Alpha Courses

[dms1972]

I have been looking again at the material I got on one of these courses a few years ago, in light of some other reading I have done in the meantime. The Alpha course, and accompanying material has been around for quite a few years (since the 1990s), and various denominations use it. Its undergone an evolution over the years in appearance at least. In looking at it again, there are some concerns I feel I want to express. Some of the questions that have occured to me are:-

Was there something wrong in the first place that churches needed this material?

Was the Gospel not being presented, and preached in churches across the UK, prior to Alpha?

That would be difficult to believe. In fact I know at least from churches I went to it was being presented. The Pastor of one drew up his own Christianity Explained handouts, and we had several evenings during which he took enquirers (including myself) through the material. I found this material really quite helpful at the time, it described what it meant to be a christian, distinguishing it from mere church going, saying prayers, repeating a creed etc. Because the Pastor had prepared these handouts himself, he had prayerfully thought through their content.

So what was the reason for these Alpha courses?

Perhaps one answer is that the material was by experts in evangelism, and was presented in a way that would reach the unchurched in the UK. Fair enough if this was in fact the case. The idea of the Alpha Course was something new and it was hoped it would get people into churches, perhaps for a meal followed by small group discussions. I don't know that everyone finds such small group discussion all that comfortable? The presentation of the Gospel before Alpha was done by a Minister, who read appropriate Scriptures with meaningfulness to those gathered, then he expounded the message. It wasn't done by members of a group one by one, reading a verse or two, not all that sure what they were reading and what it meant, and for some a bit self-consciously in front of others. In one of these small groups I attended one member basically gave her own paraphrase as she read her verses. It became difficult to follow the flow of the chapter that was being read because each person somewhat anxiously was getting ready to read their couple of verses, and the change from one person to another didn't help. Conversation facilitated by a group leader then proceeded awkwardly as the import of the Scriptures hadn't really been received. Is this a superior way of communicating the Gospel compared to Preaching it? Before Alpha, enquirers became part of the fellowship during which time they could ask questions, talk about difficulties they might not feel comfortable talking about in a group, with folks they had come to trust in the fellowship. Conversions could be sudden or gradual.

So again what if anything was wrong in the presentation of the Gospel in UK Churches before Alpha?


Another thing is that Alpha's theology will not sit well with some churches of a more Reformed orientation. There's a lot of suggested reading with each chapter (I am refering to 2014 booklet: Why am I here?). By the final chapters the suggested reading contains no less than four books by the Italian Roman Catholic Cardinal - Raniero Cantalamessa. There is no other writer promoted so heavily in the course except for Nicky Gumbel himself, who has eight of his books listed amongst the suggested reading material.

Certainly there is some useful info on the historical reliablity of the Gospels in the early chapters of the Why Am I Here? Alpha Booklet. Its not that hard to find online and a Pastor could put together his own Christianity Explained course using Scripture and sources online to give some indication of the reliability of the Gospels.

The most controversial aspect for some churches has been the chapters on the Holy Spirit. Churches were encouraged by Alpha co-ordinators to arrange a day away for the presentation of this material? The main criticism here is that these chapters make the course and the Christian Life taught in it Pneumo-centric rather than Christo-centric, in Christo-centric theology it is through Christ that we know the Holy Spirit and the Father.

Has your church used the Alpha Course, have you done an Alpha Course, if so how did you find it?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Has your church used the Alpha Course, have you done an Alpha Course, if so how did you find it?

My church did it and still does it. I attended one course in late 2020. I found it OK but in need of a Beta and a Gamma and a Delta. I'm Catholic and my parish is Catholic. It leans a bit charismatic. We are in Flyoverland in the middle of the USA. In our diocese we use Alpha with approval of our bishop and we are probably one of the more major users of the program in the diocese. Not all parishes in the diocese use Alpha and that's fine as they do other things.

As I said, I found Alpha to be OK. No terrible heresies that I heard. Just lots of things that were missed, things that would need that Beta and Gamma and Delta class that I referred to if it were to be a complete and comprehensive program. Of course, it is supposed to be just an introductory class so I could put up with it's deficits.

