Journalism Group Votes to Rename Itself Christian Communicators Network, Dropping Evangelical Label
The Evangelical Press Association voted on October 7 to change its name to the Christian Communicators Network, with 57 percent of ballots cast in favor. The board said the term evangelical has taken on political and cultural meanings that obscure the group's theological mission. Critics argued the change was premature and that the word evangelical still carries important theological meaning.
The Evangelical Press Association voted on October 7, 2026, to rename itself the Christian Communicators Network, with results announced the following day. The vote passed with 57 percent in favor, 42 percent opposed, and 1 percent abstaining. Of 664 eligible members, 244 cast ballots, a 37 percent turnout.
Board President Dwight Widaman said the shift was necessary because the term evangelical has accumulated sociological, cultural, and political meanings that can obscure the group's theological intent. The board also argued that moving from "Press" to "Communicators Network" better reflects a media landscape that now includes podcasters, digital content creators, and social media professionals alongside traditional print journalists.
Research presented by the board suggested that many younger people who hold evangelical beliefs do not personally identify with the label. The board said the change is not an attempt to distance the group from its evangelical roots, but rather an effort to remove barriers to engagement.
The organization's Statement of Faith, code of ethics, and theological convictions remain unchanged.
Critics pushed back on the decision. Some argued the board was reacting to a specific political climate and that the term evangelical remains a necessary identifier for a specific set of theological convictions. Others noted that adopting the name Christian Communicators Network could be seen as exclusionary toward non-evangelical Christian traditions who are not actually invited into the group's theological framework.
Some members also questioned whether a change of this magnitude should have required a higher threshold of consensus than a simple majority, given the low voter turnout.
