Posted on 05/06/2003 7:01:27 AM PDT by sheltonmac
When modern evangelical churches seek to bring the unregenerate to Christ (and they should do so with passion), they often fall prey to a formula which produces disappointing results. The pattern runs something like this:
This pattern has been passed down and repeated because few are taking the necessary time to examine both its flight from Scriptural precedent and precept and its dismal effect. When asked to give more careful consideration to its content and outcome, however, we are finding that many, thankfully, are rejecting this inept structure in favor of a better, more biblical one. The above list will seem familiar to every soul-loving believer, but the very evangelistic passion we have for our neighbors and unconverted family members should drive us to lay our present methods up against the truth for a well-needed examination. Like the short-of-breath fifty-year-old who has never been to the doctor, it is time for a major check-up. What then is wrong with the above list?
First, there is no biblical precedent or command regarding a public altar call. Whatever might be said for its use, we cannot resort to the Bible for support. Jesus nor Paul, nor any other early Christian leader used it. Did Jesus ask his listeners to come to the front after He preached the Sermon on the Mount? Did Paul say, "Every head bowed, every eye closed" as Luke quietly sang the invitation hymn on the Areopagus? Did Peter have seekers raise their hands as a sign of their interest in Christ at the end of the Pentecostal sermon?
Quickly it must be said that I espouse a verbal call to Christ in a most serious way and believe that the spoken invitation to come to Christ is a part of all gospel preaching. We "compel them to come in." When Moody failed to offer a public altar call on the evening of the Chicago fire, he stated a new resolve: "I learned that night [a lesson] which I have never forgotten; and that is, when I preach, to press Christ upon the people then and there, and try to bring them to a decision on the spot. I would rather have that right hand cut off than to give an audience a week now to decide what to do with Jesus." I could not agree more with his underlying sentiment, but this does not argue for an altar call. Evangelistic preaching does say, "Repent and trust Christ now." But there is nothing sacrosanct about getting people to occupy a certain piece of geography at the front of a building. Nor have I kept them from Christ by not having them respond to a public altar call. Rather I am offering them Christ without anything in between. I want nothing between their soul and the reality of Christ's offer. To put something in between is a practical sacramentalism.
Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) popularized this method through his mourner's bench. There was a person here or there that used it in an occasional manner prior to him, but he put it on the map. Reacting to Finneyism's ineptness, theologian Dabney commented:
We have come to coolly accept the fact that forty-five out of fifty will eventually apostatize [fall away].
On the other side of Finney was the veteran evangelist Asahel Nettleton (d. 1844), whose converts stood. For instance, in Ashford, Connecticut there were eighty-two converts, and only three spurious ones. In Rocky Hill, Connecticut, there were eighty-six converts and they all were standing strong after twenty-six years, according to their pastor. Nettleton rigidly refused to offer public altar calls, believing that it prematurely reaped what would turn out to be false converts. C. H. Spurgeon, the Victorian "Prince of Preachers," thought similarly. The long-term history is consistent on this issue; you may and should examine it.
Attached to the altar call (and to personal evangelism) in this model is the use of "the sinner's prayer." What can be said about this? Is it found in the Bible? The sad truth is that it is not found anywhere but in the back of evangelistic booklets. Yes the Scripture says, "whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved," but this means to evoke or place confidence in the name of Christ. The sinner may express genuine faith through a prayer, but to pray such a prayer is not the essence of the required response to the gospel invitation.
The typical "sinner's prayer" as evangelicals have come to express it, has three elements: (1) a mere acknowledgment of sin, which is not the same as repentance, (2) a belief in the act of Christ's death, which is far removed from trust in his person and work, and, (3) an "inviting Christ into the life." The last phrase hangs on nothing biblical (though John 1: 12 and Rev. 3: 20 are used, out of context, for its basis). It is considered, nonetheless, to be the pivotal and necessary instrument for becoming a true Christian. But God commands us to repentingly believe, not to invite Christ into the life.
Following the above, immediate assurance is given to the one who prayed on the basis of the sincerity of the person and the accuracy of the prayer. But it is the Holy Spirit who gives assurance of life in Christ, not the evangelist (Rom. 8: 16). We are to relate the basis of assurance but leave the actual assuring to the Spirit. This is rarely practiced in modern evangelicalism. We prefer rather to take the place of the Spirit in assuring the pray-er and therefore seal many in deception. It is not the efficacy of a prayer that saves; Christ alone saves. The well-quoted passage on assurance, 1 Jn. 5:13 states: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." "These things…written" are the tests in the rest of the letter which give a basis to determine if we are truly converted.
