Part Two (continued) — Stages 4 and 5

Stages 1 to 3 — where the body learns the framework, discerns its gifts, and hears together what the Lord is directing — are set out in Part Two. The two stages below turn that discernment into a costed, funded plan.

Stage 4 — Scoping the Work

▸Purpose

Each agreed program (continuing or new) is moved from a sentence on a list into a specific, costed, gifted, time-resourced plan. By the end of this stage, the eldership has a folder containing one plan per program — the practical content that will be aggregated into the Annual Prospectus in Stage 5.

▸What each program plan contains

For every program — whether long-running or brand new — the same eight elements (laid out as a fillable form in Template D — Program Plan of the Appendix):

• Purpose and biblical anchor. — Why does this program exist? What does it serve in the body’s Vision, Purpose, Commission, or Mission? Which scripture or scriptures anchor it?
• People. — Who will lead it? Who will serve in it? What gifts and callings does each person bring? Has each person agreed to the role under prayer? Are there clear backups for key roles?
• Scope. — How big is the program in this year? Where does it operate — local, national, international (using the Strategy on a Page categories)? How many people will it reach or involve?
• Resources required. — Materials, facilities, partnerships with other organisations, technology, training. List everything the program actually needs.
• Time required. — How much time per week, per month, per year does the program require from each person involved? Is the load sustainable, or will it burn people out? Where does it fit alongside the Saints’ family lives, work, and rest?
• Funding required. — The program-level budget, expressed as three figures for the year rather than one: the minimum it can honestly start on, the ideal as scoped, and a stretch figure if the Lord provides more. Break each down: one-off costs, ongoing costs, contingency. See “The three figures” below.
• Operational plan. — How does it actually run? What is the cycle (weekly, monthly, seasonal)? Who reports to whom? How is fruit measured? How are problems escalated? What is the launch plan or the renewal plan?
• Success indicators. — How will the eldership and the body know, at the end of the year, whether this program has borne fruit? The indicators should be honest — not vanity metrics (attendance counts) but kingdom-relevant signs of life (people coming to faith, disciples being made, the vulnerable being served, the gospel reaching new places, Saints growing in their gifts).

▸Continuing programs vs new programs

Continuing programs: For programs already running and confirmed in Stage 3, this is a refresh, not a redesign. Last year’s plan is taken as the starting point, updated where the people, scope, resources, or funding have changed, and re-confirmed by the eldership.

New programs: For new initiatives agreed in Stage 3, the plan is built from scratch. Particular care is needed for the people element (who is genuinely called and equipped to lead?) and the funding element (what is the genuine minimum this work can begin on, and where should it sit on the ladder?).

▸Budgeting in depth

Budgeting is where many faithful initiatives quietly come apart. A program well-discerned, well-staffed, and well-scoped can still fail because it was poorly costed. This section gives a deeper guide to building program-level budgets that are realistic, honest, and faith-shaped.

▸The three figures

Every program is costed as a range for the year, not a single number. Three figures, each of which means something different:

Minimum. The smallest amount on which this work can honestly begin. Not a hopeful number and not a negotiating position — the point below which the program should not start, because starting it would be promising the body and the team something the money cannot deliver. If a program cannot name a genuine minimum, it has not been scoped.

Ideal. The program as it has actually been scoped — the plan in the eight elements above, fully resourced, with the people and the time it was designed to have.

Stretch. What this work could become if the Lord provides more than the body expects. Named in advance, so that a generous year has somewhere agreed to go rather than being argued over in December. A stretch is not padding: it is a further piece of the work the body would gladly do and cannot presently commit to.

The base operating costs of the church carry all three as well. Base operations are not merely a floor to be covered — they may hold a stretch of their own: another day of pastoral ministry, a property need long deferred, an apprenticeship the body would love to fund.

▸Who sets the three figures

The person closest to the work proposes them — the program leader for a program, the budget committee together with the eldership for base operations. Proposing is not deciding.

Every range is then sense-checked by the elders and deacons together. They discuss it, question it, negotiate it, push back where a minimum looks inflated or a stretch looks like wishful thinking, and approve it. The committee's particular task is to test that the minimum is genuine — that it is the real floor and not the ideal wearing a smaller coat — because the whole allocation in Stage 5 rests on those minimums being honest.

