Participant digital workbook
Study all seven stewardship principles, reflect on what they mean for your church, complete each exercise, assess current practice and prepare your contribution to the church's shared work.
Digital workbook OR-NM-1.0 (prototype) · Seven Principles curriculum version 1.0 — author-review draft pending Leland Rubin's approval prior to publication.
Your progress through the workbook
7 assigned principles, four lessons each, with a rated self-assessment and a 90-day plan for each principle.
0 of 28 exercises written · 0 of 35 areas rated (0%)
Every activity in the printed workbook can be completed here online. Your answers stay saved under your name, and the downloads give you the same complete workbook on paper.
S7 — Give Generously (principle 7 of 7)
Build a current picture of community and mission-field need, set an intentional missions and outreach budget with a stated rationale, vet and formalize partner organizations with written agreements, and report outward impact honestly, including shortfalls.
What this principle produces
Missions and Community Outreach Giving Plan
- Community and mission-field profile naming specific needs, gaps and existing efforts already underway nearby and at a distance
- Missions and outreach budget with a stated rationale for how the amount and allocation were set relative to overall giving
- Partner organization roster with vetting notes, financial and mission-fit documentation, and signed partnership agreements
- Accountability calendar listing check-in dates, reporting expectations and renewal or exit decision points for each partner
- Impact report template covering people served, dollars deployed, partner performance and honest shortfalls
- Congregational communication plan describing how outward giving and impact will be reported without overstating results
- Gaps register listing every open community-knowledge, funding, vetting or reporting gap discovered during the module
- Named list of missions and outreach risks with likelihood, impact and an accountable owner for each
- 90-day action plan assigning each recommended action an owner, due date, resources required, success measure, status and review date
Objectives
- Build a current picture of community and mission-field need
- Set an intentional missions and outreach budget with a stated rationale
- Vet partner organizations and formalize agreements
- Build a verified, honest outward impact report
4 weeks · about 7 hours of leadership time
Lesson 1: Looking Outward: Naming the Community and the Mission Field
What you will learn: Build a current, specific picture of the needs in the church's surrounding community and its mission field beyond the community.
80 minutes · Pastor, missions or outreach team lead, one or two board members, and a community liaison if one exists
Scripture lens — Matthew 25:35-40
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
King James Version (KJV) · Public domain
This passage is proposed for the lesson opening because it names concrete, specific human needs — hunger, thirst, homelessness, nakedness, sickness, imprisonment — rather than a vague call to generosity, which sets the tone for the specificity this lesson asks of leadership.
Materials and evidence you will use
- Publicly available local demographic and needs data
- Notes or reports from any existing community partners
- Prior missions trip or outreach event summaries, if available
- At least five sourced community needs and two sourced mission-field commitments
- At least one identified overlap or true gap with a next step assigned
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to
- Leadership can name at least five specific needs in the surrounding community, drawn from more than one source
- Leadership can name at least two mission-field needs beyond the community, whether nearby or at a distance
- The team has identified at least three existing efforts, inside or outside the church, already addressing named needs
- A named owner exists for refreshing the community and mission-field profile on a recurring schedule
Study reading
Understand the concept
Your work in this lesson focuses on this outcome: Build a current, specific picture of the needs in the church's surrounding community and its mission field beyond the community.
A church cannot serve outward needs it has never specifically named; today's Community and Mission-Field Profile grounds every funding, partnership and reporting decision that follows in this module.
Why it matters for your church
Outreach decisions made from impression rather than sourced data risk duplicating existing efforts or missing the community's most pressing needs entirely.
A mission-field commitment inherited from a single past leader, without current reasoning, is difficult to explain to a new generation of givers.
Failing to distinguish local community needs from a distant mission field can lead to a scattered strategy that does neither well.
Examine the evidence
Use Publicly available local demographic and needs data, Notes or reports from any existing community partners, and Prior missions trip or outreach event summaries, if available to compare your church's present practice with its stated intentions. Look for documented patterns, missing information, and differences between what people assume and what the evidence supports.
Your completed work should be supported by At least five sourced community needs and two sourced mission-field commitments, and At least one identified overlap or true gap with a next step assigned. Record uncertainty honestly so your team knows what still needs to be verified.
Prepare for the shared exercise
Build a current, sourced, specific picture of community needs and mission-field commitments to ground every later funding and partnership decision. The Community and Mission-Field Profile produces the Community and Mission-Field Profile, which contributes to the principle's principal deliverable.
Before working with your team, consider this reflection: What is one specific, named need in my church's community or mission field that I could describe today with a source and a story, rather than only a general impression?
Key terms
- Mission field: A specific population, region or category of need the church has intentionally committed to serve through prayer, presence or funding, whether nearby or at a distance.
- Community needs assessment: A structured review of specific, sourced needs present in a defined geographic community, used to inform outreach priorities rather than relying on impression alone.
- Existing-effort mapping: The practice of identifying organizations or ministries already addressing a named need before deciding whether to start something new or partner with what already exists.
