I was never a huge fan of the Duggars. Of course, they are a good family and it is fun to see the logistical gymnastics they deal with and seeing normal family life on such a huge scale. But apart from that, I just couldn’t understand the hordes of people idolizing the supposed inherent morality of having an unusually large family.

Josh, the oldest sibling, has recently been exposed for some pretty serious and disgraceful conduct. Many will be devastated by Josh’s latest scandals. Rightly so. I think they should be devastated. Others will enjoy pouring on the condemnation. (Shame!) But I think there’s another group of people that needs addressing. They are the ones who will be the “prophets” pointing out why he did what he did. Not restricted to the atheistic howls condemning repressive “Christian fundamentalism”, there are many who will find other reasons.

I have dear friends, intelligent friends, sincere friends who love bashing what the Duggars stand for. This latest news seems to prove their point of view. Without going in depth into what the Duggars stood for, I disagree with those that think these scandals prove anything.

Some would suggest that the problem was that Josh belonged to a community that festered pride and outward compliance but ignored the internal matters of the heart. A particularly popular whipping boy is the Institute in Basic Life Principles and its home schooling ministry, ATI. Proponents of this idea call for more openness, brokenness and humility, perhaps suggesting that if we had a more open, broken culture, these problems wouldn’t exist. (Proponents are today found in the leadership of these ministries itself.) I don’t see how that is possibly true. Do we really think that if we were more tolerant and accepting of people who sinned (but not of sin itself), Josh wouldn’t have done what he did? Proponents must admit that the logical end of what they are saying is that if we are exposed to more sin, we are less likely to sin. It doesn’t make sense.

Others believe the problem is more systemic. Adopting a conspiracy theory-styled critique of the ministry, they point to deep philosophical and theological issues which they think automatically discount anything that the ministry has to offer. They think that Josh was a victim of poor theological and/ or philosophical thought. While in one sense, all sin is due to bad theological thought (that self is above God), this really doesn’t address Josh’s transgressions. There are many who espouse these supposedly flawed views but maintain a life of the highest integrity. And of course the converse is true: there are many who reject these views but live in grotesque sin. I think proponents would be hard pressed to find a causal link. For this reason, I find groups like Recovering Grace and sympathisers completely unconvincing. They point to the errors and sins of those who have differences ideologically as proof of their error, and yet they hardly provide a better example.

So why did Josh do what he did? I believe it was because sin is crouching at the door, the devil is lurking seeking whom he may devour and Josh unfortunately yielded to temptation. For this reason, we must be vigilant ourselves. Does this give us room to be prideful because we haven’t done those things? No! (Neither can we blame an organisation for our wrongdoing!) We must tremble in humility before God relying on Him to give us the strength to live in Christ.