Supplement: Resolving People’s Misunderstandings About the Handling of a Church in Canada

Something unusual happened the last time we gathered together. What was that? (It was the handling of a Canadian church.) This happened a month ago. Is it still fresh in your memory? (It is.) Did this matter stir up your feelings a great deal? (It did.) When problems emerge with certain churches or some people, I make a decision based on the circumstances and handle them in accordance with principles; this was basically the case when I handled the matter of the Canadian church. So tell Me, why did I handle the matter the way I did when an antichrist emerged in the Canadian church and misled people? What are your thoughts on this? Apparently, it frightened some people. Why did it frighten them? Some people say, “It was handled in such a harsh way. Was it that serious? How could it be handled that way? Was it handled in line with principles? Wasn’t it handled on a momentary whim? What will the consequences be of handling it like that? Was what those people did really that serious? Based on what was asked of people there, and on their attitude, statements, and the information that was heard from them, it seems like they shouldn’t have been handled so harshly, right?” This is how some people think. There are others who say, “Perhaps God had His reasons and ideas for handling it that way.” Exactly what ideas are those? Was there any original intent or reason for handling the matter that way? Was it reasonable to handle those people that way? (Yes.) You all say it was reasonable, so today let’s discuss the matter and see exactly why it was reasonable to handle the matter like that, exactly what you think of this matter, what impact it will have on you in the future, whether your ideas about it are right or wrong, and whether there is anything mistaken or distorted about your ideas. If you are always holding back, biting your tongue, and not expressing yourselves, always feeling antagonistic, then problems will never be resolved in the best way, and that’s why we must reach a consensus. What are the principles for reaching a consensus? If you are unable to accept this judgment I made, and you have ideas and notions about it, you feel resistant toward it, and even harbor misunderstandings about it, and questions or bad ideas arise, what then should we do? We should discuss the matter. If we have differing opinions, then there is no consensus between us. How then can we reach a consensus? Is it okay to seek common ground while still retaining our differences? If we settle any differences by way of compromise, if I give way some, and you give way some, would that be okay? Clearly, that’s not okay. This is not the way to achieve compatibility. So, if we want to reach a consensus and reach a consistent understanding and decision on this matter, what is the way to do that? You must seek the truth, strive for the truth, and strive to understand the truth, and it is necessary for Me to explain the whole story to everyone and make it clear. No one should harbor any misunderstandings about it in their hearts. In this way, we will reach a consistent view of the matter, and then it will be over and done with. If I encounter a similar matter in the future, I may handle it in just the same way, or perhaps I won’t handle it in this way, but instead will use some other way. So, what should you gain from this matter? (We should learn how to seek the truth and understand why God handled the matter that way.) You have mentioned two aspects, excellent. Are there any more? (We should seek to understand the principles to God’s actions so as to avoid offending God’s disposition. This is a warning for us.) This is another aspect.

To explain the handling of the Canadian church clearly, we must start at the beginning. What should we start with? We’ll start from when these people left China. Is that going too far back? You may think it funny, but actually this is not a laughing matter. Is this a case of settling old scores? No, it isn’t. When you hear Me talk about My reasons, you’ll know why I start there. Leaving aside whether everyone who comes abroad comes with a commission, a mission, and a responsibility, we’ll start with a minor issue—is it by accident that every single person is able to leave China? (No.) This does not happen by accident. From you having the resolve and being willing to leave China to do your duty to you arriving overseas, throughout this process, apart from your cooperation, tell Me, who determines whether you can smoothly leave China? (God.) That’s right. It is not determined by what social connections you have, nor is it determined by how much money you have, or whether you have all the formalities sorted—all who come abroad should have a shared understanding and experience. What do they all experience? God reigns sovereign over whether someone can smoothly leave China; it has nothing to do with how capable they are or whether they have some great ability. This isn’t going from one province to another in some country; this is leaving one’s country, and it requires many complicated formalities. Especially in this age with the great red dragon’s mad oppression and hounding of believers, closely monitoring every one of them, the formalities for leaving China are not so easy to handle. Therefore, for these people to smoothly arrive abroad was entirely under God’s sovereignty and it shows God’s almightiness. Who can leave China, whether the formalities are handled smoothly or not, and how long it takes to handle them are all determined by God, and it is God’s hand that orchestrates and arranges all this. It won’t do for you not to believe this, nor will it do for you not to acknowledge this—these are