Listening to sexual minorities on Christian college campuses.

Yarhouse, Mark A. ; Stratton, Stephen P. ; Dean, Janet B. 等

This study investigated two areas of interest in the literature on sexual minorities: milestone events in sexual identity development and campus climate for sexual minorities in young adulthood. What is unique is that the information is obtained from Christian sexual minorities attending Christian colleges or universities. A sample of 104 undergraduate sexual minority students at three Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) member institutions completed an anonymous online survey. The questionnaire asked sexual minorities for information on their experiences of campus climate as well as perceptions of campus resources, coping activities, and recommendations for campus, religious institutions, and other sexual minorities. Respondents also completed information on milestone events in sexual identity development. The results of the survey are a descriptive analysis of contextualized "voices" that relate a collective story for these representative institutions.

**********

The past several years have been witness to significant changes in how researchers and theorists understand the experience of sexual minorities. Two specific areas of focus have emerged as particularly important. The first has to do with milestone events in sexual identity development. These benchmarks refer to how sexual identity develops over time among young adults who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB), or who choose not to identify in terms of conventional sexual identity labels. The second area of focus is how environment impacts sexual minorities. In particular, we discuss the topic of campus climate. We briefly review the literature in each of these two important areas.

Milestone Events

The earliest models of sexual identity development (e.g., Cass, 1979) posited a linear approach to identity formation in which each person went through predictable stages toward a final synthesis. Subsequent models did not challenge assumptions of linearity and final identity outcome, but they did begin to recognize differences among sexual minorities based upon gender (e.g., Sophie, 1986), ethnicity (e.g., Chan, 1989), and religion (e.g., Yarhouse, 2001).

Although recent research has called into question several assumptions about linearity and fixed identity outcomes for sexual minority females (e.g., Diamond, 2007) and males (e.g., Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006), many researchers find it helpful to identify the key milestone events in sexual identity formation. This does not forgo the possibility that identity labels may change over time or that the same person might have a different public identity (i.e., how their sexual identity is conveyed inter-personally) than a private identity (how their sexual identity is understood intrapersonally).

Milestone events include awareness of same-sex attraction, experiences of confusion about same-sex attractions, first same-sex behavior to orgasm, labeling of oneself to others, and so on. Savin-Williams and Cohen (2004) reported great diversity among sexual minorities, but they stated, "Most homoerotic youth recall same-sex attractions, fantasies, and arousal several years--on average--before questioning the meaning of these feelings ..." (p. 540). For example, in their study of White, Black, Asian, and Latino male adolescents, Dube and Savin-Williams (1999) reported a range of awareness of same-sex attraction (8-11 years old), first same-sex behavior (12-15 years), labeling of oneself (15-18 years), disclosure of identity to others (17-19 years), and first same-sex relationship (18-20 years). The commitment to an identity label may be falling off among sexual minority youth, however, as many youth prefer not to label themselves or may be open to a number of identity label options over time (Diamond, 2007; Savin-Williams, 2005).

There is reason to believe that these milestone events are similar among sexual minorities who are highly religious. For example, in their study comparing Christian sexual minorities who identified as gay with those who dis-identified with a gay identity, Yarhouse and Tan (2004) reported that Christians who dis-identified with a gay identity often chose not to engage in same-sex behavior. Furthermore, they were less likely than those who currently identified as gay to attribute their same-sex attractions to a gay identity. Sorting out their sexual identity was complicated for both groups and not resolved until an average age of 26 for those who identified as gay and an average age of 34 for those who dis-identified with a gay identity (see also, Wolkomir, 2006).

As this brief review suggests, there is a need to further our understanding of the experiences of sexual minorities who identify as religious. Although many sexual minorities do often identify a religious background or hold a high regard for personal spirituality (Ritter & Terndrup, 2002), there is often a complicated relationship with that religious upbringing, and some people choose a more general spirituality over organized traditional or conservative expressions of religion (Ritter & Terndrup, 2002).

Campus Climate

Sexual identity develops over time and in a socio-cultural context. The Christian college campus is one such sociocultural context, and campus climate has been an area of recent interest, particularly among sexual minority young adults in the college-age years.

As the literature suggests, many key benchmarks in sexual identity development occur in the late high school and college-age range (Diamond, 2007; Savin-Williams, 2005; Yarhouse & Tan, 2004). This information dovetails into a discussion of what college campus life is like for sexual minorities. For example, in a recent comprehensive document titled, Campus Climate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Trangendered People, Rankin (2003) reviewed data on campus climate from a study of 1669 students, faculty, and administrators from 14 different institutions. The most direct experiences and self-report of harm included various forms of harassment, which was reported by 36% of sexual minorities within the previous year. Harassment typically was demonstrated by derogatory comments (89%), the vast majority of which came from other students (79%). Previous reviews and meta-analyses of various institutional or campus climate reports indicate similar concerns about harassment, including verbal harassment and threats of violence (see National Consortium of Directors of LGBT Resources in Higher Education, http://www.lgbtcampus.org/resources/campus_climate.html). Also reported are concerns about invisibility and isolation among sexual minorities (Brown, Hiappold, Clarke, Gortmaker, & Robinson-Keilig, 2002).

How are the issues related to campus climate experienced on Christian college campuses? Christian colleges and universities, in particular, are known for community life policies influenced by a traditional religious sexual ethic. However, they seem to remain schools of interest to sexual minorities, some of whom were raised in conventionally religious communities. Indeed, most resources on GLB concerns today identify religion and spirituality as concerns for many sexual minorities (e.g., Beck-stead & Israel, 2007; Chernin & Johnson, 2003; Ritter & Terndrup, 2002).

It should be noted at the outset that presumably some sexual minorities self-select out of religiously-affiliated institutions precisely because such institutions have policies that reflect religious doctrine on sexual behavior. However, others may attend for any number of reasons, including their preference to be taught in a religious environment or the influence of their current stage of sexual identity development. Perhaps, they are currently confused or questioning their sexual identity and find a kind of security associated with a more conventional religious setting.

Taken together, questions arise regarding Christian sexual minorities in religiously-affiliated private institutions that explicitly value heterosexuality and teach heterosexuality as normative for sexual identity and expression. What are the experiences of sexual minorities on these campuses? What are the challenges that this group faces? Little research has been reported on this subgroup of those classified as sexual minorities. What are the tensions between various expressions of diversity, e.g., sexual orientation and religion? At this point little is known about sexual minorities on Christian college campuses.

THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION

This study attempts to further our understanding of milestone events in sexual identity development and campus climate for sexual minorities who attend religiously-affiliated colleges and universities. Such understandings may benefit sexual minorities at these institutions, students who are in the majority, and the institutions themselves. Toward this end, an innovative surveying method was developed to hear the "voices" often unheard or unrecognized on Christian college campuses. This web-based surveying procedure allowed persons on these college and university campuses the chance to talk about their experiences without threat of disclosure. The online survey was designed to be an anonymous interview experience that facilitated a sense of privacy and security. This survey represented a first formal investigation among this subgroup across Christian colleges and universities.

METHOD

Participants

Executive administrators of several institutions within the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) were approached about an investigation of the experiences of their sexual minority students. After extensive dialogue and discussion with this group, several member institutions expressed interest in participating in the study, and at the time of study launch, three member institutions participated in this pilot study. A general announcement was disseminated through the mandatory chapel programs of each institution (see Appendix). Participation in the study required only online interaction with a survey; no contact with any campus personnel was required. An initial combined sample of 135 students from these member institutions responded to campus-wide requests for students who experience same-sex attraction to complete an anonymous online survey. Verification of a participant's status as a student participant was managed through matching each institution's range of computer IP addresses.

