Hanegraaff Confronted, Blows Off Reconciliation Attempt
Perry Robinson has long tried to bring “Bible Answer Man” Hank Hanegraaff to repentance and reconciliation with former employees and others who believe that he has sinned against them.
He finally got the opportunity to confront Hanegraaff in person…and this is the story of what happened
Matt 18: My Meeting With Hank Hanegraaff
It will be interesting to follow Orthodox reaction to this latest incident…
For me, Dr. Walter Martin was like the Christian father I never had; Hank more like the mean step brother. Thirty years later my dad has gone before me to heaven, as well as Dr. Martin. We remain here, but I have moved on.
My main concern is for HHās soul. He seems to have been admitted to the Holy Mysteries of Orthodoxy poorly prepared. He is not going to cause much harm to the Church but he is causing harm to himself.
What bothers me a little, but not much, is cult of celebrity that has, in a very modest way, begin to appear, mostly in among converts who are fans of certain speakers on Ancient Faith Radio. AFR has not yet given HH his own show, to their credit.
HH is a very sick man (cancer) and he ought to get these things settled while he still has time. The Orthodox Church is a very good place to prepare for death, no matter how much time one has left.
Most Orthodox people have never hard of HH either before or after his conversion. He will have very little impact.
After many frustrating years of attempting to “reconcile” with fellow believers in the real world in my personal experience. It was almost always seen as either a pathetic attempt to manipulate, deceive, spiritual weakness, a few times referred to as spiritual prostitution (they used another more biblical term). I kept going at it and eventually, with my admission that all of anything no matter what was totally my fault I was granted some forgiveness. (This has been my experience in Christian ministries and churches)
ON a wonderful note I have a very profound reconciliation with a personal friend I still weep with joy at it. There is a side of me that believes deeply people should not need such emotionalistic nonsense and it is a sign of our weakness and total depravity (this is how much of reconciliation was presented to me for so long, forgiveness like any Christian virtue it should first and foremost have an apologetic value. If it does not it really is, well, a waste of time. When I went after reconciliation it was because I could not take the “non-fellowship” and the wound to a relationship. That was almost always seen as a personal, spiritual weakness on my part but it is what it is.
I hope Hank can find some reconciliation, I think it has eternal ramifications myself, which again is almost caustic emotionalism on my part, but it seems to be a somewhat important part of the Bible and Christian ethos/history.
I can’t figure out the exact sin Hank is being accused of.
Sounds like he isn’t very nice, but then again, nether is Perry.
I don’t understand what is expected of “reconciliation”.
Are they supposed to start hanging out after this is over? Are they going to work together again? I don’t get it.
Josh,
I am not nice in your vast personal experience with me. Color me skeptical.
How about this for starters with Hank.
He fires people for refusing to ghost write for him, as he did with Bowman and other researchers.
He uses lies and deception to fleece people for money to live in a 3 million dollar 9200 sqft house in the name of Christ.
He makes backroom deals with cults and abusive groups in exchange for speaking opportunities.
He hires his wife and relatives and pays them exorbitant salaries for duties no one seems to know about.
Hank is just Benny Hinn for ppl with a somewhat higher IQ.
Perry – your online persona is unfriendly. Ask around.
Ok, so how does Hank reconcile with you for making backroom deals with cults? What’s the point? I can see why you would want to expose him, (though you should be much clearer and provide documentation for such accusations), but I do not understand this Matthew 18 charade. I guess it makes for good blog drama?
I’m with Josh on this – what kind of reconciliation is expected.
Let me first say I don’t think many pay attention to Hanegraaff any longer – I look at him more as a Herbert W Armstrong character who continued to broadcast to his”group” long after everyone else had turned him off. Hanegraaff is a blend of evangelical with his own type of preterism who has now baptized it all in Eastern Orthodoxy.
However, what is expected? I do not think there is an ice cube’s chance in hell that the meeting would result in Hank explaining his side and the other group saying “whoa, we didn’t know that – all is forgiven, let’s go have a beer.” This is almost 30 years later – geez.
