And the concern is not that this new term, ECOT, is developing into the structure of their language in a way that will eventually solidify their base and their identity. That, I think, is the purpose of a useful term like this.

The concern I share is the ease with which it was decided not just that these terms describe them, but that they separate them from the ones precisely whom they feel called to renew.

In other words, these terms were not chosen just because they say something about who they see themselves to be, but also because of the presumption that the rest of the United Church of Christ lacks these characteristics. It is this ground I find myself unwilling to concede. And my fear is that for many of those active in this group, that presumption will go unchallenged.

To be sure, I do not consider myself a Conservative - at least not in the way that phrase has come to be understood in common parlance.

And while some of my own developing theological insights result from concepts that stretch the limits of rigid orthodoxy, much of the rest of it does not: and it becomes difficult then to deny my own claim to be, to a certain extent, orthodox.

I have succeeded in ordained ministry for over 18 years now because of the sensitivity that I have to many of the time honored traditions deeply revered by those whom I have been called to serve.

And with every fiber of my being I long to preach what I believe to be the good news of the gospel: making me, in the truest sense of the meaning of the word, an evangelical.

My point here is that there is a false dichotomy that is being presumed that makes it very difficult for meaningful, productive dialogue to take place between the established, mainline denominations and the renewal groups that exist to challenge them. Too easily is it assumed that to be mainline is to concede the evangelical, conservative, orthodox, and traditional ground to renewalists who believe they have some sort of monopoly on both the language and the content.

I don't think we want to concede that ground.

Many in the United Church of Christ who are not happy with the divisions created by renewal activists are conservative.

Many are evangelical.

Many are orthodox.

Many are traditional.

There has never been a question about whether any of them belong in the United Church of Christ. Whether or not the evangelical, conservative, orthodox and traditional Christians who gathered two weeks ago in Bechtelsville, PA feel they belong is one question; and I was pleased that I was asked to be a part of those deliberations with them as they search for the answer to it.

Whether or not any belong at all is another question entirely; and the answer is an unequivocal yes.

Do ECOTs belong? Let there be no doubt. They do. They have always been an integral part of any mainline denomination, including the United Church of Christ.

Does the particular group of ECOTs known as Faithful and Welcoming believe that they belong? They will have to answer that question.

My hope is that they can affirm their meaningful and essential presence among us all; and that as they do that, gain an understanding that by choosing this language to describe themselves, they ought not assume that they do it to the exclusion of so many others who also treasure what is implied when one calls themselves evangelical, conservative, orthodox, or traditional.