Trump Foundation Pays Damages and Dissolves

In any other administration, this would be huge news and perhaps rise to the level of impeachment talk. In early November, the state of New York filed a settlement with the Trump Foundation which required the organization to close and give nearly $4-million to charities. That sum includes a $2-million fine and the remaining $1.8 million in Foundation assets.

Read the Trump Foundation Settlement Here

I have been reporting on churches, Christian nonprofits and other charities for several years and have seen some corrupt dealings. This one ranks high on the corruption scale. Trump used this foundation as a kind of slush fund to pay off debts, support his campaign, and in some cases make other political donations. Even though foundations are supposed to remain separated from the for profit business side of an enterprise, Trump regularly mixed the two worlds to advance Trump’s interests.

The New York Attorney General publicly announced an investigation into the Foundation on September 13, 2016. If you read through the settlement, you will notice that the efforts to repay funds taken from the Foundation and used for various non-charitable purposes came after that date in late 2016 or in 2017. After the NY AG started investigated, the Foundation then started to pay back taxes on donations and funds used for non-charitable causes.

One of the key issues in the case was a fund raising event for veterans that occurred in Iowa during the 2016 campaign as a joint effort of the Trump Foundation and the Trump campaign. Trump skipped a debate there and hosted a rally which led to funds being raised and given to veterans’ groups in campaign related events, thus mixing campaign work with the Foundation. In making her ruling about damages, Judge Saliann Scarpulla referred to this event along with Trump’s general negligence which is described in more detail below.  About Trump’s management of the Foundation, Judge Scarpulla wrote:

As a director of the Foundation, Mr. Trump owed fiduciary duties to the Foundation, pursuant to N-PCL § 717; he was a trustee of the Foundation’s charitable assets and was thereby responsible for the proper administration of these assets, pursuant to EPTL § 8-1.4. A review of the record, including the factual admissions in the Final Stipulation, establishes that Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation and that waste occurred to the Foundation.

Mr. Trump’s fiduciary duty breaches included allowing his campaign to orchestrate the Fundraiser, allowing his campaign, instead of the Foundation, to direct distribution of the Funds, and using the Fundraiser and distribution of the Funds to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign. The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding.

As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trump’s political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump’s campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of N-PCL §§ 717 and 720 and EPTL §§ 8-1.4 and 8-1.8. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General.

The judge found violations of law but didn’t fine him as much as the AG wanted her to. The judge did issue the fine in response to the factual claim that Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation. Not only did he do so in violation of laws as cited by Judge Scarpulla in the section above, there were other instances cited. I outline those below.

The settlement outlines other offenses that both sides agreed occurred.

In one 2007 case, Trump used Foundation money to pay a lawsuit settlement to a charity. It wasn’t until after the NY AG started the investigation that Trump repaid the Foundation with interest on March 10, 2017. A Trump supporter might claim that Trump always intended to repay the Foundation. My answer is that it was illegal at the start (which Trump denied) and secondly, I am skeptical that Trump would ever have paid it back without the pressure of the AG investigation.

In 2012, the Trump Foundation gave $157,000 to the Martin Greenberg Foundation to satisfy a debt owed by one of Trump’s golf courses. Again, this is illegal. Trump didn’t reimburse the Foundation until 2017 after the AG investigation was publicly announced.

In 2013, Trump caused $25,000 to be donated from the Foundation to a PAC supporting Pam Bondi’s campaign for attorney general. While contribution itself may have been legal, the Foundation did not pay the required tax on the contribution until 2016.

Also in 2013, the Foundation contributed funds to the DC Preservation League which entitled it to an ad in the organization’s fund raising program. However, instead of advertising the Foundation, Trump placed an ad for his DC Trump International Hotel, thereby mixing the profit and nonprofit. Again, it was only after the investigation started that any remedy was undertaken.