the facts. The matter is concluded with people’s cooperation and God’s sovereignty. If we were to make a determination about you leaving China, who was it who facilitated this? (God.) God did it. People have nothing to boast about, but instead they should thank God. So, what should you do? (Put effort into doing our duty.) You should put effort into doing your duty and do it with a focused mind. Taking a comprehensive view, can we make a final determination and say that you leaving China to do your duty was down to God’s arrangements and guidance, and not your own ability? (Yes, we can.) Some people say, “How is it not down to my ability? Even though I had God’s guidance, if God hadn’t guided me, leaving China wouldn’t have been difficult anyway as I’m a graduate student with a TEM8 qualification in English, and passing a TOEFL exam would not be a problem.” Very few people are in this position. For example, some are rich and can emigrate on an investor visa, but such circumstances are few and far between. So, does these people leaving China happen under God’s sovereignty and with His permission? Yes, it does. We won’t go into individual situations; we’ll just talk about those who can leave China and who later come to sincerely do their duty. This doesn’t come entirely from their own intentions. One aspect of you leaving China is that you have a mission, while another aspect is that you left China under God’s guidance. Looking at the matter from this point, what have you left China to do? (Do our duty.) No matter how long it takes to complete the procedures in the early stages, how much you expend or how God reigns sovereign over the matter, in any case, since you can leave China and do your duty in God’s house, we can say with certainty that you have a mission abroad. You bear a responsibility and a heavy burden, and your goal of coming abroad should be very clear. First, you are not immigrants who came abroad to enjoy life; second, you didn’t come abroad seeking a source of livelihood; third, you didn’t come abroad seeking a different way of life; and fourth, you didn’t come abroad to lead a good life. Isn’t that so? You didn’t come abroad to pursue the world; you came with a mission and with God’s commission to do your duty. Looking at it from this point, what should be your top priority when coming abroad? (To do our duty.) Your top priority is to come to God’s house and find your place, and to do your duty in a grounded and well-behaved way according to the arrangements of God’s house. Isn’t that right? (Yes, it is.) That’s right. Besides, you didn’t come abroad because anyone threatened you or kidnapped you—you came willingly. From whichever aspect you look at it, you have come abroad so you should do your duty. That’s correct, isn’t it? Is this a lofty demand to make of people? (No.) This is not a lofty demand, nor is it an excessive demand. It is not unreasonable. Now, based on what I’ve just said, how should you treat your duty and how should you do your duty in order to live up to the commission God has given you? Should you think about these things? The first thing you should do is think, “I’m not just an ordinary person anymore, I now carry a burden on my shoulders. What burden? It is the commission, the burden, God has given to me. God guided me to come abroad, and I should fulfill the responsibilities and obligations a created being should fulfill in the spreading of God’s gospel—this is my duty. First, I should think about what duty I can do, and second, I should think about how to do that duty well so that I don’t fail to live up to God’s sovereignty over me and His arrangements for me.” Isn’t this how you should think? Is this thinking excessive? Is it a falsehood? No, it isn’t; it is something someone with rationality, with humanity, and with conscience should think about. If some people say, “After I came abroad, I found that it wasn’t as I thought it was going to be, and I regret coming,” what kind of things are these people? Such people have no humanity and they have broken faith. However, most people who come abroad are willing to throw themselves into performing their duty. That’s enough of that. Now let’s join what we’re talking about up to the matter of the Canadian church. The people in the Canadian church are not exempt from this. Was it by accident that they went to Canada? It was not by accident, it was inevitable. Why do I say it was inevitable? I say it because God had long since determined which people were to go to which country, and this “inevitable” was sovereignly ruled by God. When God sovereignly rules that you are to go to a country, then that is what happens. The people in the Canadian church also had a mission and came abroad by God’s sovereignty and arrangement. God guided them to Canada, and based on their respective talents and their professional skills and strengths and so on, the church assigned them to various work posts, and allowed them to do their duty. They did their duty somewhat rigidly right from the start. By “rigidly,” I don’t mean that they were reticent and slow, but rather that even though most of them came to do their duty, they did not pursue the truth. Why do I say they did not pursue the truth? When they encountered issues, they didn’t seek the truth, and they didn’t seek the principles in their actions. Sometimes, when the Above made some arrangements for them or told them to do something, they were unforthcoming—this is the attitude they brought to doing their duty. They went on in this perfunctory manner and the performance of their duty came to be in a foul state, a total mess. There was nothing good about these people’s church life or life entry, the effect of their duty was bad, there was no reality in their