Nothing Has Changed

Many people have written in to ask if a quiet blog means something has changed. As was the case before, no, nothing has changed. We still believe in Dad’s innocence, we still believe the investigation was biased and unethical, and we believe RZIM’s leadership mishandled many things, as well.

Unfortunately, because Dad is no longer here, our official options to clear his name are extremely limited. It’s been easy for people to assume that we have certain options at our disposal. We do not. Dad was denied due process, yet our system prevents us from more aggressively fighting it because of his absence. The whole thing, starting several years back, has successfully, and cruelly, navigated a series of cracks in the system that dishonest people can, and have, used to their advantage.

But we maintain that we have not found the evidence claimed in the report, nor any items/communications in other formats/belongings that would hint at any of this being true.

Another reason for not posting more about some of the nonsense out there is that I have not wanted this blog to become one of destruction. People often ask me what I have to say about the latest thing said by one of the opportunists born out of this situation. There are plenty of ways I could go after them and the high horse of cards from where they erroneously judge my Dad. Some of them have straight up lied and rewritten their own story at RZIM to change the things I, and others, WITNESSED them to say/do over the years.

I could take them on more directly, but it would very easily turn from defending Dad into just mudslinging. And that would be no better than those who have chosen to destroy just to make a name/career for themselves. So while there are those who still weigh in from time to time, I will not be responding to them despite their list of lies and misrepresentations.

However, even though there is no massive update, I will list a few previously unsaid details that we’ve learned, as well as a recap of a few things I’ve already shared.

  • My mom was never questioned. She has knowledge that could be used to verify if these accusers were telling the truth or lying, something that is actually standard practice in such investigations. And she knew the man for 54 years. Instead they chose not to talk to her at all. What sort of allegedly objective investigation would not speak to the person’s spouse?
  • We know they biased one key person against Dad by telling him Dad was guilty before they interviewed him, and then that person in turn spread that news to others before they were interviewed. And we know they physically intimidated another interviewee who was defending Dad.
  • There was no chain of custody given for the phones they examined, something that many attorneys and investigators have told us is a significant red flag and cause to discredit the whole process.
  • Though we don’t know all names involved, we do know some. And for one of the supposedly most “credible” of them, we have documentation/testimony sent in to RZIM at one point giving extensive detail and history as to why the accuser should not be believed.
  • There was at least one very significant testimony defending Dad, from someone who had a unique and important vantage point of Dad’s behavior. In fact, you could argue that in recent years he had more eyewitness account of Dad’s travel life than anyone else. That person said they never witnessed anything that gave a hint of things like this, and they were disappointed to see that their testimony was not included in the report. A fair report would have included all sides related to the subject matter, not just what fit the narrative they wanted.
  • We have not found the photos or communications mentioned in the report, or any others that cause concern. It would mean every single piece of evidence on that phone had been deleted and was only found through forensic investigation. That does not make sense or seem likely.
  • We have texts from two public sources of “information,” Vicki Blue & Anurag Sharma. For more information on those, you can read about them in previous posts. But one thing I did not include from before, was a couple of exchanges between Anurag and my Dad. At one point, Anurag asks Dad if he would be his “Catholic brother for 55 minutes.” (And, no, Dad was not Catholic, this was just Anurag’s choice of words as he was referring to the practice of confessing to a priest.) He then goes on to talk about some things he wanted to change in his life. But that does not make sense. If you believed a man to be a moral deviant, would you go to him asking for help with your own challenges? Would you see that person as one of spiritual and moral authority? No, you wouldn’t.
  • Anurag also says at one point, “Sir Ji, I am going through a lot including very unreasonable thoughts at time. I guess I am not at ease with the cards life has dealt with me.”[sic] I wonder, how far did these unreasonable thoughts go? Did they extend to the change in his account of Dad’s life after he passed?
  • I’ve shown that M&M manipulated at least one fact, taking it out of context (driving directions) and reporting it as an inappropriate one (massage directions). If they did that, why should we assume they didn’t do that with anything else?
  • We have accounts from (now) former board members who questioned the report and objected to what RZIM was going to do with it. They were verbally intimidated to vote with the majority or abstain, rather than vote no. One dissenting member was told to resign BEFORE the vote rather than vote no, as she intended.
  • We have it in writing from one board member mentioning the fact that they knew there are things in there that may not be reliable. It’s no secret that they believed some of it. But they didn’t believe all of it. This board member wrote the others and asked the question about if they should they release the things they weren’t certain about. Of course we know now that they did release the full report. But before someone says, “well they changed their minds on the accuracy of the report,” we know there are significant details in there that they KNOW FOR A FACT are false. Not just speculation but provably false. But they didn’t remove them as they didn’t want to have to tell people they edited the report. With their selective transparency, they couldn’t say they made corrections to a report while also claiming it was a reliable document. And nor could they stand to have someone saying they weren’t being transparent. So they released it in full, uncorrected. And then through their own statement they allowed people to believe that every detail was true. They even declared as true things that the report didn’t even say were proven.
  • During staff meetings, staff were told that Mom and Naomi were begged to stay. That is simply not true. They were forced out. Others were told Naomi was given support from RZIM for both herself and a new venture. That, too, is a lie.
  • The then Chairman of the Board in 2021 also spoke to the staff about the disagreement within the family on the findings. Not only did he describe it in ways that weren’t true, for him to have done that in an official capacity at an official meeting is incredibly unprofessional and inappropriate. This statement about the family, our situation, and our alleged care were so bizarre and dishonest, why should we trust them with the rest of the situation?

