Clergy Misconduct, Clergy Sex Abuse, Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias Dies; More Lies Uncovered

Note from Julie Anne: This is a guest blog post by Steve Baughman composed a couple of days ago, before Ravi Zacharias’ death today from cancer. While studying philosophy, he (Steve) ran across the works of the highly respected Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias–and then Steve uncovered a colossal number of lies and cover-ups by him.

I briefly thought about the timing of this post, coinciding with his death. I toyed with the idea of postponing it, but then the reality hit me that so.many.people are adulating this man to near sainthood. Lauding a hero of the faith requires exceptional moral character. Ravi Zacharias, with his chronic lies and sexual misconduct with a vulnerable married woman, has not exhibited exceptional moral character for decades. This truth needs to be exposed. ~ja


ravi zacharias clergy sexual misconduct chronic lies
Facebook photo

Ravi Zacharias is on his deathbed [editor note: this post was written two days before Ravi Zacharias’ death], but his lies continue to surface. This one from yesterday, with hard evidence.

In his autobiography Ravi claims that he was chosen to preach at his graduation from the Ontario Bible College in April of 1972. “It was a great honor,” he wrote.

The story is false.

Yesterday (May 16, 2020) I was contacted by two students, both Christians, who were at OBC with Ravi and attended the graduation. They are reading Ravi‘s memoirs, Walking From East to West, and noticed the following passage at page 170:

———

As the date approached for my graduation from Ontario Bible college on the last Saturday in April 1972, I was asked to preach at the ceremony. The program usually involve testimonies, but this year the administration came to me with a request: “Ravi, we want you to preach.” It was a great honor.”

———-

The two former Ravi-colleagues both clearly remember that Ravi did not preach at the graduation. That was a role reserved for the college president. So they checked the program from that day and then shared it with me.

As you see below, Ravi did not preach. Instead, along with another student, he gave one of the “usual” testimonies. The “great honor” of preaching was reserved for the OBC president.


One week after this graduation Ravi married Margie. In his autobiography he thanks her for having “helped me edit“ the book. One wonders why Margie did not insist that her partner in ministry refrain from this lie, and from numerous others. As Ravi passes from the scene it becomes important to ask these questions of those who enabled his deceptions. For, by the looks of it, Ravi, Inc. is gearing up for many more lucrative years ahead.


Steve Baughman is a lawyer and part-time student at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley. For extensive documentation of the assertions in this article see his Ravi Zacharias exposé Cover Up in the Kingdom: Phone Sex, Lies, and God’s Great Apologist, Ravi Zachariasavailable at Amazon for download and physical delivery. Steve can be reached through his website www.RaviWatch.com or www.CelticGuitar.com.

52 thoughts on “Ravi Zacharias Dies; More Lies Uncovered”

  1. Thank you Steve for researching and writing about this, and Julie Ann for posting. I appreciate all the work and fact checking you did in pursuing the truth about Ravi. I, like many others had respected him in the past because he sounded good, was passionate and made good points. However, it’s not like there is just one single misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up. You bring to light what seems to be a pattern of deceit. Self aggrandisement for his own personal gain (money, popularity, whatever). Multiple lies with no clear responses. But the bigger deal seems to be that there is a Victim, an actual person who is at the culmination of all of his lies. Is she still bound by NDA in Ravi’s death? When people talk about how “nice” he was, I really think about her and wonder. It must be painful to have churches lauding Ravi and saying “Well done…” Ravi was a public figure. He lied to be “more” and “better public.” While of course I wish his family grace and healing in their grief and loss, I think it’s also completely appropriate to publicly discuss what Ravi didn’t finish.
    I know church members tonight will be mentioning Ravi’s death and gushing about how good they thought he was. I pray I will know what to say.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thank you Steve for researching and writing about this, and Julie Ann for posting. I appreciate all the work and fact checking you did in pursuing the truth about Ravi. I, like many others had respected him in the past because he sounded good, was passionate and made good points. However, it’s not like there is just one single misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up. You bring to light what seems to be a pattern of deceit. Self aggrandisement for his own personal gain (money, popularity, whatever). Multiple lies with no clear responses. But the bigger deal seems to be that there is a Victim, an actual person who is at the culmination of all of his lies. Is she still bound by NDA in Ravi’s death? When people talk about how “nice” he was, I really think about her and wonder. It must be painful to have churches lauding Ravi and saying “Well done…” Ravi was a public figure. He lied to be “more” and “better public.” While of course I wish his family grace and healing in their grief and loss, I think it’s also completely appropriate to publicly discuss what Ravi didn’t finish.
    I know church members tonight will be mentioning Ravi’s death and gushing about how good they thought he was. I pray I will know what to say.

    Like

  3. All I can say is that I hope Ravi made peace with God regarding all his deceit he continued right up to the day of this death.

    “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” James 3:1 (NASB)

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I cannot but compare the ongoing saga of allegations and counter-claims against RZ with the death of Rachel Held Evans. With her there was criticism of the response of some to her untimely death (a willingness to assign her eternal destiny), notwithstanding by her own testimony she was well on her way to apostasy and teaching others to follow in the same path. Very serious religious error. Yet in the end you have to put judgement back in the hands of God.

    Now Ravi is dead is there much point continuing with the exposure of misconduct on his part, or at the very least shouldn’t this wait until the funeral and mourning are over for the family? I would also include knee-jerk defences of him as well. Perhaps I am old fashioned, but it doesn’t seem very fitting, and RZ has now had to account to the only important judge.

    There is a doctrine in the NT of God’s judgement involving an early death, I have never heard it preached on this side of the Pond, just enough reference to it to make me look it up for myself, and maybe in both cases God has brought a life to an end early – who knows, perhaps to save them rather than lose them where sin was gaining the upper hand.

    Like

  5. I think it is unfair to compare Rachel Held Evans to RZ. If you have read any of her books, you would now that she was not “well on her way to apostasy.” She loved the Bible and she loved Jesus and there was not a hint of scandal in terms of her personal character.

    RZ, on the other hand, has a long history of truth distortion and lying. He also had a very inappropriate and power-over relationship with a vulnerable woman, who was not his spouse. These are serious charges that have been thoroughly researched and substantiated.

    The double standard is very much evident in accusing a woman of apostasy ad excusing a sexual predator and liar because of his gender. And God is not the author of death,

    Liked by 2 people

  6. @KAS,
    Would you be so kind as in referencing those Scriptures from the original writ as to the subject “god has brought a life to an early end – who knows, perhaps to save them rather than lose them where sinning was gaining the upper hand.”

    Please verify this god to me in the NT, KAS, for I am not understanding the Way of Jesus Christ in your statement. Please let me explain the validation of my question here, to you, sir.