Failure patterns to avoid
- Assuming leadership already knows the community well enough that a formal profile is unnecessary
- Naming needs only from personal observation without any outside sourced data
- Continuing to fund a mission field out of loyalty or habit without anyone being able to explain the current rationale
Ministry case — A Neighborhood the Church Thought It Knew
Fictional Cedar Ridge Fellowship, a congregation of about 180 people used here only as an illustrative synthetic example, had described its neighborhood for years as 'working-class families' in its outreach materials. When leadership pulled current public school data for this exercise, they found that the surrounding elementary school now reported nearly forty percent of students experiencing housing instability at some point during the school year, a figure no one on the leadership team had previously known.
Rather than launching a new program immediately, the fictional team discovered a local family resource center already coordinating housing-stability support and simply had never introduced itself to the church. The profile-building exercise led not to a new ministry but to a scheduled meeting with that existing effort, which the team recognized as a more responsible first step than duplicating work already underway.
Lesson takeaway: A church cannot serve outward needs it has never specifically named; today's Community and Mission-Field Profile grounds every funding, partnership and reporting decision that follows in this module.
Exercise — Community and Mission-Field Profile (produces: Community and Mission-Field Profile)
Build a current, sourced, specific picture of community needs and mission-field commitments to ground every later funding and partnership decision.
- List every specific community need participants can name, together with its data source.
- List every specific mission-field need or commitment the church currently holds, together with the reason it was chosen.
- For each need listed, research and record any existing effort already addressing it, inside or outside the church.
- Flag which needs are closest to the church's current gifts and relationships, and which would require building new capacity.
- Identify any overlap between community needs and mission-field commitments.
- Assign a named owner and interval for refreshing this profile going forward.
- Summarize the profile into a short paragraph suitable for the front of the Missions and Community Outreach Giving Plan.
Worksheet columns: Need · Community or mission field · Data source · Existing effort addressing it · Fit with current gifts/relationships
Saves as you typeCommunity and Mission-Field Profile
Complete the Community and Mission-Field Profile here. Your answers are kept under your name and are waiting for you when you return.
Community and Mission-Field Profile # Need Community or mission field Data source Existing effort addressing it Fit with current gifts/relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Saving keeps it private to you; submitting shares it with your coach and church panel.Worked sample — Cedar Ridge Fellowship (illustrative example — not actual church data) (illustrative, scored 18/20)
Cedar Ridge Fellowship is a fictional congregation of about 180 attendees used here to illustrate what a completed community and mission-field profile looks like.
Profile identifies three priority needs, two with existing efforts the church can partner into and one true gap. Mission-field commitment is well documented; community commitment needs a new relationship built within thirty days.
- The outreach lead was assigned to schedule an introductory meeting with the family resource center within three weeks.
- Leadership agreed the food-insecurity gap would be evaluated in the next lesson as a candidate for new funding, rather than assumed to already be covered.
Cedar Ridge's team sourced every need with real data, distinguished existing efforts from true gaps clearly, and assigned specific near-term ownership, though the food-insecurity fit rating could have included more detail on required capacity.
BAG Index complementCommunity financial literacy outreach and SMART giving goals
As the church names community needs, financial literacy itself is often one of the underlying gaps behind housing instability, food insecurity and debt distress. This complement equips leaders to consider offering basic, product-neutral financial literacy education as a form of community outreach, and to model SMART goal-setting in the church's own giving planning.
Teaching points
- • Financial stress is a leading contributor to family instability in many communities, and basic budgeting or debt-literacy education is a low-cost, high-value outreach offering churches are well positioned to provide
- • SMART giving goals — specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound — apply equally to a household's personal generosity plan and to the church's own missions and outreach budget
- • Community financial literacy outreach should be offered without any product sale, investment recommendation or insurance pitch attached, to preserve trust and avoid any appearance of self-interest
- • Partnering with an existing certified financial education provider or nonprofit credit counseling agency is often more sustainable than a church building its own curriculum from scratch
- • Any outreach that touches personal financial information from community members must protect confidentiality with the same care the church applies to its own members' giving records
Household practice step: Identify one existing, reputable financial literacy resource or nonprofit credit counseling partner and record a one-page summary of what it offers, so the church has a concrete, vetted referral ready the next time a financial-stress need surfaces in pastoral care or outreach.
Supports this principle: Supports S7 Give Generously by extending outward generosity beyond direct material aid into equipping the community with durable financial skills, which is itself a form of stewardship discipleship offered outward.
This complement is educational and product-neutral. It does not constitute financial, legal, tax or investment advice, and the church should never recommend a specific financial product, investment or insurance policy; refer households needing personalized advice to a qualified, independent, licensed professional of their own choosing.
Discussion prompts
- Which named need surprised our team most, and why had we not noticed it before today?
- Where did we find an existing effort already addressing a need we assumed no one was working on?
- Is our current mission-field commitment something we could explain clearly to a new member, or is it mostly inherited habit?
- What would change in our outreach priorities if we revisited this profile every year rather than only occasionally?
Reflection: What is one specific, named need in my church's community or mission field that I could describe today with a source and a story, rather than only a general impression?
Use these prompts to prepare your own response before the group discussion. Honest differences help the church identify where further work is needed.
Lesson 2: Funding Missions and Outreach on Purpose
What you will learn: Set an intentional missions and outreach budget with a stated rationale tied to overall giving and named community and mission-field priorities.
