tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1748991130484013814.post5837666155171692096..comments2023-06-20T07:55:50.913-07:00Comments on A Good and Joyful Thing: The First Mark of MissionSusan Brown Snookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18082261006216548874noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1748991130484013814.post-70670978500780972232012-09-21T10:57:37.980-07:002012-09-21T10:57:37.980-07:00Hi Nurya, thanks for commenting and thanks for the...Hi Nurya, thanks for commenting and thanks for the questions.<br /><br />First, please note that this is just an advisory board to come up with a proposal to Executive Council. EC may choose to ignore completely the recommendations, and in fact since this is management's proposal, and we were just there to advise management, a completely different proposal may come to EC. So there is nothing about the up to $100K over 3 years that is set in stone.<br /><br />Also note that the advisory group was fairly clear that significant discretion should be left to the grants committee, so that the grants awarded would not necessarily be uniform across all projects. Some will need more money than others. For instance, my church plant received funding from the diocese: 100% of my salary in year 1; 67% of my salary in year 2; 33% of my salary in year 3. That's all (nothing from TEC). But we had very good stewardship from our members from the beginning. Other church plants might be in low-income neighborhoods, or among young adults, etc., and would need more funding.<br /><br />Further, each church plant would require a diocesan matching grant. So the (up to) $100K from TEC would need to be matched by an equal amount from the diocese. <br /><br />In general, here is what we were thinking. A normal church plant costs $100K per year to operate. This figure was agreed on by several church planters in the room, including Victoria Heard, who is an expert since she has been the canon for church planting in both Virginia and Dallas. The thought was that 1/3 of this funding over three years should be provided by TEC, 1/3 by the diocese, and 1/3 by the church plant itself. More funding from TEC and diocese would come in early years, more from church plant in later years (giving them time to build up their stewardship). Under these calculations, TEC would provide around $75K total to each church plant, but we said up to $100K to provide flexibility for different situations. <br /><br />Please note that there might be special provisions for Latino church plants in particular, but we did not flesh out what those might be. <br /><br />I hope that makes sense!Susan Brown Snookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18082261006216548874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1748991130484013814.post-67517551402770965042012-09-20T18:14:09.285-07:002012-09-20T18:14:09.285-07:00I am not surprised that the ELCA is light-years ah...I am not surprised that the ELCA is light-years ahead of us in church-planting. Heck, the UUA, where I was a Christian church planter in the late 90's, is light-years ahead of us in church-planting. The amount of money allocated is wonderful, but in terms of percentage of our total dollars it certainly could be higher.<br /><br />I am intrigued by the $100K in a 3 year draw down. Do we have any evidence to indicate this is the right amount and the right time period? Has anyone done a study of recent church plants and noted what type of financing they received and for how long? I bet there are enough to study to gain some wisdom, IF we look at our sister denominations. When I was a church planter I can't remember how much funding our plant received, but I do recall a 5 year draw-down and that it was fairly normative at the time. Has there been evidence since then that a shorter time frame produces more fruit?<br /><br />As always, more questions than answers. Thank you so much for writing down these highlights. I was wondering what had happened!Nurya Love Parishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08902601731595441072noreply@blogger.com