Hank Hanegraaff Supports The ‘Local Church’
by David E Lister
Editors Note: The words of Daniel 11 ring in my ears concerning those that join the covenant people in hypocrisy and then turn on them. It makes me wonder if this in not a preview of the future of the Church.
Below is a compilation of several items that have appeared recently throughout the Internet due to Hank Hanegraaff filing a legal brief on behalf of The Local Church and in opposition to John Weldon and John Ankerberg. The Local Church has long been regarded as a cult by the Christian Research Institute (see our posting of their position paper on The Local Church http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/
church_issues/teachings_of_witness_lee.htm ) along with most every apologist that this ministry knows. But now Hank Hanegraaff has actually turned to financially (by paying fees for filing the brief) supporting and legally (filing a friend of the court brief) supporting what most in the Christian apologetic field believe to be a cult (The Local Church) through the American court system. This is indeed a sad day as the legacy of Dr. Walter Martin continues to be dismantled.
Below are a few of the items that have appeared.
Actual Hank Hanegraaff Legal brief:
Hank Hanagraaff’s Legal Brief in Support of The Local Church
Sun, 8 Oct 2006
Breaking Story from L.L. (Don) Veinot
President
Midwest Christian Outreach Inc
CRI and The Local Church
There is a most bewildering turn of events. As some of you may be aware, a group who calls themselves The Local Church (founded by Witness Lee) has been attempting to sue Harvest House Publishers and authors John Ankerberg and John Weldon for including them in their Encyclopedia of Cults and False Religions. The Texas Court of Appeals ruled against The Local Church on January 5, 2006. Of the number of points which the court made was point 9 page 4 of the decision which reads in part:
“” ¦although church was listed as a cult, introduction specifically stated that the list of cult characteristics was not exhaustive and that ” ˜not all groups have every characteristic in equal measure,’ and introductions prefatory language of ” ˜[t]hose cult leaders or gurus’ was restrictive and focused only upon those who committed such acts, not on all leaders or gurus.”
The contention of The Local Church is that the behaviors and acts which were listed in the introduction would be understood by the average reader to apply in equal measure to all groups discussed in the book. The Local Church took this position in spite of the authors stating that “not all groups have every characteristic in equal measure” and as the court pointed out, this didn’t apply to all leaders and gurus. Why is this important now? The Local Church has filed petition with the Texas Supreme Court to hear the case and reverse the Appellate Courts decision.
Hank Hanegraaff, as President and Chairman of the Board of CRI has come to the aid of The Local Church and filed a friend of the Court brief (Amicus Curiae) on behalf of The Local Church requesting that the Texas Supreme Court review the case. Hank writes
:”The Texas Court of Appeals ruled, ” ˜Therefore, we conclude that being labeled a “cult” is not actionable because the truth or falsity of the statement depends on one’s religious beliefs, an ecclesiastical matter which cannot and should not be tried in a court of law.”
Hank then goes on to argue that the Supreme Court should hear the case. He also is clear that he and by extension, CRI, view The Local Church as theologically in agreement with the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith. This raises two questions:
1) Is it now CRI’s position that the courts should be the ones to determine correct theology? If so is CRI going to close their doors in deference to the courts determining sound biblical teaching?
2) If Hank and CRI believe that The Local Church is a theologically sound Christian group in the essentials of the Christian faith, as he indicates, why would he appeal to a court of unbelievers asking them to clear the way for believers to sue other believers before a court of unbelievers in clear violation of 1 Corinthians Chapter 6?
I did attempt to call Hank but was denied the opportunity to speak with him. I was put through the voice mail of CRI V.P., Paul Young, and I left a message but up to this point have not heard back from him.
L.L. (Don) Veinot
President
Midwest Christian Outreach Inc.
Thu, 12 Oct 2006
The Confusing Message of CRI
The Christian Research Institute (CRI) was founded by the late Walter Martin, the Bible Answer Man. It had been an organization dedicated to articulating and defending the essentials of the faith and exposing false teachings outside and inside the church. The recent request by the current CRI President and Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff to the Texas Supreme Court in the form of an Amicus Curiae or “Friend of the Court Brief” with what reads as a request for the Texas Supreme Court to be the arbiter of essential orthodoxy and allowing what he personally and officially considers a Christian group (The Local Church) to sue another Christian group (Harvest House Publishers and John Ankerberg and John Weldon) is sending very mixed messages. As I mentioned last week I have not been able to make direct contact with Hank and have not had my message returned from CRI V.P., Paul Young. In an email to William M. Alnor, PhD. (the Spiritual Counterfeits Project), Dr. Norman Geisler wrote, “I was shocked when I saw his brief. I have sided with Ankerberg from the beginning. I personally pled with Hank not to side with the Local Church. I believe this was a very unwise and unfounded decision.” It is unclear if the version of the Scriptures CRI is currently using contains 1 Corinthians chapter 6 or perhaps it was overlooked. This issue becomes important because, unlike the top down authoritarian leadership of the world, the higher one ascends in leadership in the Church which is the Body of Christ, the more accountable they are to a larger number of people. It is the case that Christian leaders live in glass houses and everyone around them has Windex. Having a clear and understandable message is very important in the process of teaching and accountability.
