Are Altar Calls Biblical?
“The success rate of genuine conversions at crusades hovers between 5% to 15%. Some may argue, ‘But seeds are planted.’ Yes, seeds are planted, but are they seeds of salvation or seeds of false assurance?”
- 158 views
I grew up in a church that didn’t give public invitations and altar calls. God saved me when I was 28 years old and placed me as a teacher in a Christian school. The church had its annual evangelistic meetings with the usual nightly altar calls; something that I had never experienced. One night as my “head was bowed and my eyes were closed” the evangelist “invited” those who wanted to publicly declare that they would never “date or mate an unsaved person” to come forward. (It was “school night” and had been a disappointing week for the evangelist.) I was 28 and single and it seemed like a good idea so I hit the aisle, got to the front, and found myself standing in a group of giggling junior high kids.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Lee]
Agreed that a quick “what are you going to do about this?” or “if you’d like to talk with me….” is great. It’s a coherent way of wrapping things up and “drawing the net”, as Lee says. However, when that morphs into a few minutes of goading people into a response, the thought that arises is so you’re telling me that you’ve got nothing more to say about the Scripture…but you keep talking…. Why?
Peter might take issue with your take on the altar call as bolded above:
“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? [FWIW, this is the same question Saul asked in chap. 9] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. …And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” (Acts 2:37-40)
Assuming there is some sense of chronology going on in this narrative there appears to be some significant cajoling going on after the initial response to the message.
The key part here is the last seven words of what you say; there was some significant discussion after the people had indicated their response and willingness to be saved. In other words, those many other words are not part of an “altar call” in the modern sense at all, but are rather the counseling after someone indicates they need Christ.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I suspect that many of the objections/reservations in this thread come from exposure to abuse (as I have said before) AND Calvinistic/Reformed leanings. For the record, I am neither Calvinistic/Reformed nor Arminian. Most of my best systematic theology books come from Calvinistic writers. So I have no axe to grind here with Calvinistic leanings. But I suspect that at least some of the objection/reservation comes from that perspective, as perhaps does the acceptance of altar calls comes from another theological perspective.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Alter calls make counseling a spectator activity
[Bert Perry]Lee wrote:
Agreed that a quick “what are you going to do about this?” or “if you’d like to talk with me….” is great. It’s a coherent way of wrapping things up and “drawing the net”, as Lee says. However, when that morphs into a few minutes of goading people into a response, the thought that arises is so you’re telling me that you’ve got nothing more to say about the Scripture…but you keep talking…. Why?
Peter might take issue with your take on the altar call as bolded above:
“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? [FWIW, this is the same question Saul asked in chap. 9] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. …And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” (Acts 2:37-40)
Assuming there is some sense of chronology going on in this narrative there appears to be some significant cajoling going on after the initial response to the message.
The key part here is the last seven words of what you say; there was some significant discussion after the people had indicated their response and willingness to be saved. In other words, those many other words are not part of an “altar call” in the modern sense at all, but are rather the counseling after someone indicates they need Christ.
Me thinks you have taken an opinion to the text and not formed an opinion from the text. I’m pretty sure that the majority of these converts were self-baptized as there were not enough disciples to accomplish the task otherwise. It is inconceivable (and yes, that word does mean what I think it means) that they were personally counseled following response and prior to baptism as you seem to indicate.
Peter testified and exhorted (“…warned them and…pleaded with them [NIV] ) once evidence of conviction was present. And what did he plead with them to do? Respond NOW!! “Save yourselves….!” Sounds pretty emotional (dare we say manipulative?) to me.
Lee
Lee, there is nothing complicated about this. The people asked “what then shall we do?” in verse 37, and it is in verse 40 that “many other words” are referred to. Hence the response precedes those words, and those words are therefore not an altar call designed to elicit response.
It’s basic logic, brother.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[WallyMorris]I suspect that many of the objections/reservations in this thread come from exposure to abuse (as I have said before) AND Calvinistic/Reformed leanings. For the record, I am neither Calvinistic/Reformed nor Arminian. Most of my best systematic theology books come from Calvinistic writers. So I have no axe to grind here with Calvinistic leanings. But I suspect that at least some of the objection/reservation comes from that perspective, as perhaps does the acceptance of altar calls comes from another theological perspective.
Wally, why don’t you describe a typical “justifiable” use of the altar call? How long is it? What are its topics? How is it related to the sermon? Is a hymn being played? I suspect that I’d put your use into the category of “invitation”, but I figure I ought to hear it from you.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The typical altar call, when I use one, is less than 5 minutes. The focus may be the theme of the message or more generally for people to pray at the front of the church (some people do like to do that). If I know that an unsaved person is present in the service, I will give a brief & clear gospel invitation, but I do not make that invitation long, since, if the Holy Spirit is truly convicting, I shouldn’t have to manipulate people to get feet moving. My use is a blend of altar call and invitation, which gives people the maximum opportunity to act on what the Lord may be doing in the heart at that moment. Any type of “counseling” is not done at the front of the church, unless someone wants myself or someone else to pray with them, which, of course, we will do.
