The assassination of evangelical political activist Charlie Kirk shocked and horrified Christians in the United States and all over the world. One recurring theme in various conservative responses has been criticism of “third-wayism,” an approach to cultural and political engagement often associated with the late Tim Keller. As one pastor said in a viral interview, “Charlie’s memorial service wasn’t just a funeral for him; it was a funeral for third-wayism.” Keller’s Third Way On social media, Keller most frequently used the term “third way” to refer to purely theological issues, arguing—for example—that the gospel itself is neither antinomianism nor legalism, but a “third way of relating to God through grace.” When he applied the term to sociopolitical engagement, Keller rejected the idea that “truth is found in the middle between extremes.” Instead, he insisted that “Christians should never seek a middle ground for its own sake.” His foundational argument was that Christians should “take positions that do justice to the Biblical teaching, regardless of whether the world sees you—in its categories—as an extremist or a moderate.” Politically speaking, Keller’s third way was a rejection of the rigid left/right framing of 21st-century U.S. politics. He wanted to offer a distinctly Christian approach to political engagement. In a 2018 New York Times essay, he wrote that “Christians should be involved politically as a way of loving our neighbors” but that believers “should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one.” Politically speaking, Keller’s third way was a rejection of the rigid left/right framing of 21st century U.S. politics. As a pastor, his motivation was partially evangelistic. He wanted to remove obstacles in the path of seekers and skeptics who were curious about Christianity but put off by the church’s political identity. However, his arguments were also a warning for Christians. He cautioned that if a church or an individual is “fully identified with any particular party” there is a temptation to “fully adopt one party’s whole [ethical] package” rather than submitting every political stance to biblical scrutiny. Critiques of the Third Way In recent years, cultural shifts have caused many evangelicals to question whether it’s helpful to frame evangelical sociopolitical engagement as a third way. For example, in 2022, James Wood expressed his admiration for Keller but argued that while his framework was more plausible in the supposed neutral world of the 1990s and early 2000s, it’s far less appropriate today. Other pastors have insisted third-wayism is a gateway to ambiguity, compromise, and theological liberalism, whether or not these are the intended destinations. Critiques of third-wayism are complicated because the term has become a catch-all for various views—many of them poorly defined. Nonetheless, some of these challenges are worth considering. First, third-wayism can tend to blur the distinction between lesser and greater matters of the law. Of course, all sin is sin. But it doesn’t follow that every sin is morally equivalent or will wreak the same havoc on society. Abortion isn’t morally equivalent to poor parenting, and pornography isn’t morally equivalent to overeating. Unfortunately, some proponents of third-wayism seem to feel the need to follow up every condemnation of a “liberal” sin with a condemnation of a “conservative” sin without differentiating the harm those sins are likely to cause. This kind of knee-jerk both-sidesism flattens the severity of different sins and can severely miscalibrate a Christian’s moral compass. Second, some proponents struggle to name actual moral asymmetry between political parties. For example, as J. D. Greear points out, a Christian living in Germany in 1940 had to grapple with movements that weren’t remotely morally equivalent. If a German pastor had claimed that Christianity is neither Nazi nor anti-Nazi or that both genocide and economic injustice are sins, it wouldn’t have been an act of nuance but an act of obfuscation. Third, the evangelistic motive of third-wayism is praiseworthy but may not bear the desired fruit. At its best, third-wayism seeks to decenter our opinions on disputable political matters that function as obstacles to the gospel. However, as the cultural consensus on the nature of reality erodes, the line between politics and religion has blurred. We aren’t at liberty to decenter the clear claims of Scripture, even if they challenge people’s politics. A seeker may ask, “Will I have to surrender my political affiliation if I become a Christian?” Our answer to that needs to be, “Ah, it’s worse than you think! You’ll have to surrender everything if you become a Christian.” At its best, third-wayism seeks to decenter our opinions on disputable political matters that function as obstacles to the