With the material items of God’s house, there’s another important piece of work beyond safeguarding them: sensibly allocating them. All these items are for people’s use—they’re all useful things—so the main goal in safeguarding them is so that they may be sensibly used. Before putting these items to sensible use, it’s up to leaders and workers to allocate them sensibly. What is sensible allocation? As to whom these items should be given to use, God’s house has principles and rules. The main purpose of these items, whether they are offered up by the brothers and sisters or purchased by God’s house, is not in stockpiling them for relief or as alms for welfare work; instead, they’re for the use of all brothers and sisters who do their duties full-time. So, how they’re to be allocated—what the principles are for their allocation—is another responsibility that leaders and workers should fulfill in their management of the various material items of God’s house. We’ve mentioned here sensible allocation; in this case, being “sensible” is the principle required by God’s house. We’ll start with books of God’s words. Every time new books are issued, God’s house has requirements and rules in terms of principles concerning who should be issued those books. In the church, there are people who read God’s words and people who don’t, there are people who love the truth and people who don’t, and there are people who do duties and people who don’t—differentiations should be made between these types of people. There are also some special books in the class of textbooks—grammars, dictionaries, and other such instrumental books. All these should be distributed in strict accordance with the principles. They must be given to those who need them, and not to those who don’t. And then there are some instrumental books printed in relatively small quantities—if these are issued to an individual, what’s required of that individual? You may read them, but don’t damage them; don’t leave them around or tear paper out of them indiscriminately. And they should be returned to their original place when you’re done reading them. With books of belief in God, leaders and workers should distribute them in strict accordance with the work arrangements of God’s house, and they should let God’s chosen people understand the principles, too, and act according to them.

What follows is how to allocate various sorts of equipment. This is a relatively critical task. Various sorts of equipment are somewhat stricter in their allocation. Such equipment includes electronics, as well as the tools required for various professions. When leaders and workers distribute these, there should be principles to that, too. Those to whom they’re issued must be people who are able to operate such equipment familiarly and make correct, sensible use of it. If someone’s a novice or simply doesn’t know how to use the thing, it must not be issued to them. This holds especially for good, high-end electronics, such as high-end cameras and pricier computers, as well as recording equipment, photographic devices, or equipment needed for video post-production—less still may equipment like this be issued to such a person, in order to prevent damage. Leaders and workers are to ensure that those who use such equipment are, first, able to value the machinery, and second, are able to use and maintain it correctly. Some machine, for instance, must by its rules be given a ten-minute rest after two hours of use, to cool down. If it doesn’t cool down, it will damage the machine and shorten its useful life. People who value a machine will use it in strict accordance with its maintenance precautions; they’ll follow them on their own, without your telling them to, and they’ll be stricter and more precise still if you do urge them. Such people are fit to use machinery; they’re suited to using high-end things, because they know to value machinery, and they take its maintenance and repair precautions seriously. Such people, who can treasure machinery and use it normally, are those most fit for the allocation and distribution of high-grade machinery. Leaders and workers should carry out proper checks in this regard. If there’s a high-end computer, and it’s issued out for the use of anyone who applies by stating their need of it, is the principle there right? (No.) What’s not right about it? For leaders and workers, part of distributing and allocating such things should be based on the professional competency of the person tasked with the work; the other part is that they must base it on the degree to which that person cherishes machinery, on whether they have humanity, whether they value machinery when they use it. If the person doesn’t know to care for machinery and is unfamiliar with the skills of the profession, and just wants to play with the machine out of curiosity, then they should be restricted and forbidden from using it. They’re not fit to use and take care of high-grade machinery. It’s enough to give those doing ordinary duties ordinary machinery. Those who know a profession; are of good humanity; and know how to use, maintain, and value machinery may use higher-grade things, because they’re versed in a profession and are able to make use of high-grade machinery. If you give a muddled or coarse person something high-grade to use, they’ll ruin the machine in just a few days. Others won’t be able to use it, and it won’t be easy to fix. This not only impedes the work of the church, but also wastes a material item of God’s house. What’s implicit in this? That such people aren’t fit to use good machines. Good machines must be given to people with humanity, who know their way around a profession, to use. It’s good enough for those who aren’t experts in a profession and whose humanity is poor to use ordinary things. Is allocating things like this sensible? (It is.)