Perhaps the most emblematic incident is the purchase of a portrait of Trump by Trump with Foundation funds. In 2014, at a children’s charity event, Trump bought his own painting for $10,000 with Foundation funds and after storing it for awhile, displayed in one of his hotels. In November 2016 — after the investigation started — the painting was removed from the hotel and sent to the Foundation.

Finally, in 2015, Trump’s real estate management company Silver Springs pledged $32,000 to a charitable organization in New York. The charitable group’s work stood to benefit one of his residences. Rather than pay that pledge himself, he had the Foundation cover it.

The settlement also requires Trump to pay the $11,525 he used from Foundation money to pay for sports memorabilia at a Susan G. Komen benefit auction.

This investigation was triggered by reporting from various groups, including Scripps going back to 2016. Given the Scripps report, Trump was fortunate to get by with just this settlement.

Read the settlement again and then read Trump’s statement about the settlement:

Trump v. Facts

Trump’s statement bears little resemblance to the truth. He says “every penny of the $19 million raised by the Trump Foundation went to hundreds of great charitable causes.”

This isn’t true. Pam Bondi’s run for AG isn’t a charitable cause. Using Foundation funds to get an ad for your for-profit business isn’t a charitable cause. Moreover, buying sports collectibles with Foundation money doesn’t seem like an honest description of the activity. Yes, a charity got some money, but they had to give you something in exchange. Giving Foundation funds to a nonprofit that benefits your real estate value doesn’t seem like a particularly generous use of those funds. That’s the definition of self-dealing.

Trump claimed in his Twitter statement that all the AG found was “incredibly effective philanthropy and some small technical violations, such as not keeping board minutes.”

This isn’t true. The settlement makes clear that the Foundation board of directors didn’t meet at all from 1999 through November, 2018. The Board of Directors had no oversight of any kind through that period. The settlement describes just the opposite of “incredibly effective philanthropy.” There were numerous violations and instances of self-dealing which resulted in the various breaches of fiduciary responsibility noted in the settlement.

It is true that the dissolution is presented in the settlement as a mutual agreement, but there is an important section which has not been discussed much in the news accounts about this case. The judge specifies what Trump and any future charity must do if Trump is ever on the board of a charity. Trump cannot serve on a board where a majority of members are family or have business relationships with him. The charitable organization must not engage in related party transactions with any entity owned or controlled by him. If Trump forms a new charitable organizations, he must ensure that annual reports are filed with the state for a period of 5 years. The details of what must be in the reports are spelled out. In short, Trump must comply with the law.

Furthermore, recall Judge Scarpulla’s assessment of Trump’s actions: “A review of the record, including the factual admissions in the Final
Stipulation, establishes that Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation and that waste occurred to the Foundation.”

Let me repeat, the judge and AG did not find “incredibly effective philanthropy.”

Finally, Trump’s spin about the $2 million donation to 8 charities is laughable. The court ordered him to pay that sum in damages (“I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000”.

So even after being caught in numerous violations of law and stipulating to them in public documents, Trump cannot bring himself to tell the truth about it. As noted, in a normal time, this might be article of impeachment number three.

 

Jerry Falwell is Wrong About the Poor

There are several head scratching quotes from Jerry Falwell, Jr. in his New Year’s Day interview with Joe Heims in the Washington Post. One such quote which caught my eye is this:

Why have Americans been able to do more to help people in need around the world than any other country in history? It’s because of free enterprise, freedom, ingenuity, entrepreneurism and wealth. A poor person never gave anyone a job. A poor person never gave anybody charity, not of any real volume. It’s just common sense to me.

While job creation might be out of reach for many low income people, charitable giving is something the poor do often. As Relevant magazine pointed out, Christian college president Falwell appears to have forgotten Jesus’ teaching about the widow and her few cents. Beyond Falwell’s insensitivity to the Bible, he is wrong about the poor and charitable giving. Actually, low income people as a group give a lot and on average they give more as a percentage of their income than rich people.

