Sad News About Charles Stanley’s In Touch Magazine

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=12341 ^ | July 25th, 2013 | Ligthouse Trails Editors

[jodyel]

Lighthouse Trails has watched in dismay over the past few years as Charles Stanley’s In Touch magazine has made the decision to promote contemplative/emergent names. When our editors picked up a copy of the August 2013 issue and saw a feature article written by Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, we decided to call In Touch Ministries to find out who was responsible for the content in the magazine. Sadly, the response we received from the editorial department at In Touch left us with a sinking feeling that the evangelical church has been seduced and there was no turning back.

We’ll talk about the phone call in a minute but first a look at Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove.

In June of 2011, Lighthouse Trails free lance writer Mike Stanwood wrote “Contemplative Spirituality Lands on Charles Stanley’s In Touch Magazine . . . Again.” In this article, it was revealed that in the January 2011 In Touch magazine issue, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove was featured in an article written by In Touch Managing Editor Cameron Lawrence. That article, titled “The Craft of Stability: Discovering the Ancient Art of Staying Put,” highlighted the “ intentional Christian community” at the Rutba House (Wilson-Hartgrove’s home) and their “daily prayer routine.” The In Touch article stated that Rutba House is an evangelical community rooted in the Protestant tradition and that Wilson-Hartgrove is an ordained Baptist minister, yet it also reported that Rutba’s community principles are borrowed from Benedictine monks and that all of their efforts are based on St. Benedict’s “rule of life.”

In Stanwood’s article, he points out that Wilson-Hartgrove is part of the “New Monasticism” movement within the emerging church. To help you understand just how serious this situation is with Charles Stanley and his ministry, read this following section of Stanwood’s article:

Wilson-Hartgrove is most recently known for co-authoring Common Prayer: A Liturgy for Ordinary Radicals with new monastic activist Shane Claiborne. Other books he has authored may also fall into the emerging/contemplative category. For example, one such book called New Monasticism: What It Has to Say to Today’s Church (1) has been endorsed by mystic proponents Brian McLaren, Phyllis Tickle, Tony Campolo, and Catholic priest and centering prayer advocate Richard Rohr. The mystics resonate with the “new monasticism” – this is plain to see.

On the surface, the new monasticism may look OK with its many good works of helping the poor and the needy. But the underlying belief system does not line up with biblical doctrine; rather it is about establishing an all-inclusive kingdom of God on earth now where individual salvation is replaced with a community salvation for the whole world. Atonement has less emphasis on Jesus Christ as the only atonement for man’s sins and instead becomes an at-one-ment where all of creation is “being” saved by coming together as one (and yes, seeing the divinity of man). This is the kind of “atonement” that McLaren, Tickle, and Rohr would resonate with.

It is important to see that they don’t just resonate with the good works coming out of the new monasticism; born-again Christians have been performing good works by helping the poor and needy for centuries and continue to do so. While this new monasticism supposedly distinguishes itself by its good works, in reality it is mysticism and the foundational beliefs of mysticism (i.e., panentheism, kingdom now, etc) that distinguish it. And it is that element that Tickle, McLaren, and Rohr embrace.

Additional resources on Wilson-Hartgrove’s website include a DVD called Discovering Christian Classics: 5 Sessions in the Ancient Faith of Our Future, a five-week study with contemplative advocate Lauren F. Winner (Girl Meets God) for high school or adult “formation.” A description of this DVD states:

“You will discover the meaning of conversion and prayer from the Desert Fathers and Mothers; how to love from the sermons of St. John Chrysostom; St. Benedict’s Rule of Life and how it became one of the foundations of Western Christian spirituality; how to have an intimate relationship with God according to The Cloud of Unknowing; and what it means to ‘pick up your cross” in the Imitation of Christ by Thomas A. Kempis.’”

Another book Wilson-Hartgrove has authored, called The Wisdom of Stability: Rooting Faith in a Mobile Culture, refers readers to the wisdom of Lao-tzu, the desert monastics, Thomas Merton, Benedictine spirituality, panentheist and interspiritualist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Benedictine nun Joan Chittister.

