What’s Wrong with the Altar Call?

If you were to visit Hope Presbyterian Church (where I serve as teaching elder) and were very unfamiliar with Presbyterian and reformed practice, you might think something was conspicuously missing from our worship service – the altar call or invitation at the end of the preaching. While perhaps waning somewhat in popularity, for various reasons, the altar call is still a regular practice of many churches, particularly in some Baptist and independent Bible churches. The practice is closely associated with mass evangelism events, like those conducted by Billy Graham and, now his son Franklin and others. In some churches, it features so prominently that a Sunday service without an altar call would be considered incomplete. I was a guest preacher at a southern Baptist church once where, when I failed to perform the desired altar call at the end of the service, a deacon came up to the front of the church to invite folks to come forward to accept Christ. I guess he felt compelled to make up for my unfaithfulness in the ministry to the church! While I respect the motives and sincerity of my brethren who make use of this method, I find it problematic for several reasons. I think the practice, itself, is unbiblical and unhelpful. More importantly, it reflects a deeply flawed understanding of the gospel of grace and how sinners are saved.

The term “altar call” refers, narrowly, to the practice of inviting people to respond to the gospel message by “coming forward” to the front of the church or auditorium to “accept Christ” or to “rededicate your life to the Lord.” More broadly, we could include similar types of responses such as standing in place or raising a hand to indicate one’s decision to accept Christ. While many of us have childhood memories of the altar call as a regular part of our church experience, it is a relatively recent innovation in the practice of the church. It was developed and popularized by Charles Finney in the 1800’s. Finney’s theology was problematic at best. He denied the depravity of man and the substitutionary nature of Christ’s atonement. He believed that salvation was a matter of convincing man to exercise his free will in favor of God. Man could be saved simply as a matter of his own choice, using the means God provided in the gospel. Finney’s theology led him to develop the “new measures” for preaching and bringing sinners to conversion. He felt that whatever means could be effectively used to sway the sinner’s will and convince him or her to choose conversion should be used. This included the idea of the anxious bench, where Finney would invite sinners to come to receive prayer and decide for Christ. This practice was picked up and modified by later evangelists such as D.L. Moody and Billy Sunday. It is the backdrop for the altar call system we see practiced in the church today. This is not to say that everyone who utilizes the altar call/invitation system subscribes to the false doctrines Finney did. However, Finney’s broad influence is still felt in the evangelical church today, and the popularity of the invitation system is an evidence of that influence.

The Regulative Principle

              One question that immediately arises concerning the altar call is simply, “Is it really biblical?” In reformed churches, we seek to apply what we call the regulative principle. In short, this means that God can only be rightly worshiped in the way that He determines and reveals to us. We are not to attempt to worship God in any way not prescribed in the Scriptures. Under the new covenant, worship consists of the reading of Scripture; the preaching and hearing of God’s Word; singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs; offering up prayers and the administration of the new covenant sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We do not find the altar call – a practice of calling sinners to come to the front or some other outward act as a response to the preaching – as an element of worship in Scripture. In fact, we simply don’t find it in the Scriptures or in the practice of the New Testament church at all.

Some have argued that the altar call is something deduced from the fact that New Testament preaching does call for a response. In other words, the gospel preaching of the New Testament included an “invitation” to respond to the message by believing in Christ. Furthermore, those who were responding could be identified in some way. After all, following the powerful sermon at Pentecost, 3,000 souls were added to the church. There must have been some way in which those who responded in faith were identified and added to the church. And, of course, there was. They were baptized. When Peter presented Christ to the crowd and they asked, “What should we do?” his response was not, “Come forward to receive Christ.” Rather, he said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” The essence of the call is for an inward change – to repent and turn to Jesus in faith. In his preaching, Peter held forth Jesus as the Messiah and the all-sufficient Savior for guilty sinners. He called on people to believe that message and, believing, to turn from their sin and rebellion and trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins.

To the extent that Scripture includes a call for an external, visible act that demonstrates such inward faith, it is two-fold: confess Christ as Lord (Romans 10:9) and be baptized. For Peter’s audience, baptism would signify their cleansing and renewal by the grace of God and their entrance into the true covenant community by union with Christ. Baptism continues to serve the same function in the church today. Those who believe on the Lord Jesus receive baptism as a sign and seal of God’s covenant grace and a sign of entrance into Christ’ church. Scripture knows nothing of a special act of “coming forward” as a means of receiving Christ or formally professing Christ.

