.jpg)
|
Home
News
2012
September Headlines
|
Handling of Sexual Misconduct by a Well-known Theologian Raises Questions and Concerns
Submitted: Sep 4, 2012
By AT News Team
Corrected September 5 at 6:30 p.m.Questions have been raised about the conference president who employed Samuel K. Pipim, the Seventh-day Adventist youth worker and theologian who resigned last year due to sexual misconduct. “What did he know and when did he know it?”
Jay Gallimore, president of the Michigan Conference, released a statement just prior to the Labor Day weekend in which he admitted there have been multiple victims of Pipim’s “predatory” behavior. A leader of The Hope of Survivors, an Adventist support group for victims of clergy sexual abuse, responded to the statement by pointing out that there are at least “three additional credible and compelling allegations” in addition to the two mentioned in Gallimore’s statement, as well as “several other unverifiable reports.” Documented cases go back a dozen years during which Pipim worked with college students as an employee of the conference.
Even after he resigned his ministerial credentials, was fired and agreed to be dropped from church membership, Pipim took a group of young people on a trip to Spain and he hosted social events for young people at his home into early 2012. Michigan Conference administration did not warn young women away from these activities by the “serial predator,” a victim advocate has stated.
As the stories of Pipim’s victims have become known, questions have been raised as to whether his behavior constituted rape. Gallimore acknowledged this concern in his statement, but said “it seemed prudent to leave this definition alone.” It is an “embarrassment” when denominational leaders “cannot decide what is legitimate rape,” the advocate concludes. “Such institutional ignorance disgraces the Adventist Church and offends thinking people.”
Adventist Today has published an interview with a professional counselor authorized to speak for one of the young women that Pipim manipulated into a sexual encounter. A number of other interviews and confirming documentation has been collected, according to the victim support group.
There are tape recordings of Pipim attempting to convince a young woman to forgive him and not provide information to denominational officials, said Martin Weber, board chairman of the victim support group, in a response to Gallimore’s statement. “How many victims [have been] intimidated into suffocated silence? Are they so numerous that not even the predator himself can recall them all?”
The Hope of Survivors is a nonprofit organization made up largely of mental health and clergy professionals, many of them Adventists, although of the 93 clients served by the group in the last year of record, only about one in five identified themselves as Adventists. A total of 20 denominations are listed in the 2011 Annual Report as the context for victims supported by the organization. It provides educational materials for congregations, information and assistance to family and church professionals who encounter cases, and public advocacy on the issue.
“Pipim is a case study in what happens when church officials ‘have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, Peace, when there is no peace’ (Jeremiah 6:14),” Weber stated. “Business as usual cannot continue when a global predator is deceiving God’s people.” Pipim became well known both because he was a primary organizer of Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC), an independent, conservative Adventist youth organization that holds a yearly event around Christmas and New Years attended by thousands, and for the books he has written against women’s ordination to the gospel ministry and critiquing the work of a number of well-known Adventist Bible scholars.
“Leveraging his vast spiritual influence with the global Adventist community,” Weber said, “Pipim has been rebuilding his ‘ministry’ with a robust international speaking schedule. … His Facebook pages and websites provide inspiration and digital fellowship for thousands of under-warned ‘eaglets’ –Pipim’s pet term for his eager young disciples.”
Remnant Publications is an independent, “self-supporting” Adventist publisher based in Michigan. It is marketing Pipim’s latest book which is about forgiveness. Weber points out that the key personnel are members in Gallimore’s conference and asks if Gallimore has “done anything to dissuade them from propagating Pipim’s lies?”
According to his statement, Gallimore has urged Pipim to stop preaching and writing. “We believe it is in the best interest of the church as well as Dr. Pipim for him to stop all … speaking appointments, writing books … or developing a self-supporting ministry,” Gallimore said. He puts this in the context of an August 7 meeting with Pipim.
Some denominational workers are evidently unhappy that the victim support group has made an issue of this case. Although no one will go on the record, there are those who accuse those who have spoken out on behalf of Pipim’s victims of violating the privacy of these young women. Weber’s statement refers to them as “enablers” because they “rush in to shush all inquiry with pious talk about the victims’ right to privacy. But we are not asking for their names or for embarrassing details … We just need to know whether Seventh-day Adventists have a Penn State-style cover-up on our hands.”
Weber makes it clear that his statement was not made by the victims support group as an organization. He also says that it is not part of his role as a staff member for the Mid-America Union Conference. He spoke up at this point because he believes that Gallimore’s statement leaves some important things unsaid.
“A neutral party at a higher level in the denomination needs to get involved at this point,” a retired North American Division officer told Adventist Today. “There are policies that permit the Division to investigate and settle differences that involve denominational employees from two different union conference territories. The Working Policy also directs that cases of suspected abuse must be dealt with, not ignored or swept under the rug. The fact that someone has been fired or disfellowshipped does not close the book on an abuse case.”
________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
-- Martin Weber, board chairman, The Hope of Survivors (for victims of clergy sexual abuse)
Many people suggest, perhaps hypocritically, that Dr Pipim is somehow beyond redemption. Of course Dr Pipim isn't, and God extends 7x77 chances to him.
But to say God might forgive Dr Pipim is not to say the Church shouldn't fulfill its own responsibilities to look after its children to protect them from a man who is clearly dangerous to young people.
In my research on Prison ministries for paedophile, they try to make this distinction clear. They make clear every person, including paedophiles and rapists, deserve to hear the Gospel message. But they also make clear that it would simply be stupid to allow such men in a place where their temptations might become manifest.
They make clear that even if a paedophile or rapist repents, it may not be appropriate for that person to step foot in a Church again. For example, it might only be appropriate for the person to be allowed to attend a men's group. Or if the paedophile or rapist is allowed to attend Church, that he should be accompanied by an Elder or Deacon at all times.
My heart goes out to you, as does the heart of God. Unfortunately the church is run by humans who are no more perfect than were the church officials in the days of Christ. And they crucified their Redeemer!
How Christ must weep over what is done and condoned in the church that professes to represent Him! May He hold you close to Him, and may you experience the freedom of forgiving your abusers. (Plural, because those who treated you as you say are your abusers as well.)
I think it's important to make a distinction between forgiveness, in which we give up our desire and right to "get even" and/or to hold a grudge, and restored trust and relationships. Forgiveness can be totally one-sided. We can forgive someone who does not ask for forgiveness. It relieves us of a burden of bitterness. But no relationship can be restored without heartfelt repentance on the part of the offender.
