Walston's Potch Dissertation Online

Bill, please reread the comments I've made throughout this thread. I have made no personal attacks on Rick Walston (in fact, I have affirmed him many times), though I have seriously questioned his PhD dissertation for Potchefstroom. As I recently told a friend engaged in a lifestyle that I seriously question, I can separate him from what he does. I can accept him unconditionally while rejecting his behavior. Accepting a person and his actions are two different things. The former is always warranted, the latter is not. Finally, your estimate of Christianity must be based on the claims of Jesus Christ, not your perception of his followers. The former is prefect, the latter are not.

 

Bill, I don't think anyone here has suggested someone should learn a language to satisfy critics regarding academic rigor. I'm sorry you feel so jaded by the discussion in this thread, but you're dangerously close to unfairly ascribing motives.

In my view, a person should seek to master languages relevant to a topic in which he or she is looked upon as an authority so he or she can serve others more effectively. While the motive of satisfying one's critics is a subtle form of self-centeredness, learning all we can to communicate truth with integrity is quite altruistic.

 

Re: Walston's Ph.D

Hey all,

Listen, I'm new to the DL concept and I'm new to this board; however, I can see a few things here that are very clear to me just from day-to-day learning: a Ph.D had better contribute to a knowledge base, or it's severely lacking in its purpose. I, who've talked with Ric, like the guy a lot, respect his desire to educate people in the manner he does, would not consider his work as a contribution. I don't even have a formal education, but even I have enough knowledge to know that Rick's thesis isn't of the research level and catagory of that within Ph.D perameters as I've seen. It simply isn't. The fact that the topic has been run into the ground already is neither here nor there to me. The thesis is still not a paper reflecting of what a Ph.D is awarded.

That said, I will immediatly state, however, that Rick's thesis may be a fine work coming from another's perspective; and indeed may contribute a well, thought-out, intelligent contribution in the general sense causing the reader to say "Hey, I never really knew that" or "I'll have to look into that." That's expected, and that's the norm. I think Rick's thesis can be of help there (I'm still reading it myself), but that doesn't qaulify the work as Ph.D-level research work making a knowledge-base contribution.

So, if it were me, and if I were to be reading this as a Ph.D candidate doing research, or a fellow Ph.D., I'd have noted Rick's work for whatever purposes to which it can contribute, but I would not have considered it a work of Ph.D level, regardless of what school or country the degree was earned by the thesis.

That's my opionion

Starkman

 

upon reflection

After review of comments on Dr Walston's dissertation some observations I'll make:

Regardless of the emphasis being made by one position that the issue is not Rick's school or his person but his product, it was continually perceived that it was Dr Walston himself being attacked. "Poor Rick."

On the other hand whereas it seems that some, Levicoff, with impugnity denigrate whatever and however, others who with conviction express their opinion and attempt to provide evidence for that are labled snide and arrogant. Their evidence is not squarely met instead, it is smothered by unkind adjectives.

When the Potch requirements for dissertations are listed such as interacting with research and using appropriate methods (3,8,11), and when it it is lucid to any familiar with such prior research and methods that this work here is lacking, even then his work is defended. The argument goes, if Potch accepts it, it must be OK!

That position seem peculiar on a forum which regular takes shots at both unaccredited and accredited schools. If I suggest that Potch erred here, then I am told to wait until I am on a dissertation committee to criticise. Yet, members regularly slash at perceived deficits in other academic contexts and this is OK..no one then must wait to be a school president before expressing a criticism of that school.

I think it was clearly stated that the purpose of one side was to uphold the highest integrity in the expression of opinion on the Writings which some here consider supremely important. To do this requires evaluation of that expression (the dissertation). How is it unchristian to so examine the writings which at the highest academic level purport to explain Christianity?

 

Re: upon reflection

I simply believe that Potch believed this thesis to meet its own standards. If they did not, it would not have been awarded a Ph.D.

I have not participated in bashing degree mills or any other school. I am not qualified, either by education or experience. I would say the same about criticising a Ph.D. award, as I do not possess a Ph.D. (yet).

