DJW, Altar Calls & Gospel Preaching

I reproducing the reasons from Preaching & Preachers that Martyn Lloyd-Jones used to explain why he did not regularly practice altar calls. As I've stated earlier, some misunderstand a lack of altar calls as an apathy for soul winning. It's important to understand reasons why ML-J resisted this newer (relatively) practice. Reasons 1 & 2, Reason 3, Reasons 4 & 5, Reason 6, Reason 7, Reasons 8 & 9 and Reason 10 have already been addressed.

I don't presume to be on any level comparable to Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I completely agree with all 10 (well, 9) of his reasons. Yet, I'd like to add one more reason that ML-J did quite address. (Perhaps we can pretend it was the elusive number eight).

Altar calls diminish the need for clear gospel preaching.

At first, this seems counterintuative. Messages that are followed with altar calls are typically considered quite evangelistic. However, many times, the sermon itself is not evangelistic, but simply the altar call is.

I remember listening live to the "pastor" of America's largest "church." As he waxed on about Christians having better fuel economy, surrounding ourselves with more positive people and overcoming obstacles, he completely neglected any mentions of Christ, the cross, sin or grace. His "sermon" did not deal with man's depravity, God's righteousness or the great exchange. No mention was made of heaven or hell or even life beyond the grave. Not only did the message lack biblical accuracy, but it's complete avoidance of the gospel prevented even a remote assessment of it being evangelistic.

However, then came his altar call. As he called people to stand and act, he then laid out certain terms (yes, he called for action before he even explained toward what). Within the altar call, he then spoke of sin, Christ, the cross...he even uttered the word "repentance." Suddenly, he's got a group of people standing and responding to a message that seems to include elements of the gospel.

But would Paul simply rejoice that the gospel was preached? Shouldn't we just celebrate that elements of the gospel were present?

Well, techinically, the gospel was not preached. The gospel was given a brief moment. The gospel was quickly presented. The details of the gospel were shared, but it was not preached. In essence, an altar call can often allow us to mop up the damage from a message that was not centered on the cross. However, because people were challenged to trust Jesus, most would never think to examine the message. Consider some of the problems if the gospel is not made clear until and altar call:

1. Again, the sermon and altar call become two separate entities. The "action" does not even derive from the sermon.

2. The gospel is given very short treatment. It is not developed over the course of the message, but handled quickly at the end.

3. The challenge becomes only immediate and introductory.

4. The gospel challenge appears to be severed from the text which was preached.

5. Any action/challenge given during the sermon is separated from the gospel. To call people to action outside of understanding the gospel is legalism.

My experience has been that messages with altar calls typically to do not call upon the sinner to repent until during the altar call. Proper preaching requires that the call be rooted in the gospel. This call should come the whole time as the preacher is working through the text.

To return back to the question of Paul...Yes, I think he would rejoice whenever the gospel is preached. But when it is actually preached, an altar call is not necessary.