Fuller Seminary Retains Sexuality Policy

Recognizing Diversity within Institutional Commitments?

One year ago last week, I got an interview request from Deepa Bharath with the Associated Press Religion Team. She wanted my views on discussions occurring at Fuller Seminary regarding their policy on sexuality. The institution was attempting to review their stance, especially given the way that several denominations from which students come had changed stances on LGBTQ+ acceptance.

I was able to review the draft language developed by the Human Sexuality Task Force and offer some insight. Most significant for me was the way that Fuller was acknowledging the diversity of views existing on these critical questions. Deepa’s story is here. This is the passage from the draft that stood out to me then and now.

Centered on this mission and vision, faculty are expected to exercise humility and integrity in scholarship and teaching concerning matters of human sexuality. This means honoring the institutional positions stated above and complying with professional standards required by accreditors.

Trustees, administrators, faculty, and staff called to represent the Seminary to ecclesial and communal publics are to abide by the sexual standard regarding sexual intimacy within the boundaries of the traditional understanding of marriage. They are expected to live with integrity consistent with the Christian communities to which they belong. Those who are part of Christian communities that differ from the theological stance regarding traditional marriage are expected to support the seminary's statement, to engage with integrity, and to contribute constructively to nurturing the seminary's relationships of trust with global evangelical theological communities.

Here’s what I told Deepa:

If the board votes to approve these revisions, Fuller could become the first evangelical seminary in the country to adopt standards acknowledging the diversity of thought among Christians pertaining to human sexuality, according to retired professor John Hawthorne, an expert on Christian colleges.

Such a decision would carry Fuller into uncharted territory, Hawthorne said. “It’s a bold step for a school that fought off lawsuits on this very issue a few years ago.”

I’m reviewing this story from last year because this week brought news that the Fuller Board had decided to leave the previous policy in place. Christianity Today headlined the story as “Fuller Seminary Reaffirms Historic LGBTQ Stance”. In the story, Dan Silliman recounts the Fuller history on its LGBTQ stance and provides insight on how the Task Force couldn’t come to consensus over the course of the year. The Religion News Service story has the headline, “Fuller says some churches allow same-sex marriage. But ban on married gay students remains.” This story by Bob Smietana also rehearses the institution’s history, while noting that students and faculty are expected to follow the institution’s policies.

The RNS story links to an op-ed written by Fuller president David Goatley. The president lays out the “third way” they are attempting to traverse.

After several years of consultation, dialogue, and prayerful reflection, the Board reaffirmed Fuller’s historic theological understanding of marriage and human sexuality as a covenantal union between one man and one woman, with sexual intimacy reserved for that union. This position aligns with the majority of evangelical perspectives worldwide.

At the same time, we acknowledge that faithful Christians—through study, discernment, and lived experience—have come to different conclusions about covenantal relationships. Some evangelicals will disagree with this acknowledgment; others will resonate deeply. Recognizing such differences does not weaken our commitment to historic Christian teaching. Instead, it reflects our effort to engage complex realities with theological integrity and pastoral sensitivity.

The “traditional standard” on the website reads, “Fuller Theological Seminary believes that sexual union must be reserved for marriage, which is the covenant union between one man and one woman, and that sexual abstinence is required for the unmarried.” The statement goes on to contrast sexuality within marriage with other venues.

President Goatley acknowledges the implicit tension between holding firm to an institutional position while recognizing existing diversity of thought. Those who are more progressive will be dissatisfied that the policy wasn’t changed. Those on the right will be dissatisfied that any tolerance for progressive views is given legitimacy.

---

Regular readers of this newsletter know that this relationship between institutional policy and individual conscience is something I’ve written on regularly. In fact, there is a whole chapter on the topic in my recent book.

Students are coming to Christian institutions with diverse views on LGBTQ+ acceptance. Faculty members desiring to be compassionate toward their students want to be helpful. Meanwhile institutions, especially denominationally sponsored ones, seem unable to change their policies without risking denominational support (including the ability to stay in business). Many of these institutions are taking the step of making annual affirmation of the official position a condition of continued employment.

And so I think Fuller is to be commended for trying to maintain its policy while acknowledging legitimate difference of opinion. But I’d like to see one more tweak to their official position. I would prefer that it read like this:

Fuller Theological Seminary believes that sexual union must be reserved for marriage, which Fuller defines as is the covenant union between one man and one woman, and that sexual abstinence is required for the unmarried.”

This language change would allow those with diverse views to nevertheless endorse Fuller’s stance without taking it as their own position. It is not unreasonable to expect faculty mmebers to avoid denigrating the institutional position regardless of what position they personally hold. Similarly, it is not unreasonable for a Christian institution of higher education to not enforce some kind of false unanimity among its members.

I don’t expect Fuller Seminary to adopt my recommendation any more than I think the other schools I’ve written about would. But I would expect that institutions that live into the competing tensions that Fuller recognized will be stronger in the long run and better able to pursue their mission within the current generation.