You, Judi, when you claim Christ as Saviour, you are adopted into the family of the King of the universe, and that makes you a princess. Claim that position as your own, and let no one put you down because of anything in your past.
Blessings,
Inge Anderson
http://ssnet.org/
Judi Koerner,
My name is Frances Faehner. I serve as the vice president for Student Life at Andrews University. Recently, someone brought to my attention your post on this message thread and the concerns you raise.
I have served at Andrews University for more than 20 years, first as the dean of our women’s residence halls and now as vice president for Student Life.
When I read your post, I realized that your story does not sound familiar to me.
What I would like to say to you is this:
(1) If the way Andrews University handled your situation added hurt to your journey, I apologize on behalf of the University; (2) If you contact me directly (slife@andrews.edu), I would be happy to dialogue further with you about your concerns; (3) Ultimately, I want you to know that Andrews University cares for you (as itdoes for each student and graduate) and we wish to make every effort to demonstrate our concern. We'd like the opportunity to do that with you, as well.
I can assure you—Judi, as I wish to assure each reader—that the University and I are committed to working through issues like these in the most caring and protective way possible. To guide us in these situations, we have worked hard to implement a well-defined sexual assault policy and reporting procedure published in our Student Handbook that seeks to protect the victims of sexual assault (www.andrews.edu/services/studentlife/handbook/).
It's our prayer that we consistently take seriously our opportunity, and our obligation, to communicate God’s grace and care, even as we sometimes face difficult and complex situations.
Again, I am happy to dialog with you about any concerns you have. Just drop me a note at slife@andrews.edu.
How many of the liberals chortle and nitpick when a conservative theologian takes a fall! Don't they have anything more productive to do? Sexual misconduct in any form cannot for a moment be condoned. Yet some of the left leaning support same sex relations. I'm weary with the double standard.
It began with God's orders to stone sabbath breakers and blasphemers; it continued when they killed Christ; it was adopted by the Islamic religion to hunt and kill infidels.
Today, we are civilized: only ideologist ostracize and condemn "others." Which is why some refuse to adopt ideologies with such records.
Such an unfouunded general accusation is sickening and totally unfounded. If it isn't cite more than your own case. Same sex relationships are deviant -- does the SDA church support that type of conduct? If I were Moderator such destructive statements with no proof would be deleted summarily.
If it were you daughter, sister, would you have the same attitude? I hope to God that you would be more understanding. Perhaps that is too much to wish for.
Your post requires a response, at least something better than what is noted above. On many occasions I have apologized for actions carried out by those involved with this church, and do so again. On behalf of the church of which I am a member, I apologize for the way in which you were treated and the pain that was inflicted in addition to the original pain. I do not know you or what you went through, but please take some small comfort from these words. It is so tragic when we as Christians fail to do what is right, and then compound the problem by additional actions that cause pain and hurt. God sees all and knows all, and in the end that's where our confidence lies. May our loving Lord be very close to you. Blessings, Jonathan
In the grip of grace
Steve Moran
The church has - deliberately or inadvertantly - mishandled cases in the past, and I am sure they will do so in the future. But we should not assume the church has mishandled every such case. The church politics (and deception) involved in this case makes it somewhat outside the usual cases. It concerns me when people say "this man has repented, so let's all forget it and move on". Too much has not been resolved, including the genuineness of the repentance. Equally concerning are those who want to lay the blame for his past and current actions at the feet of church leaders. Questions on who knew what and when are appropriate and should be asked, but are unlikely to answered here.
Until someone requests an investigation - legal or by the church - the church has done what it needed to do, which is to fire Pipim and remove his membership. But that puts him beyond our jurisdiction. The church - at any level - cannot order him to stop speaking and writing. I understand the church has requested he stop both, but that is all they can do. He is free to make his own decisions on what he does.
I would hope his former employer or one of his accusers will request that some sort of investigation be made by the church, even if no legal proceedings eventuate. In Australia we have Safe Places Services which handle this sort of thing, so I presume there is some body set up to do the same where he is. But the church can only make decisions about his possible future employment and church attendance. It really is up to his accusers to make any legal moves. And until someone does, referring to his actions as 'rape' could open the church to a charge of slander if no legal proceedings eventuate or if he is found not guilty. The President is right not to go into defining 'rape'. That is a legal minefield, and the definition can vary quite a bit between jurisdictions. While Pipim has admitted to at least some allegations, we should not presume that all are accurate or will be proven if they go to trial.
What I would expect the church to do is to make Pipim a 'persona non grata' for any event organised by the church at any level. That they can and should do. No church, conference, union, or youth group or organisation should be allowed to ask him to speak at any event. Given his position as virtual 'poster boy' for some sections of the church and almost 'public enemy number 1' for others, the church is no doubt aware that the quest to not only do justly, but for justice to be seen to be done is not going to be easy.
I find his actions incomprehensible. Had I been caught with one woman and confessed to it, I would have been withdrawing from church life for some time. Had I been aware that there was even the possibility of more coming forward, I would have given serious consideration to withdrawing permanently. But I am not Dr Pipim, and not in his shoes. I disagree with many of his theological positions, but still pray that he will find healing and be able to work for God in some capacity. But not until the whole issue is cleared up. He owes at least that much to everyone involved.
I would also hope those hurt by his actions are finding as much, if not more, support as he is getting. And that at least some of that support is coming from the corporate church. For a church, we are sometimes distressingly inadequate in dealing with real people with real problems.
I understand what you are saying and I agree that the church has in some cases dealt with cases like this in admirable ways. Yet this case to me smacks of Penn State. Yes, at some level the conference followed the rules and yet . . . .
1. The conference asked him to not do any more speaking.
2. The conference asked him to not write any more books.
Then:
3. Almost immediately he started a new ministry that was embraced by a conservative independent ministry. Even today in spite of all the new revelations, that website continues to sell his books.
4. He begin booking speaking engagements throughout the world.
5. It appears that in very short order he went on a fairly aggressive campaign that would culminate in re baptism.
Here is where the conference has a Penn State Failure:
1. They apparently took no steps to pressure that independent ministry to not support Pipim.
2. They took no steps to warn those who invited him to speak that their young people could be in real danger.
3. Even though Pipim openly defied their council on speaking and writing, they apparently actively supported his re baptism.
4. While his employment was terminated immediately (May 24), it was not until the end of summer that the conference president met with Pipim. I am sorry but when a pastor is involved in a sexual relationship with some who is not a peer 3 months is a long time. How many more victims might there have been?
