Friday, February 12, 2021

Best board imaginable!?

68

Ravi fell, but he had help.

“It is with deep gratitude to God, joined by the best board anyone can imagine and affirmed by the rest of our senior leadership, that these two appointments have been made.”

These are Ravi Zacharias’s words as he celebrates the appointment of two executives of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, namely his daughter Sarah Zacharias Davis as CEO and Michael Ramsden, a Christian apologist as president. Ravi Zacharias remained as the chairman of the board. It’s difficult to say who’s currently on the board, because I can’t find an annual report on the website and RZIM seems to have used a religious exemption to avoid filing a public 990 for several years. The 2014 statement has Ravi and his wife earning a total of $523,926 ($190,565 + 174,750 & 143,690 + 14,921). His daughter, Sarah Davis earned $208,995 plus $7,042 in other compensation. Naomi Zacharias, who oversaw poverty relief internationally, was subsisting on $129,679. 

If you serve on the board of a non-profit, you are responsible for oversight. When the poop hits the fan, it’s your fault. Why was the fan there? Why is poop being flung around the room? It is your fault; you should have been asking these questions! Family members of executive staff should not occupy a board seat. Contractors or employees of other organizations should never have a board seat or an executive position. Rarely do academics or public speakers possess any gifting with management or strategic planning. No matter how much prestige their name may carry, they should not manage or lead unless they have demonstrated ability.

Every board should review and publish an annual report and is responsible for setting the executive salary through its own research or consultants. Likewise, the board should ensure that compliance officers (HR and finance) have reporting mechanisms to catch ethical and legal violations when they are small.  In other words, the board should be interacting discretely with these staff to address problems.  A ministry the size of RZIM should undergo an external audit annually and should have published this audit on Guidestar.org or its own website. Problems are normal; cover-up allows gangrene to spread. 

From the 2014 990, the RZIM board seems to have had about twenty members, including Ravi, Ravi’s wife and his daughter. That’s too big and the lack of a board-approved annual report causes one to wonder whether any of the members of the board had assigned annual responsibilities. The founder and/or CEO can never be the chairman of the board, unless s/he owns the company. If the president/CEO is also chairman of the board, you have no oversight. Zero. 

Principles 

Centrality of Christ. Christian charities should be based on a gospel mission which itself focuses on Jesus Christ. Naming a charity after yourself is unacceptable. Serving as chairman of your own oversight committee reflects nothing more than narcissism. Put Christ at the center. "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor 2:2)

Compliance and transparency. Compliance means knowing and following the legal and ethics mandates of your business. Transparency is speaking truth, telling people what they need to hear when or before they need to hear it. “Let God be true and every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4.) 

Accountability. Things will go wrong, because even the best people are selfish and depraved. Will your organization nip it in the bud or let the cancer spread? Recognize that the easiest way to solve a problem is to deny its existence. Acknowledge, however, that the easy solution is a lie. “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.” (Prov 12:1) 

Greed. “For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.” (1 Tim 6:10) 

Victims. RZIM must be shut down and its assets designated toward the victims. Ravi’s family can’t earn money from his name and the employees need to move on. The board members as well as Ravi’s family are people of integrity who fell short on compliance, but the current organization’s continued existence under any name will only continue Ravi’s now-inexcusable legacy. The “Executrix” should release all parties from the Non-Disclosure Agreements and likewise release the documents related to the earlier investigation of RZ which found him innocent. “As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.” (1 Tim 5:20) 

Backstory

This blog post responds to the Evangelical readers will have watched this scandal unfold through our niche media and may not realize that former-evangelical, now atheist skeptic, Steve Baugman played a central early role in building support for the victims. In other words, RZIM affiliated lawyers seem to have quashed the story and Christian media outlets pursued it with reticence. Baugman’s original discoveries entailed Zacharias’s extensive lies about academic credentials. Baugman himself was not shocked by the evangelical inability to hold its own accountable, saying, “This is exactly what my atheist worldview would have predicted.” 

