Causing unbelievers to blaspheme God (Romans 2:24)

Note: In order to really understand this, the reader must do his best to read a lot of links provided.  Also, see the discussion with Perry Robinson in the comboxes.

Triablogue has been linking to Perry Robinson’s blog where he lays out over several blog entries over several months, the history of what happened at CRI with Hank Hanegraaff, and Hank’s recent conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy.  (See my other articles on Hank Hanegraaff’s conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy.)  Perry is a former employee of CRI and was fired (it seems, for asking too many questions, etc.); and later converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.  When Hank Hanegraaff recently also converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, but was still promoting basic Protestant Evangelical doctrine at CRI, and not really accurate about many things within Eastern Orthodox theology, Perry has rightly been speaking out about this at his blog and in interviews.

Listening to whole interview that Perry Robinson did on the link with Paul Vendredi in this article, brings up lots of feelings of sadness and discouragement over what Hank Hanegraaff did to CRI and Walter Martin after Martin died.

Addendum Insert, Feb. 5, 2022 – the link to the Walter Martin website kept getting broken and so I decided to bring out the part that really shook me sometime in 1996-2000.  I was in process of trying to understand this; but not having a lot of time to spend on it (I was busy with ministry to Iranians, church work, evangelism, discipleship, counseling, teaching.)  Also, the articles in secular newspapers made it look bad on Hank Hannegraaf and CRI and the court battles, but I wondered why HH kept getting away with stuff and I gave up for lack of time and lack of knowledge of lawyer type stuff.

Hanegraaff Wasn’t ‘Handpicked’

 * After reading your article “Casting Stones” (April 15), I am writing to clarify several issues.
First, my husband, Walter Martin, never “handpicked” anyone to succeed him at Christian Research Institute and “The Bible Answer Man” radio program.
This claim was handed to me by someone I thought I could trust as I approached the lectern at my husband’s memorial service.*
I read it for the first time–aloud–while standing in front of 1,500 people. It took me completely by surprise and put me in a very awkward position. I wish to take this opportunity now to apologize for allowing this statement to stand for so many years.
At the time of my husband’s death, I believed Hank Hanegraaff was a man God could mold into a strong Christian leader, one who could play a positive role in leading CRI. I supported him loyally for six years before I came to see he was not the man I believed him to be.
Secondly, one of our family’s main objections to Hanegraaff’s continued leadership is his mistreatment of fellow Christians. He has left a trail of wounded people behind him since the takeover of CRI in 1989. The testimonies against him include those who are his “right-hand” people, people who worked closely with him.
Hanegraaff has called repeatedly for accountability in other Christian leaders and should be held accountable himself.

San Juan Capistrano

*(ed. note – This claim was added to Darlene Martin’s speech while she was in the library of the church–out of range of the video camera taping the service.)

What Happened When Walter Martin Died?

     The story behind the Memorial Service is a sad one, but for the sake of truth it should be told. Hank Hanegraaff helped Darlene Martin considerably when my father died. He made arrangements for the Memorial Service, sent word to the media, and generally filled a need our family had for someone to coordinate things. Since my father hired him for marketing purposes, he seemed the ideal person to deal with the media. Darlene was grateful for his help and support at that time. What we did not find out until years later was that Hank Hanegraaff had a “closed door” meeting with a CRI Board Member within days of my father’s death–and without the presence or knowledge of the entire board. The result of that meeting (according to a CRI Board member at the time) was the naming of Hank Hanegraaff as CEO of Christian Research Institute. We ask Hank now:

  • Please provide the proof that Walter Martin chose you as his successor. He never mentioned this to his wife, his children, his brother, his board or his closest friends. He never announced this privately or publicly *before* his death. It was only *after* Walter Martin was dead that this claim was made.
  • Please provide the minutes of the CRI Board Meeting immediately following my father’s death in which the CEO position was discussed and voted upon.

      Why is this question of succession so important? It has to do with integrity. If Hank Hanegraaff’s personal “work” is suspect, if his behavior is questioned by many witnesses, than what of his claim to CRI? We believe that claim should also be closely examined.

The night of my father’s memorial service, as Darlene Martin prepared to approach the lectern, Hank Hanegraaff and others “counseled” her in a back room of the church where we were waiting for the service to begin. It was suggested that some additional things be added to her speech “. . . in order to make a smooth transition.” The words did not register at the time, as most things do not when you have just buried a loved one twenty-four hours before. When Darlene came to the end of her statements and began to read the new sentences, she was appalled. There she stood, in front of 1500 people, stating Hank Hanegraaff was the new man for CRI. All she could think as she read was, “Walt never said this.”

