Walston's Potch Dissertation Online

Hi Craig and Tom:

No, I'm happy now!

You put my name first.

 

Originally posted by BillDayson
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.

Bill, I've already said that I read the dissertation a few months ago. I'm quickly getting the impression that many of you have either failed to read my posts in their entirety or you have very selective memories.

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?

Not exactly. You already have one PhD advisor who's voiced a similar perspective. And again, as I've said multiple times, no regionally and/or professionally accredited school of theology would award a PhD on the basis of that dissertation. This is not the viewpoint of a half dozen students; it's the perspective shared by the vast majority of theological schools.

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

At least in this instance, it does. Whether students should be shooed away from the school remains to be seen with the production of subsequent theses and dissertations. Nevertheless, a red flag has already been raised and other schools are already raising their brows at Potchefstroom.

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?

Again, it does discredit a few faculty members in this instance. And, incidentally, you are not the first to raise this question. Go back to my original post and read my subsequent posts. I have asked more than once what this says about Potchefstroom. No one has even attempted to answer that question.

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.

This is as gross of a misrepresentation as I've seen in this thread. In fact, you couldn't be more wrong. To begin, work submitted to the faculty at DTS is evaluated on the basis of its substance--not its conclusions. Many people receive poor grades for arriving at a position similar to that of the professor because their methodology is inadequate. Others receive outstanding grades for taking positions far different from the professor's but argued for with academic and intellectual integrity. Second, the students are not required to sign the faculty doctrinal statement and have considerable academic freedom within the parameters of a bare-bones doctrinal statement adhered to in essence by all evangelical schools.

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.

I agree. But you've yet to show me one instance in which my behavior has been a reproach to Christ. I challenge you right now to go through every post I've made and find one bit of sarcasm, one example of ad hominem, or a single vitriolic comment. Now go through and count the number of times I've made positive comments about Rick Walston. If you do, you'll see why your repeated caricatures are wearing thin on me.


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.

Again, you must evaluate the merits of Christianity based upon the person of Jesus Christ. I suggest you start by examining the historical evidence for his bodily resurrection, as I did prior to my own conversion. If you want a list of the best sources (pro and con) to consult, please send me a private e-mail.

 

Tom, with a question like that posed to me, it's difficult not to conclude that you haven't read my posts very carefully.

I have said it once and I'll say it again: this matter has nothing to do with an individual! It has to do with the compromise of well-established academic standards.

But I'll be a good sport and answer your question anyway: Rick doesn't have to do anything to satisfy me. Even if he went to the finest educational institution on earth and submitted the best dissertation ever written to earn yet another doctorate, I would still question Potchefstroom's decision to award a degree for a less than adequate piece of work.

You can say you disagree until you're blue in the face, but no one here has defended the academic integrity of this dissertation or Potchefstroom's decision to award it with a PhD in a manner that would satisfy highly credible schools in the US and UK. Someone sharing your opinion needs to put forth some actual evidence or there is little left for us to discuss.

 

So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the dissertation is grossly substandard; Rick, as an individual, did nothing wrong here because he did what his committee asked him to do; and the problematic issue is that Potchefstroom, an 132-year-old Dutch Reformed university with a well-known theology department, awarded a Ph.D. for this sort of work. From your perspective, what exactly does this mean? What should we do about it? Or, to put it another way: What are you getting at?


Cheers,

 

Craig, I've already revealed my motive. Reread my eighth post in this thread. Then reread your subsequent post which said, "Your points are well taken."

And for the record, if everyone on the face of the planet was awarded a PhD for fulfilling the lowest possible standards, I would continue to pour my best effort into my work. Christ deserves nothing less than my best for his glory. But if you must, tell yourself what you need to hear to diminish your own responsibility to do the same.

Craig, you've mentioned Sanders' book more than once. We both know what it's about, and I share your basic convictions regarding the book. But let me ask you a question: why do you think the views of Pinnock, Boyd and Sanders have received so much positive press? I'll give you the answer: because the average Christian doesn't have a clue as to how to evaluate those views. They are hamstrung because their pastors are ignorant, and their pastors are ignorant because many of them have taken the easy road to the pulpit. I am passionate about scholarship because it always eventually trickles down to the pew and the street. You're seeing the effects of watered-down scholarship in the pervasiveness of openness theology. Battles for truth are won and lost in academia, and don't think for one minute that the church doesn't feel the effects. That is why the views you're espousing here deeply trouble me.