RZIM has released a twelve-page commissioned report, which largely relies on interviews with women and some of Ravi’s cell phones. While most of the 200 images of women on his phone were clothed selfies, he requested nude images from at least two women and received nude images from at least one woman.  According to the report, another woman who purportedly sent nude images later requested “$5 million in exchange for a release of claims against him and the ministry.” Christian leaders would do well to consider the following summary paragraph:

[Ravi Zacharias] further claimed, “In my 45 years of marriage to Margie, I have never engaged in any inappropriate behavior of any kind.” Much of the inappropriate massage therapy behavior discussed above occurred prior to the Thompson matter, and Mr. Zacharias’s lengthy text and email communication with the massage therapist from Bangkok whose culinary schooling he arranged for through RZIM and whom he called the “love of his life” occurred in 2014. His claim that he had long made it his practice “not to be alone with a woman other than Margie and our daughters” was similarly false. As reported above, Mr. Zacharias’s inappropriate conduct often occurred when he was alone with massage therapists. Because his need for massage treatments was well known and accepted, he was able to hide his misconduct in plain sight. He further stated that, after reflection, he learned that the “physical safeguards” he had “long practiced to protect my integrity should have extended to include digital communications safeguards.” As the architect of those “physical safeguards,” Mr. Zacharias well knew how to elude them.

68 comments

  1. If I may say so, the tone of this article could be improved: There are 11 "should"s in the article (9 in first three paragraphs). By contrast, the Lord only has two commandments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And He died for those whom he commanded.

      Delete
  2. And this totally off-topic post relates to evangelical textual Criticism how?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is related to "evangelical", and it is criticism. As for "textual", speaking as a non-scholar, I wonder why anyone would study thousand-year-old texts if those texts have no bearing whatsoever on the life of the scholar?

      Delete
  3. Can’t agree Mr Nemo. The caption above describes this web cite as a “forum for people with a knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts & texual history . . .” Personally, l agree with Mr Anonymous & question the suitability of this article in this forum.
    Blessings
    Rev John Wilderspin BA ThM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In some sense, you are perfectly correct. This post does not engage with the reconstruction of the text of the Bible. From my own point of view, the problem addressed is a key issue for believers interested in Bible reliability. Apologetics and scholarship differ greatly both in terms of their method and audience, yet they have something in common. Persons who either argue for or hold to the integrity of the Bible's factual and ethical claims cannot reasonably misconstrue facts and default on ethics. What happened with Ravi is a recurring and largely avoidable failure which plagues Christian nonprofits directly involved in the lives our blog community.

      Delete
    2. Still totally out of place within the ethos of this particular board. It should be posted on an apologetics board, but not here.

      Perhaps the next irrelevant post will be a screed on the manner of the impeachment process and results for evangelical voters? After that an evangelical diatribe on rioting and protests in Oregon. Get the point? The door is now open.

      In reality, the moderators should remove this irrelevant post and responses, simply to restore order and dignity to the blog.

      Delete
    3. The dignity of the blog would be better served by disallowing posts made cowardly under the anonymous banner.

      Delete
    4. There is more than one Anonymous posting here, and such is obviously permitted.

      If the mods wish to disallow such, let them set policy.

      The only "name" or title that should be at issue here is "Evangelical Textual criticism as opposed to matters unrelated to that topic.

      Were Zacharias a recognized textual critic involved in such scandals, something pertinent might be relevant. Otherwise, it remains out of place in this venue. Or perhaps you think we also should discuss certain known textual critics who divorced their wife to marry their student? (I didn't think so).

      Delete
    5. You can make any excuse you want for hiding your name, but it will still be a cowardly act that lacks integrity.

      I would never pay any heed whatsoever to the thoughts of someone who isn't willing to stand behind their own words.

      I mean, what are you trying to hide? What are you scared of? That those who know you in real life will find out how you actually think?

      Delete
    6. John Wilderspin wrote, "Can’t agree Mr Nemo. The caption above describes this web cite as a “forum for people with a knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts & texual history . . .”

      The description you quoted says this forum is for people with knowledge in TC, not for TC discussions exclusively. It leaves room for discussions about issues that concern the people of this community, which is why there have been quite a few "off-topic" posts in the past, as Ryan already pointed out. The issue that Christian brought up is of major concern to many members of this community, and therefore is suitable to this forum also.

      For those members who wish to focus on TC, this post is not a hindrance at all: Nothing keeps them from posting on TC topics, and having interesting discussions about them. These discussions are not mutually exclusive, and can be done in parallel, AFAICT.

      As for the dignity of the blog. Dignity does not consist in what the subject matter is, but how one deals with it. As long as the discussions are done based on sound reason and evidence, as is fitting for a reputable scholar, the dignity of the blog would not be diminished.

