CRI's Hanegraaff in Marital Scandal
Perucci Ferraiuolo
Sardasian, for On The Edge, a publication of Religious Research Reports,
128665 NE 85th St, Suite #123, Seattle, WA 98033. 1995, RRR.
Duplication and Distribution is hereby authorized by anyone desiring to
view, copy, or distribute the information contained in the following
three issues.
_____________________________________________
CRI PREZ INVOLVED IN CANADIAN MARITAL SCANDAL
By Gunther Sardasian
ON THE EDGE Staff Reporter
The already scandal-ridden ministry of Southern California s Christian
Research Institute and its controversial president, Hank Hanegraaff,
whose popular radio talk show The Bible Answer Man is syndicated widely
by Camarillo, California-based Salem Communications Corporation, has
found itself in yet another seemingly indefensible set of circumstances.
This time, however, Christian leaders are saying it may spell doom for
the once prestigious apologetics ministry founded by Dr. Walter Martin
and passed on to Hanegraaff in the late 80s after Martin s death.
Harboring a Spiritual Fugitive?
The problem centers around Hanegraaff s hiring of Paul Young, CRI s
Executive Vice-President, almost two years ago - a move that some say was
arbitrary and unbiblical due to Young s marital status
then and now.
According to John Teibe, former president of CRI s Canadian division, he
warned Hanegraaff that Young, who once worked for Teibe, deserted his
Christian wife, Estelle, refused pastoral counseling from their church in
Toronto - The Rexdale Alliance Church - ignored calls for reconciliation
from Teibe, and Rexdale pastors, and remained in violation of a Canadian
court order by refusing to pay spousal support.
Hank Hanegraaff knew about Paul Young s background, says Teibe in a
recent interview with an independent journalist, because I kept
pressuring him to do something about it back in late 93 or early 94.
No Signs of Reconciliation
And when it was announced that Young was to be CRI s Executive Vice-
President, I protested to Hank telling him that it wasn t right for a man
who had deserted his wife to be placed in leadership at CRI or any other
ministry, especially since the desertion continues to this day with no
signs of repentance, reconciliation, or church discipline. What Hank
should have done long ago was send Paul Young back to Canada to face his
wife and pastor.
As a result of his continued reminder to Hanegraaff about Young s
alleged spousal desertion, and continuing vocal displeasure over CRI s
involvement with a lawsuit brought on by former CRI staff member, Brad
Sparks, Teibe, who founded CRI Canada, was reportedly forced into early
retirement by Hanegraff and Young.
Hanegraaff Cover-up?
Teibe says the move to oust him was nothing more than an attempt to
cover up his outspoken views on Hanegraaff s behavior concerning the
Sparks matter, and to silence his objections to Hanegraaff s alliance
with Young, which Teibe categorizes as unholy.
When I learned that Hank had given Paul such a high position at CRI, I
objected, says Teibe. I told Hank that he didn t know the man, and gave
him all the information about the desertion, but he wouldn t hear of it,
only saying that he checked him out and everything was fine. Checked him
out? He didn t check with me, and I hired him in Canada before I knew of
his marital status. He didn t check with Paul s pastor, didn t call his
wife, so who did he check with?
Teibe says Hanegraaff s demeanor points to only one thing. He s
arrogant and so head strong you can t teach him anything, Teibe says,
with obvious pain in his voice. The way he treats people is shameful.
And his refusal to do anything about Paul Young is scandalous.
Irrefutable Contradictions
Hanegraaff, though, seems to contradict his own behavior by his stand on
divorce and desertion.
On his Bible Answer Man broadcast of December 22, 1994, he says divorce
should never be an option. The better attitude towards divorce is that
I am going to love you whether you ever give me another ounce of
pleasure; I m gonna be committed to you; I m gonna nurture you; I m gonna
honor you and not look at it from a selfish standpoint, but rather a
selfless standpoint. I think that s really the intent of scripture.
Additionally, in a CRI position paper on divorce, it ironically reaches
where Young may have gone. The really controversial question, though, is
just how broadly desertion should be interpreted beyond the obvious,
literal, geographical type of abandonment, the official position reads.
What about such offenses as failure to provide for the physical needs of
the family? Physical abuse? Denial of conjugal rights? Do any or all of
these constitute virtual abandonment? On one hand, it can certainly be
argued that failure to provide materially or flagrant physical abuse can
be just as much abandonment of the marriage as packing up and leaving the
house. On the other hand, the continued presence of the offending spouse
in the home can be taken as an indication that the abandonment is neither
absolute nor permanent.
A CRI ministry source says Hanegraaff is violating not only his own
stand on divorce, but also his own ministry s position on it by willingly
keeping Young in the U.S. and under CRI s umbrella. Not only has
Hanegraaff kept Young here in the States working at CRI instead of
sending him home to Canada to face church discipline for abandoning his
wife, says the official, but he has Young living with him in his
(Hanegraaff s) own home all but condoning it.
