FAQ on ECO Polity
As we consider joining ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, questions have been raised about how the polity works and how it compares to that of the PC(USA). In an effort to answer these questions and dispel rumors, the session asked Dana Allin, Synod Executive for ECO, to respond to some of these, which he has graciously done below. For more information, click here for a summary of ECO’s polity; click here to view the entire Polity and Discipline document; click here to view the Essential Tenets document.
Overview
Who wrote ECO’s polity manual?
How would you generally describe the rationale behind ECO polity?
How do ECO and PC(USA) polity differ?
Some have alleged that ECO polity is Baptist or Congregational. Is that true?
I have heard ECO polity described as being “missional.” What does that mean?
Theology
Why did ECO choose to use Essential Tenets as its theological guideline? Does it still use the reformed documents in the PC(USA) Book of Confessions?
Is it possible for ECO’s Essential Tenets to ever change or evolve? How would that happen?
Does ECO allow for freedom of conscience regarding the Essential Tenets? Will it similar to the practices of the PC(USA)? How might it differ?
Are elders required to subscribe to ECO’s Essential Tenets?
Why are some phrases in bold font in the Essential Tenets document?
Unity and Accountability
How are congregations reviewed and held accountable to ECO expectations?
ECO has been described as having a “flat organization.” Does that mean that there is no hierarchical accountability?
The PC(USA) employed the property trust clause as a means of unity. How will there be unity with this removed in ECO polity? ECO Polity
Is it true that it would take less people to sell the church’s property than would be required under PC(USA) polity?
Does ECO require “per capita” payments similar to the PC(USA)?
What are Mission Affinity Groups?
What role do Mission Affinity Groups play within the accountability structure of ECO?
What are Pastor Covenant Groups? Are these present in the PC(USA)?
Leadership
What is the role of the Synod Executive Council?
The role of session clerks is not mentioned very often in ECO polity. Do they have a significant function as they do in the PC(USA)?
Are presbyteries involved in the process churches use to call their pastors?
ECO introduces a new role to the types of clergy in the local congregations, an assistant pastor. What is this role and how is it useful?
ECO only allows pastors serving local congregations to vote at the presbytery level. What is the rationale for this standard?
Does ECO value parity between pastors and elders at the presbytery level in the same way as the PC(USA)?
ECO polity allows for the pastor to operate as the CEO of the congregation. Why has this been added, and is it mandatory?
The PC(USA) has committees to encourage diversity in gender and ethnicity on committees. ECO does not. Is that a value, and if so how will it be supported?
Discipline
ECO’s section on discipline seems very similar to the PC(USA)’s. Is that intentional?
Why does ECO allow Double Jeopardy in appeal of judicial decisions?
Miscellaneous
ECO is a new denomination, and its polity will be tested. How will it provide for authoritative interpretations?
In ECO polity the Synod is the highest governing body. Why doesn’t it have any mission function?
Page 2 of 14 ECO Polity
Is it still possible for PC(USA) congregations to become union congregations with ECO ones?
Is there a Directory of Worship in ECO’s constitution?
Overview
Who wrote ECO’s polity manual? We were privileged on the polity committee to have been led by David Dobler, Executive Presbyter of Alaska Presbytery and Moderator of the 205th General Assembly of the PC(USA). David Dobler, Jim Singleton, and several others were able to help us craft a polity that took us back to our historic roots of connectional Presbyterianism. This was helpful since many had felt PC(USA) polity and practice had become more hierarchical in recent years. The approval of the New Form of Government (nFOG) in the PC(USA), while having the expressed value of giving more flexibility, has in many ways increased the hierarchical nature of the PC(USA).
How would you generally describe the rationale behind ECO polity? Presbyterian polity in its history and roots was established to be distinctly different from the Roman Catholic Church. Presbyterians did not want independent churches void of collective wisdom and discipline and support, neither did they desire hierarchical, top-down control of local churches. What they wanted was to set parameters for ministry and operation at wider councils of the church and have lower councils govern themselves within those parameters. The wider councils could support the lower councils to fulfill their mission and provide discipline when congregations were in error. Presbyterianism was set up very similar to the ideals of the United States government (to have national laws and allow as many things as possible to be passed through the state and local level).
