The Ravi Zacharias scandal and....his books on my shelves.

JohnDB said:

Yeah, I'm not a John Piper fan either.
But he has a much more reduced speaking engagement schedule than Ravi or some of the others.
But I did notice that he calls what is essentially a ghost writer/researcher an editor. It's semantics at best. He is commissioning a book based on very rough notes with an editor/ghost writer. He tried to call them a co-author...as if that makes it less culpable in guilt of doing what his many contemporaries do.
Yeah... whatever. At least he has read the book his name is on.

Click to expand...

Well you clearly have your own beliefs and aren't swayed by reality, and choose to actually ignore what people say. Good on you champ.

Again, who ghost wrote Augustine and Calvin?

Did you actually read what Piper said, because your comments about it are a joke and clearly you're the one who has a problem with honesty.

"Therefore, I think putting your name on a book you didn’t write is a lie. And people would be shocked if someone took a one-page set of ideas that they got from your sermons and turned it into a book, and you put your name on the book. That would be a lie, and God said, “You shall not lie”

Now I believe in editors, big time. David Mathis at Desiring God is called a senior editor. I sent off a book to him yesterday or the day before and said, “Go at it, David. Help me avoid error. Help me not say things stupidly. Help me get my grammar right.” He is going to send it back to me and there will be some blue highlighting in it. And if that editing process reaches a point where this is anywhere near substantially David’s work, his name is going on it. I will put, “John Piper with David Mathis.”

What Piper does is clearly and obviously not hiring ghost writers. Piper writes all his own books, and has them edited. How many Piper books have you seen that have a co-author on them? In other words, Piper writes his own books. More books that Ravi wrote.

People write their own books champ. It does happen.

Ravi wrote his own books. Piper writes his own books.

It's amazing how highly you think of your uninformed opinion.

2PhiloVoid said:

If this is your surmising that you're having about me, I can asure you that my purpose here in this thread is quite the opposite from your concern.

Click to expand...

No, no, I've no such surmising about you. I was just using the thread as a springboard to make the observations that I did. As I said, they were offered in the spirit of "If the shoe fits..."

2PhiloVoid said:

I in no way am choosing to look at this issue involving Ravi as a cover from any of my own past sins. I'm a firm believer in spritual maturity.

Click to expand...

I hadn't thought otherwise.

2PhiloVoid said:

So, my focus here isn't to discredit the power of the Lord in helping to mold any one of us lowly sinners into a more Christ-like person. I'm simply wanting to sweep the field for opinions from fellow Christians and survey what others think is the wiser course of action in handling any of Ravi's books from this point forward.

Click to expand...

This is what I understood your purpose to be. I already weighed-in on this matter in my first post to this thread. As my wife's father likes to say, "Keep the good, throw out the bad."

2PhiloVoid said:

Well, on this last point, I will just have to offer you my firm but friendly disagreement. I think I've done ZERO injustice to anyone here in this thread.

Click to expand...

Goodness! I was not intending to accuse you, personally. See above.

You be blessed, too.

SPF said:

Well you clearly have your own beliefs and aren't swayed by reality, and choose to actually ignore what people say. Good on you champ.

Again, who ghost wrote Augustine and Calvin?

Did you actually read what Piper said, because your comments about it are a joke and clearly you're the one who has a problem with honesty.

"Therefore, I think putting your name on a book you didn’t write is a lie. And people would be shocked if someone took a one-page set of ideas that they got from your sermons and turned it into a book, and you put your name on the book. That would be a lie, and God said, “You shall not lie”

Now I believe in editors, big time. David Mathis at Desiring God is called a senior editor. I sent off a book to him yesterday or the day before and said, “Go at it, David. Help me avoid error. Help me not say things stupidly. Help me get my grammar right.” He is going to send it back to me and there will be some blue highlighting in it. And if that editing process reaches a point where this is anywhere near substantially David’s work, his name is going on it. I will put, “John Piper with David Mathis.”

What Piper does is clearly and obviously not hiring ghost writers. Piper writes all his own books, and has them edited. How many Piper books have you seen that have a co-author on them? In other words, Piper writes his own books. More books that Ravi wrote.

People write their own books champ. It does happen.

Ravi wrote his own books. Piper writes his own books.

It's amazing how highly you think of your uninformed opinion.

Click to expand...

His "editors" are being essentially ghost writers and "co-authors".

I'm not uninformed....I just took off the rose colored glasses that you are still wearing.

JSRG said:

A rather important difference is that the three people you mentioned all repented of the sins you mention and then didn't keep doing it.

Click to expand...

