The Altar … to Call or Not to Call
We do not regularly practice an altar call at the church where I pastor, Crossroads Fellowship in Cadiz, Kentucky. Exceptions are few. I will, on occasion, have some sort of “action step” at the end of my message. But it does not involve endless verses of “Just As I Am,” with pleas for people to “walk the aisle” to make any kind of decision or to “come to Jesus.”. Also, I have a very close friend and former pastor who fills in for me when I am away who insists on having an “invitation” when he preaches for me. I find that our older folk like it and our younger (previously unchurched) folk tend to wonder, “What in the world was that all about?”
We have sometimes been chastised, “demonized,” and ostracized in Baptist life because of our decision not to have altar call invitations. Indeed, some go so far as to question whether or not we are an actual church because of our lack of a proper “invitation.”
But we do have an invitation … of sorts. Each week I debrief the congregation following my sermon using a response card. I ask people to check the appropriate box on the back of their card to let me know what God is doing in their lives, or to tell me what type of decision they have made. If they cannot find a pre-written response that applies, I encourage them to write me a note on the card. We collect those cards during our offering time and I follow up personally with respondents.
Anyhow … our decision not to do “altar call” invitations was deliberate and strategic. In our early days of planting and organizing the church, we determined that in our target group (adults under 40 with children) he altar call was actually a potential HINDRANCE to a response to the Gospel. We discovered that young people were often terrified by the prospect of walking in front of people, or having to speak in front of a crowd. As we searched the Scriptures, we could find little biblical support for the practice, so we elected not to include it in our regular worship experiences. Instead of an “altar call,” we regard a person’s baptism as their public stand for Christ.
About a year ago I discovered this thought-provoking article on “Altar call Evangelism” by Paul Alexander of 9 Marks. In it he explains nine solid reasons why the altar call should not be practiced. I recommend it. Depending upon our discussion today, I may interact with that article in upcoming posts.
Meanwhile … what about your church? Do you practice an “altar call?” Why? Why not? Do you believe it is biblical? Do you believe you “can’t be a church without it?” Is there any such thing as an “altar” in the church today? Please share your views and make your biblical case.
Personally I feel like “Altar Calls” are an offense to the cross. The Altar was finished when Christ sacrificed himself on it for all – if you will, Christ made the final altar call. One may say that the altar call is a symbol of sacrificing our lives to Christ – but I believe that perverts the original point of the altar (covering our own sins) and perverts what Christ did on the cross (covering our sins for good).
With that said and although I do not agree with the altar call methodology, I think the reason you gave for not doing an altar call, “We discovered that young people were often terrified by the prospect of walking in front of people, or having to speak in front of a crowd.” is actually a poor reason (no offense and I completely understand the reasoning). I think it is poor because I believe there is some aspect of giving up what you are terrified of in order to follow Christ.
Just my two cents.
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
I am a huge un-fan of the altar call. It can be done well, but it my experience it just isn’t. When I have the opportunity to preach, I give an invitation – to come to Christ, not to the front. I also invite them to come see me AFTER the service if they have any questions or need prayer, counseling, etc.
Invitations are largely meant to boost the egos of the person behind the pulpit. (before you jump on that last statement, think back to all the revivals you have sat through as a Southern Baptist) The trouble is, so many preachers are so invested in getting altar responses, that it ends up being more of a discouragement.
This results in some pretty manipulative methods for getting people up front. I’m sure we’ve all seen them.
It is said that responding to the invitation is our public profession of faith. Sorry, but that’s what baptism is for.
Finney did us no favors.
Geoff,
I do give an altar call but not like you described (endless verses of Just As I Am). To me, it’s a time to share with the church what God has done in the life of the one who comes. It’s also the means through which someone joins the church.
I understand why some do not have altar calls and I respect their decisions not to. I’ll ask you what I always ask them, “If you don’t have an altar call, how do people know what to do to join your church, share their receiving Christ, etc.?” You said that you have them fill out a card to indicate these things. I’m wondering how some other churches do it.
Good topic. Should get some discussion going.
Les
For people like me who have been in the ministry for more than fifty years, this post is an excellent example of how the world has changed, even in the church. In my mind, preaching and not giving peolple an opportunity to respond would be unthinkable. I abhor manipulation, but altar calls do not have to be about manipulation. I also abhor long drawn out altar calls, but they do not have to be that, either. I can tell almost immediately if the Spirit is doing anything in that altar call. If He is not, I cut it off. I do not continue until someone feels guilty about not coming.
Ken: I can’t speak for others who don’t have altar calls, but in our church, we do call for a response (come to Christ, repent, etc). It’s just that the response doesn’t necessarily involve going to the front.
Les: I always ask people to come see me after the service if they are interested in joining the church. After speaking with them, assuming we decide to go forward, I will have them present themselves up front the next Sunday. They know it’s coming, I know it’s coming, and the candidate has been examined prior to their public presentation.
I do give an invitation and altar call at the end of every service. To me, this is the most important part of the service. It is a time of prayer, decisions, and opportunities. I also think that it is important for the church to witness these events; not have them take place after service, behind a closed door, or by just filling out a card. I know the argument, that coming to the altar doesn’t equal coming to Jesus. Well… filling out a card does not either. This is where good counsel and follow up is needed. As for a Biblical reason for a public invitation, as far as I can tell… every invitation by Jesus and the Disciples was a public one. Maybe not “coming forward” or “walking an aisle”… but “follow me” and “come after me”. These were physical commands as well as spiritual.
Let me get caught up -
Lew – Agreed. Following Christ does require that we address the things that we fear … do things outside our comfort zone. But I think that is after we come to Christ, not before. If something is a barrier to reaching the cross, it must be removed.
Bill – I think we agree … baptism is a more than ample public display of one’s commitment to follow Christ … which is why my church most often holds its baptisms in public, rather than within the secrecy of the church.
Les & Ken – I always, always give the people in the congregation an opportunity to respond. But their response is to God, not to me … or for the benefit of those watching. Some decisions are intensely private and should be treated as such. People indicate (to me) how God is moving in their lives through our response card or personal address to me after the service. It has proven quite effective.
Joe – I think you inadvertently brought up a very important point. I feel that the “altar call’ is more often for the benefit of the ones watching than the ones making the decisions. The church is well-informed of all public decisions in our church. But I don’t think that the “altar call” should be confused as any sort of mechanism for the church to get a “spiritual buzz” because they see people going to the preacher or on their knees in front of the church. God is well-able to bring people to a point of brokenness and prayer without our end-of-service help. I just think that the invitation is more about tradition and having a visible way to “measure” or “size up” the preacher than it is a true reflection of real spiritual decisions.
