A note from the MBS Chairman on lecturers

MBS website updates

The MBS website has had some much needed updates and news. Do check out the latest newsletter (dated December 2009) and the again revised faculty biodata.

The newsletter introduces the new lecturers as well as has the Dean and new Principal explain once more the current situation and goals of MBS for 2010 and beyond.

Please click here to go to the MBS website. Spread the word around to your fellow alumni so they can help point people to the updates.

A few more thoughts on the critcism against MBS

Thanks Eugene and Patrick for your posts. I hope MBS comes up with a response as well.

I think the point that MBS does not seek to have a D.Min or even M.Th programme is an important one to highlight. I suspect that MBS (The ED at least) has no intention of trying to compete with BCM or STM. In fact I think they are working closely with STM and BCM in partnership for the kingdom of God.

Why would Tan Geok Hock who studied both at MBS and the STM be asked to be a lecturer? I don't think MBS is concerned about petty things such as "losing face" that they cannot provide an M.Th programme and that their lecturer is a grad from STM. I have only spoken to Geok Hock briefly a couple of times over lunch (group) when he was a seminary student and one thing that amazed me about him was how he would travel to Klang (MBS) and then to Seremban (STM)to make sure he got the best lecturers for the subjects he wanted to study. He was not only certainly very intelligent based on the contents of his conversation, but he was also very humble. He seems to me like a very focused person and an excellent choice as a lecturer.:-)

I think too there is a big difference between focusing on training pastors who are biblically / theologically sound AND focusing on training pastors to be academic scholars. I suspect MBS (ED) is focusing on the former and STM is doing both the former and the latter. They certainly have the staff to attract capable students.

Of course it would be great to have pastors who are also academic scholars (and there are many whose books many of us have read and have been blessed by!) But not all of us are able or called to be such.

BTW, I think that the late Lee Hong Kwang (an MBS lecturer) was such a person. A gifted pastor and a scholar as well despite the fact that he had no interest / calling in writing academic papers. I remember that even after he had long since left MBS, I brought to his attention a recent article on OT poetry (that was hailed as ground breaking), he glanced at the title and the author and gave me off the cuff some background on the author, and another author who in his opinion had been an earlier developer of the thesis of the article ... and some reason why etc.

MA (OT) from TEDS but don't "play play" with him. He was a life long scholar.

Which brings me to my next thought. I think that while FORMAL academic qualifications are important, for the training of pastors, it should not be the primary factor. I remember (when I was doing my BTh) meeting a recent MTh (OT) grad from Dallas Theological seminary who was visiting MBS. I was struggling with my Basic Hebrew (a course run by Low Chai Hok on research language) and asked his help. He looked at what I was doing and sheepishly told me he could not help me as he had forgotten his Hebrew! Less than a year too!! And this was basic stuff.

I also took a course under a PhD (OT) holder who taught us word studies but only used the Strong's Concordance. I privately questioned him as to validity of his method especially since any first year seminary student knows that often a word in English could be a translation of a number of a number of different Greek or Hebrew words. Issues such as context and words need to be looked at. Yet, he could not see this as relevant, and did not think it necessary to even consider Strong's numbers much less G/K's for the class. For me, he was short changing the class. (And we know that while Strong's numbering system may be very helpful, in some areas, it is not accurate, so a simple tool like G/K numbers would be a better tool...., right?) :-)

I think therefore I was blessed to have taken my B.Th classes by Low Chai Hok despite him at the time not having either a formal MTh or PhD in OT rather than than under the better qualified graduates I mentioned (prestigious seminaries or not). No disrespect to medical doctors but I like this saying (as a means of illustration) - "Half the doctors graduated at the bottom half of their class."

But having said that, I hope MBS does not succumb to the temptation of being soft on academic performance. If a person wants a B.Th, then there should be no compromise on the academic qualifications needed to get a B.Th. If a person cannot meet the academic standards of a B.Th, he or she should not be given a B.Th. They should be encouraged to go for a BMin or settle for a Diploma level. It will only give MBS a bad reputation if graduates come out less than qualified. For me, a solid foundation in Bible and theology and the tools to become life long learners is essential.

I hope MBS makes clear how they select their lecturers and the kind of students they are looking for and put this issues to rest.