gospel. Fourth, in an attempt to gain an evangelistic hearing with mainstream, secular audiences, third-wayism—especially when it’s practiced in deep-blue urban contexts—may be imbued with a bias toward progressive sensibilities. Some critics describe this tendency with the phrase “punch right, coddle left.” Of course, we need to choose our words wisely so that we don’t reinforce incorrect stereotypes about Christianity. But we must be clear to consistently articulate the content of Scripture, especially where it contradicts our community’s assumptions. Parents whose children are being sucked into the transgender movement need help and moral clarity, not platitudes about diversity. Finally, much of modern politics has more to do with metaphysics than with the wisdom of marginal tax rates. Therefore, it’s no surprise to see a growing population of what James Wood terms “reality respecters” who have found Christ precisely because they encountered Christianity’s “regressive” sociopolitical beliefs about abortion, sex, and gender being logically defended in political discussions. If Christians don’t talk about these issues, we’re weakening, not strengthening, our witness. Is One-Wayism the Answer? The foregoing criticisms are all valid for at least some proponents of third-wayism, but none of them challenges the basic third way claim that neither of the two major political parties in the United States aligns perfectly with Christian values. One might ask, Is anyone saying we need to be so fully aligned with one political tribe that we completely ignore intratribal disagreement until the other tribe is destroyed? Yes. A small but vocal movement on the right, which includes some professing Christians, has begun to embrace political theorist Carl Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction and Charles Haywood’s philosophy of “No Enemies to the Right” (NETTR). They argue that the left must be utterly destroyed and that any public criticism of individuals “on the Right,” no matter how morally repugnant they are, should be avoided until that happens. On the other side, some progressives are now hesitantly admitting they have a problem with unchecked radicalism. Celebrations of Kirk’s assassination by progressives (as well as the assassination itself) demonstrate that the Dissident Right isn’t alone in embracing an apocalyptic mindset. In contrast to third-wayism, these approaches might be termed “one-wayism,” since they insist people should indeed uncritically, unreservedly embrace one side. They’re told to lean so far into their political identity that it supersedes biblical injunctions to practice self-reflection, expose error, and act with honesty, kindness, and charity. We must reject this approach, whether it’s adopted explicitly or implicitly. Future for Third-Wayism? Based on reports, around 90,000 attendees and more than 20 million viewers watched Kirk’s memorial service, which included multiple presentations of the gospel along with explicit calls to repentance and faith. As noted above, some evangelicals were motivated by Kirk’s death to reject what they view as the pitfalls of third-wayism. However, that doesn’t mean they’ve embraced one-wayism either. For example, evangelical podcasters Alisa Childers and Mike Winger both independently praised the Christian elements of the service, the clear preaching of the gospel, and Erika Kirk’s forgiveness of the assassin. They affirmed Kirk’s political goals and his willingness to identify progressivism as a serious threat to our country. But they noted that the audience at the memorial included opportunists, false teachers, and leaders associated with the New Apostolic Reformation. They criticized Trump’s attitude toward forgiveness. They warned that discernment is needed to ensure serious theological errors aren’t ignored for the sake of a bigger Christian tent and more political power. Scripture, they said, should determine where we accept disagreement and where we draw hard lines. In other words, they insisted that Christian political engagement going forward should embrace neither a bland middle ground nor unthinking partisanship but should embrace a third thing. And that, as Keller himself noted, is the paradox of third-wayism. Nearly every approach can be framed as “third-wayism” because nearly every approach tries to avoid the errors it sees on different sides. Consequently, critiques of people’s political views need to be precise. No, a Christian’s identity shouldn’t be so tightly bound to a political party that he or she embraces its values uncritically. No, we shouldn’t demand political conformity on disputable matters. But we should also be willing to point out moral asymmetry. We shouldn’t be afraid of being labelled “partisan” for holding to biblical positions. Grace and truth isn’t a third way; it is the way.

