The History and Impact of Calls

When one thinks of an evangelical church, especially a modern Baptist,

Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Methodist, or other church, the altar call inevitably comes to mind as part of the service structure. In fact, it would be difficult to find a modern evangelical church that does not incorporate an altar call as part of its worship service on a routine basis, nor could we describe one of these churches without including the invitation as part of the description. It is considered an essential part of evangelism and

“soul winning.” At the end of the sermon, the pastor makes an invitation, a pleading at times, for those that want to receive Christ, to come down to the front of the church to be prayed with. The individual is then prayed for at the front of the church at the “altar” area or taken to a private counseling room where they meet one-on-one with a prayer partner or counselor and are led in a “sinner’s prayer.” Information about the person is taken, and the person is then encouraged to continue coming to church and ideally is enrolled in a discipleship program to facilitate spiritual growth. This is the typical way the event is structured.

Bennett defines the altar call as:

A method of evangelism, within which a regular or frequent, planned invitation is given to “unbelievers” to respond to Jesus Christ publicly at the conclusion of a sermon or other gospel presentation, in such ways as: calling out a response, raising a hand, standing, or walking to a designated spot in the evangelistic setting. A response to such an invitation would normally be followed by immediate counseling and later by some form of follow up. It often incorporates an appeal to Christians for such issues

1

as rededication and call to mission. It is not a theology, though it does reflect and support particular theologies.1

While the altar call is probably thought of by most people as a long time tradition, it is a relatively new addition to the church. According to Bennett, the altar call originated from two eighteenth century practices, namely the “mourner’s bench” and the

“anxious seat.” They were usually at the front of the evangelistic event, and people were expected to move forward to them and be prayed for. The camp-meetings of the early

1800’s systematized the invitation system, and Charles Finney is credited with establishing and popularizing the invitation and justifying its use. Bennett also notes that

D.L. Moody further developed the invitation by using music to supplement his preaching, and training laypeople to act as counselors. The altar call is widely used today around the world in evangelical churches of varied denominations.2

The altar call may be an integral part of the evangelical church, but the practice is nonetheless not without controversy. Many evangelical churches do not have altar calls or invitations, not because they do not believe in salvation, but because mainly they believe that the Holy Spirit will work in a person just as well in any location. Many pastors also believe that the pleading invitation and altar call borders on mental manipulation, and again places more emphasis on man’s abilities to convict than the power of the Holy Spirit. Others see the invitation or altar call as ineffective in really reaching and keeping people for Christ, believing than many or most of those that

1 Bennet, David. The Altar Call: Its Origins and Present Usage. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2000, xvi.

2 Bennet, 36 – 37, 139 – 143.

2 respond just do so because that is what is expected of them and not out of any real desire or conviction to repent. Supporters see Jesus in the Gospels calling people to Himself.

Many of the sermons in the scriptures were calls to action, and certainly the altar call can be a call to action. It does put one on the spot and may make sinners uncomfortable with themselves, but that conviction is what makes us move. It provides a way for us to make a decision to get serious with Jesus.

There are a couple of ways that it is accomplished in the evangelical church. One is where the individual responds to the invitation, walks down to the front of the church, and is prayed for in public by the pastor or a member of the pastoral staff or prayer team.

Another method is where the individual responds to the invitation, is met at the front or off to the side by a member of the prayer team, and is led to a prayer room or counseling room where the counselor and individual can meet and pray in private. Other methods do not include an immediate response, such as filling out an attendance card with the rest of the congregation but annotating that the individual was saved, or maybe making an appointment with the pastor after the service sometime during the week to explain their conversion and to ask any questions. These are delayed-response invitations. There may be variations to these methods, but generally, the invitation takes these basic forms. Of course, another alternative is that the altar call/invitation is deemed to be ineffective for spiritual or other reasons, and is not conducted at all.

There are two basic problems regarding the invitation. One is whether or not an altar call is effective as a means through which the Holy Spirit can work to save souls.

