What Do Some Sincere Christians Ignore When They Approve Homosexuality?

            Some Christians, who cannot be termed progressives, approve of homosexual practices (read LGBTQ). These are rather sincere Christians.

            They believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. They believe in the Bible. They do not think that Christianity and other religions are one and the same. If we take their approval of homosexuality out of the picture, these Christians can be termed as faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            But the allure of the material world (through social media) is seemingly so robust that these Christians are influenced strongly by the ideologies of the secular world. Hence, they decide (more so on an emotional basis) that homosexuality is an acceptable practice.

            If they oppose homosexuality, they reckon, they are not showing true love towards their gay friends. So in order to prove their love for their gay brothers and sisters, they approve and endorse homosexual behavior.

            But what about the explicit Bible verses that deem homosexual behavior as sinful (Genesis 19:5-7; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7)? How do these Christians interpret these verses?

            Although these verses explicitly deem homosexuality as a sin against God, they believe that love is a superseding factor. Very minimally, when it comes to terming gay people as sinners they believe that they would be disobeying the Lord Jesus if they deem gay people as sinners. A couple of reasons could be the causal factor:

            1. Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.

            2. The great commandments are predicated on love – to love the Lord God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

            Hence they believe that ‘to love’ is of far greater value than ‘to condemn’ our gay neighbors of their sin.

            They also argue since homosexual practice is consensual and harmless to society, it is okay to practice homosexuality. (Based on these factors would you then endorse Necrophilia? Just asking!)

            Furthermore, Christians supporting LGBTQ practices believe that they are exhibiting greater tolerance by approving gay practices, thus they imagine they are paving way for a peaceful society.

            So they concur with the material / secular world to accept and endorse homosexual behavior.

            This is not only unreasonable reasoning; it embraces faulty hermeneutics and does more damage to society. Superficially, this line of argument seems plausible. But if we dig deeper, it is not, and here’s why:

            First, what is a sin? Sin is an assault against God. A sin is a practice or behavior that offends God. Since God is good and there is no evil in HIM, anything that opposes good or is evil is a sin.

            Second, who classifies a practice as sin? It is ONLY God who can classify a practice as a sin because HE is the Supreme Being – an embodiment of perfection and righteousness. God’s decision is an objective decision. Every action of mankind is to be referred against God and HIS attributes, because man’s sole objective is to worship and glorify God.

            Third, who can declassify a sinful practice to an acceptable practice? If God classified an evil or a wrong practice to be a sin, then it is ONLY God who can declassify that practice from being sinful to acceptable behavior. Man has no role in this whatsoever. Man cannot play God.

            Fourth, why can’t man declassify a sin? Man is imperfect; his knowledge is far from being perfect. Man’s definition of sin is dependent on the mores of his time. It is dependent on the culture of his time and scientific development. The superlative rational thought of a man will always be contaminated by the imperfection hardwired into his essence.

            Significantly, man’s decision will always be subjective and not objective e.g. some cultures accept cannibalism as acceptable behavior, whereas other cultures do not.¹ Furthermore, man’s decision is always vulnerable to evil/corruption.

            Man’s law evolves over a period of time e.g. some countries considered adultery to be a crime but these very countries have decriminalized adultery now. Hence, man’s opinion or judgment changes from time to time. In other words, man’s definition of truth is subjective and not objective, and is subject to change over a period of time.

            So no law imposed by man can remain eternal for the later generations can always supersede the former to either decriminalize the law or perpetually change/erase it.  

            Fifth, what are the repercussions of man declassifying LGBTQ from sinful to acceptable behavior? If we, mere mortals, deem LGBTQ practices as acceptable, in stark contrast to the Bible, especially when the Bible explicitly classifies LGBTQ practices as sinful, then every sin can be [unjustifiably] and thusly declassified. 

            Consider this instance. Adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner) is considered sinful because God classified it as a sin, since it violates the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage between man and a woman.

            But some countries have decriminalized adultery. Adultery, which was once a crime, is no longer a crime in countries such as India (however it remains as a valid ground for divorce).²

            Therefore, it may only be a matter of time when every stigma concerned with adultery may be removed and adultery may be an acceptable practice sooner than later.