Given Falwell’s role as a fund raiser for his college, I am surprised he isn’t aware of this. In philanthropy literature, the link between income bracket and giving is well known. Although the truly poor don’t often itemize charitable gifts, lower income brackets are responsible for significant amounts of charitable giving compared to higher brackets. This is especially true of religious giving.

A 2007 Indiana University study found that donors making under 100,000/year gave nearly $60 Billion to religious organizations compared to $8.6 Billion given by donors making over $1 million/year. The per donor gift was much smaller in the lower income group, but together the lower income group represented nearly 60% of all giving to religious causes. In contrast to Falwell’s claim, that’s some real volume. No doubt Falwell’s college gets many widow’s mites on a monthly basis to help keep those doors open.

I realize that $100,000/year is not poor. However, this bracket is more likely to include large families with limited resources. As noted above, people in the lowest income groups don’t often itemize contributions and so it is harder to capture those data via the Indiana U. methodology. However, other research supports the contention that lower income persons give more as a percentage of income than the rich.

For instance, a 2014 study published in the Chronicle of Philanthropy showed that the wealthy reduced their giving during the economic downtown while lower and middle income donors increased giving. The lowest income bracket – those making less than $25,000/year – increased their giving by 17% from 2006 to 2012. The lowest income group demonstrated the highest percentage increase of all groups.

The 2014 study wasn’t unusual. Much prior research has found that those in low income brackets give more as a percentage of income than the wealthy. According to researcher Roger Barnett, “Research in the area has established that, on the average, high income donors give more to charitable causes than do people with low incomes. However, in Britain (and in the United States) the poor have for decades been observed to donate proportionately higher shares of their income to charity than the financially better off (emphasis in the original) (p. 520).

Falwell, Jr.’s college has been helped out in the past by big gifts (e.g., self-proclaimed messiah Sun Myung Moon) so perhaps he is influenced by the big donors. However, as a group, the poor do give and they give a lot. He is wrong and shouldn’t spread this misinformation. If I were a low income donor to Liberty University, I would have to rethink my contribution.

 

Federal Tax Forms Show Why the Sekulow Family Business Should Be Investigated (UPDATED)

The UK Guardian reported yesterday that two state AG’s (NY and NC) will look into the finances of Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow and his fundraising charities. Examining the federal tax forms from Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (2015 990), I can see why. Remember CASE is the nonprofit which serves as the fundraising organization for Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice, supposedly a religious liberty law firm.
According to the IRS, family relationship on the board of a nonprofit raise a red flag:

Irrespective of size, a governing board should include independent members and should not be dominated by employees or others who are not, by their very nature, independent individuals because of family or business relationships. The Internal Revenue Service reviews the board composition of charities to determine whether the board represents a broad public interest, and to identify the potential for insider transactions that could result in misuse of charitable assets.

It seems obvious that a nonprofit should not be organized like a closely held family company. Now look at the board of Sekulow’s CASE:
CASE 990 Board
Perhaps the name of the organization should be changed to Christian Advocates Serving Sekulows.
The only person on the board who is not named Sekulow is Colby May. However, he cannot be considered an independent board member because his income is dependent on grant money received from CASE/ACLJ.  May runs the ACLJ’s DC affiliate which is completely funded by CASE/ACLJ. A review of ACLJ-DC’s 990 form shows May as the Director.
ACLJ DC May
ACLJ-DC’s income was reported on the 2015 990 as $853,796.
ACLJ-DC 990 income
As can be seen on ACLJ’s 2015 990, a grant of the exact same amount was given to ACLJ-DC.
ACLJ to ACLJ DC
 
I suspect CASE might have to provide more information to the AGs about how executive compensation was decided since none of the board members can be considered independent. Again, the IRS guidelines specify independence in setting compensation.