There is much else that has gone on since then, and each development has only reinforced our belief in Dad and distrust in the process. If you are new to do this blog, I hope you’ll take the time to read some of the more detailed posts outlining these things, and more.

So while I don’t expect to post much more, that is simply a result of the limitations we face, not a change in our beliefs about what transpired. We remain at Dad’s defense.

Third Ladder

I believe that one day my Dad’s actual legacy will be restored. One piece of that – a huge piece – is his vision for humanitarian aid, and he entrusted it to my sister Naomi.

Together, they pursued the idea of showing that apologetics is not just a matter for the brain, it’s one of the heart. Apologetics is incomplete if you don’t pair it with a compassionate heart and a helping hand. We’re missing a crucial step if we say we follow Christ, but don’t help those who are hungry, hurting, and lonely.

Jesus came to fix the needs of our heart. But our physical needs also matter to Him, and He asked us to take them seriously on behalf of others.

The ministry of Wellspring gave millions to those in need over the years. People are alive today because of that vision. People have food today because of that vision. Women have been rescued and healed because of that vision.

Wellspring was shut down by RZIM, but that can’t take away the literal life giving impact it had. And they can’t take away the fact that it was a direct result of my Dad’s heart for those in need.

Though Wellspring is now gone, there is good news, because the people behind it are not.

As projects responded in shock and fear over what their future now held following Wellspring’s closure, Naomi and her team decided they couldn’t let circumstances out of their control stop the work they were doing. They decided to rebuild and do all they could to support their projects, and hopefully find additional ones, as well.

They launched Third Ladder as a result.

Their support is unknown as the potential donor based starts over from scratch. But the integrity, mission, and opportunity are strong. And there you’ll a group of people dedicated to connecting your heart with the heart of someone in need.

Right now they have a generous match grant offered to them – one donor will match every gift received by December 31st, up to a total of $60,000 USD. Your money can be doubled in the effort to support projects that bring physical healing to burn victims, to feed a family, to rescue women in trafficking, to give children a home and an education.

If you’re thinking of giving at this time of year, I would encourage you to take a look at Third Ladder. (

Why So Silent?

I’ve been asked by a number of people if the recent lack of posts is an indication of a change in status in our belief in my Dad’s innocence. The answer to that is a resounding no. We have not found anything, seen anything, or been offered the opportunity to see anything that supports the report.

I’ve made it clear that we have not found any evidence on the phones. I’ve shown an example of data that deliberately misrepresented, so why should I assume they didn’t do that with other data?

I’ve made it clear that this process was anything but fair, and didn’t even adhere to traditionally held legal standards for investigations of this nature.

