Fundamentalism in Singapore

Christianity Enters Singapore The inception of modern Singapore can be traced to the arrival of Sir Stanford Raffles on the shores of Singapore nearly 200 years ago on 29th January 1819. Together with the British colonialists who transformed this sleepy island into the thriving port city it is today, there was also the introduction of Christianity into the land. The early inroads of Christianity can therefore be said to have begun when the British fleet first took anchor off the coast of Singapore.

Early Streams of Influences According to Singapore church historian Bobby Sng, there were four main streams of Christian influences that converged on the island in the first 80 years of Singapore’s existence. Each had its own distinctive contribution towards the growth of the church.1

The first two streams, that of the ‘members of the Western mercantile community’ and the ‘Straits Chinese community in Malacca’ failed to have any lasting impact on the local church scene, for by and large their efforts were weak evangelistically and generally were established for the benefit of their own people. The next two streams, of the missionaries and the Christian immigrants from India and China had a somewhat more successful influence in growing local community, with the establishment of churches and schools, especially towards the latter half of the century. Each of these streams of influences also saw their bright sparks, with individuals, organizations and churches who did contribute much towards the advancement of Christianity in Singapore.

Yet this whole period, of 1819 to the turn of the century can generally said to be lacklustre and muted. Growth was slow, and the churches that were established were weak and faltering. It seems most of the immigrants to the growing port town were more interested in coming to make a living and get ahead in life than to take a real concern in the things of God and eternity. There were many other barriers and obstacles to the growth of the church in that period, such as the “diversity of languages, and the transitory nature of the population”2, as well as the social, cultural and economic distinctions between the different groups of people congregating on the island.

Influence of John Sung Perhaps the most significant milestone that contributed to the growth of Christianity in Singapore in the early years would be the evangelistic campaign of Dr. John Sung, a revivalist from China who came to Singapore for a total of seven times between 1935 to 1939. His coming to Singapore was described by Timothy Tow as the “Singapore Pentacost”, whereby “hitherto, the Church was so dead that very few owned Bibles”3. Because of John Sung’s visits to Singapore,

1 Summarized from Bobby Sng, In His Good Time: The Story of the Church in Singapore 1819‐2002, (Singapore: Bible Society of Singapore, 2003), 133‐137. 2 Ibid., 163. 3 Timothy Tow, The Asian Awakening, (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press: 1988), 33

the result was a real revival of spiritual life and a new desire for Bible study. Many of the ordinary church members engaged actively in voluntary evangelistic work, organizing themselves in small groups which went out to preach the gospel. Attendance at churches service increased to such an extent that several congregations were faced with the necessity of erecting larger church buildings.4

Thus through the ministry of this one man, thousands were converted, and churches in Singapore and also around the region experienced a great revival. Through his strong focus the Bible, fearless preaching against sin and emphasis on evangelism and prayer, everywhere he went, “Chinese churches were spurred on to greater spiritual vigour, the impact of which is still evident today”.5

Another important aspect of John Sung’s ministry that is worthy of note is his emphasis on Biblical Separation. “At his farewell meeting with the churches in Singapore in 1939, he warned church leaders to keep away from the poison of liberalism and also not to invite any speaker with such views to their meetings.”6 Furthermore, Timothy Tow writes that From Dr. John Sung our founding fathers (of the BP Church) were first introduced to the doctrine of the Premillennial Return of Christ, and alerted against the social gospel of the liberals and modernists, the evangelist himself having tasted the poisonous leaven thereof at Union Seminary, New York City, and delivered from its deadly brew7

The results of his preaching campaigns were clear. God used this man to awaken the sleeping Church out of her slumber and enthuse her to greater evangelistic zeal. Through him the Church was also warned of the dangers of liberalism that would soon creep into the church. Furthermore, it was during this campaign that the founding fathers of the Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore were saved and called into full‐time service.