      Delete
    7. This is why l live in Canada, far & away from thr American political & domestic scene.
      Blessings
      Moth Wilderspin

      Delete
    8. If the argument for it being posted here is the intersection of apologetics and textual criticism, why hasn't there been a post about Jan Joosten? Textual Criticism intersects with biblical scholarship as well. Neither has there been a post about Bill Hybels, Carl Lentz, or any of the other Evangelical pastors with moral failings or crimes. Doesn't TC intersect with Evangelical preaching as well?

      No one here disputes the atrocity that is Ravi Zacharias, nor do they defend him. But this post belongs in a different forum. Being posted here just makes it look like virtue signaling and band wagoning

      Delete
  4. Yes, I'm completely baffled why this post is on this forum. It has nothing to do with textual criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the 15 years I have followed this blog, I have seen a great many posts that were only tangentially related to the main subject. There have been jokes, social reports about dinners, music recommendations, and even profiles of famous Olympic speedwalkers.

    But I am fairly certain that none of those numerous off-topic posts received the kind of indignant objections we are seeing here.

    So why is this one different?

    Is it because this post could be read as critical of a popular evangelical apologist?

    In the (not-so-old) days, when a esteemed and powerful man did the kinds of things that Ravi did, the old guard would have rallied around him to sweep it under the rug, protect his reputation, and silence the (usually female) critics speaking out. Is that what we're seeing here?

    I get that a lot of, particularly American, evangelicals see the practice of their faith more as a culture war against liberals, and I get that to those people Ravi was a beloved warrior who scored you a lot of points. But what good is it if you defend the faith with your words but violate it with your actions? Maintaining the integrity of your faith should be more important than your side "winning" .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ryan, do you get that Matt. 18 cannot be exercised on the account of a dead man? And yet, apparently cancel culture (or at least some kind of hybrid psuedo-Christian form of it) has no problem condemning the dead who can no longer answer for themselves. Perhaps we should dig old Ravi up and burn him at the stake for his sins. Or perhaps we should hear the Scripture, and leave the judgement of the dead to God Almighty. "Some men’s sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later. Likewise, the good works of some are clearly evident, and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed God will judge where Ravi will eventually end up, however that doesn't stop anyone from determining whether Ravi had as much as a righteous life as he led others to believe. Revelation has a thing to say about where hypocrites end up. It also doesn't stop us from learning lessons about such a figure as Ravi Zacharias - no matter their position or influence, that doesn't give them the right to do the things Ravi did, and at no point should anyone attempt to cover them up.

      There wasn't a too dissimilar thing which happened in the UK with Jimmy Savile, who paraded himself as a great philanthropist until it was found out what he was actually doing, and the attempted coverup ensued. But I guess being a paedophile and a non-Christian is easier to come to terms with them doing something evil than a supposed Christian who sexually assaulted women.

      Also if someone from the ETC blog wants to post something not exactly ETC related, they are more than welcome to do so, and shouldn't at any point receive such comments as have appeared here.

      Delete
    2. Please name one woman that he sexually assulted.

      Delete
    3. Suggest you read the Christianity Today article: https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/february/ravi-zacharias-rzim-investigation-sexual-abuse-sexting-rape.html

      Abuse/rape/assault: used interchangeably

      Delete
    4. You read it, and by all means please give us a name of one woman he sexually assaulted or "raped". And abuse/rape/assault are NOT interchangeable.

      Delete
    5. I don't believe that Matt 18 applies to leaders, whose sins must instead be publicly rebuked.

      Delete
    6. I've read it, and I suggest you read it too. You'll find your answer.

      I also suggest you read the "Report of Independent Investigation into Sexual Misconduct of Ravi Zacharias" as done by Miller & Martin.

      I quote from page 4:

      "Some therapists reported even more serious and sustained sexual assaults that evolved over time... This witness reported details of many encounters over a period of years that she described as rape."

      It's grim reading, so I can see why you may not want to believe Ravi could do such a thing. Nevertheless there's no reason to distrust the report nor the women they interviewed.

      Delete
    7. I've read both. Give me the name of one woman whom he sexually raped, assault or abused.

      Delete
    8. Ironic, that ANONYMOUS demands names, huh?

      Delete
    9. Ironic, that ASKELAND has no problem promoting the defamation of a dead man on the testimony of ANONYMOUS accusers!