This is particularly problematic in the context of the mass evangelism crusade. Baptism is a sacrament committed to the church. In the context of the local church, those who come to faith in Jesus and openly confess Christ are to be baptized, if they have not received the sacrament of baptism already. Every truly Bible-believing church already practices baptism, although we may differ regarding the proper subjects and modes of baptism. There’s no need to “add” another procedure (another “sacrament?”) of coming forward, etc. But the evangelistic crusade event is simply not the church. Those responding to the message at such an event are not responding to the regular preaching of the gospel in the context of a local church, with a minister and elders who will continue to nurture and counsel as well as administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This is not necessarily disastrous though, especially as those who come forward will ordinarily be referred to a Bible-believing church for follow-up. However, it does highlight the irregular nature of such events where there is no immediate context for long-term discipleship in the Scriptures or the application of the biblical sacraments. God has committed the ministry of the Word and the sacraments to the church and appointed elders in local churches to oversee the work of ministry. Those who come to faith through the ministry of the organized, local church will naturally be in a place to receive baptism as the sign of entrance into the covenant community.

It is certainly proper and necessary that we call upon sinners to respond to the gospel. We should urge sinners to repent and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, alone, as Lord and Savior. This does not require, nor does the Bible give us a pattern for, urging people to come forward or stand or raise their hand as some part of coming to Christ. The altar calls system seems to add an unbiblical element to the worship of the church and to the call of the gospel.

Method and Message

              I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say something like, “It’s the message that’s important. The method doesn’t matter.” This rather pragmatic sentiment is often used to justify whatever methods the church might use to promote the gospel message and elicit “decisions” for Christ. There is some truth in this statement, in so far as there are many legitimate means and contexts for reaching people and bringing them within the sphere and influence of gospel witness and preaching. So, for example, an informal small group Bible study, one-on-one witness over a cup of coffee, street preaching and the regular ministry of preaching in the local church are all different “methods” of brining the lost into the hearing of the gospel. I have no argument with that. However, it’s another matter altogether to speak of using different “methods” to bring about salvation or to “get people saved” – to evoke faith and repentance in the sinner. In that sense, both message and method do matter, and when it comes to evangelism, our method reflects on the message we preach.

This is reflected in Paul’s teaching in 1Corinthians 1 and 2. Paul writes to a church that has become enamored with human wisdom and philosophy. This included the practice of impressive and eloquent oratory by the popular philosophers of the day. Paul contrasted such a method of speaking, which appealed to man’s pride, with his method of gospel proclamation. In 1:17, Paul writes, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Cor. 1:17 ESV) Then, continuing in chapter 2 we read, “And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. ² For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. ³ And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, ⁴ and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, ⁵ so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” (1 Cor. 2:1-5 ESV)

Throughout this part of his letter to the Corinthians, Paul stressed the seeming “foolishness” of the gospel in two aspects. First, the message itself is foolishness in the sight of sinful man – a message that proclaims power and salvation through the humiliation and shame of the cross. Additionally, however, Paul is saying that the very proclamation of the gospel, preaching itself, was seemingly weak and foolish in the eyes of the world. The simple, straightforward and authoritative preaching of the gospel didn’t have the same attraction or subtly persuasive force that was heard in the lofty speech of the philosophers of the day. Of course, from one standpoint, it might appear like Paul would get more responses if he would use a more attractive tactic in his speaking and incorporate the so-called lofty speech and wisdom of the day to persuade others to become Christians. But Paul was confident in the simplicity of preaching Christ crucified, because he knew that the real power of salvation was not in human persuasion but in the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. So, the very reason why Paul would not use the “plausible words of wisdom” was because God chooses to demonstrate His power through the preaching of the gospel. It was, “so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” After all, only the power of God can bring to life one who is dead in trespasses and sins. Salvation must be a work of God’s Spirit and power. It’s not a cooperative effort between God and man, as Paul states in 1:30: “And because of him you are in Christ Jesus…”

For Paul, the message and the method really were inseparable. The gospel of the crucified Christ, the power of God for salvation, requires a method of application that demonstrates the authority of the message and the real power for salvation, which is God alone. God ordained honest and simple preaching or “proclamation” of His Word as the means of working the miracle of regeneration in spiritually dead sinners and effectually calling them to repentance and faith in Christ. No man-devised “gimmick” or fleshly power of persuasion can substitute for the gracious, powerful, regenerating work of the Spirit of God.

With that in mind, the altar call system, with all its variants, is also a method that is inseparable from the message. The method, itself, communicates a part of the message, and despite the good intentions of many who use it, it is inextricably tied to the deeply errant view of the gospel and salvation that led to its development in the time of Finney. Remember that Finney believed that salvation was a matter of man’s decision. He believed that every man had the ability to choose his own salvation and that what was needed to get more people saved were methods that would work on the will and cause people to choose for God and Christ. But the Scriptures teach us that man is totally corrupted by sin, in a state of spiritual death and unable to will obedience, repentance or faith toward God. His will is depraved and in bondage to sin and what is needed is not a persuasive method to push him to make a better decision. What is needed is a supernatural work of God’s Spirit, a resurrection from the dead!

