When our polity fails us: Baptists and immoral pastoral leaders, what Johnny Hunt's 'restoration' teaches us

 

On January 15th, 2023 disgraced former mega church pastor and former executive vice-president of the  Southern Baptist Convention, Johnny Hunt returned, triumphantly and defiantly, to the pulpit.  It wasn't at his former church, but one under the pastoral leadership of a friend.  During his sermon, Hunt utilized Psalm 119 to lash out at his critics {portraying himself, the sexual perpetrator, deftly as the victim}, and made a case for pastoral infallibility that would have blown away our Baptist ancestors in the faith. {For a solid article with the details on Hunt's preaching appearance: Johnny Hunt, Disgraced Former SBC Pastor, Makes Defiant Return to the Pulpit - by Bob Smietana of Ministry Watch or Here’s Johnny! Embattled SBC pastor back in the pulpit and will headline a men’s conference - by Mark Wingfield of Baptist News Global

Building upon the thesis that God would have already known that one day Johnny Hunt would attempt to have sex with another man's wife (she characterized the incident as assault, he called it consensual), something that would normally be disqualifying for pastoral leadership in any church that takes seriously the Apostle Paul's high-demands for moral excellence and character on the part of pastoral leadership in the church, Hunt declared, "When God calls you to do something, and you begin to think you’re no longer qualified to do it, hold on just a moment—you don’t think he knew your past, your present, and your future when he called you? He already knew that, and yet he still placed his hand and his calling on you.”  In other words, because God knew Hunt would one day commit this sin, and because Hunt is convinced that his life in ministry was based upon a call from God, that call CANNOT now be revoked no matter what.  The implications of this are staggering theologically for a Church that has had far too many abusers, rapists, and murderers, and the like in pastoral leadership: as long as that person was already "called by God", they can continue to preach the Word of God.  Perhaps Johnny Hunt would object, and draw the line somewhere (beyond his own conduct, to be sure) to say that some sin is disqualifying, but why?  God would have known about the most heinous of sins ahead of time (true enough), and that individual was working in ministry, and thus presumably "called by God", therefore beyond being disqualified.  We know that Johnny Hunt believes in this thesis, he famously led a "restoration" ministry that was once so lauded by the SBC that they helped his church expand it nationally, returning an unknown number of pastors suffering from "moral failure" to active pastoral leadership: Ministry to hurting pastors to expand nationally - By Tobin Perry, Baptist Press, 2013 

The pastor of the church that offered Hunt the pulpit, Jason Rogers, said this, "We are thrilled to host Pastor Johnny Hunt at HomE Church. No one has been more greatly used of God to influence my ministry or as a greater, God-honoring influence on my family. Like myself, everyone in our church family, and everyone in the world, Pastor Johnny has not lived in sinless perfection as a believer. However, contrary to the ‘woke’ ideology that has sadly consumed the SBC and many believers, the Bible is clear that all sin is alike before the holiness of God. Sexual sin is not a greater sin in the sight of God. This is why we all need grace, mercy, repentance, and forgiveness."  Aside from the stunning lack of insight into how this glee looks in the wake of the SBC clergy abuse scandal, Pastor Rogers also fails to come to grips with the fact that while the Apostle Paul didn't expect Christians to be perfect, himself included, but he did purposefully write that pastoral leaders must be "above reproach, faithful to his wife" (1 Timothy 3:2).  Forgiveness from God?  Absolutely, if the repentance is genuine.  Reconciliation with the people of God and renewed fellowship?  Absolutely, again if the repentance is genuine.  Jumping right back into the pulpit (and lucrative conference lecture circuit)?  No, no, no.  

I know that to write or say such things is to paint a huge bright target on my own back, and I'm ok with that.  I hold myself to this high standard that Paul requires as a pastor, and also as a husband and father.  I will never cheat on my wife, in deed or in spirit, as it would not be an "indiscretion" or "mistake", it would be a betrayal of everything I am and do, and just as importantly, guaranteed pain and trauma to the two people I love most in this world.  

So I say, can't we at least have this as a standard?  The ship may have sailed on having political leaders who are faithful to their spouses, but must the Church abandon this too?  Are we so hard up for pastoral leaders that we need to recycle those whose leadership included "moral failures"?  Do those cheering on Johnny Hunt not see the utter hypocrisy that the world sees when the champions of "family values" celebrate pastors who havw made a mockery of their marriage vows?

