Hendrik (Hank) H. Hanegraaff - A Crook and A Con Artist?

wise seeker

Hendrik (Hank) H. Hanegraaff
and the Christian Research Institute (CRI)

On the surface most leaders of Christian ministries in America portray themselves as wonderful unique men of God who have all the answers to life’s problems. But when you did down into their personal lives they are nothing but thieves and hypocrites. And Hendrik (Hank) H. Hanegraaff is no different.

The Christian Research Institute (CRI), is a Christian apologetics and counter-cult organization founded in 1960 by Dr. Walter Martin (1928 - 1989).

Billed as the ''largest and oldest cult apologetics and evangelism organization'' in the world, CRI publishes a high-quality magazine (Christian Research Journal) and produces a daily radio program (Bible Answerman). The program is broadcast by more than 100 radio stations in the US and Canada, as well as live via the Internet.

Like any organization involved in anticult or countercult CRI frequently comes under attack from the groups, movements, and individuals whose beliefs and actions it addresses. But unlike most other discernment ministries, CRI has, over the past decade or so, been involved in several ''in-house'' conflicts and controversies.

Controversies

After the death of Dr. Walter Martin (June 26, 1989), Hank Hanegraaff became president of the Christian Research Institute. Many feel Mr. Hanegraaff was (and is) not the right man for the job.

Under Hanegraaff's leadership, the staff of the Christian Research Institute was decimated. Over 100 workers left or were fired - among them many established, respected researchers, apologists and cult experts, including Paul Carden, and Craig Hawkins, and Ron Rhodes.

Not every one who left did so because of disagreement or other conflict. However, in 1994, some 35 ex-CRI employees formed the Group for CRI Accountability. Citing Hanegraaff's lack of theological training, poor interpersonal relationship skills, questions regarding his business dealings, and a number of ethical issues, they demanded his resignation.

In 1997, Christianity Today published and article titled, "When Christians Fight Christians" A case study mentioned in the item is widely recognized as referring to the situation that, over the years, developed at CRI. Tim Stafford's article offers sound suggestions on how to deal with these type of situations, but to-date these controversies still remain unresolved.

Objections to Hanegraaff's Leadership

In April, 2000, the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orange County's ''Bible Answer Man''--whose radio show, heard on 125 stations nationwide, has long been a thorn in the flesh of televangelists--is facing a new battle, criticism from within his nonprofit organization.

Relatives of the late Walter Martin, founder of the Rancho Santa Margarita-based Christian Research Institute, contend that Hank Hanegraaff has departed from the organization's mission of debunking unusual religious claims. They are demanding his resignation.

Hanegraaff, 50, was Martin's handpicked successor when the founder retired in 1979. But in recent years, Martin family members have expressed concern about Hanegraaff's leadership.

After a public rift with Hanegraaff in 1996, Darlene Martin, widow of Walter Martin, resigned from the institute's board. Last October, the family sent Hanegraaff a letter detailing objections to his leadership.

''He's not the man we believed him to be,'' said Jill Martin Rische, Martin's eldest daughter and executor of his estate. ''We just want someone in charge who will continue the clear vision my father had for CRI.''

That vision, to be a leading think tank with a focus on evangelizing, has floundered, according to Rische, 42, who lives in St. Paul, Minn.

Instead, she claims, Hanegraaff has used the nonprofit CRI as a platform to sell his books and promote his two for-profit organizations. She also said Hanegraaff hasn't returned some of her father's personal belongings and claims he has mismanaged personnel at CRI.

Casting Stones: Questions About Radio's 'Bible Answer Man' Are Coming From Within, Los Angeles Times, Apr. 15, 2000

Unfortunately, the article was poorly-researched and rife with inaccuracies. In a letter to the Editor, Darlene Martin, Walter Martin's widow, writes:

* After reading your article ''Casting Stones'' (April 15), I am writing to clarify several issues.

First, my husband, Walter Martin, never ''handpicked'' anyone to succeed him at Christian Research Institute and ''The Bible Answer Man'' radio program.

This claim was handed to me by someone I thought I could trust as I approached the lectern at my husband's memorial service.

I read it for the first time--aloud--while standing in front of 1,500 people. It took me completely by surprise and put me in a very awkward position. I wish to take this opportunity now to apologize for allowing this statement to stand for so many years.

