Don't Draw the Wrong Lessons from the Latest Evangelical Scandal

I got the screenshot via text message from a pastor friend, and my heart sank. Intuitively, I knew that another pastor had committed public sin. This time, Sam Allberry had disqualified himself from ministry for engaging “in an inappropriate relationship with an adult man.” I read the whole of his church’s public statement in hopes of finding clues of repentance and restoration to Christ. Thankfully, it seems that he is pursuing the path to life in submission to his local church. I pray he finds forgiveness, reconciliation, and full restoration.

In case you don’t know Sam Allberry, he was a pastor at Immanuel Church in Nashville, Tennessee, who had written several books on the topic of homosexuality, same sex-attraction, and the gospel. He claims to be a same-sex attracted Christian man who has chosen to live a lifestyle of celibacy in service to Christ. In other words, though he is attracted to men, he acknowledges the sinfulness of homosexual desire and has committed himself to pursuing a lifestyle of righteousness in obedience to Christ.

Allberry has long been somewhat of a controversial figure. While few doubt the sincerity of his faith, many take issue with his position on “same-sex attraction” and argue that attraction itself is a sin that needs to be repented of—a distortion of the created order and a transgression against God’s law. Personally, I am sympathetic to some of these criticisms, but that’s not why I bring this up.

Predictably, in the days after the release of Immanuel Church’s public statement, the online opportunistic public pile-on began. It seems that many find it excruciatingly difficult to allow a public scandal to pass without using it to score points for their side. As the porch light attracts moths, Allberry’s public sin drew out hot takes from his opponents as they raced to explain how the disgraced pastor’s sin was unsurprising, “inevitable,” and the fruit of his bad theology. Tragically, it seems that one man’s public fall is another man’s opportunity to rise.

Of course, this dynamic is nothing new. Progressives often trace scandal among conservatives back to their theology. For example, public sexual abuse gets linked to complementarianism and traditional views on gender roles. Whenever a high-profile complementarian falls the predictable hot takes emerge detailing the inevitability of abuse given the abuser’s problematic “patriarchal” theology. People make similar assumptions about all kinds of theological commitments. That person acting like a rage-baiting jerk online? “Well, he is a Calvinist.”

Maybe it’s best to resist this urge to weigh in confidently on theological causation. Perhaps not every occasion of public sin can be traced back causally to a doctrinal aberration. Maybe erroneous theological error does not lead inevitably to ministry-disqualifying sin. While I’m perfectly willing to admit that doctrinal error always results in negative consequences, I don’t think retroactively drawing lines of causation from theological aberration to scandal constitutes virtuous reasoning. I don’t have a lot of confidence in mankind’s ability to discern the motives of human action, for “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it” (Jer 17:9)?

While I don’t endorse James K. A. Smith’s entire project, I appreciate his rejection of a belief-centric anthropology in favor of a view of human beings motivated primarily by what we love or desire. Smith argues that we are what we love, and that our loves and desires often override our stated beliefs. Thus, Paul writes that human beings suppress the truth about God “by their unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). The choice to sin does not typically follow a logical progression from belief to action. Sometimes, we want and we act with little regard to our stated beliefs. At least, that’s how James understands the progression (Jam 4:1-3).

Human beings are complex, full of inconsistencies. Sometimes people with terrible theological beliefs behave ethically. Other times those with seemingly perfect theological systems behave perversely. Sometimes, and tragically, external commitment to doctrinal orthodoxy serves as cover for all manner of heinous secret sin.

We don’t need to assume that a person’s stated theology inevitably led them to sin. If that’s your view, then at least strive for consistency. Be ready to re-evaluate your own doctrinal commitments next time someone from your tribe falls publicly.

But there’s an even more important lesson to learn from all this. Don’t assume that your good theology will prevent you from falling. Theological commitment does not immunize you from being the next public scandal. Theology matters to the degree that it leads to whole life doxology and a dependence on his grace daily as we face temptations of our own. May God’s grace preserve us all.