Talk:City Harvest Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

---

Explanation

Hi,i'm related to the annonymous person who post the most recent article under criticism.But,it's removed.If you read it carefully,those are not allegations or accusations.They are controversial issues with a lot of questions.

As long as i provide sources,those will definitely be posted?Because i'm worried even if i supply sources,supporters of that church will remove.Collecting sources is very difficult inside there. They don't give sermon notes,even if they give,people must still write down notes themselves.Furthermore,the notes are not online-based.Most of the time,they won't give. Horn 12:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks.

___________

Hi. Anon user's posting is bias/personal opinion. Any postings should help to improve the content and context of an article ie. facts, grammer, sentence structure. Without supported source will compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Or otherwise, it will reach NPOV dispute or edit war. Some guidelines below:

Personal attacks: Once you've made a personal attack, the target will probably assume bad faith. The edit war will get even uglier.

Losing sight of the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy. The ideal is to make articles acceptable to everyone. Every revert (rather than change) of a biased edit is a NPOV defeat, no matter how outrageous the edit was. Consider figuring out why the other person felt the article was biased. Then, if possible, try to integrate their point, but in terms you consider neutral. If each side practices this they will eventually meet at NPOV — or a rough semblance of it.

--Tripartite 05:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Transfering two sentences on criticism from the article, one is a response to the above criticism regarding sermon notes:

An accusation has also been made in the talk page that the church does not gives sermon notes. It is only true that it seldom gives sermon notes.

People have also claimed that members speaks false tongues during services, this claim is dismissed as most the critics have not even attend any of the services. Some went even as far to say that the Curch steals money from its members' bank accounts!

--Vsion (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon user personal

Reverted back to original. An anon user is getting personal in his postings. Lots of allegations with no source.

Akajune : Don't denote "Minor edit" when it's isn't so

Akajune, don't denote "Minor edit" when it's supposed to be a significant major edit. Some members have expressed this church's trachings, as unique, both Charismatic and Pentecostal. I agreed Charismatic Movement is confusing such as the Charismatic Catholic Movement and etc. But given this church's uniqueness, your "correction" as Pentecostal only is more misleading. Cat12zu 18:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. A whole section just for me. Anyhoodle, i fail to see how the church's teachings resemble both. They are pretty distinct and separate in my POV, but since some members feel as such, i'll graciously bow out. I still feel it's rather minor. Meh. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Akajune 14:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits refer only to formatting changes, grammar corrections, removing obvious vandalism etc. Not for adding/amending/deleting content (no matter considered how "minor" to individual editors). Hope this helps...--Huaiwei 15:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

NB: Anon user seemed to plagiarize websites' works

Please do not plagiarize other works. Much of the anon user on those CHC-related articles such as CHCSA, Ho Yeow Sun, etc.. seemed to be from websites. --Cat12zu 03:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CHCSA detail must be in CHCSA page, no copyright violation pls

Pls put all CHCSA detail on CHCSA page, not here. Thanks. --Cat12zu 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I note someone has pasted in the contents of http://www.chcsa.org.sg/tsunami_report.htm to this article. In accordance with above I'm removing it from this page and adding a link to City Harvest Community Services Association. --Air 15:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup. --Cat12zu 23:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Here we go. Anon user 203.125.80.158 immediately pasted the web page in verbatim as before, without further comment. This user is evidently a member of said church, as the same IP has added a lot of POV stuff to the CHCSA page using the phrase "We". Will try and clean up both pages to a decent standard. --Air 12:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup, really alot of POV. I added an HTML comment in case anon user had not visit the talk page. Sorry but as I had little free time, and most of my free time I took to edit wikipedia as a pastime. I try as possible as I can to contribute. Thank you very much A1r for good work...--Cat12zu 02:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, a pastime here too : ) Funny that I have no real interest in the content of these articles, just pursuing NPOV obsessively. Nice formatting of references btw. --Air 23:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Provide source

Can you provide source for this paragraph, so that people can merge it?

In the late 90's before 2001, some of the church members evangelise through approaching people, especially young people, in public places such as bus interchages. They evangelise by showing their tracts and chatting with them.

Also source/evidence this paragraph

A person, being buddhist, was offended by some church members who ask him if it would be better to be in eternity heaven or reincarnated to a cockroach.

• My friend had personally encountered it. I'm sure many are offended as the church members are approaching them too in public places such as bus interchange, MRT (Metro) stations, etc.

Thanks. --Cat12zu 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Re:Sorry but this was, really, not substantial source. At this moment, I merge these as a claim.

