|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Going Forward
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Or "coming forward", or the "altar call", or the "invitation system".
I grew up in mainstream Methodism, was introduced to evangelicalism and evangelical evangelism through a Billy Graham crusade, and "went forward" at a gospel call soon afterward at the age of ten.
For years I thought that this was the normal way of getting saved, being converted, becoming a Christian.
Gradually I came to realise that it was not in the Bible, and that though there were antecedents of sorts in evangelists such as Finney, Moody and Sunday, it only emerged as "normal" with the Billy Graham phenomenon of the mid-twentieth century.
That being said, I should also say that I don't doubt that it has resulted in countless genuine conversions, despite its dubious provenance.
It doesn't seem to be as common these days.
Any thoughts on it, or personal experiences of it?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I was scared into it as a child at a summer camp. It reminds me today more than 50 years later of coming out of a movie which I fell asleep for part of, and didn't understand the bits I was awake for. My response is along the lines of "what just happened?", and "did I really do that?".
I think there's a certain amount of being swept up in a group and possibly brainwashing in some situations, in addition to the possible creation of deadly fear in some situations of going directly to hell where they'll really really hurt you. I have distrusted country gospel music ever since my childhood experience. Frankly I didn't get how getting washed in blood made someone clean, having been present for deer being shot and butchered, with difficulty after getting the blood out from under the fingernails.
I distrust these sorts of experiences in general, find Billy Graham's son Franklin an obnoxious prick, which taints, for me, anything daddy might have done. Like father like son?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I tend to pin-point my own conversion to a particular evening alone in my bedroom when I summoned the resolve to tell my student house-mates that instead of denying Christ, I would accept Him ...
However, I now see that as part of a longer process that had been going on for many years previously.
I subsequently became involved with a church that was very hot on 'altar calls' and I became very sceptical - partly because most apparent 'converts' very quickly fell away and partly because my own conversion wasn't 'induced' that way. I began to read rather Calvinist, Banner of Truth style material which also took a dim view of what it called 'Finneyism' and the emotionally manipulative tactics considered to be part of the process.
Now, nearly 35 years on, I would still consider that some genuine and lasting conversions can and do take place by these means.
I don't know whether the 'going forward' thing is as common as it used to be - but I tend to think it's more a feature of classic Pentecostalism these days rather than evangelicalism more broadly.
Essentially, it's by their fruits ... I'm no longer so inclined to look for evidence of particular experiences or ways of coming to faith - but that doesn't mean I'd repudiate or deny the validity of these things where they do occur.
I don't tend to use the 'being saved' language so much these days either - I tend to see these things as more process than crisis - but it's apparent that the crisis thing does happen in many people's lives.f
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I can't pin my conversion to a year, even, let alone a date--which makes me highly suspect in certain people's eyes! But I'm glad of it, as it stops me fetishizing a particular experience or demanding that other people have it to, so as to be "real Christians."
I once worked in a bookstore where a young Asian girl came in wanting a Bible and got sent to me (the token Christian). She told me she believed everything, but wasn't a Christian yet. Confused, I said, "Do you believe..." and ran through the Apostles' Creed. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. "So what do you mean, you're not a Christian?" "I haven't walked down the aisle yet," says she.
I said, "I don't know how to tell you this, but you ARE a Christian already, and now you need to go get yourself baptized somewhere." She lit up like the sun, she was so excited. We talked about where she might go, and she left.
I was so honored to be able to tell her that.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday:
Others will give their opinions (mostly negative, I expect), but I'm just curious as to why you as a boy thought it necessary to go through this process when you were already a Christian - a Methodist? Why did you or the people who took you even attend the event if Methodism was sufficient?
The issue, ISTM, is that at some point in history cradle Christians (including John Wesley himself) decided that they wanted more from their faith than the usual routine. The altar call both fed on and stimulated that sense of dissatisfaction.
For me, the interesting question is whether the British people would have been satisfied with their churches if the altar call and all that it represents in evangelical history had never existed. Would you have quietly remained a Methodist if you'd never heard of Billy Graham? Would British Christianity be more united and robust if John Wesley's spiritual descendants in the USA hadn't tapped into whatever it was that was making people feel uneasy? Maybe the traditional clergy could have kept a lid on things if people's spiritual unease didn't have this sort of outlet. Or maybe it was all inevitable.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
find Billy Graham's son Franklin an obnoxious prick, which taints, for me, anything daddy might have done. Like father like son?
You rather appear to be asserting "like son like father" - that you don't like Franklin Graham, and therefore there must be something wrong with his father!
It might well be that neither father nor son are above reproach, but I'm not sure that the same can be said about your logic.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Like LC and Gamaliel, I have long since come to realise that most conversion processes are untidy and protracted and unanalysable, and that cleancut, identifiable, crisis conversions are very rare.
Having a date and time when you "went forward" gave you the opportunity to pinpoint your conversion with some specificity, despite all the many important and relevant aspects that normally preceded and followed it.
Back in the early eighteenth century Jonathan Edwards noted this tendency to retrospectively tidy up personal salvation experiences.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think there have been three different sorts of situations I've been at where people have been invited forward.
1. At big evangelistic rallies. These were times when I felt this was least appropriate. First because there was some element of emotional manipulation. But, also because there was an element of "public declaration of faith" in the way it was described ... and, there is actually something quite private in being one of hundreds going forward. For virtually everyone I've known who has gone forward at such events who is still a Christian they now acknowledge that as a step on a journey to faith - in some cases a final step, more often a step earlier in the process.
