Mobile Ed and Academics

So, I am entitled to free courses and I was going through the catalog to try to decide which would be most beneficial. I found the exercise frustrating for someone who is looking for more than popular theology:

1. The sample video clips do not give a real sense of the level of the course. The statements that are made clearly cater to what church goers might be looking for but are too general to be really revealing.

2. Many of the courses are too trendy. From Christ-centered preaching and hermeneutics in the OT to covenants of grace and other grace-based, calvinistic stuff, those of us who are just looking to learn and are not part of the fan club for these bandwagons are repelled by this.

Again, I can see how this would appeal to large segments of Evangelicalism but not all Evangelicals are Calvinists or of Reformed stock or impressed by theologically-biased hermeneutics. As an example, I have heard good things about Jay Sklar's work on Leviticus. However, the video clips for his mobile ed course give the impression that the course spends more time introducing newbies to Leviticus than giving in-depth treatment on the key issues and concepts of the book.

Anyway, in the first instance, I would suggest video clips that are more informative. The detailed outline are helpful but when one does the math, it becomes clear that many listed topics must necessarily only be treated very briefly. So, this again, does not really give a good sense of how solid the course content is.

In the second instance, it may be worth pondering whether furthering the Church and the Kingdom of God need be equated to producing courses that are so theologically biased.

Find more posts tagged with

Mobile Education

Comments

Michael S.

theologically biased

You used or alluded to this phrase many times. I don't see how you can study any theology without coming away with some bias- one way or the other. At each "fork" in the road, you make a choice... there is no neutrality.

But I suppose you are requesting someone teach a subject as objectively as possible, so as not to "show their hand" as to which way they themselves lean on certain doctrinal stances? I guess that is possible, to a point. However, are you aware of any "well known" experts in the field that is neutral like that? I think if anyone has studied and then teaches the text, they are going to form an argument about the text... so it will not come across as "wishy-washy" or "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine."

Have I mis-read your stance? On the surface, it seems you are anti-reformed, therefore, any reformed leanings are picked up by you and cause disdain for it. I have similar reactions to the opposite. My "spidey" senses go off when a person is non-reformed. And, as you probably know, we can tell the difference with a person's teachings because their entire Biblical lens is based on their position in this regards. However, I believe we cant grow to maturity until we can wrestle with the arguments put forward by people we don't agree with theologically. To know what we believe and why is vastly important- especially in the age of skepticism we now live. I tend to find the vast number of presenters here on the Mobile Ed are from a large variety of theological positions... not just Reformed, or even majority so.

All that said, I do agree with you that the courses could be leveled differently. Any of the 100's would be basic, 200's a step up on difficulty, and 300s' more like a 3rd year student, and then 400's graduating level. Really, 300's and 400's could be graduate (seminary) level, and that would probably be about right. So 100's and 200's bachelor level stuff.

Miles Custis

Francis, I would love to help make sure you pick a course that will be very beneficial to you. We have over 230 courses taught by speakers who come from a variety of backgrounds. A number of our speakers do have a Reformed background, but many do not. Most of our New Testament and Old Testament courses are focused on interpreting the text in its original content. The speakers approach the text objectively and are among the most widely respected current biblical scholars.

If you are looking for a course that is specifically from someone who does not have a Reformed background you could check out Ben Witherington's Romans course (NT332) or one of Roger Olson's historical theology courses (CH151 or CH152). You could also wait until we ship TH351 Perspectives on Justification by Faith: Five Views on Its Meaning and Significance (likely late November). That course presents several different views on justification by faith (including Reformed). There are other examples, but those are a few that come quickly to mind.

Since you mentioned it, I will say that Jay Sklar's course is excellent. He does walk through the text of Leviticus and highlights the key issues and concepts in the book. We picked the sample clips for that course to (hopefully) peak people's interest in a course on a book they might not otherwise spend much time in. The sample titled "Holiness" for example is just the final minute of an 8-minute segment on Lev 19:9–37.

If you have any questions about a specific course, feel free to ask here or in the General forum. Hopefully someone who has already taken it can tell you how they liked it.

SineNomine

On the surface, it seems you are anti-reformed, therefore, any reformed leanings are picked up by you and cause disdain for it. I have similar reactions to the opposite. My "spidey" senses go off when a person is non-reformed.

And as a Catholic, I just sit back and watch.

However, I believe we cant grow to maturity until we can wrestle with the arguments put forward by people we don't agree with theologically. To know what we believe and why is vastly important- especially in the age of skepticism we now live.