*(ed. note – Darlene Martin’s speech was “edited” while she was in the library of the church–before she left to take part in the Memorial Service. It was done out of range of the video camera taping the service.)

The following statements were added to the end of Darlene’s address:

     “Walt and I talked often about who would take over for him at CRI if the Lord were to ever take him home. Since last October, Walter asked Hank Hanegraaff to work with him and to be that man. Little did we know that it would come this soon. But Hank is the man that Walter wanted to lead CRI, and I am eternally grateful for this man, for the uplifting that he has done for me in these past few days. He is a godsend, and I am grateful for him and his family.
I know that the Lord is going to bless CRI and that the ministry is going to flourish under Hank’s direction. I thank the Lord for him and for CRI and for all the staff who are going to carry on, even in the midst of Walt’s absence. And I just praise the Lord for it. Thank you again.”
      Why did Darlene Martin allow this to stand for so many years? Why did she support Hank? At the time, she believed he was a man of integrity, and she hoped (and kept hoping) God could mold him into a strong leader. She trusted Everett Jacobson and Hank Hanegraaff. She was grief-stricken, exhausted, and did not feel able to decide such a weighty issue. She did not know about the “closed door” meeting or the allegation that a full board vote for the CEO position of CRI had never taken place, until years later. In addition to this, several men approached Darlene and the CRI Board after my father’s death, each stating that Walter Martin picked them as his successor, and she was afraid of an all out public battle for CRI.

     But was Hank the man of integrity that my father believed him to be, or did he come to CRI under false pretenses? If Walter Martin had been presented with all the evidence, would he have hired Hank? 

(from the link below, “how Hanegraaff took over CRI” – the link keeps getting broken; I do not know why; so I have pasted a part of the entire link, the part that was the most shocking to me at the time I heard about it. (sometime between 1996-2000 (?)  I think I kept trying to deny it because other things were good – like all the analysis of the “Word of Faith” / Prosperity movement and I kept wondering why Elliot Miller and Bob and Gretchen Passantino were still at CRI and did not seem to criticize Hank Hanegraaff.)

End of Feb. 5, 2022 insert.

When I first heard about how Hank Hanegraaff took over CRI  , (hopefully the link still works) I was shocked and could not believe what I was reading and hearing. (please read the whole thing, especially how Darlene Martin, Walter Martin’s widow, described what happened to her; and Walter Martin’s daughter, Jill Martin Rische).  I remember hearing hearing Jill Martin Rische on Janet Parshall’s radio show; sometime between 1996-2000 – I don’t remember exactly, ?), I became disillusioned with HH and CRI, but I kept listening for a while because Dr. James White was on the show about the King James Version Only Controversy and his radio discussions/debates with Roman Catholics Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples (along with finding web-sites/ blogs like

Beggar’s All,

William Webster’s materials,

Eric Svendsen,

AOmin, and


and Turretinfan

on the web) and I slowly realized the shallowness of the apologetics of CRI and at the same time I had become Reformed in my theology and local church issues /but was still learning how to “put it all together”, etc. Hank around that time also promoted Joni Eeareckon Tada’s book, When God Weeps, (her PCA pastor at the time Steve Estes, co-wrote it with her) – that was the best book I had read that explained God’s Sovereignty and Suffering.  He also had John MacArthur on the program at least once, if I remember right, so I had to find a way to continue to trust God to work out whatever was going on behind the scenes, and at the same time use discernment and stay in the word and in prayer and “watch over your own heart” (Proverbs 4:23).

Hank, on the BAM radio show, for a while allowed debate on the issues of Calvinism vs. Arminian theology and related issues, but he was also promoting Joni E. Tada’s book; and when I read it, it make me think HH was Reformed, but then later he came out against Reformed theology and was very strident against Calvinism and called it “believing that God created us puppets and “Chatty Kathy dolls”, (robots, no will at all, etc.)

For details on how the Martin family has been accusing Hanegraaff of sinfully taking over CRI, see here under several sections, especially,  “Behind the Scenes” – the whole thing seems to comport with what Perry Robinson and others have been saying.  The Rische’s documented a lot of other problems with Hank Hanegraaff.  Much later, after I already stopped listening to the BAM show and decided to just let God work out all the unknowns and secret sins that were going on;

Another member of Walter Martin’s family came out in support of Hank Hanegraaff and they provided a recording of Walter Martin that seemed to say that Hank was the man to lead CRI in the future.    

