Ravi Cancelled
In case you missed it see below. Already pulled from Faithlife
Ravi Zacharias’s Books Pulled by HarperCollins After RZIM Investigative Report
Author Lee Strobel also plans to revise his “Case for Faith” to remove the late apologist.
Kate ShellnuttFebruary 12, 2021 06:49 PM
The biggest Christian publisher in the United States will no longer offer resources by the late Ravi Zacharias following the final report of an investigation confirming his years-long pattern of abuse, and is working with at least one prominent author to remove Zacharias from other works.
HarperCollins Christian Publishing—which includes Zondervan and Thomas Nelson—had published more than 20 titles authored, coauthored, or edited by Zacharias over a 26-year span, including Can Man Live Without God?, which had been released in 21 languages.
“In September, when the most-recent sexual misconduct allegations against the late Ravi Zacharias surfaced, HarperCollins Christian Publishing immediately suspended all projects and shipments of his work,” said Casey Francis Harrell, vice president of corporate communications.
“Following the findings in the independent report, the company will immediately take all his publications out of print. We are deeply saddened, and we mourn for the victims.”
The HarperCollins site listed 16 English titles authored by Zacharias, which totaled more than 2 million copies in sales by the time of his death in May 2020.
The month before Zacharias died, Zondervan had published Seeing Jesus from the East, which the apologist co-authored with Abdu Murray, and the book ranked No. 6 on the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association bestseller list last July. Other bestsellers included Who Made God? (2003) and The Logic of God (2019).
Jesus for You, Zacharias’s forthcoming book with Vince Vitale through Thomas Nelson, will no longer be released, blogger Steve Baughman confirmed last month.
Lee Strobel announced on Twitter on Friday that he and Zondervan decided to halt printings of his book The Case for Faith, which featured Zacharias, and would publish a revised version instead.
Strobel interviewed Zacharias more than 20 years ago. The interview spans 19 pages in the book, with Strobel describing the apologist as “gentle-spirited but with razor-sharp intellect” as he responds to questions about the exclusive claims of Christianity.
Zacharias is the latest Christian leader whose abuse revelations or other sinful behavior have caused followers to reconsider whether or not to keep using their teachings. Publishers have likewise pulled titles by leaders such as Bill Hybels, James MacDonald, and Mark Driscoll after they were forced from their leadership positions.
Jeff Crosby, the publisher of InterVarsity Press, previously told CT, “as a publisher, when a pastor-author has been credibly accused of or acknowledged wrong-doing in her or his leadership context, in particular, I believe we have an obligation to take the time to carefully and thoughtfully discern whether the published works should continue to be made available and act on what we discern even if it means lost revenue.”
The RZIM board statement did not indicate how the ministry will address promoting or sharing resources by Zacharias going forward; however, the apologist’s work has become less prominent on parts of its own site.
Zacharias’s titles Can Man Live Without God? and Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend, which appeared on RZIM’s list of “Recommended Reading” in Christian apologetics as recently as last fall, no longer appear on the page.
The board wrote in its statement Thursday that “we remain passionate about seeing the gospel preached through the questions of culture,” but that it would be “seeking the Lord’s will regarding the future of this ministry.”
Comments
-
I'm not sure if Faithlife did have some of his books, but I cannot find any now.
0 -
FL never really offered real books by him anyway (at least the good ones), so not worried here!
I wouldn’t worry about it; he’s dead anyway and is not something new, it’s been going on for years.
Hopefully, he repented unless he’s a once saved always saved guy, then he’s got nothing to worry about! I don’t know how that would work out, though, to be honest.
DAL
0 -
One genuine question, though: Why remove such helpful apologetics material just because the guy had his own demons to fight and a few skeletons in his closet? He had a unique and convincing way of presenting good material. I don’t think the material (which is still great) should be removed just because this guy sinned. That’s just my opinion. I hope people don’t go crazy taking down his YouTube videos on many subjects just because he messed up his reputation. At least keep the material with some sort of disclaimer.
DAL
0 -
I checked my library and found 6 titles by Zacharias. but as said previously, not his best ones.
0 -
1. John 8:7: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.”
2. Calvin said, and I agree, that "all truth is from God."
The Bible is the inspired word of God written by sinners including Paul (1 Tim 1:15: Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost). Should you stop reading the Bible?