What ECO has done is to recapture the Presbyterian spirit and ethos of a connectional organization that has shared governmental and disciplinary procedures. There are non- negotiable theological and governmental standards in ECO, which if violated will result in disciplinary action. There are areas in church life where flexibility needs to be afforded on particular non-essential governance strategies. For example, can an associate pastor become the senior pastor? There was good reason that PC(USA) previously said no as they did not want an associate pastor causing division. But even the PC(USA) has now realized there are times when God might be calling the associate pastor to become the senior pastor, allowing the presbytery to grant exemptions. What ECO has simply done in this matter is to still have the presbytery oversee the process of calling a new senior pastor and the presbytery can make the determination if it is appropriate for the associate to be in consideration or not.
How do ECO and PC(USA) polity differ? ECO and PC(USA) polity have two fundamental differences. The first difference is PC(USA) polity is set up where the most important organization is the denomination and the local church exists to fulfill the mission of the denomination. There are countless examples of this but one of the main examples is the trust clause. The fundamental constitutional question that the
Page 3 of 14 ECO Polity presbyteries must ask when dismissing a congregation is: “How does letting the local church leave the denomination affect the mission of the PC(USA)?” That has been ruled by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Council to be the most important question, even more important than what is best for the local church to fulfill its God-given mission or the great ends of the church.1
The second fundamental difference is PC(USA) polity has an organizing question, “How can we make sure things do not go wrong?” This is not a bad organizing question, but it tends to put rules above how God is moving. ECO has as its organizing question, “How can we help things go right?” Certainly part of helping things to go right is to have certain foundational rules and parameters, but then allow for freedom and flexibility in a variety of settings covered by accountability.
Some have alleged that ECO polity is Baptist or Congregational. Is that true? The reason some have said this is because they allege that wider councils do not have authority over lower ones. This statement is inaccurate as you will see in the answers in the section entitled “Unity and Accountability.” There are various ways that ECO maintains accountability – structurally, financially, and relationally.
The second concern that they will cite is that congregations can commission elders and deacons to celebrate the sacraments. This position is actually very similar to the PC(USA)’s office of Certified Ruling Elder. In order to better facilitate the mission and ministry of a presbytery and its congregations, as well as to maximize the gifts of the totality of the body of Christ, it is often advantageous to commission elders and deacons to more extensive levels of service than ordinarily afforded these offices. ECO seeks to mobilize the lay leadership for ministry, which can include responsibilities like pastoral care, preaching, and administering the sacraments. They act under the supervision and accountability of the session and head of staff of their church, and if there is none, they are supervised by the presbytery. To read more, see 2.05.
As you read and study ECO documents, you will find that it is firmly grounded in and committed to Reformed theology and Presbyterian polity.
I have heard ECO polity described as being “missional.” What does that mean? This is a significant change from what has been seen in PC(USA) polity, but it reflects a missional ecclesiology rather than an attractional one. The difference is found in how ECO and PC(USA) define “church.” A missional ecclesiology recognizes four forms of church. • The first is what ECO calls a micro-expression of church. When Jesus says “where two or three are gathered in my name there I am.” (Matthew 18:20) Jesus is not saying that it takes at least two people to have a quorum for Jesus to bother showing up. Jesus is saying wherever two or three are gathered there is an expression of the body of Christ. • The second form of church is the local congregation.
1 GAPJC decision, see http://oga.pcusa.org/media/uploads/oga/pdf/pjc22103.pdf Page 4 of 14 ECO Polity
• The third form of church is a denomination in which congregations hold mutual authority with one another. • The fourth form is the universal church made up of believers everywhere.
Here is what the PC(USA) says about church: “The congregation is the basic form of the church, but it is not of itself a sufficient form of the church. Thus congregations are bound together in communion with one another, united in relationships of accountability and responsibility, contributing their strengths to the benefit of the whole, and are called, collectively, the church.” (G -1.0101). The PC(USA) tends to focus on definition number two and number three above. It denies the reality of the micro-expression of church and minimizes the universal body of Christ when it views leaving a denomination, even for significant theological errors, as breaking the unity of the church.
Because ECO affirms all four expressions of church it seemed appropriate to validate fully all expressions of church, especially since most of the early church could be considered micro- expressions of church. These micro-expressions are still under the authority of the local congregation and its session. The session can therefore commission elders and deacons to engage in these missional expressions in a greater way.
Theology
Why did ECO choose to use Essential Tenets as its theological guideline? Does it still use the reformed documents in the PC(USA) Book of Confessions?
