The 1976 General Conference in Portland was flooded with hotly debated and contested motions and petitions regarding homosexuality, ordination, and language used by the denomination. The UM Gay Caucus, although presenting no petitions of its own, was highly visible at this General Conference "to let the UMC know that homosexuals do already exist in our church . . . to let the church know that neither homosexuals nor their sexuality are going to disappear" (Kristula, 1991, unpublished, pp. 4-5).

A proposal was made to exclude gays and lesbians from ordination and annual conference memberships (Moore, 2000a; Kristula, p. 4). Good News, an unofficial evangelical caucus within the UMC that calls for ‘repentance’, ‘reform’ and ‘renewal’ within the denomination, intensified its effort to challenge and change "the church’s liberal programs" (Heidinger, 1997, following heading ‘Legislative landmarks’). More specifically, according to Kristula (1991), Good News "campaigned actively to exclude homosexuals from the life of the church" ( p. 4. ).

Lengthy parliamentary confusion and debate on gay ordination resulted in a compromise decision to not block ordination of gays with specific wording but to print a footnote to paragraph 404 that restated the Social Principles clause. Moore (2000a) and Kristula (1991, p. 5) both incorrectly reported that the footnote was not printed in the 1976 Discipline, and "Blair Blurbs," the newsletter of the UM gay caucus, also reported that the footnote was not included in the 1976 Discipline. Moore, however, (2000a) pointed out that it did appear on page 176 in the 1996 Discipline. In my research, however, I found that the footnote appears on page 168 in my copy of the 1976 Discipline that I have. (It currently appears on page 188 of the 2000 Discipline.)

argued against a . . . welcome of ‘all persons regardless of sexual orientation into the fellowship and membership of the United Methodist Church.’ He attacked GLBT people for their promiscuity (‘After all,’ he said, ‘we stipulate against homosexual marriage.’) In addition, he held that such a welcome would constitute an ‘irreversible disaster in the United Methodist Church’ . . . (RCP, 2000b, p. 9)

General Conference delegates defeated a proposal to include welcoming language in the Social Principles (RCP, 2000b, p. 9; Perkins, n.d., p. 3; Williams, 1994a).

Toward the end of the 1976 GC, the floor rules were changed in order to suspend debate (Carter, 1986, p. 8). During this time, legislation was introduced and approved (without discussion) that prohibited the use of church funds for anything that would "promote the acceptance of homosexuality" or homosexual practices (Carter, 1986, p. 8; RCP, 2000b, p. 9). Those measures assigned responsibility to the General Council on Finance and Administration

for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any ‘gay’ caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures. (Discipline, 1976, para. 906.13, p. 337; Discipline, 1984, para. 906.12; Discipline, 2000, para 806.9, p. 453)

The other funding measures approved by the 1976 GC dictated that UM board and agency funds could be used "only in support of those programs consistent with the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church" and that use of UM funds "for projects favoring homosexual practices" was not allowed (UMNS, 2001d; Williams, 1994a, p. 11).

The above policies are frequently misunderstood and used by some to prevent outreach and/or reconciling work of local churches. David Wesley Perkins, in an undated paper on UM church policies, pointed out that the above policies apply "to national General Conference funds only and cannot be enforced on the local church, district or annual conference levels" (p. 3).

In an article entitled "Ignorance vs.. Education: The UM Funding Ban," published in the Summer 1986 issue of Open Hands, the Rev. Dr. Nancy Carter, then chair of the Administrative Council of Washington Square UMC, New York City, and currently UM clergy, computer consultant, and consultant for Health and Welfare Ministries of the UM General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM), wrote

By adding paragraph 906.12 without adequately discussing it and before conducting any serious study of human sexuality, that General Conference was, in effect, preferring ignorance to education and thus endorsing the continuation of public prejudice. The legislation was swwn by many as a weapon not only to stop education about sexuality and gay /lesbian people but also to exclude gay/lesbian persons from various aspects of church life. (Carter, 1986, p. 8)

Carter detailed numerous ways in which the 1976 funding restrictions were used to control educational materials and events, to justify excluding GL UMs from participation in church-related institutions, and to block denominational studies (Carter, 1986, pp. 8, 9); see History Timeline, Appendix G, for more information). She describes the long-term effect of paragraph 906.12 as supporting homophobia and rejecting reconciliation. She goes on to say, however, that there may have been unintended positive results from that action:

Paragraph 906.12 was inserted into the Discipline at a time when distrust of denominational agencies was increasing. As often happens with distasteful actions, however, some unintentional good has also come from the legislation. One such result is that, after it was adopted, it helped prompt more grass-roots work on human sexuality to be done by local churches, districts, and annual conferences. In the long run, this examination may help lead to the dismantling of the very barriers that paragraph 906.12 was meant to reinforce. (Carter, 1986, p. 9)

In other General Conference action, the body defeated a proposed national human sexuality study but approved voluntary local church studies (and the denominational production of resources for the study) (Carter, 1986, p. 8). It reworded the 1972 stance on marriage ("We do not recommend marriage between two persons of the same sex;" see p. 72) to a statement that said, "We do not recognize marriage between two persons of the same sex (UMNS, 2001d). The GC body also defeated a proposal that would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching Sunday School; defeated a proposal to establish a Commission on the Status and Role of Gay People; and defeated a proposal that would have disallowed homosexual persons from being members of the UMC (Kristula, 1991, unpublished, p. 5).

Apart from the official proceedings at the 1976 GC, the UM Gay Caucus, the Women’s Caucus, the Young Adult Caucus, and the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) joined forces and held worship services and other events for GC participants (RCP, 2000b, p. 9).

 

Next: 1976-1980