Alpha Course : is it a cult?

[tadoflamb]

Nevr heard that one before, but ok

Neither had I before tonight, and Hans Kung is leadng the pack!

I think this might just be a case of an unfortunate choice of words.

 

[ebia]

Agreed. My point was that generally the leading Christians get their throats cut one way or the other. Tutu seems to have thankfully escape that penalty.

He's been pretty close more times than most people imagine - since he was first elected bishop there have been plenty of thugs who would be more than happy to see him dead.

 

[ebia]

Indeed. But it is also the Church that silences many - one way or another.

My point has been not to necessarily pick out certain individuals but to demonstrate that relying on Sunday School and confirmation classes hardly define 'education' in the 21st century. I know there are attempts at lifting the standard and the Alpha course in one of a number. But these are band-aids attempts.

The average atheist, Muslim or Buddhist can argue their case in a far more educated manner than the average Christian can argue Christianity. I think it's time to raise the bar and get some serious education under way.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for raising the standard of Christian education at every level and in every appropriate way.

But I'm not sure your comparison is very valid - we tend to see the arguments from the more interested and competant muslim and atheist apologists. But even there the professionals like Dawkins and Hitchens are pretty dreadful. There are millions of atheists in the world who do no more than take it for granted, and a trip to Pakistan (say) will show that Islamic education in general is no better than Christian education. In fact, groups like the Taliban rely on that - teach Urdu speaking kids to chant the Koran in Arabic and never teach them what the Arabic words mean and you can feed them whatever interpretation you want.

 

[Willtor]

Indeed. But it is also the Church that silences many - one way or another.

That is distressingly true.

Nevertheless, now we have it that the Church, as an organization, raises some up and tears others down (Hans Kung being an example of both ). This suggests to me a baby along with some bath water.

My point has been not to necessarily pick out certain individuals but to demonstrate that relying on Sunday School and confirmation classes hardly define 'education' in the 21st century. I know there are attempts at lifting the standard and the Alpha course in one of a number. But these are band-aids attempts.

The average atheist, Muslim or Buddhist can argue their case in a far more educated manner than the average Christian can argue Christianity. I think it's time to raise the bar and get some serious education under way.

I disagree with this last part; though it doesn't surprise me that one might think it is so. The simple truth is, people are intellectually lazy. Not Christians in particular -- people. Pat Robertson seems to have a substantial audience, but then... Pat Robertson says things that are pre-digested for his hearers' convenience. On the other hand, when I was in college, a Muslim friend gave me a book called The Bible, The Qur'an, and Science by Maurice Bucaille, and it was like reading Answers in Genesis. Ebia mentioned Dawkins and Hitchens, and I need say no more on that. And I'm sure it's the same for Buddhism, though I've had fewer Buddhist friends than friends who are adherents of either of the other two.

When one sees the world as a Christian, one is naturally most critical of what one sees in Christianity. But I think the broader reality is that _people_ are lazy, and there's a lot of nonsense with which one has to contend, no matter what one's religious and/or philosophical outlook.

 

[wayseer]

deleted

 

[wayseer]

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for raising the standard of Christian education at every level and in every appropriate way.

But I'm not sure your comparison is very valid - we tend to see the arguments from the more interested and competant muslim and atheist apologists. But even there the professionals like Dawkins and Hitchens are pretty dreadful. There are millions of atheists in the world who do no more than take it for granted, and a trip to Pakistan (say) will show that Islamic education in general is no better than Christian education. In fact, groups like the Taliban rely on that - teach Urdu speaking kids to chant the Koran in Arabic and never teach them what the Arabic words mean and you can feed them whatever interpretation you want.

Again you make valid points. However, those Muslims in the west, and there are how many? seem to better adept at apologetics than the average Christian. Furthermore, I doubt again that the average Christian can see through Dawkins' argument.

 

[wayseer]

That is distressingly true.

Nevertheless, now we have it that the Church, as an organization, raises some up and tears others down (Hans Kung being an example of both ). This suggests to me a baby along with some bath water.



I disagree with this last part; though it doesn't surprise me that one might think it is so. The simple truth is, people are intellectually lazy. Not Christians in particular -- people. Pat Robertson seems to have a substantial audience, but then... Pat Robertson says things that are pre-digested for his hearers' convenience. On the other hand, when I was in college, a Muslim friend gave me a book called The Bible, The Qur'an, and Science by Maurice Bucaille, and it was like reading Answers in Genesis. Ebia mentioned Dawkins and Hitchens, and I need say no more on that. And I'm sure it's the same for Buddhism, though I've had fewer Buddhist friends than friends who are adherents of either of the other two.

