Hank Hanegraaff fundraising fraud?

[Guest]

Steve,

I was curious if you knew anything regarding an article posted on cultlink.com regarding an alleged fundraising fraud by Hank. The article is at http://www.cultlink.com/news/CRIfraud.htm . Is this being reported anywhere else? I know CRI's had controversy surrounding it since Dr. Martin's death, but I certainly don't want to pass judgment unless there is clear evidence against him. Thanks.

[_Steve]

Hi Rae,

Yes, I have heard of this recent rumor, as well as others that have gone back some time into the past. I have read the link you gave, and it is troubling. I am not sufficiently acquainted with Hank or the operations at CRI to evaluate the likelihood of the rumors being true. There have been a number of allegations from former employees, but I don't know these people or their credibility either.

These things could be true, of course. I hope they are not. In all likelihood, the truth will not remain concealed. Though Hank is not technically a church elder, since he is a Christian leader, I am inclined to follow Paul's instructions not to receive an accusation against an elder, but by two or more witnesses. Even if there are more than two "witnesses" about this, my lack of knowledge of them makes it difficult to discern their motives and the level of their credibility.

Some information, like how much Hank is paid, seems to be a matter of public record, and I admit that I am concerned about that. Since I receive no salary from my radio ministry, I am not in a position to say what such service ought to be worth, if a man is doing it as a paid position. However, the amount that I have read that Hank is paid seems difficult for me to justify. That is, of course, a matter to be settled between him, God, his employers and his donors. I am not in any of those categories.

Whenever a man has as widespread an influence as Hank does, and has had as many employees come and go from his ministry, I'm sure it would be easy to find two or more people who dislike him or who are disgruntled about being let go from the job, etc., to get several "witnesses" to blast the guy.

I know this because, having been in public ministry for 30 years, and having had hundreds of people enter and leave my circle of friends and students, I have no doubt that anyone who wished to do so could, with a few phone calls, find half a dozen folks around who don't like me, or disagree with my policies, or are jealous, or whatever, who might be willing to post stuff on the web against me. I have had many critics, and the internet provides a great way for enemies to spread any rumor they wish about anyone they wish.

I don't know Hank well. We've only met twice. But in my conversations with him, I came away thinking he was a much more friendly, humble, honest and teachable person than I had expected him to be. Like anyone else, he may have a dark side that I haven't seen, but I prefer not to be too suspicious until I have sufficient evidence about a person.

I and someone I ministered with for several years noticably differed in this respect. My default opinion about anyone I meet is positive, until the weight of negative evidence compels me to change my opinion. My partner had a suspicious attitude toward everyone until abundant favorable evidence, over a long period, could be gathered. I suppose there is scriptural and reasonable warrant for both attitudes, but I enjoy mine more.

I feel compelled to think toward another man the way I would wish for him to think about me, if false or damaging rumors about me were to circulate (as they sometimes have in the past). I have known people, whom I believed to be loyal friends, throw off their good opinion of me upon rumors that were sheer fabrications, with no witnesses or evidence of their being valid. So I am cautious about how I react to rumors about another. I believe that where there is no certainty of guilt, there is enough room to give a man the benefit of the doubt. When proof of guilt is found, that is another story, though I still tend to pity a man, rather than condemn him, when his sin has been found out. I am so glad that not all of my sins have become public!

However, if a person is bilking the Christian public with fraudulent methods, then this should be brought to an end, and it may be good for that person's soul to be exposed. I am not doing any digging for dirt on anybody, but if it gets thrown in my face, I won't ignore it.

[Guest]

So are you really going to be on his show again Monday and Tuesday? If he is being this deceptive and dishonest, shouldn't you find out about it (not that you have to tell us) and maybe excuse yourself from associating with him?

[Guest]

What about innocent until proven guilty? With a track record that Hank has and all the good he is doing, can't we assume until there is hard evidence that he just might be innocent. None of us know and until we do the only thing we should be doing every day is to pray for him and the situation. I have enough confidence in Steve that he will do what God wants him to do and certainly doesn't need you, me, or anyone else instructing him about where to talk about truth and the gospel. I hope I am correct in all this, but even if I'm not, it doesn't seem to be my job to denegrate those who are accused (justly or unjustly) or to give counsel to someone who has been a Christian as long as Steve has. I have faith in Jesus Christ and only wish we would all pray more and counsel less.

