Adventist Online

Why Attitudes Are Changing on Homosexuality--Part 2 PDF  | Print |  E-mail
WHY ATTITUDES ARE CHANGING—Part 2
(Why and How Is Homosexuality Being Pushed On the Church?)
 [This article is excerpted from the author’s book Must We Be Silent?]
By
Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, Ph.D.
Director, Public Campus Ministries, Michigan Conference


    Introduction

    In part 1, we offered six reasons why are some within our ranks embracing the born a gay gospel as a morally legitimate part of the Christian lifestyle? This present article continues the discussion.

    7. Kinship's Pro-Gay Theology.
    Another major reason for Adventism's changing attitude toward homosexuality is the influence of the work by the pro-homosexual organization known as Kinship. Billing itself as "a support group for gay and lesbian Seventh-day Adventists," Kinship has been quite successful in converting some Adventists to its belief that "God can bless a committed homosexual relationship." As a result, an increasing number of homosexuals are coming out of the closet and demanding that their homosexuality be accepted as either natural, or a "gift from God.”[1]

    This may explain why in the 1993 Adventist Women's Institute's book referred to earlier, an "Adventist-connected" theologian, Bible instructor/academy teacher-turned-minister, writes that her lesbianism is "an unusual calling" from the Lord and why her lesbian partner also felt that the lesbian relationship was "God's gift for her conversion." [2]

    A year earlier the November 4, 1992 issue of the Andrews University student newspaper (Student Movement) created a sensation on campus when it published a letter from an Andrews University homosexual couple pleading for acceptance. [3] In the center page article of that issue, some anonymous staff members and students discussed their homosexual and lesbian relationships. Among them was "Ann," a 28-year old lesbian who was seeking the transfer of her church membership to the Pioneer Memorial Church at Andrews University. Speaking about her committed homosexual relationship in which God plays an important role, Ann summed up the basic belief of Kinship: "I am a lesbian because God knows that that's the best thing for me. My homosexuality has actually brought me a lot closer to God than if I was a heterosexual." [4]

    It is this kind of view that was actively promoted at the 2000 Toronto GC session by “Someone To Talk To,” an organization claiming to be for "Adventist Families and Friends of Gays and Lesbians” and which has apparently been recognized by the North American Division Family Ministries Department. Even some Adventist Gay/Lesbian “ministries” (such as the one at the San Francisco Central SDA Church) and “outreach” groups like God’s Rainbow and GLOW, while distancing themselves from Kinship, nonetheless argue that homosexuality is not sin, but rather morally neutral.

    As a result of the campaigns by these organizations, groups, and individuals, many Adventists are no longer very sure of the nature and morality of homosexuality.

    8. 1980 Declaration by Some Scholars.
    Within the Seventh-day Adventist church, the most significant event that signaled the changing attitudes towards homosexuality occurred when, in August 1980, the church commissioned six well-known representatives to attend a camp meeting (or "kamp meeting") organized by the pro-homosexual group Kinship. [5]

    Although the church representatives consisted of six influential Bible scholars and pastors, to the surprise of many, the biblical and theological scholars at the Kinship camp meeting concluded that the teaching of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality is not sufficiently clear to settle the question of the morality of homosexual acts or relationships in our world. [6]

    The three scholars, all of whom were then teaching at the church's leading theological seminary at Andrews University, declared: "A simplistic English reading of the few scriptural references to homosexual acts would not suffice to determine the Lord's will for homosexual persons today." [7]

    Given the ensuing civil war between liberals and conservatives over the legitimacy of contemporary higher criticism in biblical interpretation, the declaration by the church's authorized scholars at the Kinship camp meeting has been understood by some as another indication of the flourishing of liberal methodology in the church. [8]

    In any case, declarations such as the one above, and the official opposition to such a position by the church in the volume Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . (1988) [9] and in the GC's Biblical Research Institute's book Homosexuality in History and Scriptures (1988), [10] have made the issue of homosexuality a hot potato item within Adventist scholarship.

    9. Troubling Views in Church Publications.
    Despite the clamor for the church’s acceptance of homosexuality, and despite the fact that the church's Bible scholars have been quietly debating the issue, very few Adventists were aware of the campaign for homosexuality in the Seventh-day Adventist church. But in recent times the homosexual issue has come out of its ideological and academic closets into the mainstream Adventist view. This has taken the form of carefully written yet troubling articles in such church publications as Ministry, Adventist Review, Insight, Women of Spirit, Adventist View, and the Collegiate Quarterly. These articles, sometimes by anonymous authors, have called for new "awareness and understanding on the subject of homosexuality." A careful reading of some of these works reveals a subtle shift from the church's categorical rejection of homosexuality to its qualified acceptance. [11]

    As I will show in the next chapter, there are three contending positions on homosexuality that are competing in Christian churches today: (a) the non-acceptance view, which maintains that homosexuality is not compatible with biblical Christianity; this is the long-standing SDA position (b) the qualified acceptance view, which argues that homosexuality can be compatible with Christianity; this is the new view being promoted in the articles being put out in church publications; (c) the full acceptance view, which asserts that homosexuality is fully compatible with the Christian faith; this is the position held by pro-gay organizations like Kinship.

