Month: June 2015

Missouri Baptist Convention Grateful to Help Host David Barton; Christian Historians Disagree

On Saturday, I pointed out that the Missouri Baptist Convention was co-sponsoring David Barton and George Barna to speak at the Turning America Conference to be held at the Second Baptist Church in Springfield, MO later this month.
I asked Rob Phillips, communications director for the MBC, why the MBC was co-sponsoring Barton in light of the widespread criticism of Barton’s historical claims by numerous Christian historians. The answer came from Dr. John Yeats, MBC executive director, who said:

We are grateful for the opportunity to help a leading Missouri Baptist church serve as host of the conference. Whatever your views on David Barton, we support the event and encourage Missouri Baptists to hear him out and decide for themselves. In my many years in Baptist life, I have found my fellow Baptists to be fair-minded and discerning people who love the truth.  Certainly, we agree with the stated mission of WallBuilders: to educate the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; to provide information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies that reflect Biblical values; and to encourage Christians to be involved in the civic arena.

In addition to asking for explanation from MBC, I asked several Christian historians for their opinion regarding the MBC’s decision. Barry Hankins, professor of history at Baylor University, said:

David Barton’s history of the American founding is out of step with even the most conservative, Bible-believing, evangelical historians in the Christian college world. I’ve never met a professional historian with a Ph.D. who accepted Barton’s argument that the founding fathers as a group were pervasively Christian and intended to found a Christian nation as Barton defines it. Moreover, when one’s biography of Thomas Jefferson is discontinued by Thomas Nelson publishers, as Barton’s was, Christians should wonder why. It is sad that anyone in the evangelical world would continue to promote his work.

After reading Dr. Yeats reply, The Masters College historian Gregg Frazer said:

I am a conservative, evangelical, born-again Christian; I am also a trained historian whose research is centered on the American Founding.  I believe that the Supreme Court’s “wall of separation” notion is bad legal doctrine based on bad history that has resulted in denial of religious freedom.  But replacing bad history with more bad history that we like better is not the solution.
Baptists may well be “fair-minded and discerning people who love the truth” and it is good that the president wants Missouri Baptists to “decide for themselves.”  The problem is that in order to properly discern and to properly decide on truth, people must have access to proper information and actual truth.  Missouri Baptists, for example, would never come to the truth of the Gospel if all that was presented to them was Buddhism or Islam.  In order to come to a proper conclusion, one must have access to the truth.  How can they learn truth if Missouri Baptists hear only manufactured “history” – history as some wish it had been; history as constructed from partial quotes, quotes out of context, misleading half-truths, and complete falsehoods?  The vast majority of Missourians/Americans do not have the time or resources to study primary historical documents – so they put their faith in people who claim to have done that study.  When that trust is misplaced, Missouri Baptists will inevitably draw false conclusions – through no fault of their own.
If Missouri Baptists are going to hear the eccentric views of self-proclaimed historians and still have a chance to know the truth and to discern it, they must also hear from someone who can point out misleading tactics and errors and show them the actual texts that are distorted and manipulated.  I’m from Missouri; I trust that Missourians could discern properly between two alternatives.  But IF THEY ONLY HEAR ONE SIDE, HOW CAN THEY MAKE A PROPER DETERMINATION?  When they “decide for themselves, “ will they not be captive to the information they have – whether it is false or true?  Completely false information can be made to look very persuasive when presented in isolation. (emphasis in the original statement).

Frazer and Hankins reveal the problem with Dr. Yeats’ stance. After the false information is presented, how will the audience get the right stuff?

Part Two of Sutton Turner's Thoughts on Forgiveness

Today, former Mars Hill Church executive pastor Sutton Turner extends his Mars Hill reflections in part two of his series on repentance and forgiveness.
I appreciate Turner’s efforts here. These are not brief posts, but rather indicate that he has thought about these matters. He seems to want to make amends in a public sense with his detractors, not by criticizing them but by acknowledging his mistakes. For instance, he tweeted:


I don’t want to quarrel much with Mr. Turner as he is taking time to reflect but I will note one area which may generate some additional discussion. To begin point seven, Turner says:

It is very disheartening when you want to sit down with someone and practice Jesus’ instructions given in Matthew 18, but they do not believe they have sinned against you and refuse to meet. What should you do? Forgive them.