            Consider Polyamory - the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all people involved. If gay marriages are deemed acceptable by some Christians, on what grounds would they deem polyamory as sinful? The polyamorous ‘throuple’(a relationship between three people who have all unanimously agreed to be in a romantic, loving, relationship together with the consent of all people involved.) would demand endorsement from the church and the state based on the factors that it is harmless and consensual à la homosexual practice.

            The Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) have already endorsed polyamory as an acceptable behavior: [Emphasis Mine]³

WE AFFIRM a self-conception of having inherent worth, being loved by God, and belonging to a family or community should be defined as God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We affirm that homosexuality, bi and pan-sexuality, asexuality, transgender and non-binary gender, polyamory and all other forms of queer identity are as much valid and holy self-conceptions consistent with God’s holy purposes as cisgender, heterosexual and monogamous identities.

WE DENY that an imposition of a strict gender binary of male and female being and loving was God’s idea in creation, as such demands cause harm to God’s people and God’s church.

            So it is only a matter of time when most of the churches would bless polyamorous relationships because the approval of LGBTQ practices is a valid precedent.

            This clearly demonstrates that if man defines a sinful practice by overriding God, and the Bible, then most or every sinful practice could be deemed as acceptable behavior in due time. 

            Those who support LGBTQ practices will be responsible for the endorsement of much more deadly practices that are detrimental to the society such as Polyamory, Pedophilia, and Bestiality etc.

            Significantly, since they oppose God, their salvation could be in jeopardy. They are treading dangerous waters, ““But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea…” (Matthew 18:6, NET).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.ranker.com/list/cannibalism-around-the-world/jacob-shelton

²http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1140-decriminalization-of-adultery-in-india.html

³https://www.mccchurch.org/an-mcc-response-to-the-nashville-statement/

Websites last accessed on 16^th November 2020.

Cult Watch: The Enemy Within – Progressive Christians!

            Your friendly neighborhood Christian may be friendly and even brotherly but may not be a Christian after all. He is a greater threat to the salvation of a sincere Christian.

            He is the Progressive Christian or a Liberal Christian – the cunning wolf in Christian spiritual attire.

            Progressive or Liberal Christianity cannot be ignored. We cannot label them as non-threatening. They are real and they pose a terrifying challenge to our spiritual wellness.

            Who are progressive Christians? A progressive Christian (or about to be one) would utter the following comments (thanks to Alisa Childers’ blog), which disagree with the core tenets of Historic Christianity:¹

1.      Sin doesn't separate us from God—we are made in His image and He called us good....

2.      God didn't actually require a sacrifice for our sins—the first Christians picked up on the pagan practice of animal sacrifice and told the Jesus story in similar terms....

3.      We don't really need to preach the gospel—we just need to show love by bringing justice to the oppressed and provision to the needy...

4.      God wouldn't punish sinners—He is love....

5.      Sure, the Bible is authoritative—but we've misunderstood it for the first 2,000 years of church history...

6.      It's not our job to talk to anyone about sin—it's our job to just love them....

7.      The resurrection of Jesus doesn't have to be factual to speak truth....

8.  The church's historic position on sexuality is archaic and needs to be updated within a modern framework...

9.    The idea of a literal hell is offensive to non-Christians and needs to be re-interpreted....

10.  That Bible verse doesn't resonate with me....

11.  I thought homosexuality was a sin until I met and befriended some gay people....

12.  I just can’t believe Jesus would send good people to hell....

13.  I disagree with the Apostle Paul on that issue...

            Whenever we are in a discussion with our Christian friends, we should red-flag these comments if our friend utters one or more of them because that should remind us that he/she could be a progressive Christian.

            Another way to identify a liberal or a progressive Christian is by observing his loyalties, which would oppose the Historic Christian and align with the Progressive worldview. A progressive Christian would typically believe that:

            1. Jesus is not the only way to heaven.

            2. Jesus will save all mankind (Universalism or Inclusivism).

            3. Jesus will not send people to hell or there is no hell or another variant of this.

            4. LGBTQ practices are legitimate. {They will subsequently approve ‘Polyamory’ (the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all the people involved.) and even Pedophilia!}

            5. Abortion is legit (pro-choice).  

            These are a few examples.