When one sees the world as a Christian, one is naturally most critical of what one sees in Christianity. But I think the broader reality is that _people_ are lazy, and there's a lot of nonsense with which one has to contend, no matter what one's religious and/or philosophical outlook.

Again - good points.

But you are perhaps erring on the side of the victim. Indeed there is apathy and laziness but such is never a good reason for not doing something that needs to be done. And again, perhaps I overcook the apples.

I was speaking to Gretta Vosper in Brisbane recently - a Uniting Church minister in Canada. She got to the point where she could no longer 'play the game'. The 'game' was the dumbing down process to fit the ecclesiastical agenda whereby 'church' is determined by the lowest common denominator. Jesus I suspect faced a similar problem.

 

[ebia]

Again you make valid points. However, those Muslims in the west, and there are how many? seem to better adept at apologetics than the average Christian.

Maybe - being the established group breeds complacency.

Furthermore, I doubt again that the average Christian can see through Dawkins' argument.

Maybe not, but what does that show except that most of the argument is going on at a very superficial level all round?

 

[Willtor]

Again - good points.

But you are perhaps erring on the side of the victim. Indeed there is apathy and laziness but such is never a good reason for not doing something that needs to be done. And again, perhaps I overcook the apples.

I was speaking to Gretta Vosper in Brisbane recently - a Uniting Church minister in Canada. She got to the point where she could no longer 'play the game'. The 'game' was the dumbing down process to fit the ecclesiastical agenda whereby 'church' is determined by the lowest common denominator. Jesus I suspect faced a similar problem.

I see that. And from what (little) I know of the emergent church, it seems like a positive movement in which people have a much greater sense of ownership on what they believe. If it is that, I certainly support it. But I suspect even in this it is side-stepping the real problem.

My wife led Sunday School in the church she pastored for a number of years, and her great barrier was in encouraging people to want to think -- not an ecclesiastical agenda. In fact, the denomination had produced a number of good resources for Sunday Schools. She also used some of N.T. Wright's more popular work (of which I've read a little). And although I'd say it's more light-weight than his scholarly work, it's still good stuff and I certainly wouldn't identify it as catering to the lowest common denominator. On the contrary, it seems designed to pull people out of the uncritical funk you identify.

To my mind, then, the great difficulty is in reaching the people who don't want to think. It isn't a question of whether the old "brick-and-mortar" ecclesiastical hierarchy is outdated and a hinderance, but what it can do to encourage active reflection on dogma. Ultimately, there are indeed churches that fight this (I speak from experience), and for that there is no excuse. But the church structure is not intrinsically bad, and it allows for coordinated action on a large scale.

 

[wayseer]

I see that. And from what (little) I know of the emergent church, it seems like a positive movement in which people have a much greater sense of ownership on what they believe. If it is that, I certainly support it. But I suspect even in this it is side-stepping the real problem.

My wife led Sunday School in the church she pastored for a number of years, and her great barrier was in encouraging people to want to think -- not an ecclesiastical agenda. In fact, the denomination had produced a number of good resources for Sunday Schools. She also used some of N.T. Wright's more popular work (of which I've read a little). And although I'd say it's more light-weight than his scholarly work, it's still good stuff and I certainly wouldn't identify it as catering to the lowest common denominator. On the contrary, it seems designed to pull people out of the uncritical funk you identify.

Excellent stuff which I can only endorse. Tom Wright at Sunday School. It sounds as if your Sunday School has a more robust diet on which to feed young minds. My congratulations.

To my mind, then, the great difficulty is in reaching the people who don't want to think. It isn't a question of whether the old "brick-and-mortar" ecclesiastical hierarchy is outdated and a hinderance, but what it can do to encourage active reflection on dogma. Ultimately, there are indeed churches that fight this (I speak from experience), and for that there is no excuse. But the church structure is not intrinsically bad, and it allows for coordinated action on a large scale.

I have a 'Yes, but' response. I agree that structure is important. But, there needs be some direct input from the local priest/pastor. I am in a very advantageous position in that our priest has been the principle of a theological college so we get some solid stuff. However, even here I know he treads carefully so as to not unnecessarily frighten the horses.

But this creates a further problem. While care is taken with regards to the more elderly, the young stay away in droves. Just from what gets debated on CF it is a fair generalisation of what young people are seeking. They ask hard questions - which they should - but which the local response fails to adequately address. I fear the nonChristian knows more about Christianity than many Christians. After all, most of it is on the net in one way or another.

