Remember Bill Clinton and it depends on the definition of “is”?
In the 90s, in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky scandal (which, in retrospect, is so full of uneven power dynamics), Bill Clinton denied having an affair based on a silly definition.
And, because of that, “did he or didn’t he” raged as a debate for months as you couldn’t listen to the news without hearing about cigars and oral sex. I was grateful my girls were too young to understand!
But this “get off on a technicality” is so prevalent, even in the church.
Today I’m recording a podcast with Christa Brown, one of the first women to speak forcefully about the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention)’s need to protect sexual assault victims and create a database of sexual offenders.
In this fight to hold the SBC accountable (they have taken no meaningful practical steps at all, despite years of pressure), Guideposts Solutions was hired to conduct a third party investigation of the Executive Committee’s attempts to undermine sexual abuse reform. And in that report, there was an explosive story about Johnny Hunt, a former president of the SBC.
A pastor’s wife came forward to say that Hunt had sexually assaulted her, and Guideposts declared that her report was credible.
In response, Hunt sued the SBC:
In a complaint filed in the federal court for the Middle District of Tennessee, lawyers for the Rev. Johnny Hunt, a longtime Georgia megachurch pastor, admit Hunt “had a brief, inappropriate, extramarital encounter with a married woman” in 2012, but claims the incident was consensual and that it was a private matter that should not have been made public in a major 2022 report.
So he denies it was abuse; claims it was consensual; but then it gets really weird.
When you sue, you open yourself up for discovery (when the other side’s lawyers get to question you). And here is some of what Johnny Hunt said in discovery:
Nokes asked, “Well, you keep saying ‘false allegations,’ but you did, in fact, kiss another man’s wife, correct?”
“I have never kissed her lips in my life,” Hunt replied, referring to the woman who has accused him of sexual assault. “My lips have never touched her lips, so help me God.”
“My hand raised to God, my lips have never touched [her] lips, ever,” he reiterated.
Hunt, however, admitted that he “did awkwardly fondle her because she was coming on to me.” Later in the deposition, he also confessed to kissing her body, including her breasts.
To make it clear, he was suing because it wasn’t technically adultery or assault. And he didn’t even kiss her! I mean, he only kissed her breasts!
Really, does he even hear himself?
He later goes on to define adultery:
“To be unfaithful, to me, in my heart, would have been to have gone to another lady’s room,” Hunt replied. “But that is not adultery.” To Hunt, an act is considered adultery only when “you have sex with her.”
Hunt also indicated his belief that “the Bible would counsel that.”
And he goes on to define sexual abuse:
“To use sexual abuse would be in the context of intercourse, at least, and I know in the state of Florida, and I think in Georgia and Tennessee,” Hunt said when asked to define sexual abuse. “So I see it in that context, but definitely not consensual.”
Nokes asked, “So I want to be clear, you think in order for there to be sexual abuse, there has to be intercourse? Under a legal definition?”
“That would be part of it,” Hunt replied.
He decided that he had the right to define sexual abuse and adultery.
He didn’t use the legal definitions (because he was wrong about those). He didn’t use the moral definitions (because we know that cheating on your spouse is not just intercourse). He decided to go with the most narrow view to let himself off on a technicality.
It wasn’t really cheating–we never had sex! I didn’t even kiss her! I only kissed her breasts! I didn’t sexually abuse her–we didn’t have sex!
Remember–this man was PRESIDENT of the SBC.
Excusing sexual abuse on a technicality has a big history in the church.
Let’s look at the story of Huldrych Zwingli, the famous Swiss Reformation hero from the 1500s.
Aaron Hann on Twitter has the whole story, and it’s fascinating. (It’s a long thread that’s worth a read; here’s a taste):
With that context, here are excerpts of Zwingli’s reply to the accusation (see screenshot at end for the entire letter):
— Aaron Hann (@aaronjhann) July 16, 2024
“A very learned and intimate friend of mine has written that according to a rumour in Zürich I seduced the daughter of an influential citizen here. 8/
Basically, Zwingli was accused of having several affairs and impregnating an important businessman’s daughter. And he defended himself by saying that SHE was the one who seduced HIM, and technically he hadn’t taken her virginity, since she had already slept with other men (and what do you really expect from a woman who would do that?).