What is Happening With Hank?
I have just read that Hank Hanegraff of CRI is now siding with the Local Church in their law suit long thrown out by the courts against John Weldon, John Ankerberg, and Harvest House publishers!
From Don Venoit (president of Midwest Christian Outreach):
There is a most bewildering turn of events. As some of you may be aware, a group who calls themselves The Local Church (founded by Witness Lee) has been attempting to sue Harvest House Publishers and authors John Ankerberg and John Weldon for including them in their Encyclopedia of Cults and False Religions. The Texas Court of Appeals ruled against The Local Church on January 5, 2006…
Hank Hanegraaff, as President and Chairman of the Board of CRI has come to the aid of The Local Church and filed a friend of the Court brief (Amicus Curiae) on behalf of The Local Church requesting that the Texas Supreme Court review the case.
Hank writes:
“The Texas Court of Appeals ruled, ” ˜Therefore, we conclude that being labeled a cult is not actionable, because the truth or falsity of the statement depends on one’s religious beliefs, an ecclesiastical matter which cannot and should not be tried in a court of law.'”
Hank then goes on to argue that the Supreme Court should hear the case. He also is clear that he and by extension, CRI, view The Local Church as theologically in agreement with the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith. This raises two questions:
1) Is it now CRI’s position that the courts should be the ones to determine correct theology? If so, is CRI going to close their doors in deference to the courts determining sound biblical teaching?
2) If Hank and CRI believe that The Local Church is a theologically sound Christian group in the essentials of the Christian faith, as he indicates, why would he appeal to a court of unbelievers asking them to clear the way for believers to sue other believers before a court of unbelievers in clear violation of 1 Corinthians Chapter 6?
I did attempt to call Hank but was denied the opportunity to speak with him. I was put through the voice mail of CRI V.P., Paul Young, and I left a message but up to this point have not heard back from him.
posted by Dwayna Litz @ 7:11 AM
Anton Hein’s entry:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/375-hank-hanegraaff-support-the-local-church
CRI’s Hank Hanegraaff Supports a Cult of Christianity
In a move that has Christian apologists and countercult experts puzzled and upset, Hank Hanegraaff – the already controversial president of the Christian Research Institute – has come out in support of the Local Church.
The Local Church – known to insiders as “The Lord’s Recovery” – is widely considered to be, theologically, a cult of Christianity. Sociologically the movement has problems as well. The Local Church has a history of legal attacks against Christians who critique the movement.
Its most recent attack was a $136 million libel lawsuit against authors and apologists John Ankerberg and John Weldon, as well as their publisher, Harvest House.
Ankerberg and Weldon included a brief entry on the Local Church in their Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (Harvest House, 1999). After the Local Church filed its lawsuit, Harvest House explained why the Local Church was included in the Encyclopedia.
In their suit, The Local Church claimed that the Encyclopedia accused their group of criminal and immoral conduct. However, Harvest House and the authors have contended all along that the book does not and never intended to attribute such activity to The Local Church. Rather, the authors included the 11/4″ “page chapter on the Local Church’s teachings in the Encyclopedia based on the book’s definition of a religious cult: “a separate religious group generally claiming compatibility with Christianity but whose doctrines contradict those of historic Christianity” ¦.”
Though The Local Church insisted this case was not about being labeled a “cult,” they contended that by their mere inclusion in the Encyclopedia, and because the Introduction mentioned misdeeds committed by some unspecified cults, their group stood accused of any conduct that happened to be mentioned in the Introduction. Thus, they alleged, the book was libelous.
– Source: Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Harvest House and Its Authors, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Harvest House Publishers, USA, Jan. 6, 2006
In January, 2006. the suit was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas.
[T]he Court pointed out that the Encyclopedia centers on doctrinal and apologetic issues, and “that being labeled a ” ˜cult’ is not actionable because the truth or falsity of the statement depends upon one’s religious beliefs, an ecclesiastical matter, which cannot and should not be tried in a court of law.”