With all manner of material things, different people have different ways of treating them. Some people buy a high-end computer, and after two years of use, it still looks new; there’s never a fingerprint to be seen on the screen, and the keyboard’s always so clean, without a speck of dust. The desktop is nice and neat, too, and what’s stored on the computer is all quite organized and clear. If someone tells them that it’s bad for the screen if it’s in use for a long time, they’ll ask right away how best to protect the screen—whichever way is best, that’s what they do. If someone tells them that the computer needs to idle after long usage, that it’ll function worse if it gets too hot, affecting the machine’s longevity, then when they realize that they’ve been using their computer for more than two hours, they’ll stop at once to let it cool off. If it cools slowly because the weather’s too hot, they’ll set a fan to blow on it. They treat the machine with as much special care as though it were their child. They’re especially attentive and careful when putting it in its bag, and when they place it on a table, they’ve got to clean its surface and place the machine properly. Is this not a strength of theirs? (Yes.) Such people don’t just cherish machinery themselves—when they see others ruining and damaging machinery, they find it hard to bear. Such people are fit to use good machinery. Some people with money will also buy high-end computers, which they don’t cherish at all once they’ve gotten them home. They don’t clean them, however much dust settles on them, and they get them quite dirty. Others will use a machine for two years, and it’ll still look new; these people use a machine for two months, and it looks as if it’s been used for ten years. Tell them that machines need maintenance, and they’ll say, “What’s the point of maintaining that thing? Machines render service to people, in service of people. If it breaks, just buy a new one!” As a result, the machine breaks down in less than six months due to improper use. What do you make of such people? Are they fit to use high-grade machinery? (No.) However nice the computers they buy, they don’t think to cherish them, but toss them around and place them carelessly. Some of their computers are marred with scratches; some are water-damaged; some fall to the ground and break. They use them quite roughly. There’s something missing in such people’s humanity. Are you willing to allocate good machinery for the use of such people? (No.) Some people wear glasses, and the lenses are always wiped so clean, whereas other people’s lenses have filthy surfaces, with dirt and fingerprints and the like on them. How can they even use them like that? Those who would take care of their glasses are particular when putting them down; they absolutely won’t let the lens touch a tabletop or any object, nor will they let the lens be scratched or have any abrasions. Glasses are so important to near-sighted people in particular—how will you use them if you scratch the lenses? Some people are rough with their glasses, and their lenses get blurred after they’ve worn them for just a short while. They can’t see anything clearly when they’re wearing them—they’d be better off without them on. Yet they think it’s fine to go on wearing them as they are, as if it made no difference. I’m puzzled by this: Isn’t their goal in wearing glasses to be able to see things more clearly? What can they see clearly, with their lenses all scuffed? Are these not coarse people? Coarse, indeed! There’s something missing from the humanity of excessively coarse people—they don’t know how to take care of things, much less do they think to cherish them.

When it comes to the important equipment and tools of God’s house, what’s the responsibility of leaders and workers? When allocating such equipment, it’s to be given to appropriate people. Those using such important, high-grade equipment absolutely must be people who know how to cherish things. They’ll cherish it, take care of it, and maintain it; when it’s in their possession, you can be assured that they’ll never destroy or damage it intentionally or due to self-made factors, unless through a moment’s carelessness or lack of some element of common knowledge. Such people may use this equipment; high-grade, good equipment may be allocated to them. With people who are naturally rough in their use of things, it’ll do just to give them ordinary stuff to use. Also, the custodians of such equipment and tools are responsible for keeping records of their usage: who’s taken what and how long they’ve used it for, or which item is for someone’s exclusive use, who, if it’s damaged, should compensate for it according to its value. Both parties must sign off on these things, so that things are fair and sensible for everyone. Machines and equipment are to be taken care of well, whether their usage is short-term or long-term; the user must learn to use them correctly, and if they malfunction, they should be repaired promptly. The more meticulously this work is done, the better. If a situation arises where Satan’s regime is arresting people, leaders’ and workers’ most central responsibility then is to allocate the important equipment and tools to reliable, trustworthy people. Once they’ve sent it, they should give the person some counsel, telling them, “These are things from God’s house, for you to use in doing your duty. They’re not to be toyed with. You should use them sensibly and take care of them well. Don’t damage them. As these pieces of equipment and tools are needed for the performance of duty, if there’s damage to them, compensation should be paid according to their value. If the work is delayed because of damaged equipment, that’s an issue of a more serious nature, meaning that there’s some disturbance and destruction to it. So, you must know how to use all sorts of equipment and tools correctly in doing duties—you absolutely must not damage the property of God’s house. Be sure to remember these principles: sensible usage, and regular inspection, repair, and maintenance—if something malfunctions, report it promptly and apply for repair.” To do this work well, leaders and workers must, in part, know the principles of allocation and usage; the other part is that they should let the users know how to perform maintenance and upkeep, and if a malfunction should occur, how to perform repairs, and so on. This is standard knowledge that people should understand and possess when it comes to taking care of and using all sorts of equipment and tools.