I guess I might as well wade into these waters…
We have an opportunity near the end of our worship service when we invite individuals and families to come forward to pray and to be prayed for. This is an opportunity for people to profess their faith in Christ or to declare what they sense God is doing in their life at the moment. People often come forward requesting prayer for their health, a friend or family member, or whatever else may be burdening them. It can be a literal step of faith towards Jesus. It’s highly likely that someone will come forward and privately confess sin. This decision time often becomes the climax to our worship. The focus of the altar call is sometimes evangelism but most often it is just an opportunity to move forward and make a solid commitment regarding what the Holy Spirit may have put on ones heart from the message or the worship. We also use the response cards with the added twist that I commit to pray over each person who turns one in throughout the week.
By the way, I sometimes have our other pastors stand with me at the front or else our deacons. Sometimes, we have no one standing at the front. It is not unusual to have one or more of our pastors or deacons kneeling at the altar throughout the response time. I’ve even had my wife come and stand with me at the front to provide prayer for whoever might choose to come forward. Honestly, it’s a blessing for all of us to be able to physically respond to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Testing… you can delete if you see this…
Dave,
I love this idea. We have people turn in prayer cards on one song, and pick up prayer cards to pray for on the next song. But I like people praying for one another right there during the service. Thanks for the idea.
Geoff,
I “like” your use of “quotation marks.” I “feel” it really makes your “posts” more “convincing.”
Just kidding.
Brother Geoff,
Great subject!
We too took a great deal of care to consider how, why, and what kind of response we believe the scriptures teach as we end our time of worship together. “Altar calls” as we know them in the United States are somewhat of a new phenomenon for the church at large (Finney being the author of the more flamboyant ones) But, we believe there is probably nothing intrinsically wrong with allowing people to respond…unless of course that portion of the service becomes an idol in and of itself. Unfortunately, many pastors and church members look to that event as the crescendo of why they meet or as someone has already explained, in some cases the “call” can feed the Pastor’s ego or become a poor and misleading indicator of the churches commitment….possibly becoming more of a negative influence on a Pastor with a fragile self-worth.
As for us…. We always end our worship together with a benediction. I have found that it is extremely important to complete our worship together with a “good word” concerning the work of Christ for His church. After all He is the one ministering to us. Yesterday, just following our communion, I sent everyone away with …. Numbers 6:24-26 The LORD bless you, and keep you; (25) The LORD make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you; (26) The LORD lift up His countenance on you, And give you peace.’
After a short 5 minute break following worship, we also spend another hour discussing the sermon and I take questions from the congregation to clarify anything that was not understood or to expound further if something was not clear. (I sometimes refer to this as our “hour-long” invitation.) We have found this to be a most valuable time together as a church!
Blessings,
Chris
Geoff,
This post is bereft of any biblical support for your position. No offense.
First, you said that young people are “often terrified” of coming forward in a church. I have found that many times when people use the phrases “most people…” or “those people are often…” that does not extend informally past them and their brother-in-law. It is a blanket statement that MANY churches would disagree with you on based on what they witness. Any biblical support for this claim?
Second, you said “If something is a barrier to reaching the cross, it must be removed.” Correct. Are you then saying that coming forward in an “altar call” is actually coming forward to the cross? Is the barrier people’s fear of coming forward? This doesn’t make since given the rejection of anything meaningful being contained in coming forward.
Third, I really am disappointed at the tone you take toward your brothers who practice public invitations, or “altar calls.” Brother, do you realize how much degradation you are pouring on them as you continually make the baseless claim that most invitations are done for preacher ego or church pride? Do you have evidence? Is this akin to them being “chastised, ‘demonized,’ and ostracized,” like you mentioned in your post? I would hope that future installments of how others are wrong would include a more scholarly and brotherly approach.
Again, to get caught up -
Dave – A great approach, indeed.
Lew – Testing, testing … The pearl is in the river … John has a long mustache … ;)
Roger – My subliminal use of quotation marks serves only to identify phrases which have a common church usage, but may be misunderstood by those outside our context. Plus – they bother you, which makes them of extreme entertainment value. :)
Chris – An hour after. Wow! But that would be hard for me, since we do two worships back-to-back with only a 30 minute intermission in between.
Colin – Unfortunately, some offense taken. I’m not sure where you’re coming from. And your response is somewhat bereft of grace and brotherhood, and completely lacking in foundation, in my opinion. I welcome you to point out a single instance where I have belittled anyone here. If I am wrong, I will gladly apologize to anyone I have wronged.
But your vitriolic response to my rather benign post is quite puzzling.
Brother Geoff,
A two service situation does pose difficulties. We are a church plant, and still small in number,…so this works very well. As we grow, we will go to Q&A on cards and try to cover what we believe to be of most value.
As for now, the discussion time is wonderful…and is a great way to mature the church and set them at ease.
Blessings,
Chris
Geoff: This is a conversation that has been talked about among Christians for years. If you will hear from one who is not a minister but grew up on the altar calls you described I would like to give a personal experience.
I was one who made the decisions and altar calls at camp, and at church. I hold the record for trips down the aisle. In my naive thinking, I did equate having Christ, rededication of my life over and over with walking down the aisle. I ended up worn out and frustrated. I didn’t realize the moment I believed, I was truly born again. It wasn’t taught to me, till much later in life at the church I attend now. The relief of knowing that was tremendous.
I agree with the article you linked to, and hope you do break it down and interact, I think it very important to others who are worn out.
I might add that the points in the Mark 9 article are concerns I have, especially with our problem with unregenerate church membership, which I believe is a big problem in SB churches.
Chris,
IMHO you have the best approach to teaching and answering questions to who, when and where Jesus Christ is. Dr Richard Kaufmann and Dr Tim Keller use or have used this way of way of getting to know their members and visitors, as well as answer any Questions people present may have. As you know both have grown the Churches they are entrusted with, to the Glory of God.
Wayne Smith
Colin,
Of course there are no verses that directly support Geoff’s position, but I can think of one indirect one. It’s in John 19, especially verse 38. The Bible distinctly calls Joseph of Arimathea “a disciple, but secretly.” And while the text says that his reason is for fear of persecution, no where (that I can find) does it say that is the only possible reason for it. The position that most Baptist churches have taken–at least to my perception–is that one cannot be a “secret disciple” because it means they have not publicly “walked the aisle.” Yet here we are, with exactly what the Bible says contradicting our logic.
Of course, our Biblical proof-text for public invitations is Matthew 10:32, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven,” but I have to ask: is walking the aisle the ONLY way one can publicly confess Jesus? The obvious answer is, “no,” that there can be others.
