Evaluating the “Altar Call”

Posted on 20 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

Somewhere around 400 times I have led altar calls in my early days of ministry. Somewhere around 2,500 times in my life I have stood as the pastor called people to make a public decision at the end of a church service. This theological heritage is as familiar to me as a child’s mother tongue.

But it’s not merely my experience, the altar call is common in contemporary Christianity. I have met a number of other African pastors from rural areas (including my own village) who are familiar with this method even while unable to offer better verses to support their salvation testimony than “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (Phil. 4:13)

What is it? The altar call is a method of evangelism (and even sanctification) used after a public presentation of truth whereby people are urged to respond immediately with a physical action.

In spite of my heritage and the prevailing moods of contemporary ministry, I do not anymore support the use of the altar call as a method for evangelism. Four lines of Scriptural thought produced this change in me. These reasons could possibly be subdivided or viewed in different ways, but they should be clear enough to drive home several Biblical points.

Before launching into the heart of my objections to this particular method, one of my reasons to oppose altar calls is not that altar calls are connected to other aberrant methodologies. I do believe that often an assembly of God’s people that is wrong in one area will be wrong in another area of similar kind, but determining necessary causes for religious movements and practices is notoriously difficult. So I shall content myself to stay closer to Scripture.

1.     The altar call is not in Scripture.

Christians commonly employ methods that are not in Scripture such as Bible societies, seminaries, publishing houses, church associations, and mission boards. However, altar calls are methods employed in the worship of local assemblies. And even though there is some flexibility in applying the regulative principle to church worship, proponents of altar calls cannot appeal to a Scriptural example or command for their reasoning. Whatever their motivation, it must be a logical implication or a merely pragmatic decision.

The water gets even muddier when history’s pages show us the roots of calling people forward to make decisions on the spot. Charles Finney was, if not the first then definitely the key man, responsible for popularizing the altar call. Yet here are a few lines summarized from his autobiography. His Revivals of Religion and Lectures on Revivals also offer more statements similar to the ones below.

  • He repeatedly uses the words: feel, impression, seems, overwhelmed, and other language of experience. (These citations are from Charles Finney’s Autobiography, ed. Helen Wessel, 1977. Pages 21, 24, 25, 45, 56, 75, et.al.) In his autobiography there is little discussion of Scriptural theology.
  • At 30 years old the Presbyterian church asked him to study theology at Princeton Theological Seminary so that he could be a pastor. He refused to study theology though he wanted to be a pastor. Eventually, they allowed his pastor to train him. But in his own words, “I [Finney] could not receive his [the orthodox, confessional pastor’s] views on the subject of atonement, regeneration, faith, repentance, the slavery of the will, or any of the kindred doctrines. … He used to tell me that if I insisted on reasoning on these subjects, I would probably land in infidelity.” (46-47)
  • Finney deceitfully said that he accepted the Westminster Confession of Faith even though he knew that he had not even read it. (49)
  • Somehow he was ordained as a Presbyterian pastor and within a short time came to his own unique doctrinal conclusions. (50-51)
  • Finney describes what was a common pattern for his sermon preparation. Though he had to preach in the evening he wrote, “I had not taken a thought with regard to what I should preach. Indeed, this was common with me at that time.” Later he wrote, “For some twelve years of my earliest ministry I wrote not a word and was most commonly obliged to preach without any preparation whatever, except what I got in prayer.” (57, 75) His sermons often lasted 2 hours.
  • He repeatedly references the Holy Spirit communicating privately to him. (92, et. al.)
  • In order to get more people to be saved, Finney looked for ways to get them to make decisions. These were called “new measures” at that time. The most famous is the modern altar call. Seats were placed at the front where people who wanted to be saved could come and receive prayer. (55, 158-160)

The altar call is not the result of careful Scriptural exegesis so that the preacher is backed in a corner by the text and with no room to wiggle, he must bow his knee to the Scriptural doctrine of the altar call. No, the theological heritage of the altar call is steeped in pragmatic revivalism with an emphasis on numbers.

2.     The altar call assumes a defective theory of regeneration.

Regeneration, also known in Scripture as being “born again” (John 3:3), drawn by the Father (John 6:44), or “called” (Gal. 1:15), is the powerful working of God whereby He creates new desires in the heart of the sinner so that those who hated Him (John 7:7) now love Him. (1 Peter 1:8) However, the practitioners of the new measures hold firmly that men can cause their own spiritual birth by exercising a latent faith which every man has in his own power.

