It is a bit of both.
EC implies a particular theological approach that is more distinctly Christian than TE, which makes it more orthodox than TE. At BL, for example, they really do affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus, a view that not all TE will affirm.
But at the same time EC is also meant more narrowly non/anti-conservative than TE might allow, with EC pushing what many evangelicals have stated they see to be radical revisions of historical theology. That conjunction is sometimes called “neo-orthodox,” because of its reductive emphasis on historical creeds alongside critiques of “traditional” theology. It is also sometimes called “post-evangelical” too, for several reasons, in part because it is really on the borderlands of evangelicalism.
He was searching for a term, and settled on that. I told him at the time why I didn’t like MTE, and so did WLC, and he privately agreed that CASE might be a good alternative.
What has stifled this conversation, though, is that it was unclear where BL was headed at the time. In the end, BL wanted to own the whole space, without actual making space for views they disagreed with (e.g. de novo creation, traditional readings of genesis, etc), but we didn’t know that that the time.
They have been pretty opposed to conversation about this, because it is a critique of their approach. They could have responded by adjusting and opening up their community, but instead, they worked hard to be sure that the conversation would not proceed. I’ve been told in very clear terms by them not to talk about it.
But now, it’s been a few years. We now know the path BL is taking, so that changes things. Sometime soon, this conversation needs to be opened up again. This time we have a lot of clarity about where BL stands in this, and that might help the rest of move forward, with or without them.