Another thing is that Alpha's theology will not sit well with some churches of a more Reformed orientation. There's a lot of suggested reading with each chapter (I am refering to 2014 booklet: Why am I here?). By the final chapters the suggested reading contains no less than four books by the Italian Roman Catholic Cardinal - Raniero Cantalamessa. There is no other writer promoted so heavily in the course except for Nicky Gumbel himself, who has eight of his books listed amongst the suggested reading material.

I can see how suggesting reading the works of a Catholic might be horrid those of a more Reformed tradition.

The most controversial aspect for some churches has been the chapters on the Holy Spirit. Churches were encouraged by Alpha co-ordinators to arrange a day away for the presentation of this material? The main criticism here is that these chapters make the course and the Christian Life taught in it Pneumo-centric rather than Christo-centric, in Christo-centric theology it is through Christ that we know the Holy Spirit and the Father.

I didn't find it as much pneumo-centric as NOT being either pneumo-silent or being pneumo-negtive. It was liturgically deficient, sacramentally deficient, and ecclesiologically deficient. But those are things that can be and are being addressed in my parish by other means. All those are to be expected in using a program that is low-church Anglican. I could take or leave Alpha but it did some good work in forming friendships and getting people talking. Other means could be used for that, but all in all Alpha wasn't bad.

 

[dms1972]

The issue is not that it would be "horrid", I read catholic writers like Josef Pieper, Louis Bouyer, Romano Guardini and others, they have helped me in some respects in understanding some areas of theology or the theological virtues. The issue is would it sit well with the theology / confessions of those churches, and this is a major issue. There should be recommended material for the main traditions, not just four books by the same author from one. eg. Billy Graham wrote a fine book on the Holy Spirit, there is also one by CH Spurgeon, and obviously others have written on the Holy Spirit.


If the Roman Catholic church guards its doctrines / teaching, why would it be surprising if other churches do also? I say that simply as I think theological agreement needs to be worked out through inter-church dialog, not drift. Of course there are Protestant writers recommended also that Roman Catholics might be unsure of, but remind me when did we all agree Holy Trinity Brompton was to set the theological agenda?

I know its a introduction, not a theological treatise and I didn't expect it to be, but I don't like the implementation of it and other similiar courses I hve been on - particularly the round the group reading of a chapter of scripture which doesn't help one to follow it.

With all the deficiences you mention, i don't understand why your church uses it? Why don't you use something like Romano Guardini's classic The Living God?

Teaching of repentance in Alpha is also deficient, it almost replaces repentance with faith. What about Grace, obviously this is a point were Reformed and Roman Catholic churches disagree. But the 5th century Council of Orange (I learnt this from Louis Bouyer's writings) affirms the primacy of Grace in several articles - that a person cannot just move themselves to faith. Reformed churches (and I am not saying they are the only ones) understand that a person has to grasp their helplessness and why they cannot save themselves. I don't wish to argue over how a person comes to realise this. The point is that Alpha faith doesn't understand this. "Faith is a step forward based on the evidence." says Alpha. That is its not a blind leap, I agree, but it is a casting oneself upon Jesus Christ, having realised one cannot save oneself, trusting in His righteousness not our own.

"....and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ - the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Philipians 3:9

I have really tried to be fair, in fact I held a more or less uncritical attitude towards Alpha for a quite some time. But the more I look into it the more concerns I have with it. Its a lazy presentation compared to others I have seen. It doesn't take one through one of the Gospels. There were no questions to ponder in the Why am I here? book to help bring the import of the scriptural themes home. It is mostly a list of bullet points under different headings. There are and were many superior christian resources before Alpha came on the scene.

Here is another very important issue. Some participants might be coming from a New Age background, or some other sort of spiritualism. These movements may use the term Holy Spirit but they mean something different from the Bible. People coming out of those backgrounds may find it more difficult to understand the difference between the Third Person of the Trinity and what they learnt through something like the New Age text A Course In Miracles. This might in some cases take a trained evangelist or catechist and perhaps sometimes even deliverance ministry to help someone coming out of spiritualism through Christian Initiation.