Jesus said, “The wind blows where it wishes… so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.” This illustration is unavoidably clear regarding how believers are born again. The miracle of the new birth comes from a sovereign act of God’s Spirit. It cannot be juggled into a mildly interested attendee at a religious event by means of a potentially coercive method.

Yet the altar call implies that men have control over the matter of their own spiritual birth. When they are good and ready, they can initiate the process by means of a faith which is often—thanks to this method—mingled with some works such as prayer, coming forward, or raising a hand. If regeneration is a monergistic act, then the altar call is potentially dangerous.

3.     The altar call discourages careful thought about spiritual matters.

Revivalism in general has always been in a hurry. Whereas Jesus did not rush the rich young ruler to respond publicly, successful modern evangelists may have handled this seeker differently and thus added a number to their tally though the soul was still lost.

While walking on the road to Jerusalem before his crucifixion, and before having met the rich young ruler, Jesus turned to a crowd of people who were following him and clarified that He was not seeking quick decisions, but measured careful responses by those who had counted the cost. (Luke 14:28) A modern advisor might have suggested that He who is our Wisdom adopt a more prudent and effective method to preserve some of the fruit from an apparently large audience, but fake converts won through hasty methods damage the church by introducing more tares among the wheat.

Certainly there should be urgency in the Christian life and evangelism. But the pleading of an evangelist should always draw the hearer toward Christ not a work however subtly the two are interchanged. Such discerning urgency has been the hallmark of great evangelists in the past such as the apostle Paul, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Each of these men (and many others) was privileged to see hundreds or even thousands come to Christ by employing more strictly Biblical methods.

4.     The altar call encourages an emphasis on numbers as the evidence of ministerial success.

Paul’s measure of success was faithfulness to the Word of God. (1 Cor. 4:2) Jesus emphasized the same thing with the parable of the talents and His famous prophecy that the greatest commendation for a believer to receive is, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” A pastor who could honestly be called faithful meets all the requirements Jesus laid out. (Rev. 17:14)

I thank God for delivering this truth with power to me as I read Kent Hughes’ Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome. In less than 200 pages Hughes argues that the great need of the day is pastors who obey Scripture not necessarily examine the past week’s, month’s, and year’s statistics of attendance and giving.

But the altar call provides nearly irresistible temptation to base our feelings and projections of success on how many responded. Some pastors even tone down the numbers’ feel by adding phrases like “professions of faith” rather than “number of people saved,” yet the final result is very similar: We all look to see who had the most. This must happen because altar calls are intentionally visible. On several occasions Jesus gave us good reason to doubt the sincerity of large crowds. In John 6, many—possibly thousands—followed Him, but after a pointed sermon on God’s sovereignty and true faith “many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” The Lord didn’t count these people because He knew what was in man. True faith will demonstrate itself by slow and steady perseverance over time as the fruits of the Spirit become more evident.

Conclusions

Even with these critiques of the altar call, it must be remembered that many who still use this method are fervent and active evangelists, many have been saved through this method, and it is possible for a pastor to love the Five Solas and still use an unscriptural method. May we rejoice for all the good God does through broken tools, but in striving for consistent obedience to Scripture and a method that does not encourage false converts, let us keep shopping without putting the altar call in the cart.

The altar call is not found in Scripture nor is it the product of exegesis. It assumes a faulty perspective on regeneration. It joins the rest of the contemporary world in saying, “Now!” while Jesus says, “Think carefully.” It points us toward numbers when faithfulness is the watchword our Lord left with us.

The altar call is not evangelicalism’s greatest sin, but neither is it the answer to a church’s struggles to evangelize effectively.

Posted in Missions | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Marks of an African Indigenous Church

Posted on 18 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

Beginning somewhere around the early 1900’s Africans began forming their own congregations outside of the official denominations of the Europeans. Historians and missiologists now classify this group as the African Indigenous Church (AIC). These independent assemblies have become the most common expression of African Christianity. Sometimes these assemblies are a denomination (the ZCC or the AFM) and sometimes they are independent (The Crossing Bridge to Heaven or the Glory Barn International, two churches I have known).

The average AIC is marked by most or all of the following marks although it is difficult to classify all the congregations together because they have not agreed on a unified doctrinal statement. (See problem #2 below). Nor does every church started and run by Africans have all these marks, but many have four or more. These marks have been observed in my own personal experience as well as numerous sources like Christianity Today, Conrad Mbewe, the ZCC, and websites of churches around my village.