In a Beliefnet interview one year ago, Wilson-Hartgrove shared how “we need the wisdom of those who’ve gone before us.” This wisdom he is referring to comes not from the Bible, but from the contemplative “Benedictines (who) taught us to start the day with common prayer.”1

After seeing what is at the core of Wilson-Hartgrove’s spiritual wisdom, it is not surprising to learn that he recently made an appearance at the [very emergent] Wild Goose Festival .2 According to an article in the Christian Post, the Wild Goose Festival was a “four-day revival camp in North Carolina featuring music, yoga, liberal talk and embracing of gays and lesbians.”

The fact is, anyone who is drawn to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, as Wilson-Hartgrove is, has got to be following a different spirit and another gospel or at the very least greatly deceived. Chardin, who is attributed to the term “cosmic Christ,” did not hide the fact in his writings that he believed, not in the Christ of the Bible, but a christ consciousness in every human being.

While we do not challenge Wilson-Hartgrove’s sincerity or concern for the poor and needy, we must challenge his consistent promotion of contemplative mystics and emergent leaders, and he certainly does not seem like a proper fit with In Touch Ministries, that is unless In Touch is going emerging. The reason we say this about Wilson-Hartgrove’s sincerity has to do with the phone call we had with two editors of the editorial staff of In Touch magazine on July 24, 2013. One of the editors we spoke with was Cameron Lawrence, the Editor in Chief (and also the one who wrote the 2011 In Touch article featuring Wilson-Hartgrove). Lawrence asked us if we had ever spoken with Wilson-Hartgrove personally, suggesting that he was a sincere man who lived out the Gospel by helping the needy. We answered him by stating that the issue at hand was not a private matter but rather a public issue because Wilson-Hartgrove is a public figure (books, conferences, articles, etc). We said that it did not matter what he might say in a private conversation, but it did matter what he was teaching others. And it mattered greatly that In Touch was promoting him.

When we spoke with Cameron Lawrence, we told him we wanted to know who was responsible for putting the article by Wilson-Hartgrove in the magazine to which he told us “the entire editorial staff” made the decision. We asked him if he would be interested in seeing some of our documentation to which he answered, “I have been on the Lighthouse Trails website, and I didn’t find it helpful.” The other editor we spoke with, who wished to remain anonymous, said it sounded like we were on a “witch hunt” to which we responded, “No, we are part of a Gospel-protection effort.”

At times like this, it is difficult not to become discouraged by the lack of interest in Christian intelligentsia and leadership regarding the contemplative/emerging issue. What more can we say to show them what seems so obvious to ourselves and many other Bible believing contenders of the faith? A number of years ago, when the Be Still DVD (a contemplative infomercial) came out and we saw Charles Stanley’s name in the credits as someone who supported the DVD, we contacted his ministry and spoke with a personal assistant. He accepted our offer for a free copy of A Time of Departing but said that Charles Stanley would be too busy to read it.

If the mystics whom Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove gravitates to are right, then Jesus’ words that He is the only Way to the Father are wrong. You can’t have it both ways. The opposite view – the contemplative – is that God is in all things, including all people. This is what all mystics believe, across the board. And if that were true, then the need for a Savior would vanish, and there wouldn’t be any need for ”one way” to God because man is already indwelled with God and a part of God.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Endnotes: 1. New Monasticism & The Emergent Church: FS Talks with Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove: http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2010/06/new-monasticism-the-emergent-church-fs-talks-with-jonathan-wilson-hartgrove.html.

2. Learn more about the Wild Goose Festival here: Left-Leaning ‘Wild Goose’ Festival Draws Ire of Evangelicals

[Elsie]

Charles Stanley's marriage foundered, and he is no longer in a Scriptural position to continue as a teaching elder or pastor anywhere, or underwrite any religious publications.

Oh?

I'd like to see the SCRIPTURE that teaches that.

Until you post it; read THIS...

1 Corinthians 7:15

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

---

Not that the wife was an 'unbeliever'; but SHE left him - NOT the other way around.

