Walston's Potch Dissertation Online

Tom, I have provided ample evidence that this dissertation is not up to snuff. I have critiqued it as one who is intimately conversant with and works within the field. Since this is not your area of expertise you may not recognize this fact, but any scholar who deals with biblical studies in general and pneumatology in particular will agree with what I've said. I pulled in the testimony of a PhD advisor in the general field and he said the exact same thing. For you to say I've provided nothing substantive is sheer nonsense. This is not about how I, Bill Grover, or anyone else would write a dissertation. It's about established guidelines for this field that all of us must uphold. If you don't recognize that, then you don't know much about this particular field and your comments regarding matters of content should be withheld.

 

OK, I give up!

Ed

I just do not get it. I cannot understand why others do not see your point! The issue , at least for me, is doing the best we can for Christ in whatever context that is. I have taught learning disabled kids since 1969. Once in a while I read for them the tatoo on my wrist: "alla heauton ekenosen" (in Greek characters). But I never reveal its meaning. Nor do I in that Jr High teach at the graduate level their Social Studies and writing. But when I write a paper at the grad level and when I seek to grasp and evince my convictions re Theology, I do so with as much might as my old brain cells will muster and all the reasearch tools at my disposal I extensivly utilize. I admit that I am now embarking on my first proposal for a dissertation. But just for that proposal I have about 200 bibliographic references: Theological Journals, Systematics, lexica as TDNT type, critical commentaries, Hebrew and Greek grammars , theses and such. These I possess in my library. I wont use these in my Jr High class, but I will in my dissertation because in whatever context I am I have to my best for Him. I cannot, in doc work, do that without these. But on this thread you merely say :


Maj Prem: All good dissertations have x,y,z

Min Prem: This dissertation does not have x,y,z

Conclusion: So, this is not a good dissertation!

Unless I have missed it that's ALL you have said. But instead of facing off squarely with these premises and showing one premise erroneous, your secret agenda and your not getting over your ed, Ed, (hah) becomes the essence of the counter argument! Someone wishes this thread would die. Fine, give Ed a good counter argument and stop wasting time with these excursions into the non-relevant! Since I (you too I bet Ed) weary with these wayward responses, I give up!


North

I consider you a real pal and others here too for helping me out a few months ago to decide to quit T. and look toward SA. If we disagree on the topic of this thread I yet want you and those others to know my friendship is sincere.

 

I'll grant you that this abstract doesn't exactly present a very compelling argument for my take on his dissertation, but I still think his discussion is doctoral-level even if it doesn't meet the same array of standards as a closely-supervised brick-and-mortar evangelical dissertation on the same topic would. It may not serve the needs of evangelism--I have no idea what does serve the needs of evangelism--but I think we do need to clarify whether this is an argument about academic standards or religious standards. If it's the latter, I concede your point on ignorance, but think this thread belongs in the Off-Topic Forum; if it's the former, I've seen plenty of theology dissertations at U.S. schools that make this look like Harvard material.

I should take a paragraph here to apologize for my own rancor, but I think I'd rather explain why I'm angry instead. You want to know what I would have done if I thought this dissertation didn't meet academic or religious standards? I'd contact the supervisors. I'd contact the theology department. I'd contact Rick Walston. I'd do all of this quietly, out of concern that I might be causing unnecessary damage to their reputation if this turned out to be a fluke. I would not start up a discussion on the most popular distance learning board on the Internet and drag it out to over 115 posts talking about Rick's dissertation as a symbol of low academic standards among evangelicals--presumably, in your case, without even talking to Rick or his supervisors. That's something a politician would do. A mean-spirited politician. It does not strike me as Christian behavior. It does not strike me as a constructive way to improve the academic quality control process. And coming from someone whose every second word is "Christ," it makes me very angry--because while my status as a member of the Christian faith is marginal at best, it is my home religion, and you're undoing some of the great work Russell and others have been doing on behalf of Christianity on this board by presenting doctoral-level Christian theologians as gentle people who want to cause as little unnecessary pain as possible. I don't think you're a bad person by any means, but I think your envy is clouding your judgment. I think you worked your butt off for your Th.M. and you think this isn't fair. I don't think it's fair that a guy should have to go to college for four years to get a bachelor's I got in 18 months, either. Life isn't fair. Sometimes it benefits us, sometimes it benefits the other guy. We live with it.

I will concede that Rick's dissertation is does not meet evangelical criteria; I will not concede that it does not meet academic criteria. Before you go any further, please clarify which set of criteria you're talking about. They don't overlap all that muich.



