The recent ‘fall’ of the noted apologist and evangelist Ravi Zacharias raises some disturbing questions. There are the obvious ones, about how his organisation, RZIM, allowed itself to be hoodwinked for such a long period of time by this man who turned out to be a serial abuser. For me, the deeper questions are not the obvious ones about his abuse. They are the ones that want to scrutinise what Ravi may have thought about his vocation as an influential man of God. At what point in his life did Ravi surrender himself to the gratifications of his abusive behaviour? Did he not know, while he was behaving in this way, that this was a betrayal of his call to serve and share a vision of God? Ravi is no longer with us to answer such questions, but they still need to be asked. I am not so cynical as to believe that he began his career as a preacher as a way of obtaining opportunities to abuse. Obtaining power to abuse and exploit women was not, we trust, in the conscious mind of the young Ravi as he began his ministry many decades ago.
The recent history of the Church is littered with terrible stories of male (mostly) Christian leaders betraying their vocation to prey on the weak. Something beautiful, a life of love, vision and service is exchanged for something cheap and trashy. What is going on? Can short term sexual gratification ever be worth the catastrophic betrayals that are taking place? The key to answering this question is to be found somewhere in the nature of power. Power is something we all need so that we can stand up for ourselves and not be crushed under the bullying tricks of the dominant in society. Bullying is an experience that many suffer right back to the time of infancy. In Western male culture the human child is taught to stand up for himself. The self-assertive one is applauded. But the struggle in the male child (I hesitate to speculate what generalisations are appropriate for girls) to avoid humiliation or subjugation at the hands of others never really gets resolved. Even the boys at the top of the food chain still carry a fear of losing their position. When and if you reach the top, you become vulnerable to someone else using physical strength to push you down. Right through these artificial hierarchies in which many, if not most, male children live, there are two dominating realities. The first is fear of domination by others. The second is the longed-for antidote to this fear, the possession and exercise of power over others.
If fear and power exist widely within the preoccupations of boys in their early years, there will be, as they grow into adulthood, a variety of changes in the way typical power games are played out. Power for adults (men and women) is maintained in a variety of ways way beyond brute physical strength. Things like manipulation, coercion and subtle threat are examples of the way that power over others is asserted. There is also a genre of behaviour we describe as narcissism. This is a behaviour which successfully manipulates others so that they look up to you and feed your desire for power. Narcissists have developed a whole range of techniques and skills to occupy this place of control. They are, for example, good at intuiting the weaknesses of others for their own advantage. They know just how much pressure to apply to get their own way. They understand how to use another person’s desire to belong, how it can be turned around so that the individual can be dominated and thus under the control of the narcissist.
Where does Christian leadership come into this discussion on power? Christianity would perhaps want to claim to be the ultimate antidote to the debilitating power games that are so found frequently in society. Christianity glorifies a saviour who was brought to glory without the brute exercise of human power. All the normal expressions of power and ambition were rejected in the desert of temptation. The power to rule, to be worshipped and to court popularity were all pushed away as being unworthy of what God desired. Thus, as Christians, we follow a man without power, one who has rejected all forms of earthly domination involving violence and control. Paradoxically we still have a Church which seems riddled with narcissism, power games and hierarchies. All these lead to the same bullying, control and coercion that we might expect to find in places which have no awareness or loyalty to the Man on the Cross.
Christianity and the institution that has grown up around it, the Church, has acquired possession of much power. There is the power that exists simply by having an institution with leaders and a hierarchy. Any organisation with systems of management has to operate within recognised power structures. But there is an additional source of power that Christians can claim belongs to them. This is the power of having leaders who claim to act as representatives of God himself. Within and beyond the formal structures of Christian denominations, this power of God to control and guide is frequently invoked. A vivid example of this ‘freelance’ divine power are the so-called prophets in the States who foretold Trump’s victory. Their power is not greatly diminished by the failures of this prophecies. Then there is the power of the elegant speaker, the one who controls and seduces a crowd with attractive sounding promises. Sometimes those promises relate to material prosperity. With us you will find health and wealth. Give to this ministry and God will reward you many times. Also, you will find yourself on the winning side. Our Church/ministry/teaching is going to be the dominant one in the next round of elections or in the world to come. If you come on board with us, you will have the satisfaction of being on the winning side and looking down on losers who have chosen differently.
