Indeed, "On the Edge," which has since disappeared into
obscurity, had produced various articles that exposed how Hanegraaff
blatantly plagiarized (stole) material from at least three authors in
his writings and claimed credit for them. But this all checked out and
has since been proven to be true. The publication even reported
Hanegraaff's claim that he developed what turned out to be the
memorization techniques that were instead developed much earlier by
another man!
Hanegraaff was upset following a number of articles from the
publication that were hammering away at him; they were exposés that
alleged multiple improprieties inside CRI including allegations in a
lawsuit that had been filed by a former CRI researcher.
But finally Hanegraaff was on to something: "On the Edge"
had the temerity to publish the false information that he purchased a
Lexus, instead of the Acura Legend that he owned. Not knowing who the
people were who were behind the "On the Edge" website, he
tried to put pressure on me thinking that I might be connected some way
to the site, which I was not. He made several phone calls to my then pastor in
Philadelphia pressuring him to intervene and call me off any
investigations. Hanegraaff was most outraged that the
publication reported that he owned a Lexus, according to the
pastor.
I was regularly publishing the Christian Sentinel magazine and he
feared my inside information because I was the former news editor of the
CRI Journal and many disgruntled CRI employees were coming to me with
reports of wrongdoing inside CRI. CRI had just recently spent more than
$500,000 on private detectives and attorneys in their battle against the
former researcher and other former employees who charged Hanegraaff with
a wide variety of financial wrongdoing and ethical improprieties. (The
case was later settled out of court with a $20,000 cash settlement that
CRI paid.) The producers of "On the Edge" had already changed
the reference from "Lexus," an apparent typographical error to
"Legend," even before Hanegraaff's call to my pastor.
At that time I was also executive director of Evangelical Ministries
to New Religions (EMNR), and had successfully led its board to look into
numerous proven ethical problems surrounding the embattled CRI leader.
Hank was trying to fire back to take some pressure off of him as he
spent a lot of CRI's money that year trying to take me out. He also
apparently asked some of his friends, including another prominent
pastor, to call my pastor and he asked at least one of his paid
researchers to write him letters. And Elliot Miller, the embattled CRI
Journal editor and fellow EMNR board member, also called my pastor that
year to attempt to smear me, in addition to Miller launching a campaign
against me at the EMNR board level, no doubt upon Hanegraaff’s orders.
Miller was successful in getting the board to agree with an order of
silence on me which I would not submit to and was thereby forced out.
(But alas, eventually Miller and CRI were also forced out of EMNR when
they would not sign an ethical standards agreement.)
However, despite Hanegraaff's anger over being falsely accused of
owning a Lexus, perhaps the idea began to sound good to him. In
July 2002 a blue $66,000 Lexus SE was purchased for his use by CRI,
according to the July 16, 2003 Christianity Today
article! And
its purchase angered various folks within CRI who were concerned about
the ministry's extravagant spending, including Hanegraaff's salary that
had zoomed to the more than $250,000 level -- all without merit or
justification. These massive spending increases by the Hanegraaff family
were also happening at the same time CRI was constantly crying for
money, even using the term "emergency" as they used huge
telemarketing firms to bring in more cash. At the same time donors'
money was being spent on such things as Hanegraaff's $3,000 plus a month
country club dues where he regularly plays golf at his gated community
in Southern California. (See our articles in the June,
July and August
E-updates, and the Christianity Today article examines some of the wild
spending at CRI. )
So the recent discoveries of mismanagement at CRI is nothing new.
This has been a constant pattern ever since Hanegraaff took control of
CRI in 1989. History is merely repeating itself because the problems
were not dealt with in the past.
The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) in
June
of this year said that CRI had now returned to compliance with its
standards, and they concluded that the out of control spending with no
board oversight was "not intentional" in the first place and
was the result of "naïve bookkeeping." But it is ECFA that is
being naïve.
Is ECFA trying to tell us that CRI did not know it was wrong to buy a
Lexus for Hank in the first place, that they didn't know they were
paying for Hank's country club fees, for $8,000 in flooring for Hank's
home office, and for Hanegraaff's vitamins and flowers he sent to his
mother, and for maintenance bills in excess of $1,000 for Hanegraaff's
children's computers, not to mention exorbitant salaries for Hank and
his wife, Kathy? Was this all "unintentional?" Nonsense.
