Item Nine: Accurately Communicate, Issue, and Implement the Various Work Arrangements of the House of God in Accordance With Its Requirements, Providing Guidance, Supervision, and Urging, and Inspect and Follow Up on the Status of Their Implementation (Part Two)

Providing Guidance, Supervision, and Urging for the Implementation of Work Arrangements, and Inspecting and Following Up on the Status of Their Implementation

Today, we will continue to fellowship on the ninth responsibility of leaders and workers: “Accurately communicate, issue, and implement the various work arrangements of the house of God in accordance with its requirements, providing guidance, supervision, and urging, and inspect and follow up on the status of their implementation.” Last time, we mainly fellowshipped about the various contents and specific items in the work arrangements that people need to understand, as well as the most basic responsibilities of leaders and workers, which are to communicate, issue, and implement the work arrangements. Today, we will specifically fellowship on how leaders and workers should provide guidance, supervision, and urging, and how they should inspect and follow up on the status of the implementation of work arrangements after they have been issued. How leaders and workers should treat the work arrangements, and how to accurately implement and execute the work arrangements according to the requirements of the Above and the steps, once they understand the significance of the work arrangements—these are truth principles that leaders and workers must come to understand through fellowship, and they need to grasp these principles in order to perform the various items of church work well. Leaders and workers should know that the basic requirement of God’s house for those serving in this role is mainly for them to perform their work centered around the various work arrangements. It is not for them to engage in their own personal enterprise or do things according to their own desires, and it is certainly not for them to fumble around by themselves in any of the work they do. Of course, it is also not for them to invent or create anything. Instead, it is for them to work specifically and in detail based on the work arrangements of God’s house. How should the work be done specifically? What details are involved? The answer to these questions is in the requirements of the ninth responsibility: Besides communicating, issuing, and implementing the various work arrangements of God’s house, leaders and workers also need to provide guidance, supervision and urging, and inspect and follow up on the status of their implementation. These are the specific paths of practice for leaders and workers to implement the work arrangements. Next, we will discuss them one by one.

After the work arrangements are issued, leaders and workers must first ponder and fellowship on the various requirements and principles put forward therein. Then, they must find paths and practice plans to specifically implement the work. First, they need to know what the work arrangements require, what specific work needs to be done, and what the principles involved are, as well as which people and which aspect of the work the work arrangements are addressing. This is what leaders and workers must do first after receiving the work arrangements. They should not just casually peruse the work arrangements and then read them aloud to everyone, or pass them down and notify everyone about the work, and then that’s it. This is just communicating and issuing the work arrangements; it is not implementing them. The first specific task in their implementation is for leaders and workers to learn about the specific content of the work arrangements, God’s requirements and goals for these pieces of church work, and the significance of carrying out this work, and to then develop specific execution and implementation plans. This is the first step. Is the first step easy to achieve? (Yes.) As long as you can understand written words and human language, the first step should be easy to achieve. Of course, accomplishing the first step also requires leaders and workers to have a serious, earnest, responsible, and meticulous attitude toward the work, rather than being muddled, perfunctory, or going through the motions. Whether the work arrangement has been mentioned before or not, whether it is easy or somewhat difficult for people to achieve, whether people are willing or unwilling to do it, in any case, leaders and workers should not have a cursory attitude toward the church work, just speaking some doctrines, shouting slogans, or making some surface-level efforts to deal with it in a perfunctory manner. What is the attitude that people should have? First, they should have a serious, earnest, responsible, and meticulous attitude. Does having this attitude mean that a person can implement the specific items in the work arrangements well? No, this is just the attitude that one should have when doing any work; it cannot replace the actual implementation of specific tasks. Once they have this attitude and also understand the specific content, requirements, and principles of the work arrangements, the next step for leaders and workers is how they implement the specific tasks in the work arrangements. What should be done first? They must do the preparatory work properly; this is very important. First, they must gather the leaders and workers and supervisors to fellowship on the specific principles of practice for these tasks. Then, they must develop specific arrangements and plans. At the same time, they should seek the suggestions or ideas of God’s chosen people regarding these plans. Everyone should then seek and fellowship together until all the requirements and principles put forward in the work arrangements are understood and clear, and everyone knows how to implement these work arrangements and practice—then the initial step of implementing the work arrangements is considered complete. So, once everyone knows how to implement the work arrangements, does that mean the task of implementing the work arrangements is complete? No, it does not. Some detailed issues and special situations are not mentioned in the work arrangements, but they are problems that do actually need to be solved. While fellowshipping on the work arrangements, leaders and workers should unearth these special situations, these issues that ought to be resolved, and seek the truth to thoroughly solve them, and at the same time they should also develop specific implementation plans for them. This way, when leaders and workers at all levels are implementing the work arrangements, they will know which principles to follow and which problems to solve. This is the minimum understanding and attitude that leaders and workers should have toward the work arrangements. This task can be considered the starting point for leaders and workers to learn how to do church work. Through seeking, fellowshipping, providing guidance, and making arrangements, they learn to treat and handle some actual difficulties and special situations according to the truth principles. Only then can they truly implement the work arrangements.

