I have heard that Dietrich Bonhoeffer took a close friend of his to a hill near a Nazi Youth training camp and said that the Confessing Church needed to have a discipleship training that was stronger and more robust than what the Nazi youth was doing. While obviously not the same situation, it remains the same in principle. North American churches have the tendency to be over-entertained and under-discipled.
I like it. “First-wayism!” Jesus is first in everything. First-fruits of a new creation, firstborn from the dead, first in His Father’s affections…., why should he be relegated to a “third way” reaction to politics when He is always first!
We see this first-wayism right out of the gate in the Bible. The Garden (church) is the first-way (the place where God meets with man BEFORE man is sent out to take dominion of the earth. If we get this right, ALL of our politics will “fit”. If we get this wrong, well…….(left,right,conservative, progressive, etc,etc….)
First wayism suggests that man is first “homo-adorans” (worshipping man) BEFORE he is “homo-sapiens” (thinking/policy making man).
History will proceed from Garden to City and any attempt to thwart this order will always result in tyranny won’t it?
Hey Jim, I too am an admirer of Keller. I think the critique that these guys make is that Keller was so careful not to offend the Left out of a desire to reach them with the gospel that he avoided speaking clearly on divisive culture war topics. However, some of those issues are vital and need to be addressed. In principle, I think he would’ve agreed with what I’m describing. In practice, well I think folks will need to judge that for themselves.
If that critique of Keller were accurate, I doubt he would have been disinvited from receiving an award from the Kuyper Center at Princeton Theological Seminary.
I think this is a great piece and I agree with most of what you said. However I don’t fully empathize with critics of the term “third way.”
Granted I’m an Anabaptist evangelical so maybe I’m approaching this from a different angle; we use the term “Third Way” in a variety of contexts , particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. For example, Jesus calls us not to fight our oppressors (like the Zealots), nor join their side (like the tax collectors), but to turn our cheek, love them etc. That to me is the essence of the “third way”.
As far as I can tell, most critics of “third way” evangelicals think the sermon on the Mount is an optional set of commands for extra holy believers, rather than Jesus’ primary manifesto for his new ekklessia.
However I don’t think that’s where you are, and I appreciate your posts. Perhaps “third way” as a term is more harmful than helpful and we should all adopt “first wayism “- I’m not opposed to that!
Hey Andrew, thanks for this perspective. I think you're using "third way" a little differently than Woods does in the First Things article I cite. The Anabaptist tradition tends to stay out of politics if I'm not mistaken. This use of "third way" applies exclusively to bi-partisan politics and evangelical political alliance.
BTW, this Reformed Baptist agrees with you that the SOM is not an optional add-on!
Cool :) Makes sense. I think I’ll personally be more thoughtful/intentional as to when I use the term “third way” going forward to avoid implying something I don’t mean.
You make a compelling argument! I’d still consider myself a third-wayer, but for very similar reasons to what you lay out here. I look forward to reading more on your perspective!
Speaking more to the popular characterizations of third-wayism(3W) (a la, Basham, Stuckey, et al) than to Woods’s (it has been forever and a week since I read his article), I’ve often felt they were not good faith critiques often being little more than straw men. Their arguments for 3Wrs being compromised, has just been that 3Wrs are not as critical of the Left as they are of the Right, yet Moore and French, in particular, have argued that they are critical of the new right precisely because it is a perversion of their own camp.
I agree that we shouldn’t necessarily validate the critiques of 3Wrs. I didn’t interact with the arguments of Basham, etc. because I don’t take them seriously.
My goal here is to more accurately name my own position. I don’t like “3W” because it defines the position as a response to 2 pre-existing positions. I think a lot of ppl who claim “3W” may agree with my formulation as a more accurate description. We start with the kingdom of Christ and judge all positions in light of that. Thanks for reading and for joining the conversation here.
I believe it was the AND Campaign's Justin Giboney, on an episode of With The Perrys, who said (not an exact quote, but close):
"You cannot be a faithful Christian and a Democrat if you're not willing to confront your party on the issue of abortion.
And you cannot be a faithful Christian and a Republican if you're not willing to confront your party on the treatment of immigrants."
I see way too many people more than willing to call out "the other side" quite vocally, but reticent to even acknowledge the wrongs of the party more closely aligned with them, because when they do point them out, someone always yells, "False moral equivalence!"
I think you ignore the fact that the Bible does contain clear principles of government and that the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution were founded on those principles. Christians need to those Biblical principles of government.
To a certain degree, I can understand where this resistance to the "third way" is coming from. The cultural mandate in Genesis 1:28 commands humanity to subdue all for His glory, and that would include politics.
No political parties are perfect representations of God's ideal for justice, but they are not all equal in the degrees of their divergence from God's standards, and ignoring those distinctions is probably unwise.
Politics involve the management of individual and group rights within the capacity of the nation's resources; we can't simply say, "Let's just love our neighbours and not get caught up in politics," because how we express that love often carry political implications whether we intend to or not.
Of course, often times these labels just become a shortcut for people to avoid discernment. When you have labels, it's easy to just reduce every societal problem to "in-group= good; out-group = dangerous/bad" without examining what the labels actually stands for and why. But to sidestep the problem entirely by saying that all the labels are equally bad because none of them are perfect can be equally un-discerning.
