Why Undertaking Not Undertaken
Jeffrey Khoo
We do respect the right of the Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (Life BPC) Board of Elders (BOE) to believe what they want to believe, and to propagate their beliefs. They are also free to criticise Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC), but it is only fair that we be granted the right of reply or rebuttal. Let it be known that FEBC, as an autonomous institution, is under no obligation to sign an undertaking demanded by the Life BOE not to teach VPP. Nevertheless, we are not averse to respecting the position of the Life BOE if it is a biblical and truthful one. But before we can make a statement on whether their position is acceptable or not, we need to be very sure, for conscience’s sake, what their position is, that it be according to the Truth as laid down in the Bible, in history and in their constitution (especially article 4.2.1, and article 6). It is vital today to know what is meant by what is said because many today say yes when they mean no, and vice versa. So, in our October 24, 2007 letter to the BOE of Life BPC (in reply to theirs dated October 5, 2007 concerning the use of the sanctuary for night classes), we posed a number of reasonable questions to ascertain the meaning/intent of their 2004 statement on preservation.
Up till now, they have yet to answer those 12 relevant questions. Why are they so fearful of those questions if their position is so right and ours so wrong? What have they got to hide? Why will not the Board of Elders of Life BPC sit with the Board of Directors of FEBC to discuss doctrinal matters in a spirit of truth and love with the Holy Scriptures as our supreme and final authority? Why was such a meeting between Life BPC elders and FEBC faculty cancelled by the former at the last minute back in 2003 when the Rev Dr Timothy Tow was still their pastor? Our Lord has warned, “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:19-21).
What really puzzles me is this: The Pastor and Elders of Life BPC say the KJV is “the best” and its underlying text is “the best.” But if this is the case, then why are they attacking FEBC which is doing its best to defend the KJV from its attackers like BJU, Central Baptist Seminary and James D Price who deny that the KJV and its underlying texts are the best? Why do they think we are opposing them when we are actually defending their beloved Bible and its underlying texts? Why do they not honour the VPP and KJV position their own fathers (viz Timothy Tow and S H Tow) have taken? Why do they shoot their own soldiers for upholding and defending the KJV on the basis of VPP which is the Bible and the Biblical authority of the BP movement since the beginning? It just does not make sense! Do they really love the KJV as they say or do they have two loves? They say Burgon and Hills, ICCC and TBS etc are for them, and it is the position of the old BPC. The old BPC was and is still led by the old guards— Timothy Tow, Quek Kiok Chiang, S H Tow. Are they for the modern versions, or only the KJV? If the Pastor and Elders of Life BPC truly love the KJV and say it is “the best,” why do they not take a stand against certain American fundamentalists, neo-evangelicals, ecumenists, modernists, and agnostics who criticise the KJV and support Westcott and Hort and the modern versions? Who is departing from the “godly path” here?
Their statement on preservation issued in their 2004 ACM (Annual Congregational Meeting) contained a most charitable declaration, “However, for the sake of brotherly love and harmony, we do not want to discriminate against any persons who, on the grounds of their own personal conviction, would choose to believe that the texts or copies underlying the KJV are an exact replica of the original autographs.” Our question to them is: If you do not discriminate, why then this letter of discrimination to forbid FEBC to preach and teach what we believe to be the truth, and ban FEBC from using the sanctuary and now this threat to evict us from our birthplace and home? The reason given by the Life BOE in their January 5, 2008 statement is that FEBC identifies those who deny VPI and/or VPP as “Neo-evangelicals, Neo-fundamentalists, Agnostics and Modernists.” Actually this is what they, namely, Harold Ockenga, Thomas Pryde III, Bart Ehrman, label themselves respectively. Why are the leaders of Life BPC so upset with me for calling a spade a spade? The Biblical duty to warn by identifying the authors and publishers of error is a godly ethos of the BP faith. We have not departed from this godly path our founding fathers have set for us.
