Independent investigation confirms: Ravi Zacharias was guilty of sexual misconduct

The future (if this is even possible) of RZIM:

• Purge the name “Ravi Zacharias” from the ministry!
• Re-brand as something else: “Christian Apologetics Ministry”?
• Pray and hope for the best.

Otherwise - DEAD!

[pvawter]

I agree, Josh. While churches have failed in this regard it is only because they have not followed biblical guidelines for leadership and accountability. The solution (note: not a “cure” as sinners will continue to do evil until the end) is not to look to outside regulators but to actually do ministry according to the NT.

Perhaps not on this thread, but I’d love to see thought about how churches can do better than parachurch ministries. The observation I’ve got is that just about everybody, from MSU to BJU to ABWE to First Baptist of Hammond to whoever else, is making about the same set of mistakes.

[Bert Perry]

pvawter wrote:

I agree, Josh. While churches have failed in this regard it is only because they have not followed biblical guidelines for leadership and accountability. The solution (note: not a “cure” as sinners will continue to do evil until the end) is not to look to outside regulators but to actually do ministry according to the NT.

Perhaps not on this thread, but I’d love to see thought about how churches can do better than parachurch ministries. The observation I’ve got is that just about everybody, from MSU to BJU to ABWE to First Baptist of Hammond to whoever else, is making about the same set of mistakes.

How about following what the Bible teaches, Bert? Disdain for the local church is easy, but as bad as it is, it’s the best thing going, since it’s God’s thing. That’s where we should start at least. The fact that the NT principles have been poorly implemented doesn’t negate that God’s way is still better than anything else going.

https://www.zachariastrust.org/news

The UK Board of the Zacharias Trust, which operates OCCA The Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics, notes with deep regret and great sadness the Miller&Martin report and RZIM US statement released yesterday.

We are appalled by Ravi Zacharias’s abusive actions and their impact on the victims of his abuse. We also lament the effect this will have on many around the world who looked up to him as a role model for their own Christian faith. Ravi Zacharias’s conduct is against everything we stand for and believe as a Christian organisation, as we made clear in our statement in December last year. Our trust in Ravi Zacharias was wholly misplaced, and for this we apologise wholeheartedly to all those who have been impacted.

We applaud Lori Anne Thompson and the other brave women, victims of his abuse, for coming forward to allow the abuse to be uncovered. We believe what they have said and recognise that the treatment they received was not worthy of any organisation, let alone a Christian one. We deplore any and all efforts to silence, intimidate or deceive victims, and indeed members of the global RZIM team.

We also express our strong support for those courageous members of staff across the global RZIM ministry who have spoken out in recent months. Together with many others outside the ministry they demanded truth, repentance, accountability and reform.

The UK Board welcomes the RZIM US statement, and in particular its focus on the victims, its repentance and its intention to make amends. However, we have sadly concluded that the response of the RZIM US Board does not go nearly far enough in terms of actions relating to leadership and governance. Very serious issues and systemic failings have been raised in recent months and confirmed by the Miller&Martin report. These demand accountability and urgent action beyond the measures outlined in the RZIM US statement.

The UK Board has therefore taken the unanimous decision to make a clear separation from the global RZIM organisation. In governance terms the UK entity has always been a separate charity with independent trustees, but in the current circumstances we believe that we must now operate without any link to RZIM US. The UK entity will also choose a new name. This process will take time to complete but the UK Board is convinced that this is the best and only way to ensure that the ministry can continue to serve the UK church with integrity. This will also give us the opportunity to review the lessons to be learned from these awful events.

Some of the leading speakers and supporters historically associated with OCCA including Sam Allberry, John Dickson, Os Guinness, John Lennox, Amy-Orr Ewing, Becky Manley Pippert, John and Alison Riches, Akeel Sachak and others have indicated their strong support for the decisions being taken by the UK Board as well as their willingness to consider supporting a new ministry organisation.

The UK Board asks that you join in prayer for the abuse victims, the global staff team and all others whose lives have been traumatised by these revelations as they come to terms with what has happened.

The inside story of how Ravi Zacharias’s ministry concealed and enabled his abuse.

You’ve got an anonymous board at RZIM!

What are the lessons we can learn? Some are obvious. When family members of founders occupy the controlling heights of an organization, they are placed under immense strain and face an obvious conflict of interest when their father is accused of misconduct. Rigorous, independent investigations should be mandatory when accusers come forward. Compliance with reasonable investigatory requests (such as turning over phones and other communications equipment) must be required. Governing boards should be powerful, independent, and transparent.

I can go on. Nondisclosure agreements—especially in Christian ministries—are poisonous and enable additional abuse. Do not trust instincts over evidence. Never say, “I know this man, and he would never do anything like this.” The goal of any organization facing claims of abuse should be discerning truth, not discrediting accusers. All accusers should be treated immediately—publicly and privately—with dignity and respect.

But it goes even deeper. Christian ministries are populated by leadership teams who derive not just their paychecks but also their own public reputations from their affiliation with the famous founder. They’re admired in part because the founder is admired. They have influence in part because the founder has influence. When the founder fails, they lose more than a paycheck. There is powerful personal incentive to circle the wagons and to defend the ministry, even when that defense destroys lives.

The zeal to protect the leader and punish or discredit the accuser can also rest in a particular brand of arrogance. “My ministry is necessary.” “Souls are at stake.” “Look at all the good we’re doing.” In reality, God will accomplish His purposes, with or without any of us, regardless of our gifts or talents.

If it’s disdain for the church to bring up the sins of her members, does that mean you feel the same way about the epistles of Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude, and against the rebukes Christ gives to many churches in Revelation? Come on, Paul, this is simply saying that the bulk of evidence suggests that we as fundagelicals have a lot of the same problems as do the Roman Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America, Michigan State University, and USA Gymnastics. (and USA Cheerleading, and the Olympic Committee, and…..)

Put the blinders over your eyes and accuse me (falsely) of disdain for the church if you like, but this problem is not going away. All of the churches listed in the Houston Chronicle series would claim that they were doing things according to God’s Word. So would have BJU, ABWE, New Tribes, Sovereign Grace Ministries, Trinity Baptist (Chuck Phelps’ church), 1st Baptist of Hammond, and a host of others tainted by this sort of thing—and now RZIM.

It’s not enough to tell these churches “just do things Biblically”. You’ve got to tell them how they were doing things un-Biblically. So what are we going to change? What is your plan?

This is one of those cases where years ago we had multiple witnesses, yet a blind eye was turned. This does not surprise me, because many on this site have made it clear that they are willing to look the other way even when there are multiple witnesses. This needs to change.

JD wrote:

This does not surprise me, because many on this site have made it clear that they are willing to look the other way even when there are multiple witnesses.

What does this mean?

Tyler, I don’t know precisely what JD’s referring to, but I do remember any number of dismissive comments about cases like the Nassar case, the ABWE crimes, and the BJU investigation that were deriding the accusers as “having an axe to grind” or being “online crusaders” and the sort.

Got it. Those reactions are unfortunate. I suspect, in these situations, there is so much mud flying around that outsiders become cynical about the whole thing, and simply become skeptical about the credibility of the side that appears most strident.