Thread by @jsparkblog

For those saying “I can still appreciate Ravi Zacharias’ teaching”—I disagree. The “good” he did is only cruelty & hypocrisy to his victims. But was his teaching actually any good? As a former Ravi fan & ex-atheist, here’s a breakdown of why it was not. 1/

I first heard Ravi when I was 19, still an atheist & learning about religion. I was impressed by his delivery & argumentation. I became a fan. I read two of his books, saw him live twice, listened to 100s of hours of his sermons. But I noticed a pattern. 2/

I noticed Ravi would raise an incredibly interesting question, bring in Philosophy 101, then describe a time he stumped someone in an argument (or stumped a person seeking faith), and tie it up with a sentimental eloquent illustration. He did this over & over. The thing is, 3/

This trick worked. Ravi continually used this masterful maneuver of appearing like he had answered your questions about faith by dunking on someone & using a witty emotion-driven illustration as a punchline. He preached like a bad version of a Christopher Nolan spectacle. 4/

Consider I was 19 when I discovered Ravi. I was taken in. But even then I noticed his predictable use of maudlin punchlines. His lack of of scientific evidence. His appeal to emotions. And always some private conversation he had when he stumped a billionaire or media mogul. 5/

I gave up Ravi around the time he was bashing “the radical left” & name-dropping Oprah & Deepak Chopra to dunk on them. His apologetics doubled down: 1) bring up a good question, 2) Philosophy 101, 3) blast someone, 4) pretty poetic metaphor, 5) watch me hit this drive. 6/

Here’s my speculation. Someone who could easily manipulate emotions could also use that skill to attract vulnerable or unsuspecting fans. Is this always true of good speakers? No. In Ravi’s case? A likely correlation. Consider he faked his “doctor” & “Harvard” credentials too. 7/

One of Ravi’s emails showed when a victim tried to out him, Ravi threatened suicide. A common manipulation tactic. Consider Ravi always brought up his suicide attempt at 17. It was seen as an authentic confession. Now it can only be seen as a tactic to pull in his audience. 8/

To quote K.J. Ramsey @kjramseywrites, charisma ≠ character. This makes me wonder: How often do leaders preach ahead of themselves, say things that sound pretty but don’t really mean them, preach things for acclaim but not from depth, preach to attract & to wield power? 9/

I want to add this: eloquence ≠ an answer. Emotions are good but emotions do not necessarily equal depth or meaning. Pretty & poetic words sound nice, but they did not work for Ravi. Will they work for you? 10/

Another thing. Are there ANY good Christian apologetics out there? My short answer is, not much. Apologetics is largely a western sledgehammer of persuasive transmission of information, a sales pitch of lingo meant to out-info the other into a checkmate. It’s a shortcut. 11/

Real apologetics is not a punchline, sad story, list of facts & stats, pretty words, a time you dunked on a celebrity, or some world class speaker who’s written bestsellers. Real apologetics is doing real life with another person, which many Christians find too uncomfortable. 12/

Please friends: Don’t mistake eloquence for wisdom. Do not trust a witty, well-spoken speaker. Do not trust me. Do not trust someone who only tells their hero stories. A celebrity is not your hero, therapist, or guide. Discern wisely, fact-check & gut-check. 13/13 #ravizacharias