And what is this Matt 18 stuff? Part of Matt 18 is “take it to the church.” – Is the 21st century version of The Church a blog? Which church has the authority over the workings of a para church organization?
Lastly, missing from this story, what was the decision of the board of directors of this corporation? Was this a drastically different board than the one Walter Martin left behind?
There is no end game here other than another attempt to embarrass Hanegraaff – who may deserve every portion of it – but that is the only end game.
not to derail an important topic, but Josh is correct regarding Perry.
Xenia,
thanks for your input on this.
Well, this is Eastern Orthodoxy we are talking about.
One is expected to give a Life Confession before one is received into the Church. One lists all the big sins he can remember, repents of them, and is absolved. (It doesn’t matter if some sins are overlooked, they can be repented of later as they come to mind and even if they are completely forgotten, God see the person’s heart of repentance.) Part of genuine repentance might (should) include apologizing, or at least talking with, people you harmed in the past. Christianity is all about reconciliation, not only with God but with people, as much as is possible.
Every time I go to confession, my priest asks me “Have you forgiven everyone?” I always hesitated a bit on that one, because of issues with my mother so I flew with my daughter to North Carolina to reconcile. That’s how seriously we take this. (Turns out she is old and doesn’t remember anything so it turned out ok without any painful conversations.)
Even if I was innocent of any sins against people, if I was being accused and asked to meet and straighten things out, I couldn’t get to that meeting fast enough for the sake of reconciliation with my brothers. This is pretty much at the heart of Eastern Orthodoxy.
You’re welcom, PstrMike,
Josh –
Did you read Perry’s article or series of articles?
The Matthew 18 process has been initiated by those wronged by Hank in substantial ways for over two
decades. The shepherds of the Jesus movement did nothing to facilitate social justice on behalf of these servants but instead invited Hank to speak at their leadership conferences and slander those he had wronged via the pseudo spiritual means of sermons on leadership .
Read Perry’s articles and give him a break .
The “end game” would be HH meeting with the people who wish to meet with him, talking it out, maybe with a referee, with admittance of guilt by *anyone* who is guilty and reconciliation. End with prayers of thanksgiving. Group hug is optional. Afterwards, the Orthodox in the group will go to Confession and confess his/her sinful part in the story, receive absolution, and receive Holy Communion with a clear conscience.
This is interesting…and is an example of how scoundrels get to keep being scoundrels.
Perry was an employees of CRI and along with a number of other employees has sought some sort of Christian resolution to this matter for a long time.
I guess if you put people off long enough, the statute of limitations runs out in the public eye.
Perry is also devoutly Orthodox, so this is a double sting.
I guess we can also conclude that online personas matter…but I don’t think they change the facts in this case.
Part of my reconciliation, when I converted, was writing a very apologetic letter to my old Calvary Chapel’s youth pastor who I was quite rude to that last year of my discontent. He received my letter with joy and we were reconciled.
Just giving this as an example.
@11 – Yes. They are long and vague. I have not read the past 20 years worth of stuff, but I have seen some serious charges with no backup. And if those charges are true, Isee no chance at reconciliation, only shaming Hank.
I should probably say that I am not a Hank fan, and never heard of Walter Martin until after he died. I once listed to a radio series that Hank did on Charismatic Chaos and enjoyed it, and read one End Times book by him, which was very convoluted and confused. That is my only interaction with him, at all.
Xenia – your perspective is helpful, though I’m betting “blogging the grievance” is not a standard part of the process, even for the Orthodox.
Xenia @ 12… that process would change the world if all of our sects adopted it…
@13 –
“Perry was an employees of CRI and along with a number of other employees has sought some sort of Christian resolution to this matter for a long time.”
My question was – What would a Christian resolution be? Perry is alleging crimes and damnable offenses. How does one resolve this in a Christian manner?
“I guess if you put people off long enough, the statute of limitations runs out in the public eye.”
True, but not at all my point.
“I guess we can also conclude that online personas matterā¦but I donāt think they change the facts in this case.”
They only matter, because the only charge that I see actual evidence for is that Hank is not nice. If the one charging is not nice either, there is a credibility issue.
