Gospel for Asia Again Fails to Produce Promised Evidence

In February 2016, it was learned that Gospel for Asia was removed from membership in the National Religious Broadcasters. NRB membership requires members to demonstrate good financial oversight and GFA had been evicted from the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability in October of 2015. Thus, GFA was removed from NRB. In response, GFA spokesperson Johnnie Moore told the Christian Post:

Gospel for Asia is 100% focused on continuing its work around the world while working very hard to put an end to the false accusations being continually made against the ministry. Gospel for Asia can document the legal and ethical use of funds donated and clearly answer every question.

GFA’s leaders and spokespersons have repeatedly said they want to provide the information which will establish their innocence. Why haven’t they done so?
Over 2.5 years later, GFA’s leaders still are unable or unwilling to produce materials which could prove donated funds were spent as promised. In the federal fraud case brought by Garland and Phyllis Murphy, GFA’s lawyers recently filed a motion (October 6, 2017) to prevent discovery of the very information GFA’s leaders said in 2016 they wanted to reveal.
In the Murphy’s reply of October 16, 2017, attorney Marc Stanley asked the federal judge to require GFA to supply information which would establish whether or not donations went where GFA promised they would go. Murphy wrote:

In sum, there should be no further obstacles between whatever the truth is, and the parties and the Court. If the requests for admission will establish that Defendants do not have the evidence of how the donated funds were spent, Defendants should simply admit that. If they will establish that Defendants have such evidence, Defendants should furnish it. Deflections, inaccurate representations, and obfuscation will not substitute for the simple truth the Murphys have been attempting to discover.

The promises from GFA have not been kept. The Murphy motion lays out the promise with the failure to keep it. It seems obvious that GFA eitherPope KP2 doesn’t have the information to answer the charges or is withholding it. Since K.P. Yohannan controls both GFA in the U.S. and Believers’ Church in India, I believe the latter explanation is most likely.
From the motion to order GFA to produce evidence or declare they don’t have it:

The Court then specifically asked Defendants’ counsel about how the money is tracked:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Mowrey, you apparently—your clients apparently track donations received by these different categories. Help me
understand the methods that they use to track their disbursements or their expenditures by purpose.
MR. MOWREY: All right, your Honor. Yes, and I will answer that question.
Transcript [Doc. 37] 18:25-19:4.
But the question was never answered. And, with the benefit of two weeks from the time of the conference to submit a written response, Defendants have come no closer to furnishing an answer. All of the verbiage in their response says nothing remotely definitive or clear about how they track expenditures by purpose, much less whether they have such evidence (or, if so, when they will produce it). Either Defendants have the information or they don’t—only they know the truth. If they don’t, they should simply say so.
As Your Honor observed in addressing Defendants’ counsel:
THE COURT: They have a right to acquire it independently; and to the extent that you don’t have the documentation and you do not control in any manner production of documents that have been requested, then I get it. You may not be in a position to provide documents that you don’t have access or control over; but if that’s the case, that’s your response.
Transcript [Doc. 37] 28:15-21.
Instead of giving that response—which the requests for admission would elicit— Defendants insinuate in their brief that they may now attempt to reconstruct some type of accounting from information they (maybe) receive from entities they (supposedly) do not control. But that is not relevant to whether Defendants in fact discharged their obligation to track the donated funds over the last several years (at least through the agreed-upon discovery period of 2009 to Q1 of 2016) and ensure that they were spent as donors designated.
In addressing the Court at the telephone conference, Defendants’ counsel reaffirmed (at least indirectly) that they can corroborate or verify how the donated funds were actually spent:
THE COURT: You’re describing for me somewhat of a shell game inasmuch as if a donor were ever to say, “How can I know that the money that I designated for ministry tools actually went to ministry tools,” and you’re saying, “Well, we can’t prove that. You’d have to ask the people that we gave it to,” who, by the way, are foreign companies or foreign entities or foreign individuals.
So if that’s what the response is, then are you telling me that there is no accounting or accountability mechanism from the people that you forward money to in Asia to corroborate or verify that they are spending the money in accordance with your donors’ intentions?
MR. MOWREY: No, your Honor, I’m not saying that….
Transcript [Doc. 37] 22:2-15.
But Defendants’ response sheds no light at all on what the mechanism is. It obliquely says that more documents may be coming (who knows when), but it also says that “the situation in the Field is complex,” suggesting otherwise. Interestingly, the main “complexity” Defendants cite is “to ensure that the Field partners’ FCRA status is not jeopardized.” Response [Doc. 39] at 6. (“FCRA” is the Indian law requiring registration of entities that receive foreign donations.).
Yet, on the very day Defendants filed their response, The Times of India reported: “The Believers Church, founded by K P Yohannan, and three NGOs associated with it have been barred from bringing in foreign funds to India with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) cancelling their FCRA registrations.”
The Times of India report also quotes Believers Church spokesperson Fr. Sijo Panthapallil: “Our FCRA registrations are under revision for the last one year. They had sent us a letter asking for documents and we have submitted the required documents.” Fr Panthapallil said they had submitted a huge cache of documents, weighing 60kg, to MHA two months ago. “Then they demanded four further documents, which we had submitted on September 4, 2017,” he said. Might the 132 pounds of already-compiled documents (plus four further ones) sitting in the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs have any bearing on what happened to the donated funds? Or are they all completely irrelevant? Whatever the truth is, only Defendants know, but at least obtaining answers to questions like this won’t jeopardize the Field partners’ FCRA status, as the MHA had already suspended it.
In sum, there should be no further obstacles between whatever the truth is, and the parties and the Court. If the requests for admission will establish that Defendants do not have the evidence of how the donated funds were spent, Defendants should simply admit that. If they will establish that Defendants have such evidence, Defendants should furnish it. Deflections, inaccurate representations, and obfuscation will not substitute for the simple truth the Murphys have been attempting to discover.