I. Providing Guidance

When providing initial guidance for a task, besides offering specific implementation plans for special situations, leaders and workers with average caliber and relatively poor work capability should be given more specific and detailed guidance. Although these people may understand the principles and specific implementation plans for a task in terms of doctrine, they still do not know how to put them into practice when it comes to actual implementation. How should you treat the few leaders and workers who have poor caliber and lack work capability? Some people say, “If a person with poor caliber cannot do the work, why not just find someone with better caliber to replace them?” The difficulty lies here: Some churches cannot find anyone better. In those churches, everyone has believed in God for about the same number of years and they are roughly the same in terms of their stature; in particular, everyone’s caliber and work capability are average. To find someone better, you would need to transfer people from other churches, but it’s not very convenient to do that there, and there aren’t any truly suitable candidates. You can only select relatively suitable candidates from the local church. If their work does not meet the required standards, what should be done in such situations? You need to specifically tell them how to do the work, and how to implement it. You should tell them who should be appointed to and made responsible for this task, and which people should be selected to work on it together. Explain all these details to them and let them carry this out. Why should it be done this way? Because the members of the local church generally only have very shallow experience and lack work capability, making it impossible to select suitable leaders and workers. Only by working in this way can the work arrangements be implemented. If you do not work in this way and treat these people the same as other leaders and workers, only telling them about the specific principles and plans, and being indiscriminate, the work arrangements will not be implemented. If you don’t pay any attention to this, isn’t that a dereliction of duty? (Yes.) This is a responsibility of leaders and workers. Some leaders and workers say, “Others know how to implement the work arrangements and practice; why doesn’t this person? If they don’t know, I won’t bother with them. It’s not my responsibility. At any rate, I’ve done my part.” Does this reasoning hold up? (No.) For example, say that a mother has three children, and one of them is weak, always gets sick, and does not want to eat. If the mother allows this child to not eat, that child might not survive long. What should she do? As a mother, she has to give special care to that weak child. Suppose the mother says, “It’s already good enough that I treat my children equally. I gave birth to this child and prepared food for him. I’ve fulfilled my responsibility. I don’t care whether he eats or not. If he doesn’t eat, let him be hungry, and when he’s really hungry enough, he’ll eat.” What do you think of this kind of mother? (She’s irresponsible.) Are there mothers like this? Only a dim-witted woman or a stepmother would be like that. If she’s the biological mother and not dim-witted, she would never treat her own child like this, right? (Right.) If a child is weak, always gets sick, and doesn’t like to eat, their mother has to put in more care and effort. She has to find ways to get the child to eat, she has to cook whatever the child wants to eat, preparing special meals for them, and when the child doesn’t want to eat, she has to coax them. When they get to eighteen or nineteen years old and their body is healthy like a normal adult, the mother can relax and back off, and no longer needs to give this child special care. If a mother can treat a child with special circumstances like this and fulfill her responsibility, then what about a leader or worker? If you don’t even have the love of a mother for the brothers and sisters, then you are simply irresponsible. You must fulfill the