The offering of power to Christian followers is a key part of what many Christian leaders have to offer. And yet this teaching seems to have little to do with the one who resisted the Devil’s offer of power while in the desert. The real motivation for presenting Christianity as a religion of power is that it automatically rebounds back to the leaders. The peddler of power to the crowd will have power and wealth for him/herself. The narcissistic needs, the cravings for significance by some Christian leaders, have to be fed and in the process the true nature of Jesus’ power is eclipsed and lost.
How does this all link with Ravi Zacharias and his failure of vocation? Ravi, we believe, was called to preach the gospel but somewhere along the line he found himself choosing what was, for him, a gratifying experience of power rather than the path of service. The call of God became corrupted inside him. Instead of service he gave himself up to the urge to misuse power and seek sexual control. The reasons for him to succumb to this temptation will never be known. Possibly the young Ravi had experienced humiliation in boyhood because of his racial or social background. Speculation is probably futile, but something in his life opened him up to what appears to be an addictive attraction to sex along with the narcissist’s lusting after personal power. If God could ever be said to have called him, that power given to him at some point became twisted to be an instrument of human greed and personal gratification.
The conclusion of this short piece around the topic of the ministry of Ravi is to ask questions about vocation. Many of us claim to have experienced it. The question we need to ask ourselves in the context of Ravi’s fall is this. When we hear God’s call, are we listening to a call to service in his name? Alternatively, are we seeing, unconsciously maybe, that a link with God may boost our power? This access to his power may be in part to be used for our own ends, so that our depleted self-esteem may receive a boost. Is our relationship with God in any way serving narcissistic needs? The question has to remain a question, but it is still one worth asking. When asking it, we raise a serious challenge to the whole issue of power as it is exercised in the Church. Do the pomposities, the hierarchical posturing and the power games linked to ambition in the Church, really reflect the man of sorrows? Are we really remembering that we are following a leader who turns his back on all human power to follow the way of suffering and service?
Thank you Stephen for your wise comments. We are easily lured by temptations to be the best, most important, or ironically, the most humble. That of course is the point of spiritual practices such us seriously posing to ourselves the questions you suggest. Am I doing this for myself, or for God? Hopefully we then allow the selfish or narcissistic part of ourselves to diminish. When we allow ourselves to become so busy doing “God ‘s work” that we neglect our Christian practices and our spiritual growth, we can find ourselves slipping further and further down the proverbial slippery slope. Usually something happens, we realise our mistake, and amend our behaviour and , more importantly, our attitude. This is made much easier when we are in close contact with others who are growing in Christ. Then the herd mentality kicks in, in a good way. What happens when we allow ourselves to be hooked by our needs? And what happens to us in this situation when our Bishops find it easier to commit misconduct, even when it is turning a blind eye? In my case personally , the sensibilities of my Bishop are so hardened he not only turned a blind eye, but is content I should be harassed by those those below him willing to do as the Bishop bids. No one appears able to say, stop, this is wrong, let us examine what we should do to be right. Then some of these people are promoted, and more and more people who had wonderful aspirations to serve God on their ordination day find themselves rightly accused of misconduct, protecting clergy guilty of gross abuse of vulnerable parishioners. I realise this does not explain the case you are highlighting or of those who actually perpetrate abuse on others. But as Meg Munn had stated, i f you wanted to devise an institution where abusers can flourish, you would invent the Church of England. How this plays out in other institutions is less obvious. But clearly the need for power and success is so great in some Christians that these become the God they serve. When we allow these gods to become all important we stop asking relevant questions and cannot tolerate the questions of us. We become too proud to say the emperor isn’t wearing clothes. I have known one paedophile as I had to accompany him to church on contract and generally keep an eye on him. This individual did purposefully look for opportunities he could take advantage of to fulfil his perverted needs. Just as some people slip further down the slope without intentionally meaning to, there are a number deliberately looking for positions giving them contact and authority over those they desire to abuse.