These posts are interesting in that they show the extent pastors will discuss almost any topic !
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[WallyMorris]The typical altar call, when I use one, is less than 5 minutes. The focus may be the theme of the message or more generally for people to pray at the front of the church (some people do like to do that). If I know that an unsaved person is present in the service, I will give a brief & clear gospel invitation, but I do not make that invitation long, since, if the Holy Spirit is truly convicting, I shouldn’t have to manipulate people to get feet moving. My use is a blend of altar call and invitation, which gives people the maximum opportunity to act on what the Lord may be doing in the heart at that moment. Any type of “counseling” is not done at the front of the church, unless someone wants myself or someone else to pray with them, which, of course, we will do.
These posts are interesting in that they show the extent pastors will discuss almost any topic !
Or laymen, as is my case. :^) Thanks for the explanation.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[WallyMorris]The typical altar call, when I use one, is less than 5 minutes. The focus may be the theme of the message or more generally for people to pray at the front of the church (some people do like to do that). If I know that an unsaved person is present in the service, I will give a brief & clear gospel invitation, but I do not make that invitation long, since, if the Holy Spirit is truly convicting, I shouldn’t have to manipulate people to get feet moving. My use is a blend of altar call and invitation, which gives people the maximum opportunity to act on what the Lord may be doing in the heart at that moment. Any type of “counseling” is not done at the front of the church, unless someone wants myself or someone else to pray with them, which, of course, we will do.
These posts are interesting in that they show the extent pastors will discuss almost any topic !
If I as a spirit led, God called (via gifting) preacher determine that a 10, 20, 30 minute invitation is in order due to a sensing of the Holy Spirit’s convicting work on some of those present, am I in contradiction to Scripture or somehow utilizing man-made efforts to manipulate the results? If not, what is the magic number? “Why tarriest thou…?” does not come with a “you got 5 minutes or we’re done” disclaimer.
Lee
So how many views have we got on this now?
- a. All altar calls are bad.
- b. Altar calls are generally bad and best avoided.
- c. Altar calls can be done well and are an option.
- d. Altar calls are important, but it’s probably not wrong to avoid using them.
- e. Altar calls are vital to effective ministry.
- f. Flip a coin and go with that.
Have I left any out?
(Just for fun, I’ll point out again that as a matter of reasoning, if your view is a., no quantity of horror stories, however extreme can prove your position correct. “All” requires some argument that the entire category is irredeemable. But stories of bad outcomes/poor execution, etc. do sort of help support view b.)
My own view would be sort of a b-ish c. I reluctantly concede that they can be done well and with good results (as far as I’ve been able to tell), but looking at experience as a whole, I’d have to say what I’ve seen has been mostly somewhere between “That was pointless” and “That was disgraceful.”
But what does experience prove? It can’t prove view a. and can only partially support view b.
The origin argument has equally marginal value. There’s a taint on the practice due it’s invention by some theologically confused guys (to put it nicely). But good/innocent ideas do not come exclusively from exemplary people.
An argument from association with faulty views of sanctification has a bit of heft. The worst invitations I’ve seen were not bad because they were pausing to ask for a visible response to a message. They were bad because they took place in an environment/context of bad theology of one sort or many. (e.g., The Christian life is supposed to be an experience of constant failure and straying followed by dramatic reboots; Christian growth happens in big spurts with lots of nothing in between; true repentance requires lots of outward emotion; the Spirit only works in large crisis turning points, never in little bits of daily discovery… stuff like that.)
And the counter to the bad-theology argument is that bad theology is not an essential attribute of the altar call. You can do it with good theology as the context…. like you can take fleas from a dog and not diminish its dogness.
The sovereignty of God argument doesn’t touch the question much either. While many who conduct really high pressure invitations seem to be driven by the idea that God needs their assistance, or the idea that getting decisions is some human’s job who is failing if he doesn’t get enough of them, it doesn’t follow that belief in God’s sovereignty requires us to refrain from asking for visible responses to sermons. After all, God uses secondary causes (it’s even in the Westminster Confession!), and He may use my public appeal for an aisle walk or show of hands. I could ask for that without doubting in the least that God is the mover of hearts and doesn’t need me to get people to some point of decision.
So… best I can come up with is view c. with a bit of personal experience taint leaning me toward view b., but not quite getting me there.
