 |
This is my personal response to the open "To Whom It May Concern" letter from D. James Kennedy you forwarded me regarding Hank Hanegraaff. Although I do not know Dr. Kennedy personally, and have rarely watched his television program, I am aware of his ministry and his publications. In fact, my brother teaches at Knox Seminary.
I have known Hank Hanegraaff for more than a decade and have been involved with CRI since before the late Walter Martin moved to California in 1974 and reorganized CRI. I have been involved with CRI in one form or another, formally and informally, for nearly 30 years. I treasured the friendship and working relationship I had with Walter Martin (and his wife Darlene) as well as what I now have with Hank Hanegraaff (and his wife Kathy).
First, Kennedy's entire letter saddens me. I am disconcerted that he spends six of the seven paragraphs of his letter personally attacking Hank Hanegraaff, and only one short paragraph responding to one of the issues with which Hank disagrees, the "Gospel in the Stars." And in that paragraph he does nothing to counter Hank's criticisms, he merely encourages the reader to buy his own book on the subject. Kennedy's personal attacks and slander of Hank include the following comments (summarized):
My critical evaluation of the charges and the evidence (some of which I have summarized below) has convinced me that Hank is not guilty of any of these charges.
Second, Kennedy says he understands "from several sources that [Hank] has continued his attack on me." One of the first principles of Christian discipleship and community is that one does not entertain rumors, repeat them, or take action based on them without verification. I see no indication that Kennedy has followed this basic biblical principle. On the basis of my research on this matter, I am convinced that Hank has never "personally attacked" Kennedy, nor do his objective, documented criticisms of some of Kennedy's teachings and ministry amount to "attacks," "slander," or any sort of emotive, unbiblical action. I have carefully reviewed Hank's opinions regarding Kennedy's teachings and ministry and checked out the rumors Kennedy referred to. Hank's opinions are objectively supportable and Kennedy's rumors are false. It is inexcusable for Kennedy to express offense at Hanegraaff's "attacking" him in the very process of acting on what Kennedy admits he merely heard about and doesn't have time to investigate.
Third, Hank's criticism of some of Kennedy's teachings, while not personal attacks but simple biblical or arcane differences, are well-founded. I have verified that Hank publicly disagrees with Kennedy in the following areas of teaching:
In addition I have verified that Hank publicly disagrees with Kennedy's open practice of vigorously supporting TBN. This goes beyond Kennedy merely airing his program on the network, as he would on CBS or any other network. Kennedy has appeared as a guest on TBN, has participated in a TBN fundraising event promoting his own book on the "Gospel in the Stars" as a "love gift" premium, has hosted TBN leaders Jan and Paul Crouch on his own platform at Coral Ridge Church, and has participated in a commercial urging viewers to contribute money to TBN in exchange for a copy of this same book.
Having carefully checked the documentation and Hank's public statements, I have to say that I agree with Hank. None of the four teachings to which Hank takes exception are supported by any reasonable scholarship or evidence, and in fact they encourage poor critical thinking and an almost superstitious or mystical approach to God's Word. Nor could I ever support and encourage support for any program/network, etc. that overwhelmingly promulgates heretical teachings like the following:
Since you are a long-time Bible Answer Man listener, you know that the false teachings listed above are only a few of the heresies promoted by TBN. Neither the doctrinal disputes nor the support of TBN criticism by Hank constitute personal attack or slander.
Fourth, Kennedy's unsubstantiated and factually false assumption that Hank was not the proper successor to Walter Martin either through proper protocol or preparation should be addressed.
Although I consider Hank a close friend and I could ask him to recite his testimony for me, I can summarize his background simply on the basis of what is common knowledge about him. I know it to be accurate at all significant points. He became a Christian around 1980 and began his Christian walk at Kennedy's church. He worked for a time with Evangelism Explosion, both as an employee and as an independent consultant. He worked at Mt. Paran Church of God in Atlanta, Georgia, where he met Walter Martin during the early 1980s. Martin asked him to consider coming with CRI sometime during that period. A little later he agreed to serve on the CRI Board of Directors, while still living in Georgia. After that Martin convinced him to assume the daily direction of CRI and to work into his position, starting from a commuting relationship in Georgia to his eventual move of his family to California. At the time of Martin's death in 1989 Hank's leadership of CRI had been mentioned to me more than once by my friends at CRI, such as Elliot Miller, whom I hired in the mid-1970s as one of the first California CRI employees. In addition Hank had spoken representing CRI on numerous occasions, had served on CRI's Board of Directors from some time, and conducted both of Walter Martin's services, the public memorial as well as the private family gathering. At the time of Martin's death the CRI Board of Directors unanimously affirmed his presidency and his succession to Walter Martin. In the dozen or so years since then CRI has gone from the initial platform foundation Walter Martin provided through his calling to a unprecedented level of financial stability, international service, recognized quality of research, breadth of resources, and depth of support staff assets.
