Benny Hinn

[artsylady]

Where did you find this 'report'?????

And don't say Christianity Today. This is not the same report that was published in that magazine.

There were no 'lawsuits' involved. Hank's ministry had voluntarily APPOINTED a watchdog Christian agency, who found a few things questionable, and Hank had changed them. Simple.

Again, where did you find this??? Everytime I see such a 'report' the 'facts' change. Most times, it's a female former employee who blows the whistle and goes to the agency. As well, this is the first time I've seen a lawsuit mentioned. Gross exaggerations of the truth. Now that IS slanderous.

At any rate, does Benny Hinn wish to fall under the same watchdog service???? (can't remember the name) Not a chance. He rakes in, last time I checked, in the fifty millions per year. This is a pittance compared to what you think they have accused Hannegraf of.

Do you not see how hypocritical you are being. You point the finger at Hank Hannegraf who voluntarily signed up to be financially accountable, and then when questioned about his ethics, changed! But Hinn rakes in mega millions each year, is accountable to no one and you think that is perfectly okay somehow.

[Guest LCPGUY]

They said that Hanegraaff did not have the theological training, the communication skills, nor the ethical standards to lead CRI.

Hank's lack of theological training is well known. It was Hank, who right up front, after Walter Martin went home to the Lord, said he wanted to see if God could use a high school grad to accomplish His work. Well, I think most would agree - yes. Big time!

Lack of communication skills? Surely yee jest.

Ethical standards? I cannot judge that so will defer to Jen.

I don't think it is productive for Christians to cast dispersions on other members of the Body. For whatever flaws Hank may have, he is a brother in the Lord. None of us are perfect and we should not be casting stones at each other.

"By their fruits you shall know them"

Bro John

[His son]

Where did you find this 'report'?????

And don't say Christianity Today. This is not the same report that was published in that magazine.

There were no 'lawsuits' involved. Hank's ministry had voluntarily APPOINTED a watchdog Christian agency, who found a few things questionable, and Hank had changed them. Simple.

Again, where did you find this??? Everytime I see such a 'report' the 'facts' change. Most times, it's a female former employee who blows the whistle and goes to the agency. As well, this is the first time I've seen a lawsuit mentioned. Gross exaggerations of the truth. Now that IS slanderous.

At any rate, does Benny Hinn wish to fall under the same watchdog service???? (can't remember the name) Not a chance. He rakes in, last time I checked, in the fifty millions per year. This is a pittance compared to what you think they have accused Hannegraf of.

Do you not see how hypocritical you are being. You point the finger at Hank Hannegraf who voluntarily signed up to be financially accountable, and then when questioned about his ethics, changed! But Hinn rakes in mega millions each year, is accountable to no one and you think that is perfectly okay somehow.

This is the rest of it.

see 9/95 Update below).

[Most of the information in this report was derived from articles in The Christian News and Flashpoint.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[9/95 Update: The 9/11/95 Christianity Today reported that the CRI lawsuit was concluded following Christian mediation in July, 1995. The parties signed a statement, which said, in part, "The parties acknowledged that the allegations were based on misunderstandings as well as incomplete information. ... It was determined that there is no liability on the part of CRI, Mr. Hanegraaff, or Mr. Sparks for any wrongdoing." Both parties dropped their legal actions against each other, and CRI agreed to pay about $20,000 of Sparks legal expenses. However, the ad hoc Group for CRI Accountability (see above) continued to press its concerns; according to its spokes-person Rob Bowman, "Most of our concerns are too well documented not to be true ..." Privately, Sparks was reported to tell friends that it was either settle, or be spent into bankruptcy by Hanegraaff and CRI.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[4/96 Update: Brad Sparks Response to the Passantinos -- The following are excerpts from a letter by Brad Sparks, former CRI Researcher and plaintiff to the above detailed lawsuit. It is a reprint of an open letter responding to a 2/16/96 statement released by Bob and Gretchen Passantino.]

This is an interested observer's reply to the Passantinos' belated February 16, 1996, attack on the first three issues of On The Edge (OTE) published in September, October, and November 1995. I do not know who the journalist-author(s) of OTE are, but I think it is quite understandable that they choose to remain anonymous to avoid taking $400,000 worth of abuse from CRI. I should know because I, along with my wife and children, were punished for publicly speaking out. We suffered from Hank Hanegraaff's $400,000 of harassment from an international secular law firm (Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher) (according to figures given in CRI's audited annual financial statement for June 30, 1995), as well as from an unknown amount CRI spent for a private detective agency (Allied Management Resources), which was conveniently withheld from the audit report.

