Deconstruction and Accountability.

Over the last few weeks, there have been numerous blog posts, news articles, and video responses to the documentary Happy Shiny People: Duggar Family Secrets. These posts, media accounts, and news articles have explored the documentary from a variety of angles: personal accounts of those who have been part of the IBLP or other groups like them,  the political angle and the exploration of Christian fundamentalism and fascism, skewed understandings of power and authority, and sexism and Christian fundamentalism.

There have also been a lot of important discussions on the ways in which Christian fundamentalism contributes to the violence and exploitation of children, physically, sexually, and also economically. Jill Duggar revealed in the documentary that the adult Duggar children did not get paid by TLC and the ways in which TLC, with the approval of Jim Bob Duggar, pressured the Duggar children to film scenes they weren’t necessarily comfortable filming: such as giving birth to their children. 

All of these topics are extremely important and I am glad they are being discussed. I am also glad that Jill Duggar- Dillard and Jinger Duggar-Vuolo are able to speak out about their experiences, doing so takes courage and strength. (Jill was in the documentary and Jinger released a book a few months ago about leaving IBLP)

 I do not want to repeat the conversation already taking place on these important topics. Instead, I want to discuss a difficult but necessary topic: that compassion should be shown towards those courageous enough to partake in the difficult and painful process of leaving behind toxic religious ideas AND while undergoing that process, those deconstructing can and do cause harm to other marginalized groups. Ignoring that reality does no one any good: not the ones trying to leave toxic Christian fundamentalism beyond and certainly not the marginalized groups who are often on the receiving end of other groups’ healing process.

Here’s what I mean: Jill and Jinger- are currently in the process of leaving behind the horrific theology they learned as part of the IBLP. They had no choice in growing up IBLP: that was forced on them. In addition, they had to deal with horrific abuse from their older brother Josh, not to mention TLC exploiting them for economic gain. 

(Maybe it’s just me, but when it came out that Josh had abused his sisters, perhaps TLC’s first thought should not have been: “How can we keep the show going?”)  I have so much respect for Jinger and Jill as they undergo this process of healing from the abuse they experienced. 

And some of the theology that they continue to hold onto, is harmful and dangerous. Jinger Duggar-Vuolo and her husband Jeremy, attend Grace Community Church and Jeremy is employed and is a student at The Master’s Seminary both of which are under the leadership of John MacArthur.

 John MacArthur lumps Black Lives Matter with white supremacy, ISIS, and Kim Jong-Un, he dismisses racism as a “sin” problem while ignoring the systematic and widespread issues, in 2020 he gave a sermon condemning those protesting for racial justice against police brutality, and MacArthur’s racism goes back decades. 

In addition,  Grace Community Church has been accused of penalizing women who have left or tried to leave abusive husbands. And not surprisingly John MacArthur is homophobic.  In theory, it’s possible that Jinger and Jeremy do not agree with everything their pastor says or believes, but considering how MacArthur, like other Fundamentalist Christian pastors, paints their ideology as God-ordained, the disagreement would not be simply a matter of differences of opinion but of potential salvation. 

Jill Duggar-Dillard’s husband, Derick Dillard, has made transphobic statements. In 2018, he repeatedly attacked Jazz Jennings, who was a minor at the time,  repeatedly misgendering her and claiming she was being used to promote an agenda. Also in 2018, he referred to a gay couple who had their own tv show as, “What a travesty of family,” “It’s sad how blatant the liberal agenda is, such that it both highlights and celebrates a lifestyle so degrading to children on public television as if it should be normal.” 

To be sure, one can and should question reality tv shows that center around families that include young children, but that’s not what he was doing in that tweet. Jill’s response to that whole situation was to write on Instagram about how disagreement does not equate to judgment or hatred.  To be sure, that was five years ago, perhaps their theology towards queer people has changed. I hope so. 

But it is important to note that these theological ideas are harmful and oppressive. And I bring them up to point out that just because someone left one toxic, harmful theology, does not mean they are completely “free.” In fact, they may go from a theology that victimizes themselves and others, to one that may give them as an individual, a measure of freedom and yet it still contributes to the oppression of others.

And in too many predominantly white deconstruction spaces, when Black and brown people and queer people have pointed out that Jinger and Jill, possibly still adhere to oppressive and harmful rules the response has been to attempt to silence those bringing up said criticism: “They were victims! Give them time.” Or “they could still change.”

No one is denying that they were victims and that what they experienced was horrific. That is absolutely true. It is also true that their theology is still causing harm to others. Both things are true. And Black, brown, and queer people are allowed to bring that up, especially as violence against Black, brown, and queer people continues unabated. 

What people in predominantly white deconstruction spaces need to understand is healing cannot and should not come at the expense of the marginalized, and that one can be both a victim and oppressor.  Jill and Jinger are just one example and I use them because they are public figures. But the reality is that in many predominantly white deconstructing spaces, there is resistance to having discussions about how one can leave some toxic theology behind and hold onto others and inflict harm.

 There is resistance to speaking openly and frankly about how if one does not tie one’s deconstruction process with anti-racism, one can and will reinforce oppressive ideology. It may look different, it may look less extreme, but it still causes harm.

There is resistance to the yes, while deconstruction takes years and time, especially when one comes from a religious environment like that of the IBLP, those from marginalized groups are still allowed to speak out against any theology that harms them. There is resistance to the idea that one can be a victim in one sense, and still be held accountable for causing harm to others. 

I think part of this hesitance comes from an understandable place: high-control religions and society, in general, have a problematic understanding of accountability. In high-control religions, such as Fundamentalist Christianity, accountability is tied with condemnation and violence. I would argue general society has a similar understanding of accountability as well: the violence may not be hellfire, but it looks like doxing, bullying, and dismissing the one causing harm as irredeemable. THAT IS NOT HOW I DEFINE AS ACCOUNTABILITY. 

 Instead, for me, accountability is listening to those who have been harmed. Not in a defensive or angry manner, but simply to hear.  Nor is accountability punishment. Instead, for me, it means acknowledging that one’s theology is still harmful and being willing to continue the task of deconstructing. That type of accountability will of course never happen if accountability is tied to punishment and bullying. But it will also never occur if those who are marginalized are told to be silent and simply hope that those causing harm will eventually get to the point where they realize they were wrong.

Image: Brown background. Text: What people in predominantly white deconstruction spaces need to understand is healing cannot and should not come at the expense of the marginalized, that one can be both a victim and oppressor.