Crossroads Podcast: The New York Times Offers A Progressive Bible study
It isn’t normal for the New York Times to publish a Bible study about a huge story in American politics.
This “Believing” commentary focused on a circle of Democrats — superheroes for Times subscribers — and how these politicos used stirring words from the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter 25, to defeat President Donald Trump and his disciples.
The Bible commentary, by Lauren Jackson of the “Believing” newsletter, ran with this headline: “The Bible Chapter That Helps Explain the New Christian Left.”
During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast, I argued that this was a fine guide to understanding a must-read Times story — “What Talarico’s Win Reveals About Christianity in Texas” — about the Democratic Party surge in the midterm elections. Jackson’s meditation opened with:
Senator Raphael Warnock, a pastor from Georgia, has called himself a “Matthew 25 Christian” for years. It’s his boilerplate, invoked in response to questions about health care, immigration and even Fidel Castro.
In the New Testament’s book of Matthew, chapter 25, Jesus tells his disciples that if they offer care to the most vulnerable in society, they are also offering devotion to him. “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,” Jesus said, according to Matthew’s author. “I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”
A key player in this drama, of course, is James Talarico. He is the liberal Presbyterian seminarian who was elected to represent Texas (the “buckle of the Bible Belt”) in the U.S. Senate. I will return to the Times feature about him.
Here are several key statements from Jackson’s “Believing” piece that offer a Big Idea summary of her message:
If Christian nationalism is a shorthand for the dominant religious politics of the right, Matthew 25 may be the key to understanding the new religious left. …
Several of the new Christian Democrats regularly cite scripture, and Matthew 25 in particular. Talarico used it to argue “that health care is a human right.” Hamilton applied it to make the case for welcoming immigrants. And Zack Mullock, an incoming representative from New Jersey, said his mom spoke often of the chapter to teach him “to care for the least of these” in society.
This famous New Testament chapter:
… describes a future judgment day, with Jesus sitting on a throne surrounded by hosts of angels. Before him are the world’s people. Those who have helped the most in need with food, drink and clothing are welcomed into the kingdom of heaven. Those who have not are cast out.
But who are the most vulnerable? Who is responsible for caring for them? Those questions have become a source of political tension.
“Crossroads” host Todd Wilken, a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastor, asked if the Times was arguing that Republicans that oppose legislation offered by the new Democratic Party majories on Capitol Hill will be judged by God and “cast out,” as in condemned to Hell.
If so, that sounds like a strong defeat for the concept of church-state separation. The Times coverage suggests that this revived “inclusive view of Christianity” among Democrats is acceptable, since it deals with issues to help the needy.
The unspoken question is whether the new Democrats, with Democratic Socialists in their midst, will offer legislation that can be signed by legislators in both parties. It will be especially important to pay attention to Catholics and evangelical Protestants willing to seek cooperative efforts between government, religious groups and other nonprofits.
In the podcast, I pointed to bipartisan efforts on these kinds of issues during the era of President George W. Bush. There might even be a way to welcome “strangers” into American life without opening the borders. Republicans AND Democrats have struggled with compromises on immigration legislation in the past.
When looking at issues linked to Talarico’s victory, I noted that some debates during the 2026 campaign showed — once again — the relevance of the “tmatt trio,” the three questions I have used for decades when seeking fault lines inside Christian flocks of all kinds. I once shared these questions with the late George Gallup, Jr., one of America’s top pollsters, ever. See this GetReligion.org flashback:
The key, Gallup affirmed, was that these were doctrinal, not political, questions. My journalistic goal was to probe doctrinal changes that revealed fault lines in churches. The questions were:
— Are biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Did this happen?
— Is salvation found through Jesus, alone? Was Jesus being literal when he said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
— Is sex outside of marriage a sin?
Let’s work our way through news connections to these three questions.
(1) News consumers outside of Texas may have missed the fact that, during the campaign, conservative Christians attempted to focus public attention on a famous Easter sermon by the Rev. Jim Rigby of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) in Austin, Texas. Why was this relevant?
That progressive congregation is Talarico’s home church and he has stressed the role that Rigby has played, for years, as his teacher, mentor and spiritual guide. In a famous Easter sermon (click for key moment on video), Rigby argued that it was not important for Christians to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was real, in any literal sense of the word.
This created a big question for journalists: Was it appropriate, in a campaign in which Talarico repeatedly stressed the importance of his Christian faith, to ask a political candidate if he disagreed with his own pastor on this issue? Did it matter that Talarico has also preached in this church?
Are doctrinal issues relevant? Does the press need to ask what Talarico believes about crucial issues in doctrine and Christian moral theology?
Yes, Talarico has said that “Jesus never said anything” about abortion, transgenderism or gay marriage. And he announced that “God is nonbinary.” In a statement that shocked many, Talarico said that St. Mary, the mother of Jesus, made a choice to become pregnant. Thus, this pregnancy occurred “with consent,” which supports a key “reproductive rights” doctrine.
