Today we talked about the fundability of ministry. Location: Starbucks in Zürich. Participants: the DAWN team, my friend Eno who ministers in the Turkish world, and Steve and David of the MacLellan Foundation in the USA. Now it gets interesting, at least for a guy who never gave fundraising much thought as I assumed God would pay my bills anyway. But hey, we can always learn, right?
Reinhold already briefed us to "speak the languague of the donors", which basically means we explain what we do in church planting terms, are intentional about the direction, and make sure we find a way to measure progress. Andi, who has some experience with proposals for EU subsidies, said I should get myself some business cards. "No, don't say you're a connector, that's too vague. You're a developer of new prototype communities. Or even better, take two buzz words to compile so-called emerging job profiles. How about strategy developer or community facilitator? That describes very well what you do." Great. Missionary is out, strategy consultant for community processes is in. Wondering what Jesus would have put on his business card. Something like: The Kingdom of God Inc. Jesus Christ. CEO, field strategist and manager of training and development. PO Box 7 in Nazareth. Local branches in Kafarnaum and Betsaida. Think the pharisees would have been impressed. But would it have generated more funds? Is this God's way of funding anyway?
It gets even more interesting. Steve of MacLellan explains how the funding business works in the States. Rich people put their money in tax-free foundations (of which there are around 600,000 in America) and then distribute it to projects they think are worthy of funding. MacLellan has a special interest in church planting and leadership development, and prefers to invest in models that are reproducible and can accellarate. The buzz word here is leverage (write that down, could come in handy), or in more human terms: how can I invest in people of influence who in turn influence others and accellerate movement?
Now there's one word the foundations are pretty allergic for: dependency. So they rarely fund whole projects, don't do personal support, and prefer short-term investment. Which I think is a good thing, because it also raises the question to what extent ministry in Europe should be funded by America. It's healthy that we develop our own support structures.
One way to do this is to help house churches develop a good way of stewarding money. Over lunch Eno explained how he does this in his network in Switzerland. He basically teaches the house churches to take responsibility for five areas: 1. help all individuals and families in the house church to develop a healthy financial basis of living; 2. meet specific needs in the house church family; 3. meet specific needs of people in the neighborhood or direct social circle of the house church; 4. fund the celebrations (mostly food, sometimes rent); 5. fund missions and church planting (often a so-called 'apostolic fund' is created for this). The first three areas are the responsibility of the individual house churches, the fourth area is stewarded by the elders of the network, and the fifth area by the elders and apostles. "The resources are in the harvest," as Simson often says. And because house churches are cheap in maintenance (no buildings, no pastors, no programs) they can invest money where it really matters: the poor and apostolic advance.
Nevertheless in some cases it might be useful to apply with the foundations. So let me finish with five elements of a good funding proposal: a concise description of the vision, a plan of action, budget, how you measure success, and the expected impact for the Kingdom.