Altar Calls?

You just won't stop, will you?

 

Hmm, what were we talking about before this latest little distraction? Oh yeah, I remember, it was altar calls.

A few posts back, I asked for examples of the improper use of invitations/altar calls. I was directing the question mainly at those who favor their use, since I expected opponents to consider everything improper.

So, I'll ask again. During your invitation, is anything off-limits? Do you avoid certain terminology or buzz words? Do you use subtle methods to make responding easier?

For example, do you have everybody stand so that moving toward the aisle is easier?

On the other hand, are there some phrases, buzz words, or methods which you find particularly effective in persuading the lost to respond?

I don't think anybody here will favor improper or manipulative methods in calling men and women to Christ. So what won't you do to get a response? What will you do?

 

Historical Aspect

Debating the meaning of altar calls aside, historically, the act of the altar call is relatively new in the life of the church depending on where your are from. I know alot of it is attributed to Finney, but regardless...

There is some form of committment making/showing within the church. Either you have those that compel the lost to answer the Lord at an altar or you have like the old Baptists (Primitive, Old Regular, etc) that call for those that have already received salvation to join the church at the end of the service. Not sure exactly if the Primitives do this, but I do know of some Old Regulars and Uniteds that do.

I know my parents growing up said that altar calls were relatively new in their area, "joining the church" (mentioned above) was what people said when someone got saved. Meanings change, of course.

I know this is more historical than scriptural but anyway.

 

To me, the answer to the altar call is quite simple. Since we are local autonomous churches, if one does not approve of or like the altar call in a church that has them, then I am sure there are local Baptist churches that do not have them. I am quite content with the way the services end at our church, and would have a real problem changing to a method such as the Presbyterians do when ending a service. Not one person has given one piece of evidence that they are unBiblical when handled properly. Lots of opinions and no facts.

 

Some will never get away from altar calls regardless of the evidence from Scripture or otherwise.

rev said:

I have seen it an awful lot....a ton. I agree that the presentation has been faulty. Maybe it's connected, maybe not. The "altar call" should seemingly flow from the message. I've seen that, and sometimes not.

And I will not be ashamed either. I plead with my hearers to come to Christ, and for the saved to confess their sins and respond every single message. And they can respond, altar call or not. I think some who oppose altar calls might devolve into some sort of informational lecture from the pulpit (I've not seen this personally), but if they do they are missing the mark. Just giving information and ending, saying "here you go" is not preaching. Preaching demands a verdict, as Lloyd Jones (A staunch opponent of altar calls) famously said. Preaching is about life change, first for any lost to come to Christ, and for those who name His name to live worthy of that name, and to do whatever they must to obey Christ with a passionate obedience. Similarly, some who use altar calls could use manipulation, nose counting, whatever....but to say everyone does that is false. I just reject that premise.

Whether we do altar calls or not, we must be Biblical in what we do for God's glory and our people's benefit. Thanks Revmitchell. :jesus:And thanks for the link by Phil on hyperCalvinism. It's must reading. I think this clears a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of the fence (Reformed vs non-reformed). :thumbs:

 

I like your method of altar calls. What I would never put up with is a method where the service just ended with a sermon and a prayer without one mention of seeing someone after the service, or relating the message to the Holy Spirit working in ones life.

 

IMHO because some do abuse the practice it has caused some people to conclude that every altar call is wrong. I think doing so is painting the subject with to broad a brush.

I have sat through some (altar calls) that IMO have felt like they were at some point being forced by the desire of man, and then have sat through others others that IMO were Spirit led, and God centered entirely.

I see nothing wrong with a preacher, like Peter use many words to solemnly testify and keep on exhorting, if led by the Spirit to do so.

 

Food for thought for those whose "dream invitation" involves just directing people to "see a presbyter later":

"We must not come back by a rapid march to the old way of altars and confessionals, and have Romish trumpery estored in a coarser form. If we make men think that conversation with ourselves or with our helpers is essential to their faith in Christ, we are taking the direct line for priestcraft. In the gospel, the sinner and the Savior are to come together, with none between. Speak upon this point very clearly, “You, sinner, sitting where you are, believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, shall have eternal life. Do not stop till you pass into an inquiryroom. Do not think it essential to confer with me. Do not suppose that I have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, or that these godly men and women associated with me can tell you any other gospel than this, ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.’”" ---Charles Spurgeon, An All-Round Ministry

 

My pastor growing up use to always mention that we were welcome to come now to speak with someone, speak to him personally after the service, or just ask God right there in your seat. I like that approach rather than giving the impression someone must walk down the isle and talk with someone.

One thing I don't like is when someone uses the term "we will be closing the invitation". Of course the invitation from God is never closed.

 

Sometimes it is much better to ask an enquirer to remain after the service. More than once I have seen a pastor on his knees with the enquirer at the front pew, Bible open, rapidly flipping through the pages, obviously pointing him to scriptures (maybe the Roman Road). All the while, the congregation is waiting, singing over and over the invitation hymn.

It's almost as if the preacher is aware that the congregation is waiting and is trying to hurry up. See why I say that sometimes, after the service is better.

 

There should be rooms designated for counseling in private (men with men and women with women only) and trained counselors available to stay as long as it is necessary. It should never be rushed through.

 

From "Faith And Regeneration" By CHS

Faith, again, is not the assurance that Jesus died for me. I sometimes feel myself a little at variance with that verse --
"Just as I am -- without one plea
But that thy blood was shed for me."

It is eminenently suitable for a child of God, but I am not so sure as to its being the precise way for putting the matter for a sinner. I do not believe in Jesus because I am persuaded that his blood was shed for me, but rather i discover that his blood was shed for especially for me from the fact that I have been led to believe in him... There is no particular efficacy in a man's assuming that Christ has died for him, for it is a mere truism, if it be true as some teach, that Jeus died for everybody.