You also mentioned Calvin's Institutes. I don't know what you think about Luther, Calvin, Zwingli or the other Reformers, but you seem to have referred to Calvin's work favorably. The Reformation took place because the Reformers were fed up with widespread ignorance and they desired a renaissance of knowledge in the church. Yes, this involved the typical spiritual disciplines, but it also involved the most rigorous academic study. In fact, it was the Reformers that renewed emphasis upon the biblical languages, and Luther was so bold as to declare that any man who couldn't read Hebrew or Greek had no business expounding Scripture in the pulpit. Say what you will about my standards, but with respect to both past and present, they are held in good and godly company.

 

I'll give you, Bill G., and Ed, one thing--you're valiant in this effort. This has not gone unnoticed. I appreciate Ed's whole tenor of argument. And I cannot say that I am unsympathetic to his argument. Still, BillDayson brings up valuable points, too.

I was going to write more--but what's the point?

The Apostle Paul, giving the testimony and dissertation of his life on Mars Hill, was upholding the standard of accepted scholarship of his day--until he mentioned the resurrection. As everyone knows that people do not come back from the dead, his scholarship became substandard at that point. We fool ourselves if we think that the world holds us in any high regard for our scholarship. Harvard and Yale are contemptuous of Westminster or Dallas. And, I always suspect it will be so.

Athens or Jerusalem? I err towards Jerusalem. You all may have the last word.

Craig

 

Athens or Jerusalem?

There’s no question that some are called to Athens, some are called to Jerusalem, and some are called to both. But no matter your calling, reaching for the lowest rung is a big mistake.

You’ll have to take my word for it when I say that my views of academia are not a matter of posturing. I know many people that never had the privilege of attending Dallas Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, etc. But they worked their butts off where they were, and they have highly fruitful ministries to show for it.

When I recently spent several months in front of a congregation to walk them through the Gospel of John, it wasn’t the piece of paper hanging on my wall that they appreciated. It was the rigorous education that it represented, and the way they personally benefited from it.

When Christian leaders settle for mediocrity by pursuing a credential rather than the knowledge and wisdom it should represent, the entire body suffers.

That is the spirit of what I’m getting at. Set lofty goals. Stretch beyond your current capabilities. Take the high road rather than the easy route. Don’t settle for the bare minimum. You and those you serve will be better for it.

 

Tom,
Rick does have a fourth doctorate -- it is his Ph.D. from Bethany in Dothan, AL (the degree mill). He doesn't claim it anymore for some odd reason.

 

Ed,

Just out of curiosity since you bring it up, which schools are raising their eyebrows at PUCHE?

North

 

Schools employing faculty members with which I have regular contact due to friendship or working relationship. I won't list the handful of seminaries here since I've not asked for permission to share the views of their employees (with the exception of one professor at Dallas Theological Seminary), but suffice it to say that all of them are accredited by their regional agencies and ATS.

Who knows who else is lurking?

 

It means that Potchefstroom has recently shown a capacity to facilitate and endorse work not becoming of doctoral research, and that if it continues to do so it's theology department will be well-known for something else.

I want people here--especially those evangelicals pursuing biblical and/or theological studies--to understand that there's far more to education than convenience and cost. As I've stated in another thread, "one of the unfortunate things that results from the otherwise positive identification of questionable schools is the implied notion that legitimate recognition places all schools that enjoy such on an even plane." Thus, "I think some here may be setting their standards too low if they're merely looking for a degree that is regionally accredited or meets generally accepted accrediting principles." In short, one of my objectives is to encourage people to look beneath the RA and GAAP labels.

I know a few individuals who think that their current studies at Potchefstroom will eventually open up doors to a teaching career in the field of biblical or theological studies. Given Potchefstroom's lack of standards with respect to the use of biblical or modern research languages in its doctoral programs, they need to know such thinking is wishful. Ironically, when you search the Usenet archives for my 1999 AED post arguing the same with respect to non-traditional theological programs in general, Bill Dayson responded by calling it an "excellent post." Apparently his views have changed.

