Thread by @RuthMalhotra

On May 21, @Sean_McDowell and @josh_mcdowell interviewed @AbduMurray on their podcast. I listened with anticipation, as I've been eager to hear from @RZIMhq leadership after months of silence in the public domain (as well as in our personal interaction or lack thereof).

{THREAD}

As I've expressed to @Sean_McDowell, the interview with @AbduMurray was another example of how people in power often get to drive the narrative and set the terms of their own engagement without challenge.

That's frustrating and revealing—and it was a catalyst for this crisis.

A key reason why @RZIMhq finds itself in this crisis is because Christian leaders took Ravi Zacharias at face value and refused to challenge his narrative for years, as @DavidAFrench reported here in @thedispatch: bit.ly/3pErM4P (Feb. 14, 2021)

This refusal to pose basic questions to @AbduMurray placed an added—and unexpected—burden on my current+former colleagues and I, who've been pushing for truth+transparency within RZIM and are still in the midst of participating in 2 external investigations related to this matter.

There's nothing wrong with Sean & Josh giving their friend @AbduMurray a platform on their program. The problem is they gave him an *unchallenged* platform.
They neglected to ask Abdu necessary questions, especially given his continued role as Senior VP & General Counsel of RZIM.

I deeply desire that @AbduMurray and @RZIMhq's entire Senior Leadership Team be genuinely repentant. But they are still advancing a whitewashed narrative related to key aspects of the sexual abuse crisis, as sadly Abdu appeared to do on @Sean_McDowell & @josh_mcdowell's program.

The reality is @AbduMurray was one of several men at @RZIMhq who suppressed truth, disbelieved and further marginalized victims, and bullied and falsely accused people on our team who had questions—in order to protect Ravi Zacharias and, perhaps, to preserve their own platforms.

I appreciate that @AbduMurray is on a journey now. I hope that journey will include a reckoning of and repentance for how he treated those of us who worked closely with him when we questioned Ravi's narrative, expressed concerns, and raised principled objections from 2017-2021.

With that backdrop, I contend that @Sean_McDowell and @josh_mcdowell's interview missed a significant opportunity to ask @AbduMurray key relevant questions—questions that should still be answered concerning ample public evidence already in the public domain:

{12 examples below}

1) @AbduMurray said he's, "Spending time in a listening mode and a learning mode."

Abdu was not asked, "Have you listened to those who initially raised objections internally? If not, why not? If so, what have you learned from them?"

2) @AbduMurray repeatedly advocated the need to "enlist the help of experts" and seek "outside help."

"How did you, Abdu, respond to @RZIMhq staff who asked the leadership to consider bringing in experts on sexual abuse at the start of the investigative process?"

3) "What would you say, @AbduMurray, about the need to listen to insiders who express concerns?

How did you handle differing viewpoints that emerged within your team at @RZIMhq in 2017-2020?"

4) "You said you wanted to 'Believe the best about Ravi.' Did you also seek to believe the best about those on your team who were pointing out red flags early on?

According to some accounts, you and @RZIMhq leaders believed the worst about them. What would you say to them now?"

5) "Why were you communicating with Ravi Zacharias's personal RICO lawyer about the spa allegations to begin with?

What was the purpose of involving Brian Kelly and invoking his advice in that context?"

6) "When you recalled the meeting at @RZIMhq when the ex-cop was brought up, you acknowledge that your 'tone may not have been the best.'

But, why did you bring up this idea if you didn't think it might be a possible tactic to consider?"

(continued)

7) "You said it was never your desire to intimidate witnesses. But did you initially hire private investigators to look into the backgrounds of those raising allegations?

Do you recommend hiring a PI as an appropriate response when someone comes forward alleging sexual abuse?"

8) "You mentioned hiring a law firm & investigative firm. RZIM said they were investigating on Sept.15. @MillerMartinLaw were engaged on Oct.7.
Did the 1st law firm you hired have connections to the attorneys who represented Ravi in his 2017 RICO lawsuit? Why were they retained?"

9) "Were Ravi Zacharias's RICO lawyers involved at any point in the investigation or aftermath?

If so, are they still involved in representing RZIM at present?"

10) "According to multiple reports, you continued to defend Ravi and downplay (even deny) the possibility of victims in Oct. 2020, even after extensive reports by @CTmagazine and @WNGdotorg.
Why didn't you take those articles seriously?
Do you think CT and WORLD are credible?"

11) "The experts you mentioned— @DianeLangberg @R_Denhollander @danallender— have made a key aspect of their work finding & caring for victims of sexual abuse. How did you respond when colleagues asked for a call for victims?
What efforts are underway now to find Ravi's victims?"

12) "Brad & @LoriAnneThomps2 repeatedly asked Zacharias Estate to be released from NDA, and @R_Denhollander agreed. You apparently advocated for the NDA to remain as recently as Oct.2020.
Do you now think the Zacharias Estate should release the Thompsons+their children from NDA?"

These are just a few of several questions many people believe deserve to be answered.
There are numerous other elements which shed light on the devastation so many continue to experience from Ravi's actions+RZIM's ongoing response, and I hope in time those can also be addressed.

To use terminology that might resonate with @josh_mcdowell and @Sean_McDowell, there is, once again, evidence that demands a verdict.

But it's impossible to reach a just verdict when you only hear from one witness in the case.