CRI Connection

oleh Jill Martin Rische

Pada akhir 1997, Darlene Martin meminta kami untuk menyelidiki tuduhan terhadap Hank Hanegraaff yang telah dibawa ke perhatian oleh teman-teman dekat dan banyak orang Kristen yang bersangkutan. Setelah dua tahun penyelidikan intensif ke situasi di CRI, kita sekarang mampu mengatasi masalah ini secara terbuka.

Pada tahun 1994, kira-kira tiga puluh karyawan dibentuk CRI CRI Group untuk Akuntabilitas dalam upaya untuk terus Hank Hanegraaff bertanggung jawab atas tindakannya. Ia menolak untuk bertemu dengan mereka secara individu maupun sebagai kelompok. Sebaliknya, Hank Hanegraaff pengacara, Sealy Andrea, mengirimkan surat kepada anggota kelompok yang dibaca dalam bagian:

"Jenis pernyataan Anda telah membuat dengan cara surat Anda dan handout. . . yang memfitnah di bawah hukum California. Anda dapat dianggap bertanggung jawab atas kerugian yang sebenarnya disebabkan oleh tindakan Anda. Selain itu, Anda juga dapat dianggap bertanggung jawab atas ganti rugi jika perilaku berbahaya. Kedengkian dapat dibentuk oleh bukti bahwa Anda bertindak dengan sengaja tanpa bukti bahwa pernyataan itu sebenarnya benar. . . .

Jika saya belajar dari masa depan memfitnah melakukan bagian Anda sehubungan dengan Hank Hanegraaff atau CRI, saya akan punya pilihan selain [untuk] menyarankan klien saya untuk mengambil tindakan hukum. "-Andrea Sealy (Surat tanggal 24 Mei 1994)

Robert Bowman, seorang anggota Kelompok CRI Akuntabilitas, menanggapi Sealy Yates: "Roh di mana kita sebagai sebuah kelompok mendekati [CRI] Board-sebagai saudara-saudara Kristen yang sungguh-sungguh prihatin atas integritas dari sebuah pelayanan yang kami simpan Sayang-akan diabaikan. Lebih buruk lagi, dalam surat Anda kami difitnah dan terancam. Kami dituduh saling bercerita "dusta" dan "dongeng" dan kemudian "sembarangan" dan "ceroboh" menyebarkan "desas-desus dan tuduhan sebagai kebenaran." Kau mengatakan bahwa tuduhan kami dapat ditunjukkan telah dibuat dengan "kebencian yang sebenarnya". Dan Anda mengancam akan menggugat kita (semua dari kita?) Dengan menyarankan bahwa kita tidak akan membuat publik keluhan kita kecuali kita siap "untuk menghabiskan tiga sampai lima tahun risiko litigasi dan penilaian terhadap [kami] yang tidak akan dischargeable dalam kebangkrutan. . . .

Saya percaya Anda sedang berusaha untuk mengintimidasi kita ke dalam keheningan dengan mengancam litigasi karena klien Anda tidak dapat menjawab tuduhan kita. . . Jika Mr Hanegraaff tidak bersalah atas tuduhan kita yang paling serius, mengungkapkan informasi yang menyangkal mereka. Saya seorang pria yang masuk akal. Tunjukkan pada saya bahwa saya salah, dan aku akan membuat penarikan. Tunjukkan pada saya bahwa tuduhan-tuduhan dari Grup untuk CRI Akuntabilitas adalah salah, dan aku tidak hanya akan meninggalkan Grup, aku akan mengambil sisi Mr Hanegraaff melawan itu. "-Robert Bowman (Surat tanggal 11 Juli 1994)

Setelah berbicara dengan banyak pemimpin Kristen terkemuka (yang tidak pernah CRI karyawan) tentang pengalaman pribadi mereka dengan Hank Hanegraaff dan mengkaji surat keterangan yang diajukan oleh Kelompok CRI Akuntabilitas, kami memutuskan untuk menghubungi-pribadi-orang sebanyak mungkin dalam upaya untuk mencapai pada kebenaran. Jika Hank tidak bersalah, kita ingin membuat yang sangat jelas bagi semua orang. Jika dia serius berkompromi dengan bukti-bukti, kami merasa kewajiban, sebagai keluarga Walter Martin, untuk mengatakan begitu. Penting untuk dicatat di sini bahwa CRI Akuntabilitas Group untuk tidak memulai kontak dengan kami. Kami menyebut mereka sangat dihormati oleh beberapa pemimpin Kristen yang kepedulian CRI mendorong mereka untuk menghubungi kami dan mendiskusikan situasi.

Berikut pertanyaan serius tentang Hank meliputi:

Dugaan plagiarisme dalam kedua Hank's Memory Dynamics dan program-program Pelatihan Saksi Pribadi

Dugaan kekejaman pribadi terhadap karyawan, yaitu, berteriak dan mengumpat pada mereka ketika mereka bekerja di CRI

Diduga menggunakan bahasa kotor dan kasar komentar

Dugaan penyalahgunaan kekuasaan: ancaman dan intimidasi jika ditanya

Diduga salah CRI penghentian karyawan yang tidak mengajukan pertanyaan

CRI dugaan penggunaan sumber daya untuk memajukan penjualan-nya "untuk mencari laba" Memori bisnis Dynamics dan Pelatihan Saksi Pribadi

"Tidak seorang pun berbicara untuk kecil dalam kawanan domba yang telah dianiaya; hanya egois dan kasar gembala didengar. (Yehezkiel 34) "

Sekali lagi, ini BEBERAPA dari tuduhan. Beberapa mantan karyawan juga menyatakan bahwa, "Bekerja di CRI di bawah Hank Hanegraaff seperti terlibat dalam sebuah kultus. Kami tidak pernah diharapkan untuk bertemu begitu banyak ketakutan dalam 'Kristen' organisasi. "

Darlene Martin adalah pendukung kuat Hank sampai sebuah pertemuan Dewan CRI pada tahun 1996. Pada pertemuan itu, Hank berperilaku ke arahnya dengan cara yang dapat digambarkan sebagai ofensif. Yang aneh, menyakitkan pertemuan, dan setelah mengalami ini, Darlene mulai khawatir bahwa mungkin ada kebenaran di atas tuduhan. Dia terkejut oleh negatif ini "sisi" Hank dan tidak bisa memikirkan apa-apa yang telah dilakukannya menyinggung perasaannya-atau mengapa ia tidak mendekatinya secara pribadi, bukan membuatnya malu di jalan umum seperti itu.

Namun, bahkan setelah konfrontasi ini, Darlene sulit untuk percaya bahwa tuduhan terhadap Hank. Selama dua tahun, atas permintaan, kami membuat ratusan panggilan telepon dan tatap muka dilakukan wawancara dengan orang-orang yang bekerja sangat erat dengan Hank. Kami berharap untuk yang terbaik, tetapi berakhir dengan potret yang sangat negatif dari Hank Hanegraaff-kekecewaan yang mendalam kami dan cemas. Kami terkejut dan ngeri ketika kita menyadari sejauh mana masalah di CRI.

Bukti tampaknya sangat banyak terhadap Hank, dan kami merasa-dalam kepentingan keadilan-kami harus mendengarkan cerita dari pihak. Pada bulan Oktober, 1999, Darlene Martin dan anggota keluarga Martin pergi ke Hank Hanegraaff dan memintanya untuk menjawab beberapa pertanyaan penting. Berikut adalah kutipan dari surat yang dikirim oleh Darlene Martin untuk Hank Hanegraaff: Mr Hendrick Hanegraaff

CRI Internasional
30.162 Tomas
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92.688

Dear Hank,

Selama beberapa bulan beberapa isu yang mengganggu telah dibawa ke perhatian kita dan kami ingin mendengar tanggapan Anda keprihatinan kami. Alasan kita untuk menulis adalah dua kali lipat: pertama, kami terus dipertanyakan oleh orang-orang mengenai tuduhan berikut ini dan kami ingin dapat menjawab mereka; dan kedua, sebagai keluarga Dr Walter Martin, pendiri dan Presiden dari Kristen Research Institute dan "The Bible Answer Man" radio pelayanan, kita memiliki minat yang serius dalam bagaimana nama-Nya digunakan dan siapa yang terkait dengannya. Silakan mempertimbangkan untuk mengambil waktu untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan penting ini.

Sebuah berdampingan perbandingan studi Anda, Memory Dynamics, dengan Harry Lorayne buku, The Memory Book, (1974) mengungkapkan banyak kesamaan. Isi Chart Peg khususnya, suatu bagian mendasar dari kedua karya, muncul hampir identik. Pemahaman kami adalah bahwa karya Harry Lorayne diterbitkan jauh sebelum Memori Dynamics. Tolong jelaskan mengapa program studi Anda hampir identik dengan The Memory Book.