The important thing, Zwingli claims, is that he never defiled any actual virgin. (And it’s really difficult when all these women are coming on to you!). It’s a fascinating account that Zwingli wrote excusing himself by blaming the woman (and indeed all young women in that town who are basically harlots; there’s nary a virgin to be found!). You can read the whole account here.
That does not sound like a heartfelt confession to me.
He does not own his sin. Instead, he:
- Minimizes it, since the real sin would have been if he had defiled a virgin. She wasn’t.
- Minimizes it by saying it wasn’t adultery, since she wasn’t married
- Expects people to be proud of him for not violating his two biggest standards: That he wouldn’t commit adultery or defile a virgin
- Blames the woman since she wasn’t a virgin and had slept with many men
- Claims that most young women in those days were “virgins” at day and a “woman” at night
- Absolves himself of responsibility since the woman came on to him
So he admits that, yes, he made her pregnant. But other than that, it really wasn’t his fault.
How, though, did Desiring God present this episode?
Desiring God (the huge website founded by John Piper) wrote a long article about how to respond to leaders who sin, and used Zwingli as an example. Referring to the letter where Zwingli used all of these techniques to minimize his sin, the Desiring God author says:
In the letter, Zwingli admitted to committing fornication, repented with godly sorrow, and committed himself to a chaste and holy life. (emphasis mine)
It was this characterization of Zwingli’s confession that inspired Aaron Hann’s Twitter thread.
Let’s be clear:
Nothing in Zwingli’s confession includes godly sorrow
There is no care for the young woman he impregnated (he doesn’t know where she is and has made no plans to find her or support the child). He minimizes his actions and blames everyone else, and claims it isn’t as bad as people think it is.
That’s not godly sorrow.
But somehow, that’s enough for Desiring God.
Likely Desiring God would think that Johnny Hunt is displaying godly sorrow too!
Our book She Deserves Better goes into why certain churches are more dangerous for teen girls–why they’re more likely to be assaulted or harrassed there.
Basically, when churches teach modesty messages, blaming girls’ clothing for men’s assaults, the rate of sexual harrassment and abuse increases.
To see how to raise girls WITHOUT this toxic messaging, please check out She Deserves Better! It’s on for just $3.99 on Kindle right now!
The Zwingli story is depressing–but it was the norm then.
Yes, the early Reformers didn’t necessarily value women or treat them well. But then, the Catholic priests and bishops weren’t treating women well either. Basically, back then, women were assaulted and blamed for things and treated badly by everyone.
But today it isn’t like that. Today most people, Christian or not, would look at Zwingli’s “confession” and see how pathetic it is (unless, of course, one writes for Desiring God).
And that’s why it’s so, so hard for women when it is in the evangelical church that these things are still so commonplace. That a former president of the SBC could say it wasn’t technically sexual abuse or adultery; and he didn’t even kiss her because it was only her breasts. That the Desiring God website, one of the biggest websites in Christendom, could declare godly sorrow includes blaming everyone but yourself.
Quite frankly, that’s not good enough.
In Zwingli’s time, there were no healthy alternatives. Pretty much all men in power talked this way and excused other men.
But it’s not like that anymore. And we don’t need to stand for it anymore.
When people show you who they are, believe them. And when leaders of a movement show you that they have absolutely no desire or compunction to be honest about sexual assault, then you know that they will never, ever provide a safe place for women and girls.
And we need to get away from there.
Good churches exist. Good denominations exist. There are wonderful Christian spaces that value women. But if the leaders of your church are consistently talking like this? They’re showing you who they are. And we can refuse to sit under people who can’t even bother to value women’s safety and dignity.
What do you think of Johnny Hunt’s excuses? What do you think of Zwingli’s? Why did Desiring God present Zwingli like that? Let’s talk in the comments!
It seems relatively simply but quite complicated. Beware of false prophets. Matthew 7:15 Comes to mind. First these clowns are twisting truth for their own benefit and second they are connected to people who have often put these clowns on pedestals because the fruit looks good – it is however untested. This morning this testimony I was listening to, the guy was saying that these types of clowns (btw thanks for the extended list of clowns not to follow 🤣) are actually worse than unbelievers. What a shame and I am glad you are calling these clowns out!