There are certainly arguments on both sides of this issue, including those that say the

3 invitation is a man-made mechanism through which the pastor psychologically manipulates an individual to come forth to say a prayer, but the individual never really repents nor is their life really changed. The pastoral staff does not allow the Holy Spirit to work though lives but tries to control the Holy Spirit through psychological manipulation of the invitee. The other side says that the invitation forces an individual to make a decision for Christ as the Holy Spirit is working in his life. The pastor and the altar call are tools that the Holy Spirit can use to ensure that the individual has the opportunity and environment needed to receive Christ, and to start themselves on the journey of sanctification. The invitation and subsequent prayer and receiving of Christ is not the only step, but the first step in an intentional soul-winning and discipling process

God’s church uses to increase the Kingdom of God.

The topic of whether or not the invitation system is effective, and whether or not to even do an altar call, is a controversial topic. But while many other controversial topics in have received a lot of discussion in print, the altar call has not.

There are a number of sources on evangelism in general, the history of evangelism and revivals, and many works on those individuals that pioneered the use of the altar call.

Two of the best recent sources on the general topic of the invitation system are

Bennett and Streett3. Both of these sources discuss some of the history of the invitation system, the pros and cons of the system, some of the abuses of the system, and recommendations regarding the invitation system. However, they each come to a different conclusion. Both of these books make a good starting point to this topic.

3 Streett, R. Alan. The Effective Invitation. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1995, and Bennett, op. cit..

4

Streett covers a lot of ground in discussing the history and uses of the altar call, but is a more practical help for pastors who want to give altar calls. Streett discusses the abuses and pros and cons, and reviews the Biblical support for the invitation. He concludes that the altar call is Biblical and has a place in the modern worship service.

There is a good discussion in the book on types of invitations, such as the raising of hands, coming forward, and other methods. Streett covers these various types of invitations, but specifically includes some detail on their uses, and how a pastor can effectively utilize them to reach people for Christ.

Bennett is a more scholarly work, and is based on his ThM dissertation. Bennett reviews in more detail the history of the invitation system, and covers its uses on three countries: The United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Bennett also discusses in detail the uses and abuses of the invitation in each of the three countries, and makes several detailed recommendations in the second half of the book. Bennett is generally against the invitation system, but does accept the argument that it has some, although little, Biblical support and can be used effectively, if the pastor guards against the typical abuses that can manifest themselves.

One of the important steps in researching the altar call topic is to look at the historical use of the invitation system, especially from its beginnings in the early 1800’s.

Understanding the use of the altar call by such influential ministers such as Charles

Finney, D.L. Moody, and provides a basis from which we can make decisions regarding types of altar calls that have been successful, and how measurement of this success has been conducted in the past.

5

There are a couple of classic books on D.L. Moody that provide good background to his preaching and theology. Dorsett4 and Gundry5 are great biographical reading on one of the most influential preachers of this country. Moody developed the altar call and improved upon it, and these two books, while not addressing the altar call directly in great detail, also provide excellent information on Moody which allows the reader to understand his use of the altar call and why it was so successful for him.

Billy Graham is one of the most well-known and apparently successful evangelists in history, and uses the invitation in all of his public preaching events. There are several good sources on Billy Graham and his use of the invitation, but his official biographer John Pollock6 has a few really good sources that describe through quotes and interviews with Graham his beliefs on the invitation. Graham explains why he uses the invitation, answers his critics about the saving power and legitimacy of the invitation, and reviews some of the anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness. If one is at all interested in the altar call, sources by and about Billy Graham are a necessity.

However, to truly understand the altar call or invitation system, one must look to

Charles Finney. While there have been a number of books written on Charles Finney,

Finney’s writings provide good insight into his thoughts and theology, especially regarding the use of “new measures,” as Finney called them. Finney’s Lectures on

Revivals of Religion, specifically the Lecture XIV provides a good view into Finney and

4 Dorsett, Lyle. A Passion for Souls: The Life of D.L. Moody. Chicago: Moody Press, 1997. 5 Gundry, Stanley. Love Them In: The Life and Theology of D.L. Moody. Chicago: Moody Press, 1976. 6 Pollock, John. To All the Nations: The Billy Graham Story. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985. Billy Graham: Evangelist to the World. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979. Crusades: Twenty Years with Billy Graham. Minneapolis: World Wide, 1969.