They also provided several audio tapes of Walter Martin (from his Sunday School classes) saying basically the same thing as the last paragraph in the above article. Read the whole article linked above.  I remember listening to some of those linked above and hearing Dr. Walter Martin speak highly of Hank Hanegraaff and his gifts in marketing and business, etc. – whether Walter Martin meant for that to mean that Hank would be the President of CRI AND for Hank to be the main Bible Answer Man on the radio program, replacing more qualified people like Craig Hawkins, Ron Rhodes, Rob Bowman, and Kenneth Samples if Walter died, I doubt that, but that is up for interpretation.  One reason I did not write about this stuff in previous blog articles about Hank Hanegraaff, is that a lot of this is a matter of “he said, she said” kind of thing that I do not have time to sort out on my own; and even now, it makes me wonder if the whole thing is just an example of jealousies between family members and lots of mixtures of both good and bad motives and actions on both sides.  Here is an excerpt of Cindee Martin Morgan’s article:  (see the audio tapes also; I don’t have time to track down every detail.)

These tapes bear witness to the fact that Dr. Martin did not leave CRI without an anchor. Twenty years ago he was faithful to fulfill his responsibility the Lord had given him, and to this day the anchor holds. Walter Martin successfully navigated the ‘ship’ of CRI and was faithful to protect her until the day God called him home.

“Hank Hanegraaff personifies the next phase of development for CRI and is uniquely equipped through his dynamic leadership abilities, knowledge of God’s Word, and teaching ability to make sound, biblical apologetics a simple yet effective tool in the hands of the laity. His success as a businessman, strategic planner, author, and speaker have equipped him to lead the ministry of the Christian Research Institute aggressively into the future and to build on the work that I by God’s grace began.” Dr. Walter Martin, 1988Christian Research Newsletter, vol.. 2, no. 5, 6.

[Addendum:  See in the combox.  Perry Robinson has informed me that the date  (1988) of this statement is wrong.  It is 1989, after Walter Martin died, and Perry wrote that even CRI had to admit that and change the date.  I wonder why Cindee Martin Morgan did not change the date?]

When those tapes came out and I heard it ( 2010 ?), I thought, “oh, this is a lot more complicated than I thought”, so I decided to put it out of my mind again, and trust in God to work it all out.  (see the many audio clips that is provided here of Walter Martin and his Sunday School classes that speak well of Hank Hanegraaff, etc. ) 

Although I did become disillusioned with him and CRI, I still thought his books were pretty good (as far as they go), and I especially liked his takedown of the whole Word of Faith movement, etc. (Christianity in Crisis, IMO, is still very good and accurately describes the whole Prosperity / healing / Name it – claim it heretical teachings. I did not realize that others did a lot of the research work (like Brad Sparks, who filed a lawsuit against Hank, etc.) and, that according to Perry Robinson, a lot of it was originally from Michael Horton’s work in “The Agony of Deceit”, etc.

But now with all the recent information that Perry is providing, along with the strange way that Hank is trying to hold onto Protestant-Evangelical faith/ doctrine, and also Eastern Orthodoxy, and how he is proving that he does not understand enough of EO yet; based on everything Perry testifies to and documents, along with the Rische family website of Walter Martin, it seems that Hank was doing the same thing that he accused the Word of Faith heretics of doing (doing ministry for money and greed), but on a smaller scale. He was using balanced mainstream Protestant Evangelical doctrine at least partially, to make money and used it like a business marketer. ( I don’t doubt that HH has some level of sincere belief in Christian truth and history.)  His was much more subtle and it seems, as far as I can tell, that Perry is right on this. (along with the other former CRI employees that HH got rid of over the years). I was also surprised back in the early 90s when Craig Hawkins suddenly was not on the air BAM program anymore.  I always liked Craig Hawkins and was impressed with his knowledge of cults and the Bible, and his tone and demeanor.

I always appreciated Rob Bowman, Ron Rhodes, and Kenneth Samples, and I was also surprised when they were no longer on the BAM show.   It does seem that Hank slowly got rid of people who questioned too much or disagreed with him too much.

The whole thing with Hank Hanegraaff and CRI and the way he took over the leadership and subsequent years, and now his “conversion” to Eastern Orthodoxy, if someone takes the time to research and read and listen to Perry’s material, (and the other information from the two different daughters of Walter Martin, linked above) is very shameful and grievous and drags Christ’s name in the mud; for it can be used by unbelievers, atheists, skeptics, and the heretics like Kenneth and Gloria Copeland and Benny Hinn (any of the Word of Faith heretical teachers), etc. to use against sound doctrine; and they will probably feel justified; and will give others occasion for “the unbelievers to blaspheme the name of God” (Romans 2:24).

It would be interesting to me and many others I am sure, if Perry Robinson would explain how and why he went from being Reformed to high Anglicanism and then to the Eastern Orthodox church. What kind of Reformed church was he a part of? (Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist ?)

