It takes money to spread the Gospel

[probinson]

What are you thoughts on the statement, "It takes money to spread the Gospel"? I have some thoughts I'll share, but I'd like to hear what som other people have to say before I say anything.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I believe that to be false; because you can share the gospel in your everyday life by how you act. Now does it take money to send people places to spread the gospel, yes Does it take money to the spread the gospel in your own house neighborhood even local area no except you were counting like gas money.

 

[gideons300]

What are you thoughts on the statement, "It takes money to spread the Gospel"? I have some thoughts I'll share, but I'd like to hear what som other people have to say before I say anything.

I would be a fool to say that money cannot help the spread of the gospel, but Peter said "Silver and gold have I none" and he seemed to do pretty well, LOL.

If the church ever catches fire, it is amazing to see how many people will come out to see what is up. Leonard Ravenhill said "You never have to advertise a fire". How true.

I was burning some trash a few months ago and one burning leaf escaped me. It landed on a 6" thick layer of dried leaves.... and whoa. 45 minutes of futilely trying to beat it out with a rake only to see if burst into flames again left me with this wisdom.

I can either LOOK stupid and call the fire department for help, or I can BE stupid and not do so.

I took the "look stupid" avenue, thank God. Wow, I did not know lawn mowers could actually melt!

It is high time we realized we could have a billion dollars dedicated to missions and it still would not do what one truly "dead to self, alive to Him" genuinely on fire Christian could do if he simply infected others with what he had. We as His church are a huge pile of dried bones.... er...leaves. Now where it that match? Oh, yeah, the fire chief took them.....

Gideon

 

[Faulty]

Depends on the medium used. Even walking around with a Bible in hand and open air preaching requires money. At some point, that Bible cost money. Even if it was given to you, it was not printed for free. You'd have to have purchased clothing and shoes to appear in public, and those cost money to manufacture and purchase. There's always some money needed at some point along the way, be it in small or large amounts.

 

[Biblicist]

Depends on the medium used. Even walking around with a Bible in hand and open air preaching requires money. At some point, that Bible cost money. Even if it was given to you, it was not printed for free. You'd have to have purchased clothing and shoes to appear in public, and those cost money to manufacture and purchase. There's always some money needed at some point along the way, be it in small or large amounts.

That seems to sum it up pretty well in my view.
I guess we only have to ask the many missionaries who have be sent overseas to unreached areas how much it cost them, their families, church and mission agency. I'm sure that the Wycliffe Bible translators would be more than happy to let us know just how much it costs to spread God's Word. But I would certainly draw the line with any request by some "ministries" who see that they have a God-given need to update to a LearJet or to buy a palatial holiday home.

 

[MikeBigg]

"It takes money to spread the Gospel"

I think it does, but it doesn't have to. On a small scale, my favourite way of sharing the Gospel is over lunch or a coffee. That costs.

On a larger scale, if a small local church puts on an evangelistic evening, someone has to pay for the lights.

On a large scale, I wonder how much it cost to hire a football stadium for a week and broadcast Billy Graham's preaching live via satellite over the UK.

That said, I led a guy to the Lord a few years ago. He was a waiter in an Indian restaurant. Whenever I went back to the restaurant where he worked he would never let me pay the full bill. There were always complementary additions to the meal and I was always introduced to other members of staff and on occasion, the owner and was able to share things with them, too. I guess that cost money, but not nearly as much as it should

Mike

 

[Messy]

Only fulltime spreading the gospel takes money, it is needed for the minister to live. Paul got money by making tents himself and overworking. The disciples got food in the houses where they went. That takes money.

 

[bushinoki]

Put me in the reasonable living camp. It does take some money to share the gospel, but there are ministers making obscene amounts, and they almost invariably end up in a scandal.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The one thing people fail to think through is what actually IS money? Money is one way to exchange hours of work such that you can transport it or trade it for other work or goods. If you equate money as labor earned then you can easily reconcile it does in a matter take money to spread the gospel if in fact you have people that have to work to do so that could be paid. There is no evil in spending money to spread the Gospel I am sure people who supported Paul and others spent money to feed him and worked hard at times for nothing (for no MONEY) which essentially means they could have paid someone else to do those thing and spent money instead of working.