fellowship on the truth, and they had no discernment of false leaders and antichrists at all—there was nothing good about anything they did. As time went on, an antichrist named Yan emerged, and they became one with this antichrist. What does “they became one” mean? This antichrist was just a young man, 26 years old, who had been working in the church for two and a half years. During that time, he had attracted many sisters, maybe as many as 10. Some people among these he took a fancy for, and some he did not, and these he ignored, yet all of these people adored this antichrist. Two and a half years before, the people in the Canadian church were not up to much in the performance of their duty and were in a state of lifeless torpor. Whatever work was arranged for them by the Above, they treated it in a perfunctory way and were unforthcoming, and it took a lot of strenuous effort to get the work implemented. After the Above had pruned them, they became dejected, they fell into a low mood, they rarely communicated with the Above, and their attitude toward work also became very despondent. After the antichrist named Yan became a leader, their situation worsened by the day, and most of them just muddled through the days. Why were they able to get to this stage of muddling along? What was this related to? An objective cause could be that it was related to the leaders. They were without any good leaders, none of their leaders pursued the truth but instead cultivated interpersonal relationships and engaged in crooked activities. And what was the subjective cause? It was that none of them were pursuing the truth. Is it easy for a gang of people who don’t pursue the truth to do their duty loyally and up to standard? (No.) However, is it easy for a gang of people who simply don’t pursue the truth and some disbelievers to engage in crooked activities, be perfunctory, and oppose the Above? (Yes.) And it is easy for a gang of such people to go downhill and become degenerate like the nonbelievers? It is so easy, and this was the path they were following. Under the guise of doing their duty, they ate the food of God’s house, lived in accommodation belonging to God’s house, and God’s house supported them. They cheated God’s house out of food and drink yet still they looked forward to entering the kingdom of heaven and receiving rewards—they lived relying on trickery in this way. When the antichrist disturbed church work, not one of them reported any issue to the Above. Only one woman reported the problem to a false leader, and the result of this was that the matter was not resolved. The others were blind, and seeing so many problems arise in the church, they didn’t report them. The work arrangements of God’s house clearly state the principles for replacing leaders and workers, but no one paid any attention to them, but instead just muddled through the days along with that antichrist. Among these disbelievers, there were those who had believed in God for over 20 years at one end of the scale, and at the other end there were those who had believed for at least five years, and no one reported these problems. But what was worse? There were many female team leaders and deputy team leaders who flirted with this antichrist, and they vied with each other for his attentions. When a man and a woman begin dating, this can be easily seen by adults and elderly people at a glance. People are all sensitive to the matter of relations between men and women, and they can know what’s going on with just one glance. However, no one reported it, no one stood up to reproach or expose them, and no one was able to discern them. Did anyone come forward and, seeing that they were a gang headed by this antichrist, say to themselves, “I can’t follow you. I must report this to the upper leadership and have you removed, or else organize some brothers and sisters with a sense of justice to oust you”? No, no one did. No one reported it, right up to the moment this matter was revealed. What kind of things were these people? Were they true believers in God? Were they pursuers of truth? (No.) For such a big thing to happen right under their noses and them to be unaware of it, were these people who didn’t pursue the truth able to do their duty well? What was their attitude toward their duty? Clearly, they were just freeloaders, freeloading day after day. They believed they could easily muddle along in God’s house, that no one should say a word if they noticed a problem, no one should offend anyone, and that if they offended “the boss,” then that would be awful, and the consequences would be bad for them. If you’re afraid of offending people and don’t dare to do it, then do you dare to offend God? Will the consequences be good for you if you offend God? How will God handle you? Will there not be consequences? (Yes, there will.) There will be consequences. That they were afraid to offend anyone was, of course, not a major factor. The major factor was that they were wicked people who had no love for the truth. Apart from not pursuing the truth, they also did many stupid things. There were not many people in the Canadian church, yet they had many wild ambitions. The performance of their duties was clearly having no effect, yet they still wanted to expand the scope of their work and were busying themselves with buying property, but in the end they paid a deposit on a property for nothing. Now most of these people have been put in isolation. Tell Me, what things are this bunch of people? Are they not a bunch of beasts and wretches? Clearly, they are nothing, and yet they squandered offerings like this. No one was safeguarding the interests of God’s house, no one had a sense of justice—they are just a bunch of demons! It’s really infuriating!

