Faith communities are broadly categorized as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Humanism, and Judaism. Within each, subcategories exist concerning the way in which congregations interpret and practice their doctrines. Faith communities may range from traditional/conservative to contemporary/progressive. According to Gold (2010), the views of differing denominations range from punishment by Fundamentalist Christianity to full acceptance by Quakers or Unitarian Universalists, with other churches encompassing both ends of the spectrum by advocating love for the sinner (the person), but hate of the sin (gay behavior). A strong relationship exists between the messages religious leaders promote regarding LGBT acceptance and support and the attitudes held by their congregations (Dutwin 2012). In fact, Hoffman et al. (2006) suggest that “developing a religious identity allows a person to develop a sense of identity and worth in relation to God and his or her place in the universe”, thus, “religion may affect a person’s LGB identity development” (p. 11). The geographic location of faith communities also influences religious beliefs. For example, in the “Bible Belt” (i.e., states in the West South Central, East South Central, and South Atlantic), much of which adheres to Christian fundamentalist dogma about homosexuality (e.g., homosexuals are bad, diseased, sinful), Christianity permeates other social institutions such as schools, homes, and entertainment venues (Barton 2010). For faith positions of various faith communities, the reader is referred to the Human Rights Campaign (http://​www.​hrc.​org/​resources/​entry/​faith-positions). Barton asserts that the majority of research on homosexuality has explored heterosexual attitudes toward homosexuals with a focus on the relationship between prejudice, right-wing, authoritarianism, and dimensions of religiosity. Much of religion has been used to create and cultivate hostility against LGBT persons.

Stances of faiths on LGBT issues in Islam are difficult to summarize because of its enormous geographic, linguistic, and cultural diversity. To a large extent, attitudes depend on how individual Muslims and Islamic sects interpret the Holy Quran and other theological sources. Nevertheless, a majority of Muslims express very negative attitudes toward LGBT persons. However, only a few passages in the Quran and several hadiths (sayings attributed to the prophet Muhammad) refer to sex between two males. Specifically, the story of Lut (or Lot as he is known in Jewish and Christian Bibles) is mentioned, but the Quran does not call for a specific punishment for this behavior. While most Islamic institutions have not explicitly addressed transgender issues, they do make reference to cross-dressing, those transgressing traditional gender roles, and sex-reassignment surgery (Human Rights Campaign, n.d.).

The beliefs about and responses to LGBT issues in Judaism vary across Orthodox and Reform Judaism. The Torah clearly states that the act of homosexuality is prohibited. The Torah refers to homosexuality as Toaviva-abomination (i.e., abhorrent to God) (Amsel, n.d.). The Talmud says that in the act of homosexuality, the person is “straying” from one of the primary goals in life—to procreate and populate the earth. It is in the straying that homosexuality is prohibited. That is, it is not the “unholiness” of the homosexual relationship, but rather, the violation of one’s purpose on earth (Amsel). For Jews, the law of the Torah is the all-encompassing and governs every single part of living, general, societal, and personal (Shaffer, n.d.). Conversely, Reform Judaism has a long history of working for the full inclusion of LGBT persons in Jewish life (Appell, n.d.). According to Appell, Reform Jews “are guided by the very basic belief that all human beings are created b’tselem Elohim (in the Divine image)” (p. 1). The Reform Movement believes that, “regardless of context, discrimination against any person arising from apathy, insensitivity, ignorance, fear, or hatred is inconsistent” with the fundamental belief of b’tselem Elohim, “for the stamp of the Divine is present in each and every one of us” (Rabbi David Saperstein cited in Appell).

Homosexuality is discussed seven times in the Christian Bible: Genesis 19, Judges 19, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, Romans 1, Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 (Dwyer 2007). These passages serve as the foundation for most of the abuse projected on LGBT persons in some churches (Atchison 2013). In response to these biblical references, adherents claim that God condemns homosexuality or homosexuals. In response, Dwyer wrote the book, Those 7 References: A Study of 7 References to Homosexuality in the Bible. Dwyer’s rationale was to allow LGBT persons who have been abused by the “misuse” of scripture to have a voice about a different interpretation of God’s voice to be heard in these passages in ways that had been silenced for many for a long period of time. In her reflections about the seven references, Atchison (2010) asserts that often the Bible is used (and misused) in two extreme interpretations to oppress and harm members of sexual minority groups. The Bible is used either blindly as “The Word” and the use of certain texts as a self-flagellation (referring to self and others of their community as “sin”), or with complete dismissal of the whole book and Christianity itself, allowing Christian fundamentalists to unanimously dictate what is righteous and what is good.