To me, the fact that Zacharias named his organisation ‘Ravi Zacharias International Ministries’ is a strong indicator that he was ego-driven. That kind of egotism is a red flag for possible exploitation of others. In fact, why found his own organisation at all? Why not work for an established organisation or existing denomination? Imperfect as they are, they offer at least some kind of supervision and restraint. I’m cautious of ministers who avoid them.
I agree wholeheartedly Janet. The ego is the enemy, and such a blatant disregard for humility by naming his ministry as he did, should have set alarm bells ringing.
This is my experience of abuse of power within an independent evangelical church, which was originally led by a group of elders. A full time paid church worker was taken on, with equal status to the other elders, to undertake youth work, outreach and schools ministry, as well as regular teaching and preaching. This worked well for several years, but as elders retired the new man slowly acquired more power. Sometime later he began using the title “pastor”, but this was never formally agreed by the church.
Then he unilaterally appointed his wife to the leadership team that had replaced the old eldership. Again, this was never discussed or formally agreed with the church. Some leaders challenged this, but were forced to leave. Over the next few years many voted with their feet and left. It was like the frog in the saucepan syndrome – incremental changes to shut down accountability were made over time. The pastor appointed, without consultation, a leadership team of yes-men and women, mostly family and friends. The congregation had diminished to about a third of its original size.
A member of the stewardship team who challenged him over financial accountability was excommunicated and banned from entering the church. A “mediation” session was arranged, but lawyers were brought in and he was forced to sign an NDA. Pre-Covid the congregation was less than 20 and most income was from hiring out the building, with only a few regular donors. Most of the income went on running costs and keeping the pastor housed and paid. Now the church is struggling financially and has an uncertain future.
That is a sad story, especially for those who had invested time and emotional energy – and perhaps money – into the church.
It’s a mercy that the ‘pastor’ didn’t have a more charismatic personality and attractive ministry style – otherwise far more people might have been damaged by him. He doesn’t seem to have learned anything from the shrinking numbers.
I didn’t mention money, but there was misuse of funds too – money that should have been spent on renovating the dilapidated church kitchen was used instead to pay for a designer kitchen in the manse, without opportunity for discussion by the members.
My in laws’ church, CofE, suffered from a vicar who kept his nose clean until he got tenure, and then when rogue. Driving good wardens away and appointing his friends, then the treasurer, taking over the magazine, refusing to take communion to people, and not turning up to services. Numbers dropped from 150 regulars to 20. Nobody did anything until he was caught pocketing funerals money. It’s no wonder people think the church only cares about sex or money.
Went rogue!
How did this happen, and when? Both churchwardens are elected, not appointed, nowadays, though decades ago the vicar appointed a Vicar’s Warden and only the People’s Warden was elected. In those days, too, sexual offences and financial irregularities were the only legal grounds for disciplinary action. I knew of a case where the vicar took only about 6 services a year and had a full time teaching job, but as long as he arranged for other priests to fill in there was nothing the church authorities could do. He had freehold, which was common then.
Nowadays most clergy are on Common Tenure or fixed term contracts, and liable for disciplinary action for all sorts of offences.
It happened because the Bishop let it! And the method was the usual one. Shout at people in public, my sister in law in front of her Brownies, so she took them to another church. Calling one warden a silly old fool in a PCC meeting. I’ve seen loads of situations where clergy manipulated the PCC. Happens all the time. We had a Team Vicar who just kept repeating the same proposal when people demurred, until everyone came to the conclusion they’d never finish the meeting and get home unless they agreed. I was there! I’m always astonished when bishops tell you these things can’t be done because there are processes, as my previous one did. No one can be that naive. And certainly not a bishop. Most of them will have given preferments in their time. That’s how politics is played, even church politics.