It is very strange that the Life BOE should be so upset that I have written critical reviews of the following books which undermine the KJV and promote the modern versions, viz, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man (see http://www.wholesomewords.org/resources/critique.html), One Bible Only? (http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP7.htm), God’s Word in Our Hands (http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP14.htm), and King James Onlyism: A New Sect (http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/multiversions.htm). Again, note that these are books which attack the KJV—the “Very Word of God”—which the Life BPC Pastor and Elders claim to love and uphold. Here, I am defending the KJV against those who attack the KJV, but instead of being commended, I am condemned as “a heretic” for defending their beloved Bible. They warn against bearing false witness, but calling us “heretics” is true witness?
It is always the desire of the Rev Dr Timothy Tow to pastor the church the Lord had used him to found until the day the Lord calls Him home. But in the years 2002-2003, he was subjected to heavy criticisms by the majority of his session with meetings ending late into the night, and into the wee hours of the morning. Not able to bear it any longer, he resigned as pastor of Life BPC after serving her most faithfully and sacrificially for 53 years to start True Life BPC in October the same year, not forsaking the flock as alleged. Read his testimony in the very first weekly of True Life BPC (see below or http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/weekly2004/weekly1.htm). Now, they blame him—their founding pastor—for allowing “the College to destroy the ‘landmarks’ of the Bible-Presbyterian Movement” (their letter of January 5, 2008). Is it not the right and privilege of the father, not the children, to set the “landmarks” and even new ones to strengthen old ones when necessary? What moral right have the Pastor and Elders of Life BPC to tell the Lord’s anointed and their spiritual father who has faithfully and sacrificially built God’s church and college by his blood, sweat and tears for over five decades that he is trespassing on “our property?” Did they not say it is “God’s house” or “God’s church” and not Rev Tow’s? How is it now “our property”? To add insult to injury, they now label him a heretic! Who has changed? The Rev Dr Timothy Tow and FEBC or the current leaders of Life BPC?
The Life BOE not only asks us to sign an undertaking to “respect their position” (October 5, 2007), they now require us to sign an undertaking “not to teach and promote VPP” (January 28, 2008). I wonder if they know what they are saying. Are they telling us that when we preach and teach from our Hebrew and Greek Bibles (ie the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus), and from our English Bible (ie the KJV which is a faithful and accurate translation of its underlying texts), we cannot say that we are teaching the “very Word of God,” absolutely infallible, inerrant, 100% perfect without any mistake? But they deny that they are telling us to say the Bible has mistakes! So, we say the Bible has no mistakes—that is VPP! Why then do they tell us not to teach VPP? Do they not want Christians to believe that the Bible we have today is 100% perfect, without any mistakes? Do they not say in Life BPC that the KJV is the “very Word of God” and “without mistakes?” If the KJV is the “very (ie 100%) Word of God” and “without mistakes” because it is “the best” (ie most faithful and accurate) translation of “the best” (ie infallible and inerrant Hebrew and Greek texts/words), then is that not VPP? If we cannot say that the Bible we have today is infallible and inerrant, we might as well stop preaching the Gospel, for what Gospel can we preach if we cannot say our Bible is 100% perfect without any mistakes? Why then do they want to stop us from teaching VPP, the Bible we have in our hands is infallible and inerrant, without any mistakes? Their words and actions do not agree. It is very confusing, and creates a lot of doubts and questions.
They say we can freely use the premises at Gilstead Road (which is, by the way, our birthplace and home) only if we give them a written undertaking not to confess VPP. This is no different from the devil tempting Jesus, “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me” (Matt 4:9). Why do they afflict and tempt FEBC like this? As far as we are concerned, we can only respond with the verbally and plenarily inspired/preserved words of Jesus, “Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt 4:10). God forbid that we sell our souls to the devil by denying the present perfection of the Holy Scriptures (Matt 4:4, 5:18, 24:35). Now, this is not to say they are devils or reprobates for only God can tell and judge the hearts of men for sure (cf Matt 16:23), though given enough time, one might be able to tell or discern by the fruits produced (Matt 7:15-20). “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak” (Heb 6:9).
