Loading ...Tired of the Invitation
I have a confession to make. I am tired of offering the invitation at the end of every sermon, devotion, and service. I am just bad at doing it. I am preaching a sermon that has a conclusion, but it seems that I attached the invitation at the end as an after thought. Well, to be honest, it was. Some preachers are really good at flowing the sermon into the invitation, I am not. I find it difficult to preach on criticism and connect it by saying, “Do not let God criticise you, be baptized.” It seems that at the end of most of the lessons there is a quick “believe, confession, repent, and be baptized.” It seems that I do not really have to be good with offering it, I just have to say these words in order. I have a few problems with the way we do this invitation thing. Maybe it is me just justifying this major weakness in my preaching, but here they are. First of all, it seems people argue for the need to offer the invitation at every opportunity because there could be someone who needs to know how to be saved. But this seems unreasonable because in reality, unless you planned on being a Christian at that service, a person is not going to respond just because I said “believe, confess, repent, and be baptized.” Most people do not have a clue what this is unless they grew up in the churches of Christ. Those people know the plan already. Second of all, if it was so important that we do this everytime, why does so many people in the pews get the song books out. If this was such an important part of the sermon, why the song books? To a lot of people, it marks the end of the sermon and people tune out. Finally, a friend of mine did not offer the invitation once. One of the ladies in the congregation desired to meet with the elders and the minister to inform them of the need to offer the invitation. My friend asked the woman if she brought a non-Christian with her that Sunday. The answer was “no.” He asked her when was the last time she brought a non-Christian with her. She could not remember. If she was so concerned for the non-Christians, do you think she should have been more evangelistic, instead of just wanting to hear those words repleted over again. I am not against the invitation, and there is a time and place for calling people to the Lord, but maybe we should give this some thought. We say this is important, but our actions tell another story. Well, maybe it is just my actions.
Related posts:
- Celebration of Baptism
- MOMENTUM FOR THE MASTER
- Movement In Sermons
- A Wonderful Returning Home Reward
- Better Sermons
About The Author
Maybe I just need to change my attitude about this.
Yes, yes, yes. I wonder what would happen if the congregation was told by an eldership that there wouldn’t be an invitation for a month and that instead when you think to yourself “oh…no invitation this week” that it is to be a reminder that the preacher is not the only one who extends the invitation – we all should do that as we spend time with non-Christians. It also gets me that people get all bent out of shape if it isn’t offered as if you find the invitation mandated in scripture for every sermon or service. The way we do it, as you mentioned, is often very wooden and doesn’t really fit.
If it is an attitude problem, then I have it as well. I am not against it, but there are times where it just does not seem to fit.
I love offering people an opportunity for people to come forward, ask for prayers, inform us of needs, etc.
That is a good point Matt, we all offer the invitation, it would make a strong point. James I am starting to really make the invitation about this too, a lot of times, there are no non-Christians in some of our worship times.
Usually, our ministers will say something simple like “If we can help you in any way, please come forward.” An open-ended invitation seems to work well.
Your friend offered a very wise response.
—
I am with you. I think the offering of an invitation is a tradition that has outlived its purpose and relevance. I normally do offer an invitation but I struggle to intergrate it into the sermon as well. However, rather running through the 5-step list, I simply tell people that if they are struggling and would like the church to pray with them, this is an opportunity for that. Likewise, I also tell people that if they have not surrendered their life to Jesus in baptism, this is an opportunity as well. But I know that unless one has come to worship with the purpose of responding to the invitation, it is doubtful to expect a response.
Before our Sunday School (which proceeds worship) there are a few of us who always gather to pray for the church and our worship assembly time. Two weeks ago, a brother in Christ came and asked that we specifically pray for him as he has been going through some struggles. I believe this is a much better environment for people who are struggling and would like others to pray for them. What I would love to see happen is during our assembly/worship time that we would take a few minutes for some small groups prayer time(3-5 people huddling together in prayer). This would require some changes, including our tupical seating arrangements which is doable for a small congregation but more of a challenge for larger assemblies.
Good post!
-Rex
I remember sitting through seven or more stanzas of “Just as I am” and then singing them all over again just waiting for someone to respond. The development of the Gospel meeting is where the invitation thing started in the churches of Christ. There is actually a church in MS that is splitting over not having a formal invitation these days. Here is reality very few in our assemblies are ones who have never heard the Gospel before and most of those who have already obeyed it will never come forward to publically confess.
