Category: Evangelism

Quotes to Note 22: Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Altar Calls

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

When asked if Scripture justifies the use of public invitations (altar calls) or not, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones responded quite directly.

“The invitation should be in the message. We believe the Spirit applies the message, so we trust in the power of the Spirit….

…I feel that this pressure which is put upon people to come forward in decision ultimately is due to a lack of faith in the work and operation of the Holy Spirit. We are to preach the Word, and if we do it properly, there will be a call to a decision that comes in the message, and then we leave it to the Spirit to act upon people. And of course He does. Some may come immediately at the close of the service to see the minister. I think there should always be an indication that the minister will be glad to see anybody who wants to put questions to him or wants further help. But that is a very different thing from putting pressure upon people to come forward. I feel it is wrong to put pressure directly on the will. The order in Scripture seems to be this – the truth is presented to the mind, which moves the heart, and that in turn moves the will.”

You can read the entire response by Dr. Lloyd-Jones on this subject over at Banner of Truth [HT: Aaron Sauer]. Also be sure to check out a few posts I’ve done related to this issue, of the “altar call”:

J.C. Ryle on Revivalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

American Christianity in general, and Fundamentalism in particular has been greatly impacted by the Revivalist movement. J.C. Ryle, often hailed as the last of the great British Puritans, is perhaps best known for his book entitled Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots. In a chapter on “Counting the Cost”, he had some important things to say about the Revivalist movement. I find Ryle’s words quite helpful on this subject, especially as they are spoken by an orthodox, evangelical churchman looking on as Revivalism was beginning to sweep the known world.

Warning: the quote here is a bit long, but many of you will want to read the whole thing, I’m sure.

For want of “counting the cost,” the hearers of powerful evangelical preachers often come to miserable ends. They are stirred and excited into professing what they have not really experienced. They receive the Word with a “joy” so extravagant that it almost startles old Christians. They run for a time with such zeal and fervour that they seem likely to outstrip all others. They talk and work for spiritual objects with such enthusiasm that they make older believers feel ashamed. But when the novelty and freshness of their feelings is gone, a change comes over them. They prove to have been nothing more than stony-ground hearers. The description the great Master gives in the Parable of the Sower is exactly exemplified. “Temptation or persecution arises because of the Word, and they are offended” (Matt. 13:21). Little by little their zeal melts away, and their love becomes cold. By and by their seats are empty in the assembly of God’s people, and they are heard no more among Christians. And why? They had never “counted the cost.”

For want of “counting the cost,” hundreds of professed converts, under religious revivals, go back to the world after a time, and bring disgrace on religion. They begin with a sadly mistaken notion of what is true Christianity. They fancy it consists in nothing more than a so-called “coming to Christ,” and having strong inward feelings of joy and peace. And so, when they find, after a time, that there is a cross to be carried, that our hearts are deceitful, and that there is a busy devil always near us, they cool down in disgust, and return to their old sins. And why? Because they had really never known what Bible Christianity is. They had never learned that we must “count the cost.”* (the following long footnote is Ryle’s)

*I should be very sorry indeed if the language I have used above about revivals was misunderstood. To prevent this I will offer a few remarks by way of explanation.

For true revivals of religion no one can be more deeply thankful than I am. Wherever they may take place, and by whatever agents they may be effected, I desire to bless God for them, with all my heart. “If Christ is preached,” I rejoice, whoever may be the preacher. If souls are saved, I rejoice, by whatever section of the Church the word of life has been ministered.

But it is a melancholy fact that, in a world like this, you cannot have good without evil. I have no hesitation in saying, that one consequence of the revival movement has been the rise of a theological system which I feel obliged to call defective and mischievous in the extreme.

The leading feature of the theological system I refer to, is this: an extravagant and disproportionate magnifying of three points in religion,-viz., instantaneous conversion-the invitation of unconverted sinners to come to Christ,-and the possession of inward joy and peace as a test of conversion. I repeat that these three grand truths (for truths they are) are so incessantly and exclusively brought forward, in some quarters, that great harm is done.

