Truth Unites - Before Dunking on Keller … Consider This

Episode Date: October 10, 2025

Gavin Ortlund responds to critics of the third waysim and explains why this approach still matters for faithful Christian engagement today.Truth Unites (https://truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites, Visiting Professor of Historical Theology at Phoenix Seminary, and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.SUPPORT:Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunitesFOLLOW:Website: https://truthunites.org/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/truth.unites/X: https://x.com/gavinortlundFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/

How Christians relate to politics and culture war right now is a huge issue. Lots of people are contrasting Tim Keller's approach, sometimes called a third-way approach, with more bold approaches like Charlie Kirk's approach. That's been one construct you see. By the way, if you're going to do that, please take into account differences of calling and context. Tim Keller is a pastor in New York City, was a pastor and church planter. Charlie Kirk is more of a political and cultural and religious commentator doing debates on university campuses. He talks about theology as well, but he's got a different calling.

you know, it's like if you're going to compare these two people, it's like comparing, it's like saying, you know, Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan, look at them both playing golf. Wow, Tiger Woods is so much better. And you don't mention, you know, actually Michael Jordan wasn't mainly a golf player. He was in the NBA. He was a basketball player. That was his main thing. However, in this video, what I want to do is assume that you, the viewer, agree with the criticism

of Third Way that is very popular right now. I mean, third way is, whew, it's in tough days right now. now. And you think this is just, it's just your patience is totally done. That's the sense I get from people is we just need to kill this, bury it, leave it behind, and even just mock it on the way as we're walking away from the grave, just, you know, just nothing but contempt. That's what you get from some quarters. Others not that extreme. I try not to make the extremes representative of everybody, but there's real energy against this right now. I'm trying to understand that. But let me say this in this video, I'm going to assume it's correct. And I'm going to make three appeals for

if you're persuaded of that, could I appeal to you to do this as you're leaving third wayism dead in the gutter? Can you please hear these three appeals? And the spirit of this is I think Christians can actually sometimes be of good faith and have disagreements about these questions. And how we conduct our disagreements matters for the sake of the kingdom of God. So hear me out that even if we disagree, we can still maybe think about how we might, and I'll listen to your appeals. too in the comments. Or if people make response videos, you know. Number one, please don't caricature

third wayism. If it needs to be critiqued, let it be critiqued at its best. If it needs to be exposed as bad and then killed and left behind, let it be exposed, killed, and left behind through steel manning, not through straw manning. I see a lot of rank

caricatures of third wayism. The idea that it is moral equivalency, the idea that it means detachment, like we just avoid the issue, choose where it's cowardice, retreating, and so on and so forth, for years, proponents of third wayism and others like, other constructs like this, if you don't like that language, fine, have been addressing this and clarifying this and saying, this is not what it is. Tim Keller, for example, has always said, it is not about finding a middle ground. It is about nothing other than following the

Bible, no matter what, even if the world sees you as an extremist. Christopher Walken wrote this, book, Biblical Critical Theory, it's very clear that third wayism is not splitting the difference between the major political parties that are currently operating. Not only is that not the way forward, that's actually wandering from the faith. Rather, the goal is nothing other than letting the Bible set the table. The Bible does not fit into the modern world. It will rearrange the furniture, so to speak. Trevin Wax makes this point very clearly that we should not stay above the fray. we should not make it sound like there's moral equivalency between the two parties. There isn't.

J.D. Greer, by the way, Griffin Gullidge is the one who drew my attention to that older article. All of these articles are years old. So you'd hope that people would interact with this stuff. It's been out there forever. But a lot of the ways you hear third wayism represented, you're like, you know, you can tell they're not trying to put it in a way that a proponent of this could recognize. But I was going to say, Griffin Gullage is the one who, drew my attention to that older article of Trevins in a tweet, and I thought he made a great point about the danger of a warmed over and politically flavored homogenous unit principle. If you don't know

what that is, Google it. Great insight there. J.D. Greer has an article up at the Gospel Coalition, and it's based on his new book where he talks about this, and he's very clear. It is not that both sides are morally equivalent. And he talks about the particular evils enshrined in the Democratic Party. if you disagree with all of these people, if you disagree with this whole way of thinking, fine, but interact with these clarifications rather than continue to articulate third wayism in a way that no one who holds to that would recognize. What is third wayism? In a nutshell, it is very simple. The thinking is this. Contemporary conservative politics, especially in the United States, has important differences from historic Christianity.

