In light of recent revelations about the late Ravi Zacharias–particularly the corroboration of the massage therapists who accused him of sexual abuse–I decided to separate my Image Repair Analysis of RZ’s public press release in the wake of his settlement of his RICO suit against Lori Anne Thompson.
“In October 2014, I spoke at a conference in Canada. At the conclusion of my talk, I met a couple who expressed an interest in our ministry. The wife asked if I would reach out to her husband because he had questions about the Christian faith. As requested, I followed up by sending an email and a book to him, and invited him to consider attending one of our educational programs at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM).”
- “I spoke…my talk…I met…our ministry”.
- That’s BOLSTERING: it puts him in the position of superiority over the couple.
- “The wife asked if I would reach out to her husband”.
- That’s BOLSTERING: that bolsters his superiority;
- it is also ATTACKING: it is a veiled cheap shot at the husband.
- “I followed up…sending..email…and book…invited him”.
- That’s BOLSTERING: maintains his authority over the husband.
“Some months later, I traveled with my wife and one of our daughters to another part of Canada for a speaking engagement. The couple attended this event and invited my wife and me to dinner at a local restaurant afterwards. That was the second and last time I was ever in the same room with either of them.”
- “I traveled with my wife and one of our daughters”.
- That’s BOLSTERING: it creates the appearance of superiority and propriety, even though the facts indicate impropriety on his part.
- “That was the second and last time I was ever in the same room with either of them.”
- This is DIFFERENTIATION: he is pleading innocent to an act that of which he is not accused: the “I was never alone with her” defense is invalid, that is not the issue, as the offenses here are cyber in nature.
“Subsequently, she began to contact me via the email address I had used to contact her husband after first meeting them. My responses were usually brief. Then, last year, she shockingly sent me extremely inappropriate pictures of herself unsolicited. I clearly instructed her to stop contacting me in any form; I blocked her messages, and I resolved to terminate all contact with her.”
- “Subsequently, she began to contact me via the email address I had used to contact her husband”
- That’s ATTACKING: he’s alleging less-than-proper behavior from the outset.
- “My responses were usually brief.”
- That’s MINIMIZATION: he is minimizing his role in email communications with her.
- “She shockingly sent me extremely inappropriate pictures of herself unsolicited.”
- That’s ATTACKING: a simple release of all electronic communications would show context, as that would establish the nature of any conversations that might have led to the sending of such pictures. An unsolicited nude would be a scandal for her, not him. That is, unless they had carried on conversations that were sexual in nature, in which case it would be grooming behavior.
- “unsolicited”
- That’s DENYING and DEFEASIBILITY: he is denying any role in the picture exchange.
“In late 2016, she sent an email informing me she planned to tell her husband about the inappropriate pictures she had sent and to claim that I had solicited them.”
- “claim that I had solicited them”
- That’s DENYING and DEFEASIBILITY: He is denying any role in her sending the pictures.
“In April 2017, together they sent me, through an attorney, a letter demanding money. I immediately notified members of my board, and as they advised, I personally engaged legal counsel.”
- “In April 2017, together they sent me, through an attorney, a letter demanding money.”
- That’s ATTACKING: He’s accusing them of blackmail.
“In response to the demand for money, my attorneys filed a publicly available lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The other side requested mediation rather than going to trial. We agreed to mediation and we reached an agreement in November 2017 to resolve the matter and dismiss my lawsuit. All communication with both of them has concluded, and the legal matters have been resolved. However, at this time, unfortunately I am legally prevented from answering or even discussing the questions and claims being made by some, other than to say that each side paid for their own legal expenses and no ministry funds were used.
- “In response to the demand for money”
- That’s PROVOCATION: he’s suggesting that his ensuing lawsuit was in response to a provoked act.
- “..my attorneys filed a publicly available lawsuit”
- That’s ATTACKING: filing a lawsuit, using multiple attorneys, targeting a couple.
- “The other side requested mediation rather than going to trial.”
- That’s ATTACKING: He’s suggesting that, because they did not want to go to trial, that they are trying to hide something.
- “unfortunately I am legally prevented from answering or even discussing the questions and claims being made by some”
- That’s DEFEASIBILITY: He claims to have no control, preventing him from discussing details.
- It’s also a form of DENIAL: he has denied allegations, and yet left obvious questions unanswered, all while using DEFEASIBILITY to avoid answering them.
- “no ministry funds were used”
- That’s MINIMIZATION: By suggesting that no ministry funds were involved, this makes the situation less important than it is.
“I have learned a difficult and painful lesson through this ordeal. As a husband, father, grandfather, and leader of a Christian ministry I should not have engaged in ongoing communication with a woman other than my wife. I failed to exercise wise caution and to protect myself from even the appearance of impropriety, and for that I am profoundly sorry. I have acknowledged this to my Lord, my wife, my children, our ministry board, and my colleagues.”
- “As a husband, father, grandfather, and leader of a Christian ministry”
- That’s BOLSTERING: he’s reminding you of his superior status in multiple realms.