By the way: did you know that through most of the 19th Century, few (if any) Baptist churches practiced an invitation or altar call at the end of worship? The normal and usual pattern was for a “public invitation” to be extended only once a year, and that at the annual business meeting, which was normally on a Saturday in the fall. Incidentially, this (in the 18th Century) was practice among General as well as Particular Baptists, i.e., both those more Arminian and those more Calvinistic. The language I have seen used in old records and minute books was quite uniform, that usually towards the end of the meeting, “a door of opportunity was opened.” They didn’t even call it an “invitation.” Invitations as we generally use them are a product of 19th Century revivalism, as someone else has noted, pioneered by Charles Finney. Some Baptist churches adopted it quite early, but others did not until half a century or so later, although eventually almost all did. But collective memory is short, and rarely lasts more than two generations–which means that even for a church which did not begin having Sunday invitations until 1900, memory of invitation-less Sundays was lost after about 1940.
At the church I serve, we usually close with what most Baptists would recognize as an invitation, although we call it, “A Time for Encountering God.” I make clear that this is an opportunity to go to God, confess sins, remove obstacles, and begin a relationship, but that much, perhaps most is between the individual and God–in other words, privately. Normally, I have met with any wish to make a public commitment of any kind; occasionally, they “walk the aisle” (one did just yesterday), but usually I share the decision they have made, with their permission of course, and ask them to stand with me at the door, then their request is voted on (assuming it is for membership, or something else requiring church action) at the next regular business meeting. We find this meets the criteria for a public confession quite well.
John
John
IMO, If and when the Holy Spirit convicts ones Heart, the person wants to shout it from the Rooftops. They will let someone know of their encounter with the Holy Spirit ASAP. This walking the isle is okay, if the one walking is full of the Holy Spirit. When they are Baptized by Water, that is their Public Display of being a Confessed Disciple of Jesus Christ.
Wayne Smith
Wayne,
I would wonder if one’s personality type does not enter in to them wanting to “to shout it from the Rooftops” when the Holy Spirit has touched them. And possibly other things too: cultural expectations (I could more readily see what you are describing happening at the old, rural Baptist church in Alabama where my paternal grandparents are buried than here in the DC suburbs), and the person’s background, i.e., someone who was converted as an adult from a lifestyle such as drugs, alcoholism, casual sex, etc., verses one raised in the church who has “always” been under the influence of Christ even before they had a personal relationship with Him.
John
John,
This describes me as I was born and raised in a Lutheran Church; this includes youth groups to Church Elder until I was 40 years old. That’s when I truly was Born Again and what I said in the previous comment is the feeling I had as a result.
Wayne Smith
Brother Wayne,
Of the 30 years I have been in ministry, this approach seems to be as close to what I understand the church to be in worship. It allows the leadership to respond and shepherd the flock at a critical juncture. It has become obvious to us that people think differently about the message that has been delivered, even if the exegesis is solid and consistent, so the question and answer time becomes a valuable time to teach and lead the entire body into more depth and hopefully a clearer view of the Word.
Not everyone cares for this approach, I might add. So, the leadership must be able to deal with the believers that are not as willing as others to discuss and respond. So we are careful not to leave anyone unaware… and follow up with everyone during the week. I will also write articles and email the congregation during the week to explain questions in greater detail. For instance, this week a question on the relationship of the “Law” came up during my introduction to Romans 11. So out of the question I am writing an article to articulate the distinctions in the Law in relation to the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ (Romans 8:2).
The invitation and response seems to go on from day to day now…..
Blessings,
Chris
I’ll echo Debbie’s thoughts here and ask a question. How many of us have noticed that it is often the same people who respond to altar calls over and over again? They tend to be the more emotional in the congregation. Has anyone ever taken these folks aside and said “what gives”?
Let me make a morally neutral observation that we can take for good or bad. The alter call is for people to do something to be seen. I’m very leery of that on the whole, although I acknowledge there are times to do some things to be seen by others.
So if we give an invitation, I think we need to ask ourselves if and why it is important that we are asking people to do something publicly.
We once had a man stand up and publicly and tearfully apologize to his son for not spending enough time with him. Is this what the invitation is for? Is this an appropriate part of public worship? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
Geoff,
I do owe you an apology for the last point. After reading again, I am at a loss as to where the text is I was referring to, except that I took the tone of the comments, such as, “Invitations are largely meant to boost the egos of the person behind the pulpit,” as the tone of the post. Again, I apologize.
As for the other two questions, I still pose them to you.
As to my tone, please know that it is not in any way malicious. I could dress up my words with smiley faces and softer language, but frankly, it doesn’t really seem to matter in the world of blogs anymore. So know that my tone is not as it may appear, I just am inclined to get straight to the point. You will just have to take my word on that.
As to biblical support and the IX Marks article in particular, there is little to dissuade those who do altar calls biblically. The IX Marks article is not 9 reasons not to practice altar calls, it is in fact one reason they do not meet the writer’s criteria for prudent biblical witness. And that is because they are misunderstood BECAUSE they are not explained properly to the congregation. In other words, his one single reason throughout all nine of his reasons is that there is misunderstanding surrounding the practice.
As far as biblical support of a decision, of course we have many, especially in the book of Acts. For one, there is a call to decision in Acts 2:37-38. So we are all agreed that there must be a response to the gospel, an invitation to act, if you will. This must be repentance and faith. Yet there is clearly a time in which this happens. Why not after a gospel call in the church? Then, it can be made known by confession (as in Les’s church), or writing it down (as in your church), or seeing the pastor on Monday (as in Spurgeon’s church, if I remember correctly). Yet I do not see biblical support for reducing any of these methods down to emotional manipulation, confusion or ego-boosting. If there is, that is what should be discussed in these comments. Misunderstanding by the congregation can occur in any of these methods, not just the “altar call.” The problem, then, is the clear gospel call and clear articulation of the decision that has to be made.
Tone: joyful and focused
Bill:
The Bible is full of admonitions to do things in order to be seen in the church. You must be referring to people that want themselves to be seen. But this, of course, seems awfully close to judging one’s heart.
Colin – I don’t believe that Geoff was casting aspertions on those who conduct invitations. I believe I disagree (lightly) with the premise however. I find that conduct based upon public opinion polls to be slightly out of kilter, particuarly when the Gospel we are trying to preach does not have wide spread support among the masses, “narrow is the way, and the few who find it.”
Geoff,
I accept that invitations are “traditonal.” Yet I accept that the tradition represented here is a good one – the public calling forth from the world into a relationship with God – “Bearing one anothers burdens” as they publically in front of the body display their need for all to bear and pray for. If people are afraid to do it “in front of others” then why even have public Baptisms – we can quietly dunk them in their own bathtubs or swimming pools at home.
