Posted on 10/19/2013 8:50:26 PM PDT by 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
Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [4] Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother' s womb, and be born again? [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3)Read the Holy Bible every once in a while, then offer your opinions of what is and what isn't in it.
Or "washing". "Divers washings, and justices of the flesh laid on them until the time of correction" (Hebrews 9:10); the actual word is "βαπτισμοις", -- baptisms. Not that it is an important point, and certainly if you want to baptize a baby with immersion, you can.
Baptism is symbolic of that process [of the death and Resurrection]
Like any sacrament of the Church, it symbolizes what it effects. It does not mean it is ONLY a symbol, for Christ in John 3 clearly describes actual rebirth, not some symbolic act.
Baptism doesn't save, Jesus does
You imply a dichotomy. There isn't one. Jesus saves through the sacraments of the Church, Baptism foremost of them. That is what the Holy Gospel says:
baptism being of the like [water] form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21)
Made up of all true Christians.
Indeed, and it is good that you qualified: "true". Heresy, however, is not "true"; Protestantism, for example, is a heresy and is false -- and demonstrably contrary to the Holy Scripture in its foundational errors of Sola Fide anbd Sola Scriptura. Surely you admit to a profound disagreement with the Holy Catholic Church yourselves. So, no, either you are the True Church or we are, but both we cannot be. You are, of course, Christian in the broadest sense of having some degree of Catholic Christian beliefs, but no, Catholic, or even "catholic" you are not.
"Saints" appears about 67 times in the scriptures.
True, but I gave you two extended quotes from which it is clear that not every believer is a saint, even though all are "called to be saints". For example, "saints ad Lydda" could be a reference to a select group who are what we would call today living saints, or it could be simply a polite form of address, just like I may call you "mister" not implying that I will take your orders.
Thank you. Let us not forget that. So therefore quoting the Bible praising faith is repeating a fully Catholic teaching and does not proves Catholic soteriology wrong.
the minute anyone adds anything to faith, then it's not through faith
That is not logically so, for good works are a part of faith also. For example, Abraham by faith crossed the desert: here is both faith and works.
I am familiar with this idea; it is a part of the standard Protestant package of denying plain scripture.
Your theory is wrong because the good works that Our Savior mentions are all individual works. A nation cannot give drink to the thirsty, or visit a prisoner. Besides, St. Paul in Romans 2 repeats the same lesson and underscores "God, Who will render to every man according to his works".
I got scripture supporting the Catholic dogma. For example, a good half of the second chapter of St. James' epistle covers it fully and Catholically. You?
I need to read this when I am not exhausted. It is possible the article isn’t very cleat, but its more likely my fatigue dulling my mind. Bookmarking for later.
Context helps, annalex.
Enter mother’s womb, born of water = natural, physical birth.
But it IS wrong because Catholicism preaches faith +
I said no such thing that Catholicism is right.
It is wrong because it trusts the works that are added to faith and whatever is added to faith is the thing in which the person is trusting because they think faith isn't enough or it wouldn't need to be added to.
Sounds like the Holy Spirit was making that point pretty clear to me. Though, I am sure some will insist that we are “interpreting” it wrong, they will need to tell God He didn’t say it right! ;o)
Even if God renders to every man according to his works, the believer is still good on faith alone because Christ’s works are imputed to the believer, that is credited to the believer’s account BY FAITH.
So that God sees the righteousness of Christ when He sees the one who trusts Christ to save him.
Says the man who just got done insisting, "An ignorant heathen can, perhaps be saved through ignorance and good works alone..."
Perhaps it is your OWN "template" that is slipping?
Abraham, for example, did not just have faith: he crossed the desert also.
No one here has denied that a genuine faith produces actions (fruit) that demonstrates that faith. Just as Abraham and Moses - and, before them, Adam, Abel, Seth, etc. - exampled true faith before there even WAS the Law. Jesus told us we could know the fakes from the genuine by the fruit in their lives. Though some may be crafty enough to fool men, God sees the heart and knows whom are His. But NOWHERE does God tell us that our works - our own efforts, merits, deeds - can save us. Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. Real faith produces REAL works done through us by the Holy Spirit within each of us and it is no longer "OUR" works, but Christ's that pleases God and brings Him glory. Works done of our own efforts with the motive of contributing to our salvation are worth less than filthy rags in His sight. Why is this concept SO difficult for some to comprehend??? I reckon it is because of pride - the sin that God says He hates the most - as it blinds people to the awesome work of God's grace in our lives. Grace that saves to the uttermost and which we can never deserve.
It's not even WE who do the works. It's God in us.
Philippians 3:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
So in that verse that Catholics so love to misquote and cherry pick, about *working out our salvation*, they neglect to include the second part where Paul tells us where those good works come from, and it's NOT us deciding to do them anyway.
Did God REALLY say....????
Though I agree with you about many points, I do not on this topic. Whatever Scripture "illustration" we are given about the remembrance of the Lord's Supper, nowhere is the frequency commanded. Paul said in I Corinthians 11:25-26,
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
I believe Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians was their coming together for "love feasts" (which was a communal "covered dish" type of activity) and was done to ensure no one went hungry among their fellowship. That's why Paul said if they were so hungry they couldn't help butting in line and gobbling up the food and wine (getting drunk in the process) so that others went without, they should eat before they got there. This denotes, to me anyway, that this was not the same thing as the Lord's Supper observance where a loaf of bread was passed around, each person breaking off a piece, the cup passed around for a sip and the words of remembrance for which this ordinance was done spoken by the leader of the local church.
