Dear Signatories of BASE (Biola Alumni Standing for Equality),
The BASE team (Dr. Jacob Daniel, Logan Zeppieri, Claudia Kalmikov, and Anthony Costello) wants to again thank you for your support of this petition. Below is Biola's response to our petition. This response was received on July 20th, 2020. More updates are soon to follow.
If you would like to view the official .pdf version of this letter please click here.
------------
July 20, 2020
Dear Anthony,
Thank you and the signers for your care for the mission of Biola University. We have received your concerns about Critical Race Theory (CRT) and its perceived impact on Biola University. As you insisted on a response by July 20 rather than affording us some space to process what is a very important discussion on race and biblical fidelity, we are providing this to you now.
We obviously wish we had had more time to reply, especially since I (Barry Corey) mentioned in my earlier letter to you that we are in the midst of planning a responsible opening to the university in just a few weeks in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. It has been and still is “all hands on deck” just to be able to safely open school in the fall. But we are where we are, and we take concerns seriously and want to respond as best we can at this point. This response will address each of the three sections of the petition.
First, the affirmations — these are well stated, theologically sound and we agree with them. One item we would add is a point that Dr. Robert Saucy made in the original Biola theological statement on diversity, and that sin infects institutions as well as individuals. As a result, justice and reconciliation are more than simply individual responsibilities, but may have structural issues that must be addressed as well. Psalm 94:20 speaks clearly of those who “frame injustice” not only individually but also “by statute.” A second item that deserves more nuance is the section on the unborn. We are grieved by how infrequently the unborn are mentioned as part of the marginalized for whom justice is due, and you are certainly right to maintain that any organization that promotes abortion on demand presents a huge problem for us. We would not frame it quite like you did, however, since we don’t think the Bible supports a hierarchical view of our moral obligations. We are called as the people of God to multiple moral obligations to be maintained simultaneously, not sequentially. There is no reason why advocating for the unborn can’t occur at the same time as justice for African Americans. That being said, the BLM organization is deeply troubling with its support for abortion, support for the undoing of the traditional family, its patently unbiblical notions of sexual identity and the self-declared Marxism of its founders.
In the first section on “Our Concerns,” we agree with some of these concerns, but also we want to point out that there are several factual errors in this section that we understand our colleague Thaddeus Williams has mentioned to you and your group a handful of times. So let us reiterate them here.
● Biola has never tethered itself and will not attach itself to the BLM organization, for the reasons mentioned above (concerns no. 1, no. 8). Nor has Biola ever joined hands with organizations that promote violence as a solution (concern #1). We categorically reject the utilitarian notion that the ends justify the means. We acknowledge an important distinction between the affirmation that black lives matter and the organization by that same name. One can make the affirmation without supporting the organization, not to mention the things it stands for that clearly violate our public theological statements.
● I (Barry) did not respond to BASIS (concerns no. 6, no. 10). My public statement in response to the tragic death of George Floyd was in the works prior to the release of the BASIS petition, and the purpose of my statement was to acknowledge the long-standing work we had done and are doing to address diversity biblically. It was not the BASIS petition that prompted my remarks, and I never responded to that petition, a petition that also had several factual errors. The BASIS petitioners apologized after considerable criticism for their content and tone and have chosen to be silent (which you rightly point out in concern #10). We don’t know if you are referring to the BASIS petition as the strong-arming of the university leadership by alumni (concern no. 3), but if so, the leadership and the board are not being strong-armed by that, or any other group of alumni. BASIS has not “won the day” (preamble). Since we have not responded to BASIS, it’s hard to see how we are being strong-armed by such a group. In addition, our diversity efforts have been in place for some time and are not a knee-jerk reaction to BASIS or any other group or event.
● The SCORR conference has never been mandatory for all students (concern no. 7). We have been working to help ensure SCORR has a balance of biblical voices which represent our Theological Statement on Diversity, and last year we had John Perkins as keynote speaker (who recently endorsed Thad Williams’ new book on social justice). In conversations about justice, story should not take precedence over ideas grounded in theological truth, and we will keep working to do this better. We don’t think it’s fair to say that Biola as a university has adopted a morality that transforms resentment and vengeance into virtues. Many of our more progressive leaning faculty would reject that notion categorically.