I understand (unlike some yougun’s) the reasonablness of some tradition – tradition speaks to doctrinal issues passed down from generation to generation. Traditions MUST have a biblical basis to be sustained – something that I believe the invitation does have. Now, you can start a new tradition – but it seems from this perspective that this “new” tradition is not anything at all – it calls upon no one to really take a stand besides what the pastor sees written on a card. Much of the Christian life is antithetical to human nature anyways – “Love your enemies” “Forgive those who have wronged you” “Show humility and kindness” “Treat others as you would like yourself to be treated.” Do we allow compartementalized, syncretic, so called Christians to be dismissive about these traits? “Take up your cross and follow me” “Let the dead bury the dead and follow me” “Go, sell all you have to the poor, and then follow me” sounds hollow if people are allowed to stand on their vices.
Rob
Colin: I thought I made it clear that I was making a neutral judgment. I thought I also made it clear that I acknowledged that there are times to do something to be seen by others. My point is that if we are going to encourage people to do something publicly, it should be something that is appropriately public. I then gave an example of something that I think is not appropriately public. I don’t see the problem.
Wayne,
I do not doubt at all that your comment represents your feelings, nor do I doubt that your feelings (and your expressions of them) are valid. But my questions are aimed at a larger point: are your feelings the ONLY valid expression for all who have encountered the Risen Christ? Are they even the expression of all who have encountered Him (and been changed by the encounter) in your church? That is what I somewhat take issue with.
John
Bill,
You write, “We once had a man stand up and publicly and tearfully apologize to his son for not spending enough time with him. Is this what the invitation is for? Is this an appropriate part of public worship?”
I would answer, “YES!” James 5:16 commands us, “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed”. There is amazing accountability that can occur when we begin to take off our masks in front of each other.
Notice also, 1 John 1:7-9, “If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It appears that “Walking in the Light”, “Fellowship with One Another”, and “Confession/Forgiveness” are related.
Luke 18:9-14 might also have some bearing on the proper result of worship.
–Dave
Dave: I can’t agree in this situation. If I wrong someone publicly, it is appropriate to apologize publicly. If I yell at my wife in our home, I will apologize to her at home, not on Sunday morning during the worship service. I have been on the receiving end of inappropriate public apologies that did nothing more than embarrass me.
I may confess a sin to a fellow Christian or group of men in our men’s bible study if the situation calls for it, but the corporate worship service is different.
Colin,
Apology accepted … and I, too, apologize for being short toward you. I didn’t mean to be testy … but I’ve been dealing with way too many interpersonal issues lately (even on this blog). My normally long fuse is just a bit shorter today.
Anyhow … I didn’t provide any biblical support simply because I didn’t feel my position warranted any. I preach Jesus crucified, resurrected, and Savior of all. I give everyone present the opportunity to repent and respond to Christ. I just have a different way of letting them inform me. That’s all. Perhaps further discussions on this subject could focus on some of the points listed in the 9 Marks paper.
As to an invitation/altar call being a barrier. I think it’s plain to see that standing in front of a crowd can and is an enormous barrier for some people. However one’s eternal security shouldn’t have to hinge on his/her ability to overcome personal insecurities. As John pointed out, the proof text so often used to defend the relatively new (church history-wise) tool of the altar call is Matthew 10:32, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” But that admonition, in my view, should not be measured by one’s ability to walk an aisle, stand beside a preacher, and be subjected to a voice vote by hundreds of people. I would much rather my church members do their confessing of their faith before men in the workplace, in their neighborhoods, and in their schools.
So … if walking an aisle has the possibility of being a hindrance to anyone making a commitment to the Lord of expressing their desire to unite with our fellowship, I tend to think it is not a necessary element in one’s salvation and affiliation with the local church.
We based our decision upon interviews and research, as well as a little guidance from Dr. Ed Stetzer (My Intro to Church Planting class at SBTS).
So, understand that I am not a pathological anti-altar call fanatic. I just don’t make a lot of use of the methodology, myself. And I certainly allow anyone who fills my pulpit to exercise the option.
Tone: Content, a little sleepy, eating a Gobstopper. :)
Rob,
Always bustin’ my chops. ;) Yes, we do disagree slightly.
You point out some important some important traits and acts that we are called to live out in the Christian life. But I submit that holding to those traits and living out those antithetical, counter-cultural life actions happens in the flow of life and in the flow of church life … not just during a 5-minute invitation. It’s almost easy to walk an aisle, cry on a shoulder, and pray in front of a group of Christians. But how do we act once we walk out the door. Now, there’s the measure of true discipleship and response to the Word of God… We need to be looking for fruit in peoples’ lives, not just emotional responses at the end of a sermon.
And, while it may be a good tradition, I still believe that the classic invitation has enormous potential for manipulation and misunderstanding.
Geoff,
I only pick up the wood when I think your wrong – and that has not happened much since I’ve known ya :-).
I’ve rarely conducted an “emotional” invitation. I can think of no one in my many years of ministry who walked off the street, had an emotional experience, walked an aisle, and “gave their heart to Christ.” I’ve had invitations that were emotional like yesterday when a 10 year old girl came to proclaim her decision to follow Christ – and their was barely a dry eye in the place when she boldly declared in her own voice (without coaching) “I asked Jesus Christ to be my Lord and Savior”. Now me and her prayed together in her home a week or so ago. The work that went into that decision (you know, the Holy Spirit) had been well in the making in her heart for a long while. She started asking questions beyond “I want to be baptized” with her mom – and her mom started the ball in talking with her about God and His grace. I came in on the tail end of the deal – but nevertheless give God the glory! The public acknowledgment of her desire to be a disciple of Christ occurred in front of that audience which was made up of both believers and non-believers. It encouraged those in the faith to “keep on going” and was a witness to those whom God is leading and continuing to work on.
Here I go again, I’m going to bust your chops some more. You defended your position in the original post by stating, “We discovered that young people were often terrified by the prospect of walking in front of people, or having to speak in front of a crowd” and then on the other hand you state in your response to me, “It’s almost easy to walk an aisle, cry on a shoulder, and pray in front of a group of Christians. But how do we act once we walk out the door.” Which is it? Hard? or Easy?
I have never evaluated the lives of folks based upon their ability to walk down front. The courage to publically declare “Jesus is Lord” is the first step of the Christian faith – with the invitation being one way to do this.
If we were equally dismissive of every good thing that some have mismanaged or manipulated poorly by some, we all would be in our beds huddled under blankets expecting the world to end at any second.
Rob
Rob,
Sounds like a beautiful invitation. I guess that, with my decade+ involvement in youth ministry, I saw a few too many psychological manipulations masquerading as Gospel invitations. So, my experience may be a bit jaded.