5. His ordination credentials were not revoked until October of that year. This means that for 5 months even though the conference knew there was a problem, he continued to carry credentials that said he could minister anyplace in the Adventist world.
6. When the baptism was stopped in June, it was not until August that the president again met with Pipim. I do not think the camp meeting schedule is more important than dealing with a sexual predator and it is clear Pipim is a sexual predator. From a legal standpoint, perhaps not, but for an ecclesiastical standpoint there is not question this is true.
This will sound harsh, but I honestly hope the public media gets hold of this story and blows it out in the open. I see no serious effort on the part of the church to protect young people from Pipim. To say they fired him and they counseled him is simply not enough.
In the grip of grace
Steve Moran
I agree the church should have done more to persuade groups within the church not to engage Pipim as a speaker or to sell his books. But, as you know, the church often has little control over independent ministries - usually to the benefit of both. As a non-employed non-member, Pipim can choose to meet with the church leaders or not, and can ignore any advice they give.
Not cancelling his ordination seems like a real oversight. That should have been done the same day his employment ceased. I don't believe we can dismiss the politics in action in this case. There appear to be some people who still doubt Pipim was guilty, or are convinced he was in fact the one seduced if he is guilty. I suspect it is particularly difficult for his conference to deal with this, as they will inevitably face claims of bias if they are seen as being too lenient, and giving in to pressure if they appear to be too harsh.
It seems as a church we are conditioned to first take the approach of closing our eyes and hoping the problem will disappear, and if that doesn't happen, to take the approach that will make the least waves and upset the least people. We are never in a hurry to confront problems, and the greater the potential for conflict, the slower we approach the issue. By the time we are convinced there is a problem that needs to be fixed, it is often much larger and more difficult to deal with than it would have been had we dealt with it earlier.
What surprises me is that, from what I read, there has so far been no formal proceedings launched by the church or in court by any of Pipim's accusers. I understand why many of the women may be reluctant to go public. Perhaps I have just not heard of it, but I would have expected the conference to have announced by now that they have requested the union to investigate and determine the extent of the problem and how to proceed from here. In a sense, when it comes to Pipim himself, all the church could do is fire him and counsel him to the extent he allows. But there is a lot more they could do to understand what happened and what they need to do now. Surely there is some body set up - or that could be set up - to do that?
If one considers the larger narrative of the first chapters of the book of beginnings, and considers that the wedding on friday was followed by the edict to know each other and multiply-and the next day, Sabbath, was a relational celebration, a honeymoon if you will. Most of christendom defies that first wedding gift God gave to Adam and Eve-while paganism tends to deify the act of union itself as a form of attaining god-consciousness. Neither is correct; to teach that God-given and hallowed sexual relations between man and his wife-the most powerful motivator within mankind-is somehow dirty or evil assures it will hide and grow in the darkness, in secerecy, in the cracks and holes of society. Nor is advocating conscience-free and free for all licientious behavior appropriate. But like so many things within mankind and the churches comprised of all sorts of broken peoples (such as the fact of same-sex attractions for some) we do not treat it appropriately, openly, forthrightly, or in any Christ like fashion.
Certainly anonymous men who so homophobically comment here-and wrap all contentions, i.e. womens ordination and pastors sex abuses into their own standard tired anti-gay narratives and rug-sweeping (and condemnations-strange brew!) do not at all help the church admit, do not heal the victims, unfortunately often permitting the perpetrators have continued access to unsuspecting pools (proper disclosure to the public is a requisite-both here in the non sanctioned, as well the churches official annals, and must include legal sanctions if apropos). We MUST take an honest and open stance right from the first years of education until their hallowed PhD's or MDivs are conferred. Sadly, very little is being presently done to identify, reduce initial temptations (even a good and godly pastor with a big heart -and no training-is often easy unwitting perpetrator as transference and counter-transference takes hold within a therapetic opposite gender relationship, particularly when they are dealing with her or her husbands sexual issues.)
Its been said before-women in ministry will go far in reducing the problem. And interesting; i wonder if some of the homophobic commenters might, like Jesus, permit a prostitute or a gay person minister to and serve them. Me thinks that the gates of hell would freeze shut before, global warming be damned!
Perhaps Gallimores job is to call it OK and consensual? Then, truthseeker and other, and perhaps Jay ought mere wink at the sin. Judi, I laud you for your courage to tell your story. It is by the telling of it first hand that other victims gain their voice and speak courageously out against this most egregious evil-and far more common, and far more evil, than homosexuality ever could be-(unless perhaps against a minor). My involvement in local conference and local church, as well behavioral medicine has shown me that far too oft the emotional illness of the victim was by an SDA perpetrator. It may be rather disproportionate when considered epidemiologically.
"Its been said before-women in ministry will go far in reducing the problem. And interesting; i wonder if some of the homophobic commenters might, like Jesus, permit a prostitute or a gay person minister to and serve them......."
Jesus ministered to them first.....forgave them..... and said "go and sin no more". This relationship caused a change their behavior. He didn't say "there is nothing wrong with your life style"...."it's not your fault".... "your were born a postitute or a gay with no choice of your own".
I wonder when Bill Clinton spoke last night how many people thought of the blue dress crouched under the oval office desk....And of the many others from the goveners mansion to the White House.... wow I guess rug sweepers are liberals too.
We only find out after the individuals are deceased, usually.
I didn't include Reagan in the list of "presidents with mistresses."
Any man who feels passionately that he should run for president must have extreme confidence (or ego) and that exudes charisma and serves as an aphrodisiac: power and money are the most noticed. Historians who have studied past presidents and had access to their private files, discover much that no one during his term of office.
We should not confuse the ability to be an excellent president with his sexual life. I am much more concerned with the policies he wishes and his ability to serve the nation. If we had to have a thorough background check of presidents, it may be that few would have passed the tests.
After listening to Clinton's speech last night, I am ever more impressed that he will go down as one of the greatest presidents of the past century; just as Thomas Jefferson, despite his slave mistress and fathering children with her, he is on a list of the 4-5 greatest presidents the U.S. has had.
If this is true it a sad day for all the women who have been included in his rampages. Monica was just the "cherry on top" of Bill's "shake"down of women. For someone who stands up for womens rights, what do you say to the growing trail of 30 years of victims? Just put ice on that? This is different than one mistress....and NOT aborting the evidence.
