You are right of course.  I thought about trying to be more articulate, but decided to let it slide, my bad.

We all have some theological bent, there is really no getting around that.  I mean, there would have to be (and there is) some common denominators for people to work together in any fruitful way.  I suppose a better way to say it would have been (and adding to what you said), to say that Fuller, unencumbered as it is by denominational expectations and allegiances, can place its emphases elsewhere.  They can embrace a broader faculty and student body – making room for more voices, which is always better, but also always harder. 

To take it a step further, I would say that the centrality of the Kingdom of God, across schools, provides a unifying identity, but it’s that very concept which allows for more inclusiveness and maybe that’s what I am truly thankful for.

Isn’t the belief that unity should be sought in God’s and God’s mission - and that this unity must be at least partially defined in opposition to “denominational agendas” and “systems of belief” – isn’t all this itself a “particular theological bent” or even a system of belief? What makes this approach transcend all the other approaches that make similar claims for themselves? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Fuller (or JrjrR) having a particular theological bent (and there’s certainly nothing wrong with seeking unity in God!); it just seems a odd to say you don’t have a theological bent in the same sentence in which you just described your theological bent.
Would it be better to say that our theologizing should be in service of God and God’s kingdom and not the other way around?