Dwight L. Moody

Dwight Moody was the first to organize citywide campaigns for evangelistic purposes by using several denominations, holding services for thousands in large venues, and using some form of public invitation.[1] If Charles Finney created a profession out of revivalism, then Moody made it a “big business.”[2] Known as the “great evangelist of love”, Moody’s practice of ministry was shaped early in his career in 1871. That night, he preached on “what shall I do with Jesus?” and sent the crowd home to think about it and come back the next week. Within twelve hours, the Great Chicago fire had erupted, killing over three hundred, leaving tens of thousands homeless, and destroying Moody’s church. He vowed never again to delay an invitation for the audience to respond. Under the influence of teachers and leaders of the Brethren denomination, Moody began to develop his use of the public invitation.

Earlier in his career, Moody’s methods were more aggressive. In the 1860’s, Moody was know to roam around his congregation in order to publicly confront individuals in order to inquire about their salvation. Those who hesitated or responded negatively were often asked to kneel so that Moody might pray for Christ to save them.[4] Moody then moved to the use of the inquiry room in 1873, followed in 1875 by having those in the audience who desired salvation to stand.[5] In 1887 at Cambridge, Moody and his traveling companion, Ira Sankey preached to a crowd of university students who wanted to upset the services. After three nights, Moody made a public appeal for anyone wanting to know Christ to meet him and Sankey in a group of unused seats. He repeated the appeal three to four times before people began to move towards the gallery.

Moody was not tied to one form of public invitation, but rather used what he deemed to be the best method for the circumstances. One author claims that Moody never used the anxious seat, but the evidence proves contrary.[7] Once at Oxford, he asked those seated in the front to leave their seats so that those concerned for their souls could come forward and sit in them. This occasion is rare, though, and it appears that Moody mostly preferred the inquiry room. He can be credited, however, for the introduction of two new facets to the public invitation. The first was the use of a singer working with the preacher as a supplement to the invitation. This role was often played by Sankey, who sang the gospel as Moody made the appeal. A second innovation was the introduction of organized counseling led by lay people. Due to the size of Moody’s campaigns, there were often too few pastors to counsel with the numbers who were making decisions. Moody recruited lay people to assist in counseling, and eventually set up the Chicago Evangelization Society to train them for evangelism. This Society was the beginnings of the Chicago (Moody) Bible Institute in Chicago.[8]

Dwight L. Moody

Dwight Moody was the first to organize citywide campaigns for evangelistic purposes by using several denominations, holding services for thousands in large venues, and using some form of public invitation.[1] If Charles Finney created a profession out of revivalism, then Moody made it a “big business.”[2] Known as the “great evangelist of love”, Moody’s practice of ministry was shaped early in his career in 1871. That night, he preached on “what shall I do with Jesus?” and sent the crowd home to think about it and come back the next week. Within twelve hours, the Great Chicago fire had erupted, killing over three hundred, leaving tens of thousands homeless, and destroying Moody’s church. He vowed never again to delay an invitation for the audience to respond. Under the influence of teachers and leaders of the Brethren denomination, Moody began to develop his use of the public invitation.

Earlier in his career, Moody’s methods were more aggressive. In the 1860’s, Moody was know to roam around his congregation in order to publicly confront individuals in order to inquire about their salvation. Those who hesitated or responded negatively were often asked to kneel so that Moody might pray for Christ to save them.[4] Moody then moved to the use of the inquiry room in 1873, followed in 1875 by having those in the audience who desired salvation to stand.[5] In 1887 at Cambridge, Moody and his traveling companion, Ira Sankey preached to a crowd of university students who wanted to upset the services. After three nights, Moody made a public appeal for anyone wanting to know Christ to meet him and Sankey in a group of unused seats. He repeated the appeal three to four times before people began to move towards the gallery.

Moody was not tied to one form of public invitation, but rather used what he deemed to be the best method for the circumstances. One author claims that Moody never used the anxious seat, but the evidence proves contrary.[7] Once at Oxford, he asked those seated in the front to leave their seats so that those concerned for their souls could come forward and sit in them. This occasion is rare, though, and it appears that Moody mostly preferred the inquiry room. He can be credited, however, for the introduction of two new facets to the public invitation. The first was the use of a singer working with the preacher as a supplement to the invitation. This role was often played by Sankey, who sang the gospel as Moody made the appeal. A second innovation was the introduction of organized counseling led by lay people. Due to the size of Moody’s campaigns, there were often too few pastors to counsel with the numbers who were making decisions. Moody recruited lay people to assist in counseling, and eventually set up the Chicago Evangelization Society to train them for evangelism. This Society was the beginnings of the Chicago (Moody) Bible Institute in Chicago.[8]