Instantaneous conversion, no doubt, ought to be pressed on people. But surely they ought not to be led to suppose that there is no other sort of conversion, and that unless they are suddenly and powerfully converted to God, they are not converted at all.

The duty of coming to Christ at once, “just as we are,” should be pressed on all hearers. It is the very cornerstone of Gospel preaching. But surely men ought to be told to repent as well as to believe. They should be told why they are to come to Christ, and what they are to come for, and whence their need arises.

The nearness of peace and comfort in Christ should be proclaimed to men. But surely they should be taught that the possession of strong inward joys and high frames of mind is not essential to justification, and that there may be true faith and true peace without such very triumphant feelings. Joy alone is no certain evidence of grace.

The defects of the theological system I have in view appear to me to be these: (1) The work of the Holy Ghost in converting sinners is far too much narrowed and confined to one single way. Not all true converts are converted instantaneously, like Saul and the Philippian jailor. (2) Sinners are not sufficiently instructed about the holiness of God’s law, the depth of their sinfulness, and the real guilt of sin. To be incessantly telling a sinner to “come to Christ” is of little use, unless you tell him why he needs to come, and show him fully his sins. (3) Faith is not properly explained. In some cases people are taught that mere feeling is faith. In others they are taught that if they believe that Christ died for sinners they have faith! At this rate the very devils are believers! (4) The possession of inward joy and assurance is made essential to believing. Yet assurance is certainly not of the essence of saving faith. There may be faith when there is no assurance. To insist on all believers at once “rejoicing,” as soon as they believe, is most unsafe. Some, I am quite sure, will rejoice without believing, while others will believe who cannot at once rejoice. (5) Last, but not least, the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, and the absolute necessity of preventing grace, are far too much overlooked. Many talk as if conversions could be manufactured at man’s pleasure, and as if there were no such text as this, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” (Rom. 9:16.)

The mischief done by the theological system I refer to is, I am persuaded, very great. On the one hand, many humble-minded Christians are totally discouraged and daunted. They fancy they have no grace because they cannot reach up to the high frames and feelings which are pressed on their attention. On the other side, many graceless people are deluded into thinking they are “converted,” because under the pressure or animal excitement and temporary feelings they arc led to profess themselves Christians. And all this time the thoughtless and ungodly look on with contempt, and rind fresh reasons for neglecting religion altogether.

The antidotes to the state of things I deplore are plain and few. (1) Let “all the counsel of God be taught” in Scriptural proportion; and let not two or three precious doctrines of the Gospel be allowed to overshadow all other truths. (2) Let repentance be taught fully as well as faith, and not thrust completely into the background. Our Lord Jesus Christ and St. Paul always taught both. (3) Let the variety of the Holy Ghost’s works be honestly stated and admitted; and while instantaneous conversion is pressed on men, let it not be taught as a necessity. (4) Let those who profess to have found immediate sensible peace be plainly warned to try themselves well, and to remember that feeling is not faith, and that “patient continuance in well-doing” is the great proof that faith is true. (Rom. 2:7; John 8:31.) (5) Let the great duty of “counting the cost” be constantly urged on all who are disposed to make a religious profession, and let them be honestly and fairly told that there is warfare as well as peace, a cross as well as a crown, in Christ’s service.

I am sure that unhealthy excitement is above all things to be dreaded In religion, because it often ends in fatal, soul-ruining reaction and utter deadness. And when multitudes are suddenly brought under the power of religious impressions, unhealthy excitement is almost sure to follow.

I have not much faith in the soundness of conversions when they are said to take places in masses and wholesale. It does not seem to me in harmony with God’s general dealings in this dispensation. To my eyes it appears that God’s ordinary plan is to call in individuals one by one. Therefore, when I hear of large numbers being suddenly converted all at one time, I hear of it with less hope than some. The healthiest and most enduring success in mission fields is certainly not where natives have come over to Christianity in a mass, as recent events have shown in New Zealand. The most satisfactory and firmest work at home does not always appear to me to be the work done in revivals.

