Item Twelve: Promptly and Accurately Identify the Various People, Events, and Things That Disrupt and Disturb God’s Work and the Normal Order of the Church; Stop and Restrict Them, and Turn Things Around; Additionally, Fellowship the Truth So That God’s Chosen People Develop Discernment Through Such Things and Learn From Them (Part Three)

The Various People, Events, and Things That Disrupt and Disturb Church Life

At the last gathering, we fellowshipped on the twelfth responsibility of leaders and workers: “Promptly and accurately identify the various people, events, and things that disrupt and disturb God’s work and the normal order of the church; stop and restrict them, and turn things around; additionally, fellowship the truth so that God’s chosen people develop discernment through such things and learn from them.” Regarding this responsibility, we primarily fellowshipped on various problems related to the church life, which we divided into eleven issues. Go ahead and read them. (First, often going off topic when fellowshipping the truth; second, speaking words and doctrines to mislead people and win their esteem; third, prattling about domestic matters, building personal connections, and handling personal affairs; fourth, forming cliques; fifth, vying for status; sixth, engaging in improper relationships; seventh, engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats; eighth, spreading notions; ninth, venting negativity; tenth, spreading baseless rumors; and eleventh, manipulating and sabotaging elections.) Last time, we fellowshipped on the fifth issue which is vying for status and the sixth issue which is engaging in improper relationships. These two types of problems, like the previous four issues, also cause disturbances and disruptions to the church life and the normal order of the church. Looking at the nature of these two types of problems, the harm they cause to the church life, and their impact on people’s life entry, they can both constitute people, events, and things that disrupt and disturb God’s work and the church’s normal order.

VII. Engaging in Mutual Attacks and Verbal Spats

Today, we will fellowship on the seventh issue—engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats. Such problems are common in church life and apparent to everyone. When people gather to eat and drink God’s word, fellowship on their personal experiences, or discuss some actual problems, divergent viewpoints or debates over right and wrong often lead to arguments and disputes between people. If people disagree and have varied perspectives, but this does not disturb the church life, does this count as engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats? This does not qualify; it belongs to normal fellowship. Therefore, on the surface many problems may seem related to the seventh issue, but in fact, only those that are more severe in terms of circumstances and nature, and thus constitute disruptions and disturbances, belong under this issue. Let’s fellowship now about which problems’ nature qualifies them for inclusion under this issue.

Firstly, looking at the manifestations of engaging in mutual attacks, this is certainly not about normal fellowshipping on the truth or seeking the truth, or having different understandings or light based on fellowshipping the truth, or seeking, fellowshipping, discussing the truth principles, and seeking a path of practice with regard to a certain truth, instead it’s about arguing and disputing over right and wrong. This is basically how it manifests. Does this kind of issue occur sometimes in church life? (Yes.) Just based on outward appearances, it’s evident that an act like engaging in mutual attacks is certainly not about seeking the truth, or about fellowshipping the truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, or about cooperating harmoniously, but is instead rooted in hotheadedness, and the language used in it contains judgment and condemnation, and even curses—this kind of manifestation is truly a revelation of Satan’s corrupt disposition. When people attack each other, regardless of whether their language is sharp or tactful, it carries within it hotheadedness, malice, and hatred, and it is devoid of love, tolerance, and forbearance, and naturally it is even more so devoid of harmonious cooperation. The methods people use to attack each other are varied. For instance, when two people are discussing a matter, person A says to person B, “Some people have bad humanity and an arrogant disposition; they show off whenever they do a bit of something, and they do not listen to anyone. They’re just like what God’s words say about those who are as barbaric and lacking in humanity as beasts.” After hearing this, person B thinks, “Wasn’t what you just said directed at me? You even invoked God’s words to expose me! Since you’ve talked about me, I won’t hold back either. You’ve been unkind to me, so I will do wrong to you!” And so, person B says, “Some people might seem very devout on the outside, but actually deep down they are more sinister than anyone else. They even engage in improper relationships with the opposite sex, just like the harlots and prostitutes spoken of in God’s words—God is utterly disgusted by such people, He feels averse toward them. What’s the use of appearing devout? That’s all pretense. God dislikes pretenders the most; all pretenders are Pharisees!” After hearing this, person A thinks, “This is a counterattack against me! Fine, you’ve been unkind to me, so don’t blame me for not holding back!” Back and forth, the two of them have started fighting. Is this fellowshipping God’s words? (No.) What are they doing? (Attacking each other and fighting.) They even seize upon some leverage and find a “basis” for their attacks, invoking God’s words as the basis—this is engaging in mutual attacks, and at the same time, it is engaging in verbal spats. Is this form of fellowship sometimes seen in church life? Is this normal fellowship? Is it fellowship within normal humanity? (No.) Then, does this form of fellowship cause disruptions and disturbances to church life? What kind of disruptions and disturbances does it cause? (Normal church life gets disturbed, people fall into disputes about right and wrong, and consequently are unable to quietly ponder and fellowship on God’s words.) When people engage in such fighting and arguments about right and wrong, and carry out personal attacks during the church life, does the Holy Spirit still work? The Holy Spirit does not work; this kind of fellowship throws people’s hearts into disarray. There are some words in the Bible, do you remember them? (“Again I say to you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the middle of them” (Matthew 18:19–20).) What do these words mean? When people gather together before God, they need to be of one heart and mind and united before God; God will only bestow blessings upon them, and the Holy Spirit will only work, when people are of one heart and mind. But were the two arguing people I mentioned just now of one heart and mind? (No.) What were they engaging in? Mutual attacks, fighting, and even judgment and condemnation. Although they did not use foul curse words or name names on the surface, the motivation behind their words was not to fellowship the truth or seek the truth, and they were not speaking within the conscience and reason of normal humanity. Every word they spoke was irresponsible, and carried with it aggressiveness and malice; each word did not conform to the facts, nor did it have any basis. Every word was not about judging a matter according to God’s words and God’s requirements, it was about launching personal attacks, judgments, and condemnations based on their own preferences and will against a person they hated and looked down on. None of these are manifestations of being of one heart and mind; rather, these are words and manifestations that come from hotheadedness and Satan’s corrupt disposition, and they are not pleasing to God; therefore, there is no work of the Holy Spirit there. This is a manifestation of engaging in mutual attacks.

In church life, disputes and conflicts often arise between people over minor matters or conflicting viewpoints and interests. Disputes also often occur due to incompatible personalities, ambitions, and preferences. Various kinds of disagreements and discord also emerge among individuals due to differences in social status and education levels, or differences in terms of their humanity and nature, and even differences in terms of ways of speaking and handling matters, among other reasons. If people do not seek to resolve these issues using God’s word, if there is no mutual understanding, tolerance, support, and assistance, and if people instead harbor prejudices and hatred in their hearts, and treat each other with hotheadedness within corrupt dispositions, then this is likely to lead to mutual attacks and judgments. Some people have a bit of conscience and reason, and when disputes occur, they can exercise patience, act with reason, and help the other party with love. However, some people cannot achieve this, they lack even the most basic tolerance, patience, humanity, and reason. They often develop various prejudices, suspicions, and misunderstandings against others over trivial matters, or a single word or facial expression, which leads to them having various kinds of thoughts, doubts, judgments, and condemnations toward them in their hearts. These phenomena frequently occur within the church and often affect the normal relationships between individuals, the harmonious interactions of the brothers and sisters, and even their fellowship of God’s words. It’s common for disputes to arise when people interact with each other, but if such issues frequently arise in church life, they can affect, disturb, and even destroy normal church life. For example, if someone starts an argument at a gathering, then that gathering will be disturbed, church life will fail to bear fruit, and those attending the gathering won’t gain anything, and they will essentially be gathering in vain and wasting their time. Consequently, these issues will have already affected the normal order of church life.

