Ravi Zacharias answers a good question...or does he?

The question that this girl asks Ravi is a penetrating question.  His answer basically re-frames the question so that he doesn't have to answer what she is directly asking.  His answer considers mankind as spiritually dead, thereby making it unnecessary to consider our original goodness or the lack thereof.

The trajectory that he sets sounds solid but it ultimately ignores Creation and the doctrines derived from Creation.  When we were created we were given worth and value and were commissioned out of our created identity to steward Creation as representatives of God himself.  This image-bearing requires us to frame our understanding of what this young woman asked more than what Ravi answered with.  His answer wasa true but he did avoid the question by using anecdotes, his own clever questioning and a re-framing of what he thinks is more important to consider.  It really seems like he wanted to re-orient the discussion according to his convictions, making the question seemingly wrong-headed.  There exists a fundamental faux-pas with this re-framing effort, but before we unpack why, let's look at another mistake he made.

2/3's of the way through the answer, He makes an audacious claim when he says that "this [Christianity] is the only faith in the world that talks about a supernatural regeneration."  Timothy Tennent, president of Asbury Theological Seminary, disagrees.  In his book, Theology in the Context of World Christianity, Tennent writes about a contrary example,

"two important branches of Vaishnava Hinduism are the Vadagalais and the Tengalais.  The Tengalais teach that salvation comes through a total surrender to the sovereignty  of Lord Vishnu and a full and complete trust in his bestowal of unmerited grace." (pg 135)

Later on he writes about the same kind of dynamics that exist in certain strands of Buddhism.  Tennent finishes his chapter on this subject by concluding,

"Regardless of the source, we should learn to expect doctrines of grace rather than be surprised by them.  Certainly this chapter should provide sufficient information to dispel the often-repeated myth that only in Christianity do we find a doctrine of grace and all other religions know only about a doctrine of works and the hope of the accumulation of merit..."  (pgs. 158-159)

As a trained theologian and one who claims to have consistent debates and conversations with men and women of other faiths in his defense of Christianity, it is surprising that can make such sweeping statements regarding the beliefs of other faiths and get it so wrong.  Much of Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions do teach autosoterism (the belief that one can save oneself) but that has also been true of Christianity in certain historical epochs lasting for centuries.  Christianity has in effect led many people astray during eras when unmerited favor from God was not understood to be the center of Christ's message.  We must not castigate other religions for things that we ourselves have historically committed.  It is possible that certain sects of Hinduism were teaching unmerited favor from their own God while at the same time, we were not.  Regardless, Ravi's cavalier statement needs redressing for sure, not only because he was wrong but because it is offensive unnecessarily.


Coming back to his re-framing of the young lady's question, we must ask why did he do it?  The problem with his response is that he does not begin with a Creational theology but only a theology of the Fall.  A theology of Creation include the Fall but definitely does not begin with it.

The Bible does not begin at Genesis 3, but at Genesis 1.  Our perception of reality should always be framed by what God did rather than what we did.  What Adam and Eve did was in response to what God did and said and then he responded to what we did and said, but it's important to remember, He was the first to act.  That act, Creation, is what sets the agenda and everything said and done in that act sets the agenda.  All of Creation is very good - period.

Given the opportunity, I think I might ask him this, "Are we created to be redeemed or are we redeemed because we were created?"  It seems like it would be hard to get around that but he probably would be able to.  Either way, God's first speech-act of Creation is what sets the trajectory and establishes our foundation for viewing humanity and doing theology.  For this post, it establishes that we are to view all of humanity primarily through the lens of their Creational goodness, regardless of their regenerated or un-regenerated status.

Ravi's re-framing of the question happens to be set upon a redemption-centered orientation, not a Creation-centered orientation.  By beginning his response upon the foundation of the spiritual deadness of humanity, he gives away his truncated view of humanity.  Because he begins with their spiritual deadness rather than their spiritual vitality given to them through the breath of life and then the resulting pronouncement of goodness they received, he fails to answer the question adequately.  Yes, it's important to know what the problem with humanity is, and yes that is Ravi's edge, but is he beating a spiritually dead horse?  With all due respect, I believe so and it would have been nice to hear him just answer the question, because like he said when he started, "it's a good question."