2. At smaller evangelistic events, mostly run by university CUs or by organisations passing through a town invited by several local churches. In these cases, although there has still been an element of conversion the feeling has been different. For a start, whether a CU or a mission organisation, the organisers recognise that they are not a church and though they can help disciple people ultimately the best place for people to make a public declaration of faith is within the context of a local church - either through baptism or some renewal of baptismal promises. Usually the call has been of the form of "if you have questions about what you've heard, want to learn more, want to talk to someone about something, want someone to pray for you, there are some people up near the front you can talk to. Come forward now, or after the event has finished"
3. Services at individual churches. In this situation the size of the meeting being (usually) smaller and often in the context of the regular worship of the church the call is quite different. Usually, it's actually a call for people to come forward for prayer for healing, or if they feel there is something specific in their life they need to repent of. A relatively low-key approach, and one not of conversion but of helping people along their walk with the Lord.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Altar calls were used a lot in the church where I grew up. Sometimes at the end of a regular church service, if the pastor felt "moved" to "make a call," but invariably at the end of evangelistic services, when we were specifically angling for converts.
I always found them intensely uncomfortable, particularly those that were couched in such vague terms that you weren't sure whether you were the target or not. "If you've never given your heart to Jesus, come forward now" -- that was pretty straightforward, and was presumably a one-and-done. "If you haven't been baptized and would like to prepare for baptism" -- similarly straightforward. But it was the tendency of pastors in my youth to broaden the call as the minutes dragged on, presumably in hopes of getting more people on their feet or down at the front of the church. "If you feel the call to re-commit your life to the Lord," "If you've fallen away and He's calling you to come back," or even, "If you want to give yourself 100% to Jesus" (designed to catch even those who had not fallen away, because we could ALWAYS give more, couldn't we?) made people (me, anyway) squirm in our seats, wondering what God expected, and perhaps even more, what the pastor and other members of the congregation expected. If I stay sitting, does that mark me out as a rebel? If I get up, am I confessing to some hideous sin that requires re-committment? What's the expectation here?
Combined with this was the vast machinery of emotional manipulation accompanying altar calls, particularly the soft organ or piano music playing something like "All To Jesus I Surrender," or "Softly and Tenderly Jesus is Calling," coupled with blatantly emotional appeals (including the classic, "If you got hit by a bus on your way home tonight, can you be SURE you would spend eternity in heaven with Jesus? Are you CERTAIN of your salvation??"). I recall one preacher who kept the congregation on their knees for forty-five minutes ("Now, while every head is bowed and every eye is closed ... only God can see who is standing..." but of course we were all peeking, praying a few people would stand so he could end the call and we could get home ....)
Suffice it to say I have a LOT of memories of altar calls and most of them are not good ones.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
find Billy Graham's son Franklin an obnoxious prick, which taints, for me, anything daddy might have done. Like father like son?
You rather appear to be asserting "like son like father" - that you don't like Franklin Graham, and therefore there must be something wrong with his father!
It might well be that neither father nor son are above reproach, but I'm not sure that the same can be said about your logic.
Billy hasn't seemed to be intolerant like son Frank, but I recall Billy talking about how he couldn't question or he'd lose his faith. Stupid, and in an intellectual line with some of the worst trends and politicians in his country. His grandson did the usual sex scandal.
[ 21. October 2015, 01:19: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
His grandson did the usual sex scandal.
OK, so now we've moved from blaming Billy Graham for his son to blaming him for his grand-son.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think there may be points where it would be reasonable to criticise Billy (and Franklin) Graham for aspects of their ministry and teaching. But, to attack them over the actions of their children and grandchildren seems to be unfair. At best it's a statement that they were not perfect parents; well, I'm certainly not going to be among the first to pick up stones if someone is to be accused of imperfect parenting, and I didn't have the misfortune to try and be a good parent within the context of running a very public ministry.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
It was standard in various Pentecostal meetings I went to as a kid in the 80s. Looking back, and reading what's been read above, the "going forward to the altar to get something for my salvation" and "public declaration of commitment to Jesus" sound like versions of the sacraments of the Eucharist and Baptism.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, I think there is a tendancy in some groups to treat "coming forward" sacramentally (ironically, probably more so among those who consider the Sacraments as Ordinances).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
("Now, while every head is bowed and every eye is closed ... only God can see who is standing..." but of course we were all peeking, praying a few people would stand so he could end the call and we could get home ....)
I heard about one evangelist who, when he thought every head was bowed and every eye closed, was observed by someone who was "peeking" to whip out a comb and restore his coiffure.
There was also some dodgy exegesis.
There is an obscure verse of uncertain Hebrew in Genesis 6 which, in the AV, begins "My Spirit shall not always strive with man...", which was quoted during appeals to warn that anyone who resisted any impulse to "go forward" might reject their last chance of salvation.
[ 21. October 2015, 03:34: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I remember a long time ago KenWritez asked what the services were like in churches that didn't have an altar call every Sunday.
I was startled.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Where I am now we have an altar call every Sunday, the Pastor invites us forward to receive the body and blood of Christ.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
In our church, the Bread and Wine come to the congregation! (Pretty standard nonconformist practice except in Methodism).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Anything can become 'sacralised' over time and one of the reasons, I suspect, that the altar-call thing gained in popularity was because Protestantism had largely taken the 'physical' aspect out of church services and replaced it with a largely cerebral response ... you simply sang some songs or Psalms and then sat and listened to someone preaching.
