I would like to preface this by saying that I am the last person who has any ground to stand on in the criticism of others. I still don't know how to balance my own unworthiness with the need I feel to confront dangerous influences and doctrines. It seems to me that perhaps my critical eye should be leveled at myself and not at others. However, in the suffocating pro-Wilsonism I find myself surrounded with, and with many of my friends in his church, even my own brother, who do not see the terrible end of the road Khrist Kirk is headed on, I find myself impelled to speak my mind.

I try to avoid reading Credenda/Agenda if at all possible. When I go home to visit my family, I hide them so as to limit their influence (I would burn them, but I'd get in trouble for that. As many things get lost in my home, hiding seems the more natural and inoffensive way to go about it). But when I saw the latest issue, I had to laugh, bitterly, at the Thema -- a thesis on church splits by one of the most divisive men in the Reformed church.

Some things have been made clear to me over the past couple of months when talking to others about my mercifully short stay at Khrist Kirk in Moscow. Though not an exhaustive list, nevertheless these are some of the most striking problems I have with CRECism altogether:

The Auburn Avenue kerfuffle of 2002 was caused by the men in question doing what they normally do -- unthinkingly pursuing originality for the sake of originality. Heaven knows, you're not a real intellectual until you've thought of something nobody else has thought of (perhaps it hasn't been thought of because, you know, it's, um, heresy?). Therein lies the problem -- these men were more interested in being intellectuals than in being Christians. I don't believe these men thought through the implications of their more questionable statements before they said them -- why else would they be so hard to pin down on these issues otherwise? If they truly meant what they said, from what I know of their character, they would vociferously stand by it, instead of merely muddying waters that were already solid mud. Were some of them secretly appalled when others proceeded to come to the logical end of their ideas for them? Perhaps. Will they ever have the humility to admit they're wrong? Not in this lifetime. Maybe they'll be more careful about what they say in the future. Maybe.

It's obvious to me what distinguishes true Christianity from Christianity in name only, having been a formalist and a hypocrite for most of my life until God shed His grace abroad in my heart. A humble, self-sacrificial love, a passionate following after Christ, a sense of one's utter impotence and need of a Savior, and a brokenness over sin are essential hallmarks of the regenerate heart, and I fear I see little of this in either the leadership or the congregants of this church. Granted, theirs is not the only church to suffer from this -- hardly. But, in the absence of these, it is dangerous, not to mention downright foolish, to give credence to their ideas about Christian theology.

Doug Wilson says he is against morbid introspection -- which, I agree, is just another term for unbelief -- but in practice, Khrist Kirk is against any kind of introspection at all. I have never seen a congregation so self-sufficient and unbroken by sin, unwilling that any self-examination should ruin the jollity of their EatDrinkAndBeMerryForTomorrowWeConquerTheWorldByInfiltrating
TheCultureThroughSlingingSnideCommentsAndNoveltyDoctrinesThrough
TheWindowsOfOurIvoryTower worldview. I marvel that they can read Ryle, Bunyan, and Owen -- indeed, any of the Puritans -- and not be convicted of the need to know their sin and, therefore, their need of a Savior. It seems remarkable to so side-step such things when they seem hard-wired into Reformed doctrine. As Ryle said, "The plain truth is that a right knowledge of sin lies at the root of all saving Christianity."

Looking back over this post, I realize I have leveled some serious charges against Wilson and his church. I am not handing these judgments down "from on high" -- these are just my own thoughts, and I am more than willing to admit error should someone point it out to me. In fact, I welcome criticism. I would love to be wrong about this -- but my experience says otherwise.