And even if those differences are not as dire as the political left, they are still important enough that they are worth pointing out. From our perspective, this is not really a third way. It's just the first way. We just want to follow Jesus, and it is that simple. Second appeal, and this flows right out of that, is beware of the no enemies to my right mentality. Now, most of you get this. Most good faith people who disagree with me on these questions, thank you. Truly, thank you. You agree with this. You get this. You're not going to push back on this

point, most of you. But what I think is more dangerous is those who will say, and maybe you've been feeling this already, is, okay, yeah, that's true. Technically, there's some bad stuff on the right, but it's not a big deal. There's a few people over there that need a nudge, but that's not the threat, stop putting the focus, stop acting like this is something that's big that we need to talk about and so on and so forth. And let me make an appeal, if that's how you feel. I understand. First, I would just say, we got to remember, all of us are affected by the algorithms, all of us. Okay? So we, all I'm saying from this point is we need to listen to each other for the experiences others have had. Believe me, if you can, believe me, I really am trying to listen, and I'm learning.

from people who disagree with me. I'm saying, okay, I've got to see the world through their eyes. What experiences have you had? But the algorithms tend to confirm our biases. And so we need to be aware of, okay, I've got to listen to what other people are saying because it might not all be coming up on my feed. I might think something's not a big deal because I don't see it, but the reason I don't see it, you know, I'm not omniscient.

It may not be served up to me through the algorithm. Many of us in real life have had pastoral experiences, church experiences, and relational experiences that convince us that, yes, there are some things on the right that are a problem. There are various forms of overreaction against wokeness, unhealthy forms of hypermasculinity working out in a marriage relationship that's really toxic and bad, undersensitivity to the sin of racial prejudice, including even anti-Semitism, explicitly so in some circles. I wish I could say these were small problems that don't even merit mentioning. But unfortunately, especially spending time on the internet, interacting with young men,

seeing what they're being influenced by. Yes, these are real issues. Let me mention two that I think are particularly increasing a need to be addressed. First, the sheer amount of lack of charity in discourse. There is a real viciousness to the way discussions happen. And in the online spaces right now, especially on X, the cancel tactics of the far left are being mimicked in the reverse direction by the far right. And there's a certain demographic of people that will swarm and then seek to utterly discredit a person. And the people being targeted are often pretty conservative. But they represent a threat or a challenge in some way or another, and so they are effectively canceled. It's ugly. It's not edifying. It's not constructive. There's a lot of name calling,

you know, pretty gross and sexual insults at times. And then those things get defended as though that was courageous. And a lot of times there's just sheer lying and slander that is utterly disgraceful. And it's totally appropriate to say, I'm broadly, historically conservative, I'm pro-life, I'm going to stand against the far left, I just want to be a faithful Christian, but I'm allowed to talk about these problems on the right, these sins of speech, for example, this lack of charity and disagreement and not shrug that off. If I were to shrug off sins of speech as though they're not a big deal, I would be going against about one-third of the New Testament. Read James chapter 3, for example, about how the tongue can send you to hell. Think about the

words of our Lord, who is saying when you insult your brother, you're liable to the fire of hell. Okay, we are allowed to take this seriously when our Lord is saying, this can send you to hell. And if I may be blunt, those kinds of sins of speech are playing out escalating in our online discourse. We have a major issue. This is not a small matter. How we talk to each other matters. You know, just to speak vulnerably, when I put out a video on these topics, it is shocking. The emails I will get, the things that people will clip out and try to spin this way and that way and so forth.

There is slander. It is a problem. It's okay to take that seriously and try to address it. Another issue is the constant separating and fighting and being suspicious of other people over secondary and tertiary doctrines. This is increasing in the world, not decreasing. It's a problem on the right. It's a problem we need to address. We're allowed to take this seriously.

So historically, in fundamentalist circles, you can look back 80 years and see how this would happen with other issues. The timing of the rapture, the nature of the rapture, its relation to the tribulation, something like this. Okay, we can look back with 80 years of perspective and say, they probably shouldn't have like splintered their whole movements over these kinds of differences. But we're doing that again today. And I think one of the big areas is this one over politics. That's what I'm trying to say, whatever else we do, can we stop being so much at each other's throats over these kinds of issues? There's this all or nothing package deal way of thinking. That's what comes in. It's the same kind of thing with the pre-trib versus pot-trib rapture, but now it's political issues. So for me, if I'm passionately pro-life, which I am, I would give my life for that in a heartbeat.

If I defend a traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman, which I do, tomorrow I'm flying to a conference to speak on that. But if I believe in climate change, which I also do, then now I'm the enemy. It's like, you know, you're down the line, oh, stepped out a line, banished them from the camp. This is this kind of way of thinking. and it's the same fundamentalist mindset that just won't allow for critical thought and making distinctions and having a sense of proportion. The very word nuance is now seen as a bad word in some circles.

And so the appeal that I would make for people today, especially people like good faith people who are kind of sorting their way through this and disagree with me, and you're saying, yeah, third wayism is bad. We need to bury that and move forward. Okay, fine. Please hear this appeal. please don't stop addressing problems like this on the right. Okay, let's revive a historic evangelicalism, not create a new fundamentalism.