A. Several Kinds of Manifestations of Engaging in Mutual Attacks and Verbal Spats

1. Mutual Exposure of Shortcomings

Some people always like to prattle about domestic matters and unimportant topics during gatherings, and they talk about trivial household affairs and engage in chitchat with the brothers and sisters whenever they meet them, which leaves those brothers and sisters feeling helpless. Someone may stand up to interrupt them, but what happens then? If they are constantly interrupted, they become unhappy, and them being unhappy means trouble. They think: “You always interrupt me and don’t let me speak. Fine, then. I’ll interrupt you when you speak! When you fellowship God’s words, I’ll cut in with another passage of God’s words. When you fellowship about knowing yourself, I’ll fellowship about God’s words that judge people. When you fellowship about understanding your arrogant disposition, I’ll fellowship God’s words on determining people’s outcomes and destinations. Whatever you say, I’ll say something different!” Not only that, if others join in to interrupt them, then this individual stands up and attacks them. At the same time, because they harbor resentment and hatred in their heart, during gatherings they often expose the shortcomings of the person who interrupted them, talking about how that person used to cheat others in business before they came to believe in God, how unscrupulous they were in their dealings with others, and so on—they talk about these things whenever that person speaks. At first, that person can exercise patience, but over time, they begin to think: “I always help you, I always show tolerance and patience toward you, but you don’t show me any tolerance. If you treat me this way, don’t blame me for not holding back! We’ve lived in the same village for so long—we both know each other well. You’ve attacked me, so I’ll attack you; you’ve exposed my shortcomings, but you have plenty of them yourself.” And so, they say, “You even stole things when you were young; those petty thefts you did are even more disgraceful! At least what I did was business, it was all for the sake of making a living. Who doesn’t make a few mistakes in this world? What about your behavior? Yours is the behavior of a thief, a robber!” Is this not engaging in mutual attacks? What is the method of these attacks? It’s a mutual exposure of shortcomings, isn’t it? (Yes.) They even think to themselves: “You keep exposing my shortcomings, letting everyone know about them and about my dishonorable past, making it so others won’t esteem me anymore—well then, I won’t hold back either. I know all about how many partners you’ve had, how many people of the opposite sex you’ve been with; I’ve got all this ammunition loaded up. If you expose my shortcomings again and push me too far, I’ll bring all your misdeeds to light!” Mutual exposure of shortcomings is a common issue among those who are well-acquainted with each other and who know each other well. Perhaps because of a disagreement or because there are conflicts or grudges between them, two people drag out old and trivial matters to use as weapons to attack each other during gatherings. These two people expose each other’s shortcomings and attack and condemn each other, taking up everyone’s time for eating and drinking God’s word, and impacting normal church life. Can such gatherings bear fruit? Do the people around them still feel like gathering? Some brothers and sisters start to think: “These two are really troublesome, what’s the point of bringing up those past matters! They both believe in God now, they should let those things go. Who doesn’t have issues? Haven’t they both come before God now? All of these issues can be resolved with God’s word. Exposing shortcomings is not practicing the truth, nor is it learning from one person’s strengths to make up for another’s weaknesses; it’s mutual attacks, it’s satanic behavior.” Their mutual attacks disturb and destroy normal church life. No one can stop them, and they won’t listen no matter who fellowships the truth to them. Some people advise them: “Stop exposing each other’s shortcomings. Actually, this whole thing is not such a big deal; isn’t it just a momentary verbal disagreement? There’s no deep hatred between the two of you. If both of you could open up, lay yourselves bare, let go of your prejudices, resentment, and hatred to pray and seek the truth before God, all these issues could be resolved.” But the two people are still in a deadlock. One of them says, “If he could apologize to me first, and if he opened up and laid himself bare first, then I would do the same. But if, like before, he won’t let this thing go, then I won’t hold back against him! You ask me to practice the truth—why doesn’t he practice it? You ask me to let things go—why doesn’t he do it first?” Is this not being unreasonable? (Yes.) They start acting unreasonably. No one’s advice has an effect on them, and they don’t listen to fellowship on the truth. As soon as they see each other, they argue, they expose each other’s shortcomings and they attack each other. Except for not coming to blows, there is hatred in everything they do to each other, and every word they say contains hints of attack and cursing. If, in church life, there are two people like this who attack and engage in verbal spats as soon as they see each other, can this church life bear fruit? Can people gain anything positive from it? (No.) When such situations arise, most people become worried, saying, “Every time we gather, those two are always fighting, and they don’t listen to anyone’s advice. What should we do?” As long as they are there, the gatherings are not peaceful, and everyone is disturbed by them. In such cases, the church leaders should step in to resolve the issue; they must not allow such individuals to continue disturbing church life. If after repeated advice, fellowshipping, and positive guidance, no results are achieved, and both parties continue to hold onto their prejudices and refuse to forgive each other, and continue to attack each other and disturb church life, then it’s necessary to handle the matter according to the principles. They should be told: “The two of you have been in this state for a long time, and it has caused serious disturbances to church life and to all the brothers and sisters. Most people are angry at this behavior of yours, but they are afraid to say anything about it. Given your current attitude and manifestations, the church must, in accordance with the principles, suspend your participation in church life and get you to isolate for self-reflection. When you are able to get along harmoniously, engage in normal fellowship, and have normal interpersonal relationships, then you can return to church life.” Regardless of whether or not they agree to this, the church should make this decision; this is handling the matter based on the principles. These matters should be handled in such a manner. In one respect, this is beneficial for the two individuals; it can prompt them to reflect and know themselves. In another respect, it primarily protects more brothers and sisters from being disturbed by evil people. Some people say, “They haven’t done any evil; in terms of their essence, they are also not evil people. They just have minor flaws in their humanity, they are just willful, prone to being unreasonable, and prone to jealousy and disputes. Why isolate them just because of this?” Regardless of how their humanity is, as long as they constitute a disturbance to church life, church leaders should intervene to address and resolve the issue. If these two individuals are evil, then as soon as this is discerned, the response should not be as simple as isolating them; a decision must be made immediately to directly clear them out. If their actions are limited to attacking each other and arguing about right and wrong without causing harm to others or committing other bad deeds that would cause losses to the interests of God’s house, and they are not evil, then they do not need to be cleared out. Instead, their church life should be suspended, and they should be isolated for self-reflection. This approach is most appropriate. The purpose of handling the matter in this way is to ensure the normal order of church life and guarantee that church work can proceed normally.

2. Mutual Exposure and Attacks

Some people lack comprehension ability in eating and drinking God’s word and do not know how to fellowship their experiential understanding of God’s word. They only know to link God’s words that expose people to others. And so, whenever they fellowship on the truth in God’s words, they always have personal motives; they always want to take the opportunity to expose and strike at others, which causes unrest in the church. If those who are exposed can treat these situations correctly, understand them as coming from God, and learn submission and patience, there will not be any disputes. However, it’s inevitable that someone may feel defiant when they hear others fellowshipping about and exposing their issues. They think to themselves, “Why is it that after you read God’s words, you don’t share your experiential understandings of them, or talk about knowing yourself, and just exclusively attack and target me instead? Do you find me displeasing? God’s words have already made it clear that I have a corrupt disposition—do you really need to say it? I may have a corrupt disposition, but don’t you have one too? You always target me, calling me deceitful, but you’re not short of craftiness either!” Filled with resentment and defiance, they might exercise patience once or twice, but after time passes, and their grievances have accumulated, they erupt. And once they erupt, it’s disastrous. They say, “When some people act and speak, they pretend to be very honest and open on the surface, but in actuality, they are full of all kinds of schemes, and always plotting against others. Nobody can grasp their thoughts or intentions when they talk to them; they are deceitful people. When we encounter such individuals, we cannot talk or interact with them; they are too scary. If you are not careful, you’ll fall into their trap and be cheated and used by them. Such people are the most evil, the kind God detests and is disgusted by the most. They should be cast into the bottomless pit, into the lake of fire and brimstone!” After hearing this, the other person thinks, “You have corrupt dispositions but you won’t let other people expose you? You’re so arrogant and self-righteous, so I’ll find another passage of God’s words to expose you, and see what you have to say then!” The other person becomes even angrier after being exposed, and thinks: “So, you’re not going to let this lie, are you? You still won’t let this go, huh? You just dislike me, and think I have a corrupt disposition, don’t you? Fine, then I’ll expose you too!” And so they say, “Some people are simply antichrists; they love status and the praise of others, they love lecturing others, using God’s words to expose and condemn others, making other people think they themselves don’t have a corrupt disposition. They’re all high and mighty, and think they have become holy, but aren’t they just filthy demons? Aren’t they just Satans and evil spirits? What are antichrists? Antichrists are Satans!” How many rounds have they fought? Is there a winner? (No.) Have they said anything that might edify others? (No.) So, what are these words? (Judgments, condemnations.) They are judgments. They are speaking recklessly without regard for the actual situation or facts, arbitrarily judging and condemning others, even cursing them. Do they have a factual basis for calling the other person an antichrist? What evil deeds and manifestations of an antichrist did that person exhibit? Does their corrupt disposition reach the level of the essence of an antichrist? When God’s chosen people hear them exposing the other person, will they think it is objective and truthful? Is there any kindness or good intentions in the words spoken by these two people? (No.) Is their purpose to help each other know themselves, and to enable them to cast off their corrupt disposition and enter into the truth reality as quickly as possible? (No.) What are they doing this for then? It’s to vent their personal spite, to strike at and take revenge on the other party, so they arbitrarily accuse them of something that doesn’t match the facts at all. They are not accurately evaluating and characterizing each other based on God’s words and the other person’s revelations and essence, instead they are using God’s words to strike at each other, get revenge, and vent their personal spite; they are not fellowshipping the truth whatsoever. This is a serious issue. They always seize on things about the other person to attack and condemn them for having an arrogant disposition—this attitude is sinister and malicious, and this is definitely not well-intentioned exposure. Consequently it leads only to mutual hostility and hatred. If exposure is carried out with an attitude of helping others out of love, people can sense this and they can treat it correctly. But if someone seizes on another person’s arrogant disposition to condemn and attack them, it is purely to strike at and torment that person. Everyone has an arrogant disposition, so why are they always targeting one person? Why are they always focusing on one person and not letting them go? Constantly exposing that one person’s arrogant disposition—is the purpose of this really to help them cast off that disposition? (No.) Then what is the reason for it? It’s because they find the other person displeasing, so they look for opportunities to strike at them and get even, always wanting to torment them. Therefore, when they say the other person is an antichrist, a Satan, a devil, a deceitful and sinister person, is that factual? It may touch a little on the facts, but their purpose of saying these things is not to help the other person or to fellowship the truth but to vent their personal spite and get revenge. They’ve been tormented, and so they want to retaliate. How do they retaliate? By exposing the other person, condemning them, calling them a devil, a Satan, an evil spirit, an antichrist—sticking them with whichever label is the most egregious, and whichever accusation is most severe. Is this not arbitrary judgment and condemnation? The intention, purpose, and motivation of both parties in saying these things is not to help the other person know themselves and resolve their corrupt dispositions, much less is it to help them enter into the reality of God’s word or understand the truth principles. Instead, they are trying to attack and strike at the other person, to expose them so that they can achieve their aim of venting their personal spite and getting revenge. This is engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats. Although this method of attacking others might seem to have more of a basis to it than the mutual exposure of shortcomings, and it’s linking God’s words to the other person to say that they have a corrupt disposition and that they are a devil and a Satan, and superficially it appears quite spiritual, the nature of these two methods is the same. Neither of these methods is about fellowshipping God’s word and the truth within normal humanity, instead they are about irresponsibly and arbitrarily judging, condemning, and cursing the other person based on personal preferences, and engaging in personal attacks. Dialogues of this nature also cause disruptions and disturbances in church life, and they interfere with and damage the life entry of God’s chosen ones.