The Life BOE has taken over Beulah House at 10 Gilstead Road which was originally meant for FEBC. Now, they threaten to take over FEBC’s birthplace and home on the other side of Gilstead. Are such actions just and fair, peaceable and reasonable? Not only is Life BPC the life-blood of their founding pastor— Timothy Tow—the Lord’s anointed, substantial sums have also been given by FEBC, her students and supporters to acquire and build the properties at 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road. Two passages from the Holy Scriptures come to mind: the command against removing property landmarks which God has laid for His people by the hand of their fathers, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set” (Prov 22:28), and its consequent warning, “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen” (Deut 27:17).
Here is another command and warning from God to cease and desist from maligning the Rev Dr Timothy Tow and FEBC by calling us “heretics,” breaking the ninth commandment (Exod 20:16). “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm” (1 Chron 16:22), “for who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD’s anointed, and be guiltless?” (1 Sam 26:9).
FEBC has always been an independent institution free from ecclesiastical control and governed solely by its duly elected Board of Directors. This is recorded for posterity in the history books of Life BPC and FEBC. Life BPC and FEBC are married together by the promised land at 9 and 9A Gilstead Road as well as Beulah House, 10 Gilstead Road. “Beulah” by the way means “married.” The property landmarks on both sides of Gilstead Road are undeniably God’s gracious gifts to both church and college to inherit and possess from the beginning. We do not believe in a divorce. FEBC cannot deny the present perfection of the Holy Scriptures without any mistake. Neither would FEBC deny the right of the leaders of Life BPC to believe and promote what they want to their congregation. Freedom of faith and freedom of speech are principles upheld and respected by any civilised society. Despite the doctrinal differences, both sides can still live peaceably together on the basis of Christian love and kindness. FEBC also prays to our Almighty God for “an amicable resolution” but not one based on intolerance, false accusations and threats, but one that is based on truth, justice and equity. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov 9:10).
With many tears I have prayed the prayer of Luther, “O God, my God, be with me and protect me against my enemies of the world. Thou must do it, Thou alone, for in me is no strength. It is thy cause, O God, not mine. On thee I rely, not on man, for that would be in vain. O God, dost Thou not hear? Do not hide thy face from me. Thou hast called me, now be my stay. I ask it in the Name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, my protector, my shield and my defence.” On April 18, 1521, Luther was ordered by the Diet of Worms to retract all his doctrines and writings disapproved by the Church. He replied, “Unless I am convinced by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments that I am in error—for popes and councils have often erred and contradicted themselves—I cannot withdraw, for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one’s conscience. Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. So help me God.”
We stand by the biblical doctrine of the verbal and plenary preservation of the Holy Scriptures, that every book, every chapter, every verse, every word, every syllable, every letter of God’s verbally and plenarily inspired Word in the original languages has been preserved exact and intact in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus on which the Authorised or King James Version is based, our sole and supreme authority of faith and practice. We stand by our biblical right and birthright to possess and use 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road which is our inheritance from the Lord through the hand of His anointed—our founding father, the Rev Dr Timothy Tow—on the basis of divine law and justice. VPP is not “heresy,” and we are not “tenants.” May the Lord our God who is our Perfect Judge, by means of His Perfect Law, deliver us from evil and error!
Pastor Tow’s Truthful Answer
The Board of Elders of Life B-P Church, in “A Statement from the Board of Elders on the Relations of Life B-P Church with Far Eastern Bible College” dated January 25, 2008, made this objection, “We have been portrayed as rebels who ousted Rev (Dr) Timothy Tow and caused the church to split. The truth is that our founding pastor tendered his resignation on 24 August 2003 and left to start True Life B-P Church.”
We hereby reproduce the testimony of our founding pastor—Timothy Tow—on the circumstances which led to his resignation from Life BPC to start the FEBC Worship Service (now True Life B-P Church) as published in its very first weekly bulletin dated October 5, 2003 (http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/weekly2004/weekly1.htm):
Response to “Summary of Facts” Relating to August 2003 Session Meeting and Other Issues by Rev Timothy Tow
My truthful answer to Session’s release of the Summary of Facts enumerated according to the numbering in the “Summary”.