For years GFA has promised the public to clear up the allegations of fraud and yet they don’t produce even an audited financial statement. Meanwhile donor dollars continue to be plowed into legal and public relations maneuvers to keep the evidence from seeing the light of day.

Why Hasn't Gospel for Asia Told Donors about Cancellation of Charity Registration in India?

At the beginning of October, The Times of India reported that the Indian government canceled the charity registration of Believers’ Church. BC is the field partner of Gospel for Asia in the United States. GFA is the second largest missionary organization in the U.S.
According to the report in The Times of India, Believers’ Church acknowledged that the church was not bringing in foreign funds.

Fr Sijo Panthapallil, spokesperson of Believers Church, told ToI over phone from Delhi: We are not bringing foreign funds, as there is a standing re vision order [on the FCRA registrations, normally given for a five-year period and then renewed thereafter.]”

If BC (along with Gospel for Asia –now known as Ayana Charitable Trust — and other related trusts) is bring money into the country, then why hasn’t GFA alerted international donors? There is no assurance that funds now being given for India will get there. And yet, GFA continues to raise money as if those funds are all going to “the field.” The image below is from GFA’s website.
GFA Sponsor Missionary
I searched throughout the GFA website but found nothing about the cancellation of GFA’s registration on the field. Perhaps GFA is sending the money to other Asian countries or other obscure affiliated charities. However, donors should know what is happening.

Why Not Tell Donors?

Currently, GFA is being sued by two couples in separate fraud cases in part because the donors believe their funds were not dispersed as they intended. It seems to me that GFA is setting themselves up for more such accusations by not telling donors that the funds for Indian missionaries, Indian children sponsored through Bridge of Hope, and other India-specific donations have been restricted from India.
In contrast to GFA’s silence, Compassion International has been quite vocal about the fact that the organization’s registration in India was .removed. For CI, the blow isn’t as dramatic since their operations are worldwide. However, most of GFA’s work in in India and their founder, K.P. Yohannan is a native of the Indian state of Kerala.

Admirer kissing the hand of K.P. Yohannan. From his 2017 birthday video.
Admirer kissing the hand of K.P. Yohannan. From his 2017 birthday video.

CI has offered donors the option to sponsor children in other nations and has been up front about it. GFA, on the other hand, has done nothing to alert donors who continue to give as if their funds are allowed to go into India. Compassion and GFA were registered under the same Ministry of Home Affairs and the removal of that registration has the same implications. Compassion is being candid and transparent; GFA is not.

Church of South India Sued by K.P. Yohannan and Believers' Church

Admirer kissing the hand of K.P. Yohannan. From his 2017 birthday video.
Admirer kissing the hand of K.P. Yohannan. From his 2017 birthday video.

