25 loved; ♥

25 Huggies; ♥:

Hi, It's me again - Iriene.
Singapore, the best city for shopping IF you earned S$..lol
Do post about the City Harvest church.. I heard many christian attended there! Do drop by when u r online... tks!

By  iriene, at July 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM  

hye there! wel that's true. Hoping that the stuffs are cheap here.

Sure I will. I'm actually very thrilled abt the idea of attending service there.

By  Josiah & Renae;, at July 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM  

haha. city harvest is a nice church tho. but then a warning 1st. need 2 go earlier. coz every week ppl line up 2 get into the church. n the queue is long! lol. but wad's a singaporean experience without getting into a queue? =D

By  joe, at July 2, 2009 at 8:47 PM  

serious? wah susah la. should i go to the one at jurong west or to the one at the expo hall?

By  Josiah & Renae;, at July 2, 2009 at 8:50 PM  

oh? there r 2? i didn't noe that. just go 2 the 1 nearest 2 ur aunt's place tho. coz should b equally crowded

By  joe, at July 2, 2009 at 9:36 PM  

the nearest one is at jurong west. service at 12.30pm. haha.

By  Josiah & Renae;, at July 2, 2009 at 10:07 PM  

i think tt 1 sounds less crowded tho. =)expo hall is huge tho

By  joe, at July 2, 2009 at 10:31 PM  

wokie then i'll go to jurong west then.

By  Josiah & Renae;, at July 2, 2009 at 10:52 PM  

Today if you go to Tokyo, which is a big city with millions of people, you cannot find two American embassies there. You can find only one American embassy in Tokyo. Regardless of how big the city is, there can be only one American embassy. If there were two, that would mean that America is divided. When I go to Tokyo, there is no need for me to ask which American embassy I should go to. There is only one embassy in Tokyo representing America. The United States embassy in Tokyo is the very expression of the United States in that city. The United States is one, not two. So in any place, any embassy representing the United States must be one.

In the same principle, the church in the whole universe is one. So in any place, in any locality, if there is some expression of the church, that expression must be one. If we want to be in the proper way to practice the church, we must first remember that the church in the whole universe is one. So if we are going to express the church in any place, we must be one. In any locality there must be only one local church as a living expression of the Body of Christ. If there is more than one, that means division has taken place. This is exactly what has happened today. If you go to Tokyo, there is no need for you to inquire about what American embassy you should attend. But today when people go to a city, they ask about what church they should attend. There are many different kinds of churches today. This means divisions have occurred. Any denomination is a division. There should not be many different churches in one locality, that is, many different expressions of the Body of Christ in one city. In one city, there should be only one expression of the one Body of Christ.

(Witness Lee, Life and Way, 101-102)

By  Anonymous, at July 3, 2009 at 11:40 PM  

At this point I need to say strongly that the term local church is not a name. We do not have a name. When people ask you what kind of church we are, you should simply say, “We are just the church. To ask me what kind of church we are is like asking what kind of moon we are. The moon is uniquely one. When the moon is in London, it is called the moon in London. When the moon appears over Cleveland, it is called the moon in Cleveland. In the same way, we say that we are the church in Cleveland or the church in Los Angeles.” But such terms are not a name. Rather, they are a description of a fact. Thus, we should never use the term the local church in a way that others might regard it as a name. The local church denotes the nature of the church. We do not have a sectarian church or a so-called universal church. The churches in the Lord’s recovery are churches in localities. For this reason they are referred to as local churches. But the words “the local church” are not a name, and we are not a denomination. Do not use these terms as if they were a name. At most we should say, “We are the church in Cleveland. The church in Cleveland, of course, includes all the believers in Cleveland. However, because most Christians in Cleveland will not be recovered back to the proper ground of the church, we are the only ones still remaining as the church in Cleveland. But we do not have a special name.”

(Witness Lee, Spirit and the Body, 211)

By  Anonymous, at July 3, 2009 at 11:41 PM  

anonymous : yeah I've attended local church back in Pg before. So are you trying to ask me to attend the local church in sg?

If so may I know where is it?

Thanks!

By  Josiah & Renae;, at July 4, 2009 at 12:12 AM  

anonymous:

i wholly agree with you that the church is one. and it is indeed. however, the analogy of the american embassy cannot hold water in this context.

rather i counter propose 2 u another analogy of my own. i liken the church to a multinational conglomerate, i.e. Petronas Group of companies.

1st, i would like to clarify that the "denominations" that existed since long ago r not wad they used 2 b in the past. they do not disagree on as much as they did in the past or go as far as labeling others as "cults" (save 4 really unbiblical beliefs that actually involve salvation criteria). they merely differ on the atmosphere and flow of the service. so it is merely a matter of preference with regards to "which church 2 attend".

coming back to my analogy, the group of companies can be Petronas Carigali Sdn. Bhd., Petronas MITCO and so on. they r subsidiaries, subdivisions, if you'd like. But ultimately they serve the purpose of propelling Petronas to greater heights and generating more profit.

so when we liken the "denominations" to the "subdivisions", we see that they actually serve the same purpose. which is, to expand the kingdom of God. see wad i mean?

so the number of churches doesn't matter. because the bible has never mentioned that "if there exists more than 1 church in the locality, therefore the church is not united".

we need 2 clearly understand history in itz full context and see that in those times, the local populace weren't as massive as the current figures. therefore the idea of a singular church in a locality was ideal.

but 2 b fair i do agree that it is a good idea that can prove 2 boost unity. but that is y we have combined prayer rallies and conferences irregardless of denomination whatsoever.

in other words, the concept of a singular church in a specific locality is ideal, but not absolute.

i hope u r not offended by this reply. but i feel there r things that r misunderstood and needs to b clarified

cheers~

By  joe, at July 4, 2009 at 12:37 AM  

That's not my point actually.hehe..Juz make sure as a christian, we are clear of the foundation and the ground of a church according to God's desire.

hmm.I'm not sure on where is the meeting hall. I'll check on it and update with u back here. =)

Another short message by Witness Lee in my next comment, concerning the foundation and the ground of the local church. Sorry if im flooding your blog with lengthy comments.hehe..but im burdened to share this truth with any christian. Hope u dont mind.

