A Story of Intimidation and Control at Gospel for Asia

An aspect of the Gospel for Asia story that I have not explored much is the claim of controlling actions on the part of GFA leaders. Today, I want to bring out one such claim. Before I tell this story, I want to alert readers that I reached out to GFA through their PR firm InChrist Communications. I told InChrist Communications that I wanted GFA leaders to have a chance to address these serious claims. I received no answer.
On the GFA Diaspora website, a former male employee named Nick tells about his experience about a decade ago of expressing romantic feelings toward a female staffer at GFA. One would think such sentiments would be encouraged in a Christian ministry, but according to Nick and the girl who was the object of his feelings — Nicole — GFA leaders went out of their way to end the relationship.
Nick attended Bible college and had interned in a Calvary Chapel before coming to GFA. Nicole had led mission trips and was a worship leader with GFA. Nick was 25 and Nicole was 22. Their interest in one another was age-appropriate and they seemed to be heading in the same direction.
On the Diaspora website, Nick wrote:

In a friendly conversation with David C., I told him I was interested in a girl who was on staff (we were just friends at the time). I was called into K.P.’s office and told that I was not allowed to continue to like this girl, and that I was not even allowed to pray about getting married for at least 2 years. I was surprised that I was being told not to pray, but my heart and intention was to do all that I could to comply with the wishes of the leadership. Shortly thereafter, all of the newer young single people on staff were called into a meeting where we were told that we had entered the ministry single, and so that is how we should remain.

After the scolding, Nick did not tell Nicole about his feelings. However, his disclosure seemed to change his standing at GFA. According to Nick, the GFA leaders subjected him to what can only be described as harassment:

The 3 leaders (K.P. Yohannan, John B., and David C.) would call me into K.P.’s office, and KP would proceed to tell me all sorts of terrible things about myself. He told me that I probably wouldn’t be a Christian in 10 years. He called me a mad man and said that he was glad that there was no one else like me at GFA, because he couldn’t imagine what I might go out and do. I loved the children at GFA, and would always volunteer in the kid’s ministry. Knowing this, K.P. said “There are 72 children here at the ministry, and you are going to ruin the lives of every one of them.” (That is a direct quote. I will never forget those words.)

Nick tried hard to be a good staffer and did not tell Nicole about his feelings. Nicole was unaware that GFA leaders had warned Nick about pursuing a relationship with her.
According to Nicole, who was then serving as one of Yohannan’s writing assistants, Yohannan began to ask her if she thought Nick liked her. Nicole described these initial questions as being delivered in a “friendly, fatherly way.” Gradually, the questions became more persistent and Nicole decided to talk to Nick. Nick acknowledged his feelings but didn’t have an intention to pursue a relationship in order to honor the dictates of leadership.
Not knowing that Nick had been warned about talking to her, Nicole told Yohannan that Nick liked her. According to the couple, Nick was kicked out as a consequence. Nick wrote on the Diaspora website:

The next day I was called into K.P.s office and told that I was being fired and kicked out of the ministry. The girl was then told that she was not allowed to communicate with me ever again in any way.

Despite Yohannan’s warning, Nicole later contacted Nick and told Yohannan that she did. According to Nicole, Yohannan turned from fatherly and friendly to mean and intrusive. She added that Yohannan became increasingly critical of her. According to at least two former staff, the mistreatment became obvious to others (see the testimony of Bernard and Jena on the Diaspora website for their account).
According to the couple, Nick was told to leave the campus immediately without any of the money he had raised in his staff account. He had to find money to live on without the funds he had raised while at GFA.
According to Nicole, GFA also told remaining staff that Nick left due to psychological problems and that GFA was going to pay for counseling. According to the couple, none of that was true.
The story does have a happy ending. Both Nick and Nicole left GFA and are now happily married with a child.
Although not all staff and students have bad experiences, Nicole told me that she believes concern for current staff and students is warranted. She worries for the students, often just out of high school, who sign up for the School of Discipleship. Nick and Nicole are telling their story with the hope that students will be wary of GFA’s approach to mentoring youth and find another way to learn about ministry.
As noted at the beginning, I asked GFA for their side of this story but got no response. I have, however, interviewed numerous former staff and several current staff and students in the School of Discipleship. Many, although not all, have echoed concerns similar to those expressed by Nick and Nicole.