“I guess we can also conclude that online personas matterā¦but I donāt think they change the facts in this case.”
No, they don’t change the facts.
I am currently facing a dilemma of whether to call someone to repent while recognizing I may not be the best source to do so.
What I am realizing in my studies is that there is very little good in the world, and even less in evangelicalism.
I am Yours, save me.
Also, per my #4 – What are the facts of the case? A good presentation has not been made.
“What I am realizing in my studies is that there is very little good in the world, and even less in evangelicalism.”
Do you really believe that?!? That evangelicals are worse than the rest of the world? Be real.
I guess this is a matter of perspective as to who is in the wrong. Now I don’t know anything, but I think the initial decision by the board when Hank gained control is key. If the board said Hank is the successor to Walter Martin (and I don’t know that they did or did not) but if they did, wouldn’t that make the disgruntled employees the guilty parties who have been saying that Hank stole the ministry?
MLD – That issue is not of concern of this case, according to Perry @ 5.
There has been more cyber ink used in documenting this case for twenty odd years than any other I can think of.
Perry has had lots and lots of company.
Many former employees have written on the subject.
The Martin family has written on the matter.
Hank’s appointment itself is buried in controversy.
Like I said…if you stonewall long enough, you win.
But Perry is the one seeking reconciliation.
What is HIS case?
I have no horse in this race. I first heard Hanegraaff on the radio about 20 years ago and took a liking to him. I bought a couple of his books and for the most part liked them, too. Over the years I have lost interest in him as I initially did not like the way CRI pushed for money and then I read of more and more accusations against Hank in regards to financial malpractices and the way he mistreated/abused employees/former employees at CRI. I never made the effort to get a full understanding of everything but figured that with so much smoke, there must be a fire of some significance.
I imagine Perry’s charges of Hank relate to the mistreatment of CRI staff, most who are probably now former staff with Perry being one of them. I have never had any personal interaction with Perry, online or otherwise, at least as far as I can remember, but I will say that my impression of his online persona is in-line with others here in that he’s not very nice. Smart, witty, right about a lot of things, but not very nice. Real life could be totally different, but I can only go by what I observe online.
But, of course, as Michael stated, that doesn’t have a bearing on the rightness of his case. Being that there are seemingly a lot of former CRI people who have grievances with Hank, I am quite inclined to believe that Perry has some real grievances, too, and that Hank has used his status and power over the years to avoid accountability and potential reconciliation.
Josh,
I think Perry has documented that well over the years.
I also believe he desires that he only be the first in a series of reconciliations that this could facilitate.
This has gone on for too long…you’d think the “Bible Answer Man” would jump at the chance to demonstrate biblical reconciliation…
Perry and his friends should be able to answer my question. Who was on the board when Hank took over the ministry. Were they basically Walter Martin’s board? I think I remember that Martin’s widow endorsed Hank.
If the board was basically Martin’s board and they voted Hank, that should take the charge ‘Hank stole the ministry’ off the table.
Anything after that is a power grab from the losers.
One other question, why didn’t any of them or all of them go out and form a new ministry and do the work better?
why didnāt any of them or all of them go out and form a new ministry and do the work better?<<<
I think some did?
“youād think the āBible Answer Manā would jump at the chance to demonstrate biblical reconciliationā¦”
HaHa – I think I would be a little cold towards those who came to me and said “we want to Matthew 18 you – come join us.”
I believe the charge has been from Day 1 that Hank used deception to grab the ministry.
Why didn’t they all just start their own radio network that covered America?
Are you kidding?
Xenia – I was suggesting a rival Bible Answerman type ministry – with all the researchers etc.
Here is another question – what about those who stayed with the ministry? Why weren’t they offended?
Surely there is a link to Perry’s blog with actually charges and proof?
Or is it just anytime someone defames a big named Christian we all have to pile-on?
I’m convinced Hank is not nice. His theology is terribly confused,
I don’t think that was the purpose of the grandstanding reconciliation meeting.
“Why didnāt they all just start their own radio network that covered America?”
Start small – one market at a time.