            In essence, the progressive or liberal Christians would hold to a lowered view of the Bible, which means: [Emphasis Mine].²

A. REINTERPRET THE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES OF HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY: Progressivism challenges core doctrines of Christian orthodoxy. The Scriptures teach that Jesus was crucified to atone for our sins, but progressives tend to argue that Jesus’ death was merely a martyrdom. The Scriptures claim that Jesus is divine, but often progressives only emphasize the humanity of Jesus–unitarianism grew up with Western liberalism. The sinfulness of humanity is generally downplayed by progressives, who tend to think that all people are basically good and not really in need of salvation.

B. HISTORIC TERMS ARE REDEFINED: Progressives often are beholden to the ideology of science and to the most recent sentiments of the age, so they constantly reinterpret the Scriptures to keep up with Western sensibilities.

Often progressives use biblical language, but they shift its meaning: the resurrection becomes a metaphor instead of a historic fact, holiness becomes liturgy instead of sexual purity, and the like. Same language, but new meanings.

A big one is “love.” If we allow a 21st century definition of love to be imported back into historic, biblical Christianity, we may end up with something quite different from what the Scriptures mean. “Love” in the Bible means putting the needs of others first, but “love” in 21st century thought means accepting or embracing whatever a person wants you to accept and embrace.

That’s not biblical love.

C. THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL MESSAGE SHIFTS FROM SIN AND REDEMPTION TO SOCIAL JUSTICE: Justice is a central concern of the Scriptures, and it should be a central concern for disciples of Jesus. But “social justice” is a relatively new term — one not found in the Bible. It’s a fine term if it means treating people fairly, fighting racism, standing for life, and the like.

But often the term “social justice” means little more than political ideology that is largely disconnected from biblical justice. Progressives tend to focus on social justice to the exclusion of the Gospel. The Gospel is not about God making paradise of this world, but God raising us into a new heaven and earth. When social justice replaces the Gospel, you won’t get the Gospel, but you also won’t get justice.

            How dangerous is Progressive Christianity? Would a progressive Christian go to hell? This is a significant question. (If progressive Christianity does not have any significant eternal ramifications, then why are we wasting our time striving to refute it?)

            Progressive Christianity believes that Jesus is not the only way to heaven. They do not believe that the Bible is the only book that Christians should believe and follow. They believe in the other religious books as if they are just as valid as the Bible. Sin and redemption are not the essential ingredients to the gospel. Social justice is the crux of their gospel. Progressive Christians believe that other religions are just as valid as Christianity is.

            This version of Christianity is diluted, warped, and distorted. It removes a Christian away from the Bible.

            This is not Christianity.

            Those who believe and subscribe to progressive Christianity may call themselves Christians, but they are not Christians in the biblical sense.

            The final argument for suggesting hell as an eternal destination for progressive Christians is this:

            Progressive or Liberal Christianity alludes to the notion that Christians can sin freely and without any guilt. They are not compelled to believe in Jesus or the Bible.

            Progressive Christianity espouses the notion that people can abuse God until their very last breath, yet not be hellbound. For instance, Richard Dawkins, in his book ‘God Delusion’ abused God as, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

            If Dawkins (if he is to be an Atheist or a Christian - hypothetically speaking) continues to abuse God until his very last breath, progressive Christians would believe that Dawkins will go to heaven or at the very minimum be annihilated (post his death), once and for all.

            A religion that teaches or even allude to the notion that one can abuse God, yet go to heaven, is a false religion that worships a mythical god!

            These beliefs of the progressives are against the core tenets of Historic Christianity.

            So sincere Christians, beware of the enemy within – the progressives!

Endnotes:

¹https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/5-signs-your-church-might-be-heading-toward-progressive-christianity

²https://christianchronicle.org/is-progressive-christianity-dangerous/

Websites last accessed on 11^th November 2020.

Pope Francis Approves Homosexual Marriages? (Can A Catholic Disagree With Pope Francis?)

             Recently, Pope Francis called for a civil union law that legally protects same-sex marriages. Pope Francis claimed that gay couples have an inherent right to this protection because they are God’s children, ““Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it...””¹

            In this context, two antecedent events are remarkable.

            First, in the past, Pope Francis did not approve of a civil union law for gay couples. He characterized the civil union law for gay couples, if implemented, as an anthropological regression, “In the 2013 book “On Heaven and Earth,” Pope Francis did not reject the possibility of civil unions outright, but did say that laws “assimilating” homosexual relationships to marriage are “an anthropological regression,” and he expressed concern that if same-sex couples “are given adoption rights, there could be affected children. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity.”²

            Second, the official Catholic teaching opposes the practice of homosexuality and the implementation of a civil law for gay couples, “In 2003, under the leadership of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and at the direction of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith taught that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions…” “Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity…” “Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase,” the document said.”³ [Emphasis Mine].