We have similar recognitions of decisions made, we just don’t sing a song and invite people to come forward. A couple of weeks ago a young woman talked to me and stated she wanted to publicly renew her commitment to the Lord and to her family … and I gladly called her to my side at the end of worship to make that decision known. This coming Sunday I will recognize a similar decision made by a young man in our church.
But we still, for the most part, treat baptism as the ultimate public stand for Christ. For new transfer members, we publicly welcome them during a worship celebration and present them with a book and a challenge to serve … in front of all assembled.
So, our practices are probably not all that different. :)
Geoff,
Just a tad different. The invitation allows the candidate to come freely “of their own volition” to publicly declare their confession “before men”. Dave in #30 quoted James 5:16 about the public confession of sin – as Romans 10:9-10 challenges us to publicly confess Christ as Lord. I acknowledge that this position is a little “technical” – but nonetheless how can a person be truly free of “psychological manipulation” when they are called up by their pastor by name to make an announcement to all? It could be argued that there is a great difference between what you do and that “5 minute” time when a general call is made for any present to make their confessions publicly known without the added “crutch” of the Pastor calling them forward, giving them that “psychological boost”. It just seems to me that if your argument is purely against “manipulation” then you are merely trading one set of “manipulations” for another – all in the name of being jaded over Baptist tradition and of a fear in hurting some pride over asking people to publicly confess the Lord by walking up front and declaring their desire to follow Jesus because it may hurt their feelings.
Baptism indeed is a clarion call of the new life. But is preceded by a public confession – no where in the Scriptures does it indicate that Baptism stands alone as the one and only “ultimate” stand of public witness – otherwise we would be Church of Christ. Before Phillip baptized the Ethiopian, he asked, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Our little invitation is just such an opportunity – to allow the public confession of sin, and repentance toward God and one another, or as a public display of a desire to put “words” into “action” – an act of faith. Nothing is ever so precious unless one puts aside pride and fear in following Christ. All of our spiritual ancestors did so, often times at great cost. The invitation is clearly an act of worship and appreciation towards God, and a testimony to how God is working among the people He is leading – a worshipful response to His Word so publicly preached and taught. You commented upon the lack of genuine worshipful participation by most SBC folks and the lack of intensive worship in the churches in a previous thread, and yet are truly dismissive of an “act of worship” by the simple response of a person reacting to the Word of God by a public act of will that requires both body and soul. This is amazing! Sorry – busting your chops again.
Did not want to comment upon your contradiction huh? Oh well.
Rob
I’ve just got time for a very quick comment. I’ve got to go get some pizza for my two sons and then go to an associational meeting. I give an invitation at the end of every Sunday morning sermon. It takes me about five minutes at the end of the sermon to go through an abbreviated EE outline to share the gospel, and I also offer the opportunity for a public response in terms of Christian rededication or for Christians to join our little mission church by letter, statement, or immersion. My rationale is that sometimes lost people wander into our Sunday morning services, and I may not ever get another chance to share the gospel with them. Plus, our regular attenders hear the gospel presented every Sunday, and they learn the key elements pretty well so that hopefully they can eventually include the important elements when they try to share it. I know they still need on-the-job training, but the repetitive learning experience every Sunday morning can’t hurt the process. This past Sunday we sang only one verse of the invitation hymn. I knew everyone there and sensed that a public decision was not going to happen. Still, I believe it’s important for people to have the opportunity to make a public decision every Sunday.
I don’t see a contradiction at all, Rob. I guess I didn’t express myself very clearly, though. I had in mind (I think?) two completely different respondents when considering a public invitation.
First are the unchurched / seekers … not steeped in the culture of the church. For them, an altar call may be a source of fear and anxiety.
Then there are the enculturated church-goers for whom an invitation is the norm, and an occasional public response or prayer in front of the church is almost second nature. For them it is, in many ways, easy. They have seen it before … many have done it before.
But, personally … as a pastor … I would much rather see real fruit in their lives outside the walls of the church. Sometimes (often times, perhaps?) a public decision is wonderful, perfect, and warranted. But I also think that it is often over-done.
And no one has seemed to touch the idea that I brought up in this thread somewhere … that responses to invitation have become something of a “measuring stick” (quotation marks for Roger Ferrell) that the preacher can use on himself. And I know for a fact, beyond any doubt in my military mind, that the church uses the altar call volume to measure the effectiveness of (and, most likely, their approval of) the preacher. But, then again, that might be a subject for another post. :)
Mood: Extremely happy, family home, homemade soup on the stove…
First, this is a great site – reasonable and interesting discussions.
Second, I have an invitation at the end of the service. I never use emotional appeals and I do not say that “coming forward” is a necessary requirement to faith.
When Peter preached at Pentecost, he shared the gospel in a concise and forceful way. Then he “exhorted them with many words to save themselves from this wicked generation.”
Evidently, Peter gave a very strict and forceful invitation to repentance and faith. So, I do not consider an invitation to be a moral necessity, but it is an acceptable method of exhorting sinners to repentance.
Dave,
Thanks a bunch for the affirmation! Please consider giving us a link from your site. :)
And thanks for sharing your approach. Acceptable, but not a moral necessity. I think that sums up my view pretty well.
I don’t think anyone here is going to prevent someone from making a public profession of faith. The Gospel itself is an invitation and anytime the Gospel is preached should be a call for a response. It is just that some of us don’t see the necessity of that response being formalized by a trip to the altar.
An invitation can be a good thing, but like Geoff, I have seen the darker side so often that it is not worth it. The alternatives articulated here hold more appeal to me.
Maybe if we’re going to reform the invitation system, we could start with revival services before we worry about normal Sunday services. I think the potential and reality of manipulation and emotional bullying is far more obvious in revivals.
Bill,
True – “necessity” of the invitation is not required. It is one of many viable alternatives. It is utilized by many churches as an “act of worship” – no more positive or negative than any other part of the worship service. It is a method of allowing confession, contrition, and the call of change that is called from the Word of God in the life of sinful humanity during a worship service.
However I am still amazed that the argument pressed into service by both Geoff and your self is that since the method has been misused by some that then the very fact that some have misused it calls the method into question. Can you share with me any method that cannot be misused or has not been misused? How about worship bands? Can the “contemporary style” of a lot of worship services be misused and then have a “dark side”? How casual can worship be? I have heard of some of these worship services allowing pop corn and sodas served during worship services like one can get in a movie theater. Could not a critic effectively argue (per your rhetoric) that “contemporary” worship services had a “dark side” which puts the use of “any” contemporary style service into question?
You can state your preferences. You can practice outside of “Baptist Tradition”. You can produce arguments of cultural dissonance vis a vis invitations to support your position, and I will disagree with you. But to argue that because of the misuse by some should junk a method is just funky (false cause). It is similar to arguing since steak knives can be used to stab people, then steak knives should be abandoned from cutting steak.
