The Alpha Course 3

A Critical Evaluation (Based on 'Questions of Life' Chapters 11 - end)

Chapter 11

The Arminian approach to the Gospel is found again, page 166: "Often people say to me after they have come to Christ, 'I wish I had become a Christian five or ten years earlier. Look at my life now, it is such a mess.' " IF they are indeed Christians NOW, then the reason they did not become Christians BEFORE is that God determines when anyone becomes a Christian.  Not a moment earlier and not a moment later.  He does not delay a person's salvation because they have not listened, nor does He wait on the side-lines whilst they ponder over their choice to 'join' or not. See how this human-works ideology permeates every thought in charismaticism, which sees 'salvation' as a mechanical process?

Page 169, Gumbel speaks of the way he came to be a curate: "...God spoke to me through the Bible about his call to me to leave my work as a lawyer and train for ordination in the Church of England." What a mighty mix-up! God called him from his work to 'train to be ordained'?  This is nonsense, Biblically. A true pastor does not 'train' to be ordained - God ordains him before he is born!  A man is recognised by the local church to have the gifts of a pastor. He is, by that time, already ordained by God, and he requires no other ordination. As for 'ordination in the Church of England', well...that is so highly improbable as to be impossible!  The priesthood was cancelled by Jesus Christ at His death. The Church of England maintains a Roman Catholic hierarchy, structure and practice. Overall it is apostate. I honestly believe it is error to believe that God calls a man to the Church of England.  It is impossible for God to call a man to be ordained by an apostate church, when He has already abolished the priesthood and when it is He Who ordains in the first place! (I acknowledge that there are saved men who are also clergy - but that does not validate their Anglican affiliation). So much for Gumbel's 'calling'.  His priesthood is not recognised by God or by scripture...and, therefore, not by me, either!!

Page 171: Gumbel speaks of the result of prayer (i.e. the Spirit speaking to us) as promoting 'love'.  This is a thread running through current charismaticism - everything must be 'love' and 'unity'. But nothing is said about the requirement for that love and unity - true doctrine!  The Holy Spirit does not always lead us to a position of 'love'.  He can sometimes lead us to rebuke another with tough words.  He can bring us to judge others, etc.  He can make us righteously angry.

Page 171 - Gumbel says that God can speak by giving us a strong desire to do something.  In charismatic circles this is one excuse they use to do whatever they want to do. If we insist that God will not act outside of His declared word, charismatics accuse us of 'putting God in a box' and 'limiting His power'.  A strong desire is not proof it is of God.

Page 171 - Gumbel refers to his pastorate as a 'job'.  This is typical of Anglicans. They see priests as 'professionals' doing a 'job'. Some have even joined a professional union!! The true pastorate is a function, an office, and it is filled by men whom God has called and ordained.  They are equal in status to everyone else in the churches. They do not do a worldly 'job' - they are called to shepherd the flock spiritually.  Gumbel then speaks of a missionary being given a 'strong desire' to go overseas - but Satan can give exactly the same desires! He can cause a man to think God has sent him overseas, or to become a pastor, or to do some other thing.  The reason is that the person will not then be doing what God actually wants him to do, and so he is made rebellious without realising it. That is why so many missionaries return home after a short period, disillusioned and depressed.
Page 172 - Gumbel refers to visions as 'pictures' (a common term used by charismatics).  This is uncomfortably akin to occult terminology, and it is probably based on it.

Chapter 12

Another inappropriate quote in connection with preaching the Gospel - this time from Tom Forrest. He is a charismatic Roman Catholic priest, revered by charismatics. He has the ear of the pope and it is he who named the 'Decade of Evangelism'.
In another bad quote - by Sinead O'Connor, a rock singer! - Gumbel speaks of "People out there screaming for truth." We have already discussed this and have discounted it. People are NOT 'screaming for truth', but they ARE screaming for self-satisfaction and a version of the truth they can accept without accepting Jesus Christ! Throughout the book, whenever I read of this or that salvation, I am left wondering if they were real, as per scripture, or false, charismatic versions!  This is further aggravated by Gumbel's ideas. For example, page 187, he says we must be 'in the world'..."in our neighbourhood... and... among... friends." But what does he mean by this? Socialising with worldly people?  I am left with the distinct impression that this is the case, given the way he talks about the Gospel, salvation, and so on.</p>

Page 188, hints at Dominion theology: "We are called as Christians to stop society going bad." Where is this in scripture?  No, we are called to preach the gospel, to fight error and evil and to praise God.  But we cannot ever stop the world going bad. Only the Holy Spirit can stop evil.  We are not here to create better social structures - although one or two individuals might be called to be involved in such tasks.  Nor is there a general mandate for us to help 'casualties of our society'....many of whom are 'casualties' through their own sin and their hatred of God. Same page - Mother Teresa is spoken of affectionately, as though she were a Christian!

Arminianism is again to the fore, page 190: "Many people today have objections to the Christian faith or, at least, questions which they want answered before they are ready to come to faith in Christ."

(See BTM Outline - <a href="http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/outlines/outline_00033_insidious_arminianism_in_local_churches_web.htm"> Arminiansm</a>). This is a painfully clear example of the 'I choose Christ if I want to' thinking, and is what can be called 'shopping-list Christianity'.  It shows that Gumbel (and charismaticism as a whole) thinks that 'becoming a Christian' is merely a human step along one long road to faith, beginning at unbelief. Scripture speaks of it as being a totally new creation, translating a person out of darkness and into light.  It is not the result of our own decision after weighing various arguments to our satisfaction, and it is not a natural progression of thought and action!  It is a completely new creation - something outside of human existence and ability.
Gumbel appears to be very naive about people's reasons for asking questions, page 191:

"Usually when people raise theological questions they are genuinely looking for the answers."

