The 2026 midterm elections brought several faith-centered Democrats into the political spotlight. James Talarico in Texas, Adam Hamilton in Kansas, and Sarah Trone Garriott in Iowa campaigned on messages of faith, compassion, and the biblical instruction to love your neighbor.
Quoting Jesus does not, by itself, make a political platform authoritative. Christian compassion is essential; Jesus commanded it. But treating biblical love as a mandate for socialist policies deserves a closer look. Before deciding what government should do in love’s name, it helps to consider what Jesus meant by love.
A new commandment
The night before His crucifixion, Jesus told His disciples: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another” (John 13:34).
He had just shown them what humility looked like. Their Lord and teacher knelt to wash their feet. The one who could have expected service instead served them. His example suggests that love asks something of the person giving it.
Jesus later put the cost of love plainly: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Within hours, He would put those words into practice on the cross.
Christ’s understanding of love is not merely sentimental, or convenient for a political cause. It involves sacrifice, obedience, and a commitment to truth. As He said in John 14:15, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
Love and obedience
Love and obedience belong together. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan did more than feel sorry for a wounded stranger. He interrupted his trip, spent his own money, and took responsibility for someone he did not know. His mercy crossed cultural lines and cost him something. That is the kind of love Jesus asked His followers to show.
There is a real difference between giving up something of your own and claiming virtue by redistributing someone else’s resources. Christ called His followers to personal generosity, not to hand their duty over to the state.
Socialism can present itself as a substitute for Christian love: government promises to provide compassion, while individuals may feel less responsible for making sacrifices themselves. It can be easy to seem generous when someone else is paying the price.
The Samaritan did not ask Rome to cover the injured man’s care. He paid for it himself. Biblical charity starts with a willing heart and an open hand. When compassion is enforced through political power, people may end up praising themselves for a kindness they have delegated rather than personally shown.
History’s warning
History offers sobering examples of the gap between promises of compassionate government and what those promises can produce.
The Soviet Union promised equality through central planning, forced collectivization, and repression. Millions suffered as individual lives were subordinated to state goals. Shortages and economic stagnation eventually revealed the system’s failures.
In Venezuela, extensive state intervention, nationalization, and price controls—along with dependence on oil and poor economic management—contributed to severe shortages, inflation, and mass emigration.
Cuba’s state-dominated economy has faced long-running shortages and weak productivity. Its government has also placed severe restrictions on religious institutions.
China’s communist regime was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, when collective goals were treated as more important than individual lives. Socialism does not necessarily eliminate hierarchy; it can replace one system of privilege with another, putting party officials and well-connected elites above ordinary people.
Eroding boundaries
Some people may argue that the United States is not adopting full-scale socialism, but only borrowing selected policies while keeping the protections of a constitutional republic. Still, democracy alone does not prevent government overreach. Elections decide who holds political power; constitutional limits define how that power can be used.
The concern is not that every government program inevitably leads to communism. It is that expansions of state authority deserve careful scrutiny, especially when decisions move away from citizens and independent institutions and into the hands of political officials. Government power need not become authoritarian all at once to gradually weaken the limits meant to restrain it.
History shows that government promises do not guarantee good results. A promise of equality can create a privileged ruling class. A promise of security for everyone can leave citizens with less independence to shape their own futures.
That is why good intentions alone are not enough to measure compassion.
Can families afford basic needs, pursue opportunities, and build financial security? Can communities thrive, civil liberties endure, and voluntary organizations remain independent? Can churches worship, teach Scripture, and serve their neighbors freely, without government interference?
These questions matter when considering policies promoted in the name of public support, including grants, tax increases, and universal health care.
Essential questions
Christians should examine how political commitments shape the way people interpret Scripture, no matter which party is making the argument. Those who discuss these questions publicly should be free to challenge claims and defend biblical teaching without political intimidation.
Jesus did not simply speak about love. He showed what it meant through the ultimate sacrifice.
Political leaders who invoke His name should be ready to explain how they interpret Scripture and to answer for the real-world effects of their proposals.
Love is not measured by the generosity of government promises, but by whether our neighbors are truly helped. Christ commanded His followers to love one another—not to surrender their judgment to anyone who claims to govern in His name.
