How would you handle Josh Duggar if he were a member of your church?

[Aaron]

As far as blaming his upbringing . . . might as well blame Judaism for the rape of Tamar.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I don' believe repentance is just quickly admitting and apologizing for sin.

In Josh's case, he seems very quick to admit his sin is sin, and to say the right stuff. And then keep right on deliberately engaging in the sinful behavior.

So yes, no membership for now for him. With discipleship and time he can bring forth fruit meet for repentance and only then be restored.

You're right, of course. I would hope his church is helping him change some wrong habits he has developed.

This is such a sad situation.

 

[righteousdude2]

It has been hard not to follow it.

When a son leaves his parents and takes to his wife, how is that son's infidelity the responsibility of the parents? He is a grown man who has left his parents home and knows, presumably, the difference between right and wrong. His sin is his.

Certainly I am not disagreeing with you or Don. Josh committed sin and it is his to be accountable for! But in the field I worked in for years, we had a saying, once a molester, always a molester. That doesn't mean he can't repent and start a new chapter in his life. However, like any addiction, it must be dealt with, and ongoing supportive help is needed to get a person beyond the point of sinning and succumbing to the temptations life will toss in their direction!

Nevertheless, had the parents not skirted around this early sexual problem, he may not be where he is today! Of course, to some that is a reach, but, the sins of the parents do seem to follow in the footsteps of their children! David's sins with Bathsheba haunted his family, even after God forgave David and left him as King!

 

[agedman]

Certainly I am not disagreeing with you or Don. Josh committed sin and it is his to be accountable for! But in the field I worked in for years, we had a saying, once a molester, always a molester. That doesn't mean he can't repent and start a new chapter in his life. However, like any addiction, it must be dealt with, and ongoing supportive help is needed to get a person beyond the point of sinning and succumbing to the temptations life will toss in their direction!

Nevertheless, had the parents not skirted around this early sexual problem, he may not be where he is today! Of course, to some that is a reach, but, the sins of the parents do seem to follow in the footsteps of their children! David's sins with Bathsheba haunted his family, even after God forgave David and left him as King!

I haven't kept up with the every part of the story, and really don't want too.

However, I do have one question.

It is my understanding that Josh was like 14-15 when he inappropriately touched his sisters (touched their breasts). It is my understanding that he did not have (in the words of Bill "sexual relations with that woman."

Question: Was that really molestation of the girls?

Sure, he needed correction, and he needed someone to explain that there are certain boundaries preteens cross that teens do not. He needed watched over more carefully to make certain that he had gained person wisdom and had developed personal boundary and accountability standards. Others in the family would also be aware of the same weakness could certainly attach itself to any of them if they were not all on guard of every thought and bring every part of themselves under the domination of the Holy Spirit.

Where the ball was dropped was Josh not learning that the contact was not only inappropriate but was the first seed of lust - when it conceived it grows into sin.

One other thought about this matter - perhaps for another thread.

Is the current thinking and legal system of laws exceeding the Biblical standard of conduct in these matters?

Is it possible that the crime and punishment exceed what that of what the Scriptures would indicate?

For instance, man meets maid. Rapes her. She doesn't cry out.

What is the Biblical response that the society should have toward that situation in comparison to what is actually happening not only with Josh, but say Bill Cosby?

I am NOT condoning sexual sin!!!!

I am questioning the value placed upon the standard in relationship to that of the Scriptures. Is society making a crime of what the Scriptures do not?

 

[Servent]

My own opinion. I think that if what was alleged was true, and especially if it happened multiple times, he should have been dealt with in the legal system. At that point, the safety of the other children should have been priority.

The idea that they are responsible for the sins of the adult son, who lives outside of their home with his own family, is ridiculously unfair. Each is responsible for his own sin.

I do agree they are not responsible for his sins, they are his and his alone. but I would say that if they did know of this problem and did not get him the help, then they are apart of the same sin.
I do also agree it should have been dealt with through the legal system. It was a crime.

 

[agedman]

I do agree they are not responsible for his sins, they are his and his alone. but I would say that if they did know of this problem and did not get him the help, then they are apart of the same sin.
I do also agree it should have been dealt with through the legal system. It was a crime.

It is my understanding the situation (as a young teen) was dealt with by the legal system.

They concluded it was not a crime.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I haven't kept up with the every part of the story, and really don't want too.

Perhaps you should keep up with every part of the story so that your thoughts and opinions which you certainly have the right to claim and verbalize could be based on all the facts.

What he has admitted to: Molestation of girls as young as 5. These girls do not have a femininity like girls who have passed puberty do. What on EARTH could he be drawn to in a 5 year old? He admits to doing this in part while they were asleep. He has now admitted to internet pornography addiction, participation/financial payment on the now infamous internet site where people congregate to talk about sexual fantasies and meet people to commit adultery with, and he has admitted to being unfaithful to his wife.

