The Chimes has received numerous letters voicing concerns and sharing perspectives after last week’s CSICS story. We regret not being able to feature them all. The following are a selection of readers’ opinions.

Dear Editor,

We are writing as graduating ICS seniors, with a different perspective on the issues raised in last week’s article,”CSICS Students Protest Direction.” We would like to preface this response by saying that each of us has been greatly impacted by Dr. Len Bartlotti and view his dismissal as a loss to Biola University. That being said, we would like to point out that the issue of the direction of CSICS is a completely separate issue from any dispute that may exist among the school’s current leadership. These two different issues have been mistakenly merged into one.

Regarding the alleged dichotomy between the structure of CSICS and the demand of the Great Commission, we argue that no such separation exists. We refuse to believe that God cannot use development, church planting, and social justice alike; to do so would put both God and missions in a box. Therefore, we wonder why the term “separation” is being used and not “specialization”? In our experience missions is still the heart of ICS, and is strengthened by each emphasis offered. CSICS encourages these parallel academic pursuits so that missions can permeate a myriad of disciplines and people groups in the name of the Gospel of Jesus.

After all, do we not remember who our enemy is? Of course he would seek to cause division in a major dedicated to spreading the Gospel. Let us not be deceived. This is not an issue of which discipline is more “effective,” but rather how God can use them all together to fulfill his ultimate Mission (1 Corinthians 12:24-26).

Sincerely and prayerfully,
Megan Gularte,
Jaclyn Cirilo,
Diane Swagerty
undergraduate students

Dear Editor,

In CSICS students and faculty are concerned that the gospel message resound around the globe.  Our faculty pray students will respond in obedience to God’s leading toward the missionary enterprise wherever that leading takes them at home and abroad, to unreached peoples, among the poor and the oppressed, in areas that need re-evangelization, in cities, towns, and tribes.

CSICS has developed and enhanced several subject areas that greatly strengthen the students’ ability to minister worldwide: International Development, Islamic Studies, Urban Studies, and Anthropology. Each is supported throughout our curricula with gospel, Christological, and missiological  foundations; all were established with the needs of students and missions agencies in mind.

This is a continuing task as we face new global challenges. Everywhere I turn in missions, church, and secular circles CSICS has a solid reputation, current and past, for producing quality, dedicated workers who advance the Kingdom. Sherwood Lingenfelter, a founding professor and university provost, says, “The challenge for us today is to be servants and partners to the global church – the curricular changes you have made support that role.” These changes and other recent initiatives include a new major; increased missions classes; five graduate degrees; two overseas extension centers (a possible third in South America); a new Great Commission Journal; greater connectivity with mission agencies and movements; increased faculty and students; and, a planned facilities expansion with a missions data base center.

Sincerely,
Doug Pennoyer
CSICS Dean

I am the son and grandson of Southern Baptist preachers. Central to the preaching of any good Southern Baptist preacher is missions. Missions has always been a part of my life. I was taught that some people are called to full-time missions, but even if I am not, then I am still to be involved in missions. Thus, I know that God has called me to do work in this, my country, but I will always be involved in missions. Christians do not use the word “if” when thinking about missions; we use the word ”how.”

Central to all the hoopla that has been going on concerning CSICS is the idea of missions. There’s been talk of “dichotomizing” missions, missions becoming only a part of the wheel as opposed to the hub, and many other concerns. All of the talk however, has been assuming something; namely that we are all in understanding of what we mean when we use the word “missions.”

Two things: Firstly, how do we define missions and why? This is crucial to all of the protests on the part of students. It would be one thing if the faculty at Cook were changing how they do “missions.” It would be quite another if they were re-defining “missions” entirely. In order to provide healthy criticism, it would be crucial for students to have an understanding of precisely which is happening here and how, if either. Once we do, we can critique.

Secondly, we have to remember that Cook is a school of intercultural studies, not missions. It is certainly appropriate for the students of this great university to have healthy criticism of the direction it moves in, but it must be that: healthy. Students, if we cannot trust in our faculty then we cannot trust in ourselves. We are a product of their instruction. We need to trust that our faculty know what they are doing. We need to have faith that God will use His beloved Biola University for His glory, our benefit, and the fulfillment of His great commission.

Mark Heath
undergraduate student