Criticism against MBS

Dear Bro. Kris Wee,

greetings!

i am in receipt of the mail below from Patrick Cheng, a fellow alumni and former student of MBS. as i was a former student and graduated from MBS, i felt compelled to write this reply.

since you signed off at the end of your mail as "KR Wee", i take it that you are the writer of the mail.

it appears to me that there are two discrepancies in your mail which needs to be corrected as it does not represents the facts and is therefore inaccurate. the two discrepancies are as follows:-

1. the facts concerning Tan Geok Hock qualifications - i know Geok Hock personally and he has the qualification of an M.Th from STM on New Testament studies. from your mail, you seems to imply that Geok Hock does not possess the requiste qualifications. this is inaccurate on your part.

as for Tony, if you care to look carefully, Tony which is also known to me personally possess a MTS from Regent. that by qualification is equal to a M.Th and together with his D.Min gives him good standing in terms of academic consideration.

as for Roger, he possess an MA on Biblical interpretation. it is not stated where he obtained his M.A but in Europe an M.A is equal to a M.Th. since he is a Ph.D candidate, we may assume that his M.A is at least an equivalent of a Th.M.

the facts reveal that the above lecturers possess more than the necessary qualifications to qualify as lecturers for a seminary training students for B.Th or even M.Div. MBS has never held itself out as training students for Ph.Ds. the qualification of these lecturers are therefore deemed sufficient.

2. the question of whether Jack Mock, Roger and Jane Senior is qualified to teach must not be gleaned only from their respective academic qualifications. there are other considerations, chief of which is the views of the accreditation body and experience. in this case, the views of ATA and the council of MBS matters.

at this juncture, you have not stated their views nor are we any clearer as to the views of the accreditation body, the council and senate of MBS as the body responsible for the running of the seminary. in the circumstances, it would be unwise and unprudent of you to make comments as to whether these lecturers are apt and qualified to teach. after all, you may just find that the accreditation body accepts these lecturers based on factors you are not aware of, in which case your views expressed have been unjust based on inadequate considerations.

it must also be pointed out that whether a seminary is apt to teach and worthy of support does not depend on the size of their faculty or the number of Ph.Ds in their midst! the faculty serves the purpose of the seminary. in the case of MBS, their purpose is modest and does not require a huge layout of lecturers. the standing of the seminary and whether it is worthy of support is dependant of the students they produced. there are many of us who came from MBS who are now established pastors/leaders in various churches and organisations and all will in one way or another testify that MBS have been of help and contribute to their developments through godly lecturers and training standards.

i hope that this puts a better perspective for you as to your comments about MBS. it is necessary to lay all the facts and not just some selective facts when calling upon churches and leaders to withhold support of an established institution of learning.

in the light of the above and as with Patrick, i urge you to consider recalling your mail.


Eugene Yapp

Criticism against MBS

As there was no reply from the author of that email, here's my response.

=======================
Dear Kris,

I am not sure if you are the originator of this mail since I have received it from two other sources this morning.

While the content of the email is something to be concerned about, the context is something we do not know. Maybe it's just a temporary arrangement. Anyway, the best thing to do is to write to the principal of MBS direct and c.c. to the board.

Sending out a mass mail to unconcerned and unaffected parties is a pure violation of the Matthew 18 injunction where our Lord Jesus laid down clear principles to resolve any dispute between two parties. Furthermore, sending the mail to undisclosed recipients is likened to slander since MBS does not have a chance to defend itself.

I therefore urge you to write direct to MBS. If you are the author of the mail, you may even want to recall the mail.

Patrick Cheng

A letter circulating that MBS should respond to

The e-mail (in red) is being passed around. Perhaps MBS (ED) should post a response?

Some personal comments of mine can be found after the e-mail

Dear brothers & sisters in Christ at MBS,

I have been a keen prayer supporter of MBS for many years. I have just check in on the MBS website and what I saw thoroughly disappoints me.

First of all, your faculty standard has gone down the drain. You have lecturers with no degrees such as Jack Mock and Tan Geok Hock. Just their experiences alone do not count at all. The white missionary couple you have as lecturers are also poorly qualified, Rog having only a MA and his wife just a BA. It was Pastor Eddy Ho who told our church several years ago that the minimum qualification is a M.Div. Does Jack Mock and Tan Geok Hock have the qualification. As a seminary, you have state the academic qualifications of your lecturers. Just compare MBS withe the STM and BCM websites and see the way they display their qualified lecturers' qualification. You have so few lecturers and your timetable have only 3 or 4 subjects a week!

