Should Churches Perform Altar Calls?

I weary of this tired discussion.

The writer came down on the side that he will not have an altar call basically for one single reason—he doesn’t like them. His own words stated it was not a matter of right or wrong, that their primary purpose was Scriptural (needed decision, public profession, etc.), and intimated that they could be beneficial. Even as the church he was invited to pastor through the interim indicated desire and usefulness for its inclusion in their worship/teaching/discipling service made no difference. He wasn’t going to include them for any reason because he didn’t like them.

I don’t question that the altar call as is generally practiced today is not mandated by Scripture any more than it is forbidden by Scripture. But it has proved a useful tool, particularly in individualizing a message to a fairly large crowd. The general response to any Gospel message is summarized in Acts 17:32FF—“And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked [believed not]: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter….Howbeit certain men…believed…” The altar call, in my mind and experience, is primarily to provide an immediate opportunity for the group in the middle—“we will hear thee again….”

Ravi Zacharias has stated that a message has at least three parts—a point of reference; a point of relevance and/or disturbance; a point of confrontation. The altar call is certainly a point of confrontation.

Instead of throwing things out willy-nilly, would not our efforts be better spent to make this very useful, proven tool sharper, more efficient. There is no perfect methodology that has human fingerprints on it. But in the larger view, this discussion comes across more as arrogant twittery than it does useful retrospection for moving forward the cause of the Gospel.

The Christian Church invites all to come to meet Christ. Where? In Baptism and in the Eucharist. I am wary of sacraments of human invention.

I see the value of a low key … “if you have any questions, we are here to connect with you” … invitation.

Our Pastor handles it really well. He stands at the front. Our music director states that the pastor is available in the front. If any would like to connect with him, he is available.

There are no altars in the church. The question is whether or not one should give a public invitation to encourage the congregation to respond publicly and immediately to the message preached. The benefit is that people are encouraged to not simply be a forgetful hearer, but to actually respond actively and decsively. The negative is that the invitation can be easily manipulated. Also, the invitation can at times place undue pressure on the minister to get immediate results which often times can be shallow and temporal. Typically I give an invitation on Sunday morning for salvation, baptism, church membership, and Christian growth. Sunday evenings tend to be teaching events more or less; therefore, I normally do not give an inivtation in the evening service. As long as the pastor presents some avenue by which the congregation can seek spiritual help in a practical way, then the method can be flexible.

One way I often see the invitation being abused is by pastors who believe in it too strongly. They imply that “following God’s call” is the same thing as “come forward right now.” So for example a pastor (or chapel speaker) might say “why do you stand there with a hard heart while God beckons you to come? Will you not yield to him?” Yes God doesn’t want to stand there with a hard heart, but standing there isn’t the point. Yes He wants us to come, but he wants you to come to him spiritually speaking. But might want you to come forward physically only very indirectly, or not. If this kind of shoddy reasoning is played out over and over again in every service, people soon equate godliness and holiness to walking an aisle. If you really asked the same pastors if that’s what they really believe, they would say no. But through rhetorical flourishes passed down for generations, they confuse already confused souls rather than clarifying them.

I think formal invitations may have an occasional place, but I found them very confusing and manipulating growing up. They conjured up false doubts for some and false assurance for others, and both for me. It’s a man-made tactic that will take me a long time to love again.

…for the following reasons:

- No Scriptural support for the practice.
- Gives false sense of spirituality/shame. (The person who stays in his or her seat might be making the real decision.)
- Very easily manipulated. (I have seen an invitation in a chapel where less than 10 people were left in the chairs out of a crowd of 400.)
- Serves little practical value. (People don’t usually make real-life decisions while rushing to the front of a crowded gathering and then standing or kneeling before it, all in a short span of time.)
In addition to the excellent points Shaynus makes, these are sufficient reasons in my mind to discontinue this extra-Biblical practice.

Note: I would make a distinction between an altar call and having people come forward as candidates for membership or baptism, having missionaries come to the front for commissioning, etc. Beyond that, I would discourage the practice.

Altar calls are rather superfluous when there are only about 20 people in the service ;) They have been abused over the years. It is my opinion the reason Fundamental preachers have altar calls is becuase The Man, Dwight Lyman Moody, always gave one. The story goes that Moody preached the night of the Great Chicago Fire and did not give an altar call, and some of those people died that night. He was either convicted or guilt-struck. Either way, from that day on Moody always gave an altar call. There was also the old practice of the mourners’ bench, which seems to be a forerunner of the altar call.

