Note: On 9 July 2000, a few hours after the Year 2000 Toronto GC Session closed, I e-mailed Samuel Koranteng-Pipim and asked him if he would write some guest editorials for the GreatControversy.org website. He gave a positive response (which I won't forget, Sam!), and a brief series of e-mails followed. On the evening of 10 July 2000 I conducted the following interview With Dr. Pipim by telephone. While he may be heavily quoted in the press this week, I doubt that he was asked all of the same questions that we asked. So strap yourself in and enjoy this extended interview.

LK: Dr. Pipim, I'd like to welcome you and thank you for taking your time to share with the people that visit the GreatControversy.org website.

SKP: It's a privilege to be able to join you.

LK: I'd like to start by asking you a question: Are the inspired writings subject to the church, or is the church subject to the inspired writings?

SKP: That sounds like a philosophical question!

LK: Some of these are kind-of loaded.

SKP: Well, you know that the church owes its existence and its authority to the inspired writings, and the church must always be subject to the inspired writings, and not the other way around.

LK: I was glad to hear that you were a delegate to this General Conference session. How did you get to be an AID (Africa-Indian Ocean Division) delegate, even though you are employed in Michigan?

SKP: I am currently employed by the Michigan Conference, [serving] as the Director for Public Campus Ministries. My ministry is presently based on the Campus of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Though currently living and working in the United States, the Toronto GC session is not the first time I have been invited to be a delegate of the African-Indian Ocean Division. In fact this is my fourth such GC Session. I was a delegate in 1985 (New Orleans, Louisiana), in 1990 (Indianapolis, Indiana), in 1995 (Utrecht, the Netherlands), and now in 2000 (Toronto, Canada).

The reason for representing my African Division at these GC sessions is simple. Though based in the United States, I am still playing a very active role in our churches in Africa and overseas (where I've been instrumental in raising up African congregations in North America and Europe). I regularly go to Africa to teach theology courses to our students, conduct ministerial council meetings to train our pastors and laypeople, and to speak at various campmeetings. So I am really part of the African church, even though, in a sense I am like a missionary here in North America. Besides, since 1995 I have represented the African-Indian Ocean Division at the General Conference's Biblical Research Institute Committee. It is therefore understandable for my African Division to invite me to be one of its delegates at GC sessions. I guess they recognize that I can clearly articulate some of their theological concerns.

LK: So are you a member of the BRI?

SKP: I am a member of Biblical Research Institute (BRI) Committee that's called BRICOM. The Biblical Research Institute whose offices are at the General Conference has four members: a Director [Dr. George Reid] and three Associates [Dr. Angel Rodriguez, Dr. Ekkerhadt Mueller, and Dr. Gerhard Pfandl]. In addition to these standing members of the BRI, there is BRICOM, BRI Committee, which is much larger, 35 members or so if I can remember correctly. BRICOM meets twice a year, sometimes three times a year to discuss theological issues that involve the well-being of the worldwide church. The BRI and BRICOM serve as the theological watchdog of the church. When there is uncertainty over our doctrinal distinctives, the BRI clarifies it. When our doctrinal positions are being chipped away, the BRI articulates it. And when our doctrines are being challenged from within and without, the BRI defends it. I serve on the BRICOM as the representative of the Africa-Indian Ocean Division.

LK: Now let me ask you another question. How do you feel about the large amount of time and resources spent on having a GC session like this?

SKP: I know some people think that these GC Sessions are a waste of time and resources. But I disagree. I really feel this is the most important meeting the church ever conducts. To question holding GC sessions is like questioning the legitimacy of holding business meetings at a local church level. It is a privilege to be a delegate at GC sessions to discuss the business of the worldwide church. Converging at GC sessions is like Muslims attending their Mecca. Though we don't have any holy ground, GC sessions can be spiritual high points for the SDA church. You get to meet old friends and make new friends. You get to hear the exciting reports of church growth in different parts of the world. You learn from the success and failures of others. The fact is that, when you live in your own little Adventist ghetto in whatever region of the church you live in, you think Adventism is only circumscribed to your narrow area. However, here [at GC sessions] you get to see Adventism in all of its diversity.

Another reason why GC Sessions are important is that it is a time to gauge the temperature of the church—the theological and spiritual temperature of the church. For example, when I attend the GC sessions, I visit the various exhibition booths and get to see what items are being displayed. Some of these have theological implications. I observe and participate in the worship services and get a feel of the direction the church is headed on such issues as worship, worship styles, mission strategies, and things like this. I listen intently to the sermons and workshops, read carefully the documents and brochures passed out, not only for edification and inspiration, but also to ascertain the nature and extent of the kinds of doctrines being peddled around. I also get to see God's leading of His church. Finally, I observe how the church arrives at its theological decisions. What I mean is this: GC sessions, in my opinion, constitute one of the highest experiences for the Seventh-day Adventist Church worldwide. And it is worth the effort and time. Yes, sitting through the GC business sessions is at times boring, and frustrating. But it is worth all the investment by the church.

LK: Several issues—church manual, constitution and bye-laws, etc.—were discussed at the session. What items interested you most and why?

