Josh Duggar resigns from Family Research Council after sexual abuse allegations

[Julie Anne]

As far as I am concerned, I am no longer convinced that there was true repentance. Here is something I wrote elsewhere:

I think we need to revisit this repentance thing that Josh Duggar and his parents claimed happened after the sex abuse of 5 minors came to light. Think about it. What does repentance look like? Repentance is about giving up your rights. It’s about focusing on the healing/recovery of those you have harmed. You don’t defend yourself anymore. Duggar parents claimed that there was forgiveness and repentance and they all got closer as a family and to God,

So, tell me, does repentance look like this: 19 year old Josh Duggar sued Arkansas Department of Human Services because they were investigating his abuses.

A repentant person would accept any and all consequences related to their sin/crime. I do not see the fruit of repentance in Josh Duggar in suing Arkansas DHS,

In your zeal to destroy Josh, you have now placed yourself in the place of God. You are making up your own definition of repentance. The word means “genuine sorrow that results in a change of attitude and behavior.” All you know about Josh is what you have read from a report that was hell-bent on doing harm to the Duggars, while professing to protect innocent victims. I personally have no confidence in the blog “In Touch” and the objectives they have in reporting on this incident. If Josh is supposed to have filed a lawsuit against the ADHS, why don’t you produce the document and prove the reasons for the lawsuit, Did Josh have some reason to feel he needed the protection of law against the ADHS? I don’t know. Do you? Can you produce some statement by the girls who were molested? Or is it sufficient to put words in their mouths and go on that? Some are calling the touching of private parts the same as rape and incest. Neither of those activities occurred in this situation, yet you have used these words to exacerbate the charges against Josh. I am not defending anything Josh did wrong. I am insisting that none of us owns the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner. We just know too little to assume that responsibility. It just may be that some who are the most vocal on this thread have themselves suffered molestation at some time in their lives or speak on behalf of someone very dear to them who has suffered, and they are going to excess in expressing themselves in an emotional way on the issue. Now that this case is fully known to the authorities, we ought to let the matter be decided by them. If anyone is to rise up in disgust and demand further action, it ought to be the girls themselves who have suffered the abuse. If they remain silent, we ought to respect their judgment as adults.

[Jim]

Why did Republicans embrace the Duggars in the first place?

I don’t join in the Schadenfreude on the left over the latest case of hypocrisy among family-values conservatives, or take any delight in the discovery that the Duggars, who find immorality in homosexuality, abortion and out-of-wedlock sex, have more disturbing questions of morality in their own home. What’s troubling is that the Republican presidential candidates have been so worshipful of the Duggars in the first place. The political issue is not what Josh Duggar did as a teenager but why so many who seek the nation’s highest office feel the need to woo people who are so far out on the ideological extreme.

A quarter of Americans are evangelical Christians, but only a small fraction of them are like the Duggars. Only 3 percent of American kids are home-schooled, as the Duggars are. Only 7 percent of Americans think using birth control is morally objectionable, as the Duggars do. As for the percentage of Americans who favor arranged-in-all-but-name marriages? The answer is so obvious there’s no need to ask the question.

The Duggars have often been associated with, and claimed by, the Quiverfull movement, a Christian patriarchy sect proposing that women must obey and submit sexually to their husbands and should eschew birth control and embrace their “high calling” as wives, mothers and homemakers. The Duggars have said they are not affiliated with the movement, but their views are very similar and they have used the same biblical verse that is the basis of the Quiverfull movement to justify their belief in having as many children as God will give them.

Quiverfull followers speak of having children to “out-populate” their secular opponents. Dating is not allowed, and fathers supervise courtship. In the Duggar TV series, unmarried women must give “side hugs” – not frontal ones.

So why do mainstream conservatives give the family such a full frontal embrace? In addition to being wooed by GOP presidential candidates, the Duggars have been featured at conservative gatherings, and Josh Duggar held a top post at the Family Research Council, a powerful conservative group in Washington.

The answer seems to be that they are so eager to associate themselves with famous conservatives that they don’t pause to examine the beliefs of their would-be endorsers. The embrace of other bizarre figures in the conservative movement has caused heartburn similar to the Josh Duggar scandal for GOP officeholders – such as when Ted Nugent called President Obama a“subhuman mongrel,”

If the Duggars say they don’t belong to or subscribe to the Quiverfull Movement they should be taken at their word. The fact that they quote the passage in Psalms where, when speaking of the family and children, it says “blessed is the man that has his quiver full of them,” does not incriminate them. That same Scripture has been quoted by most pastors and Christian leaders innumerable times to speak of the blessing of children. Remember: Bible-believing Christians have disagreed with the use of chemical and artificial birth control from time immemorial.

