Gospel for Asia

First of all, I believe Yohannan is a good man. I will not attack his Christian character. I believe he loves the Lord, and I enjoyed listening to him preach. I love hearing Indian preachers! And no doubt the missionaries are winning souls to Christ.

Now, having listened to a number of the videos on Youtube of K. P. Yohannan, and having examined their website, here are my Biblical objections.

(1) When they explain their concept of national missionaries, they say, "A national missionary can be sent out at a fraction of the cost of a Western missionary. In fact, the average cost is only $1,440 to $2,520 per year compared to over $75,000 per year for a foreign missionary." I've already objected to their inaccurate figures, misrepresenting foreign missionaries. And as I've said, cost ought to never be a consideration in God's work. The only appeal should be to the will of God and the Great Commission. Such cost considerations are not mentioned one single time in the book of Acts.

(2) Secondly, the way GFA does things, there is no communication between the missionary and the supporter. I think this is vital in the missionary enterprise. Missionaries in Acts reported faithfully to his supporters (Acts 14:27-28, Phil. 4:15, etc.).

(3) It appears to me (I hope I'm wrong) that GFA is usurping the role of the local church in sending out missionaries from the board, not a church. Paul and Barnabas were sent out from a specific local church at Antioch in the Biblical pattern (Acts 13:1-4). The mission board should exist to facilitate the work of the local church.

(4) In the FAQ it says, "In all cases, national missionaries are supervised by local indigenous elders under whom they work. In turn these field leaders spend much time meeting with godly senior leaders. The leaders who oversee the ministry are men of integrity and have had a good testimony in life and ministry for many years." This is denominationalism. I believe strongly in the Baptist distinctive of the autonomy of the local church. In Baptist missions, no one missionary or pastor rules any other, but each one answers to his home church and God.

(5) GFA is strongly into institutionalism--the practice of the mission board establishing institutions on the mission field: Bible institutes, "Bridge of Hope Centers," etc. I don't believe this is Biblical. It should be the local church or groups of local churches that establish institutions. God gets glory through the church (Eph. 3:21).

Charity is good. Helping the poor is good. It would break your heart to see how poor the people of that region are. I've been in the villages, eaten in their ramshackle homes, been incredibly touched when the children in their one room school houses gave me flowers. We 1st world people have so much that we are not grateful for. But let's not ever mix up institutional charity with missions, which is obedience to the Great Commission.

 

Glad to be of help, and I'm always glad to hear about someone being drawn to the cause of world missions.

God bless.

 

I have not read the book but I've known of World Vision for a long time. In my view it is a charity run by Christians, with the Social Gospel philosophy. For an actual Christian charity, I'm much more impressed with Samaritan's Purse, which gives the Gospel as they help people. We have a supporting church that helps in that.

Charity is good. It is Biblical. But it is not missions. My view is that to be called "missions" an organization must be trying to win souls and plant churches. In other words, a genuine missionary enterprise is one that obeys the Great Commission, especially as given in Matt. 28:18-20, which is clearly about winning souls and planting churches. (There are five statements of the Great Commission in the NT.)

 

Two things have occurred since I last posted on this thread. First of all, I was able to read Y. K. Yohannan's Revolution in World Missions while at a pastor friend's home. The first part of the book, where Yohannan gives his testimony about his early life and his call to start the mission board, was a real blessing. I had many of the same experiences in seeing God guide and provide when I was first on deputation, and was moved by Yohannan's story. However, the rest of the book I found to be disingenuous. Yohannan attacks modern missionaries and missions movements with no discernment. He doesn't distinguish between church-planting, soul-winning faith mission boards such as the one I'm with, and denominational boards with all of their abuses. The truth is, my mission board has several Indian missionaries with it who get their support from American churches as opposed to the individuals Yohannan targets for support. One of those wonderful Indian pastors has planted 15 churches--with full accountability directly to the churches who support him (as opposed to only a mission board, as with GFA).

By the way, the very title of the book is a misnomer. I mentioned earlier in this thread how Gutzlaff of China used the same method over 100 years ago. However, I did like very much his opposition to the Social Gospel. But I digress.

The second thing that has happened is that I was able to talk to an Indian missionary extensively. We had a wonderful time talking about his Baptist, soul-winning, church-planting ministry in India. I enjoyed hearing his salvation testimony and education, and about his arranged marriage with a Christian girl, and other things about Indian culture and religion.

Then I asked him an innocent question: "What about those boards which ask Americans to donate to support a national evangelist? Are they good or bad?" Notice that I wasn't positive or negative.

My Indian friend immediately reacted with, "Yes, one of those is Y. K. Yohannan and his Gospel for Asia. It's good and bad." Then here are the allegations he made from his personal knowledge from the work in India :

Allegation #1: There is control over the doctrine of the Indian men. Some are good doctrinally, some are bad. (My friend knows some of the men personally.)

Allegation #2: Concerning the men themselves, some do a good work and some do not. Many preach the Gospel, many do not.

Allegation #3: Yes, all of the money goes to India, but much of it goes to Yohannan himself. He has become rich through the gifts of American Christians, and has a large tea plantation in India. Note the probe being conducted: http://www.omantribune.com/index.php?page=news&id=28061&heading=India

Allegation #4: Yohannan has declared himself a bishop, bought fancy robes and rules like a bishop. Note this link for proof of this one: http://www.bccaarmelcollege.org/management.html

This last allegation alone, totally proven, is enough to make me warn anyone thinking of supporting GFA: Don't! Your money will be largely wasted.