▸Standard budget categories

For most programs, the cost falls into these categories. Not every program will need every category; build the lines that apply.

• People costs. — Honoraria for guest speakers; training for leaders and team members; ministry development costs; conference attendance; counselling, supervision, or mentoring support for those carrying pastoral or emotional load.
• Materials. — Curricula, books, study guides, handouts, hospitality supplies, food, refreshments, communion elements, baby and children’s ministry consumables.
• Facilities. — Room hire (where the church does not own its facility); utilities directly attributable to the program (lighting, heating); cleaning and setup; small equipment.
• Communications. — Printing, signage, postage, digital tools, livestream or recording equipment for relevant programs, web hosting if program-specific.
• Outreach and travel. — Transport for mission and outreach teams; accommodation; hospitality to those being reached; gifts of welcome; partnership contributions to other ministries.
• Equipment and capital. — One-off capital items (instruments, equipment, technology) needed to launch or sustain the program. Capital should be funded separately and not buried in ongoing line items.
• Partnerships and missions support. — Funds the body sends to other faithful works — mission partners, denominational structures, parachurch organisations, individual missionaries. These are budgeted at program level (or as a separate category in the Prospectus, see Template E).
• Contingency. — 10–20% of the total program budget, depending on how new or uncertain the program is. New programs need more contingency; mature programs less.

▸Approach to estimating

Two complementary approaches, ideally used together:

Bottom-up. Start with what the program actually needs and total it up. List every category, estimate each line item carefully, and sum. This produces a realistic figure but tends to expand as the leader thinks of more needs.

Top-down. Start with what is realistic given the body’s capacity. Look at last year’s giving, current commitments, and what is genuinely available for new or expanded work. Allocate within that envelope. This produces a disciplined figure but can underplay the program’s actual needs.

Reconciliation. The two approaches meet in the three figures. Bottom-up largely produces the ideal; top-down tests what the body can presently carry; the minimum is the honest floor discovered by asking what this work could still be if it had less. Where the bottom-up figure exceeds what the body is likely to give, the program is not cut at this stage — it enters the Prospectus with its full range, and Stage 5 decides how far down the ladder the giving reaches.

▸Funding sources to consider

• The body’s general offering. — The body gives to the body, and the eldership allocates across the agreed programs in the published order. This is the ordinary source for all work, base and new alike. See Stage 5.
• Restricted gifts. — Occasionally a Saint gives for a named purpose. These are honoured, recorded, and reported separately, and they sit outside the general allocation rather than displacing it.
• Carryover from previous year. — Where last year’s actual giving exceeded last year’s plan, the surplus can be deployed; conversely, where there is a shortfall in carryover, this needs to be reflected.
• Partner organisations. — Some programs may be run in partnership with denominational structures, parachurch organisations, or other churches. The shared cost and shared funding model needs to be clearly specified.
• Income-generating activities. — Some bodies run small income-generating activities (op-shops, hospitality, conferences). These are budgeted at net, after costs.

▸A worked example

To illustrate, suppose a new program: a Friday-evening youth ministry, agreed in Stage 3, to launch in the upcoming year. The leader is gifted in evangelism and pastoral care; she has two volunteers committed and one in discernment. The program will run 36 Fridays per year, two hours each evening, with one annual youth camp.

A bottom-up budget might look like this (illustrative; replace with actual figures for your context and currency):

• People costs — training for the leader and team (two short courses): 1,500.
• Materials — curriculum subscription, study materials, art and games supplies: 2,000.
• Facilities — venue hire for the annual camp (the regular Fridays use the church building): 3,500.
• Communications — flyers, social media boosts, photography: 600.
• Outreach and travel — transport contribution to the camp and occasional outings: 1,200.
• Equipment — initial purchase of games equipment, sound and lighting upgrade for youth space: 4,000 (one-off; capital).
• Partnerships — denominational youth-ministry fee: 400.
• Contingency at 15% of ongoing operating budget (excluding capital): 1,400.
• Total ongoing: about 10,600.
• Total capital one-off: 4,000.
• Total year-one ask: 14,600.