I have not read any of Ravi's works, but if you ignore the truths that God has chosen to reveal through Ravi, you are the loser; definitely not God. Go ahead and signal your virtue all you want by how you would not touch any of Ravi's works. You are the loser; not God.
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
0 -
Since Lee Strobel will be revising "Case for Faith", I wonder if the publisher will have Faithlife remove the current version until it is available?
0 -
I am always saddened to hear that a minister of the Gospel has been caught in immoral acts. It hurts the cause of Christ. It encourages blasphemy. It hinders the Gospel. And it means that someone was hurt by these actions. The Scripture warns us that we who teach "will be judged with greater strictness." (James 3:1)
I do not mean to be judgmental. I am not perfect and no minister is. I do not say that under the same circumstances that I would not have fallen. I pray that I would not, but I don't know that. I have always been thankful that God gave me the gift of "ugly", which has helped me avoid many temptations in 47 years as a pastor. The fall of any minister should be taken as a warning to us all to be alert lest we also fall.
Galatians 6:1 "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. " Of course, restoration is not possible since he is no longer with us. However, the second part of the verse is most relevant.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Very good comments Mike Childs! Thank you
0 -
Mike Childs said:
Galatians 6:1 "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. " Of course, restoration is not possible since he is no longer with us. However, the second part of the verse is most relevant.
+1 [:'(] Saddened plus my reading of Galatians 6 brings tears [:'(] to my eyes & voice with lessons learned from my hurt & Holy healing.
Thankful for several phrases learned at my local Celebrate Recovery: (Holy healing from hurts, habits, & hang-ups)
Hurting people hurt people. Healed people heal people.
Broken people break people. Loving people love people.
Numb people numb people. Thankful people thank people.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
DAL said:
Why remove such helpful apologetics material just because the guy had his own demons to fight
I think that's a great question. To illustrate why, let's remove all the books authored by a sinner. Where does that leave us?
DAL said:At least keep the material with some sort of disclaimer.
That's one option. I'm not sure the disclaimer is required. We've been using TDNT for a couple generations, and it was authored/edited by a member of the Nazi Party who was very much anti-Semitic. The newest edition was just published with no disclaimer. I'm sure we could cite a few thousand other examples as well.
It isn't hard to keep what is useful without excusing or certainly without approving of the behavior of the author. Cancel culture will do much more harm than we think.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
Ronald Quick said:
I'm not sure if Faithlife did have some of his books, but I cannot find any now.
I used to buy his books whenever they were on sale.
I already cleared my wish list back in December, excapt for one book co-authored by Norm Geisler, which I had still wanted because of the chapters written by Dr. Geisler. ("Who made God?")
That book is gone as well.
It's a shame now that all his co-authors are punished for his behaviour too, not only the late Dr. Geisler, but also Frank Turek, Abdu Murray, Amy Orr-Ewing etc. They did nothing wrong.
0 -
Doc B said:
I think that's a great question. To illustrate why, let's remove all the books authored by a sinner. Where does that leave us?
Only the red letters in a red letter Bible.
However, how someone deals with their sin makes them the moral example that they need to be as a leater. And in that respect Ravi failed.
0 -
Jan Krohn said:Doc B said:
I think that's a great question. To illustrate why, let's remove all the books authored by a sinner. Where does that leave us?
Only the red letters in a red letter Bible.
However, how someone deals with their sin makes them the moral example that they need to be as a leater. And in that respect Ravi failed.
Awesome response, Jan! 👍😁👌 And maybe not even the red letters since Jesus didn’t even write those!!! The only writings left have faded since Jesus wrote them on dirt and the tablets with the Ten Commandments are gone too 😂
DAL
0 -
Doc B said:DAL said:
Why remove such helpful apologetics material just because the guy had his own demons to fight
I think that's a great question. To illustrate why, let's remove all the books authored by a sinner. Where does that leave us?
DAL said:At least keep the material with some sort of disclaimer.
That's one option. I'm not sure the disclaimer is required. We've been using TDNT for a couple generations, and it was authored/edited by a member of the Nazi Party who was very much anti-Semitic. The newest edition was just published with no disclaimer. I'm sure we could cite a few thousand other examples as well.
