Note: The Walter Martin family's website now links to this rant. Read further information there.
In July and August I briefly touched on the controversy over Bible Answer Man and Christian Research Institute head Hank Hanegraaff's financial woes and accountability problems. The Bible Money Man referred to the Christianity Today report (posted July 16) of CRI's breaking of key Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability standards.
I have since come into possession of the May 19, 2003 episode of the Bible Answer Man broadcast in which a former employee called in to confront Hank:
Bible Answer Man (May 19, 2003)
Hank: And as always, we are delighted to take your calls throughout the United States and Canada. Once again, do remember the number to dial if you're asking your question 888-275-4265 translates to 888-ASK-HANK. First caller up today, Leland, Anaheim, California. Hi, Leland.
Leland: Hi, Hank. Thanks for taking my call. I really appreciate all the work you do and the work that CRI has done for the extension of God's kingdom. My question today is in regards to the process of repentance and restoration, Biblically speaking. There's a brother in Christ who has sinned against many in the church and he seeks repentance and restoration, but he seems to have been unwilling to apologize to the people he's sinned against and I'm just curious as to what does Scripture say and shouldn't he apologize and isn't an apology like an integral part of the Biblical process of repentance and restoration?
Hank: Yes, I think it indicates that there's a radically transformed attitude and direction.
Leland: Hmmm.
Hank: And, uh, you know repentance in the ultimate sense, of course, is a U-turn on the road of life, no longer living by the dictates of your own will but turning and following the Lord Jesus Christ
and I think that the principle applies certainly with repentance vis-à-vis other people.
Leland: Right.
Hank: It is a change of heart and that change of heart looks towards reconciliation of relationship.
Leland: Right, like what it says in Matthew 5.
Hank: Yeah.
Leland: Yeah. Uh, so my question now is, in regard to that, um, since CRI has violated ECFA Ethics Standard #4, how come you haven't apologized to the donors for misusing their funds?
Hank: You are making an assumption and that assumption is not warranted--
Leland: Well...
Hank: --and so you ought to apologize for getting on the radio and making under false, uh, under a false provision, asking a question which has no basis in reality and in the process slandering an organization. I'm going to go back to the phone lines and talk to Jacob in Fresno, California.
Hank asserts that Leland's "assumption is not warranted." I would think he means an assumption of guilt. Of course, less than two months after the call, Leland's charges were validated by the Christianity Today article. Hank then suggests Leland should apologize for asking a slanderous question with "no basis in reality". Methinks he doth protest too much.
About 15 minutes into the show, Hank alludes to Leland's call:
We ask people to stand with us prayerfully and financially. We do have our detractors and we need people of the, of truth to stand with us.
Indeed. However, time has proven that Leland spoke the truth, while Hank did not. Visit CRI's website at www.equip.org and you'll learn that the "i" in "equip" stands for "integrity." That is a noble aspiration, but to retain its meaning, apologies by Hank are in order, both to donors and to Leland.
I've appreciated Hank's work for many years, and I hope he gets his financial house in order before he does permanent damage to CRI. The ongoing denials make me skeptical, and I have to recommend that your charitable giving dollars go elsewhere until this is resolved.
:: Randy Brandt ::
Comments
::
