The Fallacy of “Orientation”

(John Henderson)

There is no need to belabor an introduction. It is clear what this is about. “Orientation” in this context is “the direction of someone’s interest or attitude, especially sexual,” regarding homosexuality. It is an active—non-dormant—attitude or inclination. It is a settled way of thinking or feeling about one’s interest in homosexuality; an interest in or liking homosexuality; a decisive preference for homosexuality based on understanding its nature.

Biologically, “a simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated and various studies point to different, even conflicting positions.” Said another way, one can readily prove ones gender biologically but cannot demonstrate homosexual orientation biologically. Self-selection bias and other pitfalls always afflict any study, no matter how “controlled” it might seem to be.
That puts the entire issue in the catch-all category of assumption and speculation based on predisposed interpretations of inconclusive data. Researchers like that because they often come to the end of their own abilities to understand, the data becomes unmanageable, and they want to go home to supper or get a paper published. Hiding behind a “margin of error” doesn’t solve the problem. That is also capriciously predetermined.

I know that on a personal level. I wanted to get done with that doctoral program and was weary of running into walls on the dissertation just trying to make it all come together. I finally sorted through that cardboard box of data I had accumulated, pulled out stuff that seemed to make sense, wrote a bunch of gibberish that fit my chosen narrative, and it sailed through approval. It is somewhere in Vanderbilt’s archives the last I checked and nobody cares one wit about it, including me. Confession is good for the soul, so I am told. Just the same, it still turned out pretty good and may be useful to someone down the way.

So, when I claim that a theologian is wrong that steps aside from the Scriptures and enters a philosophical arena in making conclusions about homosexual orientation as being amoral or non-sinful, I am on pretty solid ground there. Philosophy assumes everything and proves nothing.

Of course, some of them are already well-practiced in that approach. They are just as cock-eyed when they claim that some form of evolutionism can explain creation or that the Bible is only inspired where it refers to soteriology (salvation). This is just another leg on their stool of compromise and error.

Biology and philosophy aside, let us consider just the Scriptures on that matter. We shall still feed off of a simple definition of “orientation”: the direction of someone’s interest or attitude regarding homosexuality… a settled way of thinking or feeling about one’s interest in homosexuality; an interest in or liking homosexuality; a decisive preference for homosexuality based on understanding its nature. In short form: It is how one decides or chooses to think—a chosen and trained mindset or worldview.
The Bible nowhere makes allowances for mental or moral entrapment other than that we are born in sin and need salvation. The continuous thread of the Scriptures is to the end that we might be saved. In that way, the whole Bible is soteriological in nature. It defines and condemns sin, pronounces judgment, and offers redemption in Christ.

Orientation in the scriptural mode is always about that which comes out of the predisposition to sin, the carnal nature. Orientation is always connected to sin.

The Bible tells us plainly that temptation—the only amoral condition possible—actually emits or is fed by previous conduct and disposition:

James 1:14-15 – “…each one is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires. Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is full grown, it gives birth to death.”

I was not a thief growing up. The temptation to steal never haunts me. That is true of many things. The things that I became involved in prior to being born again are the very things the devil still hits me with from time to time after more than 65 years. Only redeeming grace comes to my rescue. That is what James means here.

There are many passages that deal with the thoughts of the heart—not merely the mind. Jesus tells us that one can commit adultery or murder another person without ever engaging in the behavior. They are attitudes of lust and hate. Even the Ten Commandments address that—you shall not desire, or long for, what belongs to your neighbor.

We would be very wise if we stay with the Scriptures and seek the lost accordingly. If we coddle them in their sins, we are not leading them to Christ. Instead, we are pushing open the door to Hell for them to rush in by means of treacherous and menacing deception.

Advertisements

6 responses to “The Fallacy of “Orientation”

  1. Please keep us up on the outcome on this subject and the manual at general assembly

    Terri Ferguson
    Senior Bill Cl/Pat Acct Rep Health
    Billing and Third Party Collections
    University of Michigan Health System
    Telephone # 734-647-0363
    Fax # 734-764-8552

  2. You do realize that you have to meet them where they are. You can’t just toss the Bible at them and expect them to understand. That’s like tossing a baby a lobster. And FYI being homosexual is not The unpardonable sin! That would be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Just like all of us they were born with carnal sin. Sin is sin and we have to put it under the blood of Christ sometimes daily, hourly depending on the temptation. If you don’t agree with the Nazarene church then leave! There are loads of other denominations and non-denominational churches. I left years ago because I don’t believe in its theology anymore. Please stop complaining about it. You’re doing no good!

  3. Andi:
    Some of us who have invested years of service in the COTN, myself 55 years, are not willing to roll over and play dead. If the Apostle Paul had left his churches when they came under attach, where would the church be today. No I believe the church is worth fighting for against sin and the devil until it backslides .

  4. People in the COTN (as well as other denominations) are abandoning Scripture and exchanging the Truth for a lie. To keep this on topic and not dwell on ‘other sins’, we need to look at the heart. The heart is wicked and rebelious towards God. The LGBTQ wants to push all sin guilt away from their hearts. If they can legislate their morality in the church and find acceptance, then they have won the do not judge me war because sin is sin right? Yes, sin is sin. But the difference between a believer who sins and an unbeliever who sins is repentance. Yes, both sin, but the believer strives to flee temptation so he/she doesn’t sin. They do not go around parading and seeking acceptance of their sinfullness. This is my complaint.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s