You Winsome, You Lose Some
As we follow Jesus on the narrow way, ditches endanger us on the left and right. For that reason, the middle or “third” way seems be a healthy place to stay.
In certain evangelical circles, an essay by James R. Wood has been stirring up discussion. In “How I Evolved on Tim Keller,” Wood argues that New York Pastor Tim Keller’s approach to cultural engagement has become obsolete. Keller, Wood argues, argues for a “third way” that was suitable for a more “neutral” world in which Christian faith was one option among many. We no longer live in that world, Wood says (here Wood follows a timeline set out by Aaron Renn). Specifically, Wood says that Keller’s attempt to stand above the fracas of cultures at war, conservative and progressive, no longer works either politically or morally.
Politically:
Keller’s apologetic model for politics was perfectly suited for the “neutral world.” But the “negative world” is a different place. Tough choices are increasingly before us, offense is unavoidable, and sides will need to be taken on very important issues.
Morally:
Keller's “third way” philosophy has serious limitations as a framework for moral reasoning as well. Too often it encourages in its adherents a pietistic impulse to keep one’s hands clean, stay above the fray, and at a distance from imperfect options for addressing complex social and political issues. It can also produce conflict-aversion, and thus it is instinctively accommodating
In other words, the culture has largely positioned itself against Christian orthodoxy and Christian orthopraxy, so we must adjust our strategy. We must worry less about offending people who are going to be offended by our faith in any case, lest we slide down the slope away from the truth.
Wood doesn’t explicitly outline what the post-Keller strategy would be, but I sense two things. First, I sense that Wood implies politically “picking a side” with the Republicans rather than staying neutral. Second, morally, Christians should hold no quarter in flying high the banner of historic ethical and especially sexual orthodoxy. Yes and amen to the second one, but maybe we should be more circumspect about the first. In that light, I want to respond to three issues that Wood’s essay provokes.
The Issue of Tim Keller’s Receipts
First, Wood aims to be charitable to Keller and express great appreciation for Keller’s ministry. He doesn’t argue that Keller was wrong before, but that Keller’s approach is wrong now. Keller has demonstrated great faithfulness and fruitfulness for the gospel, Wood would have no problem celebrating. For all the appreciation, though, Wood doesn’t adequately inspect the stack of CVS-length receipts that Keller has in his files. For example, where has Keller compromised on any issue of theological orthodoxy or ethical orthopraxy, even in the culture fire of New York City?
I remember a few years ago, Keller’s wife wrote a book defending complementarianism, the position that only qualified males can be ordained pastors. For all the hand-wringing about the possibility of compromise, where has Keller himself in reality compromised? Maybe Wood would point to a situation like City Church in San Francisco, formerly connected with Keller’s church planting network, which quickly slid from an orthodox church to rejecting an historic Christian sexual ethic. I would take the point, but also ask this question: would such a story reveal a problem with adopting Keller’s approach or is something else going on there? What about the (vast majority of) Kellerites who have held firm to orthodoxy and orthopraxy?
The Issue of Re-conversion Narratives
Second, Wood’s narrates his essay in a testimonial mode, a sort of inverse of the cultural air of “de-conversion narratives” (think Josh Harris). Instead, Wood’s essay is cast as a sort of “re-conversion narrative,” in which one rediscovers the fiery partisanship of the Moral Majority. It strikes very similarly to the Twitter thread from Josh Daws some time back, where he narrates his similar “deconversion” from Kellerism and “reconversion” toward a more adversarial culture warring, and another essay in First Things from Justin Lee about relearning to appreciate the bold spirit of fundamentalism. The through line of these narratives seems to be a reawakening to conservative political action, rather than working to evangelize the world without a stake as a political interest group. Rather than attempt to sit out the culture war like the fearful Israelites, we must reengage to slay Goliath like David. Culture war quietism must yield to activism for the sake of the common good, so the case seems to go.
I wonder, though, if these sorts of re-conversion stories are more of a manifestation of the spirit of the age rather than a brave stand against it. This moment doesn’t seem new to me. Instead, this impulse recycles the multi-generational political activism of the second half of the twentieth century. Keller’s work didn’t respond to quietism but to that activism. To reach a post-Christian world, Keller didn’t want to take sides in the culture war so much as represent the kingdom of God and the lordship of Christ. In contrast, the narratives of culture war re-conversions channel the spirit of the first-century Jewish Zealots rather than the first-century Jewish Christians.
The Issue of Simplistic Team-Joining
Finally, I think Wood’s essay and those like his misunderstand the purpose of Keller’s “third way” approach. The “third way” isn’t a mushy, squishy middle that is convinced about nothing. Rather, the “third way” attempts to acknowledge that no partisan or cultural “team” embodies the theology and ethic of God’s kingdom. We can’t join a team not because we are unconvinced about our beliefs. We can’t join a team because we are otherwise and already committed. To risk a cliché binary: we care about unborn black boys in danger at their local Planned Parenthood and unborn black boys in danger at their local traffic stop. Thus even if some reject an historic Christian sexual ethic or refuse to work to end the holocaust of abortion, that’s not what I am talking about, and I don’t think Keller is, either. Instead, Keller’s “third way” says Christians engage, not as culture war quietists but as Christians. We can work for things that different “teams” in the culture war see as “theirs,” and claim them as ours, because the primary Christian pledge of allegiance is, “Jesus is Lord.”
We are clearly in the midst of a shifting sense of how Christians engage the culture, with some pushing toward the “left” and others toward the “right.” I’ve often said that as we follow Jesus on the narrow way, ditches endanger us on the left and right. For that reason, the middle or “third” way seems be a healthy place to stay.
Keller knew how to love, and I think that's what escapes most of us. We have no idea how to see people beyond the mythologies our respective cultures have woven for them. He was definitely a benevolent leader in a sinful system though--shepherding sheep through the valley of the shadow of death that was supposed to have been our green pastures.