Atchison (2013) suggests that for people who teach and preach about the seven references, it is necessary to understand that, the Bible, although relevant for today, was written in a particular historical context, making it often difficult to apply something written for a particular ancient audience to a contemporary lived experience. This view is consistent with that of Dreyer (2006a) who espouses that theologians and exegetes cannot ignore the changes that have occurred in social life from biblical times, through the ages, to our modern and postmodern worlds. A postmodern view is that sexuality is not a homogeneous entity, rather the result of an infinite variety of ever changing factors. LGBT persons feel that they are “being” a sexual minority and God made them this way.

Different religions and denominations have varying attitudes toward sexual orientation and sexual identity; experience may vary greatly depending on the nature of the religious community. The experiences of LGBT persons in faith communities are as diverse as the type of practices and ceremonies in which they engage. “Religion has been a source of both solace and suffering for many LGBT Americans” (Human Rights Campaign 2014). For some LGBT persons, neither their sexual orientation, their religion, nor the intersection of the two is a problem, while others struggle with the attitudes of those around them, religious leaders , or their own internalized attitudes toward sexual orientation or sexual identity (Pace 2013). Many LGBT persons have been raised in an organized religion but have been forced to leave those communities because of condemnation. However, in recent years, there has been a shift in a growing number of organized religious groups in the United States to issue statements officially welcoming LGBT persons as members. As an example, some religious organizations have taken supportive stands on issues that affect LGBT persons (e.g., freedom from discrimination, right to marry, ordination of openly gay clergy) (Human Rights Campaign 2014).

Religion-based bigotry, “the attitudes of prejudice hostility or discrimination toward gay people that are falsely justified by religious teachings or belief,” causes enormous harm to LGBT persons (Faith in America 2010). Negative social attitudes about sexual orientation and gender identity can cause harmful consequences in the lives of LGBT persons, creating the “fear of going to hell” depression, low self-esteem, feelings of worthlessness, self-doubt, and internalized homo/bi/transphobia (Barton 2010; Mahru 2014). In a study of LGBT persons in Ireland, Reygan and Moane (2014) found that while participants lived in an increasingly pluralistic Irish society, the negative dividend of religious homophobia created intrapsychic tension for participants and led some to abandon religion altogether. The authors also found that a changing Irish society is characterized by increased diversity, openness, and respect for minority rights including LGBT rights. Some denominations welcome the inclusion of all persons, including those who are LGBT (e.g., Episcopalian, United Methodist, Unitarian Universalist), at the same time that others overtly condemn them (e.g., Christian fundamentalist, Baptist). The current policy (as of 2012) of the United Methodist Church’ states, “We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian or gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons”. Although the United Methodist Church bans discrimination at the congregational level and recognizes the “scared worth” of all persons, church doctrine also states that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings and bans financial support of all LGBT-based groups. More progressive factions among clergy and laity have defied church doctrines in an effort to reclaim the Bible’s call for social justice as it applies to marriage and ordination (Human Rights Campaign 2014).

In Canada, The United Church has developed policies about sexual orientation and transgender and gender identity, affirming all human being regardless of sexual orientation. The timeline of policy decisions on sexual orientation of The United Church of Canada includes the following: (a) in 1984, affirmed acceptance of all human beings as made in the image of God, regardless of sexual orientation, acknowledged that the church has condoned the rejection of lesbians and gays, and called the church to repent; (b) in 1988, declared that “all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, who profess faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to him, are welcome to be or become full members of the church;” (c) in 1992, began creating resources for same-sex covenants; and (d) in 2003, called on the Government of Canada to recognize same-sex marriage in marriage legislation (http://​affirmunited.​ause.​ca). More recently, The United Church of Canada passed policies on gender identity and the participation and ministry of transgender people, instructing staff to develop resources to encourage the participation and ministry of transgender persons in the life of the church and to prepare individuals and churches to receive such participation and ministry.