Historic evangelicalism was a balancing act between different alternative errors. What people like Billy Graham and Carl Henry and Harold John Ockin-Gay were explicitly trying to do is say no to the liberals over there, but also no to the fundamentalists over there. They both have problems. we need to fight in multiple directions. Some of us feel a similar kind of mindset right now. Third appeal, and this flows out of that, is historical perspective.

This can really help us right now. It can calm and helpfully complicate the current dialectics and fractures that are like fizzling up right now. And it just will help our disagreements go better. Let me just give an example. Most Christians today like C.S. Lewis, Not everybody, but most people think, hey, C.S. Lewis, he's a good guy. He's on our team.

If C.S. Lewis were alive today, he would be tared and feathered by both the right and the left. That is the polarized world we live in. That is a fact. We know why the left wouldn't like him. He's an Orthodox Christian. He believes in a very traditional view of sexuality. He's constantly actually explicitly warning against progressivism. Read a book like that, hideous strength. He talks about that a lot. My favorite book. talks a lot about, I mean, just the basics of the whole tenor of his thought, this emphasis upon humility before God. Okay, that's, you know, he's going to get into trouble in a lot of circles for those things. But on the other hand, it can help give some historical perspective for us today to remember C.S. Lewis believed in evolution.

C.S. Lewis rejected biblical inerrancy and accepted some of the findings of critical biblical scholarship. He said things that sounded very third-wayish. He was a very expansive, generous thinker. He drew on philosophy and literature outside of the strictly evangelical canon. He invited people into a vision of the Christian life that is much larger and much richer and much more expansive. And I don't agree with him on all those things. I do believe in biblical inerrancy myself, for example.

I'm not saying you have to agree with C.S. Lewis, on those points. My point is this. It can help induce a little bit of clarity on the heat of the moment and the intensity of our disagreements today. if you remember, if you want to, again, the appeal to the person who doesn't see things as I do, you don't like third wayism, if you remember, there's a lot of C.S. Lewish-ish Christians, if I said that right, who are alive today, and they are not your enemy. You can disagree with them. But again, the sense of proportion, they're acting in good faith. They're seeking the truth. Actually, by the way, if you disagree with C.S. Lewis on some of those things I just mentioned,

I'm sorry, but if I may say, please don't just arrogantly dismiss him. He's a smart, sincere person. He came to his views on all those topics for particular reasons. Even there, there's a need for humility and engagement to understand and then disagree. So if you want to bury third wayism, the appeal that I'm making here is, what are you going to build in its place? Are you building an environment in which C.S. Lewis would get tared and feathered and run out of town as a woke liberal? And if you don't like C.S. Lewis, you can substitute a lot of historic Christians. That's the whole thing we're saying is if you read, you know, there's a lot of ignorance of church history. If you read church history, you see, okay, yeah, in the current polarized

landscape, a lot of Christians, even some historic fundamentalists wouldn't fit in. That's what we're wrestling with. Some people have genuinely not come to understand how complicated some of these disagreements are. And the casting nuance is a bad idea is not helping us. Let's build something better. Let's build something that looks like Jesus. Let's build something that is marked by both truth and grace. Let's build something that is vigorous against error, but also thoughtful and recognizable to church history. Now, if you disagree with everything I just said in this video, can we at least have conversations about this where we're not at each other's throats? Can I put out a video like this, get on a plane tomorrow, and not have to deal with

what has happened the last six times I've traveled, and that's some controversy blows up, somebody's attacking me on X, and then I'm getting texts about it, and I'm having to clarify my position and this kind of thing, because of slander, because of lies. That's not the way, no matter what, no matter who's right and who's wrong. Even if every word I've said in this video is wrong, that's not helpful. So what I'm saying is let's try to build an environment where we can, where good faith disagreements about the right political posture can at least talk, because even that is evaporating right now. I'll leave you with this passage. I have this printed on the mirror,

think about it every day, before I record a video, my wife just reminded me of it. This is the way we want to point our sales and move into if we are followers of Jesus. 2. Timothy 2.23 to 25, Paul says, have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies. There is a time. to avoid discussions. He says, you know they breed quarrels. There's a lot in the pastoral epistles about avoiding quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome, but kind to everyone, able to teach patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. Let's do the correcting, let's do the contending for the truth. But there's a lot in the New Testament that corresponds to those words, gentleness, kind to all, patient. A lot of our discourse now does.

not look like that. Those are some of the issues on the right we're seeing. Of course, you also see them on the left. That's the point. That's the point. And all we're saying is we want to follow Jesus. We want to obey 2 Timothy too. And I know others who disagree with the goals of this video feel the same. So that's where we've got to keep talking. All right, I'm wrapping it up there. This was a fun one. I'll read the comments.