responsibilities you should; you must consider the churches where those who are relatively weak and possessed of relatively poor work capability are in charge. Leaders and workers must pay special attention and provide special guidance in these matters. What does special guidance refer to? Besides fellowshipping on the truth, you must also provide more specific and detailed direction and assistance, which requires more effort in terms of communication. If you explain the work to them and they still do not understand, and do not know how to implement it, or even if they understand it in terms of doctrine and seem to know how to implement it, but you are still unsure and a bit worried about how the actual implementation will go, what should you do then? You need to personally go deep into the local church to guide them and to implement the task with them. Tell them the principles while making specific arrangements concerning the tasks that need to be done according to the requirements of the work arrangements, such as what to do first and what to do next, and how to properly allocate people—organize all of these things properly. This is practically guiding them in their work, as opposed to just shouting slogans or giving random orders, and lecturing them with some doctrines, and then considering your work done—that is not a manifestation of doing specific work, and shouting slogans and bossing people around are not the responsibilities of leaders and workers. Once the local church leaders or supervisors can shoulder the work, and the work has entered onto the right track, and there are basically no major issues, only then can the leader or worker leave. This is the first specific task mentioned in the ninth responsibility of leaders and workers for implementing the work arrangements—providing guidance. So, how exactly should guidance be provided? Leaders and workers should first practice pondering and fellowshipping on the work arrangements, learning about and comprehending the various specific requirements of the work arrangements, and understanding and grasping the principles within the work arrangements. Then, they should fellowship together with leaders and workers at all levels on specific plans for implementing the work arrangements. Additionally, they should provide specific implementation plans for special situations and, finally, they should give more detailed and specific assistance and direction to leaders and workers who are relatively weak and have relatively poor caliber. If some leaders and workers are completely unable to implement the task, what should be done in such situations? The upper-level leaders and workers should go deep into the church and personally participate in the task, resolving the actual issues through fellowshipping the truth, and get them to learn how to do the work and how to implement the work according to the principles. These steps have been clearly stated in words, but is it easy to implement them? Are there any difficulties involved? Some might say, “You make it sound simple, but implementing it is not so easy. Sometimes the work arrangements are very complicated, and no one knows how to implement them!” Just the first task—fellowshipping on the specific requirements of the work arrangements and providing guidance in a practical manner—some leaders and workers find this quite strenuous. They say, “I have never done these specific tasks, so I don’t know how to fellowship and provide guidance about them. They should just follow the exact words of the work arrangements—what is there to fellowship about? Isn’t that just a formality?” They don’t know how to fellowship, they only know how to shout slogans: “We have to implement this work well! This is God’s requirement for us. We absolutely must hold our ground, meet God’s requirements, and not disappoint God’s expectations for us. As for how to do it, you should figure this out yourselves.” What is the problem with people who say things like this? Can they do the work? Do they have work capability? Is their caliber poor? (Yes, it is.)

