Progressive Christians have often grounded their politics in biblical themes. They may point out that Scripture does not directly address certain modern debates, such as same-sex marriage or abortion, then emphasize Jesus’ concern for the poor, outsiders, and people pushed to society’s margins. Those themes are used to support views on issues including immigration and gun policy.
James Talarico, a seminary-trained Texas Democrat running for the U.S. Senate, makes a more specific case. He has argued that Mary’s agreement to bear Jesus offers support for abortion rights, and has described God as “nonbinary.”
The Jesus depicted in Scripture, the argument goes, cannot be reduced to the teachings that happen to fit a modern political outlook.
Talarico’s argument is not simply that Christianity can coexist with progressive politics. He contends that the Bible itself supports particular progressive positions.
As November’s midterm elections draw closer, the debate raises a broader question: Do people let Scripture guide their politics, or do they reshape their reading of Scripture to match their politics?
“According to your word”
Consider two of Talarico’s public comments. On Joe Rogan’s podcast in July 2025, he pointed to the angel Gabriel’s visit to Mary as an example of consent relevant to abortion rights. “God asks for Mary’s consent,” he said, adding that “creation has to be done with consent.”
Luke’s account, however, does not describe Gabriel asking Mary whether she wants to become pregnant. He tells her what is going to happen. Mary asks how it will occur, then accepts God’s word: “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). That passage does not lay out a teaching on abortion. Questions about unborn life must be considered alongside the Bible’s wider teachings on creation, human dignity, and the image of God.
Talarico has also called God “nonbinary.” During a Texas House debate in 2021, he said God is “both masculine and feminine and everything in between.” He later said the wording was meant to provoke discussion, and explained that his point was that God cannot be confined to human categories.
Christian theology has long held that God is beyond human biological distinctions. That claim, though, is not necessarily the same as applying a modern understanding of gender identity to God’s revealed nature.
A convenient portrait of Christ
Sound biblical interpretation starts with the text, its historical setting, and what its author meant—not with a political position that needs biblical backing. When public figures use Scripture to lend moral weight to a campaign stance, their interpretation should be examined on its biblical merits.
This concern reaches beyond any one candidate. Religious beliefs are increasingly judged by whether they align with current social and political views. Teachings that affirm popular positions are welcomed, while those that challenge them can be dismissed or pushed aside. It can feel easier to go along with the prevailing mood than to defend consistency with Scripture. But when churches simply follow the culture, they risk echoing it rather than offering a distinct witness.
One result can be a selective picture of Jesus: a figure who speaks often about love but rarely confronts sin; who offers grace without repentance, mercy without judgment, or justice separated from righteousness. His words are highlighted when they support a preferred social vision and passed over when they do not.
The Jesus of Scripture cannot be narrowed to the parts of His teaching that suit a current ideology. He shows mercy, while also calling people to turn from sin. His love does not set truth aside, and grace does not make repentance unnecessary.
James states the tension directly: “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).
Who has authority?
When Scripture is softened, selectively applied, or reinterpreted to avoid clashing with a favored political outcome, interpretation can become accommodation.
Christianity risks becoming a political tool when biblical passages are used to give a policy divine approval without honestly considering what those passages teach. Religious language can make a position sound beyond question, even when the connection between the text and the argument is disputed.
Talarico’s comments bring that issue into view. Whatever a person thinks of his politics, the theological question is whether his readings faithfully represent what God has revealed. That test should apply to every side. No party, candidate, or movement gets to decide what Christianity means.
The rapid spread of religious claims through podcasts, television, social media, and campaigns adds to the challenge. A partial reading can quickly sound like settled doctrine to people who have not looked at the passage themselves. Christians have a responsibility to tell the difference between what Scripture says and what someone says it means.
The attention around Talarico will fade eventually, as will the election that brought his arguments into focus. The deeper question will remain: Will churches test their convictions against Scripture, or let political culture determine which parts of Christianity are acceptable?
Jesus does not need to be remade for the politics of the moment. He need not be adjusted to suit an ideology, repackaged for an election, or stripped of teachings that make people uncomfortable.
Anyone who speaks publicly in the name of Christian teaching takes on a responsibility to handle it carefully. The task is not to make Scripture more useful politically, but to communicate it faithfully.
America does not need a Jesus shaped to match its politics. It needs Christ’s truth proclaimed faithfully.
