Thoughts on Hank Hanegraaff from an Insider

First, I would like to say that I learned a lot from Hank when I began working for the Christian Research institute (CRI) back in 2006.  His strong stand against the Word of Faith movement helped me to analyze its teachings in light of Scripture and spot the errors.  I also learned how to share my faith and counter the heresies of many cults and world religions.  Further, I learned the vital art of hermeneutics, which before, I had little knowledge of.  At CRI I had access to various theological beliefs from many different denominations, and I found it helpful to understand different Christian traditions and why they believed what they believed.  I am grateful to Hank for all of this.  In fact, it was through the Bible Answer Man (BAM) broadcast that I first encountered Reformed theology.

As we received calls on the program about the sovereignty of God, free will, predestination, and the extent of the atonement, etc., I began to rigorously study the Scriptures and read books on these subjects.  Ironically, although Hank rejects Reformed theology, it was because of working for him that I first learned about it and embraced it.

The Move Towards Eastern Orthodoxy

The Christian life involves growth in our relationship with Christ and in our knowledge of His Word, and conformity to His image as the Holy Spirit works in our hearts.  We call this sanctification.  We don’t expect a new believer to have the same grasp of Christian teaching as a seasoned veteran.  My point is merely to say that Hank’s theology, just like the rest of us, has developed over time.  When we hear the Word preached and read our Bibles, we grow in our understanding.  In Hank’s case, however, I noticed an underlying problem—the lack of consistency.  In my opinion, Hank’s theology is a mashup of many different beliefs.  He doesn’t like to be put into a box.  He seems to borrow from multiple Christian traditions to form his own sort of hybrid.

For example, his view of soteriology is Semipelagian at best, if not Pelagian, yet he denies Pelagianism.  His eschatological view is a twist on partial preterism, yet he denies this also.  His apologetic approach could be classified as Classical with aspects of Evidentialism, but he denies that he adheres to one particular school.  He often quotes from Martin Luther and Charles Spurgeon and champions the Reformer’s view of biblical interpretation, but fails to consistently apply it and rejects many of their interpretations.  Hank could never write a systematic theology book because his theology is all over the map.  He’s far too inconsistent.  Again, this is just my opinion, but for the last 11 years, I have probably listened to Hank speak more than anyone else on the planet.  It was my job, day in and day out.

As far as Eastern Orthodoxy is concerned, I began to notice this change gradually over the last couple of years.  So it was no surprise to me whatsoever when Hank converted.  I saw this coming a mile away.  Anyone who carefully listened to the Bible Answer Man broadcast should have seen this coming as well.

I noticed that when talking about the Lord’s Supper, phrases like, “the real presence of Christ” began to be used.  He began to speak of the doctrine of theosis and use the word “veneration” when talking about Mary.  Since I didn’t know much about Eastern Orthodoxy, I had to do some research.  The more I studied Orthodoxy, however, the more troubled I became.  And as I listened to Hank each night, I began to hear answers to questions that were not rooted in Protestant teaching and biblical exegesis, but rather from an Orthodox perspective.  I was already struggling with much of Hank’s theology, but this made it increasingly difficult to work for him.

On the 4/11/17 BAM broadcast, Hank repeatedly made the statement that his theology hasn’t changed over the last thirty years.  This is simply false.  I’m sorry to be so blunt, but even if he hadn’t converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, this would still be untrue.  The fact that he has converted makes it all the more so.  All you need to do is listen to Hank 5-10 years ago, or even 3 years ago, and listen to him now, and you will notice significant differences.  How in the world can he truthfully claim that his theology hasn’t changed?  This is absurd!  Of course it’s changed and everyone knows it.

Why I Wouldn’t Recommend Listening to BAM

I’m no expert on Eastern Orthodoxy, but there are at least two things that are very disturbing about it.  Orthodoxy denies the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), and the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  Since these doctrines are foundational to the Christian faith, their rejection cannot be taken lightly.  Now, will Hank borrow only the things he likes from Eastern Orthodoxy and reject other things?  I wouldn’t be surprised.

Here’s the heart of the matter.  Hank doesn’t seem to think the doctrine of justification by faith alone to be what he calls an “essential of the Christian faith.”  Historic Protestantism would beg to differ.  Many years ago Hank himself used to strongly emphasize this doctrine, which is another proof that his theology has drastically changed.  The whole reason for the Reformation was a debate over the authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone; two doctrines Orthodoxy denies.  So Hank has thrown the entire Protestant Reformation under the bus.  As a Reformed Christian myself, I believe Scripture is the sole infallible authority for faith and practice and that justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel.  Without it, you don’t have a gospel.

In fact, for many years now, Hank’s answers on BAM have been sorely lacking in biblical exegesis and Christ-centered teaching.  He often appeals to philosophy when answering questions, and he often “shoots from the hip” without bothering to go to Scripture.  He also tends to not answer people’s questions directly, but rather, wanders off on tangents that do not address the point.  I’m sorry to say this, but Hank’s overall message is just not gospel centered.  He spends far more time in his opening monologues on current events, politics, and the creation evolution debate than he does on biblical exposition and application.  It’s sad to see how little Bible there is on the “Bible” Answer Man broadcast.

CRI’s Future

I don’t know what the future holds for CRI, but I will say this.  Even before Hank’s official conversion, CRI was struggling financially and down to a very small staff.  With the loss of radio stations and supporters due to Hank’s departure from Protestantism, I can’t imagine this will be good for business.  I pray that God will provide for my former coworkers if things do end up going south.

There are also some serious questions that need to be answered in light of Hank’s conversion.  Do those still employed by CRI support this radical change?  Is Eastern Orthodoxy now the official position of CRI, which is supposed to be a non-denominational, para-church ministry?  Do CRI supporters, who are largely Protestant, welcome this change?  As Dr. James White has rightly pointed out on the Dividing Line, if you’re answering questions from an Eastern Orthodox perspective rather than from a purely biblical perspective, how can you still truly be the host of a program called the Bible Answer Man?

Final Thoughts

Despite being laid off without any real explanation, and despite our vast theological differences, I’m still praying for Hank.  I pray that his chemotherapy treatments will go well and that he will make a full recovery.  I pray that he and his family will have peace during this very difficult time, but more importantly, I pray that God will open his eyes to the truth!