Where Baptist polity comes into the equation

In the end, Baptists of any denomination have little recourse in such matters, the SBC included.  When a self-appointed group of four pastoral friends of Johnny Hunt declared him ready to return to ministry, the current president of the SBC, Bart Barber wrote, "The idea that a council of pastors, assembled with the consent of the abusive pastor, possesses some authority to declare a pastor fit for resumed ministry is a conceit that is altogether absent from Baptist polity and from the witness of the New Testament. Indeed, it is repugnant to all that those sources extol and represent."  He went on to add that he would have "defrocked" Hunt if such power rested with the SBC president, but it doesn't.  Which is the whole point.  

Baptist pastors are appointed, and ordained, by local churches, as myself was by the First Baptist Church of Palo, MI.  The larger units: associations, regions, and denominations, have no power to do likewise, nor do they have the power to withdraw that local church approval because of immoral conduct or heretical teaching, only that local church retains the power {The local association can remove its recognition of what the local church has done in ordaining someone, or refuse to accept it in the first place, but that is all.}  Thus, unless the church that ordained Johnny Hunt were to act to revoke his ordination, it still stands in the eyes of Baptist polity.  Yet, even if they did, it would not prevent other Baptist churches from inviting Hunt to preach, a role that does not require ordination.  Long story short, there is nothing that any Baptist entity can do to stop Johnny Hunt from going on a victory tour and becoming a speaking celebrity once more.

We believe in local church autonomy for a number of reasons, having just finished teaching Baptist History and Polity, I could list them for you, perhaps another time.  Even so, we have to recognize the downside of that autonomy, such freedom isn't free, and in this case the cost to the Baptist reputation is high.

Sermon Video: Self-Righteousness = Contempt for God's Mercy

Released between two horrific mass shootings was the report about how sex abuse was handled by the Southern Baptist Convention.  This horrific reports detailed failures spanning decades to report and combat sexual abuse within SBC churches and institutions.  At the same time, the SBC has been on the forefront condemning the sexual ethics of the culture at large, primarily targeting those outside the Church.  This blatant hypocrisy has become far too common, we have cynically come to expect it of our politicians and even pastors, and it is toxic to both the Culture and the Church.

The Apostle Paul takes aim at hypocritical judgementalism, when the people of God condemn others for doing the very things they themselves still do (often in secret).  That this is entirely unacceptable goes without saying, but the deeper danger is that is damages our relationship with God, leading to entirely justified anger because it makes a mockery of God's grace and forgiveness to us.

The deplorable shame of using Potiphar's Wife to discount sex abuse victims: A refutation of Pastor Doug Wilson

Given the recent insanity of the "Empathy is Sin" movement {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism}, I've looked back a bit into recent history to try to understand the pieces of the pattern that led Pastor John Piper, who is well respected even by those who disagree with him, to put his weight behind the likes of Doug Wilson, Joe Rigney, and James White in this endeavor to pulverize empathy toward abuse victims.  Which is where I came across a trend that I was previously unaware of: the use of Potiphar's Wife from Joseph's story in Genesis to insinuate that some (if not most) women (and others) who claim to have been sexually abused, secretly really wanted the sexual activity that was forced upon them.

It turns out this trend is fairly widespread.  In a public letter to then SBC President J.D. Greer, Russel Moore, the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC, an SBC entity) wrote, "You and I both heard, in closed door meetings, sexual abuse survivors spoken of in terms of 'Potiphar’s wife' and other spurious biblical analogies. The conversations in these closed door meetings were far worse than anything Southern Baptists knew—or the outside world could report."  In some circles, evidently, it is routine behind closed doors to treat the entire MeToo movement, and even the larger Clergy Sex Abuse scandal, as a nefarious plot.  It should be little wonder then, if this is how those entrusted to lead portions of the Church are acting privately, that Rachael Denhollander was treated shamefully in public by many of these same people.

The SBC dis-fellowships a church which continues to employ a child-sex offender as their pastor: a step in the right direction, but not enough.

"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics

The use of Potiphar's Wife to defend those in power accused of sexual misconduct is both despicable, in that someone would use the Word of God for such an immoral purpose, and exegetically a very poor interpretation of the text itself.  The balance of power in Joseph's story is the exact opposite of that when adult, males, in positions of power/authority, abuse others.  Joseph has no power, he's a slave.  The story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife is a cautionary tale on behalf of the powerless in society, not a defense of abusers.  This analysis further examines the text: The Real Sin of Potiphar’s Wife:

The story of Potiphar’s wife and Joseph isn’t the story of an ordinary woman falsely accusing a man of assault and not suffering the consequences; it’s the story of a powerful person using her power to exploit someone weaker, and then bearing false witness against them to cause them to suffer even further in the midst of their vulnerability.  