Long before anyone had heard of going viral or getting ratioed, an 18th-century Anglican bishop delivered a sermon that reads like a diagnostic manual for our social media age. In “Upon the Government of the Tongue,” Joseph Butler identified what he called “talkativeness”—a compulsive disposition to keep speaking without regard for whether our words do good or harm. Three centuries later, Butler’s insights feel prophetic. Butler (1692–1752), who served a half dozen years as bishop of Durham, was one of Britain’s most influential moral philosophers. He shaped the thinking of such intellectual giants as David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, and Edmund Burke. His book Analogy of Religion and his Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel (of which this sermon was the fourth) established him as a towering figure in moral philosophy who offered a sophisticated understanding of human nature that anticipated modern psychology. What Butler understood—and what we’re still learning—is that our everyday speech habits reveal the true state of our souls. Ancient Disease in Digital Form The text for Butler’s sermon comes from James 1:26: “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.” The core problem, the bishop understood, wasn’t so much deliberate lying or malicious slander but something more subtle and pervasive: “talkativeness; a disposition to be talking, abstracted from the consideration of what is to be said; with very little or no regard to, or thought of doing, either good, or harm.” This could be a clinical description of compulsive social media use. Butler understood that those “addicted to this folly” might initially “choose to confine themselves to trifles and indifferent subjects,” but inevitably, “when subjects of this kind are exhausted, they will go on to defamation, scandal, divulging of secrets . . . any thing rather than be silent.” Sound familiar? Butler was describing the exact progression we see daily on social media platforms: harmless posts devolving into gossip, then scandal, then full-blown character assassination. And all of it driven not by malice (at least not primarily) but by the compulsive need to keep the content flowing. Mechanics of Digital Talkativeness Butler’s analysis of why talkativeness is so destructive explains our online situation. He observed that chronic talkers are “plainly hurried on, in the heat of their talk, to say quite different things from what they first intended, and which they afterwards wish unsaid.” Replace “talk” with “posting” and you have an apt description of the tweet-and-delete cycle. Our everyday speech habits reveal the true state of our souls. Even more prescient was Butler’s insight into attention-seeking behavior: “If these people expect to be heard and regarded . . . they will invent to engage your attention; and, when they have heard the least imperfect hint of an affair, they will, out of their own head, add the circumstances of time and place, and other matters, to make out their story.” This is essentially a description of how rumors go viral on social media. Users add dramatic details to half-heard stories to increase their interest or outrage to maximize engagement. Butler’s metaphors for uncontrolled speech are also fitting for our viral age: “It is like a torrent, which must and will flow; but the least thing imaginable will first of all give it either this or another direction . . . or like a fire, the nature of which, when in a heap of combustible matter, is to spread and lay waste all around.” If he were writing today, he might simply say, “It’s like a viral post—once it gains momentum, it spreads beyond all control or intention.” Algorithm of Ancient Wisdom Butler identified three crucial areas where Christians must exercise restraint, and these provide helpful guidance for our social media discipleship. 1. Discipline of Digital Silence Butler emphasized that “there is time to speak and a time to keep silence” (Eccl. 3:7), noting that excessive talkers “do not at all speak from their having any thing to say, as every sentence shows, but only from their inclination to be talking.” Their conversation “is merely an exercise of the tongue; no other human faculty has any share in it.” This perfectly captures the mindless scrolling and compulsive posting that characterizes so much social media use. Butler’s counsel, applied to our always-on culture, is that sometimes the most Christlike response to an inflammatory post is no response at all. As he put it, quoting Proverbs 10:19, “When words are many, transgression is not lacking.” 2. Elevating Our Digital Discourse Butler acknowledged that lighthearted conversation serves legitimate purposes since it “unites men closer in alliances; and friendships” and “tends to promote humanity, good nature, and civility.” But he insisted such conversation must be truly harmless and not consume time that belongs to our duties (fellow pastors, take note). Applied to social media, this means asking, Does this meme build up or tear down? Does this joke honor human dignity? Am I posting something meaningful or just feeding the algorithm’s demand for content? Am I simply seeking attention “without regard” (to paraphrase Butler) “for whether our words do good or harm”? 