Yesterday and today, Dr. Barry Corey has been at Biola meeting with various constituents and speaking in various arenas. Dr. Corey is the final candidate for President. I have heard him speak twice now, and have been quite impressed by his enthusiasm, his candor and his vision.  His talk in chapel yesterday has been made available on Biola’s website, so you can be impressed too.
The major questions about Dr. Corey that I’ve read and heard (though they haven’t been very prominent at all!) are twofold: What did Dr. Corey mean in this interview with the Orlando Sentinel, in which Dr. Corey seems to blur the lines between evangelicals and all other Christians, and how can he be ordained by the Assemblies of God and still sign the Biola doctrinal statement (which explicitly contradicts the AG statement on the matter of the baptism of the Holy Spirit)?

Dr. Corey was asked about both issues in chapel today.

With respect to his position on ecumenicism, Dr. Corey pointed out that he is now “getting leery of giving interviews with reporters.” While they promote the University, they are a double-edged sword. He pointed out that in the context of his interview, he was talking about the fact that people in any Christian denomination can have a vibrant relationship with the Lord.

At the same time, he argued that as he has worked at one for years, he understands what it means to be a “Protestant evangelical institution” and that it must be different doctrinally than Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The last two days, it’s become clear that Dr. Corey is committed to preserving theological orthodoxy and to preserving the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

Interestingly, he made an aside during chapel yesterday that he would not change the chapel requirement for undergraduate students (30 a semester), and said that he was a huge fan of the Bible requirement at Biola (30 units for all undergrads).

Dr. Corey’s answer to the second issue, however, was extremely interesting. He called the issue the “elephant in the room” and said he knew it was going to be a major issue. He has long wondered about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but has never devoted time to researching it in depth. He has never written an article about it, or preached a sermon about it. His father was an Assemblies of God minister, and so it seems Dr. Corey adopted the position by default, a very natural thing to do.

However, according to Dr. Corey, he sat down in January and February and studied every issue on the Biola doctrinal statement in depth, and focused on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He did this not to get a job, but as a matter of conscience. During that time, he came to the conclusion that there is NOT a second baptism, but that the Holy Spirit comes into our lives at the moment of regeneration, which put him in agreement with the Biola doctrinal statement.

Dr. Corey emphatically stated that he came to this conclusion as a matter of conscience, and named several prominent evangelical scholars who would vouch for his integrity on this issue. He claimed he didn’t know what his decision would mean for his Assemblies of God ordination, but that he knew he would “check the box” this next year claiming he has doctrinal disagreements with the denomination. In all, there is good reason to have a great deal of sympathy for Dr. Corey’s position, as giving up denominational distinctives of parents and our childhood is never an easy process.
He also addressed two other issues: he called himself a “mild complementarian,” and holds that women should not be senior pastors. Secondly, he has never been prompted to speak in tongues (though he is not a cessassionist).

In all, Dr. Corey seems sincere, honest and full of conviction about the truth of Christianity and the Word of God. He is young, and certainly has a very different demeanor than Dr. Clyde Cook (ironically, Dr. Cook strikes me as more of an “east coast” fellow, while Dr. Corey’s relaxed and casual style seemed suited for California). The only concern to be had, I think, is how he will act as the “voice of Biola.” If he is leery about giving interviews now, as President of Biola he will need to be much, much more guarded about what he communicates through the press and elsewhere.

Dr. Corey clearly has a passion for higher education, and a vision for how Christian higher education fits in with the Kingdom of God. He has spoken highly of numerous programs at Biola, including Torrey Honors, science, psychology, the Master’s of Apologetics program, and the Institute for Spiritual Formation. With his obvious fundraising and administrative abilities, and his commitment to the Word of God, Dr. Corey is going to make an excellent leader of Biola. I am excited to see what the Lord is going to do through Biola during his tenure, and hope to continue to participate in that work for as long as I am able.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson

Matthew Lee Anderson is the Founder and Lead Writer of Mere Orthodoxy. He is the author of Earthen Vessels: Why Our Bodies Matter to our Faith and The End of Our Exploring: A Book about Questioning and the Confidence of Faith. Follow him on Twitter or on Facebook.


  1. Matt-Dog,

    I’m ignorant, what is Biola’s explicit position on Baptism in the Holy Spirit?

    Or for that matter what the AG suggests about the matter?

    Dr. Corey’s answer seems perfectly obvious to me.


  2. Thanks for this very thorough and specific report on Dr. Corey’s talks. It sounds like he is not glib but an honest theologian and, while willing to part with family tradition in matters of conscience, is not disrespectful of “family” tradition such as the chapel requirement.

    But I admit I’m predisposed to like him since by another report his favorite authors are Milton, Herbert, Donne, Eliot, and O’Connor, and he quoted from Paradise Lost III ex tempore! (I’d love to look it up if you can recall any words from the passage.)


  3. Thanks for keeping us updated, Matt.


  4. Thanks for continuing to update the Biola community. While I remain a bit more hesitant, I am thankful for your accurate summary of what I also observed at Talbot chapel. I have also posted some summary comments from the Q&A time.
    Thanks again.


  5. Surfsnell,

    AG’s position:

    Biola’s (see the explanatory note):

    I’m not exactly sure why Biola felt compelled to move this into their doctrinal statement. I don’t know what’s hanging on the debate, as I’ve never really researched it.


    I wasn’t in the meeting where he started quoting Milton. It’s just a rumor. Surely it was Shakespeare, and probably Midsums at that!!! : )


  6. I can’t help but think that Corey was misquoted.
    According to the statement above, Corey recently “came to the conclusion that there is NOT a second baptism, but that the Holy Spirit comes into our lives at the moment of regeneration.”

    The AG does teach that each Christian receives the HS at the point of conversion. It’s hard to believe that Corey did not realize this. Perhaps the person quoting Corey incorrectly interpreted his statement through a theological lens that didn’t accurately reflect AG teachings.

    Also, the blog post reports that Corey had “never been prompted to speak in tongues.” I think it’s important to note distinction between 1) tongues-speech as initial evidence of spirit baptism and 2) a message in tongues and interpretation. Since Corey has AG credentials, he must have spoken in tongues at some point (all credential holders must testify to this experience), although it’s quite possible he’s never participated in a message in tongues and interpretation.


  7. DJ,

    Thanks for the comment. As for misquoting him, I wasn’t as precise as I should have been. Dr. Corey said that he thought the Holy Spirit came into us at the moment of regeneration ALONE, i.e. that there is no second baptism. He did not imply in the least that the AG thinks that the H.S. doesn’t enter Christian’s at the moment of regeneration.

    Dr. Corey did distinguish between a “private prayer language” and “speaking in tongues.” He said that he had never been prompted to do the latter, and actually didn’t say whether he had done the former. Thanks for prompting the clarification! : )


Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.