Following on from the conversation about outreach methods, I found this interesting quote on the ‘altar call’ from LLoyd-Jones
Early in the 1970s Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones was the speaker at a ministers’ conference in the USA and at a question session was asked the following question:
Q During recent years, especially in England, among evangelicals of the Reformed faith, there has been a rising criticism of the invitation system as used by Billy Graham and others. Does Scripture justify the use of such public invitations or not?A. Well, it is difficult to answer this in a brief compass without being misunderstood. Let me answer it like this: The history of this invitation system is one with which you people ought to be more familiar than anyone else, because it began in America. It began in the 1820s; the real originator of it was Charles G. Finney. It led to a great controversy. Asahel Nettleton, a great Calvinist and successful evangelist, never issued an “altar call” nor asked people to come to the “anxious seat.” These new methods in the 182Os and were condemned for many reasons by all who took the Reformed position.
One reason is that there is no evidence that this was done in New Testament times, because then they trusted to the power of the Spirit. Peter preaching on the Day of Pentecost under the power of the Spirit, for instance, had no need to call people forward in decision because, as you remember, the people were so moved and affected by the power of the Word and Spirit that they actually interrupted the preacher, crying out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” That has been the traditional Reformed attitude towards this particular matter. The moment you begin to introduce this other element, you are bringing a psychological element. The invitation should be in the message. We believe the Spirit applies the message, so we trust in the power of the Spirit. I personally agree with what has been said in the question. I have never called people forward at the end for this reason; there is a grave danger of people coming forward before they are ready to come forward. We do believe in the work of the Spirit, that He convicts and converts, and He will do His work. There is a danger in bringing people to a “birth,” as it were, before they are ready for it.
The Puritans in particular were afraid of what they would call “a temporary faith” or “a false profession.” There was a great Puritan, Thomas Shepard, who published a famous series of sermons on The Ten Virgins. The great point of that book was to deal with this problem of a false profession. The foolish virgins thought they were all right. This is a very great danger.
I can sum it up by putting it like this: I feel that this pressure which is put upon people to come forward in decision ultimately is due to a lack of faith in the work and operation of the Holy Spirit. We are to preach the Word, and if we do it properly, there will be a call to a decision that comes in the message, and then we leave it to the Spirit to act upon people. And of course He does. Some may come immediately at the close of the service to see the minister. I think there should always be an indication that the minister will be glad to see anybody who wants to put questions to him or wants further help. But that is a very different thing from putting pressure upon people to come forward. I feel it is wrong to put pressure directly on the will. The order in Scripture seems to be this - the truth is presented to the mind, which moves the heart, and that in turn moves the will.
(My apologies to whoever it was brought this to my attention the other day. I think it was on Twitter)
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Dyfed 07.07.10 at 4:08 pm
Well I guess even the great Dr could get it wrong. The alter call goes back further in time - to at least the Methodist camp meetings in Kentucky in late 1790s and early 1800s. Finney merely borrowed the practice and through his ‘Lectures on Revival’ popularised the practice (even in Wales).
Some conservative evangelicals seem to dislike the practice, as evidenced in Iain Murray’s ‘Revivals and Revivalism’. The Welsh revival historian Eifion Evans - because of his dislike of these thechniques? - fails in his writings to acknowledge their use in the 1858-60 revival in Wales - when they very clearly in wide use.
Kim 07.07.10 at 4:17 pm
Lloyd-Jones (who ministered just down the road in Port Talbot) is not a theologian I often agree with, but he’s right on the money about this one (even though his argument from scripture is hardly compelling). The “anxious seat” - imagine it! Today it would be called the “naughty step”.
Lloyd-Jones was, of course, a BIG fundy. I may have told this story before, but it’s worth repeating. A colleague of mine, when he was a young minister/theologian, went with a friend to hear the great Doctor preach. The sermon amounted to a fierce diatribe against Rudolf Bultmann. On leaving the chapel, the friend of my friend remarked, “Fantastic sermon! Jesus would have loved it.” To which my friend replied, “Perhaps. But at least Jesus would have read Bultmann before he preached about him.”
dh 07.07.10 at 4:21 pm
No evidence of alter calls in the first century church? What about the alter call of John the Baptist to “repent and be Baptised for the Kingdom of God is at hand”? or all of the many times in Acts where people came forward to repent and be Baptised. I find this answer by the guy to be totally false in light of the facts.
You say they followed ““Men and brethren, what shall we do?” ” The pastor/teachers would then invite them to come forward to repent and be Baptised for the remiscion of sins. So to deny out-right there was not some sort of alter call or something at least close o that seems rather odd.
dh 07.07.10 at 4:24 pm
It isn’t the alter call or not but the heart of the person at conversion. “Man looks at the outward appearance but God looks at the heart.” So why attack alter calls?
Richard 07.07.10 at 4:30 pm
Llyod-Jones would be spinning in his grave if he learned you assumed he didn’t call people to repentance. What he’s talking about here is the “liturgical act” (if I can call it that) of calling people to the front at the end of the service. Read what he says again, you’ll see.