Sebuah berdampingan perbandingan buku Anda, Personal Saksi Pelatihan, dengan Dr D. James Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion, (edisi ketiga, 1982) mengungkapkan banyak kesamaan. Sekali lagi, kami memahami bahwa karya Dr Kennedy diterbitkan sebelum Pribadi Saksi Pelatihan. Mengapa dua mata kuliah begitu mirip? Selain ini, Dr Kennedy mengatakan kepada kami bahwa ia tidak memberi Anda izin untuk menggunakan Evangelism Explosion. Kami akan sungguh-sungguh ingin mendengar sisi ini.

Hank, ketika Walter meninggal, ada bahan di CRI, yang adalah miliknya. Ini terdiri dari surat-menyurat file, reel-to-reel tape, scrapbooks, dan lain-lain lainnya artikel. Apakah Paulus Young telah dapat menemukan salah satu item ini? Dia telah disebutkan pada Kevin bahwa ia akan kembali kepada kami setelah beberapa minggu mencari. Beberapa orang mengatakan kepada kami bahwa mereka menyaksikan barang-barang ini menjadi "dilemparkan keluar" di tempat sampah oleh CRI. Paulus meyakinkan Kevin ini tidak terjadi. Harap beritahu kami tahu apa yang telah ditemukan.

Banyak orang telah mendekati kami dengan pengalaman pribadi mereka di CRI selama bertahun-tahun. Beberapa telah bekerja sangat erat dengan Anda pada hari ke-hari. Sayangnya, menurut mereka, pengalaman-pengalaman ini tidak positif. Hal ini sangat mengganggu untuk mendengar kisah mereka tentang perilaku pribadi Anda ke arah mereka. Mereka menyatakan Anda cukup secara lisan kasar, bahwa Anda menggunakan bahasa kotor dan menyebabkan "adegan" tidak pantas bagi orang Kristen kerja. Mungkin salah satu orang yang membuat tuduhan seperti ini bisa dipecat, tetapi banyak orang menyuarakan pengalaman yang sama tidak dapat diabaikan. Sebagai seorang Kristen "pemimpin" yang secara terbuka menyatakan bahwa lidah harus dikontrol, bagaimana Anda menjawab tuduhan ini?

Darlene, dirinya sendiri, mengalami beberapa secara langsung ini, Hank, pada rapat dewan terakhirnya. Dia terkejut dan sakit hati oleh sikap Anda terhadap dia. Anda tampaknya terganggu tentang sesuatu dan dia menerima apa yang terbaik digambarkan sebagai "bahu dingin" dari seorang laki-laki yang dianggap sebagai teman. Kenapa kau tidak dekati dia secara pribadi sesuai dengan Kitab Suci jika Anda tersinggung oleh sesuatu yang Anda merasa ia telah melakukan alih-alih bertindak dengan cara ini di depan Direksi CRI? "

Hank, ini bukan tindakan kita telah melakukan ringan. Itu adalah keputusan yang sulit dan menyakitkan, sampai setelah lebih dari 18 bulan dari pemeriksaan intensif dugaan tersebut. Kita tidak dapat cukup menekankan betapa pentingnya adalah bahwa kita menerima langsung, tanggapan tertulis dari Anda. Akan dihargai jika Anda akan mengarahkan surat pada Kevin dan Jill, manajer dari aspek pelayanan estat Walter Martin. Kami ingin Anda membuat prioritas, Hank, dan memberikan respons Anda dengan November 15, 1999, saat kami menganggap hal ini sebagai situasi yang paling serius. Terima kasih telah meluangkan waktu untuk menjawab pertanyaan kami.

Hank menolak menjawab pertanyaan kami. Sebaliknya, ia menulis Darlene Martin catatan pendek di mana dia mengatakan masalah dia dengan dia adalah berdasarkan "persepsi-nya dan bukan realitas." Dia lalu memberitahu kami jika kami butuh jawaban, kita harus berbicara dengan anggota stafnya. Kami tidak menganggap ini baik yang alkitabiah atau jawaban hormat kepada janda dan anak-anak dari Walter Martin. Kebenaran adalah selalu pertahanan terbaik, dan kami berharap Hank hanya akan memberitahu kita kebenaran.

Beberapa bulan berlalu setelah ini (kami tidak terburu-buru untuk membuat sesuatu publik) sampai pagi hari April 6, 2000. Seorang wartawan dari LA Times disebut rumah kami dan menanyakan saya sebuah pertanyaan: "Apakah benar keluarga Martin tidak senang dengan kepemimpinan Hank Hanegraaff?" Aku tidak bisa berbohong-baik secara langsung atau dengan kelalaian. Kami tidak pergi ke LA Times, mereka datang kepada kita.

Walter Martin Janda Panggilan Untuk Diri Hanegraaff Los Angeles Times
April 15, 2000 --
(dikutip)

Keluarga almarhum Walter Martin, pendiri Rancho Santa Margarita Kristen berbasis Research Institute, berpendapat bahwa Hank Hanegraaff telah berangkat dari misi organisasi membongkar klaim keagamaan yang tidak biasa. Mereka menuntut pengunduran dirinya.

"Dia bukan orang yang kami percaya padanya untuk menjadi," kata Jill Martin Rische, putri sulung Martin dan pelaksana dari estat. "Kami hanya ingin seseorang yang bertanggung jawab yang akan melanjutkan visi yang jelas ayahku untuk CRI.

Visi, untuk menjadi think tank terkemuka dengan fokus pada evangelisasi, telah menggelepar-gelepar, menurut Rische, 42, yang tinggal di St Paul, Minn
Sebaliknya, ia klaim, Hanegraaff telah menggunakan CRI nirlaba sebagai platform untuk menjual buku dan mempromosikan dua organisasi nirlaba. Dia juga mengatakan Hanegraaff belum kembali sebagian dari barang-barang pribadi ayah dan klaim dia telah menyalahgunakan personil di CRI.

"The Bible Answer Man perlu menetapkan contoh positif bagi akuntabilitas dalam Alkitab," kata Rische. "Ini tidak terjadi dengan Hank Hanegraaff, dan CRI adalah lebih baik tanpa ketenaran negatif Hank menghasilkan."

Kurt Van Gorden, sekarang direktur misi untuk Yudas 3 Missions in Victorville, Calif, mengatakan perhatian lebih besar daripada salah satu dari uang atau kesetiaan kepada Martin. Van Gorden adalah salah satu mantan karyawan yang berada di sana pada tahun 1989 ketika jubah kepemimpinan pindah dari Martin ke Hanegraaff.

Van Gorden bilang dia sangat kecewa oleh Hanegraaff arah dan publik terkemuka baku hantam dengan penyiaran agama.
"CRI hari ini akan ke arah yang berbeda dari tujuan aslinya," Van Gorden kata. "Saya berharap bahwa CRI atau Alkitab Answer Man program akan melakukan kurang menyerang orang Kristen dan lebih pemeriksaan dan evangelisasi dari ibadat."

Di belakang Scenes

Ketika ayah saya meninggal pada tahun 1989, itu cukup tiba-tiba dan efeknya pada keluarga kami memang menghancurkan. Siapapun yang telah kehilangan orang tersayang kepada mereka tahu betapa buruknya adalah kesedihan, dan bagaimana ia mengganggu dalam proses pengambilan keputusan. Kadang-kadang, diperlukan waktu bertahun-tahun sebelum menyembuhkan orang-orang yang cukup dalam untuk berfungsi secara normal. . . beberapa pernah pulih lagi. Ayahku meninggal tanpa penerus nama apapun kepada Christian Research Institute dan "The Bible Answer Man" acara radio, dan bertentangan dengan apa yang dikatakan pada saat kematiannya, Hank Hanegraaff tidak pernah "handpicked" oleh Walter Martin. Darlene Martin adalah wanita janda yang baru, rentan dan percaya, dan ada orang-orang di sekelilingnya yang mengambil keuntungan penuh dari kepercayaan itu. Berikut ini adalah pernyataan penuh Darlene diambil dari Los Angeles Times, April 30, 2000:

Bukankah Hanegraaff 'handpicked'

* Setelah membaca artikel Anda "Casting Stones" (15 April), saya menulis untuk menjelaskan beberapa masalah.
Pertama, suami saya, Walter Martin, tidak pernah "handpicked" orang untuk menggantikannya di Christian Research Institute dan "The Bible Answer Man" program radio.