That 14,600 is the ideal — the program as scoped. The leader is then asked the harder question: what is the least this work can honestly begin on? She answers 8,200 — the regular Fridays run, the capital purchase is deferred, the camp becomes a single overnight rather than a week. Below that she would rather not start, because she would be promising young people and their families something she could not deliver. And she names a stretch of 19,000: a second night each week in the school term, which the community has been asking for and she has the team to attempt.

Her program therefore enters the Prospectus as a range — minimum 8,200, ideal 14,600, stretch 19,000 — rather than as a single ask the body must accept or refuse. Stage 5 decides how far the giving reaches.

▸Multi-year budgeting

Some programs are not fully fundable in year one and need a multi-year horizon. A church plant, a major capital project, or a long-running training initiative all need to be planned in three to five-year arcs. The principles:

• Build a multi-year view in addition to the single-year plan. Show what the program will require in year one, year two, and year three.
• Be honest about year-one constraints and what will need to be in place by year two for the program to continue.
• Build review points into the multi-year plan — at the end of year one, the eldership and body explicitly review whether the program is on track and whether to continue, scale, or release.
• Communicate the multi-year shape to the body so Saints can give in keeping with the longer arc, not just the immediate ask.

▸What honest budgeting protects

Three things, particularly:

It protects the leaders. A program with an honest budget can be sustained. A program with a fantasy budget burns out its leaders within a year.

It protects the body. When the eldership is honest about cost, the body can give in faith with their eyes open. Manipulation or under-disclosure always erodes trust eventually.

It protects the program. Honest costing allows for honest review. A program that costs what it was budgeted to cost can be evaluated on its fruit, not on its overruns.

▸Outputs

• A program plan for every agreed program (one document each, using Template D in the Appendix), each carrying its minimum, ideal and stretch for the year.
• A consolidated body-level resource summary — how many people, how many hours, and three totals rather than one: what the year costs at every minimum, at every ideal, and at full stretch.
• The base operating costs stated on the same footing, with their own three figures.
• A record that every range has been sense-checked and approved by the elders and deacons together, with the minimums specifically tested.

▸Indicative timeline

One to two months — February to March on the worked financial-year shape (Part Three). This is where the operational work concentrates. Most of it falls on the deacons, supported by the elders for spiritual oversight and by the program leaders for content.

Stage 5 — The Prospectus and Funding

▸Purpose

All the program plans are aggregated into one Annual Prospectus. This document is presented to the body. The body approves it, and then responds in faith — with time, with gifts, and with giving.

The response is a pledge, not a payment. Each Saint indicates what they intend to give for the year, whether as a single gift or as regular giving, and the date their giving begins. No money is required on the day. The pledges are read only as a body-wide total, and their purpose is to test the scope: they tell the eldership whether the work the body has agreed can honestly be carried, before anyone is committed to delivering it. The giving itself arrives across the whole year, each Saint starting when they are ready, and the eldership releases and spends it as it comes in.

The giving is undesignated — one offering, to the body. The Saints do not fund programs one by one; they give to the church, and the eldership allocates what comes in across the agreed work in an order published before the ask was ever made. This is the pattern of Acts 4:35 — brought and laid at the apostles’ feet, and distributed as each had need — and it protects the work nobody finds inspiring from being starved by the work everybody does.

▸What the Prospectus is, and what it is not

What it is. A clear, honest, body-facing statement of: what the body has discerned this year; the programs the body is committing to (continuing, new, ending); the people who will lead them; the time and resources they will require; and what it will cost. Written so any Saint can read it and understand it.

What it is not. A corporate fundraising brochure. It is not designed to manipulate or persuade. It is designed to inform the body so that each Saint can decide before the Lord, in faith, what their part will be — in time, gift, and giving (2 Corinthians 9:7).

