2024/11/19 by Seungju Kim, Wei Xu · 1 voice
Psychology · Social Sciences · #LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy #Religion, Society, and Development #Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
paper · pdf · doi:10.31234/osf.io/rc8sh
openalex publication_date 2024/11/19 · openalex created_date 2024/11/20 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/14
INTRODUCTION: While a growing body of literature has sought to understand factors connected to LGBQ+ acceptance and support by religious individuals, these factors remain understudied in religious leaders. Extant findings on LGBQ+ support among non-religious and even religious individuals may not directly apply to religious leaders, given leaders’ unique roles as religious and spiritual authorities. METHOD: Using a nationally representative sample of religious leaders from the 2020 National Survey of Religious Leaders (N = 1,600), we tested preregistered hypotheses to examine overall levels of LGBQ+ support and psychosocial, religious, and spiritual correlates, as well as potential congregational moderators. RESULTS: Results reveal overall low LGBQ+ support among U.S. religious leaders, with psychosocial factors (e.g., identifying as White, woman, higher education, income) and religious/spiritual struggles associated with greater support, while greater religious fundamentalism and prayer are associated with lower support. Religious fundamentalism emerged as the strongest predictor of lower LGBQ+ support across all analyses. Although congregation size did not moderate this relationship, congregational racial composition and religious tradition did influence the strength of the fundamentalism and LGBQ+ support association. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Religious leaders represent a key stakeholder group in the pursuit of increased rights and support for LGBQ+ people, yet this study reveals a significant disconnect between their attitudes and broader population trends toward acceptance. Community and policy stakeholders should collaborate with religious institutions, denominations, and theological seminaries to promote interpretive frameworks that encourage theological nuance, which emerged as the primary barrier to LGBQ+ support.