Another international perspective of challenging prejudice toward LGB persons is recommendations from Scotland and England. In Scotland, the proportion of people who have religious faith and those who do not is significant, including LGB persons (Donnelley 2008). Attitudes of Scottish people of faith toward LGBT persons vary greatly, with 21 % believing that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry (15 % for people who have no religion or seldom attend religious meetings and 43 % for people who attend religious meeting at least once a week), and 32 % of those who attend religious meetings at least once a week agreed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry (Scottish Government Social Research 2007). Across Britain, 71 % of people with a religious belief state that they would be comfortable if their local religious representative was gay (Guasp and Dick 2012). These attitudes of many people of faith do not necessarily correspond to the positions taken by faith leaders, nor is the majority view of people within a faith widely reported as representative of that faith (Donnelley).

Within the Christian tradition, LGBT persons can experience the rejection of the Church community and even further oppression when they negotiate their gendered identities in relation to their church community’s construction of sexuality (Sharma 2008). Although LGBT persons may be welcomed in the faith community and regarded as devoted Christians, church officials are still allowed to exclude LGBT persons who are honest about their gay lifestyle. Taylor (1989) refers to this as the “ethics of inarticulacy.” Although sexuality as a social construct is forever changing, the challenge for institutional religion is that these institutions cannot easily accept these changes (Dreyer 2008a, b). The impact of negative messages from the Christian faith community about LGBT persons in regard to who they are, how they may or may not love, and what their value is in the eyes of God is summarized by Martin (1996) as resulting in a denial of self-identity (see Discussion Box 27.1).

In a Pew (2013) survey of LGBT Americans’ (n = 1197) attitudes, experiences, and values in changing times, the overwhelming majority (92 %) said that society has become more accepting of them in the past decade. The participants attribute this change to various factors ranging from people knowing and interacting with someone who is LGBT to advocacy on behalf of high-profile public figures to LGBT adults raising families. However, LGBT persons report that many religions are not accepting of them. They describe the Muslim religion (84 %), the Mormon Church (83 %), the Catholic Church (79 %), and evangelical churches (73 %) as unfriendly. Fewer than half of LGBT participants indicated that the Jewish religion and mainline Protestant churches were unfriendly, and one-in-ten described them as friendly, with the remainder indicating that they were neutral.

Overwhelmingly, research on religion and sexual minorities has focused on lesbians and gays. There is limited to no attention given either to bisexuality or transgenderism and religion and/or spirituality. Donnelley (2008) states that while many of the religious issues identified for LGBT persons apply to transgender persons, the pattern of attitudes toward transgender persons is significantly different than toward LGB persons. For instance, issues for transgender persons of faith can be different: there are fewer trans persons than LGB persons, and the law covers trans and LGB persons differently. All of these factors suggest that differences in approach may be needed for trans and LGB issues (Donnelley).

Both the religious beliefs and the way in which individuals worship is a matter of choice, personal preference, and familial teaching. For many LGBT persons, participation in organized religion may be detrimental to their mental health because of negative messages about their sexual orientation and gender identity that are communicated through religious teachings, institutionally imposed sanctions against openly LGBT members, and the prohibition against gay religious leaders (Lease et al. 2005). The conflict between one’s sexual orientation or gender identity and one’s religious identity may lead to dissonance because full acceptance of one aspect of the self implies full rejection of another (Gold 2010). Ways that religiosity may shape sexual identity and ways in which LGBT persons’ engage in worship practices are altered by their experience within hostile or affirming religious communities. Some LGBT persons elect to eschew organized religion entirely, while others self-define as atheists. Yet others may reject public religious life but may express their religious and spiritual commitment by engaging in private acts of devotion, meditation, and prayer. LGBT persons who remain committed to participating in organized religious life may choose to ignore or minimize the relevance of anti-gay doctrines and sentiments within their faith community (Halkitis et al. 2009).

