HANK HANEGRAAFF AND MY CONFUSION

This issue is an emotional one for me.  I became a Christian during an episode of Star Trek at the age of 17. This rather unorthodox conversion was followed by a period of intensive reading as well as active involvement in excellent churches. I learned about how to share my faith, the history of the faith, basic apologetics, missions, quiet times, etc. I actively participated in Bible studies. Due to my interest in history, I became well versed on the issues of the Reformation and the church in the Middle Ages. My former pastor, Pete Briscoe, asked me to teach a course on the Reformation while I was a member of his church.

During that time, I invited a well-respected theologian, Dr. Daniel Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary, to address our class on Bible translations.  He was on the translation team for the ESV Bible. He talked about the importance of the early manuscripts that are used in Biblical translation and how, as earlier transcripts are discovered, some changes are made to the text. He used the example of the woman caught in adultery. As readers will note, most Bibles now state that this story is not found in the earliest manuscripts. And at that moment, I had a crisis of faith.

I began to question how much of the faith that I professed was based on faulty manuscripts. Some readers will also note that this is the same passage that caused Bart Ehrman to lose his Christian faith. Ehrman is one of the most famous critics of Christianity and is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Unlike Ehrman, however, I believed there were others who had pondered these questions and had answers to my questions. So, I began a journey that led to a deep and abiding faith in Christianity. I vowed to find every contradiction in the Bible and get answers. I was determined to understand how we got our Canon. I read books that criticized Christianity and then sought to find answers.

One night twelve years ago, I turned on the radio and heard a man taking live calls and answering questions about the Bible. He went by the rather dorky name of the Bible Answer Man. But, his answers were far from dorky. He had answers to hard passages, he critiqued the prosperity gospel crowd, and he knew so much about other faiths like Mormonism.

His name is Hank Hanegraaff and he runs an organization called the Christian Research Institute (equip.org). He runs a five day a week radio program, is a published author, and his organization produces a rather heady Christian Research Journal.

What impressed me the most is the proof that he offered for his criticism. For example, if he called Benny Hinn a false prophet, he would play recordings so the listener could hear his exact words. And on just about every program he would say something like, “Don’t believe me, research it for yourself,” and so I did.

But it was Hank’s radio program that intrigued me. Although he often has various pastors, writers, and professors on his program, I particularly love the ones in which he takes cold calls from the listeners.

I podcast Hank Hanegraaff, and the following is a list of issues he discussed in two of the random Question and Answer shows I selected to listen to for this post.

- Should the Apostles Creed include the statement “He descended into hell”?

- What is the difference between Hell and Hades?

- Does Luke 13:11 indicate that a believer can be possessed?

- Why does God allow a child to be born with ambiguous sexual characteristics and is it wrong for the parents to select one sexual identity for the child?

- Does the recently discovered stone tablet called Gabriel’s Revelation disprove Christ’s death and resurrection?

- Is Bart Ehrman correct when he says that, if the Gospel of Judas had been included in the canon, the Holocaust would have been prevented?

- He went through the reasons why a caller should go to church instead of staying home and “listen only to the Holy Spirit”.

- He called one of the prosperity preachers a false prophet when a caller told him that he attended said prosperity preacher’s church.

- He outlined the three different groups that one would find with Seventh Day Adventism.

It became a goal of my life to be able to answer questions as quickly and thoroughly as Hank does. I am far from being there, but I have come a very long way.  Hanegraaff and his organization helped me to get on a very firm footing in my faith. In fact, I have often told various Christian friends that if I can’t find an answer to their questions, then I will treat them to dinner.  This dinner offer does not extend to our readers, but we are happy to take questions and answer them.We have one pending on a passage in Revelation. (We will get to it , Mortal).

Now for the bad news…. Here are the problems with Hanegraaff’s ministry. If I have forgotten any, I know our dear readers who have a gripe with Hank Hanegraaff will let us know.

1. There was an accusation by Walter Martin’s family that Hank Hanegraaff (now to be called by HH for convenience) was not to take over the ministry after Martin’s untimely death of a heart attack at age 60. His family believed that Martin wanted them to run the ministry and have set up a competing web site called Jude 3.

