A High Failure Rate for the Time-Honored Altar Call?

writeous rhema

altarcall_grumpy

If you’ve been raised in the American church any length of time, you’ve heard of or experienced the traditional and time-honored “Altar Call”. This is a call that is administered typically at the close of a church service after the sermon and before the offering. This call is a petition – a beckoning if you would – of the lost souls in the church to come down the aisle and to stand at the altar to do business with God.

In the church settings in which I was raised, one would seldom do just one altar call in their life. If you were like me, my cousins, and my  sisters when we were young, we went to the altar to get saved just about every few weeks. Guess it was like a bad perm – it didn’t take the first time. But yet in spite of the fact that it…

View original post 2,616 more words

A High Failure Rate for the Time-Honored Altar Call?

“The proclamation of grace has its limits. Grace may not be proclaimed to anyone who does recognize or distinguish or desire it…The world upon whom grace is thrust as a bargain will grow tired of it, and will not only trample upon the Holy, but also will tear apart those who force it on them.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

altarcall_grumpy

If you’ve been raised in the American church any length of time, you’ve heard of or experienced the traditional and time-honored “Altar Call”. This is a call that is administered typically at the close of a church service after the sermon and before the offering. This call is a petition – a beckoning if you would – of the lost souls in the church to come down the aisle and to stand at the altar to do business with God.

In the church settings in which I was raised, one would seldom do just one altar call in their life. If you were like me, my cousins, and my  sisters when we were young, we went to the altar to get saved just about every few weeks. Guess it was like a bad perm – it didn’t take the first time. But yet in spite of the fact that it may not be sufficient to save you once and for all, altar calls are very popular and expedient. But are they EFFECTIVE? Do the people who respond to altar calls “STAY saved”?

Usually it is people of Pentecostal, Charismatic churches who have repeat offenders respond to the altar call. But what do we know about the origins of it? Who executed the first altar call? Believe it or not, It wasn’t done in the New Testament; it was first done by a man by the name of a Methodist evangelist named Charles G. Finney in the early 1800’s. He was the first to ask people to come forward to the pulpit – as well as the first to refer to his services as “revivals”. He also popularized the after meetings and the spontaneity style of preaching in young pastors.

Many will admit that gospel presentations have become more diluted and brief over the years. The appeal may be just as urgent, but the message is not as detailed. In other words, instead of telling people who would come to the altar the extent to which their lives much change if they so choose to follow Christ, evangelists sometimes give a brief one-minute review to save time. But is this time-saving technique the reason for so many false converts?

Billy Graham is well-known for his altar calls of old. He would ask people to come to Christ at his huge evangelistic meetings, and over the time of his ministry doubtless thousands have come to saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Right?

While doing a research paper and reading the book, “The American Church Experience” by Thomas A. Askew and Richard V. Pierard, I stumbled upon an interesting paragraph. Referring to another evangelist – not Billy Graham – it said, “In a series of meetings held in Boston in 1906, he is said to have won 2,550 “decisions” for Christ. By then it was customary to judge a revivalist’s success by the number of “decision cards” turned in during a campaign.” Wow. That’s pretty interesting. So it was common for evangelists/revivalists/soulwinners to tally up the decisions for Christ? So, could it be that if it was seen as a competition for some, that perhaps some might do anything for a response just to get their tallies up?

I believe it is important to see how the altar call MIGHT have been created from a biblical idea. Perhaps verses such as “behold, I stand at the door and knock” gives one to think that we must knock on the door of someone’s heart by giving an appeal to trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior. Perhaps the verse “The day you hear His voice, harden not your heart” gives one to think that it is the job of the evangelist to make sure sinners hear God’s voice and to encourage them to respond to an altar call. But what has history shown about the effectiveness of altar calls? Do they “work”? Is the proof in the pudding? Let’s look to none other than the founder himself. What had he to say about the effectiveness of the altar calls he made during his ministry?

Charles Finney, at the end of his life, rejected the fruits of his altar calls. He said, “I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction and into a state of temporary repentance and faith. But falling short of urging them up to a point where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in him they would of course soon relax to their former state.”

Wow! Really? Did the founder of altar calls turn his back on his own “invention”? And could we have we worked out the kinks yet from the first model?

(Side Note: Now I do understand that this could taken at the risk of making the logical fallacy known as genetic fallacy. This fallacy is a line of reasoning that concludes that if there is a defect in the origin of a thing or claim, then that should be used to discredit the claim or thing. In other words, someone might argue, “Just because the founder of altar calls realized that HIS altar calls were ineffective, that does not have to mean that all altar calls done by any person after him are also ineffective.” This is similar to the ad hominem fallacy that would reason that if Charles was ineffective then anything he did was effective.)