There was no chain of custody for the devices. It didn’t maintain impartiality or objectivity. At times it takes information that is neutral, and intentionally frames it in a negative context, which proves this was not an evidence based report but a narrative.

The report biased some interviewees against Dad by telling them they already had the proof that he was guilty BEFORE they questioned the people to get their views. The effect of that caused at least one interviewee revisit their observations and reframe it in a negative light.

They intentionally wrote the report as a narrative, not a presentation of known facts. Motives that cannot be even known were declared as intentionally devious behavior.

The investigation intentionally left out those that knew him best and could actually disprove a lot of of what was being said. It didn’t pursue any investigation in the areas where they claimed to have the most evidence. And the more extreme charges had no evidence whatsoever. And to reiterate, we have not seen what little evidence they claim was so plentiful on the phones.

One woman interviewed told us the investigators did not want to accept her answer that Dad never behaved inappropriately. She said she finally said “You can keep asking me this question, but Ravi and his entire family were never anything but kind and respectful to me, there is not other story here.” Another that was interviewed told us the investigator actually broke the table in anger when she defended Dad’s character.

It was a biased process and a biased report.

As for the blog, I will add this: Mom and Naomi were in severance discussions as a result of Mom being told to resign and Naomi being terminated. In May, RZIM withdrew severance offers for them, citing anger over this blog and my Mom’s email defending my Dad. This caused me to scale back the blog, since they were leveraging the wellbeing of my Mom and sister against my right to defend my Dad.

It was a threat that ultimately held, as when they eventually revisited a severance offer months later, it came with a mandatory muzzle.

We chose not to sell our voice.

Phone Update

If you follow me on Instagram, this post has repeat information. But though it’s brief, I’m posting it here, as well, to make sure anyone following this has access to the info.

Several have asked of late if there is any update on what I’ve found on the phones. We have not had them forensically examined, yet. But in the meantime I have looked through them as thoroughly as I’m able to.

The initial search found no questionable photos, no questionable emails/texts, and an example of the investigators taking at least one piece of “evidence” out of its original context and giving it a context that was blatantly false. (See the previous post for that information.)

The update in this post is that I’ve gone through the 100+ videos on the phones and found none of them to be even remotely concerning or suspicious. They were all videos of our family, jokes, Hindi songs, and clips of some of his favorite classic shows like the Andy Griffith Show and The Honeymooners.

Once again, this includes the phone that allegedly had the majority of the “evidence.” Their speculative explanation for this device being a treasure trove of information was that since it was out of use by the time the allegations of 2017 were made, it was not going to be examined, so Dad must not have taken the time to clear it of any damning evidence.

But a treasure trove, it is not. Well, not for those who want to believe Dad is guilty.

What We’ve Seen On the Phones So Far

For many reasons, we have only just now begun the process of looking through Dad’s phones. It is very early in the process, so there are many things we are still looking for information on. The examination is by no means complete, yet. That will take time by us and time by experts. But it has already proven very helpful.

I can tell you that so far I have not seen any questionable/concerning photos in both of the phones I have searched. I also have not found any questionable/concerning correspondence or data. This includes the device they supposedly found the most information.

But what is also of interest is what I did find. The report said Dad had a note in his phone for how to say “a little bit further” in Thai. They (Miller & Martin) presented that information in a way that alleged that his interest in, and use of, the phrase were for illicit/sexual reasons.

Well here is where I found the phrase. The context is….not what they said, to put it mildly.

Directions. That’s why he had the phrase noted. “Just a little bit further” is in a list of terms to direct a cab driver. Left. Right. Straight. Bridge. And “a little bit further.” The context could not be clearer.

What is also clear, is the dishonest intent of the people who wrote that report. There is no reasonable way you can see that list and think that phrase has an inappropriate connotation. Their misrepresentation of this detail is blatant.

So if their case was so rock solid, why did they need to lie about the context of this note?

And what other information and “evidence” did they lie about, misrepresent or manufacture?

Not A Massage Parlor

One of the (many) ways that bloggers and media have intentionally spun details in a dishonest and negative way is in regards to the spa Dad helped start. They keep referring to it as a massage parlor. That is not at all what Jivan/Touch of Eden was. (It was one place, not two. They changed the name at one point.)

