The Gospel According To Talarico: Moral Truth Reimagined

I live in Texas. Here, most people identify as politically and socially conservative. Of course, voters in the larger urban areas (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin) tend to lean to the Left. Across the state, Republicans hold most political offices, especially at the federal level. Texas sends two Republicans to the U.S. Senate, and Republicans hold twenty-five of the state’s thirty-eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The state government reflects the same reality. Republicans occupy most statewide offices, including the governor and lieutenant governor. In other words, political conservatism still dominates Texas politics.

Why do I begin with all of this? A new face has emerged from the recent Texas Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, giving Democrats renewed hope that they might finally unseat a Republican in the Senate. In that primary, Texas state representative James Talarico, who represents Austin, defeated U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett to become the Democratic nominee. What makes Talarico a potential threat to Republican dominance in Texas? His use of religion to support progressive ideology.

For decades, progressive activists treated Christianity as an obstacle to political change. Recently, however, a different strategy has emerged: reinterpret Christianity itself as a progressive political project. Few politicians embody this strategy more clearly (especially in Texas) than James Talarico. Talarico regularly frames progressive policies on abortion, gender identity, and social justice as expressions of Christian faith. Rather than rejecting Christianity, this approach seeks to reinterpret Christian doctrine through modern political frameworks.

I hope you (and the voters of Texas) recognize the danger here. The danger does not lie in ordinary political disagreement. It lies in the growing use of Christian theology to justify policies and moral positions that historic Christianity has consistently and firmly rejected.

Talarico therefore represents more than a political movement in Texas. He represents a form of false teaching that could ultimately shipwreck souls.

Talarico Preaches Progressive Politics

According to reports, James Talarico holds a Master of Divinity from Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary and often preaches at his church. His sermons frequently weave progressive political ideology together with appeals to Christianity. In one sermon available online, for example, he declares Jesus a “feminist” and appeals to the Gospel of Thomas as support.

In the Gospel of Thomas, which church officials later omitted from the Bible, Jesus says: ‘When you make the male and female one and the same; when the male is not male and the female is not female, then you will enter the Kingdom of God.

In another sermon, Talarico affirmed gender ideology and emphasized what he described as the need for abortion within the transgender community:

Before we go further, I want to acknowledge that our trans community needs abortion care, too. Defending trans Texans is something we have to do every day at the state Capitol, and you better believe I’ll be giving sermons on that, too. When I use the word “woman,” it should not be understood as an exhaustive term, but rather as a lens through which to understand, examine, and interrogate patriarchy.

Moreover, in these statements, modern ideological frameworks (gender theory and patriarchy) become the interpretive lens through which Talarico discusses Christian theology. Instead of allowing Scripture to shape political thought, this approach allows political theory to shape how Scripture itself gets interpreted.

The Annunciation Argument for Abortion

In July 2025, James Talarico appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience and appealed to the Annunciation to justify abortion. His reasoning runs as follows: God seeks Mary’s consent before the Incarnation; therefore, creation must involve cooperation and consent. From this premise, Talarico concludes that abortion restrictions violate the moral principle illustrated in the story.

In short, the argument proceeds this way:

God asks Mary for consent.
Creation requires consent.
Pregnancy without consent violates that principle.
Therefore, abortion access should remain protected.

Anyone familiar with basic logic should recognize the problem with this argument. It misunderstands the moral situation involved in abortion. The Annunciation concerns the beginning of the Incarnation—before conception. Abortion, however, occurs after a new human life already exists. The moral question therefore does not concern whether someone may refuse to create life. The question concerns whether someone may end a life that already exists. Abortion does not involve refusing creation; it involves destroying what has already been created.

Talarico’s argument also carries a more troubling implication. If Mary’s consent establishes a universal principle of reproductive autonomy, would Mary therefore have had the moral right to abort the child she carried? Would that reasoning imply that Mary could have aborted Jesus?

Historic Christianity has never interpreted the Annunciation in that way. The Church understands Mary’s “yes” in the Gospel of Luke as an act of obedience to God’s will and cooperation with divine grace—not as a declaration of bodily autonomy.

To use the Annunciation to justify abortion therefore does more than stretch a biblical passage beyond recognition. It profanes one of the most sacred moments in Christian history.

Reclaiming Christianity for Progressive Politics

In a recent article profiling James Talarico, the online publication Vox described the Texas Democrat as a politician attempting to reclaim Christianity from the political right. The strategy involves presenting progressive political commitments as expressions of love, compassion, justice, and healing. Within this framework, Christianity becomes the moral vocabulary for progressive political ideals. Theological language then serves to legitimize policy positions.

Another feature of this progressive political rhetoric involves redefining moral evil primarily as systemic injustice rather than as sin rooted in the human heart, as Christian tradition has long taught. For example, Talarico once described racism this way:

White skin gives me and every white American immunity from the virus. But we spread it wherever we go — through our words, our actions, and our systems.

This framework shifts the focus of moral analysis from personal sin to social structures. Christianity certainly condemns injustice within social systems, but historic Christian teaching begins with the corruption of the human heart rather than with impersonal structures alone.

In the same way, progressive rhetoric often recasts Jesus primarily as a political revolutionary. The cleansing of the Temple becomes a model for political protest. As Talarico puts it:

Two thousand years ago… that barefoot rabbi didn’t stay in His room and pray. He walked into the seat of power and flipped over the tables of injustice.

Such portrayals flatten the identity of Jesus. Christianity proclaims Christ as the Son of God, the redeemer of humanity, and the one who calls sinners to repentance. Reducing Him to a political reformer strips the Gospel of its deeper theological meaning.

Final Thoughts… “Did God Really Say?”

The words and approach of James Talarico remind me of another figure who used holy things for nefarious ends. In Book of Genesis 3:1, the serpent tempts Eve with the question, “Did God really say…?” The serpent’s strategy did not begin with open rebellion against God. Instead, it began with a reinterpretation of God’s command.

The same pattern appears whenever Christians reshape their teachings to justify practices that the tradition has long recognized as morally wrong. Biblical stories get reinterpreted, Christian language gets reframed, and moral teachings slowly transform into something unrecognizable to earlier generations of Christians.

Sadly, the danger does not stop with political confusion. It leads to spiritual confusion as well. If Talarico persuades Christians that actions historically understood as gravely immoral are actually expressions of compassion or justice, many may find themselves led down a path that endangers their souls.

And the ancient question begins to echo again:

Did God really say?

Yes, James—God really did say. Now, Repent.