    The vexing questions raised by the troubling articles appearing in our church publications can best be illustrated by calling attention to the December 5, 1992, issue of Insight, a publication for Seventh-day Adventist teenagers. This particular issue of Insight is devoted entirely to the subject of homosexuality. While the then editor of the magazine maintains that "there is no scriptural support for practicing homosexuality," he nevertheless endorses the pro-gay theology when he asserts that: "There's a difference between being a homosexual and practicing homosexuality"; "Nobody chooses to be homosexual"; "Changing one's homosexual orientation is difficult and rare"; "Homosexuals can be genuine, model Christians"; and "Being a homosexual is not a sin." [12]

    Perceptive readers will recognize that the above position was rejected by the 1990 and 1995 Church Manuals when the church officially condemned "homosexual practices and lesbian practices" as examples of "the obvious perversions of God's original plan," and made these practices a basis for church discipline. [13] It is significant that the 1990 and 1995 Church Manuals made the practice of homosexuality a basis for church discipline. For, since the 1985 GC session, pro-gay advocates have subtly sought to modify the language in the Church Manual towards a qualified acceptance view of homosexuality (see the note below for an insightful account of how this happened). [14]

    10. Obliteration of Gender Role Distinctions.

    One overlooked reason for Adventism's changing attitude towards homosexuality is the impact of feminist theology on sexual role distinctions. This fact is evident in the liberal (radical feminist) and conservative (egalitarian or equalitarian) reasoning for ordaining women as elders or pastors. Though employing different sets of arguments, both liberal and conservative proponents of women's ordination are united in their denial of male headship and gender role differentiation at creation. They reject the biblical teaching of sexual role distinctions before the fall of Adam and Eve because of their belief that such a teaching suggests the absence of "full equality" and the existence of superiority/inferiority among the first pair. [15]

    We should not miss the connection between the above arguments and those used to promote homosexuality. Just as feminists seek “full equality" by getting rid of gender or sex roles in marriage and the church, gay theology also seeks to bring about "full equality" between homosexuals and heterosexuals by obliterating sexual identity. Thus, when radical proponents impose their gender-inclusive reconstructions upon the Bible and suggest that Adam was "an androgynous being" (i.e. bisexual), [16]it is only a few steps from seeing homosexuality as a creation ordinance.

    Similarly, when conservative proponents of women's ordination claim that at creation Adam and Eve were "fully equal," enjoying "total egalitarianism in marriage," and when they argue that prior to the fall there was no role differentiation between male and female, whether they are aware of it or not, they also are building a theological nest for advocates of homosexual theology to lay and hatch their gay eggs. [17]

    To speak of "full equality" without seriously coming to terms with the nature and extent of this equality and without stating unambiguously that to act as "equal and joint partners" does not mean to act identically, allows advocates of gay theology to build upon the shaky foundation constructed by liberal and conservative advocates of women's ordination. At a time of increasing homosexual demands for marital rights, the failure by proponents of women's ordination to say unambiguously that men are not equal with women personally or even physically as candidates to be spouses of men has opened a welcome door for those who seek to nullify the biblical case for divinely instituted role differences and a monogamous heterosexual relationship. This fact has not been lost by proponents of gay theology within Adventism. [18]

    For example, speaking at the annual meeting of Seventh-day Adventist college and university Bible teachers in San Francisco, California, in 1992, the "liaison" from the pro-homosexual group Kinship, correctly remarked that the push for women's ordination, when successful, will eventually open the door for the church to embrace homosexuality, since both causes are waging a similar battle of "discrimination" and share the same basic approach to biblical interpretation.

    One Adventist homosexual, a member of the “Adventist Gay/Lesbian” Ministry at San Francisco Central SDA Church, makes an insightful observation regarding the similarities of the pro-gay and pro-women’s ordination arguments. He expresses his amusement that proponents of women’s ordination “use a set of arguments to validate women being ordained, almost exactly the same as us gays used to approve of ‘monogamous gay relationships.’ Junia and Phoebe rank right in there with David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi. In this [Internet Web site] thread, I have even seen the Bible translated by first setting aside references to gender because of some women being just as capable of certain tasks as a man is. Well, let me tell you something honey, except for childbirth I have been just as capable as any woman in all of the tasks normally performed by the woman–so I guess I can also set aside all the biblical statements I don’t like? To my knowledge, ‘Ordination Credentials’ are a man-made set of requirements to fill a biblical role, but they are in no way capable of changing the gender to which the role applies.” [19]

    Despite the objections by some Adventist proponents of women’s ordination, the experience of other Christian denominations confirms the above observations that openness towards homosexuality inescapably follows once we jettison the Bible's teaching on sexual role differentiation for an "egalitarian" model.