However, there are a number of quotes from Martin himself that seem to be in conflict with their account. “Hank Hanegraaff personifies the next phase of development for CRI and is uniquely equipped through his dynamic leadership abilities, knowledge of God’s Word, and teaching ability to make sound, biblical apologetics a simple yet effective tool in the hands of the laity. His success as a businessman, strategic planner, author, and speaker have equipped him to lead the ministry of the Christian Research Institute aggressively into the future and to build on the work that I by God’s grace began.” This quote may be found online in an ASCII text file version of a CRI Newsletter.

I don’t know what the truth is with regard to this issue, but the last quote certainly casts some doubt on the claims of Walter Martin’s family.

2. There have been accusations of financial mismanagement. For a period of time around 2003, CRI lost the approval of the ECFA. During this time it appears that a number of employees confronted HH with their concerns of financial mismanagement. Here is what I have been able to find about this issue. There have been accusations of extreme salaries on some sites in excess of $750,000. However, most documentation puts the salary amounts lower. There is a good blog post from 2005 at Free Good News. Please read the entire article and comments. I have included a relevant comment.

According to the tax return, he is paid $280K per year (almost twice what I would call reasonable). Hank is an ordained minister by Calvary Chapel (a very fine organization), and he receives a minister’s “housing allowance” by CRI.

http://freegoodnews.blogspot.com/2005/01/greed-case-study-in-bad-cri.html

Ministry Watch includes some relevant data. They give the organization, as it stands now, a “B”. These issues came to light in 2003.

“The most recent controversy to trouble CRI is the finding of the ECFA. Recent questions about spending habits at the Christian Research Institute (CRI) by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) came about as a result of several employees of the California-based ministry contacting the ECFA in late 2002 and news stories that followed. 

Ultimately, by mid-2003, the ECFA announced that it had discovered that CRI had “breached” three of ECFA’s Seven Standards of Responsible Stewardship – #2 (Board Governance), #4 (Use of Resources) and #6 (Conflicts of Interest)”.

http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/christian-research-institute.aspx

In a “Christianity Today article published in July, 2003, correspondent Marshall Allen reported the particular concerns of the individual who instigated the investigation included the following: (1) $66,000 of CRI money went to the purchase of a blue Lexus for Hanegraaff’s use; (2) receipts showing that thousands of dollars of CRI money went towards Hanegraaff’s and his wife Kathy’s personal expenses; (3) Hanegraaff’s rapidly escalating salary ($250,000+ in 2001 at an increase of 26.5% over the previous year). The ECFA report does not address the issue of Hanegraaff’s salary, but it does state that CRI has provided “significant reimbursement” for the suspect expenditures.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/008/6.19.html

http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/christian-research-institute.aspx

Shortly thereafter, CRI made necessary changes and once again received the approval of the ECFA.  I sent a letter to CRI asking them to be fiscally accountable and find ways to show the organization was moving in the right fiscal direction.

In 2005, CRI moved to Charlotte, North Carolina, in order to reduce ministry expenses and to exercise prudence in managing CRI.

3. HH has no formal training in theology or philosophy.

http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/christian-research-institute.aspx

This is absolutely true. I wish that Hanegraaff had subjected himself to the rigorous training of seminary or any other higher learning degree. This would have added reams to his credibility. He does encourage people to become educated and talks frequently about his children and their education, so he is not opposed to formal education.

4. HH has been accused of plagiarizing two of his books. Here is a YouTube video link that makes this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iudLjD8aKxs&feature=related

This is a difficult one to assess since the full information has not been tested in an objective arena such as court.

5. Shortly before leaving California, CRI made a fundraising appeal claiming that the United States Postal Service had apparently not delivered or lost mail that was intended for CRI. A former employee criticized his for this.

“Hanegraaff filed a defamation suit against a longtime critic William Alnor for statements made in a fundraising letter alleging mail fraud. The lawsuit was thrown out, the court finding that Hanegraaff did not prove “actual malice.”

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/515-hank-hanegraaff-lawsuit-thrown-out-of-court

This one is quite confusing. Surely those who sent checks would know if their checks had been cashed, and therefore, would know if the mail was lost or not.  At Alnor’s site, he alleges that HH is under investigation but other sources claim that the U.S. Postal Service has closed the case. So, did HH lie about lost mail? There is no proof that he did. Alnor claimed that there was something “fishy” about all of this and HH sued him and lost. But, he lost on grounds on not being able to prove malice. Therefore, the lawsuit dismissal does not prove anything about the actual mail debacle. So, I wish he hadn’t sued Alnor but beyond that, the jury is out.