It isn't hard to keep what is useful without excusing or certainly without approving of the behavior of the author. Cancel culture will do much more harm than we think.
There is no easy answer in a situation like this, David was an adulterer and murderer yet we celebrate his writings. Of course a big difference is that he repented of his sin. Solomon while starting well did not finish so well in terms of his sexual conduct with the amount of wives and concubines he took and the idolatry that led him too, is there clear cut evidence he repented ? Have we cancelled from the scriptures any writings attributed to Solomon being the potential author of them? In this case it is a little clearer what Ravi wrote.
But on the other hand I can see where Lee Strobel may want to remove Ravi’s testimony from a book that is written to reach the non-Christian. And so with so much of Ravi’s work that was intended to be a defence of the Christian faith, how can it now be upheld as a Christian witness to a world that has time and again seen the ‘Church’ and those that say the minister get it so wrong when it comes to sexual conduct and tried to cover it up while continuing to point to the World’s own sins of sexual conduct.
There may be much mature Christians can glean from Ravi’s writings just like any other author is we sort the wheat from the chaff. For we too are blemished as he is blemished. His blemished though have been exposed in a way most of ours are not, he stood before the unsaved World to intro them to Jesus Christ. I don’t think what is happening is simply a matter of cancel culture but a response to what message we want to present to the unsaved World. Are we going to try to cover up or excuse his actions as ’the Church’ has been guilty of in the past or are we going to draw a line in the sand and say we will not tolerate sexual misconduct. in this situation we can’t call the man to repent, we don’t know if he did repent before his death and even if we did know he did there would still have to be some sort of consequences as a result of his misconduct.
i can take the me centred view and say leave his writings and books like Strobel’s as they are because I get he was a fallen human being just like me or I can focus on how we want the Bride of Christ to present before the World. God knows our weaknesses and offers forgiveness but at the same time call his Bride to be Holy and Spotless, no more so than in the book of Revelation where the Church is called to make a choice of who we are going to serve,
At the same time I wholeheartedly agree with Michael Child’s comments on how we ought to react to one another as individuals and treat those who are fallen. But the Bride of Christ must still ready herself for the Wedding Supper of the Lamb.
From Beyond Opinion
0 -
Mattillo said:
“Following the findings in the independent report, the company will immediately take all his publications out of print. We are deeply saddened, and we mourn for the victims.”
Taking publications out of print cancels royalty payments (along with trashing/recycling books already printed) so mourning for the victims cancels money flow. Wonder about Ravi Zacharias bundle possibility that offers cost coverage for Faithlife & Publishers while providing money flow for the victims ? (perhaps help modify RZIM ministry focus).
King Solomon has wisdom in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes that is still useful for growing closer to God. Yet am quite sad [:'(] about King Solomon's immoral conduct that displeased Holy Righteous God. Great wisdom was not used to avoid horrific hurts inflicted upon many.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
DIsciple II said:
don’t think what is happening is simply a matter of cancel culture but a response to what message WE want to present to the unsaved World. Are WE going to try to cover up or excuse his actions as ’the Church’ has been guilty of in the past or are WE going to draw a LINE IN THE SAND and say WE will not tolerate sexual misconduct.
1. Who decides on who the "we" will include? Would you have not included Ravi in the "we" before his private sins became public? You see...it is not easy to define who the "we" should include.
2. Nobody is tolerating sexual misconduct just because you read their work. I married and stay married to my spouse even though I don't agree with all her views.
3. Who decides where the line in the sand will be? Which sins are ok and which sins are not ok? Are you going to let culture decide that? Didn't Jonathan Edwards, presumably a top 5 theologian, own slaves? So he was not canceled during his time, but he is being canceled now. You see the line in the sand shifts over time. So whoever the "we" is, how do they decide which sin is intolerable and therefore the author's works will be expunged for posterity?
4. By the way, nobody can cover up anything that is public anymore. Once on the net, forever on the net. Unbelievers ain't stupid. They can google and find out about every person they read about. If they don't listen to Ravi's arguments because his sin became public, they are the losers for remaining as unbelievers.