Charles Finney and New Measures

While the emotional appeals of the frontier camp meetings were taking place in the early nineteenth century, such measures were virtually unheard of in the eastern United States. Church leaders occasionally used the “inquiry room”, but only to counsel with people from Scripture—and, not because of spiritual distress.[1] In 1828 in Virginia, Asahel Nettleton would not hold inquiry meetings unless the number of those needing further help was greater than private meetings could accommodate.[2] This would soon change with the advent of the ministry of Charles G. Finney and the introduction of “new measures”. Exactly how “new” these measures were is up for debate. Most of his methods, especially the anxious seat, were adopted from practices that the Methodists had been using for three decades. Finney’s major contribution was popularizing the use of these public invitations. Early in his ministry, Finney experimented occasionally with different types of public invitations, but never settled on one consistent practice, nor did he always offer the appeal. In those years, Streett says that Finney would ask “anyone anxious about their souls to stand at their seats as a sign of a repentant heart.”[4] During his first ministry position at Evan’s Mill in New York, Finney modified his form of public invitation. After a series of sermons that produced no visible response, he gave an unusual and confusing invitation. He admonished those in the crowd who wanted to accept Christ to stand, and those who were willing to publicly reject Christ to remain seated. This left no proper response to anyone in the audience who was already a Christian, leading the crowd to storm out. The next night, he made no appeal, yet many sought him out later that night seeking counseling. In 1826, he began the practice of calling forward those who had already been converted to receive extra counseling. Then, in 1830 at a revival in Rochester, Finney began consistently using the anxious seat.

As Finney continued the use of the anxious seat in his services, he began to develop a new theology of conversion. Beginning in the 1830’s, Finney delivered a series of lectures on revival where he stated his belief that unregenerate men could change their own will to follow Christ, and thus be converted.[5] Critics attacked this “new theology” that was being used to defend these “new measures”, along with its use of emotional ploys. John Nevin said, “no conversions are more precarious and insecure than those of the Anxious Bench.”[6] Finney defended the use of the anxious seat saying that it, in fact, “prevents a great many spurious conversion,” and that dating back to the apostles, “the church has always felt it necessary to have something of the kind” to publicly demonstrate someone’s faith.[7] Finney argued that these methods were necessary to convert men and “to bring them to submission.”[8] He claimed that the use of the anxious seat always led to the multiplication of converts, which must be the work of God’s divine power.[9] These ideas led to the development of his belief that revival was always available if Christians would agree in prayer and in faith. Thus, the altar call, through Finney’s theology and practice, became a tool to induce revival, and anyone opposed to it became an enemy of that revival.

Finney’s popularization of the altar call led to a new generation of evangelists using similar practices. In 1832, the same year that Finney’s ministry began in New York City, a magazine inspired by the local revivals ran a series of articles on how to conduct these “revivals”, including instructions on the use of the “anxious seat.”[11] His lectures on revival also encouraged the use of the public invitation, and his practices were adopted throughout America and Britain. One commentator said that Finney tamed “the exuberant camp meeting and tailor[ed] it to fit the local church.”[12] Bennett also notes, “the modern practice of evangelism…built, as so much of it is upon the altar call, owes probably more to him than anyone else.”[13] Murray states, “before the 1820’s the altar call…was little known in most churches.”[14] In contrast, William McLoughlin wrote that, “after 1835 it was an indispensable figure of modern revivals.”[15] By the 1840’s, Finney began preaching a doctrine of sanctification that stressed perfection. His altar calls became, according to McLoughlin, “spur-of-the-moment decisions lacking in depth or meaning,” leaving the anxious seat a “stereotyped and forced ritual.”[16]