This does not seem consistent with Matt. 18 where a different trajectory is envisioned when someone refuses to meet. The Matt. 18 progression is from a private conversation to involving some others to involving the ekklesia. Translated church, my view is that the word should be translated as it was at the time — assembly, particularly an assembly of citizens. The church had not been established when Jesus spoke these words and the context sounds more civic or legal. Two of three witnesses were to establish the truth of the offense as a precursor to presenting the case to the assembly. In practice, the way we do church today can accommodate this teaching but not every offense is a Matt. 18 matter, as I see it.
In any case, this is a matter for honest discussion. There are psychological benefits of letting go of resentment and, if this is what Turner is referring to, I can see benefit in it. Rumination and resentment are not good physically or psychologically. However, when unfinished business is involved, as in the case at Mars Hill Church, one can let go of resentment and still seek justice.
It is hard not to compare Turner and Driscoll on this topic since they are both plowing that ground. Driscoll talks a lot about forgiveness but doesn’t seem to ask for much. Turner, at least, seems to understand that repentance and forgiveness go together.

Gospel for Asia’s Canadian Funds Given for Activities in India Don’t Show Up in Indian Reporting Documents

Canadian law requires charities to file information on their activities with the Canadian Revenue Agency. Gospel for Asia has a Canadian affiliate and that organization took in just over $17 million in 2013. The CRA requires charities to complete Form T3010 which captures disclosure of where and how donations are spent. In the case of Gospel for Asia, the T3010 shows that GFA’s Canadian affiliate sent $ 15,172,204 to India in 2013. The webpage showing this information is captured below:

GFA Canada to India
As I will demonstrate below, none of these funds show up in GFA India’s reports to the Indian government. In other words, if one just looked at what GFA in India reports to the India government, one would not know anyone in Canada donated $15 million Canadian dollars to the work of GFA in India.  

The activities to be carried out with those funds are listed in the T3010 form:

Ongoing programs:
Providing education to children of the Dalits and untouchables of India. Medical missions – treating the poor and needy in rural areas on the Indian subcontinent. Providing assistance in the slums. Literacy programs for illiterate adults. Disaster relief for natural disasters. Providing water for undeveloped communities. Sharing the love of God by meeting the basic needs for those below the poverty line. Sheltering street children.
According to Magali Deussing, Media Relations Advisor and Spokesperson for the Canadian Revenue Agency, Canadian charities, by law, “can only use its resources (for example, funds, staff, and property) in two ways, whether inside or outside Canada.” Those two ways are:
  • on its own activities (those which are directly under the charity’s control and supervision, and for which it can account for any resources used); and
  • on gifts to qualified donees.

Deussing added:

A registered Canadian charity is required to report annually to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) on its expenditures, and maintain adequate books and records so that the CRA can validate whether the charity’s funds are being appropriately applied to its own charitable activities (whether inside or outside Canada), or on gifts to other qualified donees. If a charity reports to the CRA that it has spent its resources on a certain program or activity, it is incumbent upon the charity to validate that expenditure or allocation of resources.

Form T301o lists “qualified donees” and Gospel for Asia International is not one of them.

Charitable funds may only be used if the activities are “directly under the charity’s control and supervision” and “can account for any resources used.” Canadian rules are specific about what control and supervision mean:

The CRA recommends adopting the following types of measures to direct and control the use of a charity’s resources:

  • Create a written agreement, and implement its terms and provisions.

  • Communicate a clear, complete, and detailed description of the activity to the intermediary.

  • Monitor and supervise the activity.

  • Provide clear, complete, and detailed instructions to the intermediary on an ongoing basis.

  • Arrange for the intermediary to keep the charity’s funds separate from its own, and to keep separate books and records.

  • Make periodic transfers of resources, based on demonstrated performance.

If a charity simply takes donations and funnels them to another organization, the Canadian charity might be considered a conduit — which is illegal in Canada. The CRA defines a conduit:

5.5 What is a conduit?

For this guidance, a conduit is a registered charity that receives donations from Canadians, issues tax-deductible receipts, and funnels money without direction or control to an organization to which a Canadian taxpayer could not make a gift and acquire tax relief.

One way that transferring money to an organization overseas does not of necessity create a conduit is if the money goes to a “head body” outside of Canada. In the case of GFA, the Indian operation mighr be considered a “head body.” The CRA website addresses this question:

Appendix C – What if a charity has a head body outside Canada?

Some charities are registered as the Canadian representatives or offshoots of a larger organization, often located outside Canada. These head bodies sometimes require payments from their Canadian charities, in the form of tithes, royalties, memberships, or similar transfers.