1969 Eileen Wellstone, 1972 22 year old at Yale, 1974 student at Yale university, The seven complaints from 1978 thru 1980. Elizabeth (Ward) 1982, Paula Corbin, Sandra James, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick? These are not all the reported incidents... what about the unreported ones that arer too afraid or embarrassed to charge a Rhode Scholar with rape?
perhaps Nixon; George H.W. Bush; and W--after he had sowed lots of "wild oats."
Yet in an opinion poll, the best presidents would probably reveal: FDR Jack Kennedy, Eisenhower--all womanizers!
number of this devil's victims & their life long trauma. Is the Sda church following in the style of ignoring & covering up these horrendous occurences, as did the Catholic church for it's entire existence? If so, shame, shame , shame. The sin will be atoned for in the here & now by Multi million
dollar lawsuits the GC will be unable to disuade parents & victims from justifiable lawsuits. By this
coverup, the church has enabled Pipim to claim more innocent victims.
It might not have been perfect action, but I would have thought the Michigan Conference's actions were pretty satisfactory all things considered. These things are always more difficult that it seems.
One also has to consider the offender's own natural justice when a complaint is made. I am not sure when the accusation was first made that it would have been appropriate for the Michigan Conference President to come out and publicly accuse Pipim of being a 'rapist' or 'predator' at that time.
I did another one of my informal Sabbath-School polls re this issue, and the majority didn't think it was appropriate for Pipim's misconduct to be spread publicly (including on AToday) whilst the matter was still being investigated. Contrast that with WO in PUC and CUC, which all agreed was an issue that should be shared and not subject to an official SDA media blackout.
Finally as to the Spain trip, it really is hard to know re whether the Michigan Conference's actions were sufficient or not in failing to warn these young people against travelling with Pipim. How much did the Michigan Conference heirarchy know of this trip? How do we know the Michigan Conference hierachy didn't attempt to warn people and it was simply ignored? Did those young people who travelled with Pipim, and their parents, know about the allegations against Pipim at that time?
Martin Weber's clarification says these get togethers were after Pipim's resignation, so it wasn't quite as if no body knew these allegations. I suspect Pipim's young (and older fans) knew the allegations but simply didn't believe them, as we have seen from commentators on AToday. On that basis, I am not quite sure what the AToday News Team expected the Michigan Conference to do about it? How would publicly calling him a predator at that time of changed the situation at all?
These are questions I have re how this story is portrayed in AToday.
Where was the victim and where was the conselor when these sessions took place? Thank
The church may not have been in a position to alert U.S. authorities of a crime committed elsewhere, but they were in a position to halt Pipim's ministries here and using the SDA name. He is clever: by having an outside publisher for his books, and having built up a following, he is still free (unless the denomination places restraints) to continue preaching, selling books and CDs anywhere else in the world.
The world church should hasten to prosecute him in the nation where the incident occurred if he was functioning under its auspices. However, if he was operating as a private individual, there may not be a lot that can be done legally.
Sin is so damaging.
The habit or practice of sin only wires the sinner to commit more sin. Acting out on sin results as a coping mechanism many times. Lumping all sinners of a certain type into one bunch is not practical or salvation oriented. The potential of more victims being damaged is only increased.
In this case there are victims who will be scarred for life. They need ministry, help and healing.
The perpetrator in this case Dr. Pipim has a moral dilemma.
Rev 22:15 “But outside the city will be dogs, witches, immoral people, murderers, idol worshipers, and everyone who loves to tell lies and do wrong.”
Being mad at Pipim does not help the victims and it does not help him or us.
Each clergy who has had a moral fall needs to own it, seek forgiveness, get professional help and learn to break the dependency on sex outside of marriage as an attempt at providing a sense of intimacy, which only can be found in Jesus Christ.
We have legal responsibilities in this matter. We have moral responsibilities in this matter.
I continue to maintain we would be far better off to invite a clergy member who has had a moral fall to go into a spiritual intensive care unit. I am not saying into an institution. I am saying they should be kept on the church payroll, and the church then dictates how their time is spent. They should surrender credentials, and go into a membership censor not disfellowship. Disfellowshipping simply washes “our” hands of the problem. Censoring continues to keeps the fallen as a part of our duty and ministry. It gives us the best chance to impact, direct, correct, instruct, and rehabilitate to a useful purpose. Disfellowshipping allows us to feel like we have disapproved and causes us to feel like we dealt with the problem. In fact we have turned our back on the problem. This case is a clear example of how our current approach works (or doesn’t.)
If the fallen clergy refuses to respond to spiritual intensive care the path to service in the SDA Church would be closed. It could truthfully be said he/she refused to be rehabilitated. The fallen clergy who are willing to submit to spiritual intensive care must admit their problem, with professional help conquer it, and be mentored until they are safe to have around. At that point it could be determined if there is a place for them to continue on the payroll of the SDA Church.
Washing our hands of a fallen clergy by termination and disfellowship is about as effective for God’s Kingdom as Pilate washing his hands of the death of Jesus. He may have felt he was free of responsibility—NOT.
Honestly, church policy doesn’t give our conference leadership many options in this matter.
First rate questions, and some excellent answers, Mr Nash. thank you for sharing your well-developed thoughts on this. Perhaps the GC lurkers who keep their ear to the untilled ground at AToday would do well to heed some of these suggestions, and develop/integrate them further.
Some small part i have played in lay ministry within Florida Conference, and serving as church board chair, SDA elementary school board member has also allowed me to observe another dimesion to this beast that so ready lurks in the dark. Sometimes, to remove a pastor or other personality perhaps who the higher authorities are displeased with his beliefs in given role, the mere hint of sexual impropriety results in separation or termination, and often with no real investigation-ostensibly because there is no justifiable ground. I do not for one moment believe this is the case with SKP, who is still held as some darling wunderkind by certain often anonymous high-level supporters.
I still strongly suggest that same-gender pastoral care for parishioners with sexual/relational issues be the only standard. It is far too easy for even a godly pastor to fall into the countertransference/transference dance and be drawn into dangerous territory when he ministers to a broken woman-and is almost always completely untrained in handling even at the doctorate level of credentials.
Oh how we need prayer; but before that prayer can be effective or answered, we need accountability, courage for disclosure, and pastoral care for the at-risk men- BEFORE they succumb. Further, each certainly requires this AFTER, if we have any hope to rehabilitate the perpetrators. By some estimates, perhaps 70-90% of all cases such as SKP remain unreported, or if reported, denied and covered. Might I even so boldly suggest-if we are interested in evangelism that features a true retention, that we begin to treat this problem as opportunity to both pro-actively, as well after the abuses, to offer intensive, professional treatment funded from Division coffers, and begin recovery groups within local congregations, also empowered by appropriate and full resources.
