Quote:

---

Gotcha. It is interesting that the only sin Jesus ever publicly confronted was religious sin.

---

I don't want to misconstrue you - what's interesting and what do you mean?

Bryanisbest said:

---

Ravi like the rest of us- a sinner saved by Grace. Not surprised by him, me or you. He still did some great work just like you.

---

Yes, anyone could succumb to temptation in a moment. No, not just anyone could have a global system of sexual & spiritual abuse paid for by funds from their ministry. This isn't a case of "there but for the grace of God go I".

His supposed "great work" is, at best, a noisy gong or clanging cymbals. And that's being extremely gracious.

PacifistAg said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

Ravi like the rest of us- a sinner saved by Grace. Not surprised by him, me or you. He still did some great work just like you.

---

Yes, anyone could succumb to temptation in a moment. No, not just anyone could have a global system of sexual & spiritual abuse paid for by funds from their ministry. This isn't a case of "there but for the grace of God go I".

His supposed "great work" is, at best, a noisy gong or clanging cymbals. And that's being extremely gracious.

---

Agree. The above rationalization is incredibly unconvincing.

And I'll be honest, but I've heard that rationalization from people who are quick to condemn me and assert that I cannot be a Christian because I'm a trans woman. So it's a bit annoying to see that a seemingly unrepentant sexual predator who blasphemed the Holy Spirit* repeatedly have his salvation affirmed, while mine is denied (not saying bryan has done this).

*when you threaten people by saying that millions will not be "saved" if your reputation is tainted by the truth coming out, you deny the power of the Holy Spirit and imply that your name is more powerful than the Holy Spirit. I consider that blaspheming the Spirit.

I don't really know what the correct response is. It's complicated. I'm sure there were many who came to a saving faith due to a message or teaching they heard from Ravi. Now it is obvious he was living a double life. I'm sure those victimized by him were discouraged in their faith due to the abuse they received.

We all need to hold ourselves accountable. Jesus says if I even think lustful thoughts about another woman I have already committed adultery with her in my heart. The only thing that can really keep that in check is confession and accountability.

Ugh, just a crummy situation in every way imaginable.

Quote:

---

I don't really know what the correct response is. It's complicated.

---

I guess I don't really know what's complicated about it.

His ministry nor any good deeds hes done warrant any other consideration than anyone else whos done similar actions.

God doesn't need defending. God defends us.

I wonder how people don't realize that the very idea of making excuses for these people is the mechanism by which they've managed to perpetrate this behavior all these years.

It's also in a broader sense the same rational used against covering up the crimes of the Catholic Church.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I wonder how people don't realize that the very idea of making excuses for these people is the mechanism by which they've managed to perpetrate this behavior all these years.

It's also in a broader sense the same rational used against covering up the crimes of the Catholic Church.

---

Who is making excuses for his behavior? If that is how my response is coming across then you are misunderstanding me. I'm not excusing anything. Just trying to make sense of something that truly breaks my heart.

I don't think it was you, but when people look at cases like this and respond with comments like "there but for the grace of God go I" or use this to defend the Billy Graham Rule, then it certainly appears to be making excuses. I've seen quite a bit of that on social media, but it's mostly come from the same people who staunchly defended a predator like Ravi prior to his evil being confirmed.

Maybe show some grace on how people respond to some situations. It's hard to see someone you liked or followed turn out to be something different than what they appeared. First response will almost always be denial.

Frok said:

---

Maybe show some grace on how people respond to some situations. It's hard to see someone you liked or followed turn out to be something different than what they appeared. First response will almost always be denial.

---

Who am I not showing grace towards? People who make excuses for a sexual predator who used a ministry as his vehicle to inflict harm on others? Remember, this is about people making excuses after the facts have come out. In fact, it was typically his most ardent defenders who showed not a shred of grace towards the women who raised these accusations, or to those who believed them.

But the facts are out, and when others still use "christianese" to excuse or minimize this it should be called out. No, this isn't a case of "there but for the grace of God go I". If one is in ministry and believe it's only the grace of God that's keeping them from being sexual predators and blasphemers, then they shouldn't be in ministry and should seek help.

