Years ago a church was presented with an opportunity by a local non-profit to use their facility for a daycare.
The church had around $500,000 reserves in the bank. Monthly operational expenses were $35,000. Money seemed to be a non-issue.
The majority of church leaders felt this would be a great way for the church to be missional while also bettering their own facility for future growth in the children’s area.
ut . . . there was one dissenter. A gentleman who had strong opposition to the church spending any monies at all on something that would not benefit “them.”
“You mean we are going to let others use our stuff? This will require us doing more maintenance, it will get dirty, etc.”
His list of reasons why they “shouldn’t” proceed was massive, but all reasons tied back to money.
When it appeared the group was going to approve the daycare despite his opposition, he turned to some “non-above board” tactics.
He wrote emails to certain people, criticizing the pastor and leaders of financial mismanagement.
The pastor was dumbfounded. This man had been one of his strongest supporters since his arrival to this church. Why now the sudden turn to being a dissenter, especially against the majority? The church overall was very excited about this new mission opportunity.
One night, after a meeting, the pastor remained with the gentleman to try to answer his questions or accusations. The discussion became heated and the accusations were brought to surface about financial mismanagement. The discussion ended poorly, both men walking away with no resolve.
Little did either man know the finance administrator of the church was working in her office and overheard the entire conversation. She approached the pastor and asked if she could share some information with him that she felt would be relevant to this circumstance.
“Pastor, I need to make you aware that Billy Bob has never financially supported the ministry of the church. We don’t have enough cash income for that to be his excuse. He never gives but has historically always been the one who blocks every forward movement the church can make.”
That was new information for the pastor . . . the gentleman blocking the movement was not invested in the mission but was the most vocal voice.