As for dating, courtship, and the physical involvement of non-married couples, what the Duggars practice does seem out-of-date, but a hundred years ago, their philosophy was widely accepted and practiced. So who has moved? I don’t personally subscribe to the details of their views, but their right to hold to this practice should be respected and not ridiculed. It seems to have worked for them. Molestation, that has apparently happened in their family, may happen in any family. Whether the parents did anything different from what multitudes of parents might have done is not clear. Many of the comments posted on this site have been excessively judgmental, especially in light of the fact that the “victims,” who are now adults, have remained silent. Whatever strong opinions and emotions that relate to molestation seem to have been imposed upon this particular case. We need a little more time and insight before dogmatic opinions can be formed.

Mainstream conservatives have given the Duggars “a frontal embrace” mainly because they have generally represented a high view of morality, the appearance of happiness in this large family, their devotion to standing on their own feet and providing for their own, and their positioning of themselves in the conservative, political movement. That they have some failure in their family is no cause for rejection of them by conservatives, nor for rejoicing by those who abhor reality TV. Just today, the former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, has been charged with crimes. Shall conservatives be held responsible for what may have been found that is objectionable in his life. Certainly, no Democrat stands on solid ground for condemning conservatives, while at the same time they give a pass to a long line of moral perversions in their own camp.

The liberal media is prone to dig up and expose any faults among conservatives while at the same time ignoring and overlooking far more gross sins among their own. With time, some of the so-called scandals on which the media has capitalized have been discovered to be non-existent. E.g. Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, etc.

Conservative Christians: don’t panic; stay cool; let time reveal the truth; stand by your own; let God be true, and every man a liar!

[Jim]

Newt Gingrich? Really? This man is some sort of moral hero? Thrice married! Catholic (former Baptist)

Some are calling the touching of private parts the same as rape and incest. Neither of those activities occurred in this situation, yet you have used these words to exacerbate the charges against Josh.

It was incest which is criminal behavior, but his parents prevented Rom 13 process and the civil courts to intervene. I hope you are not a pastor because your minimization of criminal behavior is horrifying. I can’t imagine a victim hearing those words - - that Josh Duggar did not commit incest when he snuck in their rooms at night and sexually groped them. The age differential is telling. In Duggar world, girls submit to men and Josh was their older brother. They would be expected to submit to him. Please, think clearly.

When pastors, parents, people in a position of authority fail to respond appropriately to sex abuse, it can have life-long effects for the victims because not only have they been victimized once sexually, but they have been emotionally, spiritually abandoned by those in a position of trust. Please do not make that mistake.

I highly recommend any pastor/leader/parent/adult to take a look at this so you will be equipped on how to properly respond. Please listen to an expert: Josh Duggar & Sibling Sex Abuse: ‘Don’t Ignore It’

I would not for one minute minimize the wrong of molesting a child. My point was to stick to the legal definition of “rape” and “incest,” which I now include for your benefit from the dictionary:

rape: 1 the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them

incest: sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other; the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

I am glad that you are not a pastor because you show a tendency to jump to unwarranted conclusions that lack sufficient investigation by the authorities (who obviously failed). Neither do you know how the parents counseled the children. It appears you have imposed upon the girls the emotional response you might have had. Quite obviously, as in all cases that are judged before coming to trial, many conclusions are reached that may be erroneousl

I do accept that pastors and people in authority have a responsibility to respond appropriately to sex abuse, but the abused parties are required to allege abuse and accuse the abuser before the authorities can pursue legal action. In this case someone failed. Something similar happened with the young girls in ABWE, which was examined by GRACE. Until they came forward, nothing could be done. Even if a statue of limitations is in force, these girls could publicize their complaint and punish their brother and their parents in the media. They do not seem to wish to do so, and that leaves a lot of people like all of us to conjecture, analyze, accuse, and pontificate in general about sexual abuse. It is a sad case. Let us not forget that the liberal media really is not honestly concerned with more than condemning Christians and selling copy. These children need much prayer. And all parents need to take notice and educate their children of the dangers of abuse.

Honestly, I can’t see much more that could be said than all of us have written. We are all the same ones going back and forth. Maybe it’s time to lament the situation and let God work out His will for the Duggars.

