“The Proper Use of the Invitation as a Sermonic Element”

Research Paper

Presented to

Dr. Greg Heisler

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

PRS6100 Online Fall 2010, Bible Exposition

Matthew Mitchell

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

December 10, 2010

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL

A survey of recent literature about the closing portion of the sermon, known as the invitation, reveals a growing trend of preachers to omit it from their sermons altogether. Capitol

Hill Baptist Church, for instance, not only omits the traditional “altar call”-style invitation but discourages other churches from using such invitations as well.1 Others are adamant that invitations are an indispensible part of the sermon. One writer boldly asserts, “To fail to extend an invitation following a gospel sermon is not only blatant disobedience to God, but it also defies logic.”2 Still others call for a less dogmatic approach.3 Through an examination and critique of the common use of the invitation, it will be shown that the modern invitation system is unbiblical and based on an errant theology, and that it brings about dangerous side-effects. An alternative to the modern invitation system will then be presented and defended.

It will be helpful to begin by asking what exactly is meant by an ‘invitation’. Preachers often discuss the relative merits of the invitation assuming that everyone conceives of it in the same way, but this is often not the case. For some, an invitation is an ‘altar call’. Sam Hamstra,

Jr. describes an altar call as an invitation by the preacher first for his hearers to place their faith in Christ, and second for them to come forward “as a visible manifestation of the invisible decision.”4 When discussing the issue of invitations, it is essential to know whether a preacher takes the invitation to be synonymous with an altar call5, if he views altars calls as merely being

1 Paul Alexander, “Altar Call Evangelism,” 9Marks, http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/altar-call-evangelism (accessed November 22, 2010). 2 R. Alan Streett, The Effective Invitation (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1984), 144. 3 Greg Heisler, Spirit-Led Preaching (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2007), 120. 4 Sam Hamstra, Jr., “Altar Calls and Effectual Calls,” Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, http://web. archive.org/web/20010115222400/www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr98/1998.04 JulAug/mr9804.sh.altarcalls.html (accessed November 22, 2010). 5 Fred G. Zaspel, “The ‘Altar Call’: Is It Helpful or Harmful?” Biblical Studies (Word of Life Baptist Church), http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/ecclesiology/altar.htm (accessed November 22, 2010). 2

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL a particular type of invitation6, or whether they are seen as two different things entirely. For example, Carey Hardy insists, “Extending God’s invitation to all…is not necessarily synonymous with man’s invitation system,” which he equates with the altar call, ‘going forward’, and ‘going down the aisle.’7 On the other hand, Tony Merida shows that he views the altar call as one invitational option among many when he encourages preachers to think beyond the altar call when planning invitations.8 For the purposes of this paper, it will be best to begin with a very general definition of ‘invitation’, and then to expand upon it. The following definition has been offered: “The invitation is the portion of the sermon in which the pastor issues a challenge to the congregation….It offers individuals an opportunity to act on the truth of the sermon preached.”9 This definition is admittedly simplistic and skeletal, but before any meat is added it will be necessary to address some theological issues.

In large part, a preacher’s theology of conversion will determine whether and how he gives an invitation.10 Those who believe that men have the ability within themselves to choose to accept the Gospel will tend to use the invitation as a final attempt to bring sinners to a point of decision, earnestly persuading them to cease their rejection of Christ. In his book, The Effective

Invitation, R. Alan Streett represents this view: “You must be certain your invitation seeks to move the will of your hearer and bring it into submission to the Person of Jesus Christ.”11 Such a theology of conversion holds to an order of salvation that places individual decision before

6 Tony Merida, Faithful Preaching: Declaring Scripture with Responsibility, Passion, and Authenticity (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2009), 119. Treating ‘response’ and ‘invitation’ as synonymous, Merida says, “Effective responses are matched with the message. It is not limited to an ‘altar call’ alone.” 7 Carey Hardy, “A Close Look at Invitations and Altar Calls,” Bible Bulletin Board, http://www.biblebb.com /files/MAC/SC03-1050CDNotes.htm (accessed February 3, 2010). 8 Merida, 119. 9 H.C. Brown Jr., H. Gordon Clinard and Jesse J. Northcutt, Steps to the Sermon: A Plan for Sermon Preparation (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1963), 129-30. 10 Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971), 270. 11 Streett, 158-59. 3

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL regeneration.12 Indeed, when Charles Finney and others began to popularize the “new measures”