Charles Finney and New Measures

While the emotional appeals of the frontier camp meetings were taking place in the early nineteenth century, such measures were virtually unheard of in the eastern United States. Church leaders occasionally used the “inquiry room”, but only to counsel with people from Scripture—and, not because of spiritual distress.[1] In 1828 in Virginia, Asahel Nettleton would not hold inquiry meetings unless the number of those needing further help was greater than private meetings could accommodate.[2] This would soon change with the advent of the ministry of Charles G. Finney and the introduction of “new measures”. Exactly how “new” these measures were is up for debate. Most of his methods, especially the anxious seat, were adopted from practices that the Methodists had been using for three decades. Finney’s major contribution was popularizing the use of these public invitations. Early in his ministry, Finney experimented occasionally with different types of public invitations, but never settled on one consistent practice, nor did he always offer the appeal. In those years, Streett says that Finney would ask “anyone anxious about their souls to stand at their seats as a sign of a repentant heart.”[4] During his first ministry position at Evan’s Mill in New York, Finney modified his form of public invitation. After a series of sermons that produced no visible response, he gave an unusual and confusing invitation. He admonished those in the crowd who wanted to accept Christ to stand, and those who were willing to publicly reject Christ to remain seated. This left no proper response to anyone in the audience who was already a Christian, leading the crowd to storm out. The next night, he made no appeal, yet many sought him out later that night seeking counseling. In 1826, he began the practice of calling forward those who had already been converted to receive extra counseling. Then, in 1830 at a revival in Rochester, Finney began consistently using the anxious seat.

As Finney continued the use of the anxious seat in his services, he began to develop a new theology of conversion. Beginning in the 1830’s, Finney delivered a series of lectures on revival where he stated his belief that unregenerate men could change their own will to follow Christ, and thus be converted.[5] Critics attacked this “new theology” that was being used to defend these “new measures”, along with its use of emotional ploys. John Nevin said, “no conversions are more precarious and insecure than those of the Anxious Bench.”[6] Finney defended the use of the anxious seat saying that it, in fact, “prevents a great many spurious conversion,” and that dating back to the apostles, “the church has always felt it necessary to have something of the kind” to publicly demonstrate someone’s faith.[7] Finney argued that these methods were necessary to convert men and “to bring them to submission.”[8] He claimed that the use of the anxious seat always led to the multiplication of converts, which must be the work of God’s divine power.[9] These ideas led to the development of his belief that revival was always available if Christians would agree in prayer and in faith. Thus, the altar call, through Finney’s theology and practice, became a tool to induce revival, and anyone opposed to it became an enemy of that revival.

Finney’s popularization of the altar call led to a new generation of evangelists using similar practices. In 1832, the same year that Finney’s ministry began in New York City, a magazine inspired by the local revivals ran a series of articles on how to conduct these “revivals”, including instructions on the use of the “anxious seat.”[11] His lectures on revival also encouraged the use of the public invitation, and his practices were adopted throughout America and Britain. One commentator said that Finney tamed “the exuberant camp meeting and tailor[ed] it to fit the local church.”[12] Bennett also notes, “the modern practice of evangelism…built, as so much of it is upon the altar call, owes probably more to him than anyone else.”[13] Murray states, “before the 1820’s the altar call…was little known in most churches.”[14] In contrast, William McLoughlin wrote that, “after 1835 it was an indispensable figure of modern revivals.”[15] By the 1840’s, Finney began preaching a doctrine of sanctification that stressed perfection. His altar calls became, according to McLoughlin, “spur-of-the-moment decisions lacking in depth or meaning,” leaving the anxious seat a “stereotyped and forced ritual.”[16]

Kentucky Camp Meetings

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, a new phenomenon began in Kentucky—the camp meeting—which was a series of services conducted outdoors, often including several congregations. These services were usually characterized by the charismatic responses of the audience who would shout or cry out, and fall out in distress while under conviction. In the earliest camp meetings, there were no altar calls.[1] Within a few years, though, the “core of the camp meeting religion” became the altar service. Sermons on the depravity of man and the final judgment were typical and led to many numbers of people responding publicly. Mourner’s benches, mourner’s tents, praying tents and praying circles became fixtures at the larger camp meetings. Prayer circles were an early form of public invitation in which preachers and laymen would hold hands to form a circle and invite anyone who wanted to accept Christ to stand in the middle. By the 1820’s, the title “anxious seat” came into use. These “altars” were enclosed areas with seating and were set apart at the front of the meeting place where anyone under conviction of sin could come, sit and be counseled. This separated them from the rest of the saved and any sinners who were not under conviction.