To an extent, the whole 'come forward' thing may have been an attempt to redress that by giving people something to 'do' - some kind of physical action to demonstrate intent of purpose. Although that's clearly an over-simplification.
My own experience of people who have 'gone forward' in acts of public 'commitment' and so forth is that they would probably have stayed the course, got involved with church and come to faith anyway ... they were there because they wanted to be there and knew people there etc etc.
Of course, there are exceptions to that general rule.
In the circles I moved in they did as Trudy described, and started stretching things so that there was always something you could respond to or some category in which you found yourself ...
Kaplan's not addressed SvitlanaV2's query about why he 'went forward' in the first place. There could be all sorts of reasons and being 10 years old and impressionable might be among them - but that doesn't denigrate or nullify his experience ... it could well have acted as a catalyst for his conversion.
The thing is, even cradle-Christians, as it were, have to own and acknowledge their faith for themselves at some point or other - and how that's done varies across the various traditions. For some it will be confirmation in a sacramental sense, for others it will responding in some way at an evangelistic rally - for others it might happen alone in their room or on a country walk - C S Lewis always said that for him it was the top-deck of a double-decker bus ...
I don't tend to tie myself in knots these days trying to identify at what particular point someone came to faith ... whether it was always there and nascent or whether it was some kind of Damascus Road thing.
An Anglican vicar I once met put it very well, I thought. When you're learning to swim you're often unconscious of the precise point when your foot leaves the bottom of the pool or the sand beneath the sea ... but you gradually become aware that you're moving through the water and propelling yourself along. The point isn't when or where your foot lifted from the floor of the pool but the fact that you're propelling yourself forward using your arms and legs to make swimming movements.
Same as riding a bike. We might not be aware of the exact moment when a parent's or friend's hand leaves the saddle and we find ourselves pedalling ... but we're pedalling ...
I've read almost as many variations as to dates, times, ages and seasons when John Wesley was actually converted as there are pages in his Journal. He seems himself to have dated it differently in various stages of his life. The point, of course, wasn't when it happened but that it did happen ...
'The wind bloweth where it listeth ...'
Incidentally, Kaplan will correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't take his account to imply that he was converted 'out' of Methodism but within Methodism ... although he evidently moved on to the Brethren at some point.
Evangelicals would say, of course, that their conversion experiences don't necessarily represent their 'becoming a Methodist' or a Baptist or a Pentecostal or a Plymouth Brother or whatever else - it's about them becoming Christians ... the denominational or sectarian identity is secondary to that. If you are an evangelical Christian you are an evangelical Christian pre-eminently - and then one who happens to belong to the Anglican / Baptist / Pentecostal / Methodist / Brethren / Salvation Army ... or whatever else church ...
A conversion experience such as Kaplan's isn't primarily about not being satisfied with Methodism or Anglicanism or any other church system.
I wasn't attached to any church when I had my evangelical conversion experience - although I'd grown up nominally Anglican. After my conversion, I started looking for a church to attend ... initially my nearest, which happened to be Methodist ... but with occasional visits elsewhere until I gravitated towards a charismatic Anglican one where lots of people from the Christian Union went - and from there into the independent charismatic evangelical 'restorationist' scene.
My conversion wasn't about my becoming a Methodist or a Baptist or even renewing my boyhood Anglicanism necessarily ... at least that's not how I understood it at that time nor is it how I understand it now, as post-evangelical as I might be at times.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Apologies for the double-post, the other thing to say, of course, is that not all evangelicals go in for 'altar-calls' and 'going forward' tactics ... many (if not most) of the more Calvinistic evangelicals tend not to ... although there has been a loosening up on that in some quarters.
Equally, 'mainstream Methodism' and evangelicalism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I've met plenty of mainstream Methodist ministers and lay-preachers who've had an evangelical conversion experience of some kind - yet without it taking them into another denomination or church setting.
My guess would be that this is more common in the Midlands and north of England - and possibly in the extremities, such as Cornwall and Cumbria - rather than Methodism 'down south' and in Wales. When I was an earnest young evangelical in South Wales if we ever encountered a Methodist our initial assumption would have been that they weren't 'saved' - in the way we would have understood and applied the term ...
When I lived in Yorkshire I was often struck by how many evangelical Methodists I came across - and within mainstream Methodism too, not only in the independent Methodist groups that existed up there.
FWIW, my 'take' on these things now is more that they can mark some kind of catalyst or act as a rite of passage as it were, in helping people to own and articulate their faith - or realise it in some way. They don't necessarily mark a nice, neat, definable moment when that person 'passed from death to life' as it were or were 'regenerated' to use evangelical parlance. That may have happened already, the public declaration or the warm fuzzy feelings in a church meeting may simply be one of the 'symptoms' surrounding that ... and although we need symptoms to make a diagnosis, the symptoms themselves can sometimes be side-effects ...
Ultimately, God knows people's hearts and we can't always tell from outward appearances or particular actions. If people find it helpful to 'go forward' or to 'raise their hand' or whatever else, that's fine ... the problems only start when we get overly prescriptive - as Lamb Chopped has identified ... 'But I haven't walked down the aisle yet ....'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I suppose I ought to re-read this more carefully to pull out what your main point is, but in official terms, a Methodist (etc.) is already a Christian, and therefore doesn't need to attend an evangelical rally held by another denomination in order to finish off the job, as it were.