But most importantly, it’s the story of the good news that there is no human power so great that it can ultimately thwart the purposes of an all-powerful and all-loving God.

Another capable explanation of what the story of Potiphar's wife is actually teaching: STOP USING POTIPHAR'S WIFE TO DISCREDIT SURVIVORS BY JUSTIN COBER-LAKE 

To be clear, it is true that Potiphar's wife made a false allegation. No one denies that false accusations happen but using this story to somehow discredit all women coming forward devalues holy text, turning it into a political bludgeon rather than a liberating truth. Doing so is a political error leading to dangerous eisegesis; the text isn't about the reliability of women, victims, or witnesses. Making that issue central misses the larger point of Joseph's story and the redeeming work of God.

That's not to say we can't apply the story to current events. What we primarily see is a person in power using that position to try to gain sexual access to a subordinate.

The Bible repeatedly speaks to this sort of abuse of power. The structural forces that landed Joseph in prison are largely the same forces that prevent modern assault victims from having a voice. Power oppresses individuals in multiple ways, and one of the most immediate is through enforcing silence. We have no knowledge of Joseph's response because he was likely allowed none.

I am reminded of the classic trope from The Princess Bride, revolving around the word Inconceivable. So it is here with the misuse of the story of Potiphar's wife, it doesn't mean what they think it means.

It isn't surprising that those who would attack victims to defend abusers would also twist the Word of God to that unholy purpose, but it is dangerous.  In an attempt at satire, Pastor Doug Wilson in 2017 reimagined Potiphar's wife as a modern-day feminist, eager to destroy men: Potiphar’s Wife, Survivor

Then that fateful afternoon came when he tried to rape me. Yes, I am no longer afraid to use the word rape. If he been a little more patient, if he had groomed me for just another month, I might not have cried out. I had been almost completely absorbed into the rape culture that Joseph truly embodied. I was truly in a vulnerable place, which my therapist has really helped me to finally grasp. I still am in a vulnerable place, in so many ways. My therapist is so kind and gentle . . . not at all like Potiphar. He truly listens to me. He actually believes me when I dare to share my innermost thoughts. I am almost to the point where I can tell him what would really satisfy me.

What is the point of this sexually suggestive nonsense?  Pastor Wilson uses the Word of God to suggest that (1) mental health professionals are part of the problem, (2) downplay real dangers from sexual abusers like grooming their victims, and (3) hint without much subtlety at the end that 'women really do want it'.  This is, very much, a dark place, and one that fits fairly seamlessly with the more recent call to abandon empathy lest we identify with those claim to have been abused.

Dig further, and you find that Pastor Wilson views marital sex in terms of rape, in fact he believes that this is the God-ordained dynamic, as he wrote the following: 

A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence. When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us.

In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed. -Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 1999), 86-87. - emphasis mine.

I don't have the proper words for how disgusting this attitude is, and how unbiblical.  This is not two halves united as a whole, not a man treating his wife's body as his own for her betterment.  Here is a similar response to the above quote from Rachel Held Evans: The Gospel Coalition, sex, and subordination

There is so much about this passage that I, as a woman, find inaccurate, degrading, and harmful that it’s hard to know where to begin.  That Wilson blames egaliatarianism for the presence of rape and sexual violence in the world is ludicrous and unsubstantiated.  His characterization of sex as an act of conquering and colonization is disturbing, and his notion that women are little more than the passive recipients of this colonization, who simply “accept” penetration, is as ignorant as it is degrading. 

In addition, the Apostle Paul flat-out condemns marital sex that is one-sided in a passage full of mutual submission: 

1 Corinthians 7:3-5   New International Version

3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Lastly, here is a examination of Wilson's view of marital sex from a fellow Complementarian, who also utilizes 1 Corinthians 7 to demonstrate how dangerous this viewpoint is: Does Doug Wilson endorse marital rape?

Pastor Doug Wilson is a central figure in the charge to abandon empathy (because it is helping the Libs).  Even without the theological refutations of that argument, which are many, looking further at the overall worldview of the source is damning.

 

The SBC dis-fellowships a church which continues to employ a child-sex offender as their pastor: a step in the right direction, but not enough.