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
0 -
NDD said:
1. Who decides on who the "we" will include? Would you have not included Ravi in the "we" before his private sins became public? You see...it is not easy to define who the "we" should include.
We are all part of the "we" if we are part of the Bride of Christ. I made it quite clear with the very first words of my comment that there is nothing easy about situations like this one.
DIsciple II said:There is no easy answer in a situation like this
But even though all of us are part of the "we" there are situations where leaders and represntatives who make decisions with the best of intentions on our behalf. And in this scenaro publishers and people like Lee Stobrel have a big say on what actions are to be taken whether you agree with it or not.
But you and I are still part of the 'we' and have our part to play.
NDD said:2. Nobody is tolerating sexual misconduct just because you read their work. I married and stay married to my spouse even though I don't agree with all her views.
I did not say any such thing. Twisting the truth to defend your position occurred all the way as far back as in the garden of Eden. In fact I said the following about Ravi's writings:
DIsciple II said:There may be much mature Christians can glean from Ravi’s writings just like any other author is we sort the wheat from the chaff.
NDD said:3. Who decides where the line in the sand will be? Which sins are ok and which sins are not ok? Are you going to let culture decide that? Didn't Jonathan Edwards, presumably a top 5 theologian, own slaves? So he was not canceled during his time, but he is being canceled now. You see the line in the sand shifts over time. So whoever the "we" is, how do they decide which sin is intolerable and therefore the author's works will be expunged for posterity?
God ulitmately decides where the line in the sand is, it was God that determine Adam & Eve should be removed from the Garden, it was God who decided the generation that left Egypt should wander in the Wildnerness for 40 years until they all died so that they would not enter the promise land. It was God who determined that Ananias and Sapphira should die for lying to the Holy Spirit about the money, it was God speaking through Paul that one of the Corinthians acting in sexual misconduct should be put out of the Church unitl at such a time they were repentent and it was God again through Paul who made it clear leaders were to be held to a higher standard. And I believe God has allowed for the sexual misconduct of leaders in the Church to be brought into the light so that the Bride of Christ can be cleansed, as he has chose to do so with all kinds of sin throughout the scriptures and Church history. This is not about cancelling anyone or deciding what is sins are acceptable or not. God is very clear in the scripture that there are consequences for all sin. In fact I raised the fact we have not removed David or Solomons writings from the Scripture. But if you believe the Scriptures are God's inspired word then it was in his providence that they were never removed and maybe just maybe it's in God's providence that Ravi's writings are being removed in some instances for very good reasons from the public spotlight.
NDD said:4. By the way, nobody can cover up anything that is public anymore. Once on the net, forever on the net. Unbelievers ain't stupid. They can google and find out about every person they read about. If they don't listen to Ravi's arguments because his sin became public, they are the losers for remaining as unbelievers.
That has not stopped the Church, both at the organisational level and in the local congregational level to try and cover up sexual misconduct and other sins. Ultimately it is the work of the Holy Spirit that wiell convert a person to follow Christ and not the words of Ravi, Norm G or The Bible Answers Man or any other Apologist of Preacher. They Holy Spirit will continue to work and bring people unto Christ whether or not we have Ravis writings available.
Personally while I think it is a shame his writings may be lost to us for he had much good to say, but I am more concerned about those he wronged and his own relationship with God. God brings salvation through judgement in order to bring glory to his name. And that is what is at stake here, people's salvation and the Glory of God's name, not whether you or I get to read Ravi's thoughts into the future. And it is God's word that has been used as a measuring Rod to determine what action should be taken in this situation, and not what you, I or anyone else determine is or is not an 'acceptable sin' for it is not Ravi's name that is at stake here, it is God's name that is a stake. God is merciful but he is still also is Holy. His mercy and grace can not come without there first being judgmement of our sins. While Christ took the ulimate punishment on the cross there are still has to be consequencs in the here and now for our actions, particulary when they hurt others. Salvaiton doesn't mean we can keep on sinning without there being consequences in the here and now.
0 -
Awesome quote! Too bad many will stop using it because they think is sinful to now quote RZ:
0 -
DAL said:
because they think
And who is the "they"? I ask because this thread seems to ignore some important distinctions:
- Under what circumstances does a publisher chose to break off their relationship with an author? Note that does not prevent another publisher from eventually stepping in or self-publishing.
