Why we don’t do “Alter Calls”

The following is an excellent essay written by Chris Stewart, pastor of Mt. Pleasant Bible Church, that does a good job explaining our reasons for why we typically don’t have alter calls.

Altar Calls and the “Mourning Bench”

A Modern Response and Critique

By Chris Stewart Th.B., Th.M.

INTRODUCTION

In the last 200 years we have seen the rise of a practice within churches, “revivals”, and evangelistic events known as an “altar call”. In this short paper I want to address the relevant Biblical passages, history, philosophy, and practice. In recent years I have been continually pressured to “open the altar” or to give “altar calls” and have been reticent to do so. This paper will examine my theological and practical reasons for not continuing this modern invention.

OT HISTORICAL CONTEXT

In the Old Testament we see two types of altars, one commanded by the Lord for proper sacrifices to himself, and another type to the so called “gods” such as Molech or Baal. These altars served as religious rituals, divine worship, prophetic symbols, and cultural norms. Specifically, we will look at how the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob commanded the use of His altar.

Definition

1) an elevated place or structure, as a mound or platform at which religious rites are performed or on which sacrifices are offered to gods, ancestors, etc.

2) Ecclesiastical. communion table. (1)

Naturally our English definition of the term follows the normal cultural and religious use of the physical item known as an “altar”. In the OT we see the earliest known altar as used by Cain and Abel (Gen 4:3-4) and many of the patriarchs used altars to sacrifice before the giving of the law. (Gen 8:20, 12:7, 26:24-25, 35:3)

During the exodus and giving of the law God gave specific instructions as to the nature, purpose, and construction of an altar. (Exodus 27:1-8, 1 Kings 7:48) The altars function was to accept the physical offerings of animals, grains, oils, and other goods. The purpose was drastically different than the function, the function was to accept the physical, yet the purpose was to appease and satiate the transcendent God. These sacrifices included:

1) Burnt offering (Leviticus 1; 6:8–13; 8:18-21; 16:24)

2) Grain offering (Leviticus 2; 6:14–23)

3) Peace offering (Leviticus 3; 7:11–34)

4) Sin offering (Leviticus 4; 5:1–13; 6:24–30; 8:14–17; 16:3–22)

5) Trespass offering (Leviticus 5:14–19; 6:1–7; 7:1–6) (2)

Notice that each of these offerings provided are complete sacrifices, in which those that offer the sacrifice suffer the complete loss of the physical object. (See Genesis 4 - Offerings of Cain & Abel)

NEW TESTAMENT ALTARS AND SACRIFICES

The New Testament is divided into three categories in regard to the concept of the altar.

1) Continuation of the Old Covenant Altar & Temple

2) Destruction of the Altar & Temple

3) Jesus as our fulfillment of the types and shadows of the Altar and Sacrifices.

Firstly, before the destruction of the temple in 70AD (3) we see the continuation of the OT sacrificial system minus one main “altar” was missing for over 500 years…the Ark of the Covenant. (586 BC, 2 Maccabees) The main sacrifice of Yom Kippurim “day of atonement” had been missing for centuries! No wonder Jesus could claim “one who is greater than the temple is here” (Matthew 12:6). Without the main sacrificial offering what has Israel done about their sin covering for over 2700 years?

After the destruction of the temple in 70AD all of the sacrificial implements where either destroyed or taken away as spoil… The altar, the altar of incense, the table of showbread, the menorah, the brazen laver….it was all GONE! No longer could Israel offer any type of physical or spiritual sacrifice…as a New Covenant had been ratified with new sacrifices.

We now come to one of the cruxes of our discussion… we must ask pivotal questions:

1) Is the sacrifice and atonement of Christ enough?

2) Is it enough to do away with the sacrificial system?

3) Is it enough to remove any future need for works, sacrifices, or co-operation with God?

Indeed, the answer to all three questions are contained in Jesus’ own words “it is finished” (John 19:30)

The author the Hebrews addresses these questions clearly:

“so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant…The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.” (Hebrews 7:22-27 NASB)

“and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:12 NASB)

We have a new King, a new High Priest, a new Covenant, and better Sacrifice. To claim that we need further physical or spiritual sacrifices outside of the written Word is neither wise nor safe.