As regards "Beta" courses, something like Your Personal Encourager by Selwyn Hughes is an example of a book for new believers to turn to when struggling. Not sure why churches would need more courses from HTB thanks, there are plenty of excellent christian resources out there already. Each church should look at what there is and pick what seems best for their own church IMO.

You used a couple of terms, I am not sure I understand: pneumo-silent, and pneumo-negative. I suspect they might be valuable distinctions if I understood better how you use them?

 

[chevyontheriver]

... but remind me when did we all agree Holy Trinity Brompton was to set the theological agenda?

We didn't agree to let them set the agenda. And in my parish they don't. We use their program as a part of a larger whole with Sunday mass, weekday masses, small group lectio divina, confession, individual and group adoration, expert led Bible studies, healing ministries, and a whole lot of other things. We USE Alpha but it isn't the agenda.

I know its a introduction, not a theological treatise and I didn't expect it to be, but I don't like the implementation of it and other similiar courses I have been on - particularly the round the group reading of a chapter of scripture which doesn't help one to follow it.

Maybe.

With all the deficiences you mention, i don't understand why your church uses it?

They have found it useful as an evangelization tool and to some degree as a community builder. They don't pretend it doesn't have deficiencies, and I have let them know how and where I find Alpha needing a Beta and Gamma and Delta. Alpha alone would be terribly deficient.

Teaching of repentance in Alpha is also deficient, it almost replaces repentance with faith. What about Grace, obviously this is a point were Reformed and Roman Catholic churches disagree. But the 5th century Council of Orange (I learnt this from Louis Bouyer's writings) affirms the primacy of Grace in several articles - that a person cannot just move themselves to faith. Reformed churches (and I am not saying they are the only ones) understand that a person has to grasp their helplessness and why they cannot save themselves. I don't wish to argue over how a person comes to realise this.

You don't have to argue it. Grace comes first. Repentance is required.

The point is that Alpha faith doesn't understand this. "Faith is a step forward based on the evidence." says Alpha. That is its not a blind leap, I agree, but it is a casting oneself upon Jesus Christ, having realised one cannot save oneself, trusting in His righteousness not our own.

Might you be overthinking this a bit? Or maybe they cleaned up their language in the years between when you took the class and when I did.

I have really tried to be fair, in fact I held a more or less uncritical attitude towards Alpha for a quite some time. But the more i look into it the more problems I see with it. Its a lazy presentation compared to others I have seen. It doesn't take one through one of the Gospel's. There are and were many superior resources before Alpha came on the scene.

Is Alpha required in Anglican churches in Great Britain? Or is it a mere option?

In my parish, if a non-Christian goes through Alpha and wants to become a Christian they would then be enrolled in a multiple months long Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) that would have sacramental and doctrinal preparation leading up to baptism and first communion and confirmation. Alpha alone isn't considered to be nearly enough in my parish for becoming Catholic. Was it or is it for Anglicans? Or for any other groups that use it?

As regards "Beta" courses, something like Your Personal Encourager by Selwyn Hughes is an great example of a book for new believers to turn to when tested, but there have been loads of similiar books available for years. We don't need more courses from HTB thanks, there are plenty of excellent christian resources out there.

I think if HTB came out with a Beta course I would lobby my parish strongly to find something else. I wouldn't want all my eggs in that one basket.

You used a couple of terms, I am not sure I understand: pneumo-silent, and pneumo-negative. I suspect they might be valuable distinctions if I understood better how you use them?

I invented those terms. I've never seen anyone else use them. Of course I have never heard the term pneumo-centric either. Pneumo-silent is to do the all too common thing and pretty much forget about the Holy Spirit. Pneumo-negative would be something like anti-charismatic.

 

[dms1972]

Thanks for clarifying. Pneumo-centric I have seen used in other sources, its not my own term. But there are theologies that distinguish Ages or Dispensations eg. Age of the Father, Age of the Son, Age of the Spirit, and I believe these distinctions into Ages (not the Trinitarian distinctions themselves) are unscriptural.