Influence of Liberal and Modernist Theologies As the liberal‐modernist controversy was beginning to brew in Europe and America during the early part of the 20th Century, the churches in Singapore were not spared from such ungodly influences. Bobby Sng reports; Liberal theology found entrance to the churches in Singapore and Malaya during the early part of the century through Western missionaries who had been trained in liberal theological colleges. However, apart from a few scattered articles in church journals warning Christians of the danger of liberalism, the influence of these missionaries remained largely unchallenged.8

4 Edward Band, “The History of the English Presbyterian Mission 1847‐1947” as quoted by Timothy Tow in The Asian Awakening, 34. 5 Bobby Sng, 176‐178. 6 Ibid., 233 7 Timothy Tow, The Singapore B‐P Church Story, (Singapore: Life Book Centre: 1995), 15‐16. 8 Bobby Sng, 228. Ref. pages 180‐182 where he further discusses examples of modernism that had crept into the church by the early 20th century.

Ecumenical thought was also beginning to take root amongst the local congregations. The Malayan Christian Council (MCC), and offshoot from the ecumenical World Council of Churches (WCC) was inaugurated in January 1948, and the founding members included the Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Bible Society, Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) and Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA).9 They were later joined by the Orthodoc Syrian Church, Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Bethesda Katong, Lutheran Church and The Salvation Army10. Through this body, the churches sought to engage in religious dialogue and engage in interdenominational activity. This would do much to erode the lines of denominational distinction and pave the way for compromise and apostasy within the churches.

At that point of time, there was yet no fundamental witness to combat against these dangerous compromises that were creeping into the church. If nothing was done, then all the good influences of the earlier missionaries and the work of John Sung would soon fizzle out within a generation. Thank God that it was in a time such as this, that God raised a standard, a fundamentalist witness to be a beacon of truth for Him.

Fundamentalist Standard Raised

God Raised a Man By the providence of God, in 1948, a certain young man was sent to America to study at Faith Theological Seminary in order to prepare for a pastoral ministry. He had previously been saved and called under the preaching of Dr John Sung during the Singapore Pentacost. This young man was Timothy Tow. It was here in Faith Seminary, that he heard the message of the 20th Century Reformation, and took a stand for Biblical fundamentalism. He recounts, One wintry morning in mid‐January… there came in a tall and distinguished looking man, viz., Dr. Carl McIntire. He was the pastor of Collingswood Bible Presbyterian Church and President of the Board of Directors of Faith Seminary. He spoke to us at length at our Chapel Hour. As he presented his case for a Twentieth Century Reformation and a return to our fathers’ faith, and called young men like us to join the cause, I felt my heart strangely warmed, to use Wesley's words. I felt my heart knit to his heart, like Jonathan's to David's (1 Sam 18:1). I became that day his disciple. I have been loyal to the Separatist Cause of the International Council of Christian Churches, which he founded, all through the years.”11

After his graduation in 1950, he attended the 2nd ICCC congress held in Geneva, and was ordained by the Philadelphia Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church of U.S.A. As he recounts Accordingly, an ordination council comprising twenty‐four Presbyters was called together, which elected J.O. Buswell Jr., as moderator. This Presbytery then authorised its moderator and Dr. Allan A. MacRae, beloved president of Faith

9 Ibid., 202. 10 Ibid., 203‐204. 11 Timothy Tow, Son of a Mother’s Vow, (Singapore: FEBC Bookroom, 2001), 125

Seminary, to examine me concerning my call, doctrinal beliefs and ministry…What of my ministry? From the joy God had implanted within me to study theology and to preach and teach the wonderful truths of God’s Word, particularly its Calvinistic emphasis on the sovereignty and grace of God, I confidently replied, ‘My ministry is to preach as well as to teach. I cannot say which is before which.’12

With this preparation and with a heart burning with zeal for the Lord, Rev Tow returned to Singapore in 1950 to begin his ministry as a young pastor.

