Hank Hannegraff and Shady book keepingHas anyone read the above article? My thoughts toward Hannegraff were always somewhat suspicious. Who blows the whistle on the whistle blower? He is so quick to point out false teachers and greed in others. Feedback would be appreciated.
-CRI paid Kathy Hanegraaff, Hank's wife, $3,141 for miscellaneous personal expenses.-The ministry paid nearly $8,000 in flooring for Hanegraaff's home office.-CRI paid two months of dues, totaling $3,100, at the country club in the gated community of Coto de Caza, where the Hanegraaffs and their nine children live.-CRI paid for Hank Hanegraaff's vitamins and for flowers he sent to his mother.-The ministry paid maintenance bills for Hanegraaff's children's computers in the amounts of $400, $300 (twice), and $200.Well with the above findings I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. The man needs to get support for his family by the ministry? I have a problem overall with alot of these larger ministries but they are accountable to God. I don't like the way Hank Hanegraaff goes about showing falsehood, its not always done in the right spirit even if its TRUE. I am really appreciating the ministry of David Wilkerson in preaching against this false gospel and people in Christianity without in many times even mentioning names.
David Wilkerson has mentioned names in the past (cf. "Reproach of the Solemn Assembly"). The unfortunate thing about not mentioning names is that people often follow people not necessarily with a full understanding of the doctrines they are following. For this reason, it is sometimes necessary to name names (and for accountability's sake as well).Paul himself named names in Scripture and the early Church fathers did the same. This is often very necessary, although I do think it should be reserved for when it is necessary.
Paul himself named names in Scripture and the early Church fathers did the same. This is often very necessary, although I do think it should be reserved for when it is necessary.Scripture specifically identifies people by name in both favourable (Phil. 2:22; 2 Tim 1:16-18) and unfavourable (Phil. 4:2; Col. 4:17; 2 Tim. 2:17,18; 4:14,15; 3 John 9,10; etc.) ways. and you are very right Jason that it should be reserved for when it is necessary.
I have enjoyed listening to Hank Hannegraff's messages and reading some of his books, particularly those that deal with the Toronto and Brownville movements.I think he makes some good observations concerning false spiritual manifestations in the church and the excesses of people seeking after signs and wonders these days.However much I might disagree with his approach in personally attacking certain individuals, I think he is right in exposing what's going on in their ministries.And yes, I think those who preach the gospel should not have to be ashamed if they are being financially blessed by the ministry they do.
I have a lot to thank Hank for, as he was primarily responsible for opening my eyes to the very people I had been getting my teaching from.(A few years ago)And I am glad that he named names, I have always wondered why some who do speak out against these types of ministrys are reluctant to do so. How else are people who are caught up in these things going to be confronted that they are being led astray? Surely when I first heard Hank speak out against Benny Hinn, Creeflo Dollar, and Kenneth Copeland I was offended, I thought "How dare he! These people are doing great things for God!" But as I began to hear him out I began to see why he was and is so adamant about this false teaching.Having said all that, I do still have some uneasiness about him of late. I read the article in CT and it brought to mind some of the issues regarding how he was installed as The Bible Answer Man after Walter Martin passed on.If anyone is interested you may want to read this:http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.htmlThe article did state that the ECFA cleared CRI of any "willful" deficiences and that they were "naive" in their bookkeeping, yet the whistleblowers still got canned. I also have found it a bit odd that in the 5 years I have been listening to the BAM broadcast I have yet to hear him talk about Walter Martin who proceeded him, I very well may have missed it if he has. Just makes me wonder why.I have heard him respond with compassion with those who were genuinely asking questions, not trying to pick a fight. I have also heard some responses that were questionable in spirit.Hmmmmmm
Quote:"How else are people who are caught up in these things going to be confronted that they are being led astray?"By having a living relationship with God. (I say it like that only to make a point, not to be short with you crsschk.) Really, it seems like there is a prevailing fear that the devil has more power to decieve than the Holy SPirit does to bring us in to truth. I am not saying that naming names is completely out of the question, but I do agree with others that it shouldn't be taken lightly. 1 Thess 5:21"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;"We are to hold fast to what is good, not bad. Men can teach a lot of bad mixed with a little good, a lot of good mixed with a little bad, and anything in between. Let's hold to that which is good and not what's bad and leave it alone unless the Lord leads us otherwise. This takes trusing in God and not ourselves to lead His people into all truth. Also, it's been my experience that holding on to what's bad pulls us down, holding on to what's good lifts us up. It's not noble to "take one for the team" and get pulled down; but unwise. That is, unless it is out of obedience to the Lord.
That's just the issue, though, Todd. Those being led astray don't have a living relationship with God (or they are being led out of one). We as their fellow believers have been placed in a position of responsibility to "shake" them a little bit to wake them up. This must be done in whatever way the Lord leads (that is, in love). But keep in mind, love could mean severity. Wigglesworth even punched some people to heal them, and the OT prophets (our examples in bringing people from error to truth by speaking the truth in love) could even be considered "cruel" in some cases -- but it was really done in love.In order to fulfill 1 Thes 5:21, everything, both good and bad must be held to the magnifying glass and exposed. That which is good will rejoice in being exposed while that which is bad will have a very negative response to the Light. One will squre with Scripture, the other will not. Then we are to hold firm to what is good while shining the light on what is bad -- think of us as walking through a dark world holding onto a light. It is not the good, solid, trustworthy things and paths that must be exposed -- they are good, trustworthy, and solid whether they are exposed or not -- it is those stumbling blocks that will harm us and must be revealed by the searchlight of the Word of God. This light must be had before one can discern the false, however, and that is why it is also so important to have truth buried deep within -- it serves as the searchlight from the Word.
Jason's reply summed it up well, I would only hasten to add that there is one thing that does seem to be missing on both sides (at least from our limited perspective) and has been aluded to...The right spirit, humility.And the one sticking point? Pride.In the same sense that Jim Cymbala had when he confronted the issue (see the Swaggart post) with a brother who was teaching falsehood, grieved in his spirit by it he went about it in a sense of humility and seeking restoration, though it obviously failed he still had the right attitude.Best I can tell it's still grace for the humble and law for the proud, with a spirit of grace first...Isn't that the way God does it?This takes trusing in God and not ourselves to lead His people into all truth. Shouldn't it be both and?For instance the Bereans.....
This discussion is locked.
