台連接
由吉爾馬丁Rische
1997年年底，達莉娜馬丁要求我們對指控進行調查漢克Hanegraaff已經提請她注意的親密朋友和許多其他有關基督徒。 經過兩年的深入調查，在台的情況，我們現在能夠公開處理這個問題。
1994年，大約30名僱員組成的國際廣播電台國際台問責小組，企圖舉行漢克Hanegraaff自己的行為負責。 他拒絕與他們見面，單獨或作為一個群體。 相反，漢克Hanegraaff的律師，西利耶茨，致函該組織成員的部分內容如下：
“該種報表一直在你的方式你的信和施捨。 。 。 是誹謗根據加州法律。 你可以承擔賠償責任的實際造成的損失由您的行動。 此外，您還可以被追究法律責任的懲罰性賠償，如果你的行為是惡意的。 可以建立惡意的證據，證明你為所欲為沒有任何證據表明陳述一個事實。 。 。 。
如果我知道未來任何損害他人名譽的行為對您的電腦就漢克Hanegraaff或國際廣播電台，我將不得不[的]建議我的客戶採取適當的法律行動。“-西利耶茨（信1994年5月24日）
羅伯特鮑曼成員組台責任，回應西利耶茨說：“精神中，我們作為一個集團接近[台]局作為基督教的兄弟姐妹誰是真正關心的完整性，我們的一個部舉行親愛的，被忽略。 更糟的是，你在信中，我們是誹謗和威脅。 我們被指控告訴對方“謊言”和“故事”，然後“魯莽”和“漫不經心地”散佈“謠言和指控的真相。”你表明，我們的指控能證明已與“實際惡意”。 並威脅要起訴你，我們（我們大家的？）的建議，我們將不會使我們的投訴，公開，除非我們準備好“在未來的3至5年的訴訟和對風險的判斷[我們]將履行的不破產。 。 。 。“
我相信你正試圖恐嚇我們陷入沉默訴訟威脅，因為你的客戶不能回答我們的收費。 。 。 如果Hanegraaff先生是無辜的，我們最嚴重的罪名，披露的信息，駁斥他們。 我是一個理性的人。 告訴我，我錯了，我會作出收回。 告訴我說，指控該集團的國際廣播電台責任是錯誤的，我不僅將放棄集團，我將先生Hanegraaff一方反對。“-羅伯特鮑曼（信1994年7月11日）
討論商量後，許多著名基督教領袖（誰從未台員工）對他們的個人經歷與漢克Hanegraaff和審查提交的書面證詞集團台責任，我們決定接觸，親自為盡可能多的人，努力達成真相。 如果漢克是無辜的，我們希望提出非常明確的每一個人。 如果他受到了嚴重傷害的證據，我們覺得有責任，因為家庭的沃爾特馬丁這樣說。 重要的是要在這裡指出，該集團為國際台問責並沒有主動與我們聯繫。 我們向他們提到一些德高望重的基督教領袖的關心台促使他們給我們打電話，討論局勢。
下面對漢克嚴重的問題包括：
據稱剽竊都漢克的記憶體動力學和個人證人的培訓計劃
據稱對員工個人的殘酷，即叫喊和咒罵他們，而他們曾在國際廣播電台
據稱使用粗言穢語和原油的言論
據稱濫用權力：威脅和恫嚇如果訊問
據稱不當解僱員工的台誰問過的問題
據稱使用國際台資源，進一步的銷售他的“營利性”的企業和個人記憶動力學證人訓練
“沒有人說話的小綿羊的羊群誰被冤枉;只有自私和濫用牧羊人得到審理。 （以西結書34）“
同樣，這些是一些指責。 數名前僱員也指出，“工作在台漢克Hanegraaff下，就像被捲入了一場邪教。 我們沒想到會遇到這麼多的恐懼在基督教的組織。“
達莉娜馬丁是一個強有力的支持者，直至台漢克董事會會議於1996年。 在這次會議上，漢克表現對她的方式，才能最好地描述為進攻。 這是一個奇怪的，傷害遭遇，遇到此之後，達莉娜開始擔心，可能有一定的道理上述指控。 她感到十分震驚，這種消極的“面”的漢克和想不出她做了什麼冒犯他或他為什麼沒有找過她的私人，而不是尷尬，她在這種公開的方式。
不過，即使在這場對抗中，達莉娜發現很難相信對漢克的指控。 在接下來的兩年裡，在她的要求，我們提出了數百個電話，並進行了面對面的採訪的人誰緊密的合作關係漢克。 我們希望的最好的，但最多的一個非常消極的肖像漢克Hanegraaff，我們深感失望和沮喪。 我們感到震驚和恐懼，當我們意識到問題的嚴重程度，在國際廣播電台。