[daniel1212]

It really points out the insane spiritual blindness among the anti-Catholic crowd. The only item of faith they appear to share is that the Catholic Church is evil and anti-Christ. Beyond that, anything is open to YOPIOS - the day of Worship? Sunday, or is it Saturday or maybe Friday? Celebrating Easter? Maybe, or is it pagan? Ditto Christmas! Baptism by water? Or not. And on and on.

Actually, the most serious heresies are among those who effectively operate according to the Roman model, in which the magisterium and or an individual is the supreme incontestable head, exalting their group as uniquely being the One True Church. And among such and in Catholcism there are formal divisions as well as within SS type churches.

Meanwhile it is because of Prots holding Scripture as supreme as the assured word of God with its basic literal hermeneutic, and the basic Protestant dissent from Rome's gospel, that evangelical churches have historically affirmed and contended for core truths (apostles creed, etc.) against cults and modern revisionism which predominate in Rome.

Were OT historical accounts such as the Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, Balaam and the donkey, Jonah and the Fish, Joshua's long day, and wars of conquest, literal or fables or folk tales? Rome says the latter or leaves you confused.

In addition, within the parameters of Rome's teachings RCs have great liberty to interpret Scripture as they see fit to in order to support RC teaching.

However, they are not to objectively examine Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine. And unity that is based on implicit assent to man is not Scriptural, and is inferior in quality to that which results from warrant based upon Scriptural substantiation, which is how the church began.

RCs point to their mighty magisterium as the solution to disagreements which result from reliance upon fallible human reasoning, yet they must rely on this if they will discern what magisterial class every teaching falls under, and thus what level of obedience is required, and if any dissent is allowed.

Moreover, RCs must engage in varying degrees of interpretation in understanding aspects RC teaching, as well as that which Rome has not officially defined. And the things RCs specifically can disagree on is substantial .

Furthermore while RCs will point a unity that is largely a paper one, as disagreement among RCs abound, and are less unified in and more liberal on basic moral views than Evangelicals, whom, they criticize for begin disunified. Yet Rome counts and treats such (which make up the majority in the West at least) as member in life and in death.

And which is what Rome effectually promotes, and which better defines what she believes than what official statements say, for as James (which RCs are wont to reference) stated, "I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)

Finally, while the divisions within Catholicism are less than in Protestantism, that is a comparison btwn one church and many, and which Catholic loosely define, and this unity is not necessarily greater than any single Prot denomination.

As the basis for RC unity is inferior to that found in Scripture for the NT church, the issue once again is the basis for RC claims that she is the one true and assuredly infallible church, and thus according to herself, she cannot be wrong.

[Elsie]

Reducing Paul's words to being his own personal opinion is actually something more likely to be seen in the ECM.

Oh??

Perhaps just SOME of his words...

---

1 Timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;

 

1 Corinthians 7:12

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

[Elsie]

I guess I ‘can’ ask why; but you’d rather NOT let me know why YOU like it.

[Elsie]

V, you are treading on narses’ turf with the pictures and all.

[GeronL]

bump

[imardmd1]

Separation, yes--when infantilism reigns; but divorce, no. Christ laid this out in his teaching of the eternal meaning of marriage. Any Jew can tell you that the exception clause found in Mt. 5 and Mt. 19 applies neither to the procedural nor the substantive processes of marital union of Gentiles; neither before, during, nor after the Mosaic nor Davidic Covenants.

You will be better informed if you read through the article entitled "The Sin of Remarriage Adultery" which gives the desired Scriptural foundation for my comment.

Regarding Dr. Stanley and his predicament in retaining an office in the church as elder or teacher, reading the Holy Ghost's instructions to Timothy and Titus (and their ongoing later supervisory equivalents), in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, with plenty of meditation, will verify what I said about that issue.

[verga]

I think I remember a thread Jim closed last night based on comments like the one you posted.

Have you read: Thomas Kempis "imitation of Christ", "St. Benedict’s Rule of Life", Thomas Merton, Benedictine spirituality, panentheist and interspiritualist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Benedictine nun Joan Chittister?

If not you are missing out, and you are doing exactly what I said.

[daniel1212]

Reducing Paul's words to being his own personal opinion is actually something more likely to be seen in the ECM.

Oh?? Perhaps just SOME of his words..