The Constitution of ECO is made up of the Essential Tenets, the polity, and the Rules of Discipline. ECO has adopted the confessions contained in the PC(USA) Book of Confessions as a faithful foundation of Reformed theology by which its leaders vow to be guided, but not made them constitutional documents. Instead, ECO chose for its theological unity to be defined by Essential Tenets which serve to identify the common core of the confessions. Ordained leaders vow to receive, adopt, and be bound by the Essential Tenets of ECO as a reliable exposition of what Scripture teaches us to do and to believe, and to be guided by them in their life and ministry Neither the Essential Tenets nor the confessions are final authorities; Scripture is the authority that measures all doctrinal, confessional, and theological expression.
The dilemma ECO was facing at its inception was that the confessions in the PC(USA) are given high value within the statements of the PC(USA), however officers were able to hold views that were denied in each and every confession. The question had become in the PC(USA) – what is the real value of the confessions? At previous General Assemblies of the PC(USA) when ordained individuals were not required to adhere to explicit standards in the Confessions there were objections raised by evangelicals. The ruling was that the confessions and Scripture could not trump rulings in the Book of Order.
Page 5 of 14 ECO Polity
Most other confessional churches (CRC, RCA, EPC, etc.) hold much more strongly to their confessions than the PC(USA). Because of this trend toward a departure from confessional standards by the PC(USA), ECO felt it needed to take a step back and rediscover what it means to be a confessional church. So the confessions of the PC(USA) were included in ECO, however not as a part of the constitution. A process of rediscovering what it means to be a confessional church has been established. This process will examine what it means to be a confessional church and look at all of the confessions in light of this understanding. Through this we hope to discern how and which confessions to adopt ultimately. The confessions are studied at every Fellowship and ECO gathering as a way of stressing their importance. In light of our understanding on the nature and role of confessions, the ECO body will as a whole determine the constitutional nature of each confession. Determining the confessional nature is so important we felt it was important for the whole body to participate in this discussion rather than having a select few make that determination at the beginning.
Is it possible for ECO’s Essential Tenets to ever change or evolve? How would that happen?
One of the historic expressions used in the Reformed tradition is “reformed and always reforming according to the word of God and the call of the Spirit.” ECO seeks to have theological clarity but also to remain true to this idea. There is a clearly laid out process in the polity for the ways in which amendments can be made to the Essential Tenets. In fact the process is very similar to the PC(USA) process for changing confessions. There has been concerns expressed that the theology and theological essentials had such a high benchmark for alterations that it basically could not be changed. The fact is that ECO’s standard for changing its Essential Tenets is almost the same standard in the PC(USA) for the modification of or addition to the Book of Confessions. In the PC(USA) to change a Confession it requires a 2/3 majority of the presbyteries to affirm the change. The only addition in ECO is that within the presbytery there also needs to be 2/3 vote by the members of the presbytery to affirm the change. The criticism therefore must be isolated to the fact that in ECO in order for a presbytery to be counted as approving a change to theology there must be a supermajority vote rather than a simple majority as required in the PC(USA). However there are plenty of times in PC(USA) polity where something requires a supermajority vote. For example when a PC(USA) presbytery votes to allow an associate pastor to become the senior pastor in a congregation it requires 3/4 majority (G.20504c in PC(USA)). If it is reasonable to require a 75% approval for such a pastoral transition it is certainly appropriate for ECO to require a 67% vote on a change in theology.
Does ECO allow for freedom of conscience regarding the Essential Tenets? Will it similar to the practices of the PC(USA)? How might it differ?
Both ECO and PC(USA) understand freedom of conscience to be within certain bounds. G.20105 in PC(USA) says “It is to be recognized, however, that in entering the ordered ministries of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds.” Another part in that same section says it is necessary for persons serving in ordered ministries to “adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in this
Page 6 of 14 ECO Polity
Constitution.” Freedom of conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained “so far as may be possible without serious departure from these standards.”
So what constitutes a serious departure in the PC(USA)? In 1970 the famous Kenyon case went to court and it was determined that it was not acceptable for a minister to not participate in the ordination of a woman to deacon, elder, or minister of the word and sacrament.2 Kenyon did not have his freedom of conscience protected in this case. In the Kaseman case of 1981, Kaseman did not believe in the divinity of Christ but the court found that failure to believe in the divinity of Jesus was not a serious departure from Scripture.3 Other examples of acceptable departures from Reformed doctrine for officers I have seen are: belief in reincarnation, failure to believe in the Trinity, and the rejection of the view of the atonement known as penal substitution of Jesus Christ.