This spiritual resurrection is also called regeneration, effectual calling or new birth. This miraculous, life-giving work of God’s Spirit is necessary in order for a person to obey the call of the gospel by repentance and faith in Christ. However, and owing largely to the lasting legacy of Charles Finney, there is much confusion and error in the modern church of the nature of the new birth and how it’s related to faith. Many believe and teach that the new birth is the result of faith or “a decision for Christ.” An example (just one of many, so not singling out one group here) is found in the statement of faith for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association where we read, “repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ results in regeneration by the Holy Spirit.” (https://billygraham.org/about/what-we-believe/, accessed 3/26/19) Yet, the exact converse is true. Regeneration results in repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ.

We do not preach to men and women who have a propensity to sin and disbelieve the gospel but, under the right circumstances, could be persuaded otherwise. We preach the gospel to people who are dead in sin. Like Ezekiel, in the vision recorded in Ezekiel 37, we are told to preach to dead corpses, which can only come to spiritual life if/when the Spirit of God breathes life into them! To paraphrase RC Sproul’s illustration here, in the gospel, God doesn’t throw a life preserver to a man who is drowning. God reaches down to the bottom of the ocean and gives resurrection life to a man who is already dead and could do nothing for himself. Salvation is from the Lord, alone. It is not a cooperative effort, but a work of God’s grace alone.

Contrary to this biblical view of man’s depravity, the altar call system and some of the trappings that are often associated with it assumes man is fundamentally able to decide for himself to respond to God and be saved. However bad and desperate may be the state of the man who’s lost in sin, he must still have the ability to choose, for himself, to be saved or to “make a decision” for Christ. The altar call is designed to create a point of crisis and tension that will serve to facilitate this decision. Often, the invitation is accompanied by emotive music and involves a prolonged and, sometimes, “high-pressure” appeal to come forward to accept Christ. Furthermore, when you add the atmosphere of the crusade event, you have a particularly dynamic speaker along with a massive crowd to further enhance to appeal to respond. All of this is a “method” that not only seeks to bring sinners into the hearing of the gospel but to help bring about salvation by eliciting a decision from the sinner. The underlying theological assumption is that, in the end, salvation really is man’s choice. It depends, finally and ultimately, on a person’s willingness to decide for Christ, a decision that can be manipulated or at least helped along by the right atmosphere and the physical act of “going forward,” which, as we’ve considered already, is an extra-biblical addition to gospel preaching.

One of the concerning, if unintentional, outcomes of this is that many find their Christian assurance tied to a single act they performed at some point in time. Assurance is all based on one’s “decision” to come and accept Christ. This is problematic at a couple of levels. First of all, it tends to place assurance of salvation on a human act rather than on God’s grace. If a person associates salvation with his or her decision to go forward, raise their hand or whatever, then assurance is resting on the wrong foundation! It makes salvation – or at least assurance of salvation – dependent on something you did rather than what Christ has done. Secondly, this can lead to instability in the long run. After all, if my assurance of salvation rests on my response at some point in the past, I may well begin to question whether my response was sufficient. Was I really sincere enough? Did I do it right? Did I pray the right words, etc.? Some folks will likely go away with an unjustified assurance of salvation, thinking they are saved because they followed the right steps (a very man-centered view of salvation). On the other hand, others who have been truly converted are likely to struggle with assurance in the long run, because they’ve learned to rely, to some extent, on themselves for such assurance.

In the teaching of Scripture as well as the practice of Christ and the apostles, assurance is found in looking to Christ, with the help of the Spirit, not by looking at your decision or anything that you have done. Assurance also grows and develops as one continues in the faith, in fellowship with the visible church and under the preaching of the Word. The Spirit gives assurance as He ministers Christ to us and applies Scripture to us. Then, we also gain assurance, over time, as we see the evidences of genuine grace worked out in our lives. These evidences appear as perseverance in the faith, even through trials, and growth in obedience or sanctification.

None of this is meant to imply, in any way, that we ought not to proclaim the gospel passionately and invite sinners, indiscriminately, to come to Christ for salvation. While Paul would not adopt the methods of the philosophers to try and get results out of human wisdom, he did seek to persuade men (2Cor. 5:11). We should preach Christ crucified for sinners and risen from the dead and sincerely plead with sinners to repent from sin place their faith in Christ. Yet, we must also realize that the response is only in the power of God. He must use the preaching of his Word to bring life to sinners and effectually call them to faith in Christ. We cannot bring about genuine conversion by any means of human persuasion or manipulation. It must be the work of God. Also, we should be careful that we are clearly calling people to Christ, not to a decision or an altar. The biblical gospel announces the truly desperate state of man, lost and dead in trespasses and sins. It announces the only hope we have, Christ, who is held out to sinners as an all-sufficient Savior, to be received only by faith.

So, we do not practice the altar call, and I would challenge others to reconsider if this is really a biblical practice and a useful tool. Let us proclaim the gospel simply and clearly. Let us hold up Jesus Christ as He is presented in the Scripture, a crucified and risen Savior for sinners who have no other hope. Let us, then, call sinners to look to Christ, to turn from self and any hope one might find in oneself and look only to Christ for full and complete salvation. Let our method match our message, that salvation is found only and fully in the Lord alone.