There are a few words that I could say, but I won’t say them in polite company. This grieves me so much hearing this. I used a curriculum in homeschool that showed Zwingli in a favorable light. I am disgusted that the curriculum writers didn’t even mention this aspect of his life.
They want to make everyone in Christendom sound perfect! I hate that so much curriculum makes Henry VIII sound like a Christian!
All these institutions need to do is take the purity culture standards they burdened girls with in the 90’s and apply them to their leaders.
Wouldn’t that be nice!
If only!
>> these types of clowns are actually worse than unbelievers
In many ways, this is true. An atheist is at least honest about his beliefs. But these people use a twisted version of faith, God and Jesus to excuse and advance their sick agenda.
I’ve also seen a few cases where such people, after having getting caught, apologize to God, to the church, to their wives and to their children. However, the actual victim usually gets left out of the “apology tour”. And, of course, it hardly needs to be said that in many of these cases, the woman is often blamed for the incident and is basically “cold shouldered” by many in the church, by men and women.
New to an area, my family spent one visit with a family for an “at-home church service” before we started searching for a family church. The family was kind and engaging; they had some daughters (5 at the time) the same age as our daughter but no sons for our son. We all sat as a family in their living room, visiting first and having fellowship. It felt warm and inviting. Before “service” started, I had asked the wife if she’d like to have lunch the coming week. “Service” started and the Scriptures to be discussed had changed from Galatians Fruits of the Spirit to Ephesians 5:22-23 submission message. The father noted the change like so, “Today, I was going to preach about the Fruits of the Spirit. However, I am strongly moved to discuss the role of our wives in the marriage and the family.” He then paused, looked up at his wife, daughters, and then me and said, “ALL WOMEN ARE WHORES. Every single one of them – a whore – and is only righteous in submission to their husbands. My wife is a WHORE but she is MY whore.” He then told my husband, “You sir, need to control your wife! She requested to have lunch with my wife next week in front of me. She is tempting my wife’s whoredom to go out in public and commune with other men! [looking at me] She is NOT allowed to go out with another whore.” Yup! We were out of there and when leaving, we were accused of not wanting to hear the truth. And yes, I am the same person from the rural community where we participated in a mega-church and the pastor was called out for emotionally abusing staff and members. One day, we plan to relocate for our retirement – while I cannot say with certainty I will ever return to church, I am hopeful that wherever we land there are truly kind, non-denominational, loving people.
Oh my goodness! That’s so disgusting! Those poor little girls too!
Hmmm. So then I guess every husband is a pimp? Or a client? 🤔
That defies logic. That was very abusive of his wife and daughters and your wife as well. No woman deserves to be spoken to or of that way. What he said of your wife comes very close to sexual harassment. You did the right thing by walking out of that situation.
My bad. I misread. Your husband did the right thing.
My jaw just hit the floor!
Who in hayull thinks that is an appropriate thing to say? I can’t even — all my evens are even canting right now!
I am so sorry you, but especially your young children, were subjected to that verbal abuse! I cannot imagine trying to explain to my 5 year old child what a wh*re is. Just- wow! You weren’t fleeing from truth- sounds more like you were fleeing the devil speaking through that guy!
I’m so sorry that happened! I wonder which fruit of the spirit he thought he was exercising?!?
Let me get this straight… having a sexual relationship with a woman that technically didn’t involve PIV isn’t actually a sexual sin, but noticing a woman is lusting and we should shame men for that.
Zwingli was seduced by women, but also women aren’t visual like men are so they just can’t understand how hard it is to resist temptation.
Got it. Clear as mud, y’all, thanks.
I have little doubt there is godly sorrow, but I believe it comes in the form of God having sorrow at the blasphemy and hatefulness being spread by some claiming Him.
“,,,since she had already slept with other men (and what do you really expect from a woman who would do that?)”
So according to Desiring God, Zwingli is to be forgiven and essentially absolved because he had godly sorrow yet once a harlot, always a harlot?
“There is no care for the young woman he impregnated (he doesn’t know where she is and has made no plans to find her or support the child).”
I know Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not a positive one because it is pairing a girl with her rapist, but in a day when women had so little value, at least it cared for her physical needs so she did not starve or die of the elements or from extreme loneliness from being completely exiled. Yet Zwingli didn’t even do that (though he wouldn’t since he believes he is the victim of her seductions instead of a rapist.)
