It should be noted that Smith in his article does not speak on behalf of Calvin, evident in that his column was published in the student newspaper and not a publication of university administration. In fact, Smith was speaking against the clear direction set out by the administration and the board—an institutional embrace of their denominational relationship, their historic theological standards, and an orthodox position on human sexuality. Smith does, however, speak for a common, predictable, and I would even say a cliché pattern. Rather than blazing a new trail and boldly going into a new future, Smith simply retraces the well-worn path of abandoning biblical faithfulness.
In Fuller’s case, some want to create a new path—but “agree to disagree” simply does not work when biblical authority has to be denied to adopt such a position. And it does. Moves that require accommodation of errant views that contradict both scripture and Christian tradition don’t need to be accommodated. They need to be resisted.
And Calvin must not slouch into the league of once-Christian schools who have abandoned their churches, their confessions, and their Bibles. Such schismatics are not the heroes of the story of theological education.
My hope is that the response to this new Fuller approach will help them reverse course, having the courage that World Vision did when facing a similar situation. The board still has much to consider, and (I hope) reconsider.
In the case of World Vision, they did courageously reverse course in a similar (though not identical) situation, and I appreciate the clarity in which they did so, including a comment from Rich Stearns, “We’ve listened…We believe we made a mistake. We’re asking them to forgive and understand our poor judgment in the original decision.”
Fuller president David Goatley is a well-regarded leader who holds orthodox views on sexuality—as has the board. But, some faculty at Fuller are—like Smith at Calvin—pushing for a different direction. My hope is they choose not to accommodate error, but rather choose the more challenging path of biblical fidelity that honors both the authority of scripture and the legacy of Fuller.
There is still time to change course. My hope is fellow believers—from different backgrounds, and all around the world—will kindly but firmly help Fuller leaders see that such a middle way is not a biblical way. There are still discussions taking place, including how to implement this (regrettable) move, and I hope this will also include reconsidering this step in the wrong direction. I imagine this will, in part, be impacted by the reaction of this new policy.
A Better (And Biblical) Way
I hope Calvin and Fuller will follow the examples of universities coming back from drift. We could point toward Azusa Pacific University and Seattle Pacific University as two examples of going against the cultural pull and returning to embrace their biblical heritage.
I would encourage those who are disappointed with Smith’s position to be both perceptive, patient, and prayerful. First, let’s see through Smith’s argument. Let’s call it what it is. It isn’t heroic or courageous or cutting edge. It’s actually being “tossed by the waves and blown around by every wind of teaching” (Eph. 4:14).
For Fuller, I’m hoping that the board will respond to the feedback they are about to receive, and reverse course. This approach is not courageous new way, though some will praise it as such. It’s a compromise that will lead to more compromise—eventually continuing to move away from the orthodoxy that the president and board have indicated they hold. (Some call this a slippery slope, but it is simply the historical pattern.)
Furthermore, let’s be patient with Calvin’s administration and leadership as they align their faculty with the denominational convictions of the CRC and, more importantly, the scriptures. The administration is aligned with the CRC, and let’s pray for them to have the courage to make the hard decisions. Institutional alignment can take time, resilience, and true courage.
In addition, let’s hope for a World Vision-like reversal at Fuller.
Finally, let’s pray. Let’s pray for Calvin, let’s pray for Fuller, and let’s pray for biblical faithfulness and fruitfulness for all involved.
Clarity is kindness, but it is also challenging. But rather than joining so many other schools on the road away from biblical convictions, may Fuller and Calvin hold to the truths of scripture, even when they run contrary to culture.