As is the same issue of what day(s) of worship are and what feast days and sabbaths are set aside, Paul said each man must be fully persuaded in his own mind because it is between him and God:
Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.… (Romans 14:4-6)
We have liberty in these areas and in others, such as food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality (Acts 15:29) as well as the major tenets of the Christian faith, we should be obedient and in unity. There is no mention from the Apostles about how often the Lord's Supper observance was to happen - not even the precise day of worship - as the times they lived in getting together on a regular basis may have been difficult. Though we do know that the early church gathered together on the first day of the week in several references and also some writings of early Christians regarding the process of their worship time.
Those are my thoughts anyway. Have a good night.
You really ought to leave that snarkiness aside when you try to engage others on theology - OBVIOUSLY others are reading the very Bible they are quoting!
Why did you quote verses from John 3 that say something they do NOT say? John 3:5-6, says, "Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Notice...Jesus didn't say, "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Curiously, ONLY the Catholic Bible (Douay-Rheims) has that misquote. It is NOT in the Greek as "born again of water" but "born of water". Were you hoping nobody would notice???
The disciples were gathered in Galilee:
***
When Jesus approached, He spoke to them, saying,
"All authority is given to Me in Heaven and upon Earth. Therefore, journey and consecutively disciple (people of) all the nations, then baptize them in the name of The Father and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit and repeatedly teach them publicly to keep all things watchfully secure as many as I commanded you! And lo! I myself am being continually with you all the days until the consummation of the age" (Matthew 28:18-20, A Precise Translation).
Some other translations say clearly and unarguably, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them . . ." (Mt. 28:19a,b; NASB) for instance.
Here, "make disciples!" is the verb matheteuoh in the aorist tense, active voice, imperative mode, second person plural. "Them" refers to those enrolled as scholars, not those who merely acknowledge the Gospel as unassailable truth, but go no further than attendance when the assembly is called to order, or there is wood to be sawed, or meals to be made.
Another way to understand this passage regarding baptism is to take it as Jesus ordering the disciples that He has trained to go out into regions foreign to them, to employ preaching to inform other humans and to enroll them as scholars, testing them for lifelong commitment who have abandoned their old life as the first disciples did to follow Jesus; then exercise the authority delegated to and invested in them to induct this company of committed scholars, one by one, using the formal public rite of initiation by water immersion for all to see their visible allegiance.
Yes, it does include demonstrating an outward sign of an inward spiritual change; but it is more, much more, than that. It is supposed to be a public rite of declaring that one is willing to die to self, to Sin as ones Master, and to the world, and become alive as a bond-slave to Christ by taking on the occupation of continuing, forever, to learn and apply things he/she has learned from Christ and His authorized instructors who teach what He taught, without changing or embroidering it; the basic task of which is to teach others after one has gained enough spiritual maturity to have overcome the Wicked One, and is prepared to reign with Christ on His return to establish His 1000-year reign over His Temporal Earthly Kingdom.
Has The Lord, Jesus Christ, designated this baptism as a fit rite to be administered to a babe? for one who is satisfied to become merely a convert without moving to greater knowledge and responsibility? to a person spiritually awakened and wildly enthusiastic, but unenrolled in a committed abandoning a self-serving existence? to one untested in visible proofs of his repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God? who cannot yet to himself pass a checklist of ten proofs of salvation, let alone other spiritual observers?
NO!
But that is just what an overwhelming majority of churches are doing, and teaching, and what you, Syncro, obviously have been taught and profess to believe.
For an example of the failure of an enthusiasitic, baptized, prolific evangelist, a contemporary and co-crusader with Billy Graham, check out the history of Charles Templeton, to which also this is another link.
(I personally have seen a number of souls "saved" under a revival evangelist's influence, immersed in baptism by an eager pastor, join ta church, then pretty soon fade away into recidivism to the old life and habits, never to be seen in the church environment again. A great mistake was made, assuring them of their "salvation," with the baptizeer never willing to renege on his false assurance or faulty methods.)
This Great Commission is the key passage about who is to be baptized with water by immersion, the disciple's baptism.
It is to be the baptizing of persons whose spirits were awakened by preaching, and became convinced to learn enough more of The Faith, from authorized followers of Christ, to exercise a saving commitment to The Faith of Christ, then completely threw their lot in with trained, authorized, spiritually disciplers to learn how to themselves become and continue on as spiritually qualified discipler advisors.
These were not mere converts accepting The Faith as indisputable Truth, but who were delaying or declining to become more deeply committed to learn from Him, to bear His yoke of discipleship.
Are you willing to abandon that approach, and become a willing learner, humble toward men and meek toward The God? Or are you just going to sit around like other armchair theologians and wallow in self-promoting criticism of people who do know The Way It Is?
What is the Holy Ghost saying to you, on the one hand; and Satan on the other?
*****
(With bated breath . . . )
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Au contraire, monami!
WHENEVER is once a year. It was a PASSOVER meal!!!
Luke 22:15
And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
“Born of water and spirit” is a reference to baptism, same as in 1 Peter 3:21. If Christ wanted to say “born of womb and spirit”, He would have said so.
This is typical Protestant twisting of the Holy Scripture, to the point that words don’t mean anything to a Protestant “reader”.
Nothing is added to the Catholic faith. Good works, veneration of saints, the relics and the Holy Images, fasting, study of the Fathers of the Church -- are organic parts of the complete Catholic saving faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.