 

[speakout]

When I moved into my new home shortly after being confirmed Catholic my new Lutheran neighbor boldly came over to my house and invited me to join her church's Alpha course. While I could never recommend the Alpha course to anyone, it being a protestant entity with protestant teachings I would be loathe to call it a cult. My main gripe with the Alpha course, aside from it being adverse to Catholic teaching is the fact that it's a copywrited program which cost's money to any denomination that decides to offer it. In other words, it's just another money making program invented by some well-intentioned protestsant.

There is Alpha for Catholics which has been bleassed by the pope.

Alpha is very Ecumenical

 

[speakout]

I don't think Holy Trinity Brompton make a fortune out of it, and if they do it will be ploughed back into ministries, not just making Nicky Gumbel rich.

A lot of Catholic material is also copyright and and costs money.

We don't use alpha, but we do use courses from elsewhere, most notably All Soul's Langham Place, and they are generally fair value for money.

You know holy Trinity Brompton?

You know they hate the bible, that is why they have NIV and messages in their churhes.

 

[speakout]

What is wrong with this photograph?

Please do not go into Anti catholisms, just open your eyes.

let me be specific look closely at the handshake, wwhat do you notice?

 

[speakout]

Are you aware that most cults from Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons etc. recruit by Bible study?

Be careful about Bible studies because they can be manipulated.

 

[tadoflamb]

There is Alpha for Catholics which has been bleassed by the pope.

Alpha is very Ecumenical

That's what I understand. I used to have a very negative opinion about it.

Maybe because I'm not very ecumenical. :o

 

[ebia]

Excellent stuff which I can only endorse. Tom Wright at Sunday School. It sounds as if your Sunday School has a more robust diet on which to feed young minds. My congratulations.

Tom Wright taught sunday school at the local parish church for a while when he was a lecturer at Montreal. That would have been a sunday-school worth being at.

 

[ebia]

You know holy Trinity Brompton?

You know they hate the bible, that is why they have NIV and messages in their churhes.

Using versions other than your preferred version does not amount to hating the bible.

 

[Willtor]

Excellent stuff which I can only endorse. Tom Wright at Sunday School. It sounds as if your Sunday School has a more robust diet on which to feed young minds. My congratulations.

Och, I wish it were mine. Much of this was when I just knew her through CF.

I have a 'Yes, but' response. I agree that structure is important. But, there needs be some direct input from the local priest/pastor. I am in a very advantageous position in that our priest has been the principle of a theological college so we get some solid stuff. However, even here I know he treads carefully so as to not unnecessarily frighten the horses.

But this creates a further problem. While care is taken with regards to the more elderly, the young stay away in droves. Just from what gets debated on CF it is a fair generalisation of what young people are seeking. They ask hard questions - which they should - but which the local response fails to adequately address. I fear the nonChristian knows more about Christianity than many Christians. After all, most of it is on the net in one way or another.

Yeah, I dislike the "keep people comfortable" mentality. That encourages intellectual laziness, and discourages those who are intellectually active.

 

[Willtor]

Using versions other than your preferred version does not amount to hating the bible.

Lime'd for truth.

 

[rakovsky]

WAYSEER,

I was speaking to Gretta Vosper in Brisbane recently - a Uniting Church minister in Canada. She got to the point where she could no longer 'play the game'. The 'game' was the dumbing down process to fit the ecclesiastical agenda whereby 'church' is determined by the lowest common denominator. Jesus I suspect faced a similar problem.

Hello, Can you please tell us more of how you know Vosper and what she had to say where she could not play the game of dumbing down to the lowest denominator?

She was in the News last year:

Atheist Minister May Face “Review” by United Church of Canada Leaders Who See Her as a Heretic

Gretta Vosper is a reverend for the United Church of Canada… even though she doesn’t believe in God. Maybe you think that’s controversial — or hypocritical — but the UCC has long ordained women and LGBT individuals. So it’s not completely out of line to have an atheist minister.

But her position is now in jeopardy.
...
"The congregation at West Hill United Church is comprised of people with a wide diversity of theological beliefs. Some hold very traditional understandings of God, others self-identify as atheist or humanist, but most of us choose not to label ourselves at all. This diversity is likely very consistent with the theological beliefs held within almost every United Church congregation. At WHUC, we do not require anyone to subscribe to a particular set of beliefs in order to “belong”, an intentional decision made eleven years ago."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...h-of-canada-leaders-who-see-her-as-a-heretic/​

It seems like rejecting God insists on a pretty low denominator for a church?