Klaim ini diserahkan kepada saya oleh seseorang yang saya pikir saya bisa percaya ketika aku mendekati podium di suamiku upacara .*
Aku membacanya untuk pertama kalinya-keras-sambil berdiri di depan 1.500 orang. Ini membawa saya benar-benar terkejut dan menempatkan saya di posisi yang sangat canggung. Saya ingin mengambil kesempatan ini sekarang untuk meminta maaf karena membiarkan pernyataan ini untuk berdiri selama bertahun-tahun.
Pada saat kematian suami saya, saya percaya Hank Hanegraaff adalah orang Tuhan bisa membentuk menjadi pemimpin Kristen yang kuat, orang yang dapat memainkan peran positif dalam memimpin CRI. Saya mendukung dia setia selama enam tahun sebelum aku datang untuk melihat dia bukan orang yang saya percaya ia berada.
Kedua, salah satu keluarga kami keberatan utama untuk kelanjutan Hanegraaff kepemimpinan adalah perlakuan buruk dari sesama orang Kristen. Dia telah meninggalkan jejak orang-orang yang terluka di belakangnya sejak pengambilalihan CRI pada tahun 1989. Kesaksian terhadap dia termasuk orang-orang yang dengan "tangan kanan" orang-orang, orang-orang yang bekerja sama dengannya.

Hanegraaff telah disebut berulang kali untuk akuntabilitas para pemimpin Kristen lain dan harus bertanggung jawab sendiri.

Darlene MARTIN
San Juan Capistrano

* (ed. catatan - Klaim ini telah ditambahkan ke Darlene pidato Martin ketika ia berada di perpustakaan gereja-keluar dari jangkauan kamera video merekam layanan ini.)

Cerita di balik Memorial Service adalah salah satu yang menyedihkan, tapi demi kebenaran itu harus diberitahu. Hank Hanegraaff sangat membantu untuk Darlene Martin ketika ayah meninggal. Dia membuat pengaturan untuk Layanan Memorial, mengirim kabar ke media, dan pada umumnya memenuhi kebutuhan keluarga kami bagi seseorang untuk mengkoordinasikan hal. Sejak ayahku mempekerjakannya untuk tujuan pemasaran, ia tampaknya orang ideal untuk berurusan dengan media. Darlene berterima kasih atas bantuan dan dukungan pada waktu itu. Selain kehadiran Hank, Everett Jacobson, paman dan Anggota Dewan CRI, terlibat dalam merancang hal-hal "di belakang layar". Apa yang kami tidak mengetahuinya sampai bertahun-tahun kemudian adalah bahwa Everett Jacobson dan Hank Hanegraaff memiliki "pintu tertutup" rapat di CRI dalam beberapa hari setelah kematian ayahku, dan hasil dari pertemuan-menurut seorang anggota Dewan CRI pada saat-itu penamaan Hank Hanegraaff sebagai CEO Kristen Research Institute. Kami bertanya Hank sekarang: Harap memberikan bukti bahwa Walter Martin memilih kamu sebagai penggantinya. Dia tidak pernah menyebutkan hal ini kepada istrinya, anak-anaknya, saudaranya, dengan papan atau teman-teman terdekatnya. Dia tidak pernah mengumumkan secara pribadi atau publik ini * sebelum * kematiannya. Hanya * setelah * Walter Martin sudah mati bahwa klaim ini dibuat.

Harap sediakan CRI menit dari Rapat Dewan segera setelah kematian ayah saya di mana posisi CEO dibahas dan memberikan suara atas.

Mengapa pertanyaan ini suksesi begitu penting? Ini ada hubungannya dengan integritas. Jika Hank Hanegraaff pribadi "bekerja" adalah tersangka, jika perilaku dipertanyakan oleh banyak saksi, daripada apa dari klaimnya CRI? Kami percaya bahwa klaim juga harus erat diperiksa.

Malam ayahku upacara peringatan, seperti Darlene Martin mendekati podium, * Everett Jacobson dan Hank Hanegraaff disadap padanya. Itu menunjukkan bahwa beberapa hal tambahan akan ditambahkan ke pidatonya ". . . untuk membuat transisi yang lancar. "Kata-kata tidak mendaftar pada waktu itu, karena kebanyakan hal-hal yang tidak ketika Anda baru saja dikuburkan orang yang dicintai dua puluh empat jam sebelumnya. Ketika Darlene datang ke ujung pernyataan dan mulai membaca kalimat-kalimat baru, dia terkejut. Di sana ia berdiri, di depan 1500 orang, yang menyatakan Hank Hanegraaff adalah manusia baru untuk CRI. Semua ia bisa berpikir seperti dia baca adalah, "Walt tidak pernah mengatakan ini."

* (ed. catatan - Darlene pidato Martin adalah "edited" ketika ia berada di perpustakaan gereja-sebelum ia pergi untuk ambil bagian dalam Layanan Memorial. Hal itu dilakukan keluar dari jangkauan kamera video merekam layanan ini.)

Pernyataan-pernyataan berikut ditambahkan ke akhir Darlene alamat: "Walt dan aku sering bicara tentang siapa yang akan mengambil alih di CRI baginya jika Tuhan itu yang pernah membawanya pulang. Sejak bulan Oktober lalu, Hank Hanegraaff Walter diminta untuk bekerja dengan dia dan menjadi orang itu. Sedikit yang kita tahu bahwa itu akan datang secepat ini. Tapi Hank adalah orang yang ingin Walter memimpin CRI, dan saya selalu bersyukur atas orang ini, untuk membangkitkan semangat bahwa ia telah lakukan untuk saya dalam beberapa hari terakhir ini. Dia adalah anugerah, dan aku bersyukur untuk dia dan keluarganya.

Aku tahu bahwa Tuhan akan memberkati CRI dan bahwa pelayanan akan berkembang di bawah arahan Hank. Saya berterima kasih kepada Tuhan untuk dirinya dan untuk CRI dan untuk semua staf yang akan melanjutkan, bahkan di tengah-tengah Walt ketidakhadiran. Dan aku hanya memuji Tuhan untuk itu. Terima kasih lagi. "

Mengapa Darlene Martin membiarkan ini berdiri selama bertahun-tahun? Mengapa dia mendukung Hank? Pada waktu itu, ia percaya bahwa ia adalah orang yang integritas, dan ia berharap (dan terus berharap) Allah dapat mencetak dia menjadi seorang pemimpin yang kuat. Ia percaya Everett Jacobson dan Hank Hanegraaff. Dia sangat terpukul, kelelahan, dan tidak merasa mampu untuk memutuskan seperti masalah berat. Dia tidak tahu tentang "pintu tertutup" rapat atau tuduhan bahwa papan penuh suara untuk posisi CEO CRI tidak pernah terjadi, sampai tahun kemudian. Selain ini, beberapa orang mendekati Darlene dan Dewan CRI setelah kematian ayahku, masing-masing menyatakan bahwa Walter Martin mengambil mereka sebagai penggantinya, dan dia takut publik yang semuanya pertempuran untuk CRI.

Tapi Hank orang integritas yang ayahku percaya padanya untuk menjadi, atau apakah ia datang ke CRI dengan alasan palsu? Jika Walter Martin telah dikemukakan dengan semua bukti, akan ia telah mempekerjakan Hank?

Pretenses palsu?

Hank Hanegraaff dan Walter Martin tidak pernah teman dekat. Paling-paling, mereka dekat kenalan. Ayahku adalah hangat, orang percaya, dan ia sering mengundang orang ke rumahnya. Mereka pertama kali berkenalan ketika Hank meminta saran mengenai istrinya, Kathy, yang waktu itu terlibat dalam sebuah kultus. Hank adalah orang karismatik dengan banyak kualitas yang baik, dan ayahku selalu melihat pada orang yang baik. Dia terkesan dengan Hank kenangan dan apa yang dianggap sebagai memori yang sangat baik saja Memori Dinamika Hank menyatakan bahwa ia berkembang. Dia juga tertarik pada Hank's Personal Saksi Training-lagi, sesuatu yang dia pikir Hank dikembangkan. Dia bilang dia menyukai Hank dan pekerjaannya, dan akan mempekerjakan dia untuk keperluan penggalangan dana, yaitu pemasaran. Dia menyebutkan hal ini beberapa kali untuk berbagai anggota keluarga dan teman-teman dekat-tidak pernah mengatakan apa-apa tentang menyebut namanya sebagai penggantinya.

Tidak sampai di CRI Hank selama lebih dari satu tahun setelah kematian ayahku, bahwa desas-desus tentang Hank dan "bekerja" mulai muncul ke permukaan. Kami meminta Hank menjawab sekarang apa dia menolak menjawab bagi kami tahun lalu: Mengapa Pelatihan Saksi Pribadi Anda tentu saja sangat mirip dengan D. James Kennedy Evangelism Explosion?

Mengapa kau memberitahu orang-orang Dr Kennedy memberi Anda izin untuk menggunakan karya-karyanya? Dr Kennedy mengatakan kepada kami Anda tidak memiliki izin untuk menggunakan karya-karyanya.

Mengapa kamu menjual karya ini sebagai Anda sendiri selama lebih dari sepuluh tahun?

Mengapa Dinamika Memori Anda tentu saja sangat mirip dengan Harry Lorayne Buku The Memory tentu saja memori?

Mengapa kamu menjual karya ini sebagai Anda sendiri selama lebih dari sepuluh tahun?

Mengapa Anda menolak menjawab reputasi baik saudara-saudari dalam Kristus yang datang ke Anda dengan pertanyaan yang sama ini?