    I recently had the privilege and honor of speaking to another dear sister in our LORD, as a listener to her pouring out her heart. She spoke of losing a daughter, slightly over the age of one, to a condition of water on the brain. After four surgeries in an attempt to save her daughter’s life, this sweet, precious new soul in our LORD, passed away from this earth. And I quote this mother, “There was so much pain and grief in watching my daughter suffer, that I couldn’t take it anymore and had to finally give it all to the LORD, beckoning Him, “Please LORD, if it is your Will, bring her back Home to You because it is so hard seeing her suffer like this.” ”

    I wonder in reading your post, trying to “prove” the double standards regarding Rachel verses Ravi in all of this…….particularly regarding the apostacy and sin issues…….what “sin” or for that matter, “doctrinal apostasy” would a one year old child have within the context of “god’s judgement” in allowing her to die from this earth?

    And, for that matter, why is it when a woman theologian passes from this earth, male priests of the tabernacle, condemn her to high heaven, even though she has no sexual immorality under her belt so to speak, meanwhile, the male of the priesthood of gender bender theologians are to be praised, defended, honored, glorified, and given expected leniency and forgiveness for their “transgressions.”

    We have sat in the pews of double standards regarding the 501.c 3 c’hurch for decades listening to the manure spewed out regarding the “higher standards” in this life. Certain genders get a “free pass” to sin, sin again, and sin some more throughout their lives and we, the lower laity dogs, are mandated to forgive, forget, and put our hope, trust, and the eternal security of our own lives and livelihood in the “care” of our religious male leaders, with particular emphasis on the p’astor man, for after all, are they not “anointed and closer to god?” Meanwhile, back at the farm, the female sheep are led to believe that they are “weaker, more emotional (thanks, but no thanks to a sermonette I listened to on pirate christian (?) radio by Christ Rosebrough….evidently he has not met the highly charged, emotional, angry complementarian males in my neck of the woods), not worthy of leading and having a mind of their own, exhibiting gifts to use for Jesus’ glory apart from male interference, having the right to say “no” to any male who believes they are lord over women, and most importantly, having a genuine, God loving and God fearing relationship with our One and Only Master, Teacher, Deliverer, and Salvation bearer, Jesus Christ.

    Like

  7. KAS said,
    “….She (Rachel Held Evans) was well on her way to apostasy and teaching others to follow in the same path”

    Be specific, KAS.

    Please cite examples of what you mean.

    To what “apostasy” do you refer?

    KAS likes to defend anyone whose theology he agrees with. Doctrine and theology means more to him than orthopraxy (right behavior).

    People and their welfare take a back seat to his interpretation of the Bible. That is pretty common among conservative Christians (and I’m no liberal).

    You teach heresy, KAS, as in complementarianism, even though comp has damaged many women including myself and I believe your daughter.

    You also maintain an anti-mental health belief (as in, Christians w/ mental health issues should NOT seek medication, therapists, and should rely on prayer, Bible reading alone, etc)…
    Which is a view point that can keep your daughter stuck in her depression.

    I had depression for many years as well as suicidal ideation, and complementarian contributed to that, as did other standard conservative Christian beliefs.

    Some of the things that helped me escape depression were some of the very things you have criticized and condemned going back a year or more on this blog, under other blog posts. So, how serious are you about caring about other people?

    You belong to a religion which tells you that you are to treat others with kindness and compassion, but I’ve not seen that from you.

    You’re more into judgement, condemnation, and defending belief sets which keep people TRAPPED in harmful or mal-adaptive behaviors.

    I will say that I did not agree with Rachel Held Evans myself on every point, and like many liberals, she spent a large time on her Twitter timeline criticizing President Orange (and conservative Christian leaders/ teachers), but I never saw her call out or examine her fellow liberals.

    (Don’t tell me you’re serious about calling out bullying and bigotry but then I never see you criticizing your “own” side on issues, whether it’s politics, social issues, or “Me Too” – many liberals have a huge, huge, HUGE blind spot in this area – this is especially common on social media and in Facebook groups.)

    But RHE was not incorrect about everything.
    She got some things right.

    Like

  8. KAS said,
    “I cannot but compare the ongoing saga of allegations and counter-claims against RZ with the death of Rachel Held Evans”

    You were just WAITING for this, won’t you?
    I have a feeling you had written that post months ago,
    just waiting for the time a prominent or well-known conservative Christian died, so you could just fill in his name in your comment and then bash RHE about this.

    Personally, I have never been comfortable with any one taking pot shots against any one after they are dead,
    whether the dead in question was a liberal, conservative, Islamic Jihadist (like Osama Bin Laden), Christian, atheist, or whomever.

    Some conservative Christians, if I recall correctly, did take some pot shots at RHE within days or hours after her death, which I thought was really low and very tacky.

    I know Ravi Z. did some bad stuff, which I will not defend, but he is dead now and cannot harm any one ever again.

    I think continual dragging on him, picking him and his bad actions apart, pointing out all his flaws and hypocrisy, is pointless at this stage (again, the man is dead and in the ground now), and I’m not comfortable with it.

    I’m not saying Christians should not call out other self professing (living) Christians who are running around treating people poorly, or teaching wrong and bad things….

    I’m fine with all that – but after they’re dead, it seems to be punching down in a way, and it seems to be a moot point.

    How many more women is Ravi Z. going to “sext” with now?
    Zero, that’s how many.

    Ravi may have been wrong in some of the things he did to people, and which I do not defend, but I do remember seeing him on television years ago (he used to have a weekly program), and I found much of his apologetics to be quite good.

    Like

  9. I cannot but compare the ongoing saga of allegations and counter-claims against RZ with the death of Rachel Held Evans.

    I can’t believe you’re taking this as an excuse for another knock at RHE.

    She didn’t abuse anyone, or fake credentials, she just disagreed with you.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Katy – Would you [KAS] be so kind as in referencing those Scriptures from the original writ as to the subject “god has brought a life to an early end – who knows, perhaps to save them rather than lose them where sinning was gaining the upper hand.”

    I hope this will be a fair answer to a fair question. I’ll take two examples. The first is the Lord’s supper in 1 Cor:

    “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of [profaning] the body and blood of the Lord.

    “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
    That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world“.

    I think it is pretty clear from this that the Lord will judge us, and this can include illness and even early death – the latter is surely preferable to ending up being condemned along with the world. (It does not mean all illness and death are the result of sin being judged by the Lord, wisdom is needed here.)

    The second is from Revelation:

    “But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jez’ebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality”.

    The symbolism obviously comes from the OT (I understand this as symbolic criticism of a literal phenomenon). It is typical that despite the severity of the sin, mercy is available on condition of repentance.

    “Behold, I will throw her on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings; and I will strike her children dead“.