85 minutes · Pastor, treasurer, missions or outreach team lead, and finance committee
Scripture lens — Proverbs 21:5
5 The thoughts of the diligent tend only to plenteousness; but of every one that is hasty only to want.
King James Version (KJV) · Public domain
This passage is proposed for the lesson opening because it contrasts diligent, planned thought with hasty impulse, directly relevant to moving missions and outreach funding from a leftover afterthought to a planned allocation.
Materials and evidence you will use
- Community and Mission-Field Profile from Lesson 1
- Current and prior-year church financial statements
- Any prior missions and outreach spending history
- A specific total dollar figure and percentage of overall giving
- At least two allocations explicitly linked to a Lesson 1 profile priority
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to
- Leadership can state the missions and outreach budget as a specific dollar amount and percentage of overall giving, with a stated rationale
- The budget allocation is visibly connected to at least three priorities named in the Community and Mission-Field Profile
- Leadership has distinguished between committed, recurring outreach funding and flexible or responsive funding
- A named owner exists for monitoring outreach spending against the budget throughout the year
Study reading
Understand the concept
Your work in this lesson focuses on this outcome: Set an intentional missions and outreach budget with a stated rationale tied to overall giving and named community and mission-field priorities.
A missions and outreach budget with a stated rationale, split between committed and flexible funding, turns generosity from a leftover impulse into a planned, sustainable practice.
Why it matters for your church
Outreach budgets set without a stated rationale are the first line item cut in a tight year, because no one can explain what would be lost.
Long-term partners who receive funding without predictability struggle to plan their own ministry or program calendars.
A missions and outreach budget that never changes year to year, regardless of changing community needs, signals the profile from Lesson 1 is not actually shaping decisions.
Examine the evidence
Use Community and Mission-Field Profile from Lesson 1, Current and prior-year church financial statements, and Any prior missions and outreach spending history to compare your church's present practice with its stated intentions. Look for documented patterns, missing information, and differences between what people assume and what the evidence supports.
Your completed work should be supported by A specific total dollar figure and percentage of overall giving, and At least two allocations explicitly linked to a Lesson 1 profile priority. Record uncertainty honestly so your team knows what still needs to be verified.
Prepare for the shared exercise
Set a specific missions and outreach dollar figure and allocation, tied to a stated rationale and split between committed and flexible funding. The Missions and Outreach Budget Worksheet produces the Missions and Outreach Budget Worksheet, which contributes to the principle's principal deliverable.
Before working with your team, consider this reflection: If I had to explain our missions and outreach budget to a skeptical first-time visitor in two sentences, what would I say, and does that explanation hold up?
Key terms
- Committed outreach funding: Missions and outreach dollars promised to a specific partner on a predictable, recurring schedule, planned in advance rather than granted ad hoc.
- Flexible outreach funding: A reserved pool of missions and outreach dollars held for emerging needs, new partnerships or disaster response discovered during the year.
- Funding rationale: A brief, specific, written explanation connecting a budgeted dollar amount to a named community or mission-field priority, rather than leaving the figure unexplained.
Failure patterns to avoid
- Setting the missions and outreach budget as whatever is left over after every other ministry line item is funded
- Committing one hundred percent of the outreach budget to legacy partners, leaving no flexible capacity for emerging needs
- Carrying forward last year's dollar figure without revisiting whether it still matches current community and mission-field priorities
Ministry case — The Budget That Grew With a Reason
Fictional Riverside Community Church, a congregation of about 310 people used here only as an illustrative synthetic example, had funded missions and outreach at a flat five thousand dollars a year for over a decade, regardless of overall giving growth. During this exercise, leadership calculated that figure now represented less than one percent of total annual giving, down from nearly four percent a decade earlier simply because overall giving had grown while the outreach line had not.
Rather than an emotional overcorrection, the fictional team set a new policy of a fixed five percent of total giving, split seventy percent committed to three existing long-term partners identified in the community and mission-field profile and thirty percent flexible for responsive needs, and documented the rationale in writing so future leadership would not need to rediscover the same drift years later.
Lesson takeaway: A missions and outreach budget with a stated rationale, split between committed and flexible funding, turns generosity from a leftover impulse into a planned, sustainable practice.
Exercise — Missions and Outreach Budget Worksheet (produces: Missions and Outreach Budget Worksheet)
Set a specific missions and outreach dollar figure and allocation, tied to a stated rationale and split between committed and flexible funding.
- Record total overall giving for the current year and the prior missions and outreach spending amount and percentage.
- Choose a budgeting approach: fixed percentage, fixed dollar commitment plus flexible pool, or hybrid.
- Set the new missions and outreach budget figure and its percentage of overall giving.
- Split the total between committed funding for named partners and flexible funding for responsive needs.
- For each committed allocation, write a one-sentence rationale connecting it to a priority from the Community and Mission-Field Profile.
- Assign a named owner to monitor spending against this budget through the year.
- State in one sentence whether this represents growth, maintenance or reduction from the prior year, and why.
Worksheet columns: Allocation category · Dollar amount · Committed or flexible · Linked profile priority · Rationale · Owner
Saves as you typeMissions and Outreach Budget Worksheet
Complete the Missions and Outreach Budget Worksheet here. Your answers are kept under your name and are waiting for you when you return.