[Shaynus] One way I often see the invitation being abused is by pastors who believe in it too strongly. They imply that “following God’s call” is the same thing as “come forward right now.” So for example a pastor (or chapel speaker) might say “why do you stand there with a hard heart while God beckons you to come? Will you not yield to him?” Yes God doesn’t want to stand there with a hard heart, but standing there isn’t the point. Yes He wants us to come, but he wants you to come to him spiritually speaking. But might want you to come forward physically only very indirectly, or not. If this kind of shoddy reasoning is played out over and over again in every service, people soon equate godliness and holiness to walking an aisle. If you really asked the same pastors if that’s what they really believe, they would say no. But through rhetorical flourishes passed down for generations, they confuse already confused souls rather than clarifying them.

I think formal invitations may have an occasional place, but I found them very confusing and manipulating growing up. They conjured up false doubts for some and false assurance for others, and both for me. It’s a man-made tactic that will take me a long time to love again.

It is generally bad practice to judge any matter solely by its abuses.

For example, the bad practice of generalizations. I’ve been in probably hundreds of invitations. Maybe 10 percent were done well. Am I saying it should never be done? No.

Solely? Really? How am I solely judging on abuses? I said I see an occasional place for it, but it should be done right.

One practice of Moody is not generally considered today. He held after meetings - or inquiry meetings - to fully explain salvation to those who responded to the altar calls. These meetings sometimes lasted for hours.

[Charlie] The Christian Church invites all to come to meet Christ. Where? In Baptism and in the Eucharist. I am wary of sacraments of human invention.

While the invitation to come forward might be a “human invention” I believe that “receiving Christ via believing the Word (gospel)” (which is what the intent of the altar call is with guidance from ideally spiritually mature believers) is also where one is inviting to come to meet Christ. Your paradigm seems to suggest otherwise though I know this is not your belief.

I have attended an LCMS church that had an altar invitation. The Pastor would state at the end of the service, “If anyone wishes to have an Elder pray with them for any matter, either in understanding the gospel or another matter, there will be several Elders at the altar to assist you”.

I believed this to be a very spiritually considerate invitation. I do not know if this is an altar call but I do know that I have no objections to it and cannot think of why I would but I am open to evaluating this invitation in another light.

Having grown up in churches where the “altar call” was practiced every time the doors were open, and still exeperiencing it on a limited basis (my parents attend a church where it is done at the end of every service), I’ve grown weary of it. The invitation is always open, as my current pastor says, and I think it can be dangerous to perform the altar calls incorrectly.

I remember many altar calls that had unsaved people, people who weren’t right with God, people who were being called to “full-time Christian service” (shouldn’t all of us be that way, anyway?), people who promised to pray for those going into full-time Christian service, all kneeling at the front of the church. It really kills the atmosphere and effect when you realize that it’s about getting as many people to the front as you can. Then, especially for those who put faith in a “decision” or “walking an aisle”, reaching those people for the gospel can become immensely challenging.

Some of the choices we make about form and function in church that are ‘extra-Biblical’ are simply utilitarian. Padded pews, hymnbooks, air conditioning, water fountains, microphones… none of these have immediate spiritual, moral, or ethical implications that I can see.

However, the altar call, as most practice it, plants the idea that sincerity is ‘proven’ by kneeling at an ‘altar’. The term ‘altar’ is misused, for starters, and I believe this does have spiritual implications. The language of the altar call is often fraught with phrases that have no Biblical support. Human nature tends to attach an unScriptural significance to a public ‘response’ to a message, especially when this is continually implied in a church’s culture. People will assume that those who ‘go forward’ are more responsive to the Word, and those who stay in their pews are not.

‘Proof’ of sincerity is a changed life, not a symbolic public gesture. Are we not also warned to pray and fast in secret because of pride issues?

I’ve been an altar worker for many years in several churches and youth camps, and I have yet to see someone make lasting life changes because they hunched uncomfortably over a piece of wood with their behind pointed at the congregation, loudly whispering in competition with a piano, organ, and singing voices, trying to finish before the end of the last chorus. I found the mechanics of the altar call in direct opposition to what the speaker was trying to accomplish. And an action that is by nature a shallow token of what may lie deeper is inherently problematic.

Change happens when the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Meaningful, consistent, dedicated discipleship facilitates this. Altar calls, IMO, do not.

Every time we preach the Word, we are asking for a decision. As the Westminster catechism says, the Bible principally teaches what man must believe about God and what God requires of man. Every time I preach the Word, I am asking people to believe something and/or to obey something. One thing I want the congregation to understand is that they’re not waiting for a specific invitation to believe or obey what they’ve heard.

None of what I said above precludes some kind of invitation to respond physically and immediately. But…yes, I’ve seen most of the abuses already cited by others. I like the idea of the periodic reminder, “Your leaders love you and are always here to talk to you if you want help with ____.”