Consequences? You're interested in consequences? Should that be our chief motivation in criticizing a fallen leader seeking to again serve the Lord?



God did not remove David after his heinous crime. With what measure we mete, it shall be meted to us again. Let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Praise God that He is so merciful, or none of us would be preserved.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Apparently you didn't read the quote from Testimonies to Ministers? or do you believe that somehow the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy contradict each other? It all fits together...there is no contradiction...

Tammy,

Ellen White never said anything that would lead me to believe Dr. Pipim has no chance to ever work for God again. I see no contradiction with her writings in this regard. Perhaps I have interpreted the statement you quoted differently from how you prefer to view it.

What concerns me most, here, is not what Dr. Pipim should or should not be allowed to do in the future, or what punishment should be his. God is in charge of those details, not me. What concerns me most is the polar opposites of attitude I see coming out here and in other forums between Dr. Pipim and his critics. Pipim is trying to find his way back to God. Meanwhile, there is much stone-throwing, fault-finding, and vicious gossip in general regarding Pipim's errors, and I see many in that crowd of scorners who are willing to jump to conclusions about what they think Pipim must be hiding.

God tells us that only HE can see the heart, whereas we see but the outward appearance. Then why is there so much speculation about Pipim's heart? We cannot see it, nor know it. We do not have the full record of his wrongs, nor should we. It would benefit no one. It would only serve to gratify Satan in his accusations against God before all watching.



While Dr. Pipim should certainly not be seeking to cover his own sins, according to the Bible, the rest of should be seeking almost the opposite. It benefits no one to "hang out the dirty laundry."



Tammy, do you love Dr. Pipim?



My understanding is that Dr. Pipim is/has been/wants-to-be repentant. He may not have the full measure of repentance just yet. He may be like the doubting father whose son was possessed and brought to Jesus, saying, "Lord, I believe! Help thou mine unbelief." Yet the Bible record tells us what Jesus' response was and still can be to any of us who come to Him. He will in no wise cast out those who come to Him.

If Dr. Pipim were entirely unrepentant, and evidenced that, I might have different words here. But just because he does not choose to hang out all of his "dirty laundry" does not mean that he is unrepentant. There are things that it is never best to bring out before the eyes of other sinners. Like mindless sharks at the scent of blood, others may go into a feeding frenzy. Such seems the case here, sadly. People are tearing the man apart by their words.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Whatever you say about forgiveness and restoration does not demand of me that I accept Samuel Pipim's many teachings that do not fit into my understanding of Scripture and the teachings of Ellen G. White.

So many of our Bible teachers have studied the same questions thoroughly and come to the conclusion that it is Biblical to ordain women.

Many refer to 1 Tim. 3 without considering how the original Greek of verse 11 is being translated by many scholars, and is shown in a number of Bible translations which show that the same principles that are listed for men, apply to women as well. Just look at your KJV and notice that three words in that verse are rendered in italics which show that they are added to the original text by the translators. Then the word for "women" is rendered as "their wives" by those translators. To me this is a sign that some portions of our Bible have been manipulated by chauvinist males, probably the same who placed the comma in the wrong place in Luke 23:43.

Consider also how some of our pioneers rejected the testimony of the young Ellen Harmon because she was just a girl, and yet she was ordained by God himself, and she had no qualms about receiving the certificate and classification as an ordained minister in our church.

Add to that that Ellen White pronounced in 1895 that certain women in our church should be ordained, and that she never issued one iota against the ordination of female ministers in the church. How could she, when she herself was classified as an ordained minister?

In spite of this we still have these male chauvinists who think they can change and manipulate all of the facts according to their own desires. Then just now it has been revealed that one of the most expressive chauvinist of them all, an expert and scholar classifying the role of women in comparison with that of the male, has shown by his own example that such women are but playthings to gratify the lust of man.

We must not judge his relationship with the Lord, but actions must be taken to prevent his false teachings and actions from making our Church a safer haven for rapists and perverts rather than for our women and daughters.

I think you have just evidenced why people are so eager to tear Pipim apart upon having learned of his sins.

