So preaching sets up the invitation, or at least, it should. Preaching does not always invite (as we have seen); sometimes it merely informs. That’s OK. The important thing to keep in mind is that when a message calls for a definite decision, a call for public response is warranted.
Most calls for a public response in our churches take the form of an “altar call.” I do not believe that the altar call is the only kind of public invitation we should extend, nor do I think it represents the ideal of a public invitation. However, before asking the what or how of any method, we need to answer why: why are we calling them to respond publicly? I’d like to begin by answering that question in the negative. Here are several reasons why we do not call for a public response.
1. We do not call for a public response so that there is time to make a decision. A prosecuting attorney doesn’t wait for his closing arguments to convince a jury. He wants the jury convinced as early as possible about the decision they should be making. The call for public response is not the time to explain the decision or give people time to make one: you should have been doing that for the previous forty-five minutes!
2. We do not call for a public response to gauge God’s working in the service. Some people speak of the altar call as if it is a barometer for how the sermon was received. It isn’t. Culture, personalities, and misunderstandings can also explain why an altar call is not met with overwhelming response. (We will address God’s working in a service with a future article.) It would be wise for us to remember that, if we have faithfully proclaimed God’s Word, He is probably doing more through the service than we will see in the service.
3. We do not call for a public response to prove the bravery or sincerity of those responding. Making proof of bravery or sincerity the basis of an invitation produces unnecessary guilt and introspection in sensitive consciences, and emboldens the empty efforts of those who just happen to be brave enough to “humble” themselves at the steps of the platform. No, “coming forward” isn’t about proving anything.
4. We do not call for a public response to “fill the altars.” First of all, the idea that our assemblies have a physical altar to God is unscriptural. According to Hebrews 13, Jesus (and His atoning sacrifice for sin) is our altar. “By him [we] offer the sacrifice of praise.” Jesus (and ultimately His atonement for sin) constitutes the bridge whereby all of our service is accepted with God. Furthermore, altars in the Old Testament were not places of decision: the decision was already made before the offerer arrived at the altar! Secondly, geography is insignificant to the issue at stake in the invitation, which is making a decision.
5. We do not call for a public response to merely end the service. The invitation can and does conclude, but it is not a separate part of the service. Since it is a natural extension of the sermon, it is important to see the invitation as part of the entire service. Unfortunately, the “why” of giving an invitation has been lost to many. Therefore, it has become little more than a rote observance with no real, practical purpose.
Getting at the “why” is what we will discuss in next week’s post.