We do not have the time or space to discuss the major portions of the books of Romans and Hebrews which clearly delineate the end of the Old Covenant system and the New Covenant that is in Christ alone. (1 Corinthians 11:25)

NEW TESTAMENT ALTAR?

This chronological assessment begs the question… “Where is the NT altar?” or “Does the NT church require a sacrificial altar?”. Reasonable questions with ready answers.

Question 1: Where is the NT altar?

The NT references to altars is always in reference to the past covenant with Israel or in the prophetic and future reality in the heavens. (Revelation).(4) (5)

Question 2: Does the NT Church require a sacrificial altar?

There is not a singular reference in scripture to a sacrificial altar in the life of the New Covenant church. Christ is our once and for all sacrifice. (Eph 5:2, Heb 7:22-27, 9:12)

Now what the NT does say is that we are to offer spiritual sacrifices, none of which require a singular location or an “altar”. A Christian can in fact offer each of these spiritual sacrifices anywhere, at any time, with anyone. (1 Peter 2:5, Hebrews 13:15, Romans 6:12-14,12:1-2)

CHURCH HISTORY

If indeed the tradition of the “mourners’ bench” or “altar call” is true, one should see it within scripture and history…right? So, I decided to dig once again headlong into the history of the Christian church to see if indeed this tradition is either ancient or universal. While indeed one can find references to calls to repentance and conversion (Mark 1;15, Acts 2:38), not a single instance I could find involved a specific location or indeed a motivation other than repentance or conversion as one is presented with the truth of the Gospel.(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) So where did this tradition come from?

HISTORY OF THE “MOURNER’S BENCH” OR “ALTAR CALL”

Church historians point out that the documentable origins of the “altar call” or “mourner’s bench” come out of radical changes in the theology and practice of evangelism during the first and second “awakenings” here in the United States. The “first great awakening” (1730-1755) had “traditional” preaching and calls to repentance and faith used by notables such as George Whitfield (1714-1770) and Johnathan Edwards (1703-1758).

Just 45 years after the first great awakening, a new awakening dawned… and with it came the Neuvo known as “New Measures”(5)(10) advocated by none other than Charles Finney (1792-1875).

A contemporary with the second great awakening (1790-1840) John Williamson Nevin (1803-1866) remarked how the methods of the “New Measures” and the “Anxious Bench” where changing the landscape of the church. Nevin records:

“The Anxious Bench is made to stand, in this case, as a type and representative of the entire system of what are technically denominated in our day, “New Measures.” (5)…If New Measures can be shown to proceed from the Holy Ghost, or to be identified in any view with the cause of revivals, they may well demand our reverence and respect. If they can be shown even to be of adiaphorous character with regard to religion, harmless at least if not positively helpful to the Spirit’s word, they may then put in a reasonable plea to be tolerated in silence, if not absolutely approved. But neither of one nor the other of these positions can be successfully maintained. It is a mere trick unworthy of the Gospel (5)”

Nevin speaking on the “revivals” of his day displays for us the serious spiritual concern for many approaching the “anxious bench”.

“One thing is most certain. Spurious revivals are common, and as the fruit of them, false conversions lamentably abound. An Anxious Bench may be crowded, where no divine influence whatever is felt…hundreds may be caried through the process of anxious bench conversion, and yet their last state may be worse than the first (5)…The Anxious Bench, in the case of those who come to it, is adapted by its circumstances to disturb and distract the thoughts of the truly serious, and thus to obstruct the action of truth in their minds. It is no doubt quite a common thing for persons to be carried into this movement, who have little or no seriousness at the time, urged forward by sympathy, or superstition, or a mere taste for distinction (5).