Rob
The Baptist church I go to does not do alter calls, per se. What is done is that at the end of the service, there is an announcement that there are “Decision Counselors” stationed near the two front exits of the sanctuary. Those who have made decisions for Christ, those who want to talk to someone about making a decision for Christ, those who want more information, and those who are interested in joining the church are encouraged to meet with these people as the congregation departs. This ends up very low key, but means that there is a chance to interact not only with those who have chosen to follow Christ, but with those who might be on the edge.
These Decision Counselors are not church staff, but members who have volunteered for this ministry and have been given some training. I suppose that one result of this is that if it is necessary to spend a fair bit of time with someone who approaches a decision counselor, it is likely possible (vs having a pastor who has to get ready for the next service handling it under time contraints).
As I understand it, part of the impetus behind this is the conclusion that Baptism is the Biblical method of the public declaration of faith, and that the tradition of altar calls has tended to supplant it.
Rob: What would happen with no altar call? Do you still believe a person has obtained salvation by listening and believing in Christ and their need for a Savior?
I’m just wondering why the strong reaction to what Geoff has said.
I think the main point here is that some Baptist churches have found other ways. If your church uses the altar call in a productive way, then that’s great. However “Baptist Tradition” holds very little weight with me. I see no biblical imperative to support the practice and so I do not. I think Geoff’s point, and mine, is that the altar call isn’t some kind of inviolate Baptist “sacrament” that makes us less of a New Testament church if we don’t use it. If it’s being used well in some churches, terrific. But it’s ok not to use it too.
One thing I want to repeat. I always give an invitation at the end of a sermon. I just don’t give an altar call at the end of every sermon.
A little over 20 years ago I was partcipating in a revival meeting with the
speaker being Manley Beasley. He preached
powerfully each night and did not give an
invitation. It was stark. Plenty of decisions were being made, just not down the aisle. After a couple of nights of that the
speaker was stopped in the middle of the sermon by an Adult man standing to say that he could not wait. He wanted to receive Jesus Christ as his Saviour. A “protracted
meeting” actually turned into a Revival and
lots of other good things happened.
Is it possible that a mold can cease being
helpful and reneder us rigid?
David Goggin
Bill – Great summary.
David – The idea of being forced into any kind of “mold” is very interesting … and very applicable to Baptist life on multiple levels. Thanks for the input.
“Every head bowed and every eye closed. No looking around, we’re not going to embarrass you. If you would like to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour, raise your hand.”
Jimmy raises his hand.
“Everybody stand with me as we sing. If you prayed that prayer, we’d like to give you the opportunity to come forward.”
Jimmy doesn’t want to come forward. Jimmy would like to talk to someone, but not in front of 2000 people.
“Jesus said if you are ashamed of me, I’ll be ashamed of you before the Father!!! You don’t want to be ashamed of Jesus, do you???”
Wait. Is Jimmy saved or not? Does he have to go forward to keep Jesus from being ashamed of him? Jimmy’s not a theologian. He doesn’t know eternal security from a bank account. He just wants to be saved. He feels the Holy Spirit and he wants to respond to it, and this preacher could tell Jimmy that he should drink Koolaid to seal the deal and he would grab the closest cup.
Grrrrrrrrrr.
Tone – genuinely sick of this type of “invitation”, but not upset at any of you at all . I don’t have a problem with the idea of asking people to come forward to pray, but this stuff stinks.
Bernard: Wow does that bring back (unpleasant) memories. We’re not going to embarrass you, until you stick that hand up, and then we’ve got you!!!
I have no problem with the premise of the post necessarily – all sorts of methods abound that are legitimate. My cause continues to abound around the caricature of the misuse of an invitation upon the folks who use the method as a worship tool without the negative nonsense that some of you have experienced.
I am sorry for your experience. Some people have had a tough religious life. At the same time no one has dealt with my counter-argument – and I am patiently waiting for a response – how “misuse” of a method bleeds into a rejection of a method. Because you ate roast and later in the day threw it up does not mean that the roast was bad. No one has countered my steak knife analogy – steak knives were designed to cut meat, and to disavow their use because some have misused them would be laughable. Yet you would argue the same because of your experience of a Pastor, church, or evangelist misusing the invitation time.
The greatest evangelist in the world, Billy Graham, as kept invitation times in his crusades for multiple years. He has never “misused” that time, merely making a general call to come pray and receive counseling for whatever decision God impressed on them to make. When he was in Great Britain, The Guardian (a newspaper) complained that with the music being played was a “psychological” manipulation (somewhat some of your arguments have been). His staff decided at the next night, they would play no hymns during the invitation. The Guardian then complained that what caused people to respond was the “manipulation of silence.”
Rob
At my Church we give an invitation at the end in the traditional sense on Sunday am and pm. It’s not a manipulative, purely emotional appeal, however. I invite people to come if they want to be saved, and let me help them…lead them…to Jesus. I try my best to give earnest, heartfelt, sincere appeals to be saved. And, I do the same with encouraging Christians to make sure that their hearts are clean and pure before the Lord…to make sure that everything’s right between them and God before they leave. I dont ask for rededications. I ask that Christians repent and get right with God.
But, I hear what many of you are saying about manipulative, psychological tricks in the invitation. I really dislike the tricky, manipulative methods that some use to just get someone down the aisle. Also, another pet peeve, is the Pastor or the Evangelist who thinks that they have to have a certain number to come forward and be baptised in order to be “successful.” It really seems that this is an ego feeder, a notch on the ole, Pastor, gunslinger belt. And, when a Pastor, or Evangelist, has the ole “the more I get down front/baptise, the more successful I am, and the better I look to the SBC leaders” mentality, then that’s when the psychological, manipulative methods get used like what Bernard shared above.
I know of a Church that baptises a bunch of people every year…big numbers…but they dont grow in their SS at all. I believe that they use the manipulative method so much that they re-baptise their members over and over again. I mean, after all, “I sinned last week, and I dont love Mama as much as I used to, so I must be lost. I need to go forward again.” Or, the Pastor/Evangelist tells people that if you are having any doubts whatsoever then you must be lost….come forward.
I had an Evangelist preach one time, and I had three, or four people come forward that I felt pretty sure were already saved. I took each one to my office to talk to them. Each one had backslidden, and needed to get right with God. This was causing the doubts. They got right with God, found assurance, and left the Church feeling good. The Evangelist seemed very disappointed that I counseled with these people and they didnt get saved. He really didnt seem to happy that they found assurance. I guess that doesnt sound as good as having four get saved?
David
Thank you David. Very good post. Exactly my point of view.