That was approximately how much CRI donor money was spent by Hank without the donors' knowledge or approval of such shocking amounts (roughly 10% of the CRI budget), all to protect Hank from accountability for his use of CRI money and resources for his books and seminars in the first place. It apparently does not even include an unknown amount of money spent on Hank's and CRI's countersuit against me [brad Sparks] (undertaken without even a pretense of Matt. 18 action), which the audit report also conveniently failed to mention. And it doesn't include any amounts spent in July 1995 after the cutoff date of the audit (such as the $20,000 settlement).

I was forced to settle my case because of the abuse and vicious tactics engaged in by Hanegraaff and CRI -- such as bringing up the murder of my mother to shock and degrade me. CRI has certainly taught the cults a thing or two using all this CRI donor money to frustrate and harass me with high-priced lawyers and private detectives. If my case was so "baseless" and "frivolous," as Hank and his minions claim, then how come with all these hundreds of thousands of "ministry" dollars to pay $200- to $300-per-hour attorneys, they still couldn't even prove it "baseless" in a court of law? How come Superior Court Judge Richard Luesebrink flatly refused to throw out even a single portion of my case on January 13, 1995, when CRI attorneys from two separate law firms presented two motions to have it thrown out and failed? Did you ever hear Hank admit that on the radio? No, instead Hank falsely claimed on the radio October 18, 1994, "this groundless lawsuit has long ago been set aside by the courts," and he continued to echo this bizarre, twilight-zone claim in fund raising appeals for months afterward until the two sides settled it -- it was never "set aside by the courts" as "groundless" at any time.

When I read the Passantinos' Internet statement someone faxed me, I was surprised to read that according to them, these OTE articles were journalistic atrocities, "worthless," and reflecting "absolutely no journalistic responsibility or evidentiary substantiation" whatsoever, filled only with anonymous "vitriol, gossip, innuendo, and bitterness," slanderous, and "replete with unnamed [sic] sources, supposition, and allegations, none of which are substantiated by any named, identified, or evidenced material." Whew! That's a pretty heavy load of allegations in a statement that itself is "replete with un[n]amed sources" used by the Passantinos, betraying just a wee bit of the same things on their own parts, methinks. I wondered if I had read the same articles they claimed to have read. So I went back to those first three issues of OTE and here is what I found:

Instead of the anonymous slander in OTE claimed by the Passantinos, I found six named sources (three from Hank's side, including Hank and his attorney) and what seem to be only two unnamed sources, both reportedly connected with CRI and Hank Hanegraaff -- unless we are to count every change of wording describing these two sources as separate individuals. In that case, do the Passantinos really wish to contend that OTE has as many as 10 anonymous CRI sources? Do they want to concede there are that many "moles" inside CRI who are so outraged at Hanegraaff that they supply inside scoops to publications such as OTE? I didn't think so. But it's a ticklish dilemma they will have to resolve.

Moreover, I found these first three OTE issues made specific reference to 15 different books and articles, gave 43 specific page number citations, plus quotes and references by date to four Bible Answerman (BAM) shows. All this in just 9 pages of OTE articles! If anything, this seems to represent quite a lot more documentation than I usually see in popular writing. What popular newspaper or magazine have you ever read with that many bibliographic references in just 6,600 words or so of main text altogether?

The succeeding issues of OTE, in February and March 1996, made reference to eight named sources (five of whom are on Hank's side), one of whom was an unnamed source at Word Publishing in the February issue, but was named in the March issue (this was Jennifer Haney of Word 's Publicity Dept. who had said that Hanegraaff's books were on indefinite hold while his contracts were reviewed). There may be about four new unnamed sources in addition to the two CRI sources from previous issues, depending on whether or not some descriptions refer to these existing sources or not: (1) "independent reliable source"; (2) "member of a radio management team"; (3) "additional source inside Word"; (4) "Southern California-based ministry source." These new issues of OTE reference 12 books and articles and two more dated BAM broadcasts.

Speaking of "unnamed sources," the Passantinos themselves repeatedly refer to and rely on numerous UNNAMED SOURCES in their own statement, perhaps 12 or more unidentified sources altogether:

(a) Passantinos' UNNAMED Word Books editorial sources (plural means two or more). As to the "falsity" of OTE's "charges" about Hanegraaff's book projects (which they leave nebulous so that you won't know that OTE reported that a Word source said Hank's books were on hold or canceled), they refer to "our own editorial contacts with Word Books," who are left unnamed, unidentified, and conveniently anonymous.