At the time of my husband's death, I believed Hank Hanegraaff was a man God could mold into a strong Christian leader, one who could play a positive role in leading CRI. I supported him loyally for six years before I came to see he was not the man I believed him to be.

Secondly, one of our family's main objections to Hanegraaff's continued leadership is his mistreatment of fellow Christians. He has left a trail of wounded people behind him since the takeover of CRI in 1989. The testimonies against him include those who are his ''right-hand'' people, people who worked closely with him.

Hanegraaff has called repeatedly for accountability in other Christian leaders and should be held accountable himself.

DARLENE MARTIN

San Juan Capistrano

Darlene Martin, Letter to the Editor, Hanegraaff Wasn't 'Handpicked', Los Angeles Times, Apr. 30, 2000

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h13.html

Hank Hanegraaff Lawsuit*

Christian Research Institute's Hank Hanegraaff had been accused of financial fraud and other criminal activities. A lawsuit was filed ("wrongful termination suit") on March 7, 1994, in Orange County Superior Court, California. The suit alleged that Hendrik (Hank) Hanegraaff, president of CRI, was guilty of numerous ethical lapses, financial theft, tax fraud, and a shocking list of other criminal activities and deceptive practices. The plaintiffs also charged CRI and its president and officers with violation of the federal racketeering act, defined as a criminal conspiracy or a "combination." Some of the details of this suit follow:

1. Brad Sparks, formerly a top researcher on the staff of CRI (from 1992-1994) and assistant to Hanegraaff, stated in the suit that Hanegraaff and his wife, Kathy, had pocketed over $750,000 in bloated "salaries and benefits." This while CRI's rank and file employees "typically earn[ed] poverty-level income of approximately $13,000 per year!"

2. Sparks, who left CRI in "good standing" in 3/94, according to a CRI exit counseling form (included as documentation in papers filed), noted that CRI enjoys non-profit organization status by the IRS, but had fraudulently used its tax exemption privileges to provide tax exempt "cover" for the Hanegraaffs' own personal, profit-making business, Memory Dynamics, Inc., a Georgia corporation, which was conducted out of the couple's home. Sparks' suit charged that the Hanegraaffs had repeatedly bled the ministry's bank accounts to feather their own nests. For example, "defendant Hanegraaffs have sought to conceal their total six figure income by the device of separating out major categories of personal expense such as the estimated $50,000 per year 'pastor's housing allowance.'" [Hanegraaff reportedly lived in a $730,000 house in an exclusive gated community in Orange County, California; CRI's board allegedly loaned Hanegraaff the $100,000 down payment.] The financial details provided by Sparks to support his lawsuit were convincingly documented. Some 14 pages of fine print were contained in the lawsuit.

3. According to Sparks, CRI even leased two automobiles for the Hanegraaffs, almost entirely for their personal use, unrelated to ministry business. One of the most unsavory charges of corruption detailed by Sparks was that CRI deceptively claimed to be a "church" merely to deceive the IRS and state taxing authorities, as well as mislead those who donated money for its activities. (Hanegraaff told Charisma magazine in early 1994 that he considers himself a charismatic and holds ministerial credentials with Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel denomination.)

4. The suit claimed that Hanegraaff was personally paid by Harvest House approximately $500,000 in royalties for the book Christianity in Crisis even though "the book was researched, edited, and partly written by two full-time CRI staff members (including plaintiff Brad Sparks) and several part-time members." Additional allegations stated that Mr. Hanegraaff's own, for profit company, Memory Dynamics, Inc., then turned around and sold huge quantities of that same book to CRI for a handsome gain for Hanegraaff.

5. The court suit further alleged that the Hanegraaffs "have used full-time CRI employees to support and conduct the Memory Dynamics business, including mailings and manning of sales booths." The Hanegraaffs were also said to have used CRI vehicles to transport Memory Dynamics' personnel and materials. When CRI's shipping department supervisor, Mary Cook, protested, she was fired on 7/6/93. Sparks also alleged Hanegraaff used CRI's confidential donor mailing list for his own private business, and that CRI lied to donors by continuing to promise that their names and other personal information remained confidential.