I think there is some inconsistency in your lecturer qualification requirement. A Malaysian will not be acceptable with less than a M.Div yet, a white couple with just an MA and BA respectively and an Australian pastor without any degree are allowed to teach.Also, the dean's D.Min is not an academic degree but a skill-based one, so how can he be a good academic lecturer. Actually, nobody in the academic world respect the D.Min holder. It is so easily gained that even people with no basic theological degrees can get a D.Min. This was what the good old Rev Loh Soon Choy told some of us after preaching in our church a few years back when we asked why he didnt go for a D.Min.

Just look at the academic credentials of the BCM alone, no need to compare with the high-powered STM. The ordinary BCM lecturers have higher qualifications than the MBS dean! And they have a large pool of lecturers while MBS has only 5! The STM, of course, is way above the MBS with so many with PhDs from world-class unversities and seminaries like London University and Fuller.

The less than a handful lecturers is a disgrace and is shortchanging the students. I will ask my church to stop sending students and supporting MBS in view of its poor faculty. I think BCM and STM are much better seminaries.

I feel that you should do something about the situation.

This message is being sent to pastors and church leaders to start a debate on whether MBS is worth supporting or not. Please help to promote this debate by forward to other concerned Christians.

KR Wee

There has been a lot of major changes over the years and I think it would be good for MBS to make some kind of statement. Perhaps there is a strong adjunct faculty (and if so, this needs to be made clear on the MBS website)

I remember that even when I was doing my B.Th (graduated in 1990) I had the chance to study under many lecturers with M.Ths and PhDs.

Some PhDs I remember and enjoyed studying under(when I was doing my B.Th and later M.Min and MCS ) were

Ng Kam Weng (theology) * I remember even requesting permission (and being granted) to sit in the then MDiv classes when I was doing my B.Th.

Wong Hoong Hing (NT)

Philip .... oops name slips my mind but he was OT grad from Sheffield University.

For many of the courses in which I did my MCS, I made sure I picked courses that had special guest lecturers (many of whom were PhD holders or specialists in their fields)

For example, I thoroughly enjoyed counselling courses with the late Anthony Yeo, CE with Saik Oy Mooi (PhD in CE), "religion" with an Arabic speaking Middle Eastern PhD holder and missions with Peter Rowan (who is still a missionary). I also had some interesting classes with Allan Harkness (back when he only had his Masters)

Back to my BTh years ... As frustrating as I sometimes found some classes with Rev. Loh SC, :-) I enjoyed his friendship and learned much from the wealth of knowledge he had on Church history. Through him I still believe that church history is interesting and relevant!

For OT, I fondly remember the late Lee Hong Kwang (yes I know he only had an MA in OT from TEDS) but there was no doubt about his deep knowledge and practical application of the OT. And I know that Low Chai Hok never formally completed his MCS from Regent College but he certainly has a better grasp of OT and Hebrew than many OT grads I have met (MTh no less) from some big names seminaries. They gave me a great foundation and love for the OT. Back then, to get a B from Chai Hok was a thrill as his standard was so high :-)

In NT, I had a couple of personal issues with Rev Tan Jin Huat (now Rev Dr.) but that I can honestly say was due to my immaturity back then and not his ability or character! :-) Back then he only had his MTh (Aberdeen) but he was very knowledgeable.

Andrew Lim had a MA (philosophy I believe) but he gave me a great foundation and love for philosophy of religion, and I learned a lot from his pastoral ministry and homiletics classes.

I also had the chance to restudy hermeneutics with Dr. Lim Kar Yong (when doing my MCS) and it is still to me the best course on the subject I have ever taken. (And I still wish that I had the opportunity to learn Greek from him - maybe then I would keep whatever little Greek I managed to learn)

Blessed New Year 2010 wishes

2010 has arrived. Rather late as it's already the 6th but ... "May God grant you a blessed 2010!"

Interesting that there are many hits on this blog but it's still so quiet, especially since most alumni in the ministry and have to do regular preaching :-)

No news as to how everyone is doing. ... me? I'm well, busy and happy with ministry and life.

Here's a picture of me and my wife Jennifer (also an alumnus)