The Christian Sentinel

August 2004 issue

With a Little Help from his (paid) Friends
The inside story of how Christian Research Institute President Hank Hanegraaff has tried to explain away his plagiarism

An editorial by William Alnor, Ph.D.
Posted August 11, 2004

ã 2004 Christian Sentinel

The evidence is overwhelming: Christian Research Institute (CRI) President Hank Hanegraaff has engaged in serious instances of repeat plagiarism.

In examining these allegations of plagiarism in connection with my doctoral dissertation project, I have prepared this brief summary of these instances in an effort to shed more light on the issue. My investigation has revealed that although some of Hanegraaff's supporters have clamed the CRI president was "cleared" or "exonerated" of these charges, that is simply not true. Although some of Hanegraaff's victims have cried foul, they have simply chosen not to seek legal remedies to punish Hanegraaff.

To read a portion of my copyrighted dissertation that deals with the Hanegraaff plagiarism, click here to go to the Word file. My investigation that was part of my study of plagiarism in the religious media also underscores what action Christians should take concerning Hanegraaff and CRI: A complete boycott. Don't listen to his radio program, don't buy his books, don't contribute any money to CRI, don't invite Hanegraaff to your conference or church, and tell your pastor and every Christian leader you know to do likewise. Further, I repeat my call for Hanegraaff to leave the ministry of CRI.

My dissertation probe also seemed to reveal something else about the Hanegraaff plagiarism: it was willful and motivated partly by the opportunity for personal profit. Hanegraaff clearly fits the description of a plagiarist outlined in Maurice Salzman's 1931 book, Plagiarism: The `Art' of Stealing Literary Material (Los Angeles: Parker, Stone & Baird Co., 1931), page 68.

A plagiarist is a thief and he knows he is a thief. This is so true that it is only necessary to ask a plagiarist to explain why is not one, and he will involuntarily tell you he is one. He invariably gives himself away. His explanations are so full of holes and "becauses" that you can see right through them into the thieving heart of him. A thief talks like a thief.

The study also revealed four deeply disturbing facts.

Of the two, Miller's defense was only fleeting. Around 2000 he denied on an Internet listserv called AR-Forum that Hanegraaff had plagiarized, and he announced that CRI was going to respond to the issue in the future in a forum of its own choosing. According to CRI's last posted IRS 990 Report covering fiscal year 2002-2003, Miller, a long time CRI employee, earned $60,000.

Gretchen Passantino, however, entered a 6-page detailed attack on D. James Kennedy in her "Answers in Action" web site dated June 8, 2001 that devotes just two small paragraphs to the Hanegraaff-Kennedy plagiarism that appear to be knowingly deceptive. First, Passantino claims that Kennedy's accusation that Hanegraaff has plagiarized him was an "unchristian" personal attack that was "slander." However, Passantino never dealt with multi-paged comparisons of the Hanegraaff plagiarism widely available on the Internet that details the plagiarism. (Bill highly recommends Robert M. Bowman's, "Is the Good News Bear a Copycat? Hank Hanegraaff and Plagiarism," 1998 updated ed.)  She deals with not a single lifted paragraph, sentence or concept allegedly stolen by Hanegraaff. Since when was Kennedy's public statement that Hanegraaff had plagiarized him "slander?"

Further, Passantino, who has received extensive financial support from CRI and Hanegraaff over the years, said that she read a letter from Tyndale House publishers that she claims "exonerates" the CRI leader. "In that letter the publisher in essence dismissed the charges on the basis of the evidence obtained in its investigation," Passantino wrote in a June 8, 2001 online statement.

However, Tyndale House never "exonerated" Hanegraaff, the letter reveals. Instead the March 1, 1996 letter points out that Kennedy insisted that he did not want to sue Hanegraaff over the issue -- which has been Kennedy's consistent position in light of Paul's admonition against taking believers to court. In fact, the letter seems to affirm the Hanegraaff plagiarism. It states that even though there were substantial similarities between Hanegraaff's Personal Witness Training manual and Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion "I am satisfied that no harm has been done to Dr. Kennedy, to Evangelism Explosion, or to Tyndale House Publishers."

Notice it says nothing about "exonerating" Hanegraaff. In fact, in context the letter was a response to Hanegraaff's October 31, 1995 letter to Tyndale House attempting to explain why he lifted Kennedy's concepts from Evangelism Explosion. Even though Hanegraaff never footnoted Kennedy or gave him any kind of credit in his Personal Witness Training manual, he later told Kennedy after the plagiarism accusations became known: "I acknowledge you as the primary source and inspiration for Personal Witness Training." (http://answers.org/newsletters/hankresp.html)

But Hanegraaff's explanation was also deceptive.  In trying to explain that his Personal Witness Training was "not some big deal," Hanegraaff wrote. "It has never been given to a publisher. It has simply been used as my personal method of equipping committed Christians to share the gospel. Additionally, I self-published these training materials for my students at Mt. Paran Church of God in Atlanta. Later, at my own cost, I produced PWT manuals for others who wanted a personal study method for learning to share their faith."

But in making these statements Hanegraaff failed to note that it was far more than training materials and his personal method.  He sold many of the manuals for his for profit organization, Memory Dynamics, and has continued to do so, even after stating it was "no big deal." Conveniently, he also did not explain that even though the PWT manual may have been used as his "personal method of equipping committed Christians," he was using them at church seminars participants were attending for a fee, and he was selling the manuals on a national scale. Then after he took over the Christian Research Institute following the death of Walter Martin he announced plans to incorporate Personal Witness Training into the ministry of CRI, even displaying the manuals at the end of a CRI video.

In conclusion, Hanegraaff has used stonewalling and extensive deception to attempt to wiggle free from the extensive, proven plagiarism allegations. The recruitment of journalists with a clear financial connection to CRI to defend him has been especially egregious and shows a lack of character and integrity from both of them. As the Christian Sentinel has pointed out some time ago, Passantino's research and fact-gathering has been suspect for some time on a number of fronts.

Gretchen Passantino has also engaged in other deceptions. Several years ago when the Christian Sentinel exposed the fact that she and her late husband, Robert, padded their vitas to indicate memberships in five organizations that they were not affiliated with, Passantino responded that when the memberships list were first posted on their "Answers in Action" web site, it was accurate. However, The Christian Sentinel has learned that was not true. In addition to their not being affiliated with an additional sixth organization they listed in their vita, they had left several of the organizations years before the web site went up!