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.
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.