6 his use of the altar call early in its history7. Additional books such as Hambrick-Stowe8 and Hardman9 discuss the background in which Finney began to preach, and to a limited extent why and how he developed and refined the use of the new measures in his preaching. The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney, edited by Garth Rosell10 also provides a good insight into Finney but it is difficult to find direct references to the anxious seat.

These books while helpful provide more background and illumination on the preaching and theology of Finney than solid help on his views of the anxious seat.

To understand Finney’s use of the invitation or the anxious seat, one must first understand his theology. His own writings provide a clear indication of his theological outlook that in turn influenced greatly his use of new measures to gain “converts.” He clearly states, “Religion is the work of man. It is something for man to do. It consists in obeying God with and from the heart. It is man’s duty.”11 Man is at the heart of the foundation for Finney’s theology. Man is the agent; man makes the choice; and man promotes and moves forward the establishment of religion through revivals that he himself orchestrates.

Regarding humanity and sin, Finney did believe that mankind was depraved in some sense. He states in Lecture I of his Revival Lectures, “If men were disposed to obey God, the truth is given with sufficient clearness in the Bible; and from preaching

7 Finney, Charles G. Measures to Promote Revivals. Lecture XIV in Lectures on Revivals of Religion. WordSearch Corp, 2006. 8 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, E. Charles G. Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. 9 Hardman, Keith. Charles Grandison Finney, 1792 – 1875. Darlington: Evangelical, 1990. 10 Finney, Charles G. The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney. Ed. Garth M. Rosell and Richard A. G. Dupuis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. 11 Finney. Lecture I: What a Revival of Religion is. In Lectures on Revivals. Emphasis in original.

7 they could learn all that is necessary for them to know. But because they are wholly disinclined to obey it, God clears it up before their minds, and pours in a blaze of convincing light upon their souls, which they cannot withstand, and they yield to it, and obey God, and are saved.” 12 This sounds like the traditional Calvinist teaching under which he had been brought up, but Finney’s idea of depravity was different than either

Reformed or Arminian doctrines. Moral depravity was not due to original sin of Adam and Eve, nor was it due to the nature into which all humans were born.13 Rather, it was

“a voluntary attitude of the mind; that it did and must consist in the committal of the will to the gratification of the desire…of the lusts of the flesh, as opposed to that which the law requires.”14 Human beings were not morally depraved by nature, but by their choices that they make to gratify the desires of the flesh and bring them to fruition. Sin is entirely an action of the flesh that man does. Finney states, “A moral agent is responsible for his emotions, desires, etc., so far as they are under the direct or indirect control of his will, and no further. He is always responsible for the manner in which he gratifies them. If he indulges them in accordance with the law of God, he does right. If he makes their gratification his end, he sins.”15 So sin is not the nature of human beings, it is simply what we do. Finney clearly states that “We deny that the human constitution is morally depraved, because it is impossible that sin should be a quality of the substance of soul or

12 Finney. Lecture I: What a Revival of Religion is. In Lectures on Revivals. 13 Finney, Charles. Systematic Theology [1878]. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Logos Scholars Library edition, 241-246. 14 Finney, Memoirs, 152, see also 15, 265, and Systematic Theology, 246-247. 15 Systematic Theology, 247.