In His Love,

Tim

[_Steve]

I appreciate both the vote of confidence from Tim, and the question from Puzzled. I don't think I am above taking counsel, no matter how long I am a Christian, since I still make poor decisions at times.

I was invited to speak on Hank's show (and agreed) about a week before I heard anything about this scandal. The news of the scandal came so recently, and is still so unresolved, in terms of knowing its validity, that I feel it would be very inappropriate for me to cancel my appearance, upon the mere allegation that something very wrong has been done at CRI.

As Tim says, I consider a man to be innocent, until I have pretty good proof of his guilt. This is how I view both friend and foe, Christian and non-Christian—and Hank is (in my fallable judgment) a true Christian, and presently a friend.

I truly hope that he is not guilty of any indiscretion in this matter. If it turns out that he is, I will be grieved, and I may even be embarrassed, in some measure. I will not necessarily regret having met him or having been on his program. If I am making the wrong decision about being on his program, the Lord has not convicted me of it, though I have been praying about it. I feel I should keep my commitment, unless the Lord should give me a strong sense otherwise.

Thank you for your concern, though. If it turns out I have made the wrong decision, that will probably become obvious. I trust the Lord to redeem the situation if I sincerely make an error in judgment while seeking His will.

[_Steve]

Just a quick update: I spent eight hours with Hank and one of his researchers, with whom I have become somewhat acquainted in the past few months, on January 23rd. I did not have to bring this matter up. Hank brought it up to me, and from talking to these two men, I am of the opiniion that Hank is telling the truth, and that the rumors are being spread by a malicious, disgruntled, former-employee of CRI, who regularly attacks Hank in print.

The post office denies the story, as does the company to whom the mail was allegedly diverted, but both of these entities have motivation to lie, since any admission on their parts could make them vulnerable to lawsuits. Hank is not aware of any federal investigation of CRI or of himself. He has contacted the federal agencies that are allegedly investigating him, and has gotten no indicator that he is under investigation. However, the post office and the other company seem to be under investigation.

The Los Angeles Times ran a story on this on Sunday, January 23rd, which did not make CRI look good, but it was apparently slanted.

The possibility that CRI may be lying about this does not appear to be very great. I am personally convinced of their innocence in this matter.

[Guest]

Thanks Steve. That is good to hear. Hank and CRI have been very helpful to me as I grow in faith.

By the way....I finished your book quite a while ago. Thanks so much for the work you put into it. I'm a 23 year old assistant pastor and our congregation kept asking me to go through Revelation, and now I finally feel equipped to begin.

[Guest]

I read the website stuff which was posted...and I agree we must let it take its natural course before we render any opinion. From the sound of it there will be many top level agencies peering into CRI's business practices. I must admit though at first glance it looks rather precarious to me. Yet it may not even be true....CRI has helped me a lot, I saw Walter Martin three times and loved his ministry...When he taught he read out of the Greek. I havent really followed Hank much....



Steve

[Guest]

I'll tell ya what Steve,
I have been impressed with your ministry, both on your tapes and on Hank's show, and ENCOURAGE you and PRAY that you NEVER EVER put yourself in a position that would make your message diminish. Us partial-prets/amills have to have some modern day elder brother in the faith to look up to as much as anyone else. So, keep your nose clean, and keep on fightn' the good fight and run the race.

I have also gotten so much from Hank's teaching and am very disturbed at his insane $400,000 salary. Maybe he has to pay for all his travel and expenses out of it? I would hope that would be the case, as to explain making that kinda jack.

Also, Gary Demar seems like a good teacher on the end times too.
What do you think of Gary's stuff, Steve?
Have you ever had the chance to talk to him?
He did me a favor in quickly answering a question via e-mail once,
and I really appreciated that.

Take care.

(I guess I need to sign up to this forum and not be a "guest", lol)

[Guest]

I'm grateful to HH and BAM because without them i would'nt have heard about Steve Gregg. I've been a listener to BAM for about 3 years and although it's helped me grow i must say that when HH does'nt like someone he can get nasty IMO. I think he goes beyond critisizing just theology and he is not above portraying someone as having questionable ethics. He has done this to word of faith teachers but the last straw for me was calling Doug Batchlor's ministry "Amazing Fantasies" and portraying his escatalogy in a disingenous way. Maybe HH should remember what Jesus said to the people who wanted to stone the prostitute.