Alpha 'on' Big Brother

This is Britain's first ever Christian television advertisement. It will run 30 times on E4 in September, at about the same time Big Brother is running, and coinciding directly with the BB final.

  The Alpha Course is one of the most phenomenal success stories to emerge from the modern Church of England. Its charismatic frontman Nicky Gumbel could be an A-list celebrity, if he cared about such things. He's the kind of person who would rather feature in Alpha News than Hello! however, and even in Alpha News he goes as low-profile as he can.

The advertisement is the latest in ten years of promotions by Alpha, a course now taken by at least eight million people. Graphic designer Alastair Duckworth won a competition run by the Alpha Course organisers and you can watch the other shortlisted entries here. 

Next week, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland publishes a new analaysis of the course, The Alpha Phenomenon, by Andrew Brookes. He claims to address both the strengths and limitations of Alpha. The course has some strong critics, even in the Christian world. But try as hard as they can - and I know for a fact that some journalists have tried very hard indeed - no-one has ever been able to dig up anything really sinister about Alpha or HTB. I personally have never done a whole course although I really enjoyed the sessions I did attend at HTB, and especially the delicious spag bol. There is one thing that puzzles me though. Given that about a quarter of Britain's 28,000 churches have now run the course, with 5,700 running it in 2005 alone, why is church decline continuing in Britain? I wonder if perhaps the churches would have disappeared completely without Alpha, or whether Alpha just doesn't 'stick' long-term. Or maybe there is another explanation altogether than I am just missing. I don't mean to knock Alpha, but this is a question I often get asked 'out there'. I would love to know all your views on this conundrum that has been puzzling me (and my mum as it happens) for many years.

More news on TimesOnline Faith, including a story just breaking about the first German bishop ever to file for divorce. Margot Kaessmann, 48, leads more than three million Evangelical Lutherans in the German state of Lower Saxony. Auburn-haired and charismatic, Bishop Kaessman is popular with the media and is often invited onto television to comment on current affairs. Of other German clergy, only Cardinal Karl Lehmann, the most senior Roman Catholic bishop in Germany, has a media profile equal to hers.

Comments

[Atanael Souza]

Hi everybody,
I strongly agree with Jonathan, without the Bible(read 2 Timothy 3:16) and the true annoiting of the Holy Spirit Alpha Course doesn't go beyond the gathering for the meals. The word of God changed nations,people and it continues doing so. What's more is that the Leaders of the Alpha are not really interested what the Bible says, what they really want is to see us back to the slavery of the Roman Catholic Church. Let's Guys discern the times we're in! (read 1 Timothy 4:1)

[mark santos]

Franz Buggle: "Denn sie wissen nicht, was sie glauben"
Internet: Military Bible
www.militaryministry.org
www.centralpark-ny.us H
Hitler`s Bible
Die Bibel: 1.Rassismus 2.Volkermord
3.Kannibalismus 4. Inzeste 5.Hass
5.Die Kriege 6.Schlachten

[Keith]

G'day people,

I've never taken part in an Alpha course, but it seems quite evident that individual courses may follow the style of the "group leader".

Certainly from the outside it would seem that a course that is acceptable to both the Roman Catholic system (salvation by membership of the RC Church and works) and fundamental Christianity (salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone) is a problem, in that there is so little area of overlap between these two diametrically opposed belief systems of doctrine acceptable to both. The result would seem to be the "christianity lite" version - to put it charitably.

I have read much that adds to my concern, from which I provide the following quote, and I am wondering if people who are intimately familiar with the printed course materials (as opposed to those who have merely participated) can comment.

I QUOTE: "The two testimonies given by Alpha participants at the beginning of the first Alpha video are prime examples of this. There are certain basic elements one would expect to hear in a classic conversion testimony: the conviction of sin leading to repentance and subsequent assurance of God's forgiveness and salvation through the death on the cross of Jesus Christ. But these are not there in any form in these two testimonies.