3. Speaking of Others with Gospel Grace Butler’s most penetrating insights concerned what he called the most dangerous area: “discourse of the affairs of others, and giving of characters.” He noted how “various interests, competitions, and little misunderstandings which arise among men” make us “not unprejudiced and impartial” when discussing others. Here Butler offered a transformative principle: “When you say somewhat good of a man which he does not deserve there is no wrong done him in particular; whereas, when you say evil of a man which he does not deserve, here is a direct formal injury, a real piece of injustice done him.” In practical terms, this means to be slow to share that critical article, be quick to celebrate others’ achievements, and be relentless in assuming the best about those with whom you disagree. Heart Behind the Hashtag Butler understood that the fundamental issue isn’t technology but human nature. His description of chronic talkers could be pulled from a psychology textbook on social media addiction: “There is such a thing as a disposition to be talking for its own sake; from which persons often say any thing, good or bad, of others, merely as a subject of discourse.” This “disposition to be talking for its own sake” is precisely what drives the compulsive sharing, commenting, and posting that characterizes problematic social media use. Butler recognized that such behavior reveals “great viciousness of mind, great indifference to truth and falsity, and to the reputation, welfare, and good of others.” Sometimes the most Christlike response to an inflammatory post is no response at all. The bishop’s ultimate point was that speech reveals the heart. In our digital age, our online presence has become one of the primary ways we bear witness to the gospel’s transforming power. When Christians are known for thoughtful posts rather than hot takes, for encouragement rather than outrage, for bridge-building rather than bomb-throwing, we demonstrate that the gospel actually changes people. But when we indulge in what Butler called talkativeness—posting compulsively, sharing without thinking, adding to digital controversies simply because we feel compelled to speak—we reveal we’re no different from the world around us. We become like “a sword in the hand of a madman,” striking at random; “it can scarce possibly do any good, and, for the most part, does a world of mischief.” Our digital witness becomes not a testimony to transformation but evidence that our religion is, as the apostle James warned, “worthless.” Ancient Medicine for Digital Disease Butler’s sermon reminds us that the challenge isn’t new; the only thing that has changed is the forums in which we communicate. The heart that struggles with talkativeness in person will struggle with compulsive posting online. But the same gospel grace that can transform our face-to-face relationships can—and should—redeem our digital ones too. In our digital age, our online presence has become one of the primary ways we bear witness to the gospel’s transforming power. As Butler concluded, if people would simply “observe the obvious occasions of silence” and “subdue the inclination to tale-bearing, and that eager desire to engage attention, which is an original disease in some minds; they would be in little danger of offending with their tongue, and would, in a moral and religious sense, have due government over it.” The 18th-century Anglican couldn’t have imagined Instagram or TikTok, but he understood the human heart. And the human heart, amplified through the fastest communication technology in history, needs the restraining grace of the gospel more than ever. Perhaps it’s time we take his ancient counsel seriously and resist the compulsion to be always talking, always posting, always adding to the digital noise. After all, as Butler understood, the test of true religion isn’t what we say on Sunday but what we post on Monday. Addendum: Butler’s sermon is worth reading in its entirety. But the 18th-century language can be a barrier to understanding. To help with clarity, I’ve posted the full sermon below “translated” into more modern English. Sermon IV: On Controlling Our Speech Text: “If anyone thinks he is religious but does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.” (James 1:26) The meaning of this verse becomes clearer with a more literal translation: “If anyone among you seems to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” This shows that the phrase “but deceives his own heart” refers specifically to failing to control one’s tongue, not to merely appearing religious. James is making a powerful point: Anyone who claims to be religious must at least believe she controls her speech. If someone puts on a religious appearance but doesn’t govern her tongue, she must be deceiving herself into thinking she does. And whoever deceives herself in this way—imagining she keeps her unruly tongue under control when she actually doesn’t—her religion is worthless, regardless of what else she does. Controlling our speech is such a fundamental requirement of virtue that without it, no one can be truly religious. In addressing this topic, I will consider two questions: First, what general fault or disposition is James referring to when he speaks of “bridling the tongue”? Second, what does proper self-control look like in this area? The Problem James Is Addressing The fault James refers to isn’t primarily malicious slander, lying, or perjury—those are wicked in themselves and fall under other moral categories. Rather, James is pointing to talkativeness: a compulsive disposition to keep talking, without much thought about whether what we’re saying is good, necessary, or true. Don’t dismiss this as trivial until you consider the harm it causes and its serious consequences. While people addicted to excessive talking might prefer to stick to harmless topics and only intend to be annoying, they can’t talk forever about nothing. When ordinary subjects run out, they inevitably move on to gossip, scandal, and revealing secrets—both their own and others’—anything rather than remain silent. In the heat of conversation, they’re carried away to say things completely different from what they originally intended, things they later regret, or inappropriate things they said for no other reason than to keep their tongue busy. If they want to be heard and get attention (though some are content just to talk), they’ll make things up to capture your interest. When they catch even the smallest hint of a story, they’ll add their