In a shocking move, the Believers’ Church in India led by their Metropolitan bishop K.P. Yohannan has sued the Church of South India for defamation. According to Christian Today, the Church of South of India, affiliated with the Anglican Communion, doesn’t recognize Yohannan as a bishop. Recently, the CSI publicly said the church only sees Yohannan as a layman and not a bishop. For that reason the CSI pulled out of the National Council of Churches in India.
The CSI has never recognized Believers’ Church which has been a source of conflict among Indian Christians. Believers’ Church has now accused CSI of defamation.
This lawsuit comes just days after Believers’ Church and three other affiliated charities were stripped of their government registration to receive foreign funds. This means they are no longer able to accept foreign funds for their charitable work in India. They continue to operate on the funds raised in India.
The aggressive action by Believers’ Church comes as former donors have filed two fraud and corruption lawsuits against Gospel for Asia, the U.S. sister organization. Both groups were founded by K.P. Yohannan.

Implications for Gospel for Asia Donors

Donors should be aware that the two major organizations run by K.P. Yohannan — Gospel for Asia and Believers’ Church — are now engaged in funding three lawsuits. This means that donor funds will be used to either fund legal action or to subsidize other activities while other funds are used to pay attorneys.

Believers’ Church Seeks to Silence the Largest Protestant Church in India

It is mind blowing that Believers’ Church has willingly sued the largest Protestant church in India for exercising religious liberty.  The CSI believes K.P. Yohannan isn’t a bishop. That is within the right of the CSI to administer those offices as they believe is right. The Believers’ Church lawsuit sets a dangerous precedent. Will Hindus now sue Believers’ Church for suggesting that Christianity saves and Hinduism doesn’t? A church suing another church over speech is scandalous and should be widely condemned.

Federal Court Rejects Gospel for Asia's Motion for a Stay; New Plaintiffs Request to Join Suit

On Wednesday, the Western Arkansas federal district court rejected Gospel for Asia’s request for a stay of trial proceedings while an appeals court considers GFA’s motion to dismiss the case. This will allow the case to proceed to discovery and trial.
Read the judge’s order at the link below. Some best hits from the order:

The only foreseeable “harm” of discovery in this forum is that it might reveal that Defendants have, in fact, committed fraud against Plaintiffs and the purported class. This is not the kind of harm a stay is intended to prevent.
Because this Court has no control over appellate dockets or calendars, the risk of harm a stay poses to Plaintiffs and putative class members is substantial.
The public interest weighs heavily against staying this matter. It is certainly the case that the Federal Arbitration Act’s liberal preference for arbitration would favor a stay if Defendants were more likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. However, the gravity of Plaintiffs’ allegations—that between 2003 and 2014, Defendants fraudulently solicited $700,000,000 in donations from putative class members, and that Defendants continue to fraudulently solicit such donations—and the publicity generated by those allegations give rise to a strong public interest in resolving the merits of this dispute.

In another development, another donor couple have requested to join the suit against GFA.

Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Matthew Dickson and Jennifer Dickson and proposed Plaintiffs-Intervenors Garland D. Murphy, III, M.D. and Phyllis A. Murphy (residents of this jurisdiction) respectfully request the Court to grant the Murphys permission to intervene as Plaintiffs and proposed class representatives, and to file the proposed amended complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A.

The Murphys donated to GFA but were never employees of GFA.
Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs
Order on Motion to Stay

Gospel for Asia Claims They Want an Impartial Arbiter but Acts to Delay Discovery

Wills Point GFA Chapel - Architect website
Wills Point GFA Chapel – Architect website

One year ago, Gospel for Asia’s leaders said it was a “blessing” to have “an impartial arbiter” bring resolution to the allegations contained in the RICO lawsuit advanced by former donors Matthew and Jennifer Dickson. In a February 15 article, GFA is quoted by Charisma News:

We consider it a blessing to finally have the opportunity to bring this matter to full resolution through an impartial arbiter, and you can rest assured that in the meantime we will continue operating on behalf of some of the world’s most desperate people in some of its most complex environments.

However, since then, GFA has attempted to have the suit dismissed and is now appealing the most recent ruling which would allow the RICO case to proceed to discovery and trial. GFA would also like the federal judge to grant a stay of discovery while the appeal is being decided by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
For their part, the Dicksons have opposed the appeal and the stay:

Defendants ask the Court to use its discretion to grant them a stay, delaying all proceedings in this case for however long it takes the Eighth Circuit to dispose of their appeal of the Court’s carefully reasoned Order denying their motion to compel arbitration. Under a straightforward application of the four-factor analysis that governs the disposition of such requests, Defendants fail to carry their burden. And Defendants’ alternate argument for a “mandatory stay” is neither supported by Eighth Circuit law nor otherwise warranted. This important case potentially affects the rights of tens of thousands of donors across the country, and it should not be delayed a day longer. The Court should deny Defendants’ request.

