What attitude do some people adopt as soon as they hear someone means to intervene in and supervise their work? “Supervision is alright. I accept supervision. Making inquiries is fine, too—but if you really do supervise me, there’ll be no way to go forward with my work. My hands will be tied. If you always have the final say and make me an enforcer, I won’t be able to work. ‘There can only be one alpha male.’” Isn’t this a theory? It’s a theory of antichrists. What disposition does a person who says this have? Is it the disposition of an antichrist? What does that mean, “There can only be one alpha male”? They won’t even abide the Above making inquiries. If the Above didn’t make inquiries, wouldn’t your actions then violate the truth? Would you do something wrong because of inquiries? Would the Above derail your work? Tell Me, does the Above give guidance on the work, make inquiries about it, and supervise it in order to see it done better, or worse? (Better.) Well, why do some people not accept those improved results? (They’re governed by an antichrist’s disposition.) That’s right. It’s their antichrist’s disposition—they can’t help themselves. As soon as someone makes inquiries about the work they’re responsible for, it upsets them. They feel that their interests will be meted out to others, as will their status and power. So, they get discomfited. They feel their plans and procedures have been thrown into disarray. And will that work for them? If the Above promotes someone and has that person cooperate with them, they think, “I had no plans to make use of this person, but the above insists that they’re good and promoted them. I don’t feel great about it. How will I work together in cooperation with them? If the above makes use of them, I’ll just quit!” They say so in word, but will they in fact be able to let go of their status? They won’t—what they’re doing is confrontational. Would they consent to anyone doing work that threatens their status, that doesn’t highlight them, that sabotages their current scenario? No, they wouldn’t. When the Above promotes someone or replaces someone, for instance, what do they think? “What a slap in the face! They didn’t even go through me. All else aside, I’m still a leader—why don’t they say anything to me beforehand? Why, it’s as if I don’t matter at all!” Who are you, anyway? Is that your job? First, it’s not your turf, and second, these people don’t follow you, so why must you matter so much to them? Is that in line with the truth? Which truth? There are principles to the Above’s promotion of a person or their replacement of a person. Why does the Above promote someone? Because they’re needed for the work. Why does the Above replace someone? Because they’re no longer needed for the work—they can’t do the work. If you don’t replace them, and even don’t let the Above do it, aren’t you being impervious to reason? (Yes.) Some say, “For the above to dismiss someone—what a disgrace that makes me out to be. If they mean to replace someone, they should tell me in private, and I’ll do it. That’s my job; it’s part of what falls to me. If I replace them, it’ll show everyone how perceptive I am of people, and that I can do actual work. What an honor that would be!” Do you think like this? Some people want the good name and pride, and they give justifications like this. Will that fly? Does that make sense? In one regard, God’s house does its work in accordance with the truth principles; in another, it works according to circumstances as they are. There’s no such thing as the bypassing of a level of command, especially when it comes to the Above’s promotions and replacements, or their guidance and instructions for some work project—in such cases, it’s even less a matter of a level of command being bypassed. So, why does an antichrist look for these “faults”? One thing’s for sure: They don’t understand the truth, so they assess the work of God’s house with their human brain and those processes that are out there in the world. Beyond that, their main goal remains self-preservation, and they must have their pride. They are smooth and slick in everything they do; they can’t let the people under them see that they have any defects or deficiencies. To what extent will they keep up appearances? So much that others will see them as faultless, without any corruption or deficiencies. Others will see it as fitting that the Above should make use of them and that the brothers and sisters should choose them—they’re a perfect person. Isn’t that how they’d like things to be? Is that not the disposition of an antichrist? (It is.) Yes, that is the disposition of an antichrist.