For the purposes of this study, "sexual minorities" were those "individuals with same-sex attractions or behavior, regardless of self-identifications" (Diamond, 2007, p. 142). Of the initial 135 participants, 31 students were not included in the data analysis because they denied experiences of same-sex attraction, behavior, or identification on the questionnaire. The remaining 104 respondents, who were included in data analysis, comprised a sample which was "traditional" in age (M = 20.3, SD = 2.0) and overwhelmingly single, never-married (96.2%; Divorced = 1%; Not Reported = 2.9%). Male (51%, n = 53) and female (49%, n = 51) were equally represented, as were the four school classifications (freshman, 24%; sophomore, 27%, junior, 22%; senior, 26%). The ethnic/racial make-up of the sample was primarily Caucasian/White (87%) with African-American 4% and Hispanic/Latin at 2% and Asian-American at 2%, which is similar to the ethnic/racial make-up of CCCU member institutions as a whole.

All but two of the participants identified themselves as Christians. While 84% viewed themselves as moderately to very religious, 93% said that they were moderately to very spiritual. Only 6% and 1% of this sample described themselves as not religious or not spiritual, respectively.

Survey

The self-report survey was created by the first and fourth authors for the purposes of the current study. It was constructed to provide an understanding of milestone events in sexual identity development and general impression of the perception of campus climate by sexual minorities. Concerning items on developmental milestone events in sexual identity formation, response formats ranged from yes/no responding to Likert scale to open response. For example, in response to the question, "Looking back, did you feel different from others for gender-related reasons, for example, because of your choice of play activities as a child or your choice of clothes, etc.?," participants responded either "yes" or "no." In another item format, participants were asked, "Please select the number that best represents your current attraction to the same sex." They responded from 0 = "No attraction" to 10 = "Strong attraction." For more information regarding questions and response options, refer to the results section of the current article.

Concerning campus climate, questions were asked regarding multiple components - general campus climate, spoken comments and reactions across campus, awareness and utilization of resources on homosexuality, and developmental milestones. Response formats ranged from Likert scale to multiple choice. For example, in response to the question, "How would you describe your campus' view of homosexuality?," participants responded on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 = Negative to 5 = Positive. In another item format, participants were asked, "Are you aware of the following resource for information regarding homosexuality and related issues?" They responded with 0 = "Not aware of this area as a resource on homosexuality," 1 = "Aware of this area as a resource on homosexuality" or 2 = "Have used this area as a resource on homosexuality." For more information regarding questions and response options, refer to the results section of the current article.

It should also be noted that the terms, homosexual or homosexuality, were used in a number of survey questions instead of designations, such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. The intention in this case was to use terminology that would be understood within the subculture of conventional Christian higher education. Maybe more importantly, there are persons in Christian colleges and universities who experience same sex attraction but would not self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. For this pilot project, it was decided that the most useful descriptors for this population were often the older terminology. This decision was made in the context of discussions with gatekeepers of specific CCCU member institutions.

Data Analysis

Due to the relative under-representation of studies about the population of interest, a mixed quantitative and descriptive research methodology was employed. Methodologies that arc more descriptive or qualitative in nature are deemed appropriate for analyzing relatively unexplored research questions (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). In this study, a naturalistic methodology allowed participants to share multiple aspects of their experience in Christian colleges. Data collection was designed to provide frequency counts and other descriptive calculations along with essay and free-writing options that allow an initial step toward a grounded theory (see Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Past and current experiences of attraction and confusion, past and current coping activities, disclosure or non-disclosure of their experiences of attraction, and experience of multiple identities could all be engaged with less influence from a priori assumptions.

Written responses were organized into themes and subthemes, and the second author took a lead in organizing this information inductively with the hope of identifying "multiple realities" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) that might be represented among the perspectives of the respondants. If needed, each researcher was available to re-review the data independently. In some cases, themes less represented in the broader sample were included to help avoid the sense of a monolithic Christian college student perspective. In those instances, the small percentages have been noted for clarity. Nevertheless, transferability to other Christian colleges is not necessarily assumed by the authors with regard to this descriptive data.

RESULTS

Early Experiences

Participants were asked if they had felt different than their peers in childhood, and 48% of the sample answered affirmatively. Sixty-four percent (64%) of males noted that they had felt different from their peers, while only 14% of females remembered this perception. This male/female difference was significant, [[chi].sup.2]( 1) = 8.84, p = .003, = 0.294. The average age at which these persons recognized that they felt this difference was 7.6 years old (SD = 2.59). There was no significant difference between males and females in age for this perception, t (44) = .18, p = .86. In addition, participants were asked if as a child they felt different from their peers "for gender-related reasons" (i.e., choice of play things or activities, choice of clothes), and 39% noted a sense of "feeling different" from their peers as a child for such reasons. There was also a significant difference noted between males and females in this area, [[chi].sup.2](l)= 4.02, p = .045, = 0.20. Fifty-one percent (51%) of males noted that they felt different from their peers for gender-related reasons, while only 31% of females admitted the perception.

The majority who did not feel different from their peers described themselves with both gender-conforming and gender non-conforming characteristics. Those who used gender-conforming descriptions noted that they did not differ from others of their gender. One student reported, "I've never felt different from others for a gender-related reason." Another stated, "I seldom branched off from the norm."

Some did not feel different but still used gender non-conforming descriptions. They remarked on their comfort with their behaviors. "I was kind of a tomboy, but I was not any different than the other girls," one stated. Others noted their enjoyment of activities that seemed male-specific as well as female-specific. One explained her reason for such behaviors was, "I am most likely more confident and educated in my beliefs regarding differences." Another reported, "I felt different because I was into 'smart kid' activities. I played piano. 1 loved board games and riddles, and 1 read all the time. Those are all androgynous qualities."

Reflections on Early Experiences

Participants were asked what their first experiences of same sex attraction meant to them. Of the 89 responses to this question, 24 participants (27%) commented on their lack of memory of first experiences or their lack of response, positive or negative. One person commented, "I do not remember my first experience of being attracted to a male. I had no way of knowing that what 1 was feeling was unique to me and only a few other people." Another stated, "They were fairly typical and innocent experiences." Still another said, "It didn't MEAN anything at first-it was just this thing that was happening that I really liked and that really made me hate myself afterwards."

Thirteen (15%) noted their initial curiosity with sexuality experimentation and same-sex expression, in particular. "Mere experimentation with sexuality in general. It didn't mean same sex, it meant curiosity," reported one male. Another explained, "I was curious. Also, there was something that I couldn't understand about guys. It was just the feeling that I was so different from them that sometimes attracted me to them." Among these 13 were those who also spoke of admiration for the same sex body and a sense of beauty appreciated among their same sex peers.

This sample frequently used negative emotional terms in their remembrance of early same-sex experiences. Eleven participants (12%) described their first experiences with same sex attraction as "confusing," and in all but one, that uncertainty was connected with pain, fear, or shame. For example, one recalled the following, "The first same-sex attraction I can recall was a heavily sexual dream I had about a boy I knew and looked up to. It frightened me, and confused me."

Eight persons (9%) focused on their remembrance of their fear of their own attractions as well as the reaction of others. One said, "These feelings scared me because I knew my family's religious beliefs did not allow for these feelings at all, and I felt that I didn't do anything wrong at all to bring these feelings." Another stated, "I just thought one person looked extremely beautiful and attractive, but I just felt that in the same way I would normally think that a guy I found to be good-looking. It scared me. I didn't understand what it meant."

The most common negative response involved shame or guilt. Fourteen participants (16%) noted these "moral emotions" (Tangney & Dearing, 2002) connected to their first experience with same sex attraction. One explained, "I didn't understand my experience. I was too young to know, but I felt a deep sense of shame and have yet to fully disclose what I experienced in early grade school." Another said, "I was worried that I was sick, that something was wrong with me, since I come from a Christian household."