But then again, my country isn't bipartisan (and what each party stands for is far less clear-cut), so the term "third-wayism" likely don't apply here, and maybe my opinions regarding this kind of discourse isn't relevant, but those are my thoughts.
I appreciate your thoughtful perspective. I just wrote an article about the hostility I’ve seen around third-wayism and you encapsulate the types of commentary I want to see more of.
This reminds me of a post I did a while back where I was sarcastically poking fun at the thirdwayism and whataboutism fad. I made up a word to use when you have offered sufficient scripture and context to prove your stance but someone claims (with no scriptural basis) you are wrong and throws out an ism—that’s when you say “No, I’m speaking THEWAYism”.
Your post is more eloquent and diplomatic than mine 🤣 I just can’t hold my snarky side back sometimes.
I agree fully with everything written in this article; except, I don’t see much of a difference from ‘third-wayism’ and ‘first-wayism’ — perhaps I’m missing something, as I knew Tim personally and I think he’d agree with all your points here. Regardless, great article.
Hey Samuel, I too think Keller would have agreed. He has been influential to me and my ministry. I tried not to validate the critique in the article, instead choosing to just summarize it as it’s given. As stated, I think the difference between what I’m saying and Woods’ definition of third-wayism is that my position is more willing to speak on controversial topics in culture when appropriate, regardless of offending the other side. To focus on my scheme, I chose to let the reader decide if the Keller critique is fair. I didn’t want to make it an article about him.
This was a great essay, and summarizes many points I've been wrestling with personally. As someone with strong views and friends & family across the spectrum, I've been grappling with what messages I want to be associated with, and it's increasingly clear that even on a personal level aligning with particular political personalities and parties diminishes one's witness. For the church, the damage is worse. I think evangelical churches have dug a moat around themselves over the last decade(s) as they've become increasingly tied to a particular political party (earthly power), and progressive churches have flattened themselves in pursuit of "kindness" politics and cultural acceptance.
Would be helpful to see the tenets of “First-Way-ism” stated concisely to compare to other Christian approaches to politics and culture. Maybe like a list of affirmations and denials
I have heard that Dietrich Bonhoeffer took a close friend of his to a hill near a Nazi Youth training camp and said that the Confessing Church needed to have a discipleship training that was stronger and more robust than what the Nazi youth was doing. While obviously not the same situation, it remains the same in principle. North American churches have the tendency to be over-entertained and under-discipled.
I like it. “First-wayism!” Jesus is first in everything. First-fruits of a new creation, firstborn from the dead, first in His Father’s affections…., why should he be relegated to a “third way” reaction to politics when He is always first!
We see this first-wayism right out of the gate in the Bible. The Garden (church) is the first-way (the place where God meets with man BEFORE man is sent out to take dominion of the earth. If we get this right, ALL of our politics will “fit”. If we get this wrong, well…….(left,right,conservative, progressive, etc,etc….)
First wayism suggests that man is first “homo-adorans” (worshipping man) BEFORE he is “homo-sapiens” (thinking/policy making man).
History will proceed from Garden to City and any attempt to thwart this order will always result in tyranny won’t it?
Yes, I haven't thought about it in terms of redemptive history and time, but its first in that way too. Thanks for reading and commenting. Good stuff.
I'm an admirer of Keller but have only read a fraction of his writings. I don't see anything here Keller would depart from. Am I missing something?
Hey Jim, I too am an admirer of Keller. I think the critique that these guys make is that Keller was so careful not to offend the Left out of a desire to reach them with the gospel that he avoided speaking clearly on divisive culture war topics. However, some of those issues are vital and need to be addressed. In principle, I think he would’ve agreed with what I’m describing. In practice, well I think folks will need to judge that for themselves.
If that critique of Keller were accurate, I doubt he would have been disinvited from receiving an award from the Kuyper Center at Princeton Theological Seminary.
I think this is a great piece and I agree with most of what you said. However I don’t fully empathize with critics of the term “third way.”
Granted I’m an Anabaptist evangelical so maybe I’m approaching this from a different angle; we use the term “Third Way” in a variety of contexts , particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. For example, Jesus calls us not to fight our oppressors (like the Zealots), nor join their side (like the tax collectors), but to turn our cheek, love them etc. That to me is the essence of the “third way”.
As far as I can tell, most critics of “third way” evangelicals think the sermon on the Mount is an optional set of commands for extra holy believers, rather than Jesus’ primary manifesto for his new ekklessia.
However I don’t think that’s where you are, and I appreciate your posts. Perhaps “third way” as a term is more harmful than helpful and we should all adopt “first wayism “- I’m not opposed to that!
Hey Andrew, thanks for this perspective. I think you're using "third way" a little differently than Woods does in the First Things article I cite. The Anabaptist tradition tends to stay out of politics if I'm not mistaken. This use of "third way" applies exclusively to bi-partisan politics and evangelical political alliance.
BTW, this Reformed Baptist agrees with you that the SOM is not an optional add-on!