Missions and Outreach Budget Worksheet # Allocation category Dollar amount Committed or flexible Linked profile priority Rationale Owner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Saving keeps it private to you; submitting shares it with your coach and church panel.Worked sample — Riverside Community Church (illustrative example — not actual church data) (illustrative, scored 19/20)
Riverside Community Church is a fictional congregation of about 310 attendees used here to illustrate what a completed missions and outreach budget worksheet looks like, with all dollar figures illustrative only.
Missions and outreach budget set at $24,000, five percent of total giving: $18,000 committed to two named partners tied directly to Lesson 1 priorities, $6,000 held flexible for an emerging local partnership and response capacity.
- The board approved a total missions and outreach budget of $24,000, representing five percent of current total giving, up from under one percent the prior year.
- Wanda K. was assigned to report outreach spending against this budget at every quarterly finance meeting going forward.
Riverside's team set a specific, rationale-backed figure directly tied to named profile priorities, split funding thoughtfully between committed and flexible categories, and assigned clear monitoring ownership, with only the flexible-pool trigger criteria left slightly underspecified.
BAG Index complementSide income and entrepreneurship basics for households
As the church sets an intentional outreach budget, households in the congregation and community often need help increasing their own capacity to give and provide through side income or small entrepreneurship. This complement introduces basic, product-neutral concepts for helping households evaluate side-income and small-business opportunities responsibly.
Teaching points
- • A side income or small business idea should be evaluated for start-up cost, time commitment, and realistic income potential before a household commits savings or debt to it
- • Households should separate personal and side-business finances from the very beginning, including a distinct bank account, to keep records clear for both budgeting and any future tax filing
- • Common warning signs of a poor side-income opportunity include requirements to recruit other participants for income, pressure to buy large amounts of inventory upfront, and promises of guaranteed high returns for little effort
- • Any additional income should be planned for with a simple written goal for how it will be used, whether increased giving, debt reduction, savings or covering an irregular expense
- • Basic recordkeeping from day one, even a simple spreadsheet or notebook of income and expenses, makes both stewardship and eventual tax obligations far more manageable
Household practice step: Compile a short, plain-language handout of these five points for household use during a financial literacy or outreach event, clearly stating that it is educational only and not a business, legal or tax recommendation.
Supports this principle: Supports S7 Give Generously by strengthening household financial capacity, which increases the community's and the congregation's long-term ability to give generously and sustainably rather than only in isolated moments.
This complement is educational and product-neutral. It does not recommend any specific business opportunity, investment, insurance product or tax strategy; households should consult a qualified accountant, attorney or licensed business advisor before starting or investing in a side business.
Discussion prompts
- Could we explain our missions and outreach budget figure to a first-time visitor with a specific reason, or only with a number?
- Has our outreach budget kept pace with our overall giving growth, or has it quietly fallen behind?
- Does our committed-versus-flexible split reflect real risk tolerance and partner relationships, or was it chosen without much thought today?
- Who will actually watch this budget against spending through the year, and what will trigger a mid-year conversation?
Reflection: If I had to explain our missions and outreach budget to a skeptical first-time visitor in two sentences, what would I say, and does that explanation hold up?
Use these prompts to prepare your own response before the group discussion. Honest differences help the church identify where further work is needed.
Lesson 3: Partnering Well: Vetting, Agreements and Accountability
What you will learn: Vet missions and outreach partner organizations responsibly and formalize each partnership with a written agreement and an accountability calendar.
90 minutes · Pastor, missions or outreach team lead, treasurer, and one board member
Scripture lens — 1 Corinthians 4:2
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
King James Version (KJV) · Public domain
This short, direct passage is proposed for the lesson opening because it states plainly what is required of a steward: faithfulness, which applies both to the church's own handling of funds and to the partners it entrusts those funds to.
Materials and evidence you will use
- Missions and Outreach Budget Worksheet from Lesson 2
- Partner organizations' publicly available financial statements or annual reports, where available
- Any prior partnership agreements or memoranda of understanding already in place
- Documented vetting across all four categories for every current partner
- A signed or in-progress agreement status recorded for every committed partner
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to
- Every currently funded partner has documented vetting covering mission fit, financial health and reporting capacity
- Every currently funded partner has a signed written agreement describing use of funds and reporting expectations
- An accountability calendar exists with a check-in date for every partner within the next twelve months
- Leadership can describe, for at least one partner, a specific decision point where continued funding depends on documented performance
Study reading
Understand the concept
Your work in this lesson focuses on this outcome: Vet missions and outreach partner organizations responsibly and formalize each partnership with a written agreement and an accountability calendar.
Vetting, written agreements and a standing accountability calendar turn missions and outreach funding from trust based on relationship alone into trust that is verified, documented and sustained.
Why it matters for your church
Funding a partner without documented vetting exposes the church's own giving to reputational and stewardship risk if the partner's actual practices do not match its public presentation.
Long-standing partnerships without written agreements are especially vulnerable to leadership-transition confusion on both sides about what was originally promised.
A church with no accountability calendar tends to renew every partnership by default rather than by decision, regardless of actual performance.
Examine the evidence
Use Missions and Outreach Budget Worksheet from Lesson 2, Partner organizations' publicly available financial statements or annual reports, where available, and Any prior partnership agreements or memoranda of understanding already in place to compare your church's present practice with its stated intentions. Look for documented patterns, missing information, and differences between what people assume and what the evidence supports.