For those currently engaged in studies at Potchefstroom, I want them to understand that they're work must be of a higher caliber than that evidenced by Walston. The fact that their alma mater has let a dissertation of that caliber, recency, and visibility slip through the cracks has already created a potential black eye on their future credentials. That may be a moot point for those in ministry other than academia, but my concern for these folks is that nothing external to themselves will require their absolute best work. We all need a bit of accountability from time to time, and it doesn't look like Potchefstroom provided much with the dissertation critiqued in this thread.

I'd like to see some pressure from the broader academic community come to bear on Potchefstroom and ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. I can't imagine that faculty members at Potchefstroom would be pleased to hear that their 'colleagues' in other parts of the world (or in their own parts, for that matter) have reservations about their consistent commitment to minimal academic standards. Again, it's important to note that the dissertation in question is not merely less than wonderful; it fails to meet bare minimum standards for a dissertation in theological or biblical studies.

My other motives for pursuing this matter aggressively have been noted in an earlier post.

 

Well Done!

Ed

I am really very proud that my name has been associated with yours in this thread. I am also glad that you remind us that we who at advanced levels seek to interpret Scripture have an obligation which transcends a doctoral committee. I hope that none here think that you persistantly and eloquently argue to bolster your ego or tout your education. Let them think that of me if they will.

But in your case you have clearly stated what is missing in this dissertation. No one has refuted that. Anyone who even casually glances at the supposed Potch requisites then at Rick's product would see the disparity. Today I shared some details with even a ( sharp) MA student ,eg, quoting Calvin via Pulpit Commentary and supporting semantics with Vines, and doing exegetics with no grammars. Starkman with no formal training who cannot put his finger on it as readily and as heavily as the DTS expert you called in (DW ?) nevertheless feels something is wrong.

The justification for your concern is the need for quality in general and most particularly in the pursuit of excellence for His sake. Seeing this plainly I applaud your good work here. But also, I apologize to Craig and anyone else I have offended in this thread.

 

Not offended, just discouraged

Bill G.,

I have not been offended, really. You argue your points well. And don't think that I don't appreciate them. I have enjoyed the chance to do "iron against iron." As a pastor, I don't often have that privilege. And, I apologize again for pushing hot buttons.

I have an honest question: do you really think that Unizul's standards exceed Potch's? Sometime ago, I saw a list of current postgraduate thesis titles in the theology department at Unizul. I was underwhelmed. While I applaud the fact you are doing work (and it better be good ) there, I wonder if someone could not pull a Unizul thesis and do the same thing to it (much more easily than say, a Dallas dissertation)?

I do come away from this discussion somewhat discouraged by the attitude towards those of us doing work through PUCHE. Some of us don't want to teach at "world class" institutions, okay? We just want something a little more meaty than the D.Min., we want a formal recognition of that study, and without all the political games that residential institutions play. A DL doctorate seems to be the way to go. Is that so hard to understand?

I do think it says something of Ric that he puts his thesis on line with the full knowledge that this kind of thing would inevitably occur. Another point in Ric's favor: his student, James White, appears to me to outshine Ric, and to do high quality work in his apologetics ministry. When your critics interact little with the material, and instead attack your credentials, you know you've done a decent job.

Craig

 

I have also been able to rack up the posts in this discussion, too!

Craig

 

I didn't bother to read this thread until it reached 2 pages, then I figured there was something controversial going on and worth a look. I didn't read Rick's dissertation (nor do I intend to), but without taking sides, I have some general thoughts;

1) I exchanged e-mails with Rick a few years ago concerning his book, and he struck me as totally honest and with the best of intentions. I do think he gets a bad rap sometimes, but I also think he brings some of that on himself by operating an unaccredited school while holding himself out as an expert on DL issues.

2) From what I saw, the PUCHE Ph.D. was awarded in Dogmatics, which my dictionary lists as the study of dogmas within a religion. I don't know if that matters, but considering the New Testament/Theology debate, it's worth mentioning.

3) Bill Dayson brings up a good point...who are we to "overrule" the Theology Department of an old, respected, GAAP university? I can't think of any active member here that is academically qualified to critique a doctoral dissertation in Theology/Dogmatics. Steve Levicoff perhaps, but his area of expertise is Religion and Law, not quite the same thing.

4) Ed K. supplied us with the critique of a DTS faculty member. Last I checked, DTS doesn't offer any true DL programs, just site-based residential programs. Perhaps there is an anti-DL bias at DTS?