Jean-
You doubtless will never see a response to this observation. I would rather be tried by inmates in a funny farm than many of those who are pontificating on this matter. Is this just another kangaroo court set up to vilify Gallimore? I don't buy it. Whatever inappropriate acts were performed by Pipim will certainly be recorded in the books of heaven regardless of whether courts in USA have any jurisdiction over the matter.
It's a classic case of "judging" which is supposed to be anathema to good old liberals.
If a counselor has sexual relations with a counselee, EVEN IF THE COUNSELEE INITITATES, that is not consensual. And it's clear in Pipim's case that HE was initiating. That is the worst type of abuse of trust.
I don't care a bit what the person said or did before the rape. But for a serial rapist to rape repeatedly, under cover of pastoral ministry, and then come SO close to being rebaptized and back on the road to doing it again? On behalf of myself as a woman, and also on behalf of my church, for whose reputation I am jealous, that terrifies me.
The church may not have many official things it can do to Pipim, but it can and should denounce, loudly and publicly, the actions he has been involved in. This tepid "we don't know if it should really be called rape" nonsense has got to go.
Although the likelihood remains yet greater, TS, that you doubtless will see no dearth of these sort of global imperative responses by like minded non-progressives in denial to these very real realities. Protracted, strong, and deafening, repeated as oft as possible, and totally excluding kingdom building characteristics. Why is it that this same group has nothing to say on positive issues, seemingly does not comment on nor examine the ministry, evangelism, healing, devotional, and faith-building aspects of these issues more salient to church growth and health?
Perhaps the progressives some love to berate and scapegoat for all the church's ills do not practise this sort of evil as often as those 'others'? Is this possible? Perhaps their moral compass is somehow more active? Can you identify for us some progressives who have done as SKP has begrudgingly admitted doing-and as seemingly corroborated by numerous other claims against him?
Seriously, judging progressives as you so broadly do-for multitude of diverse evils-even intimating that they even judge folks-this is rich-and classic-irony!
There should be no tolerance for this type of behavior by any man of any ideology towards underage women-or any woman for that matter. To intimate SKP is being harshly judged because of his personal stance so vociferously against his own behavior-his lack of anything resembling remorse, his continuation of his access to, and the seeming willingness of the division and conference leaders to permit his ongoing ministry is utterly an incredible and indefensible charge. Sadly, the hedging on these issues, as you so clearly delineated here, only assures more victims, greater damage to the Body of Christ, more egregious abuses by more perpetrators, and more souls condemned to life without the salvific love of Jesus.
You make some interesting observations. However, not every person involved in sexual misconduct needs therapy. I know of no professional study that indicates that such intensive treatment is required in every single case. If this were required both parties, in consensual encounters, would have to be dealt with if church members.
I believe that disfellowshipping is probably warranted in most cases. Not shunning, but removing the name from the church records for a period of time at least.
the very fact that you tend to excuse this situation in subtle ways makes me question your "conservitism." Conservatism, as I understand it, makes a strict distinction between right and wrong.
I am curious as to why The Hope of Survivors chose to go public in this particular case. Tommy Shelton sits in jail with a 6-year sentence over his head, Danny Shelton's cover up exposed 3ABN to pretty serious liability, I was sued after blowing the whistle on the cover up, and one of Tommy's victims sued 3ABN in June 2011. Yet despite the seriousness of it all, the times I communicated with The Hope of Survivors I was met with what came across to me as hostility.
Probably if Jennifer Schwirzer had been the one who responded, the responses would have come across differently. But I have found it puzzling and do not understand why THOS has publicly gone after Pipim but never said anything publicly that I know of about Danny or Tommy or 3ABN.
"I can't help wondering if the reaction would have been as strong or protracted if it had been a "progressive" who had done this."
Well, I will offer some thoughts. I apologize ahead, because they will offend some.
When this type of behaviour occurs in a religious context it is, I suggest, perhaps more likely to be carried out by a "conservative" than a "liberal". There may be some reasons for this.
First, because religiosity and appearance of good standing and righteousness offer an attractive, and effective, disguise or cover for secret, evil behaviour. Liberals, by definition, do may subscribe to this level of hypocrisy.
The second is that "conservativeness" can perhaps be associated with a lower level, or stage, of moral development. Dictates of moral behaviour are externalized, not internalized, and absence of punishment, or the ability to "get away with it" are the only concerns. On the other hand, a more liberal person, in the religious context, may be the person who has internalized their morality. Choices come from within. Universal and ethical principles are the governing system.
A third reason is (and this will offend) there is some research to suggest that people who are (or remain) conservative can show less intelligence. Perhaps, if this is so, they are prone to doing dumb things like SKP.
Somehow I smell a rat in this. The message is: liberals are smart; conservatives are dumb. Very convenient, especially here on this forum.
You have focussed on one of 3 points I made. Interesting. I suggest weakening the validiy of one does not address the presence or absence of such in the others.
No. Probably not because the level of hypocrisy would be less. For me what stinks about such behaviour is the hypocrisy and hide of a person who can pretend to be so righteous, but continue in such evil. Would a liberal do that? Doubtful. I also think they would react in a more humble manner, thus not perpetuating the discussion and analysis..
No. Probably not because the level of hypocrisy would be less. For me what stinks about such behaviour is the hypocrisy and hide of a person who can pretend to be so righteous, but continue in such evil. Would a liberal do that? Doubtful. I also think they would react in a more humble manner, thus not perpetuating the discussion and analysis..
I am liberal, and have found that among my liberal friends and family that there is far more empathy because they have no rigid beliefs and behaviors and allow many divergent views. This contradicts the usual meaning of "conservative" as one who wishes to "conserve" the status quo.
Could you explain your use of "very" of liberals? Are there "very" conservatives?
Who is more against WO? Conservatives or liberals? Who is more strict on dress, sabbath and other behaviors?
He is human. He is capable as we all are of confusion and self-deception. All clergy are by virtue of their position required to hold to a high standard of moral behavior. Whatever needs may prompt a clergy to cross the line and become involved sexually with someone who is not his or her spouse needs help. To cross the line with a youth is even more a problem. In either case the one with the moral fall is NOT CAPABLE of knowing when they are healed without the aid of a trained Christian counselor. On what basis do they declare themselves cured? They were confused and practicing as clergy and now after the story of the moral fall has come out do they automatically become capable of discerning where their issues really lie? Are they ready to start writing books on the subject?