Nevin goes so far as to give us an example of a typical conversion and the pressures and drama that the “New Measures” imposed:

“Take a single case, an illustration of the way in which the system may be expected to work. Here is a gentile girl, sixteen or seventeen years of age. She finds herself in the midst of a large congregation, where at the close of the sermon, the minister, encouraged by the general seriousness of the house, invites all who are concerned for the salvation of their souls, to come forward and place themselves on the anxious seat. She has perhaps a long time under some concern, or it may be that God’s Truth has been felt for the first time on this occasion; not with great force perhaps, but so at least as to bring her spirit to a solemn stand in the presence of her Maker. She hears the invitation, but shrinks from the thought of doing what the minister demands. The call however is reiterated, and enforced by the most exciting appeals to the imagination. After a few moments there is a stir; one is going forward to the bench, then then another, and another. She is struck, moved, agitated. A struggle has commenced in her bosom, which she herself is not prepared to understand. May she not be fighting against God, she asks herself, in refusing to go forward with the rest? May it not be in her case, at this moment, now or never? All this is solemnly crowded on her alarmed conscience by the whole character of the occasion, in the way in which it is managed by the minister. Already her soul has passed from the element of conviction into the element of excitement. The “still small voice” of the Spirit is drowned amid the tumult of her own conflicting thoughts. But see, she yields. With a desperate struggle, she has thrown herself forth into the aisle. Trembling and agitated in every nerve, poor victim of quackery, she makes her way, consciously in the eye of that large watching assembly, from one end of the house to the other, and sinks, half fainting with the effort, into a corner of the magic seat. And now, where is she, in spiritual position? Are her tears the measure of her sorrow for sin? Alas, she is farther off from God, than she was before this struggle commenced in her father’s pew. Calm reflection is departed. Her hold upon the inward has been lost.” (5)

But where did Finney get this conceptualization of the anxious bench? Wesleyans had been using it for decades during their revivals. The Wesleyans created the practice of “Long promotion of camp meetings… a fervor which city churches expressed in yearly seasons of special religious interest called "protracted meetings." Here sinners were bidden each night to the "anxious seat", or “mourner's bench”, devised about 1808 in a crowded New York City chapel to enable saints to deal with seekers more conveniently. (12)

But let us no throw out the “Anxious Bench” and the successor “Altar Call” based upon the testimony of eyewitnesses and direct connections with a particular movement in the United States. We must inquire who is Charles Finney and if indeed his methods are to be adopted wholesale, what theological grounds does he have for the continued use of the “Anxious Bench”?

Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) a Presbyterian Lawyer by training and trade, left the Presbyterian church due to differences in doctrine. (8) Finney rejected major foundational Christian Orthodoxy:

1) Finney Rejected Original Sin:

"We deny that the human constitution is morally depraved, because it is impossible that sin should be a quality of the substance of the soul or body. It is, and must be, a quality of choice or intention, and not of substance. To represent the constitution as sinful, is to represent God, Who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin. What ground is there for the assertion that Adam's nature became in itself sinful by the fall? This is groundless, not to say ridiculous, assumption, and an absurdity." (10) (11)

2) Denied The Efficacy Of The Atonement

"The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted ... If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless"… "assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement ... It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one" (10) (11)

3) Denied The Imputed Righteousness Of Christ

"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd... As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners ... As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ’s obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us."… "The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ’s righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us ... it was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf " This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner’s justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (10) (11)

4) Denied The Work Of The Holy Spirit In Regeneration And Conversion

“The belief that the new birth and revival depend necessarily on divine activity is pernicious. "No doctrine, is more dangerous than this to the prosperity of the Church, and nothing more absurd"

“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. When mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God."

