Biola’s Complicated Decade-Plus Journey on LGBTQ Policies and Campus Culture

Back in October, I made a post on Facebook about Biola's policy changes related to gender. Someone came on my page and wrote: Biola "has been LGBTQ friendly for quite some time." This commenter raises a point that deserves an extended response. In this post, I want to document Biola's journey on this issue. Because...it's complicated. And, to be honest, there is a sense in which Biola's confusing journey on these issues is a reflection of my own journey.

This will be similar to my previous discussion chronicling what I could find publicly available about Biola's adoption of DEI policies and practices. I am attempting to document the public evolution of Biola's LBGTQ-related policies and practices.* But more than that, I'm attempting to understand the culture that Biola has developed and what it has discipled its students to believe about these issues.

Let me begin by posting the relevant section of Biola's position statement, "God's Intentional Design for Life." This provides the groundwork for the entire discussion.

These few sentences establish a creation-based definition for sex and marriage. It reflects the historic Christian position and stands as conservative outpost against the cultural winds of postmodernism. Every staff member, faculty, Board member and student must sign this statement as an affirmation of their personal convictions and as a condition for participation in Biola's culture.

As this story unfolds, what we will see is that the problem became the application of this position statement when it came to creating policies, hiring personnel, and developing cultural practices. The school's struggle to apply the position statement is the crux of Biola's struggle with this entire issue in a nutshell.

The story begins.

It has probably always been true that Biola has had a small contingent of students who struggled with homosexuality and gender confusion. When I was a student there in the late 1980s, the ones I knew sought support through the Biola Counseling Center. While these weren't huge themes of conversation, they did lurk in the background at times.

I will start this story in the postmodern era, however. In 2006, the Soulforce Equality Ride brought a bus of 35 LGBTQIA+ activists to 16 faith-based colleges, including Biola, Cal Baptist, Baylor, Colorado Christian and Oral Roberts Universities. This effort was inspired by the 1960s Freedom Rides that were part of the Civil Rights Movement. According to a 2025 article in The Chimes, "when the group arrived at Biola, the university hosted and conversed with them." The administration, under Dr. Clyde Cook at the time, facilitated discussions with the activists, unlike Liberty University who had them arrested for trespassing. Additional details about the ride can be found here and here.

2012 was a pivotal year.

On May 9, 2012, President Barak Obama announced from the White House briefing room that he had changed his mind on gay marriage. Ironically, Biola published its first "Statement on Human Sexuality" the next day. According to an article in The Chimes, the 3-page document had been in development for 18 months. The times were a'changing.

Biola's goal in discipleship was stated right on the first page: "facilitating an intellectual and spiritual transformation. The desired outcome is an inherently consistent inner life manifested in a lived-­out spirituality that we call character." Their explicit requirement for students was chastity: "whatever one’s personal tendencies and desires, the call of Christ on our lives is the same: sexual purity manifest among the married as complete faithfulness and by those who are unmarried by living a chaste life (1 Thess 4:3-­8)." There is only one mention of the term "sexual orientation" in the document. A definition of the term isn't given, but it is also not a major focus. The document mostly reads like the theological statement, with minimal pastoral or policy application.

Days later, flyers were posted around the campus announcing the presence of an underground group of gay-identifying students. Then on May 18, Biola made local CBS news with the headline: "Biola University Reacts After 'Queer Underground' Comes Out." My hunch is that the publication of the new statement on human sexuality prompted an anonymous group of self-identifying LGBTQ students to contact the press. They wanted to publicly challenge Biola's position on their "traditional understanding of homosexuality." Calling themselves the Biola Queer Underground (BQU), they wanted to know how the University planned to be "more open towards students who don't see homosexuality and queer identity as a sin."

Dr. Chris Grace, who was the VP of Student Development at the time, was quoted in a NBC version of the story (dated May 24) as dismissing "the notion that students who are struggling with homosexuality' would face expulsion. 'I guess you'd almost call that a myth that students would get expelled for that,' Grace said. Instead, Biola offers students an 'open-door policy' to talk about their struggles and receive spiritual counseling. But he makes it clear that for a student who identifies as gay and is engaging in 'gay behavior and unwilling to uphold our community standards we would initiate the dismissal process.'" Grace differentiated between students who were struggling with same sex desires and those who actively identified as gay or who were acting on those desires.