證據似乎是一面倒地反對漢克，我們感到，在利益的公平性，我們不得不一邊聽他的故事。 在1999年10月，達莉娜馬丁和成員馬丁家庭去漢克Hanegraaff，並要求他回答一些重要問題。 下面是摘錄的信件內容達莉娜馬丁漢克Hanegraaff：亨德里克Hanegraaff先生
國際廣播電台國際
30162托馬斯
蘭喬聖瑪格麗塔，加利福尼亞92688
親愛的漢克，
在過去幾個月中的一些令人不安的問題已引起我們的注意，我們想聽到你的回應我們的關切。 我們的理由寫有兩方面：第一，我們不斷提出質疑的人就以下指控，我們希望能夠回答這些問題;第二，作為家庭醫生沃爾特馬丁公司的創始人和主席的基督教研究所和“聖經答人”電台部，我們有嚴重的興趣，如何使用他的名字，誰與之聯繫起來。 請考慮抽空回答這些重要問題。
阿並排比較你的課程，記憶體動力學，與哈里絡瑞恩的書，書的記憶，（1974）發現有許多相似之處。 內容聯繫匯率表，特別是基礎性工程的一部分，同時，出現幾乎相同。 我們的理解是，哈里絡瑞恩的工作是很久以前出版的內存動力。 請解釋為什麼你的課程幾乎是相同的記憶書籍的。
阿並排比較你的書，個人證人培訓，博士D.詹姆斯肯尼迪的福音爆炸，（第三版，1982年）發現有許多相似之處。 同樣，我們知道，肯尼迪博士的工作是證人前出版的個人訓練。 為什麼是兩個課程，使類似的？ 除了這個，肯尼迪博士告訴我們，他沒有給你允許使用傳道爆炸。 我們真誠地希望聽到你身邊了這一點。
漢克，沃爾特去世時，有材料的台，這是他的。 這些文件包括信件，卷到卷錄音帶，剪貼簿，和其他雜項物品。 楊子剛一直未能找到任何這些項目？ 他所提到的凱文，他將回到我們幾個星期後的搜索。 有幾個人告訴我們，他們看到這些項目被“逐出”的垃圾由國際台。 保羅向凱文這並非如此。 請讓我們知道了什麼發現。
很多人都對我們與他們的親身經歷在台多年。 有幾個非常密切的合作與你一整天的日常基礎。 不幸的是，據他們說，這些經驗都沒有積極意義。 這是非常令人不安，聽取他們的故事，你的個人行為對他們。 他們說你是相當謾罵，您使用粗言穢語，導致“場面”不適當的基督教場所。 也許一個人說了算的指責這樣可能被解僱，但許多人表達了同樣的遭遇也不容忽視。 作為一個基督徒“領導者”誰也公開表示，舌頭必須加以控制，你如何回答這些指控嗎？
達莉娜，她自己經歷過一段本第一手，漢克，在她最後的董事會會議。 她感到驚訝和傷害你的態度對她。 你似乎感到不安的東西，她收到什麼是最好的形容為“冷”，從一個男人，她認為朋友。 你為什麼不接近她私下按照聖經，如果你得罪一些你覺得她這樣做，而不是這種方式行事，在前面的台董事會？“
漢克，這當然不是我們的行動絕不能掉以輕心。 這是一個艱難而痛苦的決定，是經過18個多月的深入檢查了這些指控。 我們不能強調不夠是多麼重要，我們立即收到書面答复您。 我們將不勝感激，如果你想你的信直接凱文和吉爾，經理部的房地產方面的沃爾特馬丁。 我們想請你把這視為優先考慮，漢克，並告訴我們您的回應，1999年11月15日，因為我們認為這是最嚴重的情況。 謝謝您抽出寶貴時間來回答我們的問題。
漢克拒絕回答我們的問題。 相反，他說達莉娜馬丁在一份簡短的說明，他說這個問題，她曾與他是基於“她的看法，而不是現實。”他接著告訴我們，如果我們需要的答案，我們應該談談他的工作人員成員。 我們並不認為這是無論是聖經或尊重的答案，寡婦和兒童的沃爾特馬丁。 真理永遠是最好的防禦，我們希望漢克只會告訴我們的真理。
數個月後，通過本（我們並沒有急於作出任何公開），直到早上00年4月6日。 記者從洛杉磯時報呼籲我們的家，問我一個直接的問題：“是真的馬丁家人不開心的領導漢克Hanegraaff？”我不能說謊，直接或遺漏。 我們沒有去洛杉磯時報，他們來找我們。
沃爾特馬丁的寡婦呼喚Hanegraaff辭職洛杉磯時報
2000年4月15日-
（摘錄）