A study by Halkitis et al. (2009) included 498 participants ranging in age from 18 to 75. Of these participants, only 24.5 % (n = 122) reported that they held a membership in a religious institution such as a church, synagogue, or mosque, and those who indicated membership tended to be older than non-members. The majority of participants were raised in religious households. Although it is unclear whether the findings that older LGBT persons tended to hold membership in organized religion is a reflection of a developmental effect, they may suggest that as LGBT persons age, they will have a need for organized communities in which they can express their religious and spiritual beliefs. Moreover, these individuals will have a particular need for welcoming and affirming religious communities, ones that can help them negotiate the challenges associated with aging (Halkitis et al.).

As people get older, their support networks often shrink. Rose (2012) found that spiritual and religious experiences were an important source of support and strength for many LGBT elders. Conversely, it was also a source of pain, due to religiously linked experiences of stigma, usually in childhood or young adulthood. For all of the participants in Rose’s study, sexual orientation or gender identity set them apart in some way from the heterosexual mainstream of their generation and required them to define themselves spiritually. Those participants had a variety of individual experiences, but most were in the mainstream of American traditions (e.g., church, synagogue, other religious institutions). According to Rose, the individuals grew up during a time when the majority of American society held religious and social conservative views about homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender non-conformity. Moreover, “to acknowledge one’s identity, was, for the majority of study participants, to find oneself in a world where religious leaders , social arbiters and, often, one’s own family, would almost universally condemn you” (p. 12).

For many of the LGBT elders in Rose’s (2012) study, the spiritual community provided a place to perform service to others. The majority of participants indicated substantial involvement with their spiritual or religious community. LGBT elders played various roles and performed important functions in their faith community including the role of deacons, celebrants, taking care of the place of worship or fellow congregants, and mentor of younger members. In addition, LGBT elders provided spiritual and personal support and advice to others struggling with issues of identity or with personal crises. These LGBT elders highly valued their spiritual community and regarded it as a place for them to fulfill the tasks of adulthood that they might not have had the opportunity to do if they were disconnected from it. All of the LGBT elders in the study stated that in one way or another, having a religious or spiritual practice, community, or perspective helped them cope with life stressors, coming out, health issues, and changes in life circumstances.

Similarly, Espinoza (2014) found that 40 % of LGBT elders say that their support networks have become smaller over time, as compared to 27 % of non-LGBT older people. Among LGBT elders who consider the church or faith community as part of their support networks, 26 % are African American, 8 % are White, and 8 % are Hispanic/Latino. (See Chaps. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 for discussion of the role of religion in the lives of ethnic populations). Research shows that involvement in religious and spiritual practice corresponds to better health-related outcomes regardless of age (Beery et al. 2002; Brennan 2004; Newlin et al. 2008), and may provide social support and a sense of well-being, which promotes better overall mood (Mitchell and Weatherly 2000).

A Gallup Poll on LGBT populations and religious affiliation in the USA found that LGBT persons are significantly less likely than non-LGBT persons to be highly religious and significantly more likely to be classified as non-religious. Religiosity among national adults found that 24 % of LGBT identify as highly religious, 29 % as moderately so, and 47 % as not religious compare with non-LGBT at 41, 29, and 30 %, respectively. A comparison by gender reveals that male gay, bisexual, and transgender persons compared with non-gay, bisexual, and transgender were classified 25 % versus 36 % as highly religious, 26 % versus 28 % as moderately, and 49 % versus 35 % as not religious (Newport 2014). Some LGBT persons find that no specific religion’s teachings are fully in accordance with their personal identity and worldview, but take comfort from the idea of a spiritual presence in the world. Others find that spirituality fits more easily into their identities than religion, although many do also maintain a strong belief in the teachings of particular faiths (Pace 2013). A national survey of American congregations from 2000 to 2010 (conducted in 2000, 2005, 2008, and 2010) identified substantial changes including a net overall result of fewer persons in the pews and decreasing spiritual vitality (Roozen 2011) (see Table 27.2).