    This is why some delegates at the 2000 Toronto GC session objected to the insertion of a theologically fuzzy feminist language in the “divorce and remarriage” document presented to them at the session. The reason is simple: Whether proponents were aware of it or not, by taking away role distinctions at creation, the divorce and remarriage document which was presented to delegates at the Toronto GC session set a theological foundation not just for women's ordination but also for homosexuality. [20]

    Summary. The above ten reasons--(1) campaign by pro-homosexual groups, (2) departure from biblical revelation to empirical research, (3) the impact of the behavioristic philosophy on recent research findings, (4) new sexual paradigms, (5) the climate of “enlightened” ethical sensitivity, (6) the AIDS crisis, (7) the impact of Kinship's pro-gay theology, (8) the 1980 declaration by some scholars, (9) troubling views in church publications, and (10) the obliteration of gender role distinctions--may help explain why attitudes are changing within the Adventist church on the issue of homosexuality.

    As a result of these reasons (and perhaps others), there is uncertainty in the minds of many church members over the nature and morality of homosexuality. Some pro-gay advocates within our ranks are slowly moving the church towards a full- or qualified-acceptance view of homosexuality. Before evaluating the arguments being used to domesticate homosexuality in the Adventist church, it may first be necessary to summarize the three major positions pleading for audience in the Christian church.  [Chapter 3 of the author’s Must We Be Silent offers the summary. It is reproduced on this DrPipim.org website in the article “Three Conflicting Views on Homosexuality.”]

    Endnotes


[1]    According to Elvin Benton, “in early January 1977, a handful who had responded to a newspaper ad placed by a gay Adventist met in Palm Desert, California. It was the beginning of Kinship, and by April there were 75 members, a temporary chairman and four committees: membership, educational, social, and spiritual. . . . The organization was incorporated in March 1981 as Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International, Incorporated. Its mailing list in 10 countries now approaches 500 and includes a broad spectrum of occupations. The ratio of professional people is disproportionately high. A significant number are denominational employees, most of whom, understandably, use pseudonyms in their relationship to Kinship. Almost all are or have been Seventh-day Adventist church members. Several are friends of Adventists and would become church members except for what they perceive to be the church's negative attitude toward their homosexuality” (Elvin Benton, “Adventists Face Homosexuality,” Spectrum 12/3 [April 1982]: 33). Because the pro-gay stance of Kinship is at variance with the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the SDA church has dissociated itself from Kinship. For a discussion of the relationship between Kinship and the SDA Church, see Michael Pearson, Millennial Dreams and Moral Dilemmas: Seventh-day Adventism and Contemporary Ethics (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 256-265.
[2]    Lin Ennis, "Seeker of Truth, Finder of Reality," in In Our Own Words,227-239, 232.
[3]    The entire issue of the November 4, 1992, Student Movement was devoted to homosexuality. The letter from the homosexual couple is found on page 15 of that issue.
[4]    Yoonah Kim, "The Love that Dares Not Speak Its Name," Student Movement, November 4, 1992, 9
[5]    The idea of having a special camp meeting (or kamp meeting) for homosexual Adventists was born at an early 1980 Kinship board meeting. According to Benton, the August 1980 camp meeting "was a major event in the long story of Adventist homosexuals” (Benton, “Adventists Face Homosexuality,” 32, 33).
[6]    The six scholars and pastors consisted of three biblical and theological scholars (James J. C. Cox, Lawrence Geraty and Fritz Guy), two representing pastoral concerns (James Londis and Josephine Benton) and one, an outspoken opponent of Kinship, who had run a recovery ministry for homosexuals for many years, disagreed with the majority conclusion (Colin Cook). For a summary of the meeting, see Elvin Benton, “Adventists Face Homosexuality,” Spectrum 12/3 (April 1982):32-38.
[7]    Elvin Benton, “Adventists Face Homosexuality,” Spectrum 12/3 (1982):35. At the time of the 1980 Kinship camp meeting, James J. C. Cox was professor of New Testament at the Andrews University Theological Seminary; he has since served as president of Avondale College in Australia. Old Testament scholar Lawrence T. Geraty was professor of archeology and history of antiquity at the Seminary at Andrews University; he has since served as president of Atlantic Union College and currently serves as president of La Sierra University. Fritz Guy was professor of systematic theology at the Seminary; he currently teaches theology and philosophy at La Sierra University, Riverside, California.
[8]    See my Receiving the Word, chapters 4 and 5 (part 1), 75-113.
[9]    Seventh-day Adventists Believe. . . A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Washington, DC: Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1988), 303. Produced by some 194 SDA thought leaders around the world, this "carefully researched" volume is to be received "as representative of . . . [what] Seventh-day Adventists around the globe cherish and proclaim," and as furnishing "reliable information on the beliefs of our [SDA] church" (ibid., vii, iv, v).
[10]    The articulation of the official church position on homosexuality was taken up by the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference. See Ronald Springett, Homosexuality in History and the Scriptures (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1988).