There are two passages of Scripture which I should like to have frequently and fully expounded in the present day by all who preach the Gospel, and specially by those who have anything to do with revivals. One passage is the parable of the sower, That parable is not recorded three times over without good reason and a deep meaning.-The other passage is our Lord’s teaching about “counting the cost,” and the words which He spoke to the “great multitudes” whom He saw following Him. It is very noteworthy that He did not on that occasion say anything to flatter these volunteers or encourage them to follow Him. No: He saw what their case needed. He told them to stand still and “count the cost.” (Luke 14:25, etc.) I am not sure that some modern preachers would have adopted this course of treatment. (pg. 88-91 of the 2001 Grace Books International edition)

Do you agree or disagree? I think even Ryle would be surprised at how far these tendencies of the Revivalist movement would go. He would be dumbfounded by “free grace” theology or the gospel which turns conversion into such a “moment in time” that it’s compared to a tattoo which one can regret moments later and yet still be stuck with, no matter what.

I encourage you to read Ryle’s entire book online. Or you can pick up a copy of Holiness for yourself.

“Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community” by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

Go or Send? How Best to “Do Church”

My pal William Dudding over at Reforming Baptist, has a great post examining the missional model of church growth. He bristles at that term for it’s cutting-edge, postmodern feel (even while others would complain it’s over-used and much abused). I respect Will all the more, for posting a couple video clips of Mark Driscoll talking about this, because if you know Will, he is very much not a Mark Driscoll fan. We can learn from anyone, however, and it takes humility and sincerity to admit that.

I agree with the main point of Will’s post, that attracting people to a church with it’s programs is not the NT model for “doing church”. Rather than sending people to our church, we should be going to where the people are and reaching them. We should gather as believers to be built up, edified, and most of all to worship Christ together. We then leave the assembly to take Christ to the lost all around us.

How do we do this effectively, however? How can I get my own self to open my mouth boldly and also to compassionately interact with the people God has placed in my life? These are the questions Will brings up, and which demand answers.

I think we need to get creative, and make sure our church activities don’t sap us of any time and strength left to think missionally of our own neighborhoods and communities. We need to envision ourselves as missionaries to the places we live.

God ultimately has to guide us and empower our ministry, but there are strategies which may enhance our effectiveness in God’s mission. One of the tools and methods that I most believe could work, has also been ignored by the wider church. In fact I still haven’t come to a place where I have liberty to attempt this (or is it just plain ol’ courage I lack?).

I’m talking about using small groups as home church-meetings, in a sense. We can invite people to come to these smaller meetings where we are more open and real and less “church-ly”. We can let the lost see how Christianity is lived out in our homes and how it radically shapes our outlook. I look in vain to the New Testament for a one-man-gets-up-to-speak-while-the-thousand-congregants-sit-down-to-listen-quietly model of church teaching and preaching. I see believers interacting with one another, teachers interrupting each other as God gives them a word, and prophets judging the prophets in a vibrant, lively way.

I’m a little leery of changing things up too drastically, however. We have hundreds of years of tradition, not to mention the fact that preaching can be very effective in people’s lives. So what about some kind of mix between an emphasis on home groups (where evangelism and discipleship can happen, and where gifted teachers can exercise their gifts) and corporate gatherings of the entire church for preaching and extended worship?

This kind of model is described in detail, in a book I gobbled up a while back, called Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis. In the book they talk about living with gospel intentionality. They show how an emphasis on community is encouraged in Scripture. They see evangelism as a three-fold cord: building relationships, sharing the gospel, and introducing people to community (by means of the home groups). All the while, they encourage the Gospel and the Word to stay central. But they also encourage community involvement, and meeting social needs in the name of Christ.

The benefits of the emphasis on home groups is that church planting becomes easier. Training and discipleship can happen while people are ministering in home settings, and seeing ministry modeled up close and personal. Furthermore, the togetherness that this model fosters, aids in purity and spiritual growth, as we really can’t become holy by ourselves, nor were we expected to (think Heb. 3:12-14).