- What considerations should a Christian apply concerning the personal life of an author when using the author's work in particular circumstances? There are certainly people who I would use in an academic paper that I would not use in popular writing for fear of the popular writing leading people to unreliable sources -- for people I wasn't sure would recognize as unreliable.
- What does it say about potential "cults of personalities" rather than "cult of Jesus Christ" that these questions become intertwined with institutional issues.
I am only marginally aware of who Ravi Zacharias is/was so my interest in this thread is not Zacharias in particular but in Christian writers more generally. And, no, while I would expect FL to follow the publishers decisions on plagiarism, here I would expect FL to make its own choices.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
DIsciple II said:
I am more concerned about those he wronged ...
Yep. You buy yourself some massage parlours down in the peach-state, invite big-boy politicians and churchmen for the grand opening, reportedly expose yourself to your female employees, and top it off with someone else's trusting wife. The 'world' has a word for that, and if you got caught, you'd be on 'the list' for the remainder of your life ... unless you died first. But let's not judge.
0 -
DMB I see nothing relating to FL or its products in your post -- which I personally find offensive.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
DAL said:
One genuine question, though: Why remove such helpful apologetics material just because the guy had his own demons to fight and a few skeletons in his closet? He had a unique and convincing way of presenting good material. I don’t think the material (which is still great) should be removed just because this guy sinned. That’s just my opinion. I hope people don’t go crazy taking down his YouTube videos on many subjects just because he messed up his reputation. At least keep the material with some sort of disclaimer.
DAL
I agree. I was just talking to a friend on this and he mentioned removing a false teacher from ministry (not promote false teachings) and I get that but I am with you that they should just either sell off the rest or continue to sell and donate the proceeds elsewhere. I haven’t read all of his work but I do not remember false teachings in them. What I find truly perplexing is how one can write and say what he did and do another. I wonder if the church could have done more with overview
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
DMB I see nothing relating to FL or its products in your post -- which I personally find offensive.
You probably didn't see the question, why the books were being pulled ... the author did something offensive. Yes, you should find it offensive. And tremendously hurtful to Christianity ... and Logos' stated mission.
0 -
I'm deeply saddened by the whole thing. Ravi produced a lot of very effective material - it will be a real loss if that material is no longer available. But given the recent revelations, it may well be that Ravi's material couldn't be used anyway - and publishers may have decided that the damage to their reputations of continued affiliation with him outweighed any possible gain from the likely much reduced sales.
Our sin has a way of undermining the good that we do.
0 -
Well, we are living in the "cancel-culture" time. What do we expect?
0 -
First of all, a disclaimer. I am not a follower of Ravi Zacharias and his work. His publisher removing him from their catalog does not matter to me - and when the publisher does this, Logos/Faithlife, of course, has to comply as well.
The fact that he too is a sinner - sinning in a way that is way too common in our world saddens me, but does not, in the end surprise me. As an Abbot once told me, across church history, the church has had the monks that it kind of deserves to have - namely ones that struggle and fail with the common problems of that time and place. And this is indeed the case for the rest of Church figures too. For whatever reasons that I still cannot totally understand, our God trusts that he can use us sinners with his Holy Spirit to proclaim his work throughout the world. And so, as a Lutheran, I claim that ministry moral standards are "adiaphora" that we can debate without condemning each other. And so there is no reason why we have to instantly run away from the good that he has done.
That said, as I learned from Dr. Wengert explaining this, the biblical (and Lutheran confessional) perspective, based on 1 Cor 8 and related passages is to always remember the weak, and to not let our knowledge puff us up. And so I question if he should be marketed to non and new Christians - which many of his work has been. And when I hear about how his ministry organization allegedly helped cover up his failings allowing abuse to continue, I understand that they have to take the often painful path of repentance in order to be seen as legitimate before the world. They are off to a decent start in having an independent investigation, and publishing the ugly results. But it is not unfair for publishers to decide that they no longer want to support the ministry he left behind by continuing to publish his works, especially when the profits from these works has allegedly been used silence his victims.