One of his contemporaries (a man who worked alongside him in ministry) said, “During 10 years, hundreds and perhaps thousands were annually reported to be converted on all hands. But now it is admitted that Finney’s real converts are comparatively few. It is declared even by himself that the great body of them are a disgrace to religion. As a consequence of these defections, Practical evils, great terrible and innumerable are in various quarters rushing in on the church.”

Wow! Another quote that speaks disparagingly of altar calls due to their dastard results of false converts. His contemporary seems to imply that in spite of the joy of reporting the number of decisions for Christ, evidence is apparent that only a few of those great many were actually converted. And of the false converts, they have remained in the church wreaking havoc as lost souls would be expected to do.

A letter was written to Finney by another co-labourer in 1834 stating – “Let us now look over the fields where you, and others, and myself have labored as rival ministers. And what is now their moral state? What was their state within 3 months after we left them? I have visited and revisited many of these fields and have groaned in spirit to see the sad, frigid, carnal, contentious state into which the churches have fallen – and fallen very soon after our first departure from among them.”

Yet another quote of dismay about the altar calls’ effectiveness. Seems as if after weeks or even a few months of someone walking down the altar to “get saved”, they become as dogs returning to their own vomit and pigs returning to the mire. The Bible says it is better to have never known Christ than to know Him and then to turn one’s back on Him. Is this what altar calls have been doing? Leaving people in a worse state than they were in when they first came? This man is not just hypothesizing; he actually went to visit the converts. And they were not any better and were probably left worse. Let’s look at one more quote:

B. B. Warfield said of Asia Mayhem long-time friend of Charles Finney: “That everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad, subsequent lapse. The people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited. The pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power And the evangelists among them all and I was nearly personally acquainted I cannot recall a single man who did not after a few years lose his unction and become equally disqualified for the office of evangelist and that of pastor. Thus the great western revival ran out into disaster over and over again. When he proposed to revisit one of the churches delegations were sent him or other means used to prevent what was thought of as affliction. Even after a generation had passed by (Warfield notes) these burnt children had no liking for the fire.”

I heard of an interesting metaphor that reminds me so much of this quote. It was by one of my favorite preachers, the late Dr. Adrian Rodgers. He said that when someone first hears the gospel, they are on fire like dry wood. They blaze bright! If you have heard the gospel the second time, you’ll still catch fire, but you won’t be as bright because some of the wood is already been burnt. On the third try, they’ll flicker like and ember, but no flame. But after a few more times, their heart will be hardened like a charred piece of wood or coal. It will no longer light or even flicker. And that is what this man says of the great revivals of that period. They left it impossible for someone to be relit. Here’s one more quote:

“…involving a high rate of apostatizing (90+% according to the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association). So that means that out of the thousands of people who came to the altar at a Billy Graham crusade, only a few were saved or stayed saved?

Seems to me that the turnover rate was very high. I would even call it a recidivism rate. Many of these sinners spent a little time in reform only to return back to a life of sin. It turns out that even in the very beginning of the altar call practice, the altar call was not very effective. I wonder why. I think there are a few reasons the altar call has not been effective:

  1. It is not biblical. Evangelists did not ask people to come forward in a synagogue to repeat a sinner’s prayer. And because God did not sanction altar calls, He is not obligated to move during them or to cement what is done during them.
  2. It is not detailed enough. These evangelists only give a very brief summary of Jesus and salvation. If it was more detailed, 99% of the people coming up would have stayed seated or sat back down instead of repeating the prayer and becoming false converts. The way is narrow and hard, and most people are not interested in living as God commands.
  3. There is not enough being done to disciple these “converts”. Many of them will leave that church after saying the sinner’s prayer and will not return for follow-up. After birthing a new believer, he must then be raised up by discipleship. A baby left to his own defenses will be a casualty in no time.
  4. Salvation comes by the faith in the saving work of Jesus – not in walking down an aisle and reciting a 12-second prayer. If you really believe the gospel in its entirety, you do not have to repeat a prayer that was made up less than 200 hundreds years ago. The people in the early church did not have to recite a prayer before all. They just knew in their hearts that the gospel message they heard was true. And there are people reciting the sinners’ prayer who do not believe the entire gospel so they will not be saved regardless of what they recite.
  5. Many altar calls as used for bragging rights to show off how many people responded to one’s impressive preaching style or fire and brimstone, fear techniques. This means that the main concern is not the work or move of God, but the work of man. As Finney said himself:

“Salvation is the work of man.”

So how did the early church of the New Testament lead people to Christ? Was it a quick introduction to Jesus Christ? Was it done at a pulpit with emotional music? Let’s look at one of my favorite examples in the book of Acts which gives great insight about how to bring souls in to the Kingdom and the church. There are MANY other examples, but for the sake of time and length, I’ll just post one passage. But I am working on another post with the other examples.