God Raised the Church On 20 Oct 1950, the Life Church English Service was inaugurated. Rev Timothy Tow as installed as the pastor and preach the first Lord’s Day message, which was an exposition of the church motto “Holding Forth the Word of Life” taken from Philippians 2:16. Initially, the church began with an affiliation to the mother church, Life Church, Prinsep Street, though with certain conditions. It was noted by Elder Han Soon Juan in Life BPC’s 50th Anniversary Commemorative Magazine: In the drafting of the constitution, it was declared that while the English Service would remain filial to mother church, it was opposed to the Ecumenical Movement and to any affiliation with the World Council of Churches (WCC) through the Malayan Christian Council (MCC). The Chinese Presbyterian Synod was identified with the MCC, whose hierarchies were modernists rejecting the infallibility of Holy Scriptures, the virgin birth of Christ, His bodily resurrection and personal second coming….However, as an offshoot of mother Church, we were de facto linked to the Synod. In the name of mother Church, the testimony of separation from the MCC was raised by our commissioners, namely, Rev. Timothy Tow, Elder Quek Chiang (sic.) and Deacon Hsu Chiang Tai for a few years , but to no avail.13

Just 5 years after her inauguration, Life Church English Service separated from her mother church and also the MCC to form Life Bible Presbyterian Church. Despite making continual protests and putting pressure upon the mother church to withdraw from the MCC, it was all to no avail. Matters finally came to a head in 1955 where the only option left was to separate. Rev. Timothy Tow recounts the circumstances surrounding this withdrawal: The last battle for the Faith was fought in Muar at the Trinity Presbyeterian Church when commissioners from all parts of Singapore and Malaya gathered for the double function of dedication of the new church. This was in January 1955… Of course the battle was lost against the usual phalanx of modernist missionaries and subservient national pastors. In the same month, according to the Life Church Weekly Chronicler, the “The Interim Committee decides to make our Church fully constituted and to sever connections with the Synod on accounts of modernism”. In order to distinguish ourselves from the Synod churches we prefixed the word Bible to make ours the Life Bible‐Presbyterian Church.14

12 Ibid., 132 13 Han Soon Juan, 50 Years Building His Kingdom, (Singapore: Life BPC, 2000), 28 14 Timothy Tow, The Singapore B‐P Church Story, 73.

Therefore January 1955 saw the birth of the Bible Presbyterian Church Movement in Singapore, the first Biblically fundamental witness in Singapore. Her line of witness follows that of the Old Princeton tradition, passed on through defenders of the faith like J. Greshem Machen, Carl McIntire, and then through to Rev. Timothy Tow. From the very onset, a defining trait of the BP church was their strong and firm allegiance to the Word of God. Having been born out of an adherence to the Biblical command to separate, the BP Church has always been a militant church, earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude3).

From then on, the BP Church in Singapore became a firm defender of the faith and a strong witness for the Lord. Bobby Sng describes the developments after the split from the MCC: The BP Church developed at a rapid pace but largely in isolation from other churches. Its strong call to all Protestant Christians to separate themselves from churches that had liberal leadership struck a responsive chord in some but antagonized the leaders of the larger churches. Its consistent emphases on solid biblical teaching and evangelistic efforts led to its expansion throughout Singapore, Malaya and Indonesia.15

Within 10 years, the Lord prospered the work with 4 BP churches established and the Singapore Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church of Singapore and Malaya inaugurated16. From this single church, would spawn a movement and witness that would result in numerous churches, missionary endeavours, organizations and also a Bible college that would all promote the historic fundamental faith throughout Singapore and also the many other parts of the world.