The problem is with the inner workings of the mind. I believe that we owe it to ourselves to provide a remedy to the problem not simply terminate credentials, membership and payroll.
We have a product and we rightly claim it is capable of cleansing the worst sinner, not just forgive such but transform such! The blood of Jesus is not a talking point. It is the power of God made available to each fallen soul including clergy.
Forgiveness is important. Healing/cleansing is equally important. Why do the Olympians have coaches? Because a trained person who is observing can notice and draw attention to areas of concern and provide keys to improvement/correction. The one who wants to be better seeks such a coach.
IF the operating policy of the church provides only the option of “shooting” the fallen clergy it is no wonder every effort is made to avoid facing the problem. If we would provide a healthy option to address the inner problem and reclaim the fallen clergy over time we will all be healthier and the issues can be confronted early because we have an option.
We must NOT think this is an isolated problem. IF the SDA church is similar to other protestant churches (I have no doubt it is) then our pastors, our members, our church leaders need to recognize there is an issue that requires a solution.
Take a moment and use the two links that follow. They are not SDA. They are serious attempts to prevent a moral fall from happening in the midst of a moral decay! You may be shocked at the data. Both are short videos.
http://vimeo.com/48039261
http://vimeo.com/48078047
A couple hundreds page book addressing an imporved way to deal with the moral fall of clergy is now being edited. First draft is done. Is there interest in such a work? Is the denominational plate already full or is there room to address this subject? Are willing to change denominational policy to deal with this problem not just push it out the door?
Remember good people do have problems. That is after all why Jesus came.
Sin must be acknowledged as sin. What is behind sin must be addressed. Removing fallen members or clergy from membership does not do ANYTHING redemptive. Redemption is what we are all about isn’t it? Do not think that allowing any certain amount of time to pass and the problem will be gone. Treatment is needed.
Sorry I took up so much space.
I appreciated some of your points. Also watched those vids. I have to say, they left me very uneasy.
Sexual addiction was not defined. Certainly, some of the practices and behaviours described are destructive, but I was left with the feeling that, once again, in the name of "God", and "Sin" they were demonizing sexuality. There are evil behaviours (example SKP) that none of us would condone, and there needs to be solutions and help offered for these. However, this kind of material our "churchy attitude", and emphasis on SIN, it seems to me, are very likely to screw people up and become very destructive.
I find the name, Pure Desire, creepy. Almost like a club of "survivors" or "recovered" addicts subtly feeding their now deeply hidden desires through the very means they have used to subdue it. ie getting satisfaction through repetitous discussion and analysis of the theme, events and the like.
For me, it put such on the same level as some of the demon exhorcism ministries that were a rage a while back. Maybe still are in the USA.
I don't profess to know what the best approaches are to people and events like SKP, but those vids left me thinking that kind of thing is not it.
They are unable to process what occurred and why it happened, tend to blame themselves as others may do, and are very confused to have placed trust in someone who so abused that trust. They are the ones in need of therapy and should be first considered.
Once that has been arranged, the predator should be in a group therapy session of similar sexual molesters, not with private sessions with a counselor, but with the common, ugly type (in his mind) at first. He needs to be confronted about his denials which is how AA is structured: you can't make excuses among fellow molesters as they won't buy your story. This is the harsh therapy required of someone like Pipim who has ridden the high wave of popularity and feeding off the adulation which he is used to. As my mamma would say: "He needs to be brought down a notch or two." His exalted status is still playing out in other countries where he can sway the populace. Whatever "hold" the church can place on him they should do so.
"After listening to Clinton's speech last night, I am ever more impressed that he will go down as one of the greatest presidents of the past century...."
"1969 Eileen Wellstone, 1972 22 year old at Yale, 1974 student at Yale university, The seven complaints from 1978 thru 1980. Elizabeth (Ward) 1982, Paula Corbin, Sandra James, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick? These are not all the reported incidents... what about the unreported ones that arer too afraid or embarrassed to charge a Rhode Scholar with rape?
It may be that the case under discussion does need group therapy where other perpetrators will confront and cut through the malarkey. Would it not be better to leave this decision to the judgment of the Christian counselor?
This thread has to do with church leadership using good judgment in dealing with a clergy who has fallen far and often according to the report. It is extremely difficult for a non-professional to choose a course to follow in these matters without professional guidance and without church policy that provides redemptive options. It is not too difficult to Monday morning quarterback such situations without offering workable options.
A man like SKP CANNOT be allowed to simply roam the world because some time has passed! Time does not solve such problems. On the other hand should he find healing from his inner issues how will we ever know?
After his failure Abraham was tested and his success landed him in the hall of faith chapter. When Peter denied Jesus repeatedly, he thought he was through and so did the other disciples. Jesus confronted Peter with the real issue three times and Peter humbly demonstrated he truly did love Jesus. Jesus gave him his assignment. Peter had learned. So far it does not seem that SKP has.
The point is that to solve clergy moral sin (which is despicable) it requires it be confronted, healed, and trusted professionals must make it plain they have been healed.
Surrounding himself with his buddies who are in love with his positions on subjects does nothing for healing SKP. Instead it does him a huge disservice. (All must be well they are still listening to me...)
The victims must have support for healing, making it clear to them they were taken advantage of and abused. SKP must have support for healing, making it clear that there is no way he can place the blame on anyone but on self. Even if he had done all of this evil with consenting adults he is the clergy member. He is sick and needs help!
Our duty is to take responsibility for this man who we ordained and lead him to victory not just forgiveness. It is the only way others will be safe. It is the only way he will be saved.
And this liberal-conservative name calling is getting old. The very idea that either side is all knowing
or perfect is rediculous and unchristian. I serve a God who accepts me as I am and I believe He does you too! That doesn't mean He doesn't want us to change to be more like Him. But none of us have the same view of God, nor can we until He comes. Why can't we just say "I see it differently" and leave it at that.
I think to myself now how much better it would be if the church would have immediately stepped up beside me and fought for me, fought for the investment in me, and fought for my healing, instead of walking away with my credentials and ordination. It makes one feel very alone, lost and disoriented, on top of all the emotional trauma that is going on. It felt like the devil had won a victory in my life, but then didn't have to ride that victory because there was no way back anyway.
