My Problems with the 'Sinner's Prayer'

I come out of a revivalist Christian tradition. In my tradition, the "Sinner's Prayer" is one of the most common avenues to "lead a person to Christ." Before leading someone through the SP, we are taught to take people down "Romans Road"--the presentation of a handful of verses from Romans about our depravity, need for a Savior, and salvation through Christ--and then invite them to "ask Jesus into their heart." As long as the person praying the prayer was sincere, it is understood that at the moment of finishing the prayer, they are "saved," a real born-again Christian. Yes, God knew they would come to the Cross before the foundation of the world, but in terms of our view, the transaction of salvation is complete once one "prayers the prayer." As you can probably tell, I have some problems with all of this.

First, let me say that I very much do believe in born-again theology. Being born again is Biblical and an instruction of Christ Himself. To be born again is part of real repentance. I was going this way and now I've made a complete 180 and I'm going this way. I was following the world and now I am following Christ. I once was lost and now am found. To be born again is both theologically and psychologically profound. I just don't know if the "Sinner's Prayer" is the best way to approach born again theology. In fairness, I still use the SP and still will lead others through the prayer. I have "prayed the prayer" with others and it actually was meaningful for them. However...

1. More often than not, those I have "prayed the prayer" with show no signs of being born again.

I don't know how many people I've taken down "Romans Road" and have led through prayers of salvation. I'm thinking half or more than half never showed any real Christian fruit. Yes, we tried to do follow-up. It wasn't a matter of neglecting them once we "made the sale." But for many people, particularly teens, or folks really down on their luck, praying the SP is often just an emotional experience. A case in point was one youth outreach event I did at the end of 2005. After preaching a salvation message convincing the group that they all needed a Savior and that they all needed to be born again, I had 12 high school guys "come forward." We divided them up and had leaders pray with them in groups and then later each individually. I think I personally led 5 or 6 through the SP. Only ONE of these twelve decided to start attending church and demonstrate any real fruit after the fact.

This doesn't mean that the whole thing was worthless. For some of them it might have been one step closer to a real salvation experience some time in the future. I have read a number of studies that have suggested a range of 8-12 exposures to the gospel before the average unchurched person makes a real commitment. Some of them perhaps left there and forgot everything they heard. Others, however, will remember it some point in the future. But it doesn't mean after these events we leaders should get all excited and claim that "x number of people got saved tonight!" Some might have. Some might have just got a further exposure to the gospel. But they didn't get "saved" in the real sense of the word. This leads to my next point.

2. I question whether those who are exposed to a salvation message and presentation for the first time really understand what's going on.

Perhaps some who are first exposed to the gospel really do "get" it. With our bridge drawings and such we try to make the gospel simple, and in a way it most certainly is. But does the unsaved person really understand the concept of "repentance" after an exposure or two? After watching the bridge drawing, do they really understand what it means to "make Christ the Lord of your life"? Again, this is nothing against the bridge analogy drawing (where God and man are separated by a wide chasm and only the Cross can "bridge the gap"). I like it and use it. But in general I see it more as an initial exposure type method of sharing the gospel. Yes it has value, but it doesn't mean somebody who prays a prayer after being presented with it is truly "born again."

In my tradition and similar ones, we are taught that we need to use every opportunity to allow someone to accept Christ. The Sinner's Prayer is a popular method. But are we being a bit to premature in inviting people to "accept Christ" who don't really know much about Christ, true repentance, etc and then giving them a false sense of security? On some of the more extreme wings of the "eternal security" Baptist movement, there are more than a few who have demonstrated no fruits of the Spirit but feel confident that they are OK with God since they "accepted Christ" at some revival or church gathering. I'm not suggesting that we wait until someone "knows it all" or becomes a Christian before we let them "pray the prayer." I just don't think we should make this invitation prematurely. What difference does it make if we give someone the chance to "pray the prayer" if it's not rooted in any true understanding?

