Restored Fallen Pastors

[illinoisguy]

It is amazing how Ekkk knows exactly what happened, word for word, between Johnny Hunt and his supposedly willing and eager victim. Isn't this what all rapists and sex perverts say - that the victim wanted it? "Yeah, I did it, but it was consensual." Johnny Hunt has publicly described whatever it is he did as "My grievous sin" and "an awful sin" but it's okay, it's no big deal, let's get him right back in the pulpit. As for why sexual assault victims sometimes do not report the assault, maybe it's because they don't want to be raped and humiliated the second time by jerks who say it was consensual and "she must have been asking for it."

See Johnny's statement about the episode here:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Statement by SBC President Bart Barber

"Pastor Tate, his voice breaking with emotion, cited Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan, saying that he didn’t want to be guilty of leaving Johnny Hunt wounded on the side of the road. The wounded person on the side of the road is the abuse survivor, not Johnny Hunt, and she received no mention at all by this panel—she was passed by, in a way, by this quintet. I do not know her, but I don’t want to be guilty of leaving her on the side of the road. I am praying for her, I have heard her, and I believe her."

A Statement on Johnny Hunt’s “Restoration” - BishopAccountability.org

For Immediate Release, November 30, 2022 In 2021, the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting adopted a resolution “On Abuse and Pastoral Qualifications.” I was a member of that committee. I contributed significantly to the content of this resolution. It reads, in part, “any...

www.bishop-accountability.org

 

[AverageJoe]

Sometimes it's the only way to face a worthy opponent. But in this case I was stating the obvious answer to the question everyone wants to avoid.

Another "Braying Ass" post of the day! eKKK seems to think of himself as a "god." UGH!

 

[illinoisguy]

More on the Johnny Hunt case:

"Sometime (apparently) after May 9, 2022, Pastor Hunt told Guidepost investigators (Guidepost Report) that he had 'no contact whatsoever' with the woman during that visit in 2010. (Report at p. 159.) On May 27, 2022, Pastor Hunt wrote to his church in Woodstock, GA, admitting that he had committed 'an awful sin but it was a consensual encounter.' So within three weeks, Pastor Hunt went from a full-on denial of physical contact, to admitting that he had a 'consensual encounter' with a pastor’s wife. . . .

"So in 2010, Johnny Hunt admitted a sexual encounter with the wife of a pastor he mentored. He kept it quiet for twelve years, lied about it in May of 2022, and then he deceived his flock about why he lied about it. Those are the facts. Johnny Hunt speaks for himself."

Johnny Hunt Has a “He Said/ He Said” Problem

Within the last three weeks Pastor Johnny Hunt has gone from “no contact whatsoever” to admitting that he had a “consensual encounter” with a younger pastor’s wife.

spiritualsoundingboard.com

 

[Ekklesian]

It is amazing how Ekkk knows exactly what happened, word for word, between Johnny Hunt and his supposedly willing and eager victim. Isn't this what all rapists and sex perverts say - that the victim wanted it? "Yeah, I did it, but it was consensual." Johnny Hunt has publicly described whatever it is he did as "My grievous sin" and "an awful sin" but it's okay, it's no big deal, let's get him right back in the pulpit. As for why sexual assault victims sometimes do not report the assault, maybe it's because they don't want to be raped and humiliated the second time by jerks who say it was consensual and "she must have been asking for it."

See Johnny's statement about the episode here:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Statement by SBC President Bart Barber

"Pastor Tate, his voice breaking with emotion, cited Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan, saying that he didn’t want to be guilty of leaving Johnny Hunt wounded on the side of the road. The wounded person on the side of the road is the abuse survivor, not Johnny Hunt, and she received no mention at all by this panel—she was passed by, in a way, by this quintet. I do not know her, but I don’t want to be guilty of leaving her on the side of the road. I am praying for her, I have heard her, and I believe her."

A Statement on Johnny Hunt’s “Restoration” - BishopAccountability.org

For Immediate Release, November 30, 2022 In 2021, the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting adopted a resolution “On Abuse and Pastoral Qualifications.” I was a member of that committee. I contributed significantly to the content of this resolution. It reads, in part, “any...

www.bishop-accountability.org

Puhleeze. This is no justification for Hunt returning to the pulpit . . . but, it didn't go to law, because a jury would have had to have been convinced this wasn't consenual. Their counsellor certainly thought it was. Did you read the report?

She's doing just as he is, trying to cover her sin, but the politically motivated bias is on her side.

She actually appeals to silliness in an attempt to establish her innocence.

 

[AverageJoe]

Puhleeze. This is no justification for Hunt returning to the pulpit . . . but, it didn't go to law, because a jury would have had to have been convinced this wasn't consenual. Their counsellor certainly thought it was. Did you read the report?

She's doing just as he is, trying to cover her sin, but the politically motivated bias is on her side.

She actually appeals to silliness in an attempt to establish her innocence.

The idiot speaks!

 

[Ekklesian]

The idiot speaks!

Did you read the report?