  1. Started and run by Africans without control from other cultures.
  2. Never or rarely follow a confession of faith or doctrinal statement.
  3. Usually led by a single, strong personality.
  4. Does not practice church discipline on sinning members.
  5. Often teaches the prosperity gospel and Word Faith charismaticism.
  6. Often syncretistic combining Christianity with acceptance of polygamy and / or elements of spiritism.

Obviously, 4-6 are more serious issues than 1-3, but if a church has any 4 of these 6 marks it has compromised the Gospel and many are the assemblies with all of them. In light of that, here are some loosely connected thoughts about ministering in a society with this kind of religious atmosphere.

Many people claim to be Christian, but they are ignorant about the core doctrines of Christianity because of these AIC marks. That means before you can evangelize, you must often convince the person that he is not saved. This requires humility for the man to acknowledge that even though he thought he was converted, he was wrong. All men must be convinced of this before they are converted but it is especially difficult for someone who thought he had already found the light to humble himself. Of course, this is not a strictly African difficulty. In a similar vein, because the AIC talk about “prayer” it is easy for sinners who think they are saved to pray with you as you are trying to evangelize them. You will then think they were just converted and they think they prayed with you just like they pray every week at their church.

If a visitor comes to your church after having been familiar with the AIC, he might be disinterested in listening to your expositional preaching.

People who have attended an AIC might be surprised to find out that your church practices church discipline. You may be looked at as “too strict” or merely “Western.”

Some people are truly converted in an AIC for which all believers must rejoice, but it is difficult to find a strong Christian because of the lack of doctrinal, theological, expositional preaching. Discouragement easily sets in because other churches grow so quickly while yours is very slow. It can be frustrating to work on a particular man for months only to find him going to an AIC that does not teach the Gospel.

Africans planting churches is in itself a good move as long as those churches love the Gospel, the 5 Solas, expositional preaching, evangelism, and church discipline. May Christ build His church on this continent to the embarrassment of false teachers and the glory of His Word.

Posted in Lists, Missions | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ravi Zacharias on Pleasure

Posted on 17 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

Any pleasure that refreshes you without diminishing you, distracting you, or sidetracking you from the ultimate goal is a legitimate pleasure. … Any pleasure that jeopardizes the sacred right of another is an illicit pleasure. … Any pleasure, however good, if not kept in balance, will distort reality or destroy appetite.

Ravi Zacharias

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Who’s on the Offensive? A Preliminary Discussion in the Worship Wars

Posted on 15 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

Deciding who has the burden of proof can sometimes be a dicey task. By calling for fairness, equal time, or a spirit of mutual acceptance, this question can be twice complicated because it works on our feelings. And in the same category as asking who must prove their case is determining exactly who is on the offensive in a given argument. If a given side is on the offensive, then they are labeled as the pugnacious ones who struggle with unity, tolerance, and generally being nice. Several examples come to mind readily.

Advocates of homosexual marriage make their case based on fairness. “We’re not trying to take away any good heterosexual marriage rights. We just want to add more societal norms to what we already have.” If you follow this line of argument, then those who support traditional marriage are the hate-mongers. These haters are on the offensive.

Pro-choice activists argue the same way. “Babies are good for some people, but we just want the right to also choose. We’re not taking away your right to have children.” Again, the conservative position is mocked as the fearful, unfair meanies.

Charismatics argue that they are not trying to take away anyone’s spiritual gift, but they are trying to give others freedom to practice their own spiritual gifts. Cessationists could thus be categorized as being on the offensive while those who want to practice the sign gifts are merely defending freedom as best they can.

Historically, Baptists were perceived as introducing dangerous schism to the church. In a footnote of John Owen’s catechism (Chapter 23, question 2) he said that he wasn’t sure if the Catholic error on baptism was worse than the Baptists’ or the other way around. The argument levied against the Baptists came from the fear of other denominations that this group would influence society and possibly grow in popularity. Well, their fears were well-founded. The Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans who weren’t happy with the dippers were clearly on the offensive; they wanted to restrict the liberty of some even in their private homes and worship. Yet weren’t the Baptists on the offensive in a very real sense? Weren’t they actively trying to add more people to their churches to the necessary shrinking of the other assemblies?

