There is no more effective way to destroy an institution than to inhabit it, keep its vocabulary, and gut its definitions and convictions. Politicians have done a great job of this regardless of stripe or creed. State Rep. James Talarico (TX D-50) has become the newest architect of this age-old strategy. He is preaching a faith that looks like Christianity on a TikTok feed but functions as a press release for secular progressivism.
As a seventh-generation Texan, I have a deep stake in who represents my state in our nation’s capital. But as a follower of Christ, my concern runs deeper: I cannot stay silent when the language of the Kingdom is hijacked to lead the susceptible into spiritual darkness, wilderness, and confusion.
Talarico is currently making a national name for himself by positioning himself as the moral antidote to the Religious Right. He wants you to know that he hates how religion and politics have been fused. His response? To fuse his faith with modern-day progressive politics.
While appearing on some of the nation’s most popular podcasts and shows, like The Joe Rogan Experience and The Ezra Klein Show, and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (kinda), Talarico—a current seminary student— said that many evangelicals are obsessed with issues Jesus “didn’t bother to mention,” referencing abortion, gay marriage, and transgenderism. Most notably, he reframed the Annunciation—the moment the Son of God took on flesh in utero—as a divine affirmation of “reproductive consent.” In Talarico’s telling, Mary’s submission to the Almighty was not merely an act of worship, but a negotiation for bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.
As the saying goes, “Progressivism will hollow out your religion and wear its skin like a trophy.” We are witnessing a masterful performance of this strategy in Texas—preaching a new religion while masquerading as the old, authentic one. And it is specifically designed to capture a terminally online and disenchanted 2026 audience.
Candidly, I rarely hold politicians to high theological standards; however, when one postures himself as an exemplar of a more authentic, updated version of the historic faith, I consider it a worthwhile task to hold that posture up to the light of the Word.
To be clear: I am not arguing that religion has no place in public discourse on public policy. It would be impossible to have a moral society without influence from religion. We don’t have a functioning society that provides basic human rights without Christians putting forth ideas stemming from their faith and their Book.
As my friend Daniel Darling has noted, if Christians had kept their faith to themselves, history would look very different:
The problem isn't that Representative Talarico is bringing his faith into politics; it's that he is bringing a counterfeit faith, one that would be completely unrecognizable to the global and historic Church. To accept the progressive dogmas Talarico attempts to baptize, one must ignore the witness of believers across every century, language, and hemisphere. Are we really so arrogant to believe that we are the first generation in two thousand years to finally "get it right"? And is it not incredibly convenient that our "new discovery" happens to coincide exactly with the encroaching sentiments of secular culture?
I refuse the arrogance that assumes the zeitgeist of our current cultural moment should take precedence over the unanimity of the Body of Christ across eras and equators. While the heroes of our history applied the whole counsel of God to promote the flourishing of their neighbors, Talarico seems intent on viewing the Bible through progressive political lenses to check the authority of the Word if it crosses his party’s line.
As I alluded to earlier, Talarico’s primary rhetorical sleight of hand is the claim that "Jesus never said anything" about abortion, transgenderism, or gay marriage. This is a dangerous deception. James Talarico is attempting to reel you in with the oldest question in the book: “Did God really say?” It is a question all too familiar to those who have read the first three chapters of Genesis.
Contrast that with the question Jesus asked more than any other: "Have you not read?" When Jesus asked that, He was exclusively referencing the Old Testament. And even James would likely agree that there are very straightforward texts in the Old Testament condemning homosexuality. While Christ did build upon the Law—"You have heard it said, but I say to you..."—He didn’t abandon or abolish it, He fulfilled it. Jesus didn’t come to loosen the moral codes, He actually took them a step further, and then pointed to Himself as the ultimate fulfillment of the Law.
Further, Christians believe in a triune, eternal God. When we read the words of the Old Testament, we aren’t reading a different “Old Testament God” who was later replaced, we are reading the words of Christ the Son, too. So when we read passages defining humanity in terms of two sexes, life in the womb, and establishing marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman, we can have assurance that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are not in conflict, but have spoken, with authority, in perfect unison on these matters.
Jesus is the Word made flesh—the same Word that spoke the moral order into existence, the same Word that came first as a fetus in Mary’s womb, and the same Word that gave us the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. When Jesus was asked about divorce—a departure from God’s design for marriage—He didn't offer a progressive update, He pointed back to the beginning.
Ultimately, this logic is untenable because it is unreasonable. Jesus never explicitly spoke against pedophilia, bestiality, or burning down your neighbor’s house either. Does that mean He never addressed these issues? Does that mean He is in favor of every issue that He did not explicitly condemn? Of course not. Talarico is smarter than that, but he is hoping you aren't. Jesus didn't have to address every possible error because He positively defined what God-honoring sexuality and loving your neighbor rightly looks like.
There are an infinite number of ways to pervert something good, beautiful, or true. The Bible warns us against many of those perversions, but God primarily gives us a positive vision to work toward, not an innumerable list of pitfalls to avoid. In the same way, members of the Secret Service aren't trained to spot counterfeits by studying every possible fake. They are trained by handling the genuine currency so often that a fraud becomes obvious the moment it's touched.
It is never a good idea to redefine what God has defined. This includes, but is not limited to, life, marriage, and sex. And it is never a good idea to separate that which God has joined together. This includes Christian doctrine from Christian ethics. To claim the ‘ethics’ of Jesus while discarding the doctrine of the Word is like trying to keep the beauty of a flower while severing it from its roots; it may mimic the appearance of life for a season, but you have severed the bloom from the only source that could sustain it.
A.W. Tozer famously said, "What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." If that is true, then the most dangerous thing about James Talarico is the way he attempts to rewrite the nature of God and His plan for our redemption. Just this month, Talarico told a national audience:
"Jesus in Matthew 25 tells us exactly how you and I... are going to be saved. By feeding the hungry, by healing the sick... Nothing about going to church... nothing about even being a Christian."
The gospel according to James Talarico brings death and more confusion. He flips the root and the fruit, suggesting that if you just do enough work then you will be saved, while at the same time, rejecting some of those good works that God has prepared for us. There truly is no heresy which does not have its roots in the past. This is simply the age-old error of "Salvation by Works" repackaged and recycled for today.
The Gospel, however, counterintuitively brings life and freedom because it tells us we are dead in our trespasses, yet we can be saved by grace through faith. It tells us that only the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross can reconcile us to a Holy God. It is actually Good News that our salvation is not dependent upon us being good enough. As Jonathan Edwards put it: “You contribute nothing to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary.” This freedom breaks the shackles of sin and produces good works as the natural fruit of a transformed heart. We need to be born again and be given a new heart—not a new government program or checklist of duties of activist organizations in order to be saved.
As the polls open for the final time tomorrow in Texas and across the nation, the focus of the church should be on loving God and their neighbors, and defending principles, not parties; righteousness, not Republicans; doctrine, not Democrats. The church is called to be the conscience of the state, not the public relations department for a politician.
My hope for James Talarico is that he, along with all of our political candidates and elected officials, will humble himself and put his full trust in Christ. Christ’s teachings are deeply attractive to many, but the best thing about Christ is not how good of a teacher or wordsmith He was, but that He is God, He knows best, and we can take Him at His Word.