            This then is the problem.

            Advocating for a civil union law to protect gay marriages is synonymous with endorsing the homosexual practice. Furthermore, this may sway young Catholics towards accepting and practicing homosexuality.

            The theological stumbling block is this: God, through the Bible, deemed homosexuality as a sin. But Pope Francis seems to have declassified homosexuality as an acceptable practice before God.

            Only God has the authority to classify a practice as a sin. So if a practice ought to be declassified from sin to an acceptable practice, then it is God who should exercise HIS authority to execute the declassification. 

            Essentially, Pope Francis has played God again.

            The temptation to play God could be a consequence of ‘Papal Infallibility.’

            Anything that the Pope says or does would have consequences to the Catholic community. In this context, would the radical shift in Pope Francis’ perception of gay marriages influence the Catholic Church to change its stance on gay marriages? Alternatively, should the Pope’s opinion change or detrimentally influence the doctrinal stand of a catholic?

            In order to arrive at an answer to these questions, we need to understand the concept of ‘Papal Infallibility.’ In other words, did the pope assume infallibility while making such comments?

            To understand Papal Infallibility, we need to understand a few technical terms:

            1. The Magisterium is the authority to teach, in the name of Christ, the truths of Christian faith and life…⁴

            2. The Extraordinary Magisterium “is exercised when a doctrine pertaining to Faith and morals is proclaimed as definitive and infallible:

                      1. by the pope alone or

                      2. by the pope and an Ecumenical Council with him.

            The pope makes infallible pronouncements when he speaks “ex cáthedra” (Latin:    from the throne), i.e. with the full weight of his office.”⁵

            3. The Ordinary Magisterium “is exercised when the pope or the bishops in communion with him propose, without pronouncing in a definitive manner, a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of Faith and morals.” ⁶

            Ed Feser, one of the best contemporary writers in Philosophy, explains Papal Infallibility well. This, interestingly, is in response to a question if the pope, in theory, could reverse the Church’s teaching about homosexuality.

            Feser puts forth the following points in his blog entitled “Papal fallibility (Updated)” [Emphasis Mine]:⁷

A. “Some people think that Catholic teaching is that a pope is infallible not only when making ex cathedra declarations, but in everything he does and says.  That is also simply not the case.  Catholic doctrine allows that popes can make grave mistakes, even mistakes that touch on doctrinal matters in certain ways.”

B. “Some think that a Catholic is obliged to accept the teaching of a pope only when that teaching is put forward by him as infallible.  That too is not the case… Others think that a Catholic is obliged to agree more or less with every view or decision of a pope regarding matters of theology, philosophy, politics, etc. even when it is not put forward as infallible.  And that too is not the case.” 

C. There are “several conditions for the exercise of this extraordinary Magisterium.  First, the pope must appeal to his supreme teaching authority as the successor of Peter, as opposed to speaking merely as a private theologian, or making off-the-cuff remarks, or the like.  An exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium would, accordingly, typically involve some formal and solemn declaration.  Second, he must be addressing some matter of doctrine concerning faith or morals…Third, he must be “defining” some doctrine in the sense of putting it forward as official teaching that is binding on the entire Church.  The extraordinary Magisterium doesn’t pertain to teaching that concerns merely local or contingent circumstances.”

D. The pope cannot contradict the Scripture.

E. Papal infallibility, then, is not some magical power by which a pope can transform any old thing he wishes into a truth that all are bound to accept.  It is an extension of the infallibility of the preexisting body of doctrine that it is his job to safeguard, and thus must always be exercised in continuity with that body of doctrine.  Naturally, then, the pope would not be speaking infallibly if he taught something that either had no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or previous magisterial teaching, or contradicted those sources of doctrine.  If it had no such basis, it could be mistaken, and if it contradicted those sources of doctrine, it would be mistaken.

F. Popes could err. In his blog, Feser mentions instances of errant popes, some in an extremely serious way. Feser writes, “if popes can err gravely even on matters touching on doctrine and the governance of the Church, it goes without saying that they can err gravely with respect to matters of politics, science, economics, and the like.”