That has not been my own experience!

They ask such questions to trip up a Christian, or to stop him from talking about the Gospel itself, or to field their own knowledge...but rarely ask in order to find a proper answer. But as Gumbel thinks a man may become a Christian by choosing Christ, he is bound to think as he does. This is why, same page, he speaks of people who are "put off becoming Christians" because they do not want to change their lifestyles.  What 'puts them off' is their own sin! The reasons they put forward are irrelevant, because theirsin prevents them from accepting the Gospel. But, because charismatics think Gumbel is right, they go to inordinate lengths to satisfy the 'needs' of the world. That is how the 'Nine O'Clock Service' came into being in Sheffield - and that is why it collapsed in such sinful shame. It is also why charismatic meetings are like pop concerts. It is why they use rock groups to play and sing 'hymns', and clowns to entertain them...the list of worldly methods is endless.

Page 193 - Gumbel repeats the same error by referring to a man who preferred to chase girls, because he was 'not attracted to Christianity'! So, in this man's life, girls were the 'alternative' to salvation...and girls won. Because charismaticism has a 'natural' approach to evangelism - that is, humanistic - it looks on this kind of thing as a challenge, and so it devises all kinds of 'alternative' activities and ways of talking that will attract the man away from his usual desires.  This is why there are so many different and worldly offerings.  It is the result of denying the election of men to salvation by God as an act of Grace. Human means become the cause of salvation, not God alone. And when one 'alternative' form of entertainment becomes boring or familiar, other forms are devised. And so the market-led presentation of charismaticised 'gospel' continues, ad infinitum.

Of course, this creates its own problems, for if a man is 'drawn in' to 'join the church' as a result of worldly attractions, he will expect to see the same kind of thing in every church meeting, otherwise he will 'lose interest'.  As is the nature of entertainment, acts become old and jaded and the new act must be better and more exciting than the last. Obviously, a church that acts its way into people's hearts will inevitably reach a 'ceiling', because there are only so many variables they can play around with! There comes a time when they have tried every act in the book, and the whole thing dies off - and the church dies with it.  What a difference with a God-drawn, God-led church!  In such a church, the pastor teaches what God gives him to teach; the people listen and act on what is said; their excitement is in God's word and in discovering the Truth, and in seeing the true 'power' of God Himself, instead of the invented parody offered by charismatics.  this power is not found in false signs and wonders, but in the might of God and the ability of the Holy Spirit to change lives. These lives are not changed by falling down, laughing, having visions, uttering gibberish, etc., but by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit Who guides and leads in remarkable ways along the path of righteousness!

Page 194:  This time Gumbel's idol is Billy Graham, who, he says, has "led thousands to Jesus Christ". Once more I ask who says so? It is well-known that huge numbers of those supposedly 'saved' in Graham's meetings fall away and are never heard from again.  I challenge the claim that thousands have been saved in his meetings.  Beside this, Graham is apostate. He might once have served the Lord in all sincerity and truth - but today he is merely a Roman Catholic pawn.  He is 'saving' people NOT for Christ, but toward Rome and toward heresy. By quoting Graham and other heretics, Gumbel is actually commending their work and ministries.  Unwary readers will start to follow the same men (and women), and before they know it, they are hooked by heresy as a way of life.
Gumbel's mechanistic approach to the Gospel is also found in the following statement, page 194:

"When explaining what someone has to do to become a Christian, a framework can be helpful." Gumbel says that he uses a particular 'method' which is followed by a set prayer (repeated in chapter three).  Whether in personal witness or in evangelism, there are no 'methods' and no set prayers!  God will speak to men and women as He sees fit, and the way He does this can be different every time.  He does not use conveyor-belt methods!  But this is how the Alpha Course is used.

Page 195, we see the crux of charismaticism - what charismatics refer to as 'power'.  They mean 'signs and wonders', but the word 'power' has many varied meanings - the 'signs and wonders' interpretation (or, rather, 'miracles') is found in only seven texts (See BTM Article on <a href="http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/articles/article_00079_christian_power_web.htm"> 'Power'</a>). But, charismatics major on 'signs and wonders' even in texts where this is not appropriate (most of them!). Paul demands to see the 'power' of Believers, but what he means is the proof of righteousness and holiness in one's life. Signs and wonders come very low on his list.  In charismatic churches we usually find the opposite - plenty of (false) signs and wonders - which are all physical manifestations, but virtually no change in people's lives, no true righteousness or holiness, a very low view of God's holiness and of sin, etc.
This emphasis on physical manifestations of 'power' is both unbiblical and heretical. It transfers what is spiritual to what men can see and touch, bringing what God supposedly does down to their own level - in their own image.

This is a natural progression from having a rank Arminian theology, because it is all of works.  Gumbel, in classic charismatic style, says that preaching and signs and wonders "...go hand in hand. Often one leads to another." This is not the experience of the Church through the ages.  Nor is it the testimony of scripture.  Usually, where a church emphasises signs and wonders, the ordained way of spreading the Gospel - preaching - falls away. Or it is perverted and diminished with much heresy and little Biblical content. This degeneration has been accelerated and made more manifest since the coming of the Toronto Blessing.

Although Gumbel says signs and wonders occur 'often', this invariably becomes 'every time'. That is how human nature works. That is why Gumbel then says, page 196, "After the demonstration of the power of God came the proclamation of the gospel." See the progression and the implication?  He refers to the healing of the crippled man in Acts 3:1-10. Gumbel's statement is very clear - signs and wonders first, and then the preaching of the Gospel!