Participants were also asked why they believed they came to experience same sex attraction. Eighty-nine students commented on their personal views for their same-sex attractions. Among this group, the "cause" of their same sex attraction showed some diversity of opinion. Seventeen participants (19%) simply stated that they had no opinion and could not answer the question. Others, like the following, saw it as biological or innate. "Why is anyone attracted to anyone else? ... It's something that can't be described, but it's natural, innate in a way," Still another said, "I would say that God, in his all-knowing power and wisdom, created me this way as another aspect of his diverse Kingdom." Of those that offered a written response and were classifiable, about 10% fell into this "nature," not "nurture" group.

In comparison, the largest portion of this sample saw the cause as environmental or social--not "nature" but more related to "nurture." Forty-seven participants (53%) of those who submitted a written comment fell into this group. Family dynamics, most often related to inadequacies in relations with mother or father, was a common theme. Some believed that same sex attraction was compensation for self-identified social or emotional deficits. For example, one student explained, "[I was attracted to the same sex] for security, relatedness and belonging that I didn't find in my family. As wonderful as my family is, I always felt like an alien in my own home." Another male reported, "To put it simply, my childhood was totally devoid of men. ... I was so hungry for a man to love and show me I was worth something to him." Eight students (9%) noted a correspondence for them between same sex attraction and abuse of some sort in their history.

Six participants (7%) believed that it was both nature and nurture. One described her belief as the confluence of "genes ... expressed in an environment." Another stated, "I'm leaning toward a mix of nature and nurture."

Two comments (2%) were made that connected same-sex attraction to the natural expression of love. "It was a profound connection with the other, which happened to be of the same sex," reported one student. Another said, "I believe what we most love about a person is their core--their soul-and that the souls we most resonate with can come in any body." On the other hand, two others concluded that the cause of same-sex attraction was actually love's antithesis. One stated simply that the reason was a "sinful nature," while another explained that the cause was "Satan." These small percentages represent the extremes in our survey. They may be minority voices, but they are certainly present in this contextualized discussion on Christian college campuses.

Family Background/Context

Participants were asked how the subject of homosexuality was handled in their family when they were growing up and today. In the families of this sample, the subject of homosexuality was typically discussed unfavorably (50%) or nor discussed at all (32%) during their formative years. Since those "growing up" years, the context has changed to some degree. Fewer (21%) reported that the topic of same sex attraction is not discussed in the family today, but more of those discussions are toward the unfavorable range (47%). There was a significant difference between men and women with regard to how homosexuality was discussed in the home while growing up ([[chi].sup.2](3) = 8.32, p = .04, = 0.287). Women seem to report having discussed homosexuality more often (i.e., 71% compared to 62% of men) and probably in less unfavorable terms. This gender difference may continue into adulthood ([[chi].sup.2](3) = 2.32, p = .509, =0.152). In particular, 23% of women said that homosexuality was now discussed in somewhat favorable to favorable terms in their families; whereas, only 4% of men said the same.

Disclosure

Disclosure to Family. Maybe not surprisingly, a relatively high percentage of persons in the sample appeared not to have disclosed to their family about their experiences with same sex attractions. Approximately 75% have not disclosed to their mothers. Eighty two percent (82%) have not disclosed to their fathers. In addition, 85% have not disclosed to siblings.

Even in those situations where disclosure occurred, free-response elaborations suggested that it was not always a voluntary choice to reveal hidden or private sexual experiences. Out of 25 written comments referencing disclosure to mother, nine (36%) reported that their same-sex attraction had been discovered by their mother. Out of 17 written comments regarding disclosure to father, 10 (40%) reported that their father either had discovered evidence of their same-sex attraction or had heard from mother. Admission to parents in these circumstances took place in the context of clearing up questions about their usage of same-sex pornography or explaining other circumstances that aroused parental suspicion.

Of those who have disclosed to family members, both men and women believed that they are viewed positively by mothers, fathers, and siblings. The reported positive categories far outweighed the neutral or negative ratings. About 81% of the sample believed that they arc viewed cither "generally positive" or "positive" by their mothers. Almost 74% of the sample described their fathers' view in the same way, and 81% perceived their siblings' view of them in the same positive terms.

Disclosure to family members typically began with disclosure to their mother (25% of the sample had disclosed to their mother) and at an average age of 17.2 years (SD = 3.06). For those in the sample who disclosed to their fathers (18% of the sample), fathers were ranked next with disclosures at 17.5 years of age (SD = 3.2), followed by disclosure to siblings at 18.3 years of age (SD = 2.8) by 15% of the sample. No significant differences were noted for males and females in order of disclosure across all relational categories - for disclosure to mother, [[chi].sup.2] (5) = 5.5, p = .36, to father, [[chi].sup.2](6) = 4.1, p = .67, to sibling, [[chi].sup.2] (6) = 5.9, p = .21, etc. The small samples sizes are likely to have hindered significant differences in at least a few of these categories.

Participants were asked what they would have liked in terms of support from their family members when they first experienced same-sex attractions. Of the 70 participants who responded to this question, words such as "acceptance," ''encouragement," "love," "open," and "understanding" were most prominent.

Disclosure to Friends. Telling a friend seemed to be the most typical way of disclosing, and the mean age at which a confession occurred was 18.5 years of age (SD = 1.9). About 42% of this sample had not disclosed to a friend, a low percentage relatively speaking. Approximately 81% of this sample rated their friends' view of them after disclosure to be "generally positive" or "positive." Although the means for all relational categories, such as mother, father, and friend, were comparable and positive, the written comments suggested a more complex process among family members. Both the men and women of this sample were overwhelmingly positive in their 53 written descriptions of the outcome of their self-revelation to friends, not so with family.

Unlike disclosures to family, revelations to friends were primarily chosen voluntarily, although three noted in their written responses an internal pressure to open up to someone. There was a clear indication that the dynamics of friendship allowed these students to risk "terrifying" potential rejection and reinforced shame. There appeared to be less of a sense of evaluation with proven friends as compared to family. The possibility of a selection bias with regard to friends may be worthy of future investigations of disclosure.

Participants were asked what would have been perceived as supportive from friends/peers when they first experienced same sex attraction. This sample emphasized "acceptance," "understanding," and "a sense of connection" as helpful. Judging and ostracizing actions were mentioned as hindrances, although written comments about initial disclosure to chosen friends suggest these reactions are not typical. Participants may be referencing a broader circle of friends, possibly even those who do not know of their same-sex attraction. In particular, jokes and derogatory terms for those who experience same sex attraction were highlighted as hurtful and negative.

Disclosure to Youth Pastors. Teachers, and Counselors. Youth pastors, a common ministerial contact for youth who identify as Christian, were among the least likely to hear disclosures from this sample of students. Approximately 93% had not admitted their same sex experiences to a youth pastor. Of that small group who did confess their feelings or behaviors to a youth pastor, 72% reported that the view of that person was in the "generally positive" or "positive" range. The mean age at disclosure for youth pastors was 16.6 (SD = 1.9). If a participant disclosed to a youth pastor, it usually was earlier than family (mother, 17.2 years old; father, 17.5 years old; sibling, 18.3 years old) or friends (18.5 years old). Unfortunately, these confessions with a youth pastor happened so seldom for this sample, there is little to add to our overall understanding.

Teachers were also less likely to hear confessions about same sex attraction from this sample of students. Approximately 93% had not admitted their experiences to a professional in a teaching role. Of those who did reveal their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors to teachers, 72% stated that the view of that professional was in the "generally positive" to "positive" range. The mean age at disclosure was 19.2 years of age (SD = 2.0). Again, the written comments were minimal so thematic analysis was not possible.