      Ironic, that the ACCUSED cannot even defend himself (being deceased), huh?. He has simply been declared guilty by the world and the woke "evangelical" mob has co-signed the verdict. What judge heard this case? Who cross examined the witnesses? Who assessed their trustworthiness?

      Delete
    10. Anon, Christian beat me to it. If you want to be taken seriously, use your real name. Otherwise, if you're not willing to give your own name while insisting names be provided to you and/or claiming that a post about the necessity of transparency and accountability is inappropriate, it does raise suspicions that you might be upset because this issue hits close to home for you. Are you used to being able to do things without anyone knowing? Are you in a position in ministry, and if so, do you think you are entitled to carry on without accountability in some area? Do you think you should be in 100% control of it? Is anyone allowed to ask questions about you or your decisions? Maybe the answer is no. But unless you use your real name, it'll be hard to believe you.

      You didn't need to comment at all, but you chose to do so anonymously. If you're going to say something, have the integrity to put your name behind it.

      And I say all that not defending Christian's decision to post here. As he can attest, I emailed him as soon as I read the post to ask if he meant to post it here because I thought it was out of place here as well. True, I don't disagree with Christian that transparency and accountability are necessary or that these are issues relevant to a lot of us, even if not directly relevant to textual criticism. I had to fight this same battle over transparency and accountability (though only with regard to finances) a few months ago. But my point is that if you're going to take issue with a post about transparency and accountability, have the integrity to use your real name or simply don't comment.

      Delete
    11. "If you want to be taken seriously, use your real name...But unless you use your real name, it'll be hard to believe you...If you're going to say something, have the integrity to put your name behind it."

      Your starting to get it now, Elijah.

      Delete
    12. Don't spin my words in your favor. You are free to check in with Miller & Martin PLLC and/or Barron and Eiselstein, the authors of the 12-page Miller and Martin report for your concerns about its contents and anonymity therein. However, If you're going to complain about a post on transparency *here*, be transparent.

      Or are you just inviting us not to take you seriously by your refusal to use your own name? If you think the accusations are unfounded because names were not made public, then your own complaints are unfounded too, right?

      Delete
    13. Elijah Hixson wrote , " are you just inviting us not to take you seriously by your refusal to use your own name?..."

      Although I'm not the "Anonymous" person being addressed, this comment is concerning to me:

      First, there are legitimate reasons for not using one's own name, privacy and security concern being one of them. Transparency might be a good thing if practiced universally, but on public forums like this which can be accessed by people anywhere in the world, who may not be transparent and may use your information to do harm, it is perhaps imprudent to make yourself transparent.

      Second, whether anonymous accusations should be trusted is s valid question to raise. The legal principles such as presumption of innocence, the right to confront the accusers, and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence all put the burden of proof on the person making the accusation, and therefore the verity of his/her identify is important; In contrast, in public forums like this one, where arguments and counter-arguments are presented on diverse issues, the identity of the person making the argument is irrelevant. It is not productive to attack the person instead of addressing the substance of the argument.

      I didn't know there was such an unwritten policy, that anonymous commenters are not welcome or taken seriously at this site. I'd be happy to leave if that is the case, but wanted to get clarification first.

      Delete
    14. Nemo,

      //on public forums like this which can be accessed by people anywhere in the world, who may not be transparent and may use your information to do harm// I do understand that there are situations in which anonymity is needed, but is complaining that a blog post is out of place one of them? My advice would be not to comment if one wants to criticise a post about transparency without being transparent. Nobody is making anybody comment here. The issue with the topic of the post was that a lack of transparency and accountability created an environment for abuse to thrive. Refusing to use one's name when boldly criticising such a post in a manner that almost looks like the anonymous critic thinks he/she is morally superior to the author of the post smells more like the attitude of the abuser who thinks he is entitled to a lack of accountability than like the abused who might genuinely need anonymity for protection.

      Second, some of the claims in the report (from a named firm, written by named authors) come from phone records from Zacharias himself. That part of the issue is hardly anonymous, don't you think? But one anonymous commenter seemed to take issue with "the defamation of a dead man on the testimony of ANONYMOUS accusers". It makes me wonder if he/she even read the report. Or did he/she simply miss the parts about what they discovered when they checked the phones, compared timelines to travel records, etc.