3. This is the pitfall in much of street evangelism.

I'll take relationship evangelism any day over the instant street evangelism. This is for a couple reasons. The most important is a practical one. In 2007, most people will just think you are a loon if you are standing a street corner with a sign of tracts and then seek to talk to them about Jesus. There was a time when people were more receptive to this, or Christians going door to door, but by and large they are not anymore. They think you're either a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or just plain extremist. This doesn't mean that most Evangelicals who enjoy street evangelism are any of these things but that's the general perception.

Street evangelism usually has no follow-up. If any of you are familiar with the SEMP program it trains students to go out into the streets and do evangelism. I remember when my brother came home from this event some years back and was excited about all the homeless people who were led to Christ. But from what I could tell, these supposed converts weren't given any sort of follow-up nor were they referred to a church, pastor, accountability group, etc. I see these exercises as having the most benefit for the Christian participating, helping them be bold and confident when talking to others. I wonder though in this day and age if it really does all that good in terms of making converts. I'm sure some have been led to the Lord this way, or had a positive exposure to the gospel, but I'm guessing more often than not unchurched people today just think of street evangelists as weird.

4. The 'Sinner's Prayer' and street evangelism usually seems too much like a sales presentation.

Most gospel presentations are trying to be somewhat persuasive. We want people to realize that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and He is Lord. Then after making a good "presentation" we "go in for the kill" and try to "close the deal." Here is a somewhat caricatured illustration of this:

"Ok, Jimmy, so you've seen what a great product Jesus is and why you NEED Jesus. All the other products have let you down, but Jesus gives you an eternal guarantee you can't beat. Do you have any questions I can answer about Jesus? No? Ok great, so would you like to finalize this transaction right now? All you gotta do is follow me in a simple prayer. OK, great, just follow along with me and we'll make this official." Or a variation: "Oh, you're not ready yet? Hey man, that's OK, you have my contact information and when you are ready to finalize the deal, just contact me or another one of our God Agents and we'll be happy to assist you in making this wonderful decision for Christ."

Of course, the above is unfair and I've never met anyone who presented this gospel explicitly like this. But some of the underlying themes of gospel presentations I've seen--and have conducted myself--have had tastes of this; marketing Jesus, having a good "sales approach," rushing through the process and hoping to "close the deal," etc. For some pastors they might even see an increase in their "commission" for the amount of "deals they've closed." Also, gospel presentations sometimes (and I'm just as guilty of this) are too consumer focused. By that I mean it's all about what God can do for YOU. Not on our total giving of ourselves to Him.

Despite all this, I still use the 'Sinner's Prayer' and see value in presenting others with the 'bridge drawing'.

If we can remove the negatives (the sales approach, prematurely "leading people to Christ," etc), these things are indeed pretty good despite their flaws. The negatives give people a false sense of assurance, leave them even more confused afterwards, or cause them to base their spiritual decisions on pure emotionalism. Yes, accepting Christ should definitely have an emotional component (!) but it needs to be rooted in a true understanding of what repentance and lordship really is. One thing that bugs me about the revivalist tradition is that so many "accept Christ" without understanding what that means, and then feel the need to constantly "get saved" even after they've come to a true knowledge of the Lord. While I'm not big on "eternal security" I am perhaps even less fond of "eternal insecurity." Also, while only God knows the true heart of an individual, and acknowledging that even after a more cautious presentation of the gospel and salvation invitation some might not really "get it," there are those who do.

Yes, it frustrates me to think of all the people I "led to the Lord" who at least right now aren't demonstrating any real fruit, but I can think of others who are. In closing, it's important for us to remember that we aren't "saving" anybody. It's God who does the saving, we are just the tools. But we should seek to be effective tools of the Lord, and sometimes doing that means revising method and strategy. Much of what passes for good witnessing and conversion theology needs a revision in our revivalist denominations, at least in my opinion.

How about you? Any better solutions or approaches?