(b) Passantinos' UNNAMED Board member/ex-CRI employee (one). Another charge of "falsity" they level against OTE is "the presence on our own organization's Board of Directors of a former CRI employee listed in this publication (against her knowledge or will)," another unnamed, unidentified and conveniently anonymous person.

At least OTE named this person (whoever she is) in its name list of 105 CRI employees who have been churned out under Hanegraaff through massive and traumatic "attrition" and "turnover." Does she deny that she left CRI or not? Does she deny that at least 105 CRI employees have left under Hanegraaff under either favorable or unfavorable terms? Does she deny that a major subset of these 105 or more CRI employees were fired or forced to resign after pointing out ethical issues, or not?

© Passantinos' UNNAMED "any and all" CRI-employee sources who supposedly cleared Hank (two or more?). Did they actually contact any? Or did they just have "access" to them?

(d) Passantinos' UNNAMED "hostile ex-employees" they imply they contacted as sources who purportedly vindicated Hank (two or more?). But maybe they didn't actually contact any such "hostile ex-employees" and only wanted to lead readers into thinking from their weasel-wording that they did because they had such glorious "freedom to contact." So who are they?

(e) Passantinos' UNNAMED sources who are "attackers" of Hank, but who allegedly cleared Hank (two or more?). Same thing. Maybe they only want you to think they contacted such persons, but they didn't really because they know full well that some or all of the charges are true and they can't stand to face the truth-tellers.

(f) Passantinos' UNNAMED "variety of sources" defending Hank (a "variety" must mean three or more?). Since their set-up EMNR Board meeting on Easter weekend, April 15, 1995, the Passantinos say "we have continued to collect information and evidence from a variety of sources regarding those and other charges against Hank." Well, who constitutes this unnamed "variety of sources"?

The Passantinos say that in "authentic journalism, anonymous attributions are rarely used." What does that say about their own statement?

The Passantinos completely misunderstand the settlement of the two lawsuits: (1) the countersuit by Hank and CRI against me, which they omit to mention, and (2) my lawsuit.

The joint settlement statement says in the first three sentences [that] there was a "mediation process" between the two sides and issues were discussed. As a result, "the allegations" or issues discussed in the mediation just mentioned were found to be based on "misunderstandings and incomplete information." Nowhere does this document say that ALL allegations or issues had been "cleared up" as based on misunderstanding or incomplete info, nor is there any listing of resolved charges and/or the explanations as to how they were resolved. The settlement agreed there was no legal liability for any wrongdoing (i.e., likelihood of winning the case) by me, or Hank, or CRI, but it doesn't say how this was determined, and it is a conclusion that obviously applies to both sides.

As a matter of fact, the only such charges I am aware of which were resolved in that fashion were three misunderstandings on Hank's part about my role as some kind of conspiratorial mastermind, as listed below. (Remember, Hank slammed me and the Group for CRI Accountability in his October 17 and 27, 1994, CRI fund-raising letters as "the forces of darkness," "a group of accomplices," "diabolical," etc. By the way, how much money did Hank make off of these hysterical, Robert Tilton-like, demonize-the-enemy fund raising tactics?):

(1) I knew nothing in advance about Christianity Today's August 15, 1994 cover story on Christian radio which recounted the charges against Hanegraaff. I had not been interviewed for it; I did not initiate contact with CT in the first place; and CT had last contacted me in March 1994 when the suit was filed, but never contacted me again (until after the settlement in 1995 of course).

(2) I never had any contact whatsoever with [Flashpoint] by phone, mail, or otherwise (that remains true to this day). The quotes that [Flashpoint] used in [its] July 1994 newsletter to sound like [it] had interviewed me had actually been taken from a newsletter I had written and attached as an exhibit to my lawsuit. I have never been interviewed by [Flashpoint].

(3) I have never put anything about CRI or Hank on the Internet or any other computer network (and that's true to this day, but I will now have to try to get this copy posted on Internet), if for no other reason than that I have never been on Internet ever, because the phone wiring in my office at home shorted out in March 1993 and ruined my modem. I have not been on-line anywhere since that time.

In conclusion, the Passantinos must be reading documents from another universe. What they're talking about in connection with the OTE newsletters and my lawsuit does not resemble reality as I know it and see it.

Brad Sparks

April 22, 1996

I got this on a web search using Hanegraaff Wife

[His son]

Quote:

Do you not see how hypocritical you are being. You point the finger at Hank Hannegraf who voluntarily signed up to be financially accountable, and then when questioned about his ethics, changed! But Hinn rakes in mega millions each year, is accountable to no one and you think that is perfectly okay somehow.