Total Church does have some radical ideas, but I appreciated how they connected everything to the gospel. It’s a book I’ll be picking up again, as I continue sorting out how best we should do church for God’s glory, our growth, and the eternal benefit of the lost around us.

Does this make sense? Am I missing some important problems with this idea? Anyone else thinking along these lines? I’d love your feedback here, or over on Will’s post where they’re discussing this too.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com or through Crossway direct.

Flexibility, Church Planting and Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Steve Davis has an intriguing article on church planting over at Sharper Iron. I will quote the first part of his article then encourage you to go read the whole thing.

Left Behind: The Apparent Absence of Fundamentalists in Resurgent Church Planting
by Steve Davis

While Fundamentalists often noisily do battle over issues important mostly to their sub-culture, there is a battlefield where Fundamentalists are conspicuous by their absence. There has been a resurgence in church planting in North America and few Fundamentalist churches have answered the call. The names of leaders in this resurgence are well-known and include Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Bob Roberts, and Ed Stetzer, to name a few. Whatever Fundamentalists think of these men, let there be no doubt that they are engaged in the most noble of tasks””the Great Commission””on a scale rarely seen and in cities which, with some notable exceptions, have been long abandoned by solid, Bible-believing churches. These leaders are not without their foibles, and controversy often surrounds or follows some of them. That said, it must be asked if there are any church planting movements in Fundamentalism with the depth and breadth of what is taking place in conservative evangelical circles.

Recently I attended a conference on church planting where several thousand active or prospective church planters and their wives were in attendance. Admittedly the presenters and attendees were from diverse evangelical backgrounds, a blessing in many ways in witnessing the diversity and unity of the body of Christ. Many in attendance could not plant churches together, a fact they recognized, due to doctrinal differences that are at the heart of one’s understanding of the nature the local church. One speaker, a prominent Southern Baptist leader, expressed his friendship with and admiration for Tim Keller, yet confessed that they could not plant a church together. There would be an immediate conflict over needing a bowl or a bathtub to baptize the first convert. Yet in spite of obvious differences and the inability to partner in church planting there was a laudable spirit of cooperation to help others plant churches by providing training, mentoring, and access to resources.

Why not?

We cannot partner with anyone or everyone to plant churches. But planting churches is not an option. It is a matter of obedience. If fundamental churches are lagging in this area they need to ask themselves why. The neglect of church planting is flagrant and perhaps nothing will hasten the demise of Fundamentalism more quickly than the inability or unwillingness of Fundamentalists to be engaged in this work. Alas, church planting requires cooperation and networking, rare commodities among many Fundamentalists, among whom the spirit of independence and individualism persists, and few churches have the resources to go it alone. In addition, churches must recognize that the churches they plant may not be a mirror image of the sending and supporting churches, an unacceptable condition and consequence for many churches.

Some of the reasons for the lack of church planting movements in Fundamentalism were addressed in an earlier article and won’t be repeated here. In this article I would like to expand on those earlier thoughts and raise some questions.

I will offer this opinion up front. Most traditional churches cannot reproduce themselves….

[read the entire article]

Charles Finney, Ergun Caner & Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

Most of you have probably heard of the Ergun Caner scandal. Caner, a dynamic speaker, was dean of Liberty University until recently. He came under fire for making self-contradictory statements about his past. He was raised Muslim and it seems that after 9/11/2001 his memories about his past changed in a dramatic fashion. I haven’t been following the scandal all that closely, but there must be truth to it as Liberty deposed him from his position as dean (although they keep him on as a professor, still).

Anyway, Tom Chantry of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Milwaukee, put out a series of articles in which he set the Caner story in a wider context of evangelicalism’s ills. The posts which most caught my attention centered on Charles Finney and his legacy left to evangelicalism. Chantry views Caner as being a step-child of Finney’s in a sense. Caner’s appeal and widespread acceptance could only have happened in a post-Finney evangelical world.

The reason I’m including fundamentalism in this post, is I believe Chantry’s comments about how Finney shaped evangelicalism apply equally to fundamentalism. In this post I’m going to summarize Chantry’s 3 posts and quote extensively from the last post. I would encourage you to read the entire series however and study out the issue of Charles Finney even further, if you haven’t already.

