It’s frustrating when things don’t work as they’re supposed to. You rummage through the junk drawer to get batteries for the remote, only to find that they have no charge, despite not being expired.
This futility gives us an idea of what the Bible means when it speaks of vanity. Vanity is a wisdom concept found in both the Old and New Testaments that points us to what will work and what won’t. It serves as a warning label from God to help us discern what is real, lasting, effective, and of value, as opposed to what is empty, futile, meaningless, and fleeting. The Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes specializes in the subject of vanity, bringing application to just about every area of life under the sun where we might try to find meaning in this fallen world. Its descriptions of frustration and ineffectiveness resonate with our experience.
As a wisdom concept, vanity is intended to keep us from seeking meaning, purpose, and value in what will only disappoint. It reflects the proverb, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death” (Prov. 14:12). Wisdom, however, not only helps us discern vanity; it directs us to where we can find the life we seek. After a comprehensive survey of vanity, Ecclesiastes lays out the operating principle to a meaningful life: “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13).

Written by James R. Wood |
Monday, May 16, 2022
What does this have to do with the winsome, third way framework? Well, as I argued in my piece, it seems to me that this framework tends to think about politics through the lens of evangelism, and thus in an apologetic mode. This gets expressed in the overwrought concern with how Christians are perceived by virtue of their political actions and the impact on the “public witness” of the church. This leads Christians, often and in various ways, to let the broader culture set the terms for our engagement out of fear about negative perception.

Last week First Things published my essay “How I Evolved on Tim Keller.” An old friend (who clearly is not on Twitter) texted me today asking if there had been much response. How could I possibly explain the dustup via text? Even more importantly, how can I possibly respond to all of the critiques?
I can’t, and I won’t even try.
What I would like to offer are some points of clarification in response to some of the most common concerns I have seen raised, and to elaborate on some of my key arguments.
To start, there are two things I wish I could’ve included if I had more space. Both of these are related to the growing constituency of former disciples of Kellerism. First is that, in some ways, this piece was intended as a defense of Keller against his harshest critics. In recent months I have found myself in various conversations in which former fans express deep disappointment and anger toward Keller. Some argue that he is revealing that he has always been some kind of liberal in third way clothing, or that he is some closet Marxist, or just a general enemy of the church. I think these are all extreme and unwarranted opinions. But I believe they emerge in response to some real issues. I wanted to give expression to the basic concerns of many of these people, and to get out in front of the discourse to establish what I hoped would be more constructive terms for the debate. Secondly, I desire for our evangelical leadership to recognize this growing constituency and not simply dismiss their concerns. These people are looking for leaders to help them navigate our new cultural waters. Often they are turning to less-than-ideal sources. I want godly leaders to respond to this need—whether that be some from the current set of leaders or an entirely new crop that rises to fill the void.
To reiterate, I have an enormous amount of respect for Tim Keller, who helped me understand the depths of the gospel, resolved some key apologetic issues in my thinking, and inspired a life of mission (I was a campus evangelist from 2004-2013, then a pastor to this day who has helped plant churches in secular, liberal cities). Like him, I desperately want our neighbors to receive forgiveness and new life in Christ and to join the fellowship of the church. I want us to build on his example of intellectually serious, culturally aware ministry.
But I would like to shift a bit away from direct discussion of Keller himself, if I may. I do have some critiques of his own thought and public statements, which I articulated in the piece. But I am largely concerned about the way his framework is broadly appropriated by his disciples, many of whom populate leadership positions in churches and other Christian ministries.
Some critics have highlighted the paragraph in which I spoke about my experience of the 2016 election. At that time I couldn’t understand how a Christian could vote for someone like Donald Trump. This, I assumed, would do irreparable damage to the witness of the church. I noticed that my heart became increasingly hardened toward my fellow Christians, and I felt convicted. I started to wonder if there was something amiss in my thinking, if there might be something wrong with my framework.
Critics have focused on this paragraph, saying: “Isn’t that your problem, not Keller’s?” Yes and no. I intentionally wrote that paragraph in a confessional manner to signal the fact that I believe I was applying Keller’s thinking in a certain way, and thus was primarily responsible for my actions. Yet, I don’t believe my experience in this regard was unique. I have heard from many others similar stories; and, even more, I have witnessed over the past six years how Kellerite Christians treat other Christians in similar ways. I do not believe that Keller’s teachings are necessarily responsible, but I do think they generally dispose his disciples in a certain direction.