This looks very similar to the chinnanagins that went on in Trevor’s little independent church. It seems it may not be the structure that is at fault, but the individual. Clearly if you are minded to, you can drive a horse and cart through church regulation and history. What I want to understand though, is what is it that drives biblical scholars into such a lust for power, money and/sex…..?
Most people have something of that in them, don’t they? Or is that just me? If you feel plain, you want men to admire you, if you feel powerless, you seek power. If you are clever and gifted, surely you could do… whatever…. better than the idiot who is doing it? It only needs a nudge. And if you’re really ruthless, you don’t have to believe in God, you just learn the language and pretend!
Not ,it’s not just you EnglishAthena, it’s all of us. However in a truly religious person it often manifests itself in wanting to convert more people than anyone else, being the most “spiritual”, having the most successful ministry etc. So the questions Stephen suggests are still important to ask. In more nominal Christians there will be a greater degree of power, wealth or success for their own sakes. In the ruthless …
Before one of our legal experts says something, may I apologise for a lack of precision in my language. I was using the phrase “security of tenure” in its lay sense. In those days of course, he had freehold.
So good. Wonderful last paragraph.
To suggest an answer to your musing about which levers operate on girls, it could be the need to be accepted, to be part of group, so it may be more about peer pressure as well.
In my day, it was to be beautiful. No one valued anything else. All the girls’ magazines said, don’t let a boy know if you’re clever, boys don’t like clever girls.
I was sad to hear about Ravi. I’ve heard him speak several times in Oxford and he was a good speaker. What disturbed me most about in the recent report about him was his willingness to twist theology to manipulate people into giving him sexual gratification.
That is much more calculated and disturbing. I have found it hard on my faith – as multiple leaders have fallen – wondering did they fear God or was their faith a sham?
Like others I’m wary about organisations that take the name of the founder. Thankfully this is less prevalent in the UK than the US, however in Newfrontiers, my former denomination I noticed a trend for a new leader to rename the church shortly after they take over. This to me looks like a milder more British version of the same thing.
I was disappointed that RZIM as an organisation obstructed and imposed an NDA on a earlier claimant. Something positive about the C of E today has been it’s willingness to investigate senior leaders even former Archbishops. They may not have a good process yet – but it is very different to an organisation that can not countenance their leader falling.
His actions only came to light thanks to a website, much like this one, that had been calling out his behaviour and another victim felt able to contact them with their story. Please keep this website going it has been helpful to me and I’m sure to many others.
Things are improving in the Church of England. Trying to get survivors to sign a gagging order has not entirely disappeared though. This was tried in me.
Thanks so much for an insightful article. Ongoing study of Christian Nationalism and narcissism is an interesting approach in reflecting on how this ministry thrived as it did, thanks for insights
Oh dear. I’ve got my “jab” tomorrow and misread the title of the piece as “Some Reflections on Vaccination and the Ravi Zacharias story” – which seemed intriguing!
Speaking seriously, in Baptist circles there has often been a real tension in leadership. We are congregationalist and this theoretically means that a leader is under the authority of the church. As noted by Trevor above, this doesn’t always work – though in a Baptist (as opposed to independent) context there is recourse to Regional Ministers who, one hopes, will be fair-minded. However I’m sure that a ‘successful’ and charismatic minister can gain excessive power; equally so can an Elder or group of influential church members, especially as they hold the purse-strings and can ‘hire and fire’ – there definitely are cases of ministers being abused and at least one MA dissertation on the subject.
The problem with our system is that decision-making in the church can become very difficult; a tension can arise between the Minister (and other leading members who can see that ‘things need to change’) and conservative members who want everything to stay the same. Church politics and personalities can so easily take the place of “discerning the mind of Christ” in Church Meeting. Some years ago, and inspired by the Charismatic Movement, there was a trend to “let the leaders lead”; it was well-intentioned but inevitably led to a disempowering of the rank-and-file members who became little more than folk asked to “rubber stamp” leadership decisions. I think we’ve got past that and there has been more emphasis on “servant leadership” although I haven’t heard the phrase recently!