Why are evangelicals freaking out over James Talarico?

He’s being called “Pastor Pornhub” and “the living embodiment of Satan on earth” by Christians on the religious and political right. So who is this terrifying figure?

Is he a Dallas megachurch pastor who had to step aside for a “restoration process” after some sexually deviant scandal? Is he someone named in the Epstein Files?

No. The person conservatives are outraged about is Texas Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate James Talarico.

Digital creator Michael Smith, who has 39,000 followers on Facebook, is the one who posted this: “I’ve called Texas Democrat James Talarico ‘Pastor Pornhub’ because if I could create the living embodiment of Satan on earth, he would look just like Talarico, a leftist caricature of a Christian, smug, self-righteous and generously quoting Bible verses to justify his political positions. The problem is not so much quoting of the Bible, but the heretical interpretations of those verses because Pastor Pornhub is a ‘progressive’ Christian, which is to say he is not a Christian at all.”

In addition to Smith’s invective, here are some of the accusations launched at Talarico from right-wing influencers.

• “Straight up demonic” — podcaster Benny Johnson
• “False teacher” — Newsmax host Greg Kelly
• “Blasphemer” — Newsmax host David Harris Jr.
• “Fundamentally unserious … insulting” — Fox News host Laura Ingraham
• “Blasphemous” — Fox News host Sean Hannity
• “Creepy looking heretic and fake pastor … completely insane.” — Daily Wire host Matt Walsh
• “Authority of God-denying false teacher” — Covenant Baptist Church pastor Jeff Wiesner
• “100% wolf in sheep’s clothing” — Crosspoint Community Church pastor Lance Shumake
• “Deception and surrender” — Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler

Such accusations are ratcheting up as Talarico gets closer to the possibility of winning a seat in the U.S. Senate for the Democrats in Texas. He would be the first Democrat to do so since Lloyd Bentsen won reelection in 1988.

What makes the story even more interesting is that Talarico is a Presbyterian minister and seminarian. On the campaign trail, he talks about the Bible a lot.

“James Talarico’s statement that there is ‘something happening in Texas’ is absolutely true, but is it for the better? Decidedly not,” apologist and American Family Radio host Alex McFarland declared. “Talarico’s faith-based bid to flip Texas to the Democratic Party is nothing more than a plot to persuade Texas Christians to give him a vote. The great state of Texas is tragically becoming less Christian by the day, and ultimate opportunist Talarico is capitalizing on this dip in faith by muddying the water and ultimately creating a brand-new religion based on this ‘progressive’ Christ.

The intensity of these attacks raises an obvious question: Why does a relatively young Texas legislator provoke this level of panic from some of the most powerful voices in conservative media and evangelical leadership? The answer may have less to do with theology than with political strategy.

While many Christians on the Right are working overtime to delegitimize Talarico, many Christians on the Left are stridently defending him.

What’s most interesting to me is what Talarico’s story says about us.

‘Church vocabulary’ with a ‘different moral architecture’

“I’m not living up to the radical teachings of Jesus Christ,” Talarico admitted on the “Politics War Room” podcast with James Carville and Al Hunt. “But I do think that, 2,000 years later, he is still pushing us to be better neighbors, to look out for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed, the vulnerable, to stand up to powerful people.”

Rather than keeping his Christian faith private, Talarico is unapologetically open about it in a way that feels relaxed, natural and authentic. Whether he’s convincing or not, he’s opening the possibility that there may be other or perhaps even better ways to interpret what it means to follow Jesus than what white conservatives have drilled into us as the only truly Christian way.

This is why so many conservative influencers consider him so dangerous.

“There is no more effective way to destroy an institution than to inhabit it, keep its vocabulary and gut its definitions and convictions,” wrote Trevin Wax, vice president of research and resource development at the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board.

“Scripture rolls off his tongue with the rhythm of a Sunday school lesson but with the tactfulness of Satan himself,” added “The Dissenter” by Reformation Charlotte. “He references Jesus with the calm cadence of a youth pastor closing a devotional. The tone is warm, measured, seemingly pastoral. … At first glance the whole thing feels familiar. The language is familiar. The posture is familiar. The soft, reflective tone is familiar. But if you stand there for a moment and actually listen — really listen — the theological ground starts shifting under your feet like loose gravel on a steep trail. Words begin sliding around. Definitions wobble. Categories dissolve. It’s church vocabulary wrapped around a completely different moral architecture.”