This is total reaction on your part. and you are doing what you accuse me of doing you are being hypocritical. Show us all where I said what Benny Hinn is doing is okay. The point of all that I said in regards to him was that we are not called to judge him, that means all of us. You brought up Hannegraff as a source of truth, and you can't stand to find out that your source is maybe not quite the angel you thought he was. You asked for them if you don't like what you get when you ask don't ask.

[Guest LadyC]

The point of all that I said in regards to him was that we are not called to judge him, that means all of us.

11 But here is what I am writing to you. You must stay away from anyone who claims to be a believer but who does those things. Stay away from anyone who commits sexual sins or who always wants more and more things. Stay away from a person who worships statues of gods or who tells lies about others. Stay away from anyone who gets drunk or who cheats. Don't even eat with a person like that.

12 Is it my business to judge those outside the church? Aren't you supposed to judge those inside the church? 13 God will judge those outside. Scripture says, "Get rid of that evil person!"(Deuteronomy 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,24; 24:7)

Oh YES we ARE called to judge him, His Son!

[artsylady]

Excellent reference Lady C.

His son: Which website did you get this from? I know this article sources that portions were taken from what I guess would be two Christian Magazines that I am unfamiliar with. Anyway, it's all info from a disgruntled ex employee. But I would still like to see the website you got this 'report' from.

[artsylady]

[9/95 Update: The 9/11/95 Christianity Today reported that the CRI lawsuit was concluded following Christian mediation in July, 1995. The parties signed a statement, which said, in part, "The parties acknowledged that the allegations were based on misunderstandings as well as incomplete information. ... It was determined that there is no liability on the part of CRI, Mr. Hanegraaff, or Mr. Sparks for any wrongdoing." Both parties dropped their legal actions against each other, and CRI agreed to pay about $20,000 of Sparks legal expenses. However, the ad hoc Group for CRI Accountability (see above) continued to press its concerns; according to its spokes-person Rob Bowman, "Most of our concerns are too well documented not to be true ..." Privately, Sparks was reported to tell friends that it was either settle, or be spent into bankruptcy by Hanegraaff and CRI.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[4/96 Update: Brad Sparks Response to the Passantinos -- The following are excerpts from a letter by Brad Sparks, former CRI Researcher and plaintiff to the above detailed lawsuit. It is a reprint of an open letter responding to a 2/16/96 statement released by Bob and Gretchen Passantino.]

Why does this ex-employee sign a legal statement in 1995 admitting that the allegations were based on misunderstanding and that there is no liability on Hannegraff or CRI and then a year later, go on to publicly slam him??

Never mind quoting a source. It would be meaningless anyway.

You know, about 2 years ago, I had a deal with a very prominent Christian organization. The deal went bad and I was treated imo horribly by this organization. I had proof via emails that I most likely could have used to sue for close to a year's salary. What did I do about it? Nothing. I didn't even see a lawyer. I forgave them. As a matter of fact, I actually refer people to their website all the time.

[salt and light]

Since I've heard Benny Hinn say that he was sick of hearing about the streets of gold and how it will be, and that he had to have his treasures now, and since Hinn is a false prophet,and since I've heard John Hagee praising Hinn,and since I've heard Kenneth Copeland say that God was the biggest failure, I have nothing to do with TBN. Also, since I've heard Hank Hanegraaff put down the KJV bible,something that I've heard him do at least 4 times, I don't listen to him anymore either. He won't even at least say that the KJV is a good translation, no, he puts it down completely, there is something wrong. I don't trust any of those guys. Dr. Fredrick Price is another one. He said that if you had to pray, "thy will be done, you might as well not pray at all". Maybe not all of them, but most of those guys, especially the ones I mentioned preach the prosperity gospel. It reminds me of Philippians 3:19, "Whose end is destruction,whose God is their belly,and whose glory is in their shame,who mind earthly things".

[Guest LadyC]

Excellent reference Lady C.

His son: Which website did you get this from? I know this article sources that portions were taken from what I guess would be two Christian Magazines that I am unfamiliar with. Anyway, it's all info from a disgruntled ex employee. But I would still like to see the website you got this 'report' from.

thanks, but i stole that reference from catsmeow!

actually, i guess we both borrowed it from the Bible... but it was cats that first posted the passage, which went totally ignored by His Son, which is why i decided it was worth reposting.

[RGR]

Paul certainly had no problem calling out those who had deserted him or were not followers of the faith. Read his letters if you don't believe me. If Paul had the privilege to call it as it was, so do we!!!