Massage parlors are basically fronts for sexual behavior. That is really the only context in which that term is used now. Jivan/Eden was not a massage parlor. What’s interesting about people insisting about using the term massage parlor, is that they’re the same people who say they are championing women and declaring these sources of the story as victims. But by calling it a massage parlor they’re implicating these same women as essentially sex workers who would have regularly provided illegal services to clients of Jivan. That is what massage parlors do. So they can’t have it both ways in the way they frame this.

My guess is that the former employees of Jivan would not take too kindly to being categorized as having worked at a massage parlor. Nor would any legitimate massage therapist anywhere.

Jivan was a legit spa/salon. Several people have written me saying it’s hard to believe dads innocence since he opened a “massage parlor.” One person asked why Dad couldn’t just go to a place like Massage Envy or Massage Heights. That is a result of writers using the massage parlor term. They know full well what they’re doing.

Well, in response to that comment I received, Jivan was meant to be exactly like a Massage Heights business. It was meant to be that kind of reputable establishment. That was the style of business they were offering. They offered, massages, facials, manicures, etc: all the things a legitimate and fully professional spa offers. The same kind of set up you’d find in a five star hotel. Not to mention the fact that the property owner was a well respected Christian business man who also would not have allowed an inappropriate business at one of his properties.

Not the Behavior of a Guilty Man

Dad included some big names at the opening of the business, and encouraged them to visit the spa. The Mayor of the city and Governor of Georgia spoke at the grand opening. Do you think Dad would include them – and do you think they would come – if the business appeared to be suspicious in any way? He wouldn’t, and they wouldn’t.

Vicki Blue was one person who dad would hire to come give chair massages to the entire staff? If he was doing the things she claims he was, do you think he would invite her to interact with the entire office? The risk of her saying something to someone would be huge. But he regularly connected his friends and staff with her, and he sent any and everyone he could to Jivan. A guilty man would not have done either of those things if the people and environment of Jivan were ground zero for inappropriate behavior from him or anyone else.

Jivan was not a massage parlor. The critics know it. And their insistence on the term shows their disingenuousness in examining this situation.

Bonus Fact

This has nothing to do with the report, but I’ll share it anyways. One of the things Steve Baughman accused my Dad of lying about at one point, was his address at the African Heads of State Prayer Breakfast.

That accusation was especially entertaining for me since I was actually at the event. But while cleaning out some of Dad’s things I found the program from the event. So I’m posting it here.

I doubt Steve still cares about this particular claim at this point. He may have even stopped talking about it a while so. If he does still care his issue might be the use of “Dr.” in the program. He and the rest of the Western academics who weren’t invited to speak at this event can grumble about the fact that the inviting party had no issue with the title.

But I do care about the things he’s said about my Dad. So here is the proof of this event for those who still question it.

Sarah’s Statement

My sister, Sarah, recently gave a video statement on the situation with my Dad. There was no new information given, and she did not say anything she has not already said in her previous statements over the past few months. It was the same talking points.

She is not speaking for the family. As has been clear, we do not share her take on this situation. A while back she chose the path of doing what she felt was best, strategically, for the organization. We disagree with her opinions and stance very strongly. And we do so for very legitimate reasons.

So I will simply close this response with this: I love my sister, but I stand by my belief in my Dad. I continue to reject the report and narrative put forth for all of the reasons I have already laid out on this blog.

One Year

In a few hours after posting this, it will have officially been a year since my family lost Dad. It still feels like it can’t be. I miss him so much every day. As I told him on one the last days he was conscious, he was my compass. He consistently pointed me to what was important and good and right in life. He never wavered in his message and advice. It was as consistent as he was over the years.

He overcame so much pain and trauma in his own youth to amazingly be a dad whose presence I knew I was always safe in, regardless of any disagreement we were in. He taught me how to be a gentleman and a gentle man. He was my Dad. One of two great parental cornerstones given to me by God. He was my example. He was my friend.

The year that has followed his loss has been a hellish experience that I never would have imagined, incurring more trauma that hasn’t even allowed for the time and space to process the impact of his absence.

