Welcome back, readers! This is part two of a series following the history of The United Methodist Church’s language around homosexuality. Click here to start at the beginning of the story. The newly formed denomination had tasked a committee of 32 chosen people to draft The Social Principles that would inform how the church’s theology met with contemporary issues. The original report included a statement in its Human Sexuality subsection that read: “We declare our acceptance of homosexuals as persons of sacred worth and we welcome them into the fellowship of the church. Further, we insist that society ensure their human and civil rights.” The report went before a legislative committee of 92 chosen delegates who approved the entire report with only a few minor changes, none of which affected the statement on homosexuality. The report then went before the voting body of the General Conference on day 10 of the 12-day meeting.

Attention immediately focused on the human sexuality subsection of the report, with a motion being made to remove the sentences about homosexuals altogether. After a motion is made, the floor opens for debate, and arguments were made strongly in favor of removing positive language around homosexuality, as well as arguments insisting on keeping the language as is. The crowds were asked to please stop applauding after debate points were made. A substitute motion arose, arguing that the word “homosexual” was clearly contentious, so perhaps we could keep the language but replace “homosexual” with “all persons.” (This author finds this argument strikingly similar to the recent “all lives matter” whitewashing of the “Black Lives Matter” movement…if we don’t specifically name those being marginalized, we assume less responsibility for their wellbeing).

Two men opposed the “all persons” edit, arguing that homosexuals were particularly stigmatized by the church and society and therefore needed direct statements from the church affirming their human and civil rights. One of these men was a physician, but he was asked to stop speaking because his presentation was deemed “argumentative” instead of “informative” by parliamentary procedure. A member of the legislative committee that originally approved the report got up to speak, arguing that the church needed to trust the people responsible for creating this report and editing it were well-informed and thoughtful. The floors of debate and emotion should not cut and paste over the diligent work of many people over years of research. He also thought it was unacceptable that an earlier delegate had argued that accepting homosexuals was paving the way for predatory child abuse by gay men.

But when the time came for a vote, the General Conference agreed to replace the word “homosexual” with “all persons.”

You may be curious how the elimination of the word “homosexual” from the Social Principles turned into the statement “we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian doctrine.” Well, my friend, you’ll just have to tune in next Tuesday for the next few pages of the story.

This retelling is based on the research of the Rev. Dr. Thomas A. Summers in his two-part article: May Incompatibility Rest In Peace. Since printing Part 2, I’ve received access to a lot of good research and primary sources that will help me tell the rest of the story. Until then, please assume any text in the comic is my paraphrase of arguments that were made in the past unless I use quotation marks.  To keep reading, click here for Part 3!