Abstract
Clergy from theologically conservative churches face challenges in providing counsel to LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning) congregants and use diverse strategies to address them. Thirty-three clergy from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints participated in a qualitative survey. Results revealed that implementing church policy while simultaneously addressing the needs of LGBTQ congregants and diverging views posed challenges for clergy. Focusing on listening, love, and spiritual counsel while avoiding messages of defectiveness were helpful for LGBTQ congregants.
Keywords
LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning) individuals face disparities in physical and mental health; indeed, in comparison to heterosexual and cisgender peers, LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to report anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide (CDC, 2022; Schuler et al., 2018). LGBTQ+ individuals also experience higher rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and cigarette smoking than heterosexual and cisgender individuals (Caceres et al., 2021; Quinn et al., 2015; Veldhuis et al., 2021).
Disparities in physical and mental health are driven in part by unique stressors experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals (Kassing et al., 2021; Meyer, 2003). These stressors include experiences of discrimination and marginalization (Meyer, 2003; Williams & Serpas, 2021). For example, homelessness, family rejection, and bullying among LGBTQ+ youth increase the risk of poor mental health, and discrimination in the workplace negatively affects LGBTQ+ adults (Holman, 2018; Mittleman, 2019; Ream & Peters, 2021).
LGBTQ+ Christians face stressors that are unique to their experiences in addition to the stressors they face that are common to other LGBTQ+ individuals. These stressors include discrimination and exclusion within their religious communities, religiously related internalized stigma, and increased identity conflict (Crowell et al., 2015; Lefevor et al., 2021). Like other Christians, many LGBTQ+ individuals use church communities as a primary source of support, so ruptures in their relationships with church members can leave LGBTQ+ Christians particularly isolated and vulnerable (Gandy et al., 2021). Experiences of discrimination such as microaggressions or hearing explicit negative language aimed at LGBTQ+ individuals can also be a significant source of stress (Sowe et al., 2014; Whicker et al., 2017).
Many LGBTQ+ Christians turn to clergy for support both in dealing with these stressors as well as for general support related to their sexual and/or gender identities (Cadge & Wildeman, 2008). This includes support related to questions regarding the nature of sexual orientation and gender identity, how to negotiate their sexual orientation/gender identity with their faith, or how to navigate other difficult theological questions (Cadge & Wildeman, 2008; Jacobsen & Wright, 2014). Additionally, LGBTQ+ Christians seek support from clergy for stressors related to whether they should tell friends and family about their sexual orientation/gender identity (Lefevor et al., 2022).
Many clergy desire and strive to support their LGBTQ+ congregants with these issues, but face challenges and obstacles to achieving this task (Neiheisel & Djupe, 2008). These challenges include lack of experience and training, ambiguous direction from superiors, uncertainty regarding their own personal views, and external pressures from church superiors and cisgender heterosexual congregants. Little is known about the ways that clergy address these challenges, or the support they receive regarding sexual orientation and gender identity issues. Additionally, even less is known about the ways that clergy who minister in more theologically conservative churches understand and address these dynamics. The aim of the present study is to explore the tools and strategies clergy use in theologically conservative churches, and the resources and supports they need to lead on LGBTQ+ issues.
Challenges in Ministering to LGBTQ+ Congregants and in Discussing Gender or Sexuality
Clergy, particularly those ministering to theologically conservative congregations, face several challenges to effectively ministering to LGBTQ+ congregants and addressing sexual orientation and gender identity with their congregations. The first challenge that clergy face relates to external pressures and expectations. Many clergy face pressure from their superiors to strictly assert church stances and teachings, especially churches that have a hierarchical structure (Cadge et al., 2012). As a result, clergy may find themselves in a precarious position where they must show respect for the teachings and traditions of their church without belittling the dignity and devotion of LGBTQ+ individuals (Friedman, 2019). Additionally, clergy commonly face pressure from their cisgender heterosexual congregants, who may demonstrate resistance towards welcoming LGBTQ+ individuals, even if that is what church teaching prescribes (Cadge et al., 2012; Friedman, 2019). Given these multiple pressures, clergy are often unsure of how to welcome LGBTQ+ individuals, or whether to welcome them at all.
