May I share what is on my heart?
On Sunday, during the service the guest speaker asked for all who would desire to place their faith in Christ to please raise their hands. Of course this raising of hands was being done in conjunction with the request that everybody in the room keep their heads bowed and eyes closed. As soon as all the hands had been found, the speaker then asked that we all pray the sinners’ prayer. Okay, maybe that wasn’t exactly how it went but it was similar and I have seen many alter calls where it was just that quick and simple.
Just to be clear, I am not hating on the speaker, but simply desiring to bring to light what I believe to be a really bad doctrinal practice.
The sinners’ prayer confuses me. Actually, it embarrasses me.
Why? Well, for just so many reasons.
For starters allow me to just say this: Jesus did not die in private for a few people. He died publicly for the world. He was bruised, battered, beaten, and torn to shreds so that we might be brought near to God. His death was a public declaration, demonstration, and proclamation. It was public—not private.
With this truth being clearly abundant within the scriptures, how can we who preach the gospel tell a person that salvation is only one little 30 second private prayer away? This is why I am embarrassed—because God is watching.
My second reason for having disagreements with this approach in evangelism is not because I don’t believe God saves people through it—of course he does. But because I feel that it is the product of skinny theology, or a skinny presentation of the gospel.
What I mean is that if this method is going to be used then the speaker should make it plenty clear that salvation is not found in a prayer but only in Jesus Christ. We don’t get saved. Rather, we are saved. Saved, not by our own works and righteousness, but by the grace of God through faith.
How can our death be so private when Jesus’ was so public?
A third reason I have beef with this module is because after it is done nobody except for the preacher knows who just made the greatest decision of their life—that is a decision to follow Christ. It is true that in some churches they will have the people stand up and maybe wave their hand so everybody can see them once they have done the prayer. Other churches are so bold that they will have the people walk forward after the decision, so that the speaker can pray over them. But, unfortunately the trend seems to gravitate much more toward the super-seeker-sensitive-side.
It needs to be made more clear that the sinners prayer is not a pill that one can simply consume and then be saved, but that it is meant to be the beginning of a conscious decision to follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And that decision (if made in the context of a church service) should be in every sense of the way a public decision.
I have so many more reasons but for now I rest my case.
Perhaps some of my readers may have a better/different understanding then myself. If so I would love to hear your thoughts on this matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
William,
Good stuff. All of this makes me think about what the role of the church is and what it should be...I don't have anything except my own opinion in the matter.
But I'm happy to share it..of course. :)
Maybe the church should solely be the place where growth occurs..and maybe the acceptance of salvation, the sinners' prayer, the "saving," etc. should happen through relationships only.
salvation that occurs through a personal relationship between believers and non-believers that set an example that will remain constant pre- and post-salvation. to me, that sounds much more appealing and more glorifying than altar calls.
however, what a "challenge" it would be if the church took its focus on saving the multitudes and really focused on intense, intentional spiritual growth of its members? and if its members were held to a higher standard beyond just getting the sinners to church?
ok. i'm done. :) let me know what you think.
Lydia, thanks mucho for taking the time to comment.
I completely agree with what you are saying here.
Somehow the order of things seems to have been reversed. The Church is not a building but a people. We make a categorical mistake when we invite unbelievers to the “church” (in reference to a building). What can be wrongly interpreted when we speak like this is that the unbelievers may come to expect or believe that the answers are found in a building rather than in a people.
We should not (in my opinion) be inviting people to the church, rather the Church should be going to the people.
When Christians come together for fellowship in the form of a service it should only be a believers’ meeting. I agree with you, the focus should be on the edification and maturation of the Body of Christ. It is a huge distraction to have unbelievers there, especially if it is a charismatic church where there is no fixed schedule. I think that if Christian congregations spent more time doing these kinds of things that there would be so much growth both internally and externally.
I think Lydia's line of thinking is consistent with the early church and Christ's last command to His disciples.
In this "aquire desires by hire" church generation, we attempt to pass on the great commission to the church staff by forcing the belief that it is their job to evangelize and maybe our job to bring in the lost.
Unfortunatly for those of us who think this way, Christ's last command was not "Go ye unto all the world and bring them unto the church. That an elected pastor might make disciples of all men, baptizing them........"
A point well stated mr Zach. Thanks for reading
Hey Will
I was in that service...and you know what made me the most uncomfortable? Having to stare fixedly into the eyes of my best friend's wife and say the very personal things that we were being told to repeat. That aside...
For many years, as a pastor and now as an "evangelist", I have struggled with our invitational methods in calling people to Christ. The altar-call itself is an invention of American revivalists, or so I've been told, perhaps no more than 300 years old. Those great preachers of the reformation were so opposed to the Catholic idea of salvation by works that they demanded their congregants make no outward showing in the context of the worship service. You come, you sit, you listen, you leave. Salvation was something that took place in one's heart, not through one's action or response to a message.
I'm almost of the same mind as your earlier poster, who said the leading into salvation should occur during relational ministry between believers and unbelievers, rather than a church-oriented invitation. On the other hand, I still give an invitation for salvation in most places I preach, and only seldom do I actually call people forward for public recognition.
Let me tell you what I do most of the time (and I am by no means saying my method is right; you're post has actually stirred me to re-examine my method).
At the point of invitation, having preached whatever message God put in my heart, I ask everyone to "bow your head and close your eyes." And I specifically tell them that this is out of reverence for God and out of respect for what He's doing in the lives of the people around them.
Then, if I haven't covered it in the course of the message, I explain the "plan of salvation", which involves repenting of your sins, committing yourself and everything about your life to Christ, and asking Him to be your savior. I sum up the "pattern" for salvation in two phrases: "God be merciful to me a sinner", and "all who call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved."
Then I ask for a showing of hands. It's my experience that alot of Christians respond repeatedly to this kind of invitation, out of a sense of guilt or self-condemnation, or "just making sure". Many times I perceive that most of the folks raising their hands are making recommitments to the Lord.
After they have raised their hands, I usually ask everyone to join hands, and then I tell them, "You don't need a priest, a preacher, or a patterned prayer. All you have to do is tell God in your own way, from your own heart, that you need forgiveness of the stupid stuff you've done in your life, and that you want to give Him your life." I almost never lead an individual or a congregation in a formulaic prayer. I simply tell those responding to talk to God in their own way, and I tell those who didn't to pray for their neighbors or for others they know who need to be saved. Then I pray a prayer as if I am the one giving my life to Christ--I model what I want them to do.
The only time that I call people forward is when I have a sense that there were people accepting Christ for the first time, and when I call people forward, I stress that..."If you have made this commitment for the very first time, I would like you to take a step of faith and come forward to acknowledge publicly what you have done..."
I agree with you that our commitment to Christ does not need to be obscured in the ritual of bowed heads and closed eyes. Whether or not we make the response to an invitation a public thing, I do think we need to teach and advocate water baptism more. I think it needs to be as soon after their "conversion" as possible, giving people a chance to make public their profession, and giving them an opportunity to testify as to what change has taken place in them.
BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed the lively conversation last night! We'll have to do it again.
I enjoy your thoughts here Casey.
As soon as I get some time I would like to further this conversation in the direction of some of the things you have mentioned. I agree with you that the method is not that old and from what I understand it did arise as both a response to Catholic issues and for practical reasons.
Likewise, I enjoyed the other night a whole lot. The Chicken and Conversation were both such a great combination.
Blessings to you brother. It means a lot when you take the time to comment.
Post a Comment