No matter what happens, whether it’s a big or small matter, you should pray to and seek from God, as well as think and consider carefully and thoroughly, before making a judgment. If a person does not have normal thinking, it is even more vital for them to pray to God, asking for God’s help, and to seek more from those who understand the truth. Additionally, for major matters in church work and major matters encountered while doing duties, you must fellowship and discuss them with the relevant personnel to reach a consensus and finally develop a specific and feasible plan of practice. This plan should be a consensus achieved through careful consideration and consultation, and it should hold up in front of leaders and workers of any level. Those who can develop specific plans of practice that hold up are considered to have normal thinking. If, when faced with issues, whether big or small, there’s nothing concrete within a person’s thoughts, and they cannot think of specific principles of practice, and just use simple theoretical slogans to replace principles for handling problems, can they do their work well? Does such a person have the ability to think and the ability to think through things? (No.) What kind of person lacks the ability to think? (A person with poor caliber.) This is what it means to be a person with poor caliber. Let’s take an example. Suppose you are living overseas, and one day you suddenly receive a court summons. This is quite unexpected and sudden, no? First of all, you have not done anything illegal. Second, you have not filed any lawsuits, nor have you heard of anyone accusing you of anything. You receive the summons without knowing any of the circumstances surrounding it. What is the first feeling that an average person would have when faced with such a situation? Getting caught up in legal matters would cause them some panic, worry, and dread; it would leave them feeling caught off guard, and not really in the mood to eat. Whether a person is important or not, bold or timid, an adult or a minor, no one wants to encounter such a situation because it is not a good thing. Faced with this situation, people react in two different ways. The first type of person thinks, “I haven’t done anything illegal, nor have I violated any government regulations. What do I have to fear? This is a society governed by law, where everything is based on evidence. Since I haven’t done anything bad, they won’t have any evidence against me even if they do prosecute me. I have nothing to fear. What can a summons do? An upright person need not fear accusations. I’ll hire a lawyer to defend me; there won’t be any problems.” After thinking this through, they feel no pressure in their hearts, and their daily life remains unaffected. This is the reaction of one type of person. Now let’s look at the reaction of the second type of person. After receiving the summons, they think, “I haven’t broken any laws, nor have I committed any crimes, so what could this be about? Could it be because I believe in God? Believing in God isn’t illegal. Is it possible that someone has deliberately framed me and reported me? That seems more likely. But could it be something else? I need to consult a lawyer and ask them to go to the court to find out why I received the summons and who the plaintiff is. I need to get to the bottom of this before deciding on a countermeasure. If the lawyer says it is related to my belief in God, then I need to quickly find people to devise a countermeasure and also hurry to hide any books or other such things related to my faith to prevent my enemy from finding something to use against me.” After these initial thoughts, although they haven’t made any definitive conclusions or accurate judgments about receiving the summons, they already have a clear idea of the specific plan of practice: what to do for Plan A, what to do for Plan B, and if both are not feasible, what they should do next. They consider every step thoroughly and carefully; they first calm their mind and quickly pray in their heart, and then, after settling themselves, they immediately get down to handling this matter. Within a day, they have figured out all of these things and know how to proceed. Regardless of what the eventual outcome of this matter is, let’s first look at these two types of people. Which one has the ability to think through problems? Which one has caliber? (The second person.) Obviously, the second person has caliber. Having courage and determination alone when one encounters a situation doesn’t equate to having caliber. One must be able to think, possess discernment, and have the ability to handle problems. In the process of thinking, they must be able to make specific judgments and develop specific operation plans. Only this kind of person has caliber. On the surface, they may seem very timid, acting cautious and careful about even small matters, and treating small matters as significant. However, the method and way they handle problems proves that this person has the ability to think and the ability to think through and handle problems. By contrast, the first type of person is very bold and not afraid of anything. When they encounter a situation, they think simply, “I haven’t done anything bad. No matter what goes wrong, there’ll always be a more capable person there to fix it. What do I have to be afraid of?” They are carefree and live an easy life, but aren’t they a bit foolishly brave and dim-witted? This type of person shouts slogans loudly, and what they say isn’t wrong, but what are they lacking? (They don’t have normal thinking and they lack the ability to think through problems.) Where does their lack of normal thinking manifest? When encountering a situation, whether it is something that has occurred suddenly or something they already knew about, they cannot think it through or make a judgment, so naturally, they won’t have a plan to handle the problem or the ability to solve it. This is very obvious. From the outside, this type of person appears to be eloquent and they can speak doctrines, and they can also boost morale; they seem to have the caliber to be a leader. However, when faced with problems, they cannot see through to the essence of the problems and cannot fellowship on the truth to resolve them. They can only speak some words and doctrines and shout slogans. On the surface, they seem shrewd, but when encountering problems, they cannot analyze or judge the causes of the problems, nor can they assess the serious consequences that will occur if the problems continue to develop. They cannot sort out these matters in their mind, let alone solve the problems. Such a person appears eloquent but actually has poor caliber and cannot do real work. Similarly, if leaders and workers, upon receiving a work arrangement, can only read it and explain it literally, and though they may issue the work arrangement and fellowship on its key points in gatherings, they do not know how to make specific arrangements and provide specific guidance for the work arrangement’s specific requirements, principles, matters that require attention, special situations, and so on, and they have no plans, no ideas, and no ability to solve problems, then they have poor caliber. When implementing work arrangements, the first task that leaders and workers need to perform—providing guidance—is not easy or simple. This first task tests whether a leader or worker has the caliber and work capability that they ought to possess. If leaders and workers do not have this caliber and work capability, they will not be able to provide specific guidance for the work arrangements or implement them.