My point in offering the examples I did was to address the matter of confronting sin in a person. Their response to being confronted was beside this point. I don't deny, of course, that repentance was the response of these men and that such a response was good.

JohnDB said:

His "editors" are being essentially ghost writers and "co-authors".

I'm not uninformed....I just took off the rose colored glasses that you are still wearing.

Click to expand...

They're not "essentially" or even "remotely" being what is known as a ghost-writer. And the fact that you are so insistent on refusing to acknowledge that speaks more about your character than anything else. Whatever glasses you removed, you apparently didn't replace them with the proper ones.

A ghost writer is someone who is hired to write a book on behalf of an author. John Piper for example, has never utilized a ghost writer, and to assert that having his book edited is somehow the same as using a ghost writer is ignorant at best, deceitful at worst.

If John Piper is guilty of using a ghost writer, then every single author who has ever had their work edited for grammar and structure has utilized a ghost writer. But again, we recognize the distinction between editing and ghost writing. Why are you refusing to?

2PhiloVoid said:

... strange. I've always thought of Samson as a "last minute" repentant, and I've thought that that was why God used him at the end of the book of Judges ...

It's interesting how interpretations of Scripture can differ, isn't it?

Click to expand...

It is interesting to see how people read what they want to out of scriptures.
It's why I like the inductive method of breaking down each "chapter" (although they don't line up with the numbering system) and paragraphs and sentences.
Diagram any sentences lately?

But Sampson repented and was a "good boy" for 25 years...just to blow it all over again in spectacular fashion.

The first "girlfriend" came from a mixed race border town.
The second girlfriend (25 years later) came from deep within the Philistine territory.

Just a noted difference.

SPF said:

They're not "essentially" or even "remotely" being what is known as a ghost-writer. And the fact that you are so insistent on refusing to acknowledge that speaks more about your character than anything else. Whatever glasses you removed, you apparently didn't replace them with the proper ones.

A ghost writer is someone who is hired to write a book on behalf of an author. John Piper for example, has never utilized a ghost writer, and to assert that having his book edited is somehow the same as using a ghost writer is ignorant at best, deceitful at worst.

If John Piper is guilty of using a ghost writer, then every single author who has ever had their work edited for grammar and structure has utilized a ghost writer. But again, we recognize the distinction between editing and ghost writing. Why are you refusing to?

Click to expand...

Because there are several levels of editing...and the one Piper mentions is essentially ghost writing or co-authoring.
Piper gets the big name... co-author gets his name in small print at best or left out except for the paycheck.

JohnDB said:

Because there are several levels of editing...and the one Piper mentions is essentially ghost writing or co-authoring.
Piper gets the big name... co-author gets his name in small print at best or left out except for the paycheck.

Click to expand...

Now I believe in editors, big time. David Mathis at Desiring God is called a senior editor. I sent off a book to him yesterday or the day before and said, “Go at it, David. Help me avoid error. Help me not say things stupidly. Help me get my grammar right.” He is going to send it back to me and there will be some blue highlighting in it. And if that editing process reaches a point where this is anywhere near substantially David’s work, his name is going on it. I will put, “John Piper with David Mathis.”

That is not considered ghost writing.

SPF said:

They're not "essentially" or even "remotely" being what is known as a ghost-writer. And the fact that you are so insistent on refusing to acknowledge that speaks more about your character than anything else. Whatever glasses you removed, you apparently didn't replace them with the proper ones.

A ghost writer is someone who is hired to write a book on behalf of an author. John Piper for example, has never utilized a ghost writer, and to assert that having his book edited is somehow the same as using a ghost writer is ignorant at best, deceitful at worst.

If John Piper is guilty of using a ghost writer, then every single author who has ever had their work edited for grammar and structure has utilized a ghost writer. But again, we recognize the distinction between editing and ghost writing. Why are you refusing to?

Click to expand...

My wife and I have written several articles using the method that Piper discussed.

First I write the article...
Then she rewrites it to where it will read appropriately and correctly... sometimes adjusting my references to be more accurate and footnoted appropriately.

I don't claim a thing about authorship.
It might have been my idea but she is the written author of the stories I tell. The only difference is I told the stories before she actually wrote them.

They aren't bad in any sense...but I give ALL credit to her writing and writing abilities. My storytelling is not writing. She can't do what I do...nor can I do what she does. I might be the originator of the idea...but that's small potatoes in my book.

JohnDB said:

My wife and I have written several articles using the method that Piper discussed.

First I write the article...
Then she rewrites it to where it will read appropriately and correctly... sometimes adjusting my references to be more accurate and footnoted appropriately.