G. Why do popes err? Feser predicates papal error upon free will, “The sober truth is that Christ sometimes lets his Vicar err, only within definite limits but sometimes gravely.  Why?  In part because popes, like all of us, have free will.  But in part, precisely to show that (as Cardinal Ratzinger put it) “the thing cannot be totally ruined” -- not even by a pope.”

            Thanks to Ed Feser, it’s quite obvious that Pope Francis did not exercise extraordinary magisterium when he spoke about the civil law for gay marriages. Moreover, since the Bible is extremely explicit about homosexuality being a sin, Pope Francis cannot, and is not authorized to, contradict the Bible to declassify homosexuality from being a sin to an acceptable practice. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that popes have erred and can err. So Pope Francis has indeed erred.

            So we infer that Pope Francis’ opinion about civil laws for gay couples cannot influence or change the Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

            Therefore, a Catholic need not consider Pope Francis’ statement to be infallible. But can legitimately disagree with the pope and continue to do what the Bible says i.e. do not practice or endorse homosexuality because it is a sin (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462

²Ibid.

³Ibid.

⁴https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/05/29/the-magisterium-defined/

⁵CCC 891;  http://www.catholic-catechism.com/?searchtext=magisterium

⁶CCC 892; http://www.catholic-catechism.com/?searchtext=magisterium

⁷http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html

Websites last accessed on 1^st November 2020. 

If We Are Wrong About Ravi Zacharias Would We Be Wrong About Jesus And The Apostles?

             The last few years of Ravi Zacharias were turbulent. His integrity and his godly character were questioned!

            He who spent most of his life defending Historic Christianity had to defend the veracity of his own life, which he never failed to proclaim as being nothing short of godly. Today, in a very regrettable turn of events, we are forced to defend Historic Christianity from the atheists, who are citing Ravi’s life as evidence against the character of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

            The atheist slogan against Historic Christianity is this, “Christians, if you can be wrong about Ravi Zacharias, why can’t you be wrong about Paul, Matthew, Mark Luke, John, or even Jesus?”

THE ALLEGATIONS

            Let us first be aware of the allegations against Ravi Zacharias. Here’s a succinct summary:

            Exaggerated academic credentials: Ravi claimed he was a ‘Professor at Oxford.’¹ But he was not. When Ravi was questioned, he issued a written statement affirming he was never a professor at Oxford, “…And while I have lectured at Wycliffe Hall, I am not and have never been a professor at the University of Oxford.”²

            More controversy hovers around the prefix of ‘Dr.’ before his name, but Ravi affirmed he had not earned a doctorate degree, “I have never earned a doctoral degree and was never enrolled at the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge.”³

            Sexting Allegations: A Canadian woman was reported to have sent her nude pictures to Ravi. Ravi, allegedly, according to this woman, continued his online conversation with her.

            However, Ravi, when he was alive, in a statement to Christianity Today, denied an extended online conversation with this woman, “Then, last year, she shockingly sent me extremely inappropriate pictures of herself unsolicited. I clearly instructed her to stop contacting me in any form; I blocked her messages, and I resolved to terminate all contact with her.”⁴

            Sexual Perversions: After Ravi passed on, Christianity Today reported the allegations of three women who worked for Ravi Zacharias at the massage spa, he co-owned. They alleged that Ravi harassed them sexually for about five years, “Three women who worked at the businesses, located in a strip mall in the Atlanta suburbs, told Christianity Today that Ravi Zacharias touched them inappropriately, exposed himself, and masturbated during regular treatments over a period of about five years. His business partner said he regrets not stopping Zacharias and sent an apology text to one of the victims this month.

            RZIM denies the claims, saying in a statement to CT that the charges of sexual misconduct “do not in any way comport with the man we knew for decades.” The organization has hired a law firm “with experience investigating such matters” to look into the allegations, which date back at least 10 years. RZIM declined to answer any further questions about the inquiry.”⁵

TRUTH MATTERS

            Even if we are to let go of the allegations against inflated academic credentials (because it happens most of the time with many leaders), we cannot ignore the allegations of online sexting and the alleged sexual harassment of three or more women at the spas Ravi co-owned.

            As Ravi himself often said, Truth matters.

