Witness Anonymity

Just a quick note for today.

As mentioned before, my mom was not allowed to be a part of the report presentation that was given directly to the board and a number of individuals, some of whom weren’t leadership or even on staff. The reason she was given was that she couldn’t be there because of witness confidentiality reasons.

But page 2 of the report says this:

“The overwhelming majority of those we interviewed requested confidentiality and asked to have their identities kept anonymous. To encourage witnesses to speak candidly, both RZIM management and the committee of the RZIM Board to which we report agreed that they would not have access to witness identities. As a result, and because most witnesses spoke to us in reliance on our assurance of confidentiality, we are not revealing names of any witnesses in this report or otherwise.”

So either the report is lying by saying they withheld witness identities from RZIM, or RZIM is lying in saying my Mom couldn’t be there for the presentation because it contained confidential witness identities.

Given the blatant inaccuracies by the report, and RZIM leadership reportedly trying to strong-arm dissenting board members to secure a unanimous vote (something they failed to get), the answer to which side is lying on the witness anonymity claim is a toss up.

Time in Asia

One of the main pillars of the report is Dad’s travel to Asia. So I have a few things to share on that.


As mentioned in the report, Dad had two apartments that he purchased in Bangkok. There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, Dad enjoyed the idea of a good investment. These units were cheap by American standards, and it seemed like a good way to build his investment portfolio. But more importantly, he looked for more opportunities to invest because he was trying to build for retirement.

To give context, during the majority of Dad’s ministry at RZIM, the organization did not pay anything towards his retirement. That decision was made in the early days of the ministry when budgets were tight and never revisited. He was on his own for those things for a long time. It was only in the last fifteen years, or so, that the board realized what had happened and took steps to try and correct that.

Even before the report, people have put out completely absurd, judgmental, and inaccurate information about Dad’s salary at RZIM. Depending on the source, those numbers are straight up lies or a complete manipulation of the data.

If an organization offers benefits to their employees, the cost to an employer is significantly more than what the employee earns. Some people have taken the amount RZIM paid towards Dad’s employee benefits and lumped it together with the salary he received. Adding those numbers together made Dad’s salary look much higher than it was.

Dad and the board always focused on keeping his salary in line with comparable positions at similar ministries. I think his final raise, something he didn’t take often, was meant to help give him more to invest and save for retirement. The salary bump and new retirement fund contributions were RZIM’s way of trying to help correct what had been overlooked for 20 years.

Dad invested to help gain ground, and the apartments were part of that. It was far less expensive to invest in real estate in a place like Thailand and still make a profit on it. Doing so in the United States would have cost far more up front. It also made sense to do it in a place he often traveled to because it would actually save RZIM money.

It was cheaper to reimburse him for time spent there for speaking engagements or writing, instead of paying for a hotel. He got an investment, they got a savings.

Why did he write there? One, invitations from Asia were a huge percentage of his ministry opportunities. While US universities are closing their doors, Asia is opening theirs. So it was easy to add writing time into his itinerary there since he was in the region so much. But secondly, being Indian, Dad felt at home in Asia.

The apartments were not a secret. We knew about them. He offered them to the family if any of us were ever going to be traveling there. And I believe he even offered them to other people who were in need of them at times.


Now, on to what else the report says about the apartments. Actually, first, let me point out what it doesn’t say: all of these supposed “amorous” communications they say they have, and they do not mention a single one inviting one of these people to his apartment. It seems like if he had this double life there would be mentions and uses of this apartment with some of these people. But they don’t seem to have any of that.

All they claim to have, as it relates to the apartment, is that he “housed” his massage therapist in one of them. The evidence presented for this claim is this: in the notes section they found initials that matched hers with the phone number to the second unit. Is that it? Because that seems inexact.

Here are a few arguments against why even that is not compelling.

  1. For one thing, the initials matching a known therapist could be a coincidence.
  2. Even if it was her, the “note” does not prove that they were ever or regularly there at the same time. I already mentioned he offered the accommodations to other people when he wasn’t even going to be there.
  3. Even if he did have a therapist staying there, the scandalous tone with which they mention it is confusing. Wouldn’t that actually be the preferred way of doing it? Wouldn’t this be evidence of putting up a boundary? And wouldn’t this boundary be out of character for a man they say had no boundaries?