    I take ‘her children’ to mean the spiritual progeny of Jezebel, those who follow in her footsteps in church history teaching immorality (literal and spiritual) and idolatry (I think witchcraft is at the back of this – “what some call the deep things of Satan”). These are verbatim words of Jesus himself addressed to the churches, having some parallel with the Corinthian passage. Being God over all and blessed for ever, he reserves the right to end our lives prematurely if we give ourselves over to sin again, he is not ‘tolerant’.

    There are a few other passages that reflect a similar line of thought. It’s not something I have really heard taught much, but it is essential to maintain the NT balance between God’s mercy and love and his severity to those who have fallen.

    Like

  11. “Out of our wounds flow compassion, understanding, & grace.” Really? I’m looking and can’t find any of that here, anywhere on this website. It looks like vendetta and bickering. And a site from a poster entitled raviwatch.com? when does it cross the line to judgement? It’s really depressing to see so much effort steered away from learning and personal growth to criticism and bickering. Jesus’ prayer for us was unity and love as a church, which has little to do with a building or denomination. Where is this group helping with that? where’s the positivity, anywhere?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. @Mark You can’t build if you are not allowed to purge. This site serves as a way for people to vent their frustration with the way Christian culture has been enamored sometime with the celebrity pastor/speaker. Many are ignored in their church and even vilified for speaking out. I speak from experience as someone who grew up in an IFB cuture enthralled by Jack Hyles.

    Like

  13. I toyed with the idea of postponing it, but then the reality hit me that so.many.people are adulating this man to near sainthood.

    Ravi Zacharias has been adulated to near sainthood, if not actual sainthood, at some web sites. I mentioned some of the allegations against him at another site and was severely rebuked, then my reply to that rebuke was placed in indefinite limbo. I’m aware that it isn’t considered polite in some circles to speak ill of the dead, but there’s no question Ravi Zacharias’ legacy is complicated at best.

    Also, I’m not sure how the late Rachel Held Evans got drawn into this matter. I had some strong theological differences with her, but I’m not aware of any credible accusations that RHE ever inflated her academic credentials or engaged in sexual misconduct.

    Like

  14. I’m not sure how the late Rachel Held Evans got drawn into this matter.

    Any excuse to rant about ‘jezebels’ will do I suppose. Even when they’ve died.

    There seems to be a certain subset that cannot see criticism of a man without bringing in criticism of a woman to make it ‘fair’ or distract or whatever and i think that’s all that’s happening here. I’ve been avoiding most of the Ravi stuff because i’m not deep into it but i absolutely hate this. It’s disgusting. That poor woman died and has nothing to do with this and they can’t leave her alone.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Lea – regarding Evans, I would clarify with the following.

    It used to amuse me how much she rankled some of the American evangelical establishment, usually male. I sometimes had some sympathy for her critique, and was wary of simply believing the worst. I even defended her against being too quick to label her as a non-believer or apostate.

    As time went on though, her errors became ever more serious, and she really did end up teaching Christians that immorality was fine in God’s sight when it came to LGBT etc. and the idolatry of calling God mother. This is not sprinkle or immerse or how you do communion or what kind of music, but affirming what God has clearly revealed he detests, and therefore issues regarding salvation itself. Light cannot fellowship with darkness.

    I have never liked anyone mocking the bible, and her teaching was increasingly deceptive and dangerous, and I suspect demonic (did God say …).

    Now that is the road to apostasy, and God alone knows how far down it she really went. I didn’t think it right at the time of her death to make that judgement (saved or lost), and personally believe a moratorium on criticism for the sake of her family was in order for the sake of decency.

    I brought her up because I think the same decency should be granted to Zacharias for the sake of his family. Neither adulation nor attacking seem very fitting to me.

    There is a time for everything, both speaking and refraining, and the discernment of religious error or sinful behaviour needs to be carried on, and that for both cases if you want to be consistent, being vital for the health of the church. I’m not convinced that the period immediately following death is the right one for this.

    Like

  16. @KAS, “and the idolatry of calling God mother”

    Every now and again, I debate whether you haven’t actually read your Bible, or whether you willfully refuse to hear.

    Prov 1:20-23 (and following) “Wisdom shouts in the street, She lifts her voice in the square; At the head of the noisy streets she cries out; At the entrance of the gates in the city she utters her sayings: “How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing And fools hate knowledge? “Turn to my reproof, Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you;I will make my words known to you.”

    Wisdom here, is nothing less than a personification of God in his/her own words. God does not have a gender, but created gender. To underscore this:

    “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”” (Matt 11:18-19)

    Jesus is alluding to the above Proverbs passage, but specifically uses the Greek feminine form – “her” – to refer to himself as the true personification of wisdom.

    Luke 13:34 (parallel Matt 23:27) Jesus attributes motherly characteristics to himself: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!”

    So, if it is apostate to refer to God as mother or female, why do the Bible and Jesus, specifically, seem to be fine with the apostasy? Or is it simply the ignorance of well-meaning complementarians?

    Like

  17. re: LGBT, I think it’s mainly a discussion for another thread, but I have been intrigued by my pastor’s teaching recently. He has talked about the woman with the flow of blood who touched Jesus’s cloak. We Westerners think that this is a wonderful, warm, story, but the story is much more shocking. This woman is ceremonially unclean. Uncleanness and wickedness are treated nearly synonymously in the Old Testament. Instead of loudly declaring she was “unclean!”, she pressed through the crowd, making anyone she touched ceremonially unclean, and then touched a rabbi, making him ceremonially unclean, not to ignore the fact that she is a woman. It’s not surprising, then, that her reaction when being called out was one of fear!

    Yet, given all this “unrighteousness” in the woman’s actions and demeanor, what is Jesus’s response? “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your affliction.” (Mark 5:32) She expected public shame and condemnation, yet received welcome and praise. LGBT is a much more difficult and nuanced topic, and while I can’t say I would “praise” certain behaviors, I suppose that the modern-day Pharisees have the same opinion of a modern-day Jesus – “Why is your Jesus eating with the Democrats and the LGBTQ+ community?”

    Like

  18. I suppose that the modern-day Pharisees have the same opinion of a modern-day Jesus – “Why is your Jesus eating with the Democrats and the LGBTQ+ community?”

    Or, in the words that they would more likely use, “Why is your Jesus eating with the traitors and filthy perverts?”

    Liked by 1 person

  19. For those wondering why anyone would bring up Ravi’s sins and abuses after his death, or so soon afterwards:

    This. Is. Why.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. This. Is. Why.

    Thank you SKIJ. RHE doesn’t have victims.

    I brought her up because I think the same decency should be granted to Zacharias for the sake of his family.