      As far as I know, there is no policy here against anonymous commenters. Though I do wish that those who feel so strongly as some of the commenters here had the integrity to stand by their own words by using their own names. The tone of some of these comments seems like these commenters are using the anonymity as an excuse the say things in a way that they are too cowardly to say with their own name behind it (as Ryan mentioned above). Let me be proven wrong about that, and I'll gladly apologize.

      Delete
    15. Elijah (if I may),

      Anonymous argued that any blogpost not related to textual criticism is off-topic. I don't see why he has to use his own name to make the same argument, just because the blogpost happens to be about transparency? As Maurice A. Robinson wrote, it doesn't matter who make the objection, off-topic remains off-topic.

      What concerned me and prompted my response is how what seems to me a fair point by Anonymous led to your speculating about his/her "lack of accountability". IF someone were to write a blogpost about a sensational murder case, and another argue it is off-topic, would the latter be suspected of murder as well?

      I trust that I've made my point clear --if not, I've tried my best, and will leave it at that.

      Delete
    16. Nemo, (yes please call me Elijah),

      I get your point. I don't know if we're talking about exactly the same thing though. My concern is mostly with the tone of the anonymous comments here. That hasn't been a problem with only this post, either. If someone just wanted to anonymously say that that the post seems off-topic, I don't know if I would have said anything, because like I said, I thought it was a bit off topic as well. My concern is the very bold tone (and hints at perceived moral superiority) that frequently accompanies such anonymous comments (and again, not just on this post). People will say things anonymously that they wouldn't say if their names were attached to their words. As a friend of mine said to me recently, "Whenever I post anything online, I had better be prepared to stand by it or apologize for it." That's a good way to live. But commenting anonymously means that you don't have to stand by it because your name isn't attached, and you don't have to apologize for it because nobody knows you said it.

      I don't have a problem with anonymous comments in themselves, nor do I have a problem with anonymity in situations where it is necessary to protect a victim. On the other hand, when someone is cowering behind those provisions as a way to be a jerk (or be less gracious than they would if their name was attached) without accountability, I have little patience for that or respect for such a person. I never intended to suggest that this/these anonymous commentor(s) were sexual predators, but it is a huge problem that allows such predators to get away with it when we create an atmosphere of "I am entitled to be anonymous" and use that freedom to serve ourselves rather than to serve others.

      So if you're going to be a harsh critic (and I don't think you have done so here), why not use your name and stand by what you've said? Especially when the post is about how a lack of transparency and anonymity can go very, very wrong.

      Delete
  7. The real question is, Mr. Askeland...

    Did Ravi fall like Samson, David and Solomon — or did he fall like Saul?

    ReplyDelete
  8. My own interest in this point primarily relates to past and present governance by the RZIM board. With respect to the specific severity of Ravi's claims, I could never know. He clearly seems to have exposed himself to women at massage parlors, to have solicited selfies and to have made inappropriate advances. Again, my issue relates to the cover-up. I, however, would point out that RZ was dishonest about his credentials, and this dishonesty fueled his critics and supported the claims of mistreated women, women who were labelled liars. In the best case scenario, RZ was a super-creepy guy who exaggerated his credentials and created nepotistic, paid executive and board positions for his family. He had his treasure in this life and you would not have wanted your daughter or wife in a room alone with him. Sadly both for Ravi and these women, his board did not have the independence to catch him early in the game. King David had Nathan and Ravi should have had a board.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. King David had Nathan and Ravi should have had a board.

      I'm not sure that the relation between king and prophet works the same as that between CEO and the board. For one thing, the king is not accountable to the prophet, but the CEO is accountable to the board. Nathan was able to convict David, because he was conveying the word of God, but the board has no such divine authority.

      Did any of the prominent figures in the Bible "have a board"? The Apostles had co-workers, and Paul corrected Peter at Antioch, not because he was a member of the board, but because he was a brother, a member of the same body of Christ, I would think.

      Would a board have kept the Leader from falling? I'm not familiar with the evidence or literature at all. If one looks at the organizational structures of other churches and institutions whose founders/leaders have fallen, do they not have boards of some sort? Conversely, if one looks at the opposite examples, i.e., the churches and institutions that have avoided scandals so far, what is it that they have in common which might have kept them from shipwreck?

      Delete
    2. Constituting the board with RZ's relatives compromised the board's oversight. I am not arguing that boards are or are not biblical, although they are a standard governance feature of US nonprofits.