Contoh berikut menggambarkan keprihatinan kita tentang Hank's "kerja":

X. Injil Presentasi

(Disarikan dari Perbandingan oleh Robert M. Bowman, Jr, 1998 edition)

Kita sekarang beralih ke dialog sampel yang ditemukan di EE dan di PWT sebagai model untuk menyajikan Injil. Perlu diketahui bahwa telah ditetapkan bahwa kerangka presentasi kedua adalah identik. Ini berarti bahwa di mana dua buku menggunakan susunan kata yang mirip atau identik, kenyataan itu memiliki signifikansi lebih besar dibandingkan jika struktur dasar presentasi yang berbeda.

Ledakan Penginjilan Pribadi vs Saksi Pelatihan

EVANGELISM LEDAKAN
oleh D. James Kennedy

PELATIHAN SAKSI PRIBADI
oleh Hank Hanegraaff

Kennedy melanjutkan kunjungan ke rumah orang yang mengunjungi gereja-Nya, ia memperkenalkan diri, memberi nama gereja-Nya, dan memperkenalkan dua temannya, seorang wanita dan seorang pria (EE, 24).

Hank terus kunjungan ke rumah orang yang mengunjungi gereja-Nya, ia memperkenalkan dirinya dan dua temannya (seorang perempuan dan seorang laki-laki), dan memberikan nama gerejanya (PWT, 3).

Istirahat Kennedy es dengan memperhatikan sebuah lukisan (24). "Kami akan ... mencari ruangan untuk beberapa indikasi minatnya. A ... lukisan ... piala ... "(51).

"Ketika kita masuk dan duduk, kita mencari item yang menarik, mungkin potret, piala, atau penghargaan." (3)

"Bagaimana Anda kebetulan menghadiri gereja kami?" (25).

"Earl, bagaimana kau bisa terjadi untuk mengunjungi gereja kami?" (4)

"Bagaimana kau menyukai layanan?" (25) "Bagaimana kau bisa menikmati layanan ini?" (52)

"Bagaimana kau bisa menikmati layanan ini?" (4)

"Orang-orang tampak begitu ramah dan membuat kita merasa di rumah. Nyanyian hanya indah. "(25)

"Musik itu hebat dan orang-orang membuat kami merasa benar-benar diterima." (4)

"Kau tahu, banyak orang telah disebutkan kepada saya bahwa mereka merasakan sesuatu yang berbeda tentang gereja kita ...." (26)

"Mungkin alasan Anda melihat sesuatu yang istimewa tentang pelayanan dan orang-orang di gereja kami ...." (4)

"Kesaksian" C salah satu gereja, atau kesaksian pribadi (26).

"Kesaksian" C kesaksian pribadi (4).

"Mereka memiliki harapan tetapi mereka tidak tahu pasti bahwa mereka akan masuk surga .... Bagaimana dengan Anda, Mrs Tucker? "(26)

"... Hubungan saya dengan Tuhan membuat saya yakin bahwa ... aku akan hidup bersama Dia di surga selamanya. Bagaimana Anda Earl .... "(4)

"Apakah kau datang ke suatu tempat dalam kehidupan rohani Anda di mana Anda tahu dengan pasti bahwa jika Anda mati hari ini kau akan masuk surga?" (26)

"Apakah hubungan Anda dengan Tuhan membuat Anda yakin akan masuk surga ketika Anda mati?" (5)

"Wah, saya tidak berpikir ada yang bisa benar-benar tahu." (26)

"Tidak juga. Saya tidak berpikir siapa pun bisa yakin akan hal itu. "(5)

"Aku bahkan tahu bahwa itu adalah alasan Alkitab ditulis ... 'yang kamu tahu, bahwa kamu memiliki hidup yang kekal'" (26).

"Itulah sebabnya mengapa Alkitab ditulis. Itu ditulis sehingga kami akan tahu bagaimana ... harus yakin bahwa kita akan hidup bersama Dia selamanya ketika kita mati "(5).

"Apakah Anda ingin saya berbagi dengan Anda bagaimana saya membuat penemuan dan bagaimana Anda bisa tahu juga?" "Ya, silakan." (27)

"Bolehkah saya berbagi dengan Anda bagaimana saya datang untuk memiliki jaminan ini dan bagaimana anda dapat memilikinya juga?" "Silakan." (5)

"Sebelum saya masuk ke itu, izinkan saya menanyakan pertanyaan yang lain ...." (27)

"Sebelum saya melakukan itu, saya ingin mendapatkan wawasan Anda pada satu pertanyaan lagi kalau boleh." (5)

"Misalkan Anda harus mati malam ini dan berdiri di hadapan Allah dan ia berkata kepada Anda, 'Mengapa saya harus membiarkan kamu ke dalam surga?" Apa yang akan Anda katakan? "(27)

"Aku akan tertarik pada apa yang Anda pikirkan persyaratan pintu masuk bagi siapa saja untuk masuk ke surga." (59) "Apa yang akan Anda katakan Allah persyaratan bagi Anda untuk masuk surga?" (5)

"Dan aku mencoba untuk menjadi sebaik yang saya tahu bagaimana." (27)

"... Saya sudah mencoba untuk menjaga Sepuluh Perintah" (18). "Yah, saya kira hidup butuh kehidupan yang baik, menjadi orang yang baik, membantu mereka yang membutuhkan, menjaga sepuluh perintah Allah ..." (5).

Buku Memori Memori Dinamika vs Kebenaran yang menyedihkan adalah bahwa ayah saya, yang membenci plagiarisme dalam bentuk apa pun, akhirnya mempekerjakan seorang pria yang "bekerja" itu dipertanyakan. Walter Martin benar-benar tidak tahu tentang kemiripan mengganggu pekerjaan orang lain-dan jika ia, akan ia telah mempekerjakan Hank Hanegraaff? Lagi. . . ini adalah masalah integritas. Entah Hank "dipinjam" dari pekerjaan orang lain atau tidak. Mengingat pemeriksaan intensif Hank's Personal Saksi Pelatihan dan Memori Dinamika telah mengalami, ini akan sangat mudah untuk membuktikan kebenaran atau kesalahan.

Kita sekarang bertanya Hank, lagi-lagi: Apakah Anda atau apakah Anda tidak menggunakan karya orang lain untuk membuat program-program anda?

Bagaimana Anda dapat menuntut pertanggungjawaban dari orang lain ketika ANDA menolak untuk bertanggung jawab?

Sebuah Trail of Terluka People. . . .

Semua orang-orang berikut memiliki reputasi integritas. Banyak yang masih terlibat dalam pelayanan meminta maaf di seluruh Amerika Serikat.

Craig Nelson,
Mantan Kepala Departemen CRI Radio

Kepada: Dewan Direktur Institut Penelitian Kristen

Aku dipaksa untuk menulis surat kepada Anda sekali lagi. Seperti yang Anda mungkin ingat saya adalah salah satu dari sedikit orang yang menulis surat kepada Anda pada bulan Juni 1990.
Surat ini ditulis setelah berjam-jam wawancara dengan orang-orang seperti: Ken Samples, Craig Hawkins, Rob Bowman, Dan Schlesinger, Tony Horpel, Bill Seaver, Stuart Orr, Dennis Green, Brad Sparks, Mark Hoover, Lillian Stock, Robert Velarde , Mike Stephens, di antara banyak lainnya. . . Beberapa orang-orang ini percaya bahwa mereka dipanggil oleh Allah untuk melayani di CRI. Mereka telah mengatakan kepada saya bahwa mereka bersedia untuk membuat, dan memang membuat, banyak pengorbanan untuk bekerja di sana. Namun, Hank mengatakan kepada saya ini orang-orang yang sama "musuh" untuk pelayanan-Nya. Mereka sombong, sombong, dan memikirkan diri mereka lebih tinggi dari yang seharusnya. Individu ini keluar untuk "menghancurkan saya" dan menolak-Nya "Tuhan diberi wewenang".

Sebuah pola mulai terbentuk sepanjang perjalanan kembali pada tahun 1989 dan awal 1990. Aku adalah bagian dari arah kembali bahwa Hank telah direncanakan. Pada konvensi NRB pada bulan Januari 1990, (i) Tony Horpel dan saya di-"jual" impian visi Hank. Untuk selamanya "memperbaiki" pelayanan CRI oleh pembentukan kembali ke Hank's Dream. Hank mengatakan dia melanjutkan karya Dr Martin. Dan dalam beberapa hal ia mungkin telah benar-benar percaya bahwa.
(i) Horpel Tony mengaku pada saya bahwa Hank mengatakan bahwa. . . "Dr Martin dalam cara visi sendiri. . . bahwa CRI diperlukan Me [Hank] sebagai visioner Baru. . . ". Tony juga mengatakan bahwa Hank merasa ia perlu melangkah ke atau mengisi Dr Martin's sepatu, pada intinya untuk menjadi Dr Martin, dan Tony Hank berusaha meyakinkan bahwa ia tidak perlu melakukannya. Sebaliknya, Hank harus memanfaatkan semua sumber daya staf. Tapi, menurut Tony, tidak pernah Hank menanggapi saran. Sebaliknya, kata Hank Tony Horpel, Dennis Green dan saya bahwa dia akan mencapai hal ini membentuk kembali oleh 'sistematis memaksa pengunduran diri dari semua staf penelitian di atas yang relatif waktu singkat. "CRI adalah menjadi pelayanan satu orang.

