I have heard pastors ask everyone to shut their eyes like that before.   I never thought about it being wrong before. I think because of my deep fear of people , I was thinking it was for people like me. People who sometimes wfelt they had to have at keast a half pint just to have courage enough to move in front of people. I walked up to the pulpit before when I thought the eyes were closed. It wasn't because I was embarrassed to want to know the Lord it was just because of my fear of people. But, as I learned more about Jesus and started to love Him... I "still would hide in the back of the chrch" but I would talk  ore at work..... I was what people call happy in the Lord... I couldn't stop talking about Him. So, I guess I am saying maybe that preacher is being loving and understanding and helpful to some IMO.

ALL I CAN SAY BEFORE I RUN GO PICK REINA UP FROM SCHOOL IS, I LOVE THESE COMMENTS!!!! AND TAMMY I KNOW WHY I LOVE YOU SO MUCH!!!!! THAT GOES FOR THE REST OF YOU ALSO!!! I WILL BE BACK!!! GOD BLESS YOU!!!!

As this discussion appears to be focusing in on the altar call I would like to make a couple of comments.

1) The altar call as we know it is a relatively new invention. It basically started with Charles Finney when he established a set of seats near the front of the sanctuary for the sinner to come and inquire of the Lord. I forget the exact name he used, but it has overtime taken to what we now see in many services where an appeal is made following (I trust) a clear gospel presentation.

2) I am not a fan of the altar call, though I do not stand against it, I do not use it for salvation in any service I preside over. There is no doubt that there are many who have come forward and have confirmed their faith in Christ and yet at the same time there are multitudes who have been appealed to in such a way that they emotionally respond to the call and come forward, yet there is no real conviction or repentance in their heart. The church then proclaims them saved and they go away with false assurance. I truly believe one of the greatest, and hardest to reach, mission fields (especially in the U.S.) is the unsaved churched. This same approach is used in VBS and other gatherings where people are emotionally responding to the speaker and never truly meet Christ (though some do), yet the person and the church proclaim them saved .... This is not the abnormality, but IMO is the case for the majority. That is why if some one tells you that they received Jesus at such-and-such time it caries little weight. What evidence is there in their life of life transformation and evidence that they are growing into Christ-likeness? Some would say that I am judging ... I would rather challenge a person on their salvation than to pat them on their back as they make their way to hell. I have found most often that it is the religious who don't like their salvation  to be questioned and the saved tend to appreciate that someone cares enough to ask the tough questions.

3) There is a prominent evangelist, who I have had the privilege to work at one of his crusades, that openly admits that only about 10% who come forward are truly saved. What about the 90%? A portion will go away knowing that nothing really happened and yet another portion will believe they are saved because they went forward at such-and-such evangelistic meetings. Thus, is the reaching of the 10% in this manner worth giving false assurance to 20 - 30 - 40 - 50% of the rest? I don't know the answer tot hat question as I see pros and cons on both sides.

Food for thought,

LT