Leaders and workers are to sensibly allocate the various equipment of God’s house. If, for instance, a work personnel needs a computer with relatively comprehensive features, you should allocate one to them. If they say one isn’t enough, you must ask them why that is, and you must ask around and see whether what they’re saying is factual. Don’t just go by their application and give them as many computers as they ask for, giving two if they say one’s not enough, giving three if they say two’s not enough. Wouldn’t you then be distributing the computers as though they were toys? Wouldn’t that be reckless? You should first investigate the situation and make a decision based on the principles of God’s house. You must absolutely not arbitrarily approve all manner of applications, in case some people are just making indiscriminate applications under the guise of doing a duty. Furthermore, some people doing important work may need higher-grade computers, yet their personal computers have lower-grade configurations. Leaders and workers must promptly look into this, too, and allocate equipment sensibly. The provision of computers should be decided based on the nature of a person’s work and the requirements for the computer’s grade. If someone’s just an ordinary leader or worker, and they don’t engage in computer technology or video production work, and only use computers to do such things as going on the internet, looking up resources, and making calls, and they don’t require much in terms of the specs of their computer, then it’ll do for them to use an ordinary one. Some older people only know how to do simple operations such as typing, going online, and making calls, yet once they become a leader or worker, they’re issued very high-end computers. Is this sensible? Are they not seeking special privileges? Are they not enjoying the benefits of status? (They are.) What is this kind of high-end, high-grade equipment to be used for? They’re to be given to the relevant work personnel and professional personnel to use. They don’t have to be matched to a person’s status. Some leaders and workers mistakenly believe that they should enjoy privileged usage rights over the various items of God’s house. Is that a rule in God’s house? No. Once some people have become leaders and workers, they are quickly issued high-grade computers, cell phones, and headphones, they’re furnished with all sorts of high-grade equipment. What’s the consequence of this? Is this really done to attain good results in the work? Are those people not hankering after fleshly enjoyment? What are you using high-grade computers for, anyway? Aren’t you just holding gatherings online and preaching words and doctrines? Do you know how to upload videos, or are you able to produce videos? Do you know how to maintain network security, or can you set up websites? Do you know these professions? If you don’t, what use do you have for some high-grade computer? Is this not a disgusting thing to do? (It is.) If you have your own money, no one cares how many computers you buy with it, and no one will interfere no matter how high-grade they are. We’re talking now about how the material items of God’s house need to be sensibly allocated. What does “sensibly” mean? When leaders and workers use this high-grade equipment of God’s house, does that count as using it “sensibly”? (No.) They don’t know the profession or how to do anything. Does having a high-grade computer make them high-grade? What are they showing off for? God’s house has no rule that gives privileged rights of usage and allocation of its material items to leaders and workers; they don’t have that special privilege, and this isn’t a sensible principle for God’s house allocating items—it is not sensible at all. Someone may buy these things themselves if they’re in a position to do so; if they’re not, and need to be allocated them by God’s house, then it’s enough for them to use ordinary ones. This is fair and sensible. Those who truly know how to use this high-grade equipment are the professional personnel involved in this work, so God’s house should allocate this equipment to them. These are some principles that leaders and workers should understand and grasp regarding the allocation of the material items of God’s house. Check again, based on these principles, to see whether these things have been insensibly allocated anywhere. If they have, hurry up and rectify it. After some people become leaders or workers, they see that no one in God’s house is sucking up to them, that no one is issuing them high-grade items, and that they’re still wearing their own, old outfits, still using their own, extremely ordinary little computer, and that God’s house hasn’t furnished them with a good one. So, they go to the finance team and apply to buy a computer. Is this sensible? (No.) They say, “If you don’t issue it to me, I won’t do my duty—I’ll find an opportunity to make God’s house buy me a higher-grade computer, a newer model, a faster one!” They’re very bold—there’s nothing they wouldn’t dare do. After these people become leaders, they treat God’s house as their own, thinking, “The money of God’s house is mine, too—I’ll spend it as I please!” This is something antichrists are capable of doing.