已故的親屬沃爾特馬丁，創始人蘭喬聖瑪格麗塔的基督教研究所，爭辯說，漢克Hanegraaff已離開該組織的使命揭穿不尋常的宗教要求。 他們要求他辭職。
“他不是人，我們相信他能夠說：”吉爾Rische馬丁，馬丁的大女兒和他的遺產執行人。 “我們只是希望有人主管，誰繼續明確的目標，我父親為國際廣播電台。
這一理念，成為領先的智囊團，把重點放在傳福音，就陷入了困境，據Rische，42歲，誰住在明尼蘇達州聖保羅
相反，她聲稱，Hanegraaff利用非營利性的國際廣播電台作為一個平台，出售他的書籍和宣傳他的兩個非營利組織。 她還表示Hanegraaff還沒有回到她父親的一些個人物品，並聲稱他已在國際廣播電台工作人員管理不善。
“聖經答案男人需要樹立積極的榜樣為聖經的責任，說：”Rische。 “這不是與案件有關的漢克Hanegraaff，和國際台是富裕不產生負面的惡名漢克。”
庫爾特範戈登，現在的任務主管裘德3特派團在加利福尼亞州Victorville說，關注的是大於1的金錢或忠誠的馬丁。 凡戈登是其中的一個前僱員，誰在那裡在1989年地幔領導已從馬丁Hanegraaff。
範戈登說，他非常沮喪Hanegraaff的方向和他的公開發生衝突的宗教與領先的廣播。
“今天是國際台將在不同的方向比其原來的目的，”範戈登說。 “我希望國際廣播電台或聖經答曼的節目，少做攻擊基督教徒和更多的審查和福的邪教。”
幕後
當我在1989年父親去世，這是很突然的影響我們的家庭是毀滅性的。 任何誰失去了親人的人知道是可怕的悲痛，以及它如何損害了決策過程。 有時候，可能需要數年前人們足夠的內部癒合正常運行。 。 。 一些從來沒有恢復。 我父親去世時沒有提及任何繼任基督教研究所和“聖經答人”廣播節目，並相反，據說當時他的死亡，漢克Hanegraaff從來沒有“欽定”的沃爾特馬丁。 達莉娜馬丁是一個新喪偶婦女，脆弱和信任，並有旁人誰充分利用了這種信任。 以下是達莉娜的發言全文來自洛杉磯時報，2000年4月30號：
Hanegraaff不是'挑選'
*在讀您的文章“鑄造石”（4月15日），我寫的幾個問題作出澄清。
首先，我的丈夫，沃爾特馬丁，從來沒有“欽點”的人來接替他的基督教研究所和“聖經答人”電台節目。
這項索賠交給我的人我想我可以信任，我走近講台上我丈夫的追悼會.*
我看它第一次朗讀，而站在前面的1500人。 我花了完全措手不及，把我在一個非常尷尬的地位。 我願藉此機會現在道歉讓這一聲明的立場這麼多年。
當時我的丈夫去世，我相信漢克Hanegraaff一名男子上帝能塑造成一個強大的基督教領袖，一個誰可以發揮積極作用，領導國際廣播電台。 我支持他的忠實6年前我來看看他是不是人我相信他會。
第二，我們的一個家庭的主要反對Hanegraaff的持續領導地位是他的同胞虐待基督徒。 他留下了一個受傷的人線索的，因為他身後接管國際廣播電台於1989年。 對他的證詞包括那些誰是他的“右手”的人，誰的人與他密切合作。
Hanegraaff一再呼籲問責制的其他基督教領袖，應該自己承擔責任。
達莉娜李柱銘
聖胡安卡皮斯特拉諾
*（編注-這件索賠被添加到達莉娜馬丁的講話時，她在圖書館教會，超出範圍的攝像機錄像服務。）
故事背後的紀念服務是一個令人痛心的，但為真理而應該被告知。 漢克Hanegraaff是一個很大的幫助達莉娜馬丁當我的父親去世。 他安排紀念服務，捎信給媒體，並填補了一般需要我們家人有人協調的事情。 自從我的父親聘請他為行銷目的，他似乎是理想的人與媒體打交道。 達莉娜感謝他的幫助和支持，當時的。 除了漢克的存在，埃弗里特雅各布森，我的叔叔和一個台董事會成員，參與了策劃的事情“幕後”。 我們沒有發現，直到幾年後是埃弗雷特雅各布森和漢克Hanegraaff進行了“閉門”會議於台後幾天內我的父親去世，結果該次會議，根據委員會成員在台的時間是命名的首席執行官漢克Hanegraaff基督教研究所。 現在我們要求漢克：請提供證明，沃爾特馬丁選擇你作為他的繼任者。 他從來不提這是他的妻子，孩子，他的弟弟，他的董事會或他最親密的朋友。 他從來沒有宣布私下或公開* *他去世前。 直到* *沃爾特馬丁後，已經死了，這一要求的。
