Identity Distress in Young Gay Christian Men

Introduction

This essay explores US Christian interpretations of identity distress in young homosexual men and evaluates its impacts.

Section A is sub-divided into three parts. Section A(i) defines identity distress – a psychopathology which, in more acute cases, becomes an identity disorder. Section A(ii) examines why young homosexual men are so vulnerable to such distress; during their turbulent identity development process, social contexts are vital contributors. Finally, Section A(iii) analyses the influence of US Christian practice and discusses the strategies used by homosexual youth to navigate social and psychological challenges. Significant diversity within US Christianity means that any conclusion must be nuanced: denominations, ranging from homo‑negative to homo-affirmative, have significant impact.

This interdisciplinary approach combines religious studies with social psychology; Section B outlines the methodological and conceptual implications.

Section A – Identity Distress, Homosexuality, and US Christian Practice

A(i): Identity Distress & Homosexuality

Identity is defined by the DSM-V as an “experience of oneself as unique… stability of self-esteem and accuracy of self-appraisal; capacity for, and ability to regulate, a range of emotional experience” (APA, 2013, p.823). Significant instability of the above represents identity disorder, defined by the DSM-III as “severe subjective distress regarding inability to reconcile aspects of the self into a relatively coherent and acceptable sense of self” (APA, 1980, p.65).

To paraphrase Waterman (1998, p.190), mild identity distress may encourage self‑reflection, “positive growth”, and, ultimately, identity commitment (negatively correlated with distress); however, severe identity distress can leave a person feeling as if “nothing fits” (Berman & Weems, 2018, p.1819). Here, identity distress represents a pathological disorder. Common features include confusion, self‑doubt and emotional instability (APA, 1980, pp.65-66). Moreover, identity disorder positively correlates to depression, anxiety, stagnation, stress, loneliness, and internalising peer aggression (Berman & Weems, 2018, p.1821; Merrill et al., 2015, pp.1-8).

In other words, identity distress can be a turbulent path towards stability and growth, or highly damaging. But what determines whether identity distress is positively transformative or harmful? By recognising that “personal identities are strategies to locate oneself in relation to others in the social world” (Howard, 2006, p.307), social factors – e.g., religious practice – become crucial in navigating identity distress (Levy & Reeves, 2011, p.64). Indeed, identity stability or distress is formed through a person’s interaction with their (potentially flawed) social environment (Warren, 1974, p.viii; Cass, 1979, p.219).

Here, I introduce the notion of “cognitive dissonance”, a phenomenon at the heart of identity distress:

if a person knows various things that are not psychologically consistent with one another, he will, in a variety of ways, try to make them more consistent.

(Festinger, 1957, p.93)

Cognitive dissonance refers to intrapersonal psychological tension and the strategies used to minimise it. Tension may arise between various dimensions of a person’s psyche, such as moral values, internalised social norms, chemical addiction, sexual orientation, et cetera (Mahaffy, 1996; Bastian & Loughnan, 2016; McMaster & Lee, 1991).

A(ii): Homosexual Identity Development – Social & Psychological Challenges

The prevalence of identity distress in young gay men is unsurprising: sexuality is listed as a paradigm theme of identity disorder (APA, 1980, p.65), with young homosexuals facing the challenge of “developing both adult and sexual minority identities simultaneously” (Page et al., 2013, p.667).

Sexual identity distress is strongly associated with psychological distress.

(Wright & Perry, 2006, p.82)

This section describes the process of homosexual identity formation and explains why young gay men are so vulnerable to mental distress. During this turbulent process, social environments may contribute in healthy and unhealthy ways; they might enforce expectations, offer support, instil norms, be inclusive, marginalise, et cetera. Therefore, Section A(ii) is the framework against which Christian practice, a social contributor “intertwined” with sexual identity development (Levy & Reeves, 2011, p.53), will be evaluated in section A(iii).