Seperti yang saya nyatakan dalam surat saya tanggal 6 Juni 1990, salah satu yang terburuk dari Hank menampilkan agenda tersembunyi datang tepat setelah Alkitab Answer Man disiarkan pada awal Februari 1990. Hank, Craig Hawkins dan aku berada di udara hari itu bersama-sama. Segera setelah program berakhir kami bertiga berdiri untuk meninggalkan studio. Hank mulai memuji Craig. Dia menyatakan dengan jelas bahwa Craig jelas Dr Martin pengganti permanen untuk program harian. Hank menyatakan kagum sangat besar Craig bakat dan hadiah. Hank mengatakan kepadanya bahwa dia menghitungnya pemeliharaan Allah telah disiapkan Craig untuk peran yang sangat penting ini sebagai Kitab Suci baru Answer Man dan bahwa ia memandang ke depan untuk bekerja sama dengan Craig selama bertahun-tahun yang akan datang. Pada saat itu Hank dan aku berangkat ke kantor untuk siaran posting reguler kami review.
Ketika kami sampai di puncak tangga, dengan Craig Hawkins hanya 10 atau 12 langkah di belakang kami, Hank merangkul bahu saya, membungkuk untuk menjelaskan dengan tenang. . . 'Craig Hawkins adalah serigala dalam pakaian domba, ia haus kekuasaan. . . Aku akan menyingkirkan dia secepat mungkin. Kau tahu, istriku Kathy mempunyai karunia kewaspadaan dan katanya Craig adalah untuk menghancurkan saya dan pelayanan saya di sini. Dia ingin tidak lebih dari untuk mengambil alih dan memaksa saya keluar. Dia punya berita datang. . . Dia keluar dari sini!! "Aku tidak percaya telingaku. . . Aku terkejut! Tiba-tiba muncul seolah-olah Hank percaya bahwa dengan rahasia di dalam diriku ia bisa menciptakan sebuah aliansi untuk mendukung rencana rahasia. Dia melakukan hal yang persis sama dengan Tony Horpel dan Dennis Green.

Tony, Dennis dan aku mulai mempertanyakan Hank dan orang lain tentang konflik antara staf penelitian dan staf administrasi Hank serta ketidaklayakan jelas periklanan Hank's Personal Saksi Pelatihan (PWT) / Memori Dinamis seminar mengenai siaran harian.

(i) Dennis Green menjadi sama-sama khawatir tentang halaman penuh iklan Hank ditempatkan dalam jurnal. (i) Dennis Green, Tony Horpel dan aku dihadapkan J-dan kemudian Hank sendiri tentang Hank membayar untuk iklan-nya "Bagi-Laba" Dinamika Memori perusahaan melalui CRI. Setelah terus keprihatinan diungkapkan oleh orang lain (termasuk Tim Folkers - sebagaimana yang diuraikan dalam surat saya tanggal 6 Juni, 1990), Hank meyakinkan beberapa dari kami bahwa ia akan menghentikan penyalahgunaan ini kekuasaannya sebagai presiden. Namun ia terus melakukan hal ini berulang-ulang selama empat tahun. Termasuk promosi bukunya, Christianity in Crisis, yang juga muncul sebagai produk Dynamics Memori.
Pada saat itu bahwa Hank tiba-tiba mulai menjauhkan diri dari saya. Selanjutnya, aku pseudo. . . "Dilepaskan". Aku belum pernah dipecat atau dipaksa untuk meninggalkan suatu pekerjaan, apalagi cara saya dipaksa keluar dari CRI.

Hank menjelaskan kepada saya bahwa ia telah mencari seseorang untuk membantu saya dalam departemen radio. Kebutuhan saya telah menyatakan lebih dari sekali. Sebagai soal fakta, Hank telah bertemu dengan Mike Stephens yang menghadiri kelas Alkitab dan yang telah bekerja untuk KBRT radio. Hank menjelaskan kepada saya bahwa Mike akan disewa untuk menjadi asisten saya. Dia juga menjelaskan bahwa Mike akan bekerja penuh waktu untuk sangat sedikit uang yang akan memungkinkan saya untuk meng-upgrade studio seperti yang diperlukan. Dan bahwa Mike menyukai karya CRI dan akan "sangat setia" kepada Hank. Mike kemudian dipekerjakan. Hanya. . . Mike diberitahu bahwa itu akan berada di bawah berpura-pura menggantikan aku.

The second most devastating experience I endured at the hands of Hank and his staff would come just after Mike Stephens was hired, but before I was notified that I was to be released. The management staff was informed that a photographer was coming to work in order to take pictures of each of the department heads. These photos were to be used in the new CRI multi-color brochure. We were instructed to come to work dressed our best. I was really excited! With 8 or 9 staff members watching, it came time to set up and shoot the radio department. Ron Rhodes and I were told to sit down together as the photographer prepared the appropriate lighting and our best positioning. Just as the photographer was ready to shoot . . . Mike Stephens came in and told me that he had been informed that he was to sit in my place. I was totally taken by surprise! I said something to the affect of . . . “I'm certain Dennis wants the department head to be in this picture.” Dennis said “Yea, Craig is the right person.” “No” said Mike, he was just told to take my place. I looked around in amazement and said “what is going on here?” Suddenly J– spoke up and said . . . “Yes Craig, we want Mike in the photo.” It was so embarrassing, it was like a nightmare, my heart was pounding, I began to perspire, I just couldn't believe the humiliation in front of 8 or 9 people from the staff. I know it may not seem like a big deal, but I walked slowly down the hall to my office, sat down alone at my desk and began to cry. I must have cried for twenty minutes. By the time I got up the photo shoot was over, and I was heartbroken.

Within a day or two, Hank created a series of meetings where I was told by J– that CRI could no longer live up to Hank's promises of a full-time salary of around $50K a year. (This is an amount that (i) Dennis Green-overheard Hank promise to me directly. Hank also implied directly to Dennis Green that I would make around the fifty thousand @ dollar range as well. (i) Tony Horpel was told that he could expect, with video and seminar income, to earn between $70-80K a year.) I now believe that Hank was making promises to Dennis, Tony and me, that he never intended to keep! Promises that would buy our support.

Over the course of just a couple of days J– would direct Mike Stephens to inform me that I was being released through a “change of employment” agreement. This is something that I never agreed to.

During one of the last of these meetings I was called into Hank's office. There sat J–, Mike and Hank. This meeting was the single most devastating of any of my encounters with Hank. I was humiliated, berated and out-right lied to. In affect, Hank was trying to enrage me in order for me to leave on my own. Tetapi tidak berhasil. Therefore, Mike was forced to deliver the so called “change of employment” form to me. I refused to sign such a form.

Based on my own direct experiences and the reports of many others, I was forced to go through the following abuses and acts of vengeance over four years ago: I was characterized as a money hungry disgruntled employee . . . but I let it go.

Many lies were told about me and my motives . . . but I let it go.

I was slandered behind my back to two of my best friends injuring those friendships . . . but I let it go.

I was forced out of CRI without notice or cause . . . I but I let it go.

I apologized to Hank for reacting in anger to his abuse, only to have it used against me . . . but I let it go.

I wrote to you, the CRI board with my great concerns and yet was ignored . . . but I let it go.

It was even implied that I may suffer from delusions because of having a sister who is mentally ill . . . But, I even let that go!!!

I let a lot . . . GO . . . back in 1990. But after hearing the testimony of more than 20 people from different backgrounds tell their personal stories of abuse, authoritarian rule, lying and distortions of truth as well as what appears to be pathological behavior and manipulation by Mr. Hanegraaff, your president! It was this that motivated me to, once again, contact you. This time, I will not simply . . . “Let it Go!!!”
As was requested of me, I am totally committed to participate with the group for accountability for CRI. I'm certain that you have all been informed as to the meeting that Hank was invited to on April 17, 1994. As Chuck Smith has said many times, when a small group of focused Christian men and women gather to pray and seek God, miracles do happen!