As for the criminal conduct mentioned in the Introduction, the Appellate Court decisively ruled, “No reasonable reader could conclude that the book accuses the [Local] church” ¦of rape, murder, child molestation, drug smuggling, etc” ¦.The allegedly libelous statements in the Introduction are not ” ˜of and concerning’ the [Local] church and are not actionable.”
– Source: Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Harvest House and Its Authors, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Harvest House Publishers, USA, Jan. 6, 2006
In response, the Local Church has filed a petition with the Texas Supreme Court to hear the case and reverse the Appellate Court’s decision.
Hank Hanegraaff Supports the Local Church
Recently it was revealed that Hank Hanegraaff has filed a so-called Amicus CuriaePDF file (Friend of the Court brief) in which he sides with the Local Church.
Hanegraaff argues in the brief that in his opinion the Local Church is not a cult, either sociologically or theologically.
In a recent newsletter, Don Veinot, president of Midwest Christian Outreach – an apologetics and countercult ministry – wrote:
[Hanegraaff] also is clear that he and by extension, CRI, view The Local Church as theologically in agreement with the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith. This raises two questions:
1) Is it now CRI’s position that the courts should be the ones to determine correct theology? If so is CRI going to close their doors in deference to the courts determining sound biblical teaching?
2) If Hank and CRI believe that The Local Church is a theologically sound Christian group in the essentials of the Christian faith, as he indicates, why would he appeal to a court of unbelievers asking them to clear the way for believers to sue other believers before a court of unbelievers in clear violation of 1 Corinthians Chapter 6?
– Source: Don Veinot, The Crux, newsletter of Midwest Christian Outreach. Oct. 9, 2006 [Subscribe]
Spiritual Counterfeits Project
In December, 1980, the Local Church filed a religious defamation case against another author, and against the Spiritual Counterfeits Project. In that case, cult apologist J. Gordon Melton supported the Local Church.
Brooks Alexander, at the time SCP’s president, addressed the outcome of that case in an article titled, “When Talk Isn’t Cheap and Speech Isn’t Free: The Abuse of Libel Law.”
Some Initial Responses
Jackie Alnor, wife of SCP’s Access Director Bill Alnor, addresses the Hanegraaff/Local Church controversy in her Apostacy Alert newsletter. She writes:
The most shocking thing about this report is that the founder of CRI, the organization that Hanegraaff heads up, is Walter Martin, author of The Kingdom of the Cults. Ankerberg happened to be one of Martin’s closest associates in the defense of the faith. Martin joined co-defendant John Weldon on the platform of The Ankerberg Show frequently to debate cultists and other aberrational teachers. The three men were quite a team. In fact, Ankerberg emceed Martin’s memorial service after he passed away. This was the same service in which Hanegraaff reportedly made his move to take over CRI (Christian Research Institute) by manipulating Martin’s widow to announce to the mourners that he was Martin’s appointed successor when indeed he wasn’t. (See the report on that on Martin’s daughter and son-in-law’s website at: http://www.waltermartin.org/cri.html and scroll down to read: Hanegraaff Wasn’t ” ˜Handpicked’)
– Source: Jackie Alnor, Bible-Answer-Man Turns Traitor, Apostasy Alert, Oct. 8, 2006
In an email to Bill Alnor, of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Norman Geisler – Dean and Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary – wrote:
“I was shocked when I saw his brief” ¦. I have sided with Ankerberg from the beginning. I personally pled with Hank not to side with the Local Church. I believe this was a very unwise and unfounded decision.”
Dwayna Litz of Lighting the Way Ministries encourages Christians to voice their concerns over Hanegraaff’s actions by calling his radio show. In addition she writes:
Also, I must warn anyone, if someone gives financially to CRI (with Hank as president), the person will receive phone calls for years after his or her last donation, asking to please give more. The poor trusting soul will also continue to receive mail solicitations years after placing an order.
– Source: Dwayna Litz, Voice Your Concern About Hank’s Lawsuit, Lighting the Way International, Oct. 9, 2006
That is is not the first time CRI’s fundraising tactics have come under scrutiny.
In the October 12 newsletter of Midwest Christian Outreach, Don Veinot writes:
As I mentioned last week I have not been able to make direct contact with Hank and have not had my message returned from CRI V.P., Paul Young.