What should you do when you encounter two people engaging in mutual attacks by exposing each other’s corrupt dispositions? Is it necessary to slam the table and lecture them? Is it necessary to dump a bucket of cold water on them to cool them down, and get them to realize they are incorrect and apologize to each other? Can these methods solve the problem? (No.) These two individuals always have a fight at every gathering, and after each gathering ends, they get ready for the next fight. At home, they look for God’s words and bases to use in their attacks, they even write drafts, and figure out how to attack the other party, which aspects of them to attack, how to judge and condemn them, what tone to use, and which words of God to employ in order to launch the most convincing attack and condemnation. They also look for various spiritual terms and use different methods of expression to condemn and strike at the other party, preventing them from turning the situation around, and they strive to take them down in the next fight, and make it impossible for them to rise again. These behaviors all belong to engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats. Are such issues easy to resolve? If, after receiving advice, help, and fellowship on the truth from the majority of people, they still do not repent or reverse their course—that is, they argue and curse at each other upon meeting, do not listen to anyone’s advice, and do not accept it when anyone fellowships on the truth or prunes them—what should be done? This is easy to handle: They should be cleansed away. Wouldn’t that solve the problem? Isn’t that easy? Is it necessary to continue fellowshipping with them? Is it necessary to lovingly help them anymore? Tell Me, is it appropriate to lovingly show tolerance and patience to such people? (It is not appropriate.) Why is it not appropriate? (They do not accept the truth—there’s no use in fellowshipping with them.) Correct, they do not accept the truth. They only participate in gatherings to engage in verbal spats. They do not believe in God to pursue the truth, and they just like engaging in verbal spats. Is this a revelation and manifestation of normal humanity? Do they have the rationality that normal humanity should possess? (No.) They lack the rationality of normal humanity. During gatherings, people like this do not read God’s words in a focused and proper manner so that they can understand and obtain the truth from God’s words, and thereby resolve their corrupt dispositions and their problems. Instead, they always want to resolve other people’s problems. Their focus is constantly honed on others, looking for faults in them; they always aim to find other people’s problems in God’s words. They use the opportunity of reading and fellowshipping God’s words to expose and attack others, and they use God’s words to judge, belittle, and condemn others. And yet they place themselves as separate to God’s words. What kind of person are they? Are these people who accept the truth? (No.) They are particularly good at and keen on one thing: After reading God’s words, they frequently identify in others the various problems, states, and manifestations that His words expose. The more they identify these problems, the more they feel that they shoulder a significant responsibility and believe that there’s a lot they can do, thinking they should expose these issues. They won’t let a single person who has these issues off the hook. What kind of person are they? Do such people possess reason? Do they have the ability to comprehend the truth? (No.) In the church, if such people do not speak up or cause disturbances, there’s no need to handle them. However, if they consistently act in this manner, always attacking, judging, and condemning others, then the church should take corresponding action to handle them, cleansing them away. As for those who have been exposed by people, and then attack, judge, and condemn them using the same methods and means, if the circumstances are severe and they have disrupted and disturbed church life, they should likewise be cleansed away and isolated from God’s chosen people—they cannot be shown any leniency.

What other manifestations of engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats qualify as having a nature of disrupting and disturbing church life to them? The mutual exposure of shortcomings, and exposing each other’s corrupt dispositions to vent personal spite and take revenge on each other, are evident manifestations of disrupting and disturbing church life. Besides these two manifestations, there’s pretending to open up and lay oneself bare and dissect oneself in order to deliberately expose and dissect others—this kind of attack is also a manifestation of disrupting and disturbing church life. So, is something a person says an attack as long as it’s not about their own issues but about other people’s, regardless of whether it’s said in a pointed manner or said indirectly in passing, in a tactful way? (No.) Then, what situations constitute attacks? It depends on the intention and purpose behind what is said. If something is said to strike at and take revenge on people, or to vent personal spite, this is an attack. This is one situation. Moreover, blowing the superficial aspects of a problem out of proportion to judge and condemn people in contradiction of the facts and what is true, irresponsibly jumping to conclusions without looking at all at what the essence of the issue is—this too is venting personal spite and taking revenge, it is judging and condemning, and this kind of situation also constitutes an attack. What else? (Creating baseless rumors about people, is that one?) Creating baseless rumors certainly counts as well, even more so. How many situations constitute attacks? (Three.) Summarize these situations. (The first is striking at others with a specific purpose. The second is judging and condemning others in a way that’s contrary to the facts and what is true, which is arbitrarily characterizing other people in an irresponsible manner. The third is creating baseless rumors about people.) The nature of each of these three situations qualifies them as personal attacks. How do we distinguish which situations qualify as personal attacks and which do not? When it comes to those who are doing the attacking, what actions or words constitute an attack? Suppose that a person’s words have a bit of a leading nature to them, and are capable of misguiding others, and there’s also a quality of rumor-fabricating to them. That person is creating something out of nothing and making up rumors and lies to mislead and misguide people. Their intent and purpose is to make more people acknowledge and believe that what they say is correct, and agree that what they say aligns with the truth. At the same time, they also want to get revenge on someone else, to make them negative and weak. They think, “You have such a vile character—I must expose your actual situation, and stamp down that arrogance of yours, and then we’ll see what you have to flaunt and show off about! How can I possibly stand out next to you? My hatred won’t be relieved until I beat you into negativity and knock you down. I will show everyone that you can be negative and that you have weaknesses too!” If this is their purpose, then their words constitute an attack. But suppose that their intention is simply to clarify the facts and what’s true regarding a matter—after gaining an accurate insight into it and discovering the essence of the issue through a period of experience, they feel it should be fellowshipped so that the majority can understand it and know what kind of comprehension of this matter is pure, that is, their purpose is to correct more people’s distorted or one-sided views on this matter—is this an attack? (No.) They are not forcing someone to accept their personal opinion, and much less do they harbor any intention of personal vengeance. Instead, they only wish to clarify the truth of the facts; they are using love to help the other party understand, and to prevent them from going astray through this understanding. Regardless of whether the other party accepts this, they are able to fulfill their responsibility. And so this behavior, this approach, is not an attack. Through the language, choice of words, and manner, tone, and attitude of speaking in these two different manifestations one can tell what that person’s intention and purpose is. If a person means to attack the other party, their language will certainly be sharp, and their intention and purpose will be obvious in their speaking tone, intonation, choice of words, and attitude. If they are not forcing the other party to accept what they’re saying, and they are certainly not attacking them, then their speech will definitely conform to the manifestations of the conscience and reason of normal humanity. Additionally, their speaking attitude, tone, and choice of words will certainly be rational, falling within the realm of normal humanity.

After fellowshipping the principles of distinguishing what constitutes a personal attack and what does not, are you able to discern this now? If you still can’t discern this, then you won’t be able to see through to the essence of the issue. No matter how pleasant someone’s fellowship sounds, if they are not practicing according to principles, if they are not aiming to help people understand the truth and do their duties properly, but are instead finding things to use against people to badger them nonstop, doing their utmost to judge and condemn them, and though they appear as if they are discerning people on the surface, actually their intent and purpose is to condemn and attack others, then this situation involves a personal attack. The minor things that go on between people are very simple and obvious; if the truth were fellowshipped regarding these matters, it would take up less than one gathering. Is it necessary then, to occupy the time of the brothers and sisters by speaking a lot about them at every gathering? It’s not necessary. If people always badger others nonstop, that constitutes attacking people and causing disturbances. What is the reason why people cling to one matter and talk endlessly about it? It is that no one is willing to let go of their own intents and purposes, no one tries to know themselves, and no one accepts the truth, or the facts and what’s true, and so they badger others nonstop. What is the nature of badgering others nonstop? It is an attack. It is finding things to use against others, finding fault in other people’s choice of words, and using other people’s shortcomings against them, dwelling endlessly on just one thing and arguing until one is red in the face. If people are fellowshipping from within normal humanity, supporting and helping each other—that is, fulfilling their responsibility—then the relationship between them will get better and better. But if they are engaging in mutual attacks and arguments, entangling themselves with each other to make their own justifications clear, always wanting to have the upper hand, not wanting to admit defeat and not compromising, not letting go of personal grievances, then the relationship between the two of them will ultimately become increasingly tense and get worse and worse; it will not be a normal interpersonal relationship, and it can even get to the point that their eyes will turn red whenever they meet. Think about it, when dogs fight, the eyes of the ferocious one turn red. What’s the deal with its eyes being red? Isn’t it brimming with hatred? Isn’t it the same with people attacking each other? If, when people fellowship the truth, they do not attack each other, but can instead make up for each other’s shortcomings by drawing on each other’s strengths, and support one another, would it be possible for the relationship between them to be bad? Their relationship would definitely become increasingly normal. When two people speak, chat, fellowship, or even debate within the conscience and reason of normal humanity, their relationship will be normal, and they won’t get angry or start fighting as soon as they meet. If hatred and a surge of inexplicable rage arises in people when they haven’t even seen each other, just because the other party is mentioned, then this is not a manifestation of possessing the reason and conscience of normal humanity. People attack one another because they have corrupt dispositions; it is completely unrelated to their environment. It is all because people do not love the truth, cannot accept the truth, and do not practice the truth or handle matters based on the principles when disputes happen, and so it is common for cases of mutual exposure of shortcomings, judgments, and even mutual attacks and condemnation to occur in church life. Because people have corrupt dispositions, and they are often in a state of lacking reason, and they live by their corrupt dispositions, and even if they understand some of the truth, it’s difficult for them to practice it, disputes and various kinds of attacks easily arise between them. If these attacks occur occasionally, they only have a temporary impact on church life, but those who are consistently prone to mutual attacks cause serious disruptions and disturbances to church life, and they also severely affect and interfere with the life entry of God’s chosen people.