Cheers,

 

Since you're playing slapstick with a biblical idiom you apparently don't understand, you should know that having a log in one's eye requires one being guilty of the thing he or she is criticizing. If I write an atrocious dissertation, then you can justifiably sling your loose rhetoric. Until that time, you should strive for greater precision in your insults.

 

There are things I do pride myself on, Ed; high-quality insults aren't among them.


Cheers,

 

I've already noted this previously, Tom: my criticisms are purely academic. Yes, I have concerns about the impact of such a dissertation on evangelical academic standards, but there's not one set of religious criteria and another set of academic criteria for judging a dissertation. Don't confuse defense of my motives with my critique of the dissertation.

Either a dissertation interacts with the necessary sources at the requisite level or it does not. I have specifically stated how this dissertation fails to meet minimal academic criteria. No one has yet to offer an ounce of evidence to the contrary. In fact, no one could unless they're intimately acquainted with the field, and if that were the case I know precisely what they'd say!

 

Re: OK, I give up!

For what it's worth, I think you and Ed are basically good eggs, too; but I think you both got carried away here.


Cheers,

 

This is precisely what I find so irksome. Why do you find it so hard to accept the fact that a person can be passionate about a subject without ulterior motive? And who are you to judge another person's motive anyway? Judge my words. Judge my works. But steer clear of that which you have no possible way of knowing.

I harbor no bitterness over the butt-busting work I did to get my ThM! I went to DTS for a reason: it was one of the most rigorous schools offering a world class education in my intended major. The work I did at DTS was a labor of love and I wouldn't trade it for the world! Some here may pursue education for a piece of paper, but I am not one of them. If that hasn't been clear throughout this thread, then I don't know what has.

 

"This field" is biblical evangelical theology, which is a religious movement; and by definition, nobody who disagrees with its principles can be "intimately acquainted" with it. The aforementioned "criteria" are all religious and based on the idea that all theology should be reducible to the Bible, which is why exegesis is so important. Rick's abstract (not the entire dissertation, but the abstract) sucks because it's grounded in this belief system while his dissertation, though it does meet academic standards, is primarily independent and theory-oriented. Your Th.M. most likely was not; nor will your Ph.D. be, if you earn it through a school like DTS. That's one of the reasons why I never considered evangelical schools among my Ph.D. options; if I wanted to write an exegetical commentary for my dissertation, I would have specialized in biblical studies. I am not a linguist.

My advice would be to look at some Catholic non-exegetical dissertations and then take a peek at Rick's. I suspect you'll find that, though the standards are certainly no lower, they are different, and that Rick's dissertation does pass muster by a less exegesis-focused set of standards.

I maintain that there are two sets of standards, which is why seminaries have their own vocational accreditor.


Cheers,

 

That much has certainly been clear. But I do wish you'd deal with the other major point in my post, namely why you feel that the best way to deal with what you perceive as a substandard dissertation is by doing the Internet equivalent of going on 20-20. If this really is a fluke, that's an uncharitable and unnecessarily harmful way of doing things.


Cheers,

 

First, I have only gone along with what others have dragged out. I'm still waiting for an adequate response to my initial post. You all could have satisfied me long ago.

Second, there was no chance that this is some sort of fluke. If there was any question in my mind, I would have been more cautious. But there was never any doubt that this is far below minimum standards for a PhD dissertation.

Third, as for going to Rick and/or his advisors, that is not required academic protocol. I don't ask various authors for permission to review their books, write critiques of their articles, or engage their arguments. I have on occasion contacted an author for clarification regarding a particular argument, but only to make sure I represent him accurately. There's nothing unclear about the quality of this dissertation. Nothing Rick or his advisors could have or will possibly say can change my mind about the inadequacy of this work.

 

But this is precisely the point, Tom! Dr. Walston has endeavored to explain what the Bible says about spiritual gifts. He defined the parameters--not me. There are many issues that I think need to be explored outside the Bible, but when you claim to represent what the Bible says about something then you need to do biblical exegesis. For this reason--and this reason alone--Dr. Walston's dissertation is inadequate for a degree in biblical studies or biblical theology! If you want to give him a DMin for his dissertation, that's fine by me. I might even be inclined to give him a PhD in practical theology, though that's debatable. But no matter what you say his dissertation is not worthy of the degree that was awarded! Please reread my very first post and you'll see that is all I was trying to say!