I strongly agree.

Francis

I suppose you are requesting someone teach a subject as objectively as possible, so as not to "show their hand" as to which way they themselves lean on certain doctrinal stances? I guess that is possible, to a point. However, are you aware of any "well known" experts in the field that is neutral like that?

Every scholar has opinions or beliefs, but good academics know that scholarship is not the place for confessional militantism.

I suspect that the instructions given to the (very good) scholars who make the courses for mobile ed. are designed to appeal more to a church crowd and a larger cross-section of Logos' customers.

Francis

I will say that Jay Sklar's course is excellent. He does walk through the text of Leviticus and highlights the key issues and concepts in the book. We picked the sample clips for that course to (hopefully) peak people's interest in a course on a book they might not otherwise spend much time in. The sample titled "Holiness" for example is just the final minute of an 8-minute segment on Lev 19:9–37.

I have watched the clips. I have been in explorations of the concepts of purity and atonement in which scholars like Sklar engage with Milgrom-level theories. So I know that Sklar is more than competent on this subject. However, the clips would seem to indicate that this course is a significant step down in level of engagement. But of course, it is clear after watching a number of clips from many courses that such clips are selected to appeal to a broader audience. So, one is not always sure if they are truly representative of the level of engagement of the course.

What is the return policy on mobile ed. courses? Same as other resources?

Mark Barnes

Every scholar has opinions or beliefs, but good academics know that scholarship is not the place for confessional militantism.

I suspect that the instructions given to the (very good) scholars who make the courses for mobile ed. are designed to appeal more to a church crowd and a larger cross-section of Logos' customers.

As someone who owns dozens of Mobile Ed courses, I can say that you've got this wrong (understandably if you're relying on only the preview videos to make your judgement). I will say:

Mobile Ed is a Logos, not a Verbum product, and unashamedly reflects Protestant interests, and (in theological and practical matters) Protestant theology. Inline with Faithlife's commitment with its own publications, they're also broadly evangelical. But within that they reflect a wide-range of different views, and are often deliberately broad. Bryan Chappell's Christ Centered Preaching course would be suitable for any evangelical, regardless of which particular branch of evangelicalism he comes from. I have never seen any "confessional militantism" in these courses, although some courses are obviously confessional (e.g. "Dispensational Hermeneutic of the Bible" and "A Wesleyan View on the Sacraments"). That said, even those courses have been put together by one of the most sensible and reasonably advocates of dispensationalism and Weslyanism.
The courses work at different levels (1, 2, 3), identifiable by the first numeric digit of their code. There are sub-levels as well, so 100-149 courses are simpler than 150-199 ones (and likewise with levels 2 and 3). I think of these sub-levels as semesters. I'm not sure of the official designation of the levels, but I would guess roughly at:

100-149: Pre-seminary beginner
150-199: Pre-seminary more advanced
200-249: First-year seminary, semester one
250-299: First-year seminary, semester two
300-349: Second-year seminary, semester one
350-399: Second-year seminary, semester two

The course are also in many categories. You can see them at https://www.logos.com/mobile-ed/courses. If you want to avoid any theology (that's quite possible, by choosing courses on OT or NT).

From what you've described, I would suggest you look especially at courses with OT3* or NT3* codes. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Francis

Thanks, Mark. I agree that my perception is often from without.

I am not against good Catholic scholarship. I own Sacra Pagina commentaries, and Raymond Brown (Anchor) and Moloney's narrative-critical work on John are both very helpful. It is nice indeed that these works are not out there to promote Catholicism but to do biblical studies.

Examples that have alarmed me include:

Daniel Block's outline of the Deuteronomy course which starts with "The Gospel according to Moses" and continues with titles like "The Grace of Torah," "The Grace of Covenant," "The Grace of Salvation," "The Sheer Grace of Covenant Relationship," and "Grace and Covenant Relationship". Sounds way too Pauline and NOT Deuteronomistic!

Futato's "Preaching the Psalms" (which I actually went through) or a method for reading to a certain brand of NT theology back into the Psalms and use this to indoctrinate your audiences. This is not what you would expect from a less popular Evangelicalism type of approach to homiletics and the study of Psalms. I respect Futato's scholarship (and love his introduction to Hebrew) but was not impressed by this course (and I see that he otherwise teaches this trendy method in mobile ed.).

Chester's Perspectives on Paul: Reformation and the New Perspective seems (from the outline and clips) to be out there to defend Reformed soteriology against NPP.