It is my understanding that Josh was like 14-15 when he inappropriately touched his sisters (touched their breasts). It is my understanding that he did not have (in the words of Bill "sexual relations with that woman."

His sisters and at least one other girl who was not his sister. And their upper bodies were not the only place where he put his hands on them. For example, it's admitted by the family and in the police report that while holding and reading to his young 5-year-old sister that he put his fingers where a boy's fingers to not go. The child ran and told on him. So much of this was going on at night that Michelle and Jim Bob reported that they kept the girl's bedroom doors locked every night to keep this from happening. They, themselves, were afraid that Josh would not stop.

Question: Was that really molestation of the girls?

Yes it was. If someone, for personal arousal or a curiosity gone wrong, touches any sensitive areas of a a child's body while they are asleep OR awake, or touches them while are much younger than they and the child can't fight back and doesn't know how or that they have permission to, or touches a child closer to his age that out of confusion, fear, or not wanting anyone to know freezes and appears to not resist - ALL of this is the epitome of molestation.

Molestation isn't necessarily intercourse.

Does the crime and punishment exceed what that of what the Scriptures would indicate?

For instance, man meets maid. Rapes her. She doesn't cry out.

You will have to show me in the bible where a man rapes a woman, she doesn't cry out, and there should be no punishment for. Well, let me just tell you now - it isn't in there. If a man rapes a woman, whether she cries for help or freezes in terror, he and he alone is culpable. And God said it is the same in his eyes as murder. I'll show you where he said that.

The Three Cases of Sexual Crimes (Forcible Rape and Consensual Sin) Deuteronomy 22:23-29 KJV

• Adultery between two consenting adults. "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city [She didn't cry out because people would hear (being in a place where people would hear - the "city") and that heavily implies her desire TO "lie with him".]; and the man, because he hath humbled [not raped] his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."
• Forcible rape (being the equivalent of murder in the eyes of God. "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her."
• Fornication between two consenting adults: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her [no force - not rape], and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

 

[nodak]

I totally agree that when someone repents of sin they do not lose church membership. I don't, however, believe that tears and saying I'm sorry are the same as repentance. I remember the Master taught of two sons told by their father to go work in the fields. One said he would go but did not. The other said he would not go but did. Jesus asked which was really obedient.

For the moment, Josh has been outed as a long term lifestyle of deception, outright lies, and sexual misconduct. He says he is sorry and won't do it again, and then he does it again. No one can bring forth fruit meet for repentance over night. It will take time to know if he is truly repentant or not.

I do not believe church membership is necessary to salvation, and do believe one can be right with the Lord and still face church discipline. A member is an ambassador not only for Christ but for the local church. No church needs someone doing these things as an ambassador for them.

What took place when Josh was a teen wasn't likely to be seen as arrest worthy not because what he did was not a crime, but because of his age. And according to the reports filed, he did touch more than just breasts through clothing. I don't believe we are elevating to "sin" or "crime" something the Bible ok's. I don't believe his current sin is Anna's fault, either.

I have a son who is certified mentally ill. I do believe brain disease exists and for it medical treatment is a good idea. Character defects, sin, and bad behavior are not necessarily mental illness or brain driven. We went the psychology route and when you learn what the core beliefs behind much talk therapy is, well, as a Christian I simply would not go that route. Never again. BTDT and got the tee shirt to prove it, so to speak. Hogwash, unbiblical hogwash, was all we encountered for youthful sex offenders.

There simply is not a quick fix for Josh. And there is very high likelihood he will continue to cheat, and continue to molest. It is a very sad situation, and likely nothing the Duggars or the law could or can do will change him.

God, on the other hand, can change people. And when He does, people don't keep walking the edge of disaster. Child molesters changed by God seek to avoid kids like the plague. Adulterers changed by God flee the internet, flee situations where they can even be tempted again, and impose far more strictures on themselves than friends and family or the law ever would.

All we need to do is pray for the whole family, and prayerfully wait to see. If Josh has truly repented it will show. If not, he can be sure given his celebrity status once again his sins will find him out.

In the case of our youthful offender, despite his tears and repentance he continued to act out, just as far as we know no longer toward children. Still, he is not welcome around the grandkids, including his own child. That child's mama had some hard decisions to make regarding our son's continued lying and cheating.

As Jim Bob Duggar is reported to have told his girls, forgiveness can come quickly, but trust has to be earned.

 

[agedman]

Perhaps you should keep up with every part of the story so that your thoughts and opinions which you certainly have the right to claim and verbalize could be based on all the facts.

Which is why I started the post with that statement.

