Posted on 03/01/2021 7:35:00 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I write this with a heavy heart, as heavy as yours may already be from the revelations of Ravi Zacharias’ hidden life. If you hadn’t heard of him, Zacharias was considered one of this era’s greatest Christian apologists. If you haven’t heard the news, an independent investigation found he had systematically groomed vulnerable women over many years, plying them with attention and gifts, obligating them to return sexual favors, threatening them should they ever tell.
I interviewed Zacharias once. He was brilliant, charming, winsome.
And yet he was living a lie.
The Victims of Ravi Zacharias
We’re starting to lose count now of his victims. First are the emotionally and financially vulnerable women he strategically targeted. Then there’s the couple he bound with a Non Disclosure Agreement before rushing to the press to label them extortionists. There’s the Canadian woman he counselled as a teenager to get an abortion, later calling her a liar. And Zacharias’ staff were victims too, with Zacharias and members of his US board marginalizing, maligning and firing those who asked too many questions.
I have friends who worked for Zacharias’ UK and Australian offices – good, godly, fruitful people. Some have resigned. The UK office has split from the global organization. God’s work has suffered.
The Response from His Defenders
While most have responded to this news with the abhorrence it deserves, some Christians, eager to defend a man they revered, are responding in less than helpful ways. It’s important we challenge some of them:
‘These allegations have surfaced now that Ravi can’t defend himself’
Not so. While this independent report comes after Zacharias’ death in May 2020, the first allegations arose in 2017. A credentials issue raised alarm bells a few weeks before that, and the abortion issue stretches years back.
‘We’re all sinners. If you’ve lusted after a woman, you’re just as bad’
Yes, we are all sinners and Jesus condemned lust (Matthew 5:27-30). But this response sets up a false equivalence of sins Jesus never intended. For a start, Zacharias’ case isn’t one of sexual compromise as much as strategized abuse of power. Secondly, it ignores the fact that there are degrees of sin. Stealing a cookie isn’t equivalent to rape (imagine telling a raped woman that). Likewise, a lustful look isn’t the same as ongoing, unrepentant, targeted abuse of vulnerable women. In Matthew 5 Jesus points out the hypocrisy of those who ‘look but don’t touch’ and think they’re morally fine. He is not equating lustful thoughts with abusive acts.
No, we can’t judge Zacharias’ eternal salvation or damnation (Matthew 7:1-6). But for the sake of victims feeling heard, believed and finding healing, we must unequivocally condemn his abuse.
‘He who is without sin can cast the first stone’
Similar to the response above, this is meant to caution judgement of Zacharias’ actions. But not so fast. When Jesus said this he was coming to the rescue of a woman singled out for her part in adultery, while the man involved was conveniently overlooked (John 8:1-11). Jesus also said that anyone who caused ‘little ones’ to stumble would be better off having a millstone tied around their neck and being thrown into a river (Matthew 18:6). I don’t see that scripture quoted much. My goodness, this is so serious.
‘It’s the church’s fault for placing men on pedestals’
Halfway through writing this post, theologian Tanya Marlow posted this exceptional article on responses to the Zacharias scandal, tackling this one with great insight. “The reason St. Paul makes strict recommendations of the character of a leader,” she writes, “is that it matters. It matters. We have the right to expect Christian leaders to be people of good character, even if they are not perfect people. The Bible itself sets up this expectation.”
And then she adds:
“When we say to people who trusted Ravi Zacharias or Jean Vanier to be good people, ‘You shouldn’t have put him on a pedestal’, it is subtle victim-blaming of both the secondary victims and the direct victims… in so doing, we are blaming the people who trusted the abuser rather than the abuser for abusing.”
We must face the reality of Zacharias’ abuse, not avoid or excuse it. Only then can victims heal.
The Questions it Raises
Such an event has raised significant questions for many of us. Here are some I’ve read or had asked of me in the last few days:
Can I trust any church leader again?