We’re now through speaking about the sensible allocation of various material items and equipment. Next, we’ll talk about stuff for daily living, for example: grain, vegetables, and dried food, as well as necessary ingredients for cooking, various supplementary foods, and so on. These items aren’t just to be sensibly safeguarded, but to be sensibly allocated, too. So, how are these various items to be sensibly allocated, then? God’s house has standards for its food, and those who manage such items should allocate them sensibly in rigorous adherence to those standards. They aren’t to give more of the good food to those close to them. For instance, if some tasty, good-quality rice is purchased, or if some fruit or meat is only bought occasionally, and you issue more of it to whomever you’re on good terms with, or issue all of the good stuff to them, sending the bad stuff to others—is that considered sensible allocation? (No.) How is “sensibility” to be measured here, then? What way of allocating things could be considered sensible? Even allocation, according to the principles and to the required standards that God’s house has stipulated for foods, issuing out as much as should be issued. If you feel you’re close with someone, you may give them your own portion. Don’t be generous with other people’s things, and don’t use the material items of God’s house to show generosity to other people; if you want to be generous, do it with your own things. Generosity isn’t a principle in God’s house—the principle of God’s house is sensible allocation. The distribution of daily life necessities and various foodstuffs should be done in accordance with the standards set by God’s house, not indiscriminately. Naturally, leaders and workers may supervise and see whether the people responsible for the distribution of such things have their hearts in the right place, whether their distribution is sensible, whether the distribution is done in accordance with the principles of God’s house, how most people report it to be, if they have any complaints, and if everyone has been taken care of. What’s to be done if things are scarce at times? Is it alright for leaders and workers to keep them to eat themselves? Some may say, “Leaders and workers have the highest status and prestige, and they’re usually the ones who speak the most to us, which makes their mouths dry. If there’s any good stuff, let’s leave it for them to eat.” Is it alright to allocate things like this? (No; things should be left for those who truly need them.) If some relatively expensive healthcare products are in short supply, how should they be allocated? They should be allocated to those who have expended themselves for God for many years and made a contribution. These people are in poor health due to their age, yet they’re still conscientiously doing their duties, and the brothers and sisters have benefited considerably from them. These people need to maintain and take care of their bodies a bit, and it’s only right that they be allowed to eat and use those healthcare products. No one should fight over scarce supplies. This is how leaders and workers must allocate these things. Is this sensible? (Yes.) Would most people have objections to such allocation, then? Is there anyone who says, “I may not be that old, but I have plenty of work to do—I work more than eight hours every day. My work may not be that efficient, and I may not have been doing it for so many years, but my health isn’t so great sometimes, either. Why is no one looking out for me? When there are good things, it’s never my turn to get them, but when there’s work to be done, it’s always me who’s sought out”? Is someone like this to be given a portion? Since they had the nerve to ask for this, leave some for them–is that sensible? Would you agree to doing that? (No.) If it were Me, I’d agree. Why get so bothered about such things? People don’t live their lives for enjoyment; they don’t live to eat, drink, and make merry. Why fight over such things? If someone really wants to fight over them, and their circumstances are somewhat appropriate, then let them enjoy those things a bit. They’ll have been shown some special favor, but you won’t have lost out for it; there’s no need to get so bothered. So, suppose that someone was to say, “Why don’t you give me some? My health isn’t great, either; if I really did get to eat something good, I’d be able, with my improved health, to do more work and take more pains for God’s house, and my work would be more efficient.” Since they’ve made this request, don’t embarrass them by rejecting it, distribute some to them. Other people shouldn’t get so bothered about this—be a bit more generous. Wouldn’t your life go on as it has been without those things? What God gives people isn’t scarce; it’s bountiful and abundant—there’s no need to fight over things. If there’s some special item, and no one feels that they require it or that they need to enjoy it, then whichever sort of person the majority ultimately agrees is most suitable should be given it to eat. We emphasize humanity and sensibly allocating things. Those who obtain these things should accept them from God and thank Him for His grace. Others aren’t to fight over them. If you do, you’re unreasonable, you are willfully making trouble, and you are out of line. This is how such special circumstances are to be dealt with. There are principles for special circumstances and ordinary ones alike; they’re not to be treated indiscriminately, much less on the basis of the requirements of human relationships. When these things are allocated sensibly, leaders and workers have fulfilled their responsibility.

