue to be reintroduced even today. More than that, we trust that there is a solid consensus among most Christians from every time and place to give us the confidence to reject that which arises out of a few, or from a faction, or from a sect. [5]
The O in ECOT means that we tend to subscribe to classic orthodox theology [6]. What disturbs us is that we see a different kind of theology rising in the UCC (and in other mainline denominations) and it is currently displacing the essentials of orthodoxy. This new theology claims that "God never rejected anyone" without offering any further clarification. It is what Episcopalian Philip Turner has referred to as a "theology of divine acceptance" in which the core value is "radical inclusion without qualification". [7] We see a redefinition of the Church emerging which sets no boundaries and requires no repentance. We see accommodation of the world's standards without appealing to God's holy ideals. Such a shift, in our view, has reduced the role of Christ from Savior of the World to that of mere Example for Humankind. We recommend Turner's article for a clearer understanding of this divergence of theologies and the resulting deterioration of what we view as a supreme Christology.
As orthodox believers in the reformed tradition, we rely on Scripture first and foremost, then on reason and logic, then on church tradition (consensus from many times and places), and finally on personal experience. If all of these are in alignment, then we feel confident that our teaching is right. If we cannot reconcile all these levels, then Scripture must trump the others.
If, as the aggregate Body of Christ, we are currently teaching falsehoods and there is then a new or corrective teaching God has for us, how will we know to let go of the error and embrace the real truth? We believe that the Holy Spirit will not fail. Time will tell and the truth will eventually prevail in consensus among His faithful.
Traditional
By "traditional" we do not imply anything about our music or architecture or ministry strategies. We are traditional in the sense that we cling to the consensus of a long history and a broad ecumenicity of Christian thought and understanding.
Our traditional bent might be evident in the preference among some of us for the traditional language for the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, even though we may embrace inclusive language when referring to people. We might prefer being called "Christians" rather than using the modern, watered-down term "persons of faith". But, tradition is about more than word selection, too.
There are ideas and concepts that have endured throughout the centuries and are consistent across cultures. There is a thread that connects our faith back through the Reformers to the Apostles. Indeed, there are ideals and constants that are consistent all the way back through Moses, to Sarah and Abraham, to Noah, and even to Eve and Adam. These constants are not rooted in particular times and places and cultures, but they are ideals set in place by God for all humanity and for all time.
A few of these are found in the ideals of "male" and "female", and "marriage". These concepts and realities are part of the created order which God put into place in perfected design. ("And God saw that it was good." [8]) They are not mere cultural conventions and they are not open to human redefinition and tweaking. They represent ideals and realities which still endure even though their expression and practice have been marred and distorted as a result of the Fall. None of us in our sinfulness can truly live up to them. We have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God. [9]
There are also New Testament ideals such as "church" and "baptism" and "communion" and "scripture" that although they may be practiced and applied in many different forms, they are essential and not to be compromised. These are among the essentials which define the unity of the church. [10]
One of the purposes of these traditions is to serve as correctives to our encroaching sinful practices and self-rationalized understandings. ("Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, prone to leave the God I love." [11]) Their purpose is to give us some measure and standard for the Holy Spirit's work in us that we might be reformed and ever reforming; both in our private lives and in our institutions. They also give us confidence that mere fads and trends of thought do not take us off course on the tangents of today.
G. K. Chesterton once said,
"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back... Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around." [12]
If we are traditional, it is because we do not feel it is our place, as mere sin-plagued mortals, to replace or redefine these divinely created institutional ideals. Instead, we try to discover God's original purposes in them and to live accordingly. We try not to be conformed to the pattern of this world, but to be transformed in the renewal of our minds. [13] Here, we might point to the words of our Lord when he said: "It was not this way from the beginning." [14] Even Jesus said that he came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. [15]
Conclusion
In shortened summary then, we who call ourselves ECOT mean to use the four terms broadly enough to encompass all who are perplexed by and do not want to encourage or identify with the current direction of the UCC.
We use the term "evangelical" with regard to the centrality of the need for personal, eternal salvation, and holiness found only in Jesus Christ in contrast to the current UCC disregard for issues of personal sin, salvation and eternity. We believe that being evangelical in this sense is essential. The power of the gospel for human transformation is in the fact that "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." (Romans 4:25 (NIV))
We use the term "conservative" with regard to interpreting the Scriptures in contrast to the current UCC trend toward cutting edge and innovative interpretations. We believe it is essential to conserve the message of the Scriptures so that we can "continue in what [we] have learned and have become convinced of" and in order not to dilute Scripture's power to "make [us] wise for salvation". [16] Such conservatism, we believe, actually results in liberating and empowering human souls to serve God all the more.
We use the term "orthodox" with regard to the classic theology that emphasizes the Divine as the God of redemptive atonement in contrast to the current UCC bent toward "progressive" or "personalized" or "contextualized" theologies which emphasize the Divine as the God of liberation with no reference to "judgment" or as the God of radical inclusion with no demands for "holiness". For us, orthodoxy is essential if we are to honor the radical teachings of Jesus himself and his "unorthodox" work on the cross of making sinful people acceptable to God, delivering us from judgment (justification) and making us holy (sanctification). [17]
We use the term "traditional" with regard to the broad consensus of 2000 years of Christian history including the global, multi-cultural and ecumenical Church of today in contrast to the current UCC attempt to create for itself a distinct identity apart from the rest of Christianity, thereby avoiding true ecumenicity.