A relationship with God is referred to, as is the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, prayer, an interest in Bible reading, church-going, Christianity and what Alpha has done for them. But Jesus and what He has done for them and a relationship with Him is not mentioned at all. Yet the Lord Jesus is the gospel, He is salvation, He is their new life so how can He possibly be so completely overlooked in a basic conversion testimony?" UNQUOTE.

Thank you.

Keith

[ANGEL H]

I HAVE DONE THE ALPHA COURSE 10+ TIMES AND EVERYTIME I SEE PEOPLES' LIVES BEING TRANSFORMED AT THE END OF THE COURSE. ITS NOT THAT I AM SO DUMB THAT I HAD TO DO IT 8 TIMES TO GET IT .I DID THE SECOND TIME AS A HELPER AND THE REST I WAS ABLE TO HELP LEAD THEM. WHEN YOU FIND SOMETHING GREAT YOU WANT TO SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE.

IT IS THE ONLY THING IN THE WORLD THAT CAN SATISFY ALL YOUR NEEDS. - A PERSONAL RELATIOSHIP WITH JESUS . ITS NOT ENOUGH JUST TO KNOW ABOUT HIM - YOU NEED TO KNOW HIM PERSONALLY. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW - ATTEND AN ALPHA COURSE NEAR YOU!!!

IF YOU GUYS HAVE NOT DONE THE COURSE PERSONALLY - HOW CAN YOU GIVE A FAIR COMMENT. WHAT DO YOU KNOW EXCEPT WHAT YOU THINK OR SPECTULATE.

LIKE THE ILLUSTRATION NICKY GIVES ON THE COURSE. YOU CAN READ A BOOK ABOUT ME SAYING THAT I AM WONDERFUL ,BEAUTIFUL, SMART AND FUNNY, BUT UNTIL YOU REALLY GET TO KNOW ME PERSONALLY YOU WOULD NEVER REALLY KNOW RIGHT ?.

ITS THE SAME THING WITH CHRISTIANITY - YOU NEED TO KNOW GOD PERSONALLY AND NOT JUST ACCEPT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY ABOUT HIM

DON'T KNOCK IT TILL YOU HAVE TRIED IT.

SIMPLICITY IS GOOD , WHY MAKE SOMETHING SO SIMPLE AND TRUTHFUL SO COMPLICATED THAT ONLY A FEW CAN UNDERSTAND. IT IS FOR EVERYONE. JESUS CAME TO SAVE THE WORLD NOT JUST THE INTELLECTUALS !!!

THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE AND THERE ARE NONE SO DEAF AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT LISTEN.

ANGEL H

[Joshua]

Tony B, I found The Challenge of Jesus by N.T. Wright very helpful in understanding Jesus from a first century perspective.

I understand your post about the glib answers. It is a fair comment tho' as others have said Alpha is more of an introduction than a degree course in theology.

I have done an Alpha course and found sitting around talking about God over a good supper great fun...could have been the food tho'.

[Tony B]

Hello James. Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, but I'll take your comments at face value.

I wasn't being entirely serious when I suggested that the trilemma was driving people away. What I would say is that from what I have seen, in his book, Gumbel's arguments are poor. The book is an easy enough read, and maybe that's the problem - it provides glib and easy answers to questions Gumbel himself asks. I've been around long enough to know that Christianity is nowhere near that simple. And I'm glad it isn't, and I wish people wouldn't portray it as if it was. Lewis compares very favourably; he wrote well, he made little appeal to authority, to the Bible, or to anecdote. He argued mainly by analogy. He made it clear that the analogies were his, and that they were mere tools and symbols for trying to perceive something that was greater. Gumbel gives few hints of this. It's all simplicity itself.

I'm afraid I'm also not convinced by the arguments you set out in your second para. Jesus's claims to be 'God' or the 'Son of God' are highly ambiguous and largely inferred. If Mark indeed was first, it doesn't have Jesus explicity claiming to be the Son, and this has been added/ edited in later. As to 'forgiving third party sins', his wording is usually, I think, "your sins are forgiven" not "I forgive your sins". Again, his claim to be God is inferred later and not explicity stated by him.