Our fellowship just now was about one of the primary behaviors of antichrists—they prohibit others from intervening, making inquiries, or supervising them in their work. Whatever arrangements God’s house makes to follow up on their work, or learn more about it, or supervise it, they’ll employ every kind of technique to thwart and refuse them. By way of example, when some people are assigned a project by the Above, a while goes by without any progress at all. They don’t tell the Above whether they’re working on it, or how it’s going, or whether there have been any intervening difficulties or problems. They give no feedback. Some of the work is urgent and can’t be delayed, yet they drag their feet, drawing it out for a long time without finishing the work. The Above must then make inquiries. When the Above does this, those people find the inquiries unbearably embarrassing, and they resist them at heart: “It’s only been ten-odd days since I was assigned this job. I haven’t even gotten my bearings yet, and already, the Above’s making inquiries. Their requirements of people are just too high!” There they are, looking for faults with the inquiries. What is the problem here? Tell Me, isn’t it quite normal for the Above to make inquiries? Part of it is a wish to know more about the state of the work’s progress, as well as what difficulties remain to be resolved; in addition to that, it’s a wish to know more about what sort of caliber the people they assigned this work to have, and whether they’ll actually be able to resolve problems and do the job well. The Above wants to know the facts as they are, and most times, they make inquiries in such circumstances. Is that not something they should do? The Above is worried that you don’t know how to resolve problems and can’t handle the job. That’s why they make inquiries. Some people are quite resistant to and repulsed by such inquiries. They’re unwilling to let people make inquiries, and so long as people do, they’re resistant and have misgivings, always ruminating, “Why are they always making inquiries and looking to know more? Is it that they don’t trust me and look down on me? If they don’t trust me, then they shouldn’t use me!” They never understand the Above’s inquiries and supervision, but resist them. Do people like this have reason? Why don’t they permit the Above to make inquiries and supervise them? Why are they resistant and defiant, besides? What’s the problem here? They don’t care whether their performance of their duty is effective or whether it will hamper the progress of the work. They don’t seek the truth principles when doing their duty, but do whatever they want to. They give no thought to the results or efficiency of the work, and no thought at all to the interests of God’s house, much less to what God intends and requires. Their thinking is, “I have my own ways and routines for doing my duty. Don’t require too much of me or require things in too much detail. It’s well enough that I can do my duty. I can’t get too fatigued or suffer too much.” They don’t understand the Above’s inquiries and attempts to know more about their work. What’s missing from this lack of understanding of theirs? Isn’t it missing submission? Isn’t it missing a sense of responsibility? Loyalty? If they were truly responsible and loyal in doing their duty, would they reject the Above’s inquiries into their work? (No.) They’d be able to understand it. If they truly can’t understand it, there’s only one possibility: They see their duty as their vocation and their livelihood, and they capitalize on it, regarding the duty they do as a condition and bargaining chip with which to obtain a reward all the while. They’ll just do a bit of prestige work to get by with the Above, without any attempt to take God’s commission as their duty and their obligation. So, when the Above makes inquiries about their work or supervises it, they go into a repulsed, resistant frame of mind. Is that not so? (It is.) Where does this problem stem from? What is its essence? It’s that their attitude toward the work project is mistaken. They think only of fleshly ease and comfort, of their own status and pride, instead of thinking about the effectiveness of the work and the interests of God’s house. They don’t seek to act according to the truth principles at all. If they truly had a bit of conscience and reason, they’d be able to understand the Above’s inquiries and supervision. They’d be able to say, from the heart, “It’s a good thing the Above is making inquiries. Otherwise, I’d always be going off of my own will, which would impede the effectiveness of the work, or even botch it. The Above fellowships and checks things out, and it has actually solved actual problems—what a great thing that is!” This would show them to be a responsible person. They’re afraid that if they took on the work by themselves, if there happened to be an error or mishap, and it caused a loss to the work of God’s house that there would be no way to remedy, that would be a responsibility they couldn’t bear. Is that not a sense of