Approximately 76% had not confessed their experiences to a professional in a counseling role. Of those who did reveal their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors to counselors, 75% stated that the view of the counselor was in the "generally positive" to "positive" range. The mean age of disclosure was 18.3 years (SD = 1.99). As before, the more qualitative data was abbreviated and inconsequential.

Twelve percent (12%) of this sample of students also mentioned other types of relationships in which they have disclosed their same sex experiences. This small group included co-workers, senior pastors, college staff, mentors, and internet forum members.

Sexual Experiences

Participants were asked a series of questions about sexual experiences, some of which are also considered "milestone events" in the development of a gay identity by some researchers in the gay community (see Table 1). For example, 70% respondents reported first awareness of same-sex attraction at an average age of 12.9 (SD = 4.1 years). Confusion about same-sex feelings was reported by 71% of participants at an average age of 14.3 (SD = 3.5 years). With respect to same-sex sexual behaviors, 41% reported being fondled by someone of the same sex and about 39% having fondled someone of the same sex. Same-sex behavior to orgasm was reported by 30% of our sample. We also asked about attributions, specifically the self-defining attribution, "I am gay." A little over a third (36%) of our sample made an initial attribution that they are gay/lesbian/ bisexual. That self-defining attribution occurred on average at age 17.2 (SD = 2.9). Concerning the sexual identity label "gay," 14% of the sample "rook on the label of gay," and for those who did so, this occurred at the average age of 17.9 (SD = 3.9). Participants were also asked about their first same-sex relationship (in contrast to same-sex behavior that may have occurred outside of a relationship), and 20% reported a first same-sex relationship at just over 18 years of age on average (18.2; SD = 3.3 years).

TABLE 1

Number and Mean Age of Participants Indicating They Had Various Sexual
Experiences

Experience                Mean Age (SD)  n   Percent of Sample

Awareness of same-sex     12.96 (4.12)   74        70.4%
feelings

Confusion about same-sex  14.32 (3.47)   75        71.3%
feelings

Intimately/romantically   16.83 (3.87)   36        34.3%
kissed by someone
of the Same sex

Been fondled (breasts or  14.21 (5.30)   43        41.7%
genitals) by someone
of the Same sex
(without orgasm)

Fondled (breasts or       14.73 (4.63)   41        41.7%
genitals) someone
of the same sex
(without orgasm)

Same-sex sexual behavior  16.42 (3.35)   31        28.7%
(to orgasm)

Initial attribution that  17.22 (2.95)   37        35.2%
I am
gay/lesbian/bisexual

Took on the label of      17.93 (3.97)   15        13.9%
gay

First same-sex            18.19 (3.25)   21        19.4%
relationship

Intimately/romantically   15.62 (3.22)   60        56.5%
kissed by someone
of the opposite sex

Been fondled (breasts or  15.83 (3.23)   46        43.5%
genitals) by someone
of the opposite sex
(without orgasm)

Fondled (breasts or       16.20 (2.94)   40        39.8%
genitals) someone
of the opposite-sex
(without orgasm)

Opposite-sex sexual       16.78 (2.03)   32        32.4%
behavior (to orgasm)

First opposite-sex        15.14 (3.40)   63        58.3%
relationship

We also asked participants about opposite-sex sexual experiences. Over half of the sample (58%) reported being intimately/romantically kissed by someone of the opposite sex (M = 15.6; SD = 3.2 years). About 44% reported being fondled by someone of the opposite sex, while 39% reported fondling someone of the opposite sex. About one-third (31%) of the sample reported opposite-sex sexual behavior to orgasm. In addition, 61% reported a first opposite-sex relationship, and the average age of this relationship was 15.1 (SD = 3.4 years).

Not many of the participants integrated their same-sex attractions into a gay identity, Participants who had done so reported an awareness of same-sex attraction at about age 10-11 followed by feelings of confusion about those experiences. Most of these students then made an initial attribution that their experiences of same-sex attraction signaled a gay identity. Those who participated in same-sex behavior did so at about that same time, although experiences of fondling and being fondled by someone of the same sex occurred at about that same time (17-18). Nine students reported then taking on the label of "gay," and among those who pursued a same-sex relationship, they reported this occurring on average at age 20-21.

Those who reported more same-sex attraction were more likely to make an initial attribution that the attractions signaled a gay identity than those who currently report no or some same-sex attraction ([[chi].sup.2](2) = 9.55, p = .008, = 0.308). Also, those who reported taking on the label of "gay" as an identity were more likely to have more same-sex attraction ([[chi].sup.2](2) = 934, p = .009, = 0.304), while those with no or only some same-sex attraction were much less likely to have taken on the label of "gay."

A number of students reported experiencing same-sex attraction but currently identified as heterosexual in terms of their sexual identity. When we look at the milestone events among those who currently identify as heterosexual (compared to students who identify currently as gay), we see differences reported at time of awareness of same-sex attraction (with gay identifying students reporting awareness of same-sex attraction on average four years earlier). Similarly, students who identified as gay reported feeling confusion an average of two years earlier than students whose sexual identity is currently heterosexual. Later experiences of being fondled and fondling someone of the same sex was also reported (an average of three to four years earlier).

Awareness of same-sex attraction (as well as confusion about same-sex attraction) occurred at an older age when compared to students who identified as gay. In addition, far fewer of students who identified as heterosexual made an initial attribution that their experiences of same-sex attraction signaled a gay identity, and far fewer took on the label of "gay." Because this was not a study of heterosexual identity development, we asked fewer questions about these experiences and a pathway to heterosexual identification. This could be a helpful line of future research. Also, heterosexual identity is presumably these students' public sexual identity (how they are viewed by others); it is unclear if it is also their private sexual identity (how they think of themselves privately), but that is also a possibility, though the distinction between a public and private sexual identity was not specifically addressed in this study.

Campus Climate

Across all three campuses, students viewed the overall community perception of same sex attraction as largely negative although there appeared to be a distinction between "homosexuality" in general and the more specific "homosexual" behavior. Eighty-four percent (84%) described the campus view of homosexuality as "generally negative" (n = 55) or "negative" (n = 37), while 96% stated that the campus view of homosexual behavior was "generally negative" (n = 18) or "negative" in = 83). Men and women showed no differences in their descriptions of the campus view of homosexuality, [[chi].sup.2](3) = 2.7, p = .45, nor in their descriptions of the campus view of homosexual behavior, [[chi].sup.2](3) = 2.0, p = .57. Interestingly, overall percentages declined when asked about a person who self-identified as "homosexual." Seventy-four percent (74%) indicated that the campus view of such individuals was "generally negative" (n = 60) or "negative" (n = 17). Males and females also did not differ in their perception that there was less negativity when dealing with a real person and not a cultural, theological, or philosophical issue, [[chi].sup.2](4) = 1.9, p = .76.

Where was the negativity on these campuses found? Such attitudes were not perceived strongly among faculty or staff of these Christian liberal arts schools (see Table 2). Not to downplay the power of even one powerful statement from a person with authority, it was interesting that faculty and staff were not perceived as the major influences of the perceived culture of negativity. There were no significant differences in the reported experiences of men and women, [[chi].sup.2](4) = 2.7, p = .61.

TABLE 2.

Frequencies of Negative Comments Heard on Campus

How often did  Never       Once       Twice     Three     Four Times
you hear ...                                    Times       or More
stereotype,
make negative
remarks, or
tell jokes
that "put
down" people
who
experience
same-Sex
attraction?

                  n(%)       n(%)       n(%)      n(%)       n(%)

Course         81 (77.9%)  10 (9.6%)  9 (8.7%)  1(1.0%)    3 (2.9%)
Instructors?

