I wrote this back in 2015 and I've been running into stuff like this lately, so I thought I'd float it again.
________
Who does not know what an altar call is? An altar call is where the pastor or preacher or leader calls on the congregation or audience or crowd at hand to come forward and give their lives to Christ. That may be for a specific purpose--"Give up porn" or "Promise to be a better husband" or something like that--but most often it is for salvation. "Come forward and come to Christ." I grew up in a Baptist church, so it was the norm for me. I went to Billy Graham crusades, so it was the norm for me. I figured everyone did it. It was generally the same. "With your heads bowed and your eyes closed, if anyone wants to come to Christ, get out of your seat and come up here and one of our pastors/elders/deacons/whatever will lead you in the prayer of salvation." That sort of thing. I remember in a Calvary Chapel once where the pastor boldly proclaimed, "No! This time I will not tell you to bow your heads and close your eyes. If you want to meet Christ, come down here in front of everyone and give your life to Him." Oh, and they came by the dozens. It's just what we do. Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered the origin of the altar call. You see, it's not biblical. You won't find it in the pages of Scripture. It's not from the early church fathers. It's not part of the Nicene Creed or the Synod of Dort or any such thing. This phenomenon didn't actually see the light of day until the 1800's. What? How is that possible?
This staple of many churches today started in the Second Great Awakening. In the first (1730's and 1740's), no one knew how many were saved. George Whitefield was satisfied with, "I have determined to suspend my judgment 'til I know the tree by its fruits." But the second one wanted quantification. Now, many churches already had an altar at the front where people were invited to come if they needed prayer or encouragement, so this seemed like an easy option. This new concept of coming to the altar for salvation found its real power source in Charles Finney. Finney did not believe that humans were sinful by nature, so he sought to change their wills. Human depravity was "a voluntary attitude of the mind." He wrote, "A revival is not a miracle. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means." So one of the means he constituted was the "anxious bench" to urge people to act--a matter of the will--in order to be converted. It was a "new measure." Finney believed it "was necessary to bring [sinners] out from among the mass of the ungodly to a public renunciation of their sinful ways." And, by counting the numbers of people who came forward, revival was quantified. Of course, Finney's "new measure" has become so mainstream now that few of us even realize that it's the product of faulty theology ("The sin nature is just a voluntary attitude of the mind."). But, along with the prevalence of the procedure, I'm pretty sure that most of us know those who have "gone forward" and "given my life to Christ" only to end up abandoning the faith. Indeed, I think this reality itself is as prevalent as the procedure. Isn't that an indication of a problem? Don't get me wrong. The Bible contains calls to "Come." Jesus promised, "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matt 11:28). We are told to do things for salvation, like believe and repent and "Be reconciled to God!" (2 Cor 5:20). Indeed, belief is a command (Mark 1:15), not a suggestion. And Scripture further endorses public confession of faith (Matt 10:32-33). Salvation requires confession with the mouth (Rom 10:9). But none of this has anything to say about the altar call.
The question is the value of the altar call. I think the fundamental question there is the question of salvation. Are we saved by making a decision, by responding to an altar call, by "coming forward"? Some worry, "What about the guy who leaves without making a decision?" Is God limited by the geography? Or are we saved by Christ? Note that in all of the "Come" commands the requirement is to "Come to Me" It is to Christ we must come to be saved. Not to the front of the church or the tent or the stadium. Nor are we saved by an emotional response evidenced by a rush to the front of the church. We are saved by a divine work that changes the heart, wrought from faith and repentance, not the Sinner's Prayer. Nor are we saved by the preacher giving the invitation. Do sinners need mediation? Sure. "How shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom 10:14). Words are necessary. Declaring the truth in love is necessary. Expressing the Gospel is necessary. But in the end, no one is saved by the preacher or his fine altar call. The message of the cross is the power of God (1 Cor 1:18). And, as has been pointed out by others, it is not a profession of faith, but the possession of it that saves. I'm concerned about the altar call. I think it is predicated on a false theology that encourages a change of will that produces a change of heart rather than the reverse. I think it encourages the belief that we are saved by what we do. I think it engenders the notion that God is limited by our actions--whether it be the preacher or the sinner--to bring about salvation. I fear that it gives people the false confidence that "I went forward; I must be saved." And I am concerned that the newness of what we think of as a "given" points to a potentially serious problem. Yes, we need to preach the Gospel (Mark 16:15). More importantly, we need to make disciples (Matt 28:19) "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt 28:20). I think that altar calls encourage "hit and run" conversions that are actually not conversions at all. Because I have heard far too often, "I tried that and it didn't work." And, frankly, such a thing is not possible.