Greg Koukl started around this time on KBRT in SoCal and built his ministry to a good national coverage.
My main complaint about HH is that he has only been Orthodox what, less than one year? and he wants to go around the country and appear on EO media outlets and talk at parishes about Orthodoxy when he is so poorly informed on the subject and ends up misrepresenting the faith. Orthodoxy takes a while to grasp. It takes a lifetime to grasp, actually.
Xenia, you are right about HH going out to speak – but hey, the radio outlets and the parishes can always say no. If they don’t, then they are buying what he is selling.
I am sure your churches are like mine – if you flashed a picture of HH to the crowd most wouldn’t know who he is – put his name on the picture, perhaps some know.
The church I just left in OC had a Bible Answerman tie. We are located in what used to be the town of El Toro – the home of Bible Answerman when Perry was with them. Craig Hawkins was a member of the Lutheran church (long before me) and many folks remember him kindly.
Yeah, I don’t know who would be listening to Hank at this point. He either isn’t being honest about what he believes, or has no idea what Orthodox is. He needs to ride the bench for a while before teaching anyone. Unfortunately, that’s how he has made his livelihood. Tough decisions for him.
I bet not one person in my church has a clue who Hank is.
I think some parishes might let him speak because he’s riding on the coattails of some famous (relatively speaking) people who have written popular books for converts, etc. who are championing him. Since almost no Orthodox have ever heard of him, they don’t see a reason to deny him a chance to speak because he has these (relatively) famous friends.
It really gets confusing when he wants to sell his very Protestant books to unsuspecting Orthodox folks and online radio networks (OCN) feature his radio shows. He is either trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes or he is so utterly ignorant of Orthodoxy that he doesn’t understand the difference.
Josh,
I barely comment here ever. First, I donāt even know you or recall ever interacting with you. As far as my on line persona goes, my training is in philosophy. I aim to look at the argument and nothing else. I try to put personal feelings aside and just evaluate a position. That is not unfriendly. It isnāt cuddles either but I am not tossing out F bombs and personal denunciations every five minutes either.
Second, this involves lots of other people, so whatever perception you have of my āpersonaā is irrelevant. (There is that focusing on the argument thing again.) Maybe youād like Craig Hawkinsā persona better? Rob Bowman? Mike Stephens is a very amicable person. And the list goes on. Again, this isnāt about me per se. And of course, the grievances the Martin Family and many of the former employees have is not with Hankās persona, but with his behavior, but public and professional.
As far as his offenses, there are a number of things to consider here. (There is that focusing on the argument thing again.) First, when he fires me and others for telling him it is wrong to do, that is a problem. Second, his actions are directly contrary not only to the entire mission of CRI but of Scripture and two thousand years of Christian teaching, regardless of oneās theological position. Third, his actions include deceiving millions of people in the name of Christ, just so he can be rich and buy his kids Lexus cars to drive.
Matthew 18 is not a charade. I do not know why youād call it that. So I would need a reason from you to think so. That said though, while I am all for turning the other cheek, that does not, even on Hankās reading of the text imply we are called to be door mats. Nor are we called to be pacifists and let evil thrive and to do nothing.
If you want to have a problem with me because you donāt like me given the words you have seen half a dozen times on a computer screen, fine. But again, I am not everyone and so our case cannot be reasonably dismissed simply because you may not like me.
Interesting Perry. All I’ve asked for evidence for your charges (you know, the argument).
In other words, you are making a very poor argument. I think Hank is probably not nice, but I have no evidence of anything else.
Martin Lutherās Disciple,
Whatever the agenda for a meeting would be would have been worked out between the respective parties. That was on the table for negotiation once we agreed to meet. One step at a time.
I did not think there was a chance in hell that Hank would walk directly into my parish three thousand miles away either. But it happened. Call it what you want, but that smells like providence to me and I do not throw that term around lightly. Besides, I am called to be faithful and not to do what is right only if I think the consequences go my way.