Alpha uses the latter phrase "Age of the Spirit" without much definition so its hard to know what they mean, I haven't had access to a Leaders Guide. They do seem to distinguish the way the Holy Spirit came upon individuals in the Old Testament from the Presence of the Holy Spirit following Pentecost which is maybe what they mean by "Age of the Spirit"? And they do speak of the Holy Spirit as personal, not impersonal. There is however a bit more to it and whether we are talking of the Holy Spirit within the relations of the Trinity or the Role of the Holy Spirit in Creation and Redemption. But that is obviously getting in deep theology.

The issue is not really one of being anti versus pro charismatic, it more one of when are we in danger of over-emphasising something previously neglected and falling into the opposite error from the one we wanted to correct?

You can see however from these introductory verses from several of the NT Epistles the writers don't seem to make a distinction of Ages or Dispensations relating to different persons as such, other than to distinguish the Persons of the Holy Trinity in the work of Redemption but not in terms of dispensations. If I am incomplete in my understanding here I hope someone might fill out the needed detail.

Jude the brother of James says in his introduction: "To those who have been called and who are loved by God the Father, and kept by Jesus Christ" (Jude v. 1)

The Apostle Paul begins his Letters to Timothy and most of his other letters: "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord"

Colossians : "Grace and Peace to you from God our Father."

Galatians 1: 3-5: "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen."

Thessalonians : "To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"

1st Peter : "To the elect who are exiles of the Dispersion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance."

In case you think I am anti-charismatic, I am not, I'm even fond of writers such as Agnes Sanford. However I am conscious and concerned about excesses and lack of balance within charismatic churches, and some errors which I have strayed into myself over the years.

It would be wrong to draw unwarranted or anti-charismatic conclusions from the verses quoted, but I mention them because without sound doctrine, we can gradually just cross over from Christian spirituality into Gnostic Spirituality. It is a pity the Alpha course doesn't end with a session on the Holy Trinity but each church needs to do that in accordance with its own or its denomination's confessional and doctrinal teaching on these matters.

I am not an Anglican though I sometimes go to a Church of Ireland locally. I don't know whether Alpha is strongly pushed across Anglican churches.

 

[Paidiske]

I am not an Anglican though I sometimes go to a Church of Ireland locally. I don't know whether Alpha is strongly pushed across Anglican churches.

I think it's often been seen as a useful tool.

I've led Alpha several times in different parishes. Each time I have become more unhappy with it; I would not willingly use it again (fortunately there are plenty of good resources out there should one wish to go looking).

I think what Alpha did well, that maybe hadn't been done so well before it (at least on that kind of scale) was it made it easy for the church to run. They gave you a formula, they gave you materials, they gave you instructions, they told you how to make it work, and if you kept to the basic concept - a shared meal, some teaching time, and a time to reflect together - it did some good things. It helped build relationships and genuine connection and community. And it gave the volunteers running it, confidence that this was something they could do, without having to be experts on every theological point, or very capable evangelists in their own right, or the like.

I think where it fell down was that - as chevy noted - it was pretty thin in a lot of areas. One criticism in particular that I remember was that they were really pushing charismatic experiences, but barely mentioned baptism. But which is more normative for the Christian life?

I also found that by the last time I used their materials - which I think would have been 2016-ish - they had developed to having the presentations done, not by trained teachers and theologians, or the like, but by normal people who had been through the courses. It helped sell the message that "this can be real and life changing for you, too," but I found that their presentation style was often manipulative and I sometimes felt less than honest. Promising people if they came to put their faith in Christ their problems would be fixed, sufferings alleviated, and so on, when we know that the Christian life is a lot more complicated than that. That was when, for me, it crossed a line from "this is not perfect and I want to add stuff," to, "actually, the way this is being done is really not entirely ethical." Maybe they've addressed that since then, I don't know.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think it's often been seen as a useful tool.

