Logos Bible Software is venturing into the arena of mobile education. Logos Mobile Education uses their programs to integrate one’s digital library, Bible study software, and their courses. I know they’ve been recruiting some solid lecturers such as Lynn Cohick and Craig A. Evans among others. Now, there are two obvious weaknesses to this model: (1) accreditation and (2) relational pedagogy. That said, The Association of Theological Schools (ATS) has begun to loosen their restrictions against online learning so more and more seminaries are developing online courses, campuses, and even online faculty. This means more students will be familiar with information based learning accompanied by minimal relational pedagogy. Also, while accreditation does have a variety of perks, especially if one wants to go into a doctoral program someday, one has to wonder how much accreditation matters to the pastor aiming to make his or herself more equipped for his or her vocation.
It should be noted that Logos Mobile Education can’t replace seminary training for people in many denominations who need an accredited degree, but more and more Churches do not require this sort of training for their leaders. Also, those who don’t identify as evangelical likely wouldn’t want to do their training with a company like Logos since their selection of lecturers thus far has been strictly evangelical, it seems. So my question may be relevant in an evangelical matrix only, but what role do you think programs like Logos Mobile Education will have in the future in juxtaposition to traditional seminaries? Will they take a significant portion of the pie or will traditional seminary training remain in its place with alternative programs helping a few people here and there. Watch this video by Logos and then let me know your thoughts:
the archives near Emmaus 
Interesting concept. I was at a conference a few week ago and that seminary is doing something similar (but without the addition of Logos). However, it was a lay-level training package which is what I would see this as. The problem I have with the young man using this training to supplement his ministry is that if he wants to be a minister or pastor he really needs formal qualifications and the spiritual formation that a seminary can provide. This may take place in this format but is best undertaken in the form of real community. However that isn’t possible for everyone.
Now as a pastor having access to top line scholars and the ability to refresh stuff is worth while. But from memory the cost of this training is really high so i might as well look on youtube!
Although I adjunct online for an online campus of a seminary the point you make about learning in community resonates with me. Western Seminary had an online option that I would have used more when doing my MA because I had to travel from San Francisco to San Jose, so my “community” time was limited even if I went to a physical classroom, but I prefer being in a physical classroom. Also, although my “teaching” is limited to being an online adjunct (which means communicating with students about what they are learning, assisting them with their assignments, and grading, but I don’t deliver actual content since that is prerecorded) I know I would prefer teaching in a physical classroom over against teaching online. In fact, honestly, as a teacher I have been far more satisfied teaching a class at my local Church than “teaching” online. There is nothing that can replace the face-to-face relationship of a physical classroom.
So I “get” online learning, and I see how it may be someone’s only option if they live in a remote area, or it may be a nice option to take a few classes online when one’s schedule is too busy, but I prefer the older model.
I don’t think Logos aims to challenge the older model. Instead, I wonder if the decision of seminaries to move toward online learning exposes them to alternative options such as this one because consumers won’t know the difference. When I was an enrollment counselor for Western Seminary I had to recruit against the Re:Train group out of Mars Hill in Seattle. I would lose students to this program because it brought in the “big names” for two or three weeks, gave the students a few assignments, then sent students on their way. As a seminary we had to make a decision to either (A) adapt and become more accessible so that people wouldn’t go to these programs instead or (B) hold the fort emphasizing the necessity of seminary over against these other programs. We had already moved in the direction of promoting our online classes, so it made little sense to try to undercut the opposition by emphasizing the traditional mode. Instead, we partnered with Re:Train giving credit for those classes which could be applied to one of our degree programs (I confess: I hated this).
Those schools who haven’t modernized may die, but alternatively they may provide something far more appealing in the near future. As online learning options become a dime-a-dozen, and as people are unable to determine whether a four year M.Div done online has any more value than a program like Logos Mobile Education, we may see more people choosing to attend the more traditional schools because of the type of learning they’ll experience in community, because of the relational pedagogy, and because these institutions will be easily differentiated from all the online choices.
Also, I agree with you: I think Logos Mobile Education is excellent for lay education. That is the best niche I’d imagine for it. I don’t foresee how it could replace traditional seminary education. My caveat would be those pastors and their Churches would can’t afford to give their leaders seminary training (not to be confused with stingy Churches). Although these programs are costly, they cost less than seminary credits.
I think that this sort of training could be great for lay people as well as a wonderful tool for people to use to help prepare for seminary. Yet, the niche that Logos is hoping to fill is one that shouldn’t exist. They want to train pastors without those men being taken away from the other things they are currently doing in life. I believe that the Church will be much better served by men who devote themselves to preparation for ministry rather than having them simply try to fit training into their lives.
Regretfully, I don’t see any signs that the Church as a whole is willing to provide the financial support necessary to provide quality residential seminary education to future ministers without these students becoming buried in debt. So, I hope that Logos does a great job with this project as I expect more and more ministers to receive their training in this way.
@David:
You’re correct. Most Churches demand that their pastors work while going to school if they don’t come to the job with a seminary degree already. I understand the pragmatic reasons for this (most Churches can’t afford to pay someone to be gone studying nine months a year for four years), and it is probably grounded in the demise of denominations in favor of independent congregations, but it does prevent pastors from receiving what I think is the best learning opportunity in a physical classroom.
Like you though, since this isn’t a reality for many pastors, and Logos is offering education that won’t bury you in debt, I hope they do well.
Quoted “This book will show you how Alexander the Great reshaped the ancient world and how his military conquest reshaped Jewish identity.”
Alexander the Great conquered much of the Medo-Persian empire, and with it, the House of Israel. This was foretold ([Dan 8:3-14] and interpreted [Dan 8:18-26]).
The two horned Ram [Dan 8:3] of the Medo-Persian empire [Dan 8:20] who had taken Israel into captivity [] was to be conquered by the Goat who would be exceedingly great [Dan 8:8] who was Greece [Dan 8:21]. But there was to be 2 other beasts after this, the last being Rome who trampled the sanctuary and took away the regular burnt offerings [Dan 8:13] .. so indeed Alexander the Great reshaped identity, but not ‘Jewish Identity‘, rather ‘Israelite Identity‘ which became completely buried in history.
Jewish Identity did not exist at this time. The invention of Jewish Identity was more a function of the forced conversion of the Edomites into the House of Judah which occurred hundreds of years later in 125 B.C.E . Edomites, of course, vastly outnumbered Judeans, in Judea, so this meant most Jews weren’t Israelites. It was this demographic pressure between Esau and Judah and the existence of Roman foreigners in Judea that invented ‘Jewish’ identity.
The common mistake most people make is the failure to understand that Israel had a civil war subsequent to Solomon’s death and that there was a difference between the House of Judah (Jews) and the House of Israel (Israelites) and that biblically, Jews and Israelites were nearly almost always at war with one another and were not one and the same …
@Andrew: I think this comment was meant for a different blog post.
Brian. You’re correct. I’m sorry.