SKP: The issues that tend to interest me at GC sessions are theological issues. I'm sure you will appreciate it because my training is in systematic theology—a fancy phrase for the study of doctrines. My speciality is in biblical authority and interpretation (hermeneutics), and the doctrine of the church (ecclesiology). My interest in theological issues also has to do with my [British] educational background and my previous training in engineering. This background encourages serious thinking and reflection on issues, instead of the cheap "sound-bite" pop-theology that is pervasive in our poll-driven society. So at GC sessions, I try to comb through the agenda materials that are passed out, with a keen interest on the theological issues recommended in Church Manual revisions. Then when the occasion lends itself, I try to speak clearly, pointedly, and sometimes vigorously, to the issues.

LK: What would you say is the relationship between "mission" and "issues?"

SKP: Issues and mission cannot be separated. Without the issues, missions is about nothing. Let me put it differently. When we think about issues we are basically talking about doctrines or theology. And when we are talking about missions, its simply sharing the message. So there are really no dichotomies between missions and issues. I am aware that some people within our ranks try to float the mistaken notion that [theological] issues are not important and that what is important are missions. In my opinion, that is a misguided attempt to divorce two items that are inseparably linked. There is no real dichotomy between the two.

LK: If they were separated like that, what would the implications or results be?

SKP: Frankly, there'd be no missions. Remember, the Adventist movement is a message. The message of Adventism is centered on Jesus Christ, and every doctrine we have presents Him in His beauty. When you separate the message or issues from missions, you are actually presenting a different Christ, a different gospel, and a different Adventism. When people try to play down issues in the name of missions, you must understand that such an attempt is a cover or a disguise, to get away from the doctrine. That is what it is all about. There cannot be true mission without a solid Biblical foundation, which is what you call "issues."

LK: What's your general assessment of this 2000 GC session? What message does the Toronto meeting send to the world about Adventists?

SKP: I would say the first message one gets from the GC session is that the Seventh-day Adventist church is alive and very well in many parts of the world. Seeing and hearing the reports of the commitment and sacrifice of Seventh-day Adventists around the world was very thrilling and inspirational. Another message that comes out of it is that the church is in real need of help in other sections of the world—particularly the industrialized world.

Yes, the overseas fields have their problems too, but in terms of the vibrancy, the commitment, the church is much more alive and well in these former mission fields than in the Western world. Another general assessment I have is that the Adventist church is truly an international church; it is a worldwide church. Just think of it: this movement began in this country [USA]. Today, more than 90% of Adventism is outside the industrialized countries of North America, Europe and Australia.

Let me give you just a few statistics; Did you know that in the South Pacific Division (Australia and the islands of the Pacific), more than 88% of church membership there lives outside Australia? So really, the majority of them reside outside of Australia! Take another example: Europe. We have a division called Euro-Africa Division: Germany, France, Switzerland, and all of those places. The Africa part of that name Euro-Africa, consists of two countries: Angola and Mozambique. And when you look at the figures in these two areas, almost 80% of Euro-Africa Division church members reside in Africa! On the continent of Africa alone, there are some 4 million Adventists. Then think of Inter-America (2 million), South America (almost 2 million), Philippines (1 million), etc. So the point is, the Adventist movement is now international. We have moved outside the typical industrialized countries which gave birth to our overseas churches and which are supported in finances and prayer and personnel.

While some may be a little afraid or uncomfortable when they see the growth of the church in developing countries (and hence their large delegate presence and right to speak at GC sessions), all God-fearing Adventists will rejoice that the church is truly a worldwide movement. I look forward to the day when experts from the developing countries will also be asked to share the reasons for their phenomenal success. Many of the outreach methods/strategies often presented by specialists in the industrialized countries simply don't work. They only look good on paper. But that is another topic. My point is that, on the whole, I'm really delighted by the growth of the church. The future is bright and full of promise.

LK: One of the key issues at the session was the divorce and remarriage proposal. Some of us are unclear on what exactly was in what was finally voted, and what isn't. Some SDA news media claim the proposal was simply a 'change of wording' to make the Church Manual more 'loving.' What's your opinion?

SKP: If the proposal was simply a 'change of wording' to make the Manual more 'loving,' why the heated debate on the GC Session floor? If the issue was simply over 'a change of wording,' as they claim, why would the proponents (a very small minority) decide to undo a decision that was taken by an overwhelming majority of delegates? Let no one mislead you. The questionable vote on Friday regarding the marriage and divorce proposal was more than a 'change of wording.' It was a calculated attempt by proponents to liberalize the Church's long-standing position on divorce and remarriage.

LK: So, what can you tell us about the proposal as it stands in the voted form? I'm also wondering about the events of Friday morning, and how it was that it was finally passed.

SKP: I will begin by saying that what happened on Friday morning is, in my opinion, a rather tragic event. It was so outrageous that I felt compelled on that day to register my protest. This will not be the end of the story. But let me give you a little background. At the last General Conference session at Utrecht, there was a request from that session that the GC appoint a committee to study this issue of marriage and divorce, and then send recommendation for the Toronto GC session. That commission met. It made some recommendations, which were passed on to the body which appointed them, and this was at the GC Annual Council. When we talk about Annual Council, we are talking about the church leaders around the world; the Division, the Union Presidents, and all of them; they meet twice a year.