“I thought I had processed all there is to process about my experience with sexual abuse,” Diane told me. “Then along comes yet another Pillar of the Community Everybody Trusted doing the unthinkable – just like my perpetrator… So what is the real church? What’s true? Am I following some kind of cult? Where is Jesus? How do I find a trustworthy church fellowship and/or pastor? This is what I am asking.”
Ravi Zacharias. John Vanier. Bill Hybels (alleged). Carl Lentz. Jerry Falwell Jr. Becki Falwell. John Howard Yoder. John Crist. James MacDonald. Multiple Catholic priests. There is a shaking of the church going on right now, particularly the American church whose influence reaches wide, and failed leaders and figures are being exposed. Not all of these failings are over sexual abuse, but many are. And they trigger folks like Diane.
There are things we could say to this: That these failed leaders make up only a fraction of a percent of the millions of Christian leaders around the globe. That the majority shouldn’t be tarnished by the behavior of a few. That we shouldn’t allow the crooked a double-win by letting them taint our view of the straight.
But for people who’ve faced abuse, trust simply needs time to be rebuilt. All I can say is there are good, godly people in churches all around us. And the sense a victim develops to sniff out suspect folks can be a trustworthy asset moving forward.
I came to faith through Ravi Zacharias. Is my faith based on a lie?
Russell Moore addressed this important question well by drawing on church history. When persecution hit the church in the fourth century, some clergy renounced their faith. The church suddenly had a question to wrestle: was a believer’s baptism valid if the pastor that baptized them later renounced Christ? The church concluded that a baptism wasn’t rendered invalid by the failings of the clergy overseeing it.
“Your salvation and discipleship are not dependent on whether the preacher from whom you heard the gospel is genuine,” Moore writes, “but rather on whether the gospel itself is genuine. It is.” Even Judas preached the gospel for a while. Those who believed through his preaching believed in the truth of Jesus.
How could Ravi be so fruitful while living such a duplicitous life?
Joanna asked me this question, one I’ve pondered too. Isn’t a holy life needed to be fruitful in God’s work? Yes. But the Christian message and its Subject have a power greater than the failed mouths that share it. The apostle Paul railed against those who preached from selfish motives, but could still be glad the gospel at least got preached (Philippians 1:15-18). That’s an astonishing thing to say. A duplicitous person can share a message people respond to because the message is true and powerful.
What do we do with Ravi’s books and teachings?
John Howard Yoder wrote seminal works on Christian pacifism. Jean Vanier’s writing on community and the disabled was invaluable. Ravi Zacharias gave responses to sceptic’s questions that were true and helpful. What do we do with these teachings now?
I’m in two minds.
Zacharias’ publisher has pulled his books from sale. His ministry has pulled his YouTube videos. I think this is right. Profit shouldn’t be made off an abuser’s work, and victims shouldn’t have to watch their abuser being adulated online anymore.
The problem of course is how much of the person’s work we denounce. Martin Luther wrote an abhorrent anti-Semitic tract, later used by the Nazi’s to drive the Holocaust. Karl Barth kept a mistress for years, to the heartbreak we imagine of his wife. We don’t bin either theologian’s works in total because of these failings. Instead, we condemn what is abhorrent in these leaders and affirm what truth and light they brought. If we wouldn’t dream of denouncing the L’Arche communities Jean Vanier founded for the disabled, why should we denounce other work of his, like his writings?
This has been my general approach so far, one taken by others, too. Truth shouldn’t be dismissed because of failed messengers.
But in this case, it’s a hard position to keep. One can’t quote Zacharias now (or Vanier) without bringing anguish to his victims and those he betrayed. As Tanya Marlow says, we’re not talking about someone who was grumpy, but someone “choosing to violate a woman’s body, an act that has a lifetime of consequences for that woman, the one thing apart from death that every woman dreads.”
Whether one can still learn from his books or not, I certainly won’t be quoting Zacharias anymore.
A Prayer
There will be much to learn from this sordid episode: about the importance of boards and governance, about treating allegations with seriousness and victims with utmost care, about accountability and not taking a sword to those who ask legitimate questions. I believe the US board of RZIM should resign, and I hope the ministry’s current donors will support the local branches, like the UK office, that now need funds to rebuild and continue their fruitful work.