--Cat12zu 23:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Can some senior wikipedians review that phrase: The phrase "its doctrines show uncanny resembalance to that of the Charismatic movement." is written by a respected wikipedian, possibily one of wiki admin (i'm too lazy to search the whole history record, but for sure that is what i saw, written by somebody, and having vetted & trimmed by other wikipedians, before i add new informations)

That previous editor edit more poorly than mine (I'm beginner like him/her too): that truncated sentence (after deleting the aforementioned phrase) "Although City Harvest claims to be a Christian denomination of its own." is meaningless.

Lastly, if good points is also mentioned, why delete negative points about CHC? It's CHC is indeed one of the three megachurches in Singapore, as reported by self-censored local media (The Strait Times) There's no question about that vaildity. Both side of views must be represented, but it's seemed bias towards one side & hence POV.

Is it appropriate that the article use the word "saved" to describe new Church members? Should it not used "joined", a secular term?

It should be alright

Wikipedia has provided definition of the word "Save". Thus I feel that it's appropriate to place it there. dont you think so now?

Rev. Kong Hee

Anon user 203.125.80.158 removed the only reference to Rev. Kong Hee in the context of founding the CHCSA. According to his article he founded the church itself, so I'll add him back in that context, as to miss him out completely seems a bit odd. --Air 12:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This fact is still verifiable. If I could get other claimed original co-founders but they had not written a report or have a website on it, the references could be an issue.

Re : Rev. Kong Hee

It's was known that Rev. Kong Hee with Ho Yeow Sun founded the CHCSA community organization. It's only that, currently, Ho Yeow Sun chaired that organization. I had added a web reference regarding this issue. --Cat12zu 03:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)-->

Soliciting Converts

I am curious, but no offense, the method used by this church; my family are devoted members of a Protestant church, yet members of this church persist to contact my sister, and even attempting to bring her into the church.

Just to bring this to light. Slivester 23:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I wish to be a member of the church, and went for their service twice. And actually I'm not allowed to go to this church. My friends will SMS or ask me do you want to come to church this week, and try to persuade you. Pastor Kong is a good pastor btw. No offence members of City Harvest. And I don't think that is a very big problem. Oh, thier goal is to get 20 000 members by end of this year. So I think they are asked to bring in more members. Terenceong1992 08:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the case, lets not let too much personal grievances get into this. I do hold certain viewpoints about this church, but its not going to cause me to start expressing them as universal fact! :D--Huaiwei 15:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There are controversies on churches (in the article) such as Hillsong Church in Sydney. It is a Megachurch too and it is City Harvest's partner church. Terenceong1992 16:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to add on, I watch their services live every week on the internet, you can watch this videos at their website, about the preaching and praise and worship. Not only you have negative views over the church, a lot of people have actually, just this same thing and many more. Terenceong1992 17:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I won't mention my denomination (you can check it yourself), but I can say that I personally disagree with some of the church's practices. that aside, we need to keep this article wholly objective, and if we are to introduce opinionated content, it must be kept at a high quality and has to be popular (a lot of people have the same opinion) and/or significant (a prominent person had that opinion). if you want to debate on a personal and complete level about the church, we'll take it to another talk page of a non-existant article.--Ariedartin 08:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable facts?

There is an account of a visit to the City Harvest Church on this blog[1]. Are the claims made by the author verifiable or true, esp. the following paragraphs:

Sayeth the Rev. Kong Hee, 'Jesus wore the modern-day equivalent of a business suit. That is why I'm dressed like this. I want to be like Jesus! Hallejulah!'

The pastor proceeded to give many examples from the Bible of people Jesus met and formed Marketplace business contacts with, including tax collectors... Rev. Kong Hee also says Jesus attended high-class functions and banquets to further his Marketplace influence.

Apparently, according to Rev. Kong Hee, God thinks the whole Marketplace idea is great so God knows alot of multi-millionaries that have their own helicopters and 5-star hotels. And God likes his multi-storey multi-complex stadiums (churches too small and so yesterday alreade) so much that he bestows great wealth of those who want to build some for him.

If verifiable and true, might tie this into prosperity teaching, but I'd rather not add this section and incident without an explanation and verification by a City Harvest member.Akikonomu 05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the last paragraph in the quotation. No idea how to cite references to that though. Cheers! p 0 r + z 12:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

Propose to rename to "City Harvest Church", the complete name of the entity. Comments please. --Vsion 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Vsion, the website puts its name as City Harvest. But for albums and services it is City Harvest Church. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, there are two things, City Harvest (the non-profit organization) and City Harvest Church (the church http://www.chc.org.sg/english/main.htm) --Vsion 22:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the official name is "City Harvest Church" (I know the website logo displayed "City Harvest", but I think it is more of a logo design concern). In fact, the church frequently refers to itself as CHC, abbreviation for City Harvest Church.Atticuslai 09:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I support it being renamed. the New York organisation needs a space for its own article too, especially when City Harvest Church is not equivalent to City Harvest.--202.156.6.54 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the general consensus is that the article shall be renamed. Let it be done. Ariedartin JECJY 16:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved

Ok that will do. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Public apology

Here is a reference about the public apology made by a businessman to City Harvest, [2]. Apparently, this news article is from the Straits Times, but the posting is in www.religionnewsblog.com. It there any reason to doubt that the apology did took place? --Vsion 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

Just thought I would explain my most recent edits in the article: 1) City Harvest IS a non-deniminational church. From my understanding, a denomination is an established or recognized organization, such as Methodist, Baptist, Catholics, etc. "Charismatic" and "Pentecostal" are not "denomination" per se - they are description of the beliefs. For example, "Assemblies of God" is a denomination by itself, and subscribed to the Charismatic or Pentecostal beliefs. City Harvest at the moment is an independant chuch.

2) City Harvest Bible Training Center is spelt with the American "Center" rather than "Centre". That is what is displayed in the church website.

3) "uses contemporary way of praise and worship" -versus- "uses contemporary music and setting for praise and worship". I think the latter is more accurate as there is not "new" way of praise and worship (it is still dancing, lifting up hands, loud music, etc.), but old way "updated" with contemporary music style and setting (rock concert like).

Atticuslai 10:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

we all know that Pentacostals are themselves a denomination, but as Pentacostal belief refers to a philosophy like those of the Pentacostals, wouldn't that logically make them Pentacostals in nature? Let us liken this to a green apple declaring it is of any colour, but in truth, we can see that the apple is indeed green. However, we can say that "Although City Harvest declares itself to be non-denominational, its beliefs are Pentacostal in nature". --Ariedartin 08:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Overfragmentation

I noticed that the article has been overly fragmented into too many sections each with too little content. I'll be reformatting some of it, but I'll try not to delete anything.--Ariedartin 08:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

done. I hope it hasn't been too much of a hassle. some subjective parts were also removed.--Ariedartin 09:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many "Citation Needed" tags?

I think there are too many of such tags, asking for "facts" to be verified. But are they really necessary? Take the section on Partnership:

The church has hosted some established evangelists such as Ulf Ekman, John Avanzini, Benny Hinn, Richard Roberts etc. Since 2004, they also participated in Ulf Ekman's Israel Study Trip, which includes Christian holy sites and towns, except West Bank. [citation needed]

It also hosts an annual youth event, Emerge Conference, usually held in June which attracts several youth churches in Asia. City Harvest has also embarked on Emerge KL and Emerge Taiwan. This year, it has a new addition, Spelling Bee, with the reasoning that a strong foundation in the command of language would pave the way for future success.It also had a make-up competition to pave a way into the Arts Scene in Singapore. [citation needed] Kong Hee is also the chairman of the Festival of Praise, a nationwide multi-denominational event held in August annually, usually during the National Day period. [citation needed]

Why do we need those tags in those short paragraphs? They are neither statsitics or figures that needed verifications. If we tag stuff like these, then shouldn't we also tag "citation needed" for say, "Singapore 2006 was held in Suntec City"?

Removal of Mark Choo's section on Criticism

I believe inclusion of whatever text in an article should first be verifiable, the source be notable, and whether the text are relevant to the subject matter. Let's disucss the merit of putting the criticsm text into the article.

Critics allege that the church spends extravagantly in various ways, such as the titanium cladding around the building, which costs approximately 2% of the building cost

Who are the critics? There was no reference.

Criticism of the church’s method and insensitivity of converting people has also been made. Kong Hee has stated that the "message is sacred, but the method can be different

Where did the criticism come from? There was no reference.

The church has been criticised by Way Of Life Literature, a fundamental Baptist organisation, for its support of Kong Hee's wife, Sun Ho, in her previous dual role as both a Christian pastor and a pop singer.<:ref>Taken from http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fridaynews/fridaynews030214.html</ref> However, she is currently no longer a pastor of the church.

Every Tom, Dick and Harry has some opinion (and criticsm) about anything that can be found in Wiki, but we don't list them all out simply because many of them are just that: Tom, Dick and Harry. Is Way of Life Literature a notable or influential group? If we want to include an opinion from Way of Life group, then the criticism section must be thousand lines long because we should include criticim of the church (or many other churches, or many other subjects) from lots of places.

While Sun Ho was pursuing her career as a singer, she was heavily criticized for wearing a flaming red Giorgio Armani gown that "showed too much flesh — and in all the wrong places". However, while the media had previously portrayed her as a "singing pastor" without objection, she had not denied it until the incident. It was reported that she told The New Paper: “I'm just the music director of my church, and I'm also a counsellor. I'm not a pastor. I don't preach.”<:ref>http://www.asia1.com.sg/a1news/20031111_story1_1.html</ref>

The article is about City Harvest Church. There is a wiki page on Sun Ho, and I believe this portion of the text should go there instead.
Atticuslai 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.