I do not for one moment excuse my actions or failure. I don't blame anyone. I am accountable for my decision that got me to where I got. I love this church. I just wish there was a process to take people like myself, to check to see if redemption is wanted or possible, and then with thorough work be able to say with confidence that we see the power of Christ at work here, and there is more ministry in this man for the glory of God. God can only work with sinners, that is the only choice He has. It's whether or not we allow the sinners God chooses to work for Him that makes the difference.
The question is, how many Barnabases do we have in our Churches today? This isn't a new problem.
In the light of the discussion, I must ask did a Christian counselor coach you? Were you at first in denial about the cause of your fall? Did you see your situation as a bump in the road or did you see that there was a problem in you that needed professional attention?
Thanks in advance if you are wiling to answer these personal questions?
Good question Mr. Nash. At first I wanted to find every excuse for avoiding the truth, which is that I was a broken man to get into the situation I had been in. I tried to explain it away, which is of course denial. It was in fact through the help of a Christian counselor that I was able to come to full accountability and that I was totally responsible for my thoughts and actions. It is not easy to admit one's weakness, but getting to that point is where healing began for me.
So, this is in the context of a discussion about SKP. I am not one to judge his activity, honesty or motives in what happened, or what he is doing now. Of course I have some questions, but that is between he and God. In my journey I discovered that time is important, and that I could not just announce to the world that "I am healed" and expect everyone to accept that and go on. Time as well as evidence of healing are absolutely crucial steps in the journey.
It is my hope that all that has gone on is handled judiciously and fair, I pray too that our tone and speech would also reflect the high calling that we as SDA's have been called to. At first glance it appears that some on either side of recent issues have not respected the guidelines we have been given in the Word. It saddens my heart to hear Seventh Day Adventist adult, grown up people interacting this way. Remember who we are.
We want "Father love reigning o'er us, and brother love binding man to man" (Joyful, Joyful). We must be sure all our dealings are done in love and that a manisfestation of self is not clothed in false zeal.
Was he a teenager? Are you kidding? Why would his teen life be eve mentioned? These were since he was a public figure.
Read the info on Spectrum blog which has more complete information.
Isn't it only fair that proof be given instead of amorphous allegations and accusations? Why does the management of AToday even permit such material to reach the light of day? Does it even promote AToday's objectives? At one time I had a degree of confidence in reporting by certain liberal independents. They are now throwing it away for a mess of potage. How sad.
Thus, it is wrong to say AToday is reporting ‘amorphous allegations and accusations’. AToday isn’t – it is reporting fact.
-
The discussion of "liberal" versus "conservative" is ill informed. Conservatives become defensive, when they are described as being more vulnerable for sexual abuse (incidentally: both, active - as perpetrators - and passive - as vicitms). This is not a debate about "who is the better Christian", but on how we can avoid or at least minimize the damage caused by sexual abuse. As far as I am aware in this particular case the whistle blowing came from the more "conservative" end of the spectrum. Excellent. No need to become defensive.
-
Politics.... I realize, the US is right in the middle of presidential election campaigns. This sure means Clinton's story and failings had to come up again. Well, his story only underlines the well known fact, that sexual abuse is somehow linked to power and control. But it does NOT excuse or even explain the lack of intervention of a church that clearly positioned itself against any form of violence - including sexual violence.
-
The topic sexual violence and homosexuality are separate issues. Even if you come to the conclusion that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful, it is not particularly helpful or compassionate to sidetrack the issue of victims of sexual violence in such a manner. The side tracking is a sign of avoidance and denial. Sexual violence is far more common within the SDA church than homosexuality - as any survey and study on the subject matter will demonstrate.
-
Theology.... maybe we need a theology of "sexual violence" and/or how to deal with it. We have to differentiate between forgiveness and consequences. We might look at the story of David or at 1 Cor 5 to appreciate the difference.
Finally, public debate of the topic needs to show compassion for the victims - like Judi Koerner and the many who could tell frighteningly similar stories. The rehabilitation and strengthening of victims and survivors of sexual violence has to have priority over any discussion of rehabilitation for perpetrators (important as this may be). It is in that light the above news article needs to be considered, not as a point of criticism or "gloating" (I didn't perceive any of the attributed gloating at all), but as a learning opportunity in a rather difficult field of human frailty, in order to better protect victims and potential victims.With all the concern expressed for the pastor, almost few have even asked about the victim. Does the church take her "under its wings" and offer counseling? She has been both physicall abused, but worse, spiritually abused that a trusted "man of God" would take advantage of her in her needs.
Does anyone see the difference between adultery: sex between to consenting adults that are not married to each other, and this situation?
Can anyone assure us that she is being cared for an not futher victimized by those who have the brass to hint that she "seduced" him.
I think God does see the difference between sex between consenting adults that are not married to each other and other situations.
In the OT, the penalty for two unmarried people caught having sex is being forced to marry each other. Meanwhile, the penalty for adultery between people already married is death, except, where the women didn't consent, in which case the man alone dies as a rapist.
Ferguson- For some person "evidently" is a certainty and for others it's merely a conjecture. So not all that AToday is reporting can be construed as fact.
"Although no one will go on the record, there are those who accuse those who have spoken out on behalf of Pipim’s victims of violating the privacy of these young women." So no record; thus it becomes a matter that can easily be denied.
Pipim was wrong; he has confessed and Gallimore took the necessary steps. What's all the hullabaloo about?
Personally, I think the Conference handled it ok all things considering. But I think this discussion is whether it could have been handled better, and whether the Conference could have taken more active steps before or immediately after to protect more young people.
For example, the article mentions he went on a trip to Spain with some young people afterwards, which would seem a very, very dangerous endeavour. The question is whether the Conference knew about this and took steps to warn the parents of these young people?
Unless you are saying the lives of young people being sexually abused is 'a mole hill'? I wouldn't - I'd say it was a deadly serious topic worth discussing.