Beginning with Cass’ Six Stage Model of Homosexual Identity Formation (1979), I focus on the initial two stages, those central to identity distress – confusion and comparison.[1]

Stage 1 – identity confusion – asks the question ‘who am I?’. Intrapersonal confusion arises because pre-adolescents assume themselves as heterosexual (Cass, 1979, p.222); development occurs in the context of “compulsory heterosexuality” – a society wherein the pancultural dominance of straightness produces an assumption in adolescents that they ‘must be straight’ (Rich, 1980/2003; Conroy, 2006). Upon discovery of homosexual thoughts, attractions, or tendencies, a “previously stable identity” of assumed heterosexuality becomes disrupted, producing an identity of “potentially homosexual” (Cass, 1979, pp.222-223).

A person’s (P) responses to this potentiality vary and are deeply influenced by social context. Firstly, P may perceive the homosexual tendencies as both “incorrect and undesirable” – denying that he is gay altogether (Cass, 1979, p.224). Here, dissonance between assumed heterosexuality and homosexual tendencies is navigated; introspective denial results in “confusion and turmoil”. Assuming P is gay and that sexual orientation is not a choice (Frankowski, 2004), attempts to “redefine the meaning of [his tendencies] as non‑homosexual” (Cass, 1979, p.224) can only amount to suppression.

Secondly, he may perceive the homosexual tendencies as “correct but undesirable” (Cass, 1979, p.225). This outlooks increases intrapersonal congruency between the sense of self and his tendencies; however, in homonegative contexts, it deepens incongruency between P and his social surroundings (Cass, 1979, p.225). Hence, P reaches Stage 2: identity comparison. Whereas the intrapersonal question of Stage 1 was ‘who am I?’, the interpersonal question of Stage 2 is ‘do I belong?’ (Cass, 1979, p.225).

In homonegative social contexts, young gay men tend to believe not. This usually results in an extrospective (outward-presenting) denial, inhibiting perceived homosexual behaviours (Cass, 1979, p.223). While these strategies may temporarily supress the external dissonance, identity foreclosure occurs. Sexual identity remains hidden and undeveloped, with harmful consequences (Cass, 1979, p.223). Coercion to “pass” as straight implies “both covering the devalued [homosexual] identity and actively adopting a [heterosexual] identity” (Barreto et al., 2006, p.338). When successfully deployed as a defensive strategy, passing as straight (being closeted) is a doubled-edged sword: while conformation to heteronormativity prevents external abuse and alienation, the façade of “not being true to self” has harmful consequences – namely, internalised homophobia (Page et al., 2013, p.667). Self‑hatred, paranoia, guilt, shame, and stress are more common in those who ‘pass’ as straight (Barreto et al., 2006, pp.338-339; Warren, 1974, pp.136-137; DiPlacido, 1998; Leary, 1999; Gross, 2008, p.98).

To summarise, homonegative environments encourage both intrapersonal incongruency (between a young man and his homosexual tendencies) and interpersonal incongruency (between his identity and his social contexts), exacerbating identity distress.

A(iii): Christianity & Sin Aetiologies of Sexual Identity Distress

Having established the relationship between identity distress, homosexuality, and social context, I now focus on Christian practice as a social contributor. Indeed, young homosexuals “perceive their religious and spiritual practices to be crucial to their identity schema” (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013, p.857).

Previous sections assumed a secular psycho-medical aetiology of sexual identity distress, wherein homosexual orientation is non-voluntary and distress/incongruencies originate socially. US Christian denominations would likely present different interpretations and aetiologies of sexual identity distress, ranging diversly from deep homonegativity to supportive affirmation.

Sin aetiologies of identity distress claim that confusion and sin are interrelated, “for God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians, 14:33) – “O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face… because we have sinned against thee” (Daniel, 9:8). In other words, sin aetiologies advocate a righteous identity in Christ rather than a sinful identity of sexual deviance (Cooper, 2018). Therefore, wherein homosexual behaviour is deemed sinful, the confusion and distress experienced by homosexual youth is understood as a product of their “conscious choice of action” (Trammell, 2015, p.3) to engage with desire and lust. This particularly impacts young homosexuals, since most US Christian denominations seek to regulate sexual identity formation during adolescence (Buchanan et al., 2001):

Teenage years are a crucial period for the Church of Jesus Christ to speak to youth tempted by homosexuality.