Encountering Finney

In the first post, Chantry describes his horror of reading through much of Finney’s systematic theology book in school. He was absolutely stunned that someone who believed in a works-oriented salvation scheme to appease an angry god could be accepted as a Christian minister worth emulating. That will sound incredulous if you haven’t heard of Finney’s aberrant theology before. Apparently his theology has been edited down through the years but even still, it is readily apparent that he denied substitutionary atonement. Along the way, according to Chantry, he redefined such fundamental terms as “faith” and “justification”. For more on Finney’s bad theology, read this piece by Phil Johnson.

Charles Finney’s Step-children

In the next piece, we learn how Finney became so influential among evangelicals (who could never be the true children of Finney as they would never accept his godless theology of self-reformation). I appreciate Chantry’s care to distinguish true evangelicals from Finney and his belief that many who revere Finney have been mislead and themselves are genuinely Christian. We learn how it was the methodology of Finney which was most revered, even though those who used it should have looked into the theology behind that methodology. I have previously written of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism through his invention of the altar call. Chantry confirms my research that the altar call seemed to originate from Finney.

…And Finney Begat Caner…

Chantry’s third installment (and I believe one more is coming this week), centers on the connection between Finney and Caner. Caner again would only be a step-child not a true child of Finney. Chantry points out how evangelicalism as a whole has been primed to recieve characters like Caner. I will now quote from the third article at some length.

Without Finney, there could have been no Caner. The reason is that Finney’s influence has created an atmosphere within the Evangelical church in which Caner’s style of preaching, and indeed his multiple deceptions, might flourish.

I have argued that the Caner scandal belongs to all evangelicals. His behavior is a reflection on the state of the evangelical church at large, and we must all take ownership of what has happened. What exactly is the state of post-Finney Evangelicalism, and how has it allowed for the likes of Ergun Caner?

After introducing things, Chantry goes on to discuss several characteristics of Evangelicalism that are Finney’s legacy and also apply to Caner’s appeal.

Evangelical Manipulation

Finney’s manipulation consisted of the “artful, unfair, and insidious” control of the emotional state of his hearers in order to bring about a “decision” which was anything but. We make decisions when we decide to take a certain course of action, generally after thoughtful consideration. Finney’s “decision” had nothing to do with thought. His hearers were whipped into a terror over the thought of hell. This sudden emotional state was a work of Finney’s art, and he knew how to mold it into a decision to follow God. He utilized every form of pressure to bring about the desired end.

Over the years evangelists have learned that other emotions can be equally well utilized to bring about a decision. Various moral crusaders have capitalized upon a manufactured sense of outrage, while missions promoters have made an equally good use of pity. Often these tactics are aimed at producing a donation, but there is no reason why they cannot be turned to the purposes of Finneyite evangelist as well.

Any emotion will do, provided that the speaker can stoke that emotion into flames and that he has the skill to turn it in whichever direction he chooses.

He goes on to show how Caner’s sensational comments about his Muslim heritage were an attempt to manipulate crowds for a positive end. Evangelists do similar things all the time in evangelicalism, and especially in Fundamentalism. Tear-jerking stories, sensational yarns, missionary stories that raise the hair on the back of your neck… I’ve seen and heard them all.

Evangelical Entertainment

As Finneyism first spread, a dramatic shift in worship services began. Finney looked to bring about decisions by whatever means were available. As a result, services began to become more dramatic. The mentality of doing whatever it took to draw in crowds began to take hold around the country. Music was used in a new way in churches – to entertain rather than to worship.

We know the circus atmosphere which this mentality has bred in the modern church. No spectacle is too outrageous if it can have the outcome of making sinners more open to “making a decision for Jesus.” This is perhaps Finney’s enduring legacy in the church. Thanks to his methods, the exemplary pastor is no longer so much a shepherd or a teacher as he is an entertainer.

