Have you even read any of Sam Allberry’s work? You seem to think he is way more liberal than he is. I am deeply saddened by Allberry falling into temptation, and I think dunking on him by misrepresenting his theology like this isn’t right. Sam has been an advocate of a conservative but empathetic approach to SSA.
Your refusal to edit your buzzword title after acknowledging you misrepresented Allberry’s teaching in your Facebook comments just shows that you care more about views than truth.
It seems to me like Michael wrote this whole article blaming Sam’s theology for his current situation, but then at the very end added in an edit with quotes from Sam clearly speaking out against the beliefs that Michael claims he has & spent the entire article refuting? I don’t get it…
I know you posted a clarification, but where does Sam say he is Side B?
I've read many of his books, and I'm almost certain he is not. He's firmly in the Side Y camp. That is evidenced by his repentance, reconciliation, and renewal within the same church.
I think the larger mythos of "having good theology protects me from sexual sin" is even more problematic. The percentages of men who regularly consume pornography is only marginally better within the church, and I doubt there's much difference between Side A, Side B, Side X, or Side Y churches.
Nothing of what you've written here (which I agree with) has not already been written by Yuan, Butterfield, and Allberry himself, et al. Good theology is really, really important, but Allberry's repentance and restoration is what should be celebrated here, not having the historically orthodox (Side Y) position.
The fundamental conceit of this piece, that if he'd been right on this issue his sin would have been less likely, strikes me as absolutely absurd. Not just absurd, unbiblical.
Don't get me wrong, bad theology can lead to serious problems. Bad theology at a corporate level can escalate these problems exponentially.
But plenty of people with perfectly sound theology on any given issue have sinned terribly in a manner exactly contrary to their theology. Plenty of people who've denounced the possibility of chaste homosexuality have been revealed to have not exactly lived out their teaching.
If believing the right thing lead to right action, the world would look very, very different and our faith would too.
I got some real whiplash at the end with those addendums, which should be included as notes in the body of your post, not hidden at the bottom. Or at the very least footnoted. Sheesh.
It's interesting to me how your theology seems to erase the category of "attraction" as a relational experience separate from lust, desire, passion, etc. To dismiss claims of "same sex attraction as nothing more than "sinful lusts and passions" seems to overshoot reality. Someone can be attracted to another person for all sorts of reasons that don't even approach sexuality or lust. For a man to experience that attraction toward even 1 man would by definition make him "same sex attracted" even without a sexual component. Married people are attracted, at times, to people who are not their spouse, which would be very jarring when their attractions have been "under control" and consistently directed for long periods of time. Noticing the attraction and identifying it is an "opportunity for the devil" (Eph 4:27) before desire, lust, or passion have room to grow is not only possible, it's necessary and wise!
Your own metaphor gives away this shortcoming in your logic:
"We need hard words to describe harmful realities we need to be warned against. We don’t say a greedy man is 'attracted to money.' We say he’s greedy. We don’t say a liar is 'attracted to deceit,' we call him a liar. Plain language is more honest and, in the long run, more merciful."
We don't call someone who is attracted to money and wealth greedy, because they might not be in practice. They might recognize their attraction and work and pray daily for grace to keep it from developing into passion, pursuit, or lack of control. We wouldn't know they were attracted to money unless they had behaved or communicated in a way that revealed it. (Or, dare I say, tell us about it...) Once someone is giving into their desire for wealth and becoming steered by their passion for it, we universally call them greedy.
We don't call someone who wants to lie or deceive a liar because they haven't displayed their deceit yet! The statement presupposes that they have lied, since they're already a liar. Surely a person caught in a troublesome circumstance is attracted to the option of lying (interestingly, one of the things in this article that could have been accurately attributed to Allberry), but until they choose deceit as a way forward, why would we identify them with a "plain language" title of liar?
Plain language is sometimes "more honest", and even "more merciful" in certain cases (rebuke for discovered sin, for instance). But it's also less precise and unhelpful when the plainness of the language is used to cover over or eliminate legitimate language and realities that also exist.
I feel reasonably certain that beyond the guilt and shame of sin, deceit, and failure, Mr. Allberry is devastated to have handed people like you ammunition to attack and claim, "See! It was never possible to live a God-honoring life until He has reversed all same-sex desire (your word) in you" about so many of our brothers and sisters in Christ who struggle day by day, longing for a future where "they will neither marry, nor be given in marriage" when they will be glorified into perfect Christlikeness. All while, time and again, heterosexual spiritual leaders and pastors continue to fail after allowing attraction to go unchecked and take root, giving birth to desire, lust, and covetousness. They're all the same story (Allberry and the rest), just with a different cast of characters.