Perry said he took 4 years to read through the Early church fathers. I can respect that. What was hard for me to believe was that when Francis Beckwith (former President of Evangelical Theological Society and a good writer against abortion) claimed that he read them all with comprehension in 3 months. (and then went back to Roman Catholicism). I suppose that can be done if one has the time, and I guess Beckwith is just really smart, etc.; but it is hard to believe that it is done with actually meditating and thinking through all the historical theological issues and using other books to help on understanding the big picture. ( or I am just incredibly slow and dumb.)

This whole issue shows the need for local church accountability structures that should have been in place with CRI and Walter Martin to help in the transition if he died; and also the need for Hanegraaff to have been accountable and to have had more training in theology and historical theology; at least he should have an M.Div. (historically, this has been based on Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3, where it says that a church leader must be “able to teach” and “refute false doctrine”, etc.) and had been commissioned by a local church to do the ministry of CRI.  One of the reasons many Evangelicals are becoming either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox is because of the lack of local church authority and accountability and lack of perspective on church history and historical theology.  It behooves Protestant Evangelicals to be diligent and be always reforming in these areas.  The mistakes of Hank Hanegraaff should not repudiate or discredit the good Evangelical doctrine, teaching, and apologetics that was done over the years at CRI; but it should give us all humility and crying out for balance and mercy from the Lord to do ministry properly with local church authority and accountability.  Even the apostle Paul and Barnabas were accountable to a local church and confirmed and sent out by a Biblical local church with a plurality of leadership before they started their first missionary journey.  (see Acts 13:1-4)

Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was thereprophets and teachers (a plurality of leaders/elders, see also Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4): Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus.  Acts 13:1-4

Saul, (the apostle Paul) and Barnabas had already been serving in the local church there for a while (Acts 11:26, with the time until Acts 13, it may have more than several years).  When a Biblical local church confirms and sends people out for a new ministry, the Holy Spirit also sends them out.  (church planting, new pastoral work, evangelism, missionary work, or Para-church work.)

Another Addendum:

See here for another analysis of Hank Hanegraaff’s conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy.

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Accountability, Apologetics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Hank Hanegraaff, Local Church authority vs. Para-church accountability, Truth. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Causing unbelievers to blaspheme God (Romans 2:24)