請提供分鐘，國際台董事會會議後立即我父親去世，其中總裁的立場進行討論和表決。
為什麼這個問題如此重要的繼承？ 它是與完整性。 如果漢克Hanegraaff的個人的“工作”令人懷疑，如果他的行為提出質疑，許多證人，比他聲稱國際廣播電台？ 我們認為，這種說法也應該仔細審查。
那天晚上我父親的追悼會，為達莉娜馬丁走近講台，*埃弗里特雅各布森和漢克Hanegraaff攔截她。 有人建議，一些額外的東西被添加到她的講話“。 。 。 為了實現平穩過渡。“字樣沒有登記的時間，因為大多數事情不是在你剛剛埋葬親人的24小時之前。 當達莉娜到了最後，她的發言，並開始讀取新的句子，她感到震驚。 她站在那裡，前面的1500人，說明漢克Hanegraaff是新的男子國際廣播電台。 所有她能想到她讀的，“沃爾特沒有說過這一點。”
*（編注-達莉娜馬丁的講話是“編輯”，而她在圖書館的教堂前，她留給參與了悼念活動。它們這樣做是超出範圍的攝像機錄像服務。）
下面的語句被添加到年底達莉娜的報告：“沃爾特和我時常誰將會接替他的台，如果主要不斷帶他回家。 自去年10月，沃爾特要求漢克Hanegraaff與他合作，並為那個男人。 沒想到，我們知道這將在今年很快。 但漢克是這個人沃爾特想帶領台，我永遠感謝這個人，為振奮，他為我做了，在這幾天。 他是一個天賜良機，我很感謝他和他的家人。
我知道上帝會保佑國際廣播電台，該部將漢克下蓬勃發展的方向。 我感謝上帝對他和國際廣播電台，所有的工作人員誰將要進行，即使是在中間的沃爾特的缺席。 我只是讚美上帝，因為它。 再次感謝你們。“
為什麼達莉娜馬丁讓這站這麼多年？ 她為什麼支持漢克？ 當時，她相信他是一個正直的人，她希望（和一直希望）上帝能塑造他成為一個強有力的領導人。 她相信埃弗里特雅各布森和漢克Hanegraaff。 她哀痛不已，筋疲力盡，沒有感覺能夠決定這個沉重的問題。 她不知道“閉門”會議或指控，而正式董事會投票的CEO位置台從未發生，直到年後。 除了這個，幾名男子走近達莉娜委員會和國際台在我父親去世，每個沃爾特馬丁稱他們為挑選他的繼任者，她是怕一所有的公共爭奪國際廣播電台。
但該名男子是漢克的完整性，我父親認為他是，還是他來台蒙混過關？ 如果沃爾特馬丁已提交的所有證據，將他聘用了漢克？
蒙混過關？
漢克Hanegraaff和沃爾特馬丁從來沒有親密的朋友。 充其量，他們接近了熟人。 我父親是一個溫暖，信任的人，他經常被邀請人到他家。 他們首先結識了時，漢克問他關於他的意見的妻子凱西，誰當時參與邪教。 漢克是一個有魅力的人有許多優點，而我的父親總是看到了良好的人。 他印象深刻漢克的記憶和他認為是良好的記憶過程記憶動力學漢克聲稱，他開發的。 他也有興趣漢克的個人見證培訓，再次，這是他認為漢克發展。 他告訴我他喜歡漢克和他的工作，將聘請他為籌資目的，即市場營銷。 他多次提到這個不同他的家庭成員和親密的朋友，一次也沒有說任何有關命名為他的繼任者。
直到漢克是在國際廣播電台為一年多後，我父親的死，有傳言稱漢克和他的“工作”也開始露頭。 我們要求現在漢克回答他拒絕回答，去年我們：為什麼您的個人見證培訓課程，使類似至D詹姆斯肯尼迪的福音爆炸？
為什麼要告訴人們，肯尼迪博士給你允許使用他的工作？ 肯尼迪博士告訴我們，您沒有權限使用他的工作。
為什麼要出售這項工作作為自己十餘年？
為什麼你的記憶動力學過程非常相似，哈里絡瑞恩的記憶書籍的記憶中？
為什麼要出售這項工作作為自己十餘年？
為什麼你要拒絕回答有信譽的兄弟姐妹在基督誰來到你同樣的問題？
下面的例子說明了我們的關切，漢克的“工作”：
十，福音簡報
（摘自的比較羅伯特鮑曼小，1998年版）
我們現在的樣本中找到對話EE和在大世界表格的模範提交了福音。 請記住，它已經確定的框架都介紹是一致的。 這意味著，如果兩本書使用類似或相同的字眼，這一事實具有更大的意義，比的基本結構，如果情況介紹不同。
