Do missionaries mooch?

Discussion in 'Evangelism, Missions and the Persecuted Church' started by Pergamum, Dec 26, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RobertPGH1981

    RobertPGH1981 Puritan Board Freshman

    That's what defines it as...

    Mooch | Define Mooch at

    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

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

    1. To ask for as charity

    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 :D
  2. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    Robert, words not only have a denotation; they have a connotation. The connotation of "mooch" is negative. The definition from 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]
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2012
  3. RobertPGH1981

    RobertPGH1981 Puritan Board Freshman

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

    I was basing my definition solely off of what and 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?"
  4. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    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.
  5. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)


    You said:
    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).
  6. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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.

  7. thbslawson

    thbslawson Puritan Board Freshman


    You asked...

    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.
  8. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page