Gospel for Asia: What Happens When You Speak Up

Today, I was sent a link to a blog written by a former GFA staff person who was married to a GFA leader. Sara Sluberski wrote about being uninvited to a wedding. The social rejection was triggered by the Christianity Today article about GFA which dropped Thursday (Sara’s husband Tom was cited in the CT article).
This article sent me on an excursion through her other posts. On September 28, she wrote:

GFA has been accused of shunning people.  While we were working there we could alway explain away this behavior.

In this same post, she describes how her husband was called in and discouraged from spending too much time with non-GFA people. She wrote:

One day my hubby and I were invited to a double date on a Saturday night. It was so much fun! Our song played and My hubby and I got up and danced to it, or rather swayed together in time to the music. Our friends took photos and posted the cutest one on Facebook. These friends had left the ministry previously but our connection to them was so strong. We still baby sat for each other and we had not “let them go.” as was so typical of our life at GFA.  Did we talk about GFA… no we were more into food, fun and parenting.

Monday morning my Knight in Shining Armor is called into his bosses office.  He is questioned about his Saturday night activity.  Did he understand that some people in the ministry could be upset by his Saturday night companions.  This baffled us. I could understand if someone was upset by “dancing” as some denominations do not accept it, but that was not the issue at hand. It seemed that hanging out with likeminded friends who encourage us and bring us joy is the problem. 

This is a spooky story.
Even now, in the face of a public relations disaster and the dramatic and rare loss of ECFA membership, GFA loyalists are closing ranks. Don’t come to the wedding. Speaking up makes you an unacceptable distraction.
Sara wrote in the most recent post:

I’m trying to wrap my mind around how much we didn’t know, how much my pride was wrapped up in the fruit on the field, of the 100% goes to the field designations.

Throckmorton asked the question in May/ June? (when I was studiously behaving and obeying leadership and not reading him).  How were people within the ministry taking the news of smurfing and the 19.8 million gift. 

As with Mars Hill Church, leaders in GFA were telling staff not to read information about the organization they worked for. Limiting information, discouraging contact with outsiders, and shunning those who transgress some internal norm are all marks of a mind-control group.
And the CEO is unavailable for comment.
I wish Sara and her Shining Armor Knight lots of freedom, fresh air, and dancing.

Things I Think After Reading Christianity Today's Article on Gospel for Asia

Just out today, Bob Smietana penned an article at Christianity Today on the controversies surrounding Gospel for Asia including the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability board vote to terminate GFA’s membership.  It is a lengthy piece with many quotes from former staff. I hope you will read it and then come back here to discuss.
Where in the World is K.P. Yohannan?
I was struck right away by this sentence:

Founder K.P. Yohannan was not available for comment.