Go where the evidence leads. That’s how the saying goes. Just not in this case.

Lynsey Barron spent a great deal of time using supposed emails/text messages to paint a picture of Dad’s alleged behavior in Asia. Their own report says that the greatest amount of evidence came from his phones. So naturally, when they found all this evidence pointing towards behavior in Asia, they pursued those people to find out what these messages meant and how far this supposed behavior went.

Actually, no. They didn’t do that. And that is very odd. The report says at the beginning,

“we did not not enlist resources on the ground in Asia, where Mr. Zacharias frequently traveled, to locate and interview witnesses there.” (Page 1)

So the most damning “evidence” they had pointed to people and behavior in Asia. He spent a significant time in Asia, as much time there as anywhere else. The evidence they say is so credible pointed to Asia as ground zero of his behavior. And where did they choose to not do interviews, or devote any resources from the investigation? Asia.

Dad spent a significant amount of time in Asia. They could have spoken to hotel staff, doormen from the apartments, security from hotels and the apartments. There are a lot of people who witnessed Dad’s behavior and could tell you whether they saw any signs of anything suspicious. But they didn’t talk to them. Instead, they focused on people sent to them by biased sources: Anurag Sharma, Vicki Blue, Julie Roys, and Steve Baughman.

And before I wrap this post up, there’s one more telling thing from the report. After spending time talking about the frequency of Dad getting back treatments in Asia, they just drop this little gem into the report:

“we have very little insight into whether Mr. Zacharias engaged in inappropriate massage behavior when in Asia.” (Page 6)

And yet the fact that he received back treatments in Asia is included in the same section as allegations of abuse and misconduct in massages, despite their lack of “insight.” The reason is clear: the receiving of back treatments in Asia is meant to look extreme and give weight to the accusations of the people alleging misconduct. The question they want readers to ask is why would someone get a back treatment so often unless there was something else going on?

So they use the accusers’ stories to help “sell” concern about his travel in Asia since they have no proof about his behavior during back treatments there. But they use his travel in Asia to “sell” the accusers stories since they have no proof of the behavior in those either. That’s what you call circular reasoning. (If A, then B. If B, then A).

When it comes to abuse, there is no evidence. However, we do know of evidence that shows accusers changing their stories. So the abuse investigation is definitely incomplete.

When it comes to traveling in Asia there is no testimony, and apparently “no insight” into massage behavior there. There is only an indication of receiving regular back treatments. That component is incomplete.

When it comes to inappropriate communication, the one charge that allegedly does have documented proof was left at that. No further investigation was done; they strangely stopped with what was stored on the phones. They didn’t talk to people and witnesses in Asia who could have shed a lot of light on the subject, not even enough to verify if there was a physical relationship. They had their “strongest” leads in an area where he spent a large percentage of his time and did nothing to get more clarity on them. So that part is incomplete.

In fact according to Julie Roys herself, leads and names of “accusers” came from her. She says she gave Barron the names of the people to talk to.

At the presentation of the report to the boardboat, Ms. Barron was asked if she had investigated the possibility that any of these witnesses had colluded or been coordinated by an outside source. She said no, declaring that her only job was to investigate my dad.

But based on her own report, it doesn’t seem like she even investigated him.

April 5, 2021

Someone just asked me about the above tweet. Offhand, I don’t know what situation(s) Daniel is talking about. But according to Daniel, let me see if I have this straight.

This person presented claims in 2008. Though the man believed there was reason for concern, leadership rejected the claims. At this point, he remained on the team for FOUR YEARS. In that time he spoke alongside Dad, a man he believed to be engaging in misconduct. And he collected a paycheck from and promoted an organization he thought to be ignoring it.

Then in 2012 he approached leadership again. Since they were not taken seriously for a second time, the man drew a line and quit on principle. Wait, no. That’s not what happened. According to the way this is being framed, he apparently still wanted to stay since it took leadership “pushing him off the team” for his tenure to end.

It would also seem that this person remained silent over the last few years when Christianity Today would have jumped at a chance to hear his thoughts.

