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