    RHE was NOT granted any ‘decency’ of this kind in death and if you really believed in giving ravi a pass in death you would be giving it to her instead of yammering on about her being a ‘jezebel’ and ‘demonic’ for disagreeing with you. Which is not even getting into the FACT that these are two very different circumstances.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. KAS,

    Now that is the road to apostasy…

    Whereas lying about your credentials and achievements for decades, and manipulating then suing into silence a Christian woman… is not?

    Like

  22. Mark I think you are overdoing the Pharisee angle. It is not Pharisaical to point out what sin is. Paul does this in 1 Cor 6, and regarding LGBT says of them there and such were some of you. But you were washed and justified etc. So forgiveness is available, but not for those who continue with such behaviour, including idolaters or revilers and all the others listed. To say otherwise is to negate the Christian gospel.

    The idolatry of God as mother is too big to deal with here, except to say it is a proven way to fall away from the faith. Christianity is a revealed religion, and we are not at liberty to change it to fit in with our confused culture and its increasing paganism. There is massive damage being done at the moment with this in the Church of England at present, replete with the usual nastiness of the progressive lobby.

    Evans was massively deceived about this, and it is right to warn people off her written legacy.

    Like

  23. Serving Kids – I said this about RZ on an earlier thread. He reminded me of a former school friend who died not so very long ago who spent his life in a fantasy world of pretending to be someone he was not:

    “I just wonder if this phenomenon is being replicated in the life of Ravi. I have no axe to grind either for or against him, I’ve not read him and rarely heard him. If the charges levelled against him here are true, then this really must put a question against the authenticity of his conversion. Is is actually possible to learn up the arguments for the Christian faith and be able to present them without actually ever being converted?” (Final comment under The Ravi Zacharias Legacy: Fans, Falsehoods, and Yet Another Troubling Question — by Steve Baughman.)

    I haven’t remotely suggested that discernment and uncovering of wrong-doing in the case of RZ should cease now that he has died, but I would question the timing of it.

    It is a bit difficult to believe he was never really converted and so many around him couldn’t see through it. Maybe with the abject levels of discernment in much of modern western evangelicalism it may not be as impossible as it seems.

    Like

  24. Maybe with the abject levels of discernment in much of modern western evangelicalism it may not be as impossible as it seems.

    Especially when “discernment” has been redefined into meaning only seeing DEMONS and WITCHES and ENEMIES under every bed, My Dear Wormwood.

    Like

  25. @KAS, “It is not Pharisaical to point out what sin is. Paul does this in 1 Cor 6, and regarding LGBT says of them there and such were some of you.”

    No, it is not, but the truth is that when we become a new creation, we still have indwelling sin. You didn’t stop being a sinner when you were converted. You didn’t stop enjoying sin. You didn’t stop justifying and rationalizing your sinful behaviors. You weren’t instantly aware of every infraction of God’s law in the Holy Spirit.

    So, where this becomes Pharisaical is to be the guy in the temple praying to God thankful that you aren’t like those LGBT sinners. Or to try to deny that LGBT people can be Christians. When you exclude the gospel from a class of people based on their deeds, you are first saying that YOUR deeds aren’t bad enough to deserve grace, and then you are saying that their deeds are. That is the crux of being a Pharisee.

    I didn’t become perfect when I was saved. Far from it. I was very legalistic and arrogant. That remained a long long time and I justified my hatred towards people who had different perspectives by telling myself that all these doctrines that have been argued over for millennia are really simple and straightforward.

    Here’s the way I see it. When I became a Christian, I was still a legalistic, arrogant Pharisee, but I welcomed the Holy Spirit into my heart to guide me towards a right understanding and a right heart. Over time, I was convicted of mainly my erroneous view of God as a frowning, fun-hating judge, and led to an understanding of grace. But that was 15+ years after I was saved.

    So, on the other hand, you are saying that an LGBT person cannot be saved. They must first recognize that their actions are wrong, and then they can welcome the Holy Spirit into their hearts. That’s bass-ackward as they say here. Yes, God can snap his fingers and remove sin and its desire, but we just don’t see that as a pattern. We see grace and patience and incremental improvement. We see victories and defeats.

    David became an adulterer and murderer, after being declared to be a “man after God’s own heart”. How can you reconcile that with Paul’s statement, unless you take Paul’s statement as (1) declarative – that is we are declared innocent of sin when we are justified, or (2) general truth – that is we expect to see a general move towards righteousness.

    “Christianity is a revealed religion, and we are not at liberty to change it to fit in with our confused culture and its increasing paganism.”

    If God describes himself using female names and traits in the Bible, then how exactly are we “chang[ing] it to fit in with our confused culture and its increasing paganism.” In fact, I believe when we REFUSE to understand God according to the entire breadth of scripture, we are buying into a chauvinistic and authoritarian culture.

    Who the HELL decided that “Yahweh/Jehovah” should be written LORD? Yahweh means “I AM” LORD means master. Those are two completely different concepts, yet the translators feel it’s necessary to pound into us that God is the ultimate authority, and that somehow the concept of God’s eternality and being is unimportant for our understanding.

    Who the HELL decided that when God refers to himself as a warrior, that’s okay, we can call God a warrior, or a rock, or a tower, but when God refers to himself as “breasted” or “mother” or “hen” or “wisdom”, that we are forbidden from calling God any of those or we are heretical?

    Like

  26. Mark – So, on the other hand, you are saying that an LGBT person cannot be saved.

    I said quite the opposite:

    … and regarding LGBT says of them there and such were some of you. But you were washed and justified etc. So forgiveness is available, but not for those who continue with such behaviour … To say otherwise is to negate the Christian gospel.

    Evans’ error was to believe you could be right with God and simultaneously carry on with such a lifestyle, to affirm it. I hope her death will lead her fans to seriously reconsider this issue, as it goes to the very heart of Christianity.

    If you had been following trends in society and the institutional church, for example in the Church of England (which you won’t have but it’s more on my doorstep) you would see more of what I am getting at with the mother God concept. Egalitarianism, coupled with feminism, lead to sexual and gender confusion and idolatry (including occultism), a drift from and rejection of the bible, the acceptance of LGBT as legitimate, and an intolerance of those who disagree. All three of the ordained female bishops accept gay marriage (one of them is a lesbian, and either she or one of the others wants to introduce her brother bishops to ‘God as Mother’) and all 10 prospective female bishops agree with gay marriage. (Source amongst others: Anglican Unscripted.) ‘The woman was fully deceived and fell into transgression’.

    Like

  27. @KAS, “Evans’ error was to believe you could be right with God and simultaneously carry on with such a lifestyle, to affirm it.”

    Are you “right with God”? Are you saying that you have made no lifestyle choices and affirm no lifestyle choices that put you at opposition with God? That is a strong statement indeed! Instead, I’m counting on grace.