I don't claim a thing about authorship.
It might have been my idea but she is the written author of the stories I tell. The only difference is I told the stories before she actually wrote them.

They aren't bad in any sense...but I give ALL credit to her writing and writing abilities. My storytelling is not writing. She can't do what I do...nor can I do what she does. I might be the originator of the idea...but that's small potatoes in my book.

Click to expand...

Congratulations, you described something that Piper does not do. He writes the content and has it edited for grammer and readability.

Editing is not synonymous with ghost writing. They're different.

SPF said:

Congratulations, you described something that Piper does not do. He writes the content and has it edited for grammer and readability.

Editing is not synonymous with ghost writing. They're different.

Click to expand...

*Sigh*
Whatever you want to believe dude.

2PhiloVoid said:

I get the feeling you think I'm some ignorant, uneducated fool who likes to slap dance all over a public forum

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes, it very much is.

That's great.

It's been a while since I've diagrammed any sentence, and I usually don't make a habit of demonstrating that rusty skill of mine here on CF.



And... even in my Hermeneutically educated mind, I'm not quite getting the gist of what it is you're wanting me to get from your brief elucidation. Care to expound further? I get the feeling you think I'm some ignorant, uneducated fool who likes to slap dance all over a public forum.

Click to expand...

Sorry...
I was just thinking out loud.
Please forgive my "slap dancing"

*Wondering if everyone is so easily perturbed today... maybe it was the full moon*

JohnDB said:

Even if the books are small...
He still had ghost writers...he might have thrown some notes at them. But that's the whole of it. Even small, short books require lots of work.
You can put the man on a pedestal if you wish.
I don't and won't.
I know several writers...Mike Snow, my Pastor, and my wife. Spencer (lives in OZ) is currently working on his book and It's not going to be a popular bestseller...it's a textbook.

My pastor's little book took him five years to write and get published through a vanity press. It wasn't much more than a booklet by the time all was said and done.

I haven't seen or read Ravi's books. Not really interested in him... never really cared for his stuff although I readily admit that his stuff is usually very popular. It's that whole itching ears getting scratched thing.
To me, he wasn't helpful in my daily life. YMMV.

Book writing and publishing has been a staple for many a Christian televangelist. Except that it takes a LOT of work to make it happen. And they don't have the time.

Click to expand...

John DB,

We know that a number of Bible books were written by an amanuensis (scribe) - a 'ghost writer'. These included: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Apostle Paul, and maybe Peter (see: "Were Some of the Biblical Books Actually Written by a Scribe Rather than by the Named Author? (An Amanuensis)." Being written by a scribe does not affect the authority of a writing. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul and Peter demonstrate that.

I spent 5 years on a research-only PhD dissertation and have sent 3 articles off to journals. I await their responses. I'm about to conclude another article. In 2021, I plan to convert the dissertation into a book or 2, but the material is quite technical. Take a read at: Crossan and the resurrection of Jesus : rethinking presuppositions, methods and models. I warn you it is 480pp long and that includes 60pp of bibliography.

Why would I, an evangelical Christian, critique a Jesus Seminar deconstructionist who considered Jesus' resurrection was an apparition and Jesus was a mortal man in the fullest sense of the term. He was conceived and born in the conventional way (no Virgin Birth), did not perform miracles (no Lazarus, no loaves and fishes, no lepers), did not undergo resurrection (no Easter) and after his execution, was probably eaten by wild dogs (no joke).

I consider this kind of researcher needs to leave religion and go work for a secular institution. See my article: Anglicans, Christmas, and the birth of God? If Anglican ministers affirmed the full authority of Scripture at their ordinations and strayed from that path they should do as C S Lewis recommended, 'You must change your profession' to be honest men.

I don't plan to use a scribe to help me. I have prepared a detailed outline of the thesis and have plans for the book in 2021.

Oz

OzSpen said:

John DB,

We know that a number of Bible books were written by an amanuensis (scribe) - a 'ghost writer'. These included: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Apostle Paul, and maybe Peter (see: "Were Some of the Biblical Books Actually Written by a Scribe Rather than by the Named Author? (An Amanuensis)." Being written by a scribe does not affect the authority of a writing. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul and Peter demonstrate that.

I spent 5 years on a research-only PhD dissertation and have sent 3 articles off to journals. I await their responses. I'm about to conclude another article. In 2021, I plan to convert the dissertation into a book or 2, but the material is quite technical. Take a read at: Crossan and the resurrection of Jesus : rethinking presuppositions, methods and models. I warn you it is 480pp long and that includes 60pp of bibliography.

