In my way of thinking the first part of my title is a contradiction.  After all, that great source of all knowledge, Wikipedia, opens their section on Congregationalist polity with this:

Congregationalist polity, often known as congregationalism, is a system of church governance in which every local church congregation is independent, ecclesiastically sovereign, or “autonomous.”

OK, so I don’t accept Wikipedia as a primary source for my college classes, but at least this statement agrees with my own understanding of that system of church government.  The individual congregations is 1) independent, 2) ecclesiastically sovereign, and 3) autonomous.  They join together in associations for the purpose of support.

So when I read this article I had to pause.  Now, there are clearly complicated legal issues related to the gift of the property and the trust involved.  And I have no vast knowledge of the nuances of UCC polity.  But it seems to me that the Rev. J.R. McAliley III, the pastor of Center Congregational Church has a valid argument in this letter where he writes:

The legal impact of our case – defining “the Congregational Denomination” – is one with implications for every Church and Organization historically associated with the Congregational Way. Center’s little ¼ acre of land in Buckhead, an upscale section of Atlanta, Ga, even at the current speculative market value of about $500,000.00 is not the goal of the UCC/SECUCC. Legal “ownership” of the designation as the true legal successor to “the Congregational Denomination” is and the implications will spread like a tsunami.

What I find interesting is how this concern that the pastor expresses is suggested in the Preface of the UCC Manual on Church:

Can there be a Manual on Church in the United Church of Christ? Can this denomination, which has honored with tolerance the traditions and polities of its various predecessor bodies, come to agreement on one set of guidelines or expectations for the characteristics of faithful churches of the United Church of Christ? Can Associations and Conferences, as concerned about their own practice of autonomy as are local churches, choose to forge a common path of exemplary practices by which to live out covenantal unity? Can Local Church Ministries channel the Spirit-filled diversity of interactive partnership among local, Association, Conference, and national settings of the Church so that each may feel the bonds of covenant that strengthen nurture and support, and offer responsibility and accountability?

And this is answered with:

We shall see. This is a beginning toward shaping the discernment of the covenantal partners of the United Church of Christ concerning what it means to be expressions of church within the Church.

This document, dated January 2005, is an attempt by the denomination to walk the fine line between covenant and autonomy.  If, through this manual, the denomination wants to define itself in a way that moves beyond the autonomy of the Congregationalist model then it moves towards an association with more hierarchical structure.  It is understandable that particular churches would start to get nervous.

And it is understandable in light of the fact that everyone seems to agree this case, legal and ecclesiastical, hinges on that phrase “the Congregational Denomination.”

The legal case is complicated and each side is probably presenting their side in the most favorable light for them.  From the denomination’s viewpoint, this case hinges on civil law regarding the conditions of the gift of the land a century ago that requires the land be used for purposes of “the Congregational Denomination.”  At the time there was only one, and it was not the UCC which was organized in the 1950’s.  Now the congregation wants to realign with the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches and the UCC is arguing that it is “the Congregational Denomination” and the realignment violates the conditions of the gift.  This is not an ecclesiastical dispute in their telling, merely contract or trust law.  (More in a May WSJ article)  As “the voice of one crying in suburbia” says – “Follow the Money.”

It will be interesting to see what happens if this case moves forward — and that is an if because the purpose of Rev. McAliley’s letter was an appeal for funds to help fight the legal case against the deeper pockets of the Conference.  But if it gets down to ecclesiastical structure it will be interesting to see if the civil courts view the UCC as a hierarchical denomination, or even “the Congregational Denomination.”