In the last fellowship, the seventh responsibility of leaders and workers was discussed: “Allocate and make use of different types of people sensibly, based on their humanity and strengths, such that each is put to their best use.” We mainly fellowshipped three aspects of this responsibility. What are these three aspects? (One is sensibly using different types of people based on their humanity; another is sensibly using different types of people based on their strengths; and another is how to treat and make use of a few special kinds of people.) The three aspects are basically these. Looking through these three aspects, is the house of God’s principle of using people such that each person is put to their best use? (Yes.) Is this principle accurate? Is it fair to people? (It’s fair.) As for blockheads with impaired intelligence, they are incapable of doing anything, and cannot even do a bit of duty. If you assign them a job, whether it is in professional, technical aspects or in terms of labor, they cannot complete it. Such people absolutely cannot be used, not even for rendering service. This is in terms of intelligence. In terms of humanity, for those whose humanity is bad and who are evil people, although they can do some work and do some duty, because their humanity is too evil, they will cause disturbances and disruptions in doing their duty, leading to more loss than gain, unable to do anything well. Such people are not suitable for doing duty and absolutely cannot be used. If there are people who possess certain strengths, as long as they meet all the conditions required for God’s house’s work—on the basis of having qualified humanity—then they may be sensibly arranged and used. Last time, we also fellowshipped about how to treat and make use of a few special types of people. The first type is people who are like Judas, who are particularly cowardly. Judging from their particular cowardice, once they are captured by the great red dragon, there is a 100% chance that they will become a Judas; if they are assigned important work, once something happens, they will betray everything. Are these not dangerous characters? There’s also a type of people similar to disbelievers, whom we call friends of the church. These people seem to believe in their hearts that there is some Old Man in the sky, but they don’t know whether God really exists, where God is, or whether God has indeed done His new work, often doubting God’s existence. They do not truly believe in and follow God. Therefore, such people cannot be used, they are unsuitable for doing duty in God’s house. Even those who truly believe cannot necessarily do their duty in an up-to-standard manner, let alone a disbeliever, a friend of the church! Another type of people is those who have been dismissed; this group is also divided into several circumstances.

The content of the last fellowship regarding the seventh responsibility of leaders and workers basically covered these three main points: One is sensibly using different types of people based on their humanity; another is sensibly using different types of people based on their strengths; and another is how to treat and make use of a few special kinds of people. These three main points were fellowshipped based on several aspects mentioned in the seventh responsibility, and the principles were all clearly fellowshipped. Some people say: “Although the principles have been clearly fellowshipped, when it comes to some specific matters and special circumstances, we still do not know how to apply these principles, how to treat people, or how to promote and make use of individuals; we are still at a loss most of the time.” Does such a problem exist? (Yes.) How should this problem be resolved? The first consideration in promoting and making use of people is the needs of the work of God’s house. The second consideration is whether the impact of using an individual on the work of God’s house is more beneficial than harmful or vice versa. If an individual’s humanity is flawed, but using them is more beneficial than harmful to the work of God’s house, then such an individual can be temporarily used until someone better is found. If using this person results in more harm than good, more loss than benefit, leading only to botching and bungling the church’s work, then such an individual absolutely cannot be used. This is the principle of weighing pros and cons that must be grasped first in situations where there are no suitable candidates, and it is also the principle for temporarily using people. When unable to find a suitable candidate and it’s unclear who might be relatively better, when it’s not evident who is totally suited for a task and everyone seems generic, what should be done? The only option is to find two people who relatively have spiritual understanding, that is, those who comprehend the truth purely, to cooperate together to do the work. While they do their duties, the truth should be fellowshipped to them more, and their situations should be observed and understood; this makes it possible to determine who has a relatively better caliber, which makes finding the right candidate easier. No matter who is arranged to do duty, it must be based on their caliber, strengths, and character; this is essential. If one cannot see through these aspects and doesn’t understand what