6. Craig Nelson, CRI's Director of Broadcast Media, "was fired in retaliation" for making complaints against Mr. Hanegraaff, specifically relating to Hanegraaff's use of free radio advertising for his personal gain on CRI's Bible Answerman program. The suit also named many of the employees and staffers said to have been "wrongfully terminated" because they challenged Hanegraaff's unethical conduct. They included former research director Dan Schlesinger (who reportedly accused Mr. Hanegraaff of "mixing private business with CRI ministry"), Jerry Kissler, Mark Hoover, Craig Hawkins, Michael Buesing, Perry Robinson, Dennis Green (former marketing director), and Anthony Horpel (former seminar director). The court pleading also said that Rob Bowman, a former CRI senior researcher, was terminated after "he refused to let Mr. Hanegraaff plagiarize Bowman's work to publish two books under Hanegraaff's name."

7. The lies and deceit alleged in the suit were of monumental proportions, considering the fact that CRI is a section 501C(3), tax-exempt, non-profit "church" and ministry, which was at the time of the alleged infractions a member of the National Religious Broadcasters' Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA). ECFA members are required to maintain a high ethical standard of conduct.

8. To avoid the strict financial ethical standards of the ECFA (specifically the conflict of interest clause -- see #4 above), CRI resigned from the organization. The suit contended that CRI then lied to its donors and radio listeners by claiming that it was still a member of the industry group. CRI was also said to have continued its use of the ECFA's seal of approval on its catalogs, order forms, and other materials to solicit contributions.

9. Other serious charges leveled in the lawsuit included assertions of "racketeering." One violation claimed was that the organization "solicited and misappropriated charitable contributions across state lines and international boundaries." Mail fraud and wire fraud were said to be involved, including the illegal interception and seizure of fax telephone communications intended for others.

10. It was also alleged that Mr. Hanegraaff misled CRI donors into contributing money which may have ended up in the coffers of Hanegraaff's profit-making company. Also, the court suit claimed that Mr. Hanegraaff's own wife, Kathy Hanegraaff, was paid a generous salary by the ministry as a full-time "CRI Director of Marketing" when, in fact, her job primarily was "a cover for conduct of personal business ..."

Could the long list of crimes and dishonest conduct alleged by Brad Sparks be corroborated by others? A 6/6/94 letter from John Wanvig (a Christian attorney) to Hanegraaff was signed by 24 former staff members. The letter also asked Hanegraaff to meet with them. Hanegraaff refused to meet and, instead, counter-sued Sparks for libel. In addition, the Group for CRI Accountability was organized in 1994 and included some 35 former CRI staff members who publicly demanded Hanegraaff's resignation. They said that Hanegraaff did not have the theological training, the communication skills, nor the ethical standards to lead CRI. The suit against Hanegraaff was scheduled for trial in July 1995, but was "settled"

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cri/law.htm

Hank Hanegraaff and the “Christian Research Institute”
by Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier: Penpoints
Monday, July 23, 2001

Hank Hanegraaff is president of the Christian Research Institute, an organization located in southern California that specializes in reviewing the major doctrines of various “cults” that profess an identity with “Christianity.” Hanegraaff is the host of a radio program, called The Bible Answer Man. The program is broadcast daily throughout the United States and Canada.

Currently, however, the “Answer Man” is under pressure for some “answers” relative to his own ethics. And this is not the first time the gentleman has been in legal trouble. See: CRI - Hank Hanegraaff Lawsuit.

Dr. James Kennedy is “Pastor” for the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Kennedy is widely known for his own radio and television ministry, during which he enunciates strong positions relative to certain moral and social issues. For example, he vigorously opposes abortion, and he courageously exposes the fallacies of the theory of evolution.

For some years Kennedy and Hanegraaff were associates and close friends. It seems that Kennedy was significantly responsible for training the “Answer Man” for the position the latter now holds with the Research Institute. Currently, though, the two are at serious odds.

Recently, Hanegraaff, via his radio broadcast, rebuked Kennedy for some statements the minister had made relative to “astrology.” On the other hand, Dr. Kennedy is charging that Hanegraaff has flagrantly plagiarized his writings. Supposedly, the offense is so serious that a lawsuit would be a viable recourse were it not for Kennedy’s scruples against such a drastic action.