Your completed work should be supported by Documented vetting across all four categories for every current partner, and A signed or in-progress agreement status recorded for every committed partner. Record uncertainty honestly so your team knows what still needs to be verified.
Prepare for the shared exercise
Document vetting status, agreement status and accountability check-in dates for every current and prospective missions and outreach partner. The Partner Vetting and Agreement Tracker produces the Partner Vetting and Agreement Tracker, which contributes to the principle's principal deliverable.
Before working with your team, consider this reflection: Which of our current missions or outreach partners have we trusted the longest, and could I currently produce, in writing, what we actually agreed to fund and expect from them?
Key terms
- Mission fit: The degree to which a potential or current partner organization's actual work matches a specific, named priority from the church's own community and mission-field profile.
- Memorandum of understanding: A written, signed agreement between the church and a partner describing the amount and purpose of funds, reporting expectations, named contacts and conditions for continuing or ending the relationship.
- General operating support versus designated support: General operating support trusts the partner's own judgment on fund allocation; designated support restricts funds to a specific named project and requires reporting on that project specifically.
Failure patterns to avoid
- Relying on a compelling presentation or personal relationship as the sole basis for ongoing funding decisions
- Never asking a trusted, long-standing partner for updated financial documentation out of a misplaced sense that doing so would be rude
- Signing agreements but never actually holding the scheduled check-ins that would make those agreements meaningful
Ministry case — A Decade-Long Partnership Without a Piece of Paper
Fictional Grace Fellowship, a congregation of about 260 people used here only as an illustrative synthetic example, had funded the same overseas orphan-care partner for eleven years based entirely on a personal relationship between the founding missionary and a former pastor, with no written agreement ever signed and no financial statement ever formally requested.
When this exercise prompted the fictional team to request the partner's most recent financial report, the partner responded immediately and transparently, providing a clear breakdown that matched the church's expectations closely. Rather than revealing any problem, the process strengthened the relationship: both sides signed a simple one-page memorandum of understanding for the first time, and the partner later told the church they wished more of their supporting churches asked the same questions.
Lesson takeaway: Vetting, written agreements and a standing accountability calendar turn missions and outreach funding from trust based on relationship alone into trust that is verified, documented and sustained.
Exercise — Partner Vetting and Agreement Tracker (produces: Partner Vetting and Agreement Tracker)
Document vetting status, agreement status and accountability check-in dates for every current and prospective missions and outreach partner.
- List every currently funded partner and any prospective new partner under consideration.
- For each, record vetting status across mission fit, financial health, operational capacity and reporting capacity.
- Note what documentation exists for each category and what is missing.
- Record whether a signed written agreement currently exists, and if not, assign an owner and date to draft one.
- For any partner with a vetting gap, record the decision reached: pause, continue while requesting information, or exit.
- Set a specific next accountability check-in date and format for every partner.
- Assign a named owner to maintain the accountability calendar going forward.
Worksheet columns: Partner name · Vetting status (fit/financial/capacity/reporting) · Agreement status · Gap decision (if any) · Next check-in date · Owner
Saves as you typePartner Vetting and Agreement Tracker
Complete the Partner Vetting and Agreement Tracker here. Your answers are kept under your name and are waiting for you when you return.
Partner Vetting and Agreement Tracker # Partner name Vetting status (fit/financial/capacity/reporting) Agreement status Gap decision (if any) Next check-in date Owner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Saving keeps it private to you; submitting shares it with your coach and church panel.Worked sample — Grace Fellowship (illustrative example — not actual church data) (illustrative, scored 18/20)
Grace Fellowship is a fictional congregation of about 260 attendees used here to illustrate what a completed partner vetting and agreement tracker looks like.
Two of three partners now have signed agreements; the third is intentionally left without a standing agreement given its as-needed flexible-pool use, with that decision explicitly recorded rather than left as an oversight.
- Tom A. requested and received updated financials from the overseas partner within one week and both sides signed a first-ever memorandum of understanding.
- Priya N. was assigned to finalize the family resource center agreement within four weeks before any further funds are disbursed beyond an initial good-faith gift.
Grace Fellowship's team vetted all four categories for every partner, resolved the documentation gap on the longest-standing partner promptly, and set clear check-in dates, though the reporting-format expectation for the new local partner was still being finalized at the time of review.
BAG Index complementVetting organizations and charitable-giving fraud awareness
The same vetting discipline the church applies to its missions and outreach partners is a skill households need for their own personal charitable giving. This complement equips leaders to teach households how to recognize legitimate charities and avoid increasingly common charitable-giving fraud schemes.
Teaching points
- • Legitimate charities will readily provide their tax-exempt status information, annual reports and answers to direct questions about how donations are used, without pressure or evasiveness
- • Independent charity evaluators and public nonprofit registries can help households verify a charity's standing before giving, especially for organizations first encountered through a phone call, email or social media appeal
- • Common charitable-giving fraud tactics include urgent, high-pressure appeals following a disaster, requests for payment by gift card or wire transfer, and lookalike names designed to be confused with well-known, trusted charities
- • Households should be cautious of any solicitation that guarantees a specific percentage of every dollar reaches a cause without documentation, since legitimate overhead and program costs vary widely and honestly across real charities
- • Recurring personal giving commitments should be reviewed periodically just as the church reviews its own partnerships, rather than continuing indefinitely out of habit alone
Household practice step: Create a simple one-page household checklist, adapted from the church's own Partner Vetting and Agreement Tracker categories, that members can use before giving to an unfamiliar charity, and make it available through the church's outreach or financial literacy communications.