There have been times when I’ve heard an invitation basically tacked on to the end of a sermon without a very good transition, and I wondered, “why do we feel like we HAVE to have that?” So you’re not the only one.
It does seem like one of those traditions we’ve held on to without much thought as to why we’ve held onto it.
I often wonder how effective it is. We have had several baptisms the last couple years and NONE of them have come forward during the invitation song.
Times and information changes so rapidly…I often wonder how effective our traditional ways of doing things are compared to how well they may have worked 50 years ago. Our modern invitation falls into that category for me.
I think all preaching should have some kind of a call to action…but it doesn’t always have to be believe, confess, repent, and be baptized. Especially when we’re preaching to the choir.
I think it is a good point to offer a invitation, whatever the sermon is about, there can be an invitation of response, but you are right, it does not always have to be the same format.
I’m not sure how many people are actually convicted by Sunday morning sermons. I’ve sure I’ve seen at least a couple of people come forward during the invitation and ask to be baptized, but normally anyone who comes forward is a member of the church asking to confess or asking for prayer. It seems to me that most baptisms result from study or other activities outside of Sunday morning church service.
To me when you are teaching a group of people who are already Christ followers the invitation no matter the subject is really to “become”. In the NT after people made an initial decision to follow Christ the rest was a becoming process. So to me the invitation to the existing church which is what it is most of the time, is a call to “become”. The scripture says “Confess your sins to one another and pray for each other that….you may be healed!” It does not say get up at the end of service and go down front and confess your sins to a bunch of people who are judgmental and really don’t know you deeply. Yet that is what we are asking people to do. I believe this an unbiblical development of tradition and white middle class culture. It says “one to another” this indicates something very personal one on one with someone who is trusted and the whole purpose is to become and part of becoming is overcoming or healing. So maybe the invitation needs to be more focused in small groups forming the one another atmosphere. In our small group we have running partners and each week regardless of study topic we ask each other and answer these three simple questions.
What do you think God is trying to do in your life right now?
If there is one area in loving God, loving people, building character, or building Christ’s church you need to focus on right now what would it be?
What is the one thing you will intentionally do this week to allow God to grow you up in the area?
THIS IS OUR WEEKLY INVITATION!
Sunday morning at the “end” I just said, if you have a need come forward. You know and I know that you do not have to do it the way you said. I read about half of your post and none of the relpy’s. All you do with this kind of post is fire up the liberals. They get to spew, spit and sputter about how dumb and how bad some brethren are. Sure some get excited when we don’t do it like we have always done it. About two years ago I had our song leader to sing one verse of the Inv song for a whole month. He didn’t like it and a lot of others wondered what is going on. three weeks into it the elders asked me about why I did that. I told them when they excited about being invited to come to the Lord then we would treat it like it was worth something. What happened? Nothing really. we went back to singing the whole song. Did I accomplish anything. For me I did. You talk how understanding your elder are, then sit down with then and share you feeling with them. The “liberals” [HA] are fired up enough.
Wrong again. I am wrong again. Read the reply’s. No spewing, spiting or sputtering but good suggestions. Sounds like I am the one on the wrong track. Accept my apology. Well, the old mean conservative got fired up. Yes, we (me) do this too often too. Way to often.
I would love to say something about the GAME last night but I believe I have lost my punch.
Sonny,
I have learned that labels such as liberal or any other have done nothing but harm. If there is a thinking I disagree with I address that thinking specifically I do not label the person who has the idea with which I disagree. Especially when it is a fellow believer. The word change agent is now thrown around as a derogatory term such as hardliner or legalist. I am calling all to stop this name calling and focus on the actual ideas and information.
Joe, I agree, I used that “word” tongue and cheek but no one knew that but me. I will do better. I got up this morning and as I looked in the mirror I saw my second worst enemy. Of course the first enemy is Satan, Himself and you may guess who was second.
And As I said I was the one spewing, spitting and sputtering. Thank you for calling me out.
Wow. Having read all of the comments you will have to forgive an “old preacher” who offers the invitation everytime he preaches in the assembly of the church. My motivation is not to carry on “tradition” but to give folks (both non-Christians and erring members) information they need to properly respond, not to my invitation, but the Lord’s (Matt. 11:28-30). Here in North Carolina we have non-Christian visitors at almost every service. Who knows whether the lesson presented may provoke a similar response to that on Pentecost “Men and brethren, what must we do?” I believe we need to tell the honest heart the answer to that question. Thanks for your time all.