▸How it is built

• Start with a brief opening that re-states the Vision, Purpose, Commission, and Mission of the body (referencing Documents 1, 2 and 3 by name).
• Summarise what the Stage 1 discernment produced (without disclosing individual data inappropriately) — the shape of the body’s gifts and the callings present.
• Present the programs in three sections: continuing, new, and ending. For each, give a brief description, the scope, the people leading, the resources required, and the three funding figures — minimum, ideal, stretch.
• Set out the work in bands, and within each band in order. Base operations first, then the ongoing work the body has already committed to, then the work the body is growing into. A church may add bands of its own where three do not describe its life; what matters is that the order exists and is visible.
• Publish the priority ladder itself — every piece of work, in the order the eldership will fund it. This is the heart of the Prospectus, and it is published before the ask, not after the money arrives.
• Total the year three ways: what it costs if everything reaches its minimum, what it costs at every ideal, and what full stretch would be. Name any carryover from the previous cycle as a starting balance.
• State how the allocation will be made — the three passes, and whether the eldership will use waterfall or pro-rata within a pass (see “How giving is allocated” below).
• Close with the invitation — the Saints are invited to respond before the Lord, in their own way, with whatever the Spirit prompts.

▸The priority ladder

The ladder is the Prospectus’s central act, and it is real authority: to order the work is to decide what happens first when there is not enough. Three things keep that authority accountable.

It is published before the ask, so nobody discovers the order after they have given. It is reviewed by the budget committee independently of the eldership that drew it. And it is reported against afterwards, so the body can see what the order actually produced. An eldership that sets the ladder privately has taken something it was not given.

The order is not set by popularity or by cost. The eldership orders the work according to priority, balancing the body’s two kinds of fruit: gospel outputs — the making of disciples, the sending of the gospel to where it is not yet known — and community outputs — the mercy, care and service by which the body loves its neighbour. A ladder that funds only what is visible and neglects the quiet gospel work, or one that funds proclamation and never lifts a hand to the poor, is out of balance. Base operations sit at the top because everything else depends on them; above that floor, the ordering holds the two kinds of fruit together.

Ordering the work is prayer before it is arithmetic. The allocation that follows is only arithmetic; the ladder is discernment, and it should be prayed over as such.

▸How it is presented

In writing first — distributed to every household ahead of the gathering at which it will be discussed. Then in person, walked through carefully by the eldership in a body-wide meeting (or a series of smaller meetings if the body is large). Then in conversation — every Saint should have an unhurried opportunity to ask questions, raise concerns, and discuss with their family before responding.

▸The whole process, step by step

The funding of a year moves through six steps, in order. Each belongs to a different party — some to the body, some to the eldership — and knowing which is which is the whole point. The body discerns and approves the work and gives toward it; the eldership orders the work and distributes the giving. That division is not an administrative convenience. It is the shape the New Testament gives (see “The biblical basis” below).

1. Discern the work. The Saints wait on the Lord. Ministries and missions are confirmed and scoped through Stages 1–4, and a draft Ministry Works Agreement is written for every Saint who will serve. The work comes from the body’s gifting, not from the eldership’s planning. 2. Cost, order, and approve. Each work is costed as a range — minimum, ideal, stretch — and placed on the priority ladder. The whole is presented as the Prospectus, and the body votes to approve the plan. This vote is open to every Saint contributing to the church, not only the formal Members — approving the plan is a spiritual act of corporate commitment (see Document 13, Section 1 for who affirms which decisions). This is a faith step, and it comes first; but it is informed, because the body already has every range, the order of the ladder, and what the church gave last year. It should hold no surprises. 3. Pledge. Only after approval does the eldership open a giving round with a closing date. Each Saint records a pledge — an indication of what they intend to give for the year, not a payment: an amount, whether it is a single gift or regular giving, the frequency if regular (weekly, fortnightly or monthly), and when it will start (each Saint begins when they are ready). When the round closes, the eldership has a real planning figure — the pledged total — rather than a hope. It is not cash in hand: the actual giving arrives across the whole year, and the eldership releases and spends it as it comes in, so the true full-year total is only known once the year closes. The pledges are read only as a total, never who pledged what. 4. Allocate, and release provisionally. The eldership walks the giving down the published ladder in three passes (below) and releases a provisional allocation to the whole body: what each work received, what was deferred, and why. Provisional means real, but not yet final — it is released precisely so the body can respond to it. 5. Respond. Each elder walks the provisional allocation through with the Saints they shepherd. The body responds: questions are asked and answered, scope and Ministry Works Agreements are settled at the level the giving actually reached, and Saints may adjust their own giving within a short amendment window — some will give more once they can see where the line fell, occasionally someone must give less. Where the picture has shifted materially, the plan itself is re-confirmed with the body rather than quietly adjusted around. 6. Finalise. The eldership finalises the allocation. This does not go back to a vote. The body approved the plan (step 2) and has been heard on its outworking (step 5); the distribution of the gift is the eldership’s to settle, as it was the apostles’. The final allocation is presented to the body as final and kept on the record beside every provisional run that preceded it.