>"what you don’t get is pliant indifference of the “nice chap, meant well, shame he got it wrong on the way” variety."

Well, it's not reported in the Gospels, perhaps. That's an awfully long way from being able to state with confidence that no such reaction ever occurred. I'm not sure your argument is on very secure foundations here. But you've made me notice something else about the trilemma - it does present something of an old-fashioned view of mental illness, does it not? I.e. it relies on the idea that we couldn't possibly make the claim that Jesus was mentally ill, "a lunatic". Well, why can't we? We don't tend to call people "lunatics" these days, and we don't tend to necessarily consider it an insult, or a reason to dismiss or disregard what they say as being valueless. David Icke claimed far more explicity to be the Son of God, and yes, he was considered a nutter, by many. But many others think he talks a lot of sense (as well as a lot of nonsense), and he has an awful lot of "followers". So actually I'm not convinced that, even if the "trilemma" is valid, that "lunacy" of some sort isn't a viable option. It detracts from the valueable things Jesus said not one iota.

Refutations in print - well Dawkins mentions it but rather weakly. Going back a few years, Robinson discusses it in "Honest to God" but confines his criticism to the strength of the Son of God claim itself.

Please do not worry about taking up my time, there's very little I'd rather do than talk about Jesus.

[James]

Thanks Tony B: this is great stuff and I'm grateful for your reply. Sorry for the delay in mine and my retrospective apologies too for implying you wouldn’t respond.

Taking your points in order:

Over 8 million it is then – is this so important? I was more interested in your post than the original article. Still, whilst we’re on Ruth’s point: doesn’t she presuppose that if you excluded the effect of Alpha, the increase in church non-attendance would be continuously uniform as opposed to (say) rapidly exponential? But we don't have any data for this. So there's no reliable method for calibrating Alpha’s overall effect. In other words, if you take Alpha out of the equation, it may be the case that the increase would be more dramatic (i.e. it could be slowing the decline) or it may not be (the breathtaking illogicality of the Liar/Lunatic/Lord argument could be driving them away in droves). There's just no easy way of establishing it as a hypothesis and therefore no way of arguing whether it's having a positive or negative effect on attendance. What do you think?

I’m not sure that even the most understated of Englishmen would use the words “honestly mistaken” for someone who went around cheerfully forgiving third-party sins, casting demons out in the name of God, claiming to bear in his death the sins of a nation (& perhaps the whole of humanity), urging followers to proclaim his name to the ends of the earth, appearing to threaten political insurrection and claiming to be indistinguishable from God Almighty. We just don't call people like that honestly mistaken - we lock them up. We lock them up because it’s not good public policy to have people like that wandering the streets. Such people may be honest and they would almost certainly be mistaken: the one thing they cannot be is mentally balanced. It just so happened that in so radically sensitive a religious setting as 1stC Palestine, they didn’t lock them up – they crucified them. The same would apply to the second possible excluded middle – Jesus fulfilling OT prophecies after the event: this wouldn't strike many as even moderately well-adjusted, which is why he causes a riot whenever he refers to his apparent fulfillment of such texts – I’m thinking for instance of that bit where he gets up in the synagogue, reads out some passage from Isaiah, sits down and tells everyone the bit he’s just read has been fulfilled. Now whatever else that’s doing, it’s hardly painting the picture of a man who just stumbles accidentally into thinking he’s God on earth. These are delusions of grandeur which for his unbelieving contemporaries were grotesquely offensive; to those who believed, something quite different of course – he always provokes radically polar reactions. People either hate him and want to kill him; or they fall to their knees and worship him: what you don’t get is pliant indifference of the “nice chap, meant well, shame he got it wrong on the way” variety.

I think your point about presupposing the reliability of the source material is a very good one. You do need to do this for the trilemma - but notice (a) that you also need the source material whatever to say anything about him at all (e.g. “honestly mistaken”, “fulfilling OT prophecies” and so on) and (b) the actual trilemma, as a matter of logic/illogic, stands apart from the separate question of the authenticity of the texts themselves. And as I mentioned, Gumbel and Lewis have tried – successfully or not – to make out a case for that beforehand.