 

[JimB]

What are you thoughts on the statement, "It takes money to spread the Gospel"? I have some thoughts I'll share, but I'd like to hear what som other people have to say before I say anything.

My thoughts are that money helps but then the church was doing alright in the first century, even in the centuries following when it was outlawed, and seems to do okay in countries today that do not have a lot of money (e.g., Africa, where Christianity is booming, unlike in the more affluent Western nations). But the perks we spend money on, esp. in the U.S. … things like plush carpets, stained glass windows, concrete parking lot, pastor’s sabbaticals, conference expenses, not to mention televangelist’s mansions and luxury automobiles … does cause me to question the wisdom of our spending. If the bulk of our giving went to the propagation of Christ’s Gospel, I would have less complaints. It’s the way we spend money we supposedly devote to God, not the giving itself, that is sticks in the craw of people.

 

[Frogster]

The main problem is the means in which the person extracts the money, using guilt, faith seed, or unscriptural tithing teachings, to fund it.


This while Paul, who for the most part, worked for a living under extreme circumstances, as per 2 cor 11, and elswhere, not to burden people, or put an obstacle before the gospel.

Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Aquila and Priscilla worked too.

So a gospel preached, from corruption, is no gospel at all, it is wood, hay, and stubble.

 

[Optimax]

Yes.

 

[New_Wineskin]

What are you thoughts on the statement, "It takes money to spread the Gospel"? I have some thoughts I'll share, but I'd like to hear what som other people have to say before I say anything.

I would say that a person saying this should also consider that the Lord would provide the money without the use of coercion .

 

[hislegacy]

I wonder if no money was involved, would Rheinhart Bonke have the opportunity to preach to 75,000,000 in Africa as he has?

 

[Messy]

I wonder if no money was involved, would Rheinhart Bonke have the opportunity to preach to 75,000,000 in Africa as he has?

Don't think so.

 

[Messy]

The main problem is the means in which the person extracts the money, using guilt, faith seed, or unscriptural tithing teachings, to fund it.


This while Paul, who for the most part, worked for a living under extreme circumstances, as per 2 cor 11, and elswhere, not to burden people, or put an obstacle before the gospel.

Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Aquila and Priscilla worked too.

So a gospel preached, from corruption, is no gospel at all, it is wood, hay, and stubble.

Paul did that because they didn't want to give money, while they had it.
I think that's bad too.
Better sell some houses and private jets and have everything in common.

 

[Tenebrae]

I agree in the sense that it takes money to finance various interventions (for want of a better word)

I also believe that if something is born of God, and according to his will, he will provide the means without the need for guilt laden mini sermons on tithing.

The old church I went to used to have what they called a yearly sacrifical offering. About 7 weeks prior to the offering they started playing clips about how people pinned their prayer request to last years sacrifical offering and God healed them of cancer, gave them the child they were after and other equally emotional guilt inducing appeals

What are you thoughts on the statement, "It takes money to spread the Gospel"? I have some thoughts I'll share, but I'd like to hear what som other people have to say before I say anything.

 

[Faulty]

I agree in the sense that it takes money to finance various interventions (for want of a better word)

I also believe that if something is born of God, and according to his will, he will provide the means without the need for guilt laden mini sermons on tithing.

Agreed.

The old church I went to used to have what they called a yearly sacrifical offering. About 7 weeks prior to the offering they started playing clips about how people pinned their prayer request to last years sacrifical offering and God healed them of cancer, gave them the child they were after and other equally emotional guilt inducing appeals

No wonder you were driven away. I'm sorry.

 

[lismore]

2 Corinthians 6:10
poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.

 

[Frogster]

Paul did that because they didn't want to give money, while they had it.
I think that's bad too.
Better sell some houses and private jets and have everything in common.

where does it say they did not want to give money to Paul?

and 2 cor 8-9, if that is what you mean, was not for paul, it was for the poor, and they had already been saving up for the relief effort.

Paul could have sought money for himself, be he said he did not want to.