“It’s church vocabulary wrapped around a completely different moral architecture.”

While Talarico bases his convictions on his understanding of the Bible and of Jesus, he ends up arguing in favor of abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, calling Jesus a “radical feminist,” suggesting God is “nonbinary,” criticizing the actions of ICE against immigrants, and promoting such ideas as universal health care and food stamps for the poor.

Many evangelical conservatives consider these ideas to be antithetical to Christianity and impossible conclusions to draw from faithful readings of Scripture. And for many on the Right, it feels like Christian nationalism in reverse, using the Bible to justify the policies of the Democrats rather than the policies of the Republicans.

Yet to progressive Christians, Talarico speaks a language of common-sense biblical understanding they believe has been shut down by evangelicals.

Who was the real Jesus?

Both Talarico and his religious conservative opponents claim to be following Jesus. But who was Jesus? And what was Jesus concerned about?

Like any historical figure, Jesus lived in a particular time and place: First-century Roman-occupied Judea. Whatever else Christians believe about him, his teachings were shaped by and being communicated in that world.

In Four Portraits: One Jesus, New Testament scholar Mark Strauss says many Christians in the 19th century began considering Jesus as “an enlightened, liberal social reformer preaching the kingdom of God as an ethical and spiritual ideal.” This would appear to map onto how Talarico defines Jesus. On the other hand, Strauss says others considered Jesus an apocalyptic prophet in a first-century “Judaism ripe with apocalyptic fervor … calling people to repent in preparation for the imminent end of the world.”

“Both Talarico and his religious conservative opponents claim to be following Jesus.”

Of course, it’s been 2,000 years of waiting for the imminent end of the world. So perhaps that explains why things have gotten a little bit weird.

To many of today’s religious and political conservatives, Jesus was essentially a young earth creationist who upheld complementarian, monogamous marriages and made prophecies about events that would take place in the 21st century. They’ll often talk about biblical prophecies being fulfilled all around us every day and even go so far as to pair Bible verses with news headlines.

In his book 100 Bible Questions about Prophecy and End Times, apologist and Talarico critic Alex McFarland claims the Bible predicted such things as 21st-century “newly formed fresh water of the Dead Sea,” conveniently not mentioning how fresh-water springs have been around the Dead Sea for thousands of years.

This may seem overly obvious. But since Jesus was born as a Jew in the first century, he likely would have been focused more on the concerns of his immediate neighbors than on making predictions about the 21st century.

That doesn’t mean his teachings are irrelevant for us today. It simply means those who want to follow him are going to have to translate his teachings from their first-century contexts to today’s contexts.

I’m also suggesting that even if Talarico misapplies Jesus’ teaching to today’s politics, so do conservatives.

Translating Jesus’ values to today

While Jesus’ teaching was rooted in his particular historical context, his ethical vision and critiques of power still inspire modern political values. The question today’s followers of Jesus must consider is which political visions align most closely with Jesus’ ethical vision.

According to Talarico: “The Roman Empire didn’t kill Jesus for being a nice guy. He was a threat to their wealth and their power. And so, again, that should unsettle us in the wealthiest country in the world.”

“Are we really looking out for the least of these?” Talarico asks. “I think when you look at our current government, you look at our current society, the answer is a resounding no.” Then he shares an example: “So instead of putting the Ten Commandments in every classroom, instead of forcing school children to read the Bible against their wills, why don’t we — all of us — look inward and figure out how we can be more Christlike, even when it’s uncomfortable.”

But whenever anybody discusses the teaching of Jesus while referencing the power dynamics of the Roman Empire, modern conservatives accuse them of using Jesus to support their modern “Marxist” politics.

Perhaps there’s a sense in which all of us read the accounts and teachings of Jesus from our own modern social location, which could influence all of us to create a Jesus in our image in ways we may not realize. But at some point, Jesus’ teachings have to mean something tangible for Jesus’ followers.

If the heart of Jesus’ teaching was to love God and love your neighbors as yourself, then followers of Jesus should ask which modern policies can help them pursue this teaching most effectively.

