Are Altar Calls Biblical?

I, too, got in trouble (my opposition was from a retired Pastor) because I didn’t do altar calls. I, too, am a proud veteran of many “contentious” business meetings. I hate business meetings. Hate. Them. Hate …

[JohnBrian] 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.

All to often, people are looking for a magic bullet.

Much of what is said about altar calls reveals an underlying conviction that God’s way and Word lacks the power to change hearts and minds. The Holy Spirit is simply not doing enough to lead and guide people to the truth, and He obviously needs our help to get it done.

[Bert Perry]

…

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?

Pardon me if I judge your judgmentalism, but doesn’t it give you the slightest bit of pause to insinuate the preacher is not spirit-led in the matter of an invitation merely on the factor of how many or few minutes are given to it? Is it not the height of spiritual arrogance to presume that the same Holy Spirit indwelling and guiding me cannot be trusted in the life of a God-ordained minister communicating a God-ordained message via a God-ordained method (preaching) simply because the invitation goes longer than what I think I would have done in the same situation?

I think we all know that there is a difference in being sensitive to the Holy Spirit and trying to be the Holy Spirit (which I am sure most of us have been guilty of at some point in our spiritual journey). However, I think we tread on dangerous ground when we artificially set parameters, particularly time parameters, on men who show every evidence of being spirit-filled, spirit gifted, and spirit led because their call to response to the preaching of God’s truth, whether publicly or privately, does not match our pre-conceived notion.

How many of us have heard people begin their profession of faith with “I went forward…..”?

[Ron Bean]

How many of us have heard people begin their profession of faith with “I went forward…..”?

This kind of testimony is about what ‘I’ did, and the fact that I wrote it in the front of my Bible

I prefer the testimony of the tax-collector - “God was merciful to me a sinner.”

[TylerR]

I, too, got in trouble (my opposition was from a retired Pastor) because I didn’t do altar calls. I, too, am a proud veteran of many “contentious” business meetings. I hate business meetings. Hate. Them. Hate …

One way to avoid contentious business meetings - don’t have many. In our elder-led church the congregation might be asked for affirmation but there’s no vote per se. We do have a business meeting once a year at our annual church dinner which presents budget, etc. and affirmation for elders. And we can have contention without business meetings. In time we might need more meetings but for now we try to keep it simple. The elders do meet weekly. My past life was churches with congregational votes for almost everything and good share of contention. I don’t see logic (or Bible) requiring a vote for every member regardless of how long saved or immature church members. Of course, if one believes Scripture teaches democratic church government ….. you will always have your reds and blues. I’m not sure I could return to that model.

[JohnBrian]

Ron Bean wrote:

How many of us have heard people begin their profession of faith with “I went forward…..”?

This kind of testimony is about what ‘I’ did, and the fact that I wrote it in the front of my Bible

I prefer the testimony of the tax-collector - “God was merciful to me a sinner.”

You’re arguing against something Scripture doesn’t argue against. Themes and variations of the question “what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” are not uncommon in Scripture (Lk. 3:7-14; Mk. 10:17; Jn. 6:28; Acts 2:37-38; Acts 9:6; Acts 16:30-31 to give the most obvious ones). And while the specific responses differ the overarching response is the same—the question is answered with something to do.

A fun exercise is to fill out a “decision slip” for the recorded salvation experiences of Scripture. Here are a couple:

Decision Slip

Why did you respond? I wanted to come to Jesus because I was really sorry about how I lived

What steps did you take in your decision? I cried—a lot!!—and kissed his feet

What was the result? My sins were forgiven; I got saved!!

Name: Anonymous Occupation: Prostitute

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Why did you respond? I was curious. I just wanted to see Jesus

What steps did you take in your decision? I gave away half my stuff and repaid a bunch of people I had stolen from

What was the result? I got saved!!

Name: Zacchaeus Occupation: Tax collector

Such an exercise will pointedly reveal the diversity of salvation experiences. You’ve already stated that you prefer the salvation experience/testimony of the parable of the publican. I, on the other hand, am more partial to the thief on the cross. The point being that the “mechanics” of a salvific response rarely look the same from experience to experience—there is no single right mechanic. Likewise, there is nothing in Scripture that indicates that there is a single right mechanic in inviting a person or group to respond to the Gospel message. Furthermore, if you walk through those same salvation experiences Scripture provides you’ll likely find as diverse “invitations” as you do responses. I think it is an effort in futility to set artificial parameters that Scripture does not set in the matter of invitations in like manner as setting artificial parameters of what a response to salvation looks like.

