Selective Equity In Congregational Life: Christian Nationalism and Reported Permission Structures for Women’s and LGBTQ+ Inclusion

Background and Purpose
Congregations are not just religious communities. They are community institutions, informal helping systems, and frequent partners in social service delivery. They shape belonging, leadership access, psychosocial safety, and connection to support. For that reason, congregational inclusion is a social work issue, not merely a theological one. Christian nationalism matters in this context because prior research ties it to exclusionary views about gender, sexuality, hierarchy, and national belonging. If it functions as a boundary-making ideology, it may help explain why congregations that permit women’s participation still withhold full LGBTQ+ inclusion. This question is especially important here because the sample is composed primarily of Mainline Protestant clergy, a context often assumed to be more progressive and more uniformly equitable. Rather than accepting that assumption, this study examines selective equity, defined as a reported congregational pattern in which women are permitted to be ordained, preach, and serve in leadership while LGBTQ+ persons are not fully permitted across comparable domains. This study investigates how social work can better identify institutions that claim inclusion but still limit full democratic participation and belonging.

Methods
Data come from a cross-sectional survey of U.S. clergy (N = 966). The primary outcome compared congregations classified as broad inclusion versus selective equity. Broad inclusion was defined as reported permission across all seven women’s and LGBTQ+ inclusion items. Selective equity was defined as reported permission for women’s ordination, leadership, and preaching combined with at least one “no” or “unsure” response across four LGBTQ+ items. Christian nationalism was measured with a four-item scale. Logistic regression models estimated the association between Christian nationalism and selective equity. The primary contextual model adjusted for congregational ideology, denomination, and region.

Results
Reported permission for women’s inclusion was nearly universal, but reported permission for LGBTQ+ inclusion was lower. Among respondents classifiable on the primary outcome, 87.8% were coded as broad inclusion and 12.2% as selective equity. In the primary congregational-context model (n = 785), Christian nationalism remained a significant predictor of selective equity net of congregational ideology, denomination, and region (β = .748, SE = .216, Wald = 11.959, p < .001, OR = 2.113, 95% CI [1.383, 3.229]). Congregational ideology was significant overall, as were denomination and region. Model fit was acceptable (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ²(8) = 9.116, p = .333; Nagelkerke R² = .311).

Conclusions and Implications:
These findings challenge the assumption that Mainline Protestant identity signals a uniformly equitable congregational climate. Even in a largely Mainline sample, permission structures remained uneven. Christian nationalism helps explain where inclusion stops, even when women’s participation is permitted. For social work, that matters because faith communities can function as support systems, referral pathways, and sites of identity formation, but also as sites of stigma and exclusion. Denominational reputation is not enough. This study further underscores social work’s democratic responsibility to scrutinize whether community institutions actually sustain equitable participation, dignity, and belonging, especially for those most likely to be included conditionally rather than fully.