To you who use altar calls, you’ll get no criticism from me on the altar call itself. It all comes down to why, and how it’s done. In more than a dozen years of pastoral ministry, I probably only did anything like an altar call three or four times at most. For a while, I thought them important, but I could just never get it right. Always awkward and just weird. Doesn’t fit the way I preach. Though I get worked up a bit when I preach, I really want people to “make decisions” with a clear mind, free of pressure from me, and free of the buzz of a series of sad or shocking stories. The reason is simple: on Monday morning, the buzz will be gone… and I don’t want Sunday’s learning gone with it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
We are aware that every Sunday we have visitors to our church who have rarely, if ever, been in a church. Those who do have a bit of church experience have usually been in Roman Catholic or mainline Protestant churches. Knowing that, we make an effort to explain what we’re doing. They “get” prayer, hymns, reading the Bible, and the sermon. We’ll give the page numbers where they can find the Scripture and often explain chapters and verses to help them navigate. We’ll also explain the kinds of prayer we use and the reason we read from historic creeds and what they mean. Explaining the typical altar call, if we had one, doesn’t seem to be worth the effort.
BTW, I used to conduct evangelistic meetings and remember the service where I rhetorically asked during the sermon, “Is there someone here tonight who needs to be saved from their sin?” and a young lady stood up and said, “I do!” (My wife went to her and took her to a quiet place and led her to Christ.) After the service, a small group of adults were chuckling over the fact that she didn’t know that she was supposed to wait until the invitation.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
From my POV, there is a difference between a ‘call to action’ and an altar call. Regardless of the focus of the message—teaching, evangelism—all Scripture can call us to something, even if it’s just a better understanding of the overarching purposes of God’s plan as revealed in the Bible.
The part of the ‘invitation’ that I find problematic is any requested action that is linked to revealing your heart’s response to the message or to proving one’s sincerity. No matter how you slice it, when you start asking people to raise their hand or come forward as an act of repentance for whatever, you’ve stepped away from grace through faith and into works.
Whether you link those things in your mind doesn’t matter—what matters is how you link those things in the minds of your congregation and visitors.
IMO, a call to action should tell people what to do that is specific to the message. Raising your hand has nothing to do with applying biblical principles. Walking to the front of the church or kneeling on a step has nothing to do with salvation. These are mechanisms we use to try to weigh reactions to the message, which, quite frankly, ain’t none o’ your business.
Obviously, you should let people know how they can get more help or information, but never, ever under the pressure of the number of stanzas in a song.
And for cryin’ out loud-stop talking! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat/stood in contemplation and prayer, only to realize I’m supposed to be raising my hand to affirm my salvation for the 1,000th time, or to agree that I really need to love Jesus more. Sheesh! I’m too busy actually dealing with my issues to jump through the speaker’s hoops and help him deal with his insecurity about the effects of his message.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it. ;)
[Lee]WallyMorris wrote:
The typical altar call, when I use one, is less than 5 minutes. The focus may be the theme of the message or more generally for people to pray at the front of the church (some people do like to do that). If I know that an unsaved person is present in the service, I will give a brief & clear gospel invitation, but I do not make that invitation long, since, if the Holy Spirit is truly convicting, I shouldn’t have to manipulate people to get feet moving. My use is a blend of altar call and invitation, which gives people the maximum opportunity to act on what the Lord may be doing in the heart at that moment. Any type of “counseling” is not done at the front of the church, unless someone wants myself or someone else to pray with them, which, of course, we will do.
These posts are interesting in that they show the extent pastors will discuss almost any topic !
If I as a spirit led, God called (via gifting) preacher determine that a 10, 20, 30 minute invitation is in order due to a sensing of the Holy Spirit’s convicting work on some of those present, am I in contradiction to Scripture or somehow utilizing man-made efforts to manipulate the results? If not, what is the magic number? “Why tarriest thou…?” does not come with a “you got 5 minutes or we’re done” disclaimer.
In my mind, the real question here is whether that 10-30 minute invitation is likely to be Spirit led. Let’s think about this a minute; if indeed most pastors spend many hours preparing for a 30 minute (plus or minus) sermon, what is the likelihood that his comments during a 10-30 minute invitation are going to be coherently Biblical? We would have to assume that the Holy Spirit would be guiding each word of the pastor for that to happen, no? And isn’t that something of an issue when our view of the early church gifts is that they have mostly ceased?
A parallel from the world of politics is how much trouble our President gets into when he starts ad libbing—or really how stilted our former President usually was when he had to think on his feet. The person who can speak well for long periods of time without preparation is quite frankly rare.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
A number of years ago when I was pastoring, a mother came to me before the service and asked me to give an altar call invitation. She said her adult son was there and she just knew he would come forward to be saved if I did. I refused because I didn’t do them anyway, and was sure that he would have come forward, responded yes to any questions I asked him, and would have left church in far worse shape than he came - believing that he was born again but yet being lost. He would have come forward cuz that’s what his mama wanted him to do.
As you can imagine I got into quite a bit of trouble over that: “Pastor doesn’t want people to get saved.” The church even wanted to change the constitution to force the pastor to give invitations (the only authority the pastor had was “the service is under the direction of the pastor”).
I resigned within the year after that contentious business meeting.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Discussion