6. There are allegations that HH believes that The Local Church is not a cult. Here is a link to the full explanation of CRI’s position. The major criticism comes from the Apologetics Index. I still have not had time to digest all of this information since I just discovered it last evening. However, HH is not known for equivocation when he believes an organization is anti-Scriptural. In fact, many Pentecostals and charismatics criticize him for his harsh condemnation of excesses in their movements. I would suggest that readers read both sides of this issue.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/375-hank-hanegraaff-support-the-local-church

http://www.equip.org/articles/local-church-wins-some-allies-among-former-critics

7. I contacted CRI today and asked them to respond to the above allegations, primarily the financial concerns. The gentleman I spoke was engaging and understanding and carefully wrote down my questions and contact information. He said, “What you are asking for sound reasonable.” Let’s see if I get a response. If, and when I do, I will publish the response in its entirety.

If there are other areas of concern about CRI that I have not discussed, please let me know. I am happy to address further concerns.

So, where does this leave me? I’ll admit it – straight out – I am biased. CRI changed me as a Christian. When people tell me that I sound as if I know a lot about the faith, I always give HH the credit. As I have pondered this for the past week, I have struggled. There is a doctor whom I know. He is the very best in his surgical specialty. Famous people come from all over the world for his expertise. But, he has had problems in his personal life, and some would even say he lives an immoral lifestyle. But, if I needed a particular surgery in which he specializes, I would go to him. However, unlike HH,  he does not profess to be a Christian.

I would urge our readers to go to the CRI web site and ponder the overwhelming amount of information available there. Listen to Hank Hanegraaff’s broadcasts and challenge yourself. Can you answer as well and as quickly as Hank? I once wrote CRI with a question on demons and possession. Six weeks later, I received a three-page response to my question. Some of it was personal and so it took time for the staff member to write the response. Heck, I couldn’t get some of the pastors or secretaries to return phone calls at my last church. Once, after writing a thoughtful e-mail that took me quite awhile to compose, I received a response a few days later stating, “Thank you for your concern.” And this from a church with a plethora of pastors for a relatively modest membership.

To my knowledge, there is nothing at all out there quite like CRI. I wish there were. Then I would have some options. When I heard of Franklin Graham’s salary from two full-time positions, I sent the money I had used to support Samaritan’s Purse to another Christian organization. There is not another organization as extensive as CRI. Also, Franklin Graham is now only receiving one of his salaries in response to the overwhelming criticism. Is this a beginning? So, should I now consider sending money to Graham again?

Even though I am so grateful to CRI, would I really stop listening to HH? I don’t think so. There is a saying that goes like this: “If confusion is the first step to knowledge, then I must be a genius”.  Larry Leissner

That seems to be an appropriate way to end today’s post.  I think we should all ponder Leissner’s brilliant statement.

Comments

HANK HANEGRAAFF AND MY CONFUSION — 40 Comments

  1. I am not a fan of CJ Mahaney or HH but it appears to me that you cut HH a lot more slack than you do CJ. You have hammered others for lack of education but you let HH off so easy. Reread your post “The Growing Scandal of Uneducated Christians”. Reread your comments on Ken Ham. Why not apply the same critical eye to HH? Where is his MDiv or PhD? Does he have a degree? What qualifies him as an apologist? Does he have even the small amount of training that SG PC students receive? Does he have the college background of Ham?
    Here’s the bottom line – you like Hannegraf so you give him a pass, making light of the marks against him. If you admit that, fine; if you don’t your lack of objectivity with HH dilutes the comments you make about other people and ministries. You can’t have it both ways.

  2. Who Cares?

    I don’t think I made light of the marks against him. I admitted my bias. I said I was confused and that I struggle. Please reread all of what I wrote, especially the ending quote.

    CJ Mahaney has set up a ministry replete with accusations of abuse and this is well documented on the web. There are many alternatives to his “family of churches” and it is easy to join another church. As far as I can see, HH is not been accused of abusing scores of people.

    Ken Ham has done more to hurt the cause of Christ amongst scientists and much of Europe than many. On this account I have held back for many years, barely. However, I am now in a situation where I, along with others, feel that it is important to highlight his angry and disagreeable nature along with the exceedingly poor science present on his web site. And, for YE types, there are other choices for information than his site. As far as I can see, HH has not presented consistently poor theology on his site.