responsibility? (It is.) It’s a sense of responsibility, and it’s a sign that they’re fulfilling their loyalty. What goes on in the minds of people who won’t let others make inquiries into their work? “This job is my business, seeing as it was I who got tasked with it. I call the shots with my own business; I don’t need anyone else to get involved!” They consider things on their own, and do what they’d like to, as dictated by their personality. They do whatever will benefit them, and no one’s allowed to ask after things—no one’s allowed to know the real state of affairs. If you ask them, “How’s it going with that task?” they’ll say, “Wait.” If you then ask, “How’s it progressing?” they’ll say, “Nearly there.” Whatever you ask them, they’ll only say a word or two. They’ll pop out just a couple words at a time, and no more than that—they won’t offer a single accurate, specific sentence. Don’t you find it sickening to speak with people like this? It’s obvious that they don’t want to say anything more to you. If you pose more questions, they get impatient: “You keep on asking about that minor thing, as if I can’t get things done—as if I weren’t cut out for the task!” They’re simply unwilling to let people ask questions. And if you keep questioning them, they’ll say, “What am I to you, some donkey or horse to boss around? If you don’t trust me, don’t make use of me; if you make use of me, you have to trust me—and trusting me means that you shouldn’t always be making inquiries!” This is the sort of attitude they have. Are they treating the work program as a duty that’s theirs to do? (No.) Antichrists don’t treat work as their duty, but as a bargaining chip with which to obtain blessings and a reward. They’re content merely to labor, which they’d like to exchange for blessings. That’s why they work with a perfunctory attitude. They don’t want others to intervene in their work, in part, in order to preserve their dignity and pride. They believe that the duty they perform and the work they do belong to them personally, that they’re their private affairs. That’s why they don’t let others intervene. The other part of it is that if they get the work done well, they can claim credit for it and ask to be rewarded. If someone intervened, the credit would no longer go to them alone. They’re afraid of others snatching the credit away from them. That’s why they absolutely won’t consent to others’ intervention in their work. Are such people as antichrists not selfish and vile? Whatever duty they’re doing, it’s just as if they were attending to their private affairs. They won’t let others intervene or participate, no matter how it goes when they do something on their own. If they do the thing well, they’ll only allow the credit to go to them alone, so as not to let someone else claim a share of the credit and the results of the work. Isn’t that troublesome? What disposition is it? It’s Satan’s disposition. When Satan acts, it does not permit the intervention of anyone else, it wishes to have the final say in everything it does and to control everything, and no one may supervise or make any inquiries. If anyone interferes or intervenes, this is even less permissible. This is how an antichrist acts; no matter what they do, nobody is allowed to make any inquiries, and no matter how they operate behind the scenes, no one is permitted to intervene. This is the behavior of an antichrist. They act this way because in one sense they have an extremely arrogant disposition and in another are extremely lacking in reason. They are completely lacking in submission, and they do not permit anyone supervising them or inspecting their work. These are truly the actions of a demon, which are completely different from those of a normal person. Anyone who does work requires the cooperation of others, they need other people’s assistance, suggestions, and cooperation, and even if there is someone supervising or watching, this is not a bad thing, it is necessary. If mistakes happen to occur in one part of the work, and they are identified by the people watching and promptly fixed, and losses to the work are averted, is this not a great help? And so, when smart people do things, they like being supervised, observed, and having inquiries made by other people. If, by any chance, a mistake does occur, and these people are able to point it out, and the mistake can be promptly rectified, is this not a much desired outcome? No one in this world does not need the help of others. Only people with autism or depression like being on their own and not being in contact with or communicating with other people. When people suffer from autism or depression, they are no longer normal. They can no longer control themselves. If people’s minds and reason are normal, but they just don’t want to communicate with others, and they don’t want other people to know about anything they do, they want to do things secretly, privately, and operate behind the scenes, and they don’t listen to anything anyone else says, then such people are antichrists, are they not? They are antichrists.