These methods initially intended to publicly identify those who were not saved, so that they might be instructed. At first, no one saw these methods as the means to salvation, but soon coming forward to the altar became confused with conversion. Murray states that “people heard preachers plead for them to come forward with the same urgency with which they pleaded for them to repent and believe.”[3] Other problems emerged with this new practice, too, as the scene around the altar became a place of amusement for spectators. Peter Cartwright, an itinerant Methodist evangelist, wrote of one instance in 1822 when he had to “contend with ‘idle professors’ and ‘idle spectators’ who were overcrowding the altar.”[4] He then began to make each person entering the altar confirm that they were, indeed, concerned about their souls. Others also noticed the problems that came with this new form of invitation. “Conversions” were often “short-lived”, as Johnson conceded. One observer, though, noted that “because there have been counterfeits, we must not reject the genuine.”[5] Regardless of its long-term effect, the practice of the public invitation was refined and systematized in these Methodist camp meetings. Instead of the practices of these meetings reflecting the theology of those in attendance, theology began to change to fit the practices. Murray notes that the “establishment of camp meetings and altar calls arose from the best of motives, it was the result of erroneous theology and it led to a system with consequences that they failed to see.”[6]

Kentucky Camp Meetings

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, a new phenomenon began in Kentucky—the camp meeting—which was a series of services conducted outdoors, often including several congregations. These services were usually characterized by the charismatic responses of the audience who would shout or cry out, and fall out in distress while under conviction. In the earliest camp meetings, there were no altar calls.[1] Within a few years, though, the “core of the camp meeting religion” became the altar service. Sermons on the depravity of man and the final judgment were typical and led to many numbers of people responding publicly. Mourner’s benches, mourner’s tents, praying tents and praying circles became fixtures at the larger camp meetings. Prayer circles were an early form of public invitation in which preachers and laymen would hold hands to form a circle and invite anyone who wanted to accept Christ to stand in the middle. By the 1820’s, the title “anxious seat” came into use. These “altars” were enclosed areas with seating and were set apart at the front of the meeting place where anyone under conviction of sin could come, sit and be counseled. This separated them from the rest of the saved and any sinners who were not under conviction.

These methods initially intended to publicly identify those who were not saved, so that they might be instructed. At first, no one saw these methods as the means to salvation, but soon coming forward to the altar became confused with conversion. Murray states that “people heard preachers plead for them to come forward with the same urgency with which they pleaded for them to repent and believe.”[3] Other problems emerged with this new practice, too, as the scene around the altar became a place of amusement for spectators. Peter Cartwright, an itinerant Methodist evangelist, wrote of one instance in 1822 when he had to “contend with ‘idle professors’ and ‘idle spectators’ who were overcrowding the altar.”[4] He then began to make each person entering the altar confirm that they were, indeed, concerned about their souls. Others also noticed the problems that came with this new form of invitation. “Conversions” were often “short-lived”, as Johnson conceded. One observer, though, noted that “because there have been counterfeits, we must not reject the genuine.”[5] Regardless of its long-term effect, the practice of the public invitation was refined and systematized in these Methodist camp meetings. Instead of the practices of these meetings reflecting the theology of those in attendance, theology began to change to fit the practices. Murray notes that the “establishment of camp meetings and altar calls arose from the best of motives, it was the result of erroneous theology and it led to a system with consequences that they failed to see.”[6]

Earliest Origins

The earliest recorded event of a purposeful public invitation dates to Massachusetts in 1741, and Eleazer Whitlock. After preaching a sermon as a guest in Josiah Crocker’s church in Lebanon, the crowd would not leave, so Whitlock preached a second sermon on conversion. The people became under such conviction and began crying out so loudly that Whitlock could not finish his sermon. He invited all those in distress to join him in the seats at the front of the church in order to “counsel, direct and exhort them.” [1] Two months later, Crocker was a guest preacher in Middleborough. Though no one appeared in distress during his sermon, “about one-hundred remained outside the church crying in despair.” Crocker and the pastor invited them back into the church for counseling.[2] In 1798, a Virginian pastor, Jesse Lee, recorded the events following a sermon that Asbury preached on Halloween. At Paup’s Meeting House in Virginia, those who were in distress over the sermon were asked to come together while the preachers “kept singing and exhorting the mourners.”[3] At the close of the eighteenth century, the well-known Methodist evangelist, Lorenzo Dow began using a form of public invitation. In 1797, he began asking those in the congregation who wanted prayer for themselves to stand. He then invited anyone wanting to accept Christ to stand and come forward for prayer.[4] In 1806, a Methodist minister from New York named Aaron Hunt adopted the practice of calling people forward to a “space in front of the stand, called an altar” where mourners could come and be counseled separately from the congregation.[5] By 1807, the practice of using a mourner’s bench had reached England. In 1812, a frontier Baptist preacher named William Thompson gave a sermon in Missouri where more than twenty people spontaneously rose from their seats and came forward without any previous prompting.[6] All of these events played a key role in the development of the altar call.