3. Verbal Spats

In the church, there is also another kind of person—this kind of person particularly likes to justify themselves. For instance, if they did or said something wrong, they fear that others may have a bad opinion of them, and that this will affect their image in the eyes of the majority, so they justify themselves and explain the matter during gatherings. Their purpose in explaining it is to prevent people from forming a bad opinion about them, so they put a lot of effort and thought into this, pondering all day: “How can I clarify this matter? How can I explain it clearly to that person? How can I refute the bad opinions they have formed about me? Today’s gathering is a good opportunity to talk about this matter.” At the gathering, they say, “The thing I did last time was not meant to hurt or expose anyone; my intention was good, it was to help people. Yet, some people always misunderstand me, always want to target me, and always think I am greedy and ambitious, and that my humanity is bad. But actually I’m not like that at all, am I? I haven’t done or said those kinds of things. When I spoke about someone when they weren’t present, it’s not like I was intentionally making trouble for them. When people have done bad things, how can they not allow other people to talk about it?” They say a lot, both justifying and defending themselves, while also exposing quite a few of the other party’s issues, all to dissociate themselves from the matter, to make everyone believe that what they revealed was not a corrupt disposition, and that they do not have bad humanity or a dislike of the truth, and much less malicious intent, and think that they are instead well-intentioned, that their good intentions are often misunderstood, and that they are often condemned because of others’ misunderstandings. Both explicitly and implicitly, their words make the listeners feel that they are innocent, and that the people who thought they were wrong and bad are the evil ones and those who do not love the truth. After hearing this, the other party understands: “Isn’t the point of your words to say that you do not have a corrupt disposition? Isn’t it just to make yourself look good? Isn’t this just not knowing yourself, not accepting the truth, not accepting the facts? If you don’t accept these things, fine, but why target me? I didn’t intend to target you, nor did I want to strike at you. You can think whatever you want to think; what does it have to do with me?” And so they can’t hold themselves back, and say, “When some people encounter a minor issue, suffering a bit of unfair treatment or pain, they become unwilling to accept it, and want to justify and explain themselves; they always try to dissociate themselves from the issue, they always want to make themselves look good, to gold-plate their image. They are not that kind of person, so why do they try to make themselves look good, to make themselves out to be perfect? Besides, I fellowship the truth, I don’t target anyone, nor do I think of striking at or taking revenge on anyone. Let people think what they will!” Are these two people fellowshipping the truth? (No.) So, what are they doing? One party says, “I did those things for the church’s work. I don’t care what you think.” The other one says, “When man acts, Heaven is watching. God knows people’s thoughts. Don’t think just because you have some goodwill, ability, and eloquence, and you don’t do bad things that God will not scrutinize you; don’t think that if you hide your thoughts deep that God cannot see them. The brothers and sisters can all see them—let alone God! Do you not know that God scrutinizes the depths of people’s hearts?” What are the two of them arguing about? One side is making great efforts to justify themselves, to exonerate themselves, not wanting others to have a bad impression of them, while the other side insists on not letting it go, not allowing that person to make themselves look good, and at the same time aims to expose and condemn them through reprimands. On the surface, these two are not directly cursing at each other or directly exposing each other, but their speech is purposeful: One side tries to prevent the other person from misunderstanding them, and demands that they clear their name, while the other side refuses to do so, and instead insists on labeling and condemning them, demanding the other’s acknowledgment. Is this conversation a normal fellowshipping of the truth? (No.) Is it a conversation based on conscience and reason? (No.) Then what is the nature of this kind of conversation? Is this kind of conversation engaging in mutual attacks? (Yes.) Is the one justifying themselves fellowshipping about how they can accept things from God, know themselves, and find the principles that should be practiced? No, they are justifying themselves to other people. They want to clarify their thoughts, viewpoints, intentions, and purpose to others, to explain themselves to the other party, and to have the other party clear their name. Furthermore, they want to deny the other party’s exposure and condemnation of them, and no matter if what the other party says aligns with the facts or the truth, as long as they do not recognize it, or are unwilling to accept it, then they consider what the other party says to be wrong, and they want to rectify it. Whereas the other party does not wish to clear their name but instead exposes them, forcing them to accept their condemnation. One is unwilling to accept, and the other insists on making them accept, leading to attacks between them. The nature of this kind of dialogue is that of engaging in mutual attacks. So, what is the nature of this kind of attack? Is this conversation characterized by mutual denial, mutual complaints, and mutual condemnation? (Yes.) Does this form of dialogue also occur in church life? (Yes.) These kinds of conversations are all verbal spats.

Why are these kinds of dialogues called verbal spats? (It’s because the people involved are arguing about right and wrong, no one is trying to know themselves, and no one gains anything; they just persistently dwell on the matter, and the dialogues are meaningless.) They’re just talking a lot and wasting a lot of breath arguing over who is correct or incorrect, who is superior or inferior. They argue nonstop without there ever being a winner, and then they continue to argue. What do they ultimately gain from this? Is it an understanding of the truth, an understanding of God’s intentions? Is it an ability to repent and accept God’s scrutiny? Is it an ability to accept things from God and know themselves more? They don’t gain any of these things. These meaningless disputes and these dialogues about right and wrong are verbal spats. To put it plainly, verbal spats are utterly meaningless conversations, where everything said is nonsense, not a single word is edifying or beneficial to others, but rather, the words spoken are all hurtful, and originate from human will, hotheadedness, people’s minds, and of course, even more so from people’s corrupt dispositions. Every word spoken is for the sake of one’s own interests, one’s own image and reputation, not for the edification or assistance of others, not for one’s own understanding of some aspect of the truth or for understanding God’s intentions, and of course not for discussing which of one’s corrupt dispositions are exposed in God’s words, whether their corrupt dispositions match up with God’s words, or whether one’s understanding is correct. No matter how pleasing, sincere, or devout these meaningless self-justifications and explanations sound, they are all verbal spats and mutual attacks and judgments, which benefit neither others nor oneself. They not only harm others and affect one’s normal interpersonal relationships, they also hinder one’s own life growth. In short, regardless of the excuses, intentions, attitudes, tones used, or the means and techniques employed, as long as arbitrarily judging and condemning others is involved, then these words, methods, and so on all fall within the category of attacking others, they are all verbal spats. Is this scope broad? (It’s quite broad.) So, when you encounter people’s attacks, judgments, and condemnations, can you refrain from engaging in behaviors of attacking and condemning others? How should you practice when you encounter these kinds of situations? (We must come to be quiet before God through prayer; then there will no longer be hatred in our hearts.) As long as a person is understanding and reasonable, as long as they can quiet themselves before God and pray to Him, and accept the truth, they can control their intentions and desires, and then they can reach a point where they neither judge nor attack others. So long as someone’s intention and purpose is not to vent personal spite or seek revenge, and certainly not to attack the other party, and instead they hurt the other party unintentionally because they do not understand the truth or understand it too superficially, and because they are somewhat foolish and ignorant or willful, then through help, support, and fellowship from others, after understanding the truth, their speech will become more accurate, as will their evaluations and views of others, and they will be able to treat the corrupt dispositions that other people reveal and their incorrect actions correctly, thereby gradually reducing their attacks and judgments on others. However, if one always lives within their corrupt dispositions, seeking opportunities to get revenge against anyone that they find displeasing or who has offended or harmed them before, always harbors such intentions, and does not seek the truth or pray to or rely on God at all, then they are capable of attacking others at any time and in any place, and this is difficult to resolve. Unintentionally attacking others is easy to resolve, but deliberately and intentionally attacking is not. If a person occasionally and unintentionally attacks and judges others, through other people fellowshipping the truth to support and help them, they will be able to reverse their course once they understand the truth. However, if someone constantly seeks to take revenge and vent personal spite, always wants to torment or bring others down, and they attack others with such intentions, which can be felt and seen by all people, then such behavior becomes a disruption and disturbance to church life; it entirely constitutes a deliberate disruption and disturbance. Therefore, having this disposition of attacking others is difficult to change.

Now, do you understand how the issue of attacking and condemning others should be resolved? There is only one way—one must pray to and rely on God, and then their hatred will gradually disappear. There are mainly two types of people who can attack others. One type is those who speak without thinking, who are outspoken and blunt, and who may say some hurtful things whenever they find people displeasing. Most of the time, however, they don’t attack people intentionally or deliberately—they just can’t restrain themselves, this is just their disposition, and they inadvertently form attacks against other people. If they are pruned, they can accept it, and so these are not evil people, and they are not targets for being cleansed away. But evil people do not accept being pruned, and they often cause disruptions and disturbances to church life, they frequently attack, judge, strike at, and retaliate against others, and do not accept the truth in the slightest. They are evil people, and they are the ones the church needs to address and cleanse away. Why do they need to be addressed and cleansed away? Judging from their nature essence, their behavior of attacking others is not unintentional, but deliberate. This is because these people have malicious humanity—no one can offend them or criticize them, and if someone says something that accidentally hurts them a bit, they will think about finding opportunities for revenge—and so, such people are capable of forming attacks against others. This is one type of person that the church needs to address and cleanse away. Anyone who engages in mutual attacks and verbal spats—no matter which party they are, whether they are actively or passively attacking—as long as they partake in these kinds of attacks, they are an evil person with sinister intentions, who will torment others at the slightest displeasure. Such people cause serious disruptions and disturbances to church life. They are a type of evil person within the church. Less serious cases can be dealt with by isolating the person in question for reflection; in more serious cases, the person in question must be cleared out or expelled. This is the principle that leaders and workers need to understand when it comes to handling this matter.

Through this fellowship, do you now understand what it means to attack others? Can you discern it? After I define what an attack is, some people think, “With such a broad definition of attacking others, who would dare to speak in the future? None of us humans understand the truth, so just opening our mouths will result in us attacking others, which is terrible! In the future, we should just eat food and drink water and be silent, sealing our mouths and not speaking carelessly from the moment we wake up in the morning to avoid attacking others. That would be great, and our days would be much more peaceful.” Is this way of thinking correct? Sealing one’s mouth does not solve the problem; the essence of the issue of attacking others is a problem with one’s heart, it is caused by one’s corrupt dispositions, and it is not a problem with one’s mouth. What people say with their mouths is governed by their corrupt dispositions and their thoughts. If a person’s corrupt dispositions are resolved, and they really understand some truths, and their speech also becomes somewhat principled and measured, then the issue of them attacking others will be partly resolved. Of course, within church life, for people to have normal interpersonal relationships, and not engage in mutual attacks or verbal spats, it is necessary for them to come before God in prayer often, asking for God’s guidance, and for them to be quiet before God with pious hearts that hunger and thirst for righteousness. That way, when someone inadvertently says something that hurts you, your heart can be quiet before God, you won’t hold it against them, and you will not want to argue with the other person, much less to defend and justify yourself. Instead, you will accept it from God, thank God for giving you a good opportunity to know yourself, and thank Him for allowing you to become aware that you still have such-and-such issue through the words of others. This is a good opportunity for you to know yourself, it is God’s grace, and you should accept it from God. You should not harbor resentment toward the person who hurt you, nor feel repulsion and hatred toward the person who inadvertently brought up your faults or exposed your shortcomings, either intentionally or unintentionally avoiding them or employing all sorts of ways to retaliate against them. None of these approaches are pleasing to God. Come before God to pray often, and after your heart has calmed down, you will be able to treat it correctly when other people unintentionally harm you, you will be able to show them tolerance and patience. If someone harms you intentionally, what should you do? How would you approach it—would you argue with them out of hotheadedness, or would you quiet yourself before God and seek the truth? Of course, without Me having to say it, you all know clearly which way of entering is the correct choice.