The same requirements for the direction and control of resources apply to charities that are offshoots of head bodies outside Canada. In other words, a charity may not simply send gifts of money to a non-qualified donee, even if that non-qualified donee is the charity’s head body.

However, having the head body act as an intermediary for a charity is also often not practical, since the nature of the relationship may prevent the charity from instructing its head body in how to use the money. In these cases, the charities must be sure they are receiving goods and services equivalent in value to the amounts they are sending.

For example, a head body might provide a Canadian charity with any of the following:

  • training
  • accounting services
  • literature for distribution
  • use of a name, trademark, or copyright material

The CRA will generally accept that a charity with a head body outside Canada usually benefits from access to useful resources from that head body such as policies, communications, and training material. If a charity transfers small amounts to a head body, and the charity has access to internationally produced material, we will not require additional evidence of benefits to the charity.

For these purposes, we will probably consider a small amount to be whichever amount is less—5% of the charity’s total expenditures in the year or $5,000.

I wonder what Canada is getting from GFA International that is worth $15 million. Note this line:

In other words, a charity may not simply send gifts of money to a non-qualified donee, even if that non-qualified donee is the charity’s head body.

Canadian Donations Don’t Show Up in Indian Reports
According to the Canadian report, GFA Canada sent the lion’s share of donations from Canadians to do work in India. However, in Indian public charity documents (yearly FC-6 forms), GFA Canada doesn’t show up.

On the website where Indian charities record their activities, Gospel for Asia is required to indicate the source country of donated funds. In the image below, source countries are reported for 2013-2014 (see pdf of page):
GFACountries20132014
GFA: Canadian Funds Are Combined with U.S. Funds in India
Canada does not show up. I checked the other three entities controlled by GFA (Believers’ Church (pdf), Last Hour Ministries (pdf), and Love India Ministries (pdf)) and found no reference to Canada as a source for those funds. I asked GFA COO David Carroll about the absence of Canada and he told me:

The Canadian funds were combined with U.S. funds by our auditor in India for various accounting reasons. There is no requirement that they be reported separately.

I wrote back to ask for the auditor’s rationale and Carroll declined to address the question.

According to Canadian law, Canadian charities must retain control of the funds, must keep separate books and records, and must be able to show that the funds were spent on the charity’s mission. Perhaps GFA in Canada can do that. However, on the Indian side, there is no way to verify it.

What seems odd about Carroll’s explanation is that the Indian website requires the donors of those funds to be identified. For instance, in 2013-2014, the following donors were identified by GFA.
GFADonorSourcesIndia20132014
Note that there are donor GFA organizations from Germany, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. Canadian law requires that the funds donated in Canada be spent for the charitable purpose intended by donors. This report in India seems tailor made to comply with that mandate. However, in the part of the form where GFA could account for where Canadian donations were spent, they fail to identify the activities paid for by those funds.

According to COO David Carroll, the $15 million Canadian dollars were lumped in with the United States for accounting reasons. However, no recognition of the funds as having come from Canada shows up. All of the groups listed there are GFA affiliate organizations (e.g., Road to Peace, Grace in Action are LLCs controlled by GFA) so it seems odd that GFA of Canada doesn’t show up. Given the Canadian guidelines, it seems as though the funds coming from Canada should be identified for the very reason David Carroll says they weren’t: “for various accounting reasons.”

The Numbers Don’t Add Up
Note: the figures are in Indian Rupees. As I have pointed out before, the funds the U. S. GFA says they sent to India don’t show up on the Indian reports. The situation is worse if we take into account David Carroll’s claim that the Canadian funds are lumped in with U.S. funds in India. If Canada sent just over $15 million Canadian dollars ($14,183,700 in U.S. dollars on December 31, 2013) to India for calendar year 2013, and the U.S. sent $58,542,900 (from their 2013 U.S. audited financial statement) that adds up to $72,726,600 sent to India from the two countries. However, according to reports of foreign contributions in India, the U.S. GFA is only credited with sending $6 million during 2013. If one adds up all of the funds sent by GFA – US to Indian organizations in FY 2013 (GFA -India, Believers’ Church, Love India Ministries, Last Hour Ministries), we still only get to $37,097,750. The bottom line is that there is a massive difference in what the U.S. and Canada report that they send and what the Indian GFA organizations report to the Indian government. 

