An altar call is an “invitation” to “come forward” after a sermon to make a spiritual decision or commitment. I’ve endured hundreds of emotionally charged invitations characterized by man-centered manipulation. Unfortunately, my experience is not unusual.
Christian History just published a brief, impartial history of the altar call by Doug Sweeney and Mark Rogers: “Walk the Aisle” (HT: Mark Rogers).
The most thorough treatment I’ve read on the altar call is this:
David Bennett. The Altar Call: Its Origin and Present Usage. New York: University Press of America, 2000. 261 pp.
Mark Noll describes Bennett’s work in the foreword as “the best sort of engaged history . . . . thorough . . . . fair . . . . unusually stimulating” (pp. v-vi). This work is a revision of Bennett’s (b. 1942) M.Th. thesis entitled “The Public Invitation System in Evangelism” for the Australian College of Theology in Sydney.
- Part 1 examines the evangelistic practices of John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards and concludes that they did not use the altar call. Bennett then traces the altar call’s origins and early history in the final sixty years of the 1700s, its development into the invitation system in American camp-meetings, and its popularization by Charles Finney.
- Part 2 examines the altar call’s modern usage, rationale, counseling and follow-up, results, and problems. Bennett makes calculated recommendations and conclusions.
Here are some useful and brief analyses of the altar call:
- Iain H. Murray, The Invitation System (1967)
- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the Altar Call (early 1970s)
- Paul Alexander, “Altar Call Evangelism” [This article ends with recommended reading: “If you’d like to read more about method in evangelism, go to Mark 5 on Evangelism at 9 Marks Ministries. For more on the invitation system, contact Christian Communicators Worldwide for their pamphlet entitled The Dangers of the Invitation System, by Jim Ehrhard, or read Iain Murray’s booklet entitled The Invitation System, published by Banner of Truth. For a historical treatment of evangelistic method and its role in the ecumenical movement over the last 50 years, read Iain Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000). If you are interested in the historical roots of the invitation system, read Iain Murray’s Revival and Revivalism (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1994).”]
- Jim Elliff, “Closing with Christ” (1999)
- Ryan Kelly, “Ten Reasons We Don’t Do Altar Calls“
- Monergism.com’s “The Altar Call” links to articles by John MacArthur, Carey Hardy, Fred Zaspel, and others.
- Jonathan Leeman, “Should Churches Perform Altar Calls?”
Updates:
1. Sadly humorous:
2. Sadly manipulative and shallow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GI0VQokk4E
3. How to Manipulate People to Make (Fake) Professions of Faith
Do you think it is sinful for a church to have invitations?
Kent,
“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!)
We attempt to regulate our assembling with Scripture. I understand the history of the invitation. It crosses my mind all the time when I give one. I wouldn’t be offended if you called the invitation sinful, if you believed it was sinful and showed how that it was. I challenge our people to follow the pattern of James 1:19-27. Some kind of invitation seems to me could be an application of that text.
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?
Kent,
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)!
Hey Andy,
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”?
Hey, Brian,
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.)
There seems to be an overall movement toward man-centeredness, and I think the invitation or altar call is fair game, but not to the exclusion of other types of manipulation that I see in many evangelical churches—including the fleshly means of gaining church attendance—using a drama program, music program, game, building architecture, kids fun time, etc. to get people to a church gathering. Isn’t all of this carnal weaponry?
Kent, that’s an issue worth discussing, but this thread is about “the altar call.” I’d rather not change the subject.
I didn’t really intend to change the subject. A couple of things:
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.
Some thoughts on the altar call that may be of interest . . .
Andy,
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.
Hey Andy,
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.
Nowhere in Scripture is the exactation of a confession from someone warranted nor is it required. The Holy Spirit is the agent that convicts a sinner – not some change in geography or seating. Emotionalism serves nothing more than the ego of the preacher, etc. – it most certainly does not serve to the glorification of the Father. Why can not a sinner confess his state before God where he is seated? God is Sovereign enough to know when sinners are brought by the Holy Spirit to a saving knowledge of Christ. My only conclusion is that altar calls serve nothing more than to stroke the ego of the preacher. We are called to preach the message of Christ – we are not called to be the growing agent by which a seed sprouts forth above the ground. How dare we assume the role of the Holy Spirit.
When you speak of an “invitation” or “altar call”, do you just have in mind when people walk the aisle to the altar? If so, what do you think about the method of having everyone bow their heads & those who want to receive Christ to raise their hands? Is this in the same category? Why or Why not?
Good question, Curtis.
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).
Andy, what you say about the altar call makes sense, and I agree with you that many (not all) preachers use manipulative tactics during this part of the service.
However, I am thinking of myself, who grew up in a Christian home and who up to the age of 21 would tell self how unnecessary going to the altar was. (I had prayed alone to receive Christ as my Savior numerous times as a child.) One day I finally gave in to the nudging of the Holy Spirit in my heart and went to the altar during an altar call where I repented of my sins. This was a very humbling and almost humiliating experience to me that brought immense peace and rest. I finally experienced what Romans 8:16 says and never ever felt such inner urgings and unrest. This is not the case for everyone, including my father and husband, but for some reason God wanted me to humble myself in this way.
I have seen some Christians go through life with the same spiritual unrest, even telling self continually all Scripture regarding how they belong to Christ and how they are predestined, etc. These same people like me are suffering from the same pride. God wants our humility and for some of us that humility begins when we walk to the altar.
Like grandmother says, “Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.” Just because many misuse and abuse the altar call doesn’t mean that we should we cross it out all together.
Thanks, Eunice. I don’t discount your experience.
While experience is important, however, it’s not the best criterion for establishing a practice. Interpreting our experience is challenging. For every story like yours, I’ve heard many more in which practicing the altar call was manipulative, not edifying. Since God can use flawed means to accomplish his purposes, I’m concerned that we justify our means by Scripture.
Every use of an altar call is not wrong. But the altar call itself is not necessary, and it is easily abused in a way that harms people rather than edifying them. This is partly what led me to write my first book: Let God and Let God?
I guess I am totally frustrated with modern/western Christianity. How many times have I heard well intended Christian men say “I lead so and so to the Lord”? That is EGO speaking as we can only plant and water, It is the Lord (Holy Spirit) that births us into the Kingdom. These modern day “Altar Calls” have given people false hope and often lead them to later reject Christ.
I am a “recovered alcoholic” and have learned more about planting seeds and allowing the Holy Spirit to do His work in AA than I ever did in any Christian church. Raised Roman Catholic, I began my spiritual journey at 32 (now 66) when I was “born again” on 3-7-80. No one was with me when I accepted Jesus; I was all alone driving in my car. I WAS READY. A close friend had planted the seed, others had watered, but it was God (Holy Spirit) that birthed me.
We need to get over ourselves and do what Jesus commanded us to do in Matthew 28:18-20. I do those 3 versus, accept baptizing as I am not an ordained minister. However, I think Baptism can be done by any “Born Again” believer, so I may start doing that soon.