I have read Sam’s books and have heard him speak in person. He is most definitely not Side B. He is side Y. And he does not share the same theological framework as Preston Sprinkle or Wesley Hill. This post is inaccurate.
The issue here is a confusion between temptation and desire. Scripture makes clear that being tempted is not itself sinful otherwise Christ Himself would be implicated. Hebrews 4:15. The real issue is what we do with that temptation.
What’s happened with Sam Allberry should lead all of us to humility, not to simplistic cause-and-effect conclusions about theology. Every Christian, regardless of the form temptation takes, is dealing with a fallen nature and is capable of serious failure. Sam Allberry did not teach that same-sex desire, lust, was to be embraced- he taught that it was to be resisted. Just as many teachers who have had moral failures with those of the opposite sex taught well and biblically about purity. We can know the truth and struggle to live it- we can desire to live faithfully and fail. This should lead us to Jesus in humility, soberly reflecting on our own sin, temptation and vulnerabilities.
It’s also not accurate to say that ministries like Living Out treat sinful desire lightly. They consistently teach that lust: whether same-sex or opposite-sex is sin and must be resisted. Acknowledging the presence of temptation is not the same as affirming or excusing it.
So his views aren’t complicated. They are pretty clear. If you - ahem - read them. But saying that they are complicated allows you to keep your article up without, you know, repenting!
Thank you. I didn't realize Allberry was pushing Side B. I purchased one of his books, published by Crossway. I had thought Crossway would be solid. Hmm.
Please Michael's addendum at the bottom: "I should also add that Crossway wasn't supporting Side B in publishing Sam, but was actually pushing against it. I apologize for these misrepresentations."
The addendum doesn’t account for the entirety of the piece, which leverages someone’s local church discipline (and repentance) for clicks. Sam isn’t Side B, has never said he was, and this piece, however true it might be, is based upon a false accusation. See my further comment.
So change your title. Or are you looking for clicks? If you misrepresent Sam then take down the article and do to your own piece what TGC has done to his works.
I think in the light of the addendum, you probably ought to pull the piece and entirely rewrite it, title and all. There are legitimate things to be said here and fair critiques to be made of Sam — it's just that the premise of the core post doesn't appear to be one of them.
If someone did not make it to the end of this article, they would come away with views you say yourself are very much misrepresented. I think the gracious thing to do would be to edit the article, put the notes at the very front, or remove the piece.
"Since I published this piece yesterday, I realized Sam Allberry’s views are more complicated than I realized at first, so I offer this addendum as a clarification."
I think you should just stop here...this is clearly an area you need to do some more research in. You are speaking as if you have authority on a topic you are woefully under equipped for. This whole topic is way more complicated than you realised. Which you demonstrate in multiple places, a few of which I will highlight to aid you in you r studies.
A) Lust is never sanctified. Lust is seeing one who carries the image of God as an object for your personal use. Even in marriage lust is sinful. If you lust after your wife you sin against her. Try loving her instead.
B) Sam Allberry has never said that sin only happens when physical acts happen. He is clearer than you seem to be that lust is sinful. But thinking something is attractive and lusting after it is not the same thing...I can think a cake looks good without spending all day wanting to eat it, equally I can devour it in my mind over and over, mouth watering. These are clearly different things.
C) just because male and female is the natural created order does not mean that those who are only attracted to the opposite sex are ordered in their desires...the fall has tarnished everything. We all have a broken sexuality. None of us relates sexually in a fully ordered way...yes some is more ordered than others but it is only ever by degrees...thankfully for all of us the blood of the cross (and not marriage as you imply) covers all our sins and restores us to righteousness before the father.
I could go on but I feel my efforts would be wasted.
Have you even read any of Sam Allberry’s work? You seem to think he is way more liberal than he is. I am deeply saddened by Allberry falling into temptation, and I think dunking on him by misrepresenting his theology like this isn’t right. Sam has been an advocate of a conservative but empathetic approach to SSA.
Your refusal to edit your buzzword title after acknowledging you misrepresented Allberry’s teaching in your Facebook comments just shows that you care more about views than truth.