Bill, I do not think it unchristian. The snide rejoinders are more the problem I have. That is what I responded to. Plus, can't those of us who have a different opinion of the quality express that opinion?

Another comment: based on the "standards" expressed here, I doubt that the first edition of "Institutes of the Christian Religion" would have passed muster. I mean, short, no footnotes, no bibliography, lack of interaction with Luther's writings. I could go on and on.

In the end, the quality of most Ph.D. or other theses is a judgment call. There may be some "objective" standards, but how those are interpreted depends on the individuals involved. "One man's trash is another's treasure." In the end, and this is what makes the difference, the prima facie evidence that Ric's thesis is Ph.D. quality, is that somewhere, someone in an internationally recognized university said it was. His examining committee apparently thought his writing, analysis, and conclusions achieved what he set out to do in his proposal. Every Ph.D. is (or ought to be) considered on its own merits.

We can harp all we want on the lack of perceived standards, but, hey, we weren't in the position to award or not award the Ph.D. No one ever said life was fair. As Christians, we know that as a theological fact. Instead, we ought to say, "Hey, isn't it great that Ric got a Ph.D." But, no, we have to try to tear others down because we feel "we" work harder, "we" have more integrity, "we" have higher standards.

If I were writing on 1 Corinthians 12 in a theological way, would I have written it differently? Absolutely! My style is different, my thinking skills are different, and my conclusions would have been way different.

I do hope that all the critics here post their theses at some point. Ed and Bill, are your Th.M. dissertations on line? Maybe we could have a forum just where we dissect those gems of academic virtue. It does not seem quite right that the critics evade criticism of their work.

Enough for now.

Craig

 

Bill has raised some excellent points.

People have come to the defense of Rick Walston as if he's being personally attacked. Apart from one sarcastic post made by another individual, the subject of discussion has been restricted to a dissertation--not a man. Yet no one with knowledge of the field in which Dr. Walston has written has given an objective defense of the dissertation in question. I have been quite specific in noting the deficiencies of the dissertation, and I have done so in an academically acceptable manner (without a hint of ad hominem, I might add). If someone chooses to disagree with me, that is his or her prerogative. But please afford the courtesy of addressing the issues actually raised and refrain from implying someone's character is somehow deficient because they dare criticize a work on the basis of standards shared by those inside and outside the Christian community.

I also want it to be plainly understood that I am not evaluating the dissertation in question according to some unattainable standard. I'm evaluating it according to bare minimum expectations. I am not looking for perfection; I'm looking for general adherence to parameters and protocols put in place by the broader academic community in which Dr. Walston operates as an American evangelical. Are the standards to be lowered simply because the work has been done by a fellow Christian? What could be more unfair, biased, and unloving toward those who don't share my Christian convictions?

Previously someone suggested that such criticism would make it intimidating to study the Bible, and may in fact be preventing others from personally taking the claims of Christ more seriously. There is an enormous difference between studying for personal edification and studying to earn a terminal degree that establishes one as an authority in the subject area. We simply can't go handing out PhDs to people because we accept them for who they are, because they are fellow Christians, or because they gave it the 'ol college try. To do so is to severely compromise the message we preach.

 

Re: Re: upon reflection

Now who is given to snide remarks?

Below is a link to a chapter of the major writing project I completed for my ThM at Dallas Theological Seminary (don't forget to download the free Greek font at www.bible.org):

www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/grk.htm

The chapter pertains to what is known as the Granville Sharp rule, and the work was screened by the person who is universally recognized as the world's foremost authority on that very topic. If you see a problem that he didn't, I'd be happy to revisit it and discuss it further in private.

 

tearing down or building up?

Craig

I don't feel that I am tearing others down. Perhaps our individual experiences and purposes contribute to our contrasting opinions on whether I am attacking Rick or criticizing his writing.

As to experiences. As a Calvinist I regularly defended my opinion while doing an MA in Religion at an Arminian school. I did not take their argumentation as a personal attack bvut as an occasion toi test my positions. While in the ThM at Western one class consisted of evaluating various contributions to the body of theological knowledge. When we presented our views and received criticism from our peers we valued those comments. Our goal was to be measured and we did not think we were above criticism. As one reads through the related journals, one consistently sees one article weighing the worth of another. This is done because of purpose.

