Ravi Zacharias died this last year. He was 74 years old. He was a stunningly adept apologist for the faith. He really knew his stuff as he patiently and kindly stood for the truth. So it was disconcerting to learn that Ravi Zacharias did indeed engage in sexual misconduct. Gross misconduct. And many are confused, disappointed, angered, disillusioned, and grieving -- grieving both over his misconduct and for his victims.
Where does that leave us? We can't take him to task for it. He's already facing the Judge of all the Earth (1 Cor 3:15). We can't penalize him or eject him from our midst. Nor can we fault his defense of the faith. That was so nearly flawless that it was this which made his stunning failures so stunning. So what can we do?
I would urge that we each look to ourselves. Jesus told the Pharisees, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7) We need the same admonition. Jesus warned, "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Matt 7:3) Sure, sexual misconduct is no "speck" -- that would be a "log" -- but each of us has such "logs." Jesus classified anger as murder (Matt 5:21-22) and lust as adultery (Matt 5:27-28); murder and adultery committed in your mind are no less murder and adultery, and none of us is without sin -- even grevious sin.
I would urge that we remember to bear one anothers burdens (Gal 6:2) -- that we be close enough to catch a brother or sister in transgression for the purpose of restoring them (Gal 6:1; James 5:19-20). Wagging our fingers isn't helpful. We're called to be as close as family and built on love and doing that at a distance is nonsense.
I would urge that we keep watch on ourselves, "lest you too be tempted." (Gal 6:1) We each have our own tendencies, our own pet sin(s), our own immoral leanings. We cannot afford to either be silent about them -- we need to be accountable to people who love us -- or dismissive of them. We need to recognize that we lean into sin naturally (by nature) and cry out to God and to His children for support when that happens.
I would urge that we care for those who are mistreated and abused, not out of some moral outrage, but out of sincere love. The anger doesn't help; the love makes a difference. The question of sexual impropriety has been a big one in recent years and it's not easy to respond without anger, but we're not called to ignore the oppressed or beat the transgressors to a bloody pulp. We're called to tend to the oppressed and correct the transgressors. If we were doing this right, we'd leave the world very little to complain about.
There is no excuse for the secret sins of Ravi Zacharias. The fact that we all hide our own secret sins doesn't make it better. The fact that people are devastated by the secret sins of others isn't good. The fact that no sin is ultimately secret or "victimless" is important to remember. The fact that we answer to God and are to be marked by love for the brethren ought to be our driving force rather than the exception. We can't change Ravi's sins, but we can learn from them. Let's do that in ourselves and for others.
9 comments:
It seems way too common that charges like these are brought up long after having done so would have done the most good. Why now...how when he's dead? Why not while he was still alive to answer to the charges? It compels me to totally dismiss the charges altogether, which is not exactly the correct response, but a natural one. Hard as it may be, one must get after these things immediately if one cares about putting an end to them.
I've always disliked that term "sexual misconduct". It can run the spectrum from flirting to rape.
It is a shame that such a learned, righteous man had this secret sin, but as you point out, which of us is without our own secret sin? It's extra sad because even if it hadn't been secret, that he had admitted to his struggle, it wouldn't have stopped people from discounting his righteousness or his teachings. He had this sin, yes, but that doesn't make what he taught less true. I once had an assistant pastor admit to the congregation his addiction to porn. He opted to step down, and eventually left the church all together (never found out of he left the faith). I can only imagine the response he got behind closed doors, because in public, the congregation was sympathetic. We admired him for his honesty, and still it wasn't enough to stop him from leaving. Too often our sins become more defining than they ought.
I think we all need people -- one or two, perhaps -- that we can turn to in complete honesty and find support and love. I think that Satan uses this isolation we impose on ourselves (not the COVID type) like wolves hunting deer, waiting for the one to stray off by itself so they can bring him down.
I agree David. A truly bad person can say or do truly good and beneficial things. A guy like could very well be an example, though I would say just as likely a generally good man with this one flaw. But no matter. What of his teaching? Are they less valuable because he was only a preacher of Christ's teachings rather than Christ's clone as well? The teachings were the thing. Many people who have a history of...impropriety...are often the best people from whom we can learn the most, if such a person is speaking from experience. We see that all the time.
I know nothing about this guy's scandal. I've heard enough of his sermons to regard them as edifying. The worst thing about these types of stories is how they will be used by those who are keen to attack the faith and those who abide it.
I agree that the term sexual misconduct covers a wide range of things and sometimes makes it hard to judge the severity of someone's actions, I think that the balance is that it also helps protect the privacy of the victims in some cases. I also think that we (at least I do) have a desire to know details that aren't really necessary.
In the case of Ravi, I don't think that his sins will tarnish his wisdom and teaching legacy except among those who are simply looking for flaws in those they disagree with.
I've always thought that it's strange that we don't expect people in public positions to sin. It's always a surprise when we find out that they are sinful humans like the rest of us. It's disappointing, but I'm not sure it should be surprising.
His "sexual misconduct" has been publicly listed for all to see. It's not minor. I also don't understand why someone felt it needed to come out AFTER he died.
I don't think all the good he said and done is nullified by his sins. I don't think that everyone sees it that way.
Stan,
I didn't mean to suggest that his particular acts were "minor", I know that they are out there, and I've chosen not to seek them out. In the case of Bill Hybels, I would argue that the "sexual impropriety" aspect of his actions could be considered "minor", and his attempts to protect himself were probably "worse". Again, there is such a wide spectrum encompassed by "sexual impropriety" that I think there is a tendency to assume the worst.
I believe that there are people out there who, because they don't have the ability to attack Ravi's theology, will use his sin as an excuse to argue that his theology was flawed. Maybe not a lot, but I suspect that they'll be vocal.
Well, it's a common tactic. If one dares preach the Word, one best be perfect or the Word is worthless. How one thing leads to the other is never explained, nor can it be since the Word says we're all sinners, corrupt and other less than flattering things To demand perfection from someone because they preach is weak sauce. At the same time, they're own moralizing doesn't guarantee their own perfection, or give them room to talk, except that it often includes subtracting from immorality that which they wish to perpetrate. Then they're golden, while those who preach the Word are locked in to a code not of their own making.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Rep. Mary Miller gave a speech outside the Capitol on Tuesday. In it, she warned, "If we win a few elections, we're still gonna be losing unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle." She reiterated the old "Whoever has the youth has the future." All true. All correct. Her mistake was that she rightly sourced the line by saying, "Hitler was right on one thing." They're calling her "reprehensible" and "vile," saying it was "disqualifying and disgusting," demanding an apology if not resignation. The statement was accurate, and ignoring a truthful statement because of its source is a classic logical fallacy, but since the hated Hitler said it they will disregard the truth of it and assault anyone who cites it. Because Ravi has been accused of impropriety, they will disregard anything that he has said -- ad hominem.
Post a Comment