Fuller Seminary’s untenable “third way”

Over the past several years, Fuller Theological Seminary has been on a journey regarding its position on marriage and sexuality. Last week, Fuller’s President David Goatley announced in an email that the seminary’s board of trustees, after soliciting years of feedback and dialogue, had arrived at a way forward that shuns “ideological polarities” and seeks “another way.” Goatley dubbed it the “Fuller way.”

To its credit, Fuller’s board of trustees has voted to reconfirm “the institution’s commitment to its historic theological understanding of marriage and human sexuality—a union between a man and a woman and sexual intimacy within the context of that union.”

So far, so good. Sounds like the Way of Jesus and the apostles.

But then the statement goes off the rails: “At the same time, we acknowledge that faithful Christians—through prayerful study, spiritual discernment, and lived experience—have come to affirm other covenantal forms of relationship.”

The problem with this last statement is that it is alien to the Christianity of the Bible and the Christian faith of church history. From her earliest moments, the church has been crystal clear that following Jesus includes following God’s design and the Bible’s teaching regarding marriage and human sexuality. While the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 did not require Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law, it did require all to abstain from “sexual immorality,” which includes homosexuality and every form of perversion or deviation from the covenant of marriage. In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul describes homosexuality as “dishonorable passions” that are the result of God’s judgment. In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul explicitly names sexual immorality and homosexuality as sins that will keep one from the kingdom of God. And in 1 Timothy 1 he lists these same sins as those that are “contrary to sound doctrine.”

Contrary to Fuller’s statement, faithful Christians will not contradict these biblical judgments.

In response to criticism of his trustee board’s statement, President Goatley defended the Fuller Way by saying this issue was “complex” and “messy,” and that it requires “pastoral sensitivity.” But are they trying to be more sensitive than Jesus? When presented with a “complex” and “messy” situation in Matthew 19, Jesus was clear about the covenant of marriage. Our God is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Jesus speaks of only two paths in Matthew 7: the narrow way that leads to life, and the broad way that leads to destruction. Many today reflexively dismiss such binaries as too restrictive, or too simplistic, or too polarizing. Instead of an either-or, they seek a both-and paradigm, or a broad spectrum, or perhaps even a “third way.”

But if you are attempting to chart a “third way” through the cultural jungles, then you are definitionally off the narrow path. You are no longer following Jesus and the apostles. There is no third way when it comes to marriage and human sexuality. It’s God’s way or the highway—God’s way or the broad way.

Ours is an anthropological age. What it means to be human, what it means to be male and female in the image of God—these are questions that continue to haunt the halls of academia and the boardroom, the town hall, and the bedroom.

Institutions are being sifted today, and many are failing the test. But faithful Christians do not need years of consultation, feedback, and dialogue. God has spoken. Our job is to listen, and then obey by following his Way, not our own (Acts 24:14).