own details about time, place, and circumstances to make it sound believable—not because they care about being believed but simply as a means of being heard. Their goal is to monopolize your attention completely for the moment; they give little thought to what you might think afterward. Furthermore, when people who indulge in this loose speech become even slightly offended with someone—as small irritations and misunderstandings inevitably occur—they allow themselves to attack and slander that person without any restraint, even when the offense is so minor they wouldn’t wish the person harm in any other way. In such cases, the scandal and abuse stem primarily from talkativeness and failure to control their tongue. The slightest provocation will make this tendency break out in one direction or another. It’s like a rushing river that must flow somewhere—the smallest thing will direct it into this channel or that. Or like a fire in a pile of combustible material, whose nature is to spread and destroy everything around it; any of a thousand small accidents will cause it to first break out in one particular spot or another. This unrestrained flow of words and careless speech causes countless problems in life. It breeds resentment in those who become its targets, plants seeds of conflict and division among others, and inflames minor offenses and misunderstandings that would otherwise fade away naturally. It often damages people’s reputations just as much as deep envy or malice would. At the very least, it destroys a crucial principle of fairness that society depends on: that praise and blame, good and bad reputations, should be given according to what people actually deserve. A tongue used without restraint is like a sword in the hands of someone who’s lost his mind—it strikes randomly, can hardly do any good, and usually causes tremendous harm. It reveals not only great foolishness and a shallow spirit but also serious moral corruption: complete indifference to truth and falsehood and to other people’s reputations, welfare, and well-being. No wonder James says of the tongue, “It is a fire, a world of unrighteousness . . . it sets on fire the course of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell” (James 3:6). What Proper Control of the Tongue Looks Like To understand the proper use of any natural ability, we must consider why it was given to us. The primary purpose of speech is clearly to communicate our thoughts to carry on the business of life—for work, learning, and daily affairs. But our good Creator designed us not only for necessities but also for enjoyment and satisfaction in the life he’s graciously given us. Our abilities serve secondary purposes too: They provide delight as well as necessity. Since they’re equally suited for both, he undoubtedly intended them for our gratification as well as for our survival and daily functioning. The secondary use of speech is to please and entertain each other in conversation. This is completely acceptable and right. It brings people closer together in relationships and friendships, helps us empathize with each other’s joys and sorrows, and serves virtue in several ways by promoting good behavior. As long as we don’t spend too much time on it, and even considering it purely as enjoyment and pleasure, anyone who thinks God would be offended by such conversation, or that it’s inconsistent with strict virtue, has a strange understanding of God and religion. The truth is, this kind of conversation, even when it has no particular beneficial purpose, still serves a general good one: It’s social and friendly, and it promotes humanity, kindness, and civility. Just as speech can be properly used for business or conversation, it can also be misused in both areas. Regarding business, dishonesty in conducting affairs doesn’t properly belong to our current topic, though I might mention the endless flood of words that often complicates business when far fewer would serve the purpose better—but that’s a matter for those who understand such things. Controlling the tongue, as a subject in itself, relates mainly to conversation—the kind of talk that fills our time during friendly gatherings and social visits. The danger is that people might entertain themselves and others at the expense of wisdom and virtue, and to the harm or offense of their neighbors. If they avoid these pitfalls, they can be as free, relaxed, and open as they want. The guidelines for avoiding these dangers and making conversation both innocent and pleasant fall into these categories: knowing when to be silent, talking about neutral topics, and discussing other people’s characters—which unfortunately makes up too large a part of conversation. 1. The Wisdom of Silence The wise man observed that there is “a time to speak and a time to keep silent” (Eccl. 3:7). Yet we meet people who seem never to have learned the second lesson. These excessive talkers don’t speak because they have something important to say—every sentence proves otherwise—but simply because they feel compelled to talk. Their conversation is merely exercise for the tongue; no other human faculty participates. It’s strange that such people don’t realize that unless they truly have superior ability and are extraordinarily well-equipped for conversation, if they are entertaining, it’s at their own expense. Do they never wonder whether constantly displaying so much of themselves works to their advantage? “Oh, that you would hold your peace, and it would be your wisdom!” (Job 13:5). Remember, there are people who prefer fewer words—inoffensive folks who deserve consideration, even though their calm, quiet temperaments may not suit your taste. When you’re with people who are your superiors in age, knowledge, or experience, when important and useful subjects are being discussed that you can’t meaningfully contribute to—these are times for silence, when you should listen and pay attention, at least when it’s your turn. This excessive talking is truly an unfortunate habit. These people essentially cut themselves off from all the benefits of conversation except hearing themselves talk. Their purpose in joining company isn’t to be informed, to hear, or to learn, but to showcase themselves—or rather, to exercise their ability to talk without any real purpose at all. If we think of conversation as entertainment, as a way to relax the mind and take a break from life’s cares, business, and sorrows, then by its very nature it must involve mutual exchange. This is implicit in what we mean by conversation or being in company. Listening to one person’s continuous monologue often becomes more painful than the very cares and business we came to escape from. Someone who forces this on us commits a double offense: arbitrarily demanding silence from everyone else while also forcing them to endure this painful attention. I know these things tend to be dismissed as too trivial for serious discussion, but in reality, we’re morally and virtuously obligated to observe proper social behavior. The greatest evils in life often grow from things considered too unimportant to worry about. This matter absolutely must be addressed, because if people won’t maintain proper self-control regarding appropriate times and seasons for silence, they’ll certainly—whether they intend to or not—progress to scandal, slander, and betraying secrets. If we need further persuasion to learn this lesson of silence, consider how insignificant excessive talkers make themselves. Even when they occasionally say something worth hearing, it gets lost in the flood of worthless chatter they pour out. The occasions for silence are obvious and should be easily recognized by everyone: when someone has nothing to say, or nothing better left unsaid—better either for the particular people present, or because it would interrupt the conversation itself or more pleasant conversation, or finally, better for the speaker himself. I’ll end this section with two observations from the wise man. One powerfully exposes the ridiculous aspect of this uncontrolled tongue: “When a fool walks along the way, his sense fails him, and he tells everyone that he is a fool” (Eccl. 10:3). The other shows its great danger and wickedness: “When words are many, transgression is not lacking” (Prov. 10:19). 2. Talking About Neutral Subjects After discussing proper control regarding when to remain silent, there’s little more needed than to caution people to make sure their subjects are truly neutral and not to spend too much time in this kind of conversation. People must be careful that their conversation topics are genuinely harmless—not offensive to virtue, religion, or good manners; not crude or dissolute (which always leaves bad impressions on the mind); not harmful or annoying to others; and that too much time isn’t spent this way, neglecting the duties and responsibilities that belong to their position in life. While there’s no requirement that every sentence be weighty and important, since useful subjects can be just as entertaining as others, a wise person—even when wanting to relax from business—would choose conversation that turns toward something instructive. 3. Speaking About Others The final area is controlling the tongue when discussing other people’s affairs and giving character assessments. These are essentially the same thing, and this can hardly be called a neutral subject because such discussions almost constantly drift into something wrong. First, it would be much better if this didn’t dominate so much of our conversation, because it’s truly a dangerous topic. Consider the various interests, competitions, and minor misunderstandings that arise among people, and you’ll quickly see that you’re not unbiased and impartial—you’re not neutral enough to trust yourself with talking freely and carelessly about your neighbor’s character and concerns. There’s constantly—though we often don’t notice it—some kind of rivalry among people regarding wit, beauty, learning, or fortune, and this will unconsciously influence them to speak negatively about others, even when there’s no deliberate malice or intention. Since it’s so difficult to enter this subject without causing offense, the first thing to observe is that people should learn to avoid it entirely—to overcome that strong inclination most have to discuss their neighbor’s concerns and behavior. But since it’s impossible to completely exclude this subject from conversation, and since it’s necessary that people’s characters be known, the next important point is that what we say matters greatly. Therefore, we should be religiously careful and exact to say nothing, either good or bad, except what’s true. I put it this way because it’s equally important to society that bad people’s characters be known as that good people’s characters be known. People prone to scandal and slander might misuse this observation, but truths that help guide our conduct shouldn’t be denied or hidden just because they might be misused. However, this would be effectively prevented if we kept two things in mind. First, though it’s equally harmful to society for people to have either good or bad reputations they don’t deserve, when you say something good about someone who doesn’t deserve it, no particular wrong is done to that person. But when you say something bad about someone who doesn’t deserve it, you’ve committed direct, formal injury—real injustice. This creates a significant difference and gives us, morally speaking, much greater freedom to speak well of others than to speak ill. Second, a good person is friendly toward fellow human beings and loves mankind, so will naturally and often say all the good he can about everyone. But insofar as he’s good, he’ll never be inclined to speak evil of anyone unless there’s some other reason besides it merely being true. If accused of giving someone a bad character reference, he would hardly think it sufficient justification to say it was true unless he could also explain why he felt compelled to do so: perhaps righteous indignation against particularly great and scandalous instances of evil, or to prevent an innocent person from being deceived and betrayed when she places great trust and confidence in someone who doesn’t deserve it. We must be fair to every aspect of a subject when considering it. If there’s someone who has a good reputation in the world but whom we know to be without integrity or honesty—really a bad person—it must be acknowledged that we would serve society by letting such a person’s true character be known. This is no more than what we see in our Savior himself, though he was extraordinarily mild and gentle. However, no words can express too strongly the caution that should be used in such cases. Conclusion If people would observe the obvious occasions for silence; if they would overcome the inclination to gossip and that eager desire for attention which is a fundamental problem in some minds; they would be in little danger of offending with their tongue and would, in a moral and religious sense, have proper control over it. I’ll conclude with some teachings and reflections from the son of Sirach on this subject: “Be swift to hear; and if you have understanding, answer your neighbor; if not, lay your hand upon your mouth. Honor and shame come through speech. A person with an evil tongue is dangerous in their city, and one who is rash in talk will be hated. A wise person will hold their tongue until they see the right opportunity, but a babbler and fool will pay no attention to timing. One who uses many words will be despised, and one who assumes authority in speech will be hated. A backbiting tongue has disturbed many; it has pulled down strong cities and overthrown the houses of great people. A person’s tongue can be their downfall; but if you love to listen, you will gain understanding.”

When The Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics began in 2023, Tim Keller outlined two goals that would define the center’s success. First, the center would help the church become more effective in evangelism by raising up a new generation of younger thinkers, ministers, scholars, and writers who can do cultural apologetics in our post-Christendom context. Second, the center would assist the church in formation by engaging in counter-catechesis, that is, equipping believers to identify and resist the cultural narratives that lead us away from Christ. I’m excited to introduce the next class of fellows at The Keller Center to help us accomplish these goals. Beginning in 2026, these six pastors, scholars, and marketplace leaders will collaborate alongside our other fellows in the work of “connecting the dots” between the eternal gospel and our present moment. Get to know them below and pray for their work. You can also support their work by donating to the center. Along with advancing important public projects, these resources help us host our annual New York retreat, where we pray, present, discuss, and plan together.     Alex Harris is an attorney and author. Sons of homeschool pioneers, Alex and his twin brother, Brett, created The Rebelution and wrote Do Hard Things: A Teenage Rebellion Against Low Expectations as teenagers. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Alex worked as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Anthony Kennedy and was named in Forbes 30 Under 30 for law and policy. He and his family live in Denver and are members of Fellowship Denver Church.   Timothy Paul Jones (PhD, Southern Seminary; PhD candidate, Stellenbosch University) is C. Edwin Gheens professor of Christian family ministry and chair of the department of apologetics, ethics, and philosophy at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is author or editor of more than a dozen books, including Understanding Christian Apologetics, Did the Resurrection Really Happen?, and In Church as It Is in Heaven with Jamaal E. Williams. He also serves as a preaching pastor at Sojourn Church Midtown, writes at his website, and cohosts The Apologetics Podcast. Timothy and his wife, Rayann, live with their four daughters in Louisville, Kentucky.   Matt McCullough (PhD, Vanderbilt University) is pastor of Edgefield Church in Nashville, Tennessee, and the author of The Cross of War, Remember Death, and Remember Heaven: Meditations on the World to Come for Life in the Meantime. He’s married to Lindsey, and they’re the parents of three boys.   John Starke is the lead pastor at Apostles Church Uptown in Manhattan. A former editor for The Gospel Coalition, he’s the author of The Possibility of Prayer and the award-winning The Secret Place of Thunder. He also contributed to Our Secular Age: Ten Years of Reading and Applying Charles Taylor and Faithful Endurance: The Joy of Shepherding People for a Lifetime.   Sarah Irving-Stonebraker (PhD, Cambridge University) is associate professor of history and Western civilization at Australian Catholic University. She was a junior research fellow at Wolfson College, Oxford University. She is the author of several books, including Natural Science and the Origins of the British Empire and Priests of History: Stewarding the Past in an Ahistoric Age. Sarah and her husband, Johnathan, have three children and live in the Hawkesbury region outside of Sydney, Australia.   Walter R. Strickland II (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is teaching pastor at Imago Dei Church. He teaches theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and he cofounded Aptree Learning. Walter also serves as a Council member for The Gospel Coalition. He and his wife live in the Raleigh area in North Carolina, and they have two daughters and a son, and a daughter named Hope who is waiting to meet them in glory.    

What do you call someone who thinks drag queen story hour better embodies “liberty” than Americans buying Bibles in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom? I’ll tell you — and, let me assure you, I choose my words here with theological precision.David French is a satanic slanderer of the brethren. In my view, he’s become an instrument of deception, and I’ll explain why.If poetic justice prevailed, David French’s byline would read ‘Judas.’ May he enjoy the potter’s field he’s bought for himself.Charlie Kirk’s legacy speaks for itself. Nearly everyone who spent time with the murdered founder of Turning Point USA left more grounded in the gospel than they were before. Even Donald Trump Jr., during Charlie’s memorial service, spoke to millions about St. Stephen — the church’s first martyr — because friendship with a man who had given his life and last breath to God bore visible fruit.French, like Kirk, enjoys a powerful platform. From his perch at the New York Times — the epicenter of America’s corporate media machine — he can influence an elite readership. Yet what evidence shows that his faith leads anyone closer to Christ? None.Instead, French routinely simps for the spirit of the age, mocking what is good, true, and beautiful. The man once known for moral clarity has become a parody of himself — Joe Biden with less drool and better diction.French should not be engaged as a serious Christian thinker. He should be exposed and rebuked as what he has become: an agent of deception. As the apostle Paul wrote of Demas, his former companion who “loved this present world,” French has traded salt and light for relevance and applause.Believers must guard against such turncoats as faith becomes costlier and clearer in our time. Scripture warns repeatedly about impostors who infiltrate the church, seeking to poison it from within. Paul named names in his epistles. He called out the frauds without apology. He didn’t leave the flock guessing about where the danger lay.Today’s “nicer than God” crowd would scold Paul for being uncharitable. But Charlie Kirk understood that clarity, not niceness, wins spiritual battles. His campus Q&As didn’t leave students guessing about the truth. You might not have liked every answer, but you knew exactly what was at stake. That conviction, lived to the point of death, is what faith demands.RELATED: Antifa is what you get when cowards run civilization Photo by Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty ImagesOur faith is the cross, so all of us must provide an unambiguous understanding of the gospel and what it costs.French’s conduct offers the opposite lesson. His public witness bears no fruit. He delights in the approval of secular elites who despise the gospel. He preens before the godless No Kings crowd, too vain to notice his own descent. Even the biblical warning about millstones and those who lead children astray doesn’t give him pause. He’s chosen his side: deceit and damnation.I’ve mostly ignored French’s unraveling in recent years. But Charlie is dead, and I won’t let my friend — or the gospel — be caricatured by a man who has become nothing short of a terrorist to the faithful. French couldn’t tie Charlie Kirk’s shoes, which may explain his bitterness. He’s rewriting history to cheapen Charlie’s sacrifice.How dare he.You can’t hold such covetous slander in too much contempt. If poetic justice prevailed, French’s byline would read “Judas.” May he enjoy the potter’s field he’s bought for himself. The hireling always receives his reward in full.

While Netflix was initially against running ads on the platform, the company is now generating millions via ads, with the revenue set to double this year.

Alaska Air National Guard rescue personnel conduct a search and rescue mission in Kipnuk, Alaska, on Monday, Oct. 13, 2025. Defense Visual Information Distribution Service via APIn the aftermath of Typhoon…

President Donald Trump speaks at a "Rose Garden Club" lunch in the Rose Garden of the White House on Oct. 21, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty ImagesPresident Donald Trump on Tuesday weighed…

Ken Haas, a third generation farmer, rakes recently cut hay so it will dry before it is bailed, in Elizabeth, Ill., on Aug. 11, 2024. Scott Olson/Getty ImagesSecretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said…