All of that makes no sense. At the very least you can’t claim this person’s behavior is consistent with one acting from virtue. If all that’s being said and claimed now is true, Daniel needs to hold this man just as accountable as leadership. After all, he supposedly had concerns yet still helped further Dad’s ministry, and he accepted a paycheck from a organization allegedly ignoring victims. But Daniel is holding him up as a victim in this, which is yet another example of his intellectual inconsistency.

Then again, Daniel didn’t resign either so maybe he doesn’t want to make that argument.

This allegation also contradicts other claims that tried to paint Dad and the organization as vindictive towards anyone who raised questions. Because according to this, a man who accused the beloved founder of inappropriate conduct was retained as a “senior” member for four more years, only bringing an end to the relationship when the person decided to revisit concerns four years later.

Yeah, that patient and generous vindictiveness is the worst.

Was Dad Open to Questions?

This post is a lengthy one, so I apologize. But it covers a few different stories that are out there.

Someone on Instagram asked me about allegations that Dad demonized people who had questions about the Thompson case in 2017 and after. I can’t speak to any private conversations with the leadership team. I know what I saw publicly in them was they were very respectful of those who had questions.

Based on the people who have put names to these claims, I can say this: given their personalities, I would have no doubt that they were not exactly calm in their questions. I’m quite sure those questions came with an edge. So if they were passionate and accusatory in a question they believed in, why was the person answering it not allowed to be passionate and even defensive in their answer to it? Even looking at the way things were handled with staff this fall, those accusing Dad were allowed to say whatever they wanted anytime they wanted. Those defending Dad were told not to, because they said doing so would create a hostile work environment for those who questioned him. That’s a ridiculous double standard. So even if senior leadership had tense conversations with people back in 2017, I doubt they were the ones who initially raised the tone, and it is not an indication of hiding things. Of course now they have no use for Dad, so trashing him earns you kumbaya vibes from senior leaders.

Now, as for possible interactions with Dad, I can speak to the ones I observed. What I observed is very different than how many are now claiming it to be. Dad held staff meetings regarding this particular case at least twice. The first meeting allowed for questions and comments. The second meeting was a global staff meeting, again allowing time and space for questions and comments. On the second occasion, Dad allowed for anonymous questions to be submitted from all global staff. Tough questions were asked, and he answered them openly and without hesitation. I never got the impression he wasn’t open to questions. So I feel confident that he did not demonize or ostracize someone just for having a question. And as a side note, the people who know every single detail there is to be known about both the evidence and the personalities, still believe in him today. 

Ruth Malhotra, one of the ones alleging such things, has in no way acted like a person who had concerns about Dad the last few years. She invited herself to many of his events and contrary to what she often indicated, it wasn’t necessary for her to be at so many. She always found a way to be near my Dad at occasions/conversations/interactions she didn’t need to be involved with. She invited her family to any of my Dad’s events that she could, often when other staff family members didn’t take that liberty. She even went as far as pressuring organizers at my Dad’s funeral, telling them multiple times that she needed to sit with the immediate family. We found out about the request(s) after the service. Ruth hadn’t spoken to the family about it, making it clear this desire had very little to do with offering support and more about appearing she had a close relationship with my Dad and the family. That is not the kind of relationship she had with him or us, so the organizers didn’t seat her there.

Ruth has given very positive public interviews about him many times since 2017, including after he passed away. These are not the actions of someone who took issue with my Dad or his family.


The fact that so much of that situation is known is because Dad went public by way of the lawsuit. If he hadn’t wanted to answer questions from the staff or anyone else, he wouldn’t have sued and made it public himself. Someone right now is saying “but what about the NDA?” Any reputable attorney knows an NDA is a very regular occurrence. In fact, RZIM (up until now because it would look pretty bad if they did) has essentially had terminated employees sign an NDA in order to get their severance. Most companies do. I would say many people at RZIM and on the board have signed NDAs at previous employers, in business dealings, in previous legal disputes, etc. An NDA is widely used and is often used for more reasons than to “suppress” information. In the context of what we’re talking about here, at its core an NDA is meant to help bring finality to the dispute. To put it in oversimplified terms, it means “let’s agree to disagree, drop it, move on, and if we can do that then there’s no need for further legal action.”