He takes a very specific action by the Apostles and applies it as a general rule for today.  This has its very dangerous flaws - for example, if they are to be consistent, charismatics must also raise the dead, because that is what Jesus did. I have even read charismatic claims to do this very thing - but conveniently, of course, there is never any proof!  In the same way, there is very little, if any, proof for healings ofany kind that can be verified by medical authorities. Plenty of non-verifiable, vague, psychological/psychosomatic problems, but nothing otherwise. Charismatics follow a dream. Like Dorothy, they dance along the Yellow Brick Road to find the magician.  Some of them, thank God, have already discovered that the magician is a fraud and the tricks are only delusions.  But most charismatics are still impressed and in awe of tricks and illusions, like children at a party.

The claim that signs and wonders always herald the Gospel, sets a precedent. Thus charismatics now expect - and get - these things, and preaching is a very poor relation having little, if any, place in meetings.  People attend not for the preaching - which should build them up in truth - but they come to see signs and wonders. Like drug addicts, they must have more and more, just to maintain present levels of interest.  The ancient Romans called it 'bread and circuses' (pandering to natural appetites and desires)! But when that interest wanes, people move on, disillusioned.

Chapter 13

The heading of this chapter is 'Does God Heal Today?'. (At BTM we believe He does).  The very first quote by Gumbel is by John Wimber during a visit by his Vineyard team. In this way, Gumbel condones and commends Wimber and Vineyard, even though both fail dramatically in the 'truth' department (See BTM Article on <a href="http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/articles/article_00005_the_health_wealth_and_prosperity_movement_web.htm"> Wimber</a>).  During the visit, Wimber told the audience that he had a "word of knowledge" about un-named persons who required healing.
Immediately we ought to be suspicious for two reasons - (a) The gift of 'knowledge' as defined by Wimber and charismatics is not how scripture defines it! (See BTM Article on 'Gifts'). (b) When God heals or does anything for individuals, He does so on a personal level. Nothing vague or general!  He does not do 'wholesale' healings, but meets a person one-to-one.  Even Jesus Himself did not just wave His hand over crowds and say that someone, somewhere needs healing, so be healed!</p>

If you read the book, you might say that Wimber did give specific information to people who were to be healed. Well, let me relate an example, page 200: "...people responded to some of the quite detailed descriptions.....(e.g.)...'a man who had injured his back chopping wood when he was fourteen.'...the level of faith began to rise."

Anything wrong with that?  Of course there is!! It is exactly the same kind of thing as occurs in spiritualist meetings!  I repeat - God is very specific; He does not resort to parlour tricks.  Demons who knew the man with the injured back simply whisper to Wimber what they want him to say, and he says it. Because demons were there when the man damaged his back, they could relate the incident to a gullible preacher.

Spiritualistic mediums do this kind of thing all the time, and because the audience are amazed by the accuracy of the descriptions, they respond in faith. It is very natural!  And it is very occult and sinful.

Page 202, Gumbel interprets 'kingdom' as meaning an actual rule of God (on this earth). He refers to the Greek basileia and the Aramaic (the common language of the Hebrews at that time), mulkuth.

Or, rather, he says it means an actual rule plus the 'rule or reign of God'. Whilst he does say when Christ comes again, it will be the end of the world (he does not mention a 1000 year reign), he still gives the impression of the possibility of a 'kingdom' that is physical. (The word basileia as used in the New Testament does NOT mean an actual physical reign, but theright or authority to rule [see BTM Outline on <a href="http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/outlines/outline_00069_the_kingdom_of_heaven_web.htm"> 'The Kingdom of Heaven'</a>].  Perhaps on this issue, Gumbel has just not properly expanded on the topic. But what he says does vaguely imply a physical reign on this earth.  The ramification of this is to continue the physical-ness of charismaticism).

Page 204, Gumbel insists that signs and wonders are a "...part of the normal activity of the kingdom", whilst referring to various New Testament texts.  Yes, it was normal THEN.  Nevertheless, we cannot get away from the facts given by Paul in his epistles, that 'power' mainly refers to inward, spiritual might, such as righteousness.  It must be repeated, that the interpretation of power as 'signs and wonders' only arises seven times in the New Testament.

Page 212, Gumbel is exactly right when he says that it is God who heals, not us, or our techniques.  He says we must pray in simplicity.  Right again.  But this is grossly misused in the Alpha Course, and construed to mean the use of techniques and set prayers.  This is the charismatic way!  As with many things charismatic, what is true is quickly subverted and replaced by what is false, by using an almost Pharisaic approach, i.e. replacing one small, simple, teaching with a long list of 'extras' made complicated by rules and regulations and new instructions. This soon becomes a brand new teaching, far removed from the original.
This man-centred methodology of charismatics is exemplified, page 213:

"We ask the person who wants prayer for healing what is wrong and what they would like us to pray for." If God has given a gift of healing, the one who is used to heal will KNOW what to say and do.  He need not know what the person is suffering from, but he (or she) will have an overwhelming sense of urgency and assurance, and the undeniable sense that God is going to heal. Gumbel says he rejects methods and techniques - but he goes on to talk about them anyway!  He does not match what he says and what he does.
Another mediumistic example of healing is given, page 213.

A girl praying for the healing of a woman told the woman that the word 'forgiveness' came to her mind. Then "After a struggle the woman was able to forgive someone who was continually troubling her, and she was partially healed. She was totally healed at the moment she posted a forgiving letter to her friend."