The Annual Council met, and took a look at the document that was put together by that Marriage and Divorce Committee, and then they cleaned it up; they looked at it carefully, and after rejecting those parts that lacked biblical support, they forwarded their recommendation to the Church Manual Committee, asking the committee to integrate it into the Church Manual and present it at this GC session as a proposal for us to look at. Remember that because of their small number and because of many political pressures on church leaders, Annual Councils can make mistakes. This is why their theological opinions must be approved by a GC at session—a wider representation of the church worldwide. And this is why the Spring 2000 Annual Council forwarded their suggestions to the Church Manual Committee to be presented to delegates at the Toronto GC session.

[At the Toronto GC session] we looked at the recommendations from the Church Manual Committee and realized that this document has some strengths and weaknesses. Among its strengths were that, instead of the current Church Manual which begins with a statement on divorce and remarriage, the proposed document said, let's begin with something positive: a positive statement on marriage, so that the document would now read: "Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage." I think that is positive. You cannot talk about the negative, ("Divorce and Remarriage") without first speaking of the positive (Marriage).

Another positive aspect of the document was the attempt to make it a little more ‘user-friendly.' For example, instead of talking about ‘disfellowshiping,' it talks about ‘removal from membership;' its a change in terminology. Instead of talking about ‘the guilty party' you know, in a marriage situation, it used the phrase 'the spouse who has violated the marriage vow'—a phrase which means the same thing, but doesn't look so judgmental. These were positive changes that I think they brought together.

But there were also some very troubling aspects. For the first time, this document sets forth a new view of marriage, which I would describe as an egalitarian form of marriage. Some call it a ‘partnership' form of marriage. It also introduced another grounds for divorce, namely, 'abandonment of an unbelieving partner.'

LK: Now this was in the version that was passed?

SKP: Yes and no. The first half of the document which sets forth the biblical view of marriage was where the text of this egalitarian form of marriage is. Simply stated, it makes no mention of role-distinctions in marriage. On the contrary, it suggests that role-distinctions, which we call headship, went into effect at the fall. It quoted a statement from Ellen White affirming headship after the fall, but chose to ignore Mrs. White's many statements that affirm that at creation, God instituted role distinctions to govern the home. This omission has some major implications. It implies that the cross of Christ has nullified role-distinctions between male and female in marriage.

LK: But wasn't a portion of that cut-out right away in the deliberations?

SKP: We tried to modify it, but you know, it is still studded with much of this theologically fuzzy and feminist language. But we took out that key suggestion that male-headship and female submission began at the Fall, instead of its inception at the creation. Now, the first problem with the document which was presented to us, was that by taking away role distinctions at creation, the document set a theological foundation for women's ordination and also homosexuality. Many people may not appreciate this important theological fact.

I raised that point, and I'm not sure how many people fully understood what I was talking about. To them, homosexuality and women's ordination issues where unrelated to the 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 proposal were appealing to those with "a scare mentality" (Adventist Review, July 5, 2000, pp. 2-3).

I may be wrong. But my guess is that many have not seriously thought through the theological implications of divinely instituted roles. But as I explained, by taking away God-appointed role-distinctions between male and female at creation, you are opening the groundwork for this whole thing about women's ordination. So its a headship issue. Fortunately, we modified it slightly, but it's still there anyway in some fuzzy or ambiguous form. But I think that we can live with it as long as church members understand that at creation, God made Adam and Eve equals, neither superior to the other, and that within the complementarity of these spiritually equal beings, God also instituted different roles for male and female to govern the home—the first church.

The second major item was that this [Marriage and Divorce] document, for the first time in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church introduces another ground for divorce in the Church. Historically, Adventists have insisted that the only ground for divorce is adultery and/or fornication. But the document which the Church Manual Committee presented before us introduces a new ground; they call it ‘abandonment of an unbelieving partner.' Then they inserted 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 as their proof text that 'abandonment of an unbelieving partner' is another ground for divorce! Now this was a problem.

What constitutes abandonment? Larry, let me give you a little background so you will appreciate what we are up to. You know that in many western countries, Adventist Christian lifestyle is being liberalized to justify the many divorces that are taking place. Particularly, marriage and divorce are being liberalized under very frivolous pretexts. For example, some scholars are arguing that incompatibility could be a ground for divorce. The question is, what constitutes incompatibility?

LK: These definitions are quite critical in these cases, aren't they?

SKP: Very. And this document uses a lot of ambiguous and fuzzy language. Now, they use the word ‘abandonment.' What constitutes abandonment? Is it ten years? Is it two years? Is it five weeks? The document is silent on it. So there is a problem with the definition of physical abandonment: how long?

The second problem is, some people on the other side argue for what they call ‘emotional abandonment.' For example, I may not physically abandon my wife, but I or my wife (depending on which one of us wants to divorce) can say, ‘you know, even though we live in the same house, he or she has emotionally abandoned me.' Then there is what some call ‘sexual abandonment,' when one spouse's sexual needs are not met. And some can also talk about financial abandonment, saying, 'He's not taking taking care of my financial needs.' I guess the question is, what constitutes abandonment? The document is silent. And that leaves room for anyone for whatever reason, to seek divorce.