● Biola is not adopting an ideology (we assume you mean CRT) with a different hermeneutic (concern no. 2), since all students are given an orthodox hermeneutic of original authorial intent throughout their Bible minor, which is mandated for all students, as well as through biblical instruction in the Torrey Honors Institute and beyond. Specifically, two years ago, we commissioned a new course—with ideas coming from board discussions—among the Bible courses entitled, “Gospel, Kingdom and Culture.” This course has as one of its goals to equip students to think biblically about justice and cultural issues as well as give a thorough apologetic for their faith. We would agree that viewpoint diversity (concern no. 4) is a goal to be pursued, and your suggestions for alternative voices are good ones on which we have been working and will follow through. We do have faculty who have differing views on economics (concern no. 9), some of whom come from Europe or Canada who have lived under a different mix of government and the private sector than exists in the U.S. We do have a mix of political views among our faculty, which should not be surprising since no political party platform was written with biblical fidelity as its goal. Clarity on diversity of thought continues to be a priority, and a statement on diversity of thought is being drafted this year for board approval. At the same time we have a much higher percentage of conservatives among our faculty than most colleges in America. A few years ago when Dennis Prager was on our campus, he said publicly that there was more diversity of thought at Biola than at his alma mater of Stanford.
In the section on “Constructive Initiatives,” we are committed to having a diversity of thought on race—your initiatives 1-2 are helpful resources and suggestions. I (Scott Rae) and Sean McDowell will be interviewing Monique Duson—founder of the Center for Biblical Unity (a resource that we will look to)—on August 11 for Talbot’s “Think Biblically” podcast, and we are happy she will be a Talbot student come the Fall. We recently replayed a two-part interview with Chris Brooks, a biblically thoughtful African American pastor from the Detroit area (https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2020/race-and-the-church-part-1-202 0; https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2020/race-and-the-church-part-2-2020 On suggestions nos. 3 and 4, we continue to educate ourselves on CRT and we have drafted a statement clarifying how we distinguish between the affirmation and the organization when it comes to BLM. On initiative no. 5, two of our faculty, Dr. Rick Langer from Talbot and Dr. Tim Muehlhoff from Communications, are heading up a grant-funded “Winsome Convictions Project” over the next several years (in the spirit you describe in no. 5), and they will be including this year CRT to their series of events they are planning for these kinds of debates/conversations. We have recently become aware of two pieces that reflect our thinking on CRT at present—one is a recent resolution from the Southern Baptist Convention (http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/2308/on-critical-race-theory-and-intersectionality and an article by Liberty University professor Kelly Hamren (attached to this email). I (Scott Rae) would also mention the work of Neil Shevni on this subject which has been recommended. We want to avoid the extremes of swallowing CRT entirely, but at the same time not “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” There may be things we can learn from CRT while rejecting the underlying worldview, which we are convinced is antithetical to a Christian worldview.
You should be aware that there are voices in the undergrad curriculum who are offering critique and assessment of CRT in their classes (no. 12). As far as a review of departments goes, you should know that the dean of Humanities and Social Sciences is a solid theologically grounded leader and is aware of what you have mentioned.
We have recognized that our integration efforts, though good and helpful, are not enough. Faculty who come from state or non-sectarian university Ph.D. programs normally have had to keep their heads down at those universities when it comes to their faith. Then they come here, and we expect a robust integration of faith and their discipline. We have realized that we need to do more to supplement what we already do, which is substantial, and we are doing more now than in recent years under the direction of Talbot professor Rick Langer and the Office of Integration. One other note—Talbot will not become like Union Seminary or Wake Forest (preamble). Most Christian universities that have drifted from their mission began that drift in the theological side of the house. Our theological house is the last place such a drift would occur, and it stands as one of our hedges around doctrinal fidelity.
Finally, we would be remiss if we didn’t respond to one aspect of your initial letter. A group from Biola would be willing to have a conversation with you and some of your signers. I (Scott Rae) will contact you after you receive this letter to discuss our response. And although our Board of Trustees cares deeply about these types of matters and values the opinions of our alumni, our board considers this an internal matter for the leadership to address. Our board does not meet with external groups of constituents, though the board leadership has been and will be apprised and are committed to the ongoing faithful mission of the university.
Our hope is to keep this an internal matter and that you don’t feel the need to go public with your petition. Should you feel the need to take it public, please correct the factual errors we have pointed out.
We appreciate your and your group’s thoughtful affirmations. We trust this response is sufficient to let you know that we take these matters seriously and have in motion already steps to address many of the suggestions made. It is clear that each of you has a deep love for Biola University, and you are passionate about our biblical heritage and future. For that we are profoundly grateful.
Sincerely in Christ,
Barry H. Corey
President
Scott Rae
Senior Advisor to the President, University Mission
Dean of the Faculty, Talbot School of Theology
cc: Mike Maples, Board Chair