God Raised the Bible College As the church was established and grew, there arose a need to establish a local Bible College that would be entirely in line with the doctrines of the Bible Presbyterian Church, for it was only with the establishment of a Bible College that the church would be able to prosper and stand fast on the Word. As Rev Tow wrote then: Hitherto we have sent some of our young people to the West for theological training. But if the Lord will call another half‐dozen, how can we afford to send all? The solution to training future ministers of the Gospel, I believe, is in the founding of a Bible College in Singapore. Yes a Bible College that reverently teaches the Bible to be the infallible, inerrant Word of God, that seeks to obey all its commands, that will make no compromise whatsoever with the subtle forces of Satan that are so actively undermining theological institutions everywhere today.17

After much discussion and preparation, plans were set and the foundation stone of the Far Eastern Bible College was laid in 1962. A few months later, the college opened its doors to a class of 3 students, with Rev Timothy Tow as the Principal and lecturer. The vision of the Bible College was clear – it was for the training of men and women for the ministry, with a

15 Bobby Sng, In His Good Time, 232. 16 The 4 churches were Life, Zion, Faith and Galilee BP Church. Timothy Tow, The Singapore B‐P Church Story, 85. 17 Timothy Tow, Son of a Mother’s Vow, 176.

clear fundamentalist stance taken that would suffer no form of compromise, apostasy and unbelief. Through the years, the Bible College’s pivotal role in ensuring that the church would remain faithful to God’s Word and hold fast to the truth of God’s Word cannot be understated. Through the numerous doctrinal controversies that would arise, the witness of FEBC would be critical in ensuring that Biblical Fundamentalism would continue to be propagated in Singapore and also the regions beyond.

Through the years, the Bible College prospered and grew from strength to strength, but never deviated from its original purpose of training faithful labourers for the Lord’s work. In 2012, by the grace of God, the College commemorated her 50th Anniversary. As was recounted in the Golden Jubilee Commemorative Magazine: “FEBC has, by the grace of God, steadily grown to about 300 in the student body and over a dozen on the faculty. After five decades, the College has graduated more than 700 men and women who are now serving in the harvest fields all over the world.”18

Fundamentalist Stands Taken

As Satan sees a work that is faithfully contending for the Lord and standing firm on the truth, it will surely become a target of His attacks. A true fundamentalist is one who will never back down in the face of adversity, but stand firmly on the Word of God. If needs be, he will be unafraid to take a clear and unyielding stance against the various attacks of the devil, whether doctrinal or otherwise, and make his position known both apologetically and polemically.

Through the years, there have been numerous doctrinal controversies that have arose, that have tried to challenge the fundamentalists and shake them from their firm position on the truth. By the grace of God, there has always been a group of faithful ones that continue to remain true to God and His Word, and have always stood firm on the truth. A survey of various anniversary magazines published by different BP churches through the years would show numerous articles written to contend for the various issues that they were facing. Consistently, they would have articles to address matters such as Biblical Separation, Bible Inerrancy, Calvinism, Tongue Speaking, Miracles, Evolution, Roman Catholicism, Millennialism and many others19. This shows the strong doctrinal emphasis that the church has, of one that is unafraid to make a stand for the truth.

Discussed below are a few of the more important battles faced and stands that the fundamentalists took through the years of its history.

Separation from Neo‐Evangelicalism and Charismaticism A true fundamentalist is one who understands the Biblical directive of separation. As mentioned earlier, this was the hallmark of the BP movement, as one that would constantly

18 To Magnify His Word: Golden Jubilee 1962‐2012, (Singapore: FEBC Press, 2012), 51. 19 The Life Bible Presbyterian Vision (1986‐1987), Training Labourers Together with God:Silver Jubilee Magazine FEBC (1962‐1987), Life Bible‐Presbyterian Church: 50 Years Building His Kingdom. Golden Jubilee Magazine (1950‐2000), Stedfast, Unmoveable, Abounding: Calvary Pandan BPC (1979‐2004), etc.