II. Providing Supervision and Urging

Next, let’s fellowship on the task of “supervision.” Judging from the literal meaning, supervision means inspection: checking which churches have implemented the work arrangements and which have not, the progress of implementation, which leaders and workers are doing real work and which are not, and whether any leaders or workers are merely dispensing the work arrangements without participating in the specific tasks. Supervision is a specific task. Besides supervising the implementation of work arrangements—whether they have been implemented, the speed of implementation, the quality of implementation, and the results achieved—higher-level leaders and workers must check if the leaders and workers are strictly following the work arrangements. Some leaders and workers outwardly say they are willing to follow the work arrangements, but after being faced with a certain environment, they fear being arrested and just focus on hiding, having long since relegated the work arrangements to the back of their minds; the brothers’ and sisters’ problems go unresolved, and they don’t know what the work arrangements specify or what the principles of practice are. This shows that the work arrangements have not been implemented at all. Other leaders and workers have opinions, notions, and resistance to some of the requirements in the work arrangements. When it comes time to implement them, they deviate from the true meaning of the work arrangements, doing things according to their own ideas, going through the motions and glossing over things just to be done with them, or taking their own path, doing things however they feel like. All such situations require supervision by higher-level leaders and workers. The purpose of supervision is to better implement the specific tasks required by the work arrangements without deviation and according to principles. While conducting supervision, higher-level leaders and workers must place great emphasis on identifying if there is anyone who is not doing real work or is irresponsible and slow in implementing the work arrangements; if anyone shows a resistant mood concerning the work arrangements and is unwilling to implement them or implements them selectively, or simply does not follow the work arrangements at all and instead just carries out their own enterprise; if anyone is withholding the work arrangements, and only communicates them according to their own ideas, not letting God’s chosen people know the true meaning and specific requirements of the work arrangements—only by supervising and inspecting these issues can higher-level leaders know what’s really going on. If higher-level leaders do not conduct supervision and inspection, can these problems be identified? (No.) They cannot. Therefore, leaders and workers must not only communicate the work arrangements and provide guidance level by level but also supervise the work level by level when implementing the work arrangements. Regional leaders must supervise the work of district leaders, district leaders must supervise the work of church leaders, and church leaders must supervise the work of each group. Supervision must be carried out level by level. What is the purpose of supervision? It is to facilitate the accurate implementation of the content of the work arrangements according to their specific requirements. Therefore, the task of supervision is very important. When conducting supervision, if the environment permits, leaders and workers should go deep into the churches to interact with those who are doing the actual work. They should ask questions, observe, inquire, learn about, and grasp the situation of the work implementation. At the same time, they should learn about what difficulties and thoughts the brothers and sisters have regarding this work and whether they have grasped the principles of this work. These are all specific tasks that leaders and workers need to perform. Especially for those with relatively poor caliber and humanity, who are somewhat irresponsible, disloyal, and relatively slack in their work, leaders and workers need to supervise and direct their work even more. How should supervision and direction be done? Suppose you say, “Hurry up! The Above is waiting for our work report. This work has a deadline; don’t drag it out!” Would this way of urging them work? Does urging mean just pushing them a bit, and that’s it? What’s the better way to urge? When you work, do you include urging as part of your tasks? (Yes. If I see that some tasks are not being done promptly, I will try to understand why they are not doing them and follow up on their work.) If you see someone who does not know how to do the work, you must provide specific guidance and help, and give them direction. If you see someone being slack, you must prune them. If they know how to do the work but are too lazy to do it, are sluggish and procrastinate, and indulge in fleshly comfort, then they should be pruned as needed. If pruning does not resolve the issue and their attitude does not change, what should be done? (Do not let them do this work.) First, give them a warning: “This work is very important. If you continue to treat it with such an attitude, your duty will be taken away and given to someone else. If you are not willing to do it, someone else will be. You are not loyal to your duty; you are not fit for this work. If you are not up to this task and cannot endure physical hardship, God’s house can replace you with someone else, and you can also submit a resignation. If you do not resign and are still willing to do it, then do it well, and do it according to the requirements and principles of God’s house. If you cannot achieve this and repeatedly delay progress, causing losses to the work, then God’s house will deal with you. If you cannot fulfill this duty, then sorry, but you will have to leave!” If after the warning they are willing to repent, they can be retained. But if after repeated warnings their attitude does not change and they show no hint of remorse, what should be done? They should be dismissed immediately—won’t that resolve the problem? It’s not that we hold small faults or minor issues against people when we see whoever has them; rather, it’s that we are giving people opportunities. If they are willing to repent and they change, becoming much better than before, then retain them if at all possible. If repeatedly giving them opportunities, fellowshipping on the truth, pruning, and warning don’t work, and no one’s help is effective, then this is not an ordinary issue: This person’s humanity is too poor, and they do not accept the truth at all. In that case, they are not suitable for this duty and should be sent away. They are not fit to do duty. This is how the matter should be handled.