[11]    See, for example, Kate McLaughlin (pseudonym), “A Homosexual in My Congregation?” Ministry, November 1996, 10-11, 29; idem, “Are Homosexuals God’s Children?” Adventist Review, April 3, 1997, 26-29; Insight, December 5, 1992, 1-16; Phillip Whidden, “Gays, Gabriel, and Dynamo Truth,” in the Collegiate Quarterly (January-March 2000), 97; Jim Miller (as told to Celeste Ryan), "I'm Homosexual, I'm Adventist, and I have AIDS: The Jim Miller Story," Adventist View, Winter 1993, 9, 15; Beth Schaefer, "Homosexual Warfare," View, Special 1999 issue, 18-21; Tessa Willow (pseudonym), “Still Our Son,” Women of Spirit, May-June 2000; Katie Tonn-Oliver, “Virginia Cason: More Than A Daughter,” Women of Spirit, Winter 1996; Kate McLaughlin, “When Your Child Doesn’t Choose Your Lifestyle,” Women of Spirit, Spring 1995. Occasionally, the published works take the form of well-crafted “interviews” with Adventist homosexuals. See, for example, Bruce Moyer’s interview with Ron (pseudonym), “ A Cry from the Valley of Death,” Ministry, November 1996, 23–25, 29; Reni Dupertuis’s interview with Donald J. Freeman, “To Every Nation, Tongue and People (Including Sexual Orientation),” Scanner [a publication of the Glendale City, California,SDA Church], Winter 1999, 9-11. These eye-opening interviews may reveal as much about the views of the interviewees as that of the interviewers.
[12]    Christopher Blake, "Redeeming Our Sad Gay Situation: A Christian Response to the Question of Homosexuality," Insight, December 5, 1992, 4-16. Similar views are presented in articles carried in the July-August 1999 issue of Adventist Today. The cover title of that issue of Adventist Today is “Adventism and Homosexuality Today: What’s in the Closet?” The troubling articles include Kate McLaughlin’s (pseudonym) “Mom, Dad, I’m Gay,” 10-11; Norman Brown’s (pseudonym) “Reluctant Homosexual, Forgiving Marriage,” 13-15; [Anonymous SDA Pastor’s] “Adventist Pastor, Husband, Homosexual,” 16; Jim Miller’s “The Bible on Homosexuality,” 17-19. Though it not an official publication of the church, many of it’s writers hold membership in the Seventh-day Adventist church.
[13]    Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (1995), 154, 169; emphasis mine. The wording in the current (1995) Church Manual is based on the revisions made at the 1990 GC session in Indianapolis (see, 1990 Church Manual, 147, 160, 173). It may be argued that both the 1990 and 1995 Church Manuals do not explicitly condemn "homosexuality and lesbianism" (which would have implied an adherence to the non-acceptance position), but merely condemn "homosexual practices and lesbian practices" (which implies a tacit endorsement of the qualified-acceptance position). Christopher Blake makes this argument (see his "Redeeming Our Sad Gay Situation," 11). However, by making the practice of homosexuality a basis for church discipline, the delegates at the 1990 and 1995 GC sessions made it clear that they still adhered to a "non-acceptance" position on homosexuality.
[14]    Ronald Lawson, the "liaison" between the SDA Kinship organization and the SDA Church, maintains that the attempted subtle shift in the position of the SDA Church is attributed to the role of an SDA Kinship "kampmeeting graduate" who was on the committee drafting changes in the Church Manual. The original drafted document had explicitly condemned "homosexuality and lesbianism." The "kampmeeting graduate," Lawson explains, "feeling that the presence of large numbers of conservative Third World delegates would make it impossible to liberalize the statement once it reached the floor [1985 General Conference Session], he got together with friends, including several other veterans of kampmeetings, to try to modify the draft in advance. As they read the situation, it was impossible at that stage to avert the change totally. Consequently, they focused their efforts on changing language which would have condemned 'homosexuality and lesbianism', a sweeping rejection of their very being, to a somewhat more limited condemnation of 'homosexual and lesbian practices.' They were successful in this. Nevertheless, the new statement, which replaced much vaguer language, for the first time labeled this 'practice' as unacceptable and a basis for discipline." See Ronald Lawson, "The Caring Church?: The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Its Homosexual Members," a paper prepared for the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (Washington, DC, November 1992), 7; the same paper was presented at the meeting of the Andrews Society for Religious Study at San Francisco, November 1992. Some perceptive Adventists have argued that the attempt made at the 1995 GC session to modify the relevant sections on homosexuality was yet another attempt by advocates of pro-gay theology to chip away the church's non-acceptance position.
[15]    In the Seventh-day Adventist Church the two influential books endorsing women's ordination are: Patricia A. Habada and Rebecca Frost Brillhart, eds., The Welcome Table: Setting A Place for Ordained Women (Langley Park, MD: TEAMPress, 1995); and Nancy Vyhmeister, ed., Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1998). While the former often employs the arguments of liberal feminism, the latter adopts the egalitarian arguments of Evangelical feminism. Whereas my response to the former volume is found in Receiving the Word, 119-129, my detailed critique of the latter will appear in the next section of Must We Be Silent?