Why not? My sources tell me that staff are saying he is India. I am pretty sure they have phones in India. Probably he has a cell phone. Yohannan is the founder and CEO. He is listed as the International Director. Seems like the buck should stop with him. It is mind boggling that he is “unavailable.”
Smietana writes about the ring-kissing ritual in the article but no one from GFA addresses the obvious deception from Yohannan. This is another mind blowing aspect of this situation. GFA still has no answer to what is right in front of everyone’s face.
Not Skeptical Enough Francis Chan
And then there is Francis Chan, Rev. Skeptical. His endorsement has been removed from the GFA website but he is quoted in CT’s article as saying he is remaining on GFA’s board. He endorsed GFA by saying that he is a skeptical person and that he checked GFA out thoroughly before he endorsed them.  Several months after Chan was first made aware of discrepancies between what GFA said in America and what they reported in India, Chan now says he needs more time to study the situation. On May 21, I alerted Chan to the money smuggling and his assistant Chaz told me that Chan had the information but probably wouldn’t get back to me. I continued sending my posts to Chaz who said he was passing the information along.  I also passed along letters from a GFA supporter who started giving money to GFA on the strength of Chan’s endorsement. No answer.
An Investigation
We also learn in the CT article that Homeland Security may be investigating GFA. I want a little more information on GFA’s denials about the money smuggling. At first, David Carroll said it was all legal and they asked their auditor how to do it. Then later they admitted it was illegal and they sought counsel. In the CT article, we learn that GFA’s attorneys filed late customs reports (is that even possible?).
Did GFA really ask auditor Bland Garvey if money smuggling was legal? Did Bland Garvey really sign off on it? Bland Garvey won’t talk about it and GFA didn’t clear this up. There are many unanswered questions.
No Money Found to Be Missing?
What an odd phrasing – no money was found to be missing. Is it missing or was it found? I think I know what David Carroll means but this is not an answer to the fact that Gospel for Asia’s 2013 audit claims $58.6 million was sent to Gospel for Asia – India but only $6 million was reported by Gospel for Asia there as being deposited. Even if all money to Believers’ Church and two other NGOs is considered, there is still nearly $30 million in 2013 unaccounted for. GFA still has not answered this simple question.
ECFA: Mixed Feelings
After calling on the ECFA to take action, I am pleasantly surprised that the board did. However, I think an even greater service to the donor public would be to describe what GFA actually did which led to their vote. As it is, GFA supporters can imply that the violations were minor and have been corrected. We may never know.
Here are some things we now know
K.P. Yohannan is missing in action, Francis Chan is not as skeptical as he says he is, big boys in the church still take care of their own, and the little people are still on their own to make sense of this scandal.

Calvary Chapel of Oxnard Takes a Stand on Gospel for Asia

Earlier today Calvary Chapel of Oxnard (CA) posted the following notice on their public Facebook page:

Attention People of CCO: We will no longer be supporting Gospel for Asia (GFA) and we encourage you to prayerfully consider ending your support or their missionary sponsorship program & Bridges of Hope. EFCA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) has recently removed GFA due to serious issues of financial mismanagement and activity that removes them form what can be called “Evangelicalism.”
We’ve investigated the charges and spoken to someone high in GFA. The results of that indicated GFA is in serious trouble and is NOT an organization we can continue to support. Please know this isn’t reactionary or a lightly arrived at decision. The issue has been under review for several months.

Today, Christianity Today published an article with more detail about the ECFA action to terminate GFA’s membership. Also, more endorsements were removed from the GFA website.

Gospel for Asia Changes 100% to the Field Pledge

Repeatedly, Gospel for Asia has proclaimed that 100% of donation goes to the mission field. Now, after having their ECFA membership terminated, the wording regarding donations has changed. From the “Financial Integrity” page:
New 100 percent
 
What does “preferenced” mean?  Does it mean something different than “designated?”
Donors should read the second sentence carefully:

Contributions are income tax deductible to the extent allowed by law, and are made with the understanding that Gospel for Asia has complete discretion and control over the use of all donated funds.

As I read it, this sentence allows GFA to spend donations anyway they want to, even in ways that you might not prefer.
GFA might also be addressing the IRS requirement that donated funds come under the discretion and control of the non-profit. Is that the case now? Does GFA actually control what they give in India? In times past, the leaders have been unclear about how they do that.
I will say that the last sentence is revealing. I demonstrated early on that GFA has millions sitting in Indian banks. Last year, an Indian court ruled that GFA/Believers’ Church spent some of their funds in ways donors did not intend. Now, with this disclaimer, GFA can raise money using popular causes as a marketing tool, then take the excess and do whatever K.P. and crew want. If we can believe ECFA, it appears that donor intent has not been carefully followed prior to this new phrasing.
In any case, perhaps this new wording satisfies some legalese requirement, but it isn’t clear to me what GFA is promising.