The Sad and Strange Saga of Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias was the foremost apologist of the Christian faith. His insights were profound. He answered the questions of skeptics with reasoned, convincing  responses and arguments. I believe I had the privilege of interviewing him while I was doing the Issues etc. radio program back in the 80's. Ravi Zacharias died in May of 2020. Both Vice-president Spence and Tim Tebow spoke at his funeral, defining him as the foremost champion of the Christian faith.

Since his death, numerous accusation of sexual abuse and perversion have surfaced. The Board of the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries initially rejected the claims of atheist blogger Steve Baughman and articles that appeared in both World and Christianity Today magazines. After hiring a lawyer to investigate the claims, they concluded them to be accurate and affirmed that Zacharias had sexually abused numerous women. As a result, Zacharias has been labelled a pervert, a wolf in sheep's clothing and a liar. Harper-Collins has removed his books, and Lee Strobel has erased any reference to Zacharias in his forth-coming book.

I have never seen a situation where a Christian leader is so honored at his memorial service and so vilified shortly thereafter. It is strange. What is being accomplished? What is the purpose? I can certainly understand these revelations if Zacharias was still alive. He would be added to the list of fallen Christian leaders such as Ted Haggard, Bill Gothard, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Bill Hybels and rightfully so. But none of these revelations and consequences have any impact upon Zacharias himself since, of course, he's dead. The only ones suffering as a result are his wife and children.

While some have attempted to defend Zacharias, it is foolish to do so. His own ministry board has confirmed the facts and made their findings public. As many have accurately stated, the emphasis should be upon the women who were victimized, but this is problematic. They cannot face their abuser. Satisfaction for victims is achieved when the "big man of God" abuser is knocked off his pedestal, experiencing public disgrace and humiliation. Such satisfaction cannot be granted the victims of Zacharias' sexual abuse since, of course, he's dead.  They may be given financial remuneration for the pain they have experienced and be offered counseling. They may spit on his grave, but that accomplishes nothing.

Why didn't these victims come forward before Zacharias died? Some claimed they were afraid to do so. One victim did come forward and received a financial settlement and signed a non-disclosure agreement which she is now attempting to get out from under. The claims of atheist author and blogger Steve Baughman were virtually ignored and for obvious reasons. His objectivity was questionable. In addition, Baughman made a big deal over the fact that Zacharias' Doctor's Degree was honorary and not academic. Such honorary degrees are given for life achievements. Dr. Billy Graham graduated from Wheaton College with a degree in anthropology. His Doctor's Degree is honorary. Would anyone suggest he doesn't deserve it? So it is with Ravi Zacharias.  

Isn't the death of Ravi Zacharias sufficient satisfaction since, of course, the wages of sin is death? While many fine eulogies may have been offered at his memorial service, there is one thing that could have been said for certain about Ravi Zacharias, he was a sinner, therefore he's dead.  What more is there to say? 

Because Ravi Zacharias was an abuser of women does that mean the apologetic principles, methods and techniques that he espoused are invalid? Many have learned how to do effective apologetics in defense of the Christian faith from Ravi Zacharias. Should they renounce what they have learned? Obviously, not! His many books contain some valuable insights. Would it not have been better if Harper-Collins had announced that all proceeds from the sale of books by Ravi Zacharias would go to the victims of sexual abuse or to organizations who offer support rather than removing those books and losing the valuable insights contained therein?

One of the victims of Zacharias' sexual abuse stated that "he warned her not ever to speak out against him or she would be responsible for the 'millions of souls' whose salvation would be lost if his reputation was damaged."* Did Zacharias actually believe that people came to faith in Jesus Christ because of him? This is the height of arrogance. The efficacy of the preaching, teaching and defending of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the person doing the speaking. God has promised that where the Gospel is proclaimed the Holy Spirit is at work creating faith in the hearts of those who joyfully and willingly hear the Good News of the forgiveness of sins and new life in Jesus Christ regardless of the moral character of the preacher or teacher. In the Old Testament, God opened the mouth of a jackass, and He continues to do so today.  

*See Report of Independent Investigation into Sexual Misconduct of Ravi Zacharias, page 5. (https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/rzimmedia.rzim.org/assets/downloads/Report-of-Investigation.pdf)

Lutheran or Erasmian?

 

    Many fail to realize that in sixteenth century Europe there were actually two reformations taking place. One, of course, was the Lutheran Reformation initiated and continued by Martin Luther who nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg calling into question the practice of selling indulgences.  While Luther originally challenged the practices of the church, as the Reformation continued theology came to the forefront, especially the issue of justification by faith. Luther taught and confessed that a person, dead in his trespasses and sin, is forgiven and made righteous solely by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. This "blew out of the water" the entire Romanish penitential system with its doctrine of purgatory, prayer for the dead, indulgences, and the sacrificial character of the Mass.

    The other reform was touted by the "Prince of the Humanists" Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus is best known for his Greek text of the New Testament published in 1516 with other editions to follow, viewed by the church as an assault upon the Vulgate, the revered text of Jerome's late fourth century Latin translation. Erasmus called for a "middle way" reformation whereby the abuses of the church, the clergy and the monasteries would be corrected; the superstitions and meaningless rites and rituals eliminated; and the Bible would be placed in the hands of the common people so they could follow the simple "philosophy of Jesus." 

