i) Some folks think Christians have a duty to denounce alleged ethical lapses by Rav Zacharias. Now I do think lots of Christians are too quick to hand out the halos. But they could condition a eulogy. "Assuming he's not guilty…" And even if he's guilty of serious moral failings, while that rightly tarnishes his reputation, it doesn't discredit the positive impact of his ministry.
ii) But suppose I don't have an informed judgment regarding the allegations. Do I still have a burden of proof? It's not like I have a duty to have a considered option on the issue. Life is short. We make time-investment decisions. We prioritize.
It isn't even possible to have an informed judgment about most propositions. Consider the countless number of things that happen around the globe in a single day. Or consider the infinite realm of mathematical truths.
Or, to take a different kind of example, consider the sex lives of the Hollywood stars. Surely I have no duty to inform myself about that. Why waste my time on that? Why fill my mind with that?
iii) A potential objection to what I said is that it parallels atheists who say that lacking belief in God carries no burden of proof. Or does it?
One problem with the comparison is the question of scope. The existence or nonexistence of God has implications for literally everything. Ravi's moral character isn't remotely analogous. Does every proposition, however trivial or ephemeral, bear a burden of proof? Or is there a threshold? God lies at one end of the continuum–the very end.
At this point, if you're not informed, it's because you don't want to be. We're letting atheists handle our dirty laundry. We should do better. John Stackhouse *has* done better; better to follow his example than Steve's hand-waving excuses. http://www.raviwatch.com/
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wthrockmorton.com/2017/12/08/christianity-today-john-stackhouse-ravi-zacharias/
"At this point, if you're not informed, it's because you don't want to be."
DeleteIn a sense that' true. So what? That's hardly a damning admission.
I'm not a donor to his ministry. I haven't linked to uncritical eulogies. He's not my leader. He's not my spokesman. I'm under no obligation to want to be informed about Ravi.
"We're letting atheists handle our dirty laundry."
i) Atheists don't set my priorities.
ii) In addition, it's not *our* dirty laundry. If the allegations are true, that's *Ravi's* dirty laundry. One person's dirty laundry isn't ipso facto someone else's dirty laundry. If, however, Dale wants to say Ravi's dirty laundry is Dale's dirty laundry, that's his prerogative. Dale's welcome to share the blame for Ravi's dirty laundry.
"We should do better. John Stackhouse *has* done better"
Notice that Dale said nothing to refute the argument in my post. Instead, he changed the subject.
"better to follow his example than Steve's hand-waving excuses"
Dale has done nothing to show that my argument is a hand-waiving excuse. I said nothing to exonerate Ravi. So what makes my argument a hand-waving excuse?
"http://www.raviwatch.com/
https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2017/12/08/christianity-today-john-stackhouse-ravi-zacharias/"
i) But that's one-sided. So it doesn't stop there. In fairness I'd be obligated to read material that attempts to rebut the allegations.
ii) Again, as I said in my post, we can simply condition our assessment of Ravi.
iii) BTW, is it just a coincidence that Dale's homeboy, fellow apostate and heretic Randal Rauser, is fixated on the Ravi allegations? Or is this a case of Dale sucking up to Rauser because unitarians have so few allies?
"it's not *our* dirty laundry. If the allegations are true, that's *Ravi's* dirty laundry"
DeleteNope, it's every evangelical church and conference that continued to host him and hold him up like a hero, despite these problems being made public. The wider movement provided an environment where systematic credential-puffing paid off.
"Nope, it's every evangelical church and conference that continued to host him and hold him up like a hero, despite these problems being made public. The wider movement provided an environment where systematic credential-puffing paid off."
DeleteOn the one hand, Ravi may be guilty of "credential puffing".
On the other hand, those who supported him may have supported him out of ignorance of his "credential puffing" or because they honestly didn't find the evidence persuasive. (One can be willfully ignorant, but that's not necessarily something that can be said about every supporter.)
In any case, I don't think any Triablogue member is guilty of what you say here.
"Nope, it's every evangelical church and conference that continued to host him and hold him up like a hero, despite these problems being made public."
DeleteWhich isn't *my* dirty laundry since I haven't valorized him or donated to his ministry. So spare me the hasty generalizations.
Steve’s aim on this blog isn’t about being obsessed with others supposed sins.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering whether Steve had an opinion on Operation Rescue's dirty laundry, regarding the allegations of money paid to Norma McCorvey to become pro-life (from the recent documentary "AKA Jane Doe" on FX and Hulu).
ReplyDeleteWhy would he need to have an opinion? Abortion is morally reprehensible either way. Let’s say this claim is true though, deception isn’t always wrong... in war for instance.
DeleteI'm selective about what I form considered judgments about. For instance, I defend the sting operations of the prolife group that conducted them. But personally investigating every alleged or actual scandal by Christians is just a pretext for gossip-mongering.
DeleteI was more interested in it because the press is using it to paint the entire prolife movement as duplicitous. Plus, they are skirting around the fact that this woman had a long history of instability, addiction, and possibly, of playing off the two sides to enrich herself. Operation Rescue itself denies the allegations categorically and claims the filmmaker took advantage of an extremely sick woman in the last couple months of her life.
DeleteI don't take a side on the issue. But to give the other side a hearing, here's an article that's been going around in Christian circles on facebook:
ReplyDeleteIn Defense of Ravi Zacharias
https://mountcarmelapologetics.com/2020/05/14/in-defense-of-ravi-zacharias/