Supports this principle: Supports S7 Give Generously by protecting the generosity of individual households from fraud, ensuring their giving actually reaches legitimate causes and strengthening trust in charitable giving broadly, which benefits the church's own partners as well.
This complement is educational and product-neutral. It does not endorse any specific charity, charity evaluator, or financial product, and it is not legal advice; anyone who suspects they have been the victim of charitable-giving fraud should be referred to their state attorney general's charity oversight office or a qualified legal professional.
Discussion prompts
- Which of our current partners has the thinnest documentation, and why has that gone unnoticed until now?
- How will we introduce this new vetting and agreement process to a long-standing partner without straining the relationship?
- What would have to happen at a check-in for us to seriously consider pausing or ending a partnership?
- Who will actually make sure our accountability calendar check-ins happen on schedule rather than sliding?
Reflection: Which of our current missions or outreach partners have we trusted the longest, and could I currently produce, in writing, what we actually agreed to fund and expect from them?
Use these prompts to prepare your own response before the group discussion. Honest differences help the church identify where further work is needed.
Lesson 4: Measuring Outward Impact and Reporting It Honestly
What you will learn: Build a verified, honest impact report covering people served, dollars deployed and partner performance, including shortfalls, and plan how to communicate it to the congregation.
80 minutes · Pastor, missions or outreach team lead, treasurer, and communications lead if one exists
Scripture lens — Proverbs 12:22
22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
King James Version (KJV) · Public domain
This passage is proposed for the lesson opening because it sets a high standard for truthfulness, directly relevant to a church's temptation to overstate outward impact in order to encourage continued giving.
Materials and evidence you will use
- Partner-supplied reports received to date
- Missions and Outreach Budget Worksheet from Lesson 2
- Partner Vetting and Agreement Tracker from Lesson 3
- People-served and dollars-deployed figures for every current partner, each labeled by source
- At least one honest shortfall connected to a specific next-year budget or partner decision
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to
- Leadership can state, using verified rather than assumed figures, how many people were served and how many dollars were deployed across all current partners
- At least one honest shortfall or disappointing result is named in the impact report alongside the successes
- A specific plan exists for communicating impact to the congregation in plain language without disclosing individual giving
- Leadership can describe how this year's impact report will directly inform next year's budget and partner decisions
Study reading
Understand the concept
Your work in this lesson focuses on this outcome: Build a verified, honest impact report covering people served, dollars deployed and partner performance, including shortfalls, and plan how to communicate it to the congregation.
An honest impact report, naming both verified successes and real shortfalls, is what makes a congregation's outward generosity sustainable and trustworthy over the long term, and it closes the loop back into next year's intentional budget and partner decisions.
Why it matters for your church
An impact report that only ever reports success trains a congregation to expect uninterrupted good news, making any future honest disappointment feel like a crisis rather than a normal part of ministry.
Reporting partner-supplied figures as though they were independently verified risks the church's own credibility if a figure is later found to be inaccurate.
An impact report disconnected from the following year's budget decisions signals that measurement is a formality rather than a genuine input to stewardship.
Examine the evidence
Use Partner-supplied reports received to date, Missions and Outreach Budget Worksheet from Lesson 2, and Partner Vetting and Agreement Tracker from Lesson 3 to compare your church's present practice with its stated intentions. Look for documented patterns, missing information, and differences between what people assume and what the evidence supports.
Your completed work should be supported by People-served and dollars-deployed figures for every current partner, each labeled by source, and At least one honest shortfall connected to a specific next-year budget or partner decision. Record uncertainty honestly so your team knows what still needs to be verified.
Prepare for the shared exercise
Compile a verified, honest impact report across all current partners, including at least one named shortfall, and plan how to communicate it to the congregation. The Outward Impact Report produces the Outward Impact Report, which contributes to the principle's principal deliverable.
Before working with your team, consider this reflection: If I had to tell our congregation one honest disappointment alongside one honest success from this year's outward giving, what would each one be, and am I ready to say both out loud?
Key terms
- Output versus outcome: An output is a direct, countable result of an activity, such as meals served; an outcome is the deeper change that activity was intended to produce, such as reduced food insecurity, which typically requires more sustained measurement to verify.
- Church-verified versus partner-reported figure: A labeling convention distinguishing figures the church can confirm directly, such as its own disbursement records, from figures reported by a partner and not independently verified.
- Honest shortfall: A specific, factually described instance where missions or outreach results fell short of expectation, reported alongside successes rather than omitted from the impact report.
Failure patterns to avoid
- Reporting only output numbers while implying they prove an outcome that was never actually measured
- Omitting every partner shortfall from the congregational report to preserve an uninterrupted narrative of success
- Producing a polished report once and never connecting its findings to the next year's budget or partner decisions
Ministry case — The Report That Told the Whole Story
Fictional New Hope Chapel, a congregation of about 150 people used here only as an illustrative synthetic example, discovered while compiling this year's impact report that its newest local partner, the fictional family resource center, had served roughly forty percent fewer families than projected due to a staffing shortage the partner had not proactively disclosed.