In allocating daily supplies and food, leaders and workers should also do so based on real situations, real headcounts, and real amounts needed, so as to allocate them in a truly sensible way, with the aim of not allowing them to be wasted or suffer losses. This is a responsibility leaders and workers should fulfill. Sometimes, when they don’t have an understanding of specific circumstances, they may allocate some things according to a basic principle, and learn afterward, through everyone’s feedback and subsequent monitoring, that the allocation wasn’t sensible, that it was a bit regulation-bound. In that case, they must improve the next time, to avoid that problem’s reoccurrence and to reduce waste and loss. That’s fulfilling their responsibility. Of course, in order to avoid damage and waste, they must, in part, make more consultations when allocating things; they must also strictly adhere to the principles. This is necessary. Don’t issue things out indiscriminately, not giving them to those who truly need them, not giving them to those doing their duty sincerely, who have the truth reality, but giving them specifically to flatterers who don’t have spiritual understanding. Is doing that acting in accordance with the principles? (No.) Is doing that not wanton recklessness? Not to act according to the principles is not to fulfill one’s responsibilities. What does fulfilling one’s responsibilities refer to? It’s not going through the motions and abiding by regulations, and it’s not fulfilled by taking a series of set steps—instead, it’s acting in truly strict adherence to the principles required by God’s house, while also ensuring that no cases of waste or damage occur with anything of God’s house. That’s what it is to truly fulfill your responsibility. For example, in issuing eggs to five people, you should give each person one per day, and issue them every ten days, so you’d send exactly fifty. You should issue them like this, in part, because it’s a small number and easy to take care of; furthermore, it’s exactly the right amount for them to eat. To practice like this, according to the standards and specifications required by God’s house, is quite right—it’s acting according to the principles. If a leader or worker, fearing the hassle, issued them one hundred days’ worth of eggs at a time—five hundred eggs—would that be appropriate? Tell Me, are fifty eggs easier to transport and take care of, or five hundred? (Fifty.) A smaller number is easier to transport and take care of. Some people do send a hundred days’ worth, and as a result, some are broken on the way, and some are crushed when they’re carried at the destination. With one little breakage after another, a portion sustains damage. Add to this that when people see a lot of eggs issued, they’ll casually waste them, and so they’ll have no eggs to eat before the day of the next shipment. So, when these eggs are broken and sustain damage, is it not the leaders’ and workers’ dereliction that causes it? (It is.) If they ask for more, can you give them to them? According to the principles, you can’t give them any more before the appointed date, but they feel aggrieved when they have none to eat. What’s to be done here? (They should be given on time and in the right quantity.) Giving them out on time and in the right quantity is acting according to the principles—that’s sensible allocation. When allocating these things, leaders and workers absolutely must abide by the principle of sensible allocation and the standard required by God’s house, issuing them on time and regularly. Beyond that, they must have a prompt understanding of whether there have been cases of waste, whether there have been reapplications or requests for things that are scarce due to wastage, and whether there have been cases of waste with things issued out that people didn’t like. Meats and vegetables, for instance, are both issued, and most people prefer meat, so they may consume it in three or five days, and the vegetables are left. Vegetables don’t keep well; some go bad and rot after a while, and so they run out before the next batch is issued. Someone may then reapply and ask for more. Are more to be given in a case like this? Is it sensible to give them more? (No.) Other people will sneakily eat up the meat and eggs, and eat up all the vegetables they like while giving all sorts of reasons and excuses not to eat the ones they don’t. When the vegetables yellow and go bad, they say they’re inedible, and they wind up feeding them to the pigs and chickens, or else just toss them, then ask for more. When leaders and workers encounter this kind of case, how are they to handle it? If they say, “I’ll give you more next time, seeing as it’s not enough—I’ll provide you with more, since you eat a lot,” is that the appropriate way to handle it? Isn’t that blind? (Yes.) How is it that they’re blind? (They don’t understand what’s really going on: The main reason the food they issued wasn’t enough is that it was wasted.) They jump to conclusions without understanding what’s really going on. There’s enough food to eat in most places that’s issued according to the specifications of God’s house. Why is it never enough for that one place alone? Doesn’t that need specific investigation? They must go to the site and ask carefully and in detail about the situation, to see what’s happening. In the end, through their investigation and understanding, they