I paused a few weeks before offering my thoughts on the revelations concerning Ravi Zacharias. Not providing links here as you either already know about it or you can find it elsewhere on the web.
Perhaps the main reason for my silence is that this hit close to home. In a previous job, I planned an entire event around Zacharias—a seminar and fundraiser with a few thousand attending to hear him teach. Since I was involved in logistics, I only met Ravi briefly but I spent considerable time around his team (specifically Nabeel Qureshi who, unfortunately, passed away from cancer at a young age). Both my wife and I have friendships with people holding strong ties to his ministry, so there’s a deep sadness for us now.
It’s important to immediately address that there were countless victims of Zacharias’ predatory actions and we cannot ignore the pain forced upon them. Not only was there abuse but spiritual manipulation was used to cover it up; it seems as though he guilted victims into silence suggesting that people would lose faith if his crimes were known. While lamenting the unthinkable damage he inflicted on these women, and praying for their comfort in the aftermath, I also fear for Ravi as he appears before the throne of God; Scripture attests that spiritual leaders will be held to a higher standard for their actions and he used his position as a faith leader to commit grievous sins.
So while there is much to be learned from this failure, looking for lessons does not in any way negate the experience of the victims. In fact, it’s important for both religious leaders and their organizations to do some soul searching to prevent such abuse from taking place under their watch. While many have offered ideas of how such abuse of power can be curtailed, I want to identify something I believe Scripture teaches that Christian leaders often ignore.
RETHINKING ACCOUNTABILITY
Many Christians maintain a hierarchical view of Christian authority, viewing wisdom and spiritual maturity within a pyramid structure. While it’s most commonly referred to today as celebrity culture, it existed long before the days of church conferences and social media. We Christians tend to elevate certain personalities toward higher spiritual status. Most consistently, this occurs when those leaders self-assert that they are worthy of a position of authority. In light of this there are cynics who desire a non-structural Christian experience, but this overcorrection isn’t necessarily helpful. Read the New Testament and you’ll observe that believers have different gifts. Some of those gifts are more public in nature and will visibly present the gift-holder as a spiritual leader.
In my experience, the issue is not with structuralism but rather with how those people are kept in check. Again, looking at the New Testament, we see a church structure that was managed by a plurality of leaders living in accountability to each other. While this is the norm, American Christianity often strays from this template. There are Christian leaders who seemingly hold such a position of status that it can be difficult for them to be held accountable.
The Old Testament holds an example of this in the person of King David. In 1 Samuel 13:14 it was revealed that David was, "a man after God's own heart." From these humble beginnings, David’s spirituality and savvy led him to a seat upon the throne ruling over God’s people. But the very virtues that led David to the crown were distorted by power. His heart was corrupted throughout his reign—from his sexual conquest of a married woman to allowing 70,000 of his subjects die for mere arrogance.
With David, the issue was exacerbated because Kings of Israel operated in complete autonomy; sure, the Lord sent prophets to confront kings of their sins but they could easily be ignored or even killed.
When thinking of Ravi’s manipulation, I wonder if he thought of himself as a David.
Explore Ravi’s origin story or read his writings, and you see a man whose life was lived to defend the rightness of God. But underneath this spiritual façade was a predator, a man who saw his people as subjects that existed for his pleasure. I’m curious to see if this was a view Ravi long held or if it was something that revealed itself as he became a world famous Christian leader.
While there’s a certain romanticism of royalty (note the continued fascination of moderns toward the Windsors or, biblically, Israel’s continued request for God to grant them a king) it is not the ideal structure of spiritual leadership. I’d suggest that the better way is visible in the New Testament. The structure of the church supersedes the monarchy as, in the body of Christ, a plurality of leaders can call other believers into biblical submission. By design, the church ought to be a place where the indiscretions of leaders can be brought into correction.
Yet unfortunately, the rise of parachurch organizations and individual ministry creates situations with little to no accountability. From multiple firsthand accounts, Ravi was confronted by those within his organization about issues but such such efforts—even about minor issues—were completed rebuffed. I’m not suggesting then that all ministry must take place within the confines of the local church, but ministry practitioners must operate in a similar system of accountability. I’m quite skeptical of leaders who won’t submit to other Christian leaders, specifically those who refuse to participate in the local church (which was apparently Ravi’s modus operandi). The benefit of biblical community is that the Lord calls us to submission through mutual relationships so we all are all held to standards of behavior.
Obviously there are churches that have a plurality of leaders and don’t consistently maintain these standards. Yes, there are flawed churches but it doesn’t mean the biblical system is broken. Local leadership is a labor of love that takes time and effort. But just because certain churches have failed at this, we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you take the claims of Scripture seriously, one cannot pursue the path of Christ in isolation of the local community of believers.
From my perspective, it’s actually this skepticism of the church leadership structure that permits predators like Ravi to reign freely. Reluctance to accept local church leadership pushes us to look for different kinds of spiritual authority. While we reject leaders we know, we love to laud leaders afar. And in the world of Church Inc., there are an ever increasing amount of those leaders accessible to us, many of whom operate freely, outside the confines of any accountability. In essence, it’s the dismissal of the church leadership empowers celebrity Christian culture. When you know the flaws of your own pastors, you’re generally more enamored by the leader of whom you know little.
This isn’t a call to deconstruct Christian leaders, but to address their authenticity. Think about the revisionist history of King David. To be clear, he’s a fascinating character. If all you knew about David were his psalms, you’d suspect he was the greatest man of faith who ever lived. Yet despite the fact that the Bible lists his many sins, he’s often presented as an admirable character—someone to be emulated. We tend to teach our children more about the Goliath story than of his abuse of Bathsheba.
The modern church has afforded Davidic status to leaders that appear to be “after God’s own heart.” They are offered levels of respect and trust to the extent that they are practically autonomous. And this is what creates contexts in which abuse can reign. The tragedy of so many of these recent cases is that abusers were supposedly operating in systems of accountability and yet they were not confronted effectively until it was far too late.
And in far too many of these cases, the spiritual status of the abusers are so great that their victims are sometimes portrayed as culpable or conniving. Instead of being protected, they are silenced in the shadow of the perceived holiness of the leader. The Scriptures do not tell us that leaders should be above accountability. So we do we let it persist?
The church needs leaders and needs its leaders to be in relationships of true accountability. For too long our faith has based upon the brilliance of saints when, in realty, it should have been built upon the realization that we are merely redeemed sinners. The hero of Scripture is Christ and we are flawed participants in His story. Unless we acknowledge this, our faith is incomplete. The expectation that leaders should be held to a higher standard doesn’t eliminate the effectiveness of the gospel.
Biblical accountability ought to work. When it fails, it’s often because too many leaders long to be kings.