But let’s end where we should. With the victims.
One night last week, after reading the official report confirming Zacharias’ abuse, I also read the story of Jesus’ arrest. When Judas and the mob approach, Peter, perhaps to defend Jesus (or maybe just himself), pulls out a sword and attacks one of them. Jesus’ response is swift. “Enough!” he says, before rushing to heal the victim. It wouldn’t be the last time Jesus had to heal a wound inflicted by one of his followers.
And so this is my prayer for each one left bleeding from this event:
Lord Jesus, would you heal the wounds inflicted by your followers.
Sheridan Voysey is a writer, speaker and broadcaster on faith an spirituality, based in the United Kingdom. He is the author of seven books, including his latest The Making of Us. Formerly a broadcaster in his native-born Australia, he is a presenter of Pause for Thought on BBC Radio and a regular guest on other broadcast networks around the world. For more information visit sheridanvoysey.com
Philippians 1:15-18 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
I’m not saying don’t attend or belong to a church, but it is a MINOR part of worship and is NOT REQUIRED. Some weak people may benefit more than others from attending a church, but we are told to be “strong” in our faith.
- - - - - -
Think of this: In Heb 10:25ff the Lord says to us:
“Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together...”
If you are a Christian, and you are able, BE AT WORSHIP!
... “as is the habit of some”
Some were habitually missing worship services.
“For, if we SIN WILLFULLY...”
The Lord, in His Word, connects habitually missing worship to WILLFUL SIN
... “There remains no more sacrifice for sin”
It sounds like those who habitually miss worship service will not be forgiven. (They can repent, however, and attend worship.)
It gets worse: [I rephrase]
... “for [they] have TRODDEN on the BODY of the Lord, they have deemed the BLOOD of the Lord to be UNHOLY, and they DESPISE the Holy Spirit.”
To me, it doesn’t sound like the Lord considers attendance at worship to be MINOR.
And, this passage opens up an entire landscape of “land mines” called WILLFUL SIN. Nothing MINOR about that.
The call to be a Christian is a HIGH CALLING, indeed.
- - -
“Standing firm in the faith” implies “Be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only.”
This includes our growth to maturity in Christ and our performance of Christian works.
It’s based off a project I worked on
Love God and keep His commandments.
“I don’t like the tone of this writer.....at some level he seems to relish as he relates the foibles and sins of these men. [
Even when and if they repented, I doubt it will be enough for him. [oh really!? That’s quite the omniscient statement.”
I’ve taught English for decades and discern a writer’s intent with clarity and accuracy. I see no hint of what you suggest, but only sorrow. What’s more, I am damn sick of people who gleefully attack liberals who did what Zacharias did but turn around and insult someone who attempts to deal truthfully and biblically with a RAPIST who called himself a Christian!
If I found out that my pastor was a secret sexual sinner, I would be shocked....but it wouldn’t effect my faith one bit, because my faith is not in him.
I turn to the list of people in the Bible that God used for good in spite of their weaknesses.....Judah impregnated his own daughter-in-law, thinking she was a prostitute, and both he and one of the babies that resulted are direct ancestors of David and of Jesus’ human father. Jerry Springer would have loved Jacob’s family, who sold their brother into slavery out of pure spite.
Levi helped to kill all of the men in a village to avenge his sister’s rape, yet Moses, Aaron and the Priestly line are his descendants. And so it goes. Name someone in the Bible that seems to have had it all together besides Jesus - good luck with that.
Ravi Zacharias was heavily used by God to bring people to Him despite his flaws. God uses messed-up people for His purposes because there isn’t any other kind available. So let’s remember him for that.
Take from what I say what thou wilt is the whole of the law.
This is a complaint against your error in posting in that you completely substituted your own composition to replace the correct and proper title of the original article as found in Christian Post, making it very difficult for anyone to locate again.
The original link and title were as follows:
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/ravi-zacharias-the-hard-questions-his-sex-abuse-scandal-raise.htmlThat is the correct title that you should have entered. What you substituted could have been used for Post #1 as your comment, but do not belong in the posting entry as the title.