In many cases the next step is to publicly introduce the one who has prayed the sinner's prayer and has just been told that he or she is a Christian. I have cringed to find that some leaders turn around after five minutes of "Just as I Am" and announce that the persons coming forward are converted. Sometimes the person has not been known to the pastor until that moment! Regardless, his optimism is often not founded, since extremely high numbers of these never show any competent sign of being converted. I am not intimating that people cannot be saved immediately, but that our early acceptance of the persons coming forward has often led us to "eat our words" about their new life in Christ.
Finally, there is the last stage of public baptism. It is interesting to note that in much of evangelicalism which is Baptistic, the number supposedly "being saved" and those being baptized is vastly different. If a hundred were purportedly converted during some sort of evangelistic effort, then we might not baptize but thirty of them. But out the thirty, as seen among Southern Baptists as an illustration, statistically only ten or eleven of those thirty (34 %) would show up on a given Sunday morning and only four or five (12%) on a Sunday evening (in churches that have services at that time). They do not really love the brethren or the atmosphere of godliness. All of these, however, have prayed the prayer, walked the aisle, been told they are Christians by someone in authority, and were publicly declared to be such.
Would it not be better for a system to be re-instated which comes closer to recognizing only the smaller number of true Christians? Is it love for the lost that will perpetuate practices producing such damning deception in so many—or is it merely love for success? Or should we assume that most leaders have simply gone on with "business as usual" without ever thinking it through at all? I prefer to believe the later is true in most cases. Whatever the motive, however, those deceived on our rolls are still damned.
The more biblical way of "closing with Christ" is to focus on the gospel itself, without props. Whereas the altar call method can be tacked on to just about anything, no matter how absent the gospel, the biblical method demands the hearing of the Word. "How will they believe without a preacher."(Rom. 10: 14). It is the "by the will of God that they are begotten, through the Word of truth" (Jam. 1:18, emphasis mine). They are "born again…through the living and abiding Word of God" (1 Pet. 1: 23, emphasis mine).
It is interesting to note that the Bible account focuses attention on the object of our faith, Jesus Christ, and his life and work, when presenting the gospel to those who do not believe. There is virtually no explanation of the nature of repentance and faith; merely its mention seems to be enough. Why is that so? It is because of this wonderful reality. When the Word is preached and the Spirit is at work, the sinner is brought to conviction of sin and he cannot love his sin any more. He must repent. And when the Word presents Christ as the only hope and the Spirit is at work in the sinner, he sees no refuge for his soul but Christ. He must believe. Where else could he possibly go?
What about those passages that deal with the nature of repentance and faith in detail? Those passages are there for the presumptuous. The Epistle of First John, James, and many other portions help the professing believer understand the nature of faith to test the quality of the faith he says he has. But on the main, evangelism, after laying out the awfulness of man and his sin, and the consequence and offense against God, focuses its gaze on Christ and His work on behalf of sinners. And the people simply believe. There is no emphasis on anything else. They just believe—no laboring of mechanics or methods or perfectly worded prayers, or walks to the front. They believe because it is all they can do.
The New Tribes Mission has been instrumental in giving us the best of missiological tools in their chronological approach to working with tribal groups. They teach the Bible from its beginning, laying out each story in sequence without revealing what is beyond that point. When they come to Christ, they do not present the gospel in its doctrinal entirety until it comes in the passage. In other words, they leave the person to experience the New Testament as it was experienced by those closest to Christ. In their video depiction of a tribal group in this process, the day to explain Christ's death comes. To the man, the New Guinea tribe visibly shows its sense of shame and remorse for the crucified Master. Three days are given before the group returns. Then the resurrection is explained. In the midst of the presentation, an older man jumps to his feet and loudly exclaims, "Ee-Taow," or "I believe." Others stand with the same exclamation, though this tribal group is normally reserved in their expressions. In time the whole tribe is chanting "E-Taow, Ee-Toaw," and jumping up and down. This went on for an extended period of rejoicing. A tribe was re-born in a day!
Such a response, with varying degrees of emotion, is the nature of believing in the New Testament. It was entirely incidental whether anyone prayed a "sinner's prayer" or walked to another place to take someone's hand. The powerful Word had encountered the people through the invincible Holy Spirit. This is New Testament evangelism.
You may not agree with my assessment, but it is my contention that our use of the altar call and the accouterment of a "sinner's prayer" is a sign of our lack of trust in God. Do we really believe that the Spirit convicts and regenerates, and that His Gospel preached and read is the ordained means He uses? Surely there is nothing unbiblical or non-evangelistic about the man who preaches the gospel forthrightly, prays earnestly, appeals urgently and places his entire trust in God to do what only He can do.
