Mission funding proposal
Jun 2014
Click to edit Master subtitle style
Current situation on Missionary fund





Full fund from Church for LT Mission--long term
financial pressure?
Account management issue for LT mission
inflexible
to manage adhoc fund or adjustment
Involvement of preacher (LT) in fund-raising and
management -- reactive
Responsibility of preacher (LT) in fund-raising
no/low
Sharing of mission activities /Networking with internal
& external parties--passive
1.6%
1.7%
24%
Current Observations:
Income trend increases at rate ~1.6%, no
obvious increase from自籌
•
Yearly 自籌 (Japan) barely meets target of
50%, Philippines exceeds 50% budget target
•
•
For 13-14, 宣教支出 runs at ~ $500,000+
•
~$420,000 for Japan
•
~ $80,000 for Short mission
•
will increase to $680,000 in 201415 (incl. Philippine)
Yearly deficit at ~$200,000 + in 13-14, foresee
to increase with more staffs & increased
missionary funds
•
18%
Accumulated loss $-3,374,000 from 14-20 (6 yrs)
Income at 1.6% gwth YOY
Expense at 3.5% gwth YOY
17%
Pros and cons of various fund mechanisms
Fund Model
Pros
Full Fund

Full support from Church

Simple & easy

High accountability by preacher

Higher visibility on fund need


Partial Fund (fixed % model):

Fixed % ($) funded from Church


Rest from self or ext. fund

Partial Fund (variable % model) :


Variable % ($) funded from Church
(declining year by year)

Cons
Pressure to church financial
Imbalance of overall church strategy
on resource utilization
Pressure of preacher in fund raising
De-focus preacher when insufficient
fund is raised
Better financial planning & control by
church
High accountability by preacher

Higher visibility on fund need



Better financial planning & control by
church
Partial Fund with reserve:

Pressure of preacher in fund raising
De-focus preacher when insufficient
fund is raised

Rest from self or ext. fund
Peace of mind for preacher when
insufficient fund is raised
Fixed % ($) funded from Church

Preacher raise fund (self or ext)
Both Church and Preacher has
responsibility in funding
Remaining covered by Church




Visibility of funding needs to all Church
members/Preacher
Promote sharing/networking with int/ext
church members

(** proposed model)
Preacher may not be motivated in
raising fund

Next Step
Key Activities
Participants
Date (by)
Get initial opinions from Deacons & focus group
Focus Group/Deacons
Jun 14
Focus group discuss other alternatives and refine the proposal
Focus Group
Jun 21
Deacons to review and have high level consensus
Deacons
Jun 30
Solicit inputs on this proposal from core/non-core members
青成A Stephen
July 1 – July
14
青成B Sum
青年: Pastor/Pang
Focus group to consolidate inputs
Focus Group
July 23
Deacons to review and finalize proposal (for budgeting and
communication)
Deacons
July 30
Work on budget based on this proposal
Stephen/Pastor/
Aug 26
Deacons/同工
Communicate budget in regular meeting 家會
Deacon/Pastor/同工
Sept 14
宣教基金擬案 (2014 Aug)





日本長宣由現時教會全資改變為一半自籌, 一半教
會資助 (等如現時中宣模式) 。
如自籌部分不足50%, 教會包底。
自籌部分多寡 (顯示會眾對宣教支持度)會給執事
會參考, 以討論之後宣教發展/資助模式。
教會每年依舊以不少於全年收Ｘ入 10% 撥款予宣
教基金 (撥款細節: 先短宣及其他, 餘款pro-rata 中
宣及長宣) 。
奉獻可作個別宣教士, 或整體宣教基金捐獻, 亦接
受外來捐獻
執事改選
基本資格
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
會員大會會員
穩定出席崇拜及小組
十一奉獻
曾擔任帶領性事奉，如牧區組長、導師、
單位負責人、前任執事等
清楚上帝呼召其作執事
認同堂會的異象
生命成熟
執事職責
1.
2.
3.
願意付代價活出基督徒的使命和信念，作信徒
生命的榜樣。
與教牧同工組成團隊，一同商議、決定、傳遞
及執行堂會整體福音事工及各項行政事務。
擔任牧區/宣教發展小組/崇拜執事，與牧區/單
位之牧者/核心成員組成團隊，在配合教會整體
的方向下，制定及執行各牧區/單位之發展方向、
具體目標、策略、活動及事奉守則。
執事候選人
1.
2.
3.
邀請現任執事留任 。
2-7月執事同工們於牧區中物色合適人選，
邀請他們加入執事之事奉 。
4-7月期間於崇拜發出邀請，並刊於週刊
家事分享及代禱事項內，呼籲合資格並有
感動的弟兄姊妹於於31/7前聯絡牧師及執
事 。牧師/執事會正副主席將約有意參加
下屆執事服侍之弟兄姊妹面談。
教會盈餘之使用