If the purpose and result of the NDA were about hiding information, he wouldn’t have sued to begin with. He released all the information he had and drew more attention to it by filing. His case and arguments are public because of him. There are a lot of decisions in that process that a guilty man would have made differently.

People have rewritten the narrative to say he made up his side and his approach was meant to intimidate the other side through legal shock and awe. But keep in mind this was federal court. So if I’ve done my homework correctly, to have survived dismissal and progressed to mediation means it met the requirements of this rule:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court may dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the plaintiff has not set forth factual allegations in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”17

That means his legal argument was not just smoke and mirrors. That means the court saw that at least on the surface, there was enough evidence to sustain his argument. And that would have taken more than his say so. You don’t get several hundreds of thousands of dollars into a federal RICO lawsuit with an “I know you are but what am I” defense.


The report also says this: “Several RZIM staff reported to us that they were concerned about Mr. Zacharias travelling with a personal masseuse, not because they feared actual impropriety but because they feared the appearance of impropriety.”

These comments are meant to give examples of people’s concern, but seems like they give examples of people’s concern that Dad’s massage treatments could be misrepresented and misunderstood. Someone could accuse him of inappropriate behavior even if he was innocent. Someone could misrepresent his medically needed massages and say he was using them for other reasons. Someone, somewhere could spend a lot of time and money digging up hearsay accusations of abuse and misconduct and give the illusion of proof with the fact that he received frequent back treatments while traveling. 

Well, that sounds familiar.

Seems like those people were right. And the report has kindly documented their belief that there were reasons to believe that Dad could be totally innocent but still have his massage treatments used as “evidence” for wrong doing. Which is exactly what the report has done. Thanks for marginalizing and discrediting a huge chunk of your own report M&M. I appreciate it. 

(Now before some of my critics say “but they have emails too,” none of the emails prove a physical relationship. By the report’s own admission, they had some that at most “implied” a physical relationship, though not explicitly sexual. So they don’t even have concrete proof of any physical relationships at all. In short they’re using emails that “imply” a consensual nondescript physical relationship and frequent back massage treatments as evidence to support accusations of abuse and rape. That’s…….logically ambitious. And thats if this digital evidence is even legit – something we’re working to find out.)

Now, in regards to the report saying he sent one person to “Siberia” for being concerned about the appearance of impropriety, I believe I know which story they are referring to. And I believe it is being retrofitted to fit the new narrative. The staff member didn’t have any concern as to Dad’s intentions, as the report does say. And they were truly just trying to look out for him. But they believed one of the therapists to be dishonest, and believed they put on an act around Dad. The staff member believed this person was not honest in her behavior, and he was worried that one day she would say or do something that would reflect poorly on Dad. The irony of that concern is obvious considering where we’re at now with unverifiable accusations by anonymous sources.

Dad’s reaction to the individual concerned on his behalf can be attributed to two things. One, Dad had not seen any red flags in this person, and he thought this was simply a matter of something lost in translation. He thought the accusations were mean spirited. As evidenced by the people we do know to be involved with this, one of Dad’s strengths was also his weakness. He always fought for the underdog. He always wanted to believe the best in people. And as such he was not always the best judge of character in a person. As people like Anurag Sharma, Vicki Blue and others have shown, his faith was very often misplaced. People like them ended up using him in life and are now using him in death through their newfound “celebrity” in all of this. And if you think I’ve already used all of the evidence we have discrediting the two I’ve mentioned, you are mistaken. 

The second reason for his reaction is one I’ve made mention of already. When Dad started receiving consistent back treatments, he was in excruciating pain. We know because we were there with him every day. We know how much it drastically diminished Dad’s ability to do even every day tasks, let alone get on a plane and take the platform. He felt he could not endure the additional physical pain brought on by extensive travel without help. His medicinal options were limited because he did not want to take strong medication. (Even in his final days battling cancer, doctor’s struggled to get his pain managed because Dad so desperately didn’t want to take strong medicine.) He didn’t want pills. That left him with back treatments, which the doctors themselves recommended. Anyone who has dealt with chronic pain will understand that. 

