CRI Connection - Updated April 25, 2001
Due to the overwhelming amount of email asking if Hank Hanegraaff ever responded to the allegations posted on our website, we decided it was necessary to update the CRI Connection.
TO DATE: Hank has not responded to us or to Darlene Martin, however, CRI is now sending an email response to anyone writing or calling to ask questions. Although this letter is signed by John Stoffel, it's our opinion that nothing publicly written on this subject would be sent out under the CRI name without Hank's approval. We were sad and disheartened to read this "response" because we feel John Stoffel is misleading brothers and sisters in Christ in an effort to maintain support. I spoke to John and asked him to revise this email, but after a four hour conversation (5 months ago) and some minor changes, it remains "intact". This is a breach of John's promise to me to correct the misinformation, and so I must respond publicly to the inaccuracies of this email.
John Stoffel, Operations Manager, CRI: "I received your email regarding the comments made by some members of the Martin family and the information on their website. The comments made by some members of the Martin family and much of the accusations on their website were originally presented in a lawsuit that was brought against CRI and Hank Hanegraaff back in 1994."
OUR RESPONSE: This is simply not true. Our comments were never included in any lawsuit, since we were never part of any lawsuit. The concerns we have with Hank are largely personal. In our opinion:
- He lied to my father, Dr. Walter Martin, when he claimed PERSONAL WITNESS TRAINING was his work (in its entirety)
- He lied to my father when he represented MEMORY DYNAMICS as his work (in its entirety). Hank presented himself to Walter Martin as something he was not, and that representation deceived my father and got Hank a job at CRI.
- He callously took advantage of a grieving widow two days after her husband's death, and then several years later, he mistreated Darlene Martin once again at a CRI Board meeting; pressuring her into resigning from the Board.
- He is responsible, as the President of CRI, for the "loss" of hundreds of tapes (Dateline Eternity, Bible Answer Man) that were stored at CRI and thousands of letters that were part of the personal files my father left at CRI (not to mention other personal items that *disappeared* from CRI). These items were irreplacable--part of a legacy--and we believe all of this occurred because Hank had little or no respect for the memory of Walter Martin (based on his personal conversations with members of our family and other eyewitness testimony).
- He treated brothers and sisters in Christ in an abusive manner completely unacceptable for a Christian leader.
- His financial dealings at CRI are questionable.
- He refused to follow Matthew 18 in resolving differences with us and with the GROUP FOR CRI ACCOUNTABILITY. Many CRI employees approached Hank (40 or more at one time!) under Matthew 18 and all were either verbally abused, harassed by a CRI attorney, strong-armed into quitting, or "demoted" to a warehouse job.
John Stoffel: "The lawsuit was brought by a former CRI employee who felt he was laid off unfairly. Within his suit, he made all sorts of claims of financial and personal mismanagement. I can inform you that the lawsuit was settled out of court through Christian mediation (which we believe is the proper and biblical way to handle differences between believers) with absolutely no evidence of wrong-doing or impropriety by Hank or the Christian Research Institute."
OUR RESPONSE: These statements are very misleading. Brad Sparks (along with MANY other CRI employees) felt he'd been mistreated. He was the only employee who chose to take it to court, after Hank refused to resolve these issues under Matthew 18. Hank and CRI settled with Brad Sparks out of court for an undisclosed amount. Usually, when a defendant settles out of court, it is because they cannot win in court. We believe this is the reason Hank chose to "settle" . . . but only after Hank spent more than $400,000 of CRI funds fighting Brad Sparks' suit. $400,000 of the Lord's money fighting a fellow brother in Christ . . . and only after doing that, Hank chose to settle.
Contrary to what this email says, *mediation* was NOT Hank's first choice. It should also be noted here that the Group for CRI Accountability was NEVER a part of the Sparks lawsuit. Their concerns about Hank were and are separate from this suit.