Apparently, GFA no longer counts it a “blessing” to have the opportunity to bring these allegations to “full resolution through an impartial arbiter.” If GFA’s leaders really want that blessing, then they should allow the case to proceed to discovery.  It is hard to take GFA’s claims seriously when they are doing everything possible to keep the case from moving forward.
 
GFA’s Motion to Appeal
GFA’s Motion to Stay Action on Proceedings

U.S. District Court of Western Arkansas Rules RICO Case Can Proceed Against Gospel for Asia

In April 2016, Gospel for Asia’s celebrity attorneys asked the Western Arkansas District Court to either dismiss the RICO suit against them or to require plaintiffs Matthew and Jennifer Dickson to submit to binding arbitration.  Today, the court declined to dismiss the case. Furthermore, they declined to require the Dicksons to enter arbitration, ruling that their employment contract did not envision a case such as this.
In short, the RICO suit against Gospel for Asia will go forward. From the court order:

Plaintiffs’ complaint is sufficiently pled to overcome the hurdles posed by Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and this case must proceed to discovery.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration (Doc. 23) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 25 and 27) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2017.
/s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Over the next several days, I hope to review my posts concerning GFA from 2015 which should give some indication of what discovery will be like for the defendants.

Gospel for Asia Spent Nearly $100,000 More on CEO K.P. Yohannan's House Than Other Homes in GFA's Complex

In 2014, when Gospel for Asia moved to the current Wills Point, TX location, staff were told they could pick out a plan to build a brand new home. Eventually, staff were charged a monthly fee to live in the complex after the homes were build. Without special permission, no deviations were allowed in the plan selected from the options offered by Altura Homes.
Given K.P. Yohannan’s teachings on frugal living, one might expect his home to be the most modest with very few alterations. However, in documents I have recently received, another picture emerges. Yohannan’s home is by far the most costly and he was allowed to make upgrades to his custom built home. See below for just one section of the very long list of over 80 homes built in the GFA complex:
KPs House
K.P. Yohannan’s house costs are circled in red.  His home cost $228,240 whereas no other home exceeded $135,000. He also made costly changes to the pre-existing plan making it a custom built home.  See below for a summary of one change order (see the entire six page itemized change order here).
KP House changes
The costs involved here are not exorbitant. The important consideration is what K.P. Yohannan tells donors in his books versus what GFA has become here and in India. From Yohannan’s first book, Revolution in World Missions:

Religion, I discovered, is a multi-billion dollar business in the United States. Entering churches, I was astonished at the carpeting, furnishings, air conditioning and ornamentation. Many churches have gymnasiums and fellowships that cater to a busy schedule of activities having little or nothing to do with Christ. The orchestras, choirs, “special” music—and sometimes even the preaching— seemed to me more like entertainment than worship. Many North American Christians live isolated from reality—not only from the needs of the poor overseas, but even from the poor in their own cities. Amidst all the affluence live millions of terribly poor people left behind as Christians have moved into the suburbs. I found that believers are ready to get involved in almost any activity which looks spiritual but allows them to escape their responsibility to the Gospel.

I actually agree with this criticism of the Western church. However, as we have seen over the last year, GFA has become part of the religion business as a multi-national corporation.*
 
*For those new to my posts about Gospel for Asia, start at the beginning and work your way back.  You could also start with this post.

Gospel for Asia Refuses to Disclose Audited Financial Statements

For years, Gospel for Asia touted membership in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability and claimed to adhere to the highest standards of financial integrity. In October 2015, the ECFA revoked the membership of GFA due to numerous violations of accountability and financial standards.
One of those standards is the public disclosure of a yearly audited financial statement. Recently, former GFA employee Travis Helm asked GFA for a copy of the 2014 and 2015 audit financial statements. He had (along with others) requested a copy of the 2014 statement but was refused. GFA’s representative told him that their lawyers advised them not to release the statement. More recently, Helm told me that a representative of GFA informed him that GFA would not release these documents. Here is the response from GFA:

I’m sorry but I won’t be able to send you those. Because of the lawsuit we’re quite restricted on what information we can give out.

This doesn’t seem right to me. I can’t imagine that GFA would be allowed to keep the audits from the court. I can’t see how public disclosure from a non-profit would influence the court case — unless there is something incriminating in the audits. If GFA can’t disclose what people are giving and how they spent those funds, perhaps the organization should suspend operations until the case is over.
In any case, as a potential donor to any organization, I would not donate unless I could see this information.

