Online Vs. in-Person Education: Theological Training Is Supposed to Be Hard
“In my previous post considering Dan Wallace’s recent article discussing online vs. in-person education I concluded that, especially regarding theological teaching, in-person education is superior to distance education—all other things being equal. But rarely if ever in life are all other things equal.” - DBTS Blog
- 11 views
So again, I think Ben was sufficiently clear in his comments for those who were willing to read and understand them.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not sensing people here who are unwilling to read and understand the article. Do we really need to resort to hostilities simply because we may not agree?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay]Do we really need to resort to hostilities simply because we may not agree?
Definitely not. … I’m not convinced there is even any actual disagreement. Just preference for slightly different emphases… among the same actual points.
(I’m reading some Alvin Plantinga right now. Not a fan of his comfort level with theistic evolution, but one thing I’m loving is his ability to find every single point of agreement he can in order to focus like a laser on what’s actually in dispute. It’s really refreshing.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Larry]That is sort of my point—your intent is to use ‘convenience’ with a somewhat negative connotation. However, the Bible uses the term (and terms like it, such as “commodious”) to convey something that is suitable or seasonable or a proper fit. That may be why some are taking issue with your stance—because convenience itself is not a bad thing.
A good hermeneutics course should be pursued whether online or in person because it would remind us that a word means what an author intends it to mean. That the Bible (or someone else) uses the term differently is really quite irrelevant. If people are taking issue with Ben because they are using a different definition of convenience, then they aren’t taking issue with Ben at all.
I recognize the importance of respecting authorial intent—I was merely pointing out that if one is accustomed to hearing the term ‘convenience’ in a positive light, and the article uses it negatively, it may cause a bit of dissonance.
I stand by what I said—it’s not convenience that’s the problem—it’s the motivations of individual students choosing online programs over residential that’s the problem. And in spite of the disdain for doing something that is ‘easier’, I think getting more done in a shorter period of time with less effort is not always a bad thing. This efficiency of convenience is why I started using kettlebells for my workouts instead of going to the gym to use their weight machines, for example.
But yeah—students living across the street opting for online courses because they want to skate—that’s not a good. Just like the students who borrowed my homework (without asking) before class, or tried to get me to blow a test because the professor graded on a curve—they had the same lackadaisical attitude, in spite of their full-time student status. The flesh is like water, desiring to follow the most available path of least resistance.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not sensing people here who are unwilling to read and understand the article. Do we really need to resort to hostilities simply because we may not agree?
It maybe just you. But there are no hostilities that I have seen.
As for my post, if people weren’t unwilling to read and understand, then my comments don’t apply to them.
But again, it seems that Ben was clear in this article and in previous articles that distance ed was a good option for some. And yet there was some seemed to accuse Ben of denying that, in spite of what he said. Ben was also clear that he was talking about a particular kind of student and a particular kind of convenience. But there were some who completely missed that in spite of it being right in a very short article. So in the end, if people missed that, we have to wonder why.
Aaron may be right that there wasn’t much disagreement, though I do think there is a distinct difference in philosophy among some. One person who argued against Ben confirmed that he actually agreed with Ben. It was an odd moment.
I stand by what I said—it’s not convenience that’s the problem—it’s the motivations of individual students choosing online programs over residential that’s the problem.
In the article, that’s the definition of convenience. The motivation is convenience, in essence, and a particular kind of convenience (again, defined in the article). What you are doing here is saying that the identified problem (the motivation of a particular kind of convenience) is not the problem and then in the next phrase agreeing that the motivation of a particular kind of convenience is a problem. I think it’s incoherent in terms of a response. Again, in responding to the article, you can’t just change the definitions or referents and then act like you are responding to the article.
And in spite of the disdain for doing something that is ‘easier’, I think getting more done in a shorter period of time with less effort is not always a bad thing.
Well no it’s not always a bad thing, and there’s no disdain for doing something easier. But we have to define what “more” is in any given situation. Because “more” may be less. Is it “more” when you miss out on major parts of education? I would say No. It reminds me of a sign that says, “If you don’t have time to do it right the first time, why do you think you will have time to do it better later?”
So again, there are many different factors that lead to different things for different people, but it’s important to interact with this article on its own terms. If one wishes to make a different point, consider writing a different article and use “convenience” in a different way.
As a reader, here is how I’m interpreting this article.
The set up of this article was:
When a student is determining how and where to receive his theological education, he must consider various factors, including the faculty, library/research resources, doctrine, tuition costs, ministry philosophy, location, family situation, current and future ministry plans, etc. When these factors are all considered, some students may find that the value of distance education compares favorably with the value of in-person education. But one factor seems to often tilt the scales in favor of distance education—a factor that should be almost irrelevant for those truly seeking theological education. That factor is convenience.
So- a student has considered all the factors listed, and ‘convenience’ tilts the scales.