The Internal Revenue Service encourages a charity to rely on the rebuttable presumption test of section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulation section 53.4958-6 when determining compensation of its executives. Under this test, compensation payments are presumed to be reasonable if the compensation arrangement is approved in advance by an authorized body composed entirely of individuals who do not have a conflict of interest with respect to the arrangement, the authorized body obtained and relied upon appropriate data as to comparability prior to making its determination, and the authorized body adequately documented the basis for its determination concurrently with making the determination.

The CASE/ACLJ 990 form indicates the Sekulows and CASE/ACLJ engaged in four sizable mutual transactions as well as a major one involving a company half-owned by Jay Sekulow. See below:
CASE CLAG
Given the fact that none of the board members can be considered independent, how could this board prevent conflicts of interest as defined by the IRS?

B. Conflicts of interest. The directors of a charity owe it a duty of loyalty. The duty of loyalty requires a director to act in the interest of the charity rather than in the personal interest of the director or some other person or organization. In particular, the duty of loyalty requires a director to avoid conflicts of interest that are detrimental to the charity. Many charities have adopted a written conflict of interest policy to address potential conflicts of interest involving their directors, trustees, officers, and other employees. The Internal Revenue Service encourages a charity’s board of directors to adopt and regularly evaluate a written conflict of interest policy that requires directors and staff to act solely in the interests of the charity without regard for personal interests; includes written procedures for determining whether a relationship, financial interest, or business affiliation results in a conflict of interest; and prescribes a course of action in the event a conflict of interest is identified.

According to the 990, a third party expert reviewed the 5-million payment to Sekulow’s law firm and said it was all fine. I hope the AGs get to interview that third party. In the spirit of transparency, I call on Sekulow and company to disclose the identity of the expert and the basis on which the transaction is reasonable.
I hope the attention Sekulow is now getting will shine a light on the disgusting fund raising practices too many Christian charities use. Many such charities flaunt the very values and beliefs they claim to be upholding.

The Guardian Finds Skeletons in Trump Lawyer Jay Sekulow's Closet

I hope you go read this article by the Guardian on Jay Sekulow’s fund raising tactics.  I had been aware of the massive amounts of money he has raised through fear mongering but I didn’t know about the actual tactics. This is obscene.
Sekulow has a company that manipulates Christians into giving money they can’t afford to give. Reminds me of K-LOVE. Here is a script:
Sekulow CASE
I hope reporting like this helps dry up the money flow to these people. Most charities of this size simply don’t need your money.
 

Former Mercury One Donors Speak Out About Recent Changes

naz signIn response to my series of articles on the changes taking place at Mercury One, I have been contacted by Mercury One donors. Two such donors, now former donors, agreed to comment anonymously about the changes in focus and donation allocation policy.
Lack of Communication
One source of frustration for the former donors is the lack of communication from Mercury One. Without my posts, these donors would not have become aware that the changes had been made. The former donors said, “We did not receive any notification that restricted funds would be moved to a general fund.” Since the policy changes are buried on the websites, I can understand how donors would feel this way. If Mercury One is serious about going in this direction, they need to alert all donors and display the changes where they can be easily seen.
Reasons Questioned
Furthermore, the reason for the change did not ring true. “The focus of our giving is to support humanitarian initiatives and that is why we could align with and completely support The Nazarene Fund. The statement that Mercury One made concerning donations will be made to one fund because it allows them to give funds more quickly/easily just doesn’t make sense,” claimed the former donors. These individuals said Mercury One portrayed their response to past disasters as being rapid. The donors did not recall any mention of this limitation in the past.
History Museum
One of the reasons declared by the former donors for not giving relates to solicitations for a history museum by David Barton and Glenn Beck (see this post). They said, “We saw the history museum presentation by David and Glenn and will not be giving to this cause. We believe a donation to the museum fund does not effect change in the lives of hurting people but rather benefits Mercury One.”
Financial Statements
Now that donations are not being taken for the Nazarene Fund, the former donors would like a financial accounting. They said, “Another concern we have is that to date we have not received nor have we seen financial accounting on the Nazarene Fund.” In fact, there is very little reporting about funds received and spent on the websites. Donors might be more confident in Mercury One if fund balances were published on the website.
New Donation Allocation Policy
The former donors added, “Then we saw the posting of Mercury One’s new fund allocation policy, which causes us great concern. In our opinion that is not a decision to be made by them, that is a decision that donors should make. Since their organization has decided they will be in charge of placing our monies where they think best then we will not be giving to Mercury One. We are very concerned with the changes we have seen and can no longer support their initiatives.”
Overall, these donors expressed disappointment and confusion about the change of focus and the change in donation allocation.
I have reached out to Mercury One via their website, email and Twitter without response. Other donors who wish to share their experiences should feel free to contact me.