Acts 2:37 NOW when they HEARD THIS they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what SHALL WE DO?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our GOD CALLS to himself.” 40 And WITH MANY OTHER WORDS he bore witness and CONTINUED TO EXHORT them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who RECEIVED HIS WORD were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.42 And they DEVOTED themselves to the apostles’ TEACHING and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the PRAYERS.

In Acts 2, we hear that only when people HEAR the Word of God, only then will they be convicted enough to ask what they must do in response to God’s Word. We also hear that it is necessary that God FIRST call them to Himself. You don’t come to Him on your own. You don’t initiate; you only respond. And this is what I like most about this passage that I think many preachers leave out in their evangelistic appeals. Verse 40 says, WITH MANY OTHER WORDS they witnessed about Jesus. They didn’t do a one-time, hitter-quitter altar call. They spoke plenty about Jesus’ identity and work and also CONTINUED to exhort them about saving themselves from the lost. We see that ONLY after receiving the word of the preacher did they become baptized and added to the heavenly roster. And those who did believe, repent, and get baptized didn’t just get bored and walk away after a few weekends. They DEVOTED themselves to the teaching and fellowship and prayers! It wasn’t a quick decision that as we say, “Will only take a minute.” Not only will it not just take a minute, IT’LL TAKE YOUR WHOLE LIFE! Your whole eternity even! We try to rush through the altar call as if we’re impinging upon the rest of the sinner’s Sunday plans. But the truth of the matter is this: If they don’t want God impinging upon their Sunday dinner plans, they’ll not be pleased with the fact that He’s about to hijack their whole life! If they’re too busy to spend a couple of hours discussing the One who they approached the altar to give their souls to, then they obviously do not have the desire to spend the rest of their life serving them. And you cannot have a full relationship with someone in five minutes. Let those in a hurry forget about it; you’re wasting their time, and they’re wasting yours. And like any other healthy relationship, you have to be DEVOTED,  have FELLOWSHIP, and COMMUNICATE with the person you are in relationship with. Nowadays, we seem to just tell people that they just have to recite some words and their relationship can never be broken. FALSE. Relationships MUST be maintained. You can’t have a relationship like that.

In closing, I am not against altar calls per se. I am a “product” of several of them. But I believe something must be made clear. 1. If you believe the gospel and fully intend to respond as God requires to it, then you are already saved without repeating the sinner’s prayer.

2. You must know that it does not stop here; it’ll take a lifetime of obedience and self-sacrifice and faith in Christ.

3. Do not think that the reciting of a few sentences made you born again. The most it can do is testify to the fact that you already are.

4. Because time does not permit the evangelist painting the picture of the entire gospel story, please make sure to get an understanding of the entire picture because you might not even want to become a Christian once you hear all that it entails. (Remember the story of the rich man who was unwilling to sell all he had to follow Jesus?)

This is a YouTube video link to the quotes I used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49RyyHVmXQ

“A truly evangelical sermon must be like offering a child a fine, red apple or offering a thirsty man a cool glass of water and then staying: ‘Do you want it?’ We must be able to speak about our faith so that hands will be stretched out toward us faster than we can fill them.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Impure & Defiled Religion – Spiritual Abuse

writeous rhema

James 1:26-27 – “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

What kind of religion should any and every Christian want? More than likely it should be a religion that God the Father in heaven sees as pure and undefiled. These two adjectives seem imply that there can in fact be impure and defiled religion in God’s eyes. Thank God that James informs us what the pure and undefiled religion is. For one, he simply says that is a religion that shows itself through visibly love and concern for orphans and widows when they are afflicted. We have to imagine the plight of young children in the Bible days…

View original post 999 more words

False Profits: Prophe-lying to Remain Relevant?

writeous rhema

2 Peter 1:20-21 –  knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Aren’t you glad that Peter was used of God to tell us some important information about prophecy? I mean, if not for these two bible verses, we would have to worry about being deceived by false prophecies being produced by the will of man. We would also have to worry about random people misinterpreting God’s word or what they CLAIM to be God’s word. This way, we will not be deceived.

