did FEBC break the commandment in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Did FEBC break the commandment in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 in seeking a declaration from the High Court (Case No OS6/2009G) that she has the right to the premises at 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road which be her birthplace and home since 1962?

The answer is no for the following reasons:

(1) The case between Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (LBPC) and Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) had to do with public and not private property and funds. Gifts and offerings were given by believers or collected in churches to purchase the land and erect the buildings not just for LBPC, but also for FEBC. Since monies were given for the purpose of a Bible College, specifically FEBC, it is the duty of the directors and trustees of the College to protect the funds and ensure that they are used to accomplish the charitable purpose for which they have been given.

(2) The dispute over doctrine and property should ideally be resolved between LBPC and FEBC without going to court. FEBC had repeatedly asked for a face-to-face meeting in 2007/2008 to resolve this matter amicably but to no avail.

(3) LBPC insisted that FEBC had no legal rights whatsoever to the premises. LBPC also demanded an unconditional undertaking from FEBC not to preach or teach the Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Holy Scriptures if she wanted to use the premises. This was impossible because FEBC cannot disobey God and act contrary to His Word. Verbal Plenary Preservation is a biblical doctrine (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35), and FEBC can neither deny the faith nor compromise on doctrine. To deny the faith and compromise on doctrine is sin.

(4) Since FEBC refused to sign this undertaking, LBPC ordered FEBC to vacate the premises by 30 June 2008. FEBC was deemed a “trespasser”. LBPC warned FEBC against advertising any of her classes and said that any attempt by FEBC to do so would be seen as an attempt by FEBC to instigate the public to trespass into LBPC’s property.

(5) The new FEBC term was about to open in two weeks’ time. It was not possible for FEBC to vacate for she had nowhere to go. Besides, Gilstead Road is FEBC’s birthplace and home since 1962. LBPC started to knock out and change the locks of the FEBC hall and classrooms.

(6) FEBC acknowledged LBPC’s right to use the premises, but LBPC denied FEBC any right. Pushed to the extreme, FEBC had no choice but to appeal to Caesar. The question of whether FEBC is also “owner” and has rights to the premises was a question of law. Romans 13:1-5 tells us that the government is a divine ordinance to maintain peace and order in a country, and to make sure its citizens are treated justly and fairly [See J O Buswell’s article, “Government as a Divine Ordinance,” in TLBPC Weekly, 20 July 2008]. Buswell said, “There are cases … in which one is a steward of a property for his own dependents and for others, cases in which it would be wrong to allow great loss without a protest. … Indeed with the intricacies of modern economic and social life, there are some disputes which require the expert authority of the secular courts.” What does the law say about our rights to the land? Having sought legal advice, the FEBC directors realised they had to act according to their fiduciary duty to seek the consent of the Attorney-General to apply for a declaration from the High Court concerning FEBC’s rights to 9, 9A and 10 Gilstead Road.

(7) While FEBC waited for the Attorney-General’s consent, LBPC went ahead to carry out her threat to commence action against FEBC. On 15 September 2008, LBPC filed a lawsuit to evict FEBC from the land. On 8 October 2008, the Attorney-General gave FEBC consent to seek a declaration from the High Court with regard to her rights to the premises at 9, 9A and 10 Gilstead Road.

(8) So, did FEBC sin against God? In light of the circumstances, No! John Calvin himself was not against the need to go to court when the situation requires it; he is only against those who initiate a lawsuit in order to do harm to their fellow brethren. Calvin, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 6, wrote, “Paul does not condemn here those who, by force of circumstances, must enter into legal proceedings before unbelieving judges, for instance anyone who is summoned to court; but he finds fault with those who, on their own responsibility, bring their brothers there, and do them injury, as it were, at the hands of unbelievers, when another remedy is available to them. It is therefore wrong to take the initiative in instituting proceedings against brothers in an unbelievers’ court. It is in order, however, to come into court and conduct your case, if a charge is made against you.” In the court proceedings, LBPC was the plaintiff and FEBC the defendant.

(9) Calvin also went on to say that a lawsuit is in and of itself not wrong if it is for a good and just cause, but believers must enter into a lawsuit not with a heart of hatred or vengeance but with a heart of love. He wrote, “Let us therefore remember that Paul does not disapprove of law-suits on the ground that it is wrong in itself to uphold a good case by having recourse to a magistrate, but because they are nearly always bound up with improper attitudes of mind, such as lack of self-control, desire for revenge, hostility, obstinacy and so on. … If a Christian therefore wants to prosecute his rights in a court of law, without going against God, he must take special care not to come into court with any desire for revenge, any bad feeling, any anger, or in a word any poisonous thing. In all this love will be the best guide.”

(10) FEBC had no choice but to defend her birthright, her birthplace and home. It was done out of love for God, His Word, and His people. FEBC affirms and upholds not just the past but also the present perfection of the Bible, and by the logic of faith, based on the twin doctrines of Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation, identifies where the infallible and inerrant words of God are so that God’s people might subject their faith and practice to the sole, supreme and final authority of a sure and certain Scripture which is readily available and easily accessible. Surely such a biblical conviction and confession is good for the Church and all Bible-believers (Ps 19:7-14).

(11) FEBC was duty bound to protect the beneficiaries of the charitable purpose trust. FEBC did not seek the eviction of LBPC, but LBPC sought to deprive FEBC of her heritage and home. The apex court on 26 April 2011 judged that FEBC has rights to 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road and declared that “the College, in adopting the VPP doctrine, has not deviated from the fundamental principles which guide and inform the work of the College right from its inception, and as expressed in the Westminster Confession … It is not inconsistent for a Christian who believes fully in the principles contained within the Westminster Confession (and the VPI doctrine) to also subscribe to the VPP doctrine.”

(12) This whole process has brought about a healthy respect for the judiciary and the law. It is also a matter of public interest to know and understand what a charitable purpose trust is. All churches and charities should understand this principle of law. God can glorify His Name even in a secular court, because the secular court is an institution set up by Him.

“I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with strength in my soul.” (Ps 138:1-3). 

Jeffrey Khoo, FEBC