With Changing Focus, Mercury One No Longer Taking Restricted Fund Donations for Nazarene Fund

naz signSince late 2015, one of the flagship projects of Mercury One has been the Nazarene Fund. On the Nazarene Fund website, the purpose of the fund is described:

For several years, ISIS has invaded peaceful communities in the Middle East and painted the Nazarene symbol on the door of people they seek to convert, extort, or murder. While ISIS uses the Nazarene sign to symbolize death, we use the sign to symbolize life. Mercury One is a US based humanitarian aid and education non-profit organization that established and administers The Nazarene Fund. The Nazarene Fund aids in the restoration of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities and their communities who have been targeted by ISIS for their faith.

The Nazarene Fund was born out of Glenn Beck’s desire to help Christian refugees in ISIS held territories: Again, from the website:

In 2014, the Christian community in Syria and Iraq were facing the greatest calamity in its 2000 year history. The Islamic State (ISIS), exploded out Raqqa, Syria, the capital of its self-proclaimed Islamic State. In a lightning strike that surprised the world, ISIS forces captured Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city) and all of the nearby Nineveh plain – the traditional homeland of the region’s Christian Community. What followed was campaign of extortion, murder and displacement not only of the Christians but of other ethnoreligious minorities in the region. By 2015 a population of 3 million people was reduced to 300,000 – most of them displaced from their homes and fleeing to other countries.
In August of that year, Glenn Beck took the stage and the Restoring Unity rally in Birmingham, AL and declared the situation for what it was – genocide. Mercury One donors immediately responded and The Nazarene Fund was launched with a goal of rescuing 400 families.

Recently, however, the focus of this fund has changed. First, consistent with my recent reports, donations to the Nazarene Fund are now going to benefit Mercury One generally. Mercury One doesn’t want to accept donations just for the Nazarene Fund. This message was recently added to the Mercury One page set up to accept donations to the Nazarene Fund:
 
Naz fund donations 3 23 17Second, Mercury One appears to be getting out of the refugee rescue business. According to the Nazarene Fund website, the need is not the same as it was in 2015.
Naz Fund New Focus
I am skeptical that the situation in Syria and elsewhere has improved to the degree implied here.
In any case, donors should be aware that Mercury One doesn’t want to accept restricted donations, even for the Nazarene Fund, and going forward, won’t be focusing on rescuing religious minority families.

#GivingTuesday: Donor Illusions

Although dated, I have found this 2009 article on donor illusions to be helpful.  The article was published on the blog of the Give Well organization, a donor support group. Give Well publishes a recommended charity list each year. Here is 2016’s list.
The Give Well description of donor illusions focuses on international charities but illusions can be found in domestic charities as well (e.g., today’s post on coats for pledges at K-LOVE).

As a result, international charities tend to create “donor illusions” by implying that donations can be attributed more tangibly, reliably and specifically than they really are. Some charities are more purposefully misleading than others, and some have more prominent and clear disclosures than others, but we feel that all of the cases below end up misleading many donors.

