Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D) seems to have struck a nerve with many professing Christians who feel disoriented during the Trump era and the rise of Christian nationalism. The faith they thought they loved was being used against them in ways they didn’t expect.
Talarico first rose to prominence by appearing on the Joe Rogan Experience and recently appeared on Ezra Klein’s New York Times podcast. One clip that received attention is of him talking about the fact that Jesus never mentioned abortion or homosexuality. He then contrasted it with the hundreds of times that Jesus talked about ‘economic justice.’
Talarico seems compassionate and pastoral. However, his hermeneutical framework is deeply flawed. By his logic, all Christians should prioritize the words of Jesus as the most meaningful parts of the Bible. Tony Campolo, former spiritual adviser to President Bill Clinton, pioneered this kind of Biblical interpretation, calling it “Red Letter Christianity.” It is extremely effective in motivating and mobilizing volunteers for social justice issues, but errs quite drastically from a traditional interpretation of Holy Scripture. Yes, the words of Christ are important and should be taken with great seriousness. So is the rest of the Bible, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, RLCs ignore other Biblical teachings and Jesus’s teaching Himself that Christians should heed the whole Bible as God’s inspired word.
Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew is a favorite passage among RLCs, as it provides moral teaching for how to live as a person of good character. It does not touch on our time’s hot-button issues, such as gender transition surgery or climate change, but emphasizes Jesus’s teaching on kindness and care for others. The mistake RLC makes is easily committed, intentionally or unintentionally. RLCs often remove these verses from their context in the surrounding verses and in Jesus’s broader ministry. Jesus never weighed in on gun ownership. Why? Because no one owned one. He did not address our modern policy questions because questions on those matters did not exist in the first-century context.
This practice is what biblical scholars call eisegesis. That is when you read your context and beliefs into the text rather than carefully examining it so that one can properly understand what is said. And it is exactly the opposite way Protestant Christians for centuries have understood how to read the Bible, as it can often lead to serious doctrinal error. The traditional view of Biblical interpretation is called exegesis, in which the reader seeks the text’s objective meaning by carefully examining its cultural and historical context, the syntax and grammar of the original text (Hebrew or Greek), and, most importantly, the author’s intent.
Talarico goes even further in exposing his lack of Biblical knowledge in another clip that his team proudly shared from his New York Times interview. Klein asks Talarico if Christianity is truer than other religions or if they are incompatible. Talarico responds by saying, “I believe Christianity points to the truth. I believe other religions of love point to the truth.” He then goes on to claim that “the truth is an inherent mystery.”
This is an astonishing and baffling statement when paired with the politician’s claim that he loves the words of Jesus, who himself said in John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” With this kind of claim, it leaves me wondering why Talarico would even call himself a Christian since these beliefs aligned more with the Baha’i or Unitarian church.
While Talarico points his finger at Christian nationalism for conflating religion and politics, he may want to look at the other three pointing back. Many of his speeches invoke Christ or Christian virtues such as “love” or “sacrifice,” but it seems clear to me that, at worst, he is only cherry-picking what he likes for political gain and, at best, is ignorant of what the Bible teaches. Both are troubling, but the second concerns me more, since Talarico is training to become a pastor who, I would hope, seeks to win souls for Christ’s kingdom.
WASHINGTON SECRETS: MARCO RUBIO’S SECRET WEAPON
Liberals such as Talarico love reminding people that the United States has a “separation of church and state.” However, that is not written into the Constitution. You may be surprised that another famous Bible editor, Thomas Jefferson, coined the phrase in a letter to a church. According to Jefferson, the government, because it holds the sword, has the tendency to become tyrannical; therefore, a “wall of separation” should be established to protect the church. That is, the government should not involve itself in affairs of the church, not that Christians cannot pursue policy positions. What is in the First Amendment of the Constitution is that the U.S. federal government will not require its people to adhere to a government-endorsed religion.
But if Talarico and other liberal Christians believe the separation of church and state is important, then they should abandon their pursuit of theologically liberal political aims.
Timothy Wolff is the director of video for the Washington Examiner.