strengths the person has, they should first be tasked with a simple duty, or some manual labor, or arranged to do gospel recipient scouting for preaching the gospel. After a trial period, follow-up and further observation make it possible to accurately assess their situation and easier to determine the most suitable duty for them. If their caliber is too poor and they lack strengths, assigning them some physical work will suffice. Leaders and workers must get an understanding of the supervisors of important work, gospel directors, every team leader, directors of film production teams, and so on, from various sources, and more intensely observe and examine these people, before they can be sure of them. Only by carefully assigning duties to people in this way can they ensure the arrangements are appropriate, and that the people will be effective in their duties. Some people say, “Even nonbelievers say, ‘Neither doubt those you employ nor employ those you doubt.’ How can God’s house be so untrusting? They are all believers; how bad can they be? Aren’t they all good people? Why must God’s house get to understand them, supervise them, and observe them?” Are these words valid? Are they problematic? (Yes.) Does getting to understand someone and observing them in depth, and interacting with them in close proximity adhere to the principles? It is in complete adherence to the principles. Which principles is it in adherence to? (Item four of the responsibilities of leaders and workers: “Keep abreast of the circumstances of supervisors of different work and personnel responsible for various important jobs, and promptly alter their duties or dismiss them as necessary, so as to prevent or mitigate losses caused by using unsuitable people, and guarantee the efficiency and smooth progress of the work.”) This is a good point of reference, but what is the actual reason for doing this? It is because people have corrupt dispositions. Although, today, many people do a duty, there are only a few who pursue the truth. Very few people pursue the truth and enter reality as they do their duty; for most, there are still no principles to the way they do things, they are still not people who truly submit to God; they merely claim that they love the truth, and are willing to pursue the truth, and are willing to strive for the truth, yet it is still unknown how long their resolve will last. People who do not pursue the truth are liable to reveal their corrupt dispositions at any time or place. They are devoid of any sense of responsibility toward their duty, they are often perfunctory, they act as they wish, and are even incapable of accepting pruning. As soon as they become negative and weak, they are liable to abandon their duty—this happens often, nothing is more common; such is the way all who do not pursue the truth behave. And so, when people have yet to gain the truth, they are unreliable and untrustworthy. What does it mean that they are untrustworthy? It means that when they encounter difficulties or setbacks, they are likely to fall down, and to become negative and weak. Is someone who is often negative and weak someone who is trustworthy? Definitely not. But people who understand the truth are different. People who truly understand the truth are bound to have a God-fearing heart, and a heart of submission to God, and only people with a God-fearing heart are trustworthy people; people without a God-fearing heart are not trustworthy. How should people without a God-fearing heart be approached? They should, of course, be given loving assistance and support. They should be followed up on more as they do their duty, and given more help and instruction; only then can they be guaranteed to do their duty effectively. And what is the aim of doing this? The chief aim is to uphold the work of God’s house. Secondary to this is in order to promptly identify problems, to promptly provide to them, support them, or prune them, setting right their deviations, and making up for their shortcomings and deficiencies. This is beneficial to people; there is nothing malicious about it. Supervising people, observing them, trying to understand them—this is all in order to help them enter the right track of faith in God, to enable them to do their duty as God asks and according to principle, to stop them from causing any disturbances or disruptions, and to stop them from doing futile work. The aim of doing this is entirely about showing responsibility toward them and toward the work of God’s house; there is no malice to it. Suppose someone says, “So these are the principles by which God’s house treats people, these are the means they use. I need to be careful from now on. There’s no sense of security in God’s house. There’s always someone watching over you; it’s hard to do your duty!” Is this statement correct? What kind of people would say such a thing? (Disbelievers.) Disbelievers, absurd people, and those lacking spiritual understanding—they tend to speak muddled nonsense without understanding the truth. What is the issue here? Are these not words that judge and condemn the work of the church? It is also a judgment and condemnation of the truth and positive things. Those who are capable of speaking such words are definitely muddled people who do not understand the truth, they are all disbelievers who do not love the truth.