Putting aside the emotionality of it, the only logical reason for going through this process is because you don't think you're already a 'proper' or a complete Christian. IOW, you feel that something (and something rather important) is indeed missing from your Methodist experience, as I said.
If we don't approve of altar calls then we need some way of helping 'mainstream' churches to enable their people to enter a new stage in their spiritual lives and affirm that they actually are Christians spiritually as well as officially. Confirmation used to serve this purpose in some denominations, but it seems to be a busted flush as a concept. In several European countries confirmation marks the end of one's active participation in religious matters, rather than the beginning of an invigorated life of faith.
[ 21. October 2015, 14:47: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Oh, and I am aware of those evangelical Methodists up North! I wonder how they're doing these days? I wonder if their churches have their own altar calls, or if they have some sort of alternative.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If we don't approve of altar calls then we need some way of helping 'mainstream' churches to enable their people to enter a new stage in their spiritual lives and affirm that they actually are Christians spiritually as well as officially. Confirmation used to serve this purpose in some denominations, but it seems to be a busted flush as a concept.
In churches which practice Believers' Baptism the act of baptism can (and IMO should) provide this function.
BTW I find it amusing that the churches which practice "altar calls" usually don't have altars!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Perhaps it is unfair to blame the Graham clan for the evangelical unquestioning altar call shtick, but like blaming Ronald Reagan for neoliberal economic policies and Judas for betraying Jesus, I do blame the Grahams for popularizing the practice: I also think their unquestioning and nonintrospective approach to life inevitably sets up the kind of misbehaviour of the grandson and priciples-before-people damaging intolerance of the son.
Further, in addition to my own foul experience when young with this practice, one of my children had nightmares after a summer camp experience of the same. I think it is totally unreasonable to lecture or preachify for a couple of hours, with emotional music, and then to ask people to make such dramatic decisions. If this is going to practiced, there needs to be some groundwork and preparation. It seems to me to be a showtime version of confirmation, and ill advised.
I get the model and explanations, e.g., it worked for St Paul on the Damascus road, but Paul had been working at it for a while, troubled and questioning. But it all smacks of hard selling to people who don't know they want the product. Like snake oil sales at country fairs it denigrates both the difficulties the purchaser might be considering, and the product the seller is flogging.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan
In the old days some of them called it the 'sinner's bench', I believe. Although these days they wouldn't have benches either!
As it happens, last week I attended a funeral (not a Methodist one) in which there was an altar call. The minister said the deceased would have wanted us to give our lives to Jesus, which seemed a bit strange, because the tributes had given the impression that the guy was a Rastaman! Well, I suppose that could mean a number of things. He had grown up in the Methodist church though.
I suppose some would say that altar calls at a funeral represent the height of emotional blackmail. Does anyone else have experience of 'funereal altar calls'? Do they have any value?
[ 21. October 2015, 15:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Other than the independent evangelical Methodists, the Methodists I knew who were evangelical in theology up north - and also around here in the north-west where I am now - didn't tend to go in for 'altar-calls'.
As I've said upthread, not all evangelicals go in for such things - as to what they have as an 'alternative' - well, that varies according to what tradition they're in.
The whole point of evangelicalism is a conscious turning to Christ - the 'conversionism' that goes along with the other 'isms' in Bebbington's famous Quadrilateral.
So, you can be a Baptist, a Methodist, a Pentecostal, an Anglican or whatever else but as far as evangelicals are concerned that doesn't mean diddly-squat if you haven't 'accepted Christ as your Lord and Saviour' or had some kind of conscious conversion - which doesn't necessarily mean having some kind of emotional experience. I know plenty of evangelicals who can't pin-point a particular date and time of their conversion.
How this is understood across evangelicalism varies according to a wide range of factors and churchmanships.
As I've said, Calvinistic evangelicals are less likely to put an emphasis on a particular event or 'decision' than those of a more Arminian or Wesleyan tendency.
That doesn't mean that they don't believe in evangelical conversions, simply that they are wary of some of the 'means' used to try to induce or stimulate such experiences.
As far as evangelicalism and denominationalism goes, most evangelicals would, I think, prefer people to come to faith within their own settings - and will often be heard lamenting the fact that some churches don't preach the Gospel as 'faithfully' as they believe themselves to be doing. Consequently, they'll have no qualms about laying on evangelical rallies in a pan-church kind of way in order to 'finish the job' -- because they believe they're meeting a need and doing what those churches ought really to be doing themselves. Because they don't believe they are, necessarily, they'll take matters into their own hands ... or, more positively, work with those churches to help them bring people to faith.
I'd be interested to hear whether Kaplan's Methodist church sent a group along to the Billy Graham rally or whether he went independently with his family. Whatever might be said about Billy Graham he's always been very keen to work with all the churches - he made a special effort with the Anglicans here in the 1950s and with the Orthodox in Russia in the 1970s.
However we cut it, though, I think you're right that people who do have conversion experiences from within established or mainstream churches do so partly because they feel there was hitherto something deficient in their experience or understanding.
Whether it's an altar-call or something else, what they are 'getting' is some kind of tangible indication that something has changed.
Henry Rack, author of 'Reasonable Enthusiast', the best biography of Wesley I know of, traces the origins of the classic evangelical conversion experience to the North America of the early 1600s.
The first generation of Reformed Christians tended to see their conversion more in terms of a shift from Romanism to a more Reformed position. After the 2nd or 3rd generation, this was less apparent, as people grew up within the Reformed churches who had never been Roman Catholics previously.