I've led Alpha several times in different parishes. Each time I have become more unhappy with it; I would not willingly use it again (fortunately there are plenty of good resources out there should one wish to go looking).

I think what Alpha did well, that maybe hadn't been done so well before it (at least on that kind of scale) was it made it easy for the church to run. They gave you a formula, they gave you materials, they gave you instructions, they told you how to make it work, and if you kept to the basic concept - a shared meal, some teaching time, and a time to reflect together - it did some good things. It helped build relationships and genuine connection and community. And it gave the volunteers running it, confidence that this was something they could do, without having to be experts on every theological point, or very capable evangelists in their own right, or the like.

I think where it fell down was that - as chevy noted - it was pretty thin in a lot of areas. One criticism in particular that I remember was that they were really pushing charismatic experiences, but barely mentioned baptism. But which is more normative for the Christian life?

I also found that by the last time I used their materials - which I think would have been 2016-ish - they had developed to having the presentations done, not by trained teachers and theologians, or the like, but by normal people who had been through the courses. It helped sell the message that "this can be real and life changing for you, too," but I found that their presentation style was often manipulative and I sometimes felt less than honest. Promising people if they came to put their faith in Christ their problems would be fixed, sufferings alleviated, and so on, when we know that the Christian life is a lot more complicated than that. That was when, for me, it crossed a line from "this is not perfect and I want to add stuff," to, "actually, the way this is being done is really not entirely ethical." Maybe they've addressed that since then, I don't know.

It is, for me, still at the ‘this is not perfect and I want to add stuff’ stage I guess. And I have heard other Catholic criticism of it, and a response from Alpha that they might work on a version more open to Catholic needs. I have no idea where that went.

I have not seen Alpha as materially heretical, but if that’s all there was it would be deficient enough to generate all sorts of heresy. Happily it is a small thing in the overall life of our parish and it’s balance.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks for clarifying. Pneumo-centric I have seen used in other sources, its not my own term. But there are theologies that distinguish Ages or Dispensations eg. Age of the Father, Age of the Son, Age of the Spirit, and I believe these distinctions into Ages (not the Trinitarian distinctions themselves) are unscriptural.

Alpha uses the latter phrase "Age of the Spirit" without much definition so its hard to know what they mean, I haven't had access to a Leaders Guide. They do seem to distinguish the way the Holy Spirit came upon individuals in the Old Testament from the Presence of the Holy Spirit following Pentecost which is maybe what they mean by "Age of the Spirit"? And they do speak of the Holy Spirit as personal, not impersonal. There is however a bit more to it and whether we are talking of the Holy Spirit within the relations of the Trinity or the Role of Holy Spirit in Creation and Redemption. But that is obviously getting in deep theology.

The issue is not really one of being anti versus pro charismatic, it more one of when are we in danger of over-emphasising something previously neglected and falling into the opposite error from the one we wanted to correct?

You can see however from these introductory verses from several of the NT Epistles the writers don't seem to make a distinction of Ages or Dispensations relating to different persons as such, other than to distinguish the Persons of the Holy Trinity in the work of Redemption but not in terms of dispensations. If I am incomplete in my understanding here I hope someone might fill out the needed detail.

Jude the brother of James says in his introduction: "To those who have been called and who are loved by God the Father, and kept by Jesus Christ" (Jude v. 1)

The Apostle Paul begins his Letters to Timothy and most of his other letters: "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord"

Colossians : "Grace and Peace to you from God our Father."

Galatians 1: 3-5: "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen."

Thessalonians : "To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"

1st Peter : "To the elect who are exiles of the Dispersion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance."

In case you think I am anti-charismatic, I am not, I'm even fond of writers such as Agnes Sanford. However I am conscious and concerned about excesses and lack of balance within charismatic churches, and some errors which I have strayed into myself over the years.

It would be wrong to draw unwarranted or anti-charismatic conclusions from the verses quoted, but I mention them because without sound doctrine, we can gradually just cross over from Christian spirituality into Gnostic Spirituality. It is a pity the Alpha course doesn't end with a session on the Holy Trinity but each church needs to do that in accordance with its own or its denomination's confessional and doctrinal teaching on these matters.