This is too long and I shouldn’t take up any more of your time; just to close, I’m glad there was no chronological snobbery in the “day and age” remark. It's just I haven’t seen the argument definitively refuted in print (yours is the first real criticism I’ve seen in fact), which is why I was puzzled when you said it had been “shown to be somewhat dodgy” long ago.

[Tony B]

James, I did write a reply to this, but it seems not to have been approved, for some reason. It went something like this.

You are free to suggest whatever you like, just as I am free to ignore your suggestions utterly.

Having said that, I would like to point out that I did not say that "all 10 million (I thought it was 8 million?) alpha attendees" had missed the logical fallacy. The clue to this was in my use of the word "maybe".Perhaps they all spotted the logical fallacy, and that is part of the reason why Alpha has not been as successful as Ruth expected?

Perhaps also Jesus was genuinely mistaken? Perhaps he thought that by acting out the prophecies of the OT he would bring about Gods Kingdom on Earth? These are possible excluded middles. And incidentally, "once you grant the basic reliability of the source material" - gives the game away a bit, doesn't it? If you've already accepted the reliability of the gospels, you're bound to reach the conclusion you are led to anyway. It's also rather a crude form of bullying - "you can't possibly say that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, therefore you must accept he was the Son of God!!".

I may as well deal with your other point a well, by "this day and age", I simply meant "long after the argument has been demonstrated to be a bit dodgy".

I'm also going to add a few more points to my missing reply. I have been prompted by this exchange to revisit Gumbel's book, and Lewis's since you brought him into it, and I'm afraid I found Gumbel's style of argument even less plausible than I did the first time around. In fact it reads almost like a textbook demonstration of all the logical fallacies rolled into one. We have the argument from authority ("Thomas Arnold was clever, he said this, so Jesus was the Son of God") the non-sequitur (People have problem x, y or z, Jesus said something about these problems, therefore he is the Son of God) and I have only re-read the first ten pages or so. All I can say is that only people who were already Christians or who are easily satisfied and don;t ask too many questions could surely get anything out of this?

[Tony B]

James, you're free to suggest whatever you like, just as I am free to ignore your suggestions utterly.

Having said that, I'd like to point out that I did not say that all 10 million (I thought it was 8 million?) attendees failed to spot the logical fallacy. The clue to this is in my use of the word "maybe". It may be that they all spotted it, and that this is part of the reason why Alpha hasn't apparently been as successful and Ruth expected. I was speculating.

It may be that Jesus was honestly mistaken, or it may be that he thought that by living out OT prophecies he would bring about God's kingdom on Earth. These are possible excluded middles. There may be more. It's also of course a rather crude form of bullying - "You can't possibly say Jesus was a lunatic or a liar, therefore you have to admit that he was the Son of God!!!".

I might as well clear up the rest of your points as I'm on a roll. Doesn't the idea that the argument only works if you "grant the basic reliability of the source material" give the game away a bit? If you've done that, you're bound to accept the conclusion you're led to anyway, and the argument becomes superfluous.

And "in this day and age" simply meant "long after the argument has been shown to be somewhat dodgy".

Satisfied? Do I now have your permission to continue writing?

[James]

In that case it's my turn to clarify: you don't seem to me to be anybody's fool, or I wouldn't have replied to your post. But I do think it's incumbent upon you to explain the logical fallacies of which Alpha attendees - all 10 million of them - are not aware. If it is they who are the fools, can't you extend a hand to help them?

If your criticism of "Questions of Life"/The Alpha Course is that it is glib and simple, and that this glibness and simplicity is best exemplified in Gumbel's use of the Liar/Lunatic/Lord argument, don't you feel you also owe it to the readers of this blog to explain the logical fallacy? If not, I would respectfully suggest that you refrain from writing anything further.

[Tony B]

I see James. When you asked me to clarify, what you meant was you wanted to see if you could make a fool out of me? I'm not playing, sorry :-)

[James]

I can't quite pinpoint the poor reasoning in the "trilemma". There are problems with it to be sure, but I haven't yet come across a convincing critique of its inner logical coherence (i.e. once you grant the basic reliability of the source material, which Lewis and Gumbel have done by this stage in their respective arguments). Perhaps you are referring to the fallacy of the excluded middle? If so, which alternative is being excluded?