"A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means—as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means." (10) (11)

“The sinner actually changes, and is therefore himself, in the most proper sense, the author of the change” (13)

5) Embraced “Entire Sanctification”

"It is self-evident, that entire obedience to God's law is possible on the ground of natural ability. To deny this, is to deny that a man is able to do as well as he can. The very language of the law is such as to level its claims to the capacity of the subject, however great or small that capacity may be. 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all they soul, with all they mind, and with all they strength,' Here then it is plain, that all the law demands, is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in the service of God. Now, as entire sanctification consists in perfect obedience to the law of God, and as the law requires nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have, it is, of course, forever settled, that a state of entire sanctification is attainable in this life, on the ground of natural ability." (10) (11)

By the works cited above Finney is a confessed Pelagian and heretic. His unorthodox theology places the perfect framework for pastors and preachers to continually beg people to the “anxious bench” due to their continual fear of loss of salvation instigated by their inability to keep the law, or their fear that they are not yet “sinlessly perfected” and deficient in their salvation and sanctification. (5)

Finney’s theology became the standard by which all other “revivals” were planned, purposed, and executed. (10) (14) Finneyism became the norm for what would become the “Azusa street revival” in 1903 and ultimately the bedrock of Pentecostal/Charismatic fervor for the next 100 years. Many in modern American churches do not know the name Charles Finney, nor the legacy of psychology, philosophy, and plain emotionalism that has brought many to become “ twice as much a child of hell as yourselves!” (Matthew 23:15)

PASTORAL CONCERNS

Given scripture, history, tradition, and application we clearly see a manmade “tradition” and in my opinion “golden calf” or idol in which the modern church has been emphatically in love with for the better portion of two centuries. I have some major concerns about “altar calls” on a pastoral level:

1) Spotlight

Those approaching the “altar” during said calls are entering a “spotlight” where their virtues of humility, honesty, and sanctification are on full display. Where best to gain the admiration and respect of the congregation than to be seen walking down the aisles towards the altar, or worse to be seen as a persistent sinner with multitudes of defects that require you to be constantly throwing yourself before the “altar”.

2) Jesus + Anything = Nothing

One of the main pastoral issues I have is that modern Christianity has made coming to the “altar” a pre-requisite for salvation, a distinction absent from scripture. We see people in scripture believing and repenting everywhere and anywhere: on the road (Acts 8) and in their homes (Acts 2,10,16,18, 1 Cor 1). Not a singular reference to conversion or process of sanctification can be associated with the “altar” in the New Testament…period.

3) Who then should be called to the “altar”?

Taken by permission from a conversation with Pastor Chris Freeman from Columbus Baptist Church:

“All God's people are expected to respond to the Word of God. In other words all true believers should come to the altar every week. And if everyone must come, must any come?

A decision or choice on the part of a person is not what saves them. And even if it is, the Lord tells us to count the cost before taking up our cross and following Him. Pressuring someone to make a decision based on a message they just heard seems to cut against what the Lord has said. If someone should come uninvited and beg to repent would we not welcome them?

But to suggest to a person under conviction that the only way they can be saved is to walk an aisle is to put the aisle in the place of the new birth. It is to put the aisle in the place of faith. For only by grace through faith in Jesus can a man be saved. Walking an aisle adds nothing. And if it adds nothing…then it is unnecessary... why do it?”

CONCLUSION

My purpose in writing this work was to give evidence of man’s creation of the “anxious bench” and “altar call”. I do not believe them to be Biblical, historical, nor proper for use in a church that claims that the Word of God is the “sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.”

You may ask then “What do you believe Chris?”. I believe in a proclamation of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-7) that includes a call to Faith and Repentance (Mark 1:15, Acts 2:38,26:20,Rom 10:9, Phil 1:29, 2 Tim 2:25 ) that is clearly seen in scripture, preached by the Apostles, continued by the early church fathers, and continues today in every Bible preaching church that holds fast to the reality that God has revealed: Faith Alone, by Grace Alone, in Christ’s work Alone, revealed by Scripture Alone, all for the Glory of God…ALONE.

REFERENCES

1) https://www.dictionary.com/browse/altar

2) https://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-sacrifices.html

3) The Life of Flavius Josephus (p. 415-417)

4) https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=altar&t=NASB95&csr=9#s=s_primary_0_1

5) The Anxious Bench

John Williamson Nevin

6) A Brief History of the Altar Call

Thomas Kidd

7) Charles Finney and th Call

Gavin Ortland

8) Charles G. Finney The Architect of Modern Evangelism