If you read what I wrote, we have begun the initial process of ātaking it to the church.ā We have done so over many years. And we have done so with his priests, as I have written three times now in my posts. We have and are moving up the food chain as we think best. I went to him and his local clergy before I said anything publicly and as I indicated. Maybe I havenāt done everything perfectly or as nicely as could be done. That is possible and as I said, I am open to that criticism. But if the local clergy (not to mention Hank) had acted in the least Biblical and traditional way, we would not be here. So I find it hard to see why you are placing me on the hot seat here. Perhaps you can explain why you appear to think I am the one at fault for at least trying to do the biblical thing?
As to what authority a church has over the workings of a private business, well that is part of my problem. He is using the Orthodox church to support his private business, to sell protestant books and teachings directly on Orthodox media platforms. So your point cuts both ways here.
Secondly, the Orthodox church has jurisdiction over that business because it has jurisdiction over Hank. They can direct him to remove himself from it or alter it on pain of ecclesial discipline. As I tried to make clear to Hank, he isnāt in non-denominational land anymore.
As far as an endgame goes, you would need to know what we have in mind and you simply donāt. And one reason you donāt is that you have never asked us. Nor to my knowledge are you or is anyone else here in direct contact with the Martin Family or the other former employees. It might be good to take a step back and ask how you know what you claim to know and assert here without proof or argument.
Josh,
At one point in the 90’s thirty four former employees of CRI signed a letter making the same allegations.
Part of the issue here is that this has gone on so long without resolution that you have to really search for all the evidence that was presented.
I did find a couple old synopsis of the situation.
http://www.ltwinternational.org/cri_connection.pdf
MLDās
I did not see your question previously about who was on the board when Martin took over. If I remember correctly the board composition had Martin (deceased) Everett Jacobson, Stan Tonneson, Hanegraaff, and one other. After Martin died, the one other board member whom I canāt recall their name at the moment was out of town. Hank called a vote to become president. Stan objected, so they voted him off the board and presto! Hank becomes president. Technically they did not have quorum and they werenāt supposed to have such votes with missing board members either. Its tantamount to a Jewish trial at night. Its a no-no.
Now of course Hank has his wife on the board, making a nice sum of 160K+ just for sitting on the board, along with Paul Young, making about 140k+. That of course is public record as anyone can see from their public 990ā forms.
Martinās widow initially did, because as she recalls she was handed a piece of paper at the last minute at the memorial to read from. When she was on the board, she eventually came to see, independently I might add, what Hank was really doing. She called for his resignation, so with personal abusive behavior (there are eyewitnesses to this) of a widow no less, he booted her off the board. She called for his resignation publicly in 2000, which appeared in the LA Times, documented below. Those links are also included in what I wrote if one cares to read, what I wrote.
To answer your second question, not everyone was fired at once. It was divide and conquer. First, Craig Hawkins, Jerry Kistler, Dan Schlesinger, Martinās personal secretary and others were fired or forced out in the first year. Replacements were brought it. I was one of them. As in other cases, you have company men who do anything for the company. Others rationalize and do so for a long time and they do so understandably out of concern for their jobs. Just think about it. How many other places are there to go find a job doing what they did? Not many or any then or now. And people think it won’t get worse, so they hunker down and go along. It is a familiar pattern in abusive and cultc groups.
Secondly, most of the senior researchers did continue what they were doing, on their own, like Rob Bowman, Samples, Carden and others. But it is much more difficult to do on your own than collectively. And again, they were picked off one at a time or in small groups. Within ten years everyone I believe from the original research staff was gone with the exception of Miller. The fact that they all to my knowledge continued to do what they did on their own only highlights the problem. Why would they take on substantially more financial insecurity just to do what they were doing already?
Here is Darlene Martin’s Letter to the LA Times in 2000.
Notice, nothing of my persona is present. I had no knowledge of this until long after.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/30/local/me-25109
On top of the above, Hanegraaff eventually imposed Non-Disclosure Agreements on various employees beginning in the mid-1990s. That all by itself is a major change in CRI, especially for a watchdog organization. That is not a good sign.
This is why a number of prominent employees from that period can say nothing without risk of litigation. So while Hank claims them as supporters because they have no public statements to the contrary, it is not as if they are free to speak their mind.