Did you know the report would not be admissible evidence in a court of law, because it is hearsay evidence?

That means, despite the report's valiant effort of trying to dismiss scrutiny of allegations as 'mistreatment of survivors,' 'survivors' itself being a prejudicial label, Silly Woma...er, I mean...'Survivor' would have to testify under oath, and could be cross-examined.

 

[Ekklesian]

That really means that illinoisguy, under the guise of victim advocacy, is just repeating gossip and glorying in the fall of another minister.

And look at how you just eat that stuff up.

 

[Ekklesian]

How many here think that Guidepost Solutions is an arbiter of truth? (All but Ekklesian raise their hands.)

Natch.

 

[AverageJoe]

Did you read the report?

Did you know the report would not be admissible evidence in a court of law, because it is hearsay evidence?

That means, despite the report's valiant effort of trying to dismiss scrutiny of allegations as 'mistreatment of survivors,' 'survivors' itself being a prejudicial label, Silly Woma...er, I mean...'Survivor' would have to testify under oath, and could be cross-examined.

 

[AverageJoe]

That really means that illinoisguy, under the guise of victim advocacy, is just repeating gossip and glorying in the fall of another minister.

And look at how you just eat that stuff up.

 

[AverageJoe]

How many here think that Guidepost Solutions is an arbiter of truth? (All but Ekklesian raise their hands.)

Natch.

 

[illinoisguy]

That really means that illinoisguy, under the guise of victim advocacy, is just repeating gossip and glorying in the fall of another minister.

Hey, EKKK, check this out:

2 Churches Promoting Disgraced Pastor Johnny Hunt Face Prospect of Removal From SBC

The inquiry of the two churches centers on their affiliation with and promotion of disgraced pastor and former SBC president Johnny Hunt, who has been credibly accused of sexual abuse.

churchleaders.com

"Two Southern Baptist churches are the subject of an inquiry by the denomination’s Credentials Committee into whether they should be removed from friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention. The inquiry of the two churches—Hiland Park Baptist Church in Panama City, Florida, and New Season Church in Hiram, Georgia—centers on their affiliation with and promotion of disgraced pastor and former SBC president Johnny Hunt, who has been credibly accused of sexual abuse. . . .

"To the understanding of most Southern Baptists, the credible allegations against Hunt constitute a permanent disqualification from pastoral leadership, in accordance with a resolution passed by the Convention in 2021. . . . In response to the bombshell announcement, SBC president Bart Barber said that he 'would permanently "defrock" Johnny Hunt' if he had the power to do so, declaring that the four pastors who cleared Hunt’s return to ministry 'do not speak for the Southern Baptist Convention.'

"While SBC polity dictates that local churches are autonomously governed and no denominational authority structures can compel their decisions, the SBC does have recourse to disfellowship a church that is deemed to no longer be in 'friendly cooperation' with the Convention. The Credentials Committee is set to launch an inquiry into both churches that hosted Hunt in their pulpits to make such a determination and recommend a course of action to the Executive Committee."

The allegations against Johnny Hunt are so serious, and so credible, that the SBC is considering the possibility of expelling the two churches that are allowing Hunt in their pulpit. Are these SBC leaders guilty of "repeating gossip and glorying in the fall of another minister," one of their own, a former SBC president?

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Hey, EKKK, check this out:

2 Churches Promoting Disgraced Pastor Johnny Hunt Face Prospect of Removal From SBC

The inquiry of the two churches centers on their affiliation with and promotion of disgraced pastor and former SBC president Johnny Hunt, who has been credibly accused of sexual abuse.

churchleaders.com

"Two Southern Baptist churches are the subject of an inquiry by the denomination’s Credentials Committee into whether they should be removed from friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention. The inquiry of the two churches—Hiland Park Baptist Church in Panama City, Florida, and New Season Church in Hiram, Georgia—centers on their affiliation with and promotion of disgraced pastor and former SBC president Johnny Hunt, who has been credibly accused of sexual abuse. . . .

"To the understanding of most Southern Baptists, the credible allegations against Hunt constitute a permanent disqualification from pastoral leadership, in accordance with a resolution passed by the Convention in 2021. . . . In response to the bombshell announcement, SBC president Bart Barber said that he 'would permanently "defrock" Johnny Hunt' if he had the power to do so, declaring that the four pastors who cleared Hunt’s return to ministry 'do not speak for the Southern Baptist Convention.'

"While SBC polity dictates that local churches are autonomously governed and no denominational authority structures can compel their decisions, the SBC does have recourse to disfellowship a church that is deemed to no longer be in 'friendly cooperation' with the Convention. The Credentials Committee is set to launch an inquiry into both churches that hosted Hunt in their pulpits to make such a determination and recommend a course of action to the Executive Committee."

The allegations against Johnny Hunt are so serious, and so credible, that the SBC is considering the possibility of expelling the two churches that are allowing Hunt in their pulpit. Are these SBC leaders guilty of "repeating gossip and glorying in the fall of another minister," one of their own, a former SBC president?