sound loudly the call to separate. However, this adherence to the teachings of Bible Separation was not always well received, even by some leaders of the movement. From the late 1960s, there had already been rumblings of a neo‐evangelical mindset evidenced even in some of the leaders of Life BPC. As the late Rev Timothy Tow reported in his autobiography, Hitherto, the witness of separation from modernistic unbelief and ecumenical apostasy had received full support of the Church. However, when “evangelical” leaders like Dr. Billy Graham began to fraternise with the apostate ecclesiastical powers for the sake of “cooperative evangelism” and the pastor pointed out the unscripturalness of such a relationship (2 Cor. 6:14‐18), one or two Session members who differed with the pastor introduced a dissentious spirit in the Church, the first time in eighteen years… The opposition in Life Church Session against the pastor increased from one or two dissenters to several when the pastor published two newsreports in the Far Eastern Beacon, November and December 1968.20

The climax of dissension was reached when the Assistant Pastor was invited to preach at a Methodist Church in July 1969, for which campaign he appended his name to a letter cyclostyled on paper bearing the letterhead of the said Methodist Church. This gave the impression that he was in close fellowship with a Church in the Ecumenical Movement. Controversy over this matter flared up at Presbytery. There the question of whether a Bible‐Presbyterian minister, when invited to preach by a Church in the modernist Ecumenical fold, had a duty to warn against the dangers of Ecumenism, was discussed. The opinion of the Presbyters was about equally divided, resulting in a contention so sharp that they left in bitterness of spirit.21

This situation of having mixed opinions with regards to separation and compromise finally came to head in the late 1980s, where the ‘dissentious spirit’ in the denomination could no longer be contained. Whilst the BP Church continued to grow, and numerous churches were planted, it seemed that not every church was headed in the same direction, with the unity of spirit. Dr Tow Siang Hwa, writing in the Annual Record of Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church (1994) described the situations as such: A true B‐P is opposed to all efforts to obscure or wipe out the clear line of separation between B‐Ps and New Evangelicals, Charismatics, promoters of ecumenical cooperative evangelism, promoters of the liberal‐modernist social gospel, and all links with the Ecumenical movement.

As the B‐P Movement grew, and younger men went overseas and imbibed liberal and New Evangelical theology, a deviant spirit began to creep into the B‐P Church. While wearing the B‐P name these were playing the New Evangelical game.22

Among the issues that were being contended were that of centred mainly on strong differences in interpreting the Doctrine of Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism and Neo‐

20 Timothy Tow, Son of a Mother’s Vow, 237 21 Ibid, 239‐240. 22 Tow Siang Hwa, Annual Record of Calvary Pandan Bible‐Presbyterian Church (1994), quoted in Timothy Tow, The Singapore B‐P Church Story, 226.

Evangelicalism23. Another main issue was with regards to Charismaticism, and specifically the place of tongue speaking. Rev Tow highlighted this issue in the preface to his book on Wang Ming Tao and Charismatism which he penned in response to the problems that were brewing in the church: The tide of Charismatism is coming in so strong today that it has splashed into the Bible‐Presbyterian Church of Singapore. At its Annual Pastors and Leaders Conference on Cameron Highlands September 1987, certain younger leaders maintained that while the tongues of Pentecost (Acts 2) had ceased, those mentioned of the Corinthian Church (1 Cor 12 and 14) have not. Today they continue in the Church as “meaningful ecstatic utterances.” Now, these tongues are required by Pentecostals and Neo‐Pentecostal Churches of their members as evidence of baptism by the Holy Spirit, but are repudiated by Fundamental Churches that hold to the Reformed tradition.24

Further issues also included the acceptance of liberal and modernistic interpretations of the Old Testament accounts in Genesis such as the years in Genesis and the global nature of Noah’s flood.