 

I believe in warning people against bad mission boards. I have done so. What you do about it is entirely up to you. My information was straight from an Indian pastor who knows the situation. Two of my points are confirmed by facts readily available on the Internet. I trust my source on the others. Did you actually look at the links I provided?

I'm not on the same team as that man. I'm a Baptist, soul-winning, church planting missionary, and I don't wear fancy robes nor call myself a bishop or metropolitan (which in the Orthodox faith is the same as a pope), nor do I head up a denomination in Japan. What KP is doing is inexcusable as a missionary of the Gospel.

As to your false allegation about my finances (about which you know nothing), no, a national Japanese pastor cannot get by on less than what I get. Japan is the most expensive country in Asia, far different from India.

 

No. If that's what I had meant that is what I would have said. Read my post again and please pay attention this time.

For KP to proclaim himself the Metropolitan and annoint bishops under him, thus forming a Catholic/Orthodox-type denomination, that is what is inexcusable. Please look at the link I provided. KP is now called "His Grace, Most Rev. Dr. K.P. Yohannan" in India, wears the robes and holds the power. THAT is inexcusable for a missionary. That is not the KP whose book I just read.

There is a very clear photo of KP in his fancy robes at: http://www.athmeeyayathra.org/message.php

Notice that this website as well as the other proclaim KP as their "patron." This means money. If you think your money to GFA is all going to win souls, think again. KP apparently has Social Gospel type institutions all over India, in direct contradiction to his book Revolution in World Missions. He has apparently changed much since he wrote that book.

Are you aware of the scandal concerning the alleged phantom nature of KP's aid to post-tsunami Indonesia?

 

Trust me, he's only losing credibility with you. The rest of us are able to read this conversation (even though we have full time jobs as well!) and follow it pretty easily. John has posted credible, enlightening information throughout this thread.

 

Actually I'm not worried at all about my credibility on this board, least of all with you. I have many friends here on the BB, and I believe I have a reputation for honesty and character with them. And I've proven my credibility and character for over 40 years as a preacher and 30 as a missionary.

Forgive my honesty, but what I see in you is too much regard for a mere man. Believe me, I know about this and have seen it hundreds of times, since my grandfather was a famous Baptist evangelist. You are way too quick to defend him no matter what. You apparently don't even want to consider any criticism at all, even from a knowledgeable Indian pastor who knows some of the men being supported.

And simply because he preaches the same Gospel (if he does) does not mean we are on the same team. The Apostle Paul told of people preaching the Gospel who were his enemies.

Yes I read all of that. It's on a website for the organization. How does that prove a thing? As for Chan, I know him not at all. His endorsement is meaningless to me.

Good for you.

I'm not KP's judge. I'm just a missionary trying to warn others about what I believe is a bad mission board and a glory seeking man. I've warned in a similar way many times before and will do it again.

Let me see. Man in a jujutsu "gi" with black belt, awarded by others, not being a religious rank, as opposed to self-proclaimed bishop with a robe he bought himself. Nope, no comparison.

Um, actually in Japanese martial arts, the red belt is a high ranking black belt. Then in Korea the red belt is lower than the black. Go figure. :tongue3:

 

I did read the rest of your post (in that amazing 8 minutes). I guess I'm a fast reader. It might have something to do with having a full time job and being educated.

I also wouldn't call John of Japan a "friend" of mine. I've have very little personal interaction with him. I have read his posts on this board and have gained a respect for him and his ministry. I am sure I would be honored to count him a friend, but I don't toss that word around lightly. A friend is one that I know rather intimately and have had a great deal of personal interaction with.

 

The term is "not Biblical." If you are a committed Baptist you should agree with me that denominationalism is a bad thing. And KP is the worst kind of denominationalist.

But I have missionary heroes who were not Baptist: Jonathan Goforth, Hudson Taylor and others. Just not KP.

I've done evangelism all of my life, won my first soul to Christ at age 6. I am completely committed to the winning of souls. I gave up home, family, friends, job, possessions--everything but my wife and son and my own life to be a missionary to Japan to win souls. And I would give up my life in an instant if it meant Japanese souls would be saved. Don't you dare accuse me of being against the winning of souls to Christ.

The issue is who do you commit your money to, who can you be sure will actually use your money to win souls and not waste it or take it for themselves. I've known of a number of dishonest Baptist missionaries over the years, including one in our town in Japan. I will denounce a dishonest Baptist missionary to his supporters just as quickly as any other.

 

One of the Baptist distinctives, something very important to Baptists, is the autonomy of the local church. Just ask a fellow Southern Baptist if your church is subservient to anyone but Christ, if the church must obey the SBC headquarters, and you'll get an earful.

Denominationalism is when a political structure is formed in which a central headquarters of some kind rules the local churches. The Methodists and Presbyterians, etc., all have a headquarters that owns the local church property, chooses pastors for the local churches, etc. Baptists oppose such things. The Catholic denomination is the worst of all with its dictatorship by the Pope.

Christ is the Chief Shepherd. Only He has the right to rule the local church. All Baptists believe this. Committed Baptists will stand for it against denominationalism. This is why I stand against Yohannan the self appointed "Metropolitan," who rules over the Believers' Church through his bishops. Baptists who go to their church because of convenience and not conviction won't care.