The same morning that the CBS story came out, President Barry Corey held a "family talk" at the last chapel of the year. Corey described it as a "serious" talk about "sexual identity and same sex attraction." In the chapel presentation, Corey described himself and others who hold traditional positions on marriage and sexuality as “persons who need God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ." He provided more details about the University's position and restated many of the major principles outlined in the "Statement on Human Sexuality" that had been adopted the previous week. He also promised "more conversation" in the next school year, saying that leadership would be providing “intentional moments to discuss and be educated on all matters of sexual identity." He cautioned students that this topic “is not a political issue,” but that students ought to order all of their sexual desires toward God's word. (Here is Corey's chapel message. If you don't want to take the time to watch the video, you can read the summary article in The Chimes.)

This chapel message reveals several pivotal beliefs which became the framework for how Biola planned to navigate the implementation of the recently adopted policy statement on sexuality.

These pivotal beliefs include:

• Uphold Biblical Standards on Sexuality: Sexual intimacy is reserved solely for marriage between one man and one woman, and any sexual relations outside this—including same-sex intimacy—are inconsistent with Scripture. The school would not condone or legitimize same-sex behavior, maintaining community standards that require chastity for the unmarried and faithfulness in marriage for all.

• Balance Grace and Truth: Interactions with LGBTQ students must embody both grace (compassionate, loving support) and truth (unwavering adherence to biblical teachings). Two errors were to be avoided: grace without truth and truth without grace. Biola committed to being full of both grace and truth, following Jesus' example.

• Recognize Shared Humanity and Need for Forgiveness: All individuals, regardless of sexual identity, are created in God's image, broken sinners in need of Christ's forgiveness. This means condemning callousness, indifference, violence, or injustice toward the LGBT community, both within the church and society.

• Provide Support and Accountability for Purity: For students experiencing same-sex attraction, the school pledged compassion, care, and assistance in maintaining sexual purity through accountability groups and walking alongside them, without endorsing or encouraging same-sex relations.

• Foster Safe, Civil Conversations and Education: The community would host intentional discussions on sexual identity, allowing diverse voices (even those not fully aligned with Biola's position) to be heard in a safe environment. However, this will not be permissive or activist-oriented, but instead focus on biblical understanding, transparency, truth-telling, and bearing one another's burdens.

• Reject Extremes and Promote Respect: They would avoid two extremes: 1) punitive expulsion for those identifying with same-sex attraction or 2) revising policies to allow same-sex intimacy. Instead, Biola would treat all with Christ-like compassion and respect. Hateful, bigoted, or destructive interactions would not be tolerated. Nor would indifference or silence.

• Remain Biblically Grounded Over Cultural or Political Pressures: The school's practices would be driven by obedience to Scripture, not political agendas, societal norms, or partisan influences. Biola would not reinterpret the Bible to accommodate modern ethical shifts, but instead would prioritize spiritual integrity, humility, and discernment for the flourishing of individuals and society as God intended.

This blueprint provided the general framework for the kind of culture the leadership planned to build, with an eye toward preserving the school's historic articles of faith.

(Side comment: As I watched this chapel message from 2012 (pre-Obergefell) back through the lens of 2025, I have to say that it is a textbook example of what Aaron Renn would call life in the "neutral world." It was interesting to watch it with that framework in mind.)

2014 Milestones in Biola's LGBTQ Journey

It would take almost two more years for Biola to take the next big leap in their evolution to care for their LGBTQ students.

In January 2014, Biola published the second iteration of their statement on "same-sex behavior." This version has much longer (15 pages) and more detailed than the 2012 version (3 pages). It set forth "a biblical perspective on human sexuality, specifically with reference to same-sex activity," affirming the authority of the Bible and the school's official "Statement on Human Sexuality." The central application of the biblical framework explained in the document exhorts the Biola community to encourage one another to act in holiness and love toward one another.

As we strive to be a community of obedience and redemption, we understand that our human sexuality must be shaped by God’s purposes as revealed in Scripture. As all disciples of Jesus come up short of obedient living, it is by the mercy and grace of the gospel that we are forgiven and empowered to both confess God’s good and holy design as well as to begin now, if even in faltering steps, to live out that design. In light of this, we expect that each member of the Biola community will refrain from non-marital sexual acts, homosexual sex acts, and same-sex romantic relationships.

What the document did not address was any application of the Bible to the critical topics of sexual identity or orientation. Silence on these issues opened the door for a variety of positions among staff, faculty and students, which (as we will see) became particularly evident in student culture.

