Straight Ignorance: A Critical Analysis of ‌gay Friendly� Organizations

When well-intentioned religious people are committed to LGBTQ+ equity and inclusion, what gets in the way of their achieving it? Specifically, why does heterosexism, homophobia, and transphobia persist in progressive, welcoming & affirming religious organizations despite institutional goals of inclusion? When the Obergefell v. Hodges decision occurred in 2015, religious denominations and congregations began debating and making critical decisions pertaining to the affirmation and acceptance (or exclusion) of queer marriage, membership, and leadership in religious organizations. This research centralizes queer voices to better understand the experiences of LGBTQ+ congregants and ministers and identify heterosexist biases and behaviors within progressive welcoming and affirming congregations. Given that the vast majority of research on ‘gay-friendly’ workplaces point toward a disconnect between organizational goals and outcomes, the purpose of this research is to develop models of structural change for organizations who seek the full inclusion and equity of LGBTQ+ members and employees, yet still fall short of these goals.

Partnering a theoretical frame, which we refer to as straight ignorance, with Acker’s theory of gendered organizations, this research utilizes critical methodologies to understand the ways in which congregations committed to the equity and inclusion of LGBTQ+ members and pastors reinforce heterosexist outcomes. Applying a purposive, snowball sampling method, the research presents on in-depth interview (N=53) and focus group data (N=13) of congregants and ministers from seven different welcoming and affirming progressive congregations. Results suggest patterns of straight ignorance, a form of not knowing by which heteronormativity is maintained and heterosexism, homophobia, and transphobia persist despite any intentions of inclusion and equity. Themes include: (1) double discrimination of LGTBQ+ women pastors and delayed identity development; (2) conflation of gender and sexuality by both LGBTQ+ and straight cis-gender congregants and church staff; (3) implicit hetero-centric fear of becoming a ‘gay church;’ (4) implicit discomfort with accentuated femininity by both men and women; (5) slight discomfort with LGBTQ+ categories that fail to closely align with heteronormative structure, particularly transgender and bisexual congregants and pastors; (6) silence or erasure of queer stories in sermons and congregational materials; and (7) internalized homophobia and transphobia from experiencing years of exclusionary theology. Additionally, this study draws on primary data to construct what a fully inclusive queer space make look like and determine if it is even possible in the context of a religious community.

The implications of this study directly impact the experiences of queer pastors who seek equal and full employment in the context of ‘welcoming and affirming’ congregations. They also extend to the work of church social workers and corporate/organizational social workers more broadly, offering strategies for creating equitable and inclusive workplaces and organizations that extend beyond inclusive statements to inclusive outcomes.