A wolf in sheep's clothing? Without reading the report, if he was preying upon people who were vulnerable, abusing children or some such, maybe they'd have a point. If he had an inappropriate relationship with another fully consenting and fully competent adult, he's a fallen human like the rest of us.
As I said, all Christians, regardless of years or scriptural,understanding, are all susceptible of sin, especially when accountability mechanisms are ignored.
Absolutely. What's tragic about this particular circumstance is that Zacharias: - Repeatedly cheated on his wife in person, through hundreds of texts, image exchanges, etc., over the course of at least ~8 years. - Abused his position as a teacher, in no small part by using religious language to coerce young women into performing sexual acts; guilting them into being quiet (to them, the claim of 'wolf in sheep's clothing' has considerable force). - Misappropriated RZIM funds - to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars - by buying the women in question expensive gifts, paying for their schooling with an understanding of what he'd get in return, and at least one apartment (in the same building he also had an apartment in). - Thought it was a good idea to invest in the very businesses he was susceptible to. - Shunned + rejected concern from within RZIM, and actively took measures to avoid/circumvent the accountability measures that were in place by using private phones, private email addresses, etc. - Never once came forward to seek help. - To his credit, didn't claim a divinely-ordained Trump second term. His acts will no doubt destroy RZIM, and undo whatever 'good' that ministry did, and more. He was indeed a liar; I think the 'pervert' claim can stick given the method and age disparity, and while "wolf in sheep's clothing" might be a stretch for some, I don't think there's a good defence against it when viewed from the perspective of the women he tried to take advantage of through his religious mumbling/guilt trips. To them, he was exactly that, which means that he was exactly that for everyone. Most of us just happen to not be young Asian women working in massage parlours. He played the part of the teacher and had an international ministry. Higher stakes, higher consequences, bigger fallout.
Which is why the “Billy Graham Rule,” so pilloried by the left when Mike Pence invoked it, is simply wisdom. I guess the good news is that I can appropriate the wisdom and structural arguments of apologetics without citing to humans as experts, as if an expert means that one’s argument is of more meaning than that of a non expert.
Just read through it. It's not pleasant reading but not as bad as I feared from what a friend from church was saying only an hour or so ago. As you say he's clearly engaged in a lot of inappropriate conduct and will undoubtedly destroy much if not all of the reputation of RZIM. That said some allegations and terms are tricky to figure, not least because the best we have is a lawyer's account of an investigation that can't call upon the accused. Without attempting to justify behaviors or claim they are anything less than sinful, when terms like "pervert" are used and words like "rape" appear in legal documents it's worth taking a step back to figure whether they are justified. Asking a massage therapist for "more than a massage" seems like something that, although inappropriate for a Christian man or a married man (let alone a married Christian man), doesn't seem like it justifies being called a pervert any more than picking up a girl from the bar and taking her home. If he asks for more than a massage the masseuse can decide whether to agree or decline the request. Likewise if a woman accepts money from him and then finds it awkward to refuse requests for inappropriate conduct we have to consider both sides of it - clearly it's totally inappropriate behavior on the part of RZ but the uncomfortable reality is that the woman in question has effectively sold herself for a price. It's not PC to say such things but there's a word for women who trade themselves for money. I don't dispute RZ carries far more guilt than the woman does but I'm sure it's not the first time a woman in financial difficulty has taken that route to earning money. The dark side of it is the sense of spiritual abuse, letting someone be vulnerable and then taking advantage of them - this is the sort of thing that brings discredit upon pastors in general rather than just upon himself. There's definitely a huge betrayal of trust and it's hard to see how the legacy of RZIM can be anything other than hugely tainted, possibly irrepairably. If nothing else it has to be a huge strike against the cult of personality within the church - when someone is put on a pedestal that gets progressively taller it's easy to see why others feel less able to challenge what Great Leader says, or find it difficult to decline their requests even as they push boundaries ever-further. Perhaps what we need is fewer large-scale things with "Ministries" in their names and more small-scale local things where local people minister to other local people and there just isn't the scope for someone to behave inappropriately on yet another international jaunt, or maintain mistresses in multiple ports. When a huge ministry revolves around one man and that one man is then disgraced it's hard to see how the ministry can survive at all, and debatable whether it even deserves to survive. I'd be interested in the good Rabbi's opinion here, because from what I could see in the report was plenty of evidence of behavior that was totally inappropriate but it didn't seem to me that evidence of criminal behavior was presented. Were RZ alive it seems to me that this report would see him fired and disgraced rather than necessarily prosecuted. ETA: As far as the criminal aspect is concerned, I was thinking in terms of whether his sexual misconduct crossed the line from inappropriate to criminal - I wasn't particularly thinking about whether his misappropriation of funds was specifically illegal.