The publication of this new statement was immediately followed in the spring of 2014 with a new project. A group of Biola staff members was tasked to begin working on creating a safe space for LGBTQ and SSA students. This multi-year effort eventually resulted in the creation of a group called Sustinere,

By the fall, the student conversation over LGBTQ issues continued to gain momentum. Biola organized the "How Do We Love?" forum.

According to the summary in The Chimes, this was a massive event. Students jammed a huge 800-seat auditorium, as well as an overflow venue in order to hear speakers discuss these issues. The administration brought in two leading voices to discuss homosexuality. Wesley Hill, who is a former practicing homosexual, represented the traditional marriage approach to the issue. Meanwhile, progressive Christian, Justin Lee, represented the "New Reformation" approach advocated by Matthew Vines.

Biola professor, Dr. Matt Jenson, provided a summary overview of the newly adopted position paper and then Hill and Lee responded to it. Both Hill and Lee were hailed by Jenson in the opening presentation as Christians who love Jesus. Jenson summarized Biola's position as "welcoming, but not affirming." He also explicitly mentioned that the document didn't address the topics of sexual identity or orientation. These were open-ended questions, available for discussion and disagreement within the Biola community.

I tried to watch the replay through the eyes of a student and ask myself, "What do I hear the leadership saying? What is Biola's position on these issues?" I think I would have come to the conclusion that two things are true: 1) Yes, Biola has an official position statement that is not technically gay-affirming, but 2) they are ok with students holding to a spectrum of beliefs on the issue (including being gay-identifying) as long as they aren't practicing. I'm not saying that is what Biola's administration intended to communicate. But I do think that's a reasonable conclusion that could be reached by the students who attended.

The selection of Wes Hill to represent the traditional position is interesting. And possibly symbolic. There are many voices that Biola could have potentially brought in to represent the traditional position. For example, they could have invited Joe Dallas, who is local to the area and also a former "gay pastor." Dallas came to faith back in the early 1980s and has a well-established decades-long track record of pastoral ministry counseling experience on these issues. Or, they could have invited Becket Cook, who is also a former homosexual and (I think) was a student at Talbot at the time. Neither of these men call themselves a "gay Christian" or hold to the idea of a fixed homosexual orientation.

Hill, on the other hand, identifies himself as a "gay Christian." He is an Episcopal priest and New Testament scholar who articulates a theology of marriage rooted in the traditional view. But, he rejects both 1) the "ex-gay" paradigm of attempting to change one's sexual orientation (he sees such efforts as harmful) and 2) the affirming "Side A" view that endorses same-sex marriage as compatible with Christian faith. Instead, Hill embraces a "Side B" perspective, viewing homosexual orientation as a persistent reality that is not inherently sinful nor grounds for sexual expression outside the biblical confines of heterosexual marriage. He believes gay Christians are called to lifelong celibacy as an act of faithful obedience and worship. In his book, Washed and Waiting, Hill reframes this path not as deprivation or a "halfway house" to heterosexuality, but as a dignified vocation akin to Jesus' own celibate life, enriched by deep spiritual friendships, community belonging, and redemptive suffering that mirrors Christ's, fostering joy, love, and service rather than isolation.

My working theory is that Biola's decision to invite Hill to represent the traditional view at that forum in 2014 became the archetype for how Biola would handle issues related to same sex attraction and gay-identifying students moving forward. Hill symbolized the kind of culture that Biola wanted to build.

Sustinere was officially launched in the fall of 2016. It was co-founded by Matthew Hooper (the associate dean of students at the time) and Michelle Willingham, who (until just a couple weeks ago) was the director of the Biola Counseling Center. (More about that a little later.) James Petitfils, an associate professor of New Testament, served as a faculty member of the group.

The group's mission statement read:

[Sustinere] will seek to provide a caring and supportive community where students can journey together as they learn to live authentically and lovingly with same-sex attractions, orientations, and identities. [The group is] led by staff/faculty advisors and student leaders, the group will aspire to be a safe space for students who experience enduring same-­sex attractions or identify as having a same­-sex sexual orientation or identity.

Hooper (the group's co-founder) reported that there were "multiple faculty and students, especially students who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, shaping this effort." This means that Biola was already employing staff–and admitting students–who self-identified as gay. It also means that there were enough of them that it warranted the University in tasking multiple Biola staff members to create a "safe space" for them. Hooper continues:

This group does not reflect any change on Biola’s traditional view of marriage or same-sex relationships, but instead faces the realities of LGB students on a Christian campus and equips them to be leaders holding onto their own convictions.