Staff?         84 (80.8%)  10 (9.6%)  9 (8.7%)  0 (0.0%)   1 (1.0%)

Students?       7 (6.7%)    5 (4.8%)  8 (7.7%)  8 (7.7%)  76 (73.1%)

Students, on the other hand, were identified by this sample as the major influences of campus atmosphere when it comes to this issue (see Table 2). There was a clear difference in the experiences of men and women, [[chi].sup.2](4) = 114, p = .02, = 0.335. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of men reported hearing a negative comment from their peers four or more times over the past year; whereas, only 59% of women reported hearing similar negative comments.

The context for stereotypical or negative comments again showed a differential response on campus (see Table 3). Students typically heard them in social settings that involved peers but not as much faculty and staff. The classroom, in particular, was not a place where this sort of speech was often heard. Seventy-five percent (75%) of males and females reported that they never heard derogatory speech or "put down" humor in the presence of a faculty or staff member; there was no gender difference, [[chi].sup.2](4) = 1.2, p = .76. In those rarer occurrences when such remarks did happen, both faculty and staff were perceived by 20% and 18% of the students, respectively, as refraining from challenging the negative communication, instead of agreeing with the comments. In contrast, 96% of students reported hearing derogatory speech in the presence of their peers, with no gender difference, [X.sup.2] (4) = 7.0, p = .07. When such speech is heard, 87% of the sample reported that their student peers either agreed with the statement or failed to challenge it.

TABLE 3

Frequencies of Responses Witnessed to Negative Comments Heard on Campus

What happened    I never     Typically    Typically    Typically
typically if     heard a        the          the          the
a student made   student     professor    professor    professor
a derogatory    make such   agreed with    did not     challenged
with a remark   statements      the       challenge       the
or told a        student's      the        student's
joke that       professor.  statements.   statements.  statements.
"put down"
people who
experience
same-sex
attraction
 ...

                   n(%)         n(%)           n(%)         n(%)

In the          75 (72.1%)    1 ( 10%)     21 (20.2%)     7 (6.7%)
presence of
a professor?

In the          81 (80.8%)    1 ( 10%)     19 (18.3%)     1 (10%)
presence of a
staff member?

In the           4 ( 3.8%)   41 (39.4%)    50 (48.1%)     9 (8.7%)
presence of
other students?

Both male and female students recognized attitudes at their institutions that made it difficult for students who experience same-sex attraction while they are a part of the campus community. Ninety-three percent (93%) of this sample reported that such attitudes exist "to some extent" (18%), "to a great extent" (40%), or "to a very great extent" (35%). Only 7% indicated that such attitudes exist only "to a little extent"; no one denied their existence. It should also be noted that although both men and women of this sample were aware of difficult attitudes on campus, a gender difference does exist. Female students (88%) were significantly more represented in the upper categories ("to a great extent" and "to a very great extent") than were the males (64%), [X.sup.2](3) = 8.0, p = .046, = 0.280. This difference is remarkable because men seemed more likely to hear negative or derogatory remarks, but they also were less likely to see them as problematic.

Campus Resources

Students also were asked about their awareness and use of five resources for information regarding "homosexuality and related issues." Counseling Services, Residence Life, Campus Ministries, Student Development, and Faculty/Staff were submitted for their evaluation and response. Small percentages of this sample used these resources for services. Usage ranged from 14% for Counseling Services to 8% for Faculty/Staff to 6% for Residence Life to 2% for Campus Ministries. Other Student Development services were not reportedly used at all. It is not actually known by the question asked in the survey whether usage of these services were related to same sex attraction or some other presenting concern.

Although usage of these campus resources was low, the amount of awareness varied with Counseling Services receiving the most recognition. Seventy-five percent (75%) of this sample was aware of Counseling as a resource for information regarding homosexuality and related issues. While awareness of Counseling as a resource did not vary by gender, men (26%) were more likely to have used Counseling than were women (8%), [[chi].sup.2] (2) = 6.6, p = .04, = 0.254. The lowest was Student Development, perhaps related to uncertainty about this area's disciplinary responsibilities on campus. Only 31% were aware of Student Development as a resource for homosexuality and related issues; there was no gender difference, [[chi].sup.2](2) = 10, p = .31. The remaining services showed moderate recognition. Fifty-seven percent (57%) were aware of Faculty/Staff as a resource, and approximately 10% of both men and women had used them as a resource, with no gender difference, [[chi].sup.2](2) = 1.5, p = .47. Thirty-nine percent (39%) were aware of Campus Ministries as a resource, but only approximately 1% of men and women had used them as such, again with no gender difference, [[chi].sup.2] (2) = S3, p = .07. And, 54% were aware of Residence Life, with more men (6%) having used this as a resource than have women (2%), [[chi].sup.2] (2) = 6.5,p = .04, = 0.252.

Religious Coping

Participants were asked to consider how their religion/faith helped them as they had experienced same-sex attraction. Of those who responded to the question, ten stated that their religion/faith had not helped them in any identifiable way. The remaining 81 described a variety of ways that they have been assisted by their religion/faith.

The answers from this sample tended to fall into two overlapping camps. The first camp benefited from the relational qualities of their religion/faith. Whether it involved a relational connection to God or to other believers, these students affirmed a sense of "hope," "love," "grace," "forgiveness," "support," "comfort," "encouragement," "strength," and "acceptance" through these faith-based relationships. One student reported, "It has helped me by giving me a God I can talk to about this, who is big enough to handle my questions and failings and doubts. It has given me a support system in the body of Christ who is ever-willing to help me and talk to me and hug me and pray for me when I need it." Another explained, "It is something that I cling to. I try to fall back on it--knowing that I am forgiven. ... I also have the realization that God knows my struggles and can see the pain and hurt I am feeling." Still another remarked, "I have been attending a Metropolitan community church which has helped me realize that no matter what, God loves me, and that he created me to be who I am."

The second camp benefited from truths from Scripture and tradition. Affirmation of these truths reportedly had a comforting and orienting effect. The standards and structures of their religion/faith were helpful for accountability, guidance, and instruction. The essays from this camp often had a theological emphasis as opposed to a relational quality. One student stated, "I have gorged myself on Biblical truth that God defines me, not temptation. ... Temptation's power to define me is an illusion which I no longer accept." Another student offered, "It's helped to have an actual standard of behavior, a moral authority to say, 'This is right and this is wrong.' It's been a blessing to read of a new creation and regeneration and 'he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ'--that healing will happen eventually, even if it takes until the day when all shall be made new."

Both the relational and theological camps appeared to inform a personal identity that for most of this sample was seen as positive and affirmed. It was well-summarized by the following statement made by one participant: "My faith has served as the cornerstone of finding the roots of my true identity in Christ."

Participants were also asked how their religion/faith has contributed to personal hurts as they experienced same sex attraction. This question received as much response as the previous question on "helps." Of those who responded to the question, 15 stated that their religion/faith had not hurt them in any identifiable way. Three students wanted to make distinctions between their religion/faith and the "Christian community" or other "believers." They reported that their religion/faith has not been hurtful, but other Christians have. Two students distinguished their religion/faith and "organized religion." They felt oppressed by the views of the latter. Finally, three persons wanted to differentiate the religion/faith of their youth (i.e., "the religion of my parents," "my old religion") and their more mature version. The former was viewed as hurtful, not the latter. One of those persons remarked that because of previous religious views he was suicidal for six months. "I felt that I had no right to live," he revealed.