Also: I don't follow the phrase "in this day and age". Does it imply that thinkers of a bygone age were maybe less capable of sound reasoning? If so, again, I confess I can't quite make out the logical foundation for this claim.

[James]

Perhaps you are referring to the fallacy of the excluded middle? If you are, which option is being excluded?

Also: "...in this day and age..." Does this imply that those who came before our own age were perhaps less capable of reasoning? If so, I can't quite see the logical basis for this assumption - could you clear up my confusion here too?

[Tony B]

Certainly - clarify what?

[James]

Tony B - could you clarify?

[Tony B]

I haven't been on an Alpha course, but I have got the book by Nicky Gumbel that is based on it - "Questions of Life". This put me off ever attending an Alpha Course. I found it far too simple and glib, but also poorly reasoned. Anyone who uses the "Mad, Bad, or Son of God" argument in this day and age is on a pretty slippery road. But maybe few alpha attendees are aware of logical fallacies. It really seemed to me to be Christianity for the gullible.

[simon (adams)]

The David Frost programmes were not the greatest advertisement for Alpha by any means. There are a series of programmes which are purely the live recordings of Nicky Gumbel doing his talks on the various subjects covered, which are shown on one of the hundreds of Sky channels every now and then. He himself is pretty inspiring and undeniably authentic.

I think there are two answers to Ruth's question. One is undoubtedly that many are inspired at first, especially with people like Nicky Gumbel there to break down some of the preconceptions people have about Christianity in general nowadays, but nonetheless the inspiration fades with the day to day inner and outer issues of being a Christian in modern Europe.

The second is that all the people I know of who have gone to Alpha and have been influenced long term by it, DO NOT go to Anglican churches now. They have tended to end up with groups like Kingsnet or Hillsong, they tend to meet on Sundays not in churches but in halls and theatres, and tend to listen to christian rock rather than hymns, and hold their hands in the air rather than kneel.

I FAR prefer the ritual of the catholic mass next to the waving of hands in the air, but some of these more evangelical happy clappy services can be quite powerful and very professionally done. I hope the Catholic church avoids going down that road (a fairly safe bet). But maybe the Anglican Church could benefit from being a little more like the HTB example. At present Alpha (from my limited experience of it) seems to be swelling the ranks of the evangelical 'independent' churches. And the risk with those organisations is that they tend to develop theology on the hoof, and to also generate a load of support for the likes of young earth 'creationist science' that the rest of Christianity moved on from over a century ago. Much of this seems to come from reading from the multitude of evangelical books that flow out of the US. Only "organised religion" (in particular Catholicism) seems to be able to provide a more stable balance between faith and reason. So although I'm surprisingly impressed with much that's being done by Alpha, I do think it also risks producing a style of Christianity that Augustine warned against.

[Christopher]

When David Frost introduced a series on the Alpha Course at HTB a couple of years ago I watched all programmes to see just what it was that they were offering and whether it came up to all the hype. The half-dozen young people who made up the experimental group struck me as entirely incurious and all too ready to accept the somewhat glib and shallow answers to their questions given by their team leaders. When Sir David said each week "It has changed lives and it COULD change yours" I had to conclude that if the programmes were any indication of the quality of teaching and debate at HTB it was banal, levelled at people looking for something, anything, rather than those seriously searching to find the truth - really scoring a gamma rather than an alpha.

[Mike George]

I was once a member of HTB, though I never actually went on an alpha course. I think they were a loving caring group of people like many other churches I have belonged to, but for me the theology and beliefs of christianity have always been difficult.

I stopped going to church when I realised however much I enjoyed being part of a caring community I was not being true to my own values and beliefs, and this had always led to mental conflict and social difficulty in relating to church people. Now I am far happier outside the church, pursuing a sense of community and belonging in other ways.