If the implication is that either the perpetrator (or the conference) is a chicken, self-injured or not, fact remains that people were apparently hurt by intentional selfish desires of a man (who you seem imply may or may not be a chicken) but is so certainly no victim at all, that the rest of us elephants or chickens ought to feed his apetites, or hide/downplay his damaging behaviors. How many women, hearing this story, will themselves now exhibit caution? How many male pastors will also learn the foolishness of initiating a counseling session with a young lady-in a hotel room or not? To pretend it wasn't that bad, was consensual, or needs to be hidden is a double insult to the past victims of him (and many other, untold victims of many other men) and permits more of this behavior to flourish. The prevalence of male pastors drawn into compromising liasons is shocking. (self reporting indicates 35% of "official clergy" admit to sexual sin and temptation-vs approximately 70% of the general male population perhaps indicates pastors are well more than twice as likely to lie about it)
The victim acted bravely, as did the counselor and the initial reporter-and they have been excoriated for so doing. The alleged perpetrator has perhaps mouthed a few (ten thousands) of words claiming remorse (only after being caught), but the behavior and demeanor exhibited is not congruent with any repentance. Until such time it is absolutely imperative we keep this rooster ought of the hen house.
Pipim is not being pecked to death here, but is displaying alarming behavior. The reticence of the conference to act against a pet preacher who undoubtedly "brought in the numbers" is perhaps unsurprising, but also alarming.
I welcome the role of women pastors on equal footing with these ordained men; perhaps common sense will prevail, and no opposite gender hotel room liasons will occur. I also welcome some requirement for training of our pastors in the deeper issues involved, a safe reporting mechanism, as well a clergy recovery network with mandatory and professional faciliating for rehabilitation. If the Mi. conference, the NAD, or the GC do not believe this is a serious issue and and act according, they are actually party to ongoing abuse. Lets be courageous, and man up.
Indeed, writing a 21,000-word defence of 'majestic silence', or writing a book 'Fallen Eagle', or going on a speaking tour, or taking a group of young people to Spain, is hardly the actions of a man dealing with the issue in meekness! Acting in meekness, Pipim would have come clean about the other victims as well, and would not have had to be confronted on the eve of his re-baptism.
Jesus had a lot of sympathy to sinners - especially prostitutes, tax collectors and publicans. But He was God's wrath incarnate to those who were in power and took advantage of the vulnerable. Timo is right in saying Pipim is no victim here, the victim is the young woman (or should I say many young women). I can imagine Jesus writing a few lines in the dirt in response to Pipim's volumous treatise of His own defence, and then Jesus going over to comfort the victim.
As to how we should treat sinners, the NT makes a big difference between those inside the Church and those outside the Church. Yes, we must not gossip and must not cast the first stone, or pick out specks in other eyes when there is a log in ours. But there is a process prescribes in Matt 18. Where the process is followed properly, as it is here, the Christian response is to treat the expelled brother as a pagan or tax collector.
There is something said for old Christian stances of shunning, which is biblical. I do not advocate harsh shunning, in the sense of cutting off all contact. But shunning is important to the extent that Pipim, who is a defroked, disfellowshipped minister, should not be going around writing books, giving speaking tours, and taking young people on trips. As the Mich Conf recently pleaded in an open letter, allowing Pipim to do these things is not just dangerous, but it is bad for Pipim.
Pipim needs to be shunned to the extent that he seriously needs some time alone and withdrawn from the world of Adventist celibrity so he can seriously examine his life and rebuild his relationships, especially with his wife.
I want to challenge this myth. I think we get confused because all sins, even the smallest, cut us off from God and thus make us unworthy for heaven. Even the smallest sin would have required Jesus to come and die for us.
But it is simply absurd to say God considers all sins equal. If you look at the OT, God does indeed deal with different sins in different ways with different penalties. For example, two young people caught having sex are forced to marry; whereas, two married adults caught having sex are executed, as God obviously considers a marital affair more abhorent behaviour than pre-marital sex.
It is equally absurd to say that Pipim's actions, which at best involved him using his celebrity status to get young women into bed, and at worst involved rape, is equal in abhorance to God if say Pipim had instead said a white lie.
I have witnessed the exact same thing. I have seen Church leaders take disciplinary action against young people living together in de facto relationships when there were members of the Church (and some of them were sitting on the Board!) who were divorcees. When I noted that God treated pre-marital sex by young people a lot lighter than adult adultery, those comments were not welcomed. When I noted that it is ok to go after young people in de facto relationships, but they should start with the adult divorcees first, given Jesus was silent on the former (e.g. He didn't openly condemn the Samaritan woman at the well for her de facto lifestyle) but explicit on the latter (e.g. Jesus openly said divorce except for marital unfaithfullness is adultery), again, my comments were not welcomed.
With respect, Vernon, if I understand what you are getting at, you appear to be adopting that same hypocritical attitude. You seem to be suggesting we be lenient on Dr Pipim, that he should be treated in the same lenient manner as the adult divorcees of most Adventist Church today who should know better, whilst at the same time harsher standards are applied to the vulnerable and powerless young.
Yes Jesus did. And what was Jesus' conclusion where the process was followed to its conclusion in Matt 18:17:
‘If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.’
And in 1 Cor 5:11-13, Paul is explicit. We are not to be judgmental to outsiders, whether they be prostitutes or tax collectors. But to those inside the Church who are sexually immoral and a swindler, who have been judged per Jesus’ prescribed process, we shouldn’t even be eating with such a person:
‘But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”’
I don’t these we should be applying these guidelines harshly. I think Mich Conference’s latest open letter is entirely reasonable, pleading with people not to invite Pipim as public speaker, or to let him take young people on overseas trips, or to be involved in young people at all. Pipim needs to be shunned to the extent that for his own good he needs some time alone to think his actions and rebuild his relationships, especially with his wife.
Yes, and David was a great sinner as well, who also took advantage of young women. But a key difference is when these men truly repented. By contrasted, Pipim has written a 21,000 word 'majestic silence' defence and a book 'Fallen Eagle'. Go to his website, right now, and see if you can find any truly contrite response from him - you can't. Per Matt 18:17 criteria, and unlike Ahab or David, Pipim has still refused to listen to the Church and its leaders. That is why Mich Conf has now taken the extroidinary step of publishing an open letter that effectively asks for Pipim to disengage from dealing with Pipim (i.e. the biblical notion of shunning).
Sorry, are you suggesting Pipim is still God's annointed? Wasn't his credentials cancelled and his ordination as a minister annulled?
True, but many of us wish there was as much weeping for his young female victims as for this Sevy celebrity.
Sorry, by this statement are you suggesting the young woman is guilty? My understanding is that she was either raped at worst, or seriously taken advantage of at best. The way you have lumped these two together goes to the heart of what distrubs many of us, and why we are having this conversation.
God is seriously weeping for this young lady, but probably not in the way you describe. I suspect He is crying because Pipim, a man with immense power and who claimed to speak in His name, has seriously misrepresented His nature.