2. At the August Session Meeting (20 August 2003), I was lambasted for one and a half hour by opposing elders and deacons mostly for not restraining Dr Jeffrey Khoo from publishing his new booklet KJV Q&A and not sticking to the terms of Reconciliation. As it is a universal law that there must be freedom of speech and freedom of religion, I have no right to bind him. Moreover, there were no such restrictive terms to silence anyone in the Statement of Reconciliation. In view of the fact that both sides have agreed that the KJV is the very Word of God and fully reliable, his plea that we have a 100% Preserved Word should be quite acceptable. I was taken to task on many other issues including my preaching that Eld. Han Soon Juan protested, “You people are putting Pastor on trial” and he walked out. It was so unbearable to me that I tendered my resignation, three times, not preplanned as declared by Rev Charles Seet.
3a. I never used the pulpit to attack any church member. This it is alleged relates to my message on 27 July 2003 at the 10.30 am service. I am said to have chastised a YAF member because of an email to all pastors. As the YAFer did not like my sermons she would switch to the 8am service. I wished her well to hear especially the two assistant pastors. But I am accused of being unbiblical” as it goes against the parable taught by Jesus that a true shepherd will leave his 99 to look for the lost sheep. The YAF member now has two better pastors to feed her, how is she lost? The reason why I referred to her was her query about my preaching at Christmas/Easter where more non-believers would come. Should I still preach? I answered I specially appealed to non-believers to receive Christ at the 2002 Christmas Service. I called it an annual amnesty offer to them to prove I am concerned about non-believers at Christmas or Easter.
3b.The double-talk of an elder who does not hold to the Perfect Bible view, yet saying that he doesn’t say there are any mistakes now accuses certain FEBC lecturers of teaching a Perfect Bible as dogma. We agree either as personal preference. What’s wrong by saying “Is the Preservation of Scripture a Doctrine Worth Dying For?” To comment such a question for terrorism is malicious.
4. Since 1997, we have been paying tax on the unauthorized structures I have constructed at the back of our church under pressure for more living rooms. Now they are all taken down to the happy satisfaction of the authorities. Apart from allowing one unauthorised long open shed, three rooms attached to it are also permitted, shows the compassion of our Government. To state that I threatened to resign if these structures were removed is the first time I’m made aware of! And where is the shame I have brought to our Saviour’s name?
5. The complaint that the ministry of hospitality of Beulah hitherto exercised by me with meticulous care of church warden Yiew Pong Sen is wrong because some are non- Christians. But the Bible in Psalm 84 says unclean birds like sparrows and swallows have found a nest in God’s House proves we are right. Our giving them a place at Beulah is to bring them to church and our Saviour. I have personally baptized four, three from Communist China and one Malaysian and three Chinese relatives by Calvary (Mandarin). I have been deprived of this sacred duty now, as in other areas, to my dismay.
6. FEBC was established in 1962 under British Law which has given us wide freedom in exemption from Registration. For 42 years no one has bothered us. FEBC is not under Life Church and it has its own Directors under Dr (Eld) Tow Siang Yeow.
Finally, following our Lord’s Example, Lk. 4:25-32 and Matt. 13:57, 58 we are worshipping at RELC 10.30 this morning. We say the sheep will come along, not forsaking them.
God be with you. Good-bye.
***************
Dogmas and Doctrines, Creeds and Convictions
Curiouser and Curiouser
Re: ‘A Statement from the Board of Elders on the Relations of Life B-P Church with Far Eastern Bible College’ (25 Jan. 2008).
“In a statement that was made on 8 November 2005, the Board of Elders had declared:
However, for the sake of brotherly love and harmony, we do not want to discriminate against any persons who, on grounds of their own personal conviction, would choose to believe that the texts or copies underlying the KJV are an exact replica of the original autographs. We believe “there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and principles may differ. And in all these, we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.” (Article 5.5, Constitution of the Life Bible-Presbyterian Church).
This was stated in the context of the teaching of VPP by the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC). However, since then, it has become increasingly evident that FEBC regards VPP not merely as personal conviction, but as dogma and as a touchstone of Christian fundamentalism. Those who disagree on VPP are unkindly branded by the college as Neo-Evangelicals, Neo-Fundamentalists, Agnostics and Modernists, and believing that the Bible has many mistakes.” (Italics and emphasis mine), (http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/stmtfaith.htm).