I believe the reason for continued decline is increasing freethinking and individualism and humanism \ secularism. On the whole I think this is positive, but we do need to find new ways of forming caring communities without having to found them on religous doctrine and control.

[Steven Carr]

When I went on a Alpha Course, I was personally abused, at one forbidden to read from the Bible, and my personal copy of the Bible was taken from me (later returned, of course).

I did not go back.

Alpha is sold on the premise that no question is deemed off-limits, but questions about contradictions in Christianity produce very angry reactions.

The group leader of the Heaton Baptist Church in Newcastle later emailed me to say that the point of the Alpha Course discussions was for the group leader to ask the questions and for those questions to be discussed.

[Terry Sanderson]

Many people on the Alpha course have done it repeatedly - one of its most famous fans, Jonathan Aitken, admits he's done it about eight times. Also, it isn't clear from Alpha's figures just who counts as having 'done' Alpha - do you just have to go to one session and then pack it in to be counted among the supposed millions?

Ruth has asked a question that has puzzled me ever since Alpha started making these extravagant claims of success. Where are all these people? They certainly aren't at church.

The other thing that worries me about Alpha is the fact that it isn't upfront about its fundamentalism. The Biblical literalism is all wrapped up in pretty paper, but it's there all the same.

[Jimmy Hamilton-Brown]

I have never attended or run an Alpha Group but I act as Adviser in Mission and Evangelism in a very rural deanery. I hear about lots of people who attend, many of whom have apparently come to faith as a result, but cannot cope with the church as it now is.

I came across these two quotations from the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald which seem to apply to our situation in UK.
"Many disenfranchised people under 50, the generation that left the churches, say they still want to follow Jesus, & know they still need others to help them but have to find a new way, new structures"
and a bit later another contributor writes'
"Go back & get re-connected to Jesus with all of his radical, profound, far reaching message of the Kingdom of God without the institutional trappings & without the doctrine."

I do not personally agree with the last bit about doctrine. Alpha has quite a bit of that - I think rightly. It seems to me that the churches have to be more flexible and allow alternative ways of being church Having brought people to the point of following Jesus we then expect that they will follow Jesus in OUR way.

The New Testament it seems to me insists on only four things: apostolic teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers.(Acts 2 42)

We need to be more adventurous, and having gone to all the trouble of setting up an Alpha Course (or whatever), we have to be prepared to face the fact that we need new styles of church. Our archbishop calls them FRESH EXPRESSIONS - these are not supposed to be temporary, until we can persuade people to join in OUR way of doing things, but permanent fellowships with worship, sacraments, leading to service in the community and the world.

[Rich Johnson]

I don't agree with Jonathan Castro. It is only ever meant to be an introduction to Christianity. I have seen hundreds of people discover a vibrant faith through Alpha. (I also fail to see why it is Arminian).

I think two factors explain your conundrum Ruth:
1. Alpha essentially re-churches the de-churched white suburban middle class. It does this very well. It has been less successful in rural/urban areas and with those of a lower socio-economic standing.
2. Many churches running Alpha rely on this alone to renew their church, and fail to effectively disciple people post-Alpha into a more robust faith. Thus there is significant attrition.

[Deb]

The Alpha course as I call it is a very good introduction, introduction being the essential word here....! Not meant to be full blown theology....Duh!
Jonathan you imply only the shallow people attend it....how nice of you.....and no true conversions! Apart from the ones we have seen every time we have done it...!

[David Mackinder]

'Given that about a quarter of Britain's 28,000 churches have now run the course . . . why is church decline continuing in Britain?' I'd hazard a guess here, that for many churches hosting an Alpha course the majority of participants are already members of the congregation, and that for a lot of them Alpha provides a 'refresher' in basic evangelical Christian doctrine.

[Jonathan Castro]

The Alpha Curse, as I call it, is little more than a very weak introduction to Christianity with a charismatic style "Holy Spirit weekend" at the end. There are no true conversions because the course appeals only to the shallow, carnal mind and it is thoroughly arminian in its doctrine and approach.

Jonathan Castro
www.antichurch.org.uk