8 body…. To represent the constitution as sinful, is to represent God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin.”16

Regarding salvation, this decisional proclaimed by Finney nullified the work of Christ on the cross. Finney states in his Memoirs that Christ’s death

“rendered the salvation of all men possible,” but “did not of itself lay God under any obligation to save anybody.” He held that “Christ died for all men,” but this did not mean that all would be saved, because people had to respond.17 Finney did not deny the concept of the elect, but held that the elect were chosen to eternal life because God foresaw those who out of their own free will would embrace the gospel message. Finney spends a considerable amount of space in his Systematic Theology addressing the issue of the elect, who they are, and what the term means. Finney states,

The elect were chosen to eternal life, upon condition that God foresaw that in the perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the gospel….In choosing his elect, you must understand that he has thrown the responsibility of their being saved upon them; that the whole is suspended upon their consent to the terms; you are all perfectly able to give your consent and this moment to lay hold on eternal life. Irrespective of your own choice, no election could save you, and no reprobation can damn you.18 Finney’s entire theology of salvation was based on the ability of his hearers to respond to his gospel message. Those that God had ‘elected” were those that He knew would respond. Salvation, then, was not due to Christ and His work on the cross; this only made salvation possible. It was entirely up to man to secure his own salvation.

16 Systematic Theology, 249-250.

9

If it is not entirely up to man to respond to the gospel message and to secure his own salvation, then what was the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation and regeneration?

The decision was man’s but the Holy Spirit assisted man in coming to his response.

Conversion was not an act of omnipotence, and Finney warned those that prayed and believed that the Spirit’s influences were necessary to make the unconverted “able to obey their Maker.”19 Finney distinguishes between the work of the Spirit in conversion and regeneration. He does not subscribe to the work of the Spirit in regeneration in a person before conversion. He states, “Regeneration is expressly ascribed to the Holy

Spirit.

Conversion, as it implies and expresses the activity and turning of the subject, does not include and imply any Divine agency, and therefore does not imply or express what is intended by regeneration.”20 Later in this lecture on Regeneration, Finney ascribes both regeneration and conversion to man and Divine agency, stating “In both alike God and man are both active, and their activity is simultaneous.”21 Finney did allow the Holy

Spirit to take some part in regeneration and conversion, but only as a persuasive element that enabled the free will of man to exercise authority and accept the gospel message and literally convert himself.

While the above is by no means a comprehensive review of the theology of

Charles Finney, it has been sufficient to show that Finney abandoned his Reformed

17 Memoirs, 51. Emphasis in original. 18 Systematic Theology, 497-498. 19 Revival Lectures, Lecture XVI: The Necessity and Effect of Union, and Ian Murray, Revival and Revivalism, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1994, 245. 20 Systematic Theology, 282. 21 Ibid, 284.

10 upbringing, and even went farther toward a man-centered theology than either Arminius or Wesley. Finney believed that man was not totally depraved, but still contained the ability to obey God perfectly. Sin was not inherent in man’s nature, but was simply the actions and choices that he made that were contrary to the will and law of God. While

Christ died on the cross for the atonement of sins, his work only made it possible for all men to be saved, yet actually saved none. Election was based on the foreknowledge of

God of those who He saw as responding freely to the gospel message. The role of the

Holy Spirit was one of moral suasion, not one of a Divine agency effecting regeneration and changing the nature of the sinner. After all, the nature of the sinner did not need to be changed, just persuaded to obey the laws of God and make right choices. This man- centered theology directly affected the implementation and acceptance of Finney’s and other’s new measures.

If people are to decide for Christ themselves, then any means necessary should be acceptable in order to persuade those to come to Christ. After all, Finney believed that conversion, and even religion in general, and revivals specifically, were not miracles wrought by God on the hearts of men. He states in his Lecture “What a Revival of

Religion is,” “There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that, and nothing else.”22 That sin is a choice that human beings make directly impacts Finney’s use of the new measures and the anxious seat. If revivals and conversions are simply acts of nature by men, then any means necessary should be used to start revivals and ensure

22 Finney. Lecture I: What a Revival of Religion is. In Lectures on Revivals.

11 conversions. Finney promotes, and even states that it is the minister’s obligation to use and promote, new measures to incite revivals and to break in upon a lazy church and wake a slumbering one.23

