Considering Compliance

So in essence the author of this article is pro WO.
Can I conclude that?

1 Like

Powerful statement! Thank you?

There are two problems with this piece

  1. It offers no solution to the non-compliance problem.
  2. It accuses the church of shaming and shunning on an issue where that has not really happened. Roberts knew what she was getting into being elected agaisnt policy. The nominating committee wanted to press the issue, so put her up to it. What did they expect the GC to do? Let her come in and negate the vote in one fell swoop? The SWC conference was floating a trial ballon. It popped.
1 Like


You made very good points.

Also, this is where you can find double standards. Like I said before, at levels below the GC, like at the conference level or local church level, there are measures taken against “entities” that are not “compliant”.

For example, if a local church is not “compliant”, the conference can and does take action against it (I am speaking from experience). Nowhere have I heard someone saying that we should do nothing against it and just accept that “misbehavior” just because “we are ONE with differences.”.

In the same way, when a church member is not “compliant”, the local church can and does take action against the said church member (again, speaking from experience).

But the GC is supposed to do nothing when facing situations of non-compliance.

It doesn’t make sense at all.

1 Like

And, I would say, a spiritually mature church. Our denominational leaders and those who side with such policy and behavior, advertise their spiritual childishness and immaturity. Sad, but hopefully not irreparable.



1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.