    “Egalitarianism, coupled with feminism, lead to sexual and gender confusion and idolatry”

    Satan will attack the church wherever he can. My former denomination had a seminary that has been “orthodox” for over 100 years. Of course, they teach authoritarian, patriarchal, legalistic and emotionally/spiritually abusive doctrine, so it’s not surprising that they wouldn’t be consistently falling under attack.

    Doesn’t the Bible clearly say those things about God? Why are you so afraid to admit that God uses feminine imagery to describe his characteristics? If your view of God requires him to have a penis, then doesn’t that make you the idolater? Aren’t you re-making God in the image of man? So, it’s then okay to ignore and avoid scripture because it says that which you refuse to believe?

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Mark – I think we will have to be careful not to exhaust the patience of our host in an important, but tangential topic.

    When Paul wrote to Thessalonica and said But we were gentle among you, like a nurse taking care of her children I don’t think of himself as finding his feminine side, but rather using a metaphor for being extra caring. Similarly, God could be thought of as being like a mother, but is never defined as a mother.

    ‘For God reveals himself in male terms. He is our father, not our mother; our king, not our queen; our husband, not our wife. God incarnate had to be a man. An androgynous
    Christ, much less an effeminate one, would be a distorted image’. (Pawson)

    ‘Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religion quite different from Christianity’. C S Lewis.

    The key word is reveal, God has revealed himself as Father, incarnate in the Son, and even if you think this is metaphorical as God is spirit, we are not free to change this without leaving God’s revelation behind – as indeed those who do often do leave the faith for a ‘different religion’. The greater sin is when they take others with them.

    The binary of father/mother, son/daughter, boy/ girl, truth/ error or light/darkness are not interchangeable in the world God created – regardless of what our current ignorant society tries to maintain. A lot is at stake by getting this wrong.

    Personally I would be too scared to start praying to God as ‘Mother’.

    As regarding sin in the believer, no-one is arguing for post-conversion sinless perfection, but rather the genuine Christian cannot be happy when he sins, he has to put it right before God sooner or later. His conscience will plague him. The person who continues to sin is often the one who finds (surprise!) they can no longer continue to believe. That’s certainly been my experience of those who cease to believe: the real reason has always be moral (or rather immorality to be more accurate) rather than intellectual. Simply affirming sinful behaviour is often enough.

    Like

  29. I haven’t remotely suggested that discernment and uncovering of wrong-doing in the case of RZ should cease now that he has died, but I would question the timing of it.

    And do you also “question the timing” of Lori Anne’s anguish, as expressed in the above tweet?

    Like

  30. And do you also “question the timing” of Lori Anne’s anguish, as expressed in the above tweet?

    Why should he care about that when he thinks women who wish to be considered equal and full human beings are ‘confused’ and probably idolaters and in the occult. Yikes.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. @KAS,

    Would you describe yourself as a legalist?

    One of the descriptive characteristics of “jezebel” is sexual immorality. This label can pertain to men as well as women…….have sat “under” an assembly of god pastor m’an who exhibited the jezebel as he was kicked out of the local baptist c’hurch system while he was “counseling and texting a married woman” with whom he had “fallen in love with…..or in “spiritual terms,” was lusting after……a blatant jezebel characteristic as written in Revelation. And this, dear KAS, was kept secretive and hidden from the rest of us lower laity dogs…….by……..by…….by………a complementarian group of m’en and w’omen who were voted into ordained/accepted c’hurch board l’eadership.

    And to this day, many an unbliblical comp individual, will promote, defend, and encourage the innocent sheep to follow this aog/baptist p’astor m’an, who has been “reinstated” into the professional 501c. 3. “p’astorhood,” lording it over others as stated by the precepts of Jesus Christ.

    I find it amazingly odd, how the complementarian “leadership” within many a conservative and liberal 501c. 3 c’hurch system, will defend the sexual immorality of a p’astor man, all the while “blaming Eve (OT), women, and young girls” for the fall of the visible c’hurch, religion in general, and the final solution….. global chaos before the Second Coming of Christ Jesus…..I know, some within the educational elites will label this as a “conspiracy theory.” Smile!

    If Jesus IS the One and Only True Head of His Body of believers, why do we find strive, reviling, anger, lying and slandering, and pure unadulterated hatred on behalf of those who choose to label themselves as complementarians? It is as if slavery was never abolished and the yoke and burden that Jesus mandated with His own Words, never existed?

    And if JESUS came to set the captives free, why then, does the so called complementarianism mandates, chain women into unbiblical submission serving a godless system of legalistic rules and regulations that JESUS never spoke of? How can the visible c’hristian c’hurch system here in America, parallel Islam within the complementarian pseudo-biblical worldview?

    Men, even those who claim they are c’hristian, do NOT “own” women, nor, were we created with half a brain, considered the “lessers” within the so called secular evolutionary process.

    Like

  32. @KAS,
    The last staged sermonette I heard within the local baptist c’hurch, before I bolted out the doors in record speed (perhaps my legs are Olympic bound :)), covered the topic of “the jezebel spirit,” performed amazingly by an assembly of god ordained p’astor m’an, complete with the “haughty eyes, a lying tongue, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush to evil, a false witness that pours out lies, and a person that stirs up conflict within the community.” I do not recall this complimentary 😦 p’astor m’an “shedding innocent blood” per the scriptures.”

    As I watched this wolf’s performance, the above precepts from Proverbs 6:16-19 were revealed to my mind through what I believe to be the power of GOD, His Holy Spirit. As he pranced back and force above us, speaking as though he was an “agent” of a god, with his sneering and jeering facial expressions (in which I will NEVER EVER forget as long a I live), I believe he was spiritual abusing those of us women within the congregation that dared and cared to question his teachings and behavioral patterns. Perhaps this toddler p’astor’s goal was to shut up those of us “sheep women” who were questioning his comp teachings as well as calling him out on his questionable immoral (as defined by Jesus) behavioral patterns that he exhibited while in his “self important p’astoral office.”

    After reading Don Hennessy’s brilliantly penned book “How He Gets Into Her Head: The Mind of the Male Intimate Abuser,” I am convinced that narcissism/misogyny + the so called visible c’hristian religious systems + p’astoral religious offices/or other’s who proclaim themselves “more spiritual” than you = other gods/jezebels (whether male or female), taking the LORD’S Name in vain for personal glory, fame and monetary gain, and the keeper of your household……regarding all things in this life…..whether relationships (marriages and siblings), the freedom to come and go, finances, and the freedom and liberty to worship Jesus (the One of the Original Writ), whenever and wherever the believer chooses to worship Him……..traditional man/woman has a major problem with this as they still believe we need a “physical building” to worship a jesus of sorts, properly.