Also Hooper:

Nothing’s changed about Biola’s view… we’re holding to our convictions there. But we’re also holding to our convictions regarding kindness and loving support and creating spaces for students to bear one another’s burdens... I see it more as bringing more of a holistic experience of grace and truth to our students, so they can be more successful while they’re here.

These statements by the group's co-founder reveal the emerging disconnect between Biola's official statement of faith and the campus culture. In fact, the school seemed tolerant of gay-affirming and gay-identifying students (as long as they didn't act on same-sex desires while at the school). Biola wanted to find a way to affirm their heritage, while also embracing the "reality" of same sex orientations and identities.

2017 was another pivotal year in Biola's queer evolution.

In April 2017, an incident happened that triggered another series of events that once again brought gay issues to the forefront of Biola's public image.

A memorial was set up for the final week of Lent mourning "the lost lives of marginalized students." It included a cross wrapped in a gay pride flag and a sign reading, " Trans Lives Matter. We Are Your Neighbors."

According to an article in The Chimes, the display was "desecrated" and the flag stolen. This particular display was part of a series of displays posted in front of the Biola cafeteria (a major hub of activity on campus) highlighting a different marginalized people group each week for Lent. These included black lives, immigrants, Native Americans and queer lives. Each display featured testimonies, photos, some type of textural item and Jesus’ words in scripture and a psalm.

Shortly after that, apparently, members from Biolan's Equal Ground (formerly the "Biola Queer Underground") met with president Barry Corey. Some of the details about this meeting were documented in an article published in September. More about that in a minute.

Meanwhile, Sustinere was dissolved over the summer. I couldn't find any public data about whether these two events are connected. So I won't speculate about that.

On August 29, 2017, the Nashville Statement was published by the Council for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. There are currently over 24,000 signers on it. I did a quick search for some of Biola's most high profile professors at Talbot. I found the following Biola faculty: Kevin Lewis (no longer at Biola), Alan Gomes (who I think may be retired), K. Erik Thoennes (Theology), J.P. Moreland (Philosophy), David Talley (Old Testament), and Scott Waller (Political Science).

In September, "Christian LGBTQ Activist" Erin Green published a series of three articles on the Huffington Post related to Biola. In her September 7th article entitled, "Wolves In Sheep's Clothing: How LGBTQ Oppression Masquerades As ‘Love’ On Non-Affirming Christian Campuses," Green recounts her May meeting with Barry Corey.

In May of 2017, I had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Barry Corey, the President of Biola University. Dr. Corey is fully aware that I am a gay and affirming Christian. He knows that I am a former Biola student, a Biblical Studies major, and the Executive Director of an affirming LGBTQ group of students who have attended or are currently attending Biola University. Although we are not recognized by the school as an official or approved group, we are there. In light of this, Dr. Corey is also obviously aware that he and I have different theological views when it comes to what the Bible says about homosexuality.

The article is a little unclear, but I think what happened is that Green requested another personal meeting with Corey in the fall when she heard that he was meeting with some outside (non-Biola related) gay-activists, rather than those who resided on his own campus who were "crying out for safety and protection." She wanted to discuss the treatment the "living, breathing, and affirming LGBTQ community residing on Biola’s campus; a non-affirming Christian University."

According to Green, at their first meeting Corey asked what Biola could do better for the campus' LGBTQ community. She replied:

My open response, in which Dr. Corey fully agreed with, was one in which love was at the forefront. After all, this is precisely what Christians are commanded to do by Christ, and we, as a Christian LGBTQ community fall under that command as well. I explained that the LGBTQ communities on Christian campuses are, however, a marginalized group. We are marginalized for many reasons, but the glaring one is that we hold to a different theological truth about same-sex relationships and gender binaries. Does this diminish who we are in Christ or our membership in Christ’s kingdom? It shouldn’t. I think Corey would agree. More importantly, Christ attests that whoever comes to Him, they will never be driven away (John 6:37).

Corey ended the meeting by giving Green a signed copy of his book, Love Kindness. He wrote a small note on the inside of it saying to me, “Erin, thank you for your heart for the least of these. I am truly grateful, Barry Corey, 08 May, 2017.” She interpreted Corey's reference to "the least of these" (Matthew 25:31-46) to refer to her calling to minister to the LGBTQ community. Green: "My plea was that the school recognize that the LGBTQ community suffers; especially those in non-affirming environments. As Christians we are called to bear with one another in love. We are to literally go through and endure alongside those who are suffering."