The illusions illustrated in the post include loans to third world entrepreneurs, child sponsorship, and giving livestock to needy families.
Livestock Gifts
I have written about these in previous years as being a good example of a compelling illusion. Donors can easily sell the idea of giving an animal to a third world family to Sunday school classes or church groups. The marketing certainly creates that illusion. Check out World Vision’s 2016 catalog.
WorldVision 2016 goat
Here is what World Vision says about the gifts in the new Christmas catalog.
world vision fine print 2016
In other words, your donation will be used where “it is needed most.”
Church Illusions
Other illusions I have covered include Mars Hill Church’s promotion of Ethiopian pastors via Mars Hill Global. In fact, most of the money donated to Mars Hill Global went to expand the Mars Hill Church video locations in the United States.
Gospel for Asia for years told donors that 100% of donations went to “the field.” The illusion was created that poor church planters and Asian children were getting most of the donations. However, we have since learned that Gospel for Asia’s Texas leadership sent millions to Believers’ Church in India, also controlled by GFA founder K.P. Yohannan to build state of the art for profit schools and medical centers. While a small percentage of the money went to evangelism and helping the poor, much of it went to projects designed to make Believers’ church self-sustaining and a large portion went to India and then back to Texas to help build GFA’s state of the art headquarters.
Today, I wrote about K-LOVE’s claim that a $40/month donation to K-LOVE provides a warm winter coat to a needy child. The only reason that claim might technically be true is because K-LOVE and Operation Warm set up an artificial scheme to tie coat distributions to pledges. K-LOVE holds captive coats from Operation Warm and tells prospective donors we will give a coat if you pledge. What K-LOVE doesn’t tell donors is that the coat will be given to a child anyway, pledge or no pledge.
Do Donors Want Illusions?
Tim Ogden at the Philanthropy Action blog says they do:

David Roodman pointed me to a typical reaction post to the Kiva story. In summary, the authors lament the lack of direct connection to a specific person they can give to and wonder why they can’t just dispense with the intermediaries.
I think the post is quite revelatory about why so many charities create the illusion of direct connection. They do so because donors demand it.
The demand for direct connection is baffling to me since most donors absolutely refuse direct connection to the people in need that are closest to them. Consider: how often do you or your friends take advantage of the opportunity to give directly and establish a connection by giving $20 to the guy standing at the corner with the cardboard sign saying, “Will Work for Food”?
I’ll bet the answer is “never.“ And there’s a very good reason for that. You believe that to actually help that person you should give the money to a knowledgeable intermediary like a homeless shelter that will do the research to understand this person’s situation, and ensure the money you give is actually used in a responsible way.
So if you would only give to an intermediary in order to help someone on the street outside your home, why do you want to do away with intermediaries between you and a person on the other side of the world whose circumstances you don’t understand at all?
I just don’t get it.
In the end I guess the donor demand really is for an illusion. They don’t just want connection—what they want is the illusion of connection where they can feel directly connected but not actually have to be directly connected—with all the messiness that such connections would entail—to people in need.

This somewhat cynical explanation for the persistence of illusions doesn’t quite fit for me. As I have learned that charities are using subterfuge to raise money, my reaction has been anger. I want the nuance. I want to know what they are doing with the money.
Guilt Illusions
I am sad and angry that K-LOVE artificially creates guilt in their listeners. I know people who agonize over how much to give to K-LOVE “to keep them on the air.” When K-LOVE’s well-paid on-air personalities top off their appeals with the promise that the $40/month will trigger a coat for a needy kid, that tips the scale toward a pledge, even though the family income really can’t absorb that level of giving. It should keep K-LOVE executives up at night that their Christian brothers and sisters are denying their children and themselves basics so that they can get a quarter of a million per year (the CEO made nearly $600,000 in FY 2015).
On this #GivingTuesday, give to those you have investigated. Give locally. By all means, give a needy person a coat, but do it yourself, or through a local group who is locally accountable.
 