The logic is a deliberate rhythm of the body and its shepherds taking turns. The body sets the direction and approves the plan; it gives; it is shown the result and responds to it. The eldership orders the work, distributes what comes in, and settles the final picture. Neither acts without the other, and neither does the other’s part.

Two things this protects. First, the vote lands in the right place — on the plan, which the body can weigh, rather than on the allocation, which depends on giving nobody can see in advance. Second, the amendment step (5) is a real hearing, not a formality: a provisional release that could never change would be a decision dressed up as a consultation.

▸How giving is responded to

Faith-based giving (Document 1, Chapter 9.6, Funding the Work) is the framework. The Saints decide before the Lord, in their hearts, what they will give. Not under compulsion, not by percentage formula, but cheerfully, generously, and personally.

What has changed is the shape of the response, not its spirit: one gift to the body rather than a choice among the programs. The Saint still sees exactly what their giving funds and in what order — they simply do not set the order, because the order belongs to the whole body and was discerned on its behalf.

▸How giving is allocated

The eldership allocates what has come in by walking down the published ladder three times.

The first pass funds every minimum, in ladder order, until the money runs out. Base operations are at the top, so the work that keeps the doors open and the teaching going is secured before anything else is considered.

The second pass returns to the top and lifts each work from its minimum toward its ideal, again in ladder order.

The third pass funds the stretch goals, in the same order, if anything remains.

Within a pass the eldership chooses one of two methods and names which it used. Waterfall funds each work fully before moving to the next — decisive, and it means the line falls in a visible place. Pro-rata shares what is available proportionally across the works in that pass — gentler, and it means several works proceed somewhat reduced rather than some proceeding and others not at all. Neither is more spiritual than the other. The choice is made once per cycle, in advance, and recorded.

Where a work cannot reach its minimum, it is never silently passed over. It is brought back to the eldership as a decision: hold it and wait, reduce the scope and re-cost it, or release it. Somebody was willing to lead that work, and they are owed a decision rather than an absence.

Restricted gifts sit outside all of this. Where a Saint has given for a named purpose, that gift is honoured for that purpose, recorded by an elder, and reported separately — it does not reduce what the general allocation owes that work.

▸How the ask is worded

Transparency and prudence pull against each other here, and both matter.

Publish the whole range and the whole order before the ask. Say plainly that the eldership will set a sensible and manageable budget from what comes in — delivering faithfully what has been committed to at a minimum, and stretching further where giving allows.

But never publish a forecast, and never announce an expected surplus. A body told there will be more than enough gives less, and the telling is usually wrong anyway. The stretch goals are named as what the body would love to reach, not as what it is on course to reach.

Through the year, the six-weekly status (5.9) is measured against the committed budget — what the eldership has confirmed it will deliver — not against the stretch total. So “on track” means “we can deliver what we promised”, which is honest encouragement. It never means “we have spare”, which is a different and far more dangerous sentence. Stretch goals appear in reporting as not yet reached, rather than as headroom.

▸Releasing the result: provisional, then final

An allocation passes through three states, and the difference matters.

While the eldership is still working, it is a draft — visible to the eldership and the budget committee and to nobody else. That protects the discussion while it is still being had, and stops half-finished numbers circulating.

When the eldership is settled, it releases a provisional allocation to the whole body — every member, not only the Saints in one elder’s group, because it is the body’s money. What is released is the full picture: what was given, what each work received, what was deferred and why, which method was used, and any restricted gifts shown separately. This is step 4 above, and it is provisional on purpose. Each elder walks it through with the Saints they shepherd — the group is where the real questions get asked — and the body responds (step 5). Saints may adjust their giving within the amendment window; scope and Ministry Works Agreements are settled at the funded level.