By  Anonymous, at July 4, 2009 at 12:47 AM  

joe : wow. very well said. thanks for saying it on my behalf. =)

By  Josiah & Renae;, at July 4, 2009 at 12:48 AM  

There are many so-called churches established in Los Angeles. One, the Roman Catholic Church, claims to be built upon Christ as its foundation.... The Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Nazarenes, and many others claim the same thing. In fact, there is not one so-called Christian church which does not.... What is the ground of the Roman Catholic Church? Without a doubt, it is Rome. The Roman Catholic Church claiming Christ as its foundation is built upon the ground of Roman Catholicism.... What about the Baptists? They with Christ as their foundation are built upon the ground of baptism, baptism by immersion. Then there are the Lutherans. They have laid their foundation upon the ground of Luther and his teachings. You see, all the “churches” claim the same foundation, which is Christ; but they all stand upon different grounds. It is the different grounds that create the problem for the unity of the church, not Christ as the foundation.

(Witness Lee, Ground of the Church, 3-4)

The distinction between the ground of the local church and the foundation of the local church is more than merely technical. The realization that Christ is the foundation of the church constrains the believers from introducing elements other than Christ which would mar the church (1 Cor. 3:11-13), thus preserving the intrinsic purity of the church. And as shown here from Witness Lee's ministry, the realization that the city is the ground of the local church saves the believers from division and preserves the practical oneness of the church. Witness Lee has always affirmed that the oneness among the believers, though spiritual, must not be relegated or confined to the ethereal. Rather, according to Witness Lee, this spiritual oneness must find practical expression and physical substantiation. At its most basic and tangible level, Christian unity is the keeping of the ground of the local church.

By  Anonymous, at July 4, 2009 at 12:48 AM  

anonymous : nah it's okay. Just share what you think.

By  Josiah & Renae;, at July 4, 2009 at 12:52 AM  

anonymous:

oh well. haha. it is true that observation. however it doesn't really apply 2 the current times, i find.

if we go back in time. i really strongly disagree with the way the denominations were formed. lyk u said all the "baptists, lutherans etc". however the current situation is that many of these denominations (note: NOT ALL) have put aside those differences and r willing 2 unite 2 a new goal

so in other words. we can say that, they got off 2 a bad start, but "all things work together for good for those who love Him"

=)

By  joe, at July 4, 2009 at 12:56 AM  

let me correct my earlier statement.

it is the original goal.. not a new goal. LOL

By  joe, at July 4, 2009 at 12:59 AM  

joe : err..maybe u dont get wad i mean.hehe..there can only be one church in one locality.but there can have many locations for meeting (geological factor)..for example in Taipei,there are "meeting hall 1","meeting hall 2",etc..careful,its meeting hall,not church.

And also the unity u mentioned.Err..We call it the oneness of the body of christ. Well, we practise it by blending, a term we called since blending itself is not just coming together and have fun then bye. Its the mutual fellowship by sharing,shepherding and dispensing Christ so tat He may infuse more into us, blend with us and transform us into the same image and life as He is. Then slowly we will be brought into the oneness of the reality of the body of Christ. Of course, this is a long process.

It would be wonderful if u can join the local church at your (or nearest) locality and have a look on our practice. Your are most welcome!

*sorry for my english because Im chinese-educated. Shall improve by His mercy. Amen.

By  Anonymous, at July 4, 2009 at 1:15 AM  

anonymous : well I get what you mean. Just that the doctrine is kinda different from what I observe.

I've actually seen before the local church in sg, but I didn't go in. Lol.

By  Josiah & Renae;, at July 4, 2009 at 1:25 AM  

Yeah! u get wad i mean despite my english..hehe..ok.no prob.the door is always open for u and all. Much grace! night ^^

By  Anonymous, at July 4, 2009 at 1:34 AM  

anonymous : wokie thanks! And don't put anonymous. We know who you are. Lol.

By  Josiah & Renae;, at July 4, 2009 at 1:43 AM  

anonymous:

no no. haha. i perfectly understand. i think i am being misunderstood. i do not argue that there cannot b multiple meeting places. wad i am saying is that the concept of having a singular church name is already in existence, which is "the body of Christ"

the name is immaterial. wad i really mean is having a singular type of church (no denominations) is ideal. but wad i am saying is that it is not absolute MUST.

the many types of churches have been in existence but r now united. so wad u r saying actually has already been achieved. albeit in a different way. just lyk how barisan national kinda achieved wad dato onn tried 2 do with a singular party. (if u remember ur sejarah! lol)

it isn't wrong 2 have many types of churches, basically. sorry not very good at explaining but i hope u get my point

By  joe, at July 4, 2009 at 2:02 AM  

I dunno how when it comes to "choose an identity"..all i tried..knot ohh..so i use "anonymous" lo..boh bian..hehe..

joe, "it isn't wrong 2 have many types of churches, basically"..haha..i dont think God tolerates with "basically"..sounds uncertain..Anyway,may the Lord preserves us in His lovely church, which is the mystery of Christ, according to His ordained way. PTL ^^

By  Anonymous, at July 5, 2009 at 6:28 PM  

anonymous:

anyways. i just think itz the wrong opinion 2 have that the current church is not united that it needs a special umbrella that already exists

By  joe, at July 6, 2009 at 10:58 PM  

Give a Hug; ♥