It is very difficult to avoid mutual attacks and verbal spats in church life by relying on human strength, human self-control, and human patience. No matter how good your humanity is, how gentle and kind you are, or how magnanimous, it’s inevitable that you’ll encounter some people or things that hurt your dignity, integrity, and so on. You should have a principle in your mind for how to handle and treat these kinds of issues. If you approach these issues with hotheadedness, it’s very easy: They curse you, and you curse them, they attack you, and you attack them, taking an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, giving whatever they throw at you back to them using the same methods, and you protect your dignity, integrity, and face. This is very easy to achieve. However, you should weigh up in your heart whether this method is advisable, whether it is beneficial to both you and others, and whether it is pleasing to God. Often, when people have not figured out the essence of this issue, their immediate thoughts are, “He doesn’t show me mercy, so why should I show him any? He shows no love to me, so why should I treat him with love? He has no patience for me and doesn’t help me, so why should I be patient with him or help him? He is unkind to me, so I’ll do wrong to him. Why can’t I return an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?” These are the first thoughts that come to people’s minds. But when you really act in such a way, do you feel at peace inside or uneasy and in pain? When you really choose this, what do you gain? What do you obtain? Many people have experienced that when they really act this way, they feel uneasy inside. Of course, for most people, it’s not a matter of a guilty conscience, much less is it uneasiness caused by a feeling that they are indebted to God; people do not possess that kind of stature. What causes this uneasiness in them? It stems from people’s hatred, the challenge to their dignity and integrity when they are insulted, as well as the hurt they feel and the bursts of fury, hatred, defiance, and indignance that arise in their hearts after being provoked verbally, all of which make people feel uneasy. What are the consequences of this unease? Immediately after feeling it, you’ll begin to contemplate how to use language to handle that person, how to use justifiable and reasonable means to bring them down, to show them that you have dignity and integrity and are not easy to bully. When you feel uneasy, when you produce hatred, what you think about isn’t showing that person patience and tolerance, or treating them correctly, or other positive things, but rather all the negative things, like jealousy, repulsion, loathing, animosity, hatred, and condemnation, to the extent that you curse them countless times in your heart, and, regardless of the time—even while you are eating or sleeping—you think about how to retaliate against them, and imagine how you will deal with them and handle such situations if they attack or condemn you, and so forth. You spend all day pondering how to take the other person down, how to vent your resentment and hatred, and make the other person yield to you and fear you, and not dare to provoke you again. You also often think about how to teach the other person a lesson, to let them know how powerful you are. When such thoughts arise, and when imagined scenarios repeatedly appear in your mind, the disturbance and consequences they cause to you are beyond measure. Once you fall into the state of engaging in verbal spats and mutual attacks, what are the consequences? Is it easy to be quiet before God then? Doesn’t it delay your life entry? (Yes.) This is the impact on a person of choosing the wrong way to handle matters. If you choose the right path, when someone speaks in a way that harms your image or pride, or insults your integrity and dignity, you can choose to be tolerant. You won’t engage in arguments with them using any kind of language or intentionally justify yourself and refute and attack the other party, giving rise to hatred in yourself. What is the essence and significance of being tolerant? You say, “Some of the things he said don’t align with the facts, but that’s how everybody is before they understand the truth and attain salvation, and I was once like this too. Now that I understand the truth, I don’t walk the nonbelievers’ path of arguing about right and wrong or engaging in the philosophy of fighting—I choose tolerance and treating others with love. Some of the things he said don’t align with the facts, but I don’t pay attention to them. I accept what I can recognize and comprehend. I accept it from God and bring it before God in prayer, asking Him to set up circumstances that reveal my corrupt dispositions, allowing me to know the essence of these corrupt dispositions and have an opportunity to begin to address these issues, gradually overcome them, and enter into the truth reality. As for who hurts me with their words and whether the things they say are right or not, or what their intentions are, in one respect, I practice discernment of it, and in another, I tolerate them.” If this person is someone who accepts the truth, you can sit down and fellowship with them peacefully. If they aren’t, if they’re an evil person, then don’t pay attention to them. Wait until they have performed to a sufficient extent, and all the brothers and sisters thoroughly discern them, and you do too, and the leaders and workers are about to clear them out and handle them—that’s when the time has come for God to address them, and of course, you will also feel delighted. However, the path you should choose is not at all to engage in verbal spats with evil people or to argue with them and try to justify yourself. Instead, it is to practice according to the truth principles whenever anything happens. No matter whether it’s dealing with people who have hurt you or those who haven’t and are beneficial to you, the principles of practice should be the same. When you choose this path, will there be any hatred in your heart? There may be a little discomfort. Who wouldn’t feel uncomfortable when their dignity is hurt? If someone claimed to not feel uncomfortable, that would be a lie, it would be deceitful, but you can endure and suffer this hardship for the sake of practicing the truth. When you choose this path, you will have a clear conscience when you come before God again. Why will your conscience be clear? Because you will know clearly that your words do not stem from hotheadedness, that you don’t engage in disputes with others until you’re red in the face for the sake of your own selfish desires, and that, based on a foundation of comprehending the truth, you instead follow God’s way and walk your own path. You will be utterly clear in your heart that the path you have chosen is directed by God, required by God, and so you will feel particularly at peace inside. When you have such peace, will the hatred and personal grudges between you and others disturb you? (No.) When you truly let go and willingly choose the positive path, your heart will be quiet and at peace. You will no longer be disturbed by resentment, hatred, and the retaliatory mindset and schemes generated from that hatred, among other things that are of hotheadedness. The path you’ve chosen will bring you peace and a quiet heart, and those things that are of hotheadedness will no longer be able to disturb you. When they can’t disturb you anymore, will you still think of ways to attack those who hurt you with their words or to engage in verbal spats with them? You will not. Of course, occasionally your hotheadedness, impulsiveness, and resentment will be evoked due to your small stature or due to some special contexts. However, your determination, resolve, and will to practice the truth will prevent these things from perturbing your heart. That is, these things cannot disturb you. You may still have outbursts of hotheadedness, such as thinking, “He’s constantly making things difficult for me. I ought to give him a talking to someday, and ask him why he’s always targeting me and always giving me a hard time. I should ask him why he always looks down on me and insults me.” You may sometimes have these kinds of thoughts. However, after some more thinking, you will realize that they are wrong, and that acting in that way would displease God. When such thoughts arise, you will quickly return before God to reverse this state, so these erroneous thoughts will not dominate you. Consequently, some positive things will begin to emerge within you—such as self-knowledge, as well as some enlightenment and illumination that God gives you, which will enable you to discern people and see through matters—and, without you realizing it, these positive things will make you understand and enter into more of the truth reality. At this point, your resistance, that is, the “antibodies” that fend off hatred, selfish desires, and hotheadedness, will become stronger and stronger, and your stature will grow increasingly larger. Those things that are of hotheadedness will no longer be able to control you. Although you might occasionally have some incorrect thoughts, ideas, and impulses, these things will quickly disappear, they will be eliminated and eradicated by your resistance and stature. At this time, positive things, the reality of the truth, and God’s words will dominate within you. When these positive things dominate, you will no longer be influenced by external people, events, and things. Your stature will grow, your state will become increasingly normal, and you will no longer live by corrupt dispositions and develop in the direction of a vicious cycle, and in this way, your stature will continually grow.

When you are in the church or among a group of people, it is beneficial if you can choose to be tolerant and patient and opt for the right path of practice when you encounter personal attacks that harm your dignity and your integrity. You might not see this benefit, but when you experience this kind of event, you will unconsciously discover that God’s requirements for people and the path He provides them are a bright avenue and a true and living way, that they enable people to gain the truth and benefit people, and that they are the most meaningful path. When you are among a group of people, especially when you are in church life, you can overcome various temptations and enticements. When someone maliciously attacks and hurts you or intentionally seeks to exact revenge against you and vent their hatred upon you, it is crucial that you be able to approach this and practice according to the truth principles. Because God hates people’s corrupt dispositions, He tells people not to approach the things they encounter with hotheadedness, but to be quiet before God and seek the truth and God’s intentions, and then come to understand what God’s requirements for people truly are. Human patience is limited, but once a person understands the truth, there will be principles to their patience, and it can turn into a driving force and aid for that person to practice the truth. However, if a person does not love the truth, likes to argue over right and wrong and attack others, and tends to live within their hotheadedness, then when they are attacked, they will be prone to engaging in verbal spats and mutual attacks. This brings harm to everyone involved, providing no edification or help to anyone. Whenever anyone engages in mutual attacks and verbal spats, afterward they are left exhausted, extremely tired, and both sides are wounded; they aren’t able to obtain any truths at all, and in the end they do not gain anything. What remains is only hatred and the intention to retaliate when they get the opportunity. This is the adverse outcome that mutual attacks and verbal spats ultimately bring upon people.