The name of the Lord Jesus Christ has been dragged through the mud long enough! It is time for the Board to take action! Your duplicity as the board of CRI only serves to prove that you too are culpable. It is indefensible to cover up the problem of Hank's leadership and personal agenda by using the name of Christ and blaming Satan as foe which serves to provide Hank with a line of defense!
There is also some serious question as to what Dr. Martin's intended role for Hank Hanegraaff was supposed to be upon his passing. Dr. Martin wanted to see CRI expand into the future, that is certain. But many people have suggested that Dr. Martin only wanted Hank to work in the area of development and administration. Never to become the new “Bible Answer Man” nor the senior president over research. Hank was never formally considered the acting president while Dr. Martin was still alive. Did the board approve Hank's position before or after Hank assumed this new and very significant role and title? Did the board elect Hank president or Not?
So many people have come forward to testify to Hank's inappropriate and suspect behavior, that there is no question . . . You must take action! The scripture is very clear. Go to the brother who has offended you alone first. If he refuses to hear you, take two or three witnesses. If he still refuses, take to him to the Church. Still refusing we are to expose him Publicly 1 We are to treat him as a non-believer!

I do believe with all of my heart that I have followed the prescribed method as is outlined in Matthew 18. 1 went to Hank alone. Met with Hank, J– and Mike. Wrote to you, the Board of CRI. I have waited for over four years before taking any further action. And now, it's time to go to the Church at Large . . . Including CRI's constituents. More than anything, I want to see the vision of Dr. Martin re-established at the Christian Research Institute!

Let me tell you what most all of the people that I have interviewed have insisted that Dr. Martin Did Not wish to see happen upon his passing. CRI to become a tool of Memory Dynamics, Inc. selling Personal Witness Training seminars and materials through CRI for Hank's financial benefit.

CRT to become a clearing house and marketing tool that would make Hank wealthy, as he now is. Living a life of Luxury. Houses, Cars, Golf Memberships . . . all on contributions using Donors' Money! I wonder how donors will react when they are informed?

A house in the single most exclusive residential community in Orange County, Coto de Caza !!!

Hank to use CRI volunteers who believed they were volunteering for CRI, but were actually doing volunteer work for Hank's Memory Dynamics / Profit based Company!!!

An immediate and significant salary increase given to Hank, by Hank, within a week of Dr. Martin's death.

CRI to force Craig Hawkins out of the organization. The only person Dr. Martin ever publicly endorsed and intended to carry on the “Bible Answer Man” broadcast in his own place. A person theologically qualified and groomed for that very position. It's no wonder Craig rejected Hank's self-appointed rule and position of control.

CRI to “plot” to “get rid of” all the research staff that wouldn't blindly follow Hank's wishes.

CRI to regularly abuse, humiliate, financially ruin, and emotionally destroy it's staff.

CRI to become less and less concerned with research. Can you imagine Dr. Martin saying, “. . . all of the primary research is now completed, all we need to do is market it better. . . .” This was actually said by Hank to me personally, and (just recently reported) said by Hank to others.

I can almost hear Dr. Martin saying 'What in heavens name has Hank done to CRI
If Hank is a Christian, he must be called to an account for his many abuses of authority. Technically, only you, The Board of Trustees can bring this about!!!

Please feel free to contact me individually if you wish. If you'd like me to meet with you collectively, I would welcome such a request. I will be available after the May 9th meeting of the Board of Trustees of Simon Greenleaf University. Please call me at the number listed below.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Craig Nelson

Dan R. Schlessinger,
Former CRI Research Department Coordinator

Dear CRI Board Members:

Some of you may remember me from my employment there at CRI between 1985 to 1989. I worked as the Building Campaign Manager, Research Consultant, and finally as the Research Department Coordinator. My time and involvement, while there at CRI, was the highlight of my ministerial experience. In fact, I believed so strongly in the mission and ministry of Walter Martin, I had hoped to continue there until my retirement.

Needless to say, things changed for me shortly after Hank Hanegraaff came to CRI. My understanding regarding his coming on board CRI was that he would be functioning in an executive administrative capacity. However, soon after Walter Martin died, Hank assumed the role of president of CRI. At first there was little discussion regarding Hank's new role, but questions regarding his position, agenda, and qualifications began to be raised by a number of people not only from the research department but other departments as well.
The following report details the evolution of the events surrounding my final two-months at CRI, the eventual “trial” for my “crimes”, and my forced resignation from the ministry. What I am about to share actually happened. I'm not fabricating a story because I am a disgruntled former employee. Neither do I seek revenge or personal vindication in order to hurt Hank Hanegraaff or the ministry of CRI.

I am fully at peace with God regarding my sharing this information with you. So, whatever happens as a result of this report, I am prepared to take full responsibility before the Lord.

Please understand also, I share the following with you out of a deep sense of love and compassion for the ministry of CRI- I'm concerned that you are aware of what has happened in the past with regard to me (and many others), and more importantly, what is happening presently within the walls of CRI. With that in mind, I present to you, as a matter of record, the following report.

As I stated above, I held the position of Research Department Coordinator previous to my departing CRI. Given the fact that I held a responsible position at CRI, and not wanting to perpetuate rumor or misinformation regarding Hank's position or agenda, I refrained from addressing questions or giving my own personal opinions to those coming to me with concerns. However, questions kept coming from individuals pulling me aside or coming to my office regarding Hank's qualifications, etc. After several weeks of this, I began to see there was much greater concern on all levels of ministry (never mind my own personal questions and opinions) than I first suspected.
Eventually the number of individuals expressing their concerns rose to a point where I knew I had to take what I heard and felt myself, to the Research Department Executive Committee (which I chaired) to ask for their counsel and direction.

he Executive Committee advised me to go directly to Hank and share with him all that had happened the previous couple of weeks. I immediately went to Hank (J– was there also) and began to share the aforementioned concerns. Hank got very upset, raising his voice at me, asking what right I had to question his credentials. He then questioned my background and education (though at that time I had a Master's degree), and insisted he could “debate with the best there was” on the subject of Creation/Evolution and other issues, and that he “memorized all of Walter Martin's tapes and read over sixteen books on the New Age Movement.” (When questioning his lack of a formal education, Hank responded by saying I was arrogant and prideful to even bring up the subject.” )

Hank then insisted that I name the individuals who raised questions regarding his position and other concerns. I felt very uncomfortable in doing so and asked that they remain unknown until a later date. Hank insisted again that I name names and so I gave him an example regarding one individual, sharing briefly his concern. (I realize now I probably should not have mentioned this person but, as was the case in most instances, Hank had a rather forceful and manipulative way of getting what he wanted.) After an hour or so, Hank asked me to leave and said that he would call me back to his office later that morning.

About 11:30 that morning, Hank called me back to his office and I was told that I had misrepresented people, was a divisive person, and that I had undermined his position and authority by not going to him first or encouraging others to go directly to him with their concerns. I agreed that I should have encouraged others to go to him (though most people were in positions where they felt very uncomfortable bringing these kind of concerns to him personally) but that I was definitely not guilty of causing division or undermining him.

Once again about mid-afternoon of the same day I was called back into Hank's office this time to be told that several individuals recommended dismissing me because of my “attitude problems.” Hank told me that he was told that I had a long history of divisiveness and failed to submit to those whom I was accountable to. In spite of all these allegations, Hank stated he was willing to “give me another chance to make it work” and therefore allowed me to continue on with CRI.

About a week later I scheduled a Research Department meeting where most of the research staff were present. One of the items on the agenda pertained to questions regarding the upcoming Board meeting. (I was told explicitly in a previous meeting with J–, to communicate to the research staff not to “pull board members aside to discuss daily operations, problems or concerns regarding the ministry.” Moreover, J– said Board members were coming expressly for the board meeting only and that it was not proper protocol to involve them in the internal affairs of the research department or any other department for that matter.) In our research department meeting, I communicated to the staff exactly what I was supposed to regarding board members. Someone responded by asking how many Board members were presently with CRI and who were they. Someone stated “three or four.” I said that was correct and that there was another individual presently being considered. I was asked whether I knew anything about him and I stated that I knew only that he was a close friend of Hank's and that he had completed Hank's memory training seminar. Following my statement several research staff made flippant remarks including E– who stated “God forbid that he be a theologian.”

Immediately after the meeting R– came to my office and stated that “I blew it again.” He accused me of undermining the leadership of CRI this time by questioning the “credentials” of a potentially new board member and further by questioning Hank's selection of this individual. I responded by saying that I intimated no such thing and no one present at the meeting understood me that way. Because I felt R– was so off base, I went to every individual who attended the meeting and asked them whether they misunderstood my comments regarding the candidate for position of Board member. Without exception, not one staff member said they understood my “comments” as undermining or questioning Hank's selection of a new board member.

I went back to R– and stated that I thought he overreacted and that I was fully exonerated from these false charges. Apparently, R– thought otherwise. He called Hank over the weekend and communicated his “concerns” about me and the remarks I made at the staff meeting.

Monday morning I was again called into Hank's office. With Hank were R– and J–. Hank confronted me with the things R– had accused me of and within a few minutes found myself in a heated discussion with Hank and a shouting match with R–. Our meeting was interrupted because of the scheduled Monday morning prayer time and so we were to meet again after lunch.
I was sickened at what I was accused of to the point where my stomach was in knots. I went on my lunch break and just sat in my car, prayed, and tried to relax – I couldn't eat I was so upset.