As to "absolutely no evidence of wrong-doing or impropriety on the part of Hank", this is also quite misleading. There is a great deal of evidence that has never been *disproved*. Hank never admitted to wrong-doing, and he never *disproved* all of Brad Sparks' allegations. He never dealt with the evidence against him . . . contrary to what Hank and John Stoffel would have you believe. He ignored these allegations in the same way he ignored The Group for CRI Accountability and the same way he ignored the Martin family. Some of Brad Sparks' allegations may have been baseless, (and he signed a statement at settlement retracting some of them) but in our opinion, many were not. But again, this has NOTHING to do with the Martin family and our serious concerns about Hank.
John Stoffel: "I can also assure you that the accusations made in that suit were thoroughly examined in 1994 by CRI's Board of Directors, in which Darlene Martin was a member of, and found to be baseless and without merit."
OUR RESPONSE: Again, our problems with Hank have nothing to do with Brad Sparks, and John Stoffel knows better than to link us to this suit. In our opinion, it is a dishonest tactic. Darlene trusted Hank and believed his version of events (as did the rest of the CRI board). Two out of three Board members refused to even look at the evidence against Hank . . . and Darlene was one of them. She supported him loyally until 1996 when he treated her poorly at a CRI Board Meeting. As she stated in the Los Angeles Times, she deeply regrets this support.
*Nothing* was found to be baseless, because the evidence was *never* examined in detail in a CRI Board meeting, and eyewitnesses (in support of this evidence) were refused admittance!
John Stoffel: "Those events make the recent comments even more confusing and disappointing. It is hard for me to understand why these accusations were not made by Mrs. Martin during the previous 11 years that have passed since the events took place, including the 6 years that she served on the CRI Board of Directors."
OUR RESPONSE: John Stoffel knows exactly why Darlene Martin acted as she did because I discussed it with him in detail for four hours. Knowing this, he still states he doesn't "understand". He still states "11 years", when he knows Darlene did not support Hank for more than 7 years and has not supported him since 1996--5 years.
John Stoffel: "I obviously cannot speak to the reasons or mindset of Mrs. Martin or her step-daughter . . . "
OUR RESPONSE: This is one of the things that was "changed" after I spoke to John Stoffel. I went from being Walter Martin's daughter to being Darlene's "step-daughter" . . . which is part of the truth, not *all* of the truth. We were quite offended by this change as John, once again, is not being entirely accurate. Yes, I am Darlene's step-daughter--the eldest daughter of 6 children BORN to Walter Martin. I am his flesh and blood. This statement infers that I'm related to him only by marriage--a shabby tactic, and a rather sad way to undermine my credibility.
John Stoffel: "but I can assure you that in 1989 the CRI Board of Directors,acting on the wishes of Walter Martin, appointed Hank Hanegraaff president of CRI . . . "
OUR RESPONSE: This is not true. According to Stan Tonnesen, a CRI Board member at the time and my father's friend for 25 years, Hank and Everett Jacobsen met behind closed doors and when they emerged, Hank was the new president of CRI. To be fair to my Uncle Everett, he loved my father and was also grieving--and my father had left no clear plan for CRI. We believe that Hank Hanegraaff was my Uncle's choice for President of CRI . . . not my father's choice. This meeting was not a full board meeting. There was never a full board vote. There is not one public or private statement by Walter Martin naming Hank as his successor . . . NOT ONE. My father discussed Hank in great detail with me and with other members of the family, and he had no intention whatsoever of naming him as his successor. None. Hank was hired to increase CRI visibility; to help with the business side of things--NOT to take over as President and certainly not to assume the theological mantle at CRI. Why? Because Hank had very little theological training, and he was a young Christian. I challenge Hank Hanegraaff publicly to either prove his claim or to stop making it. This is dishonest behavior, and the people who support CRI deserve better.
John Stoffel: " . . . and, to my knowledge, at no time in the last 11 years (until these recent comments) has this been questioned by any member of CRI's Board of Director's, past or present."
OUR RESPONSE: Again, this is not true (as I informed John). Stan Tonnesen tried to discuss these allegations during a CRI Board meeting, and was immediately *voted off the board*. No one wanted to listen to him, and Darlene has since apologized to him for her part in this. In addition, John Teibe, Director, CRI Canada, tried to confront Hank with these allegations and was treated in an unbelievably abusive way and forced into early retirement. Several former CRI Canada staff members can testify to this.