A little CRI background from my personal experience: When Walter Martin moved CRI from New Jersey to California in 1974, CRI was nothing more than a storage facility full of files and books and Walter Martin's platform ministry. When CRI began operating in California, it was from the Martin's study and kitchen table and Bob's and my spare bedroom. I was the first California employee and I was instrumental in adding many others to the staff. After I left regular employment at CRI in 1979 after the birth of our first daughter, we maintained our friendship with Martin, his wife Darlene and knew most of his family members, including his children. For example, I hired his oldest son, Bryan, as a part-time researcher for CRI when Bryan was attending college locally. Martin's brother-in-law, Everett Jacobson, is still a treasured brother in Christ to Bob and me today.
I was well aware of the family and ministry dynamics of Walter Martin and CRI. To the best of my knowledge (and I believe it is accurate), up until Walter Martin's death neither Darlene Martin nor any of his children served on the CRI Board of Directors or were employed by CRI other than Darlene's past service as a secretary in New Jersey long before she married Martin and Bryan's brief employment under my direction in the research department.
Jill Martin (Rische), Martin's daughter, who is now quite vocal in her opposition to Hank Hanegraaff, was not a regular employee of CRI nor did she ever serve on the CRI Board of Directors. In fact, at the time I first met her, she was a teenager living with her mother in New Jersey and spending vacations with her father in California. After her graduation from high school she moved to California to her father's home and then moved to Oklahoma, where she received a degree from Oral Roberts University. While she was at ORU (around the time Martin's last child was born), she believed she had received the spiritual gift of prophecy to the Body of Christ. After her graduation from ORU she married a young Christian man and they moved out of the area.
I think it would also help for you to understand how a non-profit religious organization like CRI (or Answers In Action, for that matter) follows certain procedures. Neither CRI nor Answers In Action (I have seen incorporation and by-laws papers for both organizations) is a family controlled organization. In fact, all organizations designated as 501(c)3 organizations by the IRS must be run for the public good and cannot be personal kingdoms or dynasties. The following essential items (along with others not pertinent to our discussion) are under the control of the organizational Board of Directors: (1) leadership; (2) finances; (3) vision; (4) goals; (5) mission; (6) ministry activities; and (7) organizational structure.
For example, if Bob and I were to die, we could express our desires for AIA to our children and our children could even express an interest in continuing the ministry. However, neither we nor our children could control what happens to AIA. That is under the legal authority of our Board of Directors. We can express our desires and those of our family's to the BOD, but they do not have to follow them. In fact, if they were to follow them in violation of their own set of standards, they would not be discharging their duties as servants of the public trust. At the time of Walter Martin's death, the entire CRI BOD (excepting Hank himself, of course) affirmed that Martin's previous designation of Hank as his successor was in the best interests of CRI and voted accordingly. In addition, they continued, modified, and adopted principles governing the other areas I listed above. They also voted to add Martin's widow, Darlene Martin, to their number. This could not have been controlled by Darlene or any other family member - only by the BOD. Once Darlene was on the BOD, she had a legal and fiduciary responsibility as a BOD member that was completely apart from her role as the founder's widow.
To the best of my knowledge (and I saw correspondence from her over the intervening years and even talked with her several times), Darlene fulfilled her role on the BOD in full support of and cooperation with the BOD decisions regarding Hank Hanegraaff as well as the other operational responsibilities of the BOD. I have spent too much time with Darlene to believe that she could have been completely hoodwinked to support Hank and the rest of the CRI BOD for so many years when she consistently in public and in private supported them. I find it hard to believe that the Darlene I knew could serve as a faithful BOD member with full legal responsibility to support an organization that at the same time she privately believed was corrupt, unethical, and contrary to the high standards of Christian ministry her late husband taught. It is therefore inexplicable to me that she would consistently support Hank and the CRI leadership until she was no longer a member of the Board of Directors. It is also curious that other family members, including but not limited to Martin's brother-in-law Everett Jacobson, have not joined Jill and Darlene in their recent criticisms of Hank and CRI.
This is the background from which I can only reasonably conclude that Kennedy, select members of Martin's family, and other critics have no basis whatsoever on which to argue that Hanegraaff's assumption of CRI leadership was, as Kennedy irresponsibly termed it, "by methods less than ethical." There is no evidence contemporaneous with the events of Martin's death and Hank's appointment that the BOD was circumvented, did not act legally, or even that it ignored or denied family concerns (although it had no legal obligation to acknowledge family concerns at all). In fact, all the contemporaneous evidence and the evidence from those directly involved and from Darlene herself over the following years, until quite recently, affirmed the upright character of the actions of the BOD regarding Hank. To practice revisionist history at this point, nearly 13 years after the event, would never be tolerated by sound scholarship. Could you imagine if we were to overturn our belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ because, even though the eyewitness accounts affirmed it, someone later denied the faith or someone who was not an eyewitness said "Don't believe it because I saw something different!"