When he told leadership he felt he could not travel without the benefit of regular back treatments, leadership objected to the idea of coming off the road. Dad had to keep going for the sake of the ministry and the team, according to them. Many people depended on him. The pressure to keep going was huge. Then he had this conversation I’ve just referred to. It didn’t matter that the staff member was looking out for Dad, which they were. To my exhausted Dad, it felt like he was being told he shouldn’t do the one thing that kept the pain manageable and kept him on the road. So there he was, at a major crossroads and weary, being told he shouldn’t stop traveling but also shouldn’t get treatment. That was how he saw the options being presented. Of course he was frustrated. Because he felt like he was being given no option. How many of us would interpret the situation any differently under that kind of strain?

At the end of the day, despite their disagreement on whether there were reasons to distrust this therapist, the staff member was not hindered in their path at RZIM one bit. They were not silenced. They continued to be promoted and be successful. Certainly doesn’t sound like a case of retaliation, does it? 

Everything I’ve said about my Dad is true. But despite the many compliments he deserves, that doesn’t mean my Dad was perfect. He was human. He got frustrated. He got impatient. He got tired. And when he was feeling those things, there were times where he didn’t handle a disagreement as well as he should have, regardless of the subject. There were times in life where he and I disagreed over things and you could say I was “sent to Siberia” too. There were disagreements we had that took some working through, like all people. And in those times, his reaction had nothing to do with compensating for being wrong on the subject or hiding something. It was simply the fact that Dad believed in what he was saying and was sometimes frustrated that I didn’t see it the same way, especially in an issue he felt to be important. 

Of course I can’t speak to every conversation he may have had that I wasn’t privy to. And I don’t have perfect knowledge of Dad. But I do have a whole lot more than those investigators. Their limited witness list and prepping of some of those witnesses helped ensure that. I have a lot more knowledge of him than Steve Baughman, who has spent years of his life watching my Dad live his. And I certainly know more than anyone who is relying solely on the words of a report that presents more bias and speculation than evidence. They can’t even assure the integrity of the little evidence they have by way of a declared chain of custody. Documentation like that is considered standard procedure for these things. But not in this case.

That’s what you get when you get a hit piece. This was about an agenda instead of an actual thorough investigation. 

Selective Erasing

Soon, I will get back to some of the questionable details of the report, but I would like to address some more thoughts on the response of Dad’s former organization.

Many of those remaining at RZIM, along with some former global leadership, have worked very hard to distance themselves from my dad. They’ve busted out their thesauruses and called him every name they think is appropriate. They’ve damned him, erased him, and expressed regret that they were ever involved with him in what was a very successful ministry. If they feel he should be erased and reduced to only the sum of his sins, then they have some hard questions to answer about their theology given the way God allowed his success while these things were allegedly happening. God sure is lucky to have them here to save Him from allowing Dad’s material to ever positively impact another person.

They can’t even acknowledge the reality that God blessed them (wrongly, it would seem, according to their logic) in their own ministries alongside Dad either. Of course they still benefit from the status that came as a result. 10 years ago, no one would have paid any attention to the statements of many of them. Their audience now is a result of the platform they got from their days at RZIM with Dad.

They want no piece of, him, association with him, or remnant of him. Nothing at all.

Well, almost nothing.

Let’s start on an individual level. In his most recent book(s), Dad split the advance with at least one co-author 50/50. An advance payment is often given based on how well the publisher expects the book to do. Splitting it is actually something Dad didn’t have to do, but it was his choice. Although the co-authors have now denounced Dad and any association with him, I’m going to go out on a limb and say their halves of the advance – amounts that were surely boosted by Dad’s involvement – have not been surrendered.

Next we have the Oxford office, which has since broken off from RZIM. A few years ago, the UK team decided they needed a new building. Despite having just donated money for a new facility at RZIM headquarters in Atlanta, donors stepped up and provided what I think was 13-15 million for the purchase of a historic property in Oxford. Very little of that support came from Europe.