The house of God supervises, observes, and tries to understand those who do a duty. Are you able to accept this principle of the house of God? (Yes.) It is a wonderful thing if you can accept God’s house supervising, observing, and trying to understand you. It is of help to you in fulfilling your duty, in being able to do your duty in a way that is up to standard and to satisfy God’s intentions. It benefits and helps you, without any downside at all. Once you have understood this principle, should you not then no longer have any feelings of resistance or guardedness against the supervision of leaders, workers, and God’s chosen people? Even though sometimes someone tries to understand you, observes you, and supervises your work, this is not something to take personally. Why do I say this? Because the tasks that are now yours, the duty you perform, and any work that you do are not the private affairs or personal job of any one person; they touch on the work of God’s house and relate to one part of God’s work. Therefore, when anyone spends a little time supervising or observing you, or gets to understand you on a deep level, trying to have a heart-to-heart with you and find out what your state has been like during this time, and even sometimes when their attitude is a little harsher, and they prune, discipline, and reproach you a bit, this is all because they have a conscientious and responsible attitude toward the work of the house of God. You should not have any negative thoughts or emotions toward this. What does it mean if you can accept it when others supervise, observe, and try to understand you? That, in your heart, you accept the scrutiny of God. If you do not accept people’s supervision, observation, and attempts to understand you—if you push back against all this—are you able to accept the scrutiny of God? The scrutiny of God is more detailed, in-depth, and accurate than when people try to understand you; God’s requirements are more specific, exacting, and in-depth. If you cannot accept being supervised by God’s chosen people, are your claims that you can accept God’s scrutiny not empty words? For you to be able to accept God’s scrutiny and examination, you must first accept being supervised by the house of God, the leaders and workers, or the brothers and sisters. Some people say, “I have human rights, I have my freedom, I have my way of working. Being subjected to supervision and inspection in everything I do, isn’t this such a stifled way to live? Where are my human rights? Where is my freedom?” Is this statement correct? Are human rights and freedom the truth? They are not the truth. Human rights and freedom are merely relatively civilized and progressive ways of treating people in human society, but in God’s house, God’s word and the truth are above all—they cannot be mentioned in the same breath as “human rights” and “freedom.” Therefore, in God’s house, whatever is done is not based on the high theories or knowledge of the world of nonbelievers, but on God’s word and the truth. So, when some people say they want human rights and freedom, is this in accordance with the principles? (It is not.) It’s quite clear it does not accord with the principle of doing duty. You are in God’s house, doing the duty of a created being, not working in society to earn money. Thus, there’s no need for anyone to stand up for you to protect your human rights; such things are unnecessary. Do most people possess discernment concerning human rights and freedom? These belong to human thoughts and perspectives and cannot be mentioned in the same breath as the truth; such ideas do not hold in God’s house. A leader supervising your work is a good thing. Why? Because it means they are taking responsibility for the church’s work; this is their duty, their responsibility. Being able to fulfill this responsibility proves they are a competent leader, a good leader. If you were given complete freedom and human rights, and you could do whatever you wanted, follow your desires, and enjoy full freedom and democracy, and regardless of what you did or how you did it, the leader did not care or supervise, never questioned you, did not check your work, did not speak up when issues were found, and only either cajoled or negotiated with you, would they be a good leader? Clearly not. Such a leader is harming you. They indulge your evildoing, allowing you to go against principles and do as you wish—they are shoving you toward a pit of fire. This is not a responsible, up-to-standard leader. On the other hand, if a leader is able to regularly supervise you, identify issues in your work and promptly remind or reprove and expose you, and correct and help with your incorrect pursuits and deviations in doing your duty in a timely manner, and, under their supervision, reproof, provision, and help, your wrong attitude toward your duty changes, you are able to discard some absurd views, your own ideas and things arising from impetuousness gradually reduce, and you are able to calmly accept statements and views that are correct and in accordance with the truth principles, isn’t this beneficial for you? The benefits are indeed immense!

God’s house treats its leaders and workers by applying supervision, observation, and understanding. What is the basis for treating people this way? Why treat people in this manner? Is it not a method and approach generated from principles of being loyal, serious, and responsible toward one’s duty? (Yes.) If a leader never supervises, observes, or deeply understands the people they are responsible for in doing their duties, can they be considered a leader loyal to their duty? Clearly, they cannot. Have your leaders, workers, and supervisors ever checked your work? Have they inquired about the progress of your work? Have they resolved issues that arose in your work? Have they corrected any obvious flaws or deviations in your work? Have they offered help, provision, support, or pruning concerning the various manifestations and revelations of your humanity and your pursuit of life entry? If a leader not only never provides guidance for those doing ordinary duties, but also never provides fellowship, help, or support for those engaged in significant work—not to mention supervision, observation, or deep understanding—without these manifestations and actions, can this leader be considered a leader who does concrete work? Are they up to standard as a leader? (No.) Some people say, “Our leader just holds gatherings for us twice a week, fellowships God’s words for a bit, and then reads some fellowship from the Above, and sometimes they fellowship about their personal experiential understanding. But they have never offered any advice, provisions, or help regarding our various states, as well as the difficulties we encounter while doing our duties or in life entry.” What do you make of this leader? (They’re not up to standard, they’re a false leader.) If a leader does not care about their own job or the various states of the people under them, nor fulfills their responsibilities, then they are not up to standard as a leader. They don’t supervise, observe, or try to understand anyone. Every time, your conversations with them go like this: “How is this person doing now?” “I’m currently observing them.” “How long have you been observing? Are you familiar with them?” “I’ve been observing them for a year or two. I’m still not very familiar with them.” “What about that person?” “I’m still not too clear on them, but they can endure hardship in doing their duty, have resolve, and are willing to expend themselves for God.” “That’s all superficial. How about their pursuit of the truth?” “I have to learn about that too? Well, I’ll look into it.” How much longer you will need to wait for results after they say they’ll look into it is unknown, it’s an uncertainty. Such a false leader is untrustworthy in their work.