Conversely, Hanegraaff claims that he has been conscientious in giving Dr. Kennedy credit for the training he enjoyed under the prestigious clergyman. For further information, see: Is the Good News Bear a Copycat? Hank Hanegraaff and Plagiarism.

Plagiarism is not an uncommon phenomenon – even in religious circles. It is an amazing thing that some operate under the impression that they can provide a sort of “wave-of-the-hand” acknowledgment to another’s work, while copying line-after-line of material, without the common use of appropriate grammatical devices which indicate the identity of the real author.

In this brief editorial, though, I want to focus upon another of Mr. Hanegraaff’s problems.

Hanegraaff’s predecessor was the late Walter Martin. For years, these gentlemen have challenged those groups they deem to possess the characteristics of a “cult.” They have debated with the Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, the Watchtower organization, etc. And, quite frankly, they have done a commendable job in some instances.

The reason for their success has been that, when arguing against the peculiar doctrines of these well-known cults, they have presented truth in many cases. Tragically, however, on some issues the “Christian Research Institute” is as rank with error, and as unscrupulous in their misrepresentations, as anyone they review.

With considerable regularity the C.R.I. receives inquiries regarding the churches of Christ. They must weary of the questions for they have prepared rote responses, either in a printed or taped format. Congregations of the Lord’s people are castigated as cultish simply because they do not acquiesce with some of the fundamental doctrines of sectarianism. In one small sheet, the C.R.I. has made several charges against those who profess to be Christians only. The two most prominent are summarized as follows.

First, it is alleged that those affiliated with the church of Christ teach the dogma of “baptismal regeneration,” namely that sins are actually remitted in the waters of a baptistery. The accusation is totally false. “Baptismal regeneration” is the sectarian notion that infants, having been born with the guilt of Adam’s sin, are cleansed by the Spirit of God when baptism is administered to them (see Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, London: James Clarke & Co., 1960, Vol. III, p. 591).

No informed Bible student subscribes to this theory. Babies are not born in sin, and the water of baptism has no intrinsic power to remove sin. Baptism is simply an act of obedience, commanded by God, that provides the believing, penitent person with access to divine grace, by which he is saved (Eph. 2:8-9; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21).

Was Peter a cultist when, on the day of Pentecost, he proclaimed: “All of you repent, and let each of you be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ into order to obtain the forgiveness of your sins . . .” (Acts 2:38)? Was Jesus himself a cult leader when he announced: “He who believes and is baptized, shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16)?

Second, the C.R.I. faults the Lord’s people for teaching that the child of God must remain steadfast, continuing in God’s grace, if he is to inherit eternal life – a concept, incidentally, explicitly taught in the Scriptures (see Acts 13:43; 2 Cor. 6:1; Heb. 12:15).

Mr. Hanegraaff and his spiritual kinsmen contend that no matter what the Christian does (even to the point of openly renouncing God), he remains eternally secure and cannot be lost. A doctrine more corrupt could scarcely be found (see Gal. 5:4; Heb. 3:12; 10:26; 2 Pet. 2:1).

A dramatic example of the falsity of this dogma is demonstrated by the apostasy of Judas Iscariot. Judas was a disciple chosen by the Lord himself. He was granted miracle-working power by which to confirm the validity of his ministry (cf. Mt. 10:2-8). Yet, he “fell away” from his divinely entrusted role (Acts 1:25), committed suicide (Mt. 27:5), and died lost (Jn. 17:12).

In such a brief discussion as this, one could hardly hope to deal with the wide range of anti-biblical views advocated by Mr. Hanegraaff and those associated with him at the “Christian Research Institute.” A concluding remark will be sufficient to underscore the absence of confidence that Hanegraaff actually entertains with reference to his doctrinal platform.

Over the years the folks at C.R.I. (Martin, Hanegraaff, et al.) have lustily pursued debate encounters with a host of cultists. They have engaged the heretical movements in verbal and written battle time and again, and begged for additional conflicts.

By way of remarkable contrast, they utterly refuse any responsible exchange with qualified representatives of the churches of Christ. There are any number of competent men who would happily meet Hank Hanegraaff in a public debate format, should the gentleman agree to such an arrangement. It is quite unlikely, however, that the encounter will ever transpire.

And why not? The obvious needs not to be stated.

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/hankHanegraaff.htm