After about an hour or so, I went back to my office and waited for Hank to call me back in to his office. After several hours Hank still had not buzzed me to come to his office so I decided to ask his secretary if she knew whether Hank was available to speak with. She stated that he was in a meeting with R–, J–, and E– and that they had been in there since returning from lunch.
I knocked on Hank's door and was told that they resumed the meeting without me, to leave for a while, and that he (Hank) would call me back in as soon as they were finished.

About 45 minutes later, Hank called me back to the meeting. From that time on I was “hit” with every piece of so-called “dirty laundry” since I began with CRI. I was told not only was I guilty of undermining the leadership of the ministry, but my performance as research department coordinator was in question, and that my communication skills were “sub-standard.” I was told that I was basically a “square peg in a round hole.”

I argued vigorously that none of my performance evaluations (though not perfect) reflected their opinions. If fact, Leona Ross (former Administrator of CRI) gave me a performance evaluation based on both her's and the executive Committee's evaluations which was clearly satisfactory and above in many areas! Moreover, others in the research department not present at that meeting felt my communication skills (written and oral) were good and had I been given proper help (perhaps an assistant or secretary.) I would have been able to accomplish much more!

Interestingly, a few day's prior to this meeting, R– told me that he knew I loved research and would be content to be put in a room to do research because I was an “investigative type” and had an “ability to really pull out what others generally miss.”
While I freely admitted my writing skills needed improvement, I was never given the opportunity to improve while at CRI – I simply did not have the time to develop them due to research and administrative burdens.

After a couple of hours or so, Hank was interrupted by a phone call regarding his seminar tapes. He got up and left to take care of his business and finally came back to the meeting. He immediately stated that it would be in the best interest of CRI (and for me) to part company and go on my way. (I broke down and cried. ) He said he would do anything he could to make my departure smooth and as painless as possible and that he would be more than happy to write me a letter of recommendation. I was also told that I could pick up my books and other belongings later, not at that time. I left CRI that day devastated.

Having left CRI at such a quick notice left me somewhat baffled. I felt deeply that I certainly had something yet to offer the ministry. It wasn't easy to put four years of ministry at CRI and another fourteen years of counter-cult ministry prior to CRI on the shelf. Because of my phone counseling abilities, breath of knowledge on the cults, the occult and general apologetics (all of which had been praised by a number of research staff), I felt that I could help develop or assist in developing ways of expanding the department in areas needing more attention.

I put together a proposal and asked Hank if I could present it to him. He was quite open to my suggestions and in fact seemed to be elated with the idea! We met in his office a few days later where I shared my proposal. For the most part, Hank was in agreement with what I wanted to do. He said he wanted to think some things through and get back with me later.

As a result of this meeting, I was led to believe that there was a possibility of returning to CRI. In my excitement I began to share what Hank and I talked about with a few of my friends on the research staff asking them to pray with me in the matter. After a week or so, I began to inquire about Hank's decision regarding the proposal. Hank informed me that he would have to seek advise from B– (then candidate for the research coordinator position) and perhaps one other person as well.

About that time Hank was preparing for a trip to Hawaii and would not be returning until the following week. While he was away, I received a phone call from J– at my home in which she informed me that it was never Hank's intention to bring me back on in any capacity then or in the near future. She also stated that I was in jeopardy of loosing the second half of my severance pay due to my breaching our agreement that I not “arouse or stir up things” with other staff regarding my leaving CRI. J– accused me of rallying individuals for personal support and stirring up confusion among CRI staff regarding my departure and possible return. (However, as I mentioned above, the only two people I shared my “vision” with was C–. and R– who, incidently, wholly favored my return.)
I argued that I was not wrong in confiding with my friends and I did not “breech” our agreement. J– backed off though she said she had grave reservations regarding my actions.

At the end of the next week, I was finally able to make arrangements to pick up my books, files, and other belongings. When I arrived, everything had been packed for me in boxes. My instructions were to quietly pick my things up and leave as quickly as possible so as not to “disturb anyone” or anything at CRI.

The following Tuesday I spoke with Hank once again regarding my proposal. He stated that I was in error to think that he was going to bring me back on at that time or in the near future. Once again we exchanged words. It was quite obvious there would not be any ministry opportunities for me at CRI, this time, for good. Once again, I left CRI with a deep sense of loss.

Needless to say, the whole ordeal from the outset was very disturbing and left me in a state of depression and disillusionment. Because I confronted Hank with real concerns – not imagined – I was brought before a kangaroo court where I was “tried” or judged without due process; I was accused of being divisive; I was shouted at and attacked personally by the president of CRI; I was told that I was arrogant and prideful for raising questions regarding legitimate inquiries as to Hank's credentials; I was treated like a criminal; I was wrongly accused of being incompetent, insubordinate, and useless to the ministry of CRI.

My commitment to CRI and the things I accomplished while there (managing a building campaign which brought in 1.6 million dollars in gifts and pledges, the creation of “Table-talks” with Dr. Martin and the research staff, development of an Internship program, writing personal letters for Dr. Martin, doing primary research for Journal articles, writing book reviews and research papers, answering hundreds of research calls, presenting lengthy reports to the CRI Board, etc.,) hardly speak of a person without anything to offer to the ministry.

I am appalled that this kind of thing happened by Christians who were apparently thinking of themselves only. Because I was forced to resign from CRI, I (and my family) have had no unemployment benefits, no substantial income to speak of; we had to sell our home in Oceanside because we couldn't pay our mortgage payment; my wife had a miscarriage due to the stress and pressure related to my leaving CRI; and I have not been able to find related ministry employment other than those which expect us to raise our own financial support to work with their organization.

From the first time I was made aware of Hank Hanegraaff's possible involvement with CRI, I had personal reservations whether it would be in the best interest of CRI to bring him on except in an executive administrative capacity. It had been communicated to the research staff that he would function in this role. However, after Hank shared his own objectives in a company meeting, it became quite clear to me that he was going to “integrate” his own ministry (PWT) with CRI's ministry. At first, it seemed there might be some merit to what he was saying. However, in reality, what he was really saying was CRI would become his ministry. Indeed, since Dr. Martin's untimely death, that's exactly what it has become!

Along with the above, I offer the following observations regarding my personal concerns about the president of the largest and influential counter-cult ministry in the world: Hank has no formal education. One would think that a person holding the position of president of an apologetic and counter-cult ministry would possess at least a BA or MA degree in a field relevant to CRI's area of ministry. Though many in the research department hold BA or MA degrees, the credibility (both academic and spiritual) of CRI suffers when it's own president and leader lacks any formal education. This leads me to my second point.

Hank's depth of knowledge (to include his critical thinking abilities) on the cults, the occult, apologetics, and theology is lacking. This is evidenced by statements he has made to the research staff as well as the radio audience on BAM.

Hank consistently demonstrates conduct unbecoming of Christian leadership. When confronted by concerns, questions, or comments regarding his credentials or decision making, Hank exhibits anger, verbal outbursts, endless self-defense, manipulation of other's words and self-aggrandizement. These are not marks or characteristics of a sensitive, humble, Christian leader.

Kesimpulan

The ministry and mission of Christian Research Institute needs to continue the vision and mission of it's founder, the late Dr. Walter Martin. It should not be integrated with the ministry (or business) of Hank Hanegraaff.

The research department needs to return to the development of first-rate research department – a think-tank where researchers are free to write, publish, dialogue, and produce materials on the lay and scholarly level for the furtherance of the Gospel. Hank has, by-in-large, diluted or dissolved this objective by systematically disposing of researchers who have the capability of bringing this about.

CRI's president and director should have ample qualifications for such a position. He need's to be well-educated, have an extensive background (both practically and professionally) in counter-cult studies, apologetics, and theology, a deep sense of mission and calling to this kind of ministry, a mature walk with the Lord which exhibits humility and servitude, and a man of prayer.

Hank Hanegraaff is not an apologist, theologian, nor an expert on the cults or the occult. Hank Hanegraaff, in my opinion, is a lay evangelist pretending to be what he is not. He should be exercising those gifts God has bestowed on him in his respective field of ministry.

Hank Hanegraaff needs to be removed from the ministry of CRI. He should not be allowed to “pontificate” on matters of faith or doctrine as he is clearly unqualified to do so. Neither should he be allowed to perpetuate the wrongdoing he has brought on many others since my departure.

I ask you, the board of CRI, to review the above in an attitude of prayer and concern. I sincerely hope and pray you will look into these matters and take appropriate action. The future life and ministry of the Christian Research Institute demands that you take these matters seriously. I trust you will do what's best for the memory and ministry of Walter Martin. Especially remember, it is the Lord's ministry – He holds those of us in responsible positions directly accountable for the decisions we make.