5) No one has answered Tom Head's (very good) question: Assuming for the sake of argument that Rick's dissertation is substandard (which I'm thoroughly unqualified to decide), what shall we do? We can go round and round about this forever, but I'd be willing to bet that no one's mind will be changed as a result.

So...those who believe the Walston dissertation is not up to par, what's your next move beyond this thread?


Bruce

 

I suspect that this thread is part of something larger, Bruce.

Ed Komoszewski appeared on Degreeinfo two days ago. He's made 29 posts in all, 27 of which have been on this thread. So the guy appears out of nowhere, and immediately launches a full-scale jihad against Potchefstroom University.

Not only that, but it seems that he has also been in contact with a number of theologically conservative seminary faculty. Since today is Saturday, I suspect that these contacts predated Ed's appearance here. Whatever it is that's happening, it seems intended to cause as much trouble for Potchefstroom as it possibly can.

As for myself, I resent being used as a pawn to serve somebody else's purpose. While I don't know Walston in the least, and while I can't comment on the dissertation one way or the other (and don't care enough to try), I don't like the idea of Degreeinfo being used to try to ruin the reputation of a legitimate university.

Obviously we all can form our own opinions of particular schools. Ed has a bug up his butt over Potchefstroom. I am personally not thrilled with Dallas Theological Seminary. But I can live with DTS, just as Ed will have to live with Potchefstroom.

 

In his defense, I thought his name looked familiar and did a search; he posted at least three messages to AED in 1999, including this one, where he defended (among other things) South African research doctorates. I agree that there's definitely more here than meets the eye, but he's clearly been around the distance learning field for at least three years, so he knows his stuff.

My suspicion is that he's looking at Rick's dissertation and thinking "That's not fair--you have to do more than that to get a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary!" And he may be right, if by "more than that" he means "more detailed New Testament exegesis"; but to the extent that Rick's dissertation is an independent theory-oriented work, I don't see anything wrong with it. Would a Ph.D. in Theology focusing on Charles Hartshorne's natural theology be categorically inferior if it included no Greek at all?


Cheers,

 

Probably because he got tired of having it called a degree mill doctorate; for my part, I've never been that convinced that Bethany really is a degree mill. I see it as one of those little unaccredited southern Bible colleges that isn't going to give Andover-Newton a run for its money anytime soon, but isn't by any means in the diploma-selling business, either. Nobody could ever provide me with anything approaching evidence in that direction, anyway; if you can, you should. Otherwise...


Cheers,

 

what to do about it?

Craig and Bruce bring up excellent points. Suppose that Potch let Rick off too easily here, then how is this, if true, to be applied to the dissertation efforts of several forum members or the future viewers who are now or might seek theological doctorates (ie as in Christianity) through South African schools and further what can be deduced re these schools were Rick's dissertation not up to snuff ?

The latter issue first. Given that we have here only looked at one dissertation (from one school) assuming for argument that that product had defects (only) as a dissertation, then I would count that as a fluke, a mistake, and without further evidence would say humans in all they do, even theologians (except me) make mistakes. Perhaps Rick's committee bought into his purpose of creating a practical product. (But believe me, it is quite possible to be both academic and understandable, at least I've seen that in others.) And as Steve L. expressed shyly, that's been done on that subject hundreds of times. So, should Potch be condemned for letting this one pass, no, but perhaps watched. They all, all schools, should be watched.

As to the first issue, Fellas, if we are doing Christian Theology, whether practical or Systematic, the doctoral committee is NOT our God! We serve a higher Power. And our calling is not to please our advisor but Him who called us. Craig asked me what I'll do about Unizul. If my committee insists that I do less than my best--as did Rick here, I believe--then I will tell my committee to take that degree and hide it in a cracker jack box as a prize for whoever can open it. I don't have to be called "DR" by anybody; but I do want to hear the words "well done" by Him who called me!

 

I agree. I always thought that degree mills sent a diploma if you sent a check. Bethany doesn't do that. I know a fellow (not me, I have no interest in Bethany, personally) that worked through the masters level and doctorate level with them. It took him several years, lots of work and time.
I don't know anything else about them, but that in and of itself says Bethany isn't a degree mill. Substandard, maybe, but not a mill.

clint