Do missionaries mooch?

[RobertPGH1981]

Well that is poorly misguided thought. First off there is a difference between borrowing and asking for donations to support a life and ministry. I don't think I have ever seen a missionary or Pastor asking for donations to support their work with the intent of repaying anything. So the borrowing aspect of your indictment is totally out there. LOL.

That's what dictionary.com defines it as...

Mooch | Define Mooch at Dictionary.com

Mooch
1. to borrow (a small item or amount) without intending to return or repay it.

Merriam-Webster Defines it as
Mooch - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Mooch
1. to wander aimlessly : amble; also : sneak
2. beg, sponge

beg
1. To ask for as charity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beg

I would say asking money for a charity is different than a person on the street. But unfortunately it is still within the definition. Take it up with them

 

[py3ak]

[Moderator]
Robert, words not only have a denotation; they have a connotation. The connotation of "mooch" is negative. The definition from dictionary.com is inapplicable to missionaries; the first definition would apply only to those missionaries who should be fired. "Sponging" also has a negative connotation, as does begging. The use of these words of a negative connotation would seem to suggest that it is your intention to paint missionaries as though they were the scum of the earth. If that's your goal, you can find another venue to do that in: such attacks are not welcome here But please realize that many of us know honorable missionaries, who are worthy of their hire, and we consider it a privilege to be able to participate in their labor by our donations. [/Moderator]

 

[RobertPGH1981]

Please excuse my ignorance here as English class was never one of my strong points.

I was basing my definition solely off of what dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com provided. If these definitions are inaccurate then my responses are inaccurate. I do not think they are the same as a person asking for money on the street, but the definitions provided by those sites would lean more towards that they are mooches, rather than hey are not mooches. Thinking about this more they do provide us a service in that they Spread the gospel to the unreached, which we expect. That is something that a beggar on the street will not do.

I hold a high regard for missionaries, so please do not interpret this as me trying to missionary bash. I was trying to take a simple approach to the question, "Do missionaries mooch?"

 

[py3ak]

Thanks for clarifying, Robert. In the first post, "mooching" is clearly a bad thing which missionaries should try not to do. So either some fundraising must be excepted (for they are laboring, and we are happy to send them to that labor), or we must lay down a requirement (unsupported by Scripture) that all missionaries must be tentmakers.

 

[Pergamum]

Pergamum,

I have no doubt that there are those out there that have no business calling themselves "missionaries" and who, in reality, are not ministering, but is a missionary only a church planter or are there other ministries that support the work of missions, and are necessary to it that require support in order to be able to fulfill?

In our mission we have an accountant who raises his own support. Perhaps he's not a "missionary" per se, but without him our organization would be shut down. And we have a guy that spends the vast majority of his time communicating with overall supporters of the mission and partners of the mission, and this sometimes involves speaking at conferences. Through his communication money is raised to support ministry projects such as printing Bibles, translating theological resources, and other ministries that are going on in other countries. He also communicates back to these donors the work that is going on for the edification of the body of Christ.

And let's take the coffee house example (I won't comment on the living arrangements), in some countries, Israel included, proselytizing is illegal. A foreigner cannot simply go in and start up a church. These are called "creative access countries." That's why there are "missionaries" who serve as english teachers, businessmen and, yes, even coffee house owners in some countries.

There are many different arms that support the work of church planting when one goes to a foreign country to do so. Those arms are equally worthy of support.

Thomas,

You said:

Those arms are equally worthy of support

Do you support any sort of prioritization? If a church desired to increase their missions budget by 1,000 USD per month, what sort of criteria would you use, and would all efforts get the same priority?

One problem I see is that many churches lump home missions and foreign missions in the same pot and the canned food drive and the money to the local pro-life clinic competes for new pioneering activities towards Muslims in unreached people-groups.

I believe that a priority of support is good to ensure that the unreached are really being targetted. What are your thoughts on that?

---------- Post added at 02:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 AM ----------

-
-

To all,

What are some things that you have seen that appear "moochy" by missionaries?

(a possible example: If I have guests come over to visit me, I usually fill them up with packages from home to save mailing costs....maximize that opportunity and use every kilogram the airlines give....ha ha, even if it breaks your guests' backs to get you new theology books).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Robert you seem to not be listening on a certain level. You used the term borrow. No one is borrowing. The simple fact that you used that word borrow signifies you are misclassifying what is going on. I have never heard anyone that was asking for support for missions or ministry use the word borrow as if they intended to pay it back. Someone can be a mooch and not even signify that they want to borrow money. Someone can still be a mooch without asking to borrow. That is what Pergy is asking about I believe. The concept of borrowing is not even a factor in this.

Well that is poorly misguided thought. First off there is a difference between borrowing and asking for donations to support a life and ministry. I don't think I have ever seen a missionary or Pastor asking for donations to support their work with the intent of repaying anything. So the borrowing aspect of your indictment is totally out there. LOL.

That's what dictionary.com defines it as...

Mooch | Define Mooch at Dictionary.com

Mooch
1. to borrow (a small item or amount) without intending to return or repay it.

Merriam-Webster Defines it as
Mooch - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Mooch
1. to wander aimlessly : amble; also : sneak
2. beg, sponge

beg
1. To ask for as charity

Beg - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I would say asking money for a charity is different than a person on the street. But unfortunately it is still within the definition. Take it up with them

 

[thbslawson]

Pergamum,

You asked...

Do you support any sort of prioritization? If a church desired to increase their missions budget by 1,000 USD per month, what sort of criteria would you use, and would all efforts get the same priority?

One problem I see is that many churches lump home missions and foreign missions in the same pot and the canned food drive and the money to the local pro-life clinic competes for new pioneering activities towards Muslims in unreached people-groups.

I believe that a priority of support is good to ensure that the unreached are really being targetted. What are your thoughts on that?

The question seems to imply that every church is obligated to support the same things equally, which I do not believe is the case. The church is called to be a witness to the gospel, and I believe that obligation begins in a church's back yard, but it should not end there. One church may focus on home missions and then partner for ministries in South America, while another Asia, and another secretive work in closed muslim countries. The ultimate priority is the gospel, of course, but the fulfilling of that priority depends on a lot of circumstances that will vary from church to church and mission field to mission field. I do think there should be a general balance of home and foreign missions. I get frustrated with churches that give tens of thousands of dollars to foreign missions but ignore their own backyards, and vice-versa.

 

[Pergamum]

Pergamum,

You asked...

Do you support any sort of prioritization? If a church desired to increase their missions budget by 1,000 USD per month, what sort of criteria would you use, and would all efforts get the same priority?

One problem I see is that many churches lump home missions and foreign missions in the same pot and the canned food drive and the money to the local pro-life clinic competes for new pioneering activities towards Muslims in unreached people-groups.

I believe that a priority of support is good to ensure that the unreached are really being targetted. What are your thoughts on that?

The question seems to imply that every church is obligated to support the same things equally, which I do not believe is the case. The church is called to be a witness to the gospel, and I believe that obligation begins in a church's back yard, but it should not end there. One church may focus on home missions and then partner for ministries in South America, while another Asia, and another secretive work in closed muslim countries. The ultimate priority is the gospel, of course, but the fulfilling of that priority depends on a lot of circumstances that will vary from church to church and mission field to mission field. I do think there should be a general balance of home and foreign missions. I get frustrated with churches that give tens of thousands of dollars to foreign missions but ignore their own backyards, and vice-versa.

Thanks.