Blatant Violation
Why would Hanegraaff go against his own teaching and so blatantly
violate his own ministry s position on divorce and abandonment by
providing Young with a safe harbor from his Canadian troubles? Teibe says
he thinks he knows. Hank is immature, lacking in judgment, egotistical
and is using CRI for his own ends, he observes. There isn t anything
spiritual about his leadership. He has discarded people left and right.
It s efforts of the flesh, and CRI is not going to be free of the turmoil
unless Hank repents and gives restitution.
A Major Ministry Outrage
Independent sources have concluded that Hanegraaff s non-action toward
Paul Young s alleged marital desertion is outrageous. In a February 6,
1995 eleven page letter to Hanegraaff, Bill Alnor, President of Eastern
Christian Outreach, Inc., a major East Coast based ministry, cautioned
and challenged Hanegraaff. Dismiss Paul Young outright, one point in
the letter said. He should be back in Canada facing church discipline
procedures and counseling for how he abandoned his Christian wife,
Estelle Young in 1992. His first marriage, also to a Christian woman,
ended in divorce. You must send him back for the purposes of
reconciliation with her and prominent Canadian pastors will work with you
and Paul to expedite this matter. Otherwise you are ripe for another
scandal.
CRI As Law Breaker?
Alnor s pointed and blistering admonition continues. Mr. Young is also
in violation of a Canadian court order in this regard. His being in the U.
S. to run CRI International is being perceived by some as CRI helping him
break the law and advocating destroying a marriage. You should call
Estelle.
A Founder s Outrage
The manifesto also adjures Hanegraaff to make peace with John Teibe,
saying that CRI founder Walter Martin would have been outraged if he
knew how you treated him and the turmoil the lawsuit brought to the board
of CRI Canada.
Further Hanegraaff is urged to stop his attacks on Christian author Dave
Hunt; to dismiss his attorney, Sealy Yates, saying that his mean-
spirited, threatening letters and nasty legal tactics do not reflect the
love of Christ for His people; to stop spending funds on his
(Hanegraaff s) legal defenses... If you are spending contributors funds
on your defense, I greatly question that. How much, if any, has it cost
CRI donors so far?
Estelle Young Speaks
Young s wife, Estelle, says she has suffered greatly at the hands of
both her husband and Hanegraaff. Because of my husband not paying the
money that the court ordered him to pay I ended up on my back with no car,
no food, and no resources, says Young s wife, sounding extremely
distraught even now, more than two years after he reportedly deserted her.
Paul told me he loved me and that we were going to be moving into a
new home. I took care of his mother full-time, who had liver cancer, and
after she died, he disappeared two days later.
Estelle Young says her husband s abandonment left her penniless and
devastated. She says all the bills were three to four months in arrears,
and she had to rely on friends, relatives, and church support to help
keep the electricity, phone, and water on. Things got so bad financially,
she says, I had to drink Jell-O and water for dinner once. It was
horrible the way he deserted me, but to refuse to pay court ordered
support after I devoted my life to taking care of his mother, was just
cruel.
He didn t have to do that, Teibe remarks. Young didn t pay his wife
anything for almost a year, and he owned two or three homes, a luxury
condo, and a vintage Corvette. He had the money, but he left her to
suffer.
Just a short time after Young left his wife, he was appointed as the
Executive Director of CRI Canada.
In a newsrelease about his appointment, Young brags about his
involvement with National Religious Broadcasters and Christian
Booksellers Association, and of his extensive connections in the
Christian marketplace. Administration is what God designed me for,
Young boasts, to be directly involved in overseeing an organization s
daily business affairs. I ve been indirectly associated with Christian
ministry in my work for about twenty years. Now I want to spend the next
twenty or more years directly involved in the work of the Christian
Research Institute.
Nowhere in his full-page newsrelease/bio does Young mention his present
wife Estelle or that he is even married, but he does talk about his zeal
for the Lord s work that he feels will prove to be valuable assets as
CRI seeks to expand it s Canadian ministry in the 1990s.
Estelle Young says she did hear from her husband once during his
association with CRI Canada, but he gave no explanation as to his actions.
He said, I still love you, but we just can t live together and I m
leaving, she says. He played me like a violin until he didn t need me
anymore and then I was history. I asked him if he wanted a divorce and he
said, you only get a divorce if you re going to get remarried. I
can t even tell you what the betrayal did to me. Here was a man who just
a few short months before he left , gave me a birthday card that said,
to my darling wife, the answer to all my prayers, I love you more each
day, and in no time at all he was gone.
She says that now, after so much time as passed, she has settled the
issue of spousal support with her husband. I had to, she cries. I
needed the money so bad, so I settled for a fraction of what I was
entitled to. Paul had an expensive attorney on his side, but I had no one
on mine.