I am sorry, friends, but I am totally cynical here!  Note the mechanistic message?  'I do this and then I get that'.  Note the 'word of knowledge' the girl had - similar to spiritualistic utterances. Also, note the unbiblical command to 'forgive'?  In scripture we are taught that before we can forgive, the one who needs forgiveness must FIRST repent to God, THEN apologise to the one he or she has offended, THEN turn away from what he or she had previously done or said. THEN he or she must activielyask for forgiveness. ONLY THEN can the Christian forgive the other person. We cannot forgive UNLESS the one who offends us seeks that forgiveness.  But, that would involve saying sorry and admitting error...something human beings, even Christians, are not very good at. So, in this book, a healing 'from God' depended on a woman disobeying scripture, by forgiving where forgiveness was not sought! That is why I am cynical. The 'healing' sounds more like a demonic healing than one of God, because of its 'instructions'.

In 'How to pray', page 213, Gumbel states that we pray to God for healing in Jesus' name. That is fine. Then he says that we "...ask the Holy Spirit to come on the person."

Why?  This is an 'extra'.  As for the laying on of hands - this is a symbolic gesture, as used by the Jews. The hands themselves, and the person, have no actual power of their own.

Page 214, "...their lives are rooted in the healing community of the church..." Am I missing something here?  Where does this claim come from?  Is it in scripture?  And what about persisting in praying for healing, time and again, until the person is healed (or not!!)?  When God prompts us to heal, people are healed straight away.  We do not have to keep going and going until God relents.  As in many other areas, charismatics are so persistent in searching for what they think God is going to give them, that they easily fall to lies and delusions - the Toronto Blessing being a prime example.  This is because they do not know the difference between hearing theirown earnest pleas and hearing what God says.

Chapter 14

Referring to the Church, Gumbel says: "Some associate the word 'church' with the clergy. Somebody who is entering the ordained ministry is said to be 'going into the church'. Those embarking on such a career....."

True - most link 'church' with 'clergy'. This is why people like the Archbishop and bishops are said to be the 'voice of the Church'.  This is wrong, of course.  Note the repeated error of Gumbel (and all Anglican clergy) concerning the 'ordained ministry' - ordaining by a church or college or denomination.  Gumbel appears to reject the idea that the clergy 'go into the church' as though the 'church' were a separate entity (see earlier notes). Yet, in the very same breath, he refers to the priesthood as a 'career'!!  If one sees his role as being a 'professional' in a 'career', his whole attitude toward that 'career' will determine how he acts and thinks. If he is in a career, he will act in a managerial capacity; he will 'take courses' to help him 'manage better' and so on. None of this squares with scripture.  The pastorate is a calling not a job. The pastor has an 'office' - he is not an 'officer' or manager.  He is an ordinary member of the local church, he is not its owner or overall leader; he has no greater status, nor does he need 'training' in this or that. All he needs is the calling of God and the gifts that are always given to genuine pastors.

Others, says Gumbel, associate the 'church' with particular denominations. That is true. The trouble is, he quotes Roman Catholicism as an equal 'denomination'.  In trying to show us what the Church really is, he fails, for he is himself part of error - the organised priesthood as separate from other Believers, in a denomination that is apostate, teaching error as truth!

Thus he says that charismatic churches (without mentioning the word 'charismatic' itself) are "...now creating a wonderfully warm and outward-going Christian family which is much closer to the Biblical picture."

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see!  As I have told those in our own Fellowship - I see these examples in a completely opposite way to Gumbel.  This is not out of chagrin or awkwardness, but out of reality and awareness. The wonderfully warm churches he speaks of are anything but! Underneath there is a seething cauldron - ask anyone who has had to leave these churches!  Ask them about the coldness and lack of care, the false 'love', hatred, and  rejection of scripture!
The key is in the word 'creating'.  Such churches often call themselves 'community' churches, as they 'reach out' to 'build bridges' between themselves and the community.  This is a wrong and damaging way to approach the unsaved!  There are NO bridges between the saved and the unsaved!  God says so.  The only legitimate way we can reach them is through preaching the word of God.  Not by giving them free entertainment, free coffee, cheap rates to hire the hall, helping everybody regardless of their attitude toward God, etc. These churches deliberately 'create' a loving atmosphere. That is, they invent it and manufacture it, as a means of drawing people toward themselves. If such love was real, it would not need to be 'created' at all, but would show itself in many different ways - and none of them unscriptural.

This idea of the church as part of the 'community', is continued, page 219: "The universal church consists of all those world-wide who profess the name of Christ." I have heard a Hindu 'professing the name of Christ'!  I have heard an unsaved, persistent child-molester in a psychiatric hospital 'profess Christ'!  I hear unsaved preachers 'profess Christ'! I hear homosexual priests 'profess Christ'!

Mere profession of Christ is not enough.</strong>

Paul said he did not just want to hear a profession - he wanted to see the power (meaning righteousness and other proofs of the indwelling of the Spirit).

Once we adopt Gumbel's definition of the Church, we are in deep trouble and will accept all manner of evil as being 'of God'.  The whole of the Roman Catholic 'church' professes Christ!  Yet it is an heretical cult.  Gumbel's statement is typically charismatic/Anglican/ecumenical.  But it is not Biblical.  Biblically, the Church consists ONLY of those who are elect. They profess the Lord, and they prove their salvation in their lives - scripturally.
Gumbel also quotes various facts and figures supposedly confirming the number of 'adherents' to the 'church'.  We can take these with a huge pinch of salt, because they are meaningless and sloppy. Poland is supposedly 'Christian', as are many other countries - but they are avowedly Catholic! Many call themselves 'Christian' - there is even a branch of spiritualism that calls itself Christian!