It seems to me like Michael wrote this whole article blaming Sam’s theology for his current situation, but then at the very end added in an edit with quotes from Sam clearly speaking out against the beliefs that Michael claims he has & spent the entire article refuting? I don’t get it…
I know you posted a clarification, but where does Sam say he is Side B?
I've read many of his books, and I'm almost certain he is not. He's firmly in the Side Y camp. That is evidenced by his repentance, reconciliation, and renewal within the same church.
I think the larger mythos of "having good theology protects me from sexual sin" is even more problematic. The percentages of men who regularly consume pornography is only marginally better within the church, and I doubt there's much difference between Side A, Side B, Side X, or Side Y churches.
Nothing of what you've written here (which I agree with) has not already been written by Yuan, Butterfield, and Allberry himself, et al. Good theology is really, really important, but Allberry's repentance and restoration is what should be celebrated here, not having the historically orthodox (Side Y) position.
The fundamental conceit of this piece, that if he'd been right on this issue his sin would have been less likely, strikes me as absolutely absurd. Not just absurd, unbiblical.
Don't get me wrong, bad theology can lead to serious problems. Bad theology at a corporate level can escalate these problems exponentially.
But plenty of people with perfectly sound theology on any given issue have sinned terribly in a manner exactly contrary to their theology. Plenty of people who've denounced the possibility of chaste homosexuality have been revealed to have not exactly lived out their teaching.
If believing the right thing lead to right action, the world would look very, very different and our faith would too.
Yes thank you for saying this Llywellyn!
I got some real whiplash at the end with those addendums, which should be included as notes in the body of your post, not hidden at the bottom. Or at the very least footnoted. Sheesh.
It's interesting to me how your theology seems to erase the category of "attraction" as a relational experience separate from lust, desire, passion, etc. To dismiss claims of "same sex attraction as nothing more than "sinful lusts and passions" seems to overshoot reality. Someone can be attracted to another person for all sorts of reasons that don't even approach sexuality or lust. For a man to experience that attraction toward even 1 man would by definition make him "same sex attracted" even without a sexual component. Married people are attracted, at times, to people who are not their spouse, which would be very jarring when their attractions have been "under control" and consistently directed for long periods of time. Noticing the attraction and identifying it is an "opportunity for the devil" (Eph 4:27) before desire, lust, or passion have room to grow is not only possible, it's necessary and wise!
Your own metaphor gives away this shortcoming in your logic:
"We need hard words to describe harmful realities we need to be warned against. We don’t say a greedy man is 'attracted to money.' We say he’s greedy. We don’t say a liar is 'attracted to deceit,' we call him a liar. Plain language is more honest and, in the long run, more merciful."
We don't call someone who is attracted to money and wealth greedy, because they might not be in practice. They might recognize their attraction and work and pray daily for grace to keep it from developing into passion, pursuit, or lack of control. We wouldn't know they were attracted to money unless they had behaved or communicated in a way that revealed it. (Or, dare I say, tell us about it...) Once someone is giving into their desire for wealth and becoming steered by their passion for it, we universally call them greedy.
We don't call someone who wants to lie or deceive a liar because they haven't displayed their deceit yet! The statement presupposes that they have lied, since they're already a liar. Surely a person caught in a troublesome circumstance is attracted to the option of lying (interestingly, one of the things in this article that could have been accurately attributed to Allberry), but until they choose deceit as a way forward, why would we identify them with a "plain language" title of liar?
Plain language is sometimes "more honest", and even "more merciful" in certain cases (rebuke for discovered sin, for instance). But it's also less precise and unhelpful when the plainness of the language is used to cover over or eliminate legitimate language and realities that also exist.
I feel reasonably certain that beyond the guilt and shame of sin, deceit, and failure, Mr. Allberry is devastated to have handed people like you ammunition to attack and claim, "See! It was never possible to live a God-honoring life until He has reversed all same-sex desire (your word) in you" about so many of our brothers and sisters in Christ who struggle day by day, longing for a future where "they will neither marry, nor be given in marriage" when they will be glorified into perfect Christlikeness. All while, time and again, heterosexual spiritual leaders and pastors continue to fail after allowing attraction to go unchecked and take root, giving birth to desire, lust, and covetousness. They're all the same story (Allberry and the rest), just with a different cast of characters.
I have read Sam’s books and have heard him speak in person. He is most definitely not Side B. He is side Y. And he does not share the same theological framework as Preston Sprinkle or Wesley Hill. This post is inaccurate.