I’ve said a lot on this subject the last few months. But, today, as I navigate this unwanted anniversary, I will just close with this story.

31 years ago, when we were living in England during Dad’s time studying at Cambridge, our family was out on a shopping trip on a typical rainy day. As we walked out of a store, I stayed with my mom and sisters while Dad was a few paces back. Being only 9, I wasn’t paying any attention to my surroundings and as I went to open my umbrella, I unknowingly hit someone behind me and kept walking.

The person behind me was not amused, and started to approach me in such a way that indicated he was going to shove me or kick me. What he didn’t know was that Dad was behind him. Dad saw what he was about to do, rushed up behind him and knocked the guy off stride so he couldn’t hit me. The guy backed off and left me alone. I was oblivious to all of it at the time.

My Dad loved his family. He always fought for us. He fought for us even when we were oblivious to it.

I don’t know if Dad is aware of what is happening down here. I actually hope he isn’t. But now I will fight for him, even if he’s as unaware as I was during his battles on my behalf.

One year ago, surrounded by his family, he drifted from our arms info the arms of his Savior.

One year ago, I was by his side. And I’m proudly still by his side today.

I love you Dad. I miss you. I can’t wait to see you again one day.

Abandoned Gospel

I will continue to defend my Dad with whatever force necessary for these reasons. First, I believe this report to be driven by a predetermined agenda, not actual evidence and truth. I’ve already given examples of that and will continue to do so.

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

I’ll do my best to explain it.

I worked at RZIM for a total of 15 years, and lived it for nearly 40. I sat through countless messages, then listened to and edited countless more through my work 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. I say “some“ because those that disagreed with what the majority did have since resigned.

I thought I was on the same page with all of those people for all of those years. 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.

And as such these speakers said that’s how they saw those people, because that’s what Jesus commanded. No, that doesn’t mean you ignore possible sin. But it most certainly does mean that you do not condemn someone to a legacy known only as their sin. And they never said there was any fine print to this. They didn’t say you weren’t defined by your sin unless you committed “x.”

But we certainly haven’t heard any of that from them as it relates to Dad. 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. Not only have none of them had the courage to publicly say that they still love my Dad, they’ve embraced words and conclusions they privately doubt, like abuse and rape. They silence the love they supposedly feel, and preach the verdict that privately don’t.

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. Here are a few examples as to why I believe they departed from the Gospel in their scorched earth response.


Numerous speakers and leadership have gone on record as not just condemning the alleged actions of my Dad, but also condemning the man himself.

Cameron & Stuart McAllister referred to him as a former friend. The context of that comment was not that he is “former” because he is not here, but “former” because they no longer claim him as one.

Vince & Jo Vitale, have distanced themselves from Dad, not just moving forward, but expressed regret for their ministry alongside him even while they were unaware of any alleged behaviors. (As a side note, they can say they failed to ask questions about the LAT matter all they want and say that is why “truth” wasn’t found. But the fact is that the people who have all of the information there is to be had, have interacted with both sides, and know everything about the NDA still to this day believe that my Dad’s account of that situation is 100% accurate.) So had that taken a different approach it wouldn’t have changed a thing. Dad faced plenty of questions from far more key people and he is still believed by those who knew every answer there was to find.

I thought of all those statements made by staff while I was at church last week, when my pastor talked about Jesus’ interaction with Judas. Jesus, knowing what Judas already had done, and would still do, still washed Judas’ feet at the Last Supper. Judas was in the midst of committing the worst betrayal in history, and Jesus still served him in an act of incredible grace. Then, as Judas approached him in the garden to turn him over, Jesus still addressed him as “friend.”

Think of that. Jesus did not distance himself from Judas. He straight up claimed him in that moment. Judas, one of the greatest sinners, came face to face with Jesus, the only one in that garden who knew the true depravity of his heart, and he was still called friend. Jesus claimed him until the very end. And He most certainly did not issue a public statement saying he no longer considered Judas a friend, or regretted doing ministry with him.

Someone out there will say “Ravi’s son equates his father to Judas.” And Christianity Today might run with that, what with their history of writing for clicks. Hey CT, among a host of other suggestions, next time you do a hit piece you might consider these two little words before you determine the credibility of your initial sources – background check.