Consequently, people became concerned about their children, particularly those of teenage years and began to look for 'signs' of grace and some kind of tangible response that would indicate that their offspring were indeed among the Elect.
In New England this led to the development of preaching techniques designed to elicit some kind of tangible response or indication that the hearers had understood and taken the message to heart ... although in Puritan times this was nowhere near as elaborate as the later revivalist 'machinery' we might associate with Finney and so on.
In Wesley's case, what was novel wasn't so much the thrust of his message but the claim that people could know and have a sense of 'assurance' ... the CofE and most dissenting bodies were predominantly Calvinist at that time and so somewhat squeamish about definite claims of knowing that one was 'saved' - as this smacked of presumption and people could be mistaken.
It wasn't that Wesley was necessarily 'dissatisfied' with the CofE - he remained a loyal churchman - rather he was looking for marks and signs that would indicate whether regeneration and sanctification had taken place.
Your allusion to confirmation is a telling one, as I tend to think it's a ritual in search of a theology in most Western contexts. As indeed christening/infant baptism can be.
It reminds me of the story of the vicar who had problems with bats in his belfry. How to get rid of them without causing them harm. He spoke to a fellow priest from a nearby parish who'd had the same problem. 'It's easy,' said his neighbour, 'I baptised them and never saw them again ...'
It's not a case, as far as I'm concerned, of either approving or disapproving of altar-calls and so on - it's a case of starting where people are at and working from there ... but that's easier said than done of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
What I find irritating and unacceptable about the altar call to come forward is the notion that becoming a Christian believer is a sudden, spur-of-the-moment decision (to which one is then expected to adhere unwavering forever) and moreover, that this decision must immediately be announced in a public way.
Something about it does seem to fit the Facebook era.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I've been at events where there were altar calls a couple of times. What I mostly remember is the panic on the preacher's face when no-one comes forward, and the subsequent change in the conditions for doing so.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I attended a church whose membership policy was "if you come regularly, you are a member." No specific definition of "regularly," just a sense that church is community. If you voluntarily never show up, how can you reasonably claim to be seeking community with this local church?
But people started transferring in from denominations, and wanted a clear public statement that they have changed from their old community to this one. The pastor let them stand in front of the church in a little ceremony of commitment to this community.
But lots of people were transferring in, they regarded anyone who came after them and didn't do a similar public commitment as not members. They didn't include the "not members" in grapevine communications of what's going on. Pretty soon peer pressure had changed the church to one with official members including some who showed up once a quarter, and non-members some of whom showed up several times a week (but were slowly eliminated by not being told about events, like the pot luck or camping trip or Bible study. Lots of churches run on grapevine, not newsletters).
The concept of "community is what you do, not what you say" was gone, turned into a formality instead of a living actuality.
I see a parallel here - some people need to make a public declaration to seal their own sense of crossing a line, changing direction, being firmly decided. An altar call is great for that.
But when they think what they needed is what everyone must do, the meaningful to some becomes a formality imposed on all. That membership ceremony or altar call or the (pick any example) becomes a requirement, even if spiritually it is not the one and only way to the goal.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think there's a lot in that, Belle Ringer.
The added piquancy with the 'altar-call' though, is that it's often associated with the 'sinner's prayer' or regarded as the moment of conversion - 'Of course he's saved, I led him in prayer myself ...'
Consequently, there can be enormous cognitive dissonance when the crowds you had 'down the front' at the evangelistic rally mid-week fail to show up on the next Sunday morning or else never follow it through in any meaningful way.
I had a friend who was a 'counsellor' at the last big Billy Graham crusade here in the UK in 1984. He told me that most of the people who 'came forward' did so for all manner of reasons - other than what the organisers hoped. They wanted to be on the football pitch, they wanted to 'be close' to Billy Graham, they didn't know why they'd come down but he'd asked people to so they did ...
That doesn't mean that people don't find faith or publicly affirm a genuine faith in those contexts - that happens too.
HCH says it suits the Facebook generation. I'm not so sure, I think 'altar-calls' are a throw-back to a 1950s style evangelicalism that itself derived from earlier Frontier-style revivalism.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I see people in our congregation going forward to seek baptism, for baptized members to ask for prayers of forgiveness or prayers for help, or sometimes to ask for direct help from the congregation itself. I'd suspect that most of those who go forward seeking baptism have already talked it over with the preacher or someone else that has been studying with them. Someone seeking baptism can have the preacher or someone else do it. I suspect our beliefs about baptism are just like those of the orthodox, except it is just for believers.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I had a friend who was a 'counsellor' at the last big Billy Graham crusade here in the UK in 1984. He told me that most of the people who 'came forward' did so for all manner of reasons - other than what the organisers hoped. They wanted to be on the football pitch, they wanted to 'be close' to Billy Graham, they didn't know why they'd come down but he'd asked people to so they did ...
I was a counseller (also a choir member) at Billy Graham 1984, and yes that pretty much resonates with my own experiences.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've been at events where there were altar calls a couple of times. What I mostly remember is the panic on the preacher's face when no-one comes forward, and the subsequent change in the conditions for doing so.
Amateur. The skilled orator knows that you don't just wade in with the come-forward call. First you stir them emotionally, then you get them on their feet. Once they're on their feet you make it clear that they can't sit down again without committing some kind of spiritual offence, and then ... and then you march them forward.