Gospel for Asia's CEO K.P. Yohannan to Headline Memphis Missions Conference

GFA LOGOApparently, the Metropolitan will return to the United States for a missions conference in February. K.P. Yohannan is scheduled to speak at the Downline Summit which takes place at Hope Church in Memphis, Feb. 5-6.
Yohannan’s organization hasn’t had the best year since April 2015. Gospel for Asia lost their membership with the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, was denied membership in the Independent Charities of America, was sanctioned to greatest extent possible by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for violations of federal guidelines, was reported to the Canadian authorities for violation of GFA’s Canadian by-laws, and may be investigated by the U.K. Charity Commission, among other problems.
downlinesummit
 
 
 

Top Ten Posts in 2015

The ten top posts during 2015 are as follows with the most popular first:
1. Open Letter to Gateway Church Pastor Robert Morris from a Former Member of Mars Hill Church – This was posted on November 2, 2014 but remained popular throughout 2015. Driscoll recently joined Jimmy Evans as a director to form The Trinity Church in Phoenix.
2. Former Chief Financial Officer at Turning Point Claims David Jeremiah Used Questionable Methods to Secure a Spot on Best Seller Lists – This story about David Jeremiah’s questionable tactics from a former insider was a scoop but not one which stuck to Jeremiah like  a similar scandal did to Mark Driscoll.
3. Hillsong’s Brian Houston Interviewed Mark and Grace Driscoll After All (VIDEO) (AUDIO) – First, he said he would interview Driscoll, then he said he wouldn’t, then Brian Houston aired an interview with Mark and Grace Driscoll. It was great theatre but didn’t draw good reviews from former Mars Hill leavers.
4. A major study of child abuse and homosexuality revisited – This post from 2009 is one of the most popular articles in the history of the blog. In it, I demonstrate a key mistake in a journal article often used to link homosexuality and child abuse.
5. Southern Baptists Say Enough to Perry Noble and NewSpring Church – I am surprised that this post got so much attention.
6. Gospel for Asia Faces Allegations of Misconduct; GFA Board Investigation Found No Wrongdoing – The GFA story received the most attention from me this year.
7. Pastor of Willow Creek Presbyterian Says Church Reaction to Hiring Tullian Tchividjian is “Overwhelmingly Positive” – I briefly covered Tullian Tchividjian’s comeback as a development minister at a PCA church in FL.
8. A Few Thoughts on The Village Church Controversy – Village Church’s leadership apologized for their response to a young woman who sought a divorce from her husband who had admitted having child porn.
9. Hillsong Founder Brian Houston Issues Statement On Mark Driscoll at the Hillsong 2015 Conference – Mark Driscoll’s return to the spotlight garnered much reader attention.
10. Gospel for Asia’s K.P. Yohannan and the Ring Kissing Ritual – While the financial scandals were of interest to readers, this article ranked higher than the money problems.
To fully capture activity on the blog, one should consider the Gospel for Asia scandals (Patheos considered my coverage as a part of one of their top ten Evangelical stories of 2015).
It has been a good year and I thank my readers and those who support the blog with their comments and regular visits.

About Gospel for Asia, CBS 11 News Dallas Asks "When You Give, Do You Know Where Your Money Goes?"

CBS 11 News in Dallas followed up today on their earlier expose’ on Gospel for Asia. Watch

The iTeam picked out a couple of big items from the ECFA report (large cash reserves, smuggling cash into India), posted here on December 2 after being released by former GFA board member Gayle Erwin.
Earlier today, I reported that GFA could face sanctions from the Office of Personnel Management.
GFA doubled down on their contention that the $20 million from Believers’ Church/GFA-India was not a related party transaction. Instead, near the end of the clip, GFA’s statement to CBS News calls it a “donation.” It is beyond belief that GFA maintains this stance in the face of overwhelming evidence that K.P. Yohannan is in charge of Believers’ Church and all “field partners” in India.