[16]    Jeane Haerich, "Genesis Revisited," in The Welcome Table, 101, 100. The obliteration of gender differentiation in Genesis 2 is only a few steps away from positing homosexuality or bisexuality in the first created pair. And since human beings were created in God's image, if Adam was "an androgynous being" does it not mean that God also is androgynous? One wonders what is really behind the gender-inclusive reconstructions of the Bible: "Son of God" becomes "Child of God"; "Son of Man" becomes "Human one"; "our heavenly Father" becomes "our heavenly Parent." Is this also the reason an Adventist author promotes the Holy Spirit as the female member of the Godhead and repeatedly refers to the Creator as "He/She"? See Steve Daily, Adventism for a New Generation (Portland/Clackamas, Ore.: Better Living Publishers, 1993), 88, 105, 113.
[17]    This basic argument underlies Women in Ministry, the pro-ordination book by some faculty of Andrews University. The clearest articulation of this view in the book is Richard M. Davidson's article "Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture," 259-295. Denying that God made man the head of the home at creation, the article argues that God's original plan for the home was "total equality in marriage" ( 267), or "total egalitarianism in the marriage relationship" ( 269), or "headship among equals" ( 270), expressions understood to mean the absence of role differentiation before the Fall ( 264, 267, 269). For him the biblical teaching of male headship and female submission implies "functional superiority/inferiority" ( 260). Though he believes that "headship" was instituted after the Fall, it is his view that God's original plan of "total egalitarianism in the marriage relationship" is still the same in the post-fall situation "as it was for Adam and Eve in the beginning" ( 269). In other words, today, as at the beginning, there should be no "ontological or functional" role distinctions. Rather, Christians should aspire for the "ideal" of "full equality" in their homes ( 284). Cf. Peter M. Van Bemmelen, "Equality, Headship, and Submission in the Writings of Ellen G. White," in Women in Ministry, 297-311.
[18]    For a response to the "full equality" argument, see my unpublished article "Ideology or Theology: An Analysis and Evaluation of Women in Ministry" (1999).
[19]    Howard ‘duke’ Holtz, “Re: Women’s Ordination,” October 29, 2000. http://www.sdanet.org/archive/2000/Oct32000/0313.html. As I will show in the next section of this book, indeed, the so-called biblical arguments for women’s ordination are as flimsy as those being used to support homosexuality.
[20]    I raised that point on the GC session floor in Toronto, but I'm not sure how many people fully understood the theological implications of my point. To them, homosexuality and women's ordination issues where unrelated to the divorce and remarriage discussion on the floor. In fact one associate editor of the Adventist Review expressed "surprise" at my comment. He apparently believed the comment by one delegate that those of us questioning the theological fuzziness of the divorce and remarriage proposal were appealing to those with "a scare mentality." See Roy Adams, “Fireworks in the Dome ,” Adventist Review, July 5, 2000, 2-3.

http://www.drpipim.org/homosexuality-contemporaryissues-47/72-why-a...

Views: 1391

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well understanding that you probably have something else in mind or am trying lead me into saying something wrong, but I'll play along.  It is my understanding that to believe is to accept as true.

So in the same vain we can let convicted paedophiles run our children's Sabbath school because they are forgiven of their sins ? Does forgiveness of sin mean putting people in very compromising positions ?

BTW, many conferences has stated that Pipim has given no indication of remorsefulness. He has given no indication that he repented and is sorry for his sins and thereby he should not have been rebaptised.

Manuela, 

It is my opinion. All are sinners. I believe it was not rape in the case of nandipa. No. She was enticed and she succumbed. There is such a thing as enticement.blinded by the devil. A similar thing happened to Joseph, but he ran away despite the 'psychological power' of Mrs potipher.  That what we should be encouraging. To have a relationship with the Lord so that we love him to death, regardless of enticement. It was sin. A  mess. Obviously Pipim gets a bigger share as he was "higher". But it's the blindness of sin! We all are blinded by it in that moment and when we go and reflect, we feel hurt and betrayed. She was hurt no doubt. She felt used. But not rape please! 

That's my studied opinion and it's not you to make the final call on who has the final word on it. God is in the business of restoration.  I then suggest you comment on David experience.  What would u say?

1. David was a prophet and king. Would u say he raped bethsheba?  I would say no. He enticed her and used his position. However if she had a lot of stamina, she should have said no, unto death. But she had not grown to that pont in her walk with the lord.