So if people are critical that ECO does not allow those beliefs to be held by ordained officers then so be it! We are unapologetic for holding to historic standards of the Christian and Reformed faith.
A historic statement attributed to St. Augustine has been championed by many in the Reformed community, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials charity, and in everything love.” We do have a variety of beliefs in non-essential items. These items include: how the gifts of the Spirit are manifest today, views on single vs. double predestination, infallibility of Scripture vs. inerrancy of Scripture; to name a few.
The real question directed back at the PC(USA) is whether or not freedom of conscience is extended to evangelicals. Several times people have been denied calls to evangelical churches by their more progressive governing presbytery because they do not believe in the ordination of those engaged in sexual activity outside of the covenant of marriage. Evangelical churches are instructed that we may not retain historic standards for church officers. To many it might seem that freedom of conscience in the PC(USA) has been used to allow people to hold unorthodox positions that are in direct conflict with the Constitution, but those who hold orthodox views are finding it increasingly difficult to claim freedom of conscience to hold positions of orthodoxy.
Are elders required to subscribe to ECO’s Essential Tenets? ECO does not require subscription to Essential Tenets rather adherence. In 2.0101 it says, “Elders and deacons are ordained and installed by the session. Pastors are ordained and installed by the presbyteries. Ordaining bodies must ensure that all officers adhere to the Essential Tenets of ECO. Failure of officers to continue to adhere to these standards is grounds
2 Simmons, PCUSA Minutes, p. 114; Hambrick v. Synod of North Carolina, PCUS Minutes, Pt. 1, p. 43 (1983); Huie v. Synod of Southeast, PCUS Minutes, Pt. 1, p. 112 (1977); Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery, UPC Minutes, Pt. 1, p. 254 (1977).
3 More information can be found at http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2022276/f/PCUSA_historical_issues_summary_4_18_12.pdf Page 7 of 14 ECO Polity for a session or presbytery to remove an officer from service according to the Rules of Discipline in this Constitution.”
To illustrate how this works, some elders might prefer to use the word “inerrant” to describe the Scriptures rather than “infallible,” which is used in the essentials. They can still be ordained because they adhere to the theology of the essentials. There are other times when officers may “passively submit” to the essentials, which means they disagree personally with some aspect but submit their behavior to the doctrine of the church.4
Why are some phrases in bold font in the Essential Tenets document? The bold font indicates key statements and serves as headings for the topics addressed. Officers in ECO are expected to adhere to the entire document.
Unity and Accountability
How are congregations reviewed and held accountable to ECO expectations? There are reviews that occur both when judicial charges are made as well as by the presbytery as a whole. The judicial process is outlined in the polity. The membership agreement that a session signs when joining confirms their willingness to be bound by the presbytery. For example, congregations must have their by-laws and any revisions they make signed off by ECO to ensure they comply with the polity and IRS guidelines for 501c3 status. Another example, if a congregation does not adhere to denominational standards for ordination disciplinary charges can be filed. Also in their operating manuals the presbyteries put policies in place to ensure congregations fulfill their mission affinity work, check minutes of the congregation, and see that pastors participate in covenant groups.
ECO has been described as having a “flat organization.” Does that mean that there is no hierarchical accountability? The Presbyterian tradition has historically seen itself as connectional, as opposed to hierarchical or independent. The PC(USA) has shifted to become more hierarchical, especially with the introduction of nFOG. ECO sought to return to a connectional form of relating to one another. The wider councils still govern the lower council – we just choose to live that out less bureaucratically. There are also other more important forms of accountability. The congregation is still responsible to the judicatory of their geographical presbytery as they would be in the PC(USA). There are also additional more self-selective levels of accountability in which congregations and pastors engage. They do not exist for oversight, but for the maintenance of an even greater level of connection and learning that is lacking in the PC(USA).
What are Mission Affinity Groups?
4 Jim Singleton wrote well on this topic in the following post - http://www.fellowship-pres.org/essentials-and- covenants-learning-a-new-way-of-life/#more-1928 Page 8 of 14 ECO Polity
Mission Affinity Group exist in order to increase accountability and encouragement and in order to spur one another on toward love and good deeds. These Mission Affinity Groups are ordinarily between 3-5 congregations organized around similar ministry settings and contexts. These contexts can include but are not limited to: size, geographic location, cultural or demographic similarities, or future ministry goals. They are elder-led, not pastor led. You can read more about them in 1.01.