Our purpose, as motivated by the love of the study of Scripture and the desire to see the study of it well-done-is to uphold the apostolic injunctions that we put our best into the study of His Word.

The unfairness , is that Dr Walston is not here to defend his work.

I will be glad to put my thesis online if someone will show me how to do that and if TREN who now sells my theis will allow that. If they will not, I will defend most any of my recent writings. Oh, oh, my arrogance is showing!

 

"gems of academic virtue"

nothing snide about that? Right!

 

full-time versus DL?

In a recent thread discussing DBA programs I was a little bit surprised to read
that someone with a DL DBA stated that he considered his DBA to be
academically less rigorous than a DBA done full-time. Another poster with a
DL Ph.D/DBA said that he expected his degree to give him an advantage
against someone with a master's not someone with a resident Ph.D. Are there others who think that the issue really is full-time vs. distance
learning? If the posters mentioned by me above are right, then, maybe, the
quality of Rick's dissertation is OK in terms of DL and trying to compare it with a
dissertation done by a full-time student is the wrong thing.
Any comments?

Dennis Siemens

 

Dennis

Good question. I hope and think identical standards would be the requisite.

 

Gems of academic virtue

Well, maybe a little snide. I apologize.

However, I still think the point is made that those who are critiquing ought to show the rest of us how it ought to be done. Thank you, Ed, for giving us a taste of yours. The writing, for such an obscure subject (remember that evangelicals, are to popular scholarship, obscurantists! ) is very good. What troubles me, in reading it over twice, is that I think I understand what you are writing!

Further, this is a technical paper. Where does it say that Ph.D. level research and writing must be on a technical level? I just don't buy that argument. "Make it as simple as possible, but not more so" [Einstein].

In Getting What You Came For, Robert Peters writes, "Remember that your goal is to finish a thesis good enough to convert into published papers or a book in as little time as possible. The key words here are 'good enough,' not 'perfect.' " He goes on to say, "Most people never publish their thesis in its entirety, so its completeness doesn't matter. . . .Therefore, once you've achieved a level of adequacy acceptable to your committee, you're better off putting the extra energy into turning one of your chapters into a published paper or looking for a job" (pp. 233-234).

I don't think it is any commentary on Christian scholarship to do "what is good enough." There will always be others to fill in areas of research you have not covered. A Ph.D. thesis is hardly a magnum opus. It is a start. That is all.

Craig

 

At least that is what I will argue to my thesis committee!

Craig

 

From a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary

One critique leveled at my comments is that I cannot adequately assess the quality of a PhD dissertation since I myself have yet to earn a PhD. For what it's worth, if I am not qualified to critique a dissertation because I have no PhD, then I guess F. F. Bruce, Kenneth Kitchen, C. F. D. Moule, and a host of others in academia are equally unqualified. The real issue is whether one has a familiarity with scholarly literature in a given field and the ability to critically analyze the same. As others look at my own work, they can be the judges as to my academic proficiency.

Nevertheless, some will not be satisfied until they hear the comments of one possessing the PhD. I'll do you one better: how about the comments of one who is both a PhD and supervises PhDs at a world class seminary?

For those who are interested, the following comments are from a New Testament professor at DTS:

"If this dissertation is considered by some to be a bona fide scholarly piece of research and writing, worthy of earning a Ph.D. in either New Testament or theology, then my worst fears are borne out: evangelicalism is hanging over a precipice, nearly in eclipse. This is not to say that the dissertation by Dr. Walston does not have value! But the lack of foreign language materials--both modern and ancient, of the best in critical scholarship, and even some of the well-known semi-popular books that make some contribution to the discussion is so glaring that this work would not receive a passing grade at DTS in either the New Testament department or the theology department as a master's thesis. The bibliography is about nine or ten pages long. This would perhaps be acceptable if Dr. Walston had chosen only the finest works to interact with. The problem, however, is that so many of his sources were dated, popular, or irrelevant to the concern of his topic. Even Wayne Grudem's doctoral thesis at Cambridge under C. F. D. Moule (which would be generally on the side of Walston) is not mentioned--even though this was later published and revised.