I am not an Anglican though I sometimes go to a Church of Ireland locally. I don't know whether Alpha is strongly pushed across Anglican churches.

I don’t do dispensationalism but I do see what you are talking about. I don’t know how dispensationalist Nicky Gumbel and crew may or may not be. They could do with a good bit of classic Trinitarian theology to be sure.

Again, it’s a tool. And my circular saw COULD cut my finger off. And it’s no good at pounding nails. And some day I will have a table saw.

 

[dms1972]

I think it's often been seen as a useful tool.

I've led Alpha several times in different parishes. Each time I have become more unhappy with it; I would not willingly use it again (fortunately there are plenty of good resources out there should one wish to go looking).

I think what Alpha did well, that maybe hadn't been done so well before it (at least on that kind of scale) was it made it easy for the church to run. They gave you a formula, they gave you materials, they gave you instructions, they told you how to make it work, and if you kept to the basic concept - a shared meal, some teaching time, and a time to reflect together - it did some good things. It helped build relationships and genuine connection and community. And it gave the volunteers running it, confidence that this was something they could do, without having to be experts on every theological point, or very capable evangelists in their own right, or the like.

I think where it fell down was that - as chevy noted - it was pretty thin in a lot of areas. One criticism in particular that I remember was that they were really pushing charismatic experiences, but barely mentioned baptism. But which is more normative for the Christian life?

I also found that by the last time I used their materials - which I think would have been 2016-ish - they had developed to having the presentations done, not by trained teachers and theologians, or the like, but by normal people who had been through the courses. It helped sell the message that "this can be real and life changing for you, too," but I found that their presentation style was often manipulative and I sometimes felt less than honest. Promising people if they came to put their faith in Christ their problems would be fixed, sufferings alleviated, and so on, when we know that the Christian life is a lot more complicated than that. That was when, for me, it crossed a line from "this is not perfect and I want to add stuff," to, "actually, the way this is being done is really not entirely ethical." Maybe they've addressed that since then, I don't know.

Thanks for your comments, I have really wrestled with this over the last few days, wondering if I am being unfair, too critical etc. I completely agree it can open up conversation and the booklet I had from it had a helpful historical reliablity of Gospel documents set out visually with but it really does need a someone quite good at facilliating a small group. The Pastor I mentioned ran his Christianity Explained course but it was just a smallish group, we sat in a circle, there wasn't a meal, but we got to ask questions if we wanted and we felt we were in competent hands with the Pastor who did his best to answer, although he did have say once he didn't know to one question if I recall correctly. But that's better than stumbling to give an answer to everything. As mentioned some implementations of Alpha in some churches would have differed from others, some ministers are more able to exercise theological control and make use of the material without feeling they have to stick to it. Some facilliators maybe be better a leading a group. I still think it would be good for some ministers to have a go at preparing their own Christianity Explained courses though.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks for your comments, I have really wrestled with this over the last few days, wondering if I am being unfair, too critical etc. I completely agree it can open up conversation and the booklet I had from it had a helpful historical reliablity of Gospel documents set out visually with but it really does need a someone quite good at facilliating a small group. The Pastor I mentioned ran his Christianity Explained course but it was just a smallish group, we sat in a circle, there wasn't a meal, but we got to ask questions if we wanted and we felt we were in competent hands with the Pastor who did his best to answer, although he did have say once he didn't know to one question if I recall correctly. But that's better than stumbling to give an answer to everything. As mentioned some implementations of Alpha in some churches would have differed from others, some ministers are more able to exercise theological control and make use of the material without feeling they have to stick to it. Some facilliators maybe be better a leading a group. I still think it would be good for some ministers to have a go at preparing their own Christianity Explained courses though.

I think it's fair to be critical of Alpha. We all need constructive criticality. For me it was realizing that Alpha wasn't supposed to be 'the whole thing' and in truth it wasn't being used that way anyhow. And it does depend on the quality of the pastoral staff what they make of it.