    Hogwash! In these last days, the amount of money spent on a building for its narcissistic upkeep and “bragging rights” by the lost c’hurch l’eadrship systems, could be more efficiently used and honored for Jesus’ Glory, by helping other believers who are struggling to pay their own bills, while working hard “by the plow” at their own jobs, which in reality, pay only pennies in light of inflation due to governmental meddling/wickedness.

    And KAS, do you not have that Heavenly God Given gift of love, compassion, and empathy, towards those sheep (born again believers), with whom are hurting, struggling, beling treated as slaves in this modern world, and used and abused…….to build up m’an’s systems…..rather than pointing people to an eternal Savior? Jesus, the Living Christ?

    Why, oh why, this hatred of women with in visible, evil and wicked , in name only, c’hristian industrial complex? Seriously……..would love to admit that “I don’t get it……in willful ignorance,” but having been married to a “complementarian” m’an for over thirty years of my earthly, I cannot lie and say that I am ignorant.

    In the light of Jesus Christ, I am educated and experienced in religious as well as humanistic abuse regarding all things “comp.” And when slavery was abolished and women were allowed the “right to vote,” from the noel of my rock field, I can almost hear the cries of those abusive comp men of recent and past times crying out to the lord of sheol, “oh no lord (the sons of satan), please don’t let our slaves go, for that means we have to get our own hands dirty and calloused…….and actually sweat by the labor of the plow.”

    Slaves and comp theology make it easy for wicked and evil “m’en” to prosper according to the precepts of their own hearts…….not the “Way” of our Master/Teacher, Jesus Christ.

    Like

  33. “Similarly, God could be thought of as being like a mother, but is never defined as a mother.”

    I think this is where you are evading and avoiding scripture.

    Proverbs 7:4 “Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” And call understanding your intimate friend”
    Proverbs 8:1-3, 22-23, 30-31 “Does not wisdom call, And understanding lift up her voice? On top of the heights beside the way, Where the paths meet, she takes her stand; Beside the gates, at the opening to the city, At the entrance of the doors, she cries out … The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. From everlasting I was established, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. … Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him, Rejoicing in the world, His earth, And having my delight in the sons of men.”
    Matthew 11:19 “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”
    Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

    I think it is hard to ignore that Wisdom is a metaphor for none other than Jesus Christ – the Word (logos). In Proverbs, Wisdom is the personification of the master workman who implemented the plans for creation, and wisdom is from everlasting. In Colossians, Paul uses the same language – all things have been created through him. We also see the picture of the mother hen in Wisdom. Wisdom “rejoices in the sons of men” and Jesus uses the same language – that he desired to gather Jerusalem’s children together.

    This is the difference between metaphor and simile. As you said, Paul is not calling himself a nurse when he says, “like a nurse”, but when Paul refers to us as “sheep” metaphorically “We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered” it is not inappropriate to say that we are sheep.

    In the same way, God says many times… “I am like …” but he also says “I am …” Other inspired writers say “God is …” For example, God is a rock, warrior, tower, fortress, wall, father.

    And here, we have a passage where the Bible refers to God as Wisdom incarnate – incarnate in the form of a woman who calls out. A woman who stood beside God in creation – the same picture used by Paul as a description of Jesus.

    So it is righteous for us to include this picture of God in our pictures. I don’t exclude other pictures – father, protector, warrior – but this is a legitimate reference of God. When we shy away from a Biblical picture of God because it isn’t “God-like” enough for us, I submit that the problem lies with us, not the Bible, and not with God. It is because we have distorted our picture of God and replaced it with a man-made idol. That idol is patriarchy.

    “but rather the genuine Christian cannot be happy when he sins, he has to put it right before God sooner or later.”

    This is a wicked picture. “He has to put it right” – exactly how do we “put our sins right” before God? Do we do enough “good” to outweigh the “evil”? Do we strive to not do it again? This is another place where you have exposed being a Pharisee. I CANNOT make it right. I can only plead for forgiveness and trust that Jesus will make it right on my behalf.

    And… my conscience does not convict me of each and every sin. This is shown in scripture. David was not convicted of his sin with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah until Nathan confronted him directly, and that is when God chose to convict him in his conscience as well. If David can be a man after God’s own heart and yet be an adulterer and murderer, then who are we to say that someone cannot be a Christian who lives an unrighteous lifestyle?

    As a parent, I get this. My oldest child struggled with lying. She told me what she thought I wanted to hear, and told me what she thought would keep her out of trouble. Initially, we tried to correct the behavior, but we realized it was part of a bigger problem, so we mostly tried not to confront her in ways that would lead her to lie, but if she did lie, we would often back up and rephrase it in a “you did this” way, not a “did you do this” way. However, other people didn’t realize that and when she would lie to them, they would freak out and expect us to punish her. I think this is similar. Do we really know what sins God is working on in other people?

    Like

  34. “That’s certainly been my experience of those who cease to believe: the real reason has always be moral (or rather immorality to be more accurate) rather than intellectual.”

    You’re posting on a blog of people, many of whom have left churches or the faith because of spiritual abuse with a claim like that? You’re just parroting what the preachers are saying. In my experience, people have left churches and the faith because they were abused by so-called Christians. I know of a man who was excommunicated for “siding with his wife over the church”. He was trying to keep his marriage together after her affair and the leaders wanted to publicly shame her. When he refused to play their game, they excommunicated him. Declared him to be apostate. Simply because he disagreed with their approach to church discipline. The elders proudly got up and declared him kicked out of the church for his “sin”.

    Put it another way, if you’re the pastor and you control the narrative, why would anyone ever leave the church for anything other than their own immorality. If they have intellectual disagreements, it means you’re not a good enough theologian, and if they have been mistreated, it means you mistreated them. So, instead, you label them as immoral and encourage the church not to ask them what happened. I’ve seen it over and over.

    If there are no wolves in the church and no one leaves because of wolves, then why are we warned over and over that the church will be infiltrated by them and that they will devour people?

    Like

  35. Mark: “You’re posting on a blog of people, many of whom have left churches or the faith because of spiritual abuse with a claim like that?”

    Zoe: Thank you Mark.

    Getting one’s self and family out of a spiritually abusive belief-system (and all spiritually abusive belief systems are immoral themselves) requires intellect.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. KAS “but rather the genuine Christian cannot be happy when he sins, he has to put it right before God sooner or later.”

    Mark “This is a wicked picture.” Seems a strange definition of wicked when someone is unhappy at sinning and wants to put it right with God.

    Mark “He has to put it right” – exactly how do we “put our sins right” before God? Do we do enough “good” to outweigh the “evil”? Do we strive to not do it again?”! Maybe you should have left it with the question and waited for a reply. Instead you have made up what you think such a reply would be. And then …

    Mark “This is another place where you have exposed being a Pharisee.” … you accuse me of being a Pharisee on the basis of views you have imputed to me!!

    If you want to know what my answer would have been, read 1 John 1 and it won’t take long to find it.

    KAS “That’s certainly been my experience of those who cease to believe: the real reason has always be moral (or rather immorality to be more accurate) rather than intellectual.”

    Mark “You’re posting on a blog of people, many of whom have left churches or the faith because of spiritual abuse with a claim like that?” Why not, I’m not claiming it as a universal truth, but it’s my real world experience.

    Mark “You’re just parroting what the preachers are saying.” No, I just relating my real world experience. I’ve never heard a preacher say that, but then I was just relating my real world experience, so that is not to be expected.

    Mark “In my experience, people have left churches and the faith because they were abused by so-called Christians.” Fair enough, but there is delicious irony in you saying this when you react against someone else whose experience doesn’t happen to be the same as yours.

    I’m old enough to remember charismatic splits and disputations, and there might be some who left the faith because of that coupled with heavy leadership if I thought hard enough, but of the people I have known well the way out of the faith was via immorality.

    Serving Kids and Katy have asked questions and I would like to reply, but not too much at once, and I also like time to think.

    Like

  37. KAS, “he has to put it right before God sooner or later”

    I think you misunderstand my point. The Christian is justified, meaning declared legally innocent of sin. There is no need for the Christian to be “put right” with God. That is definitionally what it means to be a Christian. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1)

    A pastor put it in terms of the family rules. When someone is outside the family, “Sin” is what keeps them outside the family. Once someone is inside the family, “Sin” is definitely not fitting for someone in the family, but there is no fear of being kicked out of the family because of it.

    What I was convicted of, though, is that the Reformed/Evangelical church specifically chooses some sins to be worthy of scorn, shame and excommunication where other sins are ignored or even winked at. For example, in Romans 1, the supposed consummation of the depraved mind is homosexuality (vs. 27), but that isn’t the end of the chapter. The sin continues further. Greed. Slander. Arrogance. “and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” (vs. 32)

    So, why does the Reformed church wink at greed, slander and arrogance and choose to focus instead on homosexuality as the unforgivable sin? Well, probably because their churches are full of greedy, arrogant slanderers!

    And this goes back to the family rules. If a person is a greedy, arrogant, slanderer, like I was when I was part of NAPARC, they can live their whole lives without coming face to face with that truth, because those things are pretty much praised, as long as they are coupled with the right dose of charity, false humility and pretended concern. Isaiah wasn’t confronted with his unclean lips until he was presented with a vision of the holiness of God. Was Isaiah a Christian? Yes. There is even a sacrifice for “unknown sins” that a person may commit.

    I don’t doubt my father’s faith, even though I’m guessing he was never convicted of his treatment of his children. In fact, he was praised for “ruling his family well”.

    Like

  38. KAS, “That’s certainly been my experience of those who cease to believe: the real reason has always be[en] moral” … “you accuse me of being a Pharisee on the basis of views you have imputed to me!!” “Why not, I’m not claiming it as a universal truth, but it’s my real world experience.”

    Re-read what you said. “THE REAL REASON HAS ALWAYS BEEN MORAL”
    If this is YOUR experience, then:
    – how can you claim the real reason for someone ceasing to believe without “imputing views”?
    – doesn’t “always” make a claim to universal truth?

    Barna is a Christian polling organization in the US. Their article on the matter suggests much more complexity: https://www.barna.com/research/six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church/ Some intellectual, some experiential, some moral.

    Like

  39. SKIJ And do you also “question the timing” of Lori Anne’s anguish, as expressed in the above tweet?

    I thought it right when James White immediately knocked on the head his investigation of Ergun Caner’s dodgy CV and claims when his son died. I also thought it wrong to do exposes of Held Evans in the period immediately surrounding her death, and certainly wrong to speculate on her eternal state before God.

    Similarly if you want an honest answer I was not impressed with the timing of Lori Anne’s internet appeal for the same reason. It was days even before the funeral was held. There is a newly bereaved widow, children and grandchildren who are not responsible for Ravi’s sins. That ought to take priority over everything else at least for a while.

    It’s possible there is a cultural British thing going on here.

    As an exception I listened to her appeal on the Internet.

    Like it or not she has a huge hurdle to overcome in establishing credibility not least in view of the attempt at getting $5 million – going by the CT report, and the few comments I have seen from those praising Ravi’s ministry who don’t want to listen to ‘detractors’.

    Primarily what did or did not go on is between the parties concerned, and I do not have to make a judgement on this (although I have an opinion). It’s none of my business. It would/might be if I supported Zacharias’ ministry or devotedly listened to his teaching or personally knew those involved. I do not and cannot know how genuine Zacharias’ repentance was. (Some years ago now I was strongly convicted not to spend time on this kind of thing in another controversial abuse issue. You can end up participating in other people’s sins and agendas.)

    Once a period of mourning is over, it is proper to bring out into the light anything that RZ might have done wrong in the past, but now he is dead he has had to give an account to his creator, and past wrongs in this life can no longer be put right. He can’t defend himself either. It’s a correct if not a pleasant task to reveal Evans’ heretical waywardness and point people away from her, and this can be one without making it a personal attack on her. Both RZ and Evans courted celebrity and publicity, so public examination is part of the deal if you do that.

    Like

  40. Interesting comments and observations. I will have to think about these things, as sin is not graded in the Bible, but all is equally an affront to God, and all paid for by Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf.

    Like

  41. KAS,

    There is a newly bereaved widow, children and grandchildren who are not responsible for Ravi’s sins.

    I agree that they aren’t responsible for his choices, or his misdeeds. But some of his family still share in Ravi’s sins. If Shirley’s story is true, then Ravi’s brother and former sister-in-law (and perhaps his wife) were involved in committing an illegal abortion, and left a teenage girl feeling scared, abandoned and ashamed.

    https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2019/06/24/as-a-new-christian-and-missionary-alliance-minister-ravi-zacharias-pressured-his-brothers-16-yr-old-girlfriend-to-have-illegal-abortion/

    And let’s not forget that his family are likely in charge of his legal affairs, and therefore can choose to annul the NDA. The longer that they choose to keep it in force, and therefore compel Lori Anne to keep silent, the longer they risk being complicit in Ravi’s abuse of her.

    Like it or not she has a huge hurdle to overcome in establishing credibility not least in view of the attempt at getting $5 million – going by the CT report…

    May I ask which CT article you have in mind, just for clarity? Was it this one?

    https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/december/ravi-zacharias-sexting-extortion-lawsuit-doctorate-bio-rzim.html

    Like

  42. Serving Kids – the only other comment I have made on this elsewhere was to remind some Ravi admirers about both this incident and the allegation of procuring an abortion. This should not be ignored, a very serious issue.

