Nathan Zacharias, son of the late apologist Ravi Zacharias, said he will continue to defend his father's name and legacy with whatever force necessary.

"First, I believe this report to be driven by a predetermined agenda, not actual evidence and truth," he wrote on his blog Friday.

"But the second reason is this: even if the report were true, I would strongly disagree with the way RZIM has handled it," he said.

The young Zacharias revealed that he had served at RZIM for 15 years and said that his 40 years of existence had mostly been spent there. He sat through numerous messages before listening to and editing countless more as part of his job in their media department.

"It is safe to say my views of the Gospel were formed by listening to the entire team at RZIM; the same team and message that was supported by the board then, some of whom still remain," he continued.

The term "some" refers to those who opposed the majority's decisions and have subsequently resigned.

"I thought I was on the same page with all of those people for all of those years," he lamented. "I watched them tell people in the audience that they were not defined by their mistakes. I listened as they said that fact was not dependent on their repentance. I heard them say that regardless of what they did, God did not see them as their mistakes, even if consequences were necessary."

Zacharias was careful to point out that this does not imply the church can disregard potential sin. However, they most emphatically should not sentence anyone to a legacy regarded solely as their sin.

"But we certainly haven't heard any of that from them as it relates to Dad," he commented. "I've had one person within RZIM tell me they still love my Dad. But he helped author a statement that wouldn't even hint at the fact that there could still be love for my Dad."

He went on to say that none of them had the courage to openly express their support for his father. That they've just accepted terms and assumptions that they secretly question, including alleged rape and abuse. He said that they stifle the love they ostensibly feel and advocate the verdict that they don't personally believe in.

"That's not the Gospel I heard them preach. Either I was wrong, or they have betrayed their message in an effort to preserve their platform," Nathan said, citing a few examples as proof that they (Ravi's detractors) have strayed from the Gospel in their "scorched-earth" responses.

The Case of Judas

"But no, I am not comparing my Dad to Judas," Nathan clarified. "What I am saying is that the story of Jesus and Judas is an example of how Jesus did not withdraw from one of the most famous sinners in history. Yet RZIM feels they are evidently more just than Jesus, as they must withdraw from Dad."

He emphasized that Jesus made no attempt to separate himself from Judas. At that moment, he accepted him openly. Jesus was the only person in that garden who recognized the true depravity in Judas' spirit, but he has always referred to Judas as a friend, and he kept that claim until the end. He also did not make a formal announcement declaring that he no longer found Judas to be a friend or
that he "regretted doing ministry with him."

In contrast, "numerous speakers and leadership have gone on record as not just condemning the alleged actions of my Dad, but also condemning the man himself," says Nathan, highlighting a few prominent names who had worked alongside the late apologist.

He also chastised a publication he defined as having a "history of writing for clicks," advising them to think about doing a "background check" first when determining the authenticity of their original sources the next time they do a smash report against somebody.

The Weaponization of James 3:1

Nathan argues that RZIM has distorted the verse James 3:1 to justify their decision to prosecute his father's case in public and to carry out their presumably divinely mandated position as "legacy executioners."

Per his observation, he said that "they have altered that verse to empower and deify themselves. And they have misrepresented it to indicate stricter judgment (aka we will erase you from the face of this earth kind of judgment) for personal failure, regardless of how good your content was, simply because you were a preacher."

Following a quick interpretation of both the meaning in its original Greek wordings (God is the supreme judge) as well as the context (stricter judgment on false teachings), he criticized the current RZIM board's cherry picking of the passage.

"In other words, teachers are not being warned that their sins will incur greater judgment. They are being warned that their teachings, specifically their incorrect teachings, will incur stricter judgment because those words stand to influence more people," he explained.

Owing to their private conversations, the younger Zacharias assumes that what they've said and done was for the sake of the popular narrative as a means to protect themselves and their platforms. Because of their calling, they believe it's their best course to protect the Gospel.

To this, he responded that God never instructed believers to accept lies or half-truths or to submit to societal demands of judgment in order to maintain their foothold in society.

"He is in charge of all of our callings," he said. "So, scapegoating someone else to preserve your own influence is never a formula He commanded."

Carrying on his case, Nathan noted: "They haven't just reduced Dad to his sins, they've ensured that that is all he ever will be in some people's eyes."

He observed a perceived bias against Ravi Zacharias' legacy, in which only the negative was reiterated while downplaying the positive, ensuring that his influence on others would have no meaning in the future, and that people would only remember his father based on his alleged sin.

"It that verse in James is true, as I believe it to be, then it is RZIM who ought to be worried as their actions against my Dad have been made under the guise of doctrine," he declared.

What RZIM can learn from Joseph

Nathan wished RZIM had emulated Joseph's handling of Mary when he had concerns regarding the divine origins of her pregnancy. He preferred to deal with it privately rather than publicly.

"His intent was the exact opposite of RZIM's, and the Bible praises him for it," he said.

Jesus as the Best Example

"Jesus did confront the sinner, no doubt. But He drew as close to them as He could when He did it. He separated their value from their sin. He made it clear that were sinners, but they were not their sin. He condemned their behavior but embraced their soul. He never ostracized them or distanced Himself from them. He went closer," wrote Nathan.

RZIM, on the other hand, are acting like pharisees, he said. He thinks that they have gone past criticizing acts which they themselves aren't 100% sure. And even if their claims were true, they had gone way beyond denouncing sin. They believe the best course of action is to exclude all evidence that God used Ravi Zacharias.

He also said that the Bible is full of characters in which God reveals both the positive and the negative sides of an individual. God has often used sinners to do great works. Some of them weren't really Christians, but God wasn't ashamed to use them or making it obvious that He had.

God chose them to be a part of His story in order to spread his truth, irrespective of their intentions, the young Zacharias noted. He didn't get rid of anyone that might be awkward vessels for him. He allowed their good and poor deeds to be recorded in His story, Ravi's son noted. God kept their legacies alive.

Ravi Zacharias' wife, Margie, has also spoken out in defense of her late husband. Read it here.