Are most people more or less clear about the standards for selecting supervisors of different work and personnel responsible for various important jobs? For example, what should the supervisor of art work primarily possess? (They should possess professional skills in this field and be able to shoulder the work.) Having professional skills is one theory. So, what specifically do these professional skills refer to? Let’s explain this. If someone enjoys drawing and is interested in making art, but it is not their profession, and they lack knowledge in this area, and merely like it, is it appropriate to select such a person as supervisor of an art team? (No, it isn’t.) Some say, “If they like making art, they can do the job and learn about it gradually.” Is this statement correct? (No.) There is one exception to this, which is if everyone else on the art team is also unfamiliar with the profession, and this person knows a bit more and learns faster than the others. Would selecting them be relatively appropriate then? (Yes.) Aside from this scenario, say that among all those involved in creating art, only this person doesn’t know the profession, but they are chosen because they understand the truth and like making art—is that appropriate? (No, it isn’t.) Why isn’t it appropriate? Because they are not the first or the only choice. How should this type of supervisor be selected then? They should be chosen from among those who are the most proficient and experienced in the profession; that is, they must be an expert, possessing both professional skills and work capabilities—don’t select a layman. This is one aspect. In addition, they must bear a burden, possess spiritual understanding, and be able to understand the truth. They must also have at least a foundation in their faith in God. The main principles are: first, they must have work capabilities; second, they must understand the profession; and third, they must have spiritual understanding and be able to understand the truth. Use these three criteria to select supervisors for different work.

After selecting supervisors for various specific items of work, leaders and workers shouldn’t just stand aside and do nothing; they also have to train and cultivate these supervisors for a period of time, to see whether the individuals they chose can truly shoulder the work and put it on the right track. That’s what it means to fulfill their responsibilities. Suppose that, at the time of selection, you see that your candidates understand their professions, possess work capability, bear a bit of a burden, and possess spiritual understanding and the ability to understand the truth, and you think that everything will be fine because they are qualified in these respects, and say, “You can start working; I’ve told you all the principles. From now on, just do what God’s house instructs you to do yourselves.” Is this an acceptable way to carry out the work? Once you’ve arranged the supervisors, does this mean you can just leave it at that? (No, it doesn’t.) Then what should be done? Suppose that a leader gathers with supervisors twice a week, fellowships the truth with them, and that’s all, believing that because those supervisors are all proactive, reliable, and capable of understanding what other people say, they can therefore practice in accordance with the truth. This leader thinks they don’t need to look into or follow up on how these supervisors specifically do their work, whether they cooperate harmoniously with others, whether they have grasped the professional skills during this period of time, or how much they have completed the work given to them by God’s house. Is this the way that a leader and worker should handle the work? (No, it isn’t.) This is how false leaders do their work. They try to get all of the work done once and for all, they arrange the supervisors and form a team with a few members, and then say, “Start the work. If you need any equipment, let me know, and God’s house will purchase it for you. If you encounter any difficulties in your daily lives or any troubles, feel free to bring them up, and God’s house will always resolve them for you. If you don’t have any difficulties, then focus on your work. Don’t cause disruptions or disturbances, and don’t spout any high-sounding ideas.” False leaders arrange these people to work together, and think that as long as they have food, drink, and shelter, that’s enough, and there’s no need to pay them any mind. When the Above asks, “How long has it been since the supervisors for this work were selected? How is the work progressing?” they respond, “It’s been six months. We’ve held around 10 gatherings for them, and they seem to be in good spirits, and the work is being done.” When the Above asks, “So how is the work capability of the supervisors?” they say, “It’s alright; when we selected them, they were the best ones.” The Above asks them, “How are they doing now? Can they do actual work?” They respond, “I held a gathering for them.” The Above replies, “I didn’t ask if you held a gathering; I asked how their work is going.” They say, “It’s probably fine; no one has reported anything bad about them.” The Above responds, “No one reporting anything bad about them is not a standard. You need to look at how their work capability and professional skills are, and see whether they possess spiritual understanding, and whether they do real work.” They reply, “At the time of selection, they seemed okay. I haven’t inquired into these details for a while. If you want to find out, I’ll ask again.” This is how false leaders do work. They keep holding gatherings and fellowship without end with those below them, but when it comes to the Above, they prevaricate and offer perfunctory responses. Their best perfunctory response is to say, “I held a gathering for them. Last time, I asked about the work, in quite a lot of detail.” This is how they respond to the Above. Are these false leaders doing real work? Have they identified real issues? Have they resolved them? After arranging the supervisors, false leaders are completely ignorant about whether the supervisors have fulfilled their responsibilities or been loyal, how the work is being done, if the results are good or bad, how the brothers and sisters are reporting back about them, or if there are more suitable individuals for the job. Why are they ignorant of these things? Because they don’t do this real work; they just keep themselves busy with useless things. They think it’s unnecessary to constantly supervise and inspect the work like this, that it would mean they lacked trust in those supervisors. In their minds, holding gatherings is fulfilling their responsibilities and demonstrating loyalty. This is the primary manifestation of false leaders not doing real work.