The UK team pressured the headquarters in the months and days leading up to the report, insisting it be released in a certain way. When it was done the way they wanted, they immediately announced they were separating from RZIM. They took the building with them because HQ never took the step of securing it legally to the main organization. Given their pressure and immediate exit you have to wonder if this is perhaps the outcome UK leadership actually wanted. Some of their team regularly had issues with taking direction from the US, but of course always requested and relied on the funding from the US. The report gave them the excuse to leave, and leave quickly, before HQ came calling for that building. I’m sure that step was all planned in the months leading up to the report.

There is no way that the Oxford office would have ever gotten the money for that building without Dad’s efforts on their behalf, his name, or his reputation. They are so virtuous that they immediately rejected and disowned him. But not so virtuous as to relinquish the building that wouldn’t be theirs without him and the donor support he generated.

Finally, you have the headquarters. A lot of that money sitting in the bank was given because of Dad. Most of the rest of it was received from the massive insurance policy they received upon his death. They will say they are using that to help with “restitution” and legal fees. But they most certainly will not need to use all of it for that and they know it.

And while I’ve already mentioned this below I’ll say it again: their future plan is convenient. They claim to not feel at ease with using their resources to support themselves as an apologetic organization anymore. The solution?

1. Change the name.

2. Decide you’re going to be an organization that gives money to apologetics and sexual abuse victims.

3. After announcing that, lay off the staff whose sole job at RZIM was to issue grants to organizations that help sexual abuse victims. (Seems like they would have been helpful given the intended direction).

4. The remaining speakers will likely split off in the near future. They can apply for and will most certainly receive grants from the new organization.

I can’t decide if it’s spiritual money laundering, or spiritual people laundering. Either way they’re essentially going to get paid by RZIM funds to preach. Something they say they can’t do anymore.

In addition, they sit in a building already paid for because of the money Dad raised for it. Might the new RZIM also gift office space to the speakers that split off? And provide use of the media team and facilities? This is actually a pretty sweet setup for that group.

Bob Grinnell, the VP of development, used to constantly say Dad was his best fundraiser. They have that money and those assets because of Dad. He was the one people responded to and gave towards.

They want nothing to do with his ministry legacy. But they’re glad to hold on to his financial legacy.

Miller & Martin History

UPDATE: In the interest of full disclosure, it’s been brought to my attention that eventually the courts dismissed the claims against Miller & Martin in 2020. As of January 2021, representatives of the estate were still appealing the verdict to have their claims reinstated. My original post is listed below.


Well this sounds familiar.

Someone sent me this headline the other day. Come to find out, RZIM was aware of this and selected them anyways.

I don’t know the details of the case, other than what is listed above. But given what I’ve heard about M&M’s process in Dad’s case, seen in their report, and been told by other people, the claims sound familiar. And it is not at all a surprise to know that other people have complaints about M&M’s ethics.

RZIM 2.0

RZIM announced that their new entity will not be a speaking ministry. Instead, it will issue grants to organizations that match their interests in both evangelism/apologetics and victims of sexual abuse.

I would assume that the remaining speakers, especially those involved in this decision, have not abandoned their calling as speakers. So, when leadership changes happen in the coming months, I would assume that they will be part of those changes. They will likely start their own organization(s).

Starting an organization is not easy. Often times you need the help of significant grants, especially in the early days. I wonder if perhaps they will be the recipients of generous grants from RZIM 2.0, the new grant giving organization whose strong financial situation they know well, having just led its transition into philanthropy.

If so, that’s what I would call, “landing on your feet.” Or perhaps “having your cake and eating it too” would be appropriate, as well.

I guess we’ll find out.


Since Vicki has made her name public, I’m just going to leave these here without much comment and let you compare. As mentioned when I referenced them a few weeks ago, these were found before my mom lended the phones to RZIM for the investigation.

This was yesterday.

And the text below was in 2016, long after the time she now says she left the business and distanced herself from Dad due to the behavior she alleges took place. (She made the claims in the Christianity Today piece last summer.)

Board Vote

Christianity Today mentioned in yesterday’s article about RZIM that they had no information on if the board votes regarding the report and statement last month were unanimous.

I don’t know what the overall breakdown was. I just know that it was *not* a unanimous decision.