7 comments:
Didn't altar calls lead to the concept of carnal Christians also? "I answered the altar call, I don't have to change my life at all." And if Finney is right, assurance of salvation isn't valid because of you can will yourself in, you can will yourself out.
I recall this post from ten years ago; it’s nice to revisit it with “fresh eyes.” I concur 100% with everything you wrote. This practice of presenting “altar calls” (which I observed in person a few times as a young Christian) is the epitome of “American evangelical pragmatism,” as John MacArthur terms it in his book, Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World. As you point out, the content of presentations culminating in “altar calls” is oftentimes founded on faulty theology (and can therefore only produce false converts, who will desert the faith as swiftly as they found it).
I learned in MacArthur’s book that Finney (who did not have a Christian upbringing) began preaching as “a young man, but two years a minister, but four a Christian” and was therefore not well-grounded in orthodox theology. He studied theology superficially and then essentially invented his own set of doctrines, drawing heavily upon human reason and his studies in law, which had preceded his ministerial preparation. He also was led to preach in response to hyper-Calvinism, which was prevalent in the church at his time; in doing so, he moved in error to the opposite extreme in basic ignorance of the biblical doctrines of grace. (I saw that you have two posts detailing Finney’s theology, so I won’t repeat any of that.)
Thinking about modern-day evangelistic assemblies, I am certain that if Bible passages are stressed in the presentation that precedes an “altar call”--and God has prepared the listener’s heart to receive the Gospel--then true conversions can occur there (“Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” [Rom. 10:17]). However, a high-pressure, emotionally manipulative effort is not the best method to share the Gospel to the lost, to my mind. (Interestingly, Charles Finney’s own conversion took place while alone in the woods.) In the local church setting, if a Bible teacher is practicing expository preaching--where Jesus’s life and words and the apostles’ teaching about the Christian life and practice are shared as regularly as they come up in NT books--then the preacher will just naturally be presenting the Gospel and urging belief and faith in its truths all along the way. A conversion can occur silently, at any time--as one sits right there in their seat, later at home with loved ones, or during a time of private contemplation, according to the Holy Spirit’s timing. None of the drama or theatrics of an “altar call” are necessary in God’s work of salvation.
The Evangelical movement was rife with people who had a "calling" and simply started preaching with no grounding and no accountability.
Indeed, Craig, and some of them gained enough of a following to establish bonafide cults. (Interestingly, Finney’s “ministry” was centered in western New York state, in an area known as “the burned-over district”--a term popularized by Finney himself--where Joseph Smith started Mormonism; the Millerite movement began, leading to Adventist thought; the Shakers became active; among other developments.) Thank God for men properly equipped for preaching the Word (including the aforementioned Johnny Mac)!
P.S. Craig, I hope you saw that I replied to your “Dirty Church Clothes” comment at Stan’s “The Wrong Question” post (and also your final comment there).
David, I think you are right that “altar calls”--as well as the related practice of urging recitation of “the Sinner’s Prayer” to supposedly bring about conversion--lead to false converts and adherents of “cheap grace.” I understand that these practices gained prevalence partly as an overreaction to hyper-Calvinism, which essentially opposes the very idea of evangelism. Of course, both extreme views--that salvation should not be offered freely to all and that conversion is a choice of one’s will--are in contrast to proper biblical teaching, as I see it (demonstrating well that “error almost always begets more error”).
Lorna, Nancy Pearcey writes extensively on the beginnings of the Evangelical movement and there disdain for education when it came to those who'd preach. It's obviously a balance, because both the sense of calling and the education are valuable. It's why, despite a lot of trepidation, I've come to the conclusion that some sort of denominational structure is valuable because it is intended to provide some degree of accountability for pastors.
I'd forgotten about that comment thread, it's rare to see one go that long here.
Thanks.
Nancy Pearcey has been recommended to me but I haven’t read anything of hers yet; I should rectify that.
I tend to favor nondenominational churches myself, but you are right that they can suffer from lack of accountability and outside oversight. (I am mindful that most if not all of the cults started as disconnected, breakaway entities headed up by an unchecked domineering leader.)
Regarding your final line: You might be underestimating me a bit! ;)
Post a Comment