Rob
Rob, I was not even attempting to answer your counter arguments. Just offering my perspective. Oh, I forgot, I’m not a pastor or a doctor, maybe I’m not allowed to have a perspective…
:)
Bernard,
***raspberries*** (I wish you could hear the sound :-)
Rob
Rob: We can speak to your analogy if you clarify a little. Are you saying that just because something is abused, there is no need to universally condemn it? If so, I agree. As I said, if your church does it and are ok with it, knock yourselves out. If you are saying that just because the altar call is abused, then we who have opted for alternatives are wrong to do so, then I have to disagree. There is nothing essential about the altar call. There is no biblical imperative. It’s a method that churches are free to use or not use based upon their preferences and experiences.
David: Good word. As I said in an earlier comment, I think the greatest abuse of the altar call, in my experience, is during evangelistic services. Many evangelists are good folks who have unwittingly tied their worth and the worth of their ministry to the number of people who come down front. I especially dislike the situation you describe, where the evangelist feels the need to make everyone doubt their salvation. This is abuse, plain and simple. I have seen it time and time again.
Rob -
****snickers and burps****
Hehe.
I do not believe Bill that a legitimate argument can be made “because some abuse it, we will not do it” You have other legitimate reasons for not having an invitation. As you state it is not a biblical imperative “thus says the Lord” but a method that can be used or not. As long as there are means to legitimately allow public confession as worship, then by all means knock yourself out.
The tinge of derision I cannot help but notice when you speak of churches doing something in which you would refrain – a method, being neither “good” or “bad” save except in how it is used. Again, should I be apoplectic against all uses of contemporary worship because some serve popcorn and sodas during worship?
Rob
We don’t have popcorn or sodas … but we do have some killer Starbucks coffee. I drink it while I preach. In jeans. Sitting on a stool. (Gasp!) :-}
And, you are absolutely right, Rob. I will wholeheartedly agree. Any perceived propensity toward abuse or misuse cannot and should not be THE single reason for avoiding an invitation / altar call. But it can be a valid reason to consider when a local church or pastor makes its/his choice for a local congregation. Some choose to use the tool, some do not. Ahh, the beauty and genius of the local, indigenous church!
But the situation that you point out (throw out all things contemporary because there are some churches out there you can barely tell are churches) is precisely the reason that a lot of people who are, shall we say, more along the lines of traditionalists, will give to discard the contemporary (I hate that word, by the way) approach. I have heard it and seen it in print far too many times.
Rob: I don’t think it’s just some, I think it’s many. We are not talking steak knives or roast, but people and their eternal destiny. That is something that should be seriously looked at and if altar calls are giving false assurance, which I believe it is, or used as a measuring stick for the sermon’s success, which I believe it is, that too needs to be given a serious look.
Even Billy Graham admits he does not know how many who have come forward were truly converted. It would be interesting to know. My dad was saved watching Billy Graham while sitting in the living room when I was in grade school.
Rob: Let me see if I’m following you. It is not legitimate to refrain, in my own life, from something solely because of the potential for abuse? Why not? I’m not saying you can’t do it. I’m saying I don’t. It’s not my only reason but so what if it was? Can I not refrain from drinking alcohol because of the potential for abuse as my only reason?
Geoff,
I am wholly consistent. The argument works neither way, albeit against invitations nor against contemporary services. “They” are wrong using it as well as “We”. You don’t feel it is a fare argument used against you, but have no problem using it yourself. Now what is that called? :-)
Debbie,
I do not believe that invitations are the only vehicles utilized that bear “false conversions.” Much of that has to do with false theology, not “wrong” methods. Besides, God knows whom He has lead to Himself or not. “False conversions” is not my concern. Being a faithful witness and a consistent disciple and teacher willing to follow up on those who come to Christ is more important to me than worrying about stuff I have no control over.
Rob
John MacArthur deals with the subject of altar calls.
John MacArthur deals with the subject of altar calls.
Rob … I am wholly consistent, as well. There is a HUGE difference between evaluating a ministry tool (i.e. an “altar call”) and an entire philosophy of church and ministry (i.e. a contemporary -vs- purpose driven -vs- traditional model).
This is one of those subjects where there must be liberty. Live and let live. We musn’t tell one another how to do church, or what methods we should be using in church … and we shouldn’t harshly judge or belittle those who do differently from ourselves.
I guess that’s my point … if, even I have one. :)
Poor analogy Bill. “Alcohol” is not the method of “invitation.” Apples and wild plumbs. Your argument continues to be that invitations are woefully “dark side” so you preach no one should use them (I get that feel from you) when they are merely what the end user uses them for. Question: Have you ever witnessed an invitation time used in a way that you would see as “correct.”
Rob
BTW: I have no derision for churches doing it well. I have way more than a tinge for churches doing it badly.
Rob: See comments 2, 45 and 55. Why are you relying on what you “feel” I am saying instead of just looking at what I am saying. I haven’t said that no one should use them. I’m saying I don’t like them and so for the most part I do not choose to do them.
Yes, I’ve seen plenty of invitation times that I like. Usually they involve a call to respond in their hearts and then an offer to meet with anyone who wishes to after the service.
I don’t know Rob, I am not a minister, but I do teach from time to time and I think I would feel responsible to make sure that someone understood the nature of altar calls. If I had even one false convert, I would want to know why. I agree with you that there will be those type of “converts”, I guess I’m wondering how many there are.
Admittedly I am not a minister, and am armchair coaching , so to speak. We have altar calls at our church along the line David W., so I’m not trying to dish altar calls, just thinking out loud I guess. In fact I thought David W. had a very insightful comment.
If the invitation is truly that, something freely offered to people to respond in a way that they think is beneficial, then I have no problem.
If the invitation is really an instruction to do something that they don’t want to do, that’s where it goes off the rails for me.
This is a real question. Is the invitation covered in seminary? Is it something prospective ministers are taught that they should do? Is there a typical form they are taught?
“Invitations are largely meant to boost the egos of the person behind the pulpit. (before you jump on that last statement, think back to all the revivals you have sat through as a Southern Baptist)”
Here we are 68 posts in this and finally I have been given the opportunity to “jump on it.” With all the caveats aside Bill, here is your main focus. This statement is not written with “some” in mind but with “most” almost with a “universal” application in mind. You degrade “largely, most” Pastors, evangelists, and churches with this sweeping anecdotal generalization provided only by your experience and not with evidence. You accuse me of “feeling” (something that I deny) but here you are in post #2 “feeling” something to us – that a vast large majority of Pastors and churches utilize the invitation to feed their egos. That is the climate I climbed into this thread, and the climate that you continue to perpetuate.
Why don’t we all do this: allow fellow believers and priests the opportunity to worship freely in the “method” that we choose (with the caveat it being “biblical” without calling others and their motivations (which we cannot see) into question?