The remaining majority, 69 students, described a variety of ways that their religion/faith had hurt them. The strongest theme was one of "close-minded" "condemnation" from their faith or persons in their religion. This condemnation related to their own feelings of "fear," "shame"/"guilt," "isolation," "abandonment," and eventually "self-loathing." The sense of condemnation seemed to range from active "animosity" and hurtful language to a more passive disregard. One student noted the knee-jerk response of fellow believers, "People who don't even try to understand, condemn automatically ... Please don't judge me automatically. I do that often enough myself." Another angrily retorted, "Christians are jerks who see this as a black and white issue." Two persons noted that, as a result of their hurtful experiences with religion/faith, they no longer consider themselves to be Christians.

Participants were asked how their religion/faith influenced their involvement in same sex relationships. Of the 80 students who responded to this question, 13 stated that their religion/faith has not influenced their involvement in same sex relationships. The main emphasis of the remaining responses was about the "restraining" influence. Among this majority, the restraint was seen as decisional. One student explained, "I do not partake in same-sex relationships because of my faith. I view my attraction as normal, but counter-productive." The restraint also had an emotional component. Another student replied, "Because I felt such shame from my faith over what I had been struggling with, it really kept me from getting more involved in same-sex relationships."

For a small group out of this sample (four students), religion/faith has resulted in greater freedom. Two have found a theology that prioritizes "love" over other more limiting values. Another is in the process of re-defining what he thinks, "I have thought forever that it was wrong to be with another guy, but never had the will to give it up. However, after a semester at college, I am looking harder at the Christian doctrine on homosexuality and it doesn't add up to me." Finally, one student reported, "I have realized that the bible does not speak negatively of same-sex relationship, just same-sex rape and inhospitality. So I have felt comfortable in my relationship with God to be dating and hopefully one day committing myself to one man for the rest of my life."

Advice/Suggestions for Church and Students

We asked participants to share with us specific suggestions for how the local church could formally support persons who experience same-sex attraction. Several themes emerged:

1 Same-sex attractions should be perceived as a "fallen" state that the church should not sanction as normative. While there were exceptions (e.g., one stated, "Realize that there is nothing wrong with being gay, and support us in our own journeys by allowing us to form relationships and have them recognized and honored as heterosexual relationships."), this kind of recommendation was rare. More often the focus was on loving the person who experiences same-sex attraction as one shared, "Genuinely love them--not say they love them, or pass off certain actions as love, but love unconditionally and wholly as Christ loved everyone. ..."

2. "Level the field" of sins - view homosexuality as equal to other sins. One suggested that it is " ... not a different level of sin ... just sin." Many noted that others in the church could be more open about their own sin.

3. Talk about "homosexuality." Suggestions were to have the church become more educated about the topic through sermons and Christian education and testimonies of those who have same-sex attractions and are Christians, and to have more support groups for same-sex attractions.

We also asked participants what advice they would share with another Christian/fellow student/ incoming freshman who is struggling with same-sex attraction. These suggestions included:

1 "Talk to trusted friends and mentors" and avoid attempting to walk the path alone. One shared, "Find a trustworthy friend who you have reason to believe will be supportive and pray with you and for you without simply asking God to 'fix' you or assuming you're sinning or there is something wrong with you. Find that person and be willing to share because you will need someone to help you get through it." This same person then warned, "Those people are rare. Be very, very careful. Especially at a Christian school where people love to judge others in the name of love and gossip is a favorite past-time."

2. "Pray and ask God to help you overcome your sin." One respondent elaborated, "I would suggest that they spend a lot of time in prayer about it and to believe that answers and strength will eventually come."

3. Persevere. One person shared, "Keep struggling and don't give in or give up." Another wrote, " ... Just hold on."

4. Know that you are not alone. One respondent simply wrote, "You aren't alone." Another wrote, "To know that they are not alone and unloved."

5. Know that healing is possible. With respect to potential healing, one respondent wrote, "Don't be fooled by the people who say you're hopeless. Don't be discouraged by the people who look at you funny, or listen to the people who say you were born with this and this is who you have to be. You don't have to be gay. There is healing out there." This same person testified, "I know, because I've gone through it, and I have friends who've gone through the whole homosexual lifestyle, found how empty it is, and escaped by the grace of God. You weren't made to have these needs; you were made to be whole, complete, fulfilling your hunger for love in appropriate ways."

6. Identify the cause of the attraction. One person shared the following: "Identify your needs and why you are attracted. If you feel rejected, seek people of the same sex who are accepting and develop friendships with them."

7. "Don't let [same-sex attraction] define you." Another stated it this way; "This is not who you are." Still another wrote, "Your feelings do not define you; the actions of God on and in your life define you. It's that simple."

8. Study and make your own decisions about same-sex attraction. One person shared, "... Come to your own beliefs and celebrate your sexuality, whether that be heterosexual or homosexual. ..." Another wrote: "Study it for yourself. Follow Christ first but if it is possible to worship and follow God with a same-sex partner, why does it matter who [sits] next to you on Sunday morning church service?" Another suggested, "Try it and see how you feel afterwards."

DISCUSSION

Milestone Events

In contrast to other studies of early milestone events in sexual identity formation (e.g., Reynolds & Hanjorgiris, 2000), early experiences for these students suggested that most did not feel different from their peers. However, a sizable group (almost 40%) noted their recognition of non-gender conforming activities in their descriptions of themselves. This is an area for further study, as gender nonconformity in childhood has been identified as an important variable in later sexual orientation (see Bern, 2000). Perhaps "feeling different for gender related reasons" is associated with some later forms of nonheterosexual attraction or identification but not for all or even most. It may also be that Christians report more androgynous behaviors in men in particular, as religion can often contribute to the "feminization" of males (see Van Leeuwen, 1990). If so, then it help to explain why these students may not see themselves as different from their same sex peers as has been found in other research.

The most commonly reported emotional response to early experiences of same-sex attraction was shame, fear, and confusion, although the range of responses from no recollection to positive to negative was represented. This is an area of concern for those offering assistance to sexual minority students, including college counselors and residence hall staff, who are often dealing with both the experience of shame and uncertainty.

The largest group in this sample attributed their same sex experiences to environmental or "nurtured" influences. It is unclear from this data how those impressions were formed, but it may be related to conservative religious identification and upbringing, which is often commonly associated with environmental explanations for the etiology of homosexuality rather than biological explanations of the same (Jones & Yarhouse, 2000).

Infrequent family disclosure of same-sex experiences was largely positive, but it seemed to be more complicated and less satisfying than disclosure to peers. This might be viewed as especially encouraging when one thinks of negative connotations often held about conservative religious upbringing and homosexuality. In any case, this is an area in which family therapists in particular might be of assistance. Navigating the disclosure to one's parents has been found to be critical to later adjustment, mental health and well-being (Ritter & Terndrup, 2002).

Disclosure to friends was most satisfying and tended to be shame-reducing. This seems consistent with other literature in the area of disclosure (e.g., Matthews, 2007; Reynolds & Hanjorgiris, 2000). Disclosure to teachers, youth pastors, or counselors was much less common, but when it occurred, it was viewed as largely favorable. Family and friends were the most prominent relational categories for disclosure. Disclosure to friends in this sample was volitional in all accounts, except one, but disclosure to parents was often admitted in association with other circumstances. From the perspective of this sample, family may be supportive but not often thought of as a place where a college age person feels he or she can freely initiate such disclosure. It should raise questions for further research about the structure of family relations in comparison to friendships when trying to create conditions for-shame-reducing authenticity. There may be benefit to identifying ways to support young people as they attempt to talk to their parents and other family members about their experiences and request their assistant and support as they make choices about behavior and identity. Again, perhaps family therapy and church-based pastoral care can provide a context for support and assistance with disclosure of sexual experiences.