    Finally, your name says it all, who cares? Your response does not acknowledge my stated struggle in this area. But, perhaps God has “providentially” put you in a position where your feel “right” to share what you really think of me via your name. Who cares? I do. I am trying to deal honestly with my feelings and concerns. And, as a Christian you should care and I hope you do.

  3. Ladies –

    Still waiting for that dedication you promised over at Survivors.

    Who Cares, you are right. Dee doesn’t answer any of your questions. Signed statements from CRI employees carry less weight than anonymous critics of SGM. HH’s lack of education carries less weight than SG pastoral training or Ken Ham’s schooling. HH’s lavish life style and nepotism gets less of a look than Mahaney’s charitable giving. A website by the family of the CRI founder has less weight than the sites that criticize SG. And on and on.

    Ladies, keep your yellow background. It symbolizes and warns of the yellow, biased views you dish out. I’m confident that you will remaining intentionally and pleasantly confused.

    XOXOXO

  4. Info
    We like “ladies” far better than “witches.” Thank you for your thoughtful comments and concerns. May God bless your day.

  5. Who Cares? and Info

    You are partially right. And by partially I mean only a small fraction. You see the sad fact of life is we are ALL “biased”. Biased based on our experiences and what we have learned. You could never say a human being is unbiased- that simply does not exist.

    I think the point Dee was trying to make is that some people admit to knowing their limits and biasness (that’s not a word but I’m gonna roll with it) and openly share that with others. They “know/think” they are right but in the end it’s up to you to follow them. People such as HH might be totally wrong on some accounts but as Dee said he tells people to go research it themselves.

    What does Mahaney do?

    “If you head out those back doors and to the left you can see for sale some of the books I used in today’s sermon where you can reference all my points, and while I’m at it might I suggest the books from a fellow, well-known, spiritual sound, person friend of mine…”

    See the difference?

    And as I have told a few people before, for me in the end when I stand/kneel before God and He looks at me and tell me how flat out wrong I was, that the Earth was indeed 6,000 years old or something, I can look up and say without a doubt:

    “But I tried. I didn’t just sit in class and read all the right books. I wasn’t a “dumb sheep”. I used the resources you gave me to the best of my knowledge to understand.”

    Because honestly, God’s opinion matters more to me than yours or whoever says that such people are biased.

    So Dee and Deb- please embraced being biased. But also embrace what you’ve done ALL ALONG and that it admitting to your faults and admitting to being human. And if they fault you for that- I’m terribly sorry.

  6. Back in the mid 1980’s I listened often to Walter Martin on the local radio station regularly. He even came to the church I attended and I was able to ask him a question about Islam. I remember him talking about the woman caught in adultry and many other biblical issues and cult themes. He had a perspective on when life begins that I did not share. The fact that I did not agree with him on this did not keep me from learning about the many other things he taught.
    Regaurding HH and CJ. God uses falable and imperfect people to accomplish his purposes in ways I often do not understand. Maybe the best we can do is ask God to show us who he would have us learn from through prayer and a biblical “checks and balances”.
    So many times folks in leadership are a mixed bag when it comes to overall living vs message. Their actions sometimes do not seem to go with the message they preach. Sometimes the methods they use are suspect. This is where you come in.
    I appreaciate the effort you gals put in to raise questions on various topics, movements and people. You have helped me to see a few things from a different perspective. Certainly we would not agree on all things but that is Ok.

  7. Doug said: God uses falable and imperfect people to accomplish his purposes in ways I often do not understand. Maybe the best we can do is ask God to show us who he would have us learn from through prayer and a biblical “checks and balances”.

    Amen to that. We should embrace what is true, regardless of the imperfections of the human messenger, and we should reject what is false, regardless of our admiration for the messenger. The question isn’t so much whether Hank is a good guy or CJ is a bad guy, it is whether what they teach is true, even when they aren’t always living the truth. Not that a person’s actions don’t matter, but we need to remember that God’s Word is our standard for measuring the truth of what someone teaches, not how well the teacher measures up to the truth. There are no perfect men (or women), so let’s exalt the truth that is told rather than whoever is (or isn’t) telling it.

