I’ve been away for three days, mostly attending the Presbytery of the East, which met at Christ the King EPC in Westfield, Massachusetts. For me, the most important thing to come out of the meeting was that my church plant, Redeemer, has been re-christened. After several months of discernment, conversation and prayer, we are now the Church of the Occoquan Valley, which will also be known as “The Cove.” We have three primary reasons for this:
1) Aesthetic: “Church of the Occoquan Valley” has a wonderful sound to it. The valley in question, incidentally, straddles Fairfax and Prince William counties, between which the Occoquan River runs as it empties into the Potomac. Given that we are at work in both counties, in Lorton and Woodbridge, it makes sense to acknowledge both as part of our mission field.
2) The acronym: “The Cove” is meant to be suggestive of our ministry. We have been called to be a safe haven for those who are buffeted by the storms of life, a channel through which the peace of God may flow into the lives of those who are sinking under the weight of their sin and troubles.
3) Community-building: While “Occoquan Valley” is not a phrase that comes to mind among residents of this area, we are seeking to create a community that transcends the geographical (and racial, ethnic, linguistic, social, and cultural) barriers that separate people. The Occoquan River is a symbol of that division, and with God’s grace that division can be overcome.
The worship bulletin today already reflected the change, and this week we will be activating a new Web site (www.covepc.org) that will hopefully be an improved way to showcase what God is doing here in northern Virgina. Take a look, and let me know what you think. And by all means, if you are in the area, join us on Sunday.
September 27, 2009 at 8:32 pm
For what its worth, Redeemer Evangelical Presbyterian Church sounds a whole lot more clearly Christian to me than does Church of the Occoquan Valley which sounds like it just might be Wiccan.
September 28, 2009 at 8:38 am
Besides the name change, what I took away from the POTE meeting were the comments of the former and current quasi-PCUSAers who were observing our proceedings as interested parties. One delegation expressed their joy at being present at a presbytery meeting that so strongly stressed worship. I was struck by how obvious it was that these folks found our meeting to be refreshing in the lack of fighting and in how God was definitely put first in what we did. It was both gratifying and sad. Gratifying that ‘outsiders’ sensed the Spirit’s presence in our meeting. Sad that the Spirit’s presence at an ecclesiastical meeting is apparently not the norm in their experience. Very telling.
Other PCUSAers were struck by the ad hoc doxology we sang near the end of the meeting. These folks told me such a thing would never happen in the PCUSA presbytery meetings they were involved in.
The sum of my interactions with these folks was that our meeting was like a breath of fresh air to them, and a recovery of what they always thought Christianity was supposed to be about. I’m quite glad our meeting met their thirst for Jesus. But I’m dismayed that they were ever made to be thirsty to begin with.
September 28, 2009 at 9:16 am
Jason: That was exactly my response the first time I attended POTE. I was amazed that such a thing could be! It is a continuing joy for me to do so.
Dr. D: I’ve appreciated your comments heretofore, but that just struck me as nasty and uncalled for. Please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted your meaning.
September 28, 2009 at 9:56 am
David, it was not intended to be nasty at all. It was simply an honest reaction to the two names. I’m sorry if it offended you; that certainly was not my intent.
You see things as they appear to you locally, and perhaps that all makes perfect sense to you in your local perspective. Looking at it from afar, it does not look that way to me at all.
Again, I did not intend to offend you at all. I’m sorry you took offense at that.
September 28, 2009 at 10:12 am
David, I have to admit that the same exact thought passed through my mind as Dr. D. You explained the change as it affects you locally. But removing three Christian concepts from the name and changing to a name that sounds to an outsider as derivatively pagan, it would be an easy mistake to make.
Church of the Covenant, where I pastor, is a PC(USA) congregation, though you wouldn’t know it by the name. We are a contemporary-only church, and a person expecting a traditional Presbyterian liturgical service would be very surprised…though we don’t hide that we are Presbyterian and have it on our sign. We’ve talked about changing names — since most folks have no idea what a covenant is! — but the risks are real.
September 28, 2009 at 11:09 am
Dr. D: Apology accepted. Thank you.
Jason: I’m puzzled. How is naming a church after a place “derivatively pagan”?