What he has admitted to: Molestation of girls as young as 5. These girls do not have a femininity like girls who have passed puberty do. What on EARTH could he be drawn to in a 5 year old? He admits to doing this in part while they were asleep. He has now admitted to internet pornography addiction, participation/financial payment on the now infamous internet site where people congregate to talk about sexual fantasies and meet people to commit adultery with, and he has admitted to being unfaithful to his wife.

Taking your statement as presenting the facts (which I do not contest), seems to me he needed some public school sex education classes.

There is a difference between curiosity and the seed germination of lust. I am surprised his parents didn't spend time with him in this matter (pre-teen) and make a sharp distinction in what was appropriate and what was inappropriate. However, I am certain that just as most parents do not express these things with the children, the whole discussion that should have taken place a number of times BEFORE children start puberty, never really took place.

His sisters and at least one other girl who was not his sister. And their upper bodies were not the only place where he put his hands on them. For example, it's admitted by the family and in the police report that while holding and reading to his young 5-year-old sister that he put his fingers where a boy's fingers to not go. The child ran and told on him. So much of this was going on at night that Michelle and Jim Bob reported that they kept the girl's bedroom doors locked every night to keep this from happening. They, themselves, were afraid that Josh would not stop.

This is parental unit failure.

They had to stop Josh?????

What was wrong with Josh stopping Josh????

At this point, the parental unit did not fulfill the responsibility of security, love, and nourishment for every member of the family.

Yes it was. If someone, for personal arousal or a curiosity gone wrong, touches any sensitive areas of a a child's body while they are asleep OR awake, or touches them while are much younger than they and the child can't fight back and doesn't know how or that they have permission to, or touches a child closer to his age that out of confusion, fear, or not wanting anyone to know freezes and appears to not resist - ALL of this is the epitome of molestation.

Molestation isn't necessarily intercourse.

I agree. This is why talk about all areas of the body, function, pleasures, pain, ... need to take place from the time the child is very young.

In my opinion, the self exploration that naturally occurs in a child is also the time when the enemy begins to plant seeds. The exploration is not a sin in itself, the sense of pleasure with the stimulus that later becomes hormonal inspired in puberty can sprout all manner of seedlings. There are many who battle sensual addiction that may have never had to face the problem if they had been given the proper tools of understanding and warning as a wee little child.

"Son, that part of the body responds to changes of temperature, touch, and your feelings like joy, being scared..." However, you will need to learn to control that part of the body just as you control where a ball is thrown or your temper..." You learn how to throw the ball accurately by practice. You learn how to control your temper by practicing. You learn to control every part of your heart, mind and body by practicing - that is called self control."

That message should be ringing in the mind of every child before they are five years old.

You will have to show me in the bible where a man rapes a woman, she doesn't cry out, and there should be no punishment for...(edited by me for space sake)

(continued edit by me)...

• Fornication between two consenting adults: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her [no force - not rape], and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

You gave the answer to your question in the button left (above).

The man "lay(s) hold of her." She didn't lay hold of him. It doesn't say she was a willing victim.

For you to say he didn't force or rape, is (in my opinion) wrong. Had the man not "lay hold on her" she would have remained a virgin.

In my opinion, it is just as important for the young males of preadolescence all the way through adult hood to be taught practical lessons on why "it is good for a man not to touch a woman."

When puberty starts - it is already too late.

There is no way that I am defending what the Joshua did!

As a side, I am also asking if our society has expectations and laws that exceed that of the Scriptures - not just in this one instance.

 

[Scarlett O.]

You gave the answer to your question in the button left (above).

The man "lay(s) hold of her." She didn't lay hold of him. It doesn't say she was a willing victim.

If she were "willing", then she wouldn't be "victim."

For you to say he didn't force or rape, is (in my opinion) wrong. Had the man not "lay hold on her" she would have remained a virgin.

There are three scenarios in this Deuteronomy passage. You and I disagree over the first. You say it's rape. I say it's adultery (the woman is already betrothed to someone - and in bible days that was more than just a modern engagement).

The second is clear. The Bible says in the second scenario that the man "forced her" to "lie with him". It says that he alone is guilty of the death penalty because she did nothing wrong and that God equates rape with murder.

Since this is true, then if the first scenario is also rape, on which we disagree, then why does God call for the rape victim in this case to also be stoned until dead and what evil did she do? That scenario says that she, along with the man, whom you consider a rapist, must die to "put the evil away from among you."

What did this first rape victim do that was evil?

I see the three different scenarios as:

• Adultery - two consenting adults and at least one is already bonded, if not wed, to another. Both must die - that's how evil adultery is. His laying his hands on her implies he may have enticed her, but her not crying out -KNOWING that people could hear - implies her willing consent despite the fact that she is betrothed.
• Rape - only the rapist must die. The woman is innocent.
• Fornication - two consenting adults who are not married or betrothed to others. They are not to be killed, but must marry and never divorce.