But no, I am not comparing my Dad to Judas. 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.


Leadership has cited God’s ability to forgive…themselves, that is. Not Dad. They never mention that. They just say that “we serve a God who forgives” in donor communications when they say they are in need of it. God’s ability to forgive Dad is nowhere to be found.

They cite James 3:1 as a reason for their decision to try this in public and to take on their supposedly God given command to be legacy executioners.

For a ministry that was founded on the importance of thought, they haven’t given much of that to their cherry picking of that passage.

First, the way that verse is worded, both in tense and Greek wording, is that it speaks to God’s judgment of teachers when He ultimately judges them later.

Now, while RZIM has taken this opportunity to add the title of God to their list of responsibilities, such a title isn’t a name it and claim it kind of deal. They are not God. This verse speaks to what God will do. Not what He is asking us to do.

Second, the context of that passage talks about stricter judgment for what they say. 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.

But RZIM has abused that verse. 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.

Due to what I know about what they’ve said in private, I can only assume they’ve said it so they can find a home amidst the mob mentality that masquerades as spiritual sensitivity. It’s the best way to protect themselves, which they would see as ultimately protecting the Gospel because of their calling to preach it.

But last I checked, God never said to embrace lies or half truths. or to bow to cultural expectations of judgment just so you could keep your foot in the door of culture. He is in charge of all of our callings. So, scapegoating someone else to preserve your own influence is never a formula He commanded.

They haven’t just reduced Dad to his sins, they’ve ensured that that is all he ever will be in some peoples eyes. Instead of allowing for both good and bad to be attached to a man’s earthly legacy, they have published the bad and erased the good, making sure that his life can never do any more good though his teachings. They have given people no other option but to only remember 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. They could be pure as the driven snow in their lives, but if they are wrong about how they’ve handled this, they will answer heavily for it when they meet the Lord.


Early on in this process, someone left a very insightful comment on my Instagram post. They referenced Joseph and his handling of Mary, when he had doubts about the spiritual origin of her pregnancy.

Matthew 1:19 says:

“And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.”

Other translations say he was a “righteous” man. The cause and effect in that description is powerful. Because he was a righteous/just man, he did not want to handle this publicly. He did not want to air her dirty laundry. He wanted to handle it privately.

He was righteous, and his behavior was considered a logical outworking of that righteousness. His intent was the exact opposite of RZIM’s, and the Bible praises him for it.


Last example. And the most important.

Sam Allberry was a speaker at Rzim. A gifted one. And he was one who positioned himself as comforter and pastor for my family when Dad was popular. Once Dad wasn’t, that desire to comfort and pastor us evaporated in an instant. Then he became pastor to twitter and completely abandoned and ignored my family, except when he decided to lie about my sister’s message to him. (That was such a blatant misquote that it has to be intentional. She, being a better person than me, did not respond. But if Sam would like to challenge that accusation he can feel free. I have the letter he misquoted so I’m ready.)

Not too long after Sam’s social media crusade and the report’s release, he tweeted something that was one of the greatest examples of an intellectual disconnect that I’ve ever seen.

Sam is right – that is what Jesus did. But that is not what Sam has done. When I read that I shook my head. How could a man who just spent months working to exclude/redefine my Dad’s presence from history then talk about the example Jesus gave us of embracing and communing with the sinner? The same man (Sam) who doesn’t even want to share a website, bio, etc with my Dad, is suddenly talking about how appreciative he is that Jesus shared a table with sinners – an act that signifies far more in Jesus’ day than it does in our culture today.

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.

Sam and RZIM have done none of that.

In fact, the harshest words Jesus had were for those who claimed to know everything about the sinners hearts; what they were and were not worthy of. You might say He condemned those who had a habit of making public statements about someone else’s sin and where they stood in eternity. Those are the people he responded to with great force and anger. They bristled at the fact that a grievous sinner could commune with the Lord. They hated the fact that they were considered on par with themselves in the Lords eyes. Both in equal need of Him. Both with equal access.

Rzim has played the role of those Pharisees. They have gone far beyond condemning actions they only partially believe in. Even if they believed all of it they have gone far beyond condemning sin.

