At a retreat in the fall of 1988, the Evangelical Renewal Fellowship in the California/Nevada Conference formed the Transforming Congregations (TC) program. This program was modeled after RCP (RMN, select 1982-83, para. 1), and one of its primary purposes is to "affirm the Biblical position that God loves all persons, that homosexual practice is one sin among many and that the Holy Spirit is available to transform all persons - including homosexual persons" (TC, n.d.). The organization’s purpose, as stated in a UMNS (1997c) article, is to assist those wanting to change from a homosexual lifestyle.
A 1988 issue of Open Hands, the RCP ecumenical welcoming ministries publication, won two awards from the Associated Church Press in 1989. The magazine received an Award of Merit for "in depth coverage of a current issue" for the its "Living and Loving with Aids" issue and honorable mention for overall General Excellence (RMN, select 1989, para. 3; RCP, 2000c, p. 17).
In 1989, the American Psychiatriac Association stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works to change one's sexual orientation (from homosexual to heterosexual) and that it can do more harm than good (KQED; ApsychA).
Between the 1988 and 1992 General Conferences, the Committee [to Study Homosexuality] pursued the homosexuality study as mandated by the 1988 GC. In those four years, the committee held eight three-to-four-day meetings.
The study committee was a diverse mix of people, including those with theological, ethical, biblical, and scientific expertise. An effort was made to insure that the committee would reflect inclusiveness of gender, racial/ethnic groups, clergy and laity, and geography. In an undated paper (available online) on the UMC’s policies on homosexuality, David Wesley Perkins pointed out that the "categories for membership on the committee designed to insure ‘inclusiveness’ did not include [sic] gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons" (Perkins, n.d., p. 4). There was, however, at least one person on the committee who fit in that category (Williams, 1994b, p. 42).
The Committee was made up of 27 members chosen from a pool of 150 persons (Williams, 1994a, pp. 13, 55). Eight of the committee members were also on General Council on Ministry, the body that appointed the committee. Most were from the United States, but one committee member was specifically selected from the Philippines (a Central Conference) so that the Committee represented a broader base than the United States. The report explained that the committee, both in subgroups and as a whole, met with many who identified themselves as gay, lesbian, ex-gay, ex-lesbian, parent and other family members, friend, church official, pastor, church member. The report further stated that ‘several hundred persons’ shared their experiences and beliefs regarding homosexuality with the Committee, but no specific number was stated. The report included examples of a number of experiences that the committee described as "typical" (Williams, 1994a, pp. 13-14, 55).
In the introduction to the study book created to help local churches study and understand the Committee report, the Committee acknowledges that, "Only rarely can we find a congregation has conducted discussions . . . on homosexuality, or has invited persons who are themselves homosexual to talk about their experiences" (Williams, 1994a, pp. 4).
The Committee’s research included reports written especially for the committee by "recognized scholars in the fields of biblical interpretation, theology, psychology, medicine, and sociology" (Williams, 1994a, pp. 5-6). Many of these experts testified before the Committee; although their testimony was referred to in the report, the testimony itself was not included. (Some individuals who had been involved with the Committee attempted to locate and "liberate" (personal communications, February 21 and 26, 2002; March 3, 2003) the reports so that I could review them for this dissertation; those attempts were unsuccessful.) The Committee also heard from a wide variety of persons (lay and clergy; gay and straight) and unofficial groups/caucuses (Williams, 1994a), including a member of the RCP Advisory Committee and RCP coordinator Mark Bowman (RMN).
The Committee’s report was released in late 1991 (UMNS, 2001d).
In the meantime, in July 1990, the Reconciling Congregation Program incorporated as a non-profit organization with its own Board of Directors (RCP, 2000b, p. 11; RMN, select 1990, para. 2). In 1992, RCP established a national office in Chicago, and Mark Bowman became the full-time coordinator (RCP, 2000b, p. 11), a position he held until 1999.
Also in 1990, the UM General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns (GCCUIC) voted to become a Reconciling Commission, the first national UMC board or agency to take this step (RMN, select 1990, para. 4). This action of the GCCUIC was challenged, and in 1991, the UM Judicial Council unanimously upheld the action (RMN, select 1991, last para.; JC 665).
Covenant Ceremonies (Holy Unions) attracted attention and became issues in the UMC in 1990. After Dumbarton UMC in Washington DC, adopted a policy that affirmed Covenant Ceremonies and the policy was written about in the Washington Post, the local bishop stated that such a policy was not in accordance with UMC law (Seamands, 1992; RMN, select 1990, para. 5). The publicity over this case "forced the bishop and cabinet of the Wisconsin Annual Conference to reverse their position" (Seamands, 1992) and to call for then to such ceremonies at University UMC (Madison, WI), where a policy approving Covenant Services had been adopted in 1986. And in 1991, the local bishop informed the pastor of Walker Community UMC in Minneapolis that she could not hold covenant ceremonies there, even though the congregation supported such services (RMN, select 1991, para. 4).
In an article in the January/February 1992 issue of Good News Magazine, Thomas Oden, UM clergy, author, and professor of theology and ethics at Drew University’s Theological School, criticized the Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality. He charged that their method of data-gathering was not "fair or evenhanded;" claimed that there were "four desperate evasions of Biblical mandates;" "five words are used insensitively" (monogamy, "gay" [sic], lifestyle, homosexuality, and "safe sex" [sic]); and he questioned whether the report offered a "viable legislative option." He also claimed that the Committee had "blatantly falsified" the theological method of the Discipline (the quadrilateral; see Glossary) when they "appeal to experience and reason as contemporary arbiters of the hidden meaning of Scripture" (Oden, 1992). He also criticized the Committee for "arrogantly asserting" that Christian ethicists agree that "homosexual practice is not a weighty moral matter" and for not citing data to support "this curious assertion" (Oden, 1992).
He closes his article with the following remarks:
Delegates must reject the Report’s morally relativistic, presumptuous, and inflammatory phrase that "the present state of knowledge in the relevant fields of knowledge does not provide a satisfactory basis upon which the church can responsibly maintain a specific condemnation of homosexuality.
By doing so, they will have served the United Methodist Church well.
And in January, 1992, 80 evangelical UM clergy and laity met in Memphis, Tennessee, and issued a declaration of faith (referred to as the Memphis Declaration) in which they specified the standards and recommendations that they wanted supported at the 1992 General Conference (Memphis). One of their recommendations called for reaffirmation of "Christian sexual morality and the current provisions of the United Methodist Discipline (Par. 71f, 402.2, 906.12)" (Memphis, point 6). They also called for "rejection of the report and the recommendations of the Committee to Study Homosexuality" and stated that they opposed "further official study" of homosexuality (Memphis). See Appendix M for complete text of the Memphis Declaration.
1988-1992