The Kellerites propound to abhor division among Christians, and yet I have found them far more divisive than they admit. This is captured in the common trope: “Punch right, coddle left.” Those who are devoted to the third-wayism of Keller generally appear to assume the worst from one side of the political spectrum and give the benefit of the doubt to—or at least provide an apologetic for—the other. (Case in point: David French’s recent piece on my essay.) Kellerites make up a significant portion of the “never Trump” movement among Christians, and this movement is unforgiving of those who have chosen, for whatever reason, to vote in that way (full disclosure: I did not in either election). They are also quick to join in the chorus of denunciations of “Christian nationalism,” which is often a bogeyman label for any robust pursuit of conservative Christian influence in politics. Make what you wish of Aaron Renn’s Three Worlds schema, but I think it is a bit obvious that, for example, in recent years conservative Christian political engagement that would have been seen as somewhat innocuous in previous years is quickly and regularly denounced as authoritarian “Christian nationalism.” I think this is itself partial validation of the Renn thesis, however much we want to debate the specifics of the timeline. And Kellerites are often quick to join in the denunciations.
Though I have been accused of saying otherwise, I very much share with Keller the desire to resist political tribalism and uncritical partisanship. Christians should absolutely avoid becoming beholden to any particular party. But one of my concerns about the third way, “winsome” model for politics is how it often seems to incline its adherents to be beholden to the perspective of the contemporary status quo—what the kids call “the Narrative.” This was all too evident during the pandemic as countless pastors and Christian leaders, especially those of the Kellerite persuasion, uncritically imbibed and disseminated the messaging from legacy media and public health officials. There is a place for trusting institutions, but this seemed to go too far, especially when reasonable voices of critique were roundly dismissed and castigated as conspiracy theorists, many of whom have been subsequently vindicated. But even worse than this, many of these Christian leaders mediated the messaging that any dissent from the covid regime was a failure to love one’s neighbor, thus binding the consciences of Christians and stoking division in the church.
What does this have to do with the winsome, third way framework? Well, as I argued in my piece, it seems to me that this framework tends to think about politics through the lens of evangelism, and thus in an apologetic mode. This gets expressed in the overwrought concern with how Christians are perceived by virtue of their political actions and the impact on the “public witness” of the church. This leads Christians, often and in various ways, to let the broader culture set the terms for our engagement out of fear about negative perception.
Read More
Related Posts:

The proposed amendment does not so much revise BCO 32-20 as it removes one provision and substitutes it with another. It removes the requirement binding the church to act in a timely manner to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of scandal. In its place, it leaves the question of what constitutes a timely matter to uncertain whims of individual church courts resulting in differing actions based on undefined variables.

The Book of Church Order (BCO) 32-20, as it presently stands, binds the Church to act in a timely manner in cases of public scandal where the reputation of Christ is at stake. The question is: do we really want to remove this requirement for the Church to act in a timely manner in cases of scandal? The proposed amendment does so. For the honor of Christ, we should preserve this requirement, vote down the proposed amendment, and seek an amendment that better addresses the valid concerns raised in the original overture.
BCO 32-20
The present version of BCO 32-20 reads, “Process, in case of scandal, shall commence within the space of one year after the offense was committed, unless it has recently become flagrant” (emphasis added). Timely action is not optional: in cases scandal the Church shall act within the space of one year.
Ramsay and Smith’s Comment on BCO 32-20
In commenting on this paragraph in the PCA’s BCO, both F. P. Ramsay and Morton Smith say the purpose is to incite the church to the prompt prosecution of scandal (a flagrant public offense of practice which is bringing open disgrace on Christ). Ramsay explains:
The principle is that, if the Church neglects to commence process against scandal (which is any flagrant public offence of practice bringing disgrace on the Church) within a year, she is debarred from thereafter doing it. This is not to shield the offender, but to incite to the prompt prosecution of such offences. Offences not so serious or scandalous the Church may bear with the longer while seeking to prevent scandal; but for no consideration is the Church to tolerate such offences as are scandalous.
Do we really want to remove this incitement, this incentive?
Context
Overture 22 was brought before the PCA General Assembly past midnight on Thursday night. We were informed by the stated clerk that the venue was requiring us to leave by 12:45AM. Consequently, the Assembly didn’t have much time or energy to give this overture due consideration. A substitute motion was made to refer Overture 22 to the following year’s Overtures Committee, but (predictably, given the time), there was no discussion. The substitute motion was defeated and the proposed amendment passed.
A revision to BCO 32-20 deserves better consideration.
The Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment does not so much revise BCO 32-20 as it removes one provision and substitutes it with another. It removes the requirement binding the church to act in a timely manner to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of scandal. In its place, it leaves the question of what constitutes a timely matter to uncertain whims of individual church courts resulting in differing actions based on undefined variables.
The proposed amendment reads: “There is no statute of limitations, per se, for prosecuting offenses. However, the accused or member of the court may object to the consideration of a charge, for example, if he thinks the passage of time since the alleged offense makes fair adjudication unachievable. The court should consider factors such as the gravity of the alleged offense as well as what degradations of evidence and memory may have occurred in the intervening period.”
Why One Year?
Overture 22 treated BCO 32-20, in effect, as a statute of limitations. It recognized that BCO 32-20 does not establish a statute of limitations for all offenses. Then it went on to argue that a statute of limitations of one-year makes little sense for cases of scandal. “Expeditious process is certainly important in such a case, but if the cause of Christ is jeopardized by the Church’s neglect of timely discipline, how would disallowing prosecution on day 366 repair the matter? The scandal would continue, unabated.”
Ramsay does say that the effect of BCO 32-20 is that, if the Church fails to act within a year in a case of scandal, she is debarred thereafter from doing it. But then he points out that the intent is not to shield the offender (the main purpose is not to establish a statute of limitations): the purpose is to incite the Church to act to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of public scandal.
Still, the question stands: what is the point of debarring the Church from acting after one year? The point of acting within a year is to ensure that fair adjudication takes place while it is still achievable—before degradations of evidence and memory make it impossible. In less serious matters, as Ramsay points out, the Church may risk the passage of time while it labors to avoid scandal. But in cases where Christ’s name is already being drug through the mud, the Church must take prompt action. It cannot risk degradations of evidence and memory making adjudication impossible: then the scandal really would continue, unabated!
What about Cases of Abuse?
Overture 22 did point out a valid concern: cases of alleged abuse. It is difficult to commence process within the space of one year after the offense was committed, since allegations of abuse often surface and become scandalous well after the alleged abuse took place. The present version of BCO 32-20 does seem to make adjudication impossible in such cases, and this weakness in the PCA’s BCO should be addressed.
But a better revision should continue to bind the Church to address allegations of abuse promptly. It could, for instance, be revised to say the church shall act within the space of one year after the offense has become scandalous. In the case of scandal, the “start time” is typically definite: there was a time the scandal broke and become public. In the case of abuse, there is a definite time when the allegation was made. We should bind ourselves to take those allegations seriously and commence process in a timely manner while fair adjudication is still possible—both for the honor of Christ and the good of alleged victim.
Precedent Cases
There is no need to amend BCO 32-20 in such a drastic way. The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) found the present wording in BCO 32-20 useful in deciding a number of recent cases.[1] If the proposed amendment were in force these cases might have been judged with different outcomes. This provision has been tested and found useful, not wanting as is alleged in the reasoning for changing it.
Conclusion
For the honor of Christ, we need to amend the present wording of BCO 32-20, let us offer wording that does not remove the principles that have guided the PCA since its beginning. We can seek to address those valid concerns raised by Overture 22 without eviscerating the entirety of the present wording, and at the same time will continue to bind the Church to act promptly in cases of scandal, including abuse. Overture 22 recognizes that expeditious process is important in such cases, but the proposed amendment may actually be fighting against itself by effectively removing this requirement. In reality, the proposed amendment lets church courts off the hook by allowing them to delay acting when justice demands speedier judicial process.
Since we as can do better than what the BCO 32-20 amendment proposes, presbyteries should vote not to approve the amendment, and then let us work on drafting a more effective one.
Anton Heuss is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Bethel PCA in Dallas, Texas.
[1] Here are two cases decided by the Standing Judicial Commission using the present wording of BCO 32-20. These precedents have already proved useful in guiding lower church courts in their conduct of cases. See SJC 2016-05, Troxell v Southwest Presbytery (https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/ga/45th_pcaga_2017.pdf, pp. 514-520), and SJC 2019-08, Ganzel v Central Florida Presbytery (to be published in the Minutes of the 48th General Assembly).