(to which the modern invitation system owes much), they defended their methods on the basis of a new, anti-Calvinist theology. Church historian Iain Murray paraphrases Finney’s rationale for the new measures: “If conversion was the result of the sinner’s decision, and if the inducing of that decision was the responsibility of the preacher, assisted by the Holy Spirit, then any measure that would bring the unconverted ‘right up to the point of instant and absolute submission’ had to be good.”13 Conversely, preachers who view regeneration as a sovereign work of God alone, which no human being can bring about and without which no man can come to faith in Christ, will view attempts to use the invitation in order to press people “right up to the point of instant and absolute submission” as unnecessary, unbiblical, or even dangerous. Arturo Azurdia, for example, says that one might as well try to get a cadaver to respond to a prick on the toe as to expect the spiritually dead in a congregation to respond to “spiritual stimulation.”14

Whatever one’s position concerning the relative merits of Arminianism versus Calvinism, the biblical witness is clear: regeneration always precedes saving faith. Jesus Himself said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (Jn. 6:44, NIV), and, “No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (6:65). The apostle Paul wrote, “There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God” (Rom. 3:11), and, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14). Referring to those who believed in Jesus as “children of God,” the apostle John stated that they were “born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (Jn. 1:13). Clearly,

12 Iain H. Murray, The Invitation System (Edinburgh, Great Britain: Banner of Truth, 2002), 19. 13 Iain H. Murray, Revival and Revivalism (Edinburgh, Great Britain: Banner of Truth, 2009), 246. 14 Arturo G. Azurdia, III, Spirit Empowered Preaching (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor, 1998), 41-42. 4

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL

Martyn Lloyd-Jones is justified in complaining that the use of the invitation as advocated above by Streett obscures the biblical doctrine of regeneration.15

This is not to say that preachers should not call their hearers to respond to God’s Word.

After listing the three essential facts that must be included in every gospel presentation, Wayne

Grudem stresses that merely understanding and assenting to the truth of those facts is not enough for salvation: “There must also be an invitation for a personal response on the part of the individual who will repent of his or her sins and trust personally in Christ.”16 Likewise, Murray stresses that any explanation of the gospel which does not include a call to personally trust Jesus

Christ as Savior is not a true gospel presentation at all.17 Both of these men are deeply reformed in their theology. Even Charles Spurgeon, possibly the most well-known Calvinist preacher in church history, called his hearers to repent of their sins and accept the gospel, and apparently had no trouble reconciling the doctrine of election with his zeal for evangelism.18 Without question,

Scripture is God’s word to mankind, and as such it demands a response! Again, the good news of Jesus Christ is a message from God to humanity, one which requires a response from all who hear it. Therefore, it is always the preacher’s responsibility to stress this fact wherever the

Scriptures are explained and the gospel is proclaimed. God’s Word must always be presented as what it really is: one grand, extended invitation from a holy God to sinful humanity.

It is often claimed, however, that the Bible itself contains support for the invitational approach popularized by Charles Finney. Billy Graham has defended the invitational system on the grounds that Jesus Himself gave invitations to His disciples, calling Peter, Andrew, and later

Matthew, to “follow me” (Mt. 4:19; 9:9), and calling Zaccheus down from the tree he was

15 Lloyd-Jones, 277. 16 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 694. 17 Murray, Invitation, 1. 18 R. Albert Mohler, Jr., He Is Not Silent (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008), 168. 5

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL perched in (Lk. 19:5).19 Yet Murray objects to such a direct application of these passages for today:

But what does ‘Follow me’ or ‘Come unto me’ mean from the lips of the Son of God? Are these primarily directions which require a physical and local movement? That it might sometimes include the local aspect (like Zacchaeus’ descent from the tree) is clear enough from the gospel narratives, but even in the days of Christ’s visible presence a spiritual identification with Him by repentance and faith was clearly the fundamental sense of the words, and once He was no longer physically present there could be no other sense. No man can now come to Jesus with his feet, and even when He was upon earth, a coming to Him in that way never accomplished what it is now implied may be accomplished by those who walk to the front [during an altar call or invitation].20

It bears repeating that what is being objected to is not a call by the preacher for his hearers to respond to what has been preached, but simply an invitational system for which there is no valid

Scriptural precedent and which was not practiced by the Christian Church for over 1800 years.21

One might well respond that though a precedent for the modern invitation system is not found in Scripture, neither is found a prohibition against it. Therefore, it may be argued, the decision should be made based on observable advantages and disadvantages of the system. Due to space constraints, this paper will focus mainly on the disadvantages of the invitation system, with the expectation that the force of the argument will be enough to render any potential advantages irrelevant in the reader’s judgment.

First, altar calls and related practices create confusion over the nature of salvation. More specifically, they tend to confuse the act of ‘coming forward’ with true conversion to Christ.