For the topic of mutual attacks and verbal spats that we just fellowshipped on, do you now understand the principles of discernment? Can you differentiate what situations constitute mutual attacks and verbal spats? Mutual attacks and verbal spats occur frequently among groups of people and they can often be observed. Mutual attacks primarily involve purposefully targeting somebody’s issues to personally attack them, judge them, condemn them, and even curse them, with the aim of exacting revenge, counterattacking, venting personal spite, and so on. In any case, mutual attacks and verbal spats are not about fellowshipping the truth, nor are they about practicing the truth, and they are certainly not a manifestation of harmonious cooperation. Instead, they are a manifestation of retaliating and striking against people due to hotheadedness and Satan’s corrupt disposition. The purpose of mutual attacks and verbal spats is absolutely not to fellowship the truth clearly, much less is it to argue in order to understand the truth. Rather, the purpose is to satisfy one’s own corrupt dispositions, ambitions, selfish desires, and fleshly preferences. Obviously, mutual attacks are not about fellowshipping the truth, and they certainly are not about helping and treating people with love; instead, they are one of Satan’s strategies and methods for tormenting, toying with, and fooling people. People live within corrupt dispositions and do not understand the truth. If they do not choose to practice the truth, it is very easy for them to get trapped by such snares and temptations, and within battles of mutual attacks and verbal spats. They argue until their faces turn red and even go on and on forever, all over a single word, phrase, or look, fighting for years to outdo each other, to the point of a lose-lose situation, over just one thing. As soon as they meet, they argue endlessly, and some even attack, curse, and condemn each other in computer chat groups. How severe this hatred has become! They have not cursed at each other enough during gatherings, they have not yet relieved their hatred, they have not achieved their purposes, and after they go home, the more they think about it, the angrier they become, and there they continue to curse each other. What kind of spirit is this? Is it worth promoting, is it worth advocating? (No.) What kind of “dauntless spirit” is this? This is a spirit of fearing nothing, it is a spirit of lawlessness, it is a consequence of Satan corrupting man. Of course, such behaviors and actions bring significant disturbances and losses to the life entry of these individuals, and they also cause disturbances and disruptions to church life. Therefore, when facing these situations, if leaders and workers find that two people are attacking each other and engaging in verbal spats, and swearing to fight to the end, they must quickly cleanse them away, and they must not tolerate them and they certainly must not indulge them. They must protect the other brothers and sisters and maintain normal church life, ensuring that each gathering achieves results, and not allow such individuals to occupy the time of the brothers and sisters for reading God’s words and fellowshipping the truth, disturbing normal church life. If it is discovered during gatherings that they are attacking each other and engaging in verbal spats, this must be promptly stopped and resolved. If it cannot be restricted, these people must be exposed and dissected immediately through a gathering, and they should be cleansed away. The church is a place for eating and drinking God’s words, for worshiping God; it is not a place for attacking each other or engaging in verbal spats to vent personal spite. Anyone who frequently disturbs church life, affecting the life entry of God’s chosen people, must be cleansed away. The church does not welcome such people, it does not allow disturbances from devils or the presence of evil people—cleanse these people away, and the problem will be resolved.

In the church, if it is discovered that some people are engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats, then regardless of what their excuses and reasons are, and regardless of what the focus of their discussion is—whether it’s something that everyone cares about or not—so long as disruptions and disturbances are being caused to the church life, this issue must be resolved promptly and without holding back. If it is not possible to stop or restrict those involved, they should be cleansed away. This is the work that leaders and workers should do when faced with such situations. The main principle is not for you to abet these people’s bad behavior by tolerating them or indulge them, nor is it for you to act as “an upright official” adjudicating right and wrong for these people, seeing who is correct and who is incorrect, who is in the right and who is not, clearly distinguishing who is right from who is wrong, and then meting out equal punishment to both parties, or punishing the one that you deem guilty and rewarding the other—this is not the way to solve the problem. In handling this matter, you are not supposed to measure it against the law, much less are you supposed to measure and judge it against moral standards, but rather, you are supposed to measure and handle it according to the principles of the church’s work. With regard to both parties involved in mutual attacks, as long as they cause disruptions and disturbances to the church life, the church’s leaders and workers should take it as their bounden duty to stop and restrict them, or to isolate them or clear them out, rather than listening attentively to both sides recount what happened and talk about each of their reasons and excuses, and the intent, purpose, and root cause behind them attacking the other person and getting into the verbal spat—they’re not supposed to understand the whole story, instead they’re supposed to solve the problem, eliminating these disruptions and disturbances to the church life, and handling those who caused them. Suppose that leaders and workers smooth things over and take a “middle-of-the-road” approach, adopting a conciliatory policy toward both of the people who engaged in the mutual attacks, allowing them to wantonly cause disruptions and disturbances to the church life without intervening or handling it—they keep indulging these people. They just exhort and advise them each time, and aren’t able to thoroughly solve the problem. Such leaders and workers are derelict in their duties. If the problem of people engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats arises in the church, causing serious disturbances and damage to the church life, thereby giving rise to resentment and repulsion in the majority of people, leaders and workers must act quickly, isolating or clearing out both parties according to the house of God’s work arrangements and principles for cleansing the church. They should not act as “upright officials” adjudicating the case for those involved and making judgments regarding these personal quarrels, they should not listen attentively to these people spouting putrid, long-winded nonsense to see who is right and who is wrong, who is correct and who is incorrect, and after judging these things, get more people to carry out discussions and fellowship on these things, leading more people to harbor repulsion and loathing in their hearts. This will waste time that people should be using to eat, drink, and fellowship God’s words. This is even more so a dereliction of duty by leaders and workers, and this principle of practice is incorrect. If the parties who have been restricted repent at some point, and no longer take up gathering time with their mutual attacks and verbal spats, then the isolation imposed on them can be lifted. If they have been cleared out as evil people, and someone claims that they have changed for the better, it’s necessary to see if they show actual manifestations of repentance, and to also seek the majority’s opinion on the matter. Even if they are accepted back, they must be closely monitored, and their speaking time must be strictly restricted, and later on they should be handled accordingly based on their manifestations. These are principles that church leaders and workers should understand and pay attention to. Of course, handling this matter cannot be based on subjective assumptions; there must be a nature of causing disruptions and disturbances to the mutual attacks of both parties. People should not be prohibited from speaking and isolated just because one of them momentarily said something that hurt the other, and that person then retaliated with their own comment. Handling people in that way is really not in line with the principles! Leaders and workers must grasp the principles properly, ensuring that the majority agree that their actions are in line with the principles, instead of running amok doing bad things or exaggerating the severity of the issue to the greatest extent possible. When it comes to this aspect of work, in one respect, the majority must learn to discern what constitutes an attack, and in another, church leaders and workers also need to know the principles that should be grasped and the responsibilities that should be fulfilled in performing this work.

4. Arbitrary Condemnations of People

There is another manifestation of mutual attacks. Some people know some spiritual terms, and they always use some in their speech, such as “devil,” “Satan,” “not practicing the truth,” “not loving the truth,” “Pharisee,” and so on—they use these terms to arbitrarily judge certain people. Doesn’t this have a bit of a nature of an attack to it? Previously, there was a person who wanted to curse at anyone who did not act according to his wishes when he interacted with the brothers and sisters. But he thought to himself: "Now that I believe in God, cursing at people seems indecent. It makes me seem out of keeping with saintly decorum. I can’t curse or use foul language, but if I don’t curse, I will feel unsettled, I’ll be unable to relieve my hatred—I’ll always want to curse at people. How should I curse at them, then?" So he invented a new term. Whoever offended him, hurt him through their actions, or did not listen to him, would be cursed by him like so: “Evil devil!” “You are an evil devil!” “So-and-so is an evil devil!” He added “evil” in front of the word “devil”—I had really never heard anyone use this phrase before. Isn’t it quite novel? The brothers and sisters were casually cursed by him as “evil devils”—who would feel comfortable hearing that? For example, if he asked a brother or a sister to pour him a cup of water, and that person was too busy and told him to do it himself, he would curse at them: “You evil devil!” If he returned from a gathering and saw that his meal was not yet prepared, he would become angry: “You evil devils, all of you are so lazy. I go out to do my duty, and I don’t even have a meal ready-made for me when I return!” Anyone who interacted with him could potentially be cursed as an “evil devil.” What kind of person is this? (An evil person.) How is he evil? In his eyes, anyone who offends him or does not conform to his wishes is an evil devil—He himself is not, but everyone else is. Does he have any basis for saying this? None at all; he just arbitrarily selected a word to curse people with that would allow him to relieve his hatred and vent his emotions. He believes that if he truly curses at someone, others will say he doesn’t seem like a believer in God, but he thinks that if he calls someone a devil, that’s not cursing, and it should seem reasonable to others, satisfying his own desires while leaving no room for others to find fault with him. This guy is pretty cunning and quite evil, he uses the most malicious language, a kind of language that leaves people no means of resistance, in order to take revenge on them and condemn them, and yet people cannot accuse him of cursing or speaking unreasonably. When faced with such a person, would most people avoid him or draw near to him? (They would avoid him.) Why? They can’t afford to provoke him, so they can only steer clear of him; this is what smart people would do.

