Probably: and in a history of apologetics, is that a good idea? Seems to me that honest history looks at the charlatan too; and without minimizing these failures admits that Zacharias (and others who were seriously morally compromised) brought people to Christ by the thousands. What’s up with that? And how does that fit with the grand sweep of what God is up to? Don’t have an answer, but 2nd editions with an entire chapter redacted seem disingenuous.
I'm puzzled by the inclusion of Zacharias in this textbook. While I realize the article was written just before Zacharias's death and subsequent revelations, there certainly were red flags long before that: false credentials, NDA and payoff etc. Even if that's just 'hindsight is 20-20', it seems it would have been wise to at least include a footnote or publisher's comment in the introduction before distribution. The Zacharias article leaves a bad aftertaste that, in some ways, makes me a bit cynical about all the other modern apologists who certainly are not treated with the same clear-eyed balanced view as, for instance, a Dorothy L. Sayers.
Probably: and in a history of apologetics, is that a good idea? Seems to me that honest history looks at the charlatan too; and without minimizing these failures admits that Zacharias (and others who were seriously morally compromised) brought people to Christ by the thousands. What’s up with that? And how does that fit with the grand sweep of what God is up to? Don’t have an answer, but 2nd editions with an entire chapter redacted seem disingenuous.
I'm puzzled by the inclusion of Zacharias in this textbook. While I realize the article was written just before Zacharias's death and subsequent revelations, there certainly were red flags long before that: false credentials, NDA and payoff etc. Even if that's just 'hindsight is 20-20', it seems it would have been wise to at least include a footnote or publisher's comment in the introduction before distribution. The Zacharias article leaves a bad aftertaste that, in some ways, makes me a bit cynical about all the other modern apologists who certainly are not treated with the same clear-eyed balanced view as, for instance, a Dorothy L. Sayers.
Kim, yes, good question, I think the book was developed before the RZ revelation. I'm fairly certain a second edition will omit any reference to him.
This is exciting. I will definitely get a copy and it will be an added and major source for my extended catechism classes.