This change has been vetted by the Faith EPC (our mother church) session, the Church Development Committee of the Presbytery of the East, and the presbytery itself. At no point did anyone raise this issue. I’m genuinely baffled as to how anyone could think this.
September 28, 2009 at 11:27 am
Heh, I honestly was going to write, “You left out the redeemer, you pagan!” as a joke playing off some of your previous posts in which you’ve criticized similar issues from other folks (your recent post on a mission video from the UCC for example.)
But sometimes the funny writes itself apparently.
Carry on.
September 28, 2009 at 4:40 pm
David –
As with Dr. D, I meant no offense. Your explanation makes perfect sense for the name in your area. I said that to an outsider (!!), the name sounds derivatively pagan. What that means is that Occoquan sounds like a name someone would find in Native American spirituality. As I found when I looked up the word online, it simply means “at the head of the water” to the Doque tribe. But the site where I found it says, “The very sound of the name Occoquan implies some mysterious ancient meaning.” I’m sure that the presbytery and other folks are familiar with the name in your area, so the name never really bothered anyone. It’s those of us who are outsiders who take a look at the name and say, “Huh?” The name has gone one that has a very clear identity to one whose identity is not clear. You even admitted in your post that the phrase won’t necessarily be familiar to residents in the area. The alternate name, “Cove Presbyterian Church,” does make more sense to me, but I’m still not sure why the name change was necessary. I don’t think that anybody here is trying to take pot shots at you — many of us are thankful for your various ministries — and I know getting what sounds like criticism on this must be difficult. It just stuck me as an odd change to make.
September 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Jason, that was exactly the same experience folks had at ANiC’s first synod.
September 28, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Pastor Fischler,
I have to admit when some of the men from Faith mentioned your new name, I also thought, “Wow, another church hiding its Christianity.” (If it makes you feel better, the “pagan” thing never crossed my mind.)
One point, your name is now more in keeping with the names of other churches in the Presbytery. Only 5 of the 17 (not including yours) churches in the Presbytery have explicitly Christian names. (Christ Community, Christ the King, Faith, New Covenant and New Hope) And the New Hope and New Covenant are only “religious” rather than explicitly Christian. I definitely see the naming of a church as a “non-essential” but it is sad when a good Theological Name (Redeemer) is replaced with a more “generic/politically correct” name.
Chip
p.s. You might be interested in knowing that some folks at Faith a few years ago wanted to change the name to Kingstowne Community Fellowship (even taking the “church” out of the name).
Again, it is one of those things which are happening more and more as churches try to make themselves more “relevant” to the culture.
September 29, 2009 at 6:25 am
Pastor David – I wanted you to receive at least one whole-hearted positive response: I love the new name! I find it very lyrical and appropriate. I think, as you said on Sunday, it will attract more local people and they will learn very quickly when they come that it is a Bible-based evangelical church.
September 29, 2009 at 8:06 am
Short and sweet:
1) Whatever else ‘Occoquan’ may mean or may have meant at some time, those in the DC area know it for what it is – a place. There is an Occoquan River, a quaint town along that river named Occoquan, which contains several churches named Occoquan.
2) Naming a church after a place is thoroughly biblical. Throughout the NT, churches were referred to by their physical location, even when that location could easily have been associated IN REAL TIME with decidedly non-Christian spirituality and practices (the Temple of Artemus at Ephesus anyone?)
To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, names are like opinions – everybody’s got one. People can like or not like the name. People can be confused or non-confused about why the name was changed. Fair enough. But to make the decision or the new name itself a spiritual issue is a rather big leap.
September 29, 2009 at 10:13 am
David:
Evidently no good deed goes unpunished in the blog world.
September 29, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I like the reasons for changing what you call yourselves. Good on ya… If it makes sense in the context, thats all you’ve got to worry about.
October 7, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I don’t know about other PC(USA) presbyteries but Utica Presbytery always emphasizes worship and we all get along very, very well. And we vote practically unanimously over and over again to allow GLBT human beings to be called as Ministers, Elders and Deacons.
love, john + http://www.abundancetrek.com + “The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure you are right.” – Judge Learned Hand