The phenomenon of someone being arbitrarily condemned, labeled, and tormented often occurs in every church. For example, some people harbor a prejudice against a certain leader or worker and, in order to get revenge, make comments about them behind their back, exposing and dissecting them under the guise of fellowshipping about the truth. The intent and purposes behind such actions are wrong. If one is really fellowshipping on the truth to give testimony for God and to benefit others, they should fellowship on their own true experiences, and bring benefit to others by dissecting and knowing themselves. Such practice yields better results, and God’s chosen people will approve of it. If one’s fellowship exposes, attacks, and belittles another person in an attempt to strike at or get revenge on them, then the intent of the fellowship is wrong, it is unjustified, loathed by God and not edifying to the brothers and sisters. If someone’s intent is to condemn others or to torment them, then they are an evil person and they are doing evil. All God’s chosen people should have discernment when it comes to evil people. If someone willfully strikes at, exposes, or belittles people, then they should be helped lovingly, fellowshipped with and dissected, or pruned. If they are unable to accept the truth, and stubbornly refuse to mend their ways, then this is a different matter entirely. When it comes to evil people who often arbitrarily condemn, label and torment others, they should be thoroughly exposed, so that everyone may learn to discern them, and then they should be restricted or expelled from the church. This is essential, as such people disturb the church life and the church work, and they are likely to mislead people and bring chaos upon the church. In particular, some evil people often attack and condemn others, solely to achieve their purpose of showing themselves off and making others look up to them. These evil people frequently use the opportunity of fellowshipping on the truth at gatherings to indirectly expose, dissect and suppress others. They even justify this by saying that they’re doing it to help people and to resolve problems present in the church, and use these pretexts as a cover by which to achieve their purposes. They are the kind of people who attack and torment others, and they are all clearly evil people. All those who attack and condemn people who pursue the truth are extremely vicious, and only those who expose and dissect evil people to safeguard the work of God’s house have a sense of justice and are approved of by God. Evil people are often very cunning in their evildoing; they are all skilled at using doctrine to come up with justifications for themselves and achieve their purpose of misleading others. If God’s chosen people do not have discernment of them and are unable to restrict these evil people, church life and the work of the church will be thrown into a complete mess—or even pandemonium. When evil people fellowship about problems and dissect them, they always have an intent and a purpose, and it’s always aimed at somebody. They are not dissecting or knowing themselves, nor opening up and laying themselves bare to resolve their own problems—rather, they are seizing the opportunity to expose, dissect, and attack others. They often take advantage of fellowshipping their self-knowledge to dissect and condemn others, and by means of fellowshipping God’s words and the truth, they expose, belittle, and vilify people. They especially feel repulsion and hatred toward those who pursue the truth, those who bear a burden for the work of the church, and those who often do their duties. Evil people will use all sorts of justifications and excuses to strike at these people’s motivation and prevent them from carrying out church work. Part of what they feel toward them is jealousy and hatred; another part is fear that these people, by rising up to do work, pose a threat to their fame and gain and status. So, they are anxious to try every possible way to warn, suppress, and restrict them, even going so far as to gather ammunition with which to frame them and distort the facts in order to condemn them. This reveals completely that the disposition of these evil people is one that hates the truth and positive things. They have special hatred for those who pursue the truth and love positive things, and for those who are rather guileless, decent, and upstanding. They may not say so, but this is the sort of mindset they have. So why do they specifically target pursuers of the truth, and decent and upstanding people, to expose, belittle, suppress, and exclude? This is clearly an attempt on their part to overthrow and strike down good people and those who pursue the truth, to trample them underfoot, so that they can control the church. Some people do not believe that this is so. To them, I ask one question: Why, when fellowshipping on the truth, do these evil people not expose or dissect themselves, and always target and expose others instead? Could it really be that they do not reveal corruption, or that they do not have corrupt dispositions? Certainly not. Why, then, do they insist on targeting others for exposure and dissection? What are they trying to achieve, exactly? This question calls for deep thought. One is doing as they should if they expose the evil deeds of evil people that disturb the church. But instead these people are exposing and tormenting good people, under the pretext of fellowshipping about the truth. What is their intent and purpose? Are they furious because they see that God saves good people? That is what it really is. God does not save evil people, so evil people hate God and good people—this is all quite natural. Evil people do not accept or pursue the truth; they cannot be saved themselves, yet they torment those good people who pursue the truth and can be saved. What is the problem here? If these people had knowledge of themselves and the truth, they could open up and fellowship, yet they are always targeting and provoking others—they always have a tendency to attack others—and they are always setting up those who pursue the truth as their imagined enemies. These are the hallmarks of evil people. Those capable of such evil are the authentic devils and Satans, quintessential antichrists, who should be restricted, and if they do a great deal of evil, they must be handled promptly—expel them from the church. All those who strike at and exclude good people are rotten apples. Why do I call them rotten apples? Because they are likely to provoke unnecessary disputes and conflict in the church, causing the state of affairs there to grow graver and graver. They target one person one day and another the next, and they are always taking aim at others, at those who love and pursue the truth. This is liable to disturb church life and have repercussions on the normal eating and drinking of God’s words by God’s chosen people, as well as on their normal fellowshipping on the truth. These evil people often take advantage of living the church life to attack others in the name of fellowshipping about the truth. There is hostility in everything they say; they make provocative remarks to attack and condemn those who pursue the truth and those who expend themselves for God. What will be the consequences of this? It will disrupt and disturb the life of the church, and cause people to be uneasy in their hearts and unable to be quiet before God. In particular, the unscrupulous things these evil people say to condemn, strike at, and wound others can provoke resistance. This is not conducive to resolving problems; on the contrary, it foments fear and anxiety in the church and strains relationships between people, leading to tension developing between them and causing them to fall into strife. The behavior of these people not only impacts church life, but also gives rise to conflict in the church. It can even impact the work of the church as a whole and the spreading of the gospel. Therefore, leaders and workers need to warn this sort of person, and they also need to restrict and handle them. In one respect, brothers and sisters must put severe restrictions on these evil people that frequently attack and condemn others. In another respect, church leaders should promptly expose and stop those who arbitrarily strike at and condemn others, and if they remain incorrigible, clear them out of the church. Evil people must be prevented from disturbing the life of the church in gatherings, and at the same time, muddled people should be restricted from speaking in a way that impacts the church life. If an evil person doing evil is found, they must be exposed. They absolutely must not be allowed to act willfully, doing evil as they wish. This is necessary to maintain normal church life and ensure that God’s chosen people may gather, eat and drink of God’s words, and fellowship about the truth normally, allowing them to fulfill their duties normally. Only then can God’s will be carried out in the church, and only in this way can His chosen people understand the truth, enter reality, and gain God’s blessings. Have you discovered these kinds of evil people in the church? They always harbor an envious hatred toward good people, and they always target them. Today they dislike one good person, tomorrow another; they are capable of critiquing anyone and picking out a multitude of faults in them, and moreover, what they say sounds very well-founded and reasonable, and eventually they spark widespread outrage, becoming a scourge to the group. They disturb the church to the extent that people’s hearts are thrown into disarray, many people become negative and weak, no benefit or edification is gained from gatherings, and some even lose the desire to attend gatherings. Aren’t such evil people rotten apples? If they haven’t reached the level where they ought to be cleared out, they should be isolated or restricted. For example, during gatherings, assign them a secluded seat to prevent them from influencing others. If they insist on seeking opportunities to speak out and attack people, they should be restricted—prohibited from saying useless things. If it becomes impossible to restrict them and they are on the verge of erupting or resisting, they should be promptly cleared out. That is, when they are no longer willing to be restricted, and say, “On what basis are you restricting my speech? Why does everyone else get to speak for five minutes, and I only get one minute?”—when they constantly ask these questions, that means they are going to resist. When they are about to resist, aren’t they being defiant? Aren’t they trying to cause trouble, to stir up unrest? Are they not about to disturb the church life? They’re about to reveal who they really are; the time to handle them has arrived—they must be quickly cleansed away. Is this reasonable? Yes, it is. Ensuring that the majority can live a normal church life is truly not easy, with all sorts of evil people, evil spirits, filthy demons, and “special talents” looking to spoil things. Can we afford to not restrict them? Some “special talents” start belittling and attacking others as soon as they open their mouths—if you wear glasses or if you do not have much hair, they attack you; if you share your experiential testimony during gatherings or if you are proactive and responsible in doing your duties, they attack you and judge you; if you have faith in God during trials, if you are weak, or if you overcome family difficulties using your faith without complaining about God, they attack you. What does attack mean here? It means that no matter what others do, it never pleases these people; they always dislike it, they always look for faults that don’t exist, they always seek to accuse other people of things, and nothing other people do is ever right in their eyes. Even if you fellowship the truth and address issues according to the work arrangements of God’s house, they will nitpick and criticize, finding fault in everything you do. They deliberately cause trouble, and everyone is subject to their attacks. Every time a person like this appears in the church, you must handle them; if two of them appear, then you should handle them both. This is because the harm they cause to the church life is significant, they cause disruptions and disturbances to the work of the church, and the consequences of this are dire.

B. The Characteristics of the Humanity of People Who Often Attack Others

Today, we’ve fellowshipped on several aspects related to the issue of mutual attacks and verbal spats. Have you grasped the nature of the manifestations exhibited by various types of individuals within each of these aspects? Let’s start with those who tend to attack others—do they possess the reason of normal humanity? (No.) How does their lack of reason manifest? What are their attitudes and principles toward people, events, and things? What methods and attitudes do they choose to deal with a variety of people, events, and things? For instance, loving to argue over right and wrong, is this not one of the attitudes they harbor toward people, events, and things? (It is.) Loving to argue over right and wrong means trying to clarify what’s right or wrong in every single matter, not stopping until the matter has been cleared up and it’s understood who was right and who was wrong, and stubbornly fixating on pointless things. Just what is the point of acting like this? Is it ultimately right to argue over right and wrong? (No.) Where is the mistake? Is there any connection between this and practicing the truth? (There is no connection.) Why do you say there is no connection? Arguing over right and wrong is not adhering to the truth principles, it is not discussing or fellowshipping the truth principles; instead, people always talk about who is right and who is wrong, who is correct and who is mistaken, who is in the right and who isn’t, who has a good reason, and who doesn’t, who expresses higher doctrine; this is what they probe into. When God puts people through trials, they always try to reason with God, they always come out with some reason or another. Does God discuss such things with you? Does God ask what the context is? Does God ask about what your reasons and causes are? He does not. God asks whether you have an attitude of submission or resistance when He tries you. God asks whether or not you understand the truth, whether or not you are submissive. This is all God asks, nothing else. God does not ask you what the reason for your lack of submission is, He does not look at whether you have a good reason—He absolutely does not consider such things. God only looks at whether or not you are submissive. Regardless of your living environment and what the context is, God only scrutinizes whether there is submission in your heart, whether you have an attitude of submission. God does not debate right and wrong with you; God does not care what your reasons are. God only cares whether you are truly submissive—this is all that God asks you. Is this not a truth principle? The kind of people who love to argue over right and wrong, who love to engage in verbal spats—are there the truth principles in their hearts? (No.) Why not? Have they ever paid any attention to the truth principles? Have they ever pursued them? Have they ever sought them? They have never paid them any attention, or pursued them or sought them, and they are totally absent from their hearts. As a result, they can only live within human notions, all that is in their hearts is right and wrong, correct and incorrect, pretexts, reasons, sophistry, and arguments, soon after which they attack, judge, and condemn each other. The disposition of people like this is that they like to debate right and wrong and judge and condemn people. People like this have no love or acceptance of the truth, they are liable to try and reason with God, even to pass judgment on God and defy God. Ultimately, they will end up being punished.