It certainly makes a lot of sense. I think of the procedures put in place at church for child protection and how much of it is about engineering an environment that makes it as hard as possible for child abuse to take place at all, even if one of the adults were inclined. In many ways it's about redundancy - background checks help weed out some of the adults who shouldn't be around children and then multiple layers of engineering remove opportunities for abuse to take place if someone slips through the net. It's probably awkward to have a chaperone during a massage but presumably if a massage is purely for therapeutic purposes a male therapist could do the job just as well as a female. There's still the potential for claims of inappropriate conduct but at least it's less likely that an apparently heterosexual man will fool around with a male therapist than with a female.
All in all, yet another coffin-nail in the current, fractured reputation of the professing church - fodder for the enemy.
I'd hope it wasn't awkward given the context, and even if it was, it's far less awkward than what we have now -- heck, no one is even thinking about 'awkward'. But yeah, he also could have just not gone to female massage therapists. It's meant to be therapy, after all. What was the friend saying? On the use of the word 'pervert', this would seem to be similar - at a minimum - to one's use of it when talking about the creepy man next door that stares through the window of his neighbour's daughter while she undresses (i.e. 'creep', 'weirdo', 'pervert!', etc.). It's also a word used by those who at least claim to have been close to Zacharias https://virtueonline.org/christian-apologist-ravi-zacharias-owned-two-health-spas-georgia (back in September). Whether his behaviour was criminal or not is a follow-up question, and it probably was, but even if it wasn't, Zacharias was not who he presented himself as. Any lack of criminality is not going to mitigate the lies, deception, and abuse. Also, why wasn't the NDA lifted in RZIM was that interested in determining the truth about Zacharias' behaviour?[/QUOTE]
Here’s an easy rule for every Christian man. “ no massages from anyone but your wife. Period. End of discussion” the ability of the human male to make excuses for his own idiotic behavior demonstrates the lineage of Adam. I know of three former pastors, all heterosexual, who destroyed their lives by ignoring their marriage and then finding themselves through a series of stupid decisions getting a massage from a male that massaged more than righteous. Sin doesn’t start out unseemly but it always ends up,there. Ravi was a brilliant man. His apologetics, especially in the context of world religions, was/is excellent. His understanding of the faith and grace was remarkable, yet he failed to guard his heart and he fell, like Samson, to the lusts of the flesh. There but for the grace of God go I. ‘
Depending on exactly what treatment was being performed it could still be a little awkward (even an entirely appropriate treatment could easily feel a bit strange to monitor) but, as you say, much less awkward than what we have now. He was using terms like "sexual assault" and rape". From what I saw in the report, despite one woman using the word "rape" I didn't see anything in the report that justified the term. In the light of recent reports it certainly casts suspicion on his motives for owning health spas but it still doesn't seem like a universal issue that is automatically inappropriate. If an apparently upstanding Christian man owned a gym it could be because he wants to provide a service to help people get fit, or maybe he just wants the chance to stare at young women in leotards and bathing suits. Whether his behavior was criminal or not is largely academic since he can never be held to account now. My issue there was that when terms like "rape" are used the issues are potentially far more serious than if behavior was consensual. It's clearly inappropriate for a married man to be fooling around with massage therapists and having mistresses elsewhere but once the consent of the other party goes away it's a totally different proposition. It doesn't change the posthumous disgrace, it doesn't change the fact (as you rightly noted) that he clearly wasn't who he said he was. We can speculate but that's probably not helpful. I imagine the only people who know are leadership of RZIM and their lawyers.
