After the Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality (Report), Report Number 16 of the General Council on Ministries to the 1992 General Conference (Petition Number: FM-10865-3000-A; GCOM; Advance DCA, p. 265; DCA, Calendar Item 190, p. 235) was presented to the GC body, there was lengthy debate about the Report and what to do with it. Toward the end of the discussion, the delegates’ attention focused on the meanings of the words "receive" and "accept" (DCA, 1992). David M. Stanley of Iowa argued that the General Conference needed to be very clear in their action and not imply that they were "endorsing" the report:

I think all of us are trying to do what we believe God is leading us to do. But the people in the pews back home do not want this report accepted. They do not want this report endorsed ‘for study and use across the whole church.’ . . . If we leave in the word ‘receive,’ we know it will be interpreted by some people as some sort of approval. If you want to leave no doubt in the minds of your folks back home, you’ve got to take that word ‘receive’ out. (DCA, 1992, pp. 408-409)

Joe Sprague (West Ohio) asked for an interpretation of the "traditional parlance" of the GC: "Is the word ‘receive’ synonymous with ‘endorse’?" Bishop David J. Lawson, the presiding bishop for the discussion, clarified: "In my understanding . . . the word "receive" is a procedural acceptance of report in fact, in the present [sic] of the group without value judgment attached to the acceptance" (DCA, 1992, p. 409).

Following the debate regarding the Report and the meaning of the words ‘receive’ and ‘accept’, the GC delegates voted to ‘receive’ but not ‘accept’ the Report (Williams, 1994a, p. 6; RCP, 2000b, p. 11; UMNS, 2001d).

Because the 1992 General Conference received but did not approve the report, the report does not reflect the United Methodist Church’s official stance on homosexuality. The United Methodist position remained then (in 1996) and still remains in 2002 as spelled out in the Social Principles (see Appendixes B and E): "the practice of homosexuality . . . [is] . . . incompatible with Christian teaching" (Discipline, 2000, para. 161G, p. 101).

The Committee presented a majority recommendation (17 members) that the "language condemning homosexual practice" be removed from the Social Principles and that it be replaced with a statement saying that the UMC "has been unable to arrive at a common mind on the compatibility of homosexual practice with Christian faith" (Williams, 1994a, p. 37); the minority report recommended that the language of the Social Principles remain unchanged (UNMS, 2001c). The General Conference body voted to retain the existing language (DCA, 1992, p. 483; UMNS, 2001d; Williams, 1994a).

The Committee also made a recommendation that an addition be made to the Social Principles protecting "Rights of Homosexual Persons" (Williams, 1994a, pp. 2, 36) of homosexual persons:

Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to support those rights and liberties for homosexual persons. We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting their rightful claims in same-sex relationships where they have: shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships . . . and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships which involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law. Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against gays and lesbians. (UMNS, 2001d; Williams, 1994a, pp. 36-37)

This recommendation was approved by the GC (UMNS, 2001d).

In other actions, the 1992 GC voted to retain previous years’ changes regarding ordination (self-avowed practicing homosexuals unacceptable as candidates and ministers and cannot be appointed to serve in UM churches) and church funds (no church funding can be used to "promote the acceptance of homosexuality") and authorized the creation of a study on the topic (The Church Studies Homosexuality) which congregations could use if they so chose (UMNS, 2001d).

 

Next: 1992-1996