Then Gumbel says (quoting the British Christian Handbook) that the church in Britain "lost half a million members in the first five years of the 1980's". This is a charismatic and 'established church' statement. The true Church of Jesus Christ cannot lose its 'members'.

Those who are 'lost' from the established and charismatic churches are lost because they were never saved in the first place,and were never a part of the 'Church' to begin with. Superficially, Gumbel's book and course are marvellous - until you scratch the surface and the rubbish oozes out.  These views of Gumbel are all being taught to Alpha Course students. They will come away with the charismatic idea that numbers are the 'name of the game'. In turn, they will enter churches which have phenomenal growth of numbers, where quality of spiritual life is nil or negligible, and where human effort is the main activity.

Page 220, and readers are introduced to current charismatic inventions, which they think are 'the Church'...but which are not found in scripture - "Church growth writers sometimes speak of a three-tier structure of celebration, congregation and cell. All three are important and complement each other." Eh?? None of this is from scripture: 'three tier'?, 'structure'? 'Celebration, congregation and cell?' Gumbel explains these structures through to page 221. New Christians and unbelievers, and those who are badly taught, will simply accept what he says as normal. They will think that this 'structure' is Biblical.  And so they will be led into more error.
Another core belief in charismaticism is that everyone can do anything within the Church.

That is, they can 'have a go'.

Page 221: "In our church...individuals can learn, for example, to give talks, lead worship, pray for the sick, develop the gift of prophecy and learn to pray out loud."

This takes the breath away in its galling arrogance!  Look in any charismatic journal and you will find dozens of courses to 'develop' this or that charismatic skill - leadership, worship, and so on.  Whatever it is, they can teach it. I will once again repeat: God chooses those who will do certain things. He gifts them accordingly. He prompts them personally to act out their gift or ministry - which may not be all the time.  Christians do not 'learn' how to do this or that, and no man can teach them 'how to'.  They must be led ONLY by the Holy Spirit and obey His voice.  This is very, very different from what Gumbel says.  It is an horrific scene - thousands of charismatics, full of zeal, but empty of God, all 'learning' to convince themselves God is in them and in what they do! Then, when they have been 'taught', they go out and convince others.  It horrifies me.

"At every level we should seek unity - in the small group, congregation and celebration; within our denomination and between denominations.  This unity is brought about as theologians and church leaders get together to debate and work through theological differences. But it is also achieved, often more effectively, by ordinary Christians getting together to worship and work together. The nearer we come to Christ, the nearer we come together."

Stirring stuff - and partial truth! Today, as the Evangelical Alliance keeps saying constantly, we must all work for unity. They even say that we must not sacrifice truth in the process.  But, in practice, they deny truth and bury doctrine.  Scripture tells us that unity is not based on love, but on doctrinal purity. There can be no unity without truth.  I do not care what one theologian agrees with another, if what they say is against scripture.  I do not care if church members decide to show unity, if their unity is at the expense of truth.  Such unity is worthless, without value to God.  It is true that we get closer together if we get closer to Christ - but to get closer to Christ we must obey His commands and teaching, the word of God.

We do not seek unity first, and then later try to sort out our differences.  God's truth is always supreme.
David Watson is quoted, page 222, and differences are implied to be "petty and marginal". In this review of Gumbel's book, I have only concentrated on the major problems, not the minor or petty ones!  Yet, see how many pages it has taken to counter Gumbel?  There is no way that the points raised are petty or marginal.  Same page, Gumbel says that as fellow Believers we must 'love' each other. But which kind of 'love'? In scripture there are a number of kinds and levels of love, and not all of them are pertinent in all situations.  The kind of love advocated by charismatics is usually like syrup - it is thick and gooey, and hides everything underneath it!  It is not true love based on truth.  Gumbel, however, thinks otherwise - the mere 'profession' of faith is sufficient for him - page 223:

"We accept as our brothers all those whom you (i.e. God)receive as your children." It is no coincidence that Gumbel uses the words he uses.  He is not making mistakes and I am not just misreading his writing style. He is making theological statements, and the ones I have mentioned are wrong.  Our brothers are not those He has 'received', but those He has elected. God is not waiting like a servant, for men and women to say "Okay, God, I think I will choose you now!".
Gumbel is very naive about the modern church (or, what passes itself off as the 'church'); page 223.

He says: "There is a level of friendship in the church which I have certainly never experienced outside the church."

He is basing this belief on his unscriptural definition of the Church. He is basing it on the inordinate scramble for 'unity'.  I have been a Christian for over 30 years, and I can honestly say what I have said to many others: "If you want to be abused and insulted, join a local church." I have known very little in local churches apart from abuse, hatred, back-biting and falsity. (I do not suggest that this is typical of every church). I have even challenged local charismatic leaders who tell me they have all changed because of the new wave of the Holy Spirit - I have said "Prove it to me!  Show me love and compassion, and then I might listen." But, to date, not one has done this!  None of them - or their members - have approached me in love or care.  So, where is this 'love' and 'unity'?  It hardly exists. Only in the last two or three years have I come to meet true Believers who display Christian love for me as a fellow Believer (not counting those in my own Fellowship).