The positive experiences of disclosing to friends were interesting in light of the negative perceptions of the institutional climate due to stereotyping or derogatory peer influences (provide citation from climate article). One student found this noteworthy and explained, "My friends, for the most part, have been wonderful about it. That does not mean, however, that as an institution, this school is gay-friendly." The Christian college experience for this sample seems to be affected by the intentional cultivation or serendipitous discovery of a supportive social connection in an environment that is largely perceived as shame-reinforcing. Further research may help determine if these complicated dynamics for Christian institutions, often chosen for some degree of in loco parentis, bear any resemblance to the strikingly similar report about parents.

Due to the design limitations, the study does not address how sexual identification among Christian college students might change over time. However, this is an area of current interest (Diamond, 2007; Rosario et al., 2006), and future studies might consider a longitudinal design to address change and ways in which young adults might make transitions in terms of attractions, behavior and identity, as well as track the attributions and meaning-making associated with such transitions.

Campus Climate

This sample viewed the campus climate as largely negative for those with same sex attraction. These findings are consistent with a recent study at other CCCU member institutions using largely self-identified heterosexual samples (Stratton, Holton, Yarhouse, & Brooke, 2005). These findings are also mirrored in larger climate surveys of secular campuses (Rankin, 2003). What contributes to the campus climate being largely negative? Christian colleges, such as the ones that participated in this study, have statements of faith and conduce that affirm sexual expression in heterosexual marriage and prohibit premarital, extramarital, and alternative sexual expression. This is perhaps not surprising to those who have noted that most world religions view heterosexuality as normative. For example, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam draw upon the creation narrative and what has historically been viewed as the revealed will of the Creator with respect to heterosexual sexuality and sexual expression (Yarhouse & Nowacki, 2007). Many mainstream religious denominations are revisiting these understandings of sexuality and the morality of same-sex behavior. Some distinguish between a same-sex orientation and its expression, while others are explicitly gay affirmative (e.g., Metropolitan Community Church).

For sexual minorities enrolled at CCCU member institutions, the official teachings of the institutions may create several challenges for sexual identity by fostering a climate that truly tests whether moral proscriptions can be held while offering hospitality to those who experience same-sex attraction (the concept of "hate the sin but love the sinner").

In this study, discussions about same-sex attractions occurred largely outside of the classroom in informal settings. Derogatory and stereotyping speech occurs in these informal student settings, but seldom in faculty or staff presence. This is again similar to other climate surveys of larger, secular campuses (Rankin, 2003). Males hear more of this type of speech than do females, but seem to recognize the impact less than women do. These findings suggest that males are less sensitive to the potential for words to be experienced as harmful to others. This is consistent with the literature on the use of verbal messages and humor to "define and regulate" masculinity (Gough, 2002, p. 222), so that males use "negative portrayals of male homosexuality as a means of (self-) policing their masculinities" (p. 222).

Awareness of campus resources varied from high awareness to low awareness. Usage also varied from 14% of this sample for Counseling Services to no usage for Student Development services other than Residence Life. This raises the question of how much support students receive. Research has long supported the role of family and friends in providing social support to young adults who are sorting out sexual identity or who are sexual minorities (Rivers, 2002). Institutional support is much more difficult to measure. Even in studies in which there has been much reported tolerance within a secular university setting, some have reported devaluing messages about homosexuality in response to perceptions of emasculation "in the wake of feminism and gay politics" (Gough, 2002, p. 234).

The concern that might be raised is that of invisibility. Sexual minority isolation and invisibility is reported by Rankin (2003) to be widespread on secular university campuses reported in her review of 14 campus climate studies. Is the risk for invisibility heightened in a Christian college campus? Yes and no. Yes, because such students would not have access to visible campus groups for sexual minorities, and few identified existing resources as something they would use as a sexual minority. No, because many of the students are conservative themselves and do not seem to readily identify as GLB--certainly not publicly, but also apparently not privately for this sample. It is unclear the extent to which students would welcome a more visible presence on campus as a sexual minority. While this might be viewed by mainstream GLB theorists as symptomatic of internalized homophobia, it raises the question as to how religious individuals might form their identity in light of what appear to be more central religious convictions (see Yarhouse, 2001). This is an area for further investigation.

The majority of this sample viewed their religion/faith experience as helpful for its relational assistance and truthful accountability. For those who had been hurt by their religion/faith experience, condemnation, ranging from active "animosity" and hurtful language to a more passive disregard, was noted as most difficult. This raises the question of the spiritual life and religious ties of sexual minorities. Often in the literature a distinction is made between institutional religion and personal spirituality (Lease, Home, & Noffsinger-Frazier, 2005; Love, Bock, Jannarone, & Richardson, 2005), so that sexual minorities are able to attend to their own spiritual interests by finding affirming faith communities, even if it means a departure from traditional religious institutions. This distinction may not be as readily accessible to students in this sample, as they continue to participate in and value institutional religion if their attendance at a conservative Christian college or university is a reliable measure. Most of the sample actually reported that they benefited from the accountability in their faith community. They seemed less inclined to leave their religion to pursue personal spirituality as a sexual minority. They may be choosing to locate their sexual identity in the context of their religious community and its teaching regarding sexuality and sexual expression (see Wolkomir, 2006, for an ethnographic exploration of Christians who make different choices and meaning out of this very dilemma).

A wide range of suggestions was made for school and church environments by this sample. There was emphasis placed on demonstrating love and on talking more about homosexuality. These suggestions will require a great deal of sensitivity to both the individual sexual minorities on campus and to the institutional positions regarding sexuality and its expression.

What have not yet been discussed are the institutional policies of private religious colleges and universities that demonstrate preference for heterosexual marriage as the preferred context for sexual expression. Such policies may be viewed by some members of the GLB community as inherently discriminatory and prejudicial, perhaps contributing indirectly to a hostile environment or to invisibility and isolation among sexual minorities. Conservative religious members of these institutions, in contrast, might see such policies as an expression of religious identity that necessarily distinguishes between groups and facilitate a shared or corporate identity based upon that religion. For example, the same policies at these religious institutions restrict faculty hiring such that neither Mormon nor Muslim professors from other institutions could be hired there, which is not a typically viewed as prejudice against either religion but is a distinction made between religions that form the basis for the institution itself.

This topic is beyond the scope of this study, but it does raise the question of how members from different communities (GLB, conservative religious) may view existing policies from strikingly different perspectives. It may be helpful to include conservative religious sexual minorities in this discussion, as most of this sample appeared to value conventional religious teaching on sexuality and sexual behavior; what they did not value were derogatory comments by their peers that contributed to a negative campus climate. This is a topic worthy of further study and dialogue for the sake of mutual understanding and for what might be in the best interest of all stakeholders including sexual minorities who are themselves conservative in their religious beliefs and values.

Limitations

This study piloted a nonstandardized online surveying method that increased the potential of "hearing the voices" of sexual minorities on Christian college campuses with anonymity and security. The methodology involved giving up aspects of experimental control in order to gain access to an under-researched sample. That choice makes possible the potential for sampling biases. The recruitment of participants was done by persons unassociated with the study. The finding that 31 persons had completed surveys but denied any same sex attraction, behavior, or identification posed a concern about how recruitment was accomplished across the three CCCU schools.

The methodology of this study also restricted a primary research strategy often used in determining the validity of certain assumptions based upon the descriptive findings. "Member checks" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) provide a means of determining the accuracy of interpreations drawn from qualitative data. Interpretations are considered more trustworthy when they are verified with the sources from which they were drawn. Because of the sensitivity of the topic and the need for confidentiality, it was determined by the authors that asking for contact information would impair the study. No member checks were performed, so the descriptive analysis is primarily interpretive and introductory.