Discerning how to address issues of sexual orientation and gender identity within their congregations is equally challenging. Some fear it would destabilize their congregations (Olson & Cadge, 2002). Namely, clergy may be concerned over the fear it can arouse in their congregations, including fear of LGBTQ+ people, views of LGBTQ+ communities as predatory, fear of change, and discomfort with addressing sexuality in general (Cadge & Wildeman, 2008). These challenges may lead clergy to avoid addressing sexuality and gender altogether. This is not uncommon, and it is not unique to clergy from theologically conservative denominations. Clergy who affirm LGBTQ+ identities are just as likely as theologically conservative clergy to avoid discussing sexual orientation and gender identity in public due to the divisive nature of these issues (Cadge et al., 2012).
A second challenge that clergy face is uncertainty over how to actually apply church teachings. Clergy often inconsistently apply and interpret teachings, making it more difficult for LGBTQ+ congregants to feel a sense of stable support at church (Lefevor et al., 2022). This disconnect between church teaching and clergy practice may be a result of unclear guidance on how to properly apply church policy. Many churches have clear stances regarding same-sex relationships and gender transitioning; however, in practice, superiors provide little instruction on how to apply those stances (Cadge et al., 2012). As a result, clergy develop their own strategies for working with issues of sexual orientation and gender identity (Cadge & Wildeman, 2008).
The third and most common challenge that clergy face is lack of preparation for addressing issues of sexual orientation and gender identity (Cadge & Wildeman, 2008). Many clergy from theologically conservative backgrounds lack an understanding of the nature of sexual orientation or gender identity and the diverse experiences had by LGBTQ+ individuals (Lefevor et al., 2022). Many theologically conservative clergy have never had prolonged and meaningful contact with LGBTQ+ individuals (Smith et al., 2009), likely because many LGBTQ+ individuals leave their congregations once they reach adulthood (Lefevor et al., 2018). Theologically conservative churches may also actively discourage interaction with LGBTQ+ organizations and communities that do not strictly adhere to church teaching (Lefevor et al., 2022).
Clergy's personal beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity may also be a challenge in ministering to LGBTQ+ individuals and addressing issues of sexual orientation and gender identity with their congregations. Like people in the wider population, clergy vary widely in their opinions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity; indeed, as much as 50% of clergy may report uncertainty of their own views about sexual orientation and gender identity (Cadge et al., 2012). Clergy may grapple with questions of whether same-sex attraction and gender identity are chosen or innate, whether they are truly morally wrong, and difficulty understanding same-sex attraction or transgender experiences. Additionally, clergy may face incongruity between their moral convictions and their personal experiences with LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly if clergy have LGBTQ+ friends or family. This tension can be especially anxiety-provoking for clergy from churches with strict stances on same-sex behavior and gender identity (Cadge et al., 2012).
Strategies in Ministering to LGBTQ+ Congregants and in Discussing Gender or Sexuality
LGBTQ+ individuals have identified a small handful of effective strategies that clergy may employ in ministering to LGBTQ+ congregants or discussing sexual orientation or gender identity with their congregations, especially theologically conservative congregations. There is some evidence that empathic listening without offering any particular guidance or advice may be particularly helpful for LGBTQ+ Christians (Lefevor et al., 2022). LGBTQ+ Christians also indicate that emphasizing their freedom and responsibility to forge their own path, providing referrals to mental health, partnering congregants with other LGBTQ+ Christians for guidance and support, and trusting God to guide the individual are good strategies (Baskett, 2018; Lefevor et al., 2022). These strategies focus generally on openness, love, and faith, and may or may not focus on issues of sexuality and gender in spiritual counseling (Lefevor et al., 2022).
Clergy have identified an even smaller handful of strategies that they have found helpful in ministering to LGBTQ+ individuals and addressing sexual orientation and gender identity in their congregations. One such strategy is acquiring basic information regarding LGBTQ+ individuals and general mental health care resources. In particular, clergy may favor information regarding transgender issues and suicide prevention resources (Raedel et al., 2020).
The Present Study
Little is known about how clergy can effectively address LGBTQ+ issues in their congregations or how they can effectively minister to LGBTQ+ individuals, especially from the perspectives of clergy. The present study fills this gap by specifically examining what clergy experience as helpful when addressing LGBTQ+ issues in their congregations and in ministering to LGBTQ+ individuals. As such, this study focused on one research question: How do clergy experience working with LGBTQ individuals and issues pertaining to sexual orientation and gender? In order to answer this research question, we present the results from open-ended responses to four key questions about LGBTQ+ ministry from 33 clergy: What are the greatest challenges they face? What do clergy find helpful with regard to addressing sexual orientation/gender identity with LGBTQ+ individuals and their congregations? What do they find unhelpful? What support and training do clergy wish were available to them? We examined these questions in the context of clergy from a theologically conservative religious group—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—with the understanding that many aspects of these clergy's experiences would generalize to the experiences of clergy in theologically conservative congregations more broadly.