Is it difficult to take a lower-paying job that allows greater flexibility for schooling in order to be better prepared for ministry? Yes. Is it a challenge to move to a new location so that you can receive more from your theological education? Certainly. Is it a sacrifice to spend hours and years getting properly equipped for a lifetime of ministry? Absolutely. Is being in gospel ministry hard? Yes—it is supposed to be.
So- residential programs may mean a lower income, moving from home or hometown, and spending more time immersed on one’s education—this is ‘harder’, which is presented here as more virtuous/spiritually advantageous.
As for online programs, later in the article something gets thrown in that wasn’t in the set up:
One of the biggest selling points for online education is its convenience. You can now get your degree without any real disruption to your life. Fit your training where you want it in your schedule! …
If you choose an online degree, a shorter program, or a program without a biblical language requirement because of convenience, what does that say about your commitment to the task you claim God has given you?
I believe am engaging with the article and attempting to understand the whether the point being made here is valid. From my interpretation of what the author is saying (having not been blessed with psychic powers as of yet), it seems to me that if one has done due diligence as described, and convenience tilts the scales because of the later mentioned ‘shorter, less rigorous program’ then choosing convenience is a problem because it is rooted in sloth.
Making a sacrifice to uproot and move across the country (or across the globe) for the sake of the best education is the stumbling block to more and more would-be students today…often it is because they want the sheepskin with as little effort as possible. Countless numbers could make the sacrifice but view the degree as more important than the education. They intentionally settle for second best.
It seems here that the idea that moving across the country to go to the ‘best’ school is being equated with the student being more serious and dedicted. I’ve met students in Christian colleges and seminaries, and I’ve been one. This doesn’t track well for me.
And so much of this article appears to assume that the online option is inherently inferior because it is not ‘in person’ with professors and classmates, and they are ‘less rigorous’. Am I misinterpreting? Or do we accept this premise? I’m having trouble with that.
The tide of the Digital economy is irreversible and online education whether we like it or not is riding that wave.
We do many things out of convenience. I deposit a check via an App instead of driving to the bank. Is that laziness? Or efficiency?
The Internet and technology has been a huge “disrupter” in every aspect of society:
- Dating: Tinder et al
- Shopping: The decline of Sears, JC Penny, and even Macy’s with the rise of Amazon, EBay, Etsy, et cetera
- Banking: and “Fintech”
- Buying cars when the buyer “knows” the ‘real price’ of a car by searching the Internet.
- Taxis: with Uber and Lyft
Education is the same. Students are consumers too and they make decisions partially based on economic forces (even though they may not know this!)
There is nothing sacrosanct about the resident seminary model. It’s worked for centuries but it is not found as a model in the Scriptures.
The institutions who rail against online education are the ones who don’t offer it. I can’t blame them for that. GM mocked Ford’s aluminum truck body because they didn’t have an offering.
Ultimately God makes the man not the seminary!
It seems here that the idea that moving across the country to go to the ‘best’ school is being equated with the student being more serious and dedicated. I’ve met students in Christian colleges and seminaries, and I’ve been one. This doesn’t track well for me.
And so much of this article appears to assume that the online option is inherently inferior because it is not ‘in person’ with professors and classmates, and they are ‘less rigorous’. Am I misinterpreting? Or do we accept this premise? I’m having trouble with that.
I got the same vibe as well, and I noticed but didn’t comment on the switch in the ‘set up’ that Susan mentioned. Thanks for putting words on that, Susan.
The thing that I keep getting stuck with on this article (and this is off topic, but germane), with the way that society is changing around us, I doubt very much that we will be able to have seminaries and colleges for ministers and pastors in the future. We’ve already seen attempts in Canada to shut down institutions for training pastors (IIRC) and to remove the accreditation of law schools that refuse to bend the knee to the LGBTQ Baal. So how do we, now, train men to minister in an environment where formal training for ministers isn’t available? I refuse to believe that God can’t use pastors who haven’t been able to learn Greek and Hebrew, but surely there is some strategy or methodology that we can learn from - maybe from our brothers and sisters in China or those who were under the Iron Curtain or something like that. Obviously, there has to be some sort of 2 Timothy 2:2 practice - but what else can we be doing now, before things get even worse?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Per what Susan and Jay note, my pastor noted in the sermon yesterday that the nearest Bible college is burning through reserves at such a rate that they’re likely to end up bankrupt within a decade. Along the same lines, a number of young people from my church who have attended that college are choosing to drop out, and when I looked up that school’s curricula, it struck me that the degree programs were such that theoretically, you could have all your classes for all 2-4 years in the same room, just having the professor walk in with his laptop and such.
It also strikes me that the premiss behind the book of 3 John, and really the premiss behind the whole culture of “circuit letters” going to multiple churches, was a way of getting around the need for a localized Shul for this training. We might do well to consider it.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I’ve heard Bauder say something like:
- The Bible College trains Christian workers
- The Seminary trains Christian leaders
There is something to that. I’m still not so sure leaders cant be homegrown in local churches without a Seminary. Quality control is the perennial issue, but local churches do a pretty poor job of that already in the ordination process, so there’s that. I see the future as unaccredited Seminaries. I believe it will be increasingly difficult for ministers to get an accredited education from a Seminary in the next generation, because of the demands the institutions will face. I see a massive return to the churches for theological training in the coming generation.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I believe am engaging with the article
When you change the definition of key words, you are not engaging with this article but one of your own making.