Peter says that NO prophecy – not a single godly prophecy – NOT A SINGLE ONE – comes from any human being’s interpretation. Not an evangelist’s, not a prophet(ess’), not a pastor’s, not a bishop’s…

View original post 1,150 more words

Afraid to Take Communion After a Sinful Week?

writeous rhema

1 Corinthians 11:17 – But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not….27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or…

View original post 1,326 more words

Afraid to Take Communion After a Sinful Week?

ls

1 Corinthians 11:17 – But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not….27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself….33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

Ever been to a church service where communion was being observed? And before they administer it, they ask for a moment of silence for everyone to do some serious self-reflection to check whether or not they are worthy of taking communion. By communion they mean drinking a tiny cup of grape juice and eating a small, square wafer. If you don’t feel particularly saved that day, you pass on taking communion. For example, if you were drunk and turned all the way up at a party just the night before, you would not take communion. If you had premarital sex within the last week, you would likely not take communion. You decided that because you did a visible, more intense sin, then you are unworthy to take communion.

Is that what we read in the above verses of 1 Corinthians 11? In the verses I selected, we see that Apostle Paul is writing to the church in Corinth about a problem that he has heard about and/or observed during their communion times. But let’s get the facts. These people were not being chastised by Apostle Paul because they were arranged in lines taking turns drinking grape juice and eating small crackers. They did not have preset amounts of juice and precut unleavened bread. What we now observe as communion was at that time more known as a “love feast” which we hear briefly mentioned in Jude 1:12 – “These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves…”

How they did communion at that time is that it was more like a potluck. The believers who could would bring a dish or meal to the designated location. And they would fellowship and eat. As Jude says, it was a feast. And we know that a small vial of juice and a small wafer is far from feasting. Paul says that when they meet for communion, it’s not for better but for worse because for one, there are divisions among them which actually can be helpful in that it distinguishes the trifling people from the genuine people. Paul then goes into detail about why he is scolding them; he is scolding them in this letter because they are not eating to the glory of God in love for their fellow saints. Paul says that 1. There are divisions/factions within this church. 2. Some people begin eating before everyone arrives at the feast to eat which leaves the latecomers hungry. 4. The early eaters (and drinkers) are drunk! 5. The early comers humiliate those who are late (which might have been because they lived further away from the meeting place); and because Paul said the humiliated people are also the people who have nothing, it implies that the late comers are hungry also because they could not afford to bring food to the potluck (or else they would not have been hungry no matter how late they came).

In other words, they are not discerning the body. Body could simply mean the symbol of Jesus’ body – wine to symbolize His blood and unleavened bread to symbolize Jesus’ “leaven-less” (sinless) flesh.

1 Corinthians 10:16 – The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Or it could mean the body of Christ which is the church as we read that Paul wrote in these three verses.

1 Corinthians 12:27 – Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

Ephesians 5:23– For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Colossians 1:24 – Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ‘s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

Or it could mean both.

But clearly, if we read this passage, we see that Paul is disappointed in how the early comers and those who could afford to bring food would eat without regard for whether or not the late comers or poor people would have something to eat. He says that they are not coming together for the Lord’s supper because everyone in the body isn’t even there to eat! They did not discern the body of Christ in that they showed no concern or respect for Christ body of believers. And I would add that it was disrespectful to act gluttonous and to be a drunkard with something that symbolized such a precious person as Jesus Christ. (Apparently, there was wine at these feasts.) But how dare you drink up all the wine and eat up all the food. Paul asks a rhetorical question about whether or not they had houses to eat and drink in. It wasn’t that they couldn’t fill up, it’s just that they filled up at the expense of the other Christians who were en route to the supper. If you were so hungry, you should have gotten a snack at the house! Again, we do not have these problems at most of our churches because we have a prepackaged amount that is the same for everyone whether or not you are the first or the last person to participate in communion. So we don’t have to worry about gobbling up all the crackers and guzzling down all the juice. So since these conditions aren’t possible in our church settings of today, how can we make the principles apply in our context?

I would say that we should beware of how we treat our fellow brothers and sisters before we take communion. Sure, you might not have eaten their share of the communion, but in what other ways have you not been discerning of the Lord’s body. How have you treated your brothers and sisters at your church? We tend to think of those “more intense” and visible sins such as partying and sleeping around when we “examine” ourselves. But Paul here is talking about examining ourselves in how we treat our brothers and sisters. Maybe you weren’t at a party the night before. And maybe you didn’t lie on a test. And maybe you didn’t fornicate earlier that weekend. But did you put division between you and another church member? Did you humiliate them because they came to church late? Did you make them feel ashamed because they had less to give than you? Did you see yourself as better than them because you are richer? I believe that in this passage, THOSE are the things Paul wants us to examine ourselves concerning. Of course, if you are backslidden or reprobate for whatever reason, perhaps you should make matters right before you partake of Christ’s body symbols (whether or not your sin had something to do with mistreating a brother or sister in Christ), but just make sure you read what PAUL is saying in this passage and not missing the main point.

(By the way, I asked a couple of my seminary professors about this topic, and they said that they do not see that this passage is saying that a person who sinned that week(end) couldn’t participate in the feast.) 🙂