[” ¦]
It is unclear if the version of the Scriptures CRI is currently using contains 1 Corinthians chapter 6 or perhaps it was overlooked. This issue becomes important because, unlike the top down authoritarian leadership of the world, the higher one ascends in leadership in the Church which is the Body of Christ, the more accountable they are to a larger number of people. It is the case that Christian leaders live in glass houses and everyone around them has Windex. Having a clear and understandable message is very important in the process of teaching and accountability.
– Source: Don Veinot, The Crux, newsletter of Midwest Christian Outreach. Oct. 9, 2006 [Subscribe]
Comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Comments are moderated. We favor well-reasoned, constructive comments.
2 Responses to “CRI’s Hank Hanegraaff Supports a Cult of Christianity”
1. Daniel Wynne Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 6:30 am
While I am equally concerned about the alleged behavior of Mr. Hanegraaff, and as a result have stopped supporting CRI, I have NOT experienced what Dwayna Litz says about phone calls, though I do still get mailings, which I discard. Maybe this is because I am on the “do not call” list?
2. Laurence Hamlin Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
I am totally bewildered at the dealings of Hank Hanegraff and CRI.
In 1986 CRI under the direction of Walter Martin aided my family and I in getting our daughter and son in law out of the Local Church in Odessa Texas.
They, under advise of the Local Church, had broken contact with us, their family, back here in California.
While I hold no ill against the Local Church, they do not represent the orthodox beliefs of Christianity.
Hanegraff, me thinks, does these things to draw attention to himself!
It is time I fear, to dismiss Hanegraff and instead of calling the Bible Answer Man program we should just ignore Hanegraff in a way which he very well understands.
STOP SUPPORTING CRI
Walter Martin’s daughter’s blog entry:
Jill Martin Rische
Walter Martin Ministries
http://www.waltermartin.com/blog.html
Sunday, October 15, 2006
“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?
Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!” 1 Cor 6:1,7-9
This is one of those days when I have to write about something unpleasant. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the details, the Local Church sued Harvest House, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon in December, 2001, claiming they defamed them in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions. I’m not going to go into details on this lawsuit
(http://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/about_cstatementfaq.cfm) but recently something new occurred that requires comment.
In August, 2006, Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino filed statements with the Texas Court of Appeals in defense of the Local Church–and consequently–in support of the Local Church’s position in this lawsuit.
Why is this a problem? In the 1970s my father met with Witness Lee in an effort to discuss the theology of the Local Church before he commented on it publicly. My father felt that the Local Church was dividing the Church of Jesus Christ. They were using methods of evangelizism and biblical interpretation similar to those used by the cults, and my father believed they were in serious error. Bob and Gretchen Passantino did extensive research on Witness Lee and the Local Church at my father’s request. They provided him with the primary documentation he needed to challenge them. As a result of this research, my father gave his lecture on the Local Church:
http://www.waltermartin.com/listening_library/Witness_Lee11.ram
http://www.waltermartin.com/listening_library/Witness_Lee12.ram
Today, it seems not much has changed in the methodology and beliefs of the Local Church (http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc.html#easy ). CRI must agree that not much has changed (http://localchurch.8m.com/cri-dl-075.html ) and yet, Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino (Christian Apologists) decided to publicly support the Local Church against John Ankerberg and John Weldon (Christian Apologists) and men with a record for a bold defense of the Christian faith.
Why did they do this? Only God, Hank, Gretchen, and the Local Church know the answer to that.
The Local Church is upset–they reject any link to the word “cult”. My answer to the leaders of the Local Church is this: if you are truly Christian brothers, then show the love of Christ. You have no business taking your brother to court. You are acting more like cult members than Christians. Stop it now.
To Hank I would say this: Actions speak louder than words. Either stand by CRI’s position on the Local Church, or take it down. Don’t say one thing and do another–that makes you a double-minded man (James 1:23). And while you’re at it, drop your lawsuit against your brother in Christ, Dr. William Alnor. Where is the love of Christ in your actions?
To Gretchen I would say this: You should be ashamed. You know better.
How foolish are these lawsuits in the light of God’s instructions to us? You tell me:
“And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.” Eph 4:32
Who is being kind? Who is tenderhearted? Who is forgiving?
I think my father got it right when he pounded the pulpit and said, “The whole world is going to Hell around us, and we’re fighting about nothing!”
Jill
Disclaimer: These statements are purely my opinion and no slander, libel or defamation is intended herein.
Want to get involved? Tell people how you feel!
The Local Church
http://www.localchurch.org/contact-us/index.htm
John Ankerberg
http://www.johnankerberg.com/survey-series.htm
Gretchen Passantino
Hank Hanegraaff
Need more information on this?