From my interpretation of what the author is saying (having not been blessed with psychic powers as of yet), it seems to me that if one has done due diligence as described, and convenience tilts the scales because of the later mentioned ‘shorter, less rigorous program’ then choosing convenience is a problem because it is rooted in sloth.
So it sounds like you agree with at least one point of the article. There’s no psychic powers needed. Simply reading the article (and the others) and the explanations which were given is enough. But this leads me to wonder why you make a big point to pretend to disagree. The idea that the particular convenience noted shows up in the article isn’t a switch at all. It was the premise. That doesn’t make sense to me. No reasonable reader would expect every single detail to be included in an opening line.
It seems here that the idea that moving across the country to go to the ‘best’ school is being equated with the student being more serious and dedicated.
No, I think that was specifically answered multiple times by pointing out in the article and in later comments by the author. that there are many factors involved in the decision.
And so much of this article appears to assume that the online option is inherently inferior because it is not ‘in person’ with professors and classmates, and they are ‘less rigorous’. Am I misinterpreting? Or do we accept this premise? I’m having trouble with that.
I think that isn’t so much an assumption as an argument and I don’t think there is much doubt about it, at least the first; the second is frequently true but not always. The question is whether the cost of it (total cost, not just financial) is worth it. There is always a tradeoff and people have to make the decisions based on various factors.
I see a massive return to the churches for theological training in the coming generation.
I imagine people like Ben Edwards (who wrote this), Kevin Bauder, and Dave Doran would agree with you on this. They are already where you say it is going.
We do many things out of convenience. I deposit a check via an App instead of driving to the bank. Is that laziness? Or efficiency?
Depositing a check is the same as education? Is that really an argument we should take seriously?
The Internet and technology has been a huge “disrupter” in every aspect of society:
True, but many believe that is not a good thing. There are a great many studies that are indicating that computers are a negative in the classroom. They provide nothing of benefit and they provide much demerit.
There is nothing sacrosanct about the resident seminary model. It’s worked for centuries but it is not found as a model in the Scriptures.
But wasn’t the primary mode face to face? Letters were a second option because it wasn’t impossible to be there face to face.
The institutions who rail against online education are the ones who don’t offer it.
That’s not true. And it may be (and actually is the case) that some of the biggest promoters of online education have no experience of it in the classroom and have no way of actually comparing it.
Ultimately God makes the man not the seminary!
But God uses people to do it, right?
We do many things out of convenience. I deposit a check via an App instead of driving to the bank. Is that laziness? Or efficiency?
Depositing a check is the same as education? Is that really an argument we should take seriously?
The comparison is valid for the point that Susan is making. The strategy (education) is still the same - it’s in how the education is delivered. This also doesn’t answer her question either.
The Internet and technology has been a huge “disrupter” in every aspect of society:
True, but many believe that is not a good thing. There are a great many studies that are indicating that computers are a negative in the classroom. They provide nothing of benefit and they provide much demerit.
People said that automobiles and airplanes did the same thing. Hey, we kill people much more efficiently now with bombers and fighters and guided cruise missiles when we fight in wars police actions. Should we stop using all of these things as well? Or do we incorporate them into our strategies for transportation and defense? If not, then what’s the difference? One delivers your new equipment from Amazon.com much quicker?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
The comparison is valid for the point that Susan is making. The strategy (education) is still the same - it’s in how the education is delivered. This also doesn’t answer her question either.
It wasn’t Susan. It was Craig. And the comparison isn’t valid. Depositing a check isn’t the same as getting an education.
People said that automobiles and airplanes did the same thing. Hey, we kill people much more efficiently now with bombers and fighters and guided cruise missiles when we fight in wars police actions. Should we stop using all of these things as well? Or do we incorporate them into our strategies for transportation and defense? If not, then what’s the difference? One delivers your new equipment from Amazon.com much quicker?
Isn’t is clear that you are reaching significantly? Are you familiar with studies (or reality) of computers in classrooms? Bringing automobiles, airplanes, killing people (where did that come from????), Amazon, and the like into it won’t change the issue at hand.
At the end of the day, there are two different issues at play here.
1. Bad analogies. Even if the argument is good, the analogy or comparison is bad because it doesn’t compare equal things.
2. The best means to deliver/obtain education. I doubt that anyone disputes (though perhaps some do), that all else being equal, face to face is better than distance. The question is what level of inequality justifies distance or offsite education. I am not sure what the answer to that is. But the article at hand addresses one component of that—laziness and a desire for the easiest way out. Do you think that laziness is a good reason for distance ed?
Discussion