It is possible that the excess is sitting in an account somewhere and is being reported in some other manner in a way that is not publicly available. I freely admit I am not an accountant and that I don’t know all of the auditing rules which may apply. However, these reports are provided in the U.S., Canada, and India so that an informed person can evaluate whether or not a charity is being accountable with donated funds. Using the reports available, I believe GFA has many questions to address. Where is the money that doesn’t show up on the Indian reports? GFA’s silence does not inspire confidence.

*I used the exchange rate from March 31, 2014.

Sutton Turner Confesses Some Mars Hill Sins

One of the last three executive elders to serve at Mars Hill Church, Sutton Turner has taken a different route in his public reflection about his experience at Mars Hill than the soft-spoken Dave Bruskas and the main event Mark Driscoll. Bruskas spoke to his Albuquerque church in a closed meeting (here, here, and here) and to my knowledge has not blogged or addressed the media since he left Mars Hill. Driscoll on the other hand has remained aloof from social media, isn’t doing interviews but has spoken in a series of large venues.
Today, Turner posted a confession of sorts on his blog. He begins:

I am writing this post to help other leaders like me. I pray that someone—even just one person—can be spared the consequences of his/her own mistakes by paying careful attention to mine beforehand. I also pray that my public confession of sin and admission of mistakes will further enhance opportunity for reconciliation and restoration among those with whom I have experienced conflict.
Early on in my time at Mars Hill, I unfortunately operated in a sinful way that was consistent with the existing church culture that had grown and been cultivated since the early years of the church. Instead of being an agent of change for good, I simply reinforced negative sinful behavior.  (I am responsible for my own actions, and do not blame my actions on the culture.) I am so thankful for the kindness of God that has led me to repentance, the grace of Jesus that forgave my sin, and the love of brothers who exhorted me during those necessary times of growth. Somewhere between 2012 and 2013, with the help of Pastor Dave Bruskas and others, change began to take root in my heart. These lessons continue to bear fruit in my life as the Holy Spirit grows me to become more like Jesus. I do look back on 2011 and 2012 with a lot of regret, but I’m also very thankful for the Holy Spirit and his ability to grow us all to be more like Jesus.

In light of Dan Kellogg’s and John Lindell’s dismissal of Mars Hill problems, Turner’s disclosure that he operated in a “a sinful way that was consistent with the existing church culture that had grown and been cultivated since the early years of the church” is worth noting. Turner does not mention Driscoll, but everybody knows who was in charge of the church from the beginning. Turner does not mention Driscoll as a help in overcoming that culture, but instead credits Dave Bruskas and unnamed others.
I know there are several people I have interviewed who would encourage Turner to add 2013 at least, and probably 2014 to his list of dates which should be regret-worthy. Having said that, I think Turner’s approach here has much to recommend it. He then reflects on forgiveness which, because of the way he started his post, doesn’t come across so self-serving as does Mark Driscoll’s two recent sermons on the subject.
I recognize that those who served at Mars Hill and former members will have varying reactions to Turner’s reflections. Inasmuch as bitterness remains, I hope the parties can reconcile.
Looking forward to the next segments.

Documentation of Former Gospel for Asia Staff Concerns is Now Public

GFADIaspora LogoIn a prior post, I disclosed that a dispute existed between a group of over 80 former Gospel for Asia staff and the GFA leadership. GFA former staff claims that GFA leaders engage in unbiblical practices. In response, GFA leaders claim that a board member’s investigation failed to find serious problems. Currently, an impasse exists.
Until recently, most of the documentation of these concerns was unavailable to the public because the main website of the former staff group (called the GFA Diaspora) was on a password protected website. That has changed. The website — GFA Diaspora — is now available to the public.
On the website, you can find rationale for the five major problems observed by the former GFA staff, a communications history regarding efforts to bring GFA leaders into reconciliation talks, a review of specific evidence including the K.P. Yohannan ring kissing video, and numerous personal testimonies of former staff which support their overall list of concerns.
I was initially leaked materials from this website by former donors to GFA who believed the efforts of the staff to effect dialogue and change were not being taken seriously by GFA leaders. Since the first post, I have provided several other reports of information about GFA which I believe deserve greater awareness among evangelical supporters of missions. GFA has now ceased all responses to my questions and have failed to answer questions from one other new source — Christian Today.
Perhaps open access to this material will bring matters such undeclared cash carrying, misrepresentation of ecclesiastical practices, massive cash reserves, and other concerns into greater public conversation.