Always in the Service of Christ,
Dan R. Schlesinger

Eliseo Giron,
Former CRI Translator

Dear brother,

I pray that this letter finds you well and rejoicing in the Lord. I am writing you a letter that I find most difficult to write. I'll start by saying that I have given CRI almost six years of good, solid service, not only helping Rich Poll with library materials, but also translating over 100 articles under your supervision. I have enjoyed every minute of the literally thousands of hours that I have spent as a translator and I believe that my work there has not been in vain because many Spanish speaking people have been helped. I have also been a staunch supporter of CRI and CRI Brazil although I am already retired and have limited resources. I am writing to you with certain concerns that I feel need to be expressed. And I am writing to you because I have known you all these years and have admired you and your untiring work as CRI International Coordinator, and hope that you will understand what my frustrations are. I have valued your friendship and consider you a dear brother in Christ. I trust that you will take what I have to say with understanding and Christian love.

I suppose it first began when Craig Hawkins was terminated at CRI. At the time, although I was surprised and saddened, I took it as an internal problem at CRI. However, when Robert Bowman was terminated, it really bothered me. I know it bothered you because of your demeanor when I asked you about his leaving. But again, I chose to overlook it as another internal problem. The resignation of Kenneth Samples, though, was of particular concern for me. I have the highest respect for Ken not only because he is an educator, a fellow teacher, a profession that I held for over thirty years, but also because of his skill as a researcher. I enjoyed translating his articles. His leaving CRI hurt me greatly. Even then, I chose to consider his resignation as none of my business, because being only a volunteer it really wasn't any of my business. All my frustrations and concerns, though, came to a culminating point at the insensitive and unloving way that CRI dropped the class at Newport Mesa Christian Center. It left me, along with hundreds of others deeply hurt. One Sunday we had a teacher, then the following Sundays there was no one to teach the class, The class was dropped much like a hot potato. It nearly destroyed the class. I thank the Lord that he heard our prayers and Ken Samples took the class over. Since then, though, Brad Sparks, Mary Cook, Rich Abanes and others have been dismissed from CRI. There must be something terribly wrong at CRI. I understand that there were some demonstrations at CRI on April 23 during the Book Fair because a listener referred to the demonstrations on a call to the BAM program.

I am completely bewildered and hurt. In view of the concerns which I have expressed to you, I find it very difficult to continue to support CRI, something that I never deemed possible, simply because of the legacy that Dr. Walter Martin left, not only in the wonderful research staff that he gathered, but also in the Bible class that meant so much to him. But when I see the research staff being dismantled, or so it seems, I cannot support CRI any longer. However, I will continue to support CRI Brazil because of your interest in the work there and the ministry of Paulo Romeiro. I covet your prayers and your counsel. I know that I will remember CRI, and you in particular in my prayers. May the Lord richly bless you and your family.

Dalam Kristus,
Eliseo

Anthony Horpel,
Former CRI Seminar Division / Video Department Head

To the CRI Board of Directors:

This letter is written by request from some twenty individuals who believe that Hank Hanegraaff is not qualified to lead CRI. I feel that in light of what they have testified combined with what I know to be true they appear to have a very good case.

I was recruited into CRI by Hank in late 1989 to develop a seminar division and a video department with equipment from my former business. The equipment was purchased from me by CRI for about $40,000. I agreed to take on this challenge contingent on a salary of $30,000 per year plus an opportunity to generate, additional income through book and tape sales made from these seminars. I had told Hank that I needed to earn around $70,000 a year. He indicated that that would be no problem since he had already done very well with Personal Witness Training. Hank said that I should be generating the income I needed in six to eight months. The seminar themes were to be based on PWT with Hank and ultimately with a team of outside speakers delivering them. Hank had no intention of using his CRI research staff as part of his speaking team because he felt they would not make good speakers. I saw almost immediately that there would be problems since the research staff would have been offended if Hank had sought outside staffing for CRI/PWT seminars. Because of this potential problem and the fact that Hank had never developed PWT enough to make it transferable, nothing ever got off the ground. This all became very apparent to me by April of '90.

I was never allowed to develop and schedule any seminars. The farthest I got was creating time lines based on ICR's materials and following through with a seminar previously scheduled in Wellsville, New York with Elliot Miller who was specifically requested. That seminar was a success for Wellsville but a bomb for CRI. CRI lost about $1500 in expenses. The blame shifted between Elliot Miller not being prepared enough professionally as a speaker and poor judgment for seminar location.

After the Wellsville fiasco, all seminar discussions stopped and Hank redirected my focus to producing a video brochure. I began to realize that the income from seminars would not materialize, at least at this point. Recognizing that, Hank assured me that I could probably learn and teach PWT with him or at least earn some income booking engagements for him. This never materialized either. It all seemed to be just a lot of talk. When pressed for any real commitments, Hank stalled and blamed the delays on Kathy.
Hank believed the researchers were conspiring against him. He commented about Paul Carden, Ken Samples and Craig Hawkins. How they were either useless or in the way and if they were gone he'd never miss them. On several occasions Hank had confided that he thought Craig Hawkins was not a team player. That he had an agenda of his own and was a threat. I recommended that he confront Craig with his differences. He never did.

While Hank was introducing PWT to CRI, there was a growing concern about the mixing of a for-profit operation (Memory Dynamics) with a non-profit organization (CRI). It appeared that Hank was using CRI staff on CRI time to prepare PWT materials. Promotions for PWT seminars were broadcast and printed on CRI time with CRI staff. Hank defended himself by stating that Tim was working it all out and that a solution was at hand. We were never privy to the “Solution”. There was definitely the appearance of a conflict of interest. Hank was also able to persuade CRI staff to volunteer to man his book tables when he gave his for-profit PWT seminars.

In May of '90 Hank had decided to travel to Brazil and evaluate CRI Brazil. His original intention was to end the financial support or at least slowly diminish it. He asked me to join him and gather up some video footage of Brazilian occultic and cultic activity, which I did. While in Brazil Hank outwardly expressed much compassion for the staff's effort. However, inwardly Hank had little compassion for the poverty level of the CRI staff. While there, he expressed that he resented buying lunch for the staff members after we had been out all morning visiting the cults (with their cars and expensive gasoline). If it were not for them we would have been completely helpless. Paulo Romeiro is a real trooper! He would do anything for the truth. Needless to say, Hank did not stop support to CRI Brazil, but he did begin to reduce support forcing Paulo to seek additional aid from aggressive seminar marketing.

After we returned from Brazil, my time was spent finishing the video brochure and creating another from the Brazilian footage. This program was used to help raise support for Brazil. I had nothing to do with the promotions of that program. It was shortly after we had returned from Brazil that the first “insurrection” to oust Hank exploded. You all are quite aware of what happened there. Hank told us that Craig Hawkins believed him to be possessed by demons. That seemed hard to believe but Hank is very convincing and since we had no reason to doubt we gave him the benefit. Besides he was the President. I stood by him through it all. However, in observing Hank over the last four years and listening to the complaints of mishandled employees, I began to wonder ;if the insurrection of 90 might really have been justified.

The Bible Answer Man became the “Hank Hanegraaff Hour”. His ego seemed to run out of control. Although he relied on the expertise of Ron and the others, he made numerous inexcusable blunders on the air. Hank is just not qualified for the role of Bible Answer Man. If the format were changed, then perhaps he might be. While his attacks on the Word Faith movement were justified, far too much time was dedicated to it. The other issues (the cults etc.) with which CRI dealt paled into insignificance. Hank was on a soapbox. The book, Christianity in Crisis was promoted on the air in a sensationalistic fashion as if Hank had a lot to gain by the sale of his book over the airwaves.

As the year drew to a close, Hank no longer seemed interested in me or in any capacity I could hold on the CRI staff. The promises of a larger income had faded away and $30,000 a year could not fulfill my financial obligations. On December 15, 1990 I gave Hank my notice. Hank said that he would subcontract me to do video work when needed. Video work was subcontracted but not with me. To the best of my knowledge, all the video gear still sits somewhere on the premises gathering dust.

Since I left CRI, I met with Hank once for dinner and talked with him once or twice on the phone. Every now and then I would drop by to say hello or use the video gear for a small project. Hank was always too busy to talk.

Over the past four years, I heard many stories from individuals who had also left CRI. Their observations of Hank and the way he ran CRI matched very closely to mine. But their stories were much more harsh. The question of Memory Dynamics and CRI as a conflict of interest seems to lie at the bottom of it all.

It is my opinion that Hank believes himself to be extremely honest and forthright. That he sees himself as an individual who has taken CRI on an incredible journey to prosperity. Because he has done this, and quite well I might add, he feels justified in generating income through Memory Dynamics at CRI's expense. That this somehow is the least CRI can do to pay him back. I don't think ethics has ever really entered his mind. He doesn't view himself as part of CRI. I think he sees CRI as a part of himself. He doesn't serve CRI; CRI serves him.

Hormat kami,
Anthony Horpel