When considering the relationship between believers and wealth, I should note that the "father of the faithful", Abraham, was a very wealthy man; and "the man after God's own heart", David, died as a King, and not a penniless beggar. You cannot help the poor if you yourself live in poverty, and while God did call His people to wander in the wilderness, their final destination was meant to be the Promised Land "that is flowing with milk and honey", and not the barren desert.
Of course, wealth and prosperity is also one of the biggest obstacle that prevents peoplfrom wholeheartedly serving the Lord. This is why Matthew 6:24 specifically warns us that "You cannot serve both God and money" rather than "you cannot serve both God and your lust" or some other forms of idolatry. Also, interestingly, in the sermon I heard today, the pastor remarks that some of the harshest disciplines that God dealt towards His people were done against those who had acted out of their "love of money"--such as Achan, who stole spoils from Jericho, and whose sin caused the Israelites to lose their subsequent against Ai (Joshua 7); and Ananias and Sapphira, who lied about the amount of money they were offering to the church (Acts 5).
I think the main issue here is that wealth affords us with luxury, status, and influence that grants its owner an almost "godlike" prestige among their spheres of society (which other forms of sin does not grant), and this makes those who owns much of it to seek and rely on God rather than their own self-sufficiency.
Thank you for your input. That is actually something I never thought of before. We need both (Input and Output) to be equally balance. I did mention that there are some that are called to do of what my friend is claiming, but that is not the direct command to everyone in the Church. We had a disagreement before where it says to go into all of the world to preach the Gospel. He claims that every single Christian have to go into every single country in the world. I did explain that the command was for the Church as a group and not to the individual.
About that last sentence, does he realize that it's physically impossible for every Christian to travel to all countries for the sake of evangelism, not to mention ineffective for what the evangelism is meant to accomplish in the first place? For the Word of God to really take root in someone's heart and bring genuine changes in their lives, it's not enough to just preach Christ and end there. The believers would also need to be discipled, nurtured, guided and counseled through trials and afflictions, and for this growth to happen, there needs to be a trusting relationship between the more mature believer and the new convert. It is impossible to build this kind of trusting relationship between the believers if every Christian is constantly on the move.
I recall John Piper spoke about this in a conference, where he mentioned that God does allocate different roles in the Great Commission, and that while some people need to be sent out of their homes to preach in foreign lands, some are appointed to minister at their homes. Even in the early churches in Acts, the leaders are given distinct roles, with the apostles serving as the primary evangelists, while the deacons and elders "serve tables" and care for the poor/sick/needy.
Also if you don't mind me asking, is your friend a Christian? I'm curious what prompted his views, when he doesn't seem to be subscribing to the values he endorses himself.