Others like Bob Lyle, VP of research were so complicit and for so long, even without a NDA, they could not come forward without implicating themselves.
So what you have is a typical break out of employees. You have the company men who do anything for the company, until the company has no use for them anymore, but then it is too late. Then you have the rationalizers, who play along, again, until it is too late for them. And then you have people who knew nothing because, well, they worked the front desk and such and were in no direct position to know much of anything, other than a change of staff. And then you have people that initially supported the leader, but then once they saw for themselves, they changed their mind and joined the resistance. And then you have initial resisters
That is all fairly typical.
Josh,
as far as the evidence I have presented, well, I am not clear on what you expect. Do you expect me to dump boxes of scanned documents here on this blog for your examination? Second, as I have done in what I have wrote, I have given documenting links to pre-existing public documents over a nearly thirty year period, which include financial documents, theological documents, and multiple eyewitness testimonial accounts. So I would encourage you if you think I have not presented any evidence, to go start clicking on the links I have already provided, and Jill Martin and other shave provided.
Second, as I already wrote elsewhere, time and again, we are compiling everything from all the purged employees, to put in one place relatively soon. That is a lot of work. I have boxes of documents coming from all over the US and I and others have to scan them in and arrange them for presentation. With my other responsibilities, that is a lot of work.
So not to be rude, but when you say I have’t presented any evidence, it is rather difficult for me to receive that when it seems you haven’t bothered to use the click of the mouse to check. Go through everything on line presented for the last 25 years that I and others have linked to and then come back and we can talk about what you don’t take to be of evidentiary value. Otherwise, it kind of smacks of an atheist saying that theists have no evidence when he or she hasn’t even bothered to look at what has already been presented.
Perry, my only claim in this is about how Hank came to be president. If it was at the will of the board then he did not steal the ministry. Folks can speculate who gerrymandered the board and who influenced who – but they could have said no.
The fact that HH is a bastard is a different issue to me. Craig Hawkins had some interest in a bookstore, I want to say at Magnolia and Warner and I spoke with him a couple of times about this. I also had a couple of friends who worked at KBRT when Craig did the old weekdays of Talk From the Heart (1991?) – and their view was Craig held the opinion Hank stole the ministry. But if it was board directed then that claim is false.
You guys can do what you want – reconcile, take him down it makes no difference to me. I only think of HH when an article appears here. But blogging is not Matt 18 ‘taking it to the church.’
Perry, I agree with what MLD just said. I have no interest in reading 25 years of obsession. I’m sorry if you guys were treated poorly. I still don’t know what reconciliation is supposed to mean 30 years later, but that’s fine. I trust you that Hank is jerk. I was never a fan anyway.
Perry-
I disagree with MLD and Josh. They bronze their opinion the first time they express it . But hey they did get you and Michael to lay out some details for others to benefit from . Kudos and encouragement for you and others to pursue the social justice of the kingdom .
MLD,
I suppose I donāt understand the inference form, the board after a coup elects Hank irregularly, to therefore Hank didnāt steal the ministry. How exactly does one get from the former, to the latter?
Second, I donāt understand how even if what you assert is true, we get to the conclusion that therefore everything Hank does is A-Ok. Maybe you can tease out that reasoning for me?
When we have eyewitnesses to what happened at the Board and throughout the ministry, it isnāt speculation. If you have a problem with eyewitness testimony from multiple witnesses, I would kindly direct you to the Gospels. We only need 2-3 witnesses and we have dozens.
As I pointed out, a vote from two board members including Hank to oust the third isnāt exactly a confident basis to assert that Hank is the rightful president.
So, from what I can see, nothing you have asserted supports the claim that Craigās contention, along with others, is false. Do you have some other reasoning or evidence to offer?
I never said Hank was a bastard. That is your characterization. I simply think he needs to repent and apologize. I donāt think that is asking for too much.
I never said blogging constituted Matthew 18. That is a position you have articulated. What I wrote was that I went to him, yet again, personally, which is in fact part of Matthew 18. So here you need to engage the actual position I advanced and not one I didnāt. This is why your characterization is a straw man.
