James Talarico and the Political Use of Scripture

Texas Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico has made Christianity central to his political identity and campaign rhetoric. His supporters describe his command of New Testament language as a new model for Democrats seeking to reach Christian voters.

Before accepting or rejecting that claim, however, Talarico’s documented statements deserve careful examination because they provide the clearest picture of the political theology he is presenting to the country.

“God is nonbinary.” During a 2021 debate over transgender participation in school sports, Talarico said, “God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is nonbinary.” He later explained that the language was intentionally provocative and that his point was that God transcends human categories. More recently, he acknowledged that some of his earlier language “missed the mark.” (Texas Tribune)

The Bible and abortion rights. Talarico argues that the Bible is silent on abortion. He invokes Mary’s response at the Annunciation to contend that “creation has to be done with consent.” Christian critics respond that Mary consented to conception, not to terminating an existing pregnancy. (Texas Tribune, America)

Religious pluralism. Talarico has said that Christianity points toward the truth while “other religions of love point to the same truth.” Critics contrast that position with Christianity’s historic claims concerning the unique identity, authority and saving work of Jesus Christ. (Texas Tribune)

Jesus as a “radical feminist.” In a 2022 sermon addressing abortion and what he described as Christianity’s feminist tradition, Talarico applied that description to Jesus. His critics question whether the modern political category clarifies Christ’s teaching or imposes a contemporary ideology upon it.

Sex and transgender athletics. Talarico previously described biological sex as a spectrum and said there were six biological sexes, referring to chromosomal variations. In September 2026, he revised his position, saying there are two sexes and opposing transgender participation in girls’ sports when safety or fairness is endangered. (Texas Tribune)

These statements help explain the attention Talarico is receiving from progressive writers. In a recent Salon column titled “James Talarico’s Campaign Could Do Lasting Damage to the GOP,” Amanda Marcotte quotes Brad Onishi, a religious-studies scholar and former evangelical, who argues that Talarico’s “theological acumen and keen ability to use the language of the New Testament to disarm bad-faith religious attacks is showing a new way forward.”

Marcotte extends the argument, contending that Democratic policies should appeal more naturally to Christians who emphasize Christ’s commands to feed the hungry and welcome the stranger. (Salon)

Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party is a church or theological authority. Both are political coalitions. The relevant question is not which party can quote the most Scripture, but whether a candidate’s political application follows faithfully from the Biblical text.

That question surfaced during Talarico’s taped interview with Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel moved the interview to YouTube after saying that FCC pressure against ABC and its affiliates made airing it on broadcast television problematic. Under the FCC’s equal-time rule, broadcasting Talarico’s appearance could have generated requests for comparable airtime from Republican opponent Ken Paxton and other qualified candidates. (Reuters)

During the interview, Talarico imagined what Jesus might say if He appeared in the United States Senate:

“For I was hungry, and you cut my food assistance. I was sick, and you kicked me off Medicaid. I was a stranger, and you deported me and my family. And then I think He would flip over those fancy desks on the floor of the U.S. Senate and demand that we take care of all of our neighbors—especially the least of these.”



Former Ohio Congressman Bob McEwen, in remarks I personally heard him deliver, offered a sharply different interpretation:

“I don’t need a book or even a chapter. Show me one verse in Scripture that calls upon a politician to use the police powers of the state to take from one person and give it to another. The Bible calls upon you and me—and the Church—to help the poor. Nowhere does it call upon government to do what God has called the Church to do.”



The Biblical command to care for “the least of these” is unmistakably clear. The contested question is whether Christ’s words prescribe government programs such as Medicaid and SNAP or speak primarily to the personal and ecclesial responsibilities of Christians. Talarico treats public assistance as one political application of Christ’s command; McEwen distinguishes Christian charity—freely and personally offered—from compulsory taxation and government redistribution.

The theological background behind Talarico’s rhetoric is therefore relevant. Talarico was raised at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, where the Rev. Jim Rigby has served for decades. Rigby baptized Talarico, married his parents and delivered the invocation when Talarico was sworn into the Texas House. Talarico has described Rigby as a formative influence while emphasizing that they do not agree on everything.

Rigby has publicly stated that he does not believe in a literal resurrection. That position stands in tension with the historic creeds contained in the PC(USA)’s Book of Confessions, including the Second Helvetic Confession’s affirmation that Christ rose in the same “true flesh” in which He was crucified. The denomination also teaches that the resurrected Jesus possessed a body recognizably made of human flesh. (Christian Today, PC(USA) Book of Confessions, PC(USA))

Rigby’s position does not establish that Talarico shares it. It does, however, provide relevant context for the congregation in which Talarico’s religious outlook developed.

Talarico’s campaign illustrates a broader development likely to remain important in American politics: candidates using Biblical language to reach Christian voters. The consequential dispute is not merely between those who quote Scripture and those who reject it. It is increasingly between competing interpretations and political applications of the same Scripture.

A.W. Pink warned in Gleanings in Joshua that subtle deception can prove more dangerous than open hostility because it approaches God’s people through religiously familiar language. The serpent’s opening question in Genesis 3 was not, “There is no God.” It was, “Yea, hath God said?” For Christians, the enduring question is not merely whether a politician quotes the Bible, but whether the political application follows from the text.

As we look toward the remainder of the 21st century, Christians will confront religiously packaged politics, selective quotations of Scripture and the formidable challenge of militant Islamist theology and ideology. Christian discernment must begin by remaining plugged into the Source: Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Lord of Life.

Thankfully, Gideons and Rahabs are entering the public arena.

David Lane

American Renewal Project