find that the cook in that place is a bad and immoral person, who fed food for people to chickens, intentionally wasting the food of God’s house. They’re quite finicky about what they eat, and they only like to eat delicious food. They won’t eat vegetables when there’s no meat, and when there is, they won’t even eat tofu. When they get eggs, they eat them at every meal. They exclusively pick out tasty food and don’t eat any ordinary vegetables, nor do they care if they go bad. Understanding has shown the cook to be a bad person—should they then be given an increased allowance next time things are issued? (No.) Is not giving them more all there is to it? How is this problem to be handled, once discovered? Replace them at once; switch them out with someone with a bit of humanity to take on the duty. Discover and resolve the problem promptly, and eliminate such evil people, such rotten apples. Some may ask, “Since they’re not cooking anymore, would it be okay to have them feed the chickens?” (No.) If they feed the chickens, the chickens won’t lay eggs; if they feed the pigs, the pigs will grow lean. It won’t do to have them feed anything. Such people must be sent away—they’re unfit to do a duty in God’s house. If any other problems are found while allocating the material items of God’s house, they should also be resolved promptly. What is the goal of resolving these problems? To lessen the waste and spoilage incurred to the material items of God’s house. Some may ask, “To resolve those problems, one has to go investigate the kitchen. Haven’t You said that leaders and workers aren’t allowed into the kitchen? Why are they allowed to now?” Those are two separate issues. I didn’t say that they’re not allowed to go—it was a dissection of leaders’ and workers’ not knowing how to work, loitering idly and strolling around, greedy for the benefits of status, always going to the kitchen to find good things to eat. In the present case, they’re going to the kitchen to resolve problems, not to find good things to eat. Go when you’re supposed to, and don’t go when you’re not. Leaders and workers have a lot of work to do, and this is one of their tasks, one whose particular problems can only be known by going into the depths of the kitchen and getting an understanding of the details. If a cook is found to be unsuitable, they’re to be dismissed at once and replaced with someone suitable. Doing so ensures that the items issued by God’s house aren’t met with waste and spoilage. However I put it, the requirement of leaders and workers is that they fulfill their responsibilities—if it’s yours to worry over and do, then you absolutely must worry over it and do it. You must observe with your eyes and use your ears to listen attentively to what each sort of person has to say—and of course, you must also learn at heart to have opinions, thoughts, and discernment about all manner of things; another important piece is taking to heart the principles that are required to be followed by God’s house, and not changing from them at any time. Whatever work you’re doing, you must first understand what the principles and rules required by God’s house are; before you get to work, you must ask yourself a few more times such questions as: Am I clear on the principles required by God’s house? How should this be done, if it’s to be done according to the principles of God’s house? How should it be done according to the principles in special circumstances? How’s it to be handled in ordinary circumstances? You absolutely must ask yourself more of these and other such questions before you get to work, and pray more before God. Part of it is self-examination; the other part is accepting God’s scrutiny. Doing so is of aid to leaders and workers in making fewer mistakes and deviating less in their work, reducing waste of the material items of God’s house, and reducing losses incurred to His house. What’s more important is that doing so upholds the responsibilities of leaders and workers and fulfills those responsibilities. It’s what leaders and workers truly should do. This is the requirement of leaders and workers. Safeguarding and allocating the various material items of God’s house isn’t a complicated task. In part, it’s a matter of leaders and workers being themselves familiar with the principles; the other part of it is that leaders and workers must fellowship these principles more to the people in charge of managing the various material items, following up on things more and trying to understand things more and investigating more on the state of the management, all while fellowshipping more with the supervisors of allocating the various material items of God’s house, to give them a more thorough grasp on these principles. Of course, leaders and workers must also continually inquire and ask how those people are allocating and issuing the items, and whether there are any special circumstances—for instance, whether the supervisors are allocating items according to the principles required by God’s house in different seasons, at different times, and in cases where various sorts of people have different requirements. The goal in doing so is to enable the various items of God’s house to perform their functions effectively, and to be used sensibly to the greatest possible extent, and to be safeguarded in the best possible care, with the best possible maintenance. This is the responsibility of leaders and workers.