Through all these, it was clear that the Neo‐Evangelical mindset had sunk its roots deep, and it seemed that a dissolution of the synod would be the only solution. As Bobby Sng wrote, However, with growth, internal differences also arose. Its relentless call for believers to separate themselves from what it considered to be non‐fundamental churches and new‐evangelicals, brought a mixed response. Not all agreed on the rigid, narrow definition of ‘separation’. In a statement issued on October 30, 1988 describing its voluntary dissolution, the B‐P Church declared:

“The decision was arrived at after much prayerful consideration and discussion over certain protracted issues. These issues centred mainly on strong differences in interpreting the Doctrine of Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism, and Neo‐ Evangelicalism. Concerted attempts were made during the past two years at reconciliation through personal discussions and formal meetings. Even a moratorium failed to resolve these differences and break the impasse. Dissolution is accepted as the last resort.”25

As a result, each individual BP church became an independent organization, free to do as they please, seek its own alliances and establish their own doctrinal convictions. It has been 24 years since the split in the synod, and it is evident that many of the BP churches today are BP in name only, but have so far removed themselves from the original mission and purpose of the BP church. They are no longer true fundamentalists who would contend for the faith. In many of these churches, modern translations of the Bible are being promoted, replacing the KJV; contemporary worship styles have come in, with guitars, and for some even drums replacing the traditional piano and organ. Many BP churches today have also joined hands with other compromising churches, inviting modernist overseas preachers to

23 Timothy Tow, The Singapore B‐P Church Story, 217. 24 Timothy Tow, Wang Ming Tao & Charismatism, (Singapore: Christian Life Publishers, 1989), 9 25 Bobby Sng, In His Good Time, 312‐313.

speak at their pulpits and camps, and now encourage their members to join in with ecumenical para‐church organizations such as the Campus Crusade, Youth for Christ, Navigators and the Bible Study Fellowship (BSF)26.

The true fundamentalists, on the other hand, continue to hold true to the doctrines and practices upon which they began, and have nothing to do with the other compromising BPs. Wikipedia’s description of this line of separation is clear: The Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore is essentially divided into two factions. One group of churches subscribes to the fundamentalist stance of the founders; the other considers itself to be evangelical. This latter group of churches is denounced by the former to be "neo‐evangelical" or "liberal", and are often called "the new BPs" because of a different interpretation on the doctrine of "Biblical Separation". The evangelical branch of Bible Presbyterian churches embraces the fellowship of any church and seminary that professes evangelical Protestant Christianity and extends cooperation with para‐church organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ International. Thus, many aspiring ministers prefer an evangelical seminary (such asFuller Theological Seminary, Singapore Bible College, Trinity Theological College or University of Nottingham) over the BPS' own seminary, Far Eastern Bible College, which is fundamentalist.27

Separation from the Modern Bible Versions Movement and Anti‐VPP proponents A true fundamentalist will always have a high regard for the Word of God. This was evidenced in the very name chosen by the BP church in prefixing the word “Bible” at the very front of their name. The consistent stand of the church has always been to hold fast the word of life, and to earnestly contend for the truth of God’s Word. In 1979, it was decided by the FEBC that Every member of the Board of Directors and Faculty, shall under solemn oath, subscribe to the absolute belief in the doctrine of the plenary, verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, inerrent and infallible, to the exclusion of the latest leaven of ‘limited inerrancy’ and so‐called textual and grammatical errors in the autographs.28

Such a step certainly went a long way towards safeguarding the strong allegiance that FEBC would have to the Word of God.

Right from the very beginning, the English speaking fundamental Christians in Singapore had always held on to the time‐tested King James Bible. This was the undisputed position of the Bible Presbyterian Church, all the way until the 1970s when the New International Version (NIV) was published. Prior to that, the Church had already reviewed and rejected versions such as the New English Bible and the Revised Standard Version as having ‘liberal inaccuracies’29. Perhaps due to the popularity and seemingly usability of the NIV after it was

27 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Presbyterian_Church 28 Training Labourers Together With God, 45. 29 As evidenced in the article on “What We Believe” by Rev. Patrick Tan in the Life Bible Presbyterian: Vision magazine, published in 1987.

first published, the BP church initially allowed the NIV to be used for ‘private Bible Study’, whilst the KJV is the only officially approved Bible for public reading30.