Method
Research Team
To mitigate potential bias, the research team was intentionally diverse in terms of religious affiliation (Catholic, Atheist, current and former Latter-day Saint (LDS)), sexual orientation (gay, bisexual, heterosexual), gender (cisgender woman, cisgender man, multigender), and race (Latinx, White). The purpose of selecting a diverse team of researchers is to provide a check for potential assumptions regarding the experiences of clergy or their views towards LGBTQ+ individuals. Each member of the research team was committed to following the American Psychological Association's (APA) guidelines on working with diverse individuals, including those who are religiously diverse (Clauss-Ehlers et al., 2019).
Recruitment and Procedure
Approval from the Institutional Review Board of Utah State University was obtained prior to the start of the study. Participants were recruited in a variety of ways. First, we reached out to LDS bishops in Cache, Weber, Salt Lake, and Utah counties whose names and phone numbers were listed as directory information on the Ward Meeting House Locator app used to locate LDS congregations. We made three attempts over the course of 1–2 weeks to contact each of the 973 bishops identified through this search through phone or text. Of these 973, 504 responded (52% response rate), and 231 provided an email address for follow-up (24% response rate). If potential participants indicated interest in follow-up, they were sent an email with a link to the survey. Second, the research team made posts on social media in relevant groups (e.g. Ministering Resources to Support LGBTQ+ LDSs) and made announcements on relevant podcasts (e.g. Listen. Learn. Love.) about the survey.
Finally, the researchers gave a presentation at the annual Affirmation conference (Affirmation serves LGBTQ+ LDSs and those who support them), describing the work they have done with LGBTQ+ LDSs and clergy. As part of this presentation, researchers distributed links to the survey for listeners to complete if they met inclusion criteria and were interested.
Participants
LDS individuals who held a leadership position in their local or regional congregation/group of congregations were eligible to participate in the study. This group included bishops, ward clerks, ward executive secretaries, high priests group leaders, elders quorum presidents, ward mission leaders, presidents of the Relief Society, presidents of the Young Men's and Young Women's Organizations, those leading primary and Sunday school organizations, and their counselors at both the ward and stake levels. A total of 33 participants completed the survey. A breakdown of the participants’ demographic information is shown in Table 1.
Participant demographics.
Measures
The survey included several demographic questions asking participants to indicate their gender, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, position in the ward/stake, and years of service in the position. The survey also included two quantitative questions and five qualitative questions. See Table 2 for survey questions.
Interview questions.
Note. LGBTQ= lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The purpose of thematic analysis is to capture rich information regarding the participants’ thoughts and experiences. This approach consists of six steps: (a) familiarization with the data, (b) generating initial codes, (c) search for themes, (d) review themes, (e) define and name themes, and (f) write the report. An inductive, essentialist approach was used to conceptualize subthemes. Specifically, coding began with recording empirical observations of the participants’ responses. Similar observations were organized into groups, which were subsequently developed into major themes and subthemes based on their content. Throughout the process, the members of the research team adhered to the principle of reflexivity, actively and continuously evaluating their assumptions, biases, and histories throughout the study to mitigate their influence on the data analysis process.
Coding was conducted by four independent coders, including the original investigator, who analyzed the data for recurring themes and subthemes. Coders met on a regular basis to reach consensus when the codes used were not in agreement. Researchers from both LDS and non-LDS backgrounds discussed doctrine that clergy mentioned and also information on sexual orientation and gender identity to clarify the meaning of clergy responses accurately. A faculty member served as a supervisor and auditor to ensure coders adhered to protocol for coding and analysis, and to ensure accurate representation of the data.
Results/Discussion
Challenges in Counseling LGBTQ+ Individuals and Talking with Congregants About Gender or Sexuality
Clergy discussed five central challenges in counseling LGBTQ+ individuals and talking with congregants about LGBTQ+ issues: lack of information and direction, conflicting responsibilities, congregants’ lack of openness, problems created by differences of views, and difficulties creating space for LGBTQ+ congregants (see Table 3).
Challenges working with LGBTQ+ issues and individuals.
Note. LGBQ+= lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning.
