The year 1972, when the newly merged Methodist and United Brethren churches were establishing an operating structure for the new United Methodist Church, also marked the beginning of the homosexuality debate within the United Methodist Church (UMNS, 2001d, under heading beginning ‘History of . . ."). For the first time, the UMC General Conference addressed the topic (Moore, 2000a; UMNS, 2001d). By this time, gay UM clergy had begun to come out. Some UM clergy had lost their annual conference relationships as a result of coming out, and a number of them went to the General Conference in Atlanta to tell of their experiences, including Earnest Reaugh, New York, and Gene Leggett, Texas (RCP, 2000b, p. 8).

On the General Conference floor, a proposal was made to add a statement about homosexuality to the Social Principles. The proposed statement read,

Homosexuals no less than heterosexuals are persons of sacred worth, who need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship which enables reconciling relationships with God, with others and with self. Further we insist that all persons are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured. (UMNS, 2001d; Williams, 1994a, p. 11; Moore, 2000a, para. 1 after heading ‘1972 General Conf. . . .")

A floor debate over the proposal ensued, with strong arguments for and against inserting a phrase condemning homosexuality into the statement. There are multiple versions of what happened. Some say there were parliamentary process "errors" on the part of the presiding bishop Eugene Slater (RCP, 2000b, p. 8). Others contend that after the paragraph was completed and approved by the working group, a phrase condemning homosexuality was created and inserted in the statement in the early morning hours and that the committee had not reviewed and approved the addition before the vote was taken (Bruce Hilton, presentation, Tacoma, WA, July 26, 2001).

The end result of the debate: the now famous "incompatibility phrase" was added to the end of the civil rights paragraph cited above; the incompatibility phrase reads: " . . . although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching" (UMNS, 2001d; Williams, 1994a, p. 11). This phrase has remained in the Social Principles since then.

In the 1972 General Conference’s revision of the Social Principles, the statement, "We do not recommend marriage between two persons of the same sex", was also added (UMNS, 2001d; RCP, 2000b, p. 8).

In the secular world, the UMC made a contribution to the field of sex education when it helped support the development of a sex education course for the University of Minnesota’ Medical School in the fall of 1972. The course, entitled "Program in Human Sexuality" and subsequently referred to in this work as the Program, was developed through support of grants from a variety of sources, including the United Methodist Church (Board of Social Concerns), The Commonwealth Fund, the Bush Foundation, the Playboy Foundation, the American Lutheran Church (Division of Social Service), and the University of Minnesota Medical and Graduate Schools (Maddock and Dickman, Vol. 1, pages unnumbered, in note at bottom of first page of preface). UM clergyman Theodore McIlvenna, Director of the National Sex Forum of The Glide Foundation, is listed among the faculty for the course (Maddock and Dickman, Vol. 1, 1972, pages unnumbered; on page listing faculty, fifth page after title page).

Not only was this class a required core component of the medical school curriculum, but it was also offered as an elective in the curriculum for seminary students in the pastoral counseling programs at Luther Theological Seminary, Northwestern Theological Seminary, and United Theological Seminary (Maddock and Dickman, Vol. 1, 1972, Part II, Course Information; pages unnumbered; in first para. under title ‘overview’). Most of the program elements were shared by all of the schools. Spouses and/or "significant others" of the students were invited to attend some components of the program (Maddock and Dickman, Vol. 1, 1972, pages unnumbered; Part II, Course Information, Overview, paras. 6, 7).

A major thrust of the Program’s curriculum was to demythologize and desensitize sexual attitudes the participants had developed as a result of past inaccuracies, misinformation, prejudices and/or misconceptions about sexuality and sexual behaviors and to resensitize them toward a professional understanding of sexuality as it related to themselves and others. The program used for the desensitizing and resensitizing was the "sight and sound program for sex education" developed by the National Sex and Drug Forum, "a division of the (Methodist) Glide Foundation, San Francisco," headed by the UM clergyman McIlvenna (Maddock and Dickman, 1972, Vol. 1, pages unnumbered, Part I, Background and Philosophy, 8^th page after section divider, under title and subsection beginning ‘process’).

Immediately following the 1972 UM General Conference, gay United Methodists began organizing in a number of areas, including San Francisco Bay Area, Kansas City, and Texas (RCP, 2000b, p. 9). The first documented meeting of the group of gay United Methodists later to be known as the United Methodist Gay Caucus, (UMGC), the Gay United Methodist Caucus (GUM), and eventually Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Concerns, was held in Nashville. The founding members wanted to do something "to educate the church about the lesbians and gay men who were affected by [its] actions" (Colleen Kristula, 1991, unpublished work, p. 2). The United Methodist Gay Caucus (UMGC) was formally founded in Evanston, IL in 1975 (RCP, 2000b, p. 9, 2000a, p. 26; Kristula, 1991, unpublished, p. 2) and began planning for a presence at the 1976 General Conference. Their purpose: "sensitizing church persons and structures to the needs and gifts of gay persons" and "support in the struggle for social justice . . . in conjunction with ministries of Christian community and nurture" (Kristula, 1991, unpublished, p. 2).

At some point in the late 1960s or early 1970s, the UMC reviewed and purchased sexuality study materials and films from the National Sex Forum for their resource libraries in Nashville (William R. Stayton, personal communication, June 12, 2002).

William R. Stayton, American Baptist clergy, sex educator, and sex therapist, said that in the early 1970s, after the UMC obtained the sex education materials, the Education Ministries of the American Baptist Church purchased similar sexuality education materials. He says they did this partly based on the fact that the United Methodist Church had the materials in its library ("if the Methodists had the materials, they were good") and that "it was the thing to do." At some point in the 1980s, Stayton said he referred a United Methodist pastor who was looking for sexuality resources to the UMC’s national office in Nashville. At that time, he learned that the UMC no longer had the sexuality materials (personal communication, June 12, 2002).

 

Next: 1972-1976