This post was worth doing just to see Kim writing approvingly (if slightly grudgingly
) of something by Lloyd-Jones.
Dyfed offers another perspective, for which I’m grateful.
Kim 07.07.10 at 4:38 pm
Martin Lloyd-Jones -
His theology, by and large, I do not condone.
But even a broken clock, I have to say,
Is correct twice a day.
Tim Chesterton 07.07.10 at 7:17 pm
John Stott, who of course knew Lloyd-Jones quite well, once told me that he had counted the number of times the word ‘abomination’ appeared in the Doctor’s book ‘Preaching and Preachers’. I think he counted nineteen, and none of them were to do with homosexuality! If I remember correctly, tape-recorded sermons made the cut!
But I have to say that on this matter I agree with the Doctor. And if I didn’t, I’d also be tempted to say that in the Anglican Church we have an altar call every week (please note spelling, by the way - ‘altar’, not ‘alter’). It’s called coming forward to receive communion.
dh 07.07.10 at 7:33 pm
Richard, you misunderstood me. I never said that the Dr. didn’t call people to repentence. What I said was that I disagree with him in that he stated that the first century church didn’t have alter calls when in fact they did. Maybe there is a semantic word play or a “predisposition” again “alter calls” as opposed to “calls to repentence for Salvation”. To me I see no difference. I see nothing wrong with alter calls nor do I think anyone as Christians should have problems with them fr it is the heart not the alter call that potentially is the problem.
Kim 07.07.10 at 7:35 pm
Yes, and Stott showed his mettle when he rejected the Doctor’s call for evangelical Anglicans to come out from among the heathen (Anglican liberals).
Kim 07.07.10 at 7:45 pm
DH, Rowan Williams, and Benedict XVI die and go to heaven. They are stopped at the gate for private interviews. God calls in Williams. Williams comes out crying, “I got so much of it wrong!” God calls in Benedict XVI. Benedict XVI comes crying, “So much for papal infallibility!” God calls in DH. God comes out crying, “I’m not omniscient after all! Here is my resignation.” Old joke, new character. Bang on.
dh 07.07.10 at 8:13 pm
Kim, honest, I’m trying. I don’t get the joke. Maybe it is the fact of knowing God is omniscient that is holding me up in understanding the joke. However, I am curious about the meaning of the joke. For I love your sense of humor. Okay at least some of the time.
Kim, you may have brought up a new character, but to quote what they say in the South, “That Kim, Now he’s a character.”
PamBG 07.07.10 at 9:45 pm
Sociologically, those who study “religion” - as opposed to “theology” - have distinguished before the more staid, Reform (and probably Lutheran) “fundamentalists” and the “evangelicals”. The altar call would have certainly been a distinguishing liturgical difference: the fundamentalists being against them because acceptance of Jesus as Lord should be an act of the will and intellect which acknowledges the Truth. Whereas for “evangelicals” the personal feeling and response was everything - some would argue that the lived-out faith of an evangelical acknowledged feeling as more important than the theology. Methodism would certainly be the “founder” of evangelicalism - which is why the Puritans accused the Methodists of being “enthusiasts”.
dh 07.07.10 at 9:53 pm
Well it is great to know that I’m not a fundamentalist. However, the proper truth ofthe situation is one of both feeling/response AND theology as being equally important aka “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind…”
dh 07.07.10 at 9:54 pm
Thanks for the background PamBG.
PamBG 07.07.10 at 11:05 pm
Well, I’m glad that you know the proper truth on all the age-old theological debates that have been exercising great intellects for millennia.
Pam 07.08.10 at 1:07 am
Pam - to use the favourite expression of my youngest daughter - you rock!
dh - “Well it is great to know that I’m not a fundamentalist”. At last, we have something in common.
PamBG 07.08.10 at 1:58 am
Pam: Thanks.
dh 07.08.10 at 4:09 pm
Pam and PamBG, it seems we have gone full circle in a good way. It seems we three agree that being a Conservative Evangelical Christian doesn’t necessarily mean you are necessarily a “fundamentalist”. I may be different by being a Conservative Evangelical but at least we all are not “fundamentalist” by the definition we three appear to have agreed on.
dh 07.08.10 at 4:20 pm
PamBG, not to get away from an apparant agreement we have here, I do believe in alter calls but I believe that at the same time that not all people who respond to an alter call are necessarily believers. That doesn’t mean the alter call is wrong or that people can’t be believers without a alter call. Hence the passage I mentioned earlier, not to mention overboard, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind..”
My conclusion is this: If there are people who would never come to Christ heart, soul and mind without an alter call then we shouldn’t diminish the need for it. At the same time, we should put “all the eggs in one basket” on alter calls and not address the heart of those who appear to not have a heart change from a physical alter call. Let alone the discipleship needed and continuing Sanctification that Believers need after an alter call/conversion has occurred.
I think those against alter calls are focusing solely on the extremes and no the majority who agree with my particular conclusion and the balance thereof.