 

Exactly! I believe this was the method of Spurgeon and is the method of many growing and faithful churches like Parkside Church (Alistair Begg), Grace Community (John MacArthur) etc.

 

That reminds me of the old saying on bumper stickers that said to the effect "Jesus said it, I believe it, and that settles it." That is one of the worst sayings we ever invented. Jesus said it and that settles it is the correct phrase. Me or anyone else believing it is not a condition for God's Word to become true. If the Lord chose us to be a part of His salvation through grace and mercy, then we are truly blessed.

After reading all the posts and points of view, this one comes closest in my opinion. A modern day invitation might not be the best method, but it is light years better than nothing. It is better than sitting through a sermon no one can half understand, then in essence, you hear the words, "church is over, see you next time."

 

A question for you pastors:

How often do you know in advance that someone will come forward, and how often are you not expecting it?

In my own church, my pastor has already counseled many of the folks who walk the aisle, and they are simply making public an earlier conversion, or a desire to transfer their membership from somewhere else.

 

Hmmm....looking back over the course of my ministry, probably about 75% in favor of knowing in advance. The times you don't know about can be hallelujah moments. I think of two churches where two different deacons came forward and apologized to the church for sinful behavior and asked for forgiveness. One church I know of that has no invitation sees this kind of thing all the time. People ask for time to confess sin publicly, apologize to people, etc.

One thing I caution here: never call a person forward whom you've talked with earlier. My rule of thumb: if the person doesn't move, I don't move for them. Filling in for my home pastor for an extended time, I was approached by a stepdad. He said his stepdaughter had accepted Christ and wanted to be baptized and said she would come forward at the next service. (She was unavailable to talk then, and I planned to talk to her before the invitation to see what had transpired). Next worship service, during the invitation, no movement from the family or the girl. The service concludes. At the end, he kind took me to task, expecting me to call her down to the front. I explained (again) that I don't do this, that this can create a false sense of security (I've heard many times "Well, I must be saved, the preacher even called me to come forward...). And that we should talk then and this could happen next service. He didn't seem satisfied. The pastor had my back, as he doesn't do the same thing. I'll let you decide how it turned out. She was never baptized and has never publicly made a profession of faith and now is living a rather gross life of sin. Apparently, she was pressured into some sort of prayer regurgitation to get her stepdad off her back and never really trusted Christ to hear her tell it. So do be careful.

There are times it helps to have your ear to the ground and use wisdom. I caught wind in one church I filled the pulpit one Sunday that a member was going to use the "Does anyone have a word to share?" portion of the invitation to blast a fellow church member who she had a grudge against, and try to provoke an altercation. Long story short, I was able to nip that in the bud. Who knows what would've transpired if she'd been given the floor. Shepherding means protecting sheep.

 

Forgive me for jumping in this late in the thread, but I notice no one really answered this question, so I thought I'd try. It is often blamed on Finney, but he was not the culprit.

Some say that Eleazer Wheelock invented the “mourner’s seat,” but I haven’t found that documented yet. He was a Calvinist (Memoirs of the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock, by David McClure, p. 116). Chapter X is about his ministry, but doesn’t mention the mourner’s seat.

The invitation was actually invented by the Separate Baptists (Calvinists, folks!). H. Leon McBeth writes, "The Separates apparently helped popularize what is now known as the 'evangelistic invitation.'" He then quotes Robert I. Devin (A History of Grassy Creek Baptist Church, p. 69): "At the close of the sermon, the minister would come down from the pulpit and while singing a suitable hymn would go around among the brethren shaking hands. The hymn being sung, he would then extend an invitation to such persons as felt themselves poor guilty sinners, and were anxiously inquiring the way of salvation, to come forward and kneel near the stand." McBeth then writes, "The separates thus devised a method of encouraging on-the-spot religious decisions, to the singing of a hymn, well before the revivals of Charles G. Finney, who is often credited with inventing the invitation" (The Baptist Heritage, p. 231).

Also, check out The Effective Invitation by R. Alan Streett (Revell, 1984). Streett gives clear historical evidence that the invitation goes back much further than Finney, the usual suspect. For example, he talks about the preaching of John Chrysostom (347-407), Patrick of Ireland (390-461), etc. He documents the fact that in the 12th century Bernard of Clairvaux would ask for a show of hands after his messages.

Most folk seem to have a pretty hazy idea of the invitation. It is not just having folk come down front while the piano plays 92 stanzas of "Just As I Am." The invitation can take many forms. Here in Japan, since my church is so small, I sometimes just ask them to pray where they are for a minute, and take it to God. That is an invitation to act on what they have just heard. However, one time a few years ago there was a man I knew needed to make a public profession of faith, ala Romans 10:9-10, so I gave a "come on down" invitation. He is now the best Christian in my church!

An old time Baptist preacher named Faris Whitesell wrote a book in 1945, 65 Ways To Give an Evangelistic Invitation. The great R. G. Lee wrote the forward. To give you just one example, the first invitation Whitesell gives is to respond later, perhaps by making an appointment with the pastor. You have to agree, there is nothing high pressure about that.

Concerning how the NT church did it, look at Peter's words in Acts 2:38-42--"38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

If that isn't an evangelistic invitation, I don't know what is. Sure, no organs were playing, but it was an invitation for folks to trust Christ right then and there. Meanwhile, the other disciples, the "personal workers," were going through the crowd speaking to folks in their own language and exhorting them to trust Christ.

Again, "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink" (John 7:37). Sounds like a public invitation to me.

Again, “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. 22:17). Sounds like an invitation to me.