Why would I, an evangelical Christian, critique a Jesus Seminar deconstructionist who considered Jesus' resurrection was an apparition and Jesus was a mortal man in the fullest sense of the term. He was conceived and born in the conventional way (no Virgin Birth), did not perform miracles (no Lazarus, no loaves and fishes, no lepers), did not undergo resurrection (no Easter) and after his execution, was probably eaten by wild dogs (no joke).

I consider this kind of researcher needs to leave religion and go work for a secular institution. See my article: Anglicans, Christmas, and the birth of God? If Anglican ministers affirmed the full authority of Scripture at their ordinations and strayed from that path they should do as C S Lewis recommended, 'You must change your profession' to be honest men.

I don't plan to use a scribe to help me. I have prepared a detailed outline of the thesis and have plans for the book in 2021.

Oz

Click to expand...

Yeah...I'm still working on reading yours...
Today it was movies and bread making that got in the way.

And if there's heavy editing...as in rewriting...who really wrote the book?

And I'm aware of the scribe function that actually penned the scriptures.
But that really doesn't come into play here.

I'm talking about a public speaker on a full schedule as such having time to really write a book and then using editors to actually write the thing. Which is why I think that the books actually have some value.

I think that you have value as a writer... your book probably isn't going to make the Nytimes bestseller list...but that doesn't mean it won't be a success.
It might go through an editing process...but I don't see you taking a completely rewritten book by your editor and slapping your name on it. Instead I see you getting the minimal editing and walking on.

2PhiloVoid said:

For those of you who may not have heard, Ravi Zacharias was a well-known Christian Evangelical apologist who passed away several months ago. Over the years I've heard Ravi on the radio maybe a dozen times, defending the Christian faith and firmly refuting non-believers. And while he wasn't my favorite apologist nor one who was central to the formation of my own Christian beliefs, I have bought a few books here and there that bear his name.

Now, with the allegations that have come to light after Ravi's death (as briefly reviewed in the apologetics video below from Christian youtuber, Whaddo You Meme??) I have to ask: What should I do with the 4 or 5 Christian apologetics books by Ravi Zacharias that sit on my shelf? Should I toss them? What would you do with them? And what should we as Christians learn from this scandal?


Youtuber: Whaddo You Meme?? - Date Video Posted: Dec 23, 2020, Video length: 6 minutes, 7 seconds.

Click to expand...

I also followed Ravi and have been helped by his videos which have given me greater understanding and strengthened my faith. I dont think that because Ravi has become involved in some issue like this that this should change the fact that Ravi been able to help people and relay some truths. Of course it does dampen a persons regard for Ravi but I did not hold him up in such a high regard and my faith does not depend on another person.

I am not sure what the issue is with Ravi but it seems that with the age of MeToo there are a lot of people in high places and important positions being found out with some being falsely accused or having their actions misconstrued. I am not saying that this is the case with Ravi but only that it is important to get the entire story before we can make judgemnets.

But even so if Ravi has been inaapropriate then there is no excuse. I think as the guy in the video said that these people in important positions that teach others are humans and not Christ and therefore imperfect. I always think of Kind David where God said he was a man after his own heart yet David committed adultery and murder. This shows our weakness and how we need to let go of self and depend on Christ to guide us.

I think it only shows that Ravi was human and those who are most shocked are probably those who held him up to an unreal expectation. It doesnt change my view of what he has taught in his videos and books. These are still truths that have helped many and still will. I dont like this idea of rejecting a persons achievements based on one or two indiscretions.

I am sure there are some who are in postions of trust now who have some secrets we dont know about and I know that many great people in the past have done wrong but have had their wrongs put aside because they still did a lot of good. For example President Kennedy though married and preached Christian values had several affairs and got up to some shady stuff. Gandi preached abstinence yet carried on an affair with his physician for many years. Thomas Jefferson the founding father of the US who came up with the idea that 'all men were created equal' owned slaves his entire life and had a long-term affair with one of them. So even the best of us are not so perfect.

JohnDB said:

Yeah, I'm not a John Piper fan either.
But he has a much more reduced speaking engagement schedule than Ravi or some of the others.
But I did notice that he calls what is essentially a ghost writer/researcher an editor. It's semantics at best. He is commissioning a book based on very rough notes with an editor/ghost writer. He tried to call them a co-author...as if that makes it less culpable in guilt of doing what his many contemporaries do.
Yeah... whatever. At least he has read the book his name is on.

