Former CRI Employee Attacks My Book


I found a small article on the net over the weekend: 

http://www.examiner.com/x-27802-Televangelism–Pop-Christianity-Examiner~y2010m2d17-Christian-Research-Institute–fighting-a-battle-on-two-fronts?cid=email-this-article 

Mr. Hunter claims in an incredibly general statement that all the issues I bring up in my book have already been answered. However,  just a few days ago, Paul Young of CRI claimed that CRI was preparing a response to my book. So which is it, CRI has already answered the problems I reference in my book or they are still working on a response?

Please notice that Mr. Hunter gives the same type of answer that a couple others have stated after a fashion: All my issues have been answered  several years ago by CRI to people’s satisfaction. He fails to mention any of the issues I bring up or exactly how CRI went about answering the problems. Is this the best CRI can do? “We have answered all the problems raised but we don’t plan to tell you how we did it.” Since CRI has, since it’s inception, been extremely proficient at answering the public’s questions with seeming ease, why can they not directly answer my questions from the book and satisfiy those who are also asking the questions?  Are you satisfied with CRI’s answers?

You should also know that 2 years ago I created a 2 CD set called, “Is Hank Hanegraaff the Rightful President of CRI?” It was based on some of the material I had put together for my book.  I had delivered this same information in a lecture, March 2008, at the EMNR Conference in Kansas City, Missouri. I placed the CD set on my website: www.focusonthefaulty.org for sale in March of 2008. Within 2 weeks I received a credit card order from a man named Stephen Ross. He lives near Charlotte, NC. There just happens to be a fellow named Stephen Ross who was working as Hank Hanegraaff’s personal assistant in 2008. Just a coincidence?  Therefore, it is apparent they have had 2 full years to answer the issues on the CD set but there has been no public release of their answers. My book has been out for just 6 months but those CD sets contain a large amount of the book and should have been responded to by now.  I continue to look forward to the CRI report and not this form of personal attack found in Mr. Hunter’s internet article, trying to pass it’s self off as an answer.

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Former CRI Employee Attacks My Book”

  1. Frederick Weamer Says:

    Jay,

    I am Frederick B A Weamer from Facebook. I have almost read all of your book & I am in total agreement. I have not had the chance to look @ the Memorial service of Walter’s as of yet. I am on the 35 year program to get my M A in Economics but because of health issues, I have had to quit and restart later, which I have done.

    I will purchase your CD’s and get back to you with my assessment of the tapes and Darlene’s hesitation (time wise) when she seems stunned and reads the additional lines. Remember, I said you can see me in the VHS copy that I received from either her or CRI.

    God bless you and your efforts.

  2. D. Crossley Says:

    Jay,
    As an interested observer I wish to respond to Mr. Hunter’s “smoke and mirrors” claim that:

    “During the entire time of this writer’s employment at CRI people have been leveling the same tired charges against CRI and its president. This despite the fact that the charges – which can be found in abundance on the internet – have been answered and refuted by the organization.”

    I’d like to reiterate Jay’s query, “Where have any of these allegations been answered and refuted?” And I’ll be very specific on this.

    I was senior research counselor with CRI-Canada (Calgary) from 1986-1995, working closely with Mr. John Teibe, founder of CRI-Canada (1985-1995).

    As you know, I have direct personal knowledge and access to the source documentation for the OTE#2 article, “CRI Prez, Hank Hanegraaff, Entangled in Marital Scandal: Second in Command Accused of Wife Desertion” which was first published in late 1995. This article is 100% accurate and can be found here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20011108191720/www.geocities.com/ote3/ote2.html

    Hanegraff apologist Elliot Miller claims that he has heard Paul Young’s side of things and furthermore affirms that Mr. Young has been upright and accountable. Again “smoke and mirrors” folks.

    Former CRI Canada Director Mr. Teibe and I have been waiting 15 years to hear “the other side” of the story on this one. The reality is, as OTE affirms, that when “hard questions” were raised about the Sparks’ lawsuit and Mr. Young’s marital obligations, Hank Hanegraaff and Paul Young allegely employed Machiavellian tactics (such as soliciting a letter from a then CRI-Canada board member denying Hank/Paul’s involvement in the timing of this “retirement”) to force Mr. Teibe into early retirement and then proceed to force out his senior research counselor as well. Is this godly leadership? Where is the accountability here?

    So, Jay, your statements on page 94 of Hard Questions about Paul Young are absolutely accurate. If anyone doubts their veracity I would be more than prepared to offer the documentation verifying these statements. Mr. Teibe, now 82, has granted me permission to distribute his letters, Board Minutes and correspondence on this matter to skeptical inquirers.

    Finally, let me add that Mr. Hunter has a history of using these “smoke and mirrors” tactics and questionable behavior as one can see from the following:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20011207064249/www.geocities.com/ote3/hackers.html

    http://web.archive.org/web/20011207064249/www.geocities.com/ote3/hackers.html

    http://web.archive.org/web/20011207001052/www.geocities.com/ote3/confession.html

    Even though back then Mr. Hunter developed a website to refute the OTE articles, he failed miserably in his attempt to answer any allegations and was compelled to take down his site. Apparently, he is now following in a similar vein with the article cited above.