Don Veinot- Midwest Christian Outreach:
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/
The Confusing Message of CRIzzzThe Christian Research Institute (CRI) was founded by the late Walter Martin, the Bible Answer Man. It had been an organization dedicated to articulating and defending the essentials of the faith and exposing false teachings outside and inside the church. The recent request by the current CRI President and Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff to the Texas Supreme Court in the form of an Amicus Curiae or “Friend of the Court Brief” with what reads as a request for the Texas Supreme Court to be the arbiter of essential orthodoxy and allowing what he personally and officially considers a Christian group (The Local Church) to sue another Christian group (Harvest House Publishers and John Ankerberg and John Weldon) is sending very mixed messages. As I mentioned last week I have not been able to make direct contact with Hank and have not had my message returned from CRI V.P., Paul Young. In an email to William M. Alnor, PhD. (the Spiritual Counterfeits Project), Dr. Norman Geisler wrote, “I was shocked when I saw his brief. I have sided with Ankerberg from the beginning. I personally pled with Hank not to side with the Local Church. I believe this was a very unwise and unfounded decision.” It is unclear if the version of the Scriptures CRI is currently using contains 1 Corinthians chapter 6 or perhaps it was overlooked. This issue becomes important because, unlike the top down authoritarian leadership of the world, the higher one ascends in leadership in the Church which is the Body of Christ, the more accountable they are to a larger number of people. It is the case that Christian leaders live in glass houses and everyone around them has Windex. Having a clear and understandable message is very important in the process of teaching and accountability.
Jackie Alnor
http://www.apostasyalert.org/Bible-Answer-Man_Traitor.htm
Dwayna Litz
http://www.lightingtheway.blogspot.com/ (Monday, October 09, 2006)
Apologetics Index
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/docs/HanegraaffSupportsLocalChurch.pdf
posted by Jill Martin Rische at 12:38 PM
My Story:
October 7, 2006
Bible-Answer-Man Turns Traitor
The following news release just came through the E-List from Midwest Christian Outreach, headed up by apologist Don Veinot. He reports that Hank Hanegraaff, the radio Bible-Answer-Man has taken the side of an abusive shepherding group, the Local Church, against Harvest House Publishers and authors John Ankerberg and John Weldon in a lawsuit initiated by the “church”.
The most shocking thing about this report is that the founder of CRI, the organization that Hanegraaff heads up, is Walter Martin, author of The Kingdom of the Cults. Ankerberg happened to be one of Martin’s closest associates in the defense of the faith. Martin joined co-defendant John Weldon on the platform of The Ankerberg Show frequently to debate cultists and other aberrational teachers. The three men were quite a team. In fact, Ankerberg emceed Martin’s memorial service after he passed away. This was the same service in which Hanegraaff reportedly made his move to take over CRI (Christian Research Institute) by manipulating Martin’s widow to announce to the mourners that he was Martin’s appointed successor when indeed he wasn’t. (See the report on that on Martin’s daughter and son-in-law’s website at: http://www.waltermartin.org/cri.html and scroll down to read: Hanegraaff Wasn’t ‘Handpicked’)
Another irony to this story is the fact that Hank Hanegraaff, not living up to his stolen “Bible-Answer-Man” title, sees nothing wrong with a Christian taking another Christian into civil court (he must have cut 1 Corinthians 6 out of his Bible). Hanegraaff has filed a lawsuit against journalism professor William Alnor (yes, he is related to me) for wording he didn’t like in an article Bill wrote about Hanegraaff’s less-than-forthright fund-raising methods. And it just so happens that this same “church” that is suing Ankerberg and Weldon also sued another apologetics ministry, SCP (Spiritual Counterfeits Project) back in the 70s and drove that ministry into bankruptcy. Bill Alnor is SCP’s current Access Director — could there be a connection?
Hanegraaff certainly bites the hand that used to feed him. Harvest House Publishers was the first book publishing house to publish Hanegraaff’s books (at least the books had Hanegraaff as the author, though there is evidence that others in his employ wrote more of it than he did). But he changed publishers for a more lucrative deal elsewhere. It makes you wonder what sort of filthy lucre he received from the ” Local Church” to be lured into striking this deal with the devil. Yet Hanegraaff and the ” Local Church” are two peas in a pod. They both use the court system to intimidate and financially devour other Christians. They deserve each other and they will answer to God.
To the ” Local Church” I would say: your lampstand has been removed. To Hanegraaff: What does it profit you to gain all the world’s golf courses and country clubs and forfeit your soul?