False leaders shut their eyes to the various circumstances of supervisors of every kind of work in the church; they don’t have a grasp on these circumstances, or look into them, or handle them, or resolve them. What specific circumstances of supervisors are there? The first is when supervisors do not bear a burden, and eat, drink, and seek entertainment, without tending to their proper work or doing real work. Isn’t this a serious problem? (Yes.) Some people have work capability, are proficient in a profession, and they’re the very best; they are articulate and intelligent, and if they’re asked to repeat instructions they can do so without missing a word, they’re smart enough; they receive quite good evaluations from everyone, and they have been believers for quite some time. Consequently, they are chosen to be supervisors. However, no one knows whether these people are pragmatic, able to pay the price, or capable of doing actual work. Since people chose them, they are initially promoted to be cultivated and used on a trial basis. However, after working for a while, it is discovered that despite their professional skills and experience, they are gluttonous and lazy, and unwilling to pay the price. They quit working as soon as it gets a bit tiring, and they don’t want to pay attention to anyone with problems or difficulties who needs their guidance. In the morning, as soon as they open their eyes they think, “What am I going to eat today? It’s been days since the kitchen made braised pork.” Usually, they always say to others, “The snacks in my hometown are really delicious; we used to go out to eat them during every festival. When I was in school, on weekends I used to sleep until I woke up naturally, and then I’d go to eat without bothering to wash my face or comb my hair. In the afternoon, I would play video games indoors in my pajamas, sometimes until 5 a.m. the next morning. Now, the work in God’s house has forced me to this point, and as a supervisor, I have to do certain things. Look at how good all of you have it; you don’t have to pay this price. As a supervisor, I have to be able to endure hardship.” They say this, but do they rebel against the flesh? Do they pay the price? They are full of complaints, and they aren’t willing to do any actual work. They only move when pushed, and without supervision, they behave in a perfunctory manner. In the performance of their duty, they are relaxed and undisciplined, they’re often wily and they slack off, and they are not in the least bit responsible. When it comes to professional problems that they do notice, they don’t correct them for other people, and they are happy when everyone else acts in a perfunctory way like they do. They don’t want anybody to take the work seriously. Some supervisors finish the few tasks they have at hand in a casual and perfunctory way, then they start endlessly binge-watching TV dramas. What is their reason for binge-watching dramas? “I’ve finished my tasks; I’m not freeloading off God’s house. I’m just chilling to refresh my mind. Otherwise, I’ll be too tired, and my work efficiency will suffer. Let me chill for a while, in order to improve my work efficiency.” They keep watching dramas until 2 or 3 a.m. at night. When everyone has finished breakfast the next day at 8 a.m. and started doing their duties, these supervisors are still asleep, and they don’t get out of bed even when the sun is high in the sky. Later, they reluctantly get up, dragging their lazy flesh forward, stretching and yawning, and when they see that everyone else has started work, they fear that others will notice their laziness, and begin to look for excuses, “I stayed up too late last night, I had too much to do, the workload was too heavy. I’m a bit tired. I even dreamed last night that there was an issue with some piece of work. When I woke up this morning, my hands were in the position of typing on a computer. My mind is really fuzzy, and I need to take a nap this afternoon.” They get up so late and need a nap in the afternoon too—haven’t they become pigs? They were clearly slacking off, yet they make excuses to justify and defend themselves, claiming that they are tired because they were doing their duty late into the night. They were clearly binge-watching dramas, indulging in fleshly comfort, and living in an indulgent state, yet they ultimately even find a nice-sounding excuse to deceive others. Isn’t this not tending to their proper work? (Yes, it is.) People like this may have work capability and professional skills, but are they up-to-standard supervisors? Obviously not. They are not suited to being supervisors because they are too lazy, they indulge in fleshly comfort, they are greedy for food, sleep, and entertainment, and they cannot shoulder or fulfill the responsibilities of a supervisor.