Notable preachers such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones,22 John MacArthur,23 and Paul Alexander of

19 Billy Graham, “Conversion – A Personal Revolution,” Ecumenical Review 19 (July 1967): 277. 20 Murray, Invitation, 7. 21 Robert B. Selph, Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Election (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1995), 131. 22 Lloyd-Jones, 276. 23 John F. MacArthur, Jr., “Altar Calls,” Bible Bulletin Board, http://www.biblebb.com/files/ MAC/ALTAR.HTM (accessed November 22, 2010). 6

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL

9Marks24 are among those who have voiced this concern. Sometimes this confusion is even created in the mind of the preacher himself. An extreme example of this is offered by Murray, who tells of one 19th century itinerant preacher who, upon noticing that some parents were restraining their children from going forward during an altar call, said of the children, “I fear they were hindered for life, if not finally lost.”25 Murray believes that a blurred distinction between ‘coming forward’ and true conversion is an inevitable result of the modern invitation system.26

Second, this confusion over the nature of salvation causes an inordinate number of spurious ‘decisions’ that are not true conversions, as evidenced by the lack of fruit in the lives of many who have previously come forward. Even Billy Graham is careful to clarify that “although thousands of persons have responded to our simple invitation to receive Christ as Saviour and

Lord, they cannot by any means all be considered to be genuinely converted persons.”27 Graham is to be commended for such an honest appraisal of his methods; however, his cool acceptance of the problem is disturbing. The impression given is that the ends justify the means. Before the soundness of this view is examined, it must be noted that many consider these spurious decisions as cause for great concern. Murray complains that Graham’s practice, though well-intentioned, results in nothing less than spiritual deception.28 Lloyd-Jones simply warns, “A knowledge of the human heart, or psychology, should teach us to avoid anything that increases the possibility of spurious results.”29

24 Alexander, “Altar Call Evangelism”. 25 Murray, Revival, 186. 26 Murray, Invitation, 8. 27 Graham, 280. 28 Murray, Invitation, 26. 29 Lloyd-Jones, 276. 7

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL

In defense of modern invitational methods such as those used by Graham, it is often said that the benefits (true converts being brought into the church) far outweigh the pitfalls

(significant percentages of false converts being numbered among the saints). To this, several points must be made. First, the increased presence of tares among the wheat diminishes the standards of holiness within the church and subsequently damages its ability to be an effective witness to the watching world. Robert Selph laments, “The number of people not interested in being seriously obedient to Christ after their supposed conversion is staggering.”30 Second, those who have not been truly converted are made to think that they have been, and therefore are given a false assurance concerning their spiritual state.31 As a final objection against the argument that the ends justify the means, careful study of Scripture reveals that the altar call does not bring with it any benefits that could not be had without it. The Bible is clear that God accomplishes salvation through the proclamation of His Word (Rom. 10:14), but it is equally clear that the efficacy of the gospel to save souls does not depend on the skills and talents of the preacher (1 Cor. 2:1-5). As Azurdia so eloquently states, unless the Spirit illumines the

Scriptures, they will have no supernatural effects:

People are brought to faith in Jesus Christ not because a preacher happens to be exceptionally dynamic one Sunday morning, or because he finishes his sermon with a spellbinding story. Rather, in a mysterious work that is both sovereign and divine in origin, the power of God unites with the proclamation of the word of God and produces effects that are in keeping with the purposes of God.32

Ultimately, God determines whom He will regenerate by His Spirit and bring to faith in Christ, and therefore the preacher is not in a position to alter the size of the harvest which God has preordained to be reaped. Acts 13:48 records that, following an occasion where Paul and

Barnabas faithfully preached the gospel of Christ, “all who were appointed for eternal life

30 Selph, 119. 31 Zaspel, “The ‘Altar Call’”; Alexander, “Altar Call Evangelism”; Murray, Invitation, 27. 32 Azurdia, 44. 8

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL believed.” In an ultimate sense, what is really at stake is whether the man of God will be obedient to preach the gospel, not whether or not God will save His people whom He foreknew.

The inevitable conclusion is that practices such as the altar call, which offer no added benefits

(but carry significant dangers), should be abandoned.