T. Scrumptious: The best-ever summary of how these evenings end! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
BTW, I am another one of them who is embarrassingly vague on when their conversion experience took place. In my own life I think of it more of a process rather than a deed. In fact, to some degree, the process isn't completed. Deciding to turn away from blatantly wrong decisions and instead to build the Kingdom of God here and now is an ongoing struggle to which a new commitment must be made every single day.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
What I find irritating and unacceptable about the altar call to come forward is the notion that becoming a Christian believer is a sudden, spur-of-the-moment decision (to which one is then expected to adhere unwavering forever) and moreover, that this decision must immediately be announced in a public way.
Something about it does seem to fit the Facebook era.
Oh dear! do you mean this will continue and even accelerate? What's the instagram and whatsapp version? "Look at me falling down as the devil in me gets slayed!".
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I had a friend who was a 'counsellor' at the last big Billy Graham crusade here in the UK in 1984. He told me that most of the people who 'came forward' did so for all manner of reasons - other than what the organisers hoped. They wanted to be on the football pitch, they wanted to 'be close' to Billy Graham, they didn't know why they'd come down but he'd asked people to so they did ...
I was a counseller (also a choir member) at Billy Graham 1984, and yes that pretty much resonates with my own experiences.
I went from the Kemlyn down to the hallowed turf of Anfield so I could walk on the same pitch as the Treble winners. My Mum walked onto the pitch in order to be with me. Both of us ended up talking with counsellors.
Didn't do any bad, like. I remember it. Looking back, even though I know see such things to be imitations of sacraments (though ones that can have a big meaning for non-sacramental type people), I remember referring back to it in my interior dialogue about God in the next few years (I turned 10 that summer). It did some good for that reason.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Other than the independent evangelical Methodists, the Methodists I knew who were evangelical in theology up north - and also around here in the north-west where I am now - didn't tend to go in for 'altar-calls'.
As I've said upthread, not all evangelicals go in for such things - as to what they have as an 'alternative' - well, that varies according to what tradition they're in.
However, since you mention it, I'm particularly interested in the evangelical Methodist 'tradition'. I'm just wondering how conversionism manifests itself there, and if MOTR Methodism can learn anything from that.
As it happens, I once went to a northern Methodist congference on cell church, which was clearly run by evangelical Methodists. No mention of altar calls there, but I didn't get much of a feel for what their other evangelistic practices were. Alpha courses, maybe, and social programmes with a strong Christian flavour.
Thanks for reminding me about that book by Henry Rack. I must get around to reading it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Kaplan Corday:
Others will give their opinions (mostly negative, I expect), but I'm just curious as to why you as a boy thought it necessary to go through this process when you were already a Christian - a Methodist? Why did you or the people who took you even attend the event if Methodism was sufficient?
Sorry to take so long to respond, SV2.
I think Gamaliel has touched on the two main points.
The first is that like, I imagine, many children brought up in a church environment, I had gone along with the faith without really thinking about what it all meant, and whether it was true, and whether I actually had a choice as to whether I accepted it or not, and was suddenly faced with a challenge to commitment.
The second and related factor is that I was for the first time confronted with evangelical imperatives: the atonement, justification by faith, and the need for conversion even for registered church members ("if you're born in a garage it doesn't make you a car").
The Methodist church in Australia in those days contained some evangelicals with a link to Wesley's theology, but in general was mainstream, respectable and soft-liberal.
I was taken along to the Graham meetings by my mother, one of those evangelicals.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Other than the independent evangelical Methodists, the Methodists I knew who were evangelical in theology up north - and also around here in the north-west where I am now - didn't tend to go in for 'altar-calls'
....
As I've said, Calvinistic evangelicals are less likely to put an emphasis on a particular event or 'decision' than those of a more Arminian or Wesleyan tendency.
That doesn't mean that they don't believe in evangelical conversions, simply that they are wary of some of the 'means' used to try to induce or stimulate such experiences.
I'm surprised that no-one has yet mentioned R.T. Kendall who became Minister of Westminster Chapel in London. That had famously been Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' church and he, as a Calvinist, was very much against anything which smacked of emotional pressure; altar calls were a particular bęte noire. Anyway. Dr. Kendall came from a tradition which did include altar calls and he introduced them to the Chapel in 1982 amidst much controversy. His book "Stand Up and Be Counted" gave the theological rationale for such a move.
To take a different line. the former missionary (and later Bible College principal) Michael Griffiths recalls a time when he took a Japanese friend to hear Billy Graham in Japan. Folk were streaming to the front at the end of the meeting; Griffiths' friend turned to him and said, "Will it be all right if I don't go forward? I don't want him to be offended". This says something about the dangers of not understanding the cultural context when giving such appeals. I have read that American evangelists to Japan in the late 40s/early 50s were phenomenally "successful" as Japanese people naturally showed deference to people who came from the nation that had defeated them. Few of those "converts" ever made it to church, though.
(As an aside, I went to an Ecumenical meeting at a Salvation Army Citadel last week. It was a modern building, but still had a built-in "penitent form" at the front).
[ 22. October 2015, 07:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
As an aside, in recent years Westminster Chapel has become the rare beast, a "charismatic calvinist" church. I don't know whether this extends to the altar calls described above, but it would be interesting to know.
That said, I remember attending an (at the time) famous Calvinistic baptist church many years ago that had a weekly "gospel" service where there was a regular call for people to come and make commitment. So maybe even within the strict and/or calvinistic evangelical end of the spectrum, this idea still has legs.