Is A Dogma Not A Personal Conviction?
1. The Chambers Dictionary defines the noun DOGMA as:
A. A belief or principle laid down by an authority as unquestionably true.
B. Such beliefs or principles in general.
2. The Chambers Thesaurus gives the synonyms of DOGMA as:
Doctrine; Creed; Credo; Code (of belief); Belief; Precept; Principle; Article (of faith); Tenet; Teaching; Opinion; Maxim and CONVICTION.
To Charles Seet and Life BPC Session,
Your bizarre attempt to differentiate between synonyms is symptomatic of how carnal and careless the Life BPC leadership has become in the unnecessary opposition of FEBC. All dogmas are born out of personal convictions. Christian denominations are the result of personal convictions of kindred people assembling together and stating their commonly held beliefs as Biblical truths in creedal forms. Dogmas written on paper are not impersonal doctrines in a vacuum but rooted in the heart of its proponent. All sound Biblical doctrines are induced and deduced from Biblical texts and reduced to doctrinal tenets for the purpose of common creedal statements. That is a touchstone fundamental to faith. To have a personal conviction contrary to the collective creedal statements of a Church or an institution is to break its unity. Christian dogmatics is the studied convictions of persons. You cannot divorce dogmas from personal convictions. It is a matter of conscience not hypocritical convenience. Confession without conscience is profession without conviction. All fundamental DOGMAS are a PUBLIC PRESENTATION of COLLECTIVE CONVICTION born of PERSONAL CONVICTIONS.
FEBC has the right to regard Verbal Plenary Preservation of the originals in the Received Text “…on grounds of their own (collective) personal conviction” “that the texts or copies underlying the KJV are an exact replica of the original autographs.” Others may not accept the restored view of the 1611/RT as the perfect copy of the originals, BUT IT IS NOT HERESY. No fundamental tenet is denied. You have not established what this heresy is and mantric repetition of the word ‘heresy’ is deliberate deception. FEBC and Life BPC since it’s founding by Rev Tow and under his pastorate upheld the Received Text and the KJV. And so did the other daughter BP churches. Do not forget, this stand is not new but was a position held by Rev Tow since the beginning of the LIFE BP which you ignored in your statement without even mentioning his name. Rewriting history again? In your statement, ‘Why we use the King James Version’, (www.lifefebc.com/ourstand/whykjv.htm), this is how you championed it:
So do FEBC! But the difference between your PP position (Providential Preservation) and FEBC’s VPP (Verbal Plenary Preservation of the 1611/RT) position is: a. Your PP of the 1611/RT KJV Bible has slight errors and therefore closest to the original autographs. b. FEBC’s VPP of the 1611/RT Bible has absolutely no errors therefore the exact copy of the originals.
According to your statement in, ‘Why we use the King James Version’, “The more reliable Majority text was multiplied and copied from generation to generation, and the great majority of existing manuscripts (about 99.44% of the 5,000 or so manuscripts) exhibit a faithful reproduction of the true text.” So this accusation of ‘heresy’ against FEBC for holding a perfect VPP of the 1611/RT position is a minuscule .56%? Is this the grounds for the legal threat to evict FEBC?
Claiming the KJV to be the best is akin to calling the 1611/RT as the best text. In other words the KJV is the best because it is translated from the 1611/RT. Life BPC champions the KJV calling it the Word of God, etc. FEBC holds to a similar view. It is inconsistent and hypocritical to lampoon FEBC while championing the KJV and continue its use in Life BPC. Why is it heretical if FEBC believes by faith and logic born of Verbal Plenary Inspiration that the Received Text underlying the KJV as THE virtual copy of the originals? They are stauncher on the RT based KJV than you. All the other accusation against FEBC is petty and is a lame excuse for mature Christians to be so precious about.
