· Public charity
Gordon Christian Trust
GORDON CHRISTIAN TRUST is organized as a type I supporting organization to gull lake ministries.
Read this first · the figures below need context
58% of Gordon Christian Trust’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year Gordon Christian Trust named its own grantees at scale: 94 organizations, $22M. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2019
- Under $10k5 grants · $35k
- $10k–50k41 grants · $1.2M
- $50k–250k38 grants · $2.8M
- $250k+15 grants · $18M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| InterVarsity Chrisitan Fellowship | $3,861,086 |
| Seed Company | $3,800,000 |
| Redeemer City to City | $1,420,000 |
| Cru | $1,378,655 |
| Sat-7 USA | $1,285,000 |
| Mercy Ships | $1,000,000 |
| World Radio Missionary Fellowship Inc | $1,000,000 |
| HOPE International | $950,000 |
| IFESUSA | $800,000 |
| Gull Lake Ministries | $677,000 |
| Development Associates International | $400,000 |
| Faith Comes By Hearing | $400,000 |
| Youth for ChristUSA | $350,000 |
| Strategic Resource Group | $312,200 |
| ELIC | $300,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–19, $906k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 91% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
55 repeat relationships — 48 still active in FY2019, 7 since wound down; 49 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- ICInterVarsity Christian FellowshipUSA3× · 2017–2019 · $5.0M · revenue +9%
- SNSAT-7 NORTH AMERICA3× · 2017–2019 · $3.4M · revenue +48%
- RCRedeemer City To City2× · 2018–2019 · $2.4M · revenue +126%
Funded once
- SISRG Incone grant, 2017 · $973k
- PPIONEERSone grant, 2018 · $900k
- FIFMI INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $750k · revenue +103%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Crossing Cultures International, Inc. exists to glorify God by equipping Christ followers globally with comprehensive training for effective ministry.
Christian Mission for the United Nations Community is a ministry aimed at leading the head of every nation and other top leaders to faith in Jesus Christ and helping them to walk in dependence upon God as they discharge the…
Global City Mission Initiative is dedicated to cross-cultural evanglism, disciplemaking, church planting among diverse diaspora populations in strategic cities reaching out evangelistically to start multiply churches, training believers to…
Bible Translation and acts of Christian Services
Reaching and teaching pastors in the majority world.
As part of the body of Christ, to see that every young person in every people group in every nation has the opportunity to make an informed decision to be a follower of Jesus Christ and become a part of the local church.
With a desire to see the Gospel proclaimed in all nations, we exist to make and multiply disciples of the next generation through the vehicles of church-planting missions and missional leadership training.
CrossTalk Global is a Christian educational organization that empowers and trains global church leaders to effectively communicate the Scriptures and share the hope of Christ in their communities. These projects are carried out in the USA…
International missions: this organization is an international mission agency focusing on leadership development through teaching of the scriptures
Serving and pastoring overseas workers on their own turf and equipping nationals by training and empowering them in their work of advancing the gospel.
The organization is dedicated to reaching people for christ through an international network of christians who journey with the poor and marginalized, bringing practical and spiritual support with hope of a better future,(continued on…
Equipping and enabling believers worldwide to conduct church-based evangelism projects to reach unbelievers and make disciples.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Bright Hope International and the most unlike its peers is Spokane Turbine Center Dba Parkwater Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 27 years old; the field is 11. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 28% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 19% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
175 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 175 of the 242 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds NATL CHRISTIAN CHARITABLE FDN INC ↗
- Who funds IGFT Corporation ↗
- Who funds InterVarsity Christian FellowshipUSA ↗
- Who funds SAT-7 NORTH AMERICA ↗
- Who funds Redeemer City To City ↗
- Who funds WORLD RADIO MISSIONARY FELLOWSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds HOPE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL FELLOWSHIP OF EVANGELICAL STUDENTS USA INC ↗
- Who funds GULL LAKE MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds Mercy Ships International ↗
- Who funds RESTAVEK FREEDOM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FMI INC ↗
- Who funds JUS COGENS ↗
- Who funds STRATEGIC RESOURCE GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds CURE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds Development Assoc International ↗
- Who funds HOSANNA ↗
- Who funds YOUTH FOR CHRISTUSA INC ↗
- Who funds THORNSTON EDUCATIONAL FUND ↗
- Who funds ENGLISH LANGUAGE INSTITUTE IN CHINA ↗
- Who funds 3XM-USA ↗
- Who funds ONE WAY MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES ↗
- Who funds JUDEA HARVEST INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Friends of Forman Christian College Inc ↗
- Who funds Heart for Lebanon Foundation ↗
- Who funds BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES ↗
- Who funds China Harvest Inc ↗
- Who funds RAISE UP GLOBAL MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds REAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds WOMEN AT RISK INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: International Generosity Foundation Trust · Tyndale House Ministries · G II Charities · The Maclellan Foundation Inc · Christian Community Foundation Inc · Barnabas Foundation · First Fruit Inc · Summit Foundation · Christian Community Foundation of Memphis · Servant Foundation · Henry P & Susan C Crowell Trust · The Signatry Charitable Trust
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Gordon Christian Trust funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- World Relief Corp of National Association of Evangelicals — 67% of income from government
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Gordon Christian Trust?
Find your warmest path to Gordon Christian Trust through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.