As I prepare to attend the Greer-Heard Forum at NOBTS on The Bible and Sex, I\u2019ve been thinking a lot about Queer hermeneutics and Queer theology. I don\u2019t agree, but I understand, how Queer theorists see \u201cneither gay nor straight\u201d as a logical consequent of Paul\u2019s remarks in Gal 3:28. Daniel Kirk has come out and said that this is the best place to build a theology of gay inclusion in his book\u00a0Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul?<\/em> (Though Kirk also says a lot of other things about the Bible and homosexuality as well).<\/p>\n Oliver O\u2019Donovan\u2019s superb book,\u00a0A Conversation Waiting to Begin: The Churches and the Gay Controversy<\/em>, points out what the real problem is \u2013 not whether David and Jonathan were homoerotic, nor trajectories from Gal 3:28 \u2013 but a far more fundamental problem. O\u2019Donovan provides a quote from the document\u00a0Life Together\u00a0<\/em>written by the governing committee of the Church of Sweden which was put to its General Synod in favor of same-sex marriage: \u201cHere the distinction between what belongs to creation and what\u00a0belongs\u00a0to salvation loses its significance.\u201d In response, O\u2019Donovan writes:<\/span><\/p>\n Innovative as the sacramental proposal was, it is the doctrinal proposal that is likely to shake the foundations. The creation of the world by God and its redemption in Jesus Christ are the poles in relation to which Christians have consistently narrated the moral history of the world. There are moments in the narration, of course, that do not lie at either pole but in between them \u2013 e.g., the\u00a0sacraments\u00a0themselves, which have no place in the Garden of Eden or in the New Jerusalem. But these still depend on the\u00a0<\/em>distinction<\/em>\u00a0of creation and redemption; they are sustained by the dynamic tensions between them. If the distinction between creation and redemption has no significance, then a sacrament has no significance either. The narrative of creation and redemption has accompanied the disciplined Christian attempts to think about the moral dilemmas thrown up by every age: slavery, war, technology, wealth and markets, etc., etc. In each dilemma, they have asked, what gifts of the Creator are to be rejoiced in here? What evils are to be repented of and lamented? What transformations are yet to be hoped for? As these strands in each dilemma have been separated and clarified, so\u00a0resolution\u00a0has seemed possible. But now, it is suggested, the same-sex question is better thought about\u00a0without\u00a0this narration. In contemplating same-sex union we need not ask whether we are rejoicing in the bounty of creation, lamenting the distortion of human affections, or looking forward to the lineaments of the new creation. What could such a proposal amount to \u2013 in relation to this or to any other question?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I think O\u2019Donovan is correct. Queer theology dissolves the boundary separating creation and redemption. Salvation becomes not the eschatological transformation of the body, but the affirmation of the body in its current form.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As I prepare to attend the Greer-Heard Forum at NOBTS on The Bible and Sex, I\u2019ve been thinking a lot about Queer hermeneutics and Queer theology. I don\u2019t agree, but I understand, how Queer theorists see \u201cneither gay nor straight\u201d as a logical consequent of Paul\u2019s remarks in Gal 3:28. Daniel Kirk has come out […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":196,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n