Ravi Zacharias: The hard questions his sex abuse scandal raise
By Sheridan Voysey, Op-ed Contributor
I had spent quite a bit of effort to compose a comment, but your misuse cost me over an hour's time spread over three days trying to find the article so I could post my own reply in a timely fashion.
The article was about "Ravi Zacharias" and my searches were based on those words which were clearly in the actual title, but they were not in the title you changed it to, so I could not find it that way with the FR "Search" function.
I had to go back page after page of "Most Recent" titles, checking the abbreviated text with each one, until I finally found it through realizing that your replacement words represented the article I wanted.
Your failure to duplicate the original title unnecessarily cost me a lot of effort, including the larger part of an hour to research, write out, and post this complaint.
Please do not presume to do this again in the future.
RE: The article was about “Ravi Zacharias” and my searches were based on those words which were clearly in the actual title,
_______________________________
I apologize for the change of title. It was inadvertent.
I acknowledge that I should have posted the original title and placed what you see here as a subtitle ( which is my usual habit in other threads ).
It was a posting error as you know, I must have erased the original title. FR does not have a preview feature which allows you to see the TITLE.
However, although this article delves more thoroughly into Ravi Zacharias, it does mention the following people if you did read it:
Ravi Zacharias. John Vanier. Bill Hybels (alleged). Carl Lentz. Jerry Falwell Jr. Becki Falwell. John Howard Yoder. John Crist. James MacDonald. Multiple Catholic priests.
It also says:
There is a shaking of the church going on right now, particularly the American church whose influence reaches wide, and failed leaders and figures are being exposed. Not all of these failings are over sexual abuse, but many are.
You did say that you spent a bit of effort to compose comment. I am still interested in it. and would like to read it.
NO! God/Jesus did NOT use Zacharias "to provokeother Christiams unto love and to good works:" (Heb. 10:24 AV)! You are quite naively wrong in this supposition. None of the God-approved preachers, teachers, or authors of the New Testament scriptures ever behaved like this. In fact, though few, the riles to be applied even to Gentiles were:
"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day" (Acts 15:18-21 AV).It is SATAN of whom Zacharias, with subtilty like the Serpent who used Zacharias to blind spiritually immature Christians, defile women, and destroy confidence in the credibility of wise, loyal Christian leaders. The Devil does this very skillfuly as Zacharias has done:
"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:Your own naivete in this is exactly how that confidence is destroyed, by claiming that Ravi Zacharias was speaking for God, through showmanship and very clever rhetoric while manipulating Christianity-professing men, while ****ing their professing women, easily deceived (1 Tim. 2:14).
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
Pro 6:16-19 (AV)
Truly spiritually matured Christians are not attracted to the likes of Zacharias. That means that you must get deeper into the Word and into a better Company of regenerated believers yourself, my FRiend.
So, in your version of Christianity, Jesus paid the price for everyone’s sins except Ravi Zacharias’s? So if Ravi Zacharias asked for forgiveness for those sins, forgiveness was refused?
Suspect you are going to be shocked at the sinners you meet in Heaven some day.
So, in your vision of Christianity, if you confess fornication and God forgives on the basis of Jesus' cross-death for it, you can just keep on fornicating without chastening by God?
I think you missed the point. Read Ecclesiastes 7: 16-18. Read Revelation 2:20-23 to see how God deals with church leaders that are not repentant, but just keep on fornicating as they pretend to be serving Jesus.
As I said, your naivete suggests a change in where you get your dose of religion.
Sorry to take so long to fix this.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, RM.
John Crist? Vineyard in Atlanta? What did he do? I knew someone who attended his church in the 80s.
John is Johnny Crist, the pastor’s, son.
You are welcome
Thank you for you patience
As Psalms 118:8-9 tells us..."It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes." Jesus said...”I” am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”....not a Pastor, not a Priest not a Church leader.
As Psalms 118:8-9 tells us..."It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes." Jesus said...”I” am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”....not a Pastor, not a Priest not a Church leader.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.