The 'love' that Gumbel sees is what he wants to see, a superficial joining of unbelievers. This superficiality is being spread rapidly by the Alpha Course.  That is why the course sessions begin with a lunch and everyone being 'friendly'. It is just a ploy, a device to draw people in, to show them how truly sincere everyone is, whose 'God' is their own methods! But where is Truth? When truth appears on the scene, this sickly 'love' soon evaporates.  It is a sad fact that, today, unbelievers are more prepared to be friendly than are those within the churches.  I honestly believe this is because unbelievers are not trying to prove how genuine they are, or how 'evangelical' they can be.

Gumbel quotes scripture properly when he says that we must not neglect meeting together, page 223.  But, he ignores the requirement of God - that we meet in truth.  It is this vital truth which gives us a basis on which to show our love for each other.  It is better to be churchless than to join with those who are apostate.  God knows, and He will bring us together with like-minded folk.

Page 224, Gumbel says that we tend to lose our love for the Lord when we do not meet together. We also, he said, lose our 'enthusiasm'. This is certainly true if we fail to meet without good reason. But we are also commanded to come away from those who teach error. As for 'enthusiasm', Jehovah Witnesses maintain their own 'enthusiasm' by returning to their halls and being taught for hours on end by their elders! If they have doubts, they are told to meet even more times! In charismaticism 'enthusiasm' is manufactured, because the whole edifice is built on shifting sand. When the Toronto Blessing came, leaders everywhere held a continuous round of 'testimony' meetings to off-set the disillusionment felt by so many.  A false enthusiasm; a substitute for truth and genuine Christian love.  It is a togetherness that has destroyed true fellowship in most churches today, and so there is a gradual build-up of despair within them.

Page 228 sees Gumbel trying, unsuccessfully, to defend the priesthood.  His allusion to the English translation of 'presbyter' is weak and unconvincing.  There is no defence for the priesthood - in Protestant churches priests are left-overs from our Roman Catholic past. Sadly, the Reformation left us with a number of such Catholic errors, alongside its truly marvellous changes toward Truth. That is how Gumbel is able to speak of  us partaking in the 'benefits' of taking part in communion.  What benefits?

Page 230, he says that if we truly love Christ we will live holy lives. That is correct - but I do not see this happening in charismatic churches. Then he makes another error by saying we must be "made beautiful until we are fit to be his bride." He is talking about self-made beauty. As Believers we are already His bride!  Yes, God must change us and we must submit to Him. But we cannot make ourselves more fit to be the bride.  We are 'fit' only in Christ. Christ is our beauty. God sees Christ and His beauty and fitness, not us.  In ourselves we are without any kind of worth or beauty, worthy only of death and destruction.

In the final part of this chapter, Gumbel gives the testimony of a young couple who prefer being with church folk than being in pubs, clubs, etc.  To me, it reads like a false hope, the inability to stand alone on one's own two spiritual feet.  We are called to meet together, but we must not forget that our salvation and daily living depend entirely on our own individual relationship with God.  We cannot blame or praise others because we are with them constantly.  Often, being in a crowd is a substitute for growing as a Christian.  We are so busy being together that we have no time to learn and to meditate and to gain in inner strength.  It is my contention that no charismatic can stand alone today. Without the crowd his supposed faith will collapse.

Chapter 15

Gumbel quotes the so-called Living Bible, saying that we must not allow ourselves to be moulded by the world. This is a true statement and he says we must not be pressured to conform to be like everybody else. He says it is very hard to be different. Yet, this is exactly what it is like to be a charismatic! Each one must be a clone, and be like everybody else.  They dare not be different. They dare not ask questions.  They dare not even leave!  They have been moulded and shaped to be alike.
On criticism (this review??) Gumbel says, page 242, that we must not be critical, but must ask ourselves how we can be a blessing to others. I have not yet met a charismatic who thinks this way. They do not mind being a blessing to those who agree with them, but they see everyone else as a devil.  Gumbel is wrong anyway - there is nothing unscriptural about criticism. Criticism is judgement, and we are all commanded to judge our fellow Believers.  There is no way that God expects us to be a 'blessing' to others, if they are opposed to Him, or if they believe heresy, etc.  There is a time to be a blessing and a time to judge using hard words.
Page 243, Gumbel is again naive, when he says that Christians in the West are not persecuted!  Personally I have known severe persecution - and I mean proper persecution - from church leaders and many who follow them. After more than ten years, this caused me to finally leaving the local churches to their own devices, and to begin our own Fellowship. In that time I never knew such pressure and hatred even from unbelievers!  Gumbel says that what we do receive is 'hardly worth mentioning'. This man knows nothing. If it were only my own situation I would remain silent.  But it is not just me.  I have received hundreds of letters from Believers who have been hounded out of their churches, harassed, cursed, attacked, by their fellow 'Believers'. This has been the case especially when the Toronto Blessing has entered local churches.  Please, Nicky - be real!  Yours is the friendship of fellow apostates.
Well, the above are my comments on Gumbel's book. Now, I wish to briefly comment on those who teach this material in the form of the Alpha Course.  My comments are not hearsay - they are based on what Believers have told me from various parts of the country, and on what I know of  leaders.</p>

---

Teachers of the Alpha Course

The source of the Course (Holy Trinity, Brompton) advises teachers to teach it exactly as it is written. The reason for this is that 'it works'!  Of course it does - it is mechanistic and uses group dynamics to advantage. Also - because otherwise the course cannot be called 'Alpha'!
The Course is taught by a very wide and disparate band of people. Most are charismatic and/or ecumenical.  Some claim not to be charismatic or ecumenical - but if they use the Course, let alone teach it as it is, they are imbibing charismatic and/or ecumenical thought.  Teachers can be 'leaders', curates, vicars, ministers, etc.
It is a well-known fact that the Anglican (and its allied Welsh, etc., equivalent) church is riddled with unbelieving and heretical priests (the very fact that they are 'priests' says a lot!). We cannot deny that or get away from the fact. Yet, to my knowledge, large numbers of them teach the Course. One female curate in Tunbridge Wells even used the course as a test of orthodoxy, blackmailing a woman by saying that to be confirmed into the church she also had to take the Alpha Course.  This has occurred elsewhere, too. I have been told of long-standing members of other Anglican churches who have been forced to leave or been told to leave, by vicars who demand that they take the Course (to 'prove' their allegiance).