What role do Mission Affinity Groups play within the accountability structure of ECO? ? Mission Affinity Groups are just one area of accountability among congregations. It provides an additional level of peer accountability in addition to the hierarchical. This area of accountability is not a part of the PC(USA). The congregation is also accountable to the Presbytery. Its responsibilities of authority are broadly laid out in 3.0103. This authority and responsibility includes injecting itself in the life of the congregation, if necessary. Though the words “original jurisdiction” are not used, when looking at the polity, discipline, and membership agreement it is clear that the Presbytery has the right and responsibility to remedy situations where the congregation is out of compliance with the polity.
What are Pastor Covenant Groups? Are these present in the PC(USA)? Pastor covenant groups are a layer of accountability not formally present in the PC(USA) also. This stipulation in ECO polity reflects a commitment to the health of its clergy. Pastors experience a tremendous level of burnout, isolation, and sometimes moral failure. For a pastor this covenant group is similar to what might be asked of a congregation member in joining a small group. Of course these covenant groups need to be self-selecting, a level of trust and support needs to be present that would unlikely be present in a forced group. Pastors and ministries are healthier when there are opportunities for mutually supportive relationships. The purpose of these groups is to coach, encourage, and pray for one another as each pastor strives for greater missional effectiveness. Under its Committee on Ministry, the presbytery will ensure that all pastors are participating in a pastoral covenant group.
The PC(USA) enforced financial unity through the property trust clause. How will there be unity with this removed in ECO polity? A trust clause is not needed in most Reformed bodies, and it may not accomplish what is intended. In fact the trust clause can hamper the mission of the local church. For example, when my church wanted to build a shelter for homeless families on our secondary property we were inhibited from doing so because donors did not want to give because of the trust clause.
Indeed ECO does not have a property trust clause. Why should property that has been paid for by the congregation be the domain of the denomination? When property is in trust not only does it burden the congregation, but it also burdens the presbytery because the debt of a local church becomes the debt of the presbytery. This means that the presbytery has to spend significant time on financial and corporate matters instead of ministry.
One argument in favor of the trust clause states that it enables congregations to receive extra funding through the presbytery when they cannot receive it elsewhere. This is true but the
Page 9 of 14 ECO Polity question should be asked, if a bank does not believe that a congregation could handle a particular debt, why should a presbytery secure that debt and make all of the other congregations responsible for it?
ECO has financial unity through paying dues, which is mandatory in ECO and optional in PC(USA). We also have voluntary ways in which congregations can and are supportive of wider ministries such as international mission and church planting. ECO is more concerned about mutually supporting the ministry through the local church rather than funding a denominational agenda that is coerced through a trust clause.
Is it true that it would take less people to sell the church’s property than would be required under PC(USA) polity? No, but they are very similar. Both mandate that the mortgaging, buying, or selling of real property may only occur in the context of a congregational meeting. ECO requires a ten percent quorum for congregational meetings, unless otherwise specified by the congregation in its bylaws. (1.0501) The PC(USA) does not specify any quorum but relies on the local congregation to determine their own. (G-1.0501) FPC established a by-law which set the quorum for congregational meetings at 10% of active members after PC(USA) removed this explicit requirement from the Book of Order in 2011. ECO presbyteries assist congregations to set up their by-laws in such way to ensure that leaders cannot take advantage of the absence of a trust clause. Many churches are adding in their by-laws that to sell property it requires two meetings and higher quorum or percent to vote.
Does ECO require “per capita” payments similar to the PC(USA)? It is stipulated in the membership agreement that this can be paid at the beginning of the year or given monthly through ACH. The PC(USA) “per capita” assessment is replaced in ECO with annual dues equivalent to 1% of a church’s operating budget in order to support the synod. Presbyteries receive an apportionment from the national dues.
Leadership
What is the role of the Synod Executive Council? In a changing cultural and political landscape, denominations have to be nimble enough to respond to changing situations. The Synod Executive Council must be able to act quickly to create new presbyteries as they are ready. This is of course done hand-in-hand with the emerging presbyteries. If we had to wait for annual synod meetings some basic functions would be unnecessarily delayed. One place where it has been particularly helpful to have this agility is health care laws and regulations. The Synod Executive Council has been able to respond quickly to these potential changes while the PC(USA) was preparing to pay fines on its health care insurance because they were unable to adapt. ECO’s commitment to parity between elders and pastors applies to this group as well. If the number of members of the council is six, then at least three of those need to be elders, if the number grows then at least half of the members
Page 10 of 14 ECO Polity would be elders. These elections are made by the synod delegation as a whole so accountability is present.