When supervising the church’s work, leaders and workers should not only be adept at identifying various problems but also pay special attention to some church leaders whom they feel uneasy about or find unreliable. These people need to be supervised and followed up on for an extended period; you can’t just occasionally ask them about the situation or brush the issue aside with a few words and consider it done. Sometimes, it is necessary to stay on-site to supervise their work. What is the purpose of staying on-site? It is to discover and resolve problems more quickly and to get the work done well. Sometimes, you cannot discover problems as soon as you arrive at the work site. Instead, it is through detailed understanding, inspecting the work, and careful observation that some problems gradually surface and can be discovered. Staying on-site to conduct supervision is not about monitoring or watching over people. What does supervision mean? Supervision involves inspecting and providing direction. It means specifically asking about the work in detail, learning about and grasping the progress of the work and weak links in the work, understanding who is responsible in their work and who is not, and who is and isn’t capable of performing the work, among other things. Supervision sometimes requires consulting, understanding, and inquiring about the situation. Sometimes it requires face-to-face questioning or direct inspection. Of course, more often it involves having direct fellowship with the people in charge, asking about the implementation of the work, the difficulties and problems encountered, and so on. While conducting supervision, you can discover which people only outwardly apply themselves to their work and just do things superficially, which people do not know how to implement specific tasks, which people know how to implement them but do not do the real work, and other such issues. If these discovered problems can be resolved in a timely manner, that is best. What is the purpose of supervision? It is to better implement the work arrangements, to see if the work you have arranged is appropriate, if there are any oversights or things you haven’t considered, if there are any areas that are not in line with principles, if there are any distorted aspects or areas in which mistakes have been made, and so on—all these issues can be discovered during the process of conducting supervision. But if you stay at home and do not perform this specific work, can you discover these problems? (No.) Many problems need to be asked about, observed, and understood on-site to be known and grasped. When conducting supervision, you must urge those who, in their work, are irresponsible and careless, deceive those above them and conceal things from those below them, and are perfunctory and slow. We just discussed several steps regarding how to urge them: You can provide direction, fellowship, prune, warn, and dismiss them. Are these steps easy to carry out? (Yes.)

III. Inspecting and Following Up

After leaders and workers urge the work on, the next step is to inspect the work. What is the usual purpose of inspecting the work? Inspecting the work is to determine the progress of the tasks that have been arranged, identify any problems that need to be urgently resolved, and ultimately ensure that the work is fully done well. After the work has been arranged, it is necessary to inspect several aspects: what stage the subsequent work has reached, whether it has been completed, how efficient it is, what the results are, whether any specific problems have been identified, whether there are any difficulties, whether there are any areas that do not conform to principles, and so on. Inspecting the work you have arranged is also a specific and necessary task. Some leaders and workers often make a mistake: They think that once they have arranged the work, their job is done. They believe, “My task is complete, my responsibility fulfilled. At any rate, I’ve told you how to do it. You know what to do, and you’ve agreed to do it. I don’t need to worry about how things proceed; just report to me once you’ve finished.” After planning and arranging the work, they believe their task is complete and everything is fine. They do not follow up or inspect the work. As for whether the person they arranged to be in charge of the task is suitable, what the state of most people is like, whether there are problems or difficulties, whether they have confidence in doing the church work well, whether there are distorted or wrong aspects, or whether there are any violations of the work arrangements from the Above, they do not learn about, inspect, or follow up on. They just consider their job done after arranging the work; this is not doing specific work. What should be inspected in the work? The main things to check are whether the implementation plan aligns with the work arrangements, whether it violates the principles and requirements of the work arrangements, and whether there are any people who cause disruptions and disturbances, any people who blindly stir up trouble, or any people who spout high-sounding words during the work. Of course, while inspecting the work, you are also checking whether there were any mistakes in your own implementation of the work arrangements. Inspecting others’ work is actually also inspecting your own work.