福音爆炸與個人證人訓練
傳道爆炸
由D.詹姆斯肯尼迪
親眼目睹訓練
由漢克Hanegraaff
肯尼迪接著回家探視的人誰訪問了他的教堂，他自我介紹，給他的教會的名字，並介紹了他的兩個同伴，一個女人和一個男人（電子工程，24）。
漢克接著回家探視的人誰訪問了他的教堂，他自我介紹和他的兩個同伴（一男一女），並給出了他的教會的名字（賓大世界，3）。
肯尼迪打破了冰注意到畫（24）。 “我們將...搜索空間，一些跡象表明他的興趣。 阿畫... ...獎杯...“（51）。
“當我們進入並坐下，我們尋找有興趣的項目，也許是縱向，獎杯，或賠償金。”（3）
“你是怎麼發生的參加我們的教堂嗎？”（25）。
“伯爵，你是怎麼發生的訪問我們的教堂嗎？”（4）
“你是怎麼想的服務？”（25）“你是如何享受服務？”（52）
“你怎麼享受服務？”（4）
“人們似乎很友好，使我們有賓至如歸的感覺。 唱歌的是太好了。“（25）
“音樂是了不起的人民，使我們感到很高興見到的。”（4）
“你知道，很多人都提到我，他們感覺不同的東西對我們教會...。”（26）
“其中的原因或許你發現了一些特別的關注和人民服務，在我們的教會...。”（4）
“證言的”C任教堂，或個人的證詞（26）。
“證言的”C個人的證詞（4）。
“他們的希望，但他們不知道，他們肯定會去天堂...。 你怎麼樣，塔克太太？“（26）
“...我與上帝的關係，使我相信，...我將與他一起生活在天堂裡永遠。 你怎麼樣伯爵...。“（4）
“你來到一個地方，在你的精神生活，你肯定知道，如果你死你今天會去天堂？”（26）
“你們與神的關係，讓你相信你會去天堂當你死了？”（5）
“為什麼，我不認為任何人都可以真正知道。”（26）
“並非如此。 我不認為有任何人可以肯定這一點。“（5）
“我還了解到，這是聖經的原因寫...'使你們知道你們得永生'”（26）。
“正因為如此，聖經寫。 這是書面所以我們也不知道怎樣...可以肯定，我們將與他永遠活在我們死“（5）。
“你想我與大家分享我是如何發現和提出，如何才能知道呢？”“是的，請你。”（27）
“我可以與你們分享我是如何來到本保證，以及如何可以擁有它呢？”“請你。”（5）
“以前我就進入情況，讓我問你一個問題...。”（27）
“在我這樣做，我想了解在得到您的一個問題，如果可以的話。”（5）
“假設你今晚死在上帝的立場，他要對你說，'為什麼要我讓你到我的天堂？' 你說什麼？“（27）
“我會感興趣的話，你認為的入學要求，任何人進入天堂的。”（59）“你會怎麼說上帝的要求，為你進入天堂？”（5）
“我盡量好，因為我知道怎麼辦。”（27）
“...我試圖保持十誡”（18）。 “嗯，我想這需要過著美好的生活，成為一個優秀的人，幫助有需要的人，保持十誡...”（5）。
書的記憶與記憶體動力學可悲的事實是，我的父親，誰鄙視抄襲任何形式，最終僱用一名男子的“工作”是有問題的。 沃爾特馬丁根本不知道這些令人不安的相似之處，其他人的工作，如果他的，他會聘請漢克Hanegraaff？ 再次。 。 。 這是一個問題的完整性。 要么漢克“借”別人的工作或他沒有。 由於密集的考試漢克的個人見證訓練，記憶動力學發生了，這應該是很容易證明或反駁。
我們現在要問漢克，再次：你或你不使用其他人的努力，創造您的程序？
你怎麼能要求別人的問責制時，拒絕交代呢？
阿徑的受傷的人。 。 。 。
以下所有人民的誠信聲譽。 很多人仍然道歉部委參與整個美國。
克雷格尼爾森，
前國際台廣播部部長
致：董事會基督教研究所
我不得不寫信給你一次。 您可能還記得我是一個少數人誰寫信給你，1990年6月。