The Bible is full of characters where God shows us the good and the bad of a person. God always used sinners to do mighty things. Some of them weren’t even believers, but God was not afraid to use them or to make it clear that He had done so.

He made them a part of His story to spread his truth, regardless of where their hearts were. He didn’t erase those who would be inconvenient vessels for him. He let their good and bad live on in history.

But RZIM – they must know better than God. There’s no place for a broken vessel to still have done any good or communicated any truth. They feel the right course is to erase any sign that God used my Dad. They have decided for us – and God – who we can choose to learn from.

They can quote a good game. They can use all the right words Twitter wants them to. But the fact is the Gospel they preach from the pulpit doesn’t match the Gospel them demonstrate in their PR statements.

At the beginning of this I mentioned the audiences who heard RZIM speakers preach of God’s love for them no matter ever, and their worth in the eyes of the Lord no matter what. I would venture to say many of those listeners now would steer clear of ever confiding in one of those speakers. For if they could see their “former friend” as only bad, why would they view anyone else any differently?

Phones & Photos

In this post I’m sharing some more information in response to my brief appearance on Julie Roys’ blog last week.

In the comment section of Julie’s blog, Vicki Blue tried to give an explanation for the text message I released. Among other things, in her response she says these two things:

“I believe that must have been my last contact”

“if there is any other text, it was before then…”

Those are false statements.

We have texts after that. The text messages I posted were in January, 2016. She then says she would like to help find and train a dog for my parents, and shares at length about two service animals she’s working with (Jeli and Sage). She says she would love to come do massages for both my mom and dad. (It was Dad who constantly brought my mom and the family into the conversations with Vicki.)

In March of 2016, she writes him on his birthday and refers to him as “most precious Mr. Ravi Ji” and “my dear Mr. Ravi Ji.” Ji is a suffix often used in Hindi to convey great respect for the person you are addressing with it. Vicki either got this from hearing Michael Ramsden use it, or more likely from hearing Anurag use it. Anurag regularly used it when addressing Dad (and frequently in the text messages of his that I have released, and in those I haven’t, yet.) Vicki and Dad even exchange messages that August for her birthday.

In all of this communication, Dad does not always respond to all of her messages. She always responds to his. She was clearly the one driving most of the conversation.


Once Julie allowed my comment and wrote back, she expressed disbelief that we could find text messages on his phone and not see photos.

Well, Julie, I don’t know what else to say, but that’s the truth.

Actually, I do know what else to say.

Dad regularly gave his phone to the family for help with one thing or another. He was not technically savvy, so he often needed my help with something on the phone. I never – not ever – saw any inappropriate, questionable, or ill advised photo on his phones or computer.

Despite the report making it look like Dad went out of his way to avoid digital oversight at RZIM and kept them away from his phones, that is just not what happened. Quite often, Dad handed over his phones to get their help with troubleshooting, software updates, backups, syncing to his computer, etc. IT staff regularly had access to his phones and data. They never saw anything.

In Dad’s last weeks, my mom and sister had full access to his phones at all times. They never saw one of these alleged photos, questionable contacts, or anything of the sort.


That last paragraph brings another thought to mind. I think I’ve mentioned that at many times in Dad’s final weeks there were times that he was not in his normal mind due to the influence of various pain medications. But not once did he ever mention a concerning behavior, another woman’s name, a strange comment.

In fact, in one of his worst moments of confusion and unfiltered speech, though his understanding of what was going on was impaired, his concern was still for my mom’s well-being and care. In other times during those days, he regularly talked about new ways to spread the Gospel, and he had imaginary (or not, perhaps) conversations with Christian leaders already in heaven.

I find something else interesting about those days. All these messages they say they have, yet there’s not a single questionable communication they can point to in his final months? Keep in mind, in January and February Dad thought his dramatic increase in back pain was fixable. He thought surgery and a couple months off of the road would do the trick. Being off the road meant canceling time in Asia at some point. But there’s no communication with one of these people saying he won’t be able to see them?