When the response has been heard, the eldership marks the allocation final (step 6). The final allocation does not go to a vote, and once made it is not quietly altered. The eldership may still re-run it later in the year if it must — giving has lagged, a work’s scope has changed, a late gift has shifted the picture — but every run, provisional and final alike, stays on the record beside the others, with its date, its method, and its reasons. A church that can revise its figures without anyone seeing the revision has the appearance of transparency and none of the substance.

▸The biblical basis

This is not a corporate budgeting process with a devotional preface. Its shape is drawn from how the New Testament church actually handled money, and each step answers to a principle found in Scripture. Two cautions first, so the claim is honest. The clearest texts describe need-based distribution to the poor, not annual programme budgeting; we are extending a principle, not copying a template. And Scripture shows the congregation choosing stewards and consenting, not formally voting on a budget; the vote is a sound application, not a proof-text. With those held, the alignment is real and deep.

The single closest text is Acts 4:34–35: those who owned land or houses sold them and “laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.” The body brings; the leadership distributes. That is the division this whole process is built on — the work and the giving belong to the body, the allocation belongs to the eldership.

The question this answers most directly is the one a careful Saint will ask: if we vote on the plan, why do the elders — not the body — decide where the money finally goes? The answer is Acts 4 and 6 together. The body discerns the work and consents to those who will steward it; the distribution of the gift then rests with the leadership, exactly as it rested with the apostles. Scope and plan are the body’s to approve; the final allocation of funds is the eldership’s to settle. That is not a modern compromise. It is the pattern.

▸What if funding falls short?

The ladder has already answered most of this before the year began, which is the point of publishing it. Where a work still cannot proceed, the eldership has three responses: pray and wait — the timing may be next year, not this year; reduce scope — the work may proceed at a smaller scale than originally envisaged; or release it — if neither time nor reduced scope is faithful, it is set aside, with thanks for those who were willing. None of these is failure. All are faithful responses to where the body actually is.

Deferral has to be said out loud. “The coffee shop waits until next year” is spoken plainly and with thanks to the people who were ready to run it — not left to be inferred from a number.

And a reduced allocation changes what can honestly be asked of people. A Ministry Works Agreement describes work a Saint has agreed to; if a work lands at its minimum rather than its ideal, the scope it can ask of its team is smaller — fewer hours, fewer weeks, a narrower brief. When an allocation is released, the eldership revisits the affected agreements with the Saints concerned rather than letting people quietly carry a commitment the budget no longer supports. This is pastoral work, not administration.

▸Surplus

Because the stretch goals were named in advance and sit at the bottom of the same ladder, a generous year already has somewhere agreed to go. There is no scramble and no committee meeting inventing a use for money in December.

Genuine surplus is only what remains after every minimum, every ideal, and every stretch goal has been met. What happens to it is a decision, not a rule, and the eldership makes it in front of the body: bank it deliberately, against a lean year or a known future cost or a work that could not start this cycle; carry it forward into the next cycle; or release it outward, to mission partners, to another church, to need in the body. A church with more than it needs has an opportunity, not a problem.

Whichever is chosen, it is named and reported. Money that quietly accumulates without a decision attached is how a church ends up with reserves nobody can explain — which is precisely the opacity the honest disclosure of 5.8 exists to end.

▸Outputs

• The Annual Prospectus, distributed and presented, with the priority ladder and every work’s three figures.
• The body’s approval of the plan, recorded.
• The total given, and a provisional allocation — what each work received, at which level, and by which method — released to the whole body.
• A record of the body’s response, any pledge amendments, and any re-confirmation of the plan.
• The final allocation, settled by the eldership and presented as final, kept on the record beside every provisional run.
• Restricted gifts shown separately, with their purposes.
• A short statement of which works are deferred or reduced, and why — communicated honestly and pastorally, and walked through by each elder with the Saints they shepherd.

▸Indicative timeline

One month for the prospectus preparation, presentation, and initial response window — April into May on the worked financial-year shape, with the plan adopted in late May (Part Three). Ongoing through the year for sustained giving and program reporting back to the body.