For example, which policy helps Christians love their immigrant neighbors as self — supporting and empowering them or dehumanizing and deporting them? The dehumanization of immigrants that is rampant on the Right needs to end. Deciding when to deport someone or when to support and empower them is a conversation that needs to happen on a case-by-case basis. But the right-wing dismissal of our nation’s “least of these” feels very much like a modern form of asking, “And who is my neighbor?”

The race factor

But there’s another question largely missing from the debate: Why Talarico in particular provokes such intense reaction. Or more specifically, why do conservative influencers consider a white male Christian like Talarico more capable of attracting Texas Republicans than a Black female Christian like Jasmine Crockett, whom Talarico defeated in the primary?

In a New York Times piece that’s being blasted by Republicans, conservative columnist David French calls Talarico “one of the most faith-forward politicians in the United States.” Al Mohler responded to French in World magazine, calling French’s words “astounding.”

But while Mohler gave a laundry list of reasons he thinks Talarico is wrong and yet could be attractive to Texas voters, he never mentions race.

When Black Christians read French’s piece, race is the first thing they notice.

“You can really only write this sentence if you have one type/demographic of Christian in mind,” Jemar Tisby wrote on Threads. “Just so few ‘openly Christian politicians.’ Charles Booker literally filmed his campaign announcement in a church … as he talks about affordable health care, a living wage and taking care of family.”

L Michelle Smith, author of 10 Leadership Lessons from the Black Church, added: “The erasure of the Black Church in these conversations isn’t new, but it is continually infuriating. They are erasing Chisholm, Jackson … I’d argue, King (not a politician per se, but definitely ran in political circles through his activism) and everyone after him, let alone before. I guess (Frederick Haynes) is chopped liver? What does that make Sen. Warnock?”

And perhaps race may play a larger role in Talarico’s defeat of Crockett in the primary than many Democrats would like to admit. Friendly Atheist editor Hemant Mehta wrote at the time, “Republicans are doing everything they can to sway the primary race in favor of Crockett, whom they believe is less electable statewide.”

He added: “Crockett has been vociferously critical of Donald Trump and MAGA cultists in general, and her strategy appears to be treating Republicans as lost causes and aiming to excite Democrats who might not otherwise vote. Talarico is aiming to win over persuadable moderates and some Republicans by talking about how his Christian faith aligns with his liberal views.”

Although Mehta didn’t mention race, one wonders how the social location of a Black woman might affect her hope for Republicans changing differently than a white man like Talarico might. Perhaps she sees Texas Republicans as more of a lost cause, given how much more oppression Black women have experienced from them than white men have.

“Talarico’s theology is dangerous precisely because it’s inclusive.”

Of course, Talarico did win in the end. And to be fair, he’s an attractive candidate. As Mehta said, “Talarico’s theology is dangerous precisely because it’s inclusive. He represents a version of Christianity that actually resonates with millions of Americans who might identify as religious but are sick of the moral rot of right-wing Christian nationalism.”

What this reveals about white conservatives 

When we consider the level of panic on the Right over Talarico claiming to be politically informed by his faith, along with the contrast between the electability of Crockett and Talarico, what’s ultimately revealed here is how susceptible white conservative Christians are to political manipulation.

After all, by expressing concern that Talarico might flip Texas by appealing to religious conservatives, these conservative influencers are essentially admitting they know how easily their own audiences can be politically manipulated.

For decades, Republican politicians have mobilized white evangelicals with theological buzzwords and culture-war alarms. Now they’re panicking at the possibility that someone might use a similar vocabulary to reach different political conclusions.

 

Rick Pidcock is a 2004 graduate of Bob Jones University, with a bachelor of arts degree in Bible. He’s a freelance writer based in South Carolina and a former Clemons Fellow with BNG. He completed a master of arts degree in worship from Northern Seminary. He is a stay-at-home father of five children and is the author of a forthcoming book, Weapons of Worship: How the Songs of Evangelicalism Form the Soundtrack of Extremism. Follow his blog at www.rickpidcock.com.

 

Related articles:

Talarico: ‘If you are neutral, you are taking the side of the powerful’

Politics, faith and mission: A conversation with Rep. James Talarico | Opinion by Greg Garrett

Texas Senate primary pits white Social Gospel against Black Church tradition | Analysis by Rodney Kennedy

Two pastors advance in Texas primaries