They teach the Bible from its beginning, laying out each story in sequence without revealing what is beyond that point.
I thought this was interesting. I have often wondered why evangelists have a tendency to present people with only a copy of the New Testament. Personally, I think a great many people are missing out on one of the biggest blessings of all--the fulfillment of Old Testement prophecy in Jesus Christ.
At the Reformed Baptist church I attended the preacher would say if anyone had never come to Christ they should see him after the service.
The bible Presbyterian Church I now attend will on some Sundays (like yours usually Communion Sundays and on holidays ) say something very similar..to see him after the service or call for an appointment to meet with him.
I believe this is a sound way to offer the gospel as it elimates a non sincere emotional response.
Sadly there is no understanding of grace and mercy.
Is it really bringing anyone to a decision or is it rather bringing a person to the point of awareness of Christ in them? I can recall when the Lord was pulling me towards himself and not understanding this strange presence. I'd occassionally go to church and as soon as I stepped inside I would immediately begin to cry. Jesus was already moving in my heart to receive."No one comes to the Father except by me" No one, no human could have convinced me that I needed to "accept" Christ because Christ had already accepted me and came to me and the work was already complete. Now what would have helped me a great deal is if someone in the church had shown me how to acknowledge that presence in me. I guess what I mean by this is discipling. Perhaps that is what you are calling "accepting"? Though that never happened for me (verbally acknowleding Christ at an altar) I still grew in my faith and have been encouraged since then by believers to walk in this faith.
I'm not convinced that every Sunday should involve an altar call, but I do believe it is essential following a sermon of Holy Spirit conviction. In other words, I would like to hear more pastors preach the hard realities, ask listeners to count the cost, and remind unbelievers that they know not their time. THEN (and coupled with a move of the Spirit of God upon that pastor in that moment to do so) there should there be an altar call.
Funny I never asked:>) I am so used to Grape juice, it was my assumption that was what it is.
Based on taste I would say Welches
That is a beautiful example of the working of the Holy Spirit.
I appreciate the one on one call because it gives time for the tears and the repentance and the joy to be appreciated, and understood rather than heres a tract , see you next week
I had been saved many years when one day I was overcome with the presence of God during a service in a church I was visiting. I was searching for a home church at that time. I was a stranger there, so I sat in the rear of the church weeping at the love and tenderness of God to one like me.
The Pastor came up after the service to meet me. At that moment I needed someone to talk and pray with , to help me understand what it was God was teaching me about Himself. I asked the very kind Pastor if he had a few moments..He told me he was sorry that he was "busy".
I found another home church
I cannot recall a "conversion experience." I was never "slain in the Spirit." I have never spoken in tongues. The "holy laughter" movement really creeps me out. For me, it was more of a slow, steady growth into a saving knowledge of Christ, not a sudden, "road to Damascus" revelation.
Truth is, I have mixed feelings and thoughts about the essay:
hangs on nothing biblical (though John 1: 12 and Rev. 3: 20 are used, out of context, for its basis). It is considered, nonetheless, to be the pivotal and necessary instrument for becoming a true Christian. But God commands us to repentingly believe, not to invite Christ into the life.Is that really a clear, major point of criticism? I don't think so. I am outside of Christ; by God's grace, I am drawn to be in Christ; I am a stranger, an alien, an enemy; I am made a child, a brother, a friend; I am heading Hellwards, and am turned around to head Heavenwards; I am walking against, and am turned around to walk with.
I can't express the desires all that gives birth to in a prayer asking the Lord Jesus to come into my heart and life? That would be bad?
As a young-but-Biblically-educated Christian, I started getting these Calvinoid criticisms, and wondering -- "What are they saying? Did I do something wrong? How do I tell someone to get from point A to point Omega? The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come' -- but I can't?"
A man said to an evangelist once, "Sir, I do not like your methods!" The evangelist responded, "I am always eager to learn a better way to urge sinners to the Savior. So tell me, what are your methods?" The man retorted, "Why, I haven't any!" Sadly, the evangelist said, "I like mine better."
There is a valid point to that.
And isn't that the beauty of our Lord? We cannot put him in a box and know how or when He will move. He is so creative and comes to each person in that personal relationship he desires of us. For me the conversion experience was very dramatic. (no laughter or tongues) A missionary told me that the way the Lord showed himself to me was very much the way people in countries without His Word sometimes receive Him. Yet, my children are learning and growing in their faith very much in the way your describe your experience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.