Christians in most American churches are encouraged to evangelize – which means sharing the gospel with unbelievers and calling them to faith and repentance in Jesus Christ. This highly appropriate activity is rooted in the words of the New Testament and obedience to our Lord who commands us to make disciples.

Yet while we see many circles and pockets of Christendom “doing evangelism,” many approaches to evangelism are far from appropriate, and in fact are unhealthy and rooted in bad theology.

I want to say up front:  I believe most Christians are well-intentioned in their approach to reaching others with the Gospel. However, sincerity is not enough. We must judge our practices by the Word of God.

Most improper evangelism approaches can be summed up in one word: “manipulative.”  This is a strong word, but I use it intentionally, because I have seen it both in the pulpit and in “soul-winning” training seminars and courses.

For example, many years ago, a visiting preacher came to our church and offered a variation on the traditional evangelistic “invitation,” or “altar call.” For those unfamiliar with this tradition, the invitation is basically ending a sermon by asking people to come to the front of the church (or auditorium) and pray to receive Jesus as their Savior or to rededicate their lives to Christ. 

This brother asked for those in the congregation to bow their heads and close their eyes and went on to explain how if they hadn’t received Christ, they were in a very vulnerable position and needed Jesus “today.” Up to this point, I was comfortable with his approach.

But he went on to instruct: if you know you need Jesus, please put your hand in the air with mine, and I will pray with you. As he said this, he snapped his fingers. Multiple hands went up. Even some people who had been members of the church for 20 years! Then he commanded, “look at me please,” and essentially engaged in a discussion with the individuals responding from the pulpit. This display all ended with a fever pitch to come forward to receive Christ, which one lady did. 

After the service, I felt a little uncomfortable with how forceful he was – at that point in my ministry, I might have given an invitation, but without the high-pressure buildup.  (And in case you are wondering, I preach the Gospel in every sermon and ask people to respond to the Gospel at the end of every sermon I preach.)

Still, I was excited that this lady “got saved.” Except: I do not believe the lady ever came back to our church. We would try and visit her but to no avail.

What is your assessment of the scene I just described? I will go on the record: I am not a fan.

And to repeat, I see such high-pressure tactics (and that is what they are) to get people to make a decision as manipulation. I do not think the woman gave her life to Christ that day, for if she had, she would no doubt have come back to church and sought baptism, although she might have done so in another church. However, my impression is that she was worked up to a fever pitch of emotionalism, followed up with an empty prayer from an emotionally ecstatic experience. I hope to heaven I am wrong!

Now think about the young people in our churches with tender hearts and taught to obey authority figures. Many children have been verbally strong-armed to come forward in a service and mouth the “sinner’s prayer” – and gone away a two-fold child of Hell. For the rest of their lives, they believe they are genuine Christians because they went forward and prayed a prayer, even if their life bears no evidence of true conversion.

My friends, this is nothing more pulpit malpractice. What children need is not a hard-sell pitchman to close a transaction, much like a salesman sealing the deal at Sears for a washer and dryer, but rather a gentle shepherd to show them and guide them to Christ, with a full understanding of what salvation is and how to live for him.  

Hit-and-run schemes to make people “come to Christ” were popularized by Charles Finney, a leading figure of the Second Great Awakening. Finney has become a very controversial figure, but to summarize, his theology was atrocious, which led to equally bad practice. The altar call was one of the rottener fruits of his ministry. 

In recent years, none other than Billy Graham mastered this system in his crusades. I am thankful for the ministry of Dr. Graham and his influence in the proclamation of Christ and the Good News, but again, I vehemently disagree with this particular approach. A helpful pamphlet to explain the errors of this practice is “The Invitation System” by Ian Murray.

What is at the core of this errant practice? I genuinely think it is a zeal for decisions but a lack of understanding of mankind’s depravity. Evangelists say things like “our world is dying without Christ.”

That is not true. Our world is already dead in our trespasses and sins, deaf to God's voice and blind to His glory. If we view humanity like God does, we understand that we are floating in the ocean of depravity face down with no hope. No torrent of cleverly worded gospel outlines, sales-like training, marketing-inspired appeals, and Hallmark card-style encouragement will ever change our spiritual condition in and of itself. My friend, only God can convert a sinner through the preaching of the gospel. Even faith and repentance are gifts from God.

I don’t mean to be critical for its own sake, but for the sake of adhering to God’s Word.  I do not believe the invitation system we have seen develop is a healthy practice. It places too much emphasis on a preacher’s ability, it distorts the response of the Gospel, and it encourages uneasy souls into thinking the altar call is an unending sacrament of penance in the church.

Let us reform this practice by replacing it with prayer, hymn-singing, or better yet, taking the Lord’s Supper at the end of the sermon.

Soli Deo Gloria!