2.Look at the story of amnon and the step sister. He tried to entice her but she stood her ground. She did not let that psychological thing to overcome her. She even suggested he goes and ask the father for a hand in marriage. Until he forced himself on her. And look at her reaction. She never moved a muscle. She did not start chatting with him in a casual way. No. I smell a rat. If nandipa was  a child, I would have understood. But she was @a young adult. A leader in the youth movement. One who liked Pipim. He even sponsored for her to travel to the states for a church meeting. It's a dangerous thing to see someone advancing and u entertain it. Am told ladies can sense if a guy is interested in more than Dvds or Cds. So no. Both sinned but Pipim got a bigger share, actually almost the whole share as he should have known much better. But not rape!  She felt cheated and used, and he has felt her fury. A lesson to all of us. If both had read proverbs well, and put the Lord first, maybe they should have known that to play with fire and not expecting to be burnt is dangerous. Don't do it.

The greatest issue Manuela as I see it is how to move on. Hurt and bitterness will ruin not only the ones u hurt but most importantly yourself. As a Christian we must realise that there is a lot of bitterness in our world today.people will hurt us. People will use us. And make us feel like trash. But what's our response? To embark on a lifelong task to make sure those that hurt us never ever rise up? Or to forgive. That's the mystery of forgiveness. For us Christians it's a deep thing. Christ even said we love our enemies.  If indeed it was rape, then am sure there are channels through which the law can still make a call out. Am not sure there is a law suit waiting for him. If he has refused to go there, after being summoned by the court, then my paradigm would surely change. And forgiveness does not mean we allow the criminal to go free. But we can even work with them as they are facing the consequences of their actions.  

As for the position of women ordination, am not sure. I am inclined to a no vote. If I had to vote today, it would be a no vote. I would rather error on the side of caution. I think it would be going against scripture. I was very sure some time back but after listening to the other side, am nit as sure. But still not convinced to side with pro ordination. 

Kindly accept my friend request as I shall not respond to you in public anymore. We can inbox.

Mutinta.

"...1. David was a prophet and king. Would u say he raped bethsheba?  I would say no. He enticed her and used his position. However if she had a lot of stamina, she should have said no, unto death. But she had not grown to that pont in her walk with the lord."

Yes it was rape. This is clearly shown through scripture if one looks through the text.

Read about theological study here: Link

One can never assume that only because a women does not fight physically against her attacker it is not rape. A power rape between a king and a subordinate without consent is always rape no matter what. A rape of minors today even when the minor consents is always statutory rape. Sexual abuse done by a clergy against his laity in need of counseling especially when it happens under false pretense is always power rape. Willing consent can not ever be achieved in such circumstances thats why it is always rape.

Information about rape can be found here.

Rape statistics show that women rarely fight back physically because of the fear of what can happen. A perfect example what happens when victims fight back and what often happens is this: BBC

"Kindly accept my friend request as I shall not respond to you in public anymore. We can inbox."

I kindly reject that. Sorry but there are certain things and topics were there is no discussion or compromise needed or possible. In my daily work i encounter the devastations these "power rapes" and other form of rapes do to women every day and i encounter the ongoing abuse which is done through excusing the attacker with narratives such as "she was willing so it was her fault" like you show here over and over again.

These excuses are just as devastating than the actual rape and the excuses are the main problem and reason why sexual assaults have the lowest reporting rates and 98% of the rapists will never be convicted or spend a day in jail.

With that i will end the discussion with you. I wish you that you will never be encountered with rape directly or indirectly but in case you do and see the excuses of people around you you might think back onto Nandipa and how you excused her rape and blamed the victim of a rape...

Regards

"Are you standing like that over Dr Pipim? How would you want him restored? With some reservations? How strong is the blood of Jesus? Can it cleanse to the uttermost? I say it can. Let's pray for his complete recovery. For nandipa too. For her not to wallow in guilt and drag others there. "

I am only using this quote there but referring to the other post from you here as well.

Seriously Mutinta you really really need to check the story again. 

You keep claiming nandipa did something wrong and she is in guilt or to blame for anything in that case. That is not only unacceptable it is also shameful of you.

Nandipa was raped. Everyone involved in that story says so not only she does. Even the Church officials in Botswana, which are hardly biased against Dr Pipim or have not been at that time, say it was a rape and not her "falling for him trying to excuse her adultery." There are transcripts of telephone calls in which Dr Pipim later states himself that it was his doing alone. There are letters 1 2 from his oldest allies and personal friends which met with the victim and which clearly give a statement what exactly happened as well as the timeline of the events in Botswana can be found here

So no this notion that Nandipa is to blame for any of that or shares the guilt or it was not rape does not stand to the truth at all and claiming this is nothing but bearing false witness and blaming the victim of a rape.