Do those who love to argue over right and wrong seek the truth? Do they seek God’s intentions, God’s requirements, or the truth principles that should be practiced in these situations through the people, events, and things that they encounter within them? They do not. When confronted with situations, they tend to study “what that event was like” or “what that person is like.” What is this behavior? Isn’t this what people often refer to as relentlessly fixating on people and things? They argue about people’s justifications and the course of events, they insist on clarifying these things, but they do not mention in which part of the process of these complex situations they sought the truth, understood the truth, or were enlightened. They lack these experiences and methods of practice. They just keep saying: “You were clearly targeting me with that matter, you were insulting me. Do you think I’m so dumb that I can’t tell? Why would you insult me? I haven’t offended you; why would you target me? Since you’re targeting me, I won’t hold back! I’ve been patient with you for a long time, but my patience has its limits. Don’t think I’m easy to push around; I’m not afraid of you!” Clinging to these issues, they incessantly present their justifications, dwelling on the right and wrong and the correct and incorrect of the matter, but their so-called justifications do not align with the truth at all, and not a single word of them conforms to God’s requirements. They dwell on people, events, and things to the extent that others become utterly fed up and no one is willing to listen to them, yet they themselves never tire of speaking about these things, they talk about them wherever they go, as if they were possessed. This is called relentlessly fixating on people and things, and simply refusing to seek the truth. The second characteristic of people who engage in mutual attacks and verbal spats is their particular fondness for relentlessly fixating on people and things. Do those who relentlessly fixate on people and things love the truth? (No.) They do not love the truth, this is obvious. Then, do these individuals understand the truth? Do they know what the truth that God speaks of really is? Judging from their outward behavior of relentlessly fixating on people and things, do they know what the truth really is? It’s clear they do not. What is the idea that they revere? It’s the idea that whoever’s words are the most justified is right, whoever’s actions are aboveboard and can be laid for all to see is in the right, and whoever acts in accordance with morality, ethics, and traditional culture, gaining the approval of the majority, is in the right. In their view, this “right” represents the truth, so they can relentlessly fixate on people and things with great brazenness, and they never stop dwelling on these matters. They believe that being justified equates to possessing the truth—isn’t this very troublesome? Some people say, “I haven’t disrupted or disturbed the work of the church, I don’t take advantage of others, I don’t like to steal from others, and I’m not a bully; I’m not an evil person.” Is the implication here that they are a person who practices the truth, someone who possesses the truth? A large portion of those who relentlessly fixate on people and things believe themselves to be upright people who consequently needn’t worry about rumors, and consider themselves to be upstanding, honorable people who would never flatter others. Therefore, when confronted with situations, they tend to argue and debate, and insist on proving that their justification is correct through these means. They believe that if their justification is solid, and it can be presented openly, and the majority agrees with it, then they are a person who possesses the truth. What is their “truth”? By what standard is it measured? Do you think such people can understand the truth? (No.) Therefore, they always relentlessly fixate on people and things and stubbornly dwell on them. These people do not understand the truth, so they always say, “I haven’t offended you. Why are you always targeting me? It’s wrong of you to target me!” They believe, “If I haven’t offended you, you shouldn’t treat me this way. Since you’re treating me this way, I’m going to get back at you, I’m going to retaliate, and my retaliation is legitimate self-defense, it’s justifiable. This is the truth principle. Therefore, what you’re doing doesn’t align with the truth principles, but what I’m doing does. So I will fixate on this matter, I will always bring up this issue, and always mention you!” They believe that relentlessly fixating on people and things aligns with the truth principles, but isn’t this a huge mistake? It is indeed a huge mistake, and they are misoriented. Relentlessly fixating on people and things is an entirely different matter than practicing the truth. This is the second problem with these people’s humanity—they relentlessly fixate on people and things. What are problems of humanity related to? Aren’t they related to one’s nature? These people have believed in God for many years, but they do not understand the truth, and they think that the terms they know, such as being open and aboveboard, upright and honest, candid and forthcoming, straightforward and upstanding, and so on are the fundamentals of how to be a person, and they consider these things to be the truth principles. This is a profoundly incorrect viewpoint.

People who engage in mutual attacks and who tend to partake in verbal spats have abnormal humanity. The first aspect of this is loving to argue over right and wrong; the second is relentlessly fixating on people and things. What’s the third aspect? Isn’t it their complete refusal to accept the truth? They can’t even accept a single correct statement. They think, “Even if what you say is right, you still need to help me save face, you need to speak tactfully and not hurt me. If your words are cutting and could make me lose face, you must say them to me in private. You mustn’t hurt me in front of a lot of people, giving no consideration to my pride and not giving me a way out of this embarrassing predicament. Moreover, what you say is wrong, so I must retaliate!” In more serious cases, these kinds of people resist: “No matter how correct your words are, I won’t accept them! It’s okay if you talk about anyone else, but targeting me is not okay, even if you are right!” Even when reading God’s words, if they sense that God’s words are targeting or exposing them, they feel averse to those words and are unwilling to listen to them—it’s just that, since they’re only faced with God’s words, they can’t argue with Him. If someone points out their issues or states to them face-to-face, or unintentionally mentions them without meaning to target them, they are capable of retaliating and initiating verbal spats. Doesn’t this mean such individuals utterly refuse to accept the truth? (Yes.) This is their humanity essence—an absolute refusal to accept the truth. Thus, regardless of the content of their verbal spats or where these spats take place, the humanity of such people is clear. They do not understand the truth, and even if they understand what’s being said during sermons, they do not accept the truth; they still engage in mutual attacks and continually partake in verbal spats, or often tend to attack others. Judging by these manifestations of theirs, what kind of people are they? Firstly, are they lovers of the truth? Are they individuals who can practice the truth when they understand it? (No.) When they discover problems, can they seek the truth to resolve them? (No.) When they harbor notions, and prejudices or personal opinions regarding other people, can they take the initiative to put them aside to seek the truth? (No.) They cannot do any of these things. Looking at all these things they are incapable of, it’s evident that all individuals who are prone to attacking others and engaging in verbal spats are no good. Judging from their various manifestations, they do not love the truth and are not willing to seek it. In matters involving the truth, regardless of which biases or erroneous views they develop, they remain self-righteous and do not seek the truth at all, and even when the truth is clearly fellowshipped to them, they refuse to accept it, and much less are they willing to practice it. At the same time, these individuals exhibit an even more detestable manifestation: After gaining an understanding of some words and doctrines, they use these grand doctrines that they understand to arbitrarily attack, judge, and condemn others, and even to constrain and control others. If they don’t manage to subdue other people with their judgments and condemnations, they’ll think of every which way to constrain them with hollow theories. If those people still don’t concede, they’ll resort to even more despicable and terrible methods to attack them, until those people concede to them, become weak and negative, or start to admire them and be manipulated by them—then they’ll feel satisfied. So, based on the behaviors, manifestations, and attitude toward the truth of these individuals, what kind of people are they? They utterly refuse to accept the truth—this is their attitude toward the truth. And what about their humanity? The majority of these individuals are evil people; conservatively speaking, more than 90% of them are. Evil people like to clarify right and wrong in every matter, otherwise, they won’t let it go, and they always have this kind of tendency. Additionally, when faced with situations, evil individuals dwell on people and things, and relentlessly fixate on them, always presenting their own justifications, always trying to get everyone to agree with and support them, and say they are right, and not allowing anyone to say anything bad about them. Moreover, when evil people are faced with situations, they always look for opportunities to cage and control people. What method do they use to control people? They condemn everyone, making every other person believe that they are inadequate, that they have problems and faults, and that they are inferior to these evil people, after which the evil people feel pleased and happy. Once they have beaten everyone else down, leaving only themselves standing, haven’t they brought everyone under their control? The purpose they achieve by controlling people is to condemn and knock everyone down, making everyone believe that they are incapable, become negative and weak, lose faith in God’s words and in the truth, and lose faith in God and not have a path to follow—after this these evil people feel happy and satisfied. Looking at these aspects, isn’t it clear that evil people make up the majority of these kinds of individuals? Look at which types of people always tend to attack others when they are in a group, either face-to-face or behind people’s backs, using various methods to attack others—such people are evil ones. These individuals do not accept the truth at all, nor do they fellowship the truth, and they often take advantage of a situation to brag that they are good people, that whatever they do is justified and well-founded, and that they behave in an upright and above-board manner—they always brag that they are decent and honorable people, and straightforward and righteous individuals. These people never testify to the truth, nor do they testify to God’s words, they just like to relentlessly fixate on people and things, and present their own justifications. Their intent and purpose is to make people believe they are good people, and that they understand everything. Regarding those in the church who often engage in mutual attacks and verbal spats, whether it’s those who initiate the attacks or those who are attacked, if the church life is disrupted and disturbed, then most people should stand up to warn and restrict them. These people shouldn’t be given time to run amok doing bad things, nor should they be allowed to affect others by venting their personal spite and seeking revenge due to their personal grudges and momentary anger. Of course, church leaders should also fulfill their responsibilities in a dutiful manner, effectively restricting these people from disrupting and disturbing the church life, and protecting the majority of people from being disturbed. When people engage in mutual attacks and verbal spats, church leaders should be able to stop and restrict them in a timely manner. If trying to stop and restrict them doesn’t solve the problem, and they continue to attack each other and get into verbal spats, disturbing others, and they continue to damage the church life, then such individuals should be cleared out or expelled. This is the responsibility of the church leaders.

We have fellowshipped quite a bit about the behaviors and manifestations of those who engage in mutual attacks and verbal spats. We also briefly dissected and fellowshipped on their humanity just now, which will enable you to gain more discernment of them, and enable most of you to figure out what’s going on and discern them in a timely manner when they speak and act. The more thoroughly you understand and know the essence of these people, the quicker you can discern them, and consequently you will be less and less disturbed by them. Most of you should be clear about the harm that those who engage in mutual attacks and verbal spats cause to the church life and to God’s chosen people. These kinds of people will definitely not reflect on themselves and stop fighting. If they are not promptly handled and cleared out, they will cause continuous disruptions and disturbances to the church life. Therefore, handling and clearing out such people is a very important item of work for church leaders and it should not be overlooked.

June 5, 2021