A third major objection to the modern invitation system is that it cultivates a lack of trust in God to save His people. It seems as though preachers fear that if they don’t do the right thing at exactly the right time in exactly the right way, souls may be consigned to hell on account of their negligence. Streett betrays this mindset when he states, “Not to reap the harvest is to lose the crop. It must be picked when it is ripe; otherwise, the lament of Jeremiah will apply: ‘The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.’”33 No doubt Azurdia has this brand of thinking in mind when he charges that, by and large, the evangelical church disavows its reliance on and utter helplessness apart from the enabling power of God.34 Lloyd-Jones goes so far as to suggest that preachers have begun to suppose that they can control the Spirit of God, wielding Him as if He were a tool in their hands.35

One final danger of the invitation system as it is commonly practiced must be mentioned, and that is the unhealthy interest in numbers and visible results that it generates within the church and among church leaders. Consider this statement: “If no one responds to his [the preacher’s] gospel sermons, some drastic changes obviously must be made. Reactions to the appeal help the preacher to evaluate his ministry.”36 At first glance, this statement seems to make sense. When it is evaluated in light of Scripture, however, it does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, in

Jeremiah 7, the prophet is given a message which he must proclaim to the people of Judah. The

33 Streett, 71-72. 34 Azurdia, 29-30. 35 Lloyd-Jones, 274-75. 36 Streett, 150. 9

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL

Lord gives Jeremiah a divine command to deliver a divine message, but then warns him, “When you tell them all this, they will not listen to you; when you call to them, they will not answer”

(7:27). Similarly, the Lord warns the prophet Ezekiel that “the house of Israel is not willing to listen to you” (Ezek. 3:7). Despite this, the Lord commands him, “Go now to your countrymen in exile and speak to them. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says,’ whether they listen or fail to listen” (3:11). Clearly, then, results alone are never a reliable indication of the success or failure of a man’s ministry. Rather than pore over numerical reports, the preacher should instead ask himself if he has been obedient and faithful to the call of God on his life.

Both Scripture and church history abound with examples of obedient men who did not witness the fruits of their labors within their lifetime.

So far, the focus has been on what is wrong with most invitational methods. It is now time to establish how the invitation should be viewed and what form it should take. Remember the general definition of invitation that was offered at the beginning of this discussion: “The invitation is the portion of the sermon in which the pastor issues a challenge to the congregation….to act on the truth of the sermon preached.”37 The concept that the entire sermon is an extended invitation has already been alluded to. Lloyd-Jones is dead-on when he states that

“the preaching of the Word and the call for decision should not be separated in our thinking.”38

Therefore, it only makes sense that as the sermon reaches a crescendo, so should the preacher’s exhortation for men and women to respond to God’s Word. Perhaps, then, it would be better to substitute the word “climax” or even “conclusion” where the word “invitation” is commonly used, thereby avoiding confusion. However, since it is necessary to retain the current terminology in order to preserve the flow of the argument, it will suffice to insist that an

37 Brown, Clinard, and Northcutt, 129-30. 38 Lloyd-Jones, 273. 10

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL

“invitation” should not be the point at which the preacher begins to call for a response to the truth he has been preaching. Rather, it should be the point at which the call for response intensifies, and also perhaps where it becomes a bit more specific. Indeed, if the preacher wants his hearers to “act on the truth of the sermon preached,” he should specify which actions he wants them to take. As before, however, this applicatory aspect should not be limited to the concluding remarks alone, but should be woven throughout the entire sermon before being brought to a climax during the invitation. Many preachers recognize the need to be clear and specific with what they expect their hearers to do,39 but even this can be taken to an unhealthy extreme. One preacher has said, “To leave the truth to do its work, and to trust to the hearts and consciences of our hearers to apply it, is a great and fatal mistake.”40 This self-sufficient approach to application must surely be rejected. Did Jesus not pray to the Father, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17)? Did He not assure the disciples that “when he, the

Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth….He will bring glory to me by taking what is mine and making it known to me” (Jn. 16:13-14)? No preacher can fully anticipate all the various ways in which the divine truths of his sermon can be applied to his congregation. The specific responses mentioned during an invitation, therefore, need not be exhaustive so long as they are representative.

It has been stressed that the call to respond to the sermon should not make a first appearance during the invitation. Yet there is an important element of the invitation that may be held until the end of the sermon if the preacher so desires. The defining element of the invitation, the one that provides the only reason why the church should even consider retaining

39 Merida, 119. 40 Quoted in Streett, 156. 11

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL the term ‘invitation’ to refer to the sermon’s final moments, is described perfectly by Martyn

Lloyd-Jones:

I believe that the minister should always make an announcement in some shape or form that he is available to talk to anybody who wants to talk to him about their soul and its eternal destiny….Make yourself available, let it be known that you are available, and so you will find that people who have come under conviction of sin will come to speak to you because they are unhappy.41

This act is perhaps the only one that can rightfully be distinguished from the sermon’s climax and treated as a separate section called the ‘invitation’. A verbose but more precise term might be ‘announcement of availability’. This is what the invitation should be used for. It should not be an opportunity for individuals to make a profession of faith. The church was given the ordinance of baptism to serve that purpose. Neither should it be an opportunity for the preacher to invite individuals to unite with the church in membership.42 How can a pastor recommend that the church approve a candidate for membership whose full testimony and profession he has not yet heard and whose life he has not yet had the opportunity to examine for fruit? If he has indeed has opportunity to do these things, and the individual wishes to join the church, then presumably the presentation of that individual to the church will have been planned in advance.