Furthermore you keep telling that he confessed or repented. While it is true that this is something between him and God i have a hard time believing this to be true because he lied about what happened back than and he still lies today to the public about what he did despite the overwhelming evidence against him.

We also know of 6! other victims of Dr Pipims advances and attempts to sexually abuse and rape them. So this whole notion which you in defense of Dr Pipim try to paint here that it was just 1 women and that was not rape is a missguided one.

It should also be noted that these claims are hardly made by "liberals" who try to denounce Dr Pipim. These claims are coming from the Michigan Conference itself and from various conservative outlets as well.

He wanted to be re-baptized already 2012 and kept claiming that it was only Nandipa yet the Michigan Conference and the Ann Arbour Church learned of 2 more victims shortly before the re-baptism:

By June 2012: The Michigan Conference leadership becomes aware of “Rachel’s” story by June 2012 via a Michigan pastor. In 2007 Pipim invited “Rachel,” a CAMPUS student, to his home (a common occurrence, according to several accounts). While in Pipim’s home, he gropes Rachel, but the student is able to escape and run out of Pipim’s house. She later shares her experience confidentially with a friend who shares it with a Michigan pastor.

June 7, 2012 (Thursday): With knowledge of “An Answer to Everyone” and baptism scheduled for Sabbath afternoon, people in Ann Arbor (Kandice’s confidants) who were aware of a “moral situation” spanning several months involving emotional control and coerced sex with “Kandice” in early 2010 decide to disclose the story to Pastor Velez to stop the baptism. Others become aware of this story as well.

Up till today Dr Pipim lies about the circumstances but we know of 6 other victims and their stories match and hold up against scrutiny. His story does not and he keeps lying and trying to spin something else.

So yes i highly doubt that he repented and is forgiven because it would be hard to imagine that God would forgive if you keep lying about what you did to the public. 

 For a complete timeline and other sources you can check this website: here

Or the reporting done by Advindicate:here

Either way i respectfully ask you once more to stop claiming that Nandipa was not raped or that she was in part guilty of wrongdoing or similar things.

That is simply not true and not only according to her accounts but by all accounts directly or indirectly involved in that story. Including the Botswana Conference or the Michigan Conference or the official Church response to this matter.

Regards

Very damaging website indeed. He really did mess up! No doubt. The brethren decided to handle his case accordingly. However, I still believe she enjoyed that moment. They both did. But she felt scorned. He has felt what it means," hell knows no fury  that  a woman scorned"! I sincerely hope he has repented. I will not judge him still. It's true he should concentrate on heart issues as he said. The article above wrote was written a long time ago. Many of his friends stood by that. I know those advocating for non ordination stand by it. I ask we look to issues and not mere personalities.

 I still regard him as a child of God. I ll continue praying for him. We have sinned by dwelling on a personality and using that to damage his message. I was reminded of the following. 

Whoever under the reproof of God will humble the soul with confession and repentance, as did David, may be sure that there is hope for him. Whoever will in faith accept God’s promises, will find pardon. The Lord will never cast away one truly repentant soul. He has given this promise: “Let him take hold of My strength, that he may make peace with Me; and he shall make peace with Me.” Isaiah 27:5. “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7. PP 726.5

Let Pipim be. Let God handle him. 

Somehow I feel guilty I have allowed myself in this personal issue. Won't say anymore.

Mutinta 

"Very damaging website indeed. He really did mess up! No doubt. The brethren decided to handle his case accordingly. However, I still believe she enjoyed that moment. They both did. But she felt scorned. ..."

Seriously?!

You think anyone enjoys being raped twice by a man?!

Wow... You are so much over the line and gone to the deep end its breathtaking...

Exactly such stupidity and ignorance, sorry for calling it for what it is, is the reason why only 1/3 of the rapes get reported and less than 2% of the rapists go to jail and thats for western countries. If someone did something wrong sure go ahead blame the victim and claim she enjoyed and asked for it. After all maybe her skirt was too short or she dared to wear make-up and so on.

(Male) Stupidity and ignorance!!

Say i do name calling or report it to the admin here but this is outrageous and it has been shown and proven now multiple times that there was no consent no guilt no enjoyment no nothing on her side. Dr Pipim raped her twice against her will so stop coming here telling "she enjoyed it" or "she is to blame" and other things.

A women is never ever to be blamed when she is raped. Put the blame where it belongs thats with the offender and never ever with the victim!

I guess the only way you will ever understand this is when you get raped and than everyone around you tells you it was your fault and you wanted it to happen etc... I wish you that this never happens.

Mr. Mutinta Nteeni,  I do not know the details of the Pipim deal and I do not care but colleges in the USA are teaching that all Male/Female sex is rape even with consent.  Ms Manuela may be of this school of thought so.........

In California you may need a 3 page document before having sex even if you are married and some kind of recording. 

very sad.