Working out the idea of homosexual marriage: by redefining marriage, they are not merely adding some extra freedoms that are totally independent of a heterosexual couple’s choices. They are intentionally and radically attacking cultural sensibilities about the nature of morality, family, gender roles, and even the goodness of children. Like cold seeps into a house on a winter morning, society’s cultural norms creep into the shared consciousness at the very least by dulling our ability to hate sins that have been accepted on a broad scale.

Alexander Pope’s classic lines still carry currency,

    Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,

        For to be hated, needs but to be seen,

    But seen too often familiar with her face,

        We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

The homosexual agenda is to work through each of Pope’s three phases until the society at large actually embraces what they previously had seen as monstrous. They want to so condition the next generation that either choice is seen as valid and all moral stigma is removed.

And now, to apply my illustrations. The worship wars can fit in here as well. (If anyone is outraged over this comparison, please read this first.) I have heard those who advocate contemporary styles say that we should just stop fighting because all styles can glorify God. As if, the ones who are fighting this battle are the dreary, 1950’s-loving conservatives. From the contemporaries’ viewpoint, we are the problem because we are the ones fighting to exclude certain styles from worship. “You conservatives can keep your music, but we also want the privilege to continue with ours. We’re not denying anything to you or changing your freedoms at all, but we want those same freedoms.”

Are the worship wars, therefore, one-sided? Does the blame for musical tension fall on the conservatives alone? I think not any more than the tension over the definition of marriage comes from the traditional side. In each of the four examples above, both sides have an agenda. Both sides want to create particular likes and dislikes in the larger society. Both sides want their views to prevail. It is propaganda to promote the idea that only your opponent is on the offensive because he desires some restrictions. Rather, both sides have weapons drawn or they would allow the other side to gain the ascendency.

I have not made any arguments regarding the material issues involved in the worship wars. Rather, I’m trying to arrange the presuppositions that should govern the discussion. If there are ever calls for abandoning the worship wars, then the one making that call, should be willing to give up his style of music and accept his opponent’s. If he claims that he is merely advocating the right to continue his own personal freedom, then he is still on the offensive in this discussion because music (like every area of culture) will certainly effect the mood of all the people involved. He is trying—even if unwittingly—to be able to make his impact on the atmosphere while claiming to not be impacting the atmosphere.

Every cultural form sends a message whether it be the definition of marriage, or the style of music. Admittedly, some messages can do greater damage than others, but the fact remains that our customs communicate. All of them—not only the conservative, traditional ones. So, let’s stop asking to do away with the worship wars, and start asking questions about the message of any given style so that we can grapple with which of the offensive sides in this scrimmage is right.

Posted in Orthopathy | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Five Reasons I am a Presuppositionalist

Posted on 13 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

Presuppositionalism argues that without the Christian God logic, morality, and science are impossible. Therefore, a rational debate cannot even take place without certain gifts that the one true God gave. It is the height of folly to take those gifts while ignoring their Giver and the specific rules He laid down for using them. So, we should expect unbelievers to reject clear evidence because they have a fundamental commitment to sin. The solution is to graciously and patiently show them the absurdity of their position, and skillfully preach the gospel to them.

Though these five points really deserve a book-length treatment, it may be helpful to have a summarized list. Here are five reasons I am a presuppositionalist.

1. It produces necessary results or absolute certainty rather than mere probability.

Probability is not what the Bible calls all men to feel toward Jesus Christ. This level of certainty means at the least that there is a possibility that there is no God, Jesus was a liar, the cross was not significant, and the resurrection never happened. Such conclusions are not worthy of the reality of the Christian God.

2. It takes account of the noetic effects of sin in contrast to other apologetic systems.

In light of the heavy Scriptural evidence demonstrating that sin hampers the right use of the mind, will, emotions, and even memory, an apologetic approach that ignores this category of data is especially suspect whereas presuppositionalism depends upon it.

3. It concludes the Christian God rather than general theism or even polytheism.

Isn’t there a distinctively Christian way to prove that God exists rather than a method that could be accepted by Muslims or even Hindus?

4. It returns the Bible to its rightful position of authority in all our intellectual endeavors.

Since the inerrancy of Scripture and the primacy of the gospel are two of the foundational starting points of presuppositionalism, the lion is unleashed rather than held at bay until his lawful time to perform.

5. It begins the discussion with epistemology rather than the evidences.

By starting with a discussion of how we come to know and believe things, presuppositionalism demonstrates that there is a battle of worldviews from the very beginning. Even the way an unbeliever views evidence is tainted by sin, and one apologetic method recognizes that.