John Stoffel: "On the contrary, no one but Mrs. Martin has made this claim."
OUR RESPONSE: Again, not true, and John Stoffel knows this. Many people questioned Hank's "appointment" as President, particularly those who were interviewed for the job shortly before my father's death! Martin relatives, long-time family friends, and many of my father's associates were stunned when the Hanegraaff announcement was made (including Dr. D. James Kennedy, who knew Hank well). Why? Because he was a *YOUNG CHRISTIAN* WITH NO THEOLOGICAL TRAINING. My father would NEVER have chosen him to take over the Bible Answerman Program or to debate people in the cults or to write apologetic books--it would've been like hiring an accountant to do open heart surgery.
John Stoffel: "Despite their web site claims, Hank is accountable to his pastor, to other ministry leaders, to the long-time staff members of CRI, and the CRI Board of Directors."
OUR RESPONSE: This is "spin" at its best...or worst. We tried to track down Hank's pastor in an effort to set up a mediation meeting, and found he'd changed churches several times since 1989. We are now trying to determine just who his pastor is, but based on his pattern of behavior over the last 11 years, we doubt Hank feels "accountable" to anyone. We were told by several reliable sources that he left Chuck Smith's church to avoid accountability. These sources, like many others we talked to, are afraid to have their names used--Hank is the host of a big radio program that brings in millions of dollars in contributions. HE has the power--THEY are only the "little guys". One analogy they used to explain their reluctance to go public was this: If you and your family were asleep in your home and a gang of thugs attacked someone out front, would you leave the safety of your house, unarmed, and try to help him? If you do, you die too. It's hard to argue with this scenario: fear was a common thread in many of the interviews we did. Several former CRI employees wrote to us applauding our stand--while begging us to keep their names confidential. This did not cast Hank in a positive light.
As to accountability to other ministry leaders--the question is, who? John Stoffel should let us know and we'll contact them to try to set up a mediation meeting.
Accountability to long-time staff members? Who? Elliot Miller--who worked under my father and still watched (in silence for 11 years) while his close friends and co-workers were abused, forced to quit, or fired? Marion Bodine? These are the only two "long-time" staff members we know of, and we doubt that either of these people would say one word against Hank and his actions. Elliot Miller told me months ago that he would try to set up a mediation meeting: I have yet to hear from him.
Accountability to the CRI Board? According to Darlene Martin, Stan Tonnesen, and John Teibe, Hank votes anyone off the board who disagrees with him. In our opinion, the CRI Board has been a "yes" board from the day my father died until the present time. How can they hold Hank accountable if they always agree with him?
John Stoffel: "In addition to his accountability to the Board of Directors, Hank and the CRI staff are accountable to several independent organizations. CRI is a member in good standing of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA)."
OUR RESPONSE: We're surprised John Stoffel even mentioned ECFA. CRI has a checkered past regarding membership to ECFA (sometimes they're members, sometimes they're not)--Rob Bowman commented publicly (in print) on this situation (available upon request). In addition to this, we were told that ECFA does not investigate ethics violations, so where is the accountability? Again, this statement from John Stoffel is misleading.
John Stoffel: " . . . the Canadian Council of Christian Charities (CCCC) and members of the Better Business Bureau (BBB)."
OUR RESPONSE: The CCCC: A reliable source in Canada states this means only that Hank obeys the minimal legal guidelines for running a charitable organization . . . so, again, this is quite misleading. Where is the accountability? And the *Better Business Bureau*?? What do they have to do with Christian ethics and accountability?
What John Stoffel does not tell CRI supporters in this paragraph is that CRI is not a member of EMNR (Evangelical Ministries to New Religions--founded by Walter Martin and others)--an organization that requires a signature on their ethics statement! This is available at the EMNR Website. Why doesn't CRI belong to EMNR?
John Stoffel: I think it is also helpful to hear from those staff members who have been with CRI for more than 20 years, serving under both Dr. Martin and Hank. People like Elliot Miller, with CRI for more than 25 years, who was quoted in the LA Times article (but not included on the Martin web site posting):
"I believe that Hank not only has the boldness and vision that I so respected in Walter Martin," Miller said. "But he also has the leadership and business skills to make Martin's vision a reality, which he's been doing over the past 11 years."