On the main topic, I think these are essentially cultural/fashions in evangelical practice. At one point, the fashion within (for a better word) "middle" Evangelicalism was to attend the big tent meetings and then conferences led by Billy Graham, Palau and others. I remember attending one of these when I was very young and being surprised how often those who attended the Evangelical church with me week-by-week went up to the front (or held their hands in the air, I think at some of the meetings). I also remember "vistors" being taken to these kinds of meeting, going to the front but then never being seen again. Shamefully, the church would advertise its effectiveness by the numbers of people "it brought to Christ" at these kinds of events.
30 years later, I think the "rump" of British Evangelicalism has moved on, so the fairly staid bible-thumpy delivery style of Billy Graham is seen as less attractive than the rock-band and signs-and-wonders of SoulSurvivor,
In my experience, these do not usually have the same kind of altar call (in the sense that I don't remember many in these kinds of environment being asked to make a commitment to Christ and come to the front), but the alternative seems to be to move to the front for prayer, to raise the hand, to stand in an attitude of prayer etc. The "altar call" seems to have evolved into "if you would like to talk about this, find someone to talk to over coffee."
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I may well be 10 years (or more) out of date. But didn't the "altar call" morph into the "ministry time" so much liked by the Toronto Blessing folk and their ilk?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As I've said, Calvinistic evangelicals are less likely to put an emphasis on a particular event or 'decision' than those of a more Arminian or Wesleyan tendency.
That doesn't mean that they don't believe in evangelical conversions, simply that they are wary of some of the 'means' used to try to induce or stimulate such experiences.
Amongst Calvinists there is a tradition of covenant theology, which sees their children as automatically saved so long as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and therefore needing no identifiable crisis conversion experience, but also a tradition of dramatic regenerations, such as those of Whitefield and Spurgeon.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That sounds right. I wonder if there's a tie-up there between churches which are in some way Łestablished" (e.g. Calvin's Geneva, Church of Scotland) and those which originated as nonconformist sects (Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion, Baptists)?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's sounds right but I'd say it's actually more nuanced than that ... although I'm in broad agreement with Kaplan on this point (although would differ on some of the detail).
I had thought of R T Kendall at Westminster Chapel and I had him in mind when I alluded to things 'loosening up' a bit in Calvinistic circles when it came to altar-calls and public professions of faith etc.
As to how conversionism 'works' in evangelical Methodist settings - well, pretty much as it does in all other mainstream evangelical settings - be they Baptist, Anglican, Brethren, Salvationist ...
My experience of evangelicalism across the board is that people come to faith by all manner of means in those settings, irrespective of how dramatic or otherwise the 'tactics' are.
All these types of churches put a lot of emphasis on youth-work and it's often in youth meetings and away-events and so on that young people attending these churches are encouraged to 'own' or express their faith. As for people coming in from outside, they tend to knock around for a bit and gradually become acclimatised to the modus operandi and sooner or later will either convert and 'conform' as it were to the world-view and ethos of the particular group - or else drop-out and stop coming. People are socialised into the Kingdom, as the sociologist Dr Andrew Walker so tellingly observes in relation to the Alpha course.
As conversion is a constant topic of conversation and preaching/teaching in such settings you'd have to be pretty dim to attend for any length of time without realising that this was what was expected as the 'norm'.
What tends to happen, in my experience, is that however loud and lively or however earnest and dogged the particular congregation is, the conversions they do get - and they do get them - tend to happen anyway in the natural course of things ... the big set-piece rallies and the evangelistic meetings are something of a public-face framework ... the real work of conversion goes on behind the scenes.
So, when looking at such churches from the outside one has to bear in mind that there's a whole hinterland of activity going on that leads, in some, but not all, cases to people getting converted ... it happens in the home, it happens in Bible studies and church prayer meetings, it happens through reading evangelical literature, attending events, discussions over coffee ...
The whole thing is geared around the 4 Quadrilaterals - the preaching, teaching, the way people pray and the content of their prayers - and yes, there'll be evangelical-flavour social action and emphases too ...
So an evangelical church will produce evangelical Christians in the same kind of way that a sacramental church will produce more sacramentally inclined Christians or a MoTR road church will produce MoTR Christians ... it's woven into the warp and woof of the way things are done.
The altar-calls and rah-ra-rah stuff is often simply the tip of the iceberg - some kind of organised way or organising what is already happening below the surface.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
It is a dubious practice. It can help achieve a number of things in terms of suggestibility and manipulation that your average Butlins hypnotist would easily recognise.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, although at the 'softer' and milder level it can be no more sinister than an invitation to talk over coffee afterwards ...
I once challenged an evangelist connected with the particular new church 'network' I was involved with about his 'altar-call' tactics as they struck me as disingenuous and somewhat sneaky. I've seen others do the same in other contexts.
What he did was to ask people to raise their hands as a sign of some kind of response. Then he asked them to stand (some who hadn't raised their hands declined to do so at this point, apparently clocking that it was leading to another 'level').
Then he asked those who stood to 'go forward' and they were led off to a separate room for 'counselling'. Many of those who'd first raised their hands and then stood up in response to the invitation hesitated and sat back down again.
When I challenged him about this - on the grounds that it wasn't being upfront, he was effectively misleading people by ratcheting things up and upping the ante at each stage - he brushed it off and said that Jesus had done the same with Zacchaeus - inviting him to come down from the tree ...
I failed to see the connection with the story of Zacchaeus - it didn't seem to bear any relation to what was going on in the evangelistic meeting.