Corey suggested Green read chapter four entitled, “The Gay Conversation in Dhaka: The Way of Kindness When We Disagree.” He had even dog-eared it for her. Green quoted this section of the chapter in her article:

The point of being kind to those with whom we disagree...is to represent Jesus. Being kind to those with whom we disagree helps bring Christ to the center of the situation...With kindness that is genuine and winsome with love that is unconditional and relentless, we are able to love people where they are.

Such an ethos is an apt summary of the type of culture Corey has built at the University: conviction combined with winsome kindness. In fact, he often summarizes this approach as a "firm center and soft edges."

Green goes on to raise her concerns about the recent publication of the Nashville Statement. Green believed that the "lie within the statement would proclaim that its words are a loving action. However, this is not the case as it further drives a wedge between Christians with differing views on the topic of homosexuality and gender...According to the Nashville Statement, its truth is the only truth regarding marriage, sexuality, and gender." Green saw a clear contradiction between Biola's statements about love for the LGBT community and its official position statement.

Here are her key questions:

How then, I ask, can these seven Biola University professors “love people where they are” and at the same time condemn where they are, if they happen to be affirming? How can these seven Biola University professors action out what Dr. Corey and I have discussed; to protect and create an overall safe environment for LGBTQ students attending Biola?

Green was wrestling with what seemed to her to be a deep contradiction between Biola's position statement and the culture. For Green, one thing had to change: either the personnel and position statement needed to change or the messaging to LGBTQ students about love and acceptance needed to change. But both couldn't live together.

About ten days later, Green followed up this article with an open letter to President Dr. Barry Corey citing that the Nashville statement is a "direct contradiction to Biola’s stated policies regarding the treatment of LGBTQ students on campus." Green called Corey to clarify Biola's position because his "silence on this is sending a confusing and damaging message to both LGBTQ students who are affirming as well as to those who have chosen celibacy."

In particular, Green cited Article 7 of the Nashville Statement which says, “WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.” For Green, the implication of this statement is that "the Biola professors who have signed this are opposed to anyone claiming an LGBTQ identity." She saw this as a direct contradiction to the purpose of (recently dissolved) Sustinere, which had been developed to “create a safe space” for students navigating through same-sex attraction as well as those students who identify as gay and Christian.

Green also saw it as a contradiction to Biola's policy at that time (I'm not sure what Green is quoting here. I couldn't find this version of the statement. So I can't confirm that what she is saying is accurate.):

Biola’s policy on Sexuality and Relationships acknowledges that students may self-identify as Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual: “Biola University believes that students are best supported if they are able to share their questions, struggles, or their self-understanding with trusted others, including those in Student Development. Concerns about sexuality may be difficult to disclose, but struggling in silence is a far greater challenge. In all such personal issues, Student Development staff members are committed to discretion, sensitivity, confidentiality, compassion, and redemption.”

Green clearly understood Biola's policies as allowing for students who call themselves "gay Christians." She continues, (supposedly) extensively quoting Biola's gender polices at the time (again, I can't confirm what the source document for this quote is):

Furthermore, the policy addresses the historical mistreatment of LGBTQ people and encourages compassion rather than speech that diminishes one’s identity. “We do lament the insensitive and often callous treatment that students working through these issues [same- sex behavior, same-sex attraction and/or sexual orientation] may have received from the Christian community. All members of the Biola Community are expected to treat one another with respect and Christ-like compassion. Insults, slurs and other forms of derogatory speech have no place in a Christian community. Through faculty & staff training, peer education and example we seek to educate staff and students about the harm caused by disrespectful or flippant speech around this topic. Due to the complexity of issues related to same-sex behavior same-sex attraction, we are committed to engaging this conversation with courage, humility, prayerfulness and care. We believe in accordance with Scripture that we are all broken. Therefore, a primary goal of Student Development at Biola is to help each student find God in the midst of their unique history and struggles and discern how to walk with Him and others along the way."

Green saw Biola's policies as being incongruent with the Nashville Statement. She goes on to name the Biola faculty who signed the Nashville Statement at the bottom of her article.