Rather than quietly dropping this figure from the congregational update, the fictional team's leadership named it plainly in their annual meeting report, alongside the genuine success of their long-term well-drilling partner, and explained the specific conversation they had already had with the local partner about staffing and revised expectations. Multiple congregation members told leadership afterward that the honesty about the shortfall, paired with a clear account of what was being done about it, made them trust the whole report, including the good news, more than they had in prior years.
Lesson takeaway: An honest impact report, naming both verified successes and real shortfalls, is what makes a congregation's outward generosity sustainable and trustworthy over the long term, and it closes the loop back into next year's intentional budget and partner decisions.
Exercise — Outward Impact Report (produces: Outward Impact Report)
Compile a verified, honest impact report across all current partners, including at least one named shortfall, and plan how to communicate it to the congregation.
- List every current partner and record people served and dollars deployed for each.
- Label each figure as church-verified or partner-reported.
- Record whether each partner performed as described in its agreement, on the agreed timeline.
- Name at least one honest shortfall for the year, with a factual description and what the church has done or will do about it.
- Draft a plain-language summary paragraph suitable for direct congregational communication.
- Name at least one specific way this year's findings should change next year's budget or partner decisions.
- Assign a named owner and target date for delivering the congregational communication.
Worksheet columns: Partner name · People served · Dollars deployed · Figure source (verified/reported) · Performance vs. agreement · Shortfall or note
Saves as you typeOutward Impact Report
Complete the Outward Impact Report here. Your answers are kept under your name and are waiting for you when you return.
Outward Impact Report # Partner name People served Dollars deployed Figure source (verified/reported) Performance vs. agreement Shortfall or note 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Saving keeps it private to you; submitting shares it with your coach and church panel.Worked sample — New Hope Chapel (illustrative example — not actual church data) (illustrative, scored 19/20)
New Hope Chapel is a fictional congregation of about 150 attendees used here to illustrate what a completed outward impact report looks like, with all figures illustrative only.
This year's outward giving reached an estimated 1,558 people across three partners, with $21,500 of $24,000 budgeted dollars deployed. One shortfall is reported honestly: the local family resource center served 58 of a projected 95 families due to a staffing shortage, which the church has already addressed through direct conversation and increased next-year funding.
- Leadership named the family resource center shortfall explicitly in the annual meeting report, alongside the specific staffing conversation already held with the partner.
- The board agreed to increase the family resource center's committed funding by five hundred dollars next year specifically to help stabilize staffing, directly connecting this year's finding to next year's budget.
New Hope's team reported specific, labeled figures across all partners, named a real shortfall honestly with a documented response, and connected the finding directly to a next-year budget change, though the flood-response figures relied entirely on the partner network's standardized report without an additional independent cross-check.
BAG Index complementCharitable planning across a lifetime — pledges, donor-advised giving concepts and legacy gifts
As the church reports honest impact, it is a natural moment to help households understand how charitable giving can be planned across a lifetime, not only through weekly or monthly gifts but through structured pledges, donor-advised giving concepts and legacy or estate gifts, described in general, product-neutral educational terms.
Teaching points
- • A charitable pledge is a stated intention to give a specific amount over a defined period, which can help both households and organizations plan more predictably, but should always be made at a level a household can sustain
- • A donor-advised fund is a widely available giving vehicle in which a household contributes assets to a sponsoring organization and then recommends grants to charities over time; it is described here only as a general concept, not a specific product recommendation
- • Legacy or estate gifts, such as naming a charity as a beneficiary in a will or retirement account, allow households to extend generosity beyond their lifetime, and typically require coordination with an estate planning attorney
- • Charitable giving strategies can have tax implications that vary significantly by household circumstance, type of asset given, and current tax law, all of which change over time and by jurisdiction
- • Encouraging households to review their giving plan periodically, similar to how the church reviews its own missions and outreach budget annually, helps ensure generosity remains intentional across life stages rather than static or forgotten
Household practice step: Offer a general, product-neutral educational handout or a short workshop introducing these charitable planning concepts, and maintain a short list of qualified estate planning attorneys or financial advisors in the community that the church can refer interested households to for personalized guidance.
Supports this principle: Supports S7 Give Generously by helping households extend outward generosity across an entire lifetime and beyond it, complementing the church's own disciplined, multi-year approach to missions and outreach funding.
This complement is educational and product-neutral. It does not recommend any specific donor-advised fund provider, financial product, or estate planning instrument, and it is not legal, tax or investment advice; households should consult a qualified, independent, licensed attorney, accountant or financial advisor before making pledge, donor-advised giving or estate planning decisions.
Discussion prompts
- Which figures in our impact report are church-verified, and which are partner-reported figures we are trusting on the partner's word?
- What is the one honest shortfall we are willing to name in our congregational report this year?
- How will we communicate impact to the congregation without ever referencing individual household giving?
- What is one specific way this year's impact findings should change next year's missions and outreach budget?
Reflection: If I had to tell our congregation one honest disappointment alongside one honest success from this year's outward giving, what would each one be, and am I ready to say both out loud?