I have read the thread on this dissertation. I am grieved over the defense of sloppy scholarship as though that is a perfectly acceptable standard for evangelicals. By way of an analogy: my son went to a secular university for his bachelor's degree. He minored in philosophy. One particular philosophy teacher that he really liked was an agnostic (at best). I encouraged my son to learn from the man as much as he could because I felt that he could not get better arguments against the existence of God than from a scholar of such repute who had thought about the issue all his life. If my son were to write on arguments for the existence of God, I think he would be in a good position to do it. Why? Because he has spent time, significant time, learning from someone who would dispute those arguments. Indeed, my son is now carrying on a ministry of communicating with atheists about God's existence. My own challenge to us all is to do our best for the glory of Jesus Christ. God knows that I have not always done that! But I am one who wishes to represent evangelical thought to the best of my abilities. And more important than that, I wish to pursue the truth at all costs, interacting with the best thinkers on all sides of an issue. Dr. Walston's dissertation has its place, though that place is not as a PhD dissertation in either New Testament or theology."

 

I speak only for myself. My concern is not with Walston's dissertation which, as I have said, I haven't even read.

My concern is with the response to that dissertation here on Degreeinfo. We already have more than sixty posts ripping it to shreds, all before anyone has even bothered to read it. I find that excessive, not to say intimidating.

Armor plate couldn't smother you guys. I'm just trying to get a word in edgewise to express my reservations.

From where I sit, on one side we have half a dozen DL graduate students on an obscure newsgroup. And on the other side, we have one of South Africa's more prestigious theological faculties. Just on the basis of authority alone, who is it more rational to heed?

But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Walston's dissertation is in fact substandard. Where do we go from there?

Does the substandard dissertation discredit Potchefstroom or GST? Should Degreeinfo adopt a policy of warning prospective students away from these programs?

If this thing doesn't discredit Potchefstroom's theological faculty, then what relevance does it have for DL? Why is it being discussed on the main forum here on Degreeinfo?

I'm saying that a great many universities pass many dissertations that I would personally consider substandard. Just think of all the trendy "post-modern" things coming out of ivy-league humanities departments these days. I don't think that the academic presses publish anything else. If you want to go looking for dissertations from prominent universities to disapprove of, your search would probably be quick and productive.

I think that's a good point.

A number of people, Peter French for example, have criticized Degreeinfo for being a lynch mob. A school of sharks that rips people to shreds. I haven't seen that myself, but that could be because I have been one of the sharks. If that's been the case, then I apologize.

Personally, I've been trying to come to terms with non-accredited schools and to form a more nuanced view of them.

I have some problem following you since I am not an evangelical, nor am I even a Christian. For me, the starting place for inquiry is located at a very different place than it is for you.

I live in a universe of faiths, all of which make different and often competing truth claims. I also hold a philosophical perspective in which human knowledge of transcendent realities is problematic. So for me, foundational issues are critical.

Now look at Dallas Theological Seminary's doctrinal statement. This is a set of elaborate propositions that every faculty member at that institution is required to believe in as a condition of employment:

http://www.dts.edu/engine.cfm?a=27&b=90&i=90

My point is that while from an evangelical theological perspective using the wrong Greek lexicon or citing the wrong author can apparently lead to an entire dissertation being dismissed before it's even read, from my perspective you guys are begging the very questions about religion that MUST NOT be begged. To me that is a tremendous and perhaps fatal sign of substandard scholarship.

I don't expect you to agree with me. I don't want you to. I just want to illustrate that just as with the "post-modern" dissertations, things can be seen in different ways.

I'm not a Christian, so it is presumptuous for me to answer that. But I am a person for whom religion is central. I can tell you how I respond.