Another problem is, it says ‘abandonment of an unbelieving partner.' Who or what constitutes an unbelieving partner? During the debate it was clear, they said an unbelieving partner is one who has not embraced the three angels' message. In other words, an unbelieving partner is a non-Adventist. So. According to this new proposal, a Seventh-day Adventist who is married to a Baptist, or Methodist or Presbyterian, and if this non-SDA spouse ('unbelieving partner') abandons the other on say his/her birthday, anniversary, or for two weeks, months, years, etc., the Adventist can on this ground go to the church and say, ‘See, my Baptist or Methodist husband/wife has abandoned me for two weeks. So I need a divorce. Can you understand the point?

LK: Yes.

SKP: So we have theological problems with the so-called 'abandonment by an unbelieving partner' clause. The problem is what constitutes an unbelieving partner, and what constitutes abandonment? And these have implications. Our church will begin to be known as that church that encourages splitting of families.

LK: That wouldn't be too helpful here in Utah where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, score a lot of points with their family emphasis. So that kind of thing, I would hope that it wouldn't be heard too loudly here in Utah.

SKP: Well, it wouldn't ring well in Africa either, where our people are winning many converts from other churches. Sometimes under very difficult circumstances (e. g. when a wife is being persecuted by the husband for joining the SDA church), all she wants to hear from the pastor is a license to go ahead and divorce the spouse. Under this new questionable Church Manual proposal a person in this kind of situation can divorce the unbelieving partner. In the opinion of several of the delegates who spoke against the proposal, this liberalized position is going to open a can of worms.

And then the final problem is that the Church Manual committee injected a reference to 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 into their document, as if that text is talking about divorce. By injecting that text they have raised the issue of hermeneutics—how to interpret the Bible. Responsible scholars and commentators seem to be in agreement that the precise meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not crystal clear. So why do we build a theological position on an obscure passage? But we never did discuss it. Because of all these reasons, when the document was put on the floor, we started debating the issue, raising concerns about this abandonment clause. Another thing is that Ellen White states very clearly that the only ground for divorce is unfaithfulness to the marriage vow—understood by the church to mean adultery, fornication, and various forms of sexual immorality or perversion, including homosexuality and child abuse. Thus, according to Ellen White, unfaithfulness to the marriage vow is the only grounds for divorce.

LK: Is there any possibility that the committee that worked on this didn't know about that?

SKP: Oh, they knew about it, because right in the document which they sent to us for us to look at, they quoted that statement from Ellen White. She writes: 'In the sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5:32; 19:9] Jesus declared plainly that there could be no dissolution of the marriage tie, except for unfaithfulness to the marriage vow.' (Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, p. 63; emphasis mine). This statement was already quoted in the Church Manual. So they knew about it and some of the speakers pointed to it, saying that this abandonment clause raises a direct contradiction to what is already in the Church Manual. So all these questions were raised.

Besides, Ellen White has spoken on this very question of 'abandonment of the unbelieving partner,' divorce, remarriage (see, for example, Adventist Home, pp. 340-352). Because of these major problems with the 'abandonment' clause, during the Tuesday and Wednesday business sessions (July 4 and 5, 2000), delegates argued and voted that we refer the document back to the Church Manual Committee to evaluate our theological concerns on the abandonment clause.

Now, we could have debated the issue, made the modifications right then and approved the document in the way that the voting majority felt. But we felt that because there are theological issues at stake, and because emotions were very high, it wasn't wise to do all those changes right there; so we should simply refer it back to the Church Manual Committee having raised our concerns. Remember Larry, the issue was so important that they had to suspend the nominating committee so that its members could be there to speak to this issue. That was Tuesday and Wednesday. And with an almost full house of 2000 delegates present, we voted that the entire document, bearing in mind our concerns, be referred to the Church Manual Committee. And the understanding was that this would be worked on and brought back at the next GC session in 2005, St. Louis.

This was the decision on Wednesday [July 5]. Then Friday [July 7] came. Many of our delegates, particularly from the developing countries, thinking that the major theological issues had been discussed, were not there at the Friday morning business session. About 150 people were present. And taking advantage of the absence of the overwhelming majority of the delegates, the people who really are pushing this new view of divorce and marriage, (mostly from segments in North America, Australia, and Europe—the regions that constitute less than 10% of the world Adventist membership), came in and staged their theological coup d'etat. (A coup d'etat is when a group of individuals uses military power to overthrow a legitimate government.)

LK: You say they came in?

SKP: They were present. But the overwhelming majority of delegates from Africa, Inter-America, South America, the Pacific Islands, etc.—those from the developing countries, where the church is growing, where they are more Bible-based—they were not there. Only about 150 people (about 7 or 8% of GC delegates) were present. Do you understand the dynamics? A-hundred-and-fifty people from certain segments of the industrialized countries took advantage of the absence of a large segment of the delegates, and overturned a prior decision by an overwhelming majority of delegates. Some may dispute the 150 number, but I believe that my criticism would still be valid, even if 50% of the delegates made the decision to overturn the previous action.