Christianity Today reported on the outcome of a recent SBC Executive Committee meeting: Southern Baptists Disfellowship Church Over Abuse for the First Time But victim advocates say the denomination hasn’t gone far enough. by DAVID ROACH

A small step in the right direction; a convicted child offender has no business serving in a pastoral role. God offers 2nd chances to those who truly repent, but the parameters for pastoral leadership as outlined by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5-9 leave no room for church leaders with such sinful behavior in their past (the pastor in question sexually assaulted two pre-teen girls). In addition, a "we don't leave the child predator alone with children" policy is NOT sufficient. Churches must take sexual abuse seriously, of both children and adults. If this minister has turned his life around, has repented, let him serve in other ways, let him warn others to avoid his mistakes, minister to other sexual offenders, not assume authority over God's people; he is not qualified to do so.
Let us pray for our brothers and sisters in the SBC who are struggling mightily with the issue of sexual abuse in their churches (it is in every denomination, just as it infects nationwide schools, scout troops, sports teams, etc. none are immune to this scourge of human depravity). That the leadership of the SBC was willing to take this step is a positive sign, that many seem more afraid of 'liberalism' within the SBC (as the article and two sexual abuse survivors associated with the SBC are claiming) than sexual predators within the SBC is a disturbing sign that all is not well in the health of this denomination. In addition, the move to connect the effort to root out sexual abuse with 'liberalism' as a way of deflecting that effort (as evidenced by the video created by Founders Ministries which is led by an SBC pastor: By What Standard? God's world...God's rules whose video promo took a swipe at Rachael Denhollander {The first victim to publicly abuse Larry Nassar, who now advocates for abuse victims and the need to protect against new abuse}) is an extremely troubling development. To those within the SBC who are fearful of 'liberal' movements, is it compatible with Christian morality to use that fear (whether it is justified or not) as an excuse to avoid dealing with the full scope of the sexual abuse that has occurred with in the SBC? Defending the innocent and holding church leadership accountable is not a liberal or conservative issue, it is a moral imperative.

NOTE: As a minister within the American Baptist Churches denomination, and a representative on our regional board of directors, I fully recognize that our loose affiliation {regional executives can refuse to acknowledge an ordination, or remove an ordination recognition from a minister who has engaged in immoral (or heretical) behavior, but cannot remove that minister, for only the local church can hire or fire its own pastoral staff} makes the ABC vulnerable to issues like the one that the SBC is dealing with. Should it become known that an ABC church within ABCOPAD (my region) is employing a sex offender, and refusing to terminate that relationship, I would advocate for the removal of that church from our fellowship (which is the most we could legally do). Our loose affiliation and lack of regional record keeping regarding our churches means that sexual abuse within the ABC, and ABCOPAD in particular, is below the radar, but in no way is it non-existent.

For my previous commentary on the trailer for By What Standard?: "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics

"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics

In the original version of the "By What Standard?" documentary trailer released by Florida based Founders Ministries , among other highly objectionable tactics (which I will get to in a minute), the trailer chose to portray Rachael Denhollander as a wolf in sheep's clothing, an enemy of the Church using the sexual abuse of women and children as a Trojan horse for "godless ideologies".  If you don't know who Rachael Denhollander is, and why it is despicable to choose to highlight her involvement in helping the Southern Baptist Convention comes to grip with the widespread sexual abuse in its midst, read this amazing article about Rachael that highlights her faith (paying particular attention to the role she played at the last SBC gathering, making her a target of Founders Ministries):

She surrendered her secrets to put away a sexual predator. But her sacrifice isn't over - by Matt Mencarini, Louisville Courier Journal

Did you read the whole article?  If not, go back and read it, otherwise you might not understand why I'm upset, actually really upset, when a self-proclaimed defender of evangelical Christianity behaves in this way.  Following the release of the trailer for "By What Standard?" (watch it here, I have been unable to find the previous version containing Rachael online) uproar ensued on behalf of those targeted in the trailer and from those who had been interviewed for the documentary who strenuously objected to being a part of this finished product.  In the end, three of the board members of Founders Ministries resigned when the board as a whole refused to admit that it had erred and needed to repent publicly.  And while the portion of the trailer containing Rachael Denhollander has been edited out, the trailer was then re-released after Founders Ministries president, SBC pastor Tom Ascol, defended the original trailer and rejected the stand taken by the three board members who resigned in a letter about their departure: Resignation Letter