However, further research and vigilant study into the matter revealed the corruption of not just the NIV, but also every modern version that follows the principles of textual criticism and is based upon the corrupt Wescott and Hort Greek texts. By the early late 80s and early 90s, the theological journal of the FEBC, the Burning Bush have begun to carry articles such as “Why Do We Use the King James Version” (Jul 1988) and “The KJV: God’s Word Kept Intact in English” (1993)31. By then, many of the non‐fundamental churches such as Mount Carmel BP Church that had fell away after the split of the synod in 1988 had switched over to the NIV and were propagating other modern versions.

By the year 2000, in Life BP Church’s 50th Anniversary Magazine, a clear doctrinal positional statement with regards to the KJV was published, which clearly stated that “We do consider as unreliable all Bible versions (e.g. the NIV) that do modify or change the meaning of the original text or interpret it, instead of giving a literal and accurate translation.”32 Further explanatory notes that elaborated on the position statement gave a strong and clear support for not just the KJV but also the texts underlying the KJV as being “nothing less than God’s powerful inspired Word”. 33

However, behind the scenes, not everyone within the fundamental circles agreed with such a stand. In 2002, a dissension arose within the faculty of the Far Eastern Bible College, as two lecturers began to question whether the Bible in their hands we really perfect or not34. There were differing views concerning the perfect and divine preservation of the scriptures. The Revs Charles Seet and Colin Wong, both lecturers and assistant pastors of Life BPC challenged Dr Jeffrey Khoo with regards to the Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the scriptures. What ensured was a messy back and forth debate on this issue, which led to the resignation of Charles Seet and Colin Wong from the FEBC faculty. However, the problem did not stop there, for the dissension soon spread to the session of Life BPC. The members of the session were soon polarized into two main camps, of those who were for and those who were against the doctrine of VPP. Probably the saddest outcome of this conflict was the eventual resignation of Rev. Timothy Tow on 20th August 2003 from the session of Life BP Church, the church that he had founded and established, and served faithfully in for more than 53 years. He explains: For nearly a year a controversy has raged in Far Eastern Bible College between younger lecturers and those who stand with the Principal on the question whether the Bible has some mistakes or without and absolutely perfect. As I take the view of a

30 Ibid., 19. 31 To Magnify His Word: Golden Jubilee Yearbook of Far Eastern Bible College (1962‐2012), (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 2012), 113 32 Life Bible‐Presbyterian Church: 50 Years Building His Kingdom. Golden Jubilee Magazine (1950‐2000), 64. 33 Ibid., 68. 34 Following events summarized from Jeffrey Khoo, “The Battle for the Bible Between Far Eastern Bible College and Life Bible‐Presbyterian Church: Chronology of Events” in The Burning BushVol. 18 No. 2

100% perfect Bible and stand with Dr Jeffrey Khoo, more squabble developed on August 20 at Life Church Session meeting which drove me to my resignation.”35

Upon his resignation, he and some 200 members of Life BP Church left to found True Life BPC (initially called the FEBC Lord’s Day Service). In time to come, this controversy would come to affect many other BP Churches in Singapore, as they would either take a stand for or against VPP. Those who believed in VPP were lambasted by those against as heretics, and many papers were written to establish the positions of both sides. The matter would even result in a lawsuit being taken up by the session of Life Church in an attempt to evict FEBC from the premises that were shared by the two parties. When all the evidence was presented before the court of law, even the secular judges who were not believers were able to acknowledge that the VPP position is no inconsistent with the WCF!36

Indeed this most recent conflict again clearly drew a line of distinction between the fundamentalists who would ascribe to the position of God’s Verbal Plenary Preservation of His Word, and the compromisers who would reject the teaching of the perfect preservation of Scriptures and claim to know of errors in the Bible! Like the previous controversies, the painful step of separation again had to be taken. In so doing, the fundamentalists are able to continue to stand fast in the Lord, and contend for His truth.