Morevoer, the Matthew 19 process continues as it has for nearly thirty years. I am not at liberty to divulge everything that is happening, but suffice it to say, the blog post is the least of Hankās concerns in this area.
Again, here I am just trying to focus on the reasoning you offered. I don’t know you personally. I am only engaging the ideas you expressed.
Josh,
This isn’t an obsession. I have largely ignored Hanegraaff for the last 20 years. I had a family, went to graduate school, etc. Now he is in my church doing the same stuff.
Second, when he continues to fleece Christians to he can live in a 3 million dollar home, and go to his walk out golf course with attending country club, whose modest entrance fee is 65k, well, that isn’t something from 25 years ago. That is right now.
And if we are going to call out the Word of Faith folks on that kind of abuse, Hank doesn’t get a pass. The same goes with calling out the JW’s on it with Beth Sarim. I don’t make exceptions for this kind of abuse just because it happens on my side of the ecclesial fence.
I thought I would comment on this situation. Perry is correct in his assessment and is trying to defend Orthodoxy and bring restoration. Although we disagree theologically, we agree on Matt 18 and the necessity for repentance. There are serious issues surrounding what Hanegraaff did immediately after my father died–I would not call his actions ethical, kind, or Christian. We do not deny he had been managing the business aspect of CRI during my father’s lifetime, we deny that my father would ever have named him the new “Bible Answer Man” and theological leader–and therefore the President–of CRI. He dropped out of Calvin College and had no formal education or training, something my father required from anyone working in a higher theological position at CRI. Craig Hawkins was the man who Walter Martin chose to host the program on the air with him and fill in when he was not able to be there. Hanegraaff and Jacobson called a board meeting shortly after my father’s death without Stan Tonnesen’s knowledge. At this meeting, Hanegraaff was officially elevated to the CRI leadership. To this day he refuses to meet with us to discuss his behavior after the funeral, his offensive treatment of Darlene Martin or the issues almost 30 CRI employees had with him. One final thing, even if my father had chosen him as a theological leader, the choices Hanegraaff has made theologically and ethically down through the years are so appalling that he should never have been allowed to remain in that leadership role. The entire Martin family (with the exception of one person) is in agreement on this. Rob Bowman summarizes the situation well here: http://www.religiousresearcher.org/2009/01/28/testimonies-are-not-enough-cri-answers-in-action-and-the-local-churches/
Perry, thank you for the clearer picture that has been offered. I do understand more now, and that was my reason for questioning.
Jill, I sure appreciate what your father gave us over those many years.
Interesting to see the self designated “Bible Answer Man” so bereft of answers and so swamped with questions. Clearly his journey to orthodoxy shows that at some level he cares about truth and has some working of conscience driving him. Perhaps there will be a resolution at the end of this public mess.
Something still bothers me about how this is being played out. It seems that we all must go public these days with everything. Public shame seems to be the lash that we must lay on each others back. And on it goes.
A very kind thing to say–thank you, CC.
I’ll never forget when Dr. Martin looked me in the eye from the pulpit and said “You will preach the Gospel”. If not for his recommendation and encouragement I would have never graduated from bible college, much less found a proper school to attend. š
Michael
This blog reminds me of some random back alley book store where you wouldn’t expect to find such interesting personalities mingling about the high, unorganized shelves.
The comment section was more interesting and informative than the link you provided.
I hope Hank and Perry are in God’s will. May there be more in their heavenly treasury than their bank account.
This may or may not apply, but it seems (as I caught up over the past week here) that fighting or hiding to retain a position in the church anymore is like playing King of The Gilded Ash-Heap.
I watched a couple of the videos on Jill Martin Rische’s site about HH – at least she is not shy about torching EO.
Seems to me this matter is in the hands of the EO Leadership now, since they have received him as a member of their church.
JD–Thank you for letting me know this…a wonderful thing to hear. My father would have said one of his favorite lines, “Go get ’em!” Sorry for the delay in answering. I forgot to check the “notify me” box when I originally posted. š