1. Typically yes, but what you describe is a variation of that.

2. It depends how it’s done. I think that it can be just as harmful (e.g., by employing the same sort of manipulative tactics and emphasizing an external response).

Thanks for response to my statement/question.

I agree with your assessment of the often-times manipulative nature of the altar call. I’ve sat through some. You probably have, too. No amount of persuasion/endless singing can cause a person to be born again. I thank God for the good news of the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. When God is ready, He moves and saves.

I appreciate your taking the time at the end of a message to allow the people to meditate, pray, and respond to the person who is desiring to effect change in their hearts: God, not the preacher.

Whenever anyone says anything critical of the altar call, they automatically get labled with being heady and just giving people information. This is simply not true. I am thrilled to see as many lives as possible transformed by the gospel. I am not interested in just having a few people acknowledge that God has spoken and then come forward to equate that action with spiritual transformation. The fact is God has spoken to everyone in the room (assuming the Word was handled carefully and clearly), and we must all respond to the truth. I like giving my people the opportunity to do so initially in the pew and hopefully even more so as they enounter that truth of God throughout their experience. I do make myself available for any who may need more counseling and understanding. Thanks for the info.

1) Is the modern altar call simply a part of a bigger change toward man-centeredness?

2) Is the altar call one specific that especially gets targeted within this big change, because it is one that actually puts some kind of pressure on people toward a change in their lives? It doesn’t tend toward self-centeredness, unless it is about the ego of the one giving it.

3) If man-centeredness is what’s wrong, wouldn’t all man-centeredness be a problem?

You don’t have to answer these.

Good question. My take is that it’s not an either-or deal, i.e., both “invitation” and “command” are appropriate descriptions, and one to the exclusion of the other would be off-balanced.

The Concise OED defines “invitation” as “a written or verbal request inviting someone to go somewhere or to do something.” “Invite” in this sense typically means “ask in a friendly or formal way to go somewhere or to do something.” “Command,” on the other hand, means “give an authoritative or peremptory order.”

So to answer your question, I think you’re right that “invitation” is often misused when it neglects the “command” aspect. Preachers are God’s heralds, announcing commands from the King, and they also compassionately invite people to respond to the King’s commands. My point in this thread is that the way they “command” and “invite” through “the altar call” is often manipulative and that “the altar call” itself is unnecessary.

Please follow-up if I’m talking past you or if you have any further thoughts.

(For others reading, Brian is an elder at my church.)

In the proclaimation of the gospel is the command to repent and trust Christ. Is the word “invitation” somewhat misused? Are we talking about an “invitation” or a “command”?

1. When I preach, I often close by having a moment (usually a minute or two) of silence in which everyone present can meditate on the message, apply it more directly, and pray. That reinforces the point that everyone should apply the message, not simply people who “raise their hand” or “come forward.” After the service is over, they are welcome to follow-up with me, the church’s elders, etc.

2. Music can certainly be manipulative. In fact, it is practically inseparable from altar calls (in which sixteen verses of “Just As I Am” may be played on repeat)!

I agree that something can be done in an invitation in the way of man-centered manipulation. I’m not saying that you would advocate the following; I’m assuming you wouldn’t, because I don’t know you. Some who reject man-centered manipulation after preaching in the form of an invitation often use man-centered manipulation before preaching in the form of music that manipulates the emotions of worshipers. Some of those same churches who may be opposed to emotional manipulation at an invitation would use a fleshly or emotional appeal to invite people to a church service. What do you think?

“Sinful”? Not necessarily.

My point is that the history of the altar call combined with the way it has typically been practiced is not a healthy thing. (And that’s an understatement!)