[Jim]

TUNE IN: Exclusive Interview With Jim Bob & Michelle Duggar on ‘The Kelly File’ Wednesday at 9p ET

[Joeb]

Your point is well taken but I’m not the only one in this forum who feels Mark is backing what the Duggars did. Huckabee has weighed in and down played the matter and indicated that the Duggars handled it correctly. We are repeating history here the same old song Fundamental Pastors or Christian leaders covering up and protecting terrible criminal things against poor innocent young ladies. It is hard to swallow such behavior coming from people claiming to be Christians. It has rocked me to the core and that includes an attitude by my own brotherinlaw, who is a Fundamental Christian pastor and leader at a Baptist college. This whole situation strongly makes me question my own Christianity and whether Christ is what he say he is when such evil can come from men claiming to be Christians and doing such evil that even the non Christian world can see. Are these Christians that blind and yet point their fingers at gays. Help me here Bert. I’m ready to throw in the towel on my faith. Its hard for me to understand Christians doing the above actions.

Joe, the quick answer is that we’re sinners—this reality ought to remind us of the centrality of the Gospel, no? So ironically, this kind of scandal ought to refresh our faith, not challenge it. And regarding “you’re not the only one that views Mark’s comments as such”, well…I’m going to have to suggest that part of what’s going on is that we’re trained to “bay on sight” like a hunting hound at this. We’re cued for hysteria—and we’ll treat inappropriate touch/fondling as if it were forcible rape, and any plea for reason will be ignored.

Ignore that training we’ve all received, dear brother. And note as well that what’s going on in fundagelicalism is that it’s our turn to find out that abuse is going on in our camp, just like the Boy Scouts, public schools, Catholics, government types (e.g. Denny Hastert allegedly), and the like have found. And we need to make a serious thought of what specific to the Duggars might be a contributing factor—Gothard, lots of kids, whatever.

That said, the stats I’ve seen indicate that about 1 in 30 men have committed some level of sexual assault (ranging from inappropriate touch to forcible rape), so it is worth noting that the Duggar case is only a minor outlier, statistically speaking. So while I’d argue that the legalism of Gothard may lead to increased problems, I cannot prove it statistically from this case alone.

One final note is that I do not think that a youthful crime prevents Josh Duggar from ever getting a responsible position, even in the church. Yes, it’s defined as a felony by many states, but I’d have to guess that the long term emotional/spiritual/etc. impact of what he did is not exactly the same as that of forcible rape, and that his motivations in what he did are very different as well. Punishment, yes, lifelong prohibitions, no.

To Joel for giving his perspective on the results of Juvenile hall, where Josh Duggar likely would have gone had he been convicted of what he did in a court of law. I had the thought that sometimes it could actually train a young person how to commit crime, but suffice it to say I’m glad that there is another side to it, hopefully the dominant side.

Jim Bob and his wife’s actions were criminal

On what basis?

[Larry]

Jim Bob and his wife’s actions were criminal

On what basis?

Arkansas has a law prohibiting people from knowingly allowing abuse or neglect to occur. The legal rub is whether the steps taken (or not taken) by the Duggars to end the abuse qualify as removing the children from danger or not. Had the report been filed in time, it would have been worth at least an indictment if the police had acted on the allegations.

(again, exactly why is the statute of limitations on these things three years? Huh?)

If I read the article Jim linked correctly, parents are all but mandatory reporters of abuse in Arkansas unless they’re the perpetrator of that abuse (per 5th Amendment prohibition of self-incrimination). One interesting thing as well is the question of whether the police did an adequate investigation into whether the behavior continued. Julie linked a report that a suit was filed to prevent this by Josh Duggar.

One note on the side; Julie Anne’s definition of repentance is not the Bible’s. The Bible defines it as more or less agreeing with God about the significance of the sin, but does not say that the accused gives carte blanche to the state to have its way with him.

Here’s her definition: What does repentance look like? Repentance is about giving up your rights. It’s about focusing on the healing/recovery of those you have harmed. You don’t defend yourself anymore.

[Joeb]

In my mind this settles the matter. Not only Josh acts were criminal but Jim Bob and his wife’s actions were criminal and severely negligent. At this point all their minor children should be taken away from them for a period time and the parents should receive lots of counseling and along with the children. There is no question that the Duggars are unfit parents. So for all those out there that think the stAte has ungodly counseling I say better that than to be continued to be subjected to abuse. I also question whether there was a conspiracy here to cover up so the show and the money would keep rolling in at the expense of the girls. I think my idea of a mandatory nickel in prison for nonreporting and underreporting looks pretty good.

I don’t see any really new information here, Joeb, which leads you to conclusively conclude the matter is settled anywhere except in your own mind. You are now labeling the Duggars “unfit parents.” You feel competent to say a “conspiracy” has occurred, and based on what evidence?. You accuse the Duggars of using their girls to earn money and get added publicity. So far I haven’t really heard any good ideas from your posts, but I keep hoping. So, can’t we just wait to let the process work itself out, now that it is public?