Everyone of us is a sinner. All of the best "scholars" of the Bible are sinners. The very writers of the Bible were sinners. Does that mean that we have liberty to tear them apart once we learn which sins were theirs? Does that mean we have extra license to do so when we happen to be on another side of a philosophical divide?

As regards those who feel the Bible wording was tampered with, I suppose that gives them license to reword whichever part they disagree with slightly to render it more "in line." I feel this is a very dangerous attitude. Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 should be consulted along with the last chapter of the book. God has His own copyright upon His material which should not be taken lightly. Furthermore, He has promised to "preserve" His word. If one tries to say the KJV translation is full of errors of a grave nature, or if one claims that all translations are such, how is it then that the Bible has been preserved for us?

Saying the Bible is wrong is part of the "new theology" that is coming out in which people are exercising "higher criticism." Eternity alone will reveal the full results of such "education."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It has often been stated that it was God Himself who wrote the KJV and therefore it must not be tampered with. When the RSV came I heard whole sermons in Michigan where the theme was, Do not permit any new version to replace God's own Bible.

Then I went to work in other countries where people spoke different languages and were using Bibles translated directly from the languages the original Bible writers had used. Here were also Seventh-day Adventists using different Bibles, and they had, basically, the same faith. There were only slight differences. One of them was the translation of 1 Tim 3 which was not translated by male chauvinists, like the KJV in that section. I was amazed when I first read it, so I consulted first with my Greek New Testament, but then I wrote to my conference to be sure I was not introducing something that was new and strange. The conference sent my question on to the Union and they sent it on to the Division of the General Conference. Some months later I received the reply that my "new" understanding was the correct one. Already 30 some years ago our General Conference knew what was the correct rendering, and therefor I am convinced that so many of our Bible Scholars are fully aware of this, in spite of the fact that there are also others who do not dare let go of the "tradition" of adhering to the faulty KJV rendering, because we are, just like the Catholic Church, very steeped in our old traditions.

For this reason I have been at odds with those dyed in the wool traditionalists on this veracity for more than 30 years, although my main discussions were connected with Samuelle Bacchiocchi, even though I was also in agreement with him on certain points. We also met face to face. People who compare this with being liberal, or whatever else they can think of, are very much ignorant of reality. Stating that this is higher criticism is as far from reality as the length of the Milky Way. My objections to his dangerous theories started a long time ago and not just when he reaped the results of his dangerous teachings, which some of you seem to want perpetrated in our church. So wanting to cleanse the Church from immorality and the teaching that permits such to flourish in the church - that is called heresy - by whom? What is needed in the church of Laodicea before the Second Coming? More infidelity?

In a way it reminds me of the farmer who came to me more than 50 years ago telling me his fellow church members were at fault he had to spend a couple of years in prison. An Adventist mother living in a city that was still in ruins from the bombs of World War II, sent her children to what she thought were safe havens with Adventist farmers.

He told me he'd send his wife out early in the morning to milk the cows while he remained in bed inviting the girl to join him in bed, first having worship where they prayed earnestly that Jesus would protect them from committing any sin that day. After that they went on a discovery where it was very important to find out if the girl was reaching sexual maturity. Obviously it was necessary for him to penetrate, but it was for a good purpose. Besides that they had already prayed for protection against any sin, so it was impossible for them to do anything sinful.

He felt the church had let him down by not attempting to convince the judge what a devout Christian he was, and therefore his actions had not been evil. Then he also felt the church should show him Christian love by reinstating him as a Sabbath School superintendent as soon as he got out of prison.

Should I have twisted the arms of church officers to reinstate the farmer, thereby paving the way for more criminal acts blessed by the church?

There is not much new under the sun!

Johann,

What English version do you feel is better?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I fully agree with Tammy.

What this man has done is considered a CRIME.
It is rape. It was not some "weak" moment either, it was planned and orchestrated.

Also, even as I read it, it seemed obvious that this was NOT the first time -- so was not at all surprised to hear others have "come forward".

The crime is magnified because this man was in a high position of trust. He being a high profile leader and minister, she being a student! Such misconduct is a breach of the fundamental basis of the relationship of a clergyperson with those who look to him to provide guidance and instruction and spiritual help.

The shepherd preying (NOT praying) but preying on his flock.