The issue here is a confusion between temptation and desire. Scripture makes clear that being tempted is not itself sinful otherwise Christ Himself would be implicated. Hebrews 4:15. The real issue is what we do with that temptation.
What’s happened with Sam Allberry should lead all of us to humility, not to simplistic cause-and-effect conclusions about theology. Every Christian, regardless of the form temptation takes, is dealing with a fallen nature and is capable of serious failure. Sam Allberry did not teach that same-sex desire, lust, was to be embraced- he taught that it was to be resisted. Just as many teachers who have had moral failures with those of the opposite sex taught well and biblically about purity. We can know the truth and struggle to live it- we can desire to live faithfully and fail. This should lead us to Jesus in humility, soberly reflecting on our own sin, temptation and vulnerabilities.
It’s also not accurate to say that ministries like Living Out treat sinful desire lightly. They consistently teach that lust: whether same-sex or opposite-sex is sin and must be resisted. Acknowledging the presence of temptation is not the same as affirming or excusing it.
So his views aren’t complicated. They are pretty clear. If you - ahem - read them. But saying that they are complicated allows you to keep your article up without, you know, repenting!
Thank you. I didn't realize Allberry was pushing Side B. I purchased one of his books, published by Crossway. I had thought Crossway would be solid. Hmm.
Crossway ain't what it used to be
He's not. Not at all.
He's not. Side B Christians actually disagree with Alberry on a lot of things. They don't particularly like him.
Yes, the premise of this article and its click-bait title has been undercut.
The update undercuts the thesis of the entire article.
The Allberry book I purchased is What God Has to Say about Our Bodies?
Please Michael's addendum at the bottom: "I should also add that Crossway wasn't supporting Side B in publishing Sam, but was actually pushing against it. I apologize for these misrepresentations."
The addendum doesn’t account for the entirety of the piece, which leverages someone’s local church discipline (and repentance) for clicks. Sam isn’t Side B, has never said he was, and this piece, however true it might be, is based upon a false accusation. See my further comment.
Mike this is excellent! The logic of Side B never made sense to me. you lay it all out in way that is really clear.
Personally I think because Sam is such a public person Immanuel should be more transparent but that’s just an opinion.
Yes they are pretty vague about it
So change your title. Or are you looking for clicks? If you misrepresent Sam then take down the article and do to your own piece what TGC has done to his works.
I think in the light of the addendum, you probably ought to pull the piece and entirely rewrite it, title and all. There are legitimate things to be said here and fair critiques to be made of Sam — it's just that the premise of the core post doesn't appear to be one of them.
Technically side A is a kiss away from actually side B.
Michael is right. Our theology matters.
And where does your theology (willing to spout false testimony of a brother, spreading lies at Sam’s expense for the sake of clicks) lead?
If someone did not make it to the end of this article, they would come away with views you say yourself are very much misrepresented. I think the gracious thing to do would be to edit the article, put the notes at the very front, or remove the piece.
textbook burying the lede. you should do this one over.
"Since I published this piece yesterday, I realized Sam Allberry’s views are more complicated than I realized at first, so I offer this addendum as a clarification."
I think you should just stop here...this is clearly an area you need to do some more research in. You are speaking as if you have authority on a topic you are woefully under equipped for. This whole topic is way more complicated than you realised. Which you demonstrate in multiple places, a few of which I will highlight to aid you in you r studies.
A) Lust is never sanctified. Lust is seeing one who carries the image of God as an object for your personal use. Even in marriage lust is sinful. If you lust after your wife you sin against her. Try loving her instead.
B) Sam Allberry has never said that sin only happens when physical acts happen. He is clearer than you seem to be that lust is sinful. But thinking something is attractive and lusting after it is not the same thing...I can think a cake looks good without spending all day wanting to eat it, equally I can devour it in my mind over and over, mouth watering. These are clearly different things.
C) just because male and female is the natural created order does not mean that those who are only attracted to the opposite sex are ordered in their desires...the fall has tarnished everything. We all have a broken sexuality. None of us relates sexually in a fully ordered way...yes some is more ordered than others but it is only ever by degrees...thankfully for all of us the blood of the cross (and not marriage as you imply) covers all our sins and restores us to righteousness before the father.
I could go on but I feel my efforts would be wasted.
Agreed! Alberry's views are only complicated if you have never actually read anything by him. The responses to Alberry have been very discouraging.