Once, when I saw the leader of a church, I asked him what was going on with the brothers’ and sisters’ performance of their duties. I asked, “Is there anyone in the church at present who’s disturbing church life?” Can you guess what he said? “Things are alright; they’re fine.” I asked, “How is sister so-and-so doing her duty?” He said, “Fine.” I then asked, “How many years has she believed in God?” He said, “It’s fine.” I said, “This table shouldn’t be here; it has to be moved.” He said, “I’ll think on that.” I said, “Doesn’t this plot of land need watering?” He said, “We’ll fellowship on that.” I said, “This is the crop you’ve planted on this plot this year. Will you plant the same thing next year?” He said, “Our decision-making group has a plan.” Those are the sort of answers he gave. What feeling does it give you to hear them? Do you understand anything in them? Do you gain any information? (None at all.) You can tell at once that he’s fobbing you off, taking you for an idiot, an outsider. He doesn’t know exactly who the outsider is; the nonbelievers call this “a guest acting as host.” He doesn’t know his own identity. I said, “You’ve got so many people living here, and the air doesn’t circulate well. You should set up a fan, or it’ll get too hot in here, and people will be liable to get heatstroke.” He said, “We’ll talk that over.” With everything I told him, he had to talk it over, fellowship on it, and think it over, too. Whatever arrangements I made, whatever I said, was of no account to him. To him, they were not arrangements or orders, and he didn’t implement them. What did he take My words to be, then? (Suggestions for his consideration.) Was I giving him suggestions for his consideration? No—I was telling him what he should do, what he had to do. Was it that he didn’t understand what I was saying? If he didn’t, then that meant he was a blockhead who didn’t know what his identity was or what duty he was doing. There were so many people living there, without indoor air conditioning or a cross draft. How intelligent could he be since he didn’t set up a fan? He should go home at once—he’s trash, and God’s house has no need of trash. People don’t know everything about anything, but they can learn. There are some things I don’t understand, so I discuss them with others: “What do you think is a good way to go about it? You’re free to offer your suggestions.” If some people think some way would be best, I say, “Fine, let’s do as you say. I haven’t yet thought through what we should do, in any case. We’ll go with what you say.” Is that not the thinking of normal humanity? That’s what it means to get along with others. In getting along with others, people mustn’t make a distinction between who’s superior or inferior, or who does and doesn’t get the spotlight, or who has the final say over things. There’s no need to make these distinctions—whoever’s way is right and in accord with the truth principles, that’s who’s to be heeded. Are you capable of doing this? (Yes.) There are some people who aren’t. Antichrists aren’t—they insist on having nothing less than the final say. What sort of thing is that? What others raise won’t fly with them, even if it’s reasonable; they know it’s right and reasonable, but they won’t abide anything proposed by anyone else—they’re happy so long as they’re the ones who proposed something. Even in this small matter, they fight for preeminence. What disposition is that? The disposition of an antichrist. They place excessive value on status, renown, and pride. How much value? Those things are more important to them than their life—they’ll safeguard their status and renown, even if it means their life.

Antichrists prohibit the intervention, inquiries, or supervision of others in any work they do, and this prohibition is manifested in several ways. One is refusal, plain and simple. “Stop interfering, making inquiries, and supervising me when I work. Any work I do is my responsibility, I’ve got an idea of how to do it and I don’t need anyone managing me!” This is straight refusal. Another manifestation is the appearance of being receptive, saying “Ok, let’s fellowship and see how the work should be done,” but when others really start making inquiries and trying to find out more about their work, or when they point out a few issues and make a few suggestions, what is their attitude? (They are unreceptive.) That’s right—they simply refuse to accept, they find pretexts and excuses to reject others’ suggestions, they turn wrong into right and right into wrong, but actually, in their hearts, they know that they are forcing logic, that they are blowing hot air, that what they are saying just theoretical, that their words have none of the reality of what other people say. And yet to protect their status—and knowing full well that they are wrong and that other people are right—they still turn other people’s right into wrong, and their own wrong into right, and keep carrying it out, not allowing things that are correct and in line with the truth to be introduced or implemented where they are. Are they not treating the work of the church as a game, a joke? Are they not refusing to accept inquiries and supervision? They don’t express this “prohibition” of theirs brazenly, by telling you, “You’re not allowed to interfere with my work.” That’s not how what they do appears, but that’s their mindset. They’ll use certain tricks, and seem quite devout on the outside. They’ll say, “It happens that we do need help, so now that you’re here, fellowship with us a bit!” Their higher-level leader will believe that they’re being genuine, and so fellowship with them, telling them about circumstances as they stand. Once they’ve heard the leader, they’ll get to thinking: “That’s how you see things—well, I’ll have to debate it with you, to refute and disprove your view. I’ll put you to shame.” Is