I hope that in future generations we will be able to return to the good he has done. But as we enter the season of Lent, it is a fine practice to put him aside as we self-examine our sin - and how we participate in sin - the sin that drove Jesus to the Cross for us and our salvation. Indeed, as Christians, we should be models to the world in doing this...
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
mike said:
Well, we are living in the "cancel-culture" time. What do we expect?
This is not cancel-culture. This is the consequences of sin. Anyone who wants to suggest otherwise is ignoring God’s holiness and the standards he has set before us in his Word. Are you saying it was cancel culture from God when Adam and Eve were excluded from the Garden or Moses was excluded from entering the promise land or Ananias and Sapphira were struck down fror their sin? Yes we are all susceptible to sin, yes we are to forgive and where there has been repentance offer reconciliation but sin still has its consequences and the consequences of sin should not be looked upon as being cancel culture but of the Holiness of God.
0 -
mike said:
Well, we are living in the "cancel-culture" time. What do we expect?
Natasha Crain has elaborated why this is not a case of cancel culture.
https://www.facebook.com/natashacrainauthor/posts/259100052250010
I agree with her evaluation.
0 -
DIsciple II said:mike said:
Well, we are living in the "cancel-culture" time. What do we expect?
This is not cancel-culture. This is the consequences of sin. Anyone who wants to suggest otherwise is ignoring God’s holiness and the standards he has set before us in his Word.
I'm not saying you are wrong - but the public reaction nowadays is different than it used to be Case in point: Faithlife has 13 products on offer today by Mark Driscoll, and 16 by C.J. Mahaney. I can buy books by Bill Hybels and even Joshua Harris' "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" if I want to - even though the author left his position and maybe even his faith. The decision of Thomas Nelson to radically cancel Ravi's books, which costs them sales, can only mean that they feared a large backlash impacting them as a publisher even more, if they kept the books and were associated in some sense with Ravi.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
mike said:
Well, we are living in the "cancel-culture" time. What do we expect?
Unfortunately, the cancel-culture has double standards when choosing who to cancel. That’s a huge cause for concern in my opinion. They choose who gets canceled and who doesn’t based on their bias. Oh well...not surprising anymore!
But on a side note, I don’t think this is a cancel-culture thing like what happened between Gina Carano and the Mandalorian.
DAL
0 -
DIsciple II said:
This is not cancel-culture. This is the consequences of sin...sin still has its consequences and the consequences of sin should not be looked upon as being cancel culture but of the Holiness of God.
1. Oh, I have no doubts that every sin - be it forgiven or not - has consequences. But God determines the consequences by reducing the sinner's welfare. Who gave us the power to determine the consequences? And, what is the Biblical guidance to determine the magnitude of the consequences?
2. Businesses (in a competitive market place) will do things that maximize value because if they don't, they're going bankrupt. So it must be the case that the publisher must have estimated that the lost sales from Ravi's book must be lower than the lost sales from the rest of their catalogue by people who flee the publisher if they don't cancel Ravi. This is a business decision that only time will tell whether it was correct. If they find it was the wrong decision, they will happily put back his books. Corporations don't have a moral compass.
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
0 -
These situations are sad- no matter where you personally fall on this issue- the true fact is this, it will bring reproach to some extent upon Christ- it will be enough that the ungodly pile on, but we as the redeemed of Christ should know better- in that day it will be enough that we will stand waiting to hear the words our name is written in the lamb's book of Life. Pray for those who were harmed, his family and those who looked to him for guidance, redirecting them to our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, Immanuel.
0 -
Even Frank Turek's "Stealing from God" has been pulled, although Ravi only contributed the foreword.
Now it's crossing the line into cancel culture.
0 -
I think I read Turek pulled it himself to reissue without that forward?
0 -
This whole issue is difficult. I can see why there are strong opinions on both sides. This scripture comes to mind but so do others regarding false prophets:
17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my bimprisonment.
18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.
Yes, and I will rejoice,
(Php 1:17–18)NASB
To me removing Ravi material who was a sinner but by most accounts with a solid message in his writings, while keeping material from others that many would see their actual message as heretical and against the Gospel (perhaps an example could be Richard Rohr) seems conflicting. I am still very sensitive to and can see why some feel strongly that Ravi's material should go. I have eluded to some to this type of issue in the past...usually boils down to although there does need to be some line drawn but the problem is who gets to determine where?