Indeed how important it is for every Christian and every fundamentalist to take a clear and firm stand against all the false ‘isms’ that are creeping into the church. As Dr. Jeffrey Khoo comments: The doctrine of separation is a doctrine of preservation. Like white blood cells in our body that seek and destroy any invading virus or bacterium, separation keeps the Church pure and free from false teachers and heresies. Who is a fundamentalist? It is the Christian. Every Christian should be a fundamentalist. A true and faithful Christian believes in the fundamentals of the Faith and defends them. In order to defend the Christian Faith, the Christian must separate himself from all forms of unbelief and apostasy. A true fundamentalist is a true separatist.37

Fundamentalists Standing Today? At present there remains but a few Bible Presbyterian churches in Singapore that continue to hold on to the historic, fundamental protestant faith of the Bible. Many churches today are only BP in name but not in practice. They are not true fundamentalists, but Neo‐Evangelicals, Neo‐Fundamentals, or some can even be classified as modernist and liberals. Of the churches in other denominations, few, if any can be described as fully fundamental in their doctrines and practices. There may be some churches that are still reformed and conservative, but they do not fully practice the principles of biblical separation, nor do they ascribe to the doctrine of the Verbal

35 True Life BP Church weekly Vol 1. No. 1 5 Oct 2003 36 For an account and full texts of the rulings of the lawsuit, read The Burning Bush Vol. 18 No .1, 14‐62. 37 Jeffrey Khoo, Biblical Separation, (Singapore: FEBC Press, 1999), 14.

Plenary Preservation of the Holy Scriptures38. There are other churches that still continue to practice Biblical separation, and there are even some who do take a stand on the divine perfect preservation of the Bible. However they are the Independent Fundamental Baptist churches39 who are not reformed in their doctrines.

Thus at present, true fundamentalism can only be found in the faithful Bible Presbyterians in Singapore that continue to practice Biblical Separation from all forms of apostasy and unbelief, and who hold to the doctrine of the VPP as it is entirely in line with the WCF. The churches are still contending are few and many of them are experiencing their own fair share of problems as well. However, the true fundamentalist will always stand fast in the Lord, to always be on His side, and to leave the outcome to Him. It is not the numbers that count, but only faithfulness to the Lord and His Word. The onus is therefore upon the remaining few faithful to continue to stand fast in the Lord, and hold true to the fundamentals of the faith.

Discussion Questions: 1) Share how you came to worship at Calvary Pandan BPC, and why do you continue to worship here? Do you agree with all the teachings of this church, and have you ever thought of moving to another church that is ‘less strict’?

2) Do you sometimes feel weary when hearing of and being involved in the numerous chuch splits and conflicts? Do you sometimes ask why must there be so much conflict between churches, and sometimes even within a single church? Can there not be a middle ground or peaceful resolution that can be sought to resolve these conflicts? How do we know when it is right to separate, and when it is right to seek solutions?

3) Of all the doctrinal issues that the BP church had to take a stand against in the past (Charismatism, Neo‐evangelicalism, Ecumenism, Bible preservation etc), which do you think is the most dangerous? Do these problems continue to plague the church today?

4) Do you think Calvary Pandan BP Church will continue to stand firm on the faith in 10 years’ time? What can we as a church do to ensure that we will remain fundamentalist, and never compromise?

38 E.g First Evangelical Reformed Church (http://www.ferc.org.sg/), Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church (http://www.cerc.org.sg/), Independent Presbyterian Churches (http://www.indepres.org/), Pilgrim Covenant Church (http://www.pilgrim-covenant.com/) etc. 39 E.g. Maranatha Baptist Church (http://www.maranatha-baptist.com/), Ambassador Baptist Church (http://www.ambassador-baptist.org/)