Third Way theology is abdication, cowardice, and dereliction of duty.

The pretension of ‘third way’ theology is that it joins neither side and charts a distinctively Christian course. The reality is that it acts as an excuse to stand out of the way of evildoers. On the one side, they say, we have bad things; on the other side, we have racism and xenophobia and unwillingness to accept the sojourner.

See, that’s the secret: the sins of the left wing, the sins of the culture, the sins of the progressive, these sins get soft hands and soft voices. They are attached to minorities, to fringe radicals, to ignorance. But the sins of the right (which are many)? No man on the right is free of them. Did he vote right-wing? He must repent of his racism. Did he vote for a Democrat? Well, I’m sure he doesn’t personally support abortion.

The point of third-way ‘separateness’ is to avoid responsibility for pushing to the left. Some adopt it for this purpose (as I think Keller did- read Jon Harris’s excellent Social Justice Goes to Church). Some adopt it because they are by culture, sympathy, and practice progressives, but they haven’t quite joined the mainstream left (Ortlund might fall into this category, though I’ve limited knowledge of him). Regardless, the proponents of ‘third way’ theology are a leftward force in the church.

One tool of this faction is drawing an implicit moral equivalence between the two sides of politics. This equivalence, note, is built into the third-way path; even if a proponent denies the formal equivalence, the structural equation is there in the refusal to lift either side above the other in practical terms. Yet is there truly a moral equivalence?

On the right, some are racist; some are hateful; some are vengeful. Many despise God; many more pay Him only lip-service.

On the left, the orthodoxy is to hate everybody else. 12% of Virginia approved of a political candidate advocating for the murder of his opponent’s family. Baby-murder is a crucial ritual; Romans 1 depravity is a central rite of life. Whiteness is vile (racism!); as for the rest, the only question is whether Israel or Palestine should be genocided. Love of God is not merely lacking or substandard; it is reviled and forbidden.

Is there a moral equivalence? On the one hand, we have Jehu, who barely recognizes God but brings His judgement nonetheless, who does not raise his sword against the Lord’s people, if with only the dimmest idea of why. On the other hand, we have Athaliah, who desires the death of God’s children, the bodies and souls of our children, and the destruction of all the church has built. I see no moral equality.

Nevertheless, a Christian really can’t be unconditionally right-wing. For one thing, no such body exists. For another, the right wing really does have sin shot all through it- idolatry, vengefulness, disregard for His law. For a third, a Christian’s only unconditional allegiance is to God. A distinctively Christian path is still required. But what does that path actually look like?

Christians may justly stand on the right wing, but we may not subsume ourselves into the gestalt. Asa and Nehemiah might have stood alongside Jehu in battle, but they would never have stayed quiet as he deviated from God’s law in peace, or even in how he prosecuted the war. The Christian’s path is to seek Him, applying His law (Rom. 13:10) to all parts of life, including politics, without regard for the regard of men. In the process, the Christian must be a holy standard amidst the right wing- and a holy terror to the left.