that an attitude of acceptance? (No.) What attitude is it, then? It’s a refusal to abide others intervening, making inquiries, or supervising them in the work they do. Given that antichrists would do that, why, then, do they put up a false front for people and affect an attitude of acceptance? That they would deceive people in this way shows how very cunning they are. They’re afraid that people will see through them. At present, especially, there are some people with a measure of discernment, so if an antichrist were to refuse others’ supervision and help directly, people would be able to tell and see through them. They would then lose their pride and status, and it wouldn’t be easy for them to be elected a leader or worker in the future. So, when a higher-level leader checks on their work, they pretend to accept it, saying pleasing and pandering things, making everyone think, “Look at how devout, how truth-seeking our leader is! Our leader is looking out for our lives and for the work of the church. They take responsibility in doing their duty. We’ll choose them again in the next election.” What no one sees coming is that once the higher-level leader leaves, the antichrist will say something like this: “What that person who checked on the work said was all right, but it doesn’t necessarily suit the conditions at our church. Things are different at every church. We can’t go along with what they said in its entirety—we have to consider it in light of our real situation. We can’t just apply regulations by rote!” And everyone comes away from this thinking it’s right. Have they not been misled? Part of what an antichrist does is to say pleasing words and pretend to accept others’ supervision; immediately afterward, they commence the work of misleading and brainwashing internally. They simultaneously implement the two parts of this approach. Do they have tricks? Plenty, indeed! Externally, they speak nicely and feign acceptance, making everyone believe that they feel quite responsible for the work, that they can let go of their position and status, that they’re not an authoritarian, but can accept supervision from the Above or from other people—and as they do, they “make clear” to the brothers and sisters the pros and cons of things, and “make clear” the various situations. What is their aim? To not accept other people intervening, inquiring, or supervising, and to make the brothers and sisters think that them acting as they are is justified, correct, in line with the work arrangements of God’s house, and in agreement with the principles of action, and that, as a leader, they are abiding by principle. Really only a few people in the church understand the truth; the majority are undoubtedly incapable of discernment, they can’t see this antichrist for who they really are, and are naturally misled by them. Some people, for instance, lose a night’s sleep for some particular reason. They go all night without sleeping. There are two types of people, in whom that lack of sleep manifests in two different ways. The first type finds a chance to sleep a bit during the day as soon as they can. They don’t let others know they didn’t sleep. That’s one situation, one way things are. There’s no intent behind it. The other sort of person dozes off during meals and tells everyone, “I didn’t sleep last night!” Someone asks, “Why not?” and they say, “There was an online gathering, and I found some problems in the work. I stayed up all night solving them.” They go on incessantly, announcing that they hadn’t slept all night. Were they reluctant to stay up all night? Why are they explaining to the group? And is there something within that explanation? What’s their goal? They want to inform the whole world of what they did, for fear that others might not know. They want everyone to know that they’ve suffered, that they stayed up all night, that they’re willing to pay a price in their belief in God, that they don’t crave comfort. With this, they mean to win the sympathy and approval of the brothers and sisters. They buy off people’s hearts by making this superficial performance, and in doing so, they get others to esteem them, and they gain prestige in people’s hearts. Once they have status, they’re then sure to speak with authority. And once they speak with authority, won’t they then be able to enjoy the special treatment that accompanies status? (Yes.) Do you think they’ve seized this opportunity well? Do you tell others when you haven’t slept, or if you’ve stayed up late? (We have.) When you did, was it unintentional, or was there some intent behind it? Did you just tell someone offhand, or were you making a grand proclamation, putting on a show? (It was offhand.) There’s no intent behind saying it offhandedly; that doesn’t suggest a dispositional problem. There’s absolutely a different nature to saying it intentionally and saying it unintentionally. When an antichrist acts, what is the motive behind what they’re doing, whether they seem on the surface to be accepting others’ intervention and inquiries, or whether they’re refusing them outright—whichever it happens to be? They’re grasping at status and power, and they won’t let go of it. Is that not their motive? (It is.) That’s right—they absolutely won’t let their hard-won power, their hard-won status and prestige, slip so casually away, in an inattentive moment; they won’t let anyone weaken their force and influence by intervening in their work or making inquiries about it. They believe this: To do a duty, to take on a work program, isn’t really a duty, and they don’t need to do it as an obligation; instead, it’s to be possessed of a certain power, to have a few people under their command. They believe that with power, they no longer have to consult with anyone, but now have the chance and the power to be in charge. This is the sort of attitude they have toward duty.