 

Well, true; but writing a dissertation more to your liking isn't required academic protocol, either. If you want to go by those standards, satisfying his committee would have been sufficient even if he'd written his dissertation on the back of a matchbook. You're not talking about required academic protocol; you're talking about honorable academic protocol. And honorable academic protocol would involve a charitable procedure. "People usually do this, so I can get away with it" is not a very good rationale when you're trying to argue for a self-imposed higher standard; don't impose one on Rick without following one yourself.

But the degree that was awarded wasn't in biblical theology; I don't care what Rick calls it, it was in theology, period. Potch has a separate biblical studies department and Rick could have gotten a Ph.D. through them, but he chose the theology department, and that indicates a practical focus.

If he's been going around calling it a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies, I can understand your frustration; but here again, unless he has worked something unusual out with Potch, it is a Ph.D. in Theology, not Biblical Studies or even Biblical Theology. Just theology. Just plain theology. Period. Anything beyond that is self-description.


Cheers,

 

Seminaries have their own accreditor primarily because there are professional aspects of seminary preparation that are specific to ministerial vocation. They do not have a professional accreditor because standards for a PhD dissertation in biblical studies are different from those of a secular school accredited by a regional agency.

 

If this were true, then the ATS would not mandate minimum standards for the M.A. in Religion, which generally includes no significant ministry component.

In any case, there are significant differences in standards even among ATS-accredited seminaries--if you think Rick's dissertation isn't biblical enough, you should take a gander at some of the stuff that's being done at liberal seminaries like Lombard and Andover-Newton.

In any case, you're calling it a Ph.D. in biblical studies again, and I say it's a Ph.D. in theology. Potch does offer a Ph.D. in biblical studies, but I'm fairly certain that Rick's was in theology.




Cheers,

 

I read theses and dissertations for a living, and I read a wide variety of them in the fields of biblical and theolgical studies. I am not saying that every dissertation done at a school of theology needs to be exegetical in nature. But I've still yet to find a recent dissertation in biblical or theological studies that purports to defend an interpretation of key biblical passages and yet fails to engage the text in an exegetical fashion. Rick chose the Bible as his source of theology, and there's no way to get biblical theology apart from an exegesis of the biblical text!

 

Now I think we're finally getting somewhere: Your problem with the dissertation isn't that it's substandard across the board, but that its methodology doesn't match the methodology described in the abstract. Am I reading you right, or is there more to it than that?


Cheers,

 

Originally posted by Tom Head
But I think they are, Ed; you're speaking for yourself, aren't you? Or can you name other specific people who have authorized you to speak on their behalf?

I didn't just pull these standards out of a hat. They're known by everyone who works in the field, and they've been confirmed by someone who supervises dissertations in the field. Why do you provoke me to do more when you've already complained that I'm being excessive?

And many people who supervise dissertations at the Ph.D. level don't believe in God and think distance learning is a crock. Are we supposed to satisfy them, too?

When it comes to meeting minimal requirements for a dissertation, yes.

Well, you're certainly a character, but I don't see how I'm supposed to be assassinating you. What a strange comment to make. If there's any character assassination going on here, it's what you're doing to Rick Walston and the folks who supervised his dissertation at Potch. You're behaving like an investigative reporter.

There's nothing strange at all about it. You and others have played guessing games regarding my motives and have made negative comments about my character. That is what's strange, seeing as I have made no comments about anyone else's motives or character, including Rick's. You have never once acknowledged the fact that I ascribed the best of motives to Rick and even affirmed his work on multiple occasions. Nevertheless, you're quick to condemn my behavior as unchristian.

Others who agree with me come along and make snide comments about Rick--all of which I refuse to encourage--yet my integrity is questioned. You yourself have accused me of envy. Aside from the fact that I've got nothing to be envious about, it is strange that you would have such insight into my psyche. Critiquing Rick's work and assessing his character and/or motives are two different things (as I described several posts ago). I have done the former while refusing to do the latter. I'm asking others to maintain the same standard.

Only in the same way that a literature degree is held to a lower standard than an applied mathematics degree; it's a different field, Ed. Theology is not the same thing as biblical studies.

Biblical theology cannot exist without biblical studies.

If you're saying you're not crazy about his abstract, I can agree; but there have been plenty of bad abstracts written at brick-and-mortar U.S. schools, too, and the world didn't come to an end. What makes Potch different?

The abstract is not my problem per se. It's the fact that the dissertation doesn't do what the abstract purports it will do, and that the examiners approved the work anyway! Even without the abstract, the dissertation clearly argues for particular interpretive views of key passages and the exegetical nuts and bolts necessary to affirm such interpretations are missing. Thus, the dissertation has self-contained problems, and simply isn't worthy of a PhD in biblical studies or theology (due to the biblical-theological questions raised within).