In his history of Baptists, Thomas Armitage wrote: "So common was it for the Churches to content themselves with one sermon a month, that these came to be known as 'Thirty-day Baptists,' and so ignorant or mean, or both, were many of them, that they thought it the absolute duty of their pastors to support themselves by a profession, by farming, or some other form of manual labor, and then prove their Apostolic calling by preaching for nothing. This class of Baptists took the greatest possible comfort in the thought that while the 'starched gentry' of the Standing Order peeled them by taxation, their pastors were strangers to 'filthy lucre'" (A History of the Baptists, Vol. II, p. 776).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Thirty-day Baptists"
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
very interesting. I hadn’t heard about them as far as I can remember.
I take comfort in knowing that the Righteous Judge has promised to recompense anything given up for his work.
Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Praise the Lord for the pastors of the day who preached in spite of their congregations.
It is too bad that they only cared for God’s word once in a month.
Once-a-month church seems really a lot compared to the flower crowd (lilies, poinsettias) that surround me and so many only go to church twice a year!
Cannot imagine there were Baptists that did this intentionally. I could see this as an accommodation if in colonial areas where preachers had a "circuit" to cover the frontier. But to force a preacher to have full secular employment so they could save money NOT supporting him as typical pastor shows much of the character of these early church people.
Cannot imagine there were Baptists that did this intentionally. I could see this as an accommodation if in colonial areas where preachers had a "circuit" to cover the frontier. But to force a preacher to have full secular employment so they could save money NOT supporting him as typical pastor shows much of the character of these early church people.
Years ago, when I was a youth at my earthly father's side, I listened to an "evangelist" give a rip roaring message one Sunday Night. The only line I remember was this, "The Baptist's say the loudest Amen, but drop in the thinnest dimes!"
It is hard for me to believe even having heard it in my own ears. I was once confronted by a person who suggested that the church was headed in the wrong direction by taking on a full time pastor. That the church had obviously not done well under pastors in the past and that maybe a new approach to pastors pay was a better idea. Ironically, the church in question, since 1840, had never supported a pastor and until recently, never intended to.
People are still people no matter what century they live in.
Somehow the people who feel like they don’t need churches and pastors and don’t feel like they should have to pay for the Bible, always skip the Bible teachings that direct them to care for those that labor in the Word.
It’s the goodness of God that pastors are cared for.
I know there are lots of bi-vocational pastors. But I would say from my own experience, if you can rely on God to meet your needs, your church will be better served by the extra time you will put into your people. They will learn to appreciate you more when you are able to be there at their homes and in the hospitals. It comes at a cost. It tries the faith and brings meaning to the words “give us this day our daily bread.” But it is far better than serving two masters.
People are still people no matter what century they live in.
Somehow the people who feel like they don’t need churches and pastors and don’t feel like they should have to pay for the Bible, always skip the Bible teachings that direct them to care for those that labor in the Word.
It’s the goodness of God that pastors are cared for.
I know there are lots of bi-vocational pastors. But I would say from my own experience, if you can rely on God to meet your needs, your church will be better served by the extra time you will put into your people. They will learn to appreciate you more when you are able to be there at their homes and in the hospitals. It comes at a cost. It tries the faith and brings meaning to the words “give us this day our daily bread.” But it is far better than serving two masters.
Think there is a Scottish church group that takes Communion just once a year?
Knew an independent baptist Pastor that worked at GM full time, and he was glad to be able to not charge his salary to the small church, but had them pay him a salary, but he turned it right back into tithes and offerings plate
They use real wine and bread, so saves on church budget for communion items