這封信是被寫入了幾個小時後，採訪的人，如：肯樣品，克雷格霍金斯，羅布鮑曼，丹施萊辛格，托尼Horpel，比爾西佛，斯圖爾特奧爾，丹尼斯綠色，布拉德火花，馬克胡佛，莉蓮股票，羅伯特貝拉爾德，麥克斯蒂芬斯，等等。 。 。 其中有些人認為，他們被稱為上帝，以服務於國際廣播電台。 他們告訴我，他們願意，並沒有使很多犧牲，在那裡工作。 然而，漢克告訴我，這些同樣的人，“敵”，以他的部門。 他們驕傲，膨化起來，思想更加高度比他們自己應該。 這些人其實是在“摧毀我”，並拒絕他的“神所賦予的權力”。
一種模式開始形成一直追溯到1989年和1990年初。 我是部分重新方向漢克計劃。 在NRB公約，1990年1月，（一）托尼Horpel和我“賣”的夢想漢克的視野。 為了永遠“改善”國際台部的改造也將漢克的夢想。 漢克說，他進一步馬丁博士工作。 而且在某些方面，他可能會真的相信。
（一）托尼Horpel私下對我說漢克說。 。 。 “博士 馬丁的方式對自己的想法。 。 。 這台需要我[漢]作為新的遠景。 。 。“。 布萊爾還告訴我，他認為需要漢克步入或填補馬丁的鞋子，在本質上成為馬丁，並試圖說服托尼漢克說，他不需要那樣做。 相反，漢克應該利用一切資源的人員。 但是，根據托尼，漢克從來沒回應他的建議。 相反，漢克告訴托尼Horpel，丹尼斯格林和我說他會完成這項改造的'系統強制辭職的所有研究人員在較短的時間期限。“國際廣播電台是成為一人部。
正如我在信中6月6日，1990年，一個最嚴重的會顯示漢克的秘密議程恰好聖經答案後，廣播人1990年2月初。 漢克，克雷格霍金斯和我都是當天的空氣一起。 該程序後立即結束我們3人起身離開演播室。 漢克開始讚美克雷格。 他明確表示，克雷格是馬丁顯然永久替代的日常程序。 漢克表示了熱烈的敬畏克雷格的才能和天賦。 漢克告訴他，他也算神的眷顧克雷格已經準備為這一非常重要的角色，作為新的聖經應答人，他期待著與克雷格為今後多年。 在這一點漢克和我離開他的辦公室進行例行的廣播後的檢討。
當我們到達山頂的樓梯，與克雷格霍金斯只有10或12個步驟我們後面，漢克把他摟著我的肩膀，俯身去靜靜地解釋。 。 。 '克雷格霍金斯是狼披著羊皮的，他的耗電。 。 。 我將擺脫他，只要我所能。 你知道，我的妻子凱茜禮物辨別和她說，克雷格是要摧毀我和我部在這裡。 他希望的事情莫過於接管並逼我了。 他得到的消息到來。 。 。 他outta這裡！“我簡直不敢相信自己的耳朵。 。 。 我在震驚！ 它突然出現，猶如漢克認為，在我的傾訴，他可以創建一個聯盟，以支持他的秘密計劃。 他所做的恰恰是同樣的事情與托尼Horpel和丹尼斯格林。
托尼，丹尼斯和我開始質疑漢克和其他人之間的衝突有關的研究人員和漢克的行政人員，以及明顯的不當廣告漢克的個人見證訓練（賓大世界）/內存動態研討會每天播出。
(i) Dennis Green became equally concerned about the full page ads Hank had placed in the journal. (i) Dennis Green, Tony Horpel and I confronted J– and then Hank himself about Hank paying for the advertising of his “For-Profit” Memory Dynamics company through CRI. After continued concerns were expressed by others (including Tim Folkers – as is outlined in my letter of June 6, 1990), Hank assured several of us that he would cease this abuse of his power as president. And yet he has continued to do this repeatedly over the past four years. Including the promotion of his book, Christianity in Crisis, which also appears to be a Memory Dynamics product.