Yes, in fact, the “invitation” time was covered in one of my classes in Seminary “Introduction to Church Music” by Dr. Bruce Leafblad. He was concerned (like many here) of the introduction of patently Finney style of psychological manipulation in the worship service (Dr. Leafblad was a classical Calvinist) – so he taught us to do it “right” without the manipulation Finney style.
Rob
Rob: Fair enough. Since neither of us have statistics on the use/abuse of the altar call system I guess we’ll have to go with what we think is right and biblical. BTW, I used the word “feel” because in comment 66, that’s the word you said.
So by all means, if we’re going to do them, lets do them right. I think it behooves every elder/pastor to take responsibility for this kind of thing, especially when we allow strangers into the pulpit. Maybe the abuse I spoke of is only happening in northern NY, but I doubt it.
[...] Geoff Baggett’s post the other day on altar calls stimulated my thinking about evangelism methods in general. With my father as one of the more well-known and effective practitioners of altar call evangelism in recent years, and having observed literally thousands of people’s lives impacted for eternity as a result, I am not about to “cast a stone” at the altar call. However, I am sympathetic to the need to continually evaluate the effectiveness of the methods we use, and, while remaining faithful to biblical principles, adapt our methodology to changing cultural patterns, and do whatever possible to ensure it is accomplishing the positive objectives for which it is intended. [...]
Great topic. This is one that I have read on, prayed about and still I am searching for what is best. I also read the nine marks article it was great.
First and foremost as it has been said the goal is for people to be called to repent of their sin and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
That is something that must be done, always calling for people to repent and believe. Now I like the card idea, I like the pray at your sit idea, and I like the come foward idea.
Here is how I do it. We do not use a card at my church (maybe soon), sometimes I lead in a prayer and sometimes I call for people to come and talk with me down front or sometimes I tell people to go to the back and we have a staff member there to talk with them. I like to mix it up so it is never the same.
If someone comes foward I pray with them talk to them briefly and then tell them at the end of the service to go to my office were a deacon or staff member or myself talks with them. At this point I do not present them to the congregation to get saved.
Also at the end of every service I tell people if they want to come and talk that I will be down front and I would be happy to talk with them.
There are some practical questions like presenting for church membership, etc. with the come down front part.
There is also some language that I use that I think it is important. “I am not trying to get you to move to a part of the room, I want you to go to Jesus today.” “Do what God is telling you to do.” “If you are comfortable praying at your sit that is fine, respond in the manner that your are comfortable in.”
I am not perfect in this area and still learning.
Any comments let me know
Lee: You raise a good point. One of my objections to the altar call is any attempt to make the “decision” moment coincide with an altar walk. The music is playing, you’re standing at the front, people are standing and watching, it is difficult to hear sometimes. I would much rather people made whatever “decision” they are going to make in their seats, at home, or in counseling. Once that is done, I have no problem at all having them come up and make their decision known, perhaps the following week.
I didn’t read through everything so apologies if this is redundant.
The fact that something can be manipulated doesn’t mean that it’s bad, it does mean that you need to be careful. Billy Graham strategically places counselors all over a stadium so people can see others walking to the front. They announce that, though, and say that counselors are coming forward and invite people to join them. They are making it easier for those who want to come forward to get out of their seats, but they are open.
I’ve been to Christian concerts and events and heard the organizer tell people, “if no one comes forward after a little time get a couple of people to come and prime the pump.” That wasn’t very honest. In fact, last summer I predicted the seat locations of the “decisions” to be made at a Christian concert…oddly they all came from the section of seats likely given out by the promoter…as if they were supposed to.
A second thing, the decision to join the church or profess Jesus as Savior isn’t the appropriate decision for most in our services. A more intentional “time of response” to the service for all a way that has been used in a couple of churches with which I have been associated. One used decision cards. Professing Christ and coming for baptism or membership were responses, but so were some other things that were tailored to the message that day. It turned the “invitation” to a “time of commitment” for all present.
The methods of the revivalist traditions of 50 years ago may not be appropriate in our current settings and we should recognize that. Giving people the opportunity to respond to what the Spirit is doing needs to be an important part of our worship, whatever the means, and whatever the Spirit is doing.
If you will take a Strong’s concordance and study,in context,each time you find the word “altar” from Gen.to Rev.and then compare what you have learned with the modern day “altar call,”you will be informed and hopefully inspired to point men to Christ and not an imaginary altar at the front of the church.
No doubt Bill (#76). In my argument above you rarely (if ever – my memory may be fleeting here, so give me due correction if needed) that the word I spoke was “invitation” not “altar call.” Close to 90% of all Baptist churches do not have altars because of our forefathers insistence that Christ was our altar, and not some fleeting symbol as found in the liturgical church. The symbolism of the altar aside, the invitation is just as it is: an opportunity for those to publicly confess their decisions for Christ or seek public affirmation of their decisions, or public help for their needs. No more – no less.
Rob
P.S. – Geoff – a thread that just keeps giving!
Hey Geoff. We too are a church plant and we have done much the same as you are doing since we planted in 2000 in N.W. TN, and have around 400 who have indicated receiving Christ and around 250 of them following in baptism. We offer an “invitation” at the end of each service but again, not to come forward but instead to indicate same on a connection card and then we have a Fresh Start team with packets with a Bible and other materials we package and have available for them after each service. It gives our team a chance to meet the person and they have a chance to put a face and name on someone who may be calling them within a couple of days. Then we try and have, if at all possible, an encourager to call them and keep a check on their progress for the first six months of their journey. It is working great (not perfect but great). I lead them in prayer at them end of each service, stressing the points of repentance, forgiveness, and following Christ in a daily walk and talk. To each his or her own, but it works great for us!
Steve,
Thanks for the input. I’ve read about your church in the B&R. I think many of our approaches are very similar. I just re-connected with Carlton a while back. Pretty cool…
[...] Salvation at 1:35 pm by Debbie Kaufman Geoff Baggett did a wonderful job of posting on the altar call, I’d like to briefly look at this from another angle. I have been hearing this phrase that I [...]
If ever a great evangelistic sermon is preached there is nothing wrong with calling people at that moment to follow Christ. As Baptists, however, we must make sure that we instill in our people that coming forward is not your public profession of faith. Our baptism is. See what Peter had to say about it in 1 Peter 3:21. He calls baptism a profession, or pledge, of a good conscience towards God.
On the day of Judgment, there will be plenty of individuals condemned who made “altar calls” (or parotted “the sinners prayer”). Churches shouldn’t focus on that one specific act, but rather should work with their congregation to make sure that they are walking faithfully DAILY with the Lord, not just at one specific moment during a church service.
My $.02
Leave your response!
Want your picture to show here? Get your own Gravatar!
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Hot Topics