            RZIM and C&MA (the ministry that ordained Ravi Zacharias) are conducting parallel investigations into the allegations. However, some people wonder if truth would ever be revealed to us:⁶

Even now, after revelation of shocking sexual abuse and harassment allegations by massage therapists at spas Zacharias co-owned, RZIM seems bent on denial. Though RZIM has hired a firm to investigate the spa allegations, what’s telling is RZIM’s recent statement, labeling the accusations “false.”

So, before the results of any independent investigation, RZIM apparently has made up its mind. It’s likely, then, that RZIM’s “investigation” will not be an attempt to discover the truth, but rather a ruse to justify a foregone conclusion.

The law firm RZIM hired for the investigation, Miller & Martin, is telling, as well. The firm has been accused of fraud and appears to have little expertise in sexual harassment and abuse cases.

But what’s most concerning is that Miller & Martin promotes itself as an expert in “crisis management.” On its website, the firm states that its crisis management team “aggressively pursues avoidance” and helps “limit” the amount that a crisis “damage(s) a client’s brand.”

This is not a firm that an organization committed to truth and transparency would hire for its “independent” investigation.

            The truth does matter.

            But would we ever know the truth?

            I don’t know.

AT RISK

            Two groups of people are at risk. They need our prayers.

            Ravi’s family: With this alleged scandal out in the mainstream media, Ravi’s family, especially his grandchildren, could catch flak from our unforgiving society. May God protect them from emotional trauma and from all harms and danger.

            Ravi’s victims: If the said allegations are true, then Ravi’s victims need our prayer too. After all, they are also made in God’s image. Victims of sexual harassment need divine healing. Every single victim needs our prayers.

DEBUNKING ATHEISTS

            So atheists, upon surveying the allegations against Ravi Zacharias, throw a seed of doubt into the minds of naïve Christians. They ask, “Christians, if you can be wrong about Ravi Zacharias, why can’t you be wrong about Paul, Matthew, Mark Luke, John, or even Jesus?”

            To cast aspersions on the characters of Paul, Matthew, Mark Luke, John, or even Jesus based on the life of Ravi Zacharias is thoughtless and reckless on many counts. Let us consider two reasons as to why atheists’ contention is fictitious, deceptive and misleading.

            Mere Allegations: The sexting and sexual harassment allegations are mere allegations. Nothing is certain. Unless there is concrete evidence, Ravi stays in the clear. He remains innocent until proven guilty.

            If Ravi is not proven guilty, he cannot be the cause of casting aspersions on the characters of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

            Logically Fallacious: To doubt the characters of Jesus and the Apostles based on Ravi’s sin is ‘Bad Reasoning.’

            It is bad reasoning to say that there are allegations against Ravi, so we should investigate the characters of the Apostles. (Even if Ravi Zacharias is found guilty of immoral acts, one cannot doubt or suspect the characters of the Apostles or Jesus Christ.)

            To say that Ravi Zacharias is an adulterer, so his leader(s) would also be adulterers is not an adequate premise. It is plausible that the leader(s) would not be adulterers even though Ravi was one.

            A father need not be an adulterer, even if his son were to be one.

             If one or more followers of a particular leader practice adultery, then the leader cannot be doubted for adultery. The leader can only be doubted for adultery if his behavior leads to such a suspicion. Even if his/her behavior is suspicious, the leader is not an adulterer unless he confesses or is proven (with concrete evidence) to be an adulterer.  

            Without any concrete evidence, the judiciary would not entertain a plea to investigate the President or the Prime Minister or the King because one or more of their followers are practicing one or more immoral practices. It would be dim-witted to assume the leader to be guilty of the sin(s) practiced by the followers.

 BIBLICALLY SPEAKING

            The Bible categorically teaches that all men are sinners.

            This is not to say that all men are adulterers. Adultery is one of the many sins listed in the Bible. But no man can claim to be sinless and perfect (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:10; 1 John 1:8). If Apostle Paul claimed to be the worst sinner (1 Timothy 1:15), it is a given that Ravi or you or me or any Christian are indeed sinners because we are vulnerable to sins. 

            I do not for even a moment think that Ravi ever claimed to be sinless. But, on more than one occasion, he claimed to be faithful to his wife Margie at all times.

            If Ravi was unfaithful to Margie and if he had practiced adultery, then he would receive from God what is due to him, for God knows what Ravi did.