It was at that point that Hank suddenly began to distance himself from me. Subsequently, I was pseudo . 。 。 “released”. I've never been fired or forced to leave any job, let alone the way I was forced out of CRI.
Hank explained to me that he had been looking for someone to assist me in the radio department. A need I had expressed more than once. As a matter of fact, Hank had met with Mike Stephens who attended his Bible class and who'd been working for KBRT radio. Hank explained to me that Mike would be hired to be my assistant. He also explained that Mike would work full-time for very little money which would allow me to upgrade the studio as was needed. And that Mike loved the work of CRI and would be “very loyal” to Hank. Mike was then hired. Only . 。 。 Mike was told it would be under the pretense of replacing me.
第二個最嚴重的經驗，我經歷了手中的漢克和他的工作人員會來僅次於麥克斯蒂芬斯被僱用，但在我被告知，我被釋放。 管理人員獲悉，攝影師是來工作，以便拍照的各部門主管。 這些照片將被用於新台多色小冊子。 我們奉命來上班穿著我們最好的。 我真的很興奮！ 隨著8或9名工作人員看，是時候建立和拍攝，無線電部門。 羅恩羅得島和我被告知要坐到一起為攝影師準備適當的照明和我們的最佳定位。 正如攝影師準備拍攝。 。 。 邁克斯蒂芬斯來了，告訴我，他已被告知，他坐在我的位置。 我完全措手不及！ 我說的東西影響。 。 。 “我敢肯定丹尼斯希望部門負責人將在這張照片。”丹尼斯說：“是啊，克雷格是合適的人選。”“不”邁克說，他只是告訴接替我的位置。 我環顧四周，驚奇地說：“什麼是怎麼回事？”突然的J -開口了，說。 。 。 “是的克雷格，我們希望麥克的照片。”這是如此尷尬，就好像一場噩夢，我的心是衝擊，我開始出汗，我簡直不敢相信，在前面的屈辱的8或9的市民全體職員。 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. But it didn't work. 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
丹河施萊辛格，
前台研究部協調員
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.
結論
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.
在基督裡，
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.
此致，
Anthony Horpel 