The role of session clerks is not mentioned very often in ECO polity. Do they have a similar function to clerks in the PC(USA)? The response to this concern is simple because they have mandatory functions in the polity, the role is mandated within ECO polity. Clerks in ECO have a similar role to clerks in PC(USA), including constitutionally mandated responsibilities in the discipline function of the polity.
Are presbyteries involved in the process churches use to call their pastors? ECO Polity 2.0401 says, “Pastors are members of the presbytery. Thus, their ministry and calling is confirmed by the presbytery or its authorized committee responsible for examining and credentialing pastors.”
ECO introduces a new role to the types of clergy in the local congregations, an assistant pastor. What is this role and how is it useful? ECO is bringing back the role of the assistant pastor which formerly was present within the PC(USA) and was later removed. Actually the PC(USA) still functionally has assistant pastors, but simply has a different name for those positions. These are sometimes called temporary relations as in G–2.0504 or when congregations have parish associates serving within the congregation at the will of the session when no formal call is placed. Though parish associate was recently taken out of the Book of Order many congregations still have the practice of having parish associates but do not get these relationships approved by the presbytery. ECO actually requires those relationships to be approved by the presbytery as assistant pastors. This policy enables the session to call an assistant pastor for particular purposes, which supports the flexibility in the missional church model, but still maintains accountability with the presbytery.
ECO only allows pastors serving local congregations to vote at the presbytery level. What is the rationale for this standard? It is correct that only pastors who are serving in a pastoral capacity in a congregation are given the right to vote. There were several rationales for this. First, if a denomination is a collection of churches then why have those who are not connected in a pastoral way have a vote on denominational matters. Second, part of the problem in the PC(USA) is that of the 20,000 pastors only 8,000 are in an installed role in a local church, 7,000 are retired but still have a vote, and 6,000 are filling a host of other nontraditional roles, including secular occupations yet still have a vote in the presbytery. This has contributed to theological drift and having the voice of the congregations diluted. Finally, elders in a local congregation are ordained for life and have the rights and privileges for life, but they can only vote on the session when they are elected for a particular term. Why should pastors not be similarly constrained? Some feel this could be disenfranchising for pastors serving outside local congregations. However we have many people who serve in validated ministries. They are included on various committees and ministries within ECO and more importantly supported in their current role. I am one of those individuals who is in a validated ministry. Because I am not tethered to a local church, I do not vote in presbytery meetings, but voting does not determine the validity of my call. The intent is
Page 11 of 14 ECO Polity to provide accountability for the higher council through the congregations holding their pastors and elders accountable.
Does ECO value parity between pastors and elders at the presbytery level in the same way as the PC(USA)? There is parity at the presbytery level where every church sends the pastor(s) and an equal number of elders. (1.0603) In fact there is greater focus on the congregation because pastors who are not in a formal relationship with a congregation may not vote at presbytery.
ECO polity allows for the pastor to operate as the CEO of the congregation. Why has this been added, and is it mandatory? Here was the rationale for that decision: The pastor already functions as moderator of the session. The session would ordinarily choose an elder as president of the corporation, which is more of a titular role, but when legal documents need to be signed it can be challenging to connect with that elder/president to get him or her to sign those documents. This provision allows the pastor to have that titular role to make administration easier since he/she is presumably onsite. The congregation does not have to take this function, but they can.
The PC(USA) has committees to encourage diversity in gender and ethnicity on committees. ECO does not. Is that a value, and if so how will it be supported? The desire for ethnic and gender diversity is an important concern stated in ECO’s core values: “We believe in unleashing the ministry gifts of women, men, and every ethnic group.” However, ECO did not want to get into the pattern often seen in presbyteries where nominating committees become more concerned with finding the preferred blend of people for a committee rather than finding the people who are best equipped and experienced. Too often there has been a distributed mix of people on a team who unfortunately do not have the passion and skills for the required tasks, which inhibits the ministry. ECO is promoting diversity and is especially trying to reach a wider population through its church planting efforts. However, we do not want to legislate diversity.