  8. Junkster,

    You are so right! Despite our imperfections, Dee and I are trying to do just that in this forum.

    We always appreciate your insightful comments.

  9. Doug
    Thanks for your feedback. We needed a balanced perspective after getting hammered. I appreciate it.

  10. Lise
    That is why we are willing this blog to you. Thanks for getting it. We needed your feedback today!

  11. “Amen to that. We should embrace what is true, regardless of the imperfections of the human messenger, and we should reject what is false, regardless of our admiration for the messenger”

    And we can only know what is false by seeking the Word alone with the help of the Holy Spirt. We still have to test everthing taught by another human. It is when we go to leaders only for interpretation that that we fail to know our Lord intimately.

  12. Amen, at least its a start. Hank is slick , and if you listen to his smooth voice without knowing his past, he’d swept you off your feet, oh yes he has, (you sound like a recovering victim – like God will be his judge)

    If only his victims were able to talk, with all those lawyers and fees he has spent , he’s done a good job silencing his critics, that’s why he had to get rid of the Staff in CA and move to NC, new people and less expensive.

    Sounds like the Confessions of a confused sheep:
    “We should embrace what is true, regardless of the imperfections of the human messenger, and we should reject what is false, regardless of our admiration for the messenger”

    Our prayers be with you as you deal with this painful situation…

  13. Dee,

    I listened to HH for a number of years in the early 90s, and liked what I heard. Then God met me in a personal revival, which I was not seeking but desperately need. This revival introduced me to a personal experience of God that I’d never been told was possible.

    I was very surprised, therefore, to hear HH viciously attack the 90s renewal, in radio shows broadcast at the time, and in his “Counterfeit Revival” book and tape series. In these HH smeared the ministries and motives of renewal-associated pastors and leaders, often using out-of-context statements or guilt-by-association charges to call the entire ministries of leaders like John Wimber into question. (The problems with “Counterfeit Revival” were evaluated by James Beverley in his 1997 booklet, “Revival Wars: A Critique of ‘Counterfeit Revival,'” if you’re interested.)

    I think the moment I realized HH had an agenda, rather than simple seeking of the truth about that renewal, came during a mid-90s radio broadcast in which his guest was Tom Stipe, pastor of a Denver Calvary Chapel. Stipe was criticizing the renewal by referring to the lyrics of David Ruis’ song, “Sweet Wind,” which was an early “anthem” of the renewal. Stipe quoted the lines,

    There’s a wind a-blowin’, all across the land
    A fragrant breeze of Heaven
    Blowin’ once again
    Don’t know where it comes from
    Don’t know where it goes
    But let it blow over me
    Oh, sweet wind, come and blow over me

    Stipe then said, in so many words, “see, they don’t even know where this wind comes from — they don’t know what they’re worshiping.”

    HH remained TOTALLY SILENT — he DIDN’T say to Tom Stipe, “Well, Tom, don’t you see that David Ruis is referring to John’s Gospel, chapter three, verse eight, in which Jesus tells Nicodemus, ‘The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.'”

    I’m not denying that the 90s renewal had problems and errors. However, HH had obviously made up his mind that the renewal was not of God, and wasn’t going to take any opportunity to defend anything about it — even though in this case it meant removing his “BIBLE ANSWER MAN” hat to ignore Tom Stipe’s mocking the scriptural basis of Ruis’ song lyric.

    I’m not going to return the favor, and trash HH’s entire ministry, because I’m sure he’s done many good things over the years. However, I’m convinced that HH was massively wrong in his evaluation of the SOURCE of the 90s revival, and his close-minded attitude made me question what other truthful things he might be stubbornly resisting or denying.

  14. Hello,

    I read your post with a lot of interest. I would encourage you folks to pick up a copy of my book, Hard Questions for the Bible Answer Man. If you go to the ministry website that is mentioned on this post, you can click on the book cover on the homepage and read about some of the things that are covered in the book. I would suggest reading carefully the letter by Mike Stephens in chapter three. He was the media director, hired by Hank, wand he talks about teaching Hank a technique that would help him read material smoothly on the radio. Mike explains how Hanegraaff altered this technique to sound, on the radio, as if he was pulling from memory, material that Hank was actually reading from a page. Stephens some him use this “memory” method time and time again. This partially explains how you could truly believe that he had answers for just about any question that came up.