LK: I was wondering what the quorum was there.

SKP: There wasn't really a quorum. But when a church business meeting is called, if you are there, you are there. That is the mistake our people made by not being there. So, 150 people came around; a majority of them from these industrialized countries; which generally tend to be liberal and not as serious about theological issues, were there. And they moved and made a motion that the decision that was made on the previous two days, to refer the document to the Church Manual Committee, be rescinded. It was seconded and voted upon. And so, within a few minutes, a decision that was arrived at by an overwhelming majority of delegates including nominating committee members while the whole house was there, was overturned by a few people—less than a 150 people in attendance. Remember, the number of delegates who earlier had referred the document to the Church Manual Committee was almost 2000. But it took less than 150 people to overturn their decision!

LK: Yes, I heard the chairman in the afternoon affirm that there had only been 150 people there in the morning.

SKP: It is true. It is true. Then as soon as they rescinded that decision, I had the feeling that it was well planned. They rescinded the decision and then there was another move. They made a motion that we should accept 'as is' the Church Manual Committee document, including the abandonment clause and some of these things that we objected to. There was a second to the motion. Some of us who understood what was going on wanted to debate that issue again since they had brought it to the floor. Before we could effectively speak to that issue, another person makes a motion that we should cut off discussion, that there should be no debate because we had already debated it the previous days. So using the parliamentary procedures, they cut off debate and were able to vote it in because they were there in numbers. I'm talking about how a small group of people, mostly from the industrialized countries maneuvered the parliamentary procedures to overturn the majority decision.

I want to emphasize that what they did, procedurally was O.K., because once you call a business meeting, whether the people are there or not, you know, it is a business meeting. Our people from the developing countries can be faulted for not being there. Perhaps they were too naive or trusting, oblivious to the many ideological currents at GC sessions. Undoubtedly, they have themselves to blame for this theologically questionable position now enshrined in the Church Manual.

But the question before us is, did the individuals from the industrialized countries act rightly and fairly? I have spoken to many people, including people who disagree with me theologically; I'm talking about even liberals. And they all concede that the action was really wrong. It doesn't show maturity and a sense of fairness. It's almost like a coup d'etat by a few determined people who think they can overturn the decision of the overwhelming majority by just capitalizing on the fact that a majority of the people were not there.

So what now stands today in the Church Manual is going to contain a clause that is not biblical, that goes contrary to the Spirit of Prophecy, that goes contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the larger body that met to refer it back to the Church Manual Committee, but which a few people, from a particular segment of the world church, decided it could overturn and liberalize. So that is what this document now is. And it will create problems for pastors in the field, who believe that the Bible is against any kind of divorce except in the cases of adultery and fornication.

If, for example, you are a pastor, and your church member comes to you and says, ‘Pastor, I'm going to divorce my husband because he has abandoned me; he's a Methodist, or a Baptist, a non-believer. He's abandoned me for two weeks,' or for whatever reason. And the pastor says, ‘Sister, or brother, you cannot do so, because it is not biblical,' that person will tell you, ‘The Church Manual gives me permission.' So you, as a minister, you have to decide between what is biblically binding, and what the Church Manual has now instituted through legislation by a small group of people. And if you, the pastor, choose not to go along you can be accused of undermining the Church Manual. And a liberal conference president can use this as a reason to fire you, claiming that you are placing your individual judgment above 'the counsel of the brethren.' Now, if you are a liberal pastor, this new proposal grants you license to do what you weren't authorized to do before. But if you are a conservative pastor, this new proposal places you in a dilemma of choosing between the Bible and the Church Manual, your conscience and a questionable policy.

LK: It seemed to me that a number of the items planned for revision in the Church Manual in this session involved a strengthening of the authority of the Church Manual, which makes this very issue that that you've just pointed out even more problematic.

SKP: Yes. There was an item called ‘The Authority of the Church Manual.' In my opinion, that document was important. There were some people who didn't accept the fact that the Church Manual has its authority. Let's face it; the Seventh-day Adventist Church as an organization, needs a constitution. Our constitution—our ultimate constitution—is the Bible. But everyone says I understand the Bible this way, I understand the Bible that way, O.K., so we can agree on a second set of proposals. And that is what the Church Manual seeks to do. And so at this business session they underscored the fact that what we all accept for inclusion in the Church Manual has a binding authority. That was voted. I have no problem with that. The problem happens if you legislate a proposal that is not biblical, as we did here.

LK: As you said at the beginning of our interview, the Church is subject to the Scriptures ultimately.

SKP: Yes, that's right. So now we have this camel we have to deal with. Clearly, this abandonment clause is questionable, hence there is a lot of footwork ('spin' or 'damage control') going on around it. Some of them are trying to do some damage control by claiming that the document simply says abandonment is a ground for divorce but not a ground for remarriage. Now give me a break! That is really innovative, but unconvincing. If there is a biblical ground for divorce called abandonment, why is there not a biblical ground for remarriage on the basis of that abandonment? Do you understand it?