There were not many people in the Canadian church, only several hundred. They didn’t put much effort into their duty, they were derelict in their duty and formed cliques, all just muddling through the days. Isn’t that infuriating? They were inefficient in work and made no progress, they were all scheming against each other and didn’t work harmoniously together. Leaders engaged in crooked activities with certain others, and no one had any sense of urgency, no one got angry, and no one felt sad about this. No one prayed on this matter, nor did they seek with or ask for assistance from the Above. No one did this, and no one came forward to say, “It isn’t right that we’re doing our duty in this way. This duty we’re doing is our God-given commission, and we cannot let God down!” They lacked nothing, they had enough people, they had enough equipment. What were they lacking? What they lacked were any good people. No one had a sense of burden toward church work, nor could anyone safeguard the work of God’s house, come forward and speak up, or fellowship on the truth about discernment, so that everyone could rise up and discern and expose false leaders and antichrists; no one did this. Was it because these wretches were blind and didn’t see what was going on, or because they were confused due to their lack of caliber and advanced years? (Neither.) It was neither. So what was the true situation? They were all together with the antichrist, all protecting each other and licking each other’s boots, no one exposing anyone, all just hanging out in that lair of demons. Did they ever think about their duty or God’s commission? (No.) They wanted to just muddle along in this way without any feelings of self-reproach. What is this phenomenon, when they had no feelings of self-reproach? It is that the Holy Spirit was not working on them, and God had deserted them. There is another explanation for God’s desertion of them, and that is that, because of their attitude toward their duty and their attitude toward the truth and God, as well as their thoughts, God had become sickened by them and they no longer deserved to do that duty. That’s why there was no reproach or discipline seen in them, no awakening of their conscience, much less did they receive any enlightenment or illumination, any pruning, any judgment, or chastisement. These things were irrelevant to them, they were all numb, and they were no different from devils. They’d been listening to sermons in God’s house for years, and had also listened to sermons on discerning antichrists and sermons on how to do one’s duty up to standard, but did they seek and accept the truth during this time? Did they discern antichrists? Did they hold any debate on the various manifestations of antichrists? No, they did not. If they really had, then there would certainly have been a minority of people who could have stood up and unmasked and reported the antichrist, and things wouldn’t have gotten as bad as they did. They were just a bunch of muddled and useless people! In accordance with their actual situation, their behavior, and the classification given to them, I relegated them to Group B for a period of isolation and reflection. Was it excessive for Me to handle the matter in this way? (No.) No, it wasn’t excessive at all. And if it wasn’t excessive, then can it not be considered to be perfectly proper? It was done to give them some chance. What chance? If they truly have some humanity and conscience, if they can repent and change course, then they will have the chance to return to the church; if they haven’t even the desire to repent, then they will just remain isolated for the rest of their lives, and even be cleared out by the church. This is how it is. They were not immediately cleared out in order to give them a chance to repent. They may say, “We did this bad thing, and You got angry and isolated us. So even though we didn’t earn any merit doing our duty before, we certainly suffered for it. Why don’t You see that?” but actually, isolating them shows sufficient leniency, and according to their actions and behavior, they should have been cleared out. Look at this attitude they have—they’re in such danger! So, how should this matter be handled? I have to divide My approach into two stages: The first stage is to isolate them, and the second stage is to handle them as I see fit based on their situation during their term of isolation and on their individual behavior, and decide whether to keep them in the church or clear them out. Isn’t this showing sufficient leniency toward them?