Finally, the invitation should not be used to invite people who wish to be saved to ‘come forward to the altar’. Dr. Lloyd-Jones wisely advises, “Do not force these things. This is the work of the

Holy Spirit of God….We must not yield to this over-anxiety about results….We must learn to trust the Spirit and to rely on His infallible work.”43

It has been shown that the modern invitation system is unbiblical, based on an errant theology, and replete with dangerous side-effects. With nothing to commend it, and every

41 Lloyd-Jones, 282. 42 The preacher could, however, let it be known that the topic of church membership is one that he will make himself available to discuss after the service or any time thereafter. 43 Lloyd-Jones, 282. 12

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL reason to dispense with it, preachers would be well-advised to do just that. Instead of calling repentant individuals to the front of the church for immediate counsel, the preacher should instead announce during the invitation that he is available to anyone who wishes to speak further about Jesus Christ and His gospel.

In his book The Minister as Shepherd, Charles Jefferson compares the pastor-shepherd with a physician, noting that “physicians never deal with men in crowds.”44 One might argue that pastors do in fact deal with men in crowds quite often, especially when preaching. Yet it would be a mistake to think that since the pastor preaches to a crowd, he should therefore counsel those whose consciences are pricked by his preaching in crowds as well. Christ’s church must break free from the tyranny of tradition and reexamine her ways in light of biblical principles. Preachers must cease to think that in serving the Lord they are accomplishing things for God, and instead view themselves as instruments through whom God is pleased to do works that only He can do. When nothing remains for which the preacher may be praised, God will be most glorified in the preaching event.

44 Charles Jefferson, The Minister as Shepherd (Fort Washington, PA: CLC Publications, 2006), 80. 13

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL

Bibliography

Alexander, Paul. “Altar Call Evangelism.” 9Marks. http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/altar-call- evangelism (accessed November 22, 2010).

Azurdia, Arturo G., III. Spirit Empowered Preaching: Involving the Holy Spirit in Your Ministry. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor, 1998.

Brown, H.C., Jr., H. Gordon Clinard, and Jesse J. Northcutt. Steps to the Sermon: A Plan for Sermon Preparation. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1963.

Graham, Billy. “Conversion – A Personal Revolution.” Ecumenical Review 19, no. 3 (July 1967): 271-284.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Hamstra, Sam, Jr. “Altar Calls and Effectual Calls.” Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. http://web.archive.org/web/20010115222400/www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr98/1998.04 JulAug/mr9804.sh.altarcalls.html (accessed November 22, 2010).

Hardy, Carey. “A Close Look at Invitations and Altar Calls.” Bible Bulletin Board. http:// www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1050CDNotes.htm (accessed February 3, 2010).

Heisler, Greg. Spirit-Led Preaching: The Holy Spirit’s Role in Sermon Preparation and Delivery. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2007.

Jefferson, Charles. The Minister as Shepherd: The Privileges and Responsibilities of Pastoral Leadership. Fort Washington, PA: CLC Publications, 2006.

Lloyd-Jones, Martyn. Preaching and Preachers. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. “Altar Calls.” Bible Bulletin Board. http://www.biblebb.com/files/ MAC/ALTAR.HTM (accessed November 22, 2010).

Merida, Tony. Faithful Preaching: Declaring Scripture with Responsibility, Passion, and Authenticity. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2009.

Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. He Is Not Silent. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008.

Murray, Iain H. The Invitation System. Edinburgh, Great Britain: Banner of Truth, 2002.

______. Revival and Revivalism. Edingurgh, Great Britain: Banner of Truth, 2009.

14

Matthew Mitchell PRS6100 ONL

Selph, Robert B. Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Election. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1995.

Streett, R. Alan. The Effective Invitation. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1984.

Zaspel, Fred G. “The ‘Altar Call’: Is It Helpful or Harmful?” Biblical Studies (Word of Life Baptist Church). http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/ecclesiology/altar.htm (accessed November 22, 2010).

15