Lee, I beg your pardon, but asking whether a particular mode of speaking is likely to be Biblical is not judgmentalism, but rather simply a simple question; how many guys can speak coherently for up to half an hour without preparation?

If the answer is “not many”, then what’s going on in the pulpit during that 10-30 minute altar call is not likely to be Biblical instruction and exhortation, but rather the pastor talking about whatever he wants to talk about—at best it will be poorly organized and not entirely Biblical, and at worst it can veer into heresy.

Put diferently, if “know your limits” qualifies as being judgmental, we should all aspire to the same.

[Bert Perry]

Lee, I beg your pardon, but asking whether a particular mode of speaking is likely to be Biblical is not judgmentalism, but rather simply a simple question; how many guys can speak coherently for up to half an hour without preparation?

If the answer is “not many”, then what’s going on in the pulpit during that 10-30 minute altar call is not likely to be Biblical instruction and exhortation, but rather the pastor talking about whatever he wants to talk about—at best it will be poorly organized and not entirely Biblical, and at worst it can veer into heresy.

Put diferently, if “know your limits” qualifies as being judgmental, we should all aspire to the same.

[Kevin Miller]

Bert Perry wrote:

Lee, I beg your pardon, but asking whether a particular mode of speaking is likely to be Biblical is not judgmentalism, but rather simply a simple question; how many guys can speak coherently for up to half an hour without preparation?

If the answer is “not many”, then what’s going on in the pulpit during that 10-30 minute altar call is not likely to be Biblical instruction and exhortation, but rather the pastor talking about whatever he wants to talk about—at best it will be poorly organized and not entirely Biblical, and at worst it can veer into heresy.

Put diferently, if “know your limits” qualifies as being judgmental, we should all aspire to the same.

If someone came to the pastor’s office and asked, “can you take 30 minutes and tell me how to respond to Jesus, would the pastor have to say, “I’m sorry, but i can’t speak coherently about that without hours of preparation”? It would seem that that is something a pastor should have already spent years preparing for. If a pastor decides that his church is going to have long invitations, then I would assume his years of Scripture study would allow him to present a call to God in a Biblical manner. If talking for 30 minutes off-the-cuff is going to potentially cause him to veer into heresy, then I’m not sure I would even want that man as my pastor.

Kevin, there’s a huge, huge difference between a counseling situation like you describe and an altar call. In the latter, the pastor is speaking to the congregation with little interaction, verbally, with them. In a counseling situation, the counselee asks questions and frames what the pastor needs to say. It’s the difference between a planned speech and extemporaneous speaking, and it’s worth noting that in speech & debate, extemporaneous speaking tends to be limited to a few minutes or less—and even then the speaker is given a few minutes to prepare.

Put gently, speaking off the cuff in a way that is meaningful to an audience is incredibly difficult, and we shouldn’t expect pastors to be able to do it. Counsel, sure. Preach with hours of preparation, absolutely. But to speak extemporaneously for a prolonged period of time? Sorry, brother, but you’re just asking for trouble there. A parallel from politics is that when politicians “filibuster” a question in news conferences (Obama was famous for this), they quickly get a reputation along the lines of the old college proverb If you can’t blind them with brilliance, you can baffle them with . Yes, Pastors should heed this proverb carefully.

Plus, there is Wally’s point that if the Spirit is genuinely moving, you don’t need a lot of time to issue the invitation. In fact, it’s counter-productive—like a marriage proposal where the man needs to go into all the advantages of marriage (e.g. Diz proposing to Clarissa in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). If it’s not there, pressing the issue isn’t going to help things, is it?

Put gently, speaking off the cuff in a way that is meaningful to an audience
is incredibly difficult, and we shouldn’t expect pastors to be able to do it.
Counsel, sure.

I don’t think this is difficult for most pastors. I’ve certainly never found it difficult. It’s not a substitute for diligently prepared preaching, but has it’s place. I would think anyone with many years of study in a field (in this case, the dual fields of Scripture and human nature) could speak meaningfully for hours without specific preparation.

But this is pretty far afield from the question of whether an altar call can be conducted well. If it can, then why shouldn’t those who prefer to use them aim to conduct them as well as possible? And if there is nothing an altar call accomplishes that requires that particular method, why shouldn’t those who prefer to avoid them, put their energies into alternatives?

Do it well or don’t do it at all. Both are good options.