That's the thing, though. Judges 16:28, "Then Samson prayed to the Lord, “Sovereign Lord, remember me. Please, God, strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." 2 Samuel 12:13, "Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord." As far as we know, Zacharias died denying what he knew was the truth. He became angry with those within RZIM who expressed concern, and separated himself from them. It was likely an open secret, and he engaged in this behaviour for at least 10 years, knowing that he: - Was unfaithful to his wife - Lied to everyone and feigned apology/repentence - By implication, besmirched the reputations of the women who had come forward, and bore false witness against them - Repeatedly attempted 'for more' during his messages, and even while some women rebuked him he persisted with others - Misused RZIM funds - Used religious language to take advantage of some of the women he took advantage of; was very much a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' in doing so, not to mention the abuse of his faith and the person of Jesus all the while He was a brilliant man with an excellent apologetic. His understanding was remarkable, but at what point do these things becomes academic in light of a life that's lived? He professed with his mouth what he denied with his actions. He ran the race then stumbled at the end. Is that soteriologically significant? That's between Zacharias and Jesus, but I do know that if it came between uttered belief and life lived -- well, I'm in a terrible spot, too. Thank God for God's grace, but at what point does one hear, "I never knew you"? Would he have eventually come forward and confessed it all? We'll never know. How many Nathans did he turn away? We'll never know. It's just incredibly frustrating, because here's the guy that was one of the modern examples of an apologist. He's now a guy whose own words could be thrown back at him day in and day out. If belief leads to action, then what do actions tell us about belief? - https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...ing-extortion-lawsuit-doctorate-bio-rzim.html "Professing"? He had an opportunity and he didn't take it, and he kept on trucking. I get it: him having in his mind the damage that would happen if the truth came out. That's quite the weight. And the Pauline maxim: why do I do the things that I don't want, and not the things that I do? We're all, all too familiar with that one. But if we can call someone out for prophesying that Trump would win a second term because it's God's plan; or, call out groups of "professing" Christians, then Zacharias has submitted himself to much of the same, regardless of who he was or what he did. We knew an apologist, and others knew a sexual predator in the form of a religious leader. Does a pattern of behaviour over 10 years matter? I ask myself the same. Incidentally, YouTube recommended:
There's certainly a lot of concern over the extended period that this sort of thing appears to have been going on. We need to be aware of the concept of "there but for the grace of God" but in at least some ways repeated inappropriate behavior becomes less excusable. The first time I preached at my current church I noted that some sins make it easy and safe to point fingers - as a heterosexual man the chances of me being found in a compromising position with another man are as close to zero as can be imagined, so pointing fingers at the Nasty Icky Gay People is safe - too safe if anything. Pointing fingers at the Not-So-Nasty and Not-So-Icky Adultery People is risky because I never know if I might have some woman throw herself at me when I'm weak (yes, some would say that's wishful thinking because few women throw themselves at middle-aged guys unless they see something pretty obvious in it for themselves, but that's not really the point). I have no intention of cheating on my wife but I suspect many people who find themselves in inappropriate relationships didn't wake up one morning and decide to cheat. Preaching about financial propriety is riskier because we never know when we'll have the chance to take advantage of someone else's mistake, whether it's being given too much change at the checkout, finding an envelope stuffed with cash or being offered money to look the other way. On one hand it seems that coming clean the first time would have been the correct thing to do, making it very clear that RZ was not a weak target to be blackmailed but also humble and human enough to acknowledge he fell short and resolve to correct it. On the other hand when entire ministries are built up around one person such an admission could have seen himself disgraced but also his entirely ministry crumble, doing much damage to everyone else in the ministry as well. AS to why he apparently continued in his ways, we can only speculate as to his reasons. Perhaps the cult of personality that put his name before the words "International Ministries" simply went to his head - we'll probably never know. Perhaps a good plan going forward would be to give less attention to things with "International Ministries" in their names and focus on more local things that don't put any humans on a pedestal higher than the pulpit at church.
As always, excellent post. Hence, the Pauline instruction to "examine yourself as to whether you are in the faith." Yet another reason I find hyper-calvinism to be such a sham. Again, there but for the grace of God go I.
Painful reminders of men living devastating lives and within reach of the mission field, having adopted and adapted half-baked notions of predestination they caught in some church. Unfortunately, too often, their miraculous choosing had no bearing on how they lived their lives.
I know of a certain Sinclair who might say something like (and indeed may have already): "It's not your ministry, it's Jesus' ministry!"
Indeed. If your name is in front of "Ministries" or "International Ministries" the chances are you've already made it more about yourself.
On an unrelated note I got to play with caulking today. Yesterday I decided to fix the caulking around the top of my shower cubicle and in the process decided it was about time some other caulking in the cubicle got addressed. It still makes a good seal but was looking dated and dirty. So I stripped it all out and replaced it. For good measure I noticed the caulking across the edge of the floor by the cubicle was also pretty manky so got that removed and replaced while I was at it. Now I'm waiting for it to set properly so I can have a shower. It was just after lunch that I put the new caulking in place and last I checked it was still a little soft. Hopefully it will be good in another hour or two.