      Delete
    3. The reason I'm asking these questions is because it is not clear to me why you think RZIM "should" have a board. It sounds like a moral imperative, but on what ground? Just because something is a standard feature, doesn't mean it is necessary, let alone morally imperative.

      Delete
    4. You mean above and beyond the moral imperative inhering to the lUS egal mandate that 501.C.3 organizations be governed by a board?

      Delete
    5. There is legal mandate to pay taxes, which goes back to ancient times, but there is no legal mandate for how an organization should be governed, AFAIK.

      Governance is a vast and profound subject, and I'm not expecting a treatise here. However, Christian has prescribed some rules for nonprofit organization, and I'd like to see some justification for those rules. It is one thing to argue that there are good reasons to do things in a certain way, but quite another to argue that things must be done in this way.

      Delete
    6. I think there are legal requirements that *if* an organization is registered as a 501c(3) and enjoys the tax benefits of that, then it must meet certain governance criteria.

      But I don't think there's any moral obligation that Christian ministries have to be registered as 501c(3) organizations in the first place.

      I don't think that detracts from the essence of Christian's argument though. Whatever governing structure an organization has, there is a moral obligation for Christians to have accountability with one another that extends to those organizations. And the more lucrative those organizations are, and the more famous and influential their figureheads become, the greater the need for accountability.

      I think often parachurch organizations use their status as something other than a church as a loophole to avoid the biblical requirements that are placed on churches and church leaders. And while I think it's true that parachurch organizations shouldn't try to take on all of the duties that belong to churches (e.g. partaking in the Lord's Supper), and it's true that leaders in those organizations may not be precisely the same thing as elders or deacons, wisdom is needed in applying biblical principles to parachurch organizations in such a way that they don't lose sense of all boundaries or any need to adhere to higher standards than secular organizations, and to recognize their identities as falling within the umbrella of the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

      Delete
  9. P.J.Williams, 24 Oct 2005:

    "Essentially what I’m wanting to do is to create a blog for those who wish to discuss textual criticism of the Old or New Testament from an evangelical perspective."

    Seems to me that opening blast set the standard for what this blog should be discussing, and in this sense it doesn't matter whether objections are made by John Wilderspin, Bruce, Elijah or the eponymous anonymouses. Off-topic remains off-topic and detracts from the originally expressed intent and purpose of this board.

    How about let's get back to discussing Textual Criticism as a more interesting alternative?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh it's certainly off topic, Maurice.
      But my point is still that there's always been plenty of off topic here, and that's always been fine until now. So again, I'd ask, why is this time different? My concern is that the real difference here is that the old boys club is still alive and well in evangelicalism, and the objections here are based in that ugly old practice of blindly defending the male predator while trying the discredit the female victims (the latter being done in textbook fashion here by that paragon of integrity "anonymous" and his repeated demands that the names of the accusers be publicly outed).

      If my concern is valid, I think the reaction here would stand as an example of a moral corruption within the evangelical perspective, which would, I think, at least lead to the question of why any text critical discussion from that perspective would be worth anything at all.

      Delete
    2. I have not knowledge of why "Anonymous" won't give his (or is it her?) name - perhaps fear of cancel culture which is so prevalent now. But if it is wrong for him (or is it her?) to withhold name , then is "Ryan" a unique identifier or only marginally less anonymous than "Anonymous"?

      Delete
    3. We know Ryan by his works.

      Delete
    4. Yes and no. You may know Ryan but I did not, I had to look at his blogger profile to work out who he is. And if he were to delete or modify his blogger profile then all posts that were ever made by "Ryan" would be only marginally less anonymous than "Anonymous"
      But that is the minor issue. I was more concerned with how some posts here included speculative comments like "it does raise suspicions that you might be upset because this issue hits close to home for you. Are you used to being able to do things without anyone knowing" - i.e.: to ask questions is to cover up self guilt, and given the context of the discussion on RZ, implied that it might be rape or some other heinous sexually related activity.
      Had "Anonymous" used his (or her?) name then how would the speculative comment play out at their place of work - especially if they are in ministry?

      Delete
    5. It's more the issue that someone who has not at least signed their first name is demanding names of witnesses who quite rightly have not been named in any of the reports into this matter. This wasn't a court case, however as Christianity Today, Miller & Martin, and even RZIM have assented that the allegations were true, there's no reason whatsoever to demand these women be named, by anyone anonymous or known.