Gospel for Asia Fails K.P. Yohannan's Own Stewardship Test

Yesterday, I noted how K.P. Yohannan criticized missionary hospitals and schools in his first book but now funds them in India with millions of donor dollars.
Today, at the suggestion of a reader, I take a look at similar criticism in his third book, originally titled Why the World Waits.
On pages 245-246 Yohannan’s 2004 edition re-titled Come, Let’s Reach the WorldYohannan poses some questions prospective donors should ask about mission organizations. While I don’t know the answers to all of them as applied to GFA, the answers I do know suggest Yohannan’s GFA fails his own test.
From the book:

Ask questions relating to financial and administrative standards.
1. Is an annual audit done by a certified accountant?

Until I reported on errors in the 2013 audit, GFA published an audit available by request. According to GFA sources, the most recent audit for 2014 has been completed but GFA won’t release it.

2. Is the audit made available to the organization’s constituency?

Not currently. For many years, GFA refused to post their audit citing security concerns. However, until recently, one could request a copy by mail. Now, GFA will not release an audit of the U.S. affiliate. To my knowledge, there is no public audit of the Indian organizations (i.e., GFA-India, Believers Church).

3. Is the ratio of spending for field ministry considerably greater than for administration? (It should be at least 80 percent for actual ministry.)

The actual ratio is a matter of debate. For many years, GFA claimed to send 100% of donated funds to the field but an analysis by Jason Watkins casts doubt on that claim. There is ample reason to suspect that many donations have gone to pay for hospital construction as well as other projects not designated by donors.

4. Are all documents, assets and the like in the name of the organization (not an individual leader)?

No, Believers’ Church* policy requires that property and assets be listed under the name of K.P. Yohannan as Metropolitian bishop along with the church.

5. What are the major items of expense? (If funds go primarily for properties, hospitals and schools rather than for actual field evangelism, be extremely cautious to check them out.)

As I have documented, GFA has amassed an empire of for profit schools and hospitals. They own a rubber plantation, a finance company, rental properties, and sponsor a professional soccer team. An Indian tax court found that GFA did not spend “substantial” funds as donors intended. According to Watkins financial review, only a tiny portion of the donations went to evangelistic activities.

6. Is the missionary or group receiving any financial assistance from other sources?

GFA receives funds primarily from donors in the U.S., Canada and the UK.

7. Is there a written agreement to declare all sources of income for any given project?

In the past, GFA promised to spend funds in accord with donor intent. After losing membership in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, GFA changed their promise to make it more explicit that the organization may use donated funds for purposes other than donors intend.

8. Is the group registered with the government as a charitable or nonprofit organization?

Yes.

9. Are finances and financial records handled only by the leader and his relatives? (If this is the case, then you have good enough reason not to support him.)

According the Believers’ Church constitution, funds cannot be spent without the oversight of the Metropolitan Bishiop (Yohannan). He has relatives on his boards (his wife, son, daughter, son-in-law and niece are on various boards with oversight over the funds).

10. Are the accounts jointly operated (that is, at least two people responsible for handling the funds)?

As noted above, Yohannan has the final say on how money is spent. There is a committee which exercises oversight but Yohannan has veto power over all actions of the Believers’ Church. His name is on the deed to all properties.

11. Are written and signed receipts kept for records of how money was spent for any given project or missionary?

When GFA illegally sent U.S. currency to India in student backpacks, students and staff were promised receipts. However, for the most part, these were not given to students and one staff member had to implore Yohannan and the U.S. leadership for receipts.

12. Who makes decisions that govern the activities of the mission?

Clearly, by Believers’ Church constitution, the decisions are made by K.P. Yohannan. According to former staffers, the same is true in the U.S., the board has very little role. One former board member Gayle Erwin left the board because he became convinced that Yohannan was withholding information from the board. Furthermore, Yohannan re-wrote a report Erwin penned because Yohannan perceived that the report portrayed GFA in a negative light.
More recently, Yohannan removed two board members from the board of GFA Canada after those board members began asking questions about GFA’s financial dealings.  The removal was contrary to the organization’s by-laws.
By his own standards, Yohannan’s current GFA fails badly and isn’t a good candidate for donations.
According to veteran missionary Billy Bray, the book should have listed him as first author since he wrote much of it. Read more about the authorship of Yohannan’s first three books here.
 
*Believers’ Church is the central organization in India. GFA in the U.S. sends donated funds to Believers’ Church to use them in India via GFA-India and other government registered charity entities.