0 -
Greg Dement said:
I think I read Turek pulled it himself to reissue without that forward?
Interesting. It's still available from K and CBD as an ebook...
This reminds me of a pet peeve. Please stop listing forward writers as authors, Please , please , please. Personally I don't care who wrote the forward and I don't want confusing results when I search for an author.
0 -
Tom Reynolds said:
Please , please , please. Personally I don't care who wrote the forward and I don't want confusing results when I search for an author.
I'm absolutely with you on this one, Tom. When I see this I sigh, + shake my head.
A Logos professional page entry is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, some fall askew. I see staff training needed, + a template required for the page entry.
0 -
So you are saying God can not act providentially through the imperfect actions of human beings to bring about his will? The God I read of in the scriptures does exactly this and as I believe he is the same yesterday, today, and will be tomorrow I believe he can be at work in this situation too.
NDD said:DIsciple II said:This is not cancel-culture. This is the consequences of sin...sin still has its consequences and the consequences of sin should not be looked upon as being cancel culture but of the Holiness of God.
1. Oh, I have no doubts that every sin - be it forgiven or not - has consequences. But God determines the consequences by reducing the sinner's welfare. Who gave us the power to determine the consequences? And, what is the Biblical guidance to determine the magnitude of the consequences?
2. Businesses (in a competitive market place) will do things that maximize value because if they don't, they're going bankrupt. So it must be the case that the publisher must have estimated that the lost sales from Ravi's book must be lower than the lost sales from the rest of their catalogue by people who flee the publisher if they don't cancel Ravi. This is a business decision that only time will tell whether it was correct. If they find it was the wrong decision, they will happily put back his books. Corporations don't have a moral compass.
0 -
Most of these that fail are possibly untouched by human hands as I see it often on FL eBooks site.
scooter said:Tom Reynolds said:Please , please , please. Personally I don't care who wrote the forward and I don't want confusing results when I search for an author.
I'm absolutely with you on this one, Tom. When I see this I sigh, + shake my head.
A Logos professional page entry is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, some fall askew. I see staff training needed, + a template required for the page entry.
0 -
DIsciple II said:
So you are saying God can not act providentially through the imperfect actions of human beings to bring about his will? The God I read of in the scriptures does exactly this and as I believe he is the same yesterday, today, and will be tomorrow I believe he can be at work in this situation too.
I have nowhere said that God is not sovereign. I don't know what I've said that made you come to this conclusion. In fact, in my mind, the number #2 attribute of God is His sovereignty (#1 is He exists by Himself because He is a Creator and everything else is a creation)
Bonus: My (non-seminary) definition of sovereignty that a layman can understand: God can do whatever the heck He pleases. Cite me when you use my definition!
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
0 -
And it’s a good thing that public reaction is different. I don’t know of the Bill Hybels or Joshua Harris (or even who this man is - Gof in his own way and time for whatever he did is removing his influence) situations and as for Driscoll I heard him speak once when he was in the rise and was not impressed, he did not preach Christ but Mark Driscoll instead. I cringe when ever I see his material still for sale. The fact it is is simply evidence we still have some way to go.
NB.Mick said:DIsciple II said:mike said:Well, we are living in the "cancel-culture" time. What do we expect?
This is not cancel-culture. This is the consequences of sin. Anyone who wants to suggest otherwise is ignoring God’s holiness and the standards he has set before us in his Word.
I'm not saying you are wrong - but the public reaction nowadays is different than it used to be Case in point: Faithlife has 13 products on offer today by Mark Driscoll, and 16 by C.J. Mahaney. I can buy books by Bill Hybels and even Joshua Harris' "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" if I want to - even though the author left his position and maybe even his faith. The decision of Thomas Nelson to radically cancel Ravi's books, which costs them sales, can only mean that they feared a large backlash impacting them as a publisher even more, if they kept the books and were associated in some sense with Ravi.
0 -
Is it a good quote? Yes. Is it sinful to quote Ravi? Probably not, unless you do so out of malice or disregard for the suffering. But is it prudent or caring to do so? Definitely not.