When these four concepts are combined, we believe that they represent a strong extension of the historical roots of the UCC. We sense that today we are following in the continuing stream of ECOT faith and values which has flowed from Christ through our predecessor denominations and now carries us on into the future. Even if their ministries pre-date our particular usage of the ECOT label, we can cite a number of ECOTs from our UCC heritage. These might include John Robinson, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney, Philip Schaff and John Nevin.
We intend for the term ECOT to be a useful tool to aid us in our conversations both among ourselves and within the larger Church. We do not claim exclusive right to each of the labels that ECOT encapsulates. Others with whom we strongly disagree may well use each or all of these four words, but with different definitions, to describe themselves. We are only trying to find a way to capture the essence of whatever it is that ECOTs have in common and sets us apart in opinion and interpretation and expectation from the larger UCC as it is now positioned. We ask that our brothers and sisters try not to take offense, but to try to understand us and to include us. Ultimately we want to be a part of the UCC and not apart from it. Hopefully, ECOT will be a helpful term for our dialogue with the wider Church.
Also, we hope that by offering this particular definition of ECOT we might help give voice and expression to a significant segment of the denomination, which itself is proving to be rather diverse in race, culture, and ministry priorities. We hope that the ECOT label will be a broad enough umbrella to cover a spectrum of believers of many divergent backgrounds and opinions, and yet allow us to be unified enough to have impact and influence upon the future of the UCC.
Appendix: Orthodox theology in a nutshell
Orthodoxy is really a theology of divine redemption. Such a theology begins with the understanding that God is holy. To be holy means to be supremely pure, good, righteous and just. God is incomparable to anything and to anyone. God's ways are higher than our ways and God's thoughts than our thoughts. [18] God is, therefore, often described as "wholly other"; distinct and above all creation. Because God is just, He must necessarily "bring judgment" against all that is unholy. Because God is light, He must cast out all darkness and any who would cling to the dark. Because God is pure, He cannot embrace anything impure. God must, therefore, reject anything and anyone that is skewed away from Him and bent toward unholy purposes. God in His perfect holiness cannot fellowship with sinful, rebellious humans and that is why Adam and Eve were the first to be exiled from His presence. Even Jesus himself experienced holy rejection from the Father as the sins of the world were heaped upon him. [19] It could be said that, God's holy nature requires Him to be exclusive in this way.
But God is also love. The history of God and His creation does not end with rejection. God in His gracious love offers redemption to all through the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of the Son. Through the gift of Christ's sacrificial atonement, any sinful person may enter into full inclusion in God's fellowship if they will only repent and place their faith in Christ's work of salvation on their behalf. Repentance means to pursue God's will and God's ways instead of one's own will or the world's ways. To any who will receive Christ, He gives the right to become children of God. [20] The extravagant welcome into God's family is offered freely to all, but it has come at great cost through Christ's death on the Cross. God justifies the sinner, forgiving his iniquities and promising him power for sanctification.
Footnotes
[1] Christianity Today, October 2006, 'Evangelism Plus", interview by Tim Stafford, page 94
[3] Christianity Today, October 2006, 'Evangelism Plus", interview by Tim Stafford, page 94
[4] "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." John 14:26 (NIV)
[5] Thomas Oden offers this definition: Orthodoxy is "integrated biblical teaching as interpreted in its most consensual classic period ... for Christians it means the doctrine taught during the period commonly called classic Christian teaching." He describes it as "ancient ecumenical teaching as distinguished from modern ecumenical dialogue." (Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy; New York, Harper Collins Publishing, 2003, page 29)
[6] For a summation of what we mean by "classic orthodoxy" see the appendix at the end of this booklet.
[7] Philip Turner, "An Unworkable Theology" in First Things 154 (June/July 2005); pages 10-12
Turner writes this about his own denomination, but it also seems an accurate observation of the UCC if we simply replace 'radical inclusion' with the phrase 'extravagant welcome': "This unofficial doctrine of radical inclusion, which is now the working theology of the Episcopal Church, plays out in two directions. In respect to God, it produces a quasi-deist theology that posits a benevolent God who favors love and justice as inclusion but act neither to save us from our sins nor to raise us to new life after the pattern of Christ. In respect to human beings, it produces an ethic of tolerant affirmation that carries with it no call to conversion and radical holiness."
Turner also writes: "In a theology dominated by radical inclusion, terms such as 'faith,' 'justification,' 'repentance,' and 'holiness of life' seem to belong to an antique vocabulary that must be outgrown or reinterpreted. So also does the notion that the Church is a community elected by God for the particular purpose of bearing witness to the saving event of Christ's life, death, and resurrection."
[8] Genesis 1:27,31; Genesis 2:24
[9] Romans 3:23
[10] The often quoted maxim of Rupert Meldinius (circa 1627) says "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity." What are the essentials? According to Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church, Vol.VII, page 651) Meldinius offered parameters which would apparently be in line with ECOT values.
Essentials include:
- Articles of faith necessary to salvation
- Articles derived from clear testimonies of the Bible
- Articles decided by the whole church in a synod or symbol
- Articles held by all orthodox divines as necessary
Nonessentials include:
- Dogmas not contained in the Bible
- Dogmas not belonging to the common inheritance of the faith
- Dogmas not unanimously taught by theologians
- Dogmas left doubtful by grave divines
- Dogmas not tending to piety, charity and edification
[11] "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing", hymn by Robert Robinson, verse 3
[12] From Orthodoxy, 1908. G.K. Chesterton also offers this bit of wisdom which explains the ECOT aversion to redefining marriage: "In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'"
[17] "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." 1 Peter 3:18 (NIV) See also Romans 5:1-2 and Ephesians 3:12
[19] About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 (NIV)
