Massachusetts Conference Edition

Return to main page
Read National Edition
Subscribe to printed version - free!
Read the UC News Spotlight E-Newsletter

Formation of UCC was a debate topic in Massachusetts 50 years ago

by Marlene Gasdia-Cochrane, Editor

and Tiffany Vail, Associate for Communication and Communication Technologies

April/May 2007

This June, Massachusetts Conference churches will send members and friends to Hartford, Connecticut for a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the formation of the United Church of Christ (see related article on the Conference Annual Meeting and General Synod).

But how did those same churches first react to the idea of a merger between the Congregational Christian Conference, to which most Massachusetts Congregational churches belonged, and the Evangelical and Reformed Church, which was more prevalent in other parts of the country?

For some, it was something to be excited about.

“We didn’t think of it as leaving one denomination and joining another,” said Frederick Field Driftmeir, who was pastor of South Congregational Church in Springfield at the time, and who attended the Uniting General Synod 50 years ago. “We thought that by uniting, we were inviting other churches to be with us.”

“I was for it all the time,” said retired pastor Rev. Robert Wood of Medfield.  “From what I remember I was in Maine then and not much was made of the merger at my church.”

For others, however, there was uneasiness.

“There was a small number in my church who ardently worked against joining,” said The Rev. Ray Shoup, a retired pastor now living in Massachusetts who served a Connecticut church at the time.  “One member accused me of not being honest because I didn’t tell the people the bad parts of this merger. I told him that I had heard that complaint, but didn’t know what he was talking about. I said, ‘Tell me what do you think is wrong with the UCC?’  His response was, ‘I don’t know.  But there must be something!’”

The Rev. Theodore Fritsch of North Chatham (in St. Louis at the time of the vote), remembered he tried to help alleviate some of the apprehension felt by some members.  “My own background was with E&R but I was familiar with the Congregationals and my own church was committed to ecumenism.  I didn’t think we could lose.  I thought the merger was a ‘win-win’ situation.”

The Rev. Alva Taylor of Natick supported the merger vote when he was a pastor in New Hampshire, but remembers concerns among his parishioners.  “I received questions from the members of our liberal Congregational church who were concerned that the national church would ‘tell us what to do.’  I explained that they ‘absolutely could not’ do that.  And to this day I think the merger was and is a good idea.”

A glance at back issues of the Pilgrim State News, the Massachusetts Congregational Christian Conference publication at the time, shows that many churches were apprehensive.

In December, 1956, the Conference Trustees voted to form a “Committee on Information Regarding the Union” which was tasked with providing churches with information on the merger proposal, and to “give assurance that all our churches have retained the autonomy which they have always enjoyed.”

And in the September, 1960, issue – when churches were being asked to vote on the Proposed UCC Constitution – Lincoln S. Cain, the chair of the Conference “Committee to Implement the Union” used the Pilgrim State News to answer some questions that churches were asking. One was “Is the ‘United Church of Christ’ non-Congregational?’ to which he responded that the UCC “is a congregational kind of denomination.” He also mentioned that he had responded to churches in Norwood, Harwich and Dedham “with reference to the unfounded contention, which is going the rounds, that in a divided vote on the Union the minority would then be entitled to the church property.” (This idea of losing the property may have been rooted in the Congregational-Unitarian division of the early 1800s, when 81 churches in Massachusetts split over theological differences. According to the John Von Rohr book “The Shaping of American Congregationalism,” in 46 of those cases the “orthodox” or Congregational faction was forced to leave the church – and its property and money – behind.)

Rev. John Banks, who was pastor at the Bethany Congregational Church in Quincy at the time, recalled that concerns of the merger ran high at the 1956 meeting of the General Council of Congregational Christian Churches gathered in Omaha, Nebraska.

“I remember moments preceding the vote in Omaha were almost riotous,” he said. “Some people were challenging the Executive Commit-tee, claiming some of the facts about the merger plans were not disclosed to everyone. In answer to the challenge, the Committee had every one of the minutes read aloud; it took five hours. At the end, no one found anything that could be disruptive.”

“In my own church,” he continued, “there was no difficulty.  Three or four people voiced concern but there was no organized effort against the merger.”

In the September 1960 issue of the Pilgrim State News, Conference Minister & President Rev. Albert J. Penner urged every church in Massachusetts to call a Fall meeting to vote on the Constitution (a vote for the Constitution was considered a vote to join the UCC – see box).

