Sad News About Charles Stanley’s In Touch Magazine

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

In the Jewish religion, mikvahs are used symbolically for MANY purposes. Jesus going through John the Baptist's baptism was for His being set apart for His ministry beginning. Of course it wasn't to cleanse Him from sin, nor was it to bring Him "into the sonship of God", since He WAS the Son of God. The Christian ordinance of baptism was not even known about when that event happened.

The purpose for Jesus' baptism is stated right in Scripture by John. It was so that John would recognize Jesus and He would be revealed to the world.

John 1:29-34 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. ”

Evidentially so: not a single codex survived in complete form; scholars disagree on whether some passages, such as the Adulteress Pericope, are genuine.

Of course not. There was no codex, only individual components of the canon of books, which the Holy Ghost was able to preserve as enumerated through the early discussions. And which we still have, through the copies made of the valid ones as the originals wore our and were carefully replaced. Without a doubt, Jerome had his place in making a Latin translation from the original languages, but at circa 400 AD, we have no assurance that he had "better" copies than we do now. In fact, they cannot be "better"--they can only be the same as we have. There is no "better."

And we have access now to some 5,000+ full or partial fragments, of which the oldest must be discounted not that they are "better" because they are old, but actually poorer because they survived only because they were infrequently accessed, and only because they were curiosities--not useful for study as reliable documents. And please, don't pester me with either "lower" or "higher" criticism. Let me stop that right here. If any one, it is Erasmus that showed good judgment, in that he did preserve and retranslate back to the Koine the segment Known as "The Johannine Comma," as well as the segment you mention, also in the writings of John.

Erasmus was furious about abuses of the Roman church system, through his understanding of the Koine; but he failed to place the church as necessarily subservient to Scripture as the sole standard for doctrine, as did Luther. And as do I, firmly and finally--and correctly.

The Church, however, the pillar and ground of truth, is doing just fine, by Divine design.

So you believe, and in a false interpretation of the Scripture you misuse; for if the Scripture were not preeminent, the church would be whatever you wanted it to be (as you are mistakenly defining the church's role); rather than the supporting structure for maintaining the superiority of the Word of The God, Who holds it to be even above His Name:

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

In my estimate, the RCC is not doing fine, in that it sets itself above instruction by the Word of The Very Head of the Scriptural church, the Word Enfleshed, the Only Begotten-in-the-flesh Son of The God, The Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Scriptures the boundary of spiritual knowledge exclusive of tradition beyond the original eleven Apostles and Paul contained in its pages.

The psalmist said (as do I) speaking by the Holy Ghost:

Psa 130:5 I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.

It doesn't say here that my hope is in a church, especially one that explicitly sets itself above His Word and clearly does not obey it in every respect, that does not accept that He has preserved it for use by every independent, autonomous, meek, obedient assembly on earth, as well as the invisible (to us now) paneguria (conference) and First-born's Ekklesia (convening body), whose names are written in Heaven:

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

For, about preservation, not just of His Word, but of His words by Jehovah as well as His manifestation as Jesus, even the spelling and punctuation He affirmed, both in Koine as well as Hebrew:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot (jodh,Hebrew's smallest consonant; iota, transliterated in Greek) or one tittle (keraia--the period--in Greek, chireq in Hebrew, a dot, smallest vowel or vowel pointing) shall in no wise pass from the law (Hebrew/Aramaic in OT, Koine in NT) till all be fulfilled.

THE Bible interprets itself, and neither the RCC nor any other fallible human organization has authority to translate or interpret it beyond a literal, grammatical, historical, and cultural hermeneutic, nor to apply it in a mode foreign to the obvious intent of its Maker.

The christ and gospel of the RCC do not agree with the plain intent of the preserved and correctly interpreted Bibles I have. There is no earthly-ruled assembly of Christians than the local independent, autonomous, immersionist assembly maintaining the Gospel through obedience to Christ's ordinances, strong preaching of Christ and Him crucufued, and church discipline, in my Bible. There are no longer any supernumeraries ruling over churches other than their own local one. Uniform understanding of the Bible by The Bible produces unity in the Spirit of correctly in-doctrine-ated members, ones taught to question any teaching by searching the Scriptures for conformation to the determined Will of The God. No global super-rule is required nor desired.

A local church may be a pillar and a support basis for God's plan, but Jesus Christ is the Lord-architect, and through His Word and the unity of the members, tells the church what to do, AFIK.

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.