Jonnie,
I do not disagree that it is important for be given the opportunity to respond to God’s call (invitation) but for the most part, our culture has changed and most people be more like to respond to such an invitation if it was in a different format (i.e., I mentioned the struggling brother who showed up early for our early prayer group to pray with him). Further, unless someone has already decided they need to be baptized, it is doubtful that a few proof-texts from scripture about the so-call ‘plan of salvation’ will pursuade them.
One common flaw we tend to have is assuming that we are preaching to the same audience and same context as Peter did on the day of Pentecost. The Jews that responded on the day of Pentecost were already committed to God. They were monotheistic believers in God the creator, having already committed their lives to the will of God. Their only problem was their failure to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was part of God’s will. Once they came to belief in Jesus they changed (repentance) and we baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (accepting the authority of Jesus). So it was not as if they needed to be taught about what it means to live a life for God (discipleship), for they were already striving to do that. Many in our North American context are different and do need to be taught about the life of discipleship. When they are not and when they are only taught to be saved from sins, I am afraid that we are making converts to salvation but not disciples of Jesus whose allegiance is to the Kingdom of God alone. Without the later, we fail the Great Commision and produce a church that our Lord never intended for.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex, I have prayed today, Lord help me to keep my mouth shut. In this case help me to not type so much. Just today I have not made good decisions with a friend that is a dear, dear brother. BUT, here I go on baptism again. My heart is clean, there is no anger, maybe frustration, no anger, is baptism just accepting God’s authority? Why can’t you say that baptism is for the purpose (by God’s authority) of washing sins away. Is it because you do not believe that or because that would exclude someone you don’t want to exclude. You nor me is judge. I understand that but does scripture teach baptism is for/in order to have sins remitted? And may I add using scriptures in giving the “Lord’s” invitation is not proof texting.
Where am I missing it. I just can’t see what you and many are saying.
Sonny,
The reason I said that the Jews were accepting the authority of Jesus (Lordship) in Acts 2 and did not emphasize “for the forgiveness of sins” is because I do not believe “for the forgiveness of sins” is what made this baptism unquie. That does not mean I disagree that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, because I do believe that preposition looks forward to forgiveness. But imagine if Peter had only said “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins” (which he did not despite hearing this verse misquoted more than a few times in my life to suggest that Peter did only say that prepositional phrase). Since it is very probably that many of those Jews may have already been baptized for the forgiveness of sins by John the Baptist, what would be the point of baptism? But when you learn that this baptism is in the name of Jesus and that it is associated with the reception of the Holy Spirit, then there is very big reasons for accepting this baptism. First, to accept this baptism is to surrender to the Lordship of Jesus (as I already pointed out). Secondly, it is to accept the gift of God’s salvation that comes not through the Law of Moses but through the blood of Jesus Christ.
So your question is a good question to ask but you are also reading to much into what I did not say in the last post. I certainly believe that baptism is God’s means of raising us into Christ where salvation is found, though I also believe scripture suggests that God can and is willing to use other operative means (but baptism is the normative). Where I would differ from what has been emphasized by some in the CoC is that I do not believe “for the forgiveness of sins” is the most important aspect of baptism. I would agree with Harding and Lipscomb that obedience is the highest motive for being baptized (i.e., we are being baptized to be obedient to the command of God). As for other purposes for baptism, I believe the self-surrender of our lives to the Lordship of Jesus Christ is a higher motive than being baptized to find forgiveness. Rather than worrying about how God is going to forgive us, people who believe in Jesus should be baptized as commanded and just trust that God will save them (despite whatever difficulties and/or complexities one might have with interpreting certain baptismal passages).
In short, I teach people who want to follow Jesus that they should repent, be baptized, be committed to their local church and its mission, and be committed to living the life they have now been called too. Thought very simplified, I teach that because that is what I believe is necessary if people are to become and continue being disciples. I believe I am being faithful to the Lord and to the teaching of his word in doing so. He will be my judge and I pray that he will have mercy because I do know that I am far from flawless.
Grace and peace,
Rex
The sermon needs to BE the invitation especially when the sermon is a specific call for people to change or grow. If the end of the lesson sounds redundant or stale then IT IS simply a signal for people to pull out their song books. In thinking about scripture, the people were moved to respond in Acts 2. I hope we want our sermons to move people in a similar way. Why did we preach it in the first place? I hope we don’t want to preach only to relay information and keep people sitting for 30 minutes.