There are some others who, when the Above makes inquiries of them about their work, just go through the motions. They give a superficial performance and ask about a few frivolous matters, as if they were someone who seeks the truth. If there’s an incident that clearly constituted a disruption and disturbance, for instance, they’ll ask the Above whether the person who caused it should be handled. Isn’t a thing like that part of their job? (Yes.) What are they after, in asking the Above about it? They mean to give you a facade of them, to show you that if they’d ask even about matters like that, it’s proof that they’re not idle, that they’re working. They’re just manufacturing a facade to mislead you. The fact is that they have some actual problems in their hearts, and they don’t know how to fellowship the truth to resolve them, nor do they know which principles they should practice. There are things that are obscure to them, in handling people and handling affairs alike, but they never ask or seek about them. Given that they are unsure about these things in their heart, should they not then ask the Above about them? (Yes.) They aren’t sure about them and can’t see through them, but go on acting blindly—what will be the consequences of that? Can they predict what will happen? Will they be able to bear responsibility for the consequences? No, they won’t. So, why don’t they ask about these things? There are considerations in their not asking. One is a fear of the Above finding them out: “If I can’t even handle this trivial matter, and have to ask about it, the above will think that my caliber isn’t very good. Won’t this allow the above to see right through me?” There’s also the consideration that if they do ask, and the Above’s decision conflicts with and differs from their own view, they’d be hard-pressed to choose. If they don’t do what the Above says, the Above will say they’re violating the work principles; if they do, it’ll incur a loss to their own interests. So, they don’t ask. Isn’t that considered? (Yes.) It is. What sort of person are they, who considers these things? (Antichrists.) They are indeed antichrists. With anything, whether they ask about it or not, whether they give voice to it or just think it, they don’t seek the truth or regard that thing according to the principles; in all things, they put their own interests first. They have a list in their heart of things which they can allow the Above to inquire about and know, and things they don’t want the Above to know at all. They’ve delimited those regions and split them into two categories. They’ll speak cursorily with the Above about those insignificant matters that could pose no threat to their status, in order to get by with the Above; but with things that could threaten their status, they won’t offer a single word. And if the Above asks about those things, what are they to do? They’ll use a few words to fob them off; they’ll say, “Fine, we’ll discuss it … we’ll keep looking …”—a mouthful of affirmations for you, without anything that could be read as resistance. By appearance, they’re quite submissive—but the fact is, they have their own calculations. They have no plan to let the Above call the shots; they have no plan to solicit the Above’s suggestions and let them make the decisions, or to seek some path from the Above. They have no such plans. They don’t want to allow the Above to intervene or know what’s really going on. Once the Above does know, then, what threat will that pose to them? (They’ll be insecure in their status.) It’s not only that they’ll be insecure in their status—it’s that their plans and goals will no longer be workable, and they’ll thus no longer be legitimized in their evildoing; they’ll no longer be able to follow their own plans legitimately, openly, and brazenly. This is the problem they’ll be faced with. So, are they able to ascertain how to act in a way that benefits them? They certainly have their thoughts and calculations about it. Do you find yourselves faced with such things, as well? What do you think about them, then? How do you treat them? I’ll give an example. There was once a guy who became a leader and got quite carried away with it; he was always fond of showing off in front of others to gain their esteem. He bumped into a nonbeliever whom he knew, who wanted to borrow money. The nonbeliever pleaded their case so pitiably that the leader, with an impulse, in the excitement of the moment, consented, after which he thought, placid and without qualms, “I’m the leader of the church—I should have final say over the church’s money. When it comes to things that belong to god’s house, to the church, and offerings—I’ve got the office, so what I say goes. The finances are mine to manage, and matters of staffing are mine to manage, too—I have the final say over all of it!” And so, he lent the money of God’s house to a nonbeliever. Once he had, he felt a bit ill at ease, and considered whether he should tell the Above about it. If he did, the Above might not consent to the matter—so, he began to fabricate lies and find excuses with which to deceive the Above. The Above fellowshipped the truth principles to him, yet he paid this no heed. That’s how he committed the evil deed of privately misappropriating offerings. Why would such a person dare to make designs on offerings? You’re a mere church leader—do you have the right to manage offerings? Do you have the final say over matters of offerings and finances? How should you regard God’s offerings, if you’re someone with normal humanity and reason, someone who pursues the truth? Shouldn’t matters related to offerings be referred to the Above, to see what God’s house decides? Doesn’t the Above have a right to know about such a major issue? Yes. This is something you should