That's fine. Wasn't trying to defend extreme views, mainly just those of us posting on this thread.

But in regards to his ministry they did confess and apologize to all of his victims. I thought they were pretty honest about the whole thing once it was apparent that it was true. They admitted to not believing it and disregarding the victims initially.

Hopefully the next step is dissolving RZIM and moving on.

Frok said:

---

Hopefully the next step is dissolving RZIM and moving on.

---

Absolutely agree. And while the apology is fine and all, it's undermined by the fact that they won't release Lori Anne Thompson from her NDA.

This is a phenomenal thread from Rachael Denhollander on those religious leaders who have all of a sudden come out and commented on the steps being taken by RZIM:

PacifistAg said:

---

Frok said:

---

Hopefully the next step is dissolving RZIM and moving on.

---

Absolutely agree. And while the apology is fine and all, it's undermined by the fact that they won't release Lori Anne Thompson from her NDA.

This is a phenomenal thread from Rachael Denhollander on those religious leaders who have all of a sudden come out and commented on the steps being taken by RZIM:

---

She speaks as if it was widely known but ignored. Was it widely known he was abusing women?

There have been known allegations for 3-4 years.

PacifistAg said:

---

Frok said:

---

Hopefully the next step is dissolving RZIM and moving on.

---

Absolutely agree. And while the apology is fine and all, it's undermined by the fact that they won't release Lori Anne Thompson from her NDA.

This is a phenomenal thread from Rachael Denhollander on those religious leaders who have all of a sudden come out and commented on the steps being taken by RZIM:

---

I could be wrong, but from what I read RZIM can't release her from the NDA. Only his estate (lawyers and family) can do that, and they are refusing.

I agree with the above. Dissolve RZIM and let the independent chapters reform in whatever way they see fit. If they chose to do so. I hope they would. There is as much a need for apologetics now as ever

I agree RZIM should dissolve and move on.

However, I think its Ravi's widow that won't release Lori Thompson from the NDA. When I read the report, it seems like the firm noted that the executrix of the estate would not release her, not RZIM as an organization. That being said, the truth is now out, it is sad, and RZIM should dissolve.

You beat me to it...

Thanks for the clarification.

PacifistAg said:

---

use this to defend the Billy Graham Rule, then it certainly appears to be making excuses.

---

The Billy Graham rule of not being alone with a woman not your wife is a bad thing?

Cassius said:

---

Redstone said:

---

We are all tempted by sex and the cult of personality should they be placed in front of us.

Carry your Cross.

---

Agree.

Also I thought OP was leaving this board.

---

What does this last part have to do with this discussion?

Quote:

---

The Billy Graham rule of not being alone with a woman not your wife is a bad thing?

---

No. He's saying that being a predator isn't like someone sliding into adultery, and conflating the two allows one to defend a predator.

On the rule itself, I get the goal...but I think how we talk about it is insane and often times misses the point. A woman is should never the same to us as an addict and his/her fix...unless you really mean that you black out and end up in her bed every time you talk to a woman alone. You're either an addict or you're not...and one needs to be willing to accept the consequences of being addict if so.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The Billy Graham rule of not being alone with a woman not your wife is a bad thing?

---

No. He's saying that being a predator isn't like someone sliding into adultery, and conflating the two allows one to defend a predator.

On the rule itself, I get the goal...but I think how we talk about it is insane and often times misses the point. A woman is should never the same to us as an addict and his/her fix...unless you really mean that you black out and end up in her bed every time you talk to a woman alone. You're either an addict or you're not...and one needs to be willing to accept the consequences of being addict if so.

---

How do you figure? You think Ravi's been a predator since...how long? His whole life? 25? 35? It's a really spectacular assertion on your part unless there's something about his life much farther back that I haven't read.

Plenty of people start off with 'small' sins and wind up in a place like this. We all likely have friends who have watched porn and gradually moved into sexting and then cheating and keep it hidden (1 in 6 men are John's). Or started with small drug addictions and the left their family and changed their life. Do those things all invalidate their earlier faith? Was it all a lie? Is who they are at the end of the journey who they were at the beginning? Is it who they'll always be? Do you stand ready to cast judgment on everyone in your congregation?

