First-Wayism Over Third-Wayism

A better approach to politics for conservative evangelicals

I’m not sure when I first encountered the terminology of “third-wayism,” but James Woods’ 2022 critique of Tim Keller’s “winsome” approach to culture in First Things certainly popularized the concept within online evangelical cultural discourse. Woods wrote that Keller’s method “emphasized that Christianity is ‘neither left nor right,’ instead promoting a ‘third way’ approach that attempts to avoid tribal partisanship and the toxic culture wars in hopes that more people will give the gospel a fair hearing.” For Woods, third-wayism is an approach to culture that seeks to chart a path between cultural polarities in the name of gospel witness.

Building on Aaron Renn’s thesis that the modern West has recently transitioned from a “neutral world” more hospitable to the claims of Christ to a “negative world” that explicitly rejects Christian doctrine and ethics, Woods claimed that attempting to appease secular culture to gain a hearing for the gospel inevitably leads to accommodation and compromise. Rejecting the pietistic desire to stay above the fray of politics, Woods suggested that negative world cultural engagement may mean embracing a more hostile disposition toward the secular Left. Additionally, he argued that we should reject the “third way” approach to avoid treating the two sides of the Culture War as morally equivalent.

In the three years since Woods’ critique of Keller went viral, accusations of third-wayism proliferate online. However, few today seem as interested as Woods in carefully defining the term. In the hands of many Protestant magisterium advocates (I hesitate to use “Christian Nationalism” because of its common misapplication and overuse), the label is often applied as a pejorative catch-all for any evangelical political position that stops short of total affirmation of President Trump’s agenda. If you’re not aligned satisfactorily with the MAGA Right, many assume third-way sympathies. If you critique the Right as well as the Left, even if less frequently, it’s interpreted as evidence of third-wayism. Many MAGA-sympathetic evangelicals interpret Right reluctance as Left appeasement. According to this scheme, evangelical conservatives only have two choices: grab your red hat and join the tribe or go the route of compromise—the third way.

Where does that leave conservative evangelicals who substantially agree with Woods’ critique of third-wayism yet still see much that’s morally objectionable within Trumpism? Is it possible to critique the Right without being guilty of accommodating the secular Left? Does failure to wholeheartedly embrace MAGA necessarily equal compromise with the nihilistic and morally vacuous Left?

I want to suggest that third-wayism is not the only alternative for Trump-reluctant, non-partisan conservative evangelicals.

In Political Church, Jonathan Leeman suggests that the local church is political in that it provides institutional authority for the eschatological people of God. Christ entrusts the church with the keys of his kingdom, granting the local assembly of his redeemed people the authority to bind and loose as Christ’s representative presence on earth. When we are baptized members of a local, gospel-preaching church, we visibly join the embassy of Christ’s kingdom on earth. The church provides Christ’s people with a political homebase from which we pursue Christ’s mission in the world. Or, to borrow Augustine’s scheme, the church gives us a tangible representation of the City of God as we pursue Christ’s calling within the corrupted City of Man.

With our primary political allegiance already rooted in Christ’s kingdom embassy, we approach culture from a position of confident stability. We aren’t displaced wanderers in search of a home, and we don’t need to find a permanent political tribe from among the flawed options under the sun. We already belong to God’s covenant people, and we possess very clear instructions about our mission. We are called to stand for righteousness, to love God and neighbor, and to witness boldly and truthfully for Christ. We live now in full awareness that one day “the kingdom of the world” will become “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev 11:15).

In other words, rather than triangulating a third way between cultural polarities, we stand confidently in the first way of Christ’s kingdom and oppose every power that counters his righteous reign. Thus, any partnership we make with a political party on earth is necessarily conditional and temporary. It’s conditioned on the party aligning with Christ’s righteous will. It’s temporary because it will one day be replaced by Christ’s consummated kingdom.

From this position of political stability, we can approach politics with several biblical assumptions. The first way approach I’m describing has the following characteristics.

First-wayism assumes that no political entity on earth will ever conform completely to God’s righteous standards and purposes. When we surrender our willingness to critique a political agenda—even the one we perceive as closest to our sympathies—we conflate the gospel with the world and forfeit our prophetic witness. Idolatry results when sinners fail to distinguish between the kingdom of Christ and their preferred political tribe. Brian Mattson, who I recommend as a worthy exemplar of the first way approach I’m describing, recently described how the Left is often guilty of too rigidly separating the “things of Caesar” from the “things of God” by relegating religion to the private sphere. However, he continues, “conflating them is the more common error on the right these days.” When we yoke Christianity to one political movement—any political movement, really—we commit syncretism and pollute our gospel witness with the impurities of foreign gods. Patriotism does not necessitate conflation.

