The Conceptualization of LGBTQ+ Religious Trauma: A Systematic Review

Background and Purpose: For many LGBTQ+ individuals, religious environments are sources of both profound community and significant psychological distress. While research of the lasting negative religious experiences of LGBTQ+ people is growing, religious trauma has not been consistently defined or adequately operationalized in empirical research. For researchers and health practitioners to develop theoretical conceptualizations and culturally responsive interventions for LGBTQ+ people, we must understand the nuances of religious trauma for this population. This systematic review aims to synthesize how religious trauma is conceptualized in existing U.S.-based literature, specifically examining how it is measured by researchers and described by LGBTQ+ study participants.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted for all published empirical studies conducted in the United States that explored religious trauma for LGBTQ+ people within Christian contexts. Inclusion criteria included availability in English, LGBTQ+ study participants, exploration of religious experiences (other than conversion therapy). A search of the GenderWatch, ProQuest Central, Women’s Studies International, PubMed, Applied Social Services Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, APA PsycINFO, ATLA Religion Database, and Academic Search Premier databases yield 261 studies. Screening was conducted in Covidence, including the removal of 61 duplicates, and a title and abstract review of the remaining 200 studies. One hundred and ninety studies were excluded for being not empirical, peer-reviewed, or located in the United States. Systematic full-text screening was completed and 16 of the remaining 26 studies were excluded due to not measuring religious trauma. Data extraction included study characteristics, methodology, location, sample characteristics, and results.

Results: Thematic synthesis of the included studies (N = 10) indicated a consistent conceptual gap between researchers’ and participants’ descriptions of religious trauma. Researchers operationalized religious trauma as interpersonal or institutional (institutionalized homophobia and transphobia, church messaging, and rejection from religious community members). Conversely, LGBTQ+ participants described religious trauma in intrapersonal terms, referencing their personal relationship to God, fear of damnation, and the burden of hiding or trying to change themselves. This interpersonal-intrapersonal difference in conceptualization of religious trauma was consistent across all ten-included studies.

Conclusions and Implications: These findings suggest that current research tools may not adequately measure the internal spiritual distress of LGBTQ+ participants. Future research should develop and employ LGBTQ+-affirming measures of internal theological conflict, rather than focusing exclusively on interpersonal rejection in religious settings. This will provide practitioners with better tools to assess and treat spiritual injury for this population.