Progressive Christians have long found support for their politics in the Bible. Often, the argument begins with what Scripture doesn’t explicitly condemn: Jesus never mentioned gay marriage or abortion, for example. From there, they appeal to Christ's compassion for the poor, the stranger, and those rejected by society to justify positions on contemporary issues ranging from immigration reform to gun control.
Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico takes a different approach. A seminary-trained Christian, Talarico has argued that the Virgin Mary’s consent to bear Jesus supports abortion rights and that God is “nonbinary.”
The Jesus revealed in Scripture cannot be reduced to the portions of His teaching that satisfy a contemporary ideology.
Talarico isn’t merely arguing that Christianity is compatible with progressive politics. He’s making the more ambitious claim that Scripture itself supports particular progressive positions.
With November’s midterm elections approaching, Talarico’s campaign raises a question that extends well beyond Texas: Are we allowing Scripture to shape our understanding of politics, or are we allowing politics to reshape our understanding of Scripture?
According to your word
Take two of Talarico’s public arguments. During a July 2025 appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, he treated Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel as a model of consent in support of abortion rights. “God asks for Mary’s consent,” Talarico said, arguing that the story demonstrates that “creation has to be done with consent.”
But that is not what Luke records. Gabriel does not ask Mary whether she wishes to become pregnant. He announces what will happen. Mary asks how it can happen, and after Gabriel explains, she responds with willing submission to God’s word: “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). The passage does not establish a doctrine of abortion. Questions of unborn human life require Scripture’s broader teaching on creation, human dignity, and the image of God.
Separately, Talarico has described God as “nonbinary.” He made the remark during a 2021 debate in the Texas House, arguing that God is “both masculine and feminine and everything in between.” Talarico has since acknowledged that the language was deliberately provocative and said his underlying point was that God cannot be defined by human categories.
Christian theology has long affirmed that God transcends human biological distinctions. But that is not the same as reading a contemporary category of gender identity back into God’s revealed nature.
Christ of convenience
Faithful biblical interpretation begins with the text, its historical context, and the author's intended meaning — not with a political conclusion in search of scriptural support. When a political figure invokes Scripture to establish the moral authority of a campaign stance, that use of the text deserves careful examination on its own biblical merits.
These concerns are not limited to one candidate. We live in a culture that increasingly judges religious beliefs by their compatibility with prevailing social and political convictions. Teachings that affirm popular positions get attention; those that challenge them are treated as inconvenient and often silenced. It is easier to float with the current than to swim against it for the sake of biblical consistency. And when the church simply drifts downstream, it risks reflecting the culture instead of witnessing to it.
That risk often shows up in a selective portrait of Jesus. A politically convenient Jesus may talk frequently about love while rarely confronting sin. He may offer grace without repentance, mercy without judgment, or justice detached from righteousness. His words are celebrated when they support a preferred social vision and neglected when they challenge it.
The Jesus revealed in Scripture cannot be reduced to the portions of His teaching that satisfy a contemporary ideology. He extends mercy while commanding a departure from sin. His love does not require the abandonment of truth, and His grace does not eliminate the necessity of repentance.
James puts the issue more starkly: “You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).
RELATED: 5 times Christians lost debates with atheists — and what they did wrong
Mark Sullivan/ullstein bild/Getty Images
Usurping authority
When Scripture is adjusted, softened, or selectively applied so that it no longer conflicts with a preferred political outcome, interpretation becomes accommodation.
Christianity becomes a political instrument when Scripture is cited to confer divine legitimacy on a policy position while discouraging honest examination of what the text actually teaches. Religious language can make an argument appear morally unquestionable even when the connection between passage and interpretation remains contested.
Talarico’s statements illustrate the problem. Whatever one thinks of his politics, the relevant theological question is whether his interpretations faithfully communicate what God has revealed. The same standard must apply across the political spectrum. No party, candidate, or movement possesses the authority to determine what Christianity means.
The problem is made worse by the speed at which theological claims now travel through podcasts, television, social media, and campaigns. A fragmentary interpretation can quickly be received as settled teaching by audiences that have never examined the passage themselves. Christians have a responsibility to distinguish what Scripture says from what others claim it says.
The controversy surrounding Talarico will eventually pass, as will the election that elevated his arguments. The underlying question will remain: Will the church measure its convictions against Scripture, or will it allow political culture to decide which parts of Christianity are acceptable?
Jesus Christ does not need to be reinvented for the political moment. He does not need to be reshaped to accommodate an ideology, repackaged to win an election, or stripped of the truths that make His teaching uncomfortable.
Anyone who invokes Christian teaching publicly assumes a responsibility of spiritual stewardship. We are not called to make Scripture more politically useful. We are called to communicate it faithfully.
America does not need a Jesus fashioned in the image of its politics. It needs the truth of Christ faithfully proclaimed.
Troy A. Miller