The report claims he had history of expressing disappointment when travel was canceled because it limited his ability to see one or more of these therapists. And they say he expressed anticipation of his next trip. But there’s nothing in their report from those final months. There are no messages to any therapists saying he won’t be able to see them because of his surgery and subsequent healing period.

And then when he realized he was facing cancer, there were no messages then, either. All of these women he supposedly had “amorous” contact with over the years and there’s not a single message telling one of them what’s happening? No goodbyes? No message from one of them after they may have heard through other sources?

Even in the times when he was under the influence of medication, he never fired off a quick text or email or WhatsApp message. All of those accounts were continuously logged in on his phone and could have been viewed by any of the family members that were constantly by his side. The report claimed to have gotten some information that had been deleted off of the phones, so the answer can’t be that he sent those messages but just deleted them.

If the things they accuse him of are true, it seems completely unbelievable that he wouldn’t have sent or received a communication to/from any one of these women while these things were happening. But there are no such messages.


As with other aspects of the report, there are a lot of holes within their presentation of the photo evidence. At times it seems like they were intentionally manipulating the reader. And many of the details – or lack thereof at times – seem inconsistent with the story they want us to believe.

On key points, they clearly give precedence to the narrative above the actual evidence. The report goes into great detail when it benefits them, then leaves out important detail when it would hurt their case.

First, the introduction of the photos is clearly meant to manipulate the reader. The first paragraph creates shock with the number of photos. They even mention that total twice – once at the beginning of the report and then again when they actually expand on the information. They break down how many photos were of what person, and include Lori Anne Thompson and all of the assumptions her name brings into the scenario. They even blatantly speculate about the ages of the women when they have no idea.

But then after one very long paragraph with a whole bunch of stats and dates, they say this:

In the majority of these photographs the women are fully clothed and posing as anyone would for a selfie.

That’s what you call burying the lede.

The writers knew full well that people would read the first paragraph and mentally determine the photos were all nudes. That was clearly delivered in such a way to have people come away thinking he had 200 nude photos on his phone. They were successful, as evidenced by some of the comments I get and the way the press covered that detail.

But approximately 197 of the 200 photos were clothed. You really think a man who is supposedly sexually aggressive and has a habit of asking for nude pictures would have 197 clothed “normal” photos compared to 3 nude photos?

Another strange detail of the way they describe the photos – they don’t seem to know who most of them are. Only a couple are allegedly linked to other communications, and they don’t seem to know much about any of them. They speculate about their ages, where he saw them, etc.

Why is that significant? Because it would seem to indicate that none of them are from their witness list. And if you’re claiming a man has a pattern of behavior, it doesn’t make sense that you don’t have any examples of that pattern from any of the twelve massage therapists interviewed.

If these sources were real and telling the truth it seems these pictures would have included their own pictures and proof that he requested them.

(Yes there are supposedly 6 clothed photos of LAT, but his defense against those is already well documented. So I’m talking about the other 194 photos, apparently none of which include their supposed multitude of witnesses. And that is strange.)

There’s an incredible lack of communications surrounding those photos. The investigation likes to quote his own words, supposedly, but when it comes to picture exchanges they don’t use his words. They decide to speak for him at that point and just tell us he asked for them, letting our imaginations do the work of what the tone of those requests were.

200 photos wanted and requested would have a significant communication trail to go with them. But they seemingly have very little of that.

When it comes to nude photos, they offer no evidence for his role in those at all. They cite two anonymous people who say he asked for nude photos but they declined. And there is no proof of that exchange. So we’re back to the “they say” aspects of the report, trying to overcome the massive lack of evidence with unproven verbal information.

The other piece of info conveniently left out is where the photos were found. Were they found in his photos library or in his deleted files? The answer to that makes a big difference, which is why I suspect the report skipped past that detail.

Some or all of these could have been deleted for any number of vindicating reasons: because he didn’t want them, ask for them, or didn’t have have sordid motives with them.

As one attorney told me, it is very easy to get Dad’s information. She told me exactly where I could find Dad’s private phone number online. Anyone could get it and send unsolicited messages…. repeatedly. Ask any public figure out there and I’m sure you’ll find many get contacted with unwanted photos.

That all makes it hard for me to trust in any of the information they are giving.