Do your church’s leaders and your supervisors have a responsible attitude toward your work? Do they truly grasp and understand your states with regard to work? Has this aspect of the work been properly addressed? (No.) None of them have properly addressed this aspect; none have reached the point of being loyal to their duty and being serious and responsible for the work. Then, is achieving this easy? Is it difficult? It is not difficult. If you truly possess caliber of a certain degree, truly have a grasp of professional skills within the scope of your responsibility, and are not an outsider to your profession, then you just have to abide by one phrase, and you will be able to be loyal to your duty. Which phrase? “Put your heart into it.” If you put your heart into things, and put your heart into people, then you will be able to be loyal and responsible in your duty. Is this phrase easy to practice? How do you put it into practice? It doesn’t mean to use your ears to hear, nor your mind to think—it means using your heart. If a person can truly use their heart, then when their eyes see someone do something, act in some way, or have some sort of response to something, or when their ears hear some people’s opinions or arguments, by using their heart to ponder and contemplate these things, some ideas, views, and attitudes will come up in their mind. These ideas, views, and attitudes will make them have a deep, specific, and correct understanding of the person or thing, and at the same time, will give rise to suitable and correct judgments and principles. Only when a person has these manifestations of using their heart does it mean they are loyal to their duty. But if you don’t put your heart into things, if you lack the heart for this, then your eyes don’t react to whatever you see, and your ears don’t react to whatever you hear. Your eyes never observe people, events, and things; they don’t observe the information you come across. In your heart you won’t discern the various voices and arguments you hear, you will be unable to discern the information you hear. This is akin to being blind despite having open eyes. When a person’s heart is blind, their eyes are blind as well. So, what leads to the formation of ideas, views, and attitudes from observing things with the eyes and receiving information with the ears? It all depends on putting your heart into things and seeking the truth. If you put your heart into things, whenever you receive information, whether seen or heard, you will be able to form views and gain a deep understanding of a person or thing. But if you don’t put your heart into things, no amount of information received is useful; if you don’t put your heart into discerning it or seeing through it, you’ll gain nothing, becoming worthless, of no use. What does someone who’s useless refer to? It refers to someone who doesn’t put their heart into doing their duty—they have eyes and ears, but these are of no use. A person without heart won’t be loyal to their duty nor achieve a serious and responsible attitude toward their work.

God’s house practices supervision over leaders and workers at all levels, observing and understanding them on a deep level, with the aim of improving church work and guiding God’s chosen people onto the right track of believing in God as quickly as possible. Therefore, supervising and observing leaders and workers is essential and must be practiced this way. With the supervision of God’s chosen people, if it is discovered that leaders and workers are not engaging in real work and they are dealt with and addressed promptly, this is beneficial to the progress of church work. Supervising leaders and workers is the responsibility of God’s chosen people, and doing so fully aligns with God’s intentions. Since leaders and workers possess corrupt dispositions, if they are not supervised, it would not only be detrimental to them but also directly impact church work. Under what circumstances do leaders and workers no longer require the supervision of God’s chosen people? It is when leaders and workers fully understand the truth, enter into the truth reality, and act with principles, becoming people perfected and used by God. In such cases, supervision by God’s chosen people becomes unnecessary, and God’s house will no longer emphasize this matter. However, is it guaranteed that someone who has been perfected by God is totally free of mistakes and deviations? Not necessarily. Hence, God’s scrutiny is still necessary, as is the supervision by those who understand the truth; this practice is fully aligned with God’s intentions. Because all humans have corrupt dispositions, only through supervision can leaders and workers be urged to take responsibility for their work and be loyal to their duties. Without supervision, most leaders and workers would act with willful recklessness, and adopt a perfunctory manner—this is an objective fact. If you are a leader or worker, and the brothers and sisters around you often supervise and observe you, trying to understand whether or not you are someone who pursues the truth, then for you, this is a good thing. If they discover a problem with you and you are able to solve it as quickly as possible, this is beneficial to your pursuit of the truth and your life entry. If they discover you committing evil, and that you exhibit numerous evil behaviors in private, and are definitely not someone who pursues the truth, they will expose you and dismiss you from your position, which will remove a scourge for God’s chosen ones, and also allow you to avoid more severe punishment: Such supervision is beneficial to anyone. And so, leaders and workers should have the correct response to the supervision of God’s