There are so many other folks out there we can appeal to besides him. I've seen some in this thread suggest that if we stop using Ravi, we should stop using everyone because everyone is a sinner. Give me a break! That is a weak argument and a deflection from the gross moral failings we should be discussing. There are plenty of theologians out there who confess their sin and seek to work in public theology. But we need to focus on reckoning with this fall from grace and doing so after the man's death. These revelations are harmful, but they are especially harmful to those who have been victimized or who have been the targets of persons in power who use faith as a weapon.
Ravi wasn't cancelled by HarperCollins, Faithlife, or anyone else. He was cancelled by himself. He cancelled himself by worshipping himself instead of Ged.
0 -
Aaron Hayworth said:
I've seen some in this thread suggest that if we stop using Ravi, we should stop using everyone because everyone is a sinner. Give me a break! That is a weak argument and a deflection from the gross moral failings we should be discussing.
Paul persecuted and killed Christians. So what if he confessed afterwards. We read Paul.
Who decides what is gross moral failing and what is not gross moral failing? What about adultery? Do you know Jesus's definition of adultery? Try listing down what you consider gross moral failings and what is not and you will see quickly that this is a exercise that goes nowhere.
Aaron Hayworth said:
There are plenty of theologians out there who confess their sin and seek to work in public theology.
There are plenty of theologians whose sins are still private! But God sees everyone's sins. Is a sin that has become public worse than a sin that is still private? Don't tell me that there are no more sexual abusers among theologians and seminarians.
Aaron Hayworth said:
Ravi wasn't cancelled by HarperCollins, Faithlife, or anyone else. He was cancelled by himself. He cancelled himself by worshipping himself instead of Ged.
I don't care whether the publisher cancels or not. I care about discrimination. Lay down an explicit policy under which they will cancel someone's work and stick to it no matter who does it.
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
0 -
From now on all the good quotes by RZ will start with, “someone once said...” 👍😁👌
DAL
0 -
So far I've refrained from saying anything in this thread but I just wanted to say that I too am saddened at this whole thing. What is a shame is that a massive world-wide ministry that did a lot of good is also significantly impacted. It is also a shame that anything good he left in writing or in spoken word will now be minimized
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:
So far I've refrained from saying anything in this thread but I just wanted to say that I too am saddened at this whole thing. What is a shame is that a massive world-wide ministry that did a lot of good is also significantly impacted. It is also a shame that anything good he left in writing or in spoken word will now be minimized
Saddest part is that the name of God is being blasphemed already with YouTube videos making fun of this whole situation 😔 Unbelievers take any opportunity they can get to discredit christianity when these things happen!
DAL
0 -
Anyone who thinks this this is cancel culture needs to take the time to examine the details of the full investigation report into this situation released by RZIM. There are plenty of videos outlining the details that include but photo collections and the use of ministry funds to pay for his activities and to keep people quiet. Removing his books etc is not cancel culture, it is not discrimination or arbitrary decision making. It is appropriate and really the only possible response that could be taken.
0 -
DIsciple II said:
Anyone who thinks this this is cancel culture needs to take the time to examine the details of the full investigation report into this situation released by RZIM. There are plenty of videos outlining the details that include but photo collections and the use of ministry funds to pay for his activities and to keep people quiet. Removing his books etc is not cancel culture, it is not discrimination or arbitrary decision making. It is appropriate and really the only possible response that could be taken.
I couldn't agree more. Ravi didn't "slip" and he didn't "fall" once or twice, he lived for years in terrible, unrepentant sin and hypocrisy. There is not the slightest hint that he grieved over his sin; to the contrary, he manipulated circumstances in order to keep his sinful life intact and untouched. The church does not need his books.
People have raised the examples of David or Paul as sinners, forgetting that the Holy Spirit redeemed those men from their crimes, and chose to use them to write Holy Scripture. We know about their sins because these men themselves recorded them in Scripture (just as Moses recorded the murder of the Egyptian). Paul committed NONE of his sins as a Christian or an apostle. All of the elect are sinners, obviously, but none of the elect continue to live as sinners (First John 3:9). Christians do fall and commit acts of sin, but they do not continue in those sins as a lifestyle. The promise of the Gospel is "such WERE some of you" (First Corinthians 6:9-11), not "such ARE some of you."
0