I don’t really know a a thing about Johnny Hunt, but a quick google search showed that Hunt was accused in 2010 of sexually assaulting another pastor’s wife. He admitted to having a sexual encounter with her, but said it was consensual. Obviously, he was never prosecuted, so I’d assume he’s guilty of fornication but not assault.

 

[AverageJoe]

I don’t really know a a thing about Johnny Hunt, but a quick google search showed that Hunt was accused in 2010 of sexually assaulting another pastor’s wife. He admitted to having a sexual encounter with her, but said it was consensual. Obviously, he was never prosecuted, so I’d assume he’s guilty of fornication but not assault.

Oh, you younger people really give me a laugh! Johnny Hunt is a liar. Whether he was prosecuted or not is beyond the point here. He was in a position of authority in a church, and he was involved with another preacher's wife....that's enough to put a LOT of doubt into my mind. He should NEVER be allowed to be a pastor again...and I have to say that I personally believe he should never stand behind a pulpit again.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Oh, you younger people really give me a laugh! Johnny Hunt is a liar. Whether he was prosecuted or not is beyond the point here. He was in a position of authority in a church, and he was involved with another preacher's wife....that's enough to put a LOT of doubt into my mind. He should NEVER be allowed to be a pastor again...and I have to say that I personally believe he should never stand behind a pulpit again.

I don’t think adding ten or fifteen years to my age would change my mind. I agree he shouldn’t be in the pulpit. However, there’s a big difference between an accusation of sexual assault and the admission of banging your preacher buddy’s wife. Unless this woman’s husband is completely neutered, I can’t imagine he and his wife not pressing charges against Mr. Hunt.

 

[AverageJoe]

I don’t think adding ten or fifteen years to my age would change my mind. I agree he shouldn’t be in the pulpit. However, there’s a big difference between an accusation of sexual assault and the admission of banging your preacher buddy’s wife. Unless this woman’s husband is completely neutered, I can’t imagine he and his wife not pressing charges against Mr. Hunt.

Most people who've been sexually assaulted (women anyhow) often don't file charges because of the implications. And as far as the husband goes, I don't know many husbands who have the right to "file charges" as the assault wasn't against his own person. He could try...but, it probably wouldn't be taken up in a court of law. I know it's not in Tennessee. So, in that respect, he IS completely neutered. What you "can't see", once again, doesn't make a hill of beans bit of difference.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Most people who've been sexually assaulted (women anyhow) often don't file charges because of the implications. And as far as the husband goes, I don't know many husbands who have the right to "file charges" as the assault wasn't against his own person. He could try...but, it probably wouldn't be taken up in a court of law. I know it's not in Tennessee. So, in that respect, he IS completely neutered. What you "can't see", once again, doesn't make a hill of beans bit of difference.

I understand he can’t press charges, but he certainly could strongly “press the issue” with his wife, especially since we’re talking about a SBC preacher wife (you know, the whole be subjected to your husband thing). However, they certainly wouldn’t be pressing charges if there’s any evidence that it was in fact consensual. None of this is meant to argue the guy should be behind a pulpit—he should not, but accusing a guy of rape is often far too easy, and often times it ends up that the woman was embarrassed to admit infidelity.

 

[Ransom]

And as far as the husband goes, I don't know many husbands who have the right to "file charges" as the assault wasn't against his own person.

There is an old tort, no longer on the books (except, I think, in North Carolina) called "criminal conversation," which was exactly this: the right of a husband to sue a man who had committed adultery with his wife. Adultery isn't illegal, and arguably shouldn't be, but I see no reason why tort laws like this shouldn't still exist. Expand them, though, so they cut both ways. Wives are neither property nor guiltless.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

There is an old tort, no longer on the books (except, I think, in North Carolina) called "criminal conversation," which was exactly this: the right of a husband to sue a man who had committed adultery with his wife. Adultery isn't illegal, and arguably shouldn't be, but I see no reason why tort laws like this shouldn't still exist. Expand them, though, so they cut both ways. Wives are neither property nor guiltless.

This is similar to what I posted about a couple weeks ago in an exchange with Joe. It involves a famous golfer, John Daly. Alienation of Affection is still on the books (unfortunately for him) in a couple states. https://www.essentiallysports.com/g...ncee-for-alienation-of-affection-in-2015/amp/

 

[AverageJoe]

I understand he can’t press charges, but he certainly could strongly “press the issue” with his wife, especially since we’re talking about a SBC preacher wife (you know, the whole be subjected to your husband thing). However, they certainly wouldn’t be pressing charges if there’s any evidence that it was in fact consensual. None of this is meant to argue the guy should be behind a pulpit—he should not, but accusing a guy of rape is often far too easy, and often times it ends up that the woman was embarrassed to admit infidelity.

Seems more and more like you're being dismissive. Sad. Truly sad. Whether she's an SBC preacher's wife or just a regular member, it makes no difference. These kinds of things seem to end up with someone holding your position, and someone holding mine. I can fully understand why someone wouldn't come forward and say anything.