As the result of my investigating Hanegraaff for a number of years
during which I amassed thousands of pages of documents, I can also tell
you that it was very intentional for Hanegraaff to create a board
of directors in both the U.S. and Canada that have largely been rubber
stamps without any meaningful accountability. The record shows
that often when one has questioned Hanegraaff, he or she has been forced
out of the way. Moreover, whenever people in the apologetics community
have questioned Hanegraaff, he has tried to destroy them. (More in
future E-updates.)
The truth of the matter is that although ECFA is an excellent
organization, it is not qualified to make such statements about what is
intentional and not intentional, because it doesn't serve as a good
enough watchdog group. Who was the politician that said, "That dog
don't hunt?" In fact, built in to ECFA is a conflict of interest.
It is receiving thousands of dollars per year from CRI in dues in
exchange for its stamp of approval on the organization. As communication
scholar Quentin J. Schultze of Calvin College put it concerning ECFA in
his book, Televangelism and American Culture:
Some people suggest that televangelism merely needs a stronger
self-regulatory group such as National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) or
the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA). Such
monitoring is certainly helpful, since it gives televangelists a
chance to work with each other on matters of mutual concern and
interest, including ethics. However, in televangelism, as in the
business world, self-regulation has too easily slipped into public
relations. Self-imposed standards are generally too loose or
nonspecific to protect either the customers or the general public.
After all, self-regulatory groups want to attract as many members as
possible, so they generally establish weak ethical codes that create
only the appearance of genuine self-regulation. If the standards are
too tough, few organizations will join. If they are too loose,
membership means very little. So they ride the middle road between
meaningful regulation and mere public relations, steering back and
forth depending on the public mood.
Both NRB and ECFA remain rather ineffectual enforcers of weak
standards of accountability…. Both NRB and ECFA pretend to function
as ecclesiastical authorities when in fact they cannot really deal
with anything more than gross financial misconduct. They are largely
unable to examine or seriously act on the most important issues of
all: the personal spiritual lives of their members (p 227-228).
Therefore for anyone to say to me that they still wanted Hanegraaff
to come and speak at their church because ECFA had somehow cleared CRI
of wrongdoing, demonstrates that he doesn't know what he is talking
about. Yet this is what a pastor recently told me, who also added that
he saw nothing wrong with Hanegraaff's salary being increased to
$250,000 a year, not including royalties and other family income at CRI.
That's the ministry's business and not his or his churches, he wrote. Sorry. My God does
not endorse an extravagant lifestyle on the donations Christians give
for the purpose of God’s kingdom.
Well then if ECFA and the NRB are not good watchdogs of questionable
parachurch ministries like CRI, well then who is? The Bible seems to
indicate that the word of mouth is the best watchdog. In my opinion this
can also be expressed in the Christian Fourth Estate, better known as
the Christian Media. In exposing the problems surrounding CRI recently, Christianity
Today has done all believers a service. In other words, the
duplicity was transparent to
all that when Christianity Today asked CRI board member Paul
Young about the size of Hanegraaff's raise that he replied that "he
could not remember." But The Christian Sentinel
is publicly calling Young a liar since we exposed the size of the raise several
months ago in our E-update, and Young's signature as the man responsible for keeping
CRI's financial records graces the detailed documents showing Hanegraaff's yearly pay
increases!
There needs to be more investigative reporting within evangelicalism,
and Lord willing, The Christian Sentinel is committed to continuing down
this path, though our voice is weak. Ephesians 5 tells us to have
"nothing to do with the works of unrighteousness, but rather expose
them." In the New Testament, Paul certainly had a lot to say as he
exposed the evil deeds of men by name. John did too. And Jesus Christ,
speaking to his church in Revelation, spoke frankly, even giving us
names of those doing evil in some of the churches. This is where
ministries like The Christian Sentinel, the Trinity Foundation of
Dallas, Personal Freedom Outreach and many others come in. We believe
that ethics is an important part of doing ministry -- not just doctrine.
And it doesn't matter how many decisions a ministry wins for Christ. How
are they behaving and where is their money going? Bad behavior can make
people not like Christians … and the God we serve.
P.S.
- What is your point of view concerning
this editorial and the recent ongoings
inside CRI? I am interested to know
for a future article. Current CRI
insiders are especially welcome. Write
me by clicking here. If you do
not wish to be quoted, clearly let me know
in your post.
- Bill Alnor