I think it's a bridge too far. He's guilty of the sins he committed, the extent of which we do not know and will not know. He got there somehow and again we don't know how. We can take proactive steps to guard ourselves from what we don't know (such as the bully graham rule) and there's nothing foolish about it or imprudent, even for non-sex addicts. There's a reason doctors and nurses often have affairs and time spent together, even if not intended to create an emotional bond, can lead to it.

I'm not sure where you are getting a time element to this. This wasn't a "I had an affair". This is "I used my power and influence to feed my sinfulness while trying to be someone else on stage".

I don't know why you want to equate the two. Yes, "I had an affair" came first...and then many many many bad decisions after that lead him to this place. We don't excuse all those bad decisions simply because he had an affair first.

Finally, there's no judgement in calling someone a predator. Based on what's presented, I am not sure what else you would call him.

Yep. And what's more effective than the BGR is being a person of unimpeachable character. Call it the Fred Rogers Rule. If you are one of impeccable character, you don't need to worry about rumor and innuendo. But we push the BGR out of laziness because it's easier than being like Mr Rogers.

That's not even getting into the inherent unfairness it creates for women in a professional setting. My boss is a man. I'm an HR Manager. If he followed the BGR, how could I discuss confidential matters with him? Why should my male peers have the advantage of one-on-one time with our boss, but my time must be supervised?

If your concern is succumbing to temptation, then you are viewing the woman as a temptress. That's a problem. If you're so weak that you cannot resist, even if she's willing, then those are personal issues you need to address with more than the bandaid of the BGR. If she's not willing, and you still worry that you can't resist, then you have SERIOUS problems to deal with immediately.

If one is a pastor, how can you provide pastoral care to your flock if you can only see half of them in a confidential setting? I understand the intent behind the BGR, and it's not bad on the surface. But once you start digging deeper into it, it's very problematic, imo.

diehard03 said:

---

I'm not sure where you are getting a time element to this. This wasn't a "I had an affair". This is "I used my power and influence to feed my sinfulness while trying to be someone else on stage".

I don't know why you want to equate the two. Yes, "I had an affair" came first...and then many many many bad decisions after that lead him to this place. We don't excuse all those bad decisions simply because he had an affair first.

Finally, there's no judgement in calling someone a predator. Based on what's presented, I am not sure what else you would call him.

---

No one's excusing the decisions. The point being made is that following the BGR is designed to avoid even the earliest of opportunities for impropriety, the emotional side of an affair before the physical begins. Obviously with a predator it's still beneficial but as you point out, a predator will do predatory things regardless of accountability. Contrary to what RA is proposing it doesn't portray the woman as a temptress at all but recognizes that man is fallen (a Christian doctrine) and even a sinful man can misstep, innocuously at first though unimpeded it can evolve. Accountability exists to prevent that.

PacifistAg said:

---

Yep. And what's more effective than the BGR is being a person of unimpeachable character. Call it the Fred Rogers Rule. If you are one of impeccable character, you don't need to worry about rumor and innuendo. But we push the BGR out of laziness because it's easier than being like Mr Rogers.

That's not even getting into the inherent unfairness it creates for women in a professional setting. My boss is a man. I'm an HR Manager. If he followed the BGR, how could I discuss confidential matters with him? Why should my male peers have the advantage of one-on-one time with our boss, but my time must be supervised?

If your concern is succumbing to temptation, then you are viewing the woman as a temptress. That's a problem. If you're so weak that you cannot resist, even if she's willing, then those are personal issues you need to address with more than the bandaid of the BGR. If she's not willing, and you still worry that you can't resist, then you have SERIOUS problems to deal with immediately.

If one is a pastor, how can you provide pastoral care to your flock if you can only see half of them in a confidential setting? I understand the intent behind the BGR, and it's not bad on the surface. But once you start digging deeper into it, it's very problematic, imo.