"Mr. Mutinta Nteeni, I do not know the details of the Pipim deal and I do not care but colleges in the USA are teaching that all Male/Female sex is rape even with consent. Ms Manuela may be of this school of thought so.........

In California you may need a 3 page document before having sex even if you are married and some kind of recording.

very sad."

Mr Raymond excusing rape with sarcastic commentary or suggesting that it isnt rape is beyond approach. Furthermore there was no consent in this case and therefore your example does not even remotely apply here.

However there are males who think when a women wears a short skirt or too much make-up she is asking to be raped by male peers... Maybe you are of that thought school Raymond? Your commentary in these matter sure suggest that... Sad but not too much of a surprise there...

p.s.: I provided all the sources and the links of the proceedings so instead of making useless and silly commentary you could read the information provided and thats not from any "liberal media" or anything similar. So stop your dismissive denunciation.

Ok manual...
Call it stupidity or ignorance but I do not see it your way. And there are reasons i say she consented, even if she was enticed. I do not buy the so calldd psycchological rape when its an adult christian leader involved.It was NOT rape according to me. Else file a charge, let him be tried and found guilty. And we shall all say, yes. He raped her. That's why the courts of law are there. Innocent until proven guilty. At this stage it's alleged rape.

Have u asked about Pipim wife? She too is a female. She has forgive her husband. She has seen how humiliated hd has been. If she can forgive the "rapist", may your the outsider find it in your heart to forgive him. But as I see the you won't forgive him until he he admits to the rape charge, which of course he won't for it was not, kindly find ways to help nandipa to take him to court. Otherwise let's stop this.
The issues was homosexual issues. Wait, aah.. that's why it's so touchy for you. He is so against homosexual sins! I see. Tell me are u straight or gay? I don't judge you. I just believe God meant man for woman and not woman for woman or man with man even consensual. So sorry. Finally let's drop this pipim issue. Take my advise. Sue the guy and at least let him get a fair trial. Let not the Internet be judge and jury. Be fair to him as a Christian. Am sure there are organisations that can assist You in making sure that he is brought to book. Let the law take its course.
Bro ray,
So sad! Very sad. God save us.
Mutinta

Manuela

Not excusing rape.  False witness again? read slowly. 

Yes rape does happen but.....

In society in the west if you are Male you are wrong. Guilty till proven innocent and no proof needed for convection.  Just the word of a women is needed all the proof that is needed.

Unless of course you are gay or Muslim then your OK by according to some like Manuela. Muslims can even spank wives and no one cares on the left.

"Call it stupidity or ignorance but I do not see it your way. And there are reasons i say she consented, even if she was enticed. I do not buy the so calldd psycchological rape when its an adult christian leader involved.It was NOT rape according to me. Else file a charge, let him be tried and found guilty. And we shall all say, yes. He raped her. That's why the courts of law are there. Innocent until proven guilty. At this stage it's alleged rape."

Obviously you have no idea of sexual abuse, rape and other things and how it happens. Furthermore if the offender would be a Catholic you would be the first to throw stones at their clergy. However especially or because he is an adult christian leader or better said was it is abuse and rape. Furthermore he escaped the criminal proceedings by him fleeing the country and the Church not wanting a scandal. Something which we condemn loudly in regards to other religions and their clergy abuse cases. But thats another issue. It is alleged rape which he confessed in private phone conversations, which was recorded, and denies in public.

"Have u asked about Pipim wife? She too is a female. She has forgive her husband..."

You mean the wife who Dr Pipim claimed has no right to know what he did so he didnt tell her about it till it became public?

Funny...

"...But as I see the you won't forgive him until he he admits to the rape charge, which of course he won't for it was not, kindly find ways to help nandipa to take him to court...."

Sorry but no i can not and will not forgive someone who keeps lying about what happened and it is not just Nandipa but we know of a total of 7 victims so far. If he faces the music and comes forward truthfully than we can talk about forgiveness. Even the Michigan Conference said he is not telling the truth up till today and refused to re-baptize him because of that. So he went to another Church 3 hours away to get it his way.

On the last note: I would be more than willing to help pay for a plane ticket for him to go back to Botswana. In fact a lot of people in my conference already collected for that occasion and he was email that as well which he blatantly refused to do.

"The issues was homosexual issues. Wait, aah.. that's why it's so touchy for you. He is so against homosexual sins! I see. Tell me are u straight or gay? I don't judge you. "

Wrong again.

The issue i have with this article is once more:

A serial rapist and sex offender should not be introduced into church as an expert on the role of women, headship, women ordination and any other topics regarding women.

He has proven multiple times he sees women as sex objects not just in Botswana therefore he lost every and all credibility to talk about women issues in Church. After all he abused the Church setting and his pastoral role to assault and rape women.

Lastly: Straight.

"Finally let's drop this pipim issue."

Yes drop Pipim as a credible source to point towards feminism women rol headship or similar things. 

He is a sex offender not fit to talk on these subjects.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service