At tonight's Church Meeting we will be beginning to consider how best to employ some money - a useful sum - that has come to us in the form of a bequest and a couple of 'in memoriam' gifts.  We are keen - at least those of us in the know - that the money is purposefully employed and not spent on, say, a lovely silver rose bowl that ends up shoved in a cupboard.  We don't want to lose this money into general running costs, because it is a gift, but I am struck by a dilemma in this approach, which means, were the amounts larger, our hands would be tied.

Around two decades ago, the church received what was then a substantial bequest, which meant that the church moved to a zero HMF grant for two years, after which the money was exhausted and the former grant level needed.  On one hand, I think it is fair that if a church comes into money, this should be reflected in their continued support from HMF, on the other, why should an already poor church (we have never had substantial reserves) have to use a gift to pay its bills?  It's a tricky one.  The amount of money we have now received would fund for example, a data projector (freeing up mine!), underwrite a good outreach event and leave us something perhaps to plant a tree or put a bench in our 'memorial garden' (grave yard) if people wanted a permanent reminder (even thoguh I detest plaques with a vengeance!) but would not be enough to take us out of HMF for more than a couple of months.  I can't help feeling it is more honouring to these departed friends that their bequest serves mission and ministry purposes rather than propping up our existence.

A non-funded church would not have this dilemma, or at least not in the same way.  It feels a bit 'off' that the poor aren't allowed to enjoy the 'expensive perfume' but must pay the gas bill or room hire, whilst the rich can indulge their whims.

Anyway, we won't decide before January how to spend this money, but I hope that it is used wisely and well in the service of the Kingdom.