A major issue when scholars, such as Townsley, attempt to re-evaluate Biblical passages is that many scholars suggest that this type of queer theology is imposed onto the Bible by perverse readers to justify their sexuality, as opposed to emanating from the Bible itself (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. x). A problem faced by many non-traditional theologies as McGrath highlights when discussing liberation theologies, “Western academic theology has tended to regard [their approach to Biblical interpretation] with some impatience, believing that it has no place for the considered insights of Biblical scholarship concerning the interpretation of such passages” (McGrath: 2011: 91). Hornsby et al. attempt to combat these assumptions and trepidations by arguing that queer readings of the Bible give attention to style, form and critical approach not simply sexual diversity. They argue that our notion of ‘The Bible’ as a fixed product with a fixed form and meaning stems from our engagement with particular texts and interpretations in very specific contexts reliant on translation, hermeneutical assumption, scholarly tradition, strategies for reading and more (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. x).. The demand on the discipline of Biblical interpretation from Hornsby et al. and other similar scholars is that the scriptures should be stripped from anachronistic assumption and be turned into “proper objects to be penetrated with proper tools” (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. x).  Queer theologians such as Hornsby et al. expect to make a radical impact in the field of Biblical interpretation. However, they do not see themselves as ‘queering the Bible’ (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. xii), that is to say they are not forcing their modern views surrounding equality onto the ancient context in which the Bible arose from. It is rather that they attempt to ‘free’ the texts that “centuries of interpreters have sought to put…in a box- to concretise and canonise meaning” because, they argue, meaning cannot be held for any extended period of time as it is fleeting and “what is true is only true right here, right now, then gone” (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. ixx).

Therefore, it could be argued that one of the objectives that queer theology is currently attempting to accomplish within the realm of Biblical interpretaton is to “destabilize the established notions” of sexual, social and political identity surrounding the ‘queer’ (Punt, in Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. 338) in the Bible by revealing their vulnerability to history and politics, and therefore to change (Schneider: 2006: as quoted by Punt, in Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. 338).” According to Punt,

Queer theory requires that new attention be given not only to the interpretation of the biblical material on corporeality and the body, on sex and sexuality, and on gender and gender performativity, but that the very way in which such issues are addressed be considered. How did authors in the Bible think about the body, gender, and sex? What role did they play in the moulding of contemporary frameworks of thought, perceptions, and themes on and about the body, sex, and gender?

This passage from Punt supports the arguments raised that queer theology is encouraging, and demanding, new attention to specific Biblical passages. Whilst also supporting the idea from such theologians as Hornsby et al. that a re-evaluation is necessary on how Biblical interpretation as a discipline is practised. With an emphasis being placed on scholars becoming more aware of the Bible’s, arguably previously ignored, social context which has roots in its historical placement..