While there is no committee to ensure representation it is to be a goal of the presbytery. In 3.0103 on the duties of the presbytery, paragraph (l) states: “Elect commissioners to wider councils of ECO, including the synod. In the selection of such commissioners the presbytery is encouraged to promote representation in areas of difference recognized as the basis of discrimination and inequality in church and society, namely race, ethnicity, gender, ability/disability, and age.”
Discipline
ECO’s section on discipline seems very similar to the PC(USA)’s.
Page 12 of 14 ECO Polity
This is correct; the discipline is very similar to what is present in the PC(USA). ECO felt the discipline of the PC(USA) was a good document; it was just not being used effectively to keep congregations and officers in check.
Why does ECO allow Double Jeopardy in judicial proceedings?
Some have noticed that there is a deviation from PC(USA) polity in the area of “double jeopardy” in that a person in ECO could be acquitted by a lower governing body and have the case appealed to a higher governing body.
First, we are typically not dealing with criminal cases in the church. Double jeopardy applies to two separate proceedings against an accused. Appeal by either party in a single case does not technically create double jeopardy, although in some cases in the criminal justice system appeal by the state is considered to do so. The reason to give the right of appeal to the accuser is because often times lower governing bodies in the PC(USA) have refused to uphold the constitution. For example a recent case in Southern New England where a pastor performed a same sex wedding.5 This was a clear violation of the PC(USA) constitution and yet the presbytery simply refused to follow the constitution. There is no recourse. Basically anyone in the presbytery can defy the constitution and the presbytery can shield and protect them from consequences. ECO wanted to ensure this did not happen in its system.
The other distinction is a difference between the polity assumptions of the PC(USA) and ECO. In PC(USA) there is an underlying assumption that people will not do the right thing unless every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed. In ECO, there is the assumption expressed in its polity upholding the principle that giving each side a fair hearing will be met by the higher council.
The bottom line is that the judicial process is supposed to be restorative, not punitive, so double jeopardy does not apply. If it is more restorative for the prosecution to appeal, then let it be so. This provides a way for the wider council, the synod, to provide accountability to presbyteries on their handling of cases.
Miscellaneous ECO is a new denomination, and its polity will be tested. How will it provide for authoritative interpretations? Certainly something that is new will be refined along the way. PC(USA) polity is mature – perhaps even representative of a contentious denomination. We are not naïve enough to assume that our polity will always be 22 pages – but it works for now. There are still people alive who remember a PC(USA) polity that fit in a coat pocket. The process for interpretation will be contained in the manual of operations of the ECO synod. The basic framework will be similar to that of the PC(USA) where the Synod Executive (parallel to the Stated Clerk) can answer questions as the Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) currently does. The Synod Executive can
5 See http://www.layman.org/pjc-finds-teaching-elder-guilty-violating-ordination-vows-following-gender-wedding/ Page 13 of 14 ECO Polity refer something to the Synod Executive Council for interpretation. The Synod body can overrule or modify what is issued by the Synod Executive Council. Again this process is parallel to what is experienced in the PC(USA).
In ECO polity the Synod is the highest governing body. Why doesn’t it have any mission function? There are two reasons for this reality. First, ECO has a view of limited government. Therefore a national agenda should not infringe upon what God is calling the local congregation to do. ECO provides services when necessary that are impractical for a church or presbytery to offer, for example church planter assessment. Second, ECO does provide denominational opportunities to connect and work together on joint projects. The Outreach Foundation, Antioch Partners, and Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship are official mission partners of ECO and are helping us create a few international mission projects. We have found their expertise can manage projects more inexpensively than the typical denomination is able.
Is it still possible for PC(USA) congregations to become union congregations with ECO? This was an early proposal of ECO that initially gained traction within the PC(USA) and so it was put in the polity as a way to support such relationships where they could be maintained. It was then ruled unconstitutional by the stated clerk of the PC(USA). However, it is still possible for an ECO congregation and a PC(USA) congregation to merge and become a union church. Also this provision not only applies to PC(USA) congregations but to other Reformed denominations.
Is there a Directory of Worship? There is no directory for worship at this time. Most of the PC(USA) directory of worship is educational and not prescriptive. The parts that are prescriptive in the directory of worship in the PC(USA) have been included in the polity section of ECO. (for example, questions for ordination.) We may have a directory for worship in the future or instructive papers on worship so as to help people think through sacraments in micro expressions, etc.
Page 14 of 14