    I’m not so bothered by the credentials – that didn’t harm anyone, it only harmed his and/or his ministry’s reputation for integrity.

    That was the CT article I read I’m pretty sure – it related to the attempt at obtaining $5 million. Is there any doubt to this, has the magazine lived up to its nickname of Christianity Astray?

    If it it true I really can’t see any justification for it even if the allegations against Zacharias are all true. I certainly think it will make it nearly impossible to convince those who might need to reconsider his ministry to do so. The timing of the internet clip and failure to express any condolences (though much better that than pretend, British style) will make it unlikely the family will respond favourably to the NDA request.

    Now he is dead I don’t see how past wrongs can be put right, would it not be more merciful in the long run to let go of it?

    Like

  43. KAS,

    Thank you for your response. My apologies for not replying to you before now. Last week was incredibly busy, and utterly wore me out.

    I’m not so bothered by the credentials – that didn’t harm anyone, it only harmed his and/or his ministry’s reputation for integrity.

    Exactly. Ravi’s willingness to pad his credentials hurt his credibility — by establishing that he’s willing to lie in his own favour. Which leads to my next point…

    That was the CT article I read I’m pretty sure – it related to the attempt at obtaining $5 million. Is there any doubt to this, has the magazine lived up to its nickname of Christianity Astray?

    The primary problem with that article is that it’s patently biased and unfair. Christianity Today allowed Zacharias to tell his side of the story, when Lori Anne (because of the NDA) couldn’t do the same. He basically painted her as a greedy slut, while refusing to answer any questions about the messages he sent to Lori Anne, in which he allegedly threatened suicide. He did this by — very conveniently and strategically — pleading that he was under the NDA. And CT let him get away with it.

    That article was actually one of the reasons why Julie Anne and Brad Sargent decided to write this open letter to Christianity Today, calling them out on their bias towards evangelical celebrities.

    https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2019/04/17/open-letter-to-cti-board-of-directors/

    So, you’ve formed your opinion of Lori Anne on the contents of a badly slanted article, featuring only the testimony of a man whose credibility (as you admit) is damaged, against a woman who can’t rebut him without facing the threat of a lawsuit from that man’s family and “ministry”. Is that what you’re saying?

    Now he is dead I don’t see how past wrongs can be put right, would it not be more merciful in the long run to let go of it?

    At least some wrongs can be put right by allowing Lori Anne tell her story, and respond to Ravi’s assassination of her character. It’s not a question of mercy, KAS, but of giving her a chance to heal by speaking freely.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. SKIJ – I hope you get a chance to unwind and recover.

    I haven’t formed much of an opinion about Lori Anne, it’s superficial for reasons I have already given. I did listen to the internet piece. If you simply want me to be honest, I ignored the emotion shown. I didn’t think she was wise saying she wasn’t ‘doing this to become well-known’ whilst using the very public platform of the internet. To my mind she made a strategic error in both timing and lack of sympathy for the loss suffered by the family, and perhaps should have gone to them privately. Think how they might view this.

    If you didn’t already know the issue about the NDA you wouldn’t be much the wiser after viewing the clip.

    I was glad she said at the end she has recovered her faith, her marriage and was more in love with hubby than ever. With that in mind a wise old pastor I know used to say ‘if you have been justified [by faith] then you no longer need to justify yourself, either before God or man’. Since she is imo most unlikely to find RZ’s family agreeing to her request, would it not be better to let go rather than torture herself by continually wanting to put her side when this is never going to happen? I appreciate that might not be an easy thing to do, quite the contrary, but in this sense it might be merciful and allow her to move on. She doesn’t need to justify herself if she has put anything or everything right with God at her end.

    Like

  45. Thanks for your patience, KAS, and your kind words. I appreciate them.

    I haven’t formed much of an opinion about Lori Anne, it’s superficial for reasons I have already given.

    Superficial? Boy, is it ever.

    To my mind she made a strategic error in both timing and lack of sympathy for the loss suffered by the family, and perhaps should have gone to them privately.

    How do you know she hadn’t tried that already?

    Since she is imo most unlikely to find RZ’s family agreeing to her request, would it not be better to let go rather than torture herself by continually wanting to put her side when this is never going to happen?

    If Zacharias’ family doesn’t agree to annul the NDA, they’ll only confirm in my eyes that they’re nothing but heartless, vindictive people.

    And while I can’t speak for Lori Anne, I wouldn’t be surprised if her response to your advice looked very much like the words of Natalie Hoffman (who says it better than I could).

    “And for anyone who is thinking ‘get over it already!’ No. No. No. I will never get over opening my big mouth about the injustice of wolves who get away with devouring lambs in the name of Jesus Christ. I love Jesus Christ with all my heart. And that is why I will never ever ever get over it. Ever. Never.”

    Liked by 1 person

  46. You certainly have hateful feelings toward Ravi Zacharias. Jesus was a good man and was crucified with the accusation of being a betrayer, blasphemer, liar, and full of demons. What could be worst than that? Rest in peace Mr. Zacharias.

    Like

  47. No hateful comments from me….just truthful comments. The difference is that Jesus was NOT a betrayer, blah blah….Can’t say the same for Ravi, can we?

    Like

  48. “LET HE WHO HAS NOT SINNED, CAST THE FIRST STONE”…THE STONE HAS BEEN CAST & GOD IS THE ONLY JUDGE…NOT US!
    ‘ANONYMOUS’

    Like

  49. Ron’s comment seems to excuse blatant abuse. He needs to look up Ezekiel 34 to see how God deals with spiritual abusers who harm those in their care. If you’re going to throw around Bible verses, ya better be throwing them around appropriately. @@

    Like

  50. @Ron:
    “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” Matthew 7
    “Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” 1 Corinthians 5

    “Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death.” Deuteronomy 17
    “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8

    When you throw out verses like the whole Bible hinges on them, then you miss the obvious fact that there are apparently contradictory verses. Should we stone or not stone? Should we judge or not judge? Is God of one mind or many?

    Even Jesus said “And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?” Luke 12

    What is intriguing is that Jesus spent much of his ministry opposing men who weaponized religiosity for personal gain. Men who were part of the good ole’ boys club and who praised each other, while behind closed doors worked to gain money and power. Jesus exposed their hypocrisy – pretending to be righteous and holy while doing evil – and that was the reason the leaders wanted to kill him. It’s not surprising, then, to see someone like Ravi to weaponize the appearance of holiness to gain power and money, and then use it to victimize people. We should expect that, and we should also expect the fanboys to go around and threaten anyone who dares tell the truth.

    Liked by 1 person

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s