    Also perhaps it would help you understand the plagiarism charges that are swirling around HH if you read the chapter on his plagiarism of D James Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosion book. The transcript, in which I interviewed Kennedy back in 2001 about his concerns for HH, are featured in that chapter. By the way the whole ten minute audio interview is featured at my hardqs.com. You can listen to it free.

    If you want to dialogue after you read the book, you can contact me through the focusonthefaulty site,go to the contact portion of the site on how best to go about that.

    You folks have a good week.

  15. Jay
    I will take you up on your offer and will look at all your resources.

    Help me with one thing. equip.org has a wealth of information that I can’t find anywhere else. Thoughts?

  16. Having a great deal of very good material for free or for sale says nothing about a ministry’s president’s moral turpitude or lack there of. I suppose even the devil would hand out free chicken dinners if it served his purpose. So the fact that CRI has great ministry material does not exonerate Hank’s ethically challenged personality. But yes they do have a lot of good stuff.

  17. Hi Jay

    Please don’t get me wrong. I agree, just because you do something well, doesn’t mean you can get away with sinning.If you read this blog, you will see us chastising many a decent “leader”.

    The reason for my question is this. Equip.org is the singular, most extensive resource for difficult Bible questions, other religions, prosperity gospel stuff, etc that I can find and I am very good at tracking down resources.

    This is the basis for my tension. If these accusations are true, and there are enough to be deeply concerned, what do I do in terms of using the resources? If HH is a jerk, but produces excellent work, should I use that work to help me answer questions?

    I am a bit of a theological nerd and I am always asking hard questions. On many occasions, I find the most well-worded answers, most well-documened analysis for this layperson at this site. This past year, when I am doing research, I first go to as many sources outside of HH as I can. But all too often, the most clear answer is found there.

    Even if HH is getting help for his answers on air, I have challenged myself to see if I can answer the questions myself. It has caused me to research more, think more quickly, and many folks have said that I seem to know so much. I wish I could say that it was purely me, reading through the Bible with no outside help. But, that would be a lie. I need as much help as I can get.

    So, I have a dilemma. Use the stuff and acknowledge that the guy may be flawed or not use it and not get the answers in as much depth as I would want.The Bible seems to indicate that those who are not against us can be useful. I am flummoxed, suffice to say.

    See, if this were a church, there are many other fine churches out there and I have a choice. But, this organization offers me comprehensive information in one spot.

    However, I have absolutely no qualms in reading and presenting your information on this site. I actually called them a couple of months ago with some questions and have received no answers.TWW will right anything that is well-documneted, including HH.

    In fact, it you have some good evidence and would like to present it here, we would be happy to do so as long as it is not unethical, immoral or fattening ( a direct steal from Dr. Laura). I would love to talk with you in-depth. If you feel comfortable, please contact me at dee@thewartburgwatch.com

    I was concerned that a few folks thought I was giving HH a pass. I did try to post everything that I knew to be at least reliable. I believe in truth, even if the truth contradicts me or my actions.

    I am so glad you commented and was pleased with your thoughtful approach to the post. Hope to talk with you soon. I am currently out of town and will be back to a more normal schedule within a week.
    Blessings

  18. Thank you for your reference. I never like it when people remove videos. The claim that people will get confused shows an amazing disdain for the common Christian to be able to sift through nonsense. Isn’t that what the Holy Spirit is all about?

  19. BruinEric

    Thank you for your reference to that site. It looks interesting and I look forward to reading more.

  20. The quote your blog has choosen to use, seemly attributed to Walter Martin, lauding HH as the one who will “aggresively lead CRI” into the future was written by someone else after the death of Martin. It was used in an interview that Ron Rhodes did with HH after the CRI Newsletter “Memorial” issue of 1989. This quote was first seen in the fall newsletter of 1989, several months after Martin’s death. Speak with CRI and ask them to authenticate this quote as coming directly from Martin, perhaps a letter or a recorded message. Since there is a great deal of evidence that this quote you use came after the death of the founder of CRI and not before. The onus is on HH to show that this is not another famous Hanegraaffesque ruse to make it appear that his presidency was a well thoughtout changing of the guard and not a “hostile takeover”, of a great ministry, as I make clear in my book. Here is a question: My book material has been known to HH since March 2008 and he has not sued me yet. However, it was only a matter of a couple of months before HH sued my friend, Bill Alnor, in 2005 in the California court system (BTW, HH lost). Why is that?