First-wayism engages meaningfully with politics without treating politics as ultimate. Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). His followers modeled the implications of that profound statement when they informed government, “We must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). When it comes to priorities, we must never lose sight of the mission of the church. Partisan bickering must never obscure our obligation to love neighbor and preach the gospel.

With that said, the Bible provides rich instruction on the vital role that politics plays within God’s purposes. Joining the ranks of Christ’s Kingdom does not end our obligation to the state. God’s people must respect government as God’s “servant,” ordained to uphold justice and avenge wrongdoing (Rom 13:1-7). Additionally, we pray for kings and all in authority so that the church can thrive in its gospel mission (1 Tim 2:1-6). The church has a vested interest in a flourishing and righteous state, and we must do everything we can to ensure that goal without making the state ultimate. We must remember that nations rise and fall, but Christ’s kingdom will triumphantly march forward regardless.

First-wayism promotes moral clarity over passionate tribalism. In The Backslider, Andrew Fuller observed, “If we enlist under the banners of the party in power, considered as a party, we shall be disposed to vindicate or palliate all their proceedings, which may be very inconsistent with Christianity. . . We ought to beware of applauding every thing that is done, lest, if it be evil, we be partakers of other men’s sins, and contribute to their being repeated.”[1] Again, Fuller sounds the same alarm in the preface to The Gospel Its Own Witness: “Those who favour the sentiments of a set of men in one thing, will be in danger of thinking favourably of them in others; at least, they will not be apt to view them in so ill a light.”[2]

Fuller believed that unconditional partisanship interfered with the Christian’s ability to assess reality objectively. The partisan actor, passionately embroiled in the political disputes of the day, minimizes the faults of his own tribe, while overemphasizing the errors of his opponents. Fuller contrasted the unchanging truth of God’s word with the temporality of party politics. To put it simply, the things that stir our passions in the moment do not often age well. In Fuller’s day, he witnessed the way many of his contemporaries initially embraced the French Revolution as the triumph of liberty in the world before having to embarrassingly backtrack as the movement’s unrighteous excesses became clear. By contrast, Fuller chose to entrench permanently in only one political movement—the advance of Christ’s eternal kingdom.

First-wayism draws strength from high ecclesiology. If you are not strongly rooted in your local church and its mission, politics will easily replace that void. We were created and redeemed to pursue a mission on this earth—the mission of taking the gospel to the ends of the earth and establishing churches under the loving lordship of Jesus. If that mission is not on your radar, you will settle for some lesser mission, and partisan politics is a perennial option. The assembled and well-ordered church provides Christ’s people with the communal identity and accountability necessary for navigating life in a complex world. Regular worship with Christ’s covenant community also centers the heart’s affections on Christ—something much needed after spending our days among the tribal citizenships of this world. The church roots its members in the gospel, freeing us to advocate for truth, righteousness, and beauty in culture.

First-wayism promotes a disposition of unwavering confident hope within culture. Confidence should always prevail among God’s people. No matter what happens politically, who wins the next election, or how awful the travesty, Jesus Christ reigns. Nothing can dethrone him. No one can defeat him. His kingdom will ultimately prevail even if all earthly governments fail. Christians should mourn when unrighteousness and untruths prevail in our culture. We should do everything we can to counter these demonic forces. However, the reality of our resurrected King guarantees our victory. We can live with confident hope even under the worst human governments.

First-wayism rejects half-wayism. First-wayism affirms Woods’ concern that third-wayism sometimes suggests moral equivalence between the Right and the Left. This approach doesn’t fall into the half-way trap and frees its adherents to closely align with one party over another, conditionally and temporarily, but never absolutely. We can partner with whichever party most represents the agenda of our King at any given time. Such political alignment may last generations. However, our loyalty must never be given cheaply and assumed automatically. Political movements must know that our support comes with strings attached. We serve a higher King, and we must always obey God rather than men. We will passionately take sides on the issues that are important to him without concern for hurt feelings.

Conclusion

You can refuse full alignment with the existing political options without being guilty of compromising third-wayism. First-wayism of the kind I’ve outlined here rejects appeasement of either side in favor of wholehearted devotion to the kingdom of Christ. It’s an approach that neither relegates religion to the private sphere nor conflates Christ’s kingdom with earthly kings.

---

[1] Fuller, The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. 3, 641.

[2] Fuller, The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. 2, 3.