So, there is widespread use of the Course in Anglican and allied churches.  Because most Anglican priests are unbelievers/heretics, or Believers who have never been called to be pastors (in the Biblical sense), it means that those they teach are receiving error and bad teaching on a vast scale.

The course is also widespread amongst charismatics. To my knowledge, every geographical area containing charismatics has a Course under way.  As I have said before, those who have been 'saved' in the past few years under charismatic 'preaching' cannot, in the main, be Believers. Their pastors or 'leaders' are heretics who have taught the Toronto Blessing. (I do not include old-style Pentecostalists who withdrew from these people).  Now, they expect to be followed again, as though they will suddenly teach the Truth!  Not so. They will teach gross error - and that error will concentrate around the sections on tongues, healing and the Holy Spirit.  Courses usually begin (or end) with a friendly dinner (Moonies attract people like that!).

Questions are invited during sessions - but of course, if the students are young Christians or unbelievers,they will not know anything different, other than what they are being taught! So, when it comes to the final session - usually in a different place for a weekend - they will fall headlong into 'receiving of tongues' and the 'Holy Spirit', etc. They will do it because they know no different, and everyone is so friendly.  Some churches claim not to indulge in these Toronto-style manifestations. Even so, they are not exempt from error. Indeed, if these pastors, ministers, vicars, etc., know so little as to use the Course in the first place, then they will be unable to discern what is true and what is not!

Many churches use the Course as a means to an end - to gain new members. Some use it genuinely - to 'teach' Christianity to others.  But, the fact that they use itat all is indicative that they have no experiential, personal knowledge or understanding, of Biblical doctrine...whether or not they have been Bible-college trained.  They claim to teach things that are, really, meaningless. For example - 'more about Jesus'. In itself, that phrase means little; it is suitably vague and says nothing. But other than that, it is more to do with the heresy taught by Arminius, than about true doctrine, for it suggests that simply by 'learning about Jesus' we can somehow reach a point where we can 'choose' to become a Christian.  Or, that learning 'more about Jesus' is somehow a 'good thing' in its own right, an end in itself. This is theological mish-mash! Others link these 'teaching' sessions with 'having a good laugh'.  Charismatics are very good at 'having a laugh'!
Jesus Himself taught the need for repentance in down-to-earth language.  He loved people and preached to them that He is the Way and the Life. No doubt He had a sense of humour.

But nowhere in scripture do we read of God, or the prophets, or Jesus, or the apostles, spreading the Gospel by 'having a good laugh'!

(There is nothing wrong with laughter in its proper place).

Nor do we find any reference in scripture to the kind of methods being used to teach the Alpha Course. I repeat - all we are seeing is people jumping on to a bandwagon.

They see a course that is 'successful' (in the eyes of heretics, that is!) and so they want to join in the chase!  They want a 'piece of the action'. Yes, some who teach it may be genuine - but this is no excuse to teach heresy, or to use the course.

I insist - leaders who teach the course are teaching heresy, whether deliberately, ignorantly, or even subliminally.  They are teaching it because they have no sound spiritual experience of their own to follow.  They see the course as a way to draw people back in to the churches - but they ignore (or know nothing of) God's election. They are certainly ignorant of scriptural ways of preaching and teaching. They are also ignorant of what doctrine is and what it means.

SO HOW ON EARTH CAN THEY POSSIBLY CLAIM TO 'INTRODUCE PEOPLE TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH'?

They are the blind leading the blind, but 'because it works' and because students 'have a good laugh' and a jolly good evening, everyone thinks everything is okay!
So, the Course is being taught by teachers who know nothing themselves (the blind leading the blind). Many see the Course as a way of bringing large numbers into their churches, where their own preaching has failed. This is a natural follow-on from what has been done for decades - if your church fails to grow, just bring in  outside 'teams'. These will incite outsiders and make everything appear to be ever so interesting and vibrant. Then, when the teams go away, the church goes back to its normal lethargic and dead self - and the new people eventually leave!

Pastors who know their doctrine and who are genuinely called by God to their tasks, have no such problem, and they will certainly not use the Alpha Course. They already teach what God demands, and base everything on scripture. If numbers are small, that does not really matter, for numbers are God's concern.  He will give to each local church those numbers He wishes to give them.  Not one more and not one less.

Who is this Article written for?  For all who are tempted to sympathise with, or to take the course, to show them another side to the story. If after knowing what it has to say, they carry on with the Course, well, that is their downfall. They have been warned. The review is also written for young Christians, whose lack of knowledge means they are easy prey for charismatics and ecumenists.  Now, they have some knowledge of the problem and must choose whether they want error or truth. It is also written as a challenge to all leaders who teach the Course.  Do not just laugh, or deride the writer, or become angry!  Take this criticism seriously.  The theological heresies discussed in these pages are extremely serious.  Do not pretend to teach God's truth, when you are really teaching charismatic heresy.  Remember - you need not have taken part in the Toronto Blessing to learn these heresies. You do not even need to experience 'signs and wonders', tongues, or any of the other charismatic trappings.

