My Journal

It is often argued that leading and teaching are different in the church. It is not the purpose of my entry here. Except that I would just say, I disagree: If one lead a Bible study, one is teaching. So it is not wise to have a rotating "leading" roster that just about any believer in the group can lead.

Now to the main topic:

Should I be asked to lead even when I just joined in, of course most likely I would...not because I accept some recognition, but so that they won't say of me "He just loves to criticize and never do anything himself". However, I would most likely refused first - unless they show desparation, then the usual response would be "He does not care for the group". "On the contrary", I would respond, "I do love the group, and really wish to accept the position and lead, however, let's be clear here, that it is not only I who is being evaluated or approved, but that I am also evaluating and approving you."

如何知道我不是唐迷。。。就是因為如果有一些誤會而產生唐崇榮牧師對我不好，我還可以為他禱告，一樣愛他。

同時我也願意與他繼續談不同意見的神學問題。而不是隱藏不同意的地方，把這方面的真理不當一回事地輕看，再以藉口維護自義自傲。

Since there are vain praisers. Should I deal with them or just ignore them and take their money.

If I pick the latter...it is irresponsible. Even if I were to argue..."but how would one know if this offerer is oferring with a vain heart or a godly heart?" The issue is still connected to responsibility: Should one always be skeptical of the motive of others (This I believe is an excuse for the irresponsible already), or should one ignore any signs of vainity until the vain glorifier purposely, verbally declares his/her heresy (would the heresy in this case be treated as heresy, or a personal attack?).

So if I were to be responsible, I must know the motive of the giver to my best wisdom. Without skepticism that is without cause, of course.

But how could I without skepticism? If I'm not careful I could risk giving into pride.

It is possible to judge the validity of their motive by examining and even testing them.

This is for only when dealing with outside givers. Not those whom I have preached and regenerated in the Spirit through my labor.

To examine, is to take care of their reaction to my preaching, my ministry, what differences do they see that caused them so "moved". Which must usually follow with the test of humility: That my achievement is not my own, but that I have inherited from other great men of God...Paul Washer...Stephen Tong...etc. all of which I've not affiliated with, who are still alive and having their own ministries. They must know this, so that I shall see, if they would give credit to those. From an extreme view "If you don't give offering to Heart Cry ministry, don't bother giving to me - And if you give to Heart Cry and suddenly don't want to give to me just because of all this testing of motive, then don't even tell me about it, just scram quietly, I don't need that kind of serving attitude".

What about convenience? My ministry is closer to home, and STEMI is so far and so hard to reach. "I can and will help you send them those money", but they would have to do it on their own. I should not send it for them. So they do not add the confusion between laziness and convenience to their already twisted motive.

Sometimes when I attempt to medidate on Glory for God, to be closer to God, it is frigthening to be reminded that I'm closer to the devil as well. Because I do not see the devil as any ordinary enemy of God. Its mystery is one that's like John Milton's Satan and yet maybe not.

To know the devil well, is to know God well. It is to discover the hidden pride in me, the hidden self-righteousness.