Finally, generalizability is certainly questionable. Although the sample matched closely the demographic data for CCCU institutions, the authors must caution against making any transferable statements from this sample to any other schools, including CCCU institutions. Although other reports on campus climates have yielded similar results (Rankin, 2003; Stratton, et al., 2005), generalizability remains the hope for future studies with different experimental designs.

CONCLUSION

A relatively large sample of self-selected Christian undergraduate sexual minorities responded to an anonymous online survey about milestone events in sexual identity development and their experience of campus climate. The sample of 104 students from three member institutions of the CCCU appears representative of member institutions in terms of marital status, classification (year in school), and racial/ethnic breakdown. However, no assumptions are made about the sample being representative of all sexual minority students at CCCU member institutions.

This study of three Christian college campuses is unique in that it is drawn from the experiences of sexual minorities. There may be tremendous benefit to hear from students who are themselves sorting out their religious and sexual identities in the context of their education at a Christian college or university. Their "voices" offer a perspective that has seldom been heard in Christian higher education or the broader culture.

REFERENCES

Beckstead, L. & Israel, T. (2007). Affirmative counseling and psychotherapy focused on issues related to sexual orientation conflicts. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender clients (2nd edition) (pp. 221-244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bern, D.J. (2000). Exotic becomes erotic: Interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29,531-548.

Brown. R. D., Happold, C. A., Clarke, B., Gottmaker, V., & Robinson, Keilig, R. (2002). Campus climate and needs assessment study of gay. lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (CLBT) students at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Moving beyond tolerance to empowerment.

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4,219-235.

Chan, C. S. (1989). Issues of identity development among Asian-American lesbian and gay men. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 16-20.

Chernin, J. N., & Johnson, M. R. (2003). Affirmative psychotherapy and counseling for lesbians and gay men. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.

Diamond, L. M. (2007). A dynamical systems approach to the development and expression of female same-sex sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(2), 142-157.

Dube, E. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1999). Sexual identity development among ethnic sexual-minority male youths. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1389-1399.

Gough, B. (2002). Heterosexual masculinity and the discursive reproduction of homophobia. In A. Coyle & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: New perspectives (pp. 219-228). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Jones, S. L., &Yarhouse,M. A. (2000). Homosexuality: The use of scientific research in the church's moral debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsiry Press.

Lease, S. H., Home, S. G., & Noffsinger-Frazier, N. (2005). Affirming faith experiences and psychological health for Caucasian lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (3), pp. 378-388.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Love, P. G., Bock, M., Jannarone, A., & Richardson, P. (2005). Identity interaction: Exploring the spiritual experiences of lesbian and gay college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46 (2), pp. 193-210.

Matthews, C. R. (2007). Affirmative LGB counseling. In K. J. Bicschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp. 210-219). Washington, DC: APA.

Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: A national perspective. New York: The National Gay and Lesbian Task force Policy Institute.

Reynolds, A., & Hanjorgiris, W. F. (2000). Coming out: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity development. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K.J. Bicschke (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp. 35-56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ritter, K. Y. & Terndrup, A. I. (2002). Handbook of affirmative psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men. New York: The Guilford Press.

Rivers, I. (2002). Developmental issues for lesbian and gay youth. In A. Coyle & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: New perspectives (pp. 3044). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Rosario, M. Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay and bisexual youths: consistency and change over time. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 46-58.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Cohen, K. M. (2004). Homoerotic development during childhood and adolescence. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13,524-549.

Sophie, J.(1986). A critical examination of stage theories of lesbian identity development. Journal of Homosexuality, 12(2), 39-51

Stratton, S., Holton, J., Yarhouse, M. A., & Brooke, H. L (2005, October). Attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of undergraduates at two Christian colleges regarding same-sex attraction. Paper presented at the 5C Forum of the Council of Christian College Counseling Center Directors, October 15, 2005.

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: The Guilford Press.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Van Leeuwen, M. S. (1990). Gender & grace. Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsiry Press.

Wolkomir, M. (2006). Be not deceived: The sacred and sexual struggles of gay and ex-gay Christian men. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Yarhouse, M. A., & Nowacki, S. K. (2007). The many meanings of marriage: Divergent perspectives seeking common ground. The Family Journal, 15(1), 36-45.

Yarhouse, M. A. & Tan, E. S. N. (2004). Sexual identity synthesis: Attributions, meaning-making, and the search for congruence. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Yarhouse, M. A. (2001). Sexual Identity Development: The Influence of Valuative Frameworks on Identity Synthesis. Psychotherapy, 38(3), 331-341.

AUTHORS

YARHOUSE, MARK, A. Address: Regent University, School of Psychology and Counseling, 1000 Regent University Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23464. Title: Hughes Chair of Christian Thought in Mental Health Practice, Professor of Psychology. Degrees: Psy.D., Clinical Psychology, Wheaton College; M.A., Clinical Psychology, Wheaton College; M.A., Theological Studies, Wheaton College. Specializations: Human sexuality, sexual identity, family therapy, ethics, integration of psychology and theology.

STRATTON, STEPHEN P. Address: Asbury Theological Seminary, School of Practical Theology, Area of Counseling and Pastoral Care, 204 N. Lexington, Wilmore, KY 40390. Title: Associate Professor of Counseling and Pastoral Care. Degrees: Ph.D., Counseling Psychology, Auburn University. Specializations: Attachment theory, relational psychodynamic therapies, sexual identity, forgiveness, integration of psychology, theology, and spiritual formation.

DEAN, JANET, B. Address: Asbury College, Dept. of Behavioral Sciences, 1 Macklem Dr., Wilmore, KY 40390. Title: Assistant Professor. Degrees: Ph.D., Clinical Psychology, The Ohio State University; M.A., Clinical Psychology, The Ohio State University; M.Div., Divinity, Asbury Theological Seminary: MA, Counseling, Asbury Theological Seminary. Specializations: Personality, sexual identity, forgiveness, cognitive behavioral therapy, integration of psychology and theology.

BROOKE, HEATHER, L. Address: MercyFirst, New York, NY. Title: Clinical Coordinator. Degrees: M.A., Clinical Psychology, Regent University. Specializations: Human sexuality, sexual addiction.

APPENDIX

Recommended Communication to Students

Dear students,

It is with great consideration I come to you to share about an important study currently being conducted at a number of Christian colleges and universities around the country. The study has to do with the topic of homosexuality and, specifically, sexual identity. What I mean by this is how it is that a person who experiences same-sex feelings makes sense of those feelings in light of their Christian faith. The study is called Project Identity Dilemma. It is our hope that by having you participate in this study we will have a better understanding of the issues facing Christian students who experience same-sex attraction and are sorting out how to live in light of their Christian faith. In the end, we want to understand the experience of students who experience same-sex attraction while attending a Christian college or university.

So what am I asking of you? In the next week you will receive an email announcing the study. I am asking you to understand why we are participating in the study and, if you experience same-sex attraction, I am asking you to please follow the instructions in the email. You will be given directions to a secure web address where you can complete an anonymous on-line questionnaire. To reiterate, your participation cannot identify you. You do not provide any identifying information. The questionnaire will take about 30 minutes to complete. Again, all responses are anonymous. No identifying information will be retained with the surveys.

If you experience same-sex attraction, I hope that you will consider taking part in this survey. By doing so, you will play an important role in assisting your school in understanding students who have same-sex feelings as well as those who wish to be a Christ-like support to them.

MARK A. YARHOUSE

Regent University

STEPHEN P. STRATTON

Asbury Theological Seminary

JANET B. DEAN

Asbury College

HEATHER L. BROOKE

MercyFirst

This study was supported by a grant from the Faculty Senate at Regent University. Please address correspondence to Mark A. Yarhouse, PhD, Regent University, School of Psychology and Counseling, 1000 Regent University Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23464.