Young s wife says she has tried to contact her husband by mail, since
his move to Southern California, but her letters go unanswered. Finally,
I couldn t take it anymore, she explains, and called Hank Hanegraaff.
I told his secretary I was Paul Young s wife, and desperately needed to
speak with him. He never returned my call. What kind of man does that?
If Estelle Young could face her husband and Hanegraaff now, though, what
would she say? I have nothing to say to Mr. Hanegraaff, she offers. I
thought he was an honorable man. I was wrong. But I still want
reconciliation with Paul. After all, we re supposed to be Christians.
Wade Novin
There is a egotistical tone to Hank Hanigraaf...........
Wade Novin
IICor xi
>There is a egotistical tone to Hank Hanigraaf...........
>Wade Novin
Do you always assume guilt until proven innocent?
Paul
>The following article was written by investigative reporter, Gunther
>Sardasian, for On The Edge, a publication of Religious Research Reports,
> 128665 NE 85th St, Suite #123, Seattle, WA 98033. 1995, RRR.
>Duplication and Distribution is hereby authorized by anyone desiring to
>view, copy, or distribute the information contained in the following
>three issues.
< obviously biased reports deleted >
>By Gunther Sardasian
>ON THE EDGE Staff Reporter
>
It's no big secret that Hanegraaff (and CRI) have been viciously
slandered by some of the fraudelent quacks (who have deep pockets) he
has exposed in the past. In fact, this is old news.
Perucci,
If you want your posts to hold any water, I suggest this:
List all the executives and members of the board of directors for both
On The Edge and Religious Research Reports and what church(s) they are
affiliated with. Something tells me we will then see the motives
behind Mr. Sardasian's reports.
Jack King
>It's no big secret that Hanegraaff (and CRI) have been viciously
>slandered by some of the fraudelent quacks....
It is no big secret that <put your favor "cult" here> has been viciously
slandered by Hanegraaff (and CRI)....
Jack
QMS Philadelphia
>
>GCT...@prodigy.com (Perucci Ferraiuolo) wrote:
>
>< reports deleted >
>
>>By Gunther Sardasian
>>ON THE EDGE Staff Reporter
>>
>
>On The Edge and Religious Research Reports and what church(s) they are
>affiliated with. Something tells me we will then see the motives
>behind Mr. Sardasian's reports.
If your point is that the reports may have come from some of the ministries which
have been slandered by Mr. Hannegraaf, I'm not impressed. Take a look
at your argument in a nutshell:
A says: B is a heretic.
B says: I am not a heretic. A is acting in an unChristian manner.
A says: B is just biased because I said he was a heretic.
Your argument is a falacy called ad hominem. The fact that arguer B has
a motive for defending himself implies nothing whatsoever about the
validity of his argument.
The charge has been made, not by Sardasian, but by several former
associates of Mr. Hannegraaf, that Hannegraaf continues to conduct his
affairs in a manner which is inconsistent with what we should expect
from a minister of Christ. Are the charges true, or are they false?
Phil Weingart
Gary J. Sibio
writes: > Thank-You for that information.
>
> There is a egotistical tone to Hank Hanigraaf...........
>
> Wade Novin
>
>
>
I've always thought that it was a bit strange for someone who rails against
the Catholic belief in papal infallibility and calls himself "The Bible Answer
Man." Still I hate to see anything bring scandal into the church, Catholic or
otherwise.
Pax et bonum
Gary J. Sibio, SFO
gary...@delphi.com
But remember, my dear friends, what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ
foretold. `At the final point of time', they told you, `there will be mockers
who follow nothing but their own godless desires.' It is they who cause
division, who live according to nature and do not posess the Spirit. [Jude
17-19, NJB]
Jack King
>>There is a egotistical tone to Hank Hanigraaf...........
>Do you always assume guilt until proven innocent?
My 2 cents. Since your name is "IICor xi", Note IICor xi:xiv:
"Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of
light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also
keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness."
Jack
mcca...@polaris.net
: p...@ix.netcom.com (Paul) writes:
Major difference here.
The information provided by the articles on this (and other NG's) against
Hanegraaff and CRI cite little to no sources and the backggrounds of the
writer and his sources are not revealed. Nor have those articles
contained source material where the information provided can be checked
out by the reader. These are some of the reasons why these attack
articles really have little to no credibility.
The information on the cults by CRI contain quite a number of sources
which are cited so the reader may search the information as well if he or
she so chooses. The backgrounds of the writer and sources are included
for the most part or are obtainable via CRI. These are some of the
reasons why CRI articles really have quite a large amount of credibility.