The guys I look to for information and all the rest of what I base my faith on are historians, anthropologists, translation scholars, and ANE literature specialists. None of these guys are brand names except in circles so small that no one has really heard of them.

One of my favorite is a post-doc in Slovakia. I know him personally and have looked at his research and know what he is saying to be perfectly in line with scriptures but absolutely is contradictory to theologies that some popular "name brand" pastors and theologians have vehemently promoted. Some are named in this thread.

If given the choice of popularity vx accuracy these guys chose accuracy. Which is why I listen to them. I'm not interested in getting my itching ears scratched.

YMMV

Click to expand...

Wow, you are right. Some of these popular ministers are selling a brand name or a personality more than presenting an accurate view of Scripture or more than they sell Jesus. I'm not saying that about Ravi. I don't know his work well enough.

I heard a celebrity news anchor once admit he was on TV so he had to sell his personality. At that point, a lot of media suddenly made sense to me. Now that you mentioned "name brand" pastors, a lot of the flashiness of the evangelical world makes more sense to me. The moral here is to do what you do-- dig for accuracy over popularity. Sacrifice whatever bells and whistles you have to in order to stick with the truth.

I heard a popular minister say they chose not to write about humility because those books don't sell. So, what sells matters a lot to them. I don't know if it is was right or wrong for said minister to not write about humility but I was disappointed to know how popularity and profit play a part in their decisions. Thanks for sharing!

And I'm not a big John Piper fan either. I adore some of his quotes and admire his genius but I agree with the words of one British pastor who met him. That pastor was quoted saying, "He (Piper) is a bit of an arrogant thing." It kind of pops off of Piper in some of his videos and writings. I was only surprised more people didn't see it.

2PhiloVoid said:

How am I "trampling" upon the very path that I claim to walk on, Sister Swan7? Actually, from what I glean in the Scriptures, not only are we our brothers keepers, but we are to hold each other to account within the Body of Christ, even if at some seemingly minimal, merciful level.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you were, but I have seen this time and time again that people will unearth sins of the dead, buried and gone from this world. I'm actually surprised that you haven't come across this as well. How is one held accountable by spiritual means if the one unable to defend himself is no longer here on this earth? That is why I wrote what I wrote.

2PhiloVoid said:

And sure, God forgives us through Christ, but that doesn't mean that He removes any and all consequences, either social or spiritual, that we may have accumulated as we pass through our individual sins in our lives ...

Click to expand...

Yes, He sure does forgive us of ALL our past sin, and the ones we stumble upon because we are not perfect - but we are in Christ. We need to ask Him for forgiveness when we stumble. As God has kept His Word: Romans 9:15. But that is only a taste of His love, there is much more in His Word - and yes He is Just.

2PhiloVoid said:

You might want to consider that when I 'evaluate' Ravi Zacharias, I'm doing so because his sins, such as they may be, will very much damage not only any good that his books and ministry have done up to this point among those struggling to retain their faith in Jesus, they could also damage the jobs of those folks who are employed in his otherwise high dollar ministry as well further stress the already stressed family that he's left behind. His employees could lose their jobs. They'll also face possible discouragement on a personal and spiritual level because his failures can affect them.

Click to expand...

Then you should have done so while he was still alive. I'd say you are re-evaluating.

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm also "evaluating" Ravi Zacharias in no less terms that people do me. Furthermore, this is the Philosophy section of CF, and philosophy entails the "evaluation" of various important and underlying aspects of our lives, even of our Christian lives. Therefore, I don't think I'm out of place to "evaluate" Ravi, especially here and especially if I use the same measure on him that I've already used upon myself.

Click to expand...

Again, this is not evaluation, this is re-evaluating someone after they've passed... to the point of even doubting a brother in Christ. Should have done so while he was still alive....

2PhiloVoid said:

So, no, I'll have to disgree with the general tone and direction of your correction to my citing of Ravi Zacharias' failures (especially since he was a prominent leader). We'll have to agree to disagree on just how graceful God's overall Grace really is in the actually living of the Christian life in this specific case.

Now, back to the OP. Do you think I should keep his books ... or chuck them instead?

Click to expand...

That's fine. You don't have to agree with me. But I heavily disagree with what you are doing when a brother or sister in Christ passes on. Read with the Spirit: Matthew 18:15.
I disagree with your method because it doesn't ring true by God's Spirit of Law - which we are all currently under, the Age of Grace or Covenant of Grace, if you will.

I do hope you understand why I'm questioning you: why suddenly do you have a change of mind when rumors mill about? Why aren't you asking God?


I think you need to ask God about this rather than mankind.

~Peace be with you.~