Fifth, Kennedy makes four contradictory conjectures about the validity of Hank's qualifications, rendering his opinion confused at best, but certainly objectively worthless. (1) Kennedy appears completely satisfied with the level of academic rigor provided by his church and ministry and his own qualifications and boasts that what Hank is today is because of him. Then why isn't Hank capable of his role at CRI? (I'm reminded of the glowing letter from Kennedy publicized by CRI around 1990 endorsing Hanegraaff as the leader of CRI.) (2) Kennedy appears completely dissatisfied with the preparation Hank received through Kennedy and his ministry. Then why is Kennedy so proud of the equipping caliber possessed by himself and his ministries? (3) Kennedy's last mentor relationship with Hank was in the early 1980s, years before Martin's death and nearly 20 years before this year. Then how does Kennedy know that Hank has learned nothing since then that has qualified him for his position at CRI? Evidently Dr. Norman Geisler, who has followed Hank's career closely and carefully, and who is a colleague and friend of both Hank and Kennedy, considers Hank well enough qualified to award him an honorary doctorate from his own seminary! (4) Kennedy admits in this letter that he has not investigated the charges or seen the evidence and his complete misrepresentation of Hank's "attacks" lend credence to my guess that he does not follow Hank's ministry closely at all. Then how does Kennedy know that he doesn't do a competent job of it?
Sixth, Kennedy is inconsistent regarding the charges that Hank plagiarized Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion materials. In the letter itself he inconsistently argues that although evidently true, he wouldn't sue Hank because he thought it was unChristian to do so. But he has no problem acting unchristian in slandering and personally attacking Hank publicly on the basis of hearsay and rumor.
Kennedy is also contradictory regarding these plagiarism charges because I know the circumstances behind Hank using EE as a template for his evangelism memory course with Kennedy's full knowledge and approval (in the early 1980s) and I have read Kennedy's publisher's letter exonerating Hank (in the mid-1990s). In that letter the publisher in essence dismissed the charges on the basis of the evidence obtained in its investigation. If the publisher thinks there is no problem, and communicated that to Kennedy, as I know it did, and Kennedy voiced no objection to his publisher or Hank, then how can Kennedy justify playing both sides of the fence now?
Seventh, I am in a much better evidentiary and experiential position than is Kennedy to know whether or not Hank plagiarized or unfairly used Walter Martin's materials at any time in his ministry. Kennedy himself admits that he is doing nothing other than passing on a rumor that has been passed to him, and in fact states that he has no interest in determining if the rumor is true. How can a major, well-educated Christian leader have no interest in confirming a rumor he is unbiblically repeating? What about an obligation from Scripture (Deut. 19:15-20 and other passages)? Kennedy may not have the interest, but I have the facts.
I had a long writing association with Walter Martin spanning most of his publications over most of his ministry in California since 1974, including every revision, expansion, update, and edit of the Kingdom of the Cults. I was so thoroughly involved in his writing projects that he sometimes would ask me if a particular item was written by him or me. I recognize even the hint of Walter Martin in others' material. I am also completely familiar with most of the pieces Hank Hanegraaff has produced (written and oral) over more than a decade, having worked with him formally and informally as both editor and close friend. I testify with confidence and objective evidence that he neither plagiarized nor made any unethical use of Walter Martin's materials at any time. In fact, on a continuum of well-known writers for whom I have provided editorial and writing assistance over nearly thirty years, Hank is among the most original, painstaking, and persistent.
I hope this helps you to see the issue from a different light. I have been careful not to violate personal confidences, tried to present information that could be generally known or for which I have direct knowledge or experience, refrained from making personal judgments or attacks on the motives of others, and focused my disagreement on what I see as the biblical standards and facts Kennedy has violated in this regrettable communication.
I have no desire to divert vast quantities of my time and energy to continuing to immerse myself in this issue. The attacks against Hank, in my opinion, are unbiblical, unfounded, and destructive of the Lord's work, both for CRI and for those of us who are drawn into the controversy. This is not godly and does not further the kingdom to those who are lost in darkness, nor does it unite the Church in resisting the devil. I can understand your concern. I hope you understand mine.
In Christ,
Gretchen Passantino
P.S. You may share this response with others if it is helpful to you.
|
Answers In Action
P.O. Box 2067
Costa Mesa, California 92628
(949) 646 9042
Answers In Action c/o aia@answers.org