  21. Jay
    It appears they have a different perspective on HH and CRI and the Martins family. I am trying to understand all sides and am willing to post all sides of this issue. I do not wish to discount anyone. Can you tell me why there are such differing views?

  22. I truly find the dialogue between Dee and Jay intriguing. I have not read Jay’s book yet but will wait and see what response comes from Mr. Hanegraff or the CRI on the information that Jay is projecting in his book, if it ever comes. I find it already interesting that the Martin’s family who seem to be at the basis of this conspiracy have differing opinions. I am sure if we dug deep enough on each one’s personal life including Jay’s we may find some interesting problems. We are all very human, even us who are Christian’s and some time things creep into our lives which do not paint a flattering picture. CRI and Hank’s ministry have answered more questions and forced me into looking into scripture more diligently to find correct biblical teaching. Until the truth being taught from CRI ministry changes (I can line up with scripture) I will struggle to listen to the many who will throw rocks and continue to try and discount CRI or Hank Hanegraff. Jay’s comment “I suppose that even the devil would hand out free chicken dinner’s if it served his purpose” really questions where he is coming from. His agenda is starting to look personal in discounting Hank. Hank may have made some errors but using the “devil” in reference to Hank’s motive is totally off base. The devil would not be clarifing the false teaching and bringing hope to hundreds of thousands who are caught up with false teachers, cults and false biblical teaching. The devil is one who causes confusion. Let’s hope Jay’s motives are sincere and accurate.

  23. Mac

    I am with you. The information on HH’s site is incredible. Years ago, when faced with a crisis of faith, it was CRI that answered all of my questions and then some.I have been to many other sites and none of them have near the information found there.

    I still cannot seem to get a straightforward answer to my query about such differing sides on the issues. I am sincere in my wish to write about the truth and am willing to give everyone a voice. But, I stand by my assessment that CRI is the singular most comprehensive Christian apologetics organization out there.

    However, I do not have rose colored glasses as my post indicates. There is no question that bad blood exists. Why? I am still a bit stymied.

    Thanks for your comment.

  24. Hi Dee,

    Thanks for visiting our website http://www.waltermartinjude3.com
    As Hank Hanegraaff has already stated publicly, CRI will be responding to the false accusations just as CRI responded to the non-stop false accusations made against my father, Dr. Martin, during his lifetime. It is not surprising the accusations against both men are similiar given the fact God positioned both to lead this powerful and unique ministry. As Proverbs 16:9 reminds us, “In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.”

    It is tragic that most of Hank’s faithful accusers are professing Christians. Please pray for CRI. Please pray for the Martin family who has filed an unbiblical and unlawful lawsuit against CRI, and against us for posting my father speaking of his leadership plans six months prior to his death.

    The Lord bless you,

    In His Service,

    Cindee Martin Morgan
    http://www.waltermartinjude3.com

  25. Cindee

    I would love to have you write a defense of HH on this site or even the history of your father and the attacks he endured.. I offered the same to the others who have not taken me up on this. I am a fan of the BAM show and I still contribute each month because of the resources and the Biblical teaching. I know nothing about the attacks on your father in his lifetime. I read his book and loved it. Please contact me at dee@thewartburgwatch.com.

  26. Prayer Request:

    I am grieved to share that the lawsuit filed by my step-Mom, Darlene Martin, against us and CRI has been recently served. Please pray for CRI, Hank Hanegraaff and for us. Also, please pray Darlene and my sister Jill Martin Rische(her agent), will heed I Corinthians 6:1-8. It is wrong they have repeatedly and publicly filed copyright infringement claims against us for posting brief clips of my father, Walter Martin. It is biblically wrong they seek our harm in court over this matter. It is also wrong Darlene is now adding the charge of “libel” because we have responded to these claims against us by speaking the truth and excercising our right of free speech. Please encourage Darlene/Jill to obey the Lord. Please also find us on YT and Facebook. Please pray that truth will triumph for the battle IS the Lord’s. God bless.

    In His Service,

    Cindee Martin Morgan
    http://www.WalterMartinJude3.com

  27. “Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? …And if the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, matters of this life? If then you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is on among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren.” I Cor. 6:1-8

  28. Cindee,

    Thanks for the update. I will keep this matter in my prayers. May God’s truth pervail.