THE CONCLUSION

            Let not this set a precedent for us to assume that all Christian leaders are adulterers or corrupt. (Of course, there are corrupt Christian leaders who deserve to be banished from their positions.)

            Although not one man can claim to be sinless, each one can reflect Christ to the best of his abilities. No Christian leader can be perfectly godly or perfectly Christlike, but they can be good and trustworthy. So let’s continue to trust our leaders, who have been appointed by God.

            Many of us would have loved, enjoyed, and learned much from Ravi Zacharias’ sermons and speeches. Let us continue to do so despite the apparent slur on his integrity.

            I have no connections with RZIM, but I still say that if you have been supporting RZIM, continue to do so if the Lord so leads you to. Remember that you give to God primarily (Cf. 1 Chronicles 29:14; 2 Corinthians 9:10-15). Man is a sheer recipient of your gifts to God.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2018/08/21/blast-from-the-past-ravi-zacharias-made-himself-a-professor-at-oxford/

& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmTPxgGuA7Q&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=C.S.LewisInstitute; watch the clip at 52:40.

²https://www.wthrockmorton.com/category/ravi-zacharias/

³Ibid.

⁴https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/december/ravi-zacharias-sexting-extortion-lawsuit-doctorate-bio-rzim.html

⁵https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/september/ravi-zacharias-sexual-harassment-rzim-spa-massage-investiga.html

⁶https://julieroys.com/ravi-zacharias-allegations-highlight-secrecy-cover-up-at-rzim/

Websites last accessed on 19^th October 2020. 

Don't Say This To A Suffering Person

            Living amidst a pandemic is challenging. Every second or third person we may encounter may be suffering.

            Comforting a suffering soul is not simple. Not all of us can comfort a suffering soul. Sometimes what we say may have the opposite effect of comfort.  

            So let’s see what not to say and what to say to a person in pain and misery.

DON’TS

            The Bible advises us to not speak mindlessly (James 1:19).

            I am there for you always: While uttering words of comfort we may say, “I am there for you always. Count on me.” Let us not say this and then not contact the suffering soul or disregard them when the suffering person contacts us.

            I’ll always pray for you: This is a serious commitment we are getting into when we utter these words. Let us not say this and not communicate to the sufferer for an extended period.

            It may be acceptable if we pray diligently for this person but remain out of contact. But the alternate – to not pray – is to be dishonest.

            There is greater dishonesty: To say we are praying for him when we are actually not praying for him.

            This is an exhibition of travesty: To merely pray or wish the sufferer well when God has placed us in a position of being a greater help to them (Cf. James 2:15-17).

            To not alleviate the financial needs of a suffering soul is a classic example. To not use our authority to help a jobless person get a job is another example.

            When ministering to a suffering soul, it is better to not speak much. Instead, let us listen and offer our shoulders for them to cry on.

            Do not dismiss the feelings of a suffering soul:¹ [Emphasis Mine]

One of the biggest mistakes you can make when someone tells you bad news is to deny you heard anything troubling…Changing the subject, making jokes or coming up with reasons why the problem isn’t a problem cut off communication and tell the sufferer that it’s not all right to express sorrow.

Comments like “Don’t worry,” “Don’t cry,” “Cheer up,” “It could be worse,” “It’s not that bad,” “Everything will be fine” and “Look at the bright side” can do the same thing.

When you respond in these ways, you are in effect casting aside the sufferers’ concerns and telling them you’re not interested in hearing about their struggles. This can leave them feeling unheard, misunderstood or deserted. They may feel as though they’re being corrected for feeling the way they do. Their burden becomes heavier, not lighter.

Part of the problem is thinking that when we’re facing trials, we must always put on a cheery façade, even if we’re hurting. But Ecclesiastes 3:4 says there’s “a time to weep.” It’s okay to admit we’re in pain.

Those who are hurting need you to accept their feelings and acknowledge what they’re going through. Reassure them that their concerns are valid. Allow them to be sad, grieve or cry when they’re with you. Don’t expect them to pretend that everything is normal just so you can feel more comfortable.

            Here’s more of what not to say:² [Emphasis Mine]

1) Do not say: “It could be worse.”

…We have some odd ways of cheering each other up.

The comment is accurate—everything could be worse. We suffer and then, along with the suffering, have a comforter who says it could be worse.