(Lee, 2021; emphasis added)

Sin aetiologies of sexual identity distress are prevalent. Broadly speaking, although a cultural shift is occurring in America towards acceptance of sexual diversity, literalist readings that emphasise the authority and integrity of the Bible (Paul, 2017, p.79; Quinn et al., 2016, p.533) continue to view adolescents’ homosexual behaviours, rather than temptations, as sinful (Trammell, 2015, p.1; Lapinksi & McKirnan, 2013, p.857). This view being commonplace in contemporary US Christian practice, the majority view remains homonegative (Quinn et al., 2016, p.525).

Consequently, both intrapersonal and interpersonal dissonance often arises in US Christian youth between their religious and sexual identities, particularly those immersed in conservative and/or Evangelical practice (Levy & Reeves, 2011; Subhi & Geelan, 2012, Lapinksi & McKirnan, 2013, p.857; Hunt, 2009, p.41). Certainly, most US Christian practices assume “innate complementarity between men and women”, placing queer people “outside these normative categories” (Miller-McLemore, 2011, p.546); recall that Identity Confusion is exacerbated by the kind of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ that US Christian practice promotes. Consequently, identity development is “challenged when LGB[2] youth are exposed to invalidating messages or intolerance” (Page et al., 2013, pp.665-666), causing “psychological distress” (Quinn et al., 2016, p.525).

Drawing upon previous research (Levy & Reeves, 2011; Rodriguez & Oulette, 2000, pp.334-335; Gross, 2008), I claim that Christian youth predominantly adopt one of three strategies to counteract this dissonance: curbing their religiosity, suppressing their sexuality, or integrating the two. Briefly summarised, the former two strategies have inconsistent effectiveness in resolving identity distress and reflect more homonegative environments. The latter – integration – is often highly effective, but relies upon a homo-affirmative Christian environment, which is uncommon.

Curbing religiosity seeks to reduce dissonance by putting sexual identity ahead of Christian identity. Those who curb their religiosity do so with various levels of autonomy. For ‘out’ homosexuals with decreasing identity distress, “religious attitudes play less of a role” (Lapinkski & McKirnan, 2013, p.867); this often reflects homosexuals with more autonomy in less homo-negative environments. On the contrary, curbing religiosity often occurs during “conflict” between religious and sexual identities (Lapinksi & McKirnan, 2013, p.866). Young homosexuals forced “to completely renounce their Christian identity” (Subhi & Geelan, 2012, p.1383) leave “otherwise potentially positive [Church] networks” (White et al., 2020, p.1192). Moreover, this strategy is often unviable due to stigma. Abandoning the Church may have “social costs”; homo-suppressive affiliation to the Church “protects their parents and families from the shame associated with having a gay son” (Quinn et al., 2016, pp.533-534).

This relates to the second strategy: suppressing sexuality – in short, putting religious identity ahead of sexual identity. ‘Conversion therapies’ – attempts to become heterosexual – represent the most radical form of homosexual suppression (Rodriguez & Oulette, 2000, p.334). Homosexual suppression and secrecy correlates to religious involvement (Levy & Reeves, 2011, p.855), consistent with high levels of sexual identity discomfort in gay Christian youth (Page et al., 2013, p.666). As previously demonstrated, suppressing homosexual identity is counterproductive to healthy identity development. This is especially true for “marginalised” Christians in homonegative churches (White et al., 2020, p.1200), who particularly suffer from feeling a “lack of authenticity” (Gross, 2008, p.98) and are unable to use “religious coping resources” (Ream & Savin-Williams, 2005, p.22).

Finally, young gay men may attempt to integrate Christian and homosexual identities, combining the two “into a single, new, workable understanding of the self” (Rodriguez & Oulette, 2000, p.334). Indeed, separating Christian and homosexual identity is impossible for many (Hunt, 2009, p.78), so integration is a promising strategy. Rodriguez and Oulette’s study indicates that integration relies upon queer-positive churches (2000, p.342). For Gross (2008), homo-affirmative US churches “are not a diluted version of mainstream religious bodies”; instead, they offer reconciliation, shifting Biblical emphasis to “love and acceptance” and/or queering God’s plan:

…since it is God’s will for us to be gay and Christian, no other action is required than to follow God’s plans.