Cool :) Makes sense. I think I’ll personally be more thoughtful/intentional as to when I use the term “third way” going forward to avoid implying something I don’t mean.
Thanks for your piece!
Those critics would reject your empathy anyway, considering it toxic and sinful (sorry, I couldn't resist).
Many of them would and that’s tragically ridiculous
hahaha I was thinking something similar when I wrote it...glad you picked up on my subtle humor :)
You make a compelling argument! I’d still consider myself a third-wayer, but for very similar reasons to what you lay out here. I look forward to reading more on your perspective!
Speaking more to the popular characterizations of third-wayism(3W) (a la, Basham, Stuckey, et al) than to Woods’s (it has been forever and a week since I read his article), I’ve often felt they were not good faith critiques often being little more than straw men. Their arguments for 3Wrs being compromised, has just been that 3Wrs are not as critical of the Left as they are of the Right, yet Moore and French, in particular, have argued that they are critical of the new right precisely because it is a perversion of their own camp.
I agree that we shouldn’t necessarily validate the critiques of 3Wrs. I didn’t interact with the arguments of Basham, etc. because I don’t take them seriously.
My goal here is to more accurately name my own position. I don’t like “3W” because it defines the position as a response to 2 pre-existing positions. I think a lot of ppl who claim “3W” may agree with my formulation as a more accurate description. We start with the kingdom of Christ and judge all positions in light of that. Thanks for reading and for joining the conversation here.
I believe it was the AND Campaign's Justin Giboney, on an episode of With The Perrys, who said (not an exact quote, but close):
"You cannot be a faithful Christian and a Democrat if you're not willing to confront your party on the issue of abortion.
And you cannot be a faithful Christian and a Republican if you're not willing to confront your party on the treatment of immigrants."
I see way too many people more than willing to call out "the other side" quite vocally, but reticent to even acknowledge the wrongs of the party more closely aligned with them, because when they do point them out, someone always yells, "False moral equivalence!"
I think you ignore the fact that the Bible does contain clear principles of government and that the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution were founded on those principles. Christians need to those Biblical principles of government.
Excellent Article. I had been thinking about the same thing around the same time!https://edgerowwhistle.substack.com/p/the-end-of-the-third-way
To a certain degree, I can understand where this resistance to the "third way" is coming from. The cultural mandate in Genesis 1:28 commands humanity to subdue all for His glory, and that would include politics.
No political parties are perfect representations of God's ideal for justice, but they are not all equal in the degrees of their divergence from God's standards, and ignoring those distinctions is probably unwise.
Politics involve the management of individual and group rights within the capacity of the nation's resources; we can't simply say, "Let's just love our neighbours and not get caught up in politics," because how we express that love often carry political implications whether we intend to or not.
Of course, often times these labels just become a shortcut for people to avoid discernment. When you have labels, it's easy to just reduce every societal problem to "in-group= good; out-group = dangerous/bad" without examining what the labels actually stands for and why. But to sidestep the problem entirely by saying that all the labels are equally bad because none of them are perfect can be equally un-discerning.
But then again, my country isn't bipartisan (and what each party stands for is far less clear-cut), so the term "third-wayism" likely don't apply here, and maybe my opinions regarding this kind of discourse isn't relevant, but those are my thoughts.
I appreciate your thoughtful perspective. I just wrote an article about the hostility I’ve seen around third-wayism and you encapsulate the types of commentary I want to see more of.
This reminds me of a post I did a while back where I was sarcastically poking fun at the thirdwayism and whataboutism fad. I made up a word to use when you have offered sufficient scripture and context to prove your stance but someone claims (with no scriptural basis) you are wrong and throws out an ism—that’s when you say “No, I’m speaking THEWAYism”.
Your post is more eloquent and diplomatic than mine 🤣 I just can’t hold my snarky side back sometimes.
I agree fully with everything written in this article; except, I don’t see much of a difference from ‘third-wayism’ and ‘first-wayism’ — perhaps I’m missing something, as I knew Tim personally and I think he’d agree with all your points here. Regardless, great article.
Hey Samuel, I too think Keller would have agreed. He has been influential to me and my ministry. I tried not to validate the critique in the article, instead choosing to just summarize it as it’s given. As stated, I think the difference between what I’m saying and Woods’ definition of third-wayism is that my position is more willing to speak on controversial topics in culture when appropriate, regardless of offending the other side. To focus on my scheme, I chose to let the reader decide if the Keller critique is fair. I didn’t want to make it an article about him.
That’s helpful. Thx!
This was a great essay, and summarizes many points I've been wrestling with personally. As someone with strong views and friends & family across the spectrum, I've been grappling with what messages I want to be associated with, and it's increasingly clear that even on a personal level aligning with particular political personalities and parties diminishes one's witness. For the church, the damage is worse. I think evangelical churches have dug a moat around themselves over the last decade(s) as they've become increasingly tied to a particular political party (earthly power), and progressive churches have flattened themselves in pursuit of "kindness" politics and cultural acceptance.
Would be helpful to see the tenets of “First-Way-ism” stated concisely to compare to other Christian approaches to politics and culture. Maybe like a list of affirmations and denials