      As it pertains to Textual Criticism, well as Ryan has pointed out, there's been a few OT posts on the ETC blog (which from what I can find, does not say non-TC blog posts are prohibited), and this is the first one that appears to have struck a nerve with some. Why? Because it contains reference to an uncomfortable reality about someone who appeared as an angel of light, but was in fact something else entirely (see 2 Corinthians 11:14)? That we dare infer that when women testify to abuse received from males in power they should be heard, and not have to be publicly named before people believe them? That giving positions to friends and family is not the best practise to have full accountability?

      It also struck me that out of the 17 listed contributors to this blog (disregarding past contributors), only one is female. Perhaps this can be used as a catalyst to request more females who are engaged in TC be invited to be regular contributors to this blog.

      Delete
    6. Matthew, had Anon used his or her real name, there would have been no speculative comment from me. I never intended to suggest sexual misconduct because the bigger issue is one of transparency and accountability. That's the issue that creates situations in which sexual predators can operate, but sexual misconduct is not the only thing that can happen in that environment. It could be finances. Or, it could be a situation in which there is literally nothing wrong happening with the person at the time, but 20 years later someone else joins the staff and walks into an environment that allows him/her to get away with things the previous person would never dream of doing. If a shepherd is to guard the sheep from the wolves, it's not good to create an environment in which wolves can thrive—even if there are no wolves to thrive in it at the time. Hence my comment. Not "Anon, are you a wolf?" but "Anon, have you created an environment (intentionally or not) in which wolves can thrive?"

      Delete
  10. If the editors and contributors of this blog—all of whom are listed with real names—do not wish commenters’ use of real names to be required, perhaps they could state that they prefer it to be encouraged.

    ReplyDelete
  11. First, I appreciated the article by Dr. Askeland. Second, the article certainly seems out of place on the ETC Blog. Third, while there have been other non-TC posts previously, in my recollection, it seems that just as it did in this case, most of the comments were about the choice of posting here. Finally, I found it regrettable that a contributor to this blog took it on himself to attack someone whom he knows nothing about, especially while making an integrity claim.
    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  12. I also appreciated Christian's post. And I too upon reading it immediately wondered why he posted it here.

    Other posts in the blog's history have tested the limits of it's stated purpose. But this one arguably goes further afield than any others I remember. And the reaction to it seems to attest to that.

    That said, here are a couple points that I see in favor of its relevance:

    1) Christian's main concern in the post was not with judging RZ's behavior, but with the inability of his organization to hold him accountable, which resulted from certain features of that organization that made it very susceptible to such problems. This concern applies to all Christian nonprofit organizations. All of the contributors to this blog hold positions in a variety of Christian nonprofit organizations. And they hold these positions as evangelical textual critics. It is in these positions with these organizations that they serve the body of Christ with their scholarship. This is also true of much of the intended audience of the blog. A warning about the severe consequences that can be prevented by being serious about accountability in these kinds of organizations is not irrelevant to this group.

    2) A commenter above opined that a post like Christian's belongs on an apologetics blog. Well, speaking as someone who I knows this blog pretty well, this actually is an apologetics blog. It may be out on the margins of what normally goes for apologetics, and that may not be the stated purpose, or its only concern or even central concern, and some may even take umbrage at the label. But I believe that my saying that is an honest assessment, and I mean absolutely no offense by it. The kind of apologetics this blog represents is apologetics at its very best. It is specialists who own serious expertise in a field, pursuing its knowledge on its own right, and not just as something to plunder for the sake of supporting a predetermined conclusion, but who actively converse in the field of Christian apologetics as part of that scholarship. That kind of plundering of academics is a caricature that I know many have of apologetics, but it need not be. At its most basic level, apologetics is just giving the reasons you have for believing what you do. An apologetic interest is a big part of why the qualifier "evangelical" is used in this blog's title. You can see this in the book Myths and Mistakes, which I think more than any other published work reflects the personality of this blog. Evangelical apologists are at the center of the intended audience of that book.

    These are aspects of this blog that usually stay hidden beneath the surface. But they are there, and awareness of them may make Christian's post easier to understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric Rowe wrote, "this actually is an apologetics blog ... You can see this in the book Myths and Mistakes, which I think more than any other published work reflects the personality of this blog."

      Now that we're clear on that point :), there is a question I've been meaning to ask (as someone who doesn't know much about ETC): What is ETC's response to Dr. Ehrman? Is M&M the best you've got?