Again, we can see how Finney paved the way for an Ergun Caner to rise to prominence within the church. Many have observed that he is essentially a stand-up comic. His sermons are long on humorous anecdotes and short on doctrinal truth. One listens to his sermons and can easily imagine a “preacher” who has to go home and “come up with some new material” before he goes out on tour again. In Caner’s case that has meant a steady diet of racial stereotypes and soft ethnic slurs. He can refer to his wedding as “The Godfather meets the Beverly Hillbillies” and everyone has someone to laugh at.

It ought to be hard to figure out what this sort of talk has to do with gospel preaching, but in modern Evangelicalism we can all too easily imagine. Preachers are not thought effective unless they keep their congregation laughing. Those who listen to Caner’s more outrageous pulpit moments may wonder why the churches have put up with him. The answer is that he is truly funny. Most people couldn’t say the things he says and get a laugh, but he is a gifted comedian. In the post-Finney evangelical culture, gifted comedians always have a place in the pulpit.

Again, pulpit antics and over-the-top humor are things I’ve repeatedly observed in many sectors of fundamentalism too. It makes sense that this emphasis on style (anyone remember Billy Sunday?) flows out of a Finneyesque evangelicalism.

Evangelical Growth

If the entertainment-driven services of the modern church are not Finney’s great legacy, then it certainly must be the numbers-mania which now dominates our evaluation of evangelists. Finney thrived on the number of decisions made at his meetings. He counted his converts and published the numbers. There were no other criteria on which Finney could have become popular – let alone a sensation – within the Christian world. Ever since, Christians have been rating evangelists based upon the numbers they produce.

This part ties in to Caner in that his dramatic work at increasing student enrollment has in part justified keeping him at Liberty. Anyone familiar with fundamentalism, especially the Jack Hyles wing of the movement, knows numbers are everything.

Evangelical Relativism

But there is more. Finney, the prophet of moralism, fostered an insidious relativism in the church.

Finney’s theology was man-centered in more ways than one. While it is true that his theology began with God as the moral governor of the universe, his concern with morality was entirely what it said about the future condition of man. He did not concern himself overmuch with the glory of God…. It is not surprising that within his moral system any action may be justified so long as it results in a sinner deciding to follow God. Finney’s approach to evangelism crystallized this relativism; the end of conversion justified the means of manipulative and often blasphemous evangelism….

Today’s evangelists are unlikely to be given a pass if they seek to accomplish the expansion of the kingdom through adultery. There is, however, one sin which is always forgiven. Evangelists may always lie. Any lie is justifiable when it is told for the sake of winning the lost to Christ.

I grew up in a Reformed enclave isolated from the shenanigans of modern evangelists, so I can never forget the first altar call I ever saw from a Finneyite practitioner. Right after he told everyone to bow his head and close his eyes (I didn’t) he told a lie: “I’m not going to ask you to come up front.” It wasn’t just a lie; it was a dumb lie. Even I could tell that the only reason he said it was because he was about to start asking folks to come up front.

Having told one lie, the evangelist got on a roll. He said he just wanted people to raise their hands so that he could pray for them. I sat in the back of that crowded church and watched a sea of heads bowed while the preacher began to call out, “You over there on the right, I’m praying for you! And you, sister, down here in front, I’m praying for you!” Except no one – and I do mean no one – was raising his hand. The man just couldn’t stop lying! Of course as soon as everyone was convinced that they wouldn’t be the first to raise a hand, hands started flying up all over the room. Then he made those poor, deluded people come up front.

The man lied, didn’t he? Broke a commandment? Did what even our smallest children know to be a major sin? It seemed so to me, and it ought to seem so to every Christian. Yet it does not. Within the evangelical culture what he did was perfectly understandable. He got people to the front of the church, and numbers are what matters.

I’m sure many of you, like me, can identify with Chantry and his observations about this altar call experience. Evangelists stretch the truth to get decisions, and ultimately numbers.

This post went a little long, but I wanted to highlight these various aspects of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism. Ultimately he impacted fundamentalism too. I believe fundamentalists of today are waking up to the errors of Finney. I hope future generations will see a more careful evangelicalism too.