 

Posted in Lists | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Advice for Hearing Sermons by John Newton

Posted on 14 September 2013 by Seth Meyers

Excerpted from the entire letter:

Some persons are so curious, or rather so weak, that, if their favorite minister is occasionally absent, they hardly think it worth their while to hear another. A judicious and faithful minister, in this case, instead of being delighted with such a mark of peculiar attachment to himself, will be grieved to think that they have profited no more by his labors; for it is his desire to win souls, not to himself, but to Jesus Christ.

And:

Entreat the Lord, who knows better than you do yourself, to guide you where your soul may be best fed, and when your choice is fixed, you will do well to make a point of attending his ministry constantly, I mean at least at the stated times of worship on the Lord’s day.

These quotes are from John Newton and published over at the Protestant Pulpit.

Posted in Pastoral, Quotes | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Is Music Immune?

Posted on 11 September 2013 by Seth Meyers

If Christians recognize anti-biblical values in just about every cultural matter, why do they assume that music alone is immune from this cultural decay?

Ken Myers as quoted by Scott Aniol

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Six Work Periods and One Rest Period”

Posted on 31 August 2013 by Seth Meyers

The pattern is six work periods and one rest period.

Hugh Ross’ explanation of Exodus 20:11

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

According to Ross, the 7 days of the creation week were of unequal and extremely prolonged length. If the analogy is merely 6 to 1 regardless of length then I guess we could work for 6 months and take 1 day of rest. Or maybe better yet, 6 active periods of work for a minute each, and then 1 month of rest. After all, the length of Genesis’ days (I speak as a fool) could be any indeterminate and unequal amount because the text is so opaque.

It really is difficult to interpret the Bible when you have an opposing view that you also hold to and about which you care more than the plain meaning of the words.

Posted in Hermeneutics, Inconsistency, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Correction for Discourse

Posted on 30 August 2013 by Seth Meyers

Few men speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, skeptically of skepticism.

Blaise Pascal

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Good Furlough Visit Illustrated

Posted on 24 August 2013 by Seth Meyers

We bless God that He has graciously yoked our family with like-minded churches and pastors. With nine supporting churches and about a dozen families, we have been able to spend around a week with each church. I don’t think this is ideal. Probably, 2-3 supporting churches and a month at each one would be the best, but that is an argument for another series of posts.

This post follows the previous one introducing in brief a philosophy of missions regarding furlough. Knowing the way people scroll through blog posts reading just a few sentences of each, I feared this illustration may get lost unless it was published separately.

So, here is a step in the right direction—a brief illustration of the way a great church made a great week for an average missionary.

In Iowa, we arrived at Grace Baptist Church on Saturday afternoon where we were to stay until the next Friday morning. They had a missionary house near the church where we stayed which gave us a little privacy while also keeping us accessible to the church.

Sunday morning, our family went to Sunday school as normal students. Many of the people in a church of 250 or so greeted us before the morning service. The pastor graciously allowed me to preach in the morning and show my slides in the evening. For the evening service I was given 45 minutes to show pictures and talk about our ministry and philosophy.

Sign up lists were placed—at the pastor’s initiative—on the back table so that we could have dinners with the church members throughout the week. There was no spot for lunch so that we could eat by ourselves without exhausting our kids too much. Tuesday-Thursday, I had four chances to speak to the young people at junior camp. They also closed camp with a question answer time between the missionary and the kids. After they asked me questions, the pastor even gave me a chance to ask them questions!

Before arriving, I had asked the pastor if I could meet with him and the church leadership for a time of accountability and prayer. Rather than have a meeting behind closed doors, he asked me to address the entire congregation again on Wednesday night where he set up a little panel of question and answer time for nearly an hour. He also thought to ask Amy to answer questions as well.

The pastor took the initiative to talk and pray with me even though I know he was busy. He was humble enough to listen, but bold enough to say at least once, “You’re wrong. That is sin.” Such friends are rare indeed.

By the end of the week, we felt sad to leave. We had answered (and asked) so many questions about family, homeschool, ministry, and Africa that conversations had naturally and repeatedly been spawned. At the end of time we may see that heartfelt conversations were the greatest tools to engender prayer for missionaries. I certainly doubt that eternity will reveal classy prayer cards, brilliant DVD’s, or a well-polished missionary sermon vying for first place as the greatest impetus to praying for missionaries.

The week was invested in eternity because relationships were built to the glory of God. The only problem was that seven days was too short.

Posted in Missions | 2 Comments