LK: Yes. It sounds like there's a logical problem there.

SKP: There is a logical problem. And I have read the document all the way through. On the 'Grounds for Divorce,' the document states 'Scripture recognizes adultery and/or fornication (Matthew 5:32) as well as abandonment by an unbelieving partner (1 Corinthians 7:10-15) as biblical grounds for divorce.' Now they claim that with adultery and fornication you can remarry. Why is it that with abandonment you cannot remarry? Frankly, in my opinion it is a gymnastic maneuver—an attempt to make people not realize the seriousness of what we've done. What we have done is, we are saying that unfaithfulness to the marriage vow and abandonment are grounds for divorce. We are saying that unfaithfulness to the marriage vow is grounds for remarriage. But we are saying that abandonment is not grounds for remarriage. Wait a minute. Give us a break. What are they saying? Are we not creating a group of second-class divorcees?

Notice that there is another section in the Church Manual recommendation titled 'The Church's Position on Divorce and Remarriage.' Here we are told again in items 1 and 2 that 'The Scriptures allow divorce for the reasons mentioned above [unfaithfulness to the marriage vow], as well as for abandonment by an unbelieving partner.' If the Scriptures allow these two grounds for divorce, why shouldn't an abandoned believer who allegedly has biblical grounds for divorce be permitted to remarry? It is this kind of theological ambiguity, fuzziness, and inconsistency that some of us were pointing out. This kind of theological 'double speak' is always a common prelude to liberalism's revisionist theologies.

LK: There was a point during the live internet audio feed (which was how we did most of the GC session coverage on GCO), when the GC president was answering some impromptu questions from the floor, and somebody asked him if the church had spoken on women as elders. And he said that the church had spoken on women as elders. And I'm wondering if we would think of that as being an accurate statement or not, because I had understood before that the way that women elders was launched even at its beginning in the Adventist Church was through a scenario very similar to what happened on Friday morning.

SKP: There is a parallel. But let me correct this misconception. The world church—the General Conference in session—has never voted for women [to be ordained as] elders. That decision was at an Annual Council meeting. Annual Council is when the Church leaders from the various divisions and Union presidents and Conference presidents meet to decide on some issues. At the Spring 1975 Annual Council (not the General Conference in session), church leaders (dominated by those from North America) voted to ordain women as local elders in the North American Division if 'the greatest discretion and caution' were exercised. Then again at the fall 1984 Annual Council's (not GC session) meeting, church leaders reaffirmed and expanded the 1975 decision. They voted to advise each division that it is free to make provisions as it may deem necessary for the election and ordination of women as local elders. Thus, the biblically questionable practice of ordaining women as elders started out in North America or areas where they want women elders, and then it was expanded to other regions.

It has never come to the General Conference Session. The highest authority of the Church is the GC in session. No General Conference session has ever voted for women elders. What came up at recent GC sessions were issues regarding women pastors. And the world church on two separate occasions said, ‘It is not biblical.' And generally, we all know that the Bible makes no distinction between an elder or a pastor. So they know that if they bring this women elder thing, it will not fly. The Church will not accept it.

Now, back to the connection between this abandonment and woman elders. This decision is even worse than that taken by church leaders at an Annual Council. This is because this questionable divorce document was voted at a GC session! Here's a case where we have taken a decision clearly contrary to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. And if we have anything to go by, we shall begin to see what has happened to this women's ordination thing. This is an ideological push. It will be vigorously pursued by people who have different kinds of agendas. They cannot win a biblical, theological debate, and so the only way is to resort to these ideological impositions. I can say this because that is what has happened to women's ordination. I mean, they have no biblical grounds.

For years they were pushing this ideology, claiming it is cultural, it is not a theological issue. Finally, when they conceded that it is a theological issue, then they asked the Seminary's pro-women's ordination scholars to produce that biblical justification, and that is what the book Women in Ministry is all about. And as we have shown in our response to that book (see several chapters of our book Prove All Things online), the pro-ordination book is constructed upon questionable assumptions, imaginative and speculative interpretations, and misleading and erroneous claims regarding Adventist history. Frankly, that book has shown convincingly that this whole women's ordination scheme is built on thin ice. And this is what this abandonment/divorce thing is going to do. It imposes an ideological legislation on the church instead of seeking a biblical ground for it. Without allowing for adequate debate, adequate biblical investigation, we'll find ourselves caught in the same women's ordination mess. But dedicated, God-fearing people are now beginning to realize what we have done.

LK: Let me turn to another topic.

SKP: O.K.

LK: One phrase we're told we can expect to hear more of in the immediate future is "quality of life," defined as "making the church more loving and inclusive." Could this be a code-word for a lowering of the standards? I recall that at one point in the session a question was asked the President about the wedding ring, and after his answer, another voice asked whether we have a policy as a church on jewelry or not. I heard that by internet feed, so I couldn't see, but it sounded like your voice. Was it?

SKP: I don't remember speaking on that issue at all.

LK: It was probably a different individual.