---

That world doesn't exist anymore. Remember the phrase, 'believe all women'? How does impeccable character stand up to that? How does Brett kavanaugh feel about this idea? We all know about mattress girl and the current title ix kangaroo courts where consent is withdrawn afterwards. It is precisely this world that the BGR fits into.

I'm sure your boss can find a way to manage but I think this portrays the selfishness of the idea. What disadvantage are men at who follow this rule with female bosses? How many teachers are women? We know plenty of them are predators too, no? The idea of open doors and other people is beneficial to all in a low trust society.

AGC said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Yep. And what's more effective than the BGR is being a person of unimpeachable character. Call it the Fred Rogers Rule. If you are one of impeccable character, you don't need to worry about rumor and innuendo. But we push the BGR out of laziness because it's easier than being like Mr Rogers.

That's not even getting into the inherent unfairness it creates for women in a professional setting. My boss is a man. I'm an HR Manager. If he followed the BGR, how could I discuss confidential matters with him? Why should my male peers have the advantage of one-on-one time with our boss, but my time must be supervised?

If your concern is succumbing to temptation, then you are viewing the woman as a temptress. That's a problem. If you're so weak that you cannot resist, even if she's willing, then those are personal issues you need to address with more than the bandaid of the BGR. If she's not willing, and you still worry that you can't resist, then you have SERIOUS problems to deal with immediately.

If one is a pastor, how can you provide pastoral care to your flock if you can only see half of them in a confidential setting? I understand the intent behind the BGR, and it's not bad on the surface. But once you start digging deeper into it, it's very problematic, imo.

---

That world doesn't exist anymore. Remember the phrase, 'believe all women'? How does impeccable character stand up to that? How does Brett kavanaugh feel about this idea? We all know about mattress girl and the current title ix kangaroo courts where consent is withdrawn afterwards. It is precisely this world that the BGR fits into.

I'm sure your boss can find a way to manage but I think this portrays the selfishness of the idea. What disadvantage are men at who follow this rule with female bosses? How many teachers are women? We know plenty of them are predators too, no? The idea of open doors and other people is beneficial to all in a low trust society.

---

Agree. I can not remember the last time I have been with a female without a nurse or my wife present.

This is a terrible deal on so many fronts.

All that keeps running through my head is "Resist the devil and he will flee".

Am I the only one who scoffs at the pathetic level of willpower someone must need to have to not be able to be alone with a woman and not cheat?

I'm not talking about sharing a hotel room for crying out loud. Or some other less extreme version that's still not appropriate. You guys never go to lunch with a female friend/coworker or speak privately in one of your offices about any number of things like you would a man? No female friends that aren't "your wife's friends"?

Not worried about me. Worried about females and unjust accusations. Always have a witness.

And it sickens me that as a society we have come to this. If I go into an exam room, even with a fully clothed woman, she can make any accusation she wants.

It would be impossible to do my job if I refused to meet with men privately, or if they refused to meet privately with me. I just don't get why it's such a challenge.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Am I the only one who scoffs at the pathetic level of willpower someone must need to have to not be able to be alone with a woman and not cheat?

I'm not talking about sharing a hotel room for crying out loud. Or some other less extreme version that's still not appropriate. You guys never go to lunch with a female friend/coworker or speak privately in one of your offices about any number of things like you would a man? No female friends that aren't "your wife's friends"?

---

No, you're not the only one. I think it's borderline insane.

Macarthur said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Am I the only one who scoffs at the pathetic level of willpower someone must need to have to not be able to be alone with a woman and not cheat?

I'm not talking about sharing a hotel room for crying out loud. Or some other less extreme version that's still not appropriate. You guys never go to lunch with a female friend/coworker or speak privately in one of your offices about any number of things like you would a man? No female friends that aren't "your wife's friends"?

---

No, you're not the only one. I think it's borderline insane.

---

Just curious, did you give any credence to Kavanaugh's accuser? Or Anita Hill?

How would that be different from a woman making a false accusation about me? Or any other male?

And as I already stated, Iam not worried about me in these situations.