(2) In the podcast, I noted that — in future efforts to help the poor and needy — Democrats and Republicans will almost certainly debate whether tax money can go to religious groups, as well as secular, in these efforts (a topic debated during the younger Bush administration).
For example, flash back the 2021 Supreme Court case Carson v. Makin that focused on Maine’s efforts to give state funds to private, even religious, schools — as long as they were “nonsectarian.” In practice, this meant that schools could not defend the teachings of the faith groups that founded them. In particular, the state wanted to avoid Christian schools that taught that Jesus was both Savior and Messiah.
SCOTUS said it was wrong — under the separation of church and state — for the state to proclaim that a government could discriminate between religious groups based on a doctrinal issue of this kind. In effect, Maine was rewarding Christian churches and schools that embraced the state’s stance on (#WaitForIt) salvation, while rejecting those that taught the ancient Christian doctrine that salvation is through Jesus alone.
What happened next in Maine? How might this issue surface in talks between Democrats and Republicans in the next U.S. Congress?
(3) Progressives in Maine did not give up. To avoid the impact of the high-court decision, legislators changed state laws to state that all private schools, including religious schools, seeking state tuition funds would have to embrace Maine’s anti-discrimination policies — including the state’s stands on gender identity and sexual orientation.
In other words, Maine moved the legal (and doctrinal) goal posts. Traditional religious schools have refused this demand. Thus, religious schools that accept Maine’s approved teachings on these issues can receive funds. Not so for schools that insist on teaching ancient doctrines on gender and sexuality found in traditional forms of several world religions, including Orthodox Judaism and Christianity.
What’s the Big Idea here? Even in battles about issues framed as politics, doctrinal issues often surface on the religious left and right. In mainstream press coverage, this often is described as clashes between “good” religion and “bad” religion.
Meanwhile, a Religion News Service feature about these faith-friendly Democrats included this important statement from the Secular Coalition of America:
“The incoming Congress now has an opportunity — and a responsibility — to restore meaningful oversight, challenge policies that undermine religious neutrality, and reaffirm that government must serve all Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof,” the organization said in a statement last week.
It’s safe to say that this statement about the need to challenge “policies that undermine religious neutrality” is not about laws that favor the teachings in schools and nonprofits operated by liberal Jews, liberal Catholics, liberal Episcopalians, etc. The goal is to prevent tax funds from going to schools that reject state-approved teachings on these religious and moral issues, schools operated by traditional Jews, traditional Catholics, traditional Anglicans, etc.
The new (ordained) Democrats will be in the thick of inevitable debates on the Hill about all of these church-state issues.
But. for now, religious progressives are celebrating. Consider these two passages in the Times story about what is happening in Texas. First, the overture:
James Talarico, a onetime Sunday school teacher, opened his acceptance speech on Tuesday night with a Bible story.
“I’m reminded of that story from Scripture of a shepherd boy who goes up against a giant,” he told an ebullient crowd in Austin, Texas. In the end, of course, the shepherd boy defeats the well-armed Goliath with only a slingshot.
Mr. Talarico slew his own giant this week, ending decades of Republican control in Texas with a decisive win that carried multiple other Democrats in the state to victory. He did it in part by speaking easily and openly about how his Christian beliefs inform his politics, starting with the biblical command to love God and “love thy neighbor,” as the sign on his lectern read on Tuesday night.
He was one of many successful Democrats across the country who framed their politics in terms of their Christian faith. The Methodist pastor Adam Hamilton pulled off a similar upset in Kansas. Two ordained ministers, Sarah Trone Garriott and Lindsay James, flipped House seats for Democrats in Iowa.
In Texas, Mr. Talarico was an underdog not just because of his party, but because of the type of Christianity he practices. He is a progressive mainline Protestant — a Presbyterian, specifically — in a state defined culturally and politically by conservative evangelicalism.
Did Times editors consider contacting progressive think tanks that, in the past, have expressed concerns about politicians proclaiming that they have God on their side? Apparently not.
When campaigning, Talarico stated many of his theological beliefs in Texas-friendly tones — even when discussing biblical authority. The Times piece noted:
In a town hall hosted by CNN in October, a voter from his hometown of Round Rock, Texas, pressed him “Christian to Christian” about provocative past statements like “God is nonbinary.”
“Do you believe that the Bible is the absolute source of truth and God’s final authoritative word, even when our culture says otherwise?” she asked.
“Yes,” Mr. Talarico answered.
Many of these questions are not going to disappear, maybe even in mainstream media coverage.
For example, this feature at The Free Press — “The Trans Issue Is Still Democrats’ Biggest Loser” — noted that in some states in which relatively moderate Democrats were victorious the voters also backed “conservative” policies on social issues. For example, they voted to prevent male athletes that identify as females from competing in women’s sports, while sharing locker rooms and showers with XX-chromosome females.
Stay tuned. Truth is, some states may have veered out of “red” status into a “purple” reality, as opposed to being bright “blue.” This will create complicated news stories and red-hot political and religious debates.
Enjoy the podcast and please pass it along to others.