Word has it that a man belonging to a local congregation recently underwent a significant surgery. Following the operation, he was left with a medical invoice of GH₵210,000—a sum that was entirely beyond his family’s financial capacity.

​That Sunday, prior to the start of worship, the ailing man’s brother went to the minister to beg for financial help. Later in the gathering, the clergyman addressed the churchgoers, saying, “A fellow member is currently in the hospital and requires GH₵210,000 to clear his medical debt. Let us come together to help him.”

​The congregation was deeply moved by the plea and gave freely. Contributions ranged from modest gifts to substantial amounts. When the collection concluded, an impressive GH₵960,000 had been gathered, vastly exceeding the original GH₵210,000 goal.

​Following the gathering, the minister separated GH₵210,000 and gave it to the brother to cover the hospital fees. The surplus of GH₵750,000 was subsequently put into the church’s treasury.

​This decision deeply upset the patient’s relatives. They contended that the congregation’s charity was inspired solely by empathy for their brother, not a desire to fund the church. From their perspective, the full GH₵960,000 ought to have been given to the family to help with rehabilitation, medication, food, and subsequent care.

​Conversely, the clergyman maintained that the specific request of GH₵210,000 was met in full. In his view, because the stated goal was achieved, the original intent of the collection was satisfied, and any leftover funds rightfully belong to the ministry.

​This dispute has sparked a fierce debate both inside and outside the church community. Certain individuals argue that the surplus should have been given to the ailing man as an added blessing, while others argue the minister was justified because the exact financial target was explicitly announced beforehand.