No, not any of hi words, for as with other writers, whether they knew they were writing was wholly inspired of God or not, the fact is that they were. Moreover, Paul concludes his teaching here by stating "I think also that I have the Spirit of God." (v. 40)

There are cases when what Scripture says is expressing the conclusions of the natural man, which context reveals, as in "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet," (Jn. 7:52) but the context of both 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:12 is that of apostolic instruction, meaning "I as an apostle given manifest authority, say this, not the Lord personally."

To take every apostolic teaching statement in Scripture that begins with "I say" or "I do" as being merely a personal and non-binding statement is a slippery slope indeed, which is what egalitarianism, for one, engages in.

The Lord Himself made distinction btwn what Moses said and what He personally was teaching, but which was not of lesser authority than what Moses write, and in His case it was actually superior, in the light of His warranted authority.

And while not being greater than his master, the apostle Paul had abundantly manifest authority, and provided supplementation and explanative expansion of what the OT and the Lord taught.

The epistles have many examples of teaching that begin with "I" that could be dismissed as personal opinion according to the hermeneutic employed in doing so to the aforementioned examples.

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. (Galatians 5:2)

Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: (Romans 15:8)

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Corinthians 15:50) And cessassionist could dismiss,

I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (1 Corinthians 14:5)

However, what Paul wrote to the Corinthians had no less authority than his other teaching, such as to the Thessalonians, and to which he admonishes,

"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." (2 Thessalonians 3:14)

Likewise,

But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. (1 Corinthians 4:19)

For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: (2 Corinthians 10:8)

That a woman is not to occupy the authoritative office of a teacher, esp, in the NT church in which doctrines were being revealed and articulated, or to assume authority over a man, is consistent with Moses, in which all the Levites were male, female leadership being an exception in a period of spiritual declension, and with the Lord, who only chose male apostles.

The desperate attempts of egalitarianism to circumvent this and such clear teaching as 1Cor. 11:3, and dismiss such as cultural, not creational distinctions, and to argue for female apostles, are similar to prohomsosexual polemics and are an argument against them rightly dividing the word of Truth. .

1 Corinthians 7:12 also is consistent with the broader exclusion of divorce, while the abandonment clause expands upon the fornication clause, and (esp. in that culture) provides for turning the hearts of the children to their fathers, rather than widows (in essence) and fatherless being afflicted.

[verga]

However, they are not to objectively examine Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine. And unity that is based on implicit assent to man is not Scriptural, and is inferior in quality to that which results from warrant based upon Scriptural substantiation, which is how the church began.

Here is where your argument completely falls apart. It was a lack of scriptural knowledge and poor catechesis that caused me to leave the Catholic Church. When I finally sat down and really studied scripture, I mean really did a through study, that is what brought me back in.

[Old Yeller]

I say the same thing about Catholicism.

[metmom]

Not that it’s any different than watching sedevacantists going at it with current RC’s.

However, if you find enjoyment in what you perceive as “heretics condemning other heretics for practicing a bastardized version of sound doctrine solely based on the opinion of another heretic”, then you all are most to be pitied.

It demonstrates a smallness of mind and meanness of spirit that is pathetic.

[metmom]

My kids did Bible memory at one time using the NIV, so when I do any memory work, I have to use that for the passages they studied which I also ended up memorizing, but I use the ESV for new material.

[verga]

It demonstrates a smallness of mind and meanness of spirit that is pathetic.

Did I strike a raw nerve?

[boatbums]

I think it is quite hypocritical for those who fuss and moan about threads that “attack” Catholics and which are labeled as “anti-Catholic bigotry” to then join onto threads that have NOTHING to do with Catholicism and offer zilch to the discussion but to exalt “their” religion as so above all others. Of course, they must ignore the tempest simmering in their own teapot in order to pretend they have all the answers. I don't think most of them would recognize “sound doctrine” if it came up and bit them!

[jodyel]

I do too and they gnash their teeth and hate it.

Praise God His truth will always prevail!

[jodyel]

Shows the stark difference between those contending in the Spirit and those not.

[jodyel]

And I believe he also teaches Dual Covenant theology regarding Israel.

I am not keen on Hagee.