Your statement in 8 November 2005, was a fair and true expression of “…brotherly love and harmony” in which you did not want to “…discriminate against any persons who, on grounds of their own personal conviction” because, “…there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and principles may differ. And in all these, we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.” Now your attempt to wriggle out of brotherly love and harmony by the deceptive use of synonyms is a dishonest attempt to mislead your membership. Dogmas are collective personal convictions and without conviction is nominalism.
A golden opportunity is lost to you and all opposing BPC Churches in this important and welcoming debate on the providential preservation of Scriptures. To stagnate in yesteryear’s understanding of fundamental doctrines is dead theology. The Church of God must be constantly looking for a better understanding of all articles of faith. Have we rightly divided the Word enough? Isn’t there more to rethink, refresh, and research for a better light on the sure matters of sound doctrine? To engage our minds constantly on theology is to appreciate the PEARL of great price in its revealed glory. It is the task of a theological institution to preoccupy in these matters for the benefit of the Church.
The wonderful opportunity not entered into in this debate to pit mind against mind in holy interaction has impoverished the BP churches. Iron sharpeneth iron so doth mind sharpeneth other minds. When minds clash emotions may rise and words fly crisp and brisk. But when truth is the focus, all will end in making us better men. Where is the Berean mind of a fair hearing and searching? Even on the things we think we know so well is full of ignorance. A man who doesn’t change his mind is a fool. This debate has sharpened my focus and God knows the ocean of ignorance in me still. When the body will prevail no longer, all will die ignorant still. But blessed is the one who is less ignorant.
‘Reverend Tow has changed.’ ‘FEBC has changed.’ ‘They do not hold to the VPI like yesteryear.’ ‘Now they are VPI and VPP of the 1611-RT,’ so goes the rumble. To charge Rev. Tow and FEBC of not adhering to a past understanding of the VPI position only and accuse of a heretical shift is phobic leadership. Age is no barrier to thinking, and learning, and the changing of mind. Who has not changed views over the years? Only the dead do not think. An argument stands or falls on its merits. Debates are not always to defend an old position but it is a door to a discovery of new light to former views. All dogmas must be tested with an open mind. In the end one may not buy all of it but at the same time one will not remain unchanged by it. Truth discovered because of it, changes everyone in the end, thus profiting the Church of God. Furthermore, why fear error, when truth taught will win the day. Differing view is a chance to refine and define truth. Truth articulated will make even the ‘blind’ to see. Learning theology is the constant task of teachers of the Word. The rusted on the pew membership are mostly indifferent to dry as dust theology. They mostly go by what is presented to them as truth. But is that the Berean truth?
The man who is the bastion in Gilstead is now considered too old and weak to stand on his own merit. He is thought of as being manipulated. His so called ‘stipend’ which was refused (but still given as a love gift but redirected by him to FEBC) and his continued dwelling in the parsonage is considered as charitableness, kindness and grace shown by the new leadership of Life BPC. Old ‘Joseph’ is already forgotten and his history soon a mystery to the young membership. Now this is the man who is Mr. Bible Presbyterian and FEBC! Life BPC was born by him there. FEBC was born by him there. Who has the right to continue there but his approved legacy, the FEBC?
Again the challenge of the measure of the leadership of Life BPC will be to start on your own. That will be the conscientious thing to do. I wonder how many will follow you. Do you have the tenacity and the godly zeal to work for your own harvest? It is easy to cruise comfortably and speak loudly on theology sitting on another man’s life-work. The Far Eastern Bible College must remain in Gilstead as its birth right. The Church sanctuary must be the inalienable ministry of and for FEBC as conceived by Rev. Timothy Tow.
Brutus Balan
Hobart, Tasmania, AUSTRALIA, 4 Feb 2008
“An Unconditional Written Undertaking” for the Use of the Life Church Sanctuary
Enclosed with today’s weekly are the Life BOE’s letter dated October 5, 2007 demanding FEBC’s “written unconditional undertaking” not to promote VPP in its night classes, and our reply to them dated October 24, 2007 addressing important points of the VPP issue, and raising relevant questions which they have yet to answer till this day. We appreciate their plea to bear true witness, and we urge them to do likewise, to speak with a straight and not a double tongue, “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matt 5:37).