However, are these new measures, including the modern altar call and the older anxious seat, Biblical? While many churches use them because of their man-centered theology, the Bible states that God works in the hearts of men. Scripture verses such as 1

Corinthians 2:14, The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned, most of Ephesians 2, John 6:44, and Romans 3:9-20, among others, all testify that man cannot come to the Lord by himself, out of his own free will, unless the Father draws this person. In John 3 and Ephesians 2, the very act of being implies that an action takes place that one cannot control. After all, can any one of us control our natural birth? Ephesians 2 states that we are dead in our trespasses and sins, following the Devil, but God made us alive in Christ by grace. We are spiritually resurrected in a sense by God so that we may follow Him. Otherwise, we are dead and therefore unable to do anything, including respond.

In three books that are must-reads on the subject of the altar call/anxious bench, all three authors clearly reject this system based on Scriptural grounds.24 Nevin’s work is probably the best critique of Finney’s new measures, written originally in 1844 during the time that Finney and his disciples were using these measures to gain converts. Nevin

23 Measures to Promote Revivals. Lecture XIV in Lectures on Revivals. 24 Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Preaching and Preachers. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972, Murray, Iain. The Invitation System. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1967, and Nevin, John Williamson. The Anxious Bench. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, n.d.

12 takes the anxious bench as the evangelistic method of Finney and his party that exemplifies all its errors and dangers. He does not, however, limit himself to criticizing this method alone; the treatise is a wide-ranging analysis of Finney’s religion and a presentation of the Reformed alternative.

Nevin argues that the use of the anxious bench cannot be justified either by its popularity, or its apparent success in converting sinners. The second claim takes it for granted that the conversions are genuine. But, says Nevin, “It is marvelous credulity to take every excitement in the name of religion for the work of God's Spirit.”25 Nevin maintains that the success of the anxious bench can be accounted for by purely natural factors. No clear spiritual preaching of the truth is necessary, only an ability to stir up and manipulate the emotions of the vulnerable.

In Chapter Three Nevin argues that the anxious bench is an example of what he calls “quackery” - that is, the pretension to possess an inward power merely because one can produce an outward effect, like a quack doctor. In religion, quackery is the confusing of form with reality. Mere reliance on forms and techniques is a sign of spiritual poverty.

Yet Finneyism relies mechanically on forms. Where does all of this quackery lead?

Nevin states that preachers will:

…seek to do by the flesh what he finds himself too weak to effect by the spirit. Thus it becomes possible for him to make himself felt. New measures fall in exactly with his taste, and are turned to fruitful account by his zeal. He becomes theatrical; has recourse to solemn tricks; cries aloud; takes strange attitudes; tells exciting stories: calls out the anxious, etc. In this way possibly he comes to be known as a revivalist, and is counted among those who preach the

13

Gospel ‘with the demonstration of the Spirit and with power.’ And yet when all is done he remains as before without true spiritual strength. New measures are the refuge of weakness.26

Quite frankly, Nevin described Finney’s methods perfectly, and in fact describes many preachers today. The results of the “new measures” tend to ever-increasing excitements to get people to respond and come forward.

Nevin then outlines the dangers of the anxious bench. Briefly these are four:

1. It creates a false issue for the conscience. The real issue for a sinner is: Will he

repent? The anxious bench changes the issue to: Will he perform a physical

action? The sinner is thus disastrously distracted from the real issue.

2. The use of the anxious bench obstructs and diverts the action of truth in the minds

of the genuinely awakened.

3. The anxious bench fosters spurious conversions.

4. Following on inevitably from these three dangers, harm and loss to the souls of

men will surely stem from the use of the anxious bench.