be clear on at heart; it’s the reason you ought to possess. When it comes to financial matters, major and minor ones alike, the Above has a right to know. It’s one thing if the Above doesn’t ask—but once the Above does, you must answer truthfully, and you should submit to whatever the Above decides. Is this not the sort of reason you should have? (It is.) Yet are antichrists capable of this? (No.) That’s the difference between antichrists and normal people. If they think there’s a hundred-percent chance that the Above won’t consent to the thing, and that they’ll suffer a loss to their pride, they’ll think up all manner of ways to keep it under wraps, to keep the Above from knowing about it. They’ll even work over the people beneath them, and say: “If anyone discloses this, they’re against me. They’ll be hearing from me. I’ll take care of them, come what may!” And with those fearsome words from them, no one dares to report the matter to the Above. Why would they do that? They believe, “This comes under the scope of my authority. I have the right to deploy and distribute the people, money, and materials that are within the realm of my jurisdiction!” What are their principles for deployment and distribution? They make arrangements at will, they use and give out money and materials arbitrarily, without adhering to any principles, they squander and waste these things indiscriminately, and no one else has the right to interfere—they must have the final say over all of it. Is that not how they think? Of course, they won’t say this out loud, in such explicit terms—but in their hearts, this is absolutely what they’re thinking: “What’s the point of having office? Isn’t it all about money, about keeping fed and clothed? Now, I’m in office; I have that status. Wouldn’t it be dumb of me not to exploit my power to do as I please?” Isn’t that what they believe? (It is.) It’s because they have such a disposition, and believe this, that they dare conceal such a matter without the slightest scruple, heedless of any consequence, by any ways and means they can conceive. Is that not so? (It is.) They don’t assess whether the thing is right or not, or what the proper thing to do is, or what the principles are. They don’t consider these things; their only consideration is who is going to look out for their interests. An antichrist is an insidious, selfish, vile thing! How vile are they? It can be captured in a single word: They’re shameless! Those people aren’t yours, nor are those things, and less still is that money yours—yet you want to take it as your own, to dispose of as you please. Others don’t even have the right to know about it; even if you squander and waste those things, others have no right to make inquiries. How far gone are you? You’ve gone into shamelessness! Isn’t it shameless? (It is.) That’s an antichrist. What kind of line does the average person have that they won’t cross when it comes to money? They think that those are God’s offerings, and offerings are given to God by His chosen people, so they belong to God—they’re His “personal belongings,” as some may say. What belongs to God doesn’t belong to the commons, nor does it belong to any person. Who is the Master of God’s house? (God.) Yes, it’s God. And what does God’s house entail? It entails His chosen people in each church, as well as all the supplies and property of each church. All these things belong to God. They absolutely do not belong to a single person, and no one has a right to appropriate them. Would an antichrist think that? (No.) They believe that offerings belong to whoever manages them, to whoever has a chance to draw from them, and that if someone’s a leader, they have the right to enjoy them. That’s why they’re constantly pursuing status with all their strength. Once they’ve gotten it, all their hopes are realized at last. Why do they pursue status? If you had them scrupulously lead God’s chosen people, with principles behind their actions, yet didn’t permit them to touch the church’s property or God’s offerings, would they still be so proactive in their scramble upward? Absolutely not. They would wait passively, and let things take their course. They’d think, “If I’m elected, I’ll do the job and do my duty well; if I’m not, I won’t suck up to anyone. I won’t say or do anything about it.” It’s precisely because an antichrist thinks that as a leader, one has the right to dictate and enjoy all the church’s property that they rack their brains in their attempts to strive upward, to the point of shamelessness, in order to gain status and enjoy everything that status brings. What does it mean to be shameless? It means to do disgraceful things—that’s what it means to be shameless. Should someone say to them, “What you’re doing is so disgraceful!” they wouldn’t care, but think, “What’s disgraceful about it? Who doesn’t like status? Do you know what it feels like to have status? To be in control of money? Do you know that joy? Do you know that sense of privilege? Have you tasted it?” That’s how antichrists view status, in the recesses of their hearts. Once an antichrist gains status, they’ll want to be in control of everything. They’ll take God’s offerings under their control, too. They wish to have the final say about any part of the church’s work that costs money, without ever consulting with the Above. They become the master of the money of God’s house, and God’s house becomes theirs. They have the right to give the final word over it, to dictate what happens to it, to give it to this and that person as they please, to dictate how every bit of it is spent. With God’s offerings, they never act carefully and cautiously, according to the principles; instead, they’re extravagant spenders, and what they say goes. A person like that is a genuine antichrist.