      Delete
    2. Bart Ehrman's work has been discussed on this blog quite a bit. I'm sure you can find multiple posts by searching for his name.

      What in particular has he written that you would like to see a response to?

      Delete
    3. I'd like to see a scholarly, even point-by-point, response to "Misquoting Jesus" from an evangelical perspective, something that would give readers a more complete picture of consensus and debate in textual criticism. Perhaps something like "How God Became Jesus" to "How Jesus became God" in format.

      Delete
  13. I think ETC can probably handle the odd off-topic post. Anyone concerned that we are in danger of becoming a politics and culture blog can rest easy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bennie Anderjets2/16/2021 5:32 pm

      Equally, I think ETC should be able to handle the odd Anonymous posts without such evoking a stronger reaction than the initial off-topic post that was anonymously objected to.



      (And no, I am not really anonymous, but the posting name has been changed to make a point - MAR)

      Delete
    2. But do you have a mohair suit?

      Delete
    3. Bennie Anderjets2/16/2021 6:10 pm

      Electric boots...

      Delete
    4. Show us (as Emperor Joseph II said to Mozart).

      Delete
    5. For most, in order to trust that Bennie Anderjets has electric boots and mohair suits, it's enough to have read it in a magazine.

      Delete
  14. So, is the linking of the Bob Jones smear/slime piece by The Gospel Coalition to be understood as something other than an irresponsible pushing of a political and culturally woke narrative?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. You might understand it as providing historical context to the variant I was discussing.

      Delete
    2. Then it was just a coincidence, I take.

      Delete
    3. But then again, the "sadly" implies otherwise.

      Delete
    4. Anon, are you suggesting that the correct interpretation of Acts 17:26b is to defend segregation or that using such a verse to defend segregation is not sad?

      Delete
    5. Or that when Bob Jones III in 2000 and Stephen Jones in 2008 repudiated the racist past of BJU (expressing a viewpoint that most other American white conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists had already held for decades), they were irresponsibly pushing a political and culturally woke narrative?

      Delete
  15. Is this ECT on topic?
    full text at ane-3 (ancient near east)list:
    https://groups.io/g/ane-3/message/206
    “Parallelomania” is the title of an article by Samuel Sandmel in Journal of Biblical Literature 81.1 (March 1962) 1-13, from a December 27, 1961 lecture, which is influential but may not be entirely reliable. Sandmel began: “I encountered the term parallelomania, as I recall, in a French book of about 1830, whose title and author I have forgotten….” Here I assume familiarity with the article, paraphrasing and omitting footnotes. He tells of someone imagining that Paul, while writing the Epistle to the Romans had open on his desk a copy of the Wisdom of Solomon, and used parallels from it, repeatedly—an imagined view he ridicules. A post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

    I searched for that circa French book, but did not find it, even though searching in 2021 is a different world than in 1961, given hathitrust, google books, gallica, and other searches, and the extremely extensive bibliography in Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s 1993 Anchor Bible Commentary on Romans (eg. 1819 anon., Geneva; 1838 Mynas; 1843 Oltramare).

    Here are (only) selected tentative findings, chronologically. None French circa 1830.{.....]

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have read over and over again that 1) a good textual critic does not allow his view of the inspiration of Scripture to inform his scientific approach to the text, 2) It doesn't matter how the textual critic lives or believes, the important thing is his scientific approach to the text, and 3) Michael Ehrman is an authority in the science of textual criticism.
    I'm trying to see how any of these fit with using this forum to expose Ravi Zecharias. Are they no longer being taught or believed by the blog editors?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not sure if we understand “scientific approach” the same way, but, like textual criticism, forensic science uses an evidence-based approach to uncover the truth. So it seems to me not undeserving for a textual critic to apply this common approach to uncover the truth in the Zacharias affair, which affects him/her personally. In other words, his/her skill is transferable.

      As for the role of personal beliefs in scholarship, I've heard people argue that if a scholar believes that the Bible is inspired by God, it introduces inherent bias into his/her scholarly works. I think there is a difference between perspective and bias. The former can be consistent with the evidence, whereas the latter is not. If it is ok for Dr. Ehrman to interpret the textual evidence from within an atheistic/skeptical perspective, it is also ok for evangelicals to interpret the evidence from a Christian perspective, as long as it is consistent with the evidence.

      Delete