It just demonstrates the kind of dodgy exegesis that does go on to justify what to my mind is sharp and dubious practice.
These things do vary and I have seen evangelists i more conservative evangelical settings explain what they are doing and issuing an 'invitation' in a way that doesn't cross any lines in terms of emotional manipulation and suggestibility.
I wish I could say the same for the charismatic evangelical scene, but unfortunately, I can't.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
And now a word from 'that man behind the curtain' -- that is to say, the musician:
In the small-town Methodist church in which I grew up (American mid-South), there were two rather different kinds of worship: 1) the almost-formal Sunday morning service and 2) the twice-a-year 'revival meetings,' week-night preaching and singing.
In the more predictable Sunday morning service there was always an 'invitation' given just before the closing hymn, asking those desiring to 'unite with the church' or to 'give their hearts to Jesus' to come forward during the singing. Thus the musician (me) had to be on the lookout; if anyone came forward, stop before the final verse, for whatever announcement the pastor might make, and then close it out.
However, at the revival services there would be an extended and impassioned 'altar call' with much fervor and emotion, 'every head bowed, every eye closed, I see you, God sees you, bless you in the balcony, etc.' And then start the songs, 'Just as I am,' 'I surrender all,' 'Why not tonight?', etc. all chosen to 'juice the seats.' And here one had to be on the watch to quiet down if the evangelist was inspired to further exhortation. It was quite clear to me from the outset that the throbbings of the Hammond B-3 were the whipped cream and cherry on the evangelical ice cream, and that I had a significant part in the 'crowd control.'
I was always thankful that, as I was 'twiddling the knobs,' no one would expect me to go forward! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'd forgotten how much the Hammond sound was inextricably linked to the Altar Call ... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Re. revivalism - didn't Steve Martin as the charlatan get it perfectly in "Leap of Faith"?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I was for the first time confronted with evangelical imperatives: the atonement, justification by faith, and the need for conversion even for registered church members ("if you're born in a garage it doesn't make you a car").
[...]
I was taken along to the Graham meetings by my mother, one of those evangelicals.
Did your mother hope that by taking you to this event you would become more of Christian than the Methodist church had already made you?
I don't know if the Methodist church you attended was one of the evangelical type described by Gamaliel above. As he says, they don't practice altar calls, so it's interesting that your Methodist mother wanted you to participate in an apparently non-Methodist evangelical practice.
OTOH, perhaps your Methodist church was non-evangelical, in which case, I wonder why your evangelical mother would have sent you there.
My mother was a Pentecostal who sent me to worship with the Methodists (partly because they were less strict), but hoping later that I'd lean in a more Pentecostal direction. In your case your mother obviously got to work on moving you along at a fairly young age. My mother left it too long, probably due to her own spiritual issues that she never discussed with me. There's apparently a history of Methodists in her native country moving into her brand of Pentecostalism, but there's a social context to that trajectory that I was never a part of.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
An evangelical church will produce evangelical Christians in the same kind of way that a sacramental church will produce more sacramentally inclined Christians or a MoTR road church will produce MoTR Christians ... it's woven into the warp and woof of the way things are done.
The altar-calls and rah-ra-rah stuff is often simply the tip of the iceberg - some kind of organised way or organising what is already happening below the surface.
This is obviously true in a general sense. Although it could be argued that if the altar call is only the icing on the cake then there's no need for it to incite such controversy among Christians!
The issue for many on this thread is that it apparently has a psychological effect that makes some people what they wouldn't otherwise do - or, judging from the OP, it takes them out of sensible churches and into potentially dodgy theological territory.... In fact, I wonder how many of Graham's listeners in various countries similarly left the historical churches for newer denominations. Someone somewhere has probably done some research on that.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm sorry SvitlanaV2, but you seem to think that churches should be monocultures - all the evangelicals in one, all the liberals in another, all the MoTR people somewhere else.
In practice, it doesn't work out ss neatly as that. Anglican parishes often contain people with a wide range of views - and so do Methodist, Baptist and URC churches from what I've seen.
Kaplan's mother may have had all sorts of reasons for remaining Methodist - just as your mother presumably had her reasons for remaining Pentecostal herself but sending you along to the Methodists.
When I said that the evangelical Methodists I knew 'up north' didn't go in for altar-calls, I was referring to their own services. They wouldn't have had a problem with Billy Graham rallies where altar-calls were made.
These things are more porous and less denominationally demarcated than they might seem at first sight. As an evangelical, irrespective of denomination, it would have made perfect sense for Kaplan's mother to take him to a Billy Graham meeting as presumably she would have anticipated there being the kind of 'conversionist' tactics that, in Kaplan's case seems to have paid off.
I know plenty of evangelicals in settings that aren't particularly evangelical ... it's not uncommon. The only evangelical in the village type of thing.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As to Billy Graham converts setting up their own churches - I came across a number of instances of that 'up north' where converts from the 1950s Graham crusades had formed their own independent evangelical churches because they'd found the local Anglicans and Methodists too liberal.
Conversely, I've also heard it said that the early Graham crusades led to an increase in vocations in the CofE - guys who'd got involved with counselling or arranging meetings and parties of people to attend, acquiring a taste for this sort of thing and seeking ordination as a way of expressing that. I'm not sure whether the figures back that up but across the evangelical world of the 1980s I was always coming across church leaders of various stripes who'd either been converted or heavily involved with the Billy Graham crusades of the 1950s and 60s.
The 1984 one had less impact because by then the spiritual landscape had changed.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