Use these prompts to prepare your own response before the group discussion. Honest differences help the church identify where further work is needed.
Rate this principle
Rate each area from 0 to 4 as the church is today, not as you hope it will be.
- 0 — Not Established: Nothing is in place for this area today.
- 1 — Emerging: Something has been started but it is informal and inconsistent.
- 2 — Developing: It works in parts of the church but is not documented or dependable.
- 3 — Established: It is documented, consistently followed and reviewed.
- 4 — Exemplary: It is a strength others could learn from, with evidence to prove it.
1. Community and Mission-Field Awareness
Weighted 20% of the Give Generously score.
What this represents: A current community and mission-field profile is reviewed at least annually, draws on more than one source, and directly informs where outreach dollars go.
Reference points for your rating
- 0 — Not established:
- Leadership cannot name a single specific need in the surrounding community or a specific mission field beyond a general sense that missions matter.
- 2 — Developing:
- A community profile exists but is dated, drawn from a single source, or has never been discussed as a full leadership team.
- 4 — Exemplary:
- The profile is refreshed on a standing schedule, informed by direct relationships with community and mission partners, and visibly shapes both budget allocation and congregational teaching.
Use the closest reference point, then select 1 or 3 when your church falls between two descriptions.
2. Intentionality of Outreach Funding
Weighted 20% of the Give Generously score.
What this represents: The missions and outreach budget has a documented rationale, is tied to overall giving levels and named priorities, and is reviewed annually by leadership.
Reference points for your rating
- 0 — Not established:
- Missions and outreach spending happens only as leftover funds at year-end or in response to whichever request arrives loudest.
- 2 — Developing:
- A missions and outreach budget exists with a rationale, but it has not been reviewed against the community profile or updated in more than a year.
- 4 — Exemplary:
- The budget is set through a repeatable, documented process that explicitly connects dollars to named community and mission-field needs, and is adjusted proactively as those needs change.
Use the closest reference point, then select 1 or 3 when your church falls between two descriptions.
3. Partner Vetting and Agreements
Weighted 20% of the Give Generously score.
What this represents: Every funded partner has documented vetting, a written agreement describing use of funds and reporting expectations, and a named church contact.
Reference points for your rating
- 0 — Not established:
- Money is sent to organizations with no vetting beyond a personal recommendation or a compelling story.
- 2 — Developing:
- Most major partners have some documentation and an informal understanding, but smaller or newer partners are added without consistent vetting.
- 4 — Exemplary:
- Vetting and agreements are consistently applied to every partner regardless of size, refreshed on a schedule, and used to make deliberate continue, adjust or exit decisions.
Use the closest reference point, then select 1 or 3 when your church falls between two descriptions.
4. Accountability and Follow-Through
Weighted 20% of the Give Generously score.
What this represents: An accountability calendar covers every partner, check-ins are held on schedule, and findings visibly inform renewal, adjustment or exit decisions.
Reference points for your rating
- 0 — Not established:
- No one checks in with a funded partner after the initial gift or grant is sent; there is no calendar or expectation of any kind.
- 2 — Developing:
- An accountability calendar exists for some partners, but check-ins are inconsistently held and rarely change any funding decision.
- 4 — Exemplary:
- Accountability is a two-way relationship: the church reviews partner performance rigorously and also reports its own follow-through, and both sides treat the relationship as a genuine partnership rather than a transaction.
Use the closest reference point, then select 1 or 3 when your church falls between two descriptions.
5. Honest Impact Reporting
Weighted 20% of the Give Generously score.
What this represents: An honest impact report is produced on a fixed schedule, includes both successes and shortfalls, and is shared with the congregation in plain language.
Reference points for your rating
- 0 — Not established:
- No impact information is ever reported to the congregation beyond a total dollar amount given away.
- 2 — Developing:
- An impact report is produced regularly and includes some church-verified figures, but shortfalls or disappointing results are quietly omitted.
- 4 — Exemplary:
- Impact reporting is trusted enough internally and externally that it shapes future funding decisions, is proactively shared even when results are mixed, and strengthens rather than merely maintains donor confidence.
Use the closest reference point, then select 1 or 3 when your church falls between two descriptions.
90-day plan for Give Generously
Name the first three moves, who owns each one and when it is due.
Completion checklist
- • All four lessons marked complete
- • All four exercises submitted
- • Required evidence uploaded
- • Named principal deliverable generated and approved
- • 90-day action plan created with owners and dates
- • Coach review recorded
0 of 4 exercises written · 0 of 5 areas rated
Leland Rubin
7
Participant Workbook
Sample contents created by Allan Bell - CPA, CMA, MBA, for illustrative purposes.
What happens to these answers
Approval sits with people, not the software.
- Individual answers are held for the coach. Church reporting, board packs and the printed workbook show compiled scores and themes only.
- Leland's Seven Stewardship Principles methodology, content, exercises and deliverables are created by Leland Rubin and remain in author-review draft pending his approval.
- Prototype: responses live in this browser session only. No invitations, emails or text messages are sent, and nothing is written to a server.
A partnership between Leland Rubin, creator of the Seven Stewardship Principles, and Allan Bell - CPA, CMA, MBA, Nsites founder and creator.