As I said before, I can't see your God. I can't have a relationship with your Christ, because he died almost 2,000 years ago. So all I can see is you Christians. Christians claim to have partaken of the Spirit of Christ and even to be, in some sense, his body here on earth. So how Christians behave is critical, since it is the Spirit of Christ acting with them. When our Christians pile onto one of their fellows, Christ piles on with them.

Nobody expects Christians to be perfect. But if the Spirit of Christ is indistinguishable from nothing at all, then I have to conclude that Christianity is probably not the best path for me.

 

One must be careful of original research in theology. The standard punishment for heresy, in the past, was burning.

At 400 pages, Walston's dissertation was about half as long as the Bible. The font was probably larger.

How many different ways can the Bible be chewed up and spit out?

To be a Christian requires faith. To minister requires a calling. Almost enough said.

Until the middle ages owning a Bible could have fatal consequences. It was only in the last century or two that Bible study and detailed examination of tiny verses has lead to interpretations that, in all probability, are beyond the scope intended by the author.

In the movie "Bang the Drum Slowly??" the reponse of the baseball manager to the statement that somebody taught English was "Everybody aleady speaks English"

Everybody can read the Bible. Do we really need a Phd. to interpret it.

There is a question that begs an answer.

Is theology an academic subject? Does the Universal Life Church have it right.
DD. qualifications - $ 30 plus postage.

 

Bill Dayson,

Amen! (and this from a very conservative Christian.)

Thanks for your perspective. I had another post fired up and ready to go, but stopped. This whole discussion has been rather pointless (and Ric, I hope, is just laughing it off). Your comment about a bunch of DL grad students on one hand, and a prominent world class faculty on the other hand, hits the nail on the head.

I wish I had the wisdom to state my point in that way. Some many not consider it "Ph.D. level," but the fact not to be forgotten is that an examining committee did--therefore it is. Case closed.

With Dennis' added perspective, I hope that someday Bill Grover and Ed "get over" their educations.

Craig

 

Re: Gems of academic virtue

How inadequate; clearly a revision is in order for the next edition. I recommend this wording:

"Therefore, once you've achieved a level of adequacy acceptable to your committee, Bill Grover, J. Ed Komoszewski, and Steve Levicoff..."


Cheers,

 

You know, I think I just figured this thread out (I apologize for the delay!).

It is not about Ric's thesis.

It is about the fact that some people really resent it that while they are slaving their behinds away to meet some arbitrary perfectionist standard, someone else goes and does an adequate job and gets a degree on par with theirs (and by DL to boot!).

Universities and seminaries perpetuate this false notion of "high standards" in order to string their students along while paying exhorbitant tuition, as well as limit the number of Ph.D.'s with which to compete for teaching positions. Why else would there be so many ABD's? It's a mental game played to scare people away!

Bill G. and Ed, you've been exposed!

Craig

 

Actually, this is not real far from the truth--there was a wonderful book called The Ph.D. Trap, written 15-20 years ago, that made an argument very similar to this one. Every local Ph.D. I've ever met has described the Ph.D. process as very ritualistic, political, and submission-oriented; this is one of the reasons why I ended up going with Australia instead of the UK or South Africa. Taken as a whole, they seem to have a more collegial attitude towards Ph.D. students; their standards are exceptionally high, but they don't expect you to bow and scrape as much.

As far as perfectionist standards go: Well, to be honest, I usually try to follow them myself. I was ready to basically double the length of my master's thesis when my mentor, Bill Hagan, said (in response to my enthusiastic description of how I was going to spend the next two weeks buried in rabbinic commentaries) something to the effect of "Stop, Tom; skip the rabbinics, finish the thing, and send it in. This is a master's thesis, not a doctoral dissertation."

For my doctoral dissertation, I'm trying to be a perfectionist because I intend to get the thing published when I'm finished, and I want it to knock everybody's socks off when I do. Rick, who had already earned at least two doctorates before he even signed on with Potch, had no reason to do any more than his committee asked of him.

In any event: To Bill G., Ed K., and Steve L., I ask the following question: What would you like to see happen? What could Rick Walston possibly do to satisfy you? Earn a fourth doctorate?


Cheers,