- “I should not have engaged in ongoing communication with a woman other than my wife”
- This is DIFFERENTIATION and MINIMIZATION: he’s creating a lesser offense—which isn’t even an offense—to take your attention to the offense for which he is on the hook. (Also, it’s utter hogwash. He’s saying, “If I’d only followed the ‘Billy Graham Rule…’ How about NOT BEING A DIRTY OLD MAN???)
- “I failed to exercise wise caution and to protect myself from even the appearance of impropriety”
- This is DIFFERENTIATION and MINIMIZATION: he’s admitting to a lesser offense as opposed to the one of which he is accused.
- It’s also MORTIFICATION, although in a false sense: he is confessing to a non-offense.
- “I have acknowledged this to my Lord, my wife, my children, our ministry board, and my colleagues”
- This is TRANSCENDENCE: appealing to a higher authority to avoid accountability to the very people to which he must otherwise answer.
“Let me state categorically that I never met this woman alone, publicly or privately. The question is not whether I solicited or sent any illicit photos or messages to another woman—I did not, and there is no evidence to the contrary—but rather, whether I should have been a willing participant in any extended communication with a woman not my wife. The answer, I can unequivocally say, is no, and I fully accept responsibility. In all my correspondence with thousands of people in 45 years of ministry, I have never been confronted with a situation such as this, and God and my family and close friends know how grieved I have been.”
- “Let me state categorically that I never met this woman alone, publicly or privately.”
- This is DIFFERENTIATION: he’s denying having committed an offense of which he has not been accused. (Note: whenever people use the word “categorically” in this context, it usually means they’re not being truthful.)
- “The question is not whether I solicited or sent any illicit photos or messages to another woman…but rather, whether I should have been a willing participant in any extended communication with a woman not my wife”
- This is DENIAL and DIFFERENTIATION: He is reframing the issue on his own terms, not addressing the obvious question: what led to the woman sending him those photos?
- This is MORTIFICATION, although in a false sense. Jesus had many extended communications with women (Mary Magdalene anyone?), in spite of not being married to any of them.
- “In all my correspondence with thousands of people in 45 years of ministry”
- That’s BOLSTERING: re-reminding you of his superiority.
- “I have never been confronted with a situation such as this”
- That’s DEFEASIBILITY: he’s casting this as a situation that has come upon him—that he had no control over—rather than a crisis of his own making due to his own choices. He is casting himself as a victim.
- “God and my family and close friends know how grieved I have been”
- That’s REVERSING VICTIM AND OFFENDER ROLES: he is casting himself as a victim.
“In my 45 years of marriage to Margie, I have never engaged in any inappropriate behavior of any kind. I love my wife with all my heart and have been absolutely faithful to her these more than 16,000 days of marriage, and have exercised extreme caution in my daily life and travels, as everyone who knows me is aware. I have long made it my practice not to be alone with a woman other than Margie and our daughters—not in a car, a restaurant, or anywhere else. Upon reflection, I now realize that the physical safeguards I have long practiced to protect my integrity should have extended to include digital communications safeguards. I believe—and indeed would counsel others—that the standards of personal conduct are necessarily higher for Christian leaders.”
- “In my 45 years of marriage to Margie… more than 16,000 days of marriage”
- That’s BOLSTERING: re-reminding you of his awwsummness as a husband.
- “everyone who knows me is aware”
- That’s TRIANGULATION: appealing to other people to deflect from the real issue at hand.
“The Lord rescued me at the age of seventeen, and I promised to leave no stone unturned in my pursuit of truth. He entrusted me with this calling, it is His; any opportunities I have been given are from Him. My life is not my own, it belongs to God. As long as He gives me life and breath I will serve out this calling He has given me. I am committed to finishing well, using whatever years He grants me to share His love and forgiveness, truth and grace, with people everywhere who are looking for meaning and purpose and hope. I bear no ill will toward anybody. God is the God of healing, and He promises a new day. May that be true by His grace.”
- “The Lord rescued me at the age of seventeen, and I promised to leave no stone unturned in my pursuit of truth”
- I’ll take TRANSCENDENCE for $500, Alex: It’s all about the Lord now.
- “He entrusted me with this calling, it is His; any opportunities I have been given are from Him”
- I’ll take TRANSCENDENCE for $1,000, Alex: HE’s been entrusted with the calling, with the implication that YOU are but a peasant.
- “My life is not my own, it belongs to God. As long as He gives me life and breath I will serve out this calling He has given me. I am committed to finishing well…”
- I’ll take TRANSCENDENCE for $2,000..OH DAILY DOUBLE!!!!: He’s now all wrapped up in his calling from God, his remaining years, finishing the race, and bestowing all good things on peasants. He’s untouchable now.
- “I bear no ill will toward anybody. God is the God of healing, and He promises a new day. May that be true by His grace.”
- This is BOLSTERING: he is making himself the superior person in this.
Given the known facts in RZ’s case, and given the use of Image Repair in his public statement, the conclusion is that
- Ravi Zacharias is being less than honest,
- Ravi Zacharias is hiding the truth, and
- Ravi Zacharias is using corporate damage control tactics in lieu of addressing hard questions.