Real Men Don't Rape. Real men accept the responsibility to not harm another person. This should be a hundred times more important for a minister of the gospel!

This man seriously harmed that young woman. How many others has he harmed in like manner and then intimidated that to "tell" would hinder "the important work" of his ministry?


Yes, I am shocked!!!!
Very much so.

We condemn the crimes in the Catholic system yet do the same in ours???????

Dedication,

I agree with most of what you are saying. But I have a few concerns, too.

Part of the problem here is that we have people writing letters of accusation presuming to know what the man has done already in his prior experience before the one incident came to light. I am by no means trying to excuse him. I have no need to defend him. But I do not believe he is being tried fairly in the court of public opinion. That is just the problem--courts of public opinion where slanderous comments are made without proofs to back them up--that should be a crime too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't like to see the accusations of there being many others when so far only one is positively identified, with a possible second, and tied to this issue (as of my present understanding). Another issue came up, which we are not yet informed as to the circumstances. We simply don't have, at least I don't have, sufficient evidence yet to say that he is a serial rapist. It frankly bothers me that people would jump to conclusions and declare the man guilty for that which they have no evidence.

All of that amounts to one thing: Evil surmising.

It may well be true. But until we know so, we best not open our mouths in judgment. Even if it is true, Philippians 4:8 gives us something to think about.

As for what we do know...certainly, it is an awful thing he did and certainly he has issues that need to be dealt with in his life. I also feel that many among our ministers are struggling with the same temptations for sexual sin, and we as a church do less than we should to address this area.

Here's another thing that bothers me. The women's letters have come forward and everyone seems to pounce on them to make an issue of genders out of it (not saying you are doing this), with words such as "chauvinism" and "equality." Many seem to overlook the fact that it was the menfolk who passed the word up the line to the GC, which took steps to remove Pipim from his position. They may not have written letters to be read in public, but had they not done their part, the women who wrote those letters might never have learned of the mess to begin with. The men did what they should have, and it appears they acted very responsibly, also paying attention to the woman's well-being.

And, really, should those women's letters have been published to all and sundry of the whole sordid mess? I think not. I think it should suffice us to know that Dr. Pipim has a moral weakness which renders him unable to offer personal counseling or to work with young women. We do not need the gory details! TMI!

Remember, by beholding we become changed. To see is to become. To think on is to see. And a situation like this one is of such a nature that to merely hear it, one's mind naturally gives it much contemplation. Therefore, the more the story spreads with all of its "salacious" detail (gossip), the more collateral damage potential it has.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

For beautiful language I love the old King James version. It was around 1958 I noticed what problems the KJV was causing the Seventh-day Adventist Church on a World scale. The Sabbath School lessons for a quarter were a study of the Psalms. The author of the lessons based the study on the KJV. It was beautiful in the English speaking world as long as you used the KJV. Then I noticed how translators of the lessons in other parts of the world struggled with these lessons in countries where the Bibles had a more correct rendering of the original text. They would insert in the text of the lessons explanations that such and such a verse in English was so different that the questions and references did not fit to the text in their Bibles.

Fortunately there seemed to be no doctrinal differences, but just completely different pictures in the poetic language. I remember thinking then, Why do the authors not realize that we are a world church with a membership even larger who do not speak English? Why give these people the impression that the good Americans are using a different Bible?

Some time after that the Germans took a drastic measure to avoid any more King Jamification of Adventism. Now they write their own Sabbath School lessons, but I understand some confusion still remains as some German speaking countries use our world edition.

It so happens that I functioned as a Director of Sabbath Schools for nine years in two different countries. During that time I attended a number of meetings where we also discussed the lesson material and tried to solve some of the problems.

Already around 1960 the Sabbath School Department of the General Conference came to the realization that we are a world movement,and since then the editors of the lessons have tried to avoid references that are based solely on the wording of the KJV - or any other particular Bible translation. Unfortunately we still have some staunch scholars who have not yet woken up to the fact that we are a world movement.

Personally I am still very old fashioned by wanting to follow the principles outlined by Ellen G White, and I will never accept a teaching that is not fully in agreement with her writings. This includes that we are not to launch a new interpretation of Scripture on our own before we have consulted with others and seen that a number of other Bible students see the same possibility.