All you need is to teach the Alpha Course, and you have already been duped!
Finally, I see the Course as a natural follow-up to the Toronto Blessing. The Toronto Blessing had a specific purpose - to divide and ruin churches.  Once it had completed that job, it finished.  Now, those same ruined churches, who claim to have the Holy Spirit, but which are dead in God's eyes and are under judgement, are offering the Alpha Course! And, to make matters worse, they are influencing other churches to follow.

What is the aim of the Course (in Satan's eyes)?

To strengthen the charismatic/ecumenical position and to spread the new charismatic theology, founded on the experiences of the Toronto Blessing. This teaches that God is now working outside His own word. We are told that we cannot put God in a box - and that anyone who opposes the current charismaticism is 'quenching the Spirit'.  The Holy Spirit can work in whatever way He wishes, even if we are discomfited by it all.  This is true - but the Holy Spirit will never work outside His own word. There can be no 'extra-Biblical' revelations and work....these are from Satan, not from God.
To accept the book and the Course teachings (on tongues, healing and the Holy Spirit, in particular), is to open one's self up to gross deception and heresy. Once you accept that the Holy Spirit can act extra-Biblically, you will begin to accept the most vile and unbiblical teachings ever known. Many of these have already been witnessed in the Toronto Blessing.  As I have already said, you need not join in charismatic manifestations to be on this heretical path - just taking part in the Course is sufficient to point you in the direction of error. And once you are on that path, you will find it extremely hard to get off it again.  If I were really your enemy (as, no doubt, some of you will assert) I would not bother to warn you! My criticism of all things charismatic is declared very strongly, with no punches pulled, because I care for those who are being deceived. Reject what I say if you will - but you cannot run away for ever, nor can you hide from God.  By all means teach your course, or take part in it - but let it be known that you are rejecting God's warnings, and not my personal views.

I have no problem with folk who disagree with me.

Or with those who ask questions, or whose doctrinal beliefs are not exactly like my own. Indeed, I have no problem at all - but charismatics, ecumenists and ignorant teachers certainly do! They are teaching blatant heresy and gross errors. The Alpha Course is part of that deception, and is being used as a substitute for the Gospel by teachers who are not called of God - and that is why I now speak against it.

I am aware that some who read this information will be enthusiastic supporters or leaders of Alpha. They ordered this Article so that they can scoff, deride or reject it. This they do in direct opposition to God's word, and against holy logic. When opposers of God's word enter in to this kind of activity, they do so in order to convince themselves they are right and critics are wrong. They look at the many thousands around the world who have taken the course. They read the many warm commendations by world-known leaders. They look to their own 'feel good factor'. And so they become even more entrenched in error. To these folk I say - please stop and think. You are being duped by pro-charismatic heretics who believe themselves to be right.

That makes them very dangerous to your souls

In writing this kind of Article I have opened myself up to ridicule from many sources. Ask yourselves - would I do that willingly if I thought I was wrong? Or, if I was not speaking from scripture? Only a fool deliberately brings a furore upon his own head! Believe me, I have suffered much abuse and scorn as a result. But I do it because some who read this will turn back to God's word and will see the truth for themselves. Very soon, a far worse scourge than the Toronto Blessing will arrive in our churches. And it will be helped on its way by the Alpha course. Hence my deep concern. Please stop and think, before you take part in what is an affront to God and His word.

NOTE:

I have not included reviews of the other books basic to the Course, because they are all founded on this initial book.

Note: August 1996. The mechanical and cultic nature of the Alpha course is now becoming more obvious.  Holy Trinity, Brompton - publishers and coordinators of the course - have received many pleas from leaders who have taught the course in their own churches. They want to know "What do we do now?" It seems that they have saturated their areas with Alpha and now want something else to do.  The reason is very clear - the Alpha course filled a gap, a gap that exists because the churches taking Alpha were spiritually dead and their leaders were not called by God.  Thus they used the course to whip-up interest and pseudo-Christian commitment, which was a substitute for the real thing.  But, now that the course has been followed through, there is a need to again fill the gap with something newer!
What is happening is subtle but evident to those with discernment...Alpha was the tempter used to bring people into the charismatic/ecumenical fold. Whether this includes Toronto-style manifestations or not is irrelevant, for charismatic teaching is distinctive. Now they have been initiated into this fold the void left by inactivity must be filled, before 'converts' (who have mechanically taken the course and now consider themselves to be Believers) lose interest.
For this reason Holy Trinity have thus far devised another three courses. As expected these concentrate more on the Holy Spirit (or, rather, 'the Spirit' as envisaged and invented by charismatics).  We can see, then, the path being taken by Alpha students - deeper into charismatic teachings on spirituality and manifestations etc.
This writer again warns fellow Believers, and especially pastors, to beware of giving Alpha unqualified approval, even for its 'good bits'.  Just a minor hint of approval is sufficient to confuse folk, or to send them into the Alpha arena out of curiosity, in the hope of taking on board the 'good bits' and discarding the 'bad bits'. If it were all that simple, then thousands would not have been duped by the Toronto Blessing in the first place!

Remember that the course is a part of the 'Third Wave' movement which intends contacting and drawing-in those who have no overt interest in charismaticism.  And Alpha does this admirably.  Do not be fooled. Be watchful. Sound the alarm!

Note: December 1997. There is also now a Roman Catholic Alpha course and an RC Alpha conference.

By: K. B. Napier
Bible Theology Ministries
© May 1996