OUR RESPONSE: Elliot Miller is one of only two people left at CRI from my father's "time". The overwhelming majority of voices from the past denounce Hank Hanegraaff, his leadership, and his integrity. We did not include Elliot's comments on our site because we felt it was time for the "little people" to be heard . . . *uninterrupted*. Elliot can speak publicly anytime he wishes in the CRI JOURNAL, and Hank has his radio show. Anyone who would like to read the LA Times article in its entirety can certainly visit the LA Times website and request the article from them.
John Stoffel: I would be happy to discuss any questions you have or provide you further information as needed. I can be reached at (949) 858-6100, ext. 314, Monday-Friday between 7:00 am and 4:00 pm, Pacific Time. Thank you for taking the time to "check it out" and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
John Stoffel
Operations Manager
Christian Research Institute
OUR RESPONSE: We encourage everyone to contact John Stoffel to discuss whatever questions they may have. We are always open to emails (although the volume we receive is making it increasingly difficult to answer immediately). If we hear from you regarding Hank Hanegraaff, we *will* respond as soon as possible either publicly or privately.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: This has been a difficult response for me to write. I am deeply saddened by the fact that John Stoffel, representing CRI, continues to send out information that is inaccurate and misleading. This is my opinion, based on hundreds of facts, but I believe my father would agree with me and I can stand at peace before the Lord regarding every word I've written here.
I called John Stoffel and Elliot Miller at CRI because we received eyewitness accounts of slander: people were being told (over the telephone) that Darlene Martin and Kevin and I were liars, and anyone listening to us was "drinking from a poisoned well". We could not let this stand, and so I called and challenged both John and Elliot--both of whom denied ever saying these things. So the question remained: who do we believe? Several relatively *unbiased* CRI supporters who had called to hear Hank's side of things OR current CRI staff? One independent report is questionable . . . several undeniable. I asked both John and Elliot to please stop this slander and have not had any new reports of it to date.
In addition to this, we were recently contacted by current CRI employees who testified that they were INSTRUCTED NOT TO REFER ANYONE TO WALTER MARTIN'S INFONET. Apparently, the administration at CRI would rather have their supporters go without answers than send them to Walter Martin's family.
I will always love CRI more than I can ever say--I grew up playing in the Bible Answerman Studio and watching my father work in Wayne, New Jersey. I will always support the original ministry of CRI--to defend the faith against the cults and the occult, and to provide answers to those searching for the truth. What I do not support is: abusive leadership; fund raising for the sake of fund raising--a *large* percentage of CRI donations go towards hiring outside fund raisers to solicit even *more* money--CRI Tax Information and several million dollars goes towards unexplained expenses. I do not support public attacks on ministers of the gospel like Dr. James Dobson and Dr. D. James Kennedy, and questionable use of the Lord's money. When Hank first took over CRI, he redecorated my father's office--which included the purchase of a desk for *thousands* of dollars. He said he needed it to portray an image since no one knew who he was. We were offended by this purchase at the time and we are offended by it now. How is this honorable--to use so much of the Lord's money for a desk? How many Bibles would this money (sent in by supporters) have bought for outreaches to Brazil and Russia? I challenge Hank Hanegraaff to open his books to his supporters and answer any questions they may have. My father used to say, "Our books are always open. Come in and look at them, anytime." He didn't feel it was necessary to belong to ECFA: first, because the fee to join is quite high (and he felt there were better uses for the Lord's money) and second, because he knew they would not hold anyone accountable for anything. He never joined but he was always willing to open his books. Hank is not.
Once again, we call for Hank's resignation as President of Christian Research Institute--a title he assumed by deceit and callous abuse of members of the Walter Martin family. He took control of this ministry under suspicious circumstances at a time when my family was grieving deeply, and has held it for eleven years by means of abusive behavior and intimidation. This is not a shepherd
. . . this is a wolf in amongst the sheep--and God's people need to know it.
--Jill Martin Rische
|