Such a comment is utterly thoughtless. God himself would never say or sanction it. God does not compare our present suffering to anyone else’s or to worst-case scenarios. Ever. If we hear friends do this in their own suffering, it does not give us the right to chime in. Instead, it might be a time to warn them.

“Yes, your suffering might not seem as severe as _______, but God doesn’t compare your sufferings to others.”

If we make such comparisons, we might be tempted not to speak of the suffering from our hearts to the Lord because we would consider it whining, which it certainly is not.

So even though things could be worse, that is never an appropriate thing to say to others or to let others say about their situation. God is not dismissive of our hardships, and neither should we be.

2) Do not say: “What is God teaching you through this?” Or, “God will work this together for good.”

Those platitudes are biblical in that God does teach us in our suffering, and he is working all things together for good (Rom. 8:28). We agree with C. S. Lewis when he writes that pain is God’s megaphone to arouse a deaf world. But these kinds of comments have hurt so many people; let’s agree that we will never say them.

Consider a few of the possible problems with this and other poorly timed misuses of biblical passages:

Such responses circumvent compassion. Will you have compassion if someone is being “taught a lesson”? Not likely.

Such responses tend to be condescending, as in, “I wonder when you will finally get it.”

Such responses suggest that suffering is a solvable riddle. God has something specific in mind, and we have to guess what it is. Welcome to a cosmic game of Twenty Questions, and we’d better get the right answer soon; otherwise, the suffering will continue.

Such responses suggest that we have done something to unleash the suffering.

Such responses undercut God’s call to all suffering people: “Trust me.”

In our attempts to help, we can over-interpret suffering. We search for clues to God’s ways, as if suffering were a scavenger hunt. Get to the end, with the right answers, and God will take away the pain. Meanwhile, the quest for answers is misguided from the start and will end badly. Suffering is not an intellectual matter that needs answers; it is highly personal: Can I trust him? Does he hear? Suffering is a relational matter, and it is a time to speak honestly to the Lord and remember that the fullest revelation he gives of himself is through Jesus Christ, the suffering servant. Only when we look to Jesus can we know that God’s love and our suffering can coexist.

3) Do not say: “If you need anything, please call me, anytime.”

This heads in a better direction; it is not quite a platitude. However, this common and kind comment reveals that we do not really know the person. Sufferers usually don’t know what they want or need, and they won’t call you. The comment is the equivalent of, “I’ve said something nice, now see ya later.” It gives no real thought to the sufferer’s needs and circumstances, and the suffering person knows it.

       Please do not be Super-Spiritual or judgmental. Read point (2) again.

DO’S  

         Let’s be connected to the suffering person. Call them at least once a week. Visit them.

        Pray with them. Listen to them. Let us offer our shoulders for them to cry on. 

        Offer them help. Every suffering person needs help. Alleviate their financial and other needs, if any.

         Here’s a very valuable piece of advice as to what to do while ministering to a suffering person:³

When a friend is suffering, rather than offering “help” that actually hurts, keep these three principles in mind:

1. Sit and listen. Having someone listen as I pour out my heart has helped me more than any words ever have. I just want someone to be there. To weep with me. To say she is sorry things are so hard. To not expect me to have perfect theology. To let me rant. What an amazing gift it is not to feel judged by every word I utter in desperation.

2. Make specific offers to help. Concrete offers are the easiest to accept. Statements like: “I’d like to bring a meal next week. Would Tuesday work or would you prefer another day?” Or “I’m about to go to the grocery store. What can I get you?”

3. Stay in touch. Pray. Write notes. Call or visit. Text. Send little reminders that we’re not forgotten.

All of us have let our friends down in their struggles. And all of us have been hurt or disappointed by our friends in our own grief. We cannot perfectly comfort someone else, and we don’t need to “fix” our friends. Instead, let’s sit with our suffering friends. Cry with them. Support them as they grieve. They need grace to heal.

Remember, our suffering friends don’t need a savior. They already have one . . . and so do we.

Endnotes:

¹https://lifehopeandtruth.com/relationships/communication/what-not-to-say-suffering/

²https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/explore-the-bible/3-things-not-to-say-when-someone-is-suffering.html

³https://www.todayschristianwoman.com/articles/2015/january-week-4/what-not-to-say-to-someone-whos-suffering.html

Websites last accessed on 30^th September 2020