  29. Hi Dee,

    Just want to make you aware of Elliot Miller’s new book, “Breaking The Silence…” It is CRI’s response to the ongoing false accusations made against Hank Hanegraaff and CRI. Rick and I have participated in this response. Elliot’s book is available, free of charge, on our http://www.WalterMartinJude3.com website. The Lord bless you.

    In His Service,

    Cindee Martin Morgan

  30. Dee,
    Gullible, is what I describe those who fell for Hanegraaff’s work. Hanegraaf’s work essentially is about bringing railing accusations against Christian leaders -and i’m not saying these leaders he spoke of are all correct in their theology or, are they beyond criticism.

    The scripture teaches; Galatians 6:
    1.Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

    2.Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

    The gist of anything we do concerning any bro/sis in the Lord who has a fault, whatever it may be is to restore them. Not to try them in the arena of public life, find them guilty and throw them under the bus. Relegating them to heretic status and other names of demise.

    Is this what Hanegraaff calls being your brother’s keeper? I guess Hansgraaff assuage himself of these leaders being true Christians hence not a brother or sister in the Lord.

    I’m black, I support James Kennedy’s ministry financially before his passing, and I’m not of his denomination. I do not agree with some of the ways they conduct themselves in the political arena, and I disagree with some of his theology. So why do I support him?

    The bottom line is he his a believer, a follower of Christ; that is first and foremost. Who am I to question is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has not deny, just because I see error in his teachings and practices?

    These men Hanegraaff denigrates none of them has denied the Lord; even the ones that divorced their wives for unscrptural reasons. (by the way divorce is not the unpardonable sin, nevertheless it stymied ones credibility in the eyes of the people, so it should be avoided at all cost).

    I see nothing wrong of a leader questioning another leaders excesses, indiscretions, theology etc. but to classify one has an heretic, a non-believer because of scriptural error is above and beyond the call of duty.

    Scriptural perrogative toward the fallen or those taken in a fault is to restore; not to condemn and destroy.

  31. “I see nothing wrong of a leader questioning another leaders excesses, indiscretions, theology etc. but to classify one has an heretic, a non-believer because of scriptural error is above and beyond the call of duty.”

    I say scriptural error to mean basic christian doctrines; not error in who is our savior and the only savior, what he died for, that he’s resurrected and seated on the right of the father and that he’s coming back again. No room for error with these.

    These men and women Hanegraaff malign holds to the foundation of the Christian faith, with the exception of one I know of and that is Carlton Pearson.

    Pearson with his “gospel of Inclusion” believes everybody is already forgiven thereby nobody goes to hell irrespective of how one lives, including other religions. And on top of that he believes satan can be saved if he repents. This of-course is heresy, and he has built a ministry around this premise.

    I would consider Carlton a heretic for basing this whole idea of his on a dream or vision he had, and not allowing his peers in ministry to adequately critique his premise before he went public with it.

    His peers, a number of them in leadership agreed together and had already declared him a heretic and rightfully so. It wasn’t one man and his friend finding fault and then call Carlton a Heretic.

  32. Israel
    Thank you for your thoughtful words. Here is where I stand. I believe that many of today’s prosperity preachers are promoting a Jesus that doesn’t exist. In fact, when people tell me that they follow Jesus, I often ask them, “Which Jesus? Please tell me about him.” When Joel Osteen proclaims that Mormons are Christians, I realize that he doesn’t understand the essential Gospel. Because of this, I believe that Osteen has gone off reservation.

    There is a big difference when one talks about politcal involvement, Reformed theology, SBC theology, baptism, eschatology. here are differences within these groups in which we can agree to disagree because the Bible is no patently clear on some of these subjects.

    But when people like Benny HInn prophecy the death of Castro in the early part of the 2000s and it does not happen, he is , by definition, a false prophet. When he states that Jesus will be physically appearing with him on the stage in Kenya and He doesn’t, Hinn is a false prophet.

    The Bible states that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing and that we are to identify them. HH is doing that. I would love to understand which people you have in mind when you condemn his pronouncements. It is much easier to speak specifically than in generalities.

  33. Israel

    Could you please list the names of the guys he has called heretics so I can better respond?