I have imagined such briefly, and now am proven my prediction that Paul Washer had truly said that that he despised altar call/"invitation", calling it psychological manipulation.
Regarding Billy Graham statement "even with the most famous evangelist in the world said that even 5% of all the people who made decisions at my meetings were saved, I would be pleased...", this time, unlike other times where he quoted the same "5%" Billy Graham quote elsewhere, Washer commented: "Why didn't he tell them that?". Thus, I am reminded to wander once again where and when did Billy Graham said that?
Altar call (呼召) is obviously a big thing at the end of Evangelical rally. Even in Dr. Stephen Tong's. Though I highly doubt that it's confined within scriptural context of Romans 10, 12:1. "Call upon the name of the Lord", "Living Sacrifice"...
Psychological manipulation? Not necessary. Although, I have been troubled by such as long as I could remember about altar call, I am sure it is a way of public testimony for those who could immediately make firm decisions, instead of hesitating back and forth, as if counting the cost of construction endlessly. Of course, at the same time, such call never excludes the unfaithful ones, the crowd seekers. Nor is such call always done by faithful God fearing preachers.
If I were to defend the status of altar call, in addition to the public offering practice in the Old Testament and a couple of other scriptures, I would state that "silent call" is just as neutral if not imperfect. For it is better to have a more open fellowship than secret givers in the case of witnessing.
Always give the benefit of doubt first, skepticism later when necessary.
I sure would love to have this discussion with Dr. Tong.
I came across a video where Pak Tong spoke of how Altar Call is biblical, but I have since lost it. In the mean time, if I were to defend "altar call", I would not liken it to Charles Finney's, which is where much of the criticism is on, and I have no idea what's it about for I do not know Finney and his works much, only that it has to be different from the likes of almost all great preachers such as George Whitefield, Stephen Tong, etc. I would just call it an invitation, just like a preacher's invitation for those who wish to repent, and not "altar call." Looks like altar call, but not really altar call.
As to whether or not they want to build a Bible case for it, I would say this is a methodology. Because by principle, Jesus called ("Come to me" & other callings, Peter called (Acts 2: ...3000 baptized and added), etc.
Now the problem against "altar call" in today's American Christianity (particularly the baptist/reformed evangelical stream), is that they have made their ministry impersonal. Infected by individualism, perhaps? I wouldn't say the altar call-like invitation is a must in a rally, but when it comes to connecting with those who wish to repent and come to the Lord between the preacher and the listeners, it is a good thing, it is Biblical. Whenever the Gospels or the book of Acts spoke of the number of people added or believed, the accounting though could be of a different methodology, but not far from the method of mass invitation where no false assurances such as those who stepped onto the "altar" are saved, or a display of conversion result, are being made. I would say, the number from such invitation exhibits the effect on the kind of preacher and listeners, and not to over-generalize but in principle, God fearing preachers bear God-fearing converts, and unholy preachers bear unholy weirdos. With minor exceptions to all that.
Another good example how this is not a big deal (methodology, not doctrinal principle) is Stephen Tong challenging his son David Tong why he stepped forward 3 times during the invitation to serve the Lord:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEn7fBnhQ3Q
Some defense of Altar Call:
From Acts, when number of believers were counted in the beginning.
using James 5:13-19:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pp9CzxOca8
And R.C. Sproul takes both sides into account:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlYGa62Ml6w
George Whitefield did altar call before it was called "altar call":
Although some have made a sharp distinction between the era of Finney’s “New Measures” and the theologically pristine revivalism of the First Great Awakening, there were signs of calls for an immediate response to the gospel from First Great Awakening evangelists, including George Whitefield. Whitefield at the 1742 Cambuslang revival in Scotland gave one of his standard sermons on Isaiah 54:5. “Thy Maker Is Thy Husband.” As I wrote in my biography of Whitefield, he ended the sermon with a scene that might be discomfiting to many evangelicals today:
Whitefield asked whether anyone wished “to take Christ for their husband.” If they did, he extended an invitation: “Come and I’ll marry you to him just now.” . . . A twenty-one-year old male convert said that when Whitefield “laid out the terms” of the union with Christ, he found his “heart made sweetly to agree to those terms.” Another convert ran to embrace a friend, exclaiming that the minister had “married my soul to Christ.” . . . Whitefield wrote that many “were married to the Lord Jesus that night.”
Whether or not people actually came to the front, Whitefield’s intent was similar: trying to have people make a decision for Christ right then and there.
There was a growing trend toward practices in the 18th and 19th centuries that sound a lot like invitations or altar calls. Strangely, however, the term “altar call” was almost never used in the 19th century, at least not in print. It starts to show up first in Holiness and Nazarene publications in the early 20th century. For example, the term “altar call” appears as part of the program of 1908 commencement exercises at Pacific Bible College (a forerunner to Point Loma Nazarene University).