Can Faithful Christians Agree to Disagree on Sexuality?

Theological Foundations

Some contend that sexuality and gender identity aren’t essential, because they aren’t included in the ancient creeds. This point actually enhances rather than detracts from historic Christian views of sexuality. The church developed the ecumenical creeds and statements of faith such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedonian definition to settle matters of disagreement over trinitarian and Christological doctrine. But the church never disagreed about sexual ethics the way we define them today.

Moreover, long before the creeds, God made His design for human relationships clear. In Genesis 1:26-28, God created humanity first in his very image, unique among all God created. Further, he created humanity in his image as both male and female, commanding them to be fruitful and multiply. In Genesis 2, he formed Eve as a companion to Adam and a co-laborer with him. In Genesis 2:24 God established in the very beginning his plan for marriage between a man and a woman. These creation accounts set the theological foundation for understanding God’s purposes for gender, marriage, and sexuality.

Jesus affirms this pattern in Matthew 19:4-6, grounding his teaching on marriage by quoting Genesis 2:24. Paul echoes the same foundation in Ephesians 5, where the union of husband and wife becomes a living picture of Christ and the church. These texts aren’t peripheral. They’re central to our understanding of who we are and what we’re created for.

Our theology must begin with God’s design, not with cultural trends or theological revisionism. To say sex and gender are adiaphora where we can “agree to disagree” ignores Scripture’s clarity and the church’s witness, thereby missing the very heart of God’s intent for human flourishing.

What Makes This Different?

Unlike disagreements over baptism or spiritual gifts—where all sides appeal to Scripture and its authority, and where we find disagreement and debate throughout church history—the affirming position requires a hermeneutic that ultimately disregards Scripture’s clear teaching and a rejection of the historic church’s consensus. There is no path to affirming same-sex marriage, for instance, that passes through Romans 1 without diminishing the authority or integrity of the text.

Evangelical theology begins with Scripture as authoritative and sufficient. Rejecting historic Christian views of sexuality requires deep rejection or revision of the Bible itself.

Thus, we can’t simply “agree to disagree.”

Institutions Matter

We have repeatedly seen institutions attempt to move sexuality into the “agree to disagree” category, only for that position to lead to more departures from sound biblical teaching and disunity. Progressive views of sexuality are often framed as efforts to avoid division, but they tend to displace orthodoxy rather than to accommodate it.

Now, what happened in mainline denominations is happening to a handful of evangelical organizations of different kinds. And, evangelicalism is, in some ways, an interconnected community of institutions. So, those institutions matter.

Furthermore, it matters that institutions have consistency in what they believe—and also what they require. As such, moves to claim that heterodox views are also “faithful” are clearly a step away from biblical truth. It’s not a step toward Christian unity, but an unhelpful compromise and a move away from biblical truth.

It’s not something on which we agree to disagree, rather it’s something where Christians—and Christian institutions—need to be clear.

Faithful Christians must be clear on where we stand. Clarity is not cruelty. And affirming the truth does not preclude love. On the contrary, truth is what makes love possible.

Institutions also matter, because drift sends confusing signals to the broader evangelical community. It matters that when institutions declare themselves evangelical that this includes a commitment to biblical authority—including the biblical teaching about sexuality.

Conclusion

Holding an orthodox view of sexuality doesn’t mean we stop listening, loving, or walking patiently with others. But it does mean that we must begin in a different place. We must speak with clarity. We cannot affirm what scripture calls sin and we cannot reject its clear teaching. “Agreeing to disagree” ultimately does both. It confuses categories that Scripture makes clear.

When World Vision tried to adopt a neutral position on same-sex marriage, the evangelical community responded strongly and negatively. Ultimately, the organization reversed course. As then-president of World Vision Rich Stearns later explained regarding biblical teaching on marriage, “Certain beliefs… are so core to our Trinitarian stance” that they render neutrality impossible.

Rich Stearns was right then, and it’s still true now.

We need this kind of conviction—not just from churches, ministries, and seminaries, but also from every Christian seeking to live faithfully in a confused world. Truth and love are not enemies. They are allies. And if we truly love our neighbors, we must be clear about the truth rather than throwing up our hands and saying, “Let’s agree to disagree.”

And, while standing firm on truth is not the easiest path, faithful Christians choose the biblical path.