Ravi Zacharias

I have made inference to this character on a few posts recently, especially concerning his ‘sin’ and our response to the same.

Today I want to go frontal against his ‘enemies’. And I want to do so because there are some things they do not want to face.

David sinned and concealed the evidence. Incidentally that is man’s automatic response to sin.

But then God sent Nathan.

Who is Nathan in Ravi’s case? And where was he when Ravi was getting soaked in all that sin?

Why are we condemning a dead man instead of looking for the silent Nathan who ought to have restored or at least confronted Ravi? And why do we not want to acknowledge that we are part of who he was because we did not point him away from his sin before he died.

Now I do not know him and have never interacted with him. The closest to him I have come is watch part of a lecture he gave somewhere.

But he is my brother and I am concerned that by battering a dead man we are muddying the Gospel he preached. To appear righteous we are painting someone with no capacity to change black instead of looking to use his sin to educate the church.

By unordaining and undegreeing and unnaming him you are actually calling yourselves spiritual fools as you had no discernment when you offered those awards. You should therefore revisit your spirituality for your indiscretion. Your sin could actually be worse than his.

Nathan was so connected that he risked his life to confront the king. Here we have men who defame a witness to sin and victim because they believe their hero does not sin. Or maybe they do not want to face the fact that they need the man more than they need his restoration.

There is something else Jesus said.

Face a sinner alone. If he doesn’t agree, take two or three others. If he still doesn’t change take him to the church. Then, if he doesn’t change de-everything him and treat him as a non-believer.

Why did Jesus command that?

Sin is deceptive, very deceptive.

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. (Hebrews 3: 12, 13)

That is why it is very important to follow those steps Jesus gave.

We can’t therefore condemn someone for sin if we have not confronted him for it. Sin’s camouflage needs external eyes to see clearly. And that is what Nathan did.

We can’t condemn Ravi if we can’t trace his Nathan’s testimony, at least not when he is dead and buried. Not only is it unfair, it actually serves no purpose.

Why was his circle so blind?

Let us look at David.

I doubt any in his circles could have confronted him. I suspect Uriah could have comfortably handed over his wife to David had he known that she was pregnant by the king. It is David’s guilt that drove him to what he did.

Or have you never heard that Mohamed’s adopted son divorced his beautiful wife when he saw the prophet eying her with desire so that the prophet does not sin in marrying her?

We many times cover for our heroes. We do not want to imagine that they are frail like us. We do not want to face the reality that they could fall and so look for anything to defend them.

I have been battered many times when I took a transgression to its source that was a man of God at the top. These statements are repeated all too often to lend credence to what I am saying.

The president is not corrupt. It is his appointees and family who are. The pastor is very good hearted. It is the deacons and elders who are wicked. The chairman is alright. It is the board that is not supportive.

Like they say, fish starts rotting at the head (that is what I have always heard). You can’t blame the fins for the stench. But when the head starts rotting, the whole body has no option but to join it.

Do not shame a dead man. Start confessing to being part of that sin, essentially because you padded it by hiding from acknowledging it when there was a chance to rectify matters.

And that is why I am asking about a Nathan in this scenario. Was he silenced? Was he demonized? Or did he close his ears because he did not want to face such a man? Or probably was scared of the consequences and did a Jonah on the assignment?

Could the boards that are now shaming a dead man have contributed to the emasculation of this Nathan? Could they have blocked him from reaching Ravi? Could they have killed him so that their hero doesn’t repent because doing so would have removed butter from their bread? Are they reacting with indignation because they realize the mess they caused yet are not willing to face to the fact that they might be the reason Ravi died without repenting?

I do not like talking about the dead. I do not do ministry to the dead.

And it is not because I am scared of them or death itself.

Like the Bible says, a living dog is better than a dead lion. Why waste ministry on the dead when Christ has called us to minister to the living? Why waste so much effort killing a dead man when there are so many on the verge of death crying for our ministry?

I will close by asking again. Where was the Nathan? And where is he?

He is the one we should be stoning.