Kevin Lewis, a former long-time professor at Talbot, provided this public comment on Facebook (on 12/15/25) about Biola administration's reaction to those faculty who signed the Nashville Statement.

By this point in the story, Biola's attempt to navigate the topic of gender and sexuality by allowing a wide variety of views, including allowing students to hold gay affirming and queer-identifying views, as part of its campus culture was causing deep confusion and seemed to be at odds at times with the school's position statements.

2018 Brought The Dwelling.

In the spring of 2018, Chris Barragan, who served as the assistant director of Pastoral Care (until 2023) launched a new group called, The Dwelling. According to the Biola website, The Dwelling “aims to be a caring and supportive community where students who identify as LGBTQ or experience same-sex attraction (SSA) can follow Jesus together as they seek to navigate their sexuality and gender in allegiance to Christ by the power of the Spirit, living in accordance with Biola’s community standards on sexual behavior."

The Dwelling was described in The Chimes as a new effort: “'Sustinere and The Dwelling could not be more different,' Barragan said. 'The Dwelling took a very different shape and approach than Sustinere.'” What is unclear (to me) is how The Dwelling was different than the school's previous group, Sustinere. I couldn't find any public data about that. The two ministries seem identical to me (as an outsider). Both seemed to promote the Side B approach to discipleship. In fact, a care minister with Revoice was part of the early effort. Revoice is a ministry that advocates the Side B approach. (If you have info about this issue, please email me.)

The Dwelling was described in The Chimes article by the campus minister, Chad Miller as “an acknowledgement that there are [LGBTQIA+ and SSA] students here at Biola, and it’s a place where they can come be together and offer a community.” It's estimated 8 to 15 members were part of The Dwelling post-Covid. These students held diverse theological perspectives on sexuality, including affirming (Side A), Side B.

In keeping with the blueprint outlined by Corey in 2012, The Dwelling attempted to navigate the tricky road of neither advocating for "conversion therapy" (an attempt to change one's orientation; Biola's school of psychology has a specific statement on their website condemning so-called conversion therapy) nor to be a place that subverted Biola’s position on sexuality and gender (outlined at the top of this article). Even so, Miller also stated that The Dwelling was intended to be a place for LGBTQIA+ students to gather and fellowship (including celebrate Thanksgiving and Valentine's Day together), but that it did not require its members to hold to Biola’s own view. This last statement is particularly curious (to me) since Biola requires students to sign that they hold personal beliefs consistent with its statement of faith.

Biola brought in Preston Sprinkle in the spring of 2020 to address students in two different chapel services about LGBT issues (here and here). Sprinkle is a leading advocate for the Side B approach. He has also be favorably featured multiple times on Biola's "Think Biblically" podcast as well as Sean McDowell's podcast, which is prominently sponsored by Biola.

Somewhere along the line, Biola adopted a third iteration of the gender policies. That page on the wayback machine only goes back to the spring of 2022, but it's possible that Biola could have been implemented it before that.

This statement consists of three sections. It's much shorter than the previous versions. The first paragraph was titled: "Biola's Position on Sexuality and Relationships." This section restates foundational principles from Biola's position statement.

The next paragraph specifically focuses on gender. It also restates key sections of Biola's statement of faith, which is required for all students to affirm.

The third section was called, "Student Care and Conduct." It provides more detail about pastoral and discipleship issues.

Biola listed four key resources to help students "process" their faith and sexuality: The Dwelling, spiritual direction, pastoral care and the Biola Counseling Center. This will be an important part of the conversation later.

While this version was briefer than the previous two statements, it reflects the same general position of the blueprint laid out in Corey's chapel talk back in 2012. It also didn't offer any definition of the terms "sexual orientation" or "gender identity," keeping the door open to a variety of views, including gay-identifying students.

While Biola continued to affirm its foundational statement of faith, it also continued to take no formal position on sexual identity or orientation. Silence on these issues opened the door for a variety of positions among staff, faculty and students. Students who were gay-affirming and gay-identifying were admitted to the school (or, at least allowed to continue if their views evolved while they were there) in spite of the school's theological commitments. And while the University allowed for an array of perspectives on the issue among students and staff, Biola seemed pretty settled into the Side B approach in terms of its public-facing content and discipleship. Biola tried to create a culture where all of those beliefs could dwell together, including admitting gay-affirming and gay-identifying students.