"Our conversations led to an impasse regarding the nature of sin, unintentional sin, unwise acts and what faithfulness to Christ requires in the wake of each. Though each of these three men formulated his own arguments, their views led them all to conclude they could not conscientiously continue to serve Founders without agreement on these points as it relates to elements in the trailer. As the statements of Fred Malone and Tom Hicks below indicate, they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that. This is the fundamental point of the impasse that we reached." - Pastor Tom Ascol
Following significant push-back about the trailer, Founders Ministries issued the following clarification: About That Trailer , for the three board members who resigned, this defense was not sufficient.
"Some expressed concerns about a 1-2 second clip of Rachael Denhollander, accusing us of presenting her as demonic. Certainly, no one at Founders Ministries believes that and we did not foresee people taking it that way. That was not our intention and, admittedly, not our wisest editing moment. We regret the pain and confusion we caused by this unwise alignment of image and idea. We have removed the clip and have reached out to her and to her husband, Jacob. We are grateful for so many of Mrs. Denhollander’s efforts to serve victims of abuse." - Pastor Tom Ascol
If you appreciate the work of Rachael Denhollander, why did you group her with the "godless ideologies" bent upon the destruction of the church?  Why include her at all?  This defense, "we didn't think people would react that way" is shallow, at best.  The entire trailer features an us vs. them mentality, those opposed to, so we are being told, sound Biblical teaching (Are they really?  That's a serious charge requiring a serious discussion, not a slick hit piece), must be confronted in this manner.
If the portrayal of Rachael Denhollander was the entirety of the issue with the trailer, it would be enough.  But there is more.  The trailer utilizes slick video production techniques to portray the "good guys" in color and the "bad guys" in black and white.  In addition to claims made by several of those interviewed that their words were taken out of context, the screen flashes with images of protests, a figure being burned in effigy, a female clergy member, and United States Senator Bernie Sanders, all clearly being shown as the "enemy" {in brief flashes, like the psycho killer in the next horror movie, complete with sound effects}.  Perhaps the inclusion of Bernie Sanders, an openly Jewish politician, is a random choice, but in a trailer highlighting a conspiracy theory, a subtle takeover of a cherished institution by nefarious outside forces, how could it not occur to the creators of the trailer that they would be invoking the anti-Semitic trope that the Jews are the ones trying to destroy Western civilization?  Of all the liberal politicians that could be shown (if you must portray a politician and thus bring politics into this as well, another questionable choice), why the only well known Jewish politician the one?  If this is an oversight and the creators did not make this connection, it is a significant one, because it seems highly unlikely that those who swim in cesspool of anti-Semitism won't see it as a "nod, nod, wink, wink".
If Christians treat each other this way, no holds barred, take no prisoners, is it any wonder that we're treating fellow Americans as an infection to be eradicated when we disagree with them but don't have the spiritual bond that is supposed to make such behavior unacceptable?
Founders Ministries has been called to task by many in the leadership of the SBC, but that rebuke is insufficient, this behavior needs to be rejected far and wide, and those who watch the film need to be aware of the unethical way in which it was promoted.  No matter what the virtues or faults of the final documentary end up being, it was promoted in a way that has more in common with a political PAC hatchet job than anything connected to Christian brotherhood.
If Founders Ministries believes that they are fighting for the soul of the SBC, and maybe for all of evangelical Christianity, and if they believe that soul is in mortal danger, they still must adhere to Paul's words, "Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is just!"  We, as Christians, are not allowed to "fight fire with fire".  We cannot justify slander, hit pieces, and treating fellow Christians as an "other".  I know that Pastor Tom Ascol has stated that such is not the intent of the documentary or its trailer, but such is certainly the reality.  Watch the trailer.  Does this look like an invitation to a debate on a serious topic, or a political ad meant to portray the other side in a negative light through slick editing?  Calling those one disagrees with "well intentioned"(as Pastor Ascol, to his credit, has done) is not good enough, when the tactics one uses to respond drown out that statement.  Pastor Ascol has made his position clear, "they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that."  Intentions do matter, but not all sin is intentional.  The resignation letters from two of the three board members who resigned admit this, that among other things, showing Rachael Denhollander's picture with the audio "forces of darkness" was wrong, even without intentionally conflating abuse victims with those labeled as dangerous to the church.
Read the article about Rachael, watch the edited trailer, consider the resignation letters and the defense of the trailer by Pastor Ascol.  When you are done, ask yourself this question, is this what Jesus had in mind when he said, 'By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.' (John 13:35).  I cannot see how it could be.

For an additional perspective on the tactics used in the trailer see: Video links Beth Moore, Russell Moore, James Merritt to ‘Trojan horse of social...Religion News Service  Notice in particular the greater detail on the now deleted Rachael Denhollander scene and her husband's response.

For a previous blog post I wrote about how Christians ought to engage with their adversaries (both within the Church and without): How a Christian must respond to adversaries