May God bless,
Carl
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Carl McCaskey [mcca...@polaris.net] |
|--------------------------------------------|
| Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord |
| Jesus Christ, which according to his |
| abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto |
| a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus |
| Christ from the dead, [1 Peter 1:3] |
|____________________________________________|
William F. Tucker
mcca...@polaris.net
: In <4dvb79$d...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu> p...@ix.netcom.com (Paul) writes:
: >
: >GCT...@prodigy.com (Perucci Ferraiuolo) wrote:
: >
: >< reports deleted >
: >>By Gunther Sardasian
: >>ON THE EDGE Staff Reporter
: >
: >List all the executives and members of the board of directors for both
: >On The Edge and Religious Research Reports and what church(s) they are
: >affiliated with. Something tells me we will then see the motives
: >behind Mr. Sardasian's reports.
: If your point is that the reports may have come from some of the ministries which
: have been slandered by Mr. Hannegraaf, I'm not impressed. Take a look
: at your argument in a nutshell:
How about answering the man's request. The dodging of this legitimate
request only brings up suspicion.
: A says: B is a heretic.
: B says: I am not a heretic. A is acting in an unChristian manner.
: A says: B is just biased because I said he was a heretic.
This is not an accurate representation of that person's point.
: Your argument is a falacy called ad hominem. The fact that arguer B has
: a motive for defending himself implies nothing whatsoever about the
: validity of his argument.
This is not an example of ad hominem.
: The charge has been made, not by Sardasian, but by several former
: associates of Mr. Hannegraaf, that Hannegraaf continues to conduct his
: affairs in a manner which is inconsistent with what we should expect
: from a minister of Christ. Are the charges true, or are they false?
Let's see the sources in their entirety. So far all we've been given is
hearsay and unsubstantiated accusations against the man's character which
is by far a more accurate example of ad hominem. You seem to ignore one
person's ad hominem while accusing someone else of it. This is
inconsistent and hypocritical.
Finally, in all of those ad hominem attack articles against Hanegraaff
and CRI, nothing has been given that reduces the credibility of their
information and exposes of the cults.
Those type of attack articles usually are referred to a "tabloid
journalism" and tend to impress the uninformed and influence the naive,
but in fact, tend to be exposed by the author's own biases.
May God bless you and keep you always,
Carl
E2Q1Z
>My 2 cents. Since your name is "IICor xi", Note IICor xi:xiv:
>"Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of
>light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also
>keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness."
>Jack
It appears you too are ready, willing, and able to point the finger. What
a pity.
Phil Najera
>p...@ix.netcom.com (Paul) writes:
>>It's no big secret that Hanegraaff (and CRI) have been viciously
>>slandered by some of the fraudelent quacks....
>It is no big secret that <put your favor "cult" here> has been viciously
>slandered by Hanegraaff (and CRI)....
That's one thing CRI is an expert at, slander. Perhaps that to harsh a
word, how about misinformation.
Phil
Jay Windley
|
|The information on the cults by CRI contain quite a number of sources
|which are cited so the reader may search the information as well if he or
|she so chooses.
Of course, the reader has no way of knowing how those sources are
treated by the people who actually use them. And of course most
readers simply assume CRI has done all the research and that further
work on their part is unneccessary or burdensome.
A reader with no knowledge of Mormonism isn't likely to recognize
_Journal of Discourses_ or know that Mormons don't consider it a valid
source of doctrine. This is because it contains speculative theories,
and some teachings which are just plain wrong. We need JD as a
historical source of material, to know what was thought about during
the formative period of our religion, but we realize that people said
indefensible things in it, and often did not know they were being
published. So for history and background we read JD, but not for
doctrine.
And of course CRI pulls one single speculative quote out of thousands
of hours of recorded sermons, most of it preaching orthodoxy, and then
tries to characterize that as Mormon teaching. The average reader
isn't going to read 23 volumes, 200 pages each, of recorded Mormon
sermons to check up on CRI's research. They count on the scholars who
quote them to have done this and rendered the material in proper
context. CRI singularly and systematically fails to do this.
The ability to cite references is no substitute for scholarship.
|The backgrounds of the writer and sources are included
|for the most part or are obtainable via CRI.
This is how watchdog agencies are able to characterize CRI as a highly
conservative organization with a definite agenda. So in that respect
we thank CRI for its honesty.
|These are some of the
|reasons why CRI articles really have quite a large amount of credibility.
I've only found CRI to have credibility among the small number of
individuals who share its ideals and motives.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Windley * University of Utah * Salt Lake City
jwin...@cs.utah.edu http://www.cs.utah.edu/~jwindley/
--- I remember when the Information Superhighway was a footpath. ---
DAN TALBOT
> Jay Windley * University of Utah * Salt Lake City
> jwin...@cs.utah.edu http://www.cs.utah.edu/~jwindley/
>--- I remember when the Information Superhighway was a footpath.
---
>
is very interesting. I think the Net is STILL an info footpath,
although it is a highway of babble a lot of the time.
Regards,
Dan Talbot