Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Johnny Hunt

Is Johnny Hunt’s Lawsuit A Violation of 1 Corinthians 6?

Lawsuits are quite common it seems in Christian news reporting. The Southern Baptist Convention is currently involved with at or around nine lawsuits, each with varying degrees of biblical grounding. Johnny Hunt is the latest lawsuit to face scrutiny over whether it violates 1 Corinthians 6.

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent toconstitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

1 Corinthians 6:1-6 NASB1995

With this text in mind, it is worth recognizing that the spirit of the instruction by Paul is that the church should judge within the church and not bring in godless outsiders to settle disputes. With that in mind, the Southern Baptist Convention clearly violated 1 Corinthians 6 by hiring Guidepost Solutions, a liberal pagan law firm, to investigate issues within the church.

Guidepost Solutions is a defendant named in the lawsuit brought by Johnny Hunt. But they did not act alone, they acted at the behest of supposed brothers in Christ, the SBC and the SBC Executive Committee. So are we to expect Johnny Hunt to not pursue recourse with pagans in the pagan courts as they are not subject to ecclesiastical authorities.

The Southern Baptist Convention has invested a lot in redefining rape, sexual abuse, to fit the MeToo Agenda being forced in the SBC by Rachael Denhollander and the weak men who want to be liked by the world. Their redefining of commonly used words has real world consequences. Therefore, Johnny Hunt is morally justified in taking action to restore his reputation.

Powered by RedCircle

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

By becoming a member of Evangelical Dark Web, you get access to more content, help drive the direction of our research, and support the operations of the ministry.
Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Facebook
Twitter
Telegram
Reddit
LinkedIn

13 Responses

  1. The Billy Graham rule really isn’t that ridiculous, especially this day in age. I agree with you, he has to do something since he’s being portrayed like some kind of rapist. If it was just within the church I think it would be different, but this has spilled out into the pagan world and his accusers are using the pagan world against him, so it’s justified to use one of their law firms.

  2. While the early church had apostles, prophets etc. to hear and settle disputes, the current state of the overall church is “leavened” with poison. Decisions can be “off the reservation”, doing more harm than good.
    Today, many ugly issues are far more harmful and complicated. Church councils can be: ill-prepared, political, prejudicial, or unwilling to settle righteously. Many said judgments carry little enforcement so the hurts, anger, hostility, create spiritual smelly molds.
    Oh, to have the early church leadership rather than much of today’s worldly “church” influence. The SBC is well-heading into the “being in want” mode. Where are the righteous to combat such worldly decisions?
    Respectfully,
    -Stan-

  3. Hi Ray,
    I heard back from the husband/wife SBC Ukraine missionaries yesterday. I have their email but I can’t forward it because I can’t find yours. Can you help me? You have my email address.
    Thanks!
    -Stan-

  4. He may have a weak legal case in the secular arena, but he’s not going to restore his reputation as an adulterer, which disqualifies him from ministry by itself.

    Even if she was a willing participant in the adultery, as he claims, the court may still see it as abuse considering he was in a position of authority. If he didn’t abuse her, he certainly abused his office, and the church at large.

    He needs to repent, go find another line of work, and live out the rest of his days quietly. He is no longer qualified for the ministry.

    1. For those who may think that’s a false accusation, it isn’t. He has admitted the adultery.As published on the other article:

      “Instead, Pastor Johnny was named because the woman with whom he had the brief, extramarital encounter …”

      Unrepentant, rebellious language downplaying the adultery as a “brief, extramarital encounter.” Well the Bible says it’s adultery. It’s adultery. If you can’t name the sin, then you haven’t repented. An attitude which is also disqualify.

      1. Adultery is distinct from being a sex abuser/rapist. That’s the issue here, not whether he committed sin.

        1. Yep, according to secular law. The question on my mind, though, which is what all parties in this should be more concerned about, is the Biblical definition of sex abuse and rape.

          I’ve been thinking about it, and I don’t know the answer to that question. But it could be more akin to statutory rape. If a man takes a woman that isn’t his wife, it could be tantamount to rape, whether she consented or not. As I said, I don’t know. But that is the definition we should all be concerned about, and that includes the MeToo, Abuse Inc. crowd.

          I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I do see a problem when secular law and worldly standards begin to replace the standards set forth in God’s Word. That’s a problem.All these lawsuits and begging Caesar to arbitrate matters of the church, it’s a problem. And I don’t know what’s so hard about picking up a Bible, and reading it to find out how a particular situation should be judged.

          It wouldn’t hurt both “sides” to pick up a Bible. Then sit down and determine what the Biblical definitions are. As it stands right now, it’s more like Barnum and Bailey’s Southern Baptist Circus.

        2. It’s also a problem in terms of what it invites long term. If we want the worldly invasion of the church to cease, then we shouldn’t keep running to the world begging for its opinion.

          If we don’t want them coming in and taking over, then it might help to quit asking them to come in and take over.

          But I don’t know the Biblical answers where this particular subject is concerned. Apparently nobody else does either, or there wouldn’t be a secular lawsuit every five minutes.

    2. Not to mention abusive to his wife and the rest of his family.

      Sexual immorality is always abusive.

      I’m not a fan of Abuse Inc. or the new guilty-by-accusation website. But Hunt is the wrong man to be challenging it.

    3. Since this is a new topic, I’ll weigh in. Adultery is a very [disgusting] sinful act that involves not just the participants, the residuals involve families, the church, and the witness for Christ.
      But, we must remember that it is forgivable when those involved are genuinely remorseful and their repentance is sincere.
      With King David, it was adultery and murder. Yet, God forgave him and our Savior was of the line of David. David remained a man after God’s heart and we still delight in his many psalms today.
      Still, a church leader has stricter expectations than others, his dismissal from said office is required. But, the affair, some 10+ years ago, is just that, 10+ years ago. Only Satan should be his relentless accuser.
      Accept him back into fellowship but not in any leadership level.

      1. Of course God will forgive him, if he truly repents. But he is permanently disqualified from ministry, and according to 1 Cor. 5, which addresses any and all sexual immorality in verse 1 (porneia), he should not be welcomed back into fellowship unless and until he truly repents, and it is clear and evident that he has done so. Given his defiant, rebellious, prideful attitude, it is clear that he has not yet truly repented, and probably never will.

        1. I don’t know the full story of this man but your take seems right-on.
          -Stan-

Leave a Reply

Get Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Join 5,675 other subscribers

Trending Posts