The most prominent challenge was general lack of information about LGBTQ+ individuals’ lived experiences and how questions of gender/sexuality impacted faith. Many clergy felt unable to help LGBTQ+ congregants who came to them for answers, especially regarding challenging theological questions. A former bishop noted: “there are no absolute solutions or answers to the questions these members have.” Lack of direction on the practical application of doctrine and church policies was also a challenge.
Another challenge leaders faced was conflicting responsibilities, largely based on difficulties with balancing responsibilities to follow doctrine with providing for the needs of LGBTQ+ congregants. One local men's group leader stated: “How can I love them with all my heart and not compromise on doctrinal truths as I counsel them?” Another leader pointed out that doctrine states that gender is an immutable characteristic of the person and many youth groups are segregated by gender; however, a transgender congregant may be uncomfortable joining a group based on their assigned sex at birth. Many leaders struggled to help LGBTQ+ members reconcile their own relationship with the gospel. Clergy also struggled with their own personal views and expressed that the options available to LGBTQ+ individuals are too limited.
Clergy also related difficulties addressing congregations: lack of openness and closed views. A local men's group leader stated: “the biggest issue is when I deal with people who still have significant biases and are unable to listen to new opinions.” Clergy expressed that dealing with closed off views in their congregations impeded their ability to openly discuss LGBTQ+ issues and educate congregants on church policy. Another significant challenge for clergy was managing polarized views within their congregations, often fueled by inaccurate understanding of church doctrine. One bishop stated: “Many members feel like just talking about it is blasphemous, others want to bash on church leaders for their stance.” Clergy were often pressured to either stigmatize LGBTQ+ individuals or be fully accepting, and were judged for their opinions regardless of their position. As a result, clergy feared backlash or confrontation with congregation members.
These issues were exacerbated by negativity towards LGBTQ+ members, attempts to ignore or deny the presence of LGBTQ+ individuals in the congregation, fear and judgement, stereotypes, and unkind treatment. Clergy struggled to help LGBTQ+ congregants feel loved and welcomed in wards that had these environments. One regional youth group leader stated: “the biggest challenge was helping them feel comfortable and trust that they were in a safe place.”
Helpful Strategies When Counseling LGBTQ+ Individuals and Talking with Congregants About Gender or Sexuality
Clergy described five strategies they found particularly helpful when counseling LGBTQ+ individuals and/or talking with their congregations about LGBTQ+ issues. These were prioritizing listening and understanding, expressing love, being an ally, focusing on spiritual counsel, and being available (see Table 4).
Helpful strategies for working with LGBTQ+ issues and individuals.
Note. LGBQ+= lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning.
The primary strategies that clergy reported were helpful in their ministry to LGBTQ+ individuals were prioritizing listening and understanding and expressing love. These strategies took on a variety of forms including giving LGBTQ+ congregants a space to discuss issues without judgement, listening rather than assuming, not minimizing LGBTQ+ congregants’ experiences, asking questions, and accepting where they are in their journey. Most leaders emphasized the importance of expressing love and trying to understand the diverse perspectives of LGBTQ+ individuals as described by one bishop: “Love them where they are at, and see them for who they truly are.”
In addition to these strategies, leaders reported that being an ally to LGBTQ+ congregants and focusing on spiritual counsel were helpful. When leaders positioned themselves as an ally, they tended to educate themselves on LGBTQ+ individuals’ experiences, displayed symbols of inclusion like a pride flag, and sought to treat LGBTQ+ congregants like their heterosexual/cisgender congregants. Allyship was exemplified by one bishop as “Trying to send the message that I am in their corner no matter what.” When leaders focused on spiritual counsel, they often emphasized congregants’ agency, focused on God's love for them, and shared other church teachings to uplift LGBTQ+ congregants. One bishop described finding it helpful to “Listen and remind them that … Jesus knows them and loves them.” Lastly, leaders described effective support as being available, both physically and emotionally. This support entailed meeting regularly with LGBTQ+ congregants, asking how leaders may be of help, and even inviting LGBTQ+ congregants to their houses.
Unhelpful Strategies When Counseling LGBTQ+ Individuals and Talking with Congregants About Gender or Sexuality
Clergy also described two overarching strategies that they found ineffective when addressing gender and sexuality with LGBTQ+ individuals. These strategies were not listening to LGBTQ+ individuals and unhelpful preaching (see Table 5).
Unhelpful strategies for working with LGBTQ+ issues and individuals.