How have these men drifted so far away (ran their hardest?) from the heart of God? Do any of them understand that Jesus came in part *because* they were letting themselves off on technicalities and needed to look at the scriptures through the lens of God’s heart?? How can they cherry-pick and live out the bad parts as it suits them then claim the good news as their own but not for others (such as the “harlots”?)
The Desiring God series was pushed heavily at a former church. I recently found my workbook and it has now been recycled. Maybe it can be redeemed by being remade into something beneficial for people, like a greeting card. Or toilet paper.
Toile paper! lolllzz!
I know this is a serious topic, but those are some of THE most juvenile excuses I’ve ever heard! It’s definitely “But Mom, I didn’t get into a fight! I didn’t punch them! I just shoved them to the ground!” territory. It’s what whiny brats try when they know they’re caught. I want to ask these guys how old they’re supposed to be. If you just went by the statements from the likes of Hunt and Zwingli, they sound like they wouldn’t be old enough to have a driver’s license! (Yes Zwingli was before cars, but my point still stands.)
Yes, laughable statements given in response to very UNfunny actions. These clowns need their own circus far away from all women.
It is truly reprehensible!
A little reminiscent of “the woman *you* gave me made me do it”, isn’t it?
Yep.
Very much so!
>> All women are whores
What a horrible thought and horrible statement. I especially feel for his daughters. Just imagine growing up with your father likely telling you that and dumping hatred on you EVERY DAY. What a terrible image of themselves they must have, and I can only imagine the awful relationships this will lead them into (thinking all the time that they deserve it).
>> Once a harlot always a harlot
This seems to be par for the course for some churches. Sins can be forgiven, but losing your purity is different. If a woman (and it’s nearly always a woman in this case, they never seem to chastise men) who has pre-marital sex can be forgiven. However, once purity is lost, the taint is there forever, and she can NEVER get her innocence back. And of course it’s a central belief of this philosophy that a woman’s purity is the one and only thing of value that she has.
But huzzah to the ones who walked out of the church after that.
Can you please explain the math whereby a pure man has sex with a pure woman and only the woman becomes impure afterwards?
(I am, after all, only a woman, so ontologically I’m inferior, especially in math, despite the engineering degree and being just one class short of a math minor.)
Sorry, I failed math. I had a woman, teacher, though, so it must have been her fault (pause to roll eyes)
Natch!
If a woman screws up, it’s her fault. If a man screws up, it’s some woman’s fault.
Oh, whom am I kidding? We all know that men are, by definition, unable to screw up. Especially the married ones, because they become exactly like Jesus, omniscient and sinless, the moment they say “I do.”
One more sarcastic comment, based on what we learned from Zwingli, Hunt. etc.
Assaulting a woman isn’t really a big deal, since she likely caused it, and it’s especially no big deal if she’s no longer “pure”. But two women having lunch together as friends? We may as well hand Satan the keys to the Kingdom now and get it over with.
And, just in case anybody is wondering from my previous post, I had MANY women math and computer science teachers and professors in school, and they were all very knowledgeable.
Is the text of Zwingli’s letter available online somewhere else? I’m not on X and had trouble accessing the screenshots from that thread.
As a side note, it seemed to me like the DG author had read something *about* the letter but hadn’t read the letter. So the way he describes it may be down to laziness rather than not knowing what an apology looks like. It’s a shame if I’m right though, as from what I could read of Zwingli’s letter, it looked like just the lesson in how not to apologize that a bunch of evangelical leaders need!
I’m not sure! If you google Zwingli confession letter maybe something will come up?
Tim, try this:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1813287387281432872.html
It is an excerpt (pp 115-116) from a book called The Reformation in Its Own Words, by Hans Hillerbrand
I read the Zwingli text first and the DG article second, and I also wondered if the DG author had actually read the Zwingli text because… it’s awful.
Thanks, that worked.
I can’t believe Hunt’s answers in deposition.
I smell blood in the water. I’d have him for breakfast on cross examination.
I would love to be in that courtroom watching!
The mental gymnastics of this stuff is insane. I’m glad that in the court of law, at least, abusers and offenders don’t get to define abuse and assault. Definitely not in the eyes of God! They only need to look at David with Nathan in the case of Bathsheba to see that much.