K.P. Yohannan Criticizes Social Programs in His First Book But Spends Millions on Them in India

Will the real K.P. Yohannan please stand up?
In his first book Revolution in World Missions, K.P. Yohannan (through ghostwriter Bill Bray) criticized social programs such as hospitals and schools. However, Yohannan has directed massive amounts of donor money to build and purchase hospitals and schools in India. In the book RWM, Yohannan claims:

One issue involved one of the most far-reaching policy decisions I ever would make. For some years I had suffered deep pain over what appeared to be massive imbalance between our busyness with maintaining Christian institutions, like hospitals and schools, and the proclamation of the Gospel. Both in India and in my travels around Western countries, I constantly uncovered a preoccupation with so-called “ministry” activities operated by Christian workers, financed by church monies, but with little else to distinguish them as Christian.
Far too much of the resources of North American missions is spent on things not related to the primary goal of church planting.(p. 104-105, 2015 edition)

In contrast, Yohannan controls a massive empire of for profit businesses on behalf of himself and the church he runs, Believers’ Church. Twelve schools are listed on The Believers’ Church website, including a medical college and an engineering school. The flagship healthcare institution is his Believers’ Church Medical College and Hospital in the state of Kerala. In recent years, much donor money appears to have gone into the building or purchase of these institutions without the knowledge of American donors.
K.P. Yohannan – Patron
On the Believers’ Church Medical College and Hospital and the Caarmel Engineering School websites, K.P. Yohannan is described as the patron of these institutions.
The engineering school website proclaims Yohannan’s leadership:

Believers Church Caarmel Engineering College, established in 2002, is a leading self-financing private co-educational institution under the Caarmel Educational Trust owned and managed by the Believers Church headquartered at Thiruvalla, Kerala. Dr. K. P. Yohannan, Metropolitan, Believers Church, is the Chairman and Patron of the College. Fr. C. B. Williams is the Manager and Dr. Paul A. J is the Principal of the College.

In contrast to Yohannan’s claim that he doesn’t sit on the boards of any of the trusts in India, he is described as the Chairman and Patron on the school website. The school appears to be quite elaborate with excellent facilities. You can take a virtual tour of the campus online (link).
caarmel engineering
The Medical College and Hospital are quite new with the medical college just opening this year. Again, Yohannan is described as the patron:

Believers Church Medical College Hospital is a healthcare project of Believers Church. The Church is dynamically involved in various nation-building social and educational projects, healthcare initiatives, charitable activities, community development programs, rehabilitation projects and relief works. Dr. K.P. Yohannan, Metropolitan of Believers Church is the patron of the hospital and Dr. George Chandy is leading the project.

The facilities are extraordinary.
BelChurch Hosp
In his RWM book, Yohannan decries such “nation building” programs as causing him “deep pain.” He spends several pages indicating that his ministry will not focus on “social concerns.”

Because of this teaching, many churches and mission societies now are redirecting their limited outreach funds and personnel away from evangelism to something vaguely called “social concern.” Today the majority of Christian missionaries find themselves primarily involved in feeding the hungry, caring for the sick through hospitals, housing the homeless or other kinds of relief and development work. In extreme cases, among nonevangelicals, the logical direction of this thinking can lead to organizing guerrilla forces, planting terrorist bombs or less extreme activities like sponsoring dance and aerobic exercise classes. This is done in the name of Jesus and supposedly is based on His command to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. The mission of the Church, as defined by these humanists, can be almost anything except winning people to Christ and discipling them.
History already has taught us that this gospel—without the blood of Christ, conversion and the cross—is a total failure. In China and India we have had seven generations of this teaching, brought to us by the British missionaries in a slightly different form in the middle of the 19th-century. My people have watched the English hospitals and schools come and go without any noticeable effect on either our churches or society. (p. 109-110, 2015 edition)

 
I don’t know if GFA hosts dance and aerobics, but the group does sponsor a soccer team in Myanmar.
I have written before about GFA’s rubber plantation, but there are many more real estate holdings, according to Narada News in India. Then there is the matter of many tuition-funded residential schools which take in children of all faiths (e.g., the posh Believers Church Residential School).
In his book, Yohannan criticizes British missionaries but he has recreated the same infrastructure using donations from his affiliates around the world. Let me add that I personally have no problem with the work being done in these institutions. The problem is the deception of donors who read RWM and want to get behind a ministry which puts into practice what Yohannan preaches. For this and many reasons, donors should beware and be wise.