Those people in the Canadian church did so many bad things and isolating them in accordance with their behavior showed great leniency, so why do some people still have their own ideas on how the matter was handled? Some people say, “It may have been right for You to handle the matter in that way, but there is still a slight problem. Those people in the Canadian church brought this upon themselves and they got what they deserved, but by handling it this way, are You not punishing them severely to set an example for others?” Is this a correct understanding? (No.) I’ve heard some people say, “This is the right way to handle it. You should punish them severely to set an example for others, make of them a warning to others, and show strength to send others a message.” Isn’t this something a nonbeliever would say? This is the view on things a nonbeliever would have. You are perhaps not yet able to see through to the essence of this problem, and that’s why you can still express a nonbeliever’s view. Don’t you think it’s a little disgusting for someone to say this? If you use such words to explain this matter, then you’re saying things that are beside the point, and this is not how things are. So, how would you describe the way I’ve handled the matter? (You’ve handled it according to principles.) That’s right, I’ve handled it according to principles; this is a practical thing to say. Anyone else? Did they not bring this upon themselves? (Yes.) And what is the simplest way to describe this? (They got their just deserts.) That’s right, based on how they behaved, they got their just deserts and they brought this upon themselves. God acts in line with the truth principles; He exacts retribution upon people in accordance with their behavior. Furthermore, people should bear the consequences of their actions, and when they do things that are wrong, they should be punished—this is appropriate. God exacts retribution upon people in accordance with their behavior; this is exacting retribution upon those people in the Canadian church and, to use current vocabulary, they are handled in accordance with principles. Tell Me, which of these things about them that I have exposed are not facts? Which of My analyses and definitions of these matters, which of My classifications of them are not facts? They are all facts. Therefore, retribution is exacted upon them according to these manifestations and according to their actions and behavior—what’s wrong with that? So, showing strength to send others a message, punishing people severely to set an example for others, and making of people a warning to others—is the nature of these actions the same as the way I have handled the Canadian church? (No.) So why punish people severely to set an example for others? What is the nature of this? Punishing people severely to set an example for others, showing strength to send others a message, and making of people a warning to others—the nature of these three actions is basically the same. What is that nature? It is the act of a ruler or a powerful person doing something in a specific situation they believe is necessary to establish their authority and using it to intimidate others. This is called severely punishing people to set an example for others. What would be their aim in doing this? It would be to make others obey them, fear them, and feel intimidated by them, to not do anything impetuous before them, and to not do whatever they feel like before them. Would them doing this be in line with principles? (No.) Why do you say it wouldn’t be in line with principles? A ruler would have his motivation to act, and his motivation would be to consolidate his regime and safeguard his power. He would want to make a fuss over the matter, and this would be the nature of his action. The matter of the handling of the Canadian church was based on the truth principles, and not on the satanic philosophies of the nonbelievers. The antichrist misled people, he disrupted and disturbed church work, he turned the church upside down, and most people still spoke out in his defense—the nature of their actions really is so odious! Muddling along in this way, it would have been better for them to leave the church and go live their own lives. At least then the resources of God’s house wouldn’t have been wasted, and that would have been a good thing. But did they do that? Their conscience didn’t have this awareness, and they wasted the financial and material resources of God’s house, they didn’t put effort into doing their duty, and they were in league with the antichrist and did evil together with him—the nature of these actions is so serious! God’s house has handled them in this way to make them reflect on and come to know themselves, so that they know to change course and repent, and this is to their benefit. If they weren’t handled, then perhaps in a year from now they would all have betrayed God and returned to the world. Fortunately, they were isolated and handled in time, and this prevented even more people from doing evil and prevented church work from suffering even greater loss. By doing this, are they being saved or eliminated? (They’re being saved.) They’re actually being saved. It was done to help them, to warn them, to sound an alarm bell for them, to tell them that it wasn’t right for them to act that way, that if they carried on that way then they would suffer perdition and perish and would lose any hope of attaining salvation. If they can comprehend this point, then they still have hope. If they can’t even comprehend this point, and they continue to feel despondent, to degenerate, and fall into despair, opposing the Above and venting their notions in a negative mood, then they’ll be in trouble. What do you wish for them? (That they will repent.) You all wish that they’ll be well and will repent. And what do I wish for them? Do I wish that they won’t repent, that I can cleanse them all away, that the church will be better off without these people? Is this what I want? (No.) No, this isn’t what I want. I wish that they’ll be well and will repent, that after they’ve repented they’ll return to God’s house, and that they’ll not do their duty again like they did before. How does that verse go? “Let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands” (Jonah 3:8). As far as they’re concerned, if they can achieve this effect then that will be a memory that can never be erased for as long as they live and an extraordinary experience for them, it will become a wonderful event. This depends on what they individually pursue.