Based on these dangers, Nevin then presents four criticisms of the anxious bench, which still apply to the altar call today. First, the anxious bench, he argues, tends to disorder because it provokes improper excitement. Second, it also promotes religious vulgarity. As

Nevin puts it:

It gives rise to a style of preaching which is often rude and coarse, as well as uncommonly vapid; and creates an appetite for such false aliment, with

25 Nevin, 20. 26 Nevin, 33.

14

a corresponding want of taste for true and solid instruction. All is made to tell upon the one single object of effect. The pulpit is transformed, more or less, into a stage. Divine things are so popularised as to be at last shorn of their dignity as well as their mystery. Anecdotes and stories are plentifully retailed, often in low, familiar, flippant style. Roughness is substituted for strength, and paradox for point. The preacher feels himself and is bent on making himself felt also by the congregation; but God is not felt in the same proportion. In many cases self-will and mere human passion, far more than faith or true zeal for the conversion of souls, preside over the whole occasion. Coarse personalities and harsh denunciations, and changes rung rudely on terms the most sacred and things the most solemn, all betray the wrong spirit that prevails.

Nevin's third criticism is that the anxious bench is linked in practice with allowing women to preach and pray in mixed meetings. Finally, the anxious bench produces a superficial Christianity: “A low, shallow, Pelagianising theory of religion runs thru it from beginning to end... It is wholly subjective and therefore visionary and false.”27

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones gives eight reasons in his book Preaching and Preachers why he rejects the use of the altar call, or the anxious seat. Several of his points are subjective, I believe, and Streett in his book addresses all eight of them, but only in a superficial manner. Lloyd-Jones does not oppose the call to repent and believe the gospel message and be baptized, and Streett acknowledges this. However, Streett equates the calling of repentance and belief and baptism with the coming forward in an altar call, which is not a valid equivalency. Lloyd-Jones’ reasons include evidences in which

27 Nevin, 55-61.

15 ministers border on manipulation to encourage or even force people via a guilt-trip to come forward, many of whom not even knowing the gospel or why they are actually coming forward. I have personally witnessed this type of manipulation all too many times. However, Lloyd-Jones’ Scriptural evidences are clear, and his other reasons also clearly support the position rejecting the altar call as unbiblical and manipulative.28

Bennett asks a very important question regarding all of this discussion about new measures. He asks, “Is Christian conversion mainly human persuasion and decisions, or is it primarily about the movement of the Spirit of God in the individual’s life? The answer to this question will go a long way in determining one’s evangelistic method.”29

Iain Murray makes the same point in his little book, The Invitation System. He states the answer to the question of whether the invitation or altar call plays any part in the person’s conversion “depends upon our doctrine of human nature and of the new birth. The issue thus resolves itself into a question which is not simply about evangelistic methods but rather about theological beliefs. What is conversion and how does it take place?”30 One’s theology determines one’s ecclesiology, which includes the conduct of the church and the evangelistic methods used. Bennett examines the idea of Christian conversion, and reviews such ideas as conversion as a decision, sin and the human will, regeneration, receiving, progress towards conversion, as in a step-by-step process, and the sinner’s prayer. In addition to examining these aspects and the narratives of conversion in the

New Testament, he concludes that while reasoning may be an element of conversion, the successful conversion is the outcome of the work of God. He states that for someone to

28 Lloyd-Jones, 270-282.

16 repent and believe requires some form of human decision and action, but this is impossible without prior positive activity of the Holy Spirit. “To think of conversion as mainly (or perhaps even totally) a human decision or resulting from the reciting of a formula prayer flies in the face of biblical teaching.”31 This may be the common occurrence in most churches today, and perhaps has been known to be “successful” in some measure, but the altar call and the sinner’s prayer should not be standard practice of

Biblical churches. Every practice in the Christian church must be weighed against the regulative principle of Scripture, and those practices not commanded in the Scriptures must be discarded as unbiblical. That is not to say that pleading for sinners to repent is the same as an altar call. Charles Spurgeon often pleaded with sinners to repent and come to Christ, but he did this in a biblical way that was sensitive to the doctrines of grace and biblical mandate. One must preach the gospel and challenge those hearers to repent and believe the gospel, having faith that the Word of God through the work of the

Holy Spirit will bear fruit as God has ordained.

29 Bennett, 201. 30 Murray, 18. 31 Bennett, 213.

17