I do not like it when Christians who oppose LGBT equality are accused of "hating" or being "homophobic." I used to be one of those Christians, so I think I understand how many of them think and feel. They do not hate or fear LGBT people. They fear God. They carry a perception of the wrathful Old Testament God who will destroy cities or nations if "sin" is found in the camp (in the Hebrew scriptures, that "sin" consisted of acts such as idolatry or intermarriage with Gentiles or not thoroughly slaughtering one's enemy). Attempts to reconcile this ancient God of wrath with the God of love and inclusion that Jesus represented tend to create a sort of congitive and spiritual dissonance. And so, most Christians don't hate and fear gays--they really want to love them. What they fear is God's wrath and what they hate is the idea of the destruction God will bring down if LGBT people are accepted--if "sin" is allowed. There is also an earnest desire to be faithful and obedient to what they perceive God's will to be. It is a mindset that is actually very similar to that which was held by the Pharisees in the time of Jesus. The problem is theological and the solution is a better understanding of scripture and a deeper revelation of God's all-encompassing love and mercy and grace and compassion and inclusion. That is what Jesus modeled and what the apostles gave their lives demonstrating.

POSTSCRIPT (6/16/13): Some have responded to this post by saying, essentially, that it doesn't matter why many Christians oppose LGBT equality/inclusion and that my efforts to point out that the struggle is theological and is rooted in a fear-based perception of God is beside the point. The point, these responders would maintain, is that these Christians are hurting LGBT people--regardless of the reasons why--and that makes them bad. The problem with approaching it in this way is that it focuses on the problem but not the solution. Expending our energies on blame-casting (and perhaps name-calling) might make us feel good (and morally superior), but it doesn't offer a way forward. The way we move things forward is through dialogue and education. An inherent part of effective dialogue (and effective education) is understanding the other person's viewpoint and the reasons they hold that viewpoint. This can, in turn, lead us to deeper understanding and creative solutions which can change hearts and minds. But this approach is harder. It demands from us empathy. And it requires that we set aside our indignation. Quakers refer to this process as "laboring together" with those whom we have disagreements with. Nelson Mandela (who knows a thing or two about injustice) once said "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." Desmond Tutu echoed this when he said, “If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.” Abraham Lincoln said it even more succinctly: "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?" The question is, what is our motivation? Do we want a peace/shalom where all are included and valued, or do we just want the sense of satisfaction that comes from being right?