Note. LGBTQ+= lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning.
Listening was one of the most important components leaders described as effective ministry with LGBTQ+ individuals, so it is unsurprising that clergy considered failure to listen one of the most unhelpful strategies. Clergy reported that asking too many questions and teaching rather than trying to learn about the individual's experience served to dominate discussion. Clergy also reported that ignoring individual needs interfered with ministry, including making assumptions about LGBTQ+ congregants without verifying them, or assuming that one approach works for all LGBTQ+ congregants regardless of individual circumstance. One local youth group leader noted that it was unhelpful to “ask questions … before they are ready to answer.” Failure to listen also took the form of invalidating LGBTQ+ individuals’ experiences by not allowing them to talk about painful experiences, rationalizing and minimizing experiences of mistreatment or discrimination, or avoiding LGBTQ+ issues altogether. These approaches stifled church leaders’ abilities to act as trusted confidants.
Unhelpful preaching also prevented clergy from connecting with LGBTQ+ individuals. Focusing on negativity, such as framing LGBTQ+ experiences as a cross to bear or sending messages that LGBTQ+ individuals are defective, was largely seen as unhelpful. One local men's group leader stated that clergy should not “add to their burdens by making them feel ashamed and broken.” Finally, clergy emphasized that reiterating church teachings on sexual standards or pressuring LGBTQ+ individuals to change was unhelpful.
Needed Resources and Support for Counseling LGBTQ+ Individuals and Talking with Congregants About Gender or Sexuality
Clergy described four kinds of support that they valued and needed for their ministry with LGBTQ+ individuals. These included more training and resources, practical direction, support from leaders, and direct experience with LGBTQ+ individuals (see Table 6).
Needed Resources and Support.
Note. LGBTQ+= lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning.
Clergy described needs for training on church policies at the local and regional levels. The majority of clergy described a need for training on LGBTQ+-specific issues, either directly from the church or from secular sources that were sensitive to religious beliefs. One bishop reported “it is so helpful to hear what has been done in the past, both good and bad, so I can be a better bishop.” Many clergy recommended resources that have been helpful for them including LGBTQ+ podcasts geared towards LDS members, firesides, and books or videos on LGBTQ+ topics. Clergy also described the need for general counseling skills and referrals for mental health treatment.
Clergy also described a need for practical direction on addressing difficult situations. Practical direction involved issues such as whether LGBTQ+ individuals should receive callings and whether celibates could hold leadership positions. One local leader brought up transgender issues: “what to do with trans youth…no one has received training on this.” These included navigating conflict between LGBTQ+ identities and the gospel, how to support LGBTQ+ congregants while remaining true to church teachings, and how to defend the stance of the church. LGBTQ+ members and other congregants often presented challenging theological and spiritual questions to clergy, and clergy did not feel fully equipped to answer those questions. As one bishop expressed it: “even with the church's current approach to help us learn to love, accept, and include LGBTQ+ members, right now there is such a worldly cry of unfairness.” Other forms of support that clergy valued from their leaders were emotional support and validation, greater clarity on church procedures, more options for LGBTQ+ members, and opportunities to seek guidance on LGBTQ+ ministry.
Lastly, some clergy expressed a need for hands-on experience with LGBTQ+ LDSs. This included direct interaction and discussion with LGBTQ+ individuals. One bishop noted: “I would love to be able to speak to other LGBTQ+ members about what was helpful or hurtful for them.”
Limitations
The study had several limitations. The participants were self-selected; therefore, it is likely that they differ from LDS clergy at large and this may have skewed the sample. For example, participants may be more supportive of, have more experience with, and have more comfort addressing LGBTQ individuals and issues than LDS clergy as a whole. Also, since this was an online survey there were no follow-up questions in this study. Future studies may seek more representative samples of clergy. Future research may also delve deeper into the issues touched upon in the present study, such as approaches that clergy use to manage conflict between doctrine and the needs of LGBTQ congregants.
Conclusion
This qualitative analysis focused on interviews with 33 LDS clergy to explore the challenges clergy face and the strategies they use for counseling LGBTQ congregants. Clergy reported lack of preparation and conflicting responsibilities. Strategies that were beneficial included listening, expressing love, and availability, and strategies that were detrimental included failure to listen and negative messages. Clergy used diverse and resourceful ways to address these challenges. However, clergy expressed that additional support and direction were highly valued for their ministry with LGBTQ individuals and their congregations.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
