Talk:ECO (denomination)

Editors: Stop fighting

Please stop fighting over the cause of ECO. Those who believe this is ONLY about ordaining LGBT keep editing in "proof" and those who say it is for multiple reasons, keep editing each other. This needs a non-neutral tag. Jimwelch (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Theological "spectrum" judgment?

The new body is more committed to conservative evangelical theology than the body it left, but is also to the left theologically of other Reformed bodies, such as the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America.

As far as I can tell, this statement doesn't have much in the way of support. ECO is still too new to make this kind of judgment, IMO. Also from what I have read personally I was under the impression EPC and ECO were extremely close in theology.

Apologies for the anonymous comment, I'm on a govt computer at the moment. EDIT: signed now (I'm an editing newb) Jay (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

rename page to "Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians"

I think the title of the article ought to be the same as the name of the denomination, with this page redirecting to the proper name. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

How is ECO not an acronym if it is acronymous for "Evangelical", "Covenant", and "Order"? That is the definition of an acronym.SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)SeminarianJohn

The denomination's website under the heading "Our Name" states: "The name ECO is not an acronym . . . Our full name (ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians) speaks to our core commitments . ." (Who We Are/Our Story) The word "ECO" is part of the name (not an acronym for it). The acronym for ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians would be ECOEP. Ltwin (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

ECO, especially as capitalized entirely, is definitely an acronym in appearance as other acronyms are also capitalized to reflect the initial letters of words from which they were derived. I read the ECO page and saying an acronym is not an acronym does not make that so. It seems like a slogan, but slogans are not neutral and advertisements are not an authorized function of Wikipedia. Merriam-Webster defines acronym as "a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters". Oxford Dictionary, in a definition that seems even more descriptive of how 'ECO' is used and defined by the denomination and this article, says "An abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word". Also, the website and article both state that the name was inspired by E=Evangelical, C=Covenant, O=Order. That is most definitely acronymous.

The article also lists the words that would make 'ECO' in succession. "The name represents ECO's three-fold commitment to make disciples of Jesus Christ (Evangelical), connect leaders through accountable relationships and encourage collaboration (Covenant), and commit to a shared way of life together (Order)." The article cannot both make this claim while claiming it is not an acronym. Also, that quote is an united quote from ECO, which is problematic for a whole other reason as all quotes need to be cited. Again, that seems like it would be trying to be a slogan and advertisement which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. So, I will not contest it as long as the citation is given that this is according to the denomination itself. SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)SeminarianJohn

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians → ECO (denomination) – Official site, section "Our Name". Please note it is not an acronym, it is what they are using for their name. I would have gone with ECO but that would require disambiguation. The "full name" works for natural disambiguation. The full name is long and unlikely to be used. JFH (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem is ascertaining what they are/will be called in independent sources. Perhaps ECO (denomination) would be more appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree. At first I was thinking of the "subtitle" as a natural disambiguator, but it doesn't really fit with that guideline. We should also avoid the long title. I'll see if anyone else chimes in and change the nom if not. --JFH (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Synthesis and unattributed statements regarding human sexuality

In the Beliefs section, an IP editor is repeatedly adding unattributed commentary regarding ECO's beliefs concerning gays and lesbians. I've tagged the following statement as improper synthesis because it took an originally sourced statement and added terms that were not in the original source, namely "heterosexual" and "cisgender":

Because it believes that both heterosexual and cisgender men and women are called to all ministries in the church, ECO ordains women.

I've tagged a longer passage as unsourced as well:

Ordained men and women can be celibate or not celibate depending on their circumstances. Single people are celibate by default. Married people can be celibate or non-celibate as long as both parties accept the arrangement. (It does not ordain non-celibate gay and lesbian clergy; celibate gays and lesbians are welcome.)

This looks like one editor's commentary. While it may be true, this statement needs a source, and it certainly shouldn't be added to the middle of a sourced paragraph because that is deceptive. I've already made too many reverts to this article in the past day, so I don't want to touch this. Ltwin (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Name

ECO claims that the name is not an acronym but both ECO and this article identify the E as Evangelical, C as Covenant, and O as order. As these words inspired the name and are explained, that would be the definition of an acronym. As such, I would question the phrase "ECO is not an acronym" as being an advertisement for the denomination rather than a neutral statement. Oxford defines an acronym as a word "formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word". Merriam-Webster defines it as "an abbreviation...formed from initial letters".

The denomination, as stated in the article although it is not cited which I also find problematic as any quote needs a citation, "The denomination’s name represents its three-fold commitment to make disciples of Jesus Christ (Evangelical), connect leaders through accountable relationships and encourage collaboration (Covenant), and commit to a shared way of life together (Order)".

I left the statement in the article, as I think others should make a decision about it, but I did add the citation to the website as it is a direct quote and should be cited.SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@SeminarianJohn:To your first point: I think what you are missing is the fact that the complete name for the denomination is "ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians". ECO is not an acronym for the denomination's name. It is part of the denomination's name and stands alone as the name itself. They are not using it as an acronym but for the name in its own right. ECO doesn't even encompass the entire name. The letters are all mixed up, and there isn't even a letter "P" for "Presbyterians." An acronym for ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians would be ECOEP.

To your second point: The entire paragraph you claim is unsourced is sourced. Please check what is now footnote six. Open the link and read under "Our Name." The first sentence of the paragraph was also sourced from that footnote as well, but another citation won't hurt. Ltwin (talk)

Like I said, it's not my decision to define it. I've stated what I think, but, as long as it's clear this is what the denomination states, then I'll leave it up to others to watch it Thank you for the 'talk' conversation..SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

References

LGBT

The article as it stands strongly implies but does not state that the denomination does not allow LGBT people to be clergy. It is completely unclear as to whether LGBT people are welcome as congregants. Given that several statements in the article suggest that issues around LGBT ordination played a major (if not determining) role in the foundation of this denomination, presumably the article should be clear on each of these two points. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:CONSENSUS. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

---

ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians → ECO (denomination) – The page was moved to ECO (denomination) following a move request in 2013 (see discussion above). The page was then moved back to ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians in 2017 by User:Kintetsubuffalo without discussion, with the comment "WPMOS on acronyms." As previous discussions have pointed out, the denomination claims that ECO is not an acronym. While it's possible that consensus could find that the "full name" is a good natural disambiguator, I think it should be discussed, and I lean toward the parenthetical given the unwieldiness of the "full name." Jfhutson (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support or move back to Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The formal name is preferable for accuracy. I think this is only an odd case because one would expect ECO to be an acronym for the following text, but it isn't. It happens that there are unwieldier titles on English Wikipedia, such as Evangelical Lutheran General Synod of the United States of America. The old name is also unacceptable because it is obsolete.

Dirkwillems (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support, as it seems the full name is not frequently used (it's not even terribly easy to find on their website!). Graham (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.