SKP: It is very likely. Yes. You know, these are all coded-words. These talks about 'love,' 'acceptance,' 'inclusion,' etc., are often coded-words for the coexistence of contradictory theological beliefs. And frankly, unless they can back it up with solid biblical and theological grounding, I don't usually waste time discussing those kinds of issues.

LK: There's another thing I noticed too, and I don't want to put it this strongly, but it sometimes seems that we are almost worshiping women and children now. Anything that can be labeled "diverse" seems to be PC Adventism (politically-correct). Upon what hermeneutical base (if any) is PC Adventism founded, and how should we who are embarrassed at the message it sends relate to the trend? What do you think of all the dancing we saw at the GC? Is this being encouraged?

SKP: You know, a few of the delegates kept saying that we need more representation of the young people and women at the GC session, at the nominating committee, at the various levels. I want to agree that the church needs to see more young people and more women involved. But we don't need just any kind of young people or women. We need converted and biblically informed young people. And we need godly, Bible-believing, and soul-winning women. Let me share with you an unpopular truth. My own observation is that the request that more young people and more women be represented is coming from a particular quarter of the industrialized world. Apparently young people and women in these parts of the world are not active in the church or are being left out. It seems to me that this is a symptom particularly in the industrialized world. Let me speak candidly on this point.

You know that I am currently working with young people. And I am aggressively encouraging them to be active and play major roles. I come from Africa where a large number of our church members are young people. In fact, 70 to 80% of our church members are all young people. They do not subscribe to the cheap rock-and-roll music that often masquerades as innovation in worship. Also, the overwhelming majority of Adventist women in the developing countries are women who are active in evangelism.

You know, in my own Division during this quinquinium, women held evangelistic campaigns and baptized more than 23,000 people. Some of them are playing major roles. Young people are doing this. It is interesting that our people are not saying that young people should be involved in the GC session, women should be involved. It tells you something. Let's notice something. GC sessions are not for just any kind of young people or for just any kind of women. GC sessions are places where we make important decisions about the church. And you need people who are committed to the church, who are knowledgeable about the churches teachings. When you talk about young people, just any kind of young people, then we are in big trouble.

We live in the United States. Do you know that even the American Constitution places an age limit on who can serve in the Senate and Congress? There is a reason for it. The Bible also places age restrictions. You cannot just be an elder; you have to be a mature person. The kinds of young people we need are those like our Adventist pioneers. I always remind young people that in 1844 James White was only 23 years old, Ellen White was 18 years old, J. N. Andrews was 16 years old. Uriah Smith was only 12 years old. That was in 1844. These were young people. But what is the difference between our pioneers who were young people, and the young people in some of these countries today?

LK: You know, the other day my wife made that very point, and she said that the Adventist pioneers as young people could give Bible studies.

SKP: This is the difference. They were converted young people, they were studious Bible students, they were active in evangelism. They were not going around entertaining themselves with all kinds of frivolous youth programs masquerading as evangelism. If you really talk about young people and women being involved, I would suggest that we must bring young people from the developing countries; young people and women from South America, Inter-America, Africa; young Americans and Europeans who are doing mission service; they are actually doing the work.

Our women in the third world, who are really at the forefront of evangelism and soul-winning are not pushing any feminist agenda; they are active in real soul-winning. And so my point is, this whole thing about young people and women is misguided. We must bring converted young people who are solidly grounded in the Adventist faith, who have demonstrated they are effective soul-winners. Like the two young people from England and North America who participated in the Global Mission program on the first Sabbath afternoon. They should be brought. And in some cases, if you want to make them aware of how the church is operating, they can come as guests and observers.

Only such young people and only such women must be invited to represent our church at GC sessions. The GC session is not a party for young people, a party for women, a party for black people. You know, how long can we continue segregating the church according to these ideological agenda-lines?

LK: When I read Ephesians two, I gather that that's not really the Lord's way.

SKP: No. No. No. So my take on this is, I am fully for young people. I am excited about them. But not just any kind of young people; and it is very interesting that those who are talking about young people, young people, women, women, happen to come from one section of the world field where the church is not growing. If we are talking about young people and women and other groups, let's go to the places where we can really show that these people are working. They can represent the church more effectively than by bringing just any kind of person who cannot even give Bible studies!

LK: I'll tell you what; what you've just said makes a tremendous amount of sense.

SKP: Yes.

LK: I'm wondering if this "unity in diversity" we keep hearing about, is for conservative Adventists too? What kind of encouragement do present events give for those who may perceive themselves as disenfranchised, when we frequently read in the official publications ideas substantially revised as compared with what our pioneer Seventh-day Adventists stood for?

SKP: ‘Unity in diversity' has become a politically-correct coded-word for all kinds of things, for pluralism of ideas. What kind of unity are we talking about? The Bible urges us to be one. There should be unity. Particularly in the gospel account, particularly in the prayer of Christ, the unity that Jesus talked about, is a unity in the faith. A unity that is rooted and grounded in the self-revelation of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit's leading. A unity that binds us with the everlasting gospel. Not just any kind of unity.

Diversity? Yes, we come from every nation, kindred, multitude, and people. But what makes us unique is, we are united on a message. It would interest you to know that I am writing, and my next book manuscript will deal with this particular subject within the context of racism in the church and all these black and white conferences. I'll be touching on all those things to project what Adventism is all about.