Recent Events

On October 5th, I was on a trip in New Jersey. As Monique and I were driving back to our hotel after speaking at a church, our friend, Alisa Childers, sent me a text message with a quote from the Biola gender statement. She had come across the statement as she was doing research for a public presentation that she was scheduled to give the following weekend. She asked me if I had seen these statements before and asked for my opinion about them. To be honest, I had only skim read them in the past. My initial reaction after reading them more inspectionally was, "Yeah, these do seem a little vague."

A few minutes later, she made a post on X expressing her concern about The Dwelling. When Monique and I got back to the hotel room, we did an impromptu livestream where we read Biola's gender statement on the air.

Monique and I had talked in public about problems at Biola in the past, but hadn't said much in the last year or two. But our Sunday afternoon livestream got almost 5000 views (which is stilly pretty small by YouTube standards). Combined with Alisa's X post, the three of us had sparked a significant public conversation.

I followed that up a week later with a video recapping a lot of the research I had done about Biola back in 2020/21. Most of this was probably new to people, however, since those posts only had a few hundred views.

By late-October, Biola released yet another edition of the policies related to sexuality and gender. Once the new policies were public, I made a post on Facebook about it, as well as an extended video comparing and contrasting the previous statement with the new one.

My friend, Andrew Rodriguez, was part of that discussion. He specializes in counseling Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction, but is also a public critic against the Side B approach.

During that stream, Andrew also revealed that the head of the Biola Counseling Center, Michelle Willingham, had written an amicus brief for the Supreme Court for a case where a Christian counselor was trying to challenge Colorado's anti-conversion therapy law. Rodriguez contributed to an amicus brief written by the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity for the same case, but for the other side; in support of the Christian counselor. Coincidently, reporter Megan Basham was also working on this same story.

Willingham played an important role in how Biola cared for its LGBTQ identifying students, helping with the development of Sustinere and supervising the Biola Counseling Center, which was an approved resource for these students. Her MentalHealth.com page lists her as "LGBTQ+-allied."

Then on December 7, Barry Corey appeared on an episode of the "Think Biblically" podcast with Sean McDowell and Scott Rae and announced that Ms. Willingham had resigned and Biola was going to dissolve The Dwelling. He also mentioned that they planned to replace The Dwelling with a new ministry and a "new model" in the spring. I posted an extended reaction to that video on December 11.

Corey provided no specific reason for dissolving The Dwelling, other than some (nameless) people misunderstood the purpose of it and some "confusing" things had been reported about it in The Chimes. A subsequent article repeated this narrative, making it sound like Biola simply caved to public pressure but wasn't closing The Dwelling for principled reasons. Two queer students, one self-identifying as a pansexual and another who self-identifies as a lesbian were quoted in the article about the positive contribution that The Dwelling has made to their lives and their sadness about it going away.

My Journey on This Issue

If I step back and look at Biola's journey as a whole, I see echoes of my own journey on these issues. If you had asked me back in 2012 to give a fully-orbed position on the complexities of sexuality, gender, pronouns and marriage, I would likely have said something along the lines of Corey's chapel message. I would have given a basic framework about traditional marriage and made some general statements about being kind while also not wanting to compromise biblical teaching. It took me several years to work through the literature in a more careful way.

From there, I gravitated toward the Side B model for a while, believing that it was a compassionate and biblical alternative to the Side A (Christian gay-affirming/New Reformation) model. In fact, there is a video on my channel from 2016 where I play a short clip from Wes Hill. However, what I didn't understand at the time were the nuances and application of the Side B approach when it comes to discipleship and counseling.

Then, about eight years ago or so, I stumbled across an article by an "ex-gay" pastor speaking against the Side B approach. I remember reading the article and being confused by it at the time. But the author raised issues that I had not considered before. This incident prompted me to reflect even more deeply and biblically about the complexities of issues like pronouns, the goal of sanctification and whether sexual orientation is fixed (or even real). I started looking at content from non-Side B voices, such as Becket Cook, Joe Dallas and Linda Seiler. I also followed Rosaria Butterfield's evolution away from Side B sensibilities (also here). As I continued to weigh these issues out, I moved away from the Side B perspective.

In 2022, I did a public discussion with counselor Andrew Rodriguez, whose entire practice is with clients who struggle with same sex attraction. It was revelatory for me, in that he explained that there were actually four different "Christian" approaches to dealing with SSA. That was when things it finally clicked for me that each model had direct implications for counseling and discipleship. Each model brings with it very different consequences in how you will counsel the person who stands in front of you. Not all approaches are the same. As I continued to process my position, I became skeptical about idea of sexual orientation being fixed or being a biblical concept.