    Folks, Mr. Hunter’s empty statements appears to be the new modus operandi of CRI. I wonder how many ex-CRI-USA employees were allegedly misled or bamboozled by Mr. Hanegraaff and Mr. Young as to what the real facts on this and other issues were and then forced to sign a confidentially “agreement” to ensure silence?

    I can be reached at magister at telus dot not if your readers have additional questions.

  3. Tim Says:

    Jay,

    Maybe Hank should start answering all the questions on BAM like this. He could get to a lot more callers if each one he answers with a, “we have already dealt with that issue. Next caller please.”

  4. Bill Alnor Says:

    Jay, as you pointed out, Mr. Hunter did not answer any concerns and CRI has not addressed ANY of the allegations. This has been very typical of him over the years;

    Keep up the good work,

  5. D. Crossley Says:

    Re Mr. Hunter’s 3/20/2010 Update

    I am delighted to know that Mr. Hunter has now received, and, I assume, read the documentary evidence for the On the Edge publication, “CRI Prez Entangled in Marital Scandal.” He offers no objection to the allegations found therein. This documentation includes the CRI-Canada Board Minutes for November 12, 1994.

    First, on pg. 2 of those Minutes, we read, “HH made the point that he is 100% supportive of the work, life and ministry of Paul Young.” What type of leader is supportive of an alleged wife abandoner? Of course Estelle Young, as well as Mr. Tonnesen (see letter above) and Mr. Teibe and many others are intimately familiar with CRI-International’s methods of ‘housecleaning.’

    Secondly, those same Minutes state on pg. 3 that: “Over $500,000 in royalties from the sale of Christianity in Crisis was made by CRI.” However, the December 1994 issue of the Bookstore Journal, states that: “[Yates – Hank’s lawyer] says CRI has purchased 11,000 copies for resale purposes, and that while Hanegraaff receives royalties from other sales, CRI receives 100 percent of the proceeds from copies of the book it sells.” When I pressed the current CRI-Canada Board Chairman Calvert and the current Executive Director Butikofer about these statements 15 years ago both scratched their heads laboring to figure out how CRI made $500,000 from the sale of 11,000 copies of C in C. Bob, do us a favour, use your pull with Hank and Paul to help explain the apparent discrepancy. Or maybe I just gotta’ take it by faith :-/

    Third, with respect to the $100,000 “secret loan” allegation the CRI-Canada Minutes record on pg. 3: “Board approved the loan and was fully disclosed in the fully audited financial statement. There was a lien put on the house until the loan was fully paid back.” In the June 30, 1994, 1995 CRI Audited Financial Statements under Note #4 of “Related Party Transactions” we find the statement, “During the year ended June 30, 1992 the board of directors authorized the company to loan $100,000 to a related party . . .” Does not “full disclosure” include naming the loan recipient as ECFA requires? Oh, I forgot, CRI had pulled out of ECFA.

    Mr. Hunter, in conclusion, if any “housecleaning” was done in the CRI-Canada Calgary office, it may have been because someone’s ego was bruised by a seminar cancellation, but in all likelihood, it was because CRI-International couldn’t tolerate independent thinkers asking tough questions like this, which happen to be exactly what Howard’s book is accomplishing.

  6. D. Crossley Says:

    Dear blog readers: Mr. Arthur Daniels Jr. aka the Christian Road Warrior(http://www.youtube.com/user/CRoadwarrior#p/u/1/LYJyDxYfiLk ) has taken up the cause of the damsel in distress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3DedTH_7M4 ) by firing his flaming arrows at ANYONE who assails the dignity of Baron Hendrik Hanegraaff. Some of these flaming missiles have landed in Bob Hunter’s article commentary (linked above) with the sole intention of mortally wounding Sir Jay Howard’s alleged fallacious thesis. The following is a response to those flaming missiles:

    .
    RESPONSE TO PART #1
    Arthur, it is because I refused to blindly accept Mr. Hanegraaff’s statements about his house loan and value (see Rolly DVs house video linked below), Christianity in Crisis royalties, as well as alleged lies about former U.S. board member Stan Tonnesen’s and BAM co-host Craig Hawkins departures from CRI that I am no longer a CRI-Canada employee. Most of these alleged lies were unquestioningly accepted by eight Canadian board members ( CRI-Canada Nov 12, 1994 Board Minutes available upon request). As senior research counsellor from 1986-1995 Dr. Martin clearly articulated to his Canadian board/staff/us the need for a full-time administrator in the U.S. and that he was praying about this. I heard this from the very lips of Walter Martin himself circa 1987. Please don’t interpret this as an “appeal to authority” fallacy. I am just citing for you my background so you understand my former relationship with both Martin and Hanegraaff.

    As for the October 23, 1988 audio from Cindee’s website, Mr. Tim Martin already answered that claim on the Amazon.com site review of Howard’s book.