  1. Hi Ken,
    There is a lot here, so I will do what I can to address what is here. The issues with Hank as I have tried to make clear are not theological but ethical. It is not as if Jill Martin Rische, Rob Bowman, Craig Hawkins, myself and many others are of the same theological cloth. Employees after us have come to the same conclusion independently of us and at time these matters bubbled up to be covered by the secular and Christian media-LA Times, Christianity Today, etc.
    His conversion is relevant to me because now his abuse is now in my backyard and so it becomes a matter of ecclesial discipline. Back in the 90’s I did what I was able and then moved on. As to my backyard, I for one don’t think it was an accident that Hank ended up trying to speak at my parish 3000 miles away. Do you?
    As to Hank’s rudimentary theological mistakes, this is just data that supports the thesis that he is not qualified for the position he has occupied. He was never qualified. Likewise the material I and other eyewitnesses provided documented his dishonesty as the Youtube videos Rolly DeVore has up do. Those are not a matter of opinion. Hank just flat out lies. That isn’t “he said, she said.”
    (As an aside the “chatty Kathy” line btw comes from Bob Passantino. That was a standard phrase he used that Hank picked up along with many others.)
    As far as Cindee Martin goes there are a number of things to consider.
    First, Cindee never worked there. Cindee was never there when I worked there or when anyone else was there, including Walter. What we offer is eyewitnesses testimony from dozens of witnesses, many independently of each other. We have far more than two or three witnesses. She offers a family name. And as far as tapes go, she is sitting on top of a pile of tapes she won’t release.
    Second, Cindee has stated on her FB page that Hank still believes in the Solas of the Reformation, which frankly is impossible on pain of deceit or schizophrenia.
    Third, Hank himself says in his recent interview with Frank Beckwith that when he came to CRI he knew nothing about cults or apologetics. He had to learn from all the other researchers. So Martin’s opinion was based on the presentation Hank gave him constructed from what he learned from the researchers already there.
    Fourth, when Martin was alive, Hank was never to my knowledge on the show, or engaged in any other apologetic venture of the business though people like Craig, Ken and others were and regularly so. Even when I was there Hank only started to come on the show and push out everyone else so that it became the Hank show. There was never a plan to have Hank run the show or do anything more leadership wise than administrate.
    Fifth, The quote you provide from 1988 CRI Newsletter is actually from the 1989 Newsletter, it was published AFTER Martin was dead. Even CRI has corrected this error.
    Sixth, Darlene Martin was on the board for six years and came to the same conclusion. She publically called for Hank’s resignation in the LA Times in 2000. That is a position she still maintains. Cindee is the only Martin family member that supports Hank. And her husband works for Hank. She was never on the board or worked in any other capacity at CRI either before her father died or after. Hank needs her for the name and she needs Hank both for her employment of her husband as well as the fact that Hank lets her use the BAM studio for voice recordings of her singing as other former employees have accounted.
    There is nothing in the Martin tapes that indicate that HH was to be the apologetic lead, lead the BAM show or do it exclusively. What is more, Martin refers to Hank as **one of many** he has placed to keep CRI going after his death.
    Seventh, even if Martin had appointed Hank, that provides no exculpatory basis for Hank’s immoral behavior or his rejection of the commands of Christ via Matthew 18.
    Eighth, Hank was placed on the board after Martin died by two out of the then four board members, one of whom was Hank. The meeting was irregular. One of the board members was out of town and the opposing board member was voted off the board by Hank and Jacobson. Tonneson who was voted off maintained his position until his dying day just last year.
    For clarification purposes, Hank staged a similar ambush for Mike Horton regarding Agony of Deceit to that of James White back in 2003. It is his standard modus operandi when he wants to sever the relationship. There is a reason why that BAM show with Horton was never made available to the public. There were a few reasons he had to downgrade Agony of Deceit. First it went after Pat Robertson with whom Hank was rather chummy at the time. (He also covered for Chuck Smith who denied the resurrection of the flesh but that is another matter, for the same reasons-Calvary Chapel was then Hank’s cash cow.) That book was made out of CRI research by and large. When Martin was alive Horton and his crew had the run of the place. The book has an endorsement from Martin personally as well as a chapter. If the problems Hank had were substantial, Martin would have known about them. Not a peep from Martin about those things and no evidence has been offered to think Martin or the Research staff at the time had the problems Hank picks out. And it wasn’t as if even then that Pat Robertson was some model of theological competence or accuracy.
    I don’t think Hank is trying to hold on to Protestant distinctives. I don’t think he ever understood Sola Fide and I don’t think he does now. (I thought so when I was Reformed too btw and I worked there.) And I don’t think he understands the Tridentine view or the Orthodox view either on justification. I just think he is talking out of habit, using his typical slogans, etc. The problem is that those slogans and jargon don’t fit anymore. He really doesn’t understand the theology either way. This is one reason why he doesn’t give clear and direct answers on these points, which I think is evident in his response to MacArthur. So he is caught in the middle now. He doesn’t understand the theology and he hasn’t mapped the Orthodox verbiage yet. Not that doing so would help him. If he had to do a debate on Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura, he’d get annihilated, worse than he did with Hitchcock. And the popular Odox stuff from Frederica and AFR isn’t going to help. As you well know, I try to engage actual Reformation sources. Those people don’t and can’t and neither can Hank. Maybe White should challenge Hank to a debate on justification? I’ll supply the popcorn.
    I am not dragging Christ’s name through the mud. I along with many former employees spread out over thirty years now have time and again followed biblical protocols to the best of our ability and circumstances. And we paid a price for doing so, some of us continue to pay that price with ruined careers, collapsed marriages and a loss of faith due to direct actions of HH. (Millstones come to mind for the people Hank drove into atheism.) We went to Hank in private time and again. And again we did so before his was received into the Orthodox church and after before speaking publicly again.
    Then in October, Hank showed up at my parish. I along with men of good and long standing at my parish confronted Hank again. Jill Martin, Craig Hawkins and myself all offered to meet with him at our expense to resolve these issues once and for all. Hank refused….again…accusing us of “slander” as a reason for not meeting with us. There are words for that behavior such as obstinancy, impenitence, etc. For what it may be worth, in conversation with me, Hank himself noted his showing up at my parish was a product of divine providence. Now I am a sinner like everyone else to be sure, but I am glad I am not in Hank’s shoes.
    In sum though, Hank’s actions and refusal to follow basic biblical protocols has dragged Christ’s name through the mud. All of this was avoidable if he would just meet, sit down and talk it out. But he refuses, every single time for thirty years. Besides, we aren’t the ones living in a 3 million dollar home in a country club estate like Benny Hinn. Hank is and has for years. When someone gives to CRI, that is what their money goes to support. This is especially true now that Hank has paired down the CRI staff from its past 40-50, to about 20. He gets a bigger share of the pie as any glance at the 990 forms will substantiate.
    I am not interested in explaining why I went from being Reformed and eventually to Orthodox. I’ve done that plenty of times elsewhere. And the issues with HH float free of those issues which is why myself, Craig, Jill and many, many others hold to the same view.
    To argue about the theology just gives Hank a pass, since it distracts from the relevant issues. First, it gives a theological platform to defend himself. Second it encourages Orthodox and others to defend him and drags Protestants in to those well worn debates. Third, the issues that Hank **doesn’t want to talk about** are the ones I point to.
    I have no comment about Beckwith’s reading ability, though I’d suggest looking back at the On The Edge articles relating to him via Wayback machine and such.
    No accountability structure is foolproof in private businesses, which is what CRI is. HH simply manipulated people and pick off those he couldn’t one by one over a long period of time.

    • Ken Temple says:

      I hope I was NOT implying that YOU were dragging Christ’s name through the mud; I was saying Hank’s behavior and take over (according to you and Jill Rische that I linked to) – that has dragged Christ’s name through the mud.

      I did not know about the date change of the newsletter quote. Ok, I believe you on that one. Cindee M. Morgan needs to change the date of that on her web-site.

      You are overall providing more details that I am glad about.

      I am surprised at some of your reaction; as I was actually basically agreeing with you; but I am trying to be careful, because I did hear Dr. Martin speak well of Hank’s skills in leading CRI in marketing and business issues. I think that is what Dr. Martin brought Hank on for.

      I will comment more as I read it over again.

      • Ken Temple says:

        In sum though, Hank’s actions and refusal to follow basic biblical protocols has dragged Christ’s name through the mud.

        I was agreeing with you.

      • No need to agree with me on that one. You can check it for yourself. Jay Howard also pointed this out some time ago.

      • Ken Temple says:

        you confuse me now by the way you respond. “checking it out for myself” is exactly what I have been doing and by listening to the Jay Howard you tube talk with you; I see what you mean.

      • In reference to checking it out, I meant the claim regarding the 1988/89 mistake. Howard I believe documents it on his blog, Focus on the Faulty. If you ask him I am sure he can point it out to you.

      • Ken Temple says:

        ok. that’s a pretty big mistake on CRI and Cindee Martin Morgan’s part. Why didn’t Cindee correct it ?

  2. Ken Temple says:

    Fifth, The quote you provide from 1988 CRI Newsletter is actually from the 1989 Newsletter, it was published AFTER Martin was dead. Even CRI has corrected this error.

    Do you have a link for that?

    Cindee Martin Morgan needs to correct that at her web-site.

    Have you heard all the verbal comments on the Sunday School class that Walter Martin made that is positive about Hank? (that Cindee Martin Morgan put out)

    • Yes, I have heard those comments before and I don’t think they add anything or substantiate the claims. I can’t see how they support the thesis that Hank was to be the lead, do the BAM show, etc. He certainly did none of that prior to Martin’s death.

      Why is that?

      • Ken Temple says:

        It seems that Hank and C. M. Morgan are using the Sunday School audio tapes where Martin meant that Hank will be one of the leaders to help CRI improve in marketing and business; whereas Hank used the comments to promote himself in theology and the BAM program.

  3. Ken Temple says:

    Me: ” . . . as far as I can tell, that Perry is right on this.”

    I was agreeing with you.

    The way you wrote, you seem like you didn’t understand my article; that it was agreeing with your testimony.

    I was just also trying to be careful to also include the links to the Cindee Martin Morgan stuff and Sunday School class stuff.

  4. Ken Temple says:

    Sixth, Darlene Martin was on the board for six years and came to the same conclusion. She publically called for Hank’s resignation in the LA Times in 2000. That is a position she still maintains.

    yes, that is why I linked to all of that info at the Jill Martin Rische website of Walter Martin’s material.

  5. Ken Temple says:

    I am not interested in explaining why I went from being Reformed and eventually to Orthodox. I’ve done that plenty of times elsewhere.

    But I would like to understand that.
    When I first interacted with you ( I think at David Waltz’s blog and other Roman Catholic blogs), as I recall (correct me if I am wrong), – you had a lot of articles, etc. but they all disappeared, or is it that I just cannot find them.

    can you point me to where you explain your journey out of Reformed theology to Eastern Orthodoxy?

    I am sincerely wanting to understand that. It must be basically the same kind of thing – early church fathers, church history, unity, church authority, but without the Papacy claims. Right?

    Other interaction with you sometimes, and reading your comments at Waltz’s blog and others; from what I remember, I could not understand a lot of what you wrote. I confess it was too high or filled with Middle ages orthodox stuff (like Photius and Maximus the Confessor, etc.) that very few Protestant’s even know about.

    • Everything I wrote on my blog is still up. Nothing has been removed.

      So here, I will be nice.

      By the time I was considering Orthodoxy, I was already convinced of the truth of Apostolic Succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and such.

      I was not convinced of Catholic dogma regarding the papacy.

      I was drawn to Orthodoxy because of its unique solutions to the problem of evil or at least parts of it via a robust Chalcedonian Christology in tandem with a Libertarian conception of free will and a different take on Divine Simplicity, which I think are made manifest in the Dyothelite/Monothelite controversy of the 7th century.

      Few Protestants know that stuff because they spend little substantial time in Christology, IMHO.

      • Ken Temple says:

        I seem to remember something about taking down articles or leaving the net for a while or changing the personnel on your blog. Were there others on another blog with you?
        Sorry if I am confused.

        What is your definition of “Apostolic succession” ?

        Baptismal regeneration seems to be one of the first mistakes of the early church and a transition from proper Biblical exegesis to an interpretation that seems to put credence in a mechanical and physical action as having intrinsic power.

        “Real presence” in the Eucharist is in the early centuries is fine as a spiritual real presence; all true believers have a special communion with the Lord Jesus spiritually after they examine themselves in prayer and meditaton, confess their sins, reconcile with anyone they have sinned against, and then eat and drink the Lord’s supper. It is a spiritual fellowship with the Lord and thanksgiving for His atonement. But it was taken too far later, and is really strange, even superstitious, if Transubstantiation is meant. con-substantiation is strange also, Jesus is with us in a spiritual presence – His physical glorified body is now Him at the right hand of the Father, praying for believers. It seems easy enough to me to understand Jesus as saying that the bread and wine represent His body and blood; as when He said that, He is IN His incarnational body. So it cannot mean what con- and trans- claim it means.

        Eucharist is just “thanksgiving”. A problem of the English translations of the early church is that they are transliterating them, and not translating the term.

      • I think I already said I am not going to get into a theological dispute here about those issues.

        I explained the relaunch of the blog here –>

      • Ken Temple says:

        there is no dates (or hard to find them) and no archive listing/sidebar, no category list, etc. so it is hard to find your older stuff.

        You seem really depressed and angry/ as you wrote “despairing”, etc. It is dark – all the Heath Ledger Joker pictures and I always wondered why you used to use Darth Sideous as your avatar. the one now is dark also.

      • Ken Temple says:

        You mentioned another betrayal by someone; it seemed different than what happened at CRI.
        So sorry that happened to you; when I first read this article (6 months ago ?) I felt bad for you. You lost all your joy in apologetics. so sorry . I hope you find hope and joy in Christ.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Few Protestants know that stuff because they spend little substantial time in Christology, IMHO.

        or Protestant seminaries and churches don’t see the need to go beyond the Chalcedonian Creed / theology as Biblical.

        2nd Nicea on icons is strange to us Protestants ( I have no problem with them for education, history, etc. but for worship context – big problem); and 2nd and 3rd Constantinople are dismissed because that is also where the over-exalting of Mary starts in a Council (Perpetual virginity in the 5th Ecumenical Council – 2nd Constantinople.)

        What do you think about the Oriental Orthodox / Miaphysites ( Coptic Church, Jacobite Syrian, and Armenian Orthodox) ?

        many church history books write:
        “the non-Chalcedonian Christians (Copts, Syrian-Jacobite, and Armenian O.) welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators from the Byzantine-Chalcedonian Oppressors” (policies of Justinian in 500s and Heraclius in 600s)

        What do you think of that?

  6. As far as Triabloge and Steve Hay’s putting my stuff up, I am grateful.

    it is no secret that theologically Steve and I do not see eye to eye. We have serious disagreements, shocking I know. That said, if it is not too presumptuous on my part, I’d bet that Steve is disposed to think that there is sufficient evidence over a long enough period to justify the belief that there are serious ethical problems with HH and his administration of CRI.

    I’d also wager that Steve recognizes a few things. I may be wrong, but I am not stupid. I make mistakes, theological and otherwise like other men. And I have been doing this stuff for quite some time. I have been around the block. I argue. I may lose my temper at times and such, but what I don’t do is lie to people for money. I don’t position myself to profit off the Gospel and the cause of Christ and I do not try to profit off the misfortune of others. But Steve can of course speak for himself. He is a big boy.

    For my part, I have maintained the same story for over 25 years, along with many others. I don’t stand to profit from this. I don’t have an exorbitant lifestyle and I don’t live off the sacrificial giving of others to do so. I did my part back in the early 1990’s and moved on. I will do the same here and move on, having full confidence in divine providence. Its not my Church anyway, its God’s. But in the main, we aren’t seeking financial remuneration from Hank. If we had wanted that we would have taken legal action long ago, none of us did, save Sparks and he acted on his own in that regard. At the very least we have sought an apology from Hank, but he is incapable of providing one.

    As far as matters go. My conscience is clear and my hands are clean. I sleep very well.

    • Ken Temple says:

      “That said, if it is not too presumptuous on my part, I’d bet that Steve is disposed to think that there is sufficient evidence over a long enough period to justify the belief that there are serious ethical problems with HH and his administration of CRI.

      Yes; I think that is why he links to your stuff and it seems obvious to me, after reading enough of your stuff and also Jill Martin Rische, that HH has serious ethical problems.

      Why did Elliot Miller and the Passintino’s support Hank so much for so long?
      That is hard for me to understand; as I was usually impressed with them when they are on the show; or when I read Elliot Miller’s articles. He did an excellent job of critiquing Neal Anderson’s stuff on not having a sinful nature and spiritual warfare.

      • God only knows what has gone through Elliot’s head. Ask Paul Carden who to my knowledge knew Elliot best.

        As far as Bob and Gretchen, whom I knew to some degree personally, I know they knew. I confronted them about the problems in the mid 1990’s. Gretchen became hysterical and Bob gave the kinds of excuses you’d expert to hear from defenders of Hinn.

        They were great people and I loved them. But I think they saw it as a practical matter. They needed to survive financially and they had to work for someone to pay the bills and Hank was at the time, locally it, that and their long history with CRI before Martin died. This was the line Bob tried to sell me on, that it was a matter of pragmatics. Then as now, I will have none of it.

        I have had other former employees make the same excuses, that is, if they had those kinds of moral principles they’d never get published or work anywhere. So they shut up and go along with it. And this is true for former CRI employees as well as those in other “ministries” who have known for a long time and did nothing, except perhaps position themselves to profit from the misfortune of Hank’s victims. It is just the cost of doing business in their eyes. It is the same reason why no one calls out Bill Craig for his christological heresy or Chuck Smith for he denial of the physical resurrection. On that score, one thing I have never been is a business man, good or otherwise.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Chuck Smith denied the physcial resurrection? wow

        I started reading your article on William Lane Craig and Apollinarianism, etc. but have not finished. It gets kind of deep, for me, I confess.

        Part of the problem I have is that I cannot fully understand the old stuff ( like Irenaeus is really hard to understand); and I always need a modern writer to interpret things and explain things further. The only way I know about Apollinarianism is short little explanations in church history books. What you and Craig have done helps understand the issue better. Some one in the AOmin You
        Tube chat accused me of being Apollinarian, but I am not; they mis-interpret me trying to explain to a Muslim in a way that a Muslim could understand that Christ is both God and Man; and Yet the person of Jesus died on the cross, but death does not affect the Diving nature. I then saw how important the whole Apollinarian [and Nestorian] debate was.

      • Ken Temple says:

        I can see humanly speaking why Elliot and the Passintino’s went that route – it is wrong; but I guess they felt trapped and no other alternative. In one of your articles you described your life for while as living in your car for a while. that’s what they were afraid of. I don’t have all the answers . . . anyway, I not saying I agree with them; just that I understand that human tendency for wanting to keep one’s job and fear of having to live out of their car for a while.

      • Yes, Smith’s position was that at the Rapture, God removed one’s soul from their physical body and that glorified soul was your “spiritual body” of the resurrection. The material body is never revived in any form for Smith.In substance his position was no different than that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

        The only two people I know who publicly called Smith out on this was Craig Hawkins back when he was on KBRT, for which he was silenced by the station administrators for doing so, and Doug Gililand, who used to have the Frequently UnAnswered Quesitons about Calvary Chapel, website.

        No one else would say so much as BOO about it. There was too much money at stake, even though the theological case was pretty much a slam dunk. “Papa” Chuck (Pope?) was simply above correction by anyone.

      • Ken Temple says:

        wow; what a strange view. (of Chuck Smith)

        I always liked Craig Hawkins. What does he do now?

      • As far as living out of my car, I was about 19 when I worked at CRI. When I lost that job at a whopping 7 dollars an hour, I lost my rented room. I lived out of my car for a while. Then moved back to my mom’s until I got a job at Costco and could move out on my own.

      • Ken Temple says:

        I understand. One of my sons worked at Costco for 4 years.

  7. Ken Temple says:

    One of the more exciting things for me, a few years ago; was to be able to go inside the Hagia Irene in Istanbul, where the 2nd Council was held. (the smaller church behind the Hagia Sophia; the Hagia Irene is within the Ottoman Topkapi walls and was never converted into a Mosque; but the Ottomans used it as a weapons depot for centuries. Recently they have had special concerts because of the great acoustics in it.

Comments are closed.