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.