    I do remember the “very very good” in the “world of the cults” reference but I didn’t see it in the October 23 citation and couldn’t immediately find it on Cindee’s site. Had Dr. Martin been familiar with Hank’s pervasive “borrowing” I’m certain he would NOT have been even invited on the Board. Both his Personal Witness Training and Memory Dynamics were thoroughly plagiarized (see Rolly DV’s you tube videos in this regard).

    “The false and simple-minded claim.” Sounds like ad hominem expressions to me. Again, all of these Walter Martin statements have been answered by Tim Martin —- apart from leaps of illogistical gymnastics, none of them infer what you claim. Where, in the CRI USA Board Minutes summarized on pages 27, 28 and on 116-128 do you find any HINT that Hank was brought on for anything more than an administrative capacity?

    Arthur, as I said earlier, I am looking forward to your detailed review demonstrating “all of [Mr. Howard’s] logical fallacies”. And I trust you won’t limit your review to chapter two. At the heart of Howard’s publication is the credibility of Mr. Hanegraaff.

    RESPONSE TO PART #2
    Arthur, the onus is on you to demonstrate ONE positive statement from these audios or elsewhere where Dr. Martin clearly states that ANYONE, let alone Hank, is to be his successor. Elliot Miller couldn’t do it and neither can you. Otherwise, YOU may be in danger of arguing from silence.

    Special pleading: “A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue.” Nowhere on the Morgan site have I seen an honest attempt to deal with the question of WHO and WHY words were added to Darlene Martin’s memorial notes. None of the material from waltermartin.com is addressed anywhere. Don’t you find it convenient how Hank’s just happens to quote these exact words in his damage-control response to James Kennedy in order to bolster his ‘hand-picked successor’ claims?

    http://www.answers.org/newsletters/hankresp.html

    Arthur, don’t you also find it interesting that the concept of succession isn’t mentioned in ANY of Dr. Martin’s statements on Cindee’s website. The lengths to which the Morgans go to promote the “hand-picked successor myth” is underscored by Walter Martin’s alleged statement from the CRI Newsletter about Mr. Hanegraaff personifying the next phase of development for CRI. Compare this statement with footnote #53 of Wikpedia’s article on Walter Martin. Did you catch the difference in dates? I’m not surprised if you missed it. Now this COULD simply be an oversight on the part of the Morgans and I’m more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I’ll let you research this CRI Newsletter yourself so you can determine if this alleged Walter Martin statement was made BEFORE or AFTER his homegoing.

    RESPONSE TO PART #3
    1) First, have you viewed the videotape of Darlene’s memorial speech? You should ask Cindee for this, as there is a clear and unambiguous hesitation when she begins reading this addition. For some reason Cindee has selectively omitted this from her website video memorial montage. 2) Secondly, what valid reason do you have for dismissing Darlene Martin’s testimony as noted in her April 2000 Los Angeles Times letter to the editor? (see: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c174aa.html)

    It is her testimony that she read this for the FIRST TIME in front of an audience of 1500 and was put in an awkward position. Do you have evidence that contradicts this testimony? Waltermartin.com/cri elaborates on WHY she let this statement stand for so many years. Arthur, when you can demonstrate to me that Darlene or Jill Rische’s integrity is questionable, then I will begin to take Hank’s word over theirs. BTW, Rolly DeVore and I look forward to your ‘examination’ and explanation of Hank’sf alleged house lie video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3fH3bT6_P8

    You will have to ask Mr. Howard about his detailed reasons for not including the sample handwriting. My guess is that Mr. Hanegraaff may have been slightly reluctant to offer handwriting specimens for Mr. Howard’s analyst., but I highly doubt he would misspell his own name (see p. 130). The same might be true of Ankerberg, although Howard apparently had at least one sample from him. Does it really doesn’t matter WHO wrote it (and there were only a few individuals present who were candidates)? Howard’s point is simple: the professional handwriting analyst concluded that THE PRINTED MESSAGE WAS DEFINITELY NOT DARLENE MARTIN’S HANDWRITING. If Hank persuasively convinced Ankerberg to write it (and he certainly had the MOTIVE, MEANS and OPPORTUNITY to do so) then how does one justify putting words into the mouth of a grieving widow? Of course, this reminds me of the hastily ‘prepared’ Board letter of April 26, 1994 ostensibly ‘word crafted’ to rebut Brad Sparks’ lawsuit charges (available upon request). . . but that’s another story with which you may be unfamiliar.

    With regard to the statements on pages 33 and 132 I’m not sure what you find problematic. The same analyst on p. 132 notes that he did not have sufficient samples to conclude that the writing in question was Ankerberg’s. Mr. Howard simply notes that it was ‘probably’ Ankerberg’s, based on Darlene’s testimony of who was present in those circumstances. Am I missing your point?

  7. Perry Robinson Says:

    I know Stephen Ross and in the late 1990’s when I went to a CRI open house with Doug Gililand I confronted Stephen about all this stuff. Stephen knows, but he knows where his paycheck comes from. Just like Huckaby, Larson and Lyle knew.

  8. woodrow steadman Says:

    hanks book counterfiet religion is a sham it isnt worth reaing he talks as if he and his family are te only ones saved

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: