Paul once said of some of his fellow Jews: They have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. I sometimes think of these words in connection with some methods of evangelism employed by radio preachers, churches and para-church groups. At times the gospel itself is disgraced by those who are supposed to enhance it. Zeal for evangelism is good, but it must be accompanied by a thorough knowledge of what the gospel is all about.

Even in the CRC we have not always escaped the temptation of using methods that are less than biblical, less than Reformed. We have at times taken a “smorgasbord” approach to the matter: borrowing a bit from here and a little from there, without a clear, coherent and consistent package. We seem to get carried away by methods which others appear to use successfully, and suddenly Reformed principles recede into the background.

I thought of this after reading the guest editorial in The Banner of May 6 by Dirk Hart , minister of evangelism, entitled “Inviting People to Christ.” There he makes a plea for using a form of the “altar call” in our public worship services. We need such a “call” he says in order “to recommit ourselves to the missionary nature of the church,” “to experience again that the gospel is not only for edification but for powerful, experiential renewal,” and for “fresh evidence that the gospel is still powerful to save.”

He cites with enthusiasm the example of his own pastor, who, “like a bolt out of the blue,” announced to the congregation: “Following this morning’s service some of the elders and I will be in the deacons’ room to talk with anyone who wishes to. profess his or her faith.” The result: After the service eight people appeared in the room and two weeks later “the church rejoiced in eight public professions of faith.”

To some that may sound impressive and spectacular, but to me it seems a very strange way of doing things in the church, especially in a Reformed church.

First a number of questions: Who were these people? Were they regular members of the congregation, that is, young people who had been baptized but not yet made public profession of their faith? If so, were they receiving instruction to prepare them for this step? If they were, did the minister not talk to them in the regular classes about this matter and what it entailed? Did he talk about the date and the time when they should appear before the consistory? Were these eight part of a larger class, some of whom made public profession of faith later on? I just don’t understand the rationale for this approach, if indeed these were young people of the church.

But perhaps they were not. Were they visitors? Did they have some church background, and did they understand the basics of the gospel? Had they received instruction? If not, could the elders and the minister examine them on the spot and decide that they were good candidates for public profession of faith? Once again, I just can’t make heads or tails out of such an approach. Is that the way things work in a Reformed church? Our Church Order, Art. 63, says: “Each church shall instruct its youth and others who are interested –in the teaching of the Scriptures as formulated in the creeds of the church, in order to prepare them to profess their faith publicly . . . .” When that is done, and when the minister, together with those being instructed, believe that the time has come for public profession of faith, that is talked about in class and proper arrangements are made for that—including the appearance before the consistory. As I see it, that is the only proper way to do things, and it just leaves no room for the kind of procedure described in Hart’s article. It may be sensational, but it makes no sense, at least not from a Reformed point of view. I just cannot conceive of a situation where such a “call out of the blue” would be appropriate, at least not when church membership is involved. The whole thing leaves me bewildered.

As for the “altar call” itself, the words of James Daane in his booklet Preaching With Confidence are apropos:

To think that more than preaching is required, that altar call must follow sermon to render the preached word effective, betrays a lack of faith in the mysterious, creative, saving power of the Word of God, qualities which no other words possess, not even those well-intended human words heard in an altar call . . . .

Every attempt to empower the Word by human strategies and techniques is no less than gimmickry which dishonors the Word. The temptation to play God and make His Word effectual takes many and subtle forms. For example, to pray with (not for) an unbeliever, after one has preached the Word, in an effort to bring that person to conversion dishonors the Word and is a misuse of prayer . . . To unbelievers the minister of the gospel must preach the Word, pray that the proclamation will be effective, and then relax and let things rest in the hand of God.

It is not the duty of ministers of the Word to convert; it is only their duty prayerfully to preach the Word. Less than this they ought not to do ; more they cannot do . . . . The achievements of preaching always remain in the band of God.

I don’t find any of Hart’s reasons for having a “call” the least bit convincing. All three things can and do take place without such a “call.” I would suggest that Hart and all seminarians and ministers thoroughly digest and imbibe the contents of Daane’s book. It could have a blessed effect.