chosen ones. If you are someone who fears God and shuns evil, you will feel that you need the supervision of God’s chosen ones, and that even more than that, you need their assistance. If you are an evil person, and you have a guilty conscience, you will fear being supervised and try to avoid it; this is inevitable. Therefore, there is no doubt that all who resist and feel averse toward the supervision of God’s chosen ones have something to hide, and are definitely not honest people; no one fears supervision more than deceitful people. So what attitude should leaders and workers adopt toward the supervision of God’s chosen ones? Should it be negativity, guardedness, resistance, and resentment or obedience toward God’s orchestrations and arrangements, and humble acceptance? (Humble acceptance.) What does humble acceptance refer to? It means accepting everything from God, seeking the truth, adopting the right attitude, and not being impetuous. If someone really does discover a problem with you and points it out to you, helping you to discern and understand it, assisting you in solving this issue, then they are being responsible toward you, and being responsible toward the work of God’s house and the life entry of God’s chosen ones; this is the right thing to do, and it is perfectly natural and justified. If there are those who regard supervision of the church as originating from Satan, and from malicious intentions, then they are devils and Satans. With such a devilish nature, they certainly would not accept the scrutiny of God. If someone truly loves the truth, they will have the correct understanding of God’s chosen ones’ supervision, they will be able to regard it as being done out of love, as coming from God, and they will be able to accept it from God. They will definitely not be impetuous or act on impulse, much less will resistance, guardedness, or suspicion appear in their heart. The most correct attitude with which to approach the supervision of God’s chosen ones is this: Any words, actions, supervision, observation, or correction—even pruning—that are helpful to you, you should accept from God; don’t be impetuous. Being impetuous comes from the evil, from Satan, it does not come from God, and it is not the attitude that people should have toward the truth.

That’s as much as we’ll add on and fellowship regarding the seventh responsibility of leaders and workers. So does this mean the responsibility has been fully fellowshipped without any more specific content to add? No, every responsibility still contains much more specific and detailed content. What I fellowshipped about are the overarching principles; the rest, how to implement the specific details and practice and apply these principles, depends on your own engagement through experience. If you still can’t see through these principles or know how to apply them, then seek and fellowship together. If fellowshipping together still doesn’t lead to results, then make inquiries to those higher up than you. In short, whether it’s dealing with any type of person or deciding whom to promote and make use of, it all must adhere to principles. For certain talented individuals, in situations where no one can fully see through or understand them, they can be preliminarily promoted and used according to the needs of church work—don’t delay the work, and don’t delay the cultivation of people; this is key. Some people ask, “What if they mess up the work after being used? Who’s responsible?” When you use someone, is it as if you place them on a deserted island with no way for anyone to contact them? Aren’t there actually many others around them engaged in specific tasks? There are ways to resolve all these matters; namely, supervising, observing, and understanding them, and, if conditions allow, through close contact. What exactly does close contact entail? It entails working together with them; the process of working is the process of understanding them. Won’t you gradually come to understand them through this sort of contact? If you have the opportunity to make contact but don’t, and merely make a phone call to ask a few questions and then leave it at that, it’s impossible to understand them. You must make contact with those you can in order to solve problems. Therefore, leaders and workers must not be lazy in their work. So, if you want to observe and understand someone, how should you do so? (By making contact with them.) Right? The key is to put your heart into it! The information you can hold in your minds can be likened to a monkey picking corn—picking as it goes, dropping as it picks, and in the end, only one ear of corn is left, making the entire effort futile. At the end of listening to a sermon, you can’t remember the content fellowshipped earlier; what’s the reason for this? (We don’t put our hearts into it.) You usually do not focus on practicing the truth, so your hearts do not focus on these matters. Regarding how to understand the truth and enter into reality, how to know yourselves, and how to see through the essence of various people, events, and things with the truth, you have no entry whatsoever; thus, these matters have no foundation in your hearts. As for those things involving entering into the truth reality, you always feel perplexed. Now, you still attend gatherings every week to listen to sermons. If you don’t listen to sermons, isn’t the little faith in God within your hearts fading away, disappearing bit by bit? This is a dangerous signal! Can you put your hearts into it or not? I’ve told you all the details; if you truly have the heart, you will be able to do so. If you do not have the heart, no matter how I speak, you won’t understand. That’s all for our fellowship on this topic.