“The United Church of Christ is the one major expression of growing Christian unity in which most of us can play a part during our lifetime,” he wrote. “It would be a tragic experience if we failed … Let us deal with it prayerfully, responsibly, and unitedly, seeking only God’s will and His glory.”

The same issue of the newsletter reported that as of September, 1960, eight churches in the Conference had already voted to ratify the constitution: “Stockbridge, Royalston, South Royalston, Byfield, Cummington, Bernardston, Monterey and Franklin Federated.”

By the 1961 Synod, that number had grown to 426 churches (73.1 percent of the Conference). Another 43 (7.4 percent) had voted no, 105 had not reported a vote and 9 had voted to abstain. In comparison, 67.1 percent of churches nationally had voted yes, and 6.7 percent had

voted no.

“At the 1961 Synod, the initial support for the merger was stronger in Massachusetts than in the nation as a whole. However, the percent voting ‘no’ was also higher than the national percentage,” said The Rev. Richard H. Taylor, chair of the Historical Council of the United Church of Christ.

“Opposition to the merger in Massachusetts was centered in Boston, in the southeastern part of the State, and in a small cluster in the northern Berkshires. Most of these churches moved quickly into the National Association of Congre-gational Christian Churches. Slowly though, both churches leaving the United Church, and some leaving the National Association, joined the Con-servative Congregational Christian Conference. A few congregations joined the Evangelical Covenant Church, and some became independent,” Taylor said.

What’s in a Name?

While the vast majority of Conference churches eventually embraced the formation of the United Church of Christ, most did not show it by changing their names, although some appended “United Church of Christ” to their existing name.

“Because of the homogeneous nature of the Conference and the well-known ‘Congregational’ name, most congregations have maintained their local identity,” said Taylor. “The use of pre-merger names for local congregations is quite common in many parts of the United Church. Changing names was a more popular endeavor for former Evangelical and Reformed Churches, where the name change was a way to indicate approval of the merger.”

A name change for the Conference itself was even slow to happen. The Rev. Dr. Doug Showalter of Falmouth, who is writing a history of the Conference, reported that it wasn’t until the Conference’s 1966 Annual Meeting that delegates voted to change the Conference’s name, from the Massachusetts Congregational Christian Conference to the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ.

And at the national setting, at the Uniting General Synod in 1956, Driftmeir remembers, there was quite a bit of discussion about the actual name of the denomination. In hindsight he questions the decision that was made.  “There’s been quite a bit of confusion with the liberal United Church of Christ and the conservative Church of Christ,” he explained.  “I have often had to explain that the two are not the same and in fact are very different.”

Banks says today: “I’ve only found one disappointment as a result of the merger. I expected that the denomination would grow much stronger and more steadily.  But I’m proud of the fact that it represents a broad and charitable view of all sorts of men and women seeking a church home.”

Shoup would agree.

“I am now retired, have reached the 50th anniversary of my ordination, have served the denomination in many ways and more recently ministered as a Web Deacon for the God Is Still Speaking ministry,” said Shoup, “and I still don’t know too much about what was or is wrong with the merger, but I can tell you a lot about what has been right! What a blessing the United Church has been and still is.”

The Rev. Richard H. Taylor, chair of the Historical Council of the United Church of Christ, explained some of the twists and turns involved in the formation of the UCC.

“The idea of a merger between the General Council of Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church first occurred in the early 1940s. Within a few years a ‘Basis of Union’ had been put together and congregations were asked to vote on the basis. The General Council sought a super-majority of churches voting in order to move ahead. An actual majority was achieved, but it fell just short of the super-majority. The Council then decided to move ahead and encouraged churches to vote again. These votes were not necessarily binding on a local church. That, and the fact that so many churches voted twice, has left us with incomplete and sometimes confused reports on that early voting.

“The national opposition led to a series of court cases that delayed the merger. Finally a uniting General Synod met in Cleveland in 1957. However, the United Church of Christ was formed without a Constitution. Both denominations continued to function as they had before 1957, with their own mission boards, conferences, associations, and synods, and even their own yearbooks. Congregational Christian Yearbooks included churches working for the union, those actively opposing the merger, and many that were uncertain, divided, or confused. In the summer of 1960 the adjourned General Synod sent a proposed Constitution to the Evangelical and Reformed Synods and the Congregational Christian local churches. All were asked to vote before the next General Synod in the summer of 1961. A vote in favor of the Constitution was considered a vote to join the United Church.”