Is it wrong to pay someone so that they would listen to the gospel?

[Von]

If someone is standing on a street corner and offering money to people for 10 minutes of their time in order that he may share the gospel, what would you think?

 

[Ed Walsh]

If someone is standing on a street corner and offering money to people for 10 minutes of their time in order that he may share the gospel, what would you think?

I've done as much. Giving a homeless person a $20 bill gives me the right, in my opinion, to ask them how they got in this condition and to tell them what the answer to their life is.

Didn't Jesus do as much in feeding the thousands? Many followed him because of this and I think most for no other reason than the free stuff.

John 6:26
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles,
but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

 

[Solparvus]

What you draw them with, is what you keep them with.

 

[Von]

What you draw them with, is what you keep them with.

That is a concern....but even Christ identified this issue with the masses: "...you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves..." (John 6:26). You're not drawing them to church (and trying to keep them there) with all kinds of gimmicks, but grabbing their attention in order that you can share the gospel.
I do think there is a difference.

 

[Von]

Further clarification: What you are saying is true, "what you draw them with (to Christ)", but the gospel is supposed to draw them to Christ, not the money. I'm seeking an opportunity to give them the gospel so that they can be drawn/not drawn.

 

[Solparvus]

That is a concern....but even Christ identified this issue with the masses: "...you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves..." (John 6:26). You're not drawing them to church (and trying to keep them there) with all kinds of gimmicks, but grabbing their attention in order that you can share the gospel.
I do think there is a difference.

The purpose of Christ distributing the loaves was to say something about Himself. They were supposed to look at His great power in multiplying the loaves of bread, and to see that He is the bread of life, and that in Him there is no lack of anything needed for their salvation. The miracle served to confirm the ministry of Himself, and the later miracles to confirm the ministry of His apostles. It's not the same thing when we give things on the street.

On top of that, Christ had not multiplied those loaves until they had first listened.

Perhaps in other places the miracles came first, I don't remember, but there are significant differences in purpose between when Christ does it, and we do it.

That said, it's good and right to treat someone to a meal, especially if you see they are in need. Coffee or a meal is a good way to build up friendship. To in essence pay someone to listen, I can't justify.

 

[Ed Walsh]

What you draw them with, is what you keep them with.

If I understand your brief statement correctly, then I think you are incorrect. The Lord uses many and diverse things to draw people to himself. At least in the initial stage. People's greed is the appeal to in the pearl of great price and the treasure in the field. Is it not? Sometimes Jesus warned of hell. Other times the promise of heaven. And still other times physical and mental healing. I think God can use lightning in the sky to draw somebody to himself.

But, and here is the part I do agree with you on, he didn't try to keep them with the same methods. Those that saw the miracles only walked away from him never to return. If you think of the ten lepers, 90% turned away. But the healing still brought one Soul to God.

 

[Von]

Giving a homeless person a $20 bill

Just for interest sake - I was more thinking about R20 (which is about $1). But that's just economics....

 

[User20004000]

I've done as much. Giving a homeless person a $20 bill gives me the right, in my opinion, to ask them how they got in this condition and to tell them what the answer to their life is.

Didn't Jesus do as much in feeding the thousands? Many followed him because of this and I think most for no other reason than the free stuff.

John 6:26
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

That might need some untangling. There are both similarities and differences that need to be teased out.

Three brief observations about the analogy.

1. The similarity between paying someone and performing a miracle is that both attract an audience.

2. The differences include that Jesus’ miracles pointed to something beyond the physical. Man’s spiritual need. Miracles also vindicated Christ as God with us. (Paying someone to listen to the gospel achieves no such things.)

3. I’m not suggesting that the the stark differences disprove the legitimacy of paying someone to listen to the gospel. Rather, I’m just merely pointing out that paying someone to listen to the gospel cannot be condoned merely based upon Jesus’ use of miracles.

 

[Von]

What about making friends by using the unrighteous money? (Luke 16:9)

 

[Wretched Man]

What you draw them with, is what you keep them with.

Occasionally when I’m approached by a homeless person, I often like to offer to take them over to a fast food restaurant for lunch. When they inevitably say no, I very bluntly tell them I don’t believe they really need it for food or whatever heart throbbing story they have. I then request a little bit of their time (similar to what Ed mentioned he does) to present the gospel.

Ultimately I hope through the engagement, I am bringing some conviction to them and planting a seed.

So no, I don’t necessarily think it is wrong to give money to provide the gospel. Although not sure how many can afford to do so.... even handing out tracts I print out add up in ink and paper costs...