Hank Hanegraaf provided a statement responding to his critics who were troubled by his trip to Tehran, Iran, where he participated in a conference also attended by an assortment of terrorist-loving anti-Semites and left-leaning anti-Americans wackos.
According to Hank’s statement his blogging critics are falsely accusing him of colluding with terrorists, supporting OWS, and being an anti-Semite. Among his complaints, he tries to provide his spin on his presence at the conference by saying how he “opposed” some of the views of other participants. He also vehemently insists he is not anti-Semitic.
Yet, after he accuses these charges as being “slanderous,” he repeats the equally “slanderous” nonsense he has reiterated in a number of his writings that it is Dispensationalists who are the true anti-Semites, because of what they teach about Israel and the tribulation.
He then concludes his statement by stating,
As a closing thought, may I simply say that while the lack of discernment and civility displayed on the internet is astonishing, it becomes all the more appalling when those who claim Christianity propagate that which is untrue in an unloving fashion.
Now, I don’t know who else blogged negatively about Hank’s trip. I’m only familiar with Pam Gellar at Atlas Shrugs, and she is kind of an odd-ball in her own right. She is certainly not an “evangelical” blogger, or at least I can’t tell if she is.
Speaking for myself, I never said Hank is anti-Jewish or a pro-OWS guy. I did write, however, that I find his associates at this conference highly problematic. Hank’s supposed to be an evangelical Christian apologist, and yet he gathered with a bunch of notorious anti-Semites and neo-Marxists in a nation state that has sponsored terrorism, threatened genocide against Jews, and treat their political dissenters with horrific cruelty, including the death penalty for children. All for the purpose of participating in a conference meant to bash pro-Western values. You know, liberty and freedom and that sort of stuff.
Is Hank so naive as to believe those associations were innocuous? Did Hank seriously believe that in our internet age no one would think twice about an alleged, evangelical radio apologist participating in an anti-Western conference in a nation controlled by a murderous regime attended by anti-Semites and neo-Marxists? Did he think the government controlled media would treat him fairly rather than as the “useful idiot” he was made to be in that video report? Surely he is not this Pollyanna who thinks everyone, including the Iranians, would be thinking happy thoughts about his visit.
And what about his tweet from February 21st that reads,
Really? Much of what he’s been told in the West about Iran is simply wrong? Does he care to elaborate on that? Would he care to explain his assessment in light of what Amnesty International says on their website about Iran? They are a secular group. In fact, they are much more leftist than most blogging critics of the Iranian government. What about Voice of the Martyrs and their report on Iran? Are they “simply wrong” about Christian persecution? Or is it something we can debate vigorously but not divide over?
Hank can complain all he wants about being slandered by irresponsible bloggers on the internet. The fact of the matter remains, however, that he brought this attention on himself. His explanations of what happened there is extremely unsatisfactory and doesn’t look good at all for him and his ministry.