(Gross, 2008, pp.94-96)

Queer-affirming churches offer gay Christian role models and “empowering narratives about… spiritual growth”, counteracting stigma (White, 2020, p.1197) through “communities based on love and justice rather than on identity” (Miller-McLemore, 2011, pp.457-458). A notable example is the Metropolitan Community Church, with 250 member congregations as of 2009 (Hunt, 2009, p.14). With core values of inclusion, community, spiritual transformation, and justice (MCC, no date), “unity in difference is honoured” (Cheng, 2011, p.110). Consequently, over 70% of MCC members counteract identity distress with successful integration of Christian and homosexual identities (Rodriguez & Oulette, 2000, p.340). Moreover, homo-affirmative Churches allow ‘outness’, facilitating stable identity development and reducing identity distress (Lapinksi & McKirnan, 2013, p.868; Wright & Perry, 2006, p.97; Hunt, 2009, p.78-79).

Section B – Methodology & Interpretation

My research methods have been interdisciplinary, combining religious studies and social psychology. Although I briefly outlined Christian doctrines/scriptures as a means of exposition, I did not engage in theological or hermeneutic evaluation. As an ‘outsider’, I pursued an impartial understanding of the diversity of US Christian practice and its impacts, rather than discussing whether one denomination’s beliefs are ‘more Christian’ than another.

Therefore, a strength of my ‘outsider’ approach is its compatibility with medical psychology and social anthropology: secular concepts (e.g., distress, wellbeing, cognitive dissonance, marginalisation) are critically used to evaluate concepts within religious practice (e.g., sin, love). However, ‘outsider’ approaches – largely disinterested in the values that underpin religious practice – cannot provide a holistic understanding of US Christian practice. Hence, ‘insider’ approaches, e.g., queer theology (Buechel, 2015; Cheng, 2011; Glaser, 1998), also have potential to provide further dimensions of understanding.

Conclusion

Young gay men experience both intrapersonal and interpersonal tension during identity distress. Religious practice is vital in their navigation of such distress; sin aetiologies claim that identity distress arises when youth concede to temptation. Cognitive dissonance between sexual orientation and religiosity arises in homo‑negative environments, with potentially devastating impacts. However, my research also demonstrates significant potential for homo-affirmative churches to support homosexual youth: rather than curb religiosity or suppress their sexuality, queer-positive churches unite gay and Christian identities. These findings support the claim that churches are responsible for tackling stigmas at the intersection of mental health and sexuality (Scrutton, Draft, p.190). In future research, ‘insider’ perspectives, namely from queer theology, can augment ‘outsider’ findings.

-------------------------------

Word Count: 1,998

total word count: 2,327

in-text citations: -329

Bibliography

APA [American Psychiatric Association] (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-3).

APA [American Psychiatric Association] (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., & Banal, S. (2006). Working Under Cover: performance‐related self‐confidence among members of contextually devalued groups who try to pass. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.314

Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2016). Resolving the Meat-Paradox: A Motivational Account of Morally Troublesome Behavior and Its Maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review 21(3): 278–299. doi:10.1177/1088868316647562

Buchanan, M., Dzelme, K., Harris, D., & Hecker, L. (2001). Challenges of being simultaneously gay or lesbian and spiritual and/or religious: a narrative perspective. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 435–449.

Buechel, A. (2015). Queering Christianity: Finding a Place at the Table for LGBTQI Christians. Theology & Sexuality, 21(2), 148–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13558358.2015.1215152

Cass, V. (1979). Homosexual Identity Formation: A Theoretical Model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v04n03_01

Cheng, P. (2011). Radical Love: an introduction to queer theology. Seabury Books.

Conroy, T. M. (2006). The “moral” right versus the “queer” left: Claims-making by religious conservatives and gay activists at the 1992 Republican convention and beyond. In L. Castaneda & S. B. Campbell (Eds.), News and sexualities: Media portraits of diversity (pp. 135–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Cooper, M. (2018). Identity Crisis: Understanding Who I Am in Christ and Why it Matters. CreateSpace Publishing.

DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority Stress Among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals: A Consequence of Heterosexism, Homophobia, and Stigmatization. G. M. Herek (Editor), Stigma and Sexual Orientation: Understanding Prejudice Against Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals (pp. 138-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford: Stanford University Press).

Glaser, C. (1998). Coming Out as Sacrament. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press).

Gross. M. (2008). To Be Christian and Homosexual: From Shame to Identity-Based Claims. Nova Religio, 11(4), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2008.11.4.77

Howard, J. (2006). Expecting and Accepting: The Temporal Ambiguity of Recovery Identities. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(4), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250606900402

Hunt, S. (2009). Contemporary Christianity and LGBT sexualities. Ashgate Pub.

Lapinski, J., & McKirnan, D. (2013) Forgive Me Father for I Have Sinned: The Role of a Christian Upbringing on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Development, Journal of Homosexuality, 60(6), 853‑872, doi: 10.1080/00918369.2013.774844

Leary, K. (1999). Passing, posing, and ‘keeping it real’. Constellations 6, 85–96.

Lee, P. (2021). Youth and Homosexuality. His Way Out Ministries. Retrieved May 4, 2021 from https://hiswayout.com/youth-and-homosexuality/

Levy, D. & Reeves, P. (2011) Resolving Identity Conflict: Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Individuals with a Christian Upbringing. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23(1), 53‑68, doi: 10.1080/10538720.2010.530193

Mahaffy, K. (1996). Cognitive Dissonance and Its Resolution: A Study of Lesbian Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(4), 392-402. doi:10.2307/1386414

MCC [Metropolitan Community Church]. (No Date). Overview. Retrieved May 7, 2021, from https://www.mccchurch.org/overview/

McMaster, C., Lee, C. (1991). Cognitive dissonance in tobacco smokers. Addictive Behaviors, 16(5), 349-353. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(91)90028-G

Merrill, N., Waters, T. A., & Fivush, R. (2015). Connecting the self to traumatic and positive events: Links to identity and well-being. Hove, England: Memory

Page, M., Lindahl, K., & Malik, N. (2013). The Role of Religion and Stress in Sexual Identity and Mental Health Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(4), 665–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12025

Paul, J. (2017). The Varieties of Religious Responses to Homosexuality: A Content and Tonal Analysis of Articles in Pastoral Psychology from 1950 to 2015 Regarding Sexual Minorities. Pastoral Psychology, 66(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-016-0717-1

Quinn, K., Dickson-Gomez, J., & Kelly, J. (2016). The role of the Black Church in the lives of young Black men who have sex with men. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 18(5), 524–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1091509

Ream, G., & Savin-Williams, R. (2005). Reconciling Christianity and Positive Non-Heterosexual Identity in Adolescence, with Implications for Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 2(3), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v02n03_03

Rich, A. (1980/2003). Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Journal of Women’s History, 15(3), 11–48. https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2003.0079

Rodriguez, E. M., & Ouellette, S. C. (2000). Gay and Lesbian Christians: Homosexual and Religious Identity Integration in the Members and Participants of a Gay-Positive Church. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 39(3): 333.

Scrutton, T. (Draft). Christianity and Depression: interpretation, meaning, and the shaping of experience.

Subhi, N. & Geelan, D. (2012). When Christianity and Homosexuality Collide: Understanding the Potential Intrapersonal Conflict, Journal of Homosexuality, 59(10), 1382-1402, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2012.724638

Trammell, J. (2015). “Homosexuality Is Bad for Me”: An Analysis of Homosexual Christian Testimonies in Christianity Today Magazine. Journal of Media and Religion, 14(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2014.971560

Waterman, A. S. (1988). Identity status theory and Erikson’s theory: Communalities and differences. Developmental Review, 8, 185–208.

White, J., Dangerfield, D., Donovan, E., Miller, D., & Grieb, S. (2020). Exploring the role of LGBT-affirming churches in health promotion for Black sexual minority men. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 22(10), 1191–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2019.1666429

Wright, E., & Perry, B. (2006). Sexual Identity Distress, Social Support, and the Health of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(1), 81–110. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n01_05

Footnotes

[1] Development processes may be non-linear; young homosexuals often “ebb and flow” back and forth between stages (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013, pp.853-854).

[2] Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual.