Long 🧵! Some have said that my being attacked by both the “right” and the “left” is a sign I am teaching truth because truth is found in the middle between extremes. I appreciate the support, but that’s not accurate. 1/
First, it's important to note everyone occupies SOME middle because there’s always someone to one side or the other on issues who thinks YOU have compromised. Nearly everyone is in a ‘middle’—the question is: which middle is the right one? 2/
Second, Christians should never seek a middle ground for its own sake. The goal should be to 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. 3/
Third, often Christians look like they are taking a “Third Way” not because they are moderates but because, in being biblical, they combine what the world considers extreme positions that normally cannot go together. 4/
The bible’s view of humanity in the imago Dei is far more optimistic about human nature than Rousseau & yet its view of human sin is far more pessimistic than Hobbes—both at once! It might be fair to call that a 3rd way between alternatives but it is not a half-&-half middle way.
Fourth, when Christians formulated the doctrine of Christ’s person, was it a half-way between Docetism (Christ isn’t really human) and Ebionism (Christ isn’t really divine)? No, Jesus is not half God and half human but fully God and fully human. 6/
The biblical doctrine IS NOT a middle way. It “diagonalizes” the alternatives (C.Watkin). It “subversively fulfills” the alternatives (D.Strange) That is, it fully critiques both and yet fulfills the best aspirations of both at the same time, without merely combining them or 7/
borrowing from them. The biblical position is not somewhere on a spectrum between alternatives—it is off the spectrum yet acknowledges the concerns of all the positions.
5th, my main criticism of so many Christians on social media who attack from the “Right” or from the “Left"
is that they unknowingly wed the faith with secular political ideologies. On the right people make idols of individual freedom & of the market-& demonize government. On the left people make idols of sexual expression, racial identity, & the State & demonize religion & love of 9/
country. Biblical faith sees all of these as good things, but relativizes them before God and his love and grace. All things were made good (Gen 1), all things are fallen (Gen 3)-yet God through Jesus is redeeming all things. 10/
For more 1) On social-cultural idols see R.Niebuhr, “The Christian Church in a Secular Age” 2) On personal-inner idols see D.Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and Vanity Fair” 3) For a deep dive on idolatry see M.Habertal and A.Margalit “Idolatry”.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Last on Pandemic. In NYC early 2020 9.2% of every person who got Covid died, and 32% of all hospitalized with COVID died. The hospitals were overwhelmed. In Elmhurst body bags were in the street. NYCrs were not offended that year by restrictions and calls for vaccination.
In 2020 I had retired and didn't control the churches. COVID restrictions are not clear biblical mandates but rather prudential decisions to be made by a community using wisdom. NYC was an epicenter of sickness more than the rest of the nation.
We were all just trying to survive which is why there were not many divisions in NYC churches on COVID policies in 2020.
THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION 1) Are we justified—accepted by God—through the merit of our obedience to him (Legalism). No. 2) Are we justified freely by faith such that it doesn’t matter if we disobey him or not (Antinomianism). No. 3) Is the reality something in the middle,
..a combination, so we are justified through a combination of faith and obedience. (Semi- Pelagianism)? No. 4) We are justified by faith in
Christ’s obedience and work, apart from trust in any obedience of our own, but true saving faith always, necessarily produces a life of...
grateful, eager obedience. We are saved by faith alone
(not good works) but not by a faith that remains alone.
So many times in the Bible, we see the truth is not in the main alternative beliefs in the world, nor in a middle of the road compromise between them, but in a
What do we do with the criticism we get on Twitter? A long thread:
1. The first response to criticism should never be instinctive rejection but to listen to see if we can learn from it. (Prov 12:15, 15:31-32) That’s what I try to do if and when I see it. /1
2. Far more often, however, internet criticism is not something we can learn from because it is either a) completely untrue or b) it is a genuine difference of opinion but expressed in the most vicious and cruel way, or c) it is strongly biased rather than fair-minded. /2
An example of the first kind of untrue criticism is- “Tim Keller segregated the unvaccinated from the vaccinated at Redeemer.” I left Redeemer June 30, 2017 so this is just untrue. Also, 4 of 5 Redeemer congregations meet in rented facilities, and their landlords set policies /3
Thread: On Mocking. Most mocking the basic idea of ‘diagonalization’ or ‘fourth way’ have not read the book or taken the time to engage. Mocking only plays to the prejudices of the crowd and reveals the lack of seriousness of the critique. amzn.to/3ZjMHg0
It's true, some ideas and people deserve to be scoffed at or mocked. It is not a sin to do so—even God
sometimes mocks (Ps 2:4). But to mock regularly, as a pattern of life, is to ‘sit in the seat’ of
mockers (Ps 1:1). By playing to the prejudices of the crowd, by belittling /2
...and demonizing the opposition one does not have to do the hard work of coming up with actual counter arguments. It tries to win with eye-rolls, dismissive sighs, clever jokes, and arched eyebrows. Contrast this posture with Jesus. Even when making his strongest critique of /3
Thread: Secular Progressives market their view of sex and gender as an objective and universal truth that all people must adopt. They will not admit that it is instead an ideological construal based on a highly western and individualistic account of human nature. /1
While I listen respectfully to my Hindu neighbors about their beliefs, I do not need to embrace those beliefs in order to love, befriend, and respect them personally, and they don’t require that either, nor does our culture. /2
So while I listen respectfully to my gay neighbors about their beliefs, I do not need to embrace their views of human nature, moral values, authentic selfhood, and sexual ethics to love, befriend, and respect them personally either. Why does our secular culture say we have to? /3
Thread: I agree western culture is moving from a ‘positive’ view of Christianity to a ‘neutral’ to a ‘negative world’ stance against Christianity. This is not a new thought. The first thinker I know who addressed this was Abraham Kuyper over 100 years ago. /1
Lesslie Newbigin also wrote extensively about this change. The idea is-we are moving from a “Christendom” culture (positive world) to a liberal but still Christ-haunted culture (neutral world) to a very secular, hostile one (negative world). /2
But it is a significant mistake to think that this shift happens all through western culture at the same time. Europe has been in the ‘negative’ world for generations. Different parts of N. America have gone through it at different times. In the mid-to-late 1980s I moved from /3