I think that my own journey, in some ways, mirrors the complicated journey that Biola's administration has been on with this issue as well. So I have sympathy for how Biola has tried to navigate this issue and the need for time to think through these issues.

The Bottom Line

Now that Biola is over a decade into its public positions on this issue, I think we can begin to evaluate the fruit of their approach. By creating a culture where all four models would be allowed to co-exist among the student body, Biola now stands in a storm of competing ideologies. The fruit of this approach can be seen simply by reading the Instagram comments to the recent story in The Chimes. A number of Biola students and alumni weighed in. It's clear that Biola's strategy for allowing an array of views––including admitting gay-affirming and gay-identifying students––has created a culture of deep confusion.

Here is my working theory of Biola's overall strategy based on the data that I have collected. The root issue is that Biola greatly prizes the APA accreditation of Rosemead School of Psychology. While not publicly gay affirming, Rosemead as an institution seems to take a position that sexual orientation is fixed and inborn. Biola platforms Side B model voices to its undergraduate students because that is the version of the traditional position that is most compatible with Rosemead's position. But Rosemead's public statement against conversion therapy and its affirmation of sexual orientation is what actually shape the institutional culture.

This public comment left on the Biola University YouTube channel (if true) provides additional insight into the cultural practices. It sounds consistent with the public data, so I'm inclined to believe this is an accurate description. (If you can confirm or deny the truthfulness of this statement, please email me.)

So while the school would technically allow faculty to sign something like the Nashville Statement, I also wonder whether the administration would discourage such a thing. Conservatives are able to exist at Biola, but the ex-gay (Side X) and new identity (Side Y) approaches have not been used to officially disciple the students. Thus, a conservative professor can hold personal beliefs along the lines of the "X" and "Y" positions and they can offer personal prayer and advice to individual students. But the school has consistently promoted the Side B approach through its official ministries and counseling. These institutional practices put conservative faculty and staff into a marginalized position that can have a chilling effect on them being vocal about their disagreements.

The institution's lack of clarity over the critical issues as sexual identity and sexual orientation combined with their admission of gay-affirming and queer-identifying students and their promotion of the Side B approach to discipleship has created a culture that has unhitched sin from homosexuality and queerness. Its effort to center winsomeness and empathy has led to confusion for many students (and some staff). This lack of clarity has caused pain for many students who feel duped by Biola's messaging about kindness and love, which I think is an understandable reaction. I think this was exactly Green's concern to Corey back in 2017. And although we are on different sides of the conversation, I agree with her major point: the University's position and practice were misaligned.

I can see a case for how something like The Dwelling could potentially be useful. I can also see a case for additional support groups for students who struggle with particular sins. In addition to providing a place for discipleship and mentoring for students who struggle with the sin of homosexuality, it might be good for the University to consider doing the same for students who struggle with online gambling addiction and porn addiction. Such efforts, however, should focus on calling students to repentance from sin, as well as self-exploration and spiritual and emotional growth. But I think that approach would be incompatible with the current institutional messaging.

As I stated in my video from December 11, I am in a wait-and-see posture right now. In the last two months, Biola has dissolved The Dwelling and (once again) updated their gender policies. But there is a lot uncertainty. It remains to be seen what this "new model" for the new version of The Dwelling will be. I would love to see a clear and public explanation for how students will be discipled. That said, I think the great challenge before the administration is this: Is there a way for Biola to bring its cultural practices into alignment with their policies and the University's "Statement of Biblical Principles" and still preserve Rosemead's APA accreditation? I'm not sure that's possible.

Another big question: What will have the ultimate authority? Will biblical counsel define what love looks like or will it be the APA? Policies, practices and position statements aren't merely pieces of paper. They impact real people's lives. Students deserve to be cared for in a loving and compassionate way. But love and compassion must look like something, and (I think) those ideas need biblical structure and definition, even if it means letting go of some aspects of worldly accolades and status. These are clearly weighty and difficult matters. But we live in an age that demands men of courage.

* In my personal conversations, I try to avoid using the nomenclature of LGBTQ because I think it represents a way of thinking and speaking that is inconsistent with a biblical worldview. However, for the purposes of this essay, I will use that terminology because that is how Biola has consistently framed the discussion until fairly recently.

Further Resources:

October 20, 2025

November 27, 2025