    Initially, Luther and Erasmus were in agreement but they soon parted company over Luther's polemical style in dealing with disputes. In response to Luther's Babylonian Captivity of the Church, King Henry VIII of England wrote his treatise In Defence of the Seven Sacraments, with the help of the noted humanist scholar Thomas More. Henry referred to Luther as "the little monk who spews out against the Pope." Pope Leo X was thrilled by the response and afforded King Henry the title of "Defender of the Faith." Luther quickly responded in 1522 with his treatise Against Henry, the King of England. Luther referred to Henry as the "king of liars" and his Defence made him look like a "livid whore on the street" and spoke of "stuffing such impudent falsehoods down his throat." Erasmus publicly took issue with Luther's style. He believed that disputes within the church should be handled in a brotherly manner. He desired a kinder and gentler Christianity..

    The final break between Luther and Erasmus was over the issue of the the role of the human will.  While Luther, in his famous Bondage of the Will, rejected the ability of fallen man to "will" his own salvation and the production of good works, Erasmus responded by claiming that human reason with a boost from the grace of God could perform meritorious good works and follow the simple "philosophy of Jesus" by studying the Scriptures.

  The reform of Erasmus was a real reform opposed by Roman Catholic traditionalists, but Erasmus refused to challenge the historic theology of the church. He contended that the historicity of the church's dogma demonstrated it's truth. Luther referred to Erasmus as a "slippery eel, only Christ could grab him." Yet, in must be said that Erasmus' desire to see Scripture put in the hands of the common people was praise-worthy.  Erasmus wrote, "Would that the farmer might sing snatches of Scripture at his plough and that the weaver might hum phrases of Scripture to the tune of his shuttle, that the traveler might lighten with stories from Scripture the weariness of his journey." In order to promote Bible study, Erasmus wrote a Latin Paraphrase of the New Testament which was translated into English. During the reign of Protestant Edward VI and Elizabeth I in England, the Paraphrases were placed in the pews along side the Book of Common Prayer. 

    It is interesting to note that the Reformation in England was primarily Erasmian in nature. Historian Roland Bainton writes that "England was the land where the influences of Erasmus was paramount at his death. The entire English Reformation has been characterized as Erasmian."  The noted Dutch historian H. A. Enno van Gelder in his work on the two reformations in the sixteenth century defines the Erasmian humanist Reformation as the “major” Reformation and the Lutheran Reformation as the “minor” reformation.

    The distinction between Luther and Erasmus is a classic example of the theology of the Cross versus the theology of glory. Lutheran theologian Gerhard Forde puts it like this: "Theologically speaking it (a theology of glory) operates on the assumption that we are not seriously addicted to sin, and that our improvement is both necessary and possible. We need a little boost in our desire to do good works…. But the hallmark of a theology of glory is that it will always consider grace as something of a supplement to whatever is left of human will and power."  This is Erasmus in the nutshell.

    Luther, on the other hand, in his Bondage of the Will clearly sets forth the biblical truth that we are dead in our trespasses and sin and can accomplish nothing, no meritorious good work, worthy of salvation. For Luther, the theology of the Cross demanded the preaching of Law and Gospel. It was the Law that stripped man of any pretense of holiness.  The Apostle Paul stated that he was put to death by the Law. Having been convicted of his sin, man is prepared to hear the Good News of the Gospel offering the full forgiveness of sins and the perfect righteousness of Christ. The proclamation of Law and Gospel is the means whereby faith, which grasps the benefits of the Gospel, namely the forgiveness of sins, life and eternal salvation, is produced by the Holy Spirit. From faith proceeds all manner of good works. 

    Those who attend church (or view the worship service on television) should be sensitive to distinguish Erasmianism from Lutheranism, (By Lutheranism I do not mean the specific denomination but the Reformation teaching of Martin Luther as opposed to the teaching of Erasmus.) I suggest that much of the proclamation in Protestant churches today is more Erasmian than Lutheran. The teaching of principles for living based on the example or teachings of Jesus, the marginalizing of key doctrines that define churches of the Reformation, and the desire for unity by compromising truth depicts the teachings of Erasmus.   

    In his introduction to a new English translation of Luther’s Bondage of the Will, published in 1959, J.I. Packer writes: "We are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism today become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters? Or, do we now with Erasmus, rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance  than truth?"

    Luther's characterization of Erasmus as a "slippery eel" is quite accurate. While deceptive, the teachings of Erasmus do have an appeal. How can anyone be critical of a Bible class or sermon geared to encourage the listeners to follow the simple teachings or philosophy of Jesus: to love as Jesus loved, to forgive as Jesus forgave, to be humble as Jesus was humble, to give sacrificially as Jesus gave of Himself for us? Erasmus contended that human reason, informed by the teachings of the New Testament, could willingly, with a ‘boost’ from the grace of God, follow the example of Jesus. Does this not characterize much of the church's teaching and preaching today of principles for living by following the simple "philosophy of Jesus?" Erasmianism is alive and well!