I don't buy into much of this unity in diversity. Sometimes it is a coded-word for theological pluralism in the church. Those who cannot intelligently debate theological issues, and those who are incapable of providing solid biblical foundations for their views often ‘ad lib,' the phrase 'unity in diversity.' By this they mean to say, let's all stay together and do whatever we want, worship anyhow, sing any kind of song, do all kinds of ridiculous things in the name of diversity. Without intending to give you a rule of thumb, I'd say this: that any time you hear that term, put a little question-mark on what is being said, until you can check it out by the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.

LK: Well, I've got a lot of transcribing to do, and I hope the tape-recorder is working.

SKP: Well, I hope so. But if not, we will see. Perhaps your readers will pick it up from another source. As you know, this is not my first time having this interview. It would interest you to know that after the theological coup de'etat, on that Friday morning, several news media came and interviewed me and asked me about my opinion. I guess they recognize that I spoke for many delegates when I protested against this kind of coup d'etat. In my interview, I said to them many of these things I'm sharing with you.

LK: We try to make the GreatControversy site a positive place on the web for the third angel's message. Are there any comments that you would make about technology or about this website that might be of benefit in regard to what it should do in the future?

SKP: Well, certainly end-time events are going to be rapid ones. I believe the Lord has seen to the invention of this technology to spread His message, the three angels' message. For that reason, I encourage everyone, particularly those who have the message, to be out there, and I applaud you for the work you are doing. I don't get to keep up with everything that is being published on the internet; I am more interested in sifting out what our scholars are publishing in Adventist publications so that I can decode them and sometimes take a harder look at their proposals.

For example, with this abandonment thing. I am going to make a request from the GC Church Manual Secretary, because he made a comment that they have studied First Corinthians seven, studied the subject. I am going to request all the documents, and take a hard look at it. The point is, I have been reading all this material and I haven't been able to catch up with what is out there on the internet. But I know that you folks are out there providing solid materials for God's people, and I would encourage you to continue in that way.

My suggestion is, remain positive. You know the church is always battling with the extreme right also, which is always hunting for the latest heresy and Jesuit conspiracy in the church. We recognize that this is God's church. It is not a perfect church. The wheat and tares are in existence. Yet Ellen White says, Feeble and defective as the church is, it is still the object upon which He bestows His maximum regard. So even in spite of my disappointment for these theological positions which have been legislated at this GC session, I can truthfully and honestly say, that God's will was done at this GC session.

What it has done, I can tell you: it has woken-up many of our delegates, particularly from outside of the industrialized countries. For the first time, they have understood what they are up against. And now, all this talk about justice, maturity, and fairness, which the industrialized countries have been throwing around, sounds hollow. And now they [our people] are more committed than ever before to stand up for the truth. Their eyes are now widely open. So continue doing what you are doing. Remain faithful. Speak candidly and forcefully. Don't be critical or negative. You know what I mean, don't you? Offer positive messages. Give encouragement to our people. And let them know that God still has 7000 who haven't bowed their knees to Baal. And by all means pray for our church leaders. They face far greater challenges than we think.

LK: Amen! Any last remarks about your current writing project?

SKP: Yes. I am working on a book manuscript right now, and that will be another interesting one. My next book is titled: Must We Be Silent? And I'm going to take a hard look at homosexuality which is now here in our church and many people are not aware. I'll take a look at the arguments and rebut most of them and show who are promoting what and why. I'll also take another look at women's ordination, especially in the light of the unisex ordination credential by the Southeast California Conference. You know, at the GC session they were passing out Women in Ministry, and some of the women's ordination propaganda. I'll take a good look at it, and I'll update my chapters in Prove All Things.

I will take a look at racism in the church. I will take a hard look at the black and white conferences, and challenge their continued legitimacy. I'll take another look at the Bible, how its been debated since Receiving the Word was published. I'll be taking on these hot-button issues, and I think it will be an eye-opener to the church. My point is, at a time when falsehood is becoming more mean-spirited and defiant, we must not be silent. If this is our church and we love it, then we must hold every view accountable. Isn't that what our GC President said? He said ‘The members must hold their leaders accountable.' And that is what I intend to do. I'm going to hold our theological leaders accountable for some of their questionable views.

Anyway, I've got to go now. I don't want my wife to divorce me on grounds of 'emotional abandonment.' I've already spent too much of her time with you on this interview. Chances are that I will abandon her again when I spend some extra time writing. Of course, I can always defend myself, claiming I am not an 'unbelieving partner!'

LK: That's O.K., I understand quite well! May God bless you and the church as we procede to do that—lift up the leaders but hold them accountable.

SKP: Thank you very much. Please keep us in prayer.

LK: We'll do that. Thank you very much Elder Pipim.

SKP: Sure. Bye Larry.

Following the Pipim Interview, the delegate who brought the issue to the floor again on Friday morning was interviewed elsewhere. Elder Pipim's response is here.

The Great Controversity.Org Website is a volunteer effort by dedicated SDA pastors and laypeople. Click here for information on how you can help support this ministry.