Some women often browse clothes, shoes, cosmetics, and food online, and after they’re done, they start binge-watching dramas. People say, “Why are you binge-watching dramas when you haven’t finished your work? Moreover, other people still have so many issues. As a supervisor, you should provide guidance to them. Why aren’t you fulfilling your responsibilities?” These women say, “Binge-watching dramas is also part of my work. The videos and movies of God’s house need to be developed, and I have to find inspiration in these dramas!” Isn’t that a deceptive thing to say? If they are involved in this profession, occasionally watching dramas for inspiration is acceptable, but is binge-watching them day and night seeking inspiration? Isn’t that deceptive? (Yes, it is.) Everyone knows what’s going on, so by saying such things, these women are selling out their dignity and integrity. Some people already have a habit of playing video games, and it has become a regular part of their lives. However, after being selected as supervisors, shouldn’t they change these bad habits and vices? (Yes.) If they cannot rebel against them, when they are selected as supervisors, they should say, “I can’t take on this work. I’m addicted to playing video games. When I play them, I reach a state of oblivion, and no one can interfere or move me. If you select me, it will definitely delay the work. So act quick and don’t allow me to be a supervisor.” If these people don’t declare this in advance and feel pleased and proud when they are selected, cherishing this status, but continue to play video games at whim as they did before when they are supervisors, this is inappropriate, and it will certainly delay the work.

Some supervisors have certain bad habits. When the brothers and sisters select them, some do not understand their situation, while others believe that these individuals can expend themselves for God full-time, and think that the bad habits and vices of young people might gradually change with age and a continued understanding of the truth. Many people harbor this attitude and perspective when they select these individuals to be supervisors. After these individuals are selected, they do some work, but they don’t last long before becoming negative and thinking, “Being a supervisor is not easy. I have to get up early and stay up late, and I must do more and observe more than other people at every turn. I also have to worry more, and spend more of my time and energy. This job is hard; it’s too tiring!” Consequently, they think about quitting. If you don’t bear a burden, you can’t do the work of a supervisor. If you do bear a burden in your heart, you will be willing to worry about the work, and even if you’re a little more tired than others, you won’t feel that you are suffering. Even when it’s time to rest, you’ll still be thinking, “How did today’s work go?” If you suddenly remember an issue that remains unresolved, you won’t be able to sleep. If you bear a burden in your heart, you will always be thinking about the work, and you won’t even care about how well you are eating or resting. If people bear too little of a burden as supervisors, their small bit of enthusiasm can only last for a few days, and over time, some of them cannot take it anymore. They think, “This job is so tiring. What’s a way for me to entertain myself and chill out for a bit? I’ll play some video games.” They perform well for a short while, but suddenly they feel the itch to play video games. Once they start, they can’t stop; the small burden they once bore will be eroded as they game, as will their enthusiastic drive to expend themselves, their resolve, and their positive attitude in doing their duties. When someone asks them something, they become impatient. They either prune people, or lecture them and make digs at them, or do things in a perfunctory way and abandon their work. Isn’t there a problem with these supervisors? (Yes.) During the day, they just barely get through their work in a muddled haze, and at night, when no one is watching, they secretly play video games, not sleeping a wink all night. In the beginning, they feel at ease about it, thinking, “I didn’t delay the work during the day. I’ve done all the work that I was supposed to. I’ve resolved all the problems others have asked me about. Even if I don’t sleep at night to free up time to play video games, doesn’t this all count as me being loyal?” As a result, once they start playing video games, they can’t stop, and they don’t listen to anyone. Although it doesn’t affect other people’s rest or the work environment, can such supervisors still shoulder their work? Can they do it well? (No.) Why not? They often play video games all night without sleeping and have to work during the day—how much energy can one person have? Will their work efficiency be high if they cling to playing video games like this? Definitely not. Therefore, such supervisors cannot fulfill their duties or shoulder their work at all. Although they have professional skills and some caliber, they love to play and do not tend to their proper work. Shouldn’t these supervisors be dismissed? If they’re not dismissed, the work will be delayed. Some people say, “If they are dismissed, we won’t be able to find anyone else who has the professional skills that they do. We have to let them do this job—they can still shoulder the work even if they play video games.” Is this statement correct? (No, it isn’t.) A person cannot focus on two things at once; humans have limited energy. If you concentrate most of your energy on playing, your devotion to doing your duties will be affected, and your effectiveness in doing your duties will be greatly compromised. This is an irresponsible attitude toward doing a duty. Even if a person puts their whole heart and all of their energy into their duty, the results won’t necessarily be one hundred percent up to standard. It will be even worse if they focus their heart and most of their energy on playing—they will not have much energy and thought left to use in the performance of their duty, and their effectiveness in doing their duty will be affected. To say it will be affected is a conservative way of putting it; in reality, their effectiveness in doing their duty will be severely damaged. If such supervisors are identified, they should be promptly dismissed and reassigned, because they have already been written off. It’s not just that their performance of their duties isn’t up to standard—they are already incapable of shouldering their work and cannot have any positive effect on their work. Therefore, finding someone to take on their work who’s earnest and responsible despite having slightly less professional skills would be a better choice than them.