A gifted manipulator

The only thing worse than a typical woke politician is an eloquent woke politician. The very best way to spread woke ideologies is through eloquent and compelling messengers. That is precisely the kind of progressive that Texas House Democrat and pastor James Talarico is. Talarico dazzled Joe Rogan during his two- and half-hour interview last week. Talarico was so effective that by the end of the interview Rogan was calling for him to run for president of the United States.

Talarico’s appeal consists in part in his respectful and civil mode of discourse. He presents as a friendly guy who is willing to talk with anyone to make his case for both liberal public policy and for a woke version of the Christian faith. While he serves as a rising star in the Texas house, he also attends Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. After graduating, he hopes to take the reins as pastor at a progressive church in Austin called St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church.

Talarico’s interview with Rogan reveals just how progressive this aspiring pastor is. Not only does he affirm gay marriage and LGBTQ “rights,” he also favors abortion “rights” and opposes the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. On homosexuality and gay marriage, he tells Rogan, “We have four gospels with tons of teachings from Jesus, and none of them are about [homosexuality]. So I get suspicious when anybody—whether it's a televangelist or a politician—tells me that something is central to my faith when Jesus never talks about it. To me, that should, I think, ring alarm bells.”

Never mind that Jesus does in fact define the marriage covenant as being between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-5) and that Jesus describes non-marital sexual activity as sinful “fornication” (Matthew 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Revelation 2:21). Also, never mind the fact that Jesus commands his followers to listen to the teaching of the apostle Paul who confronted homosexual immorality numerous times in his Gentile mission (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:10). The woke interpretation of Scripture frequently leads to all manner of absurdities to justify sexual immorality, and that is what Talarico offers.

The same sort of hermeneutical contortion appears with Talarico’s handling of abortion. Rogan asks Talarico, “What do you think is the Biblical evidence to support the opinion of being pro-abortion?” Talarico responds by claiming that Scripture itself supports the right of a mother to kill her unborn child. Why? Because, he says, the Bible doesn’t treat the unborn person as a human being until—like Adam—a baby takes his first breath (Genesis 2:7). In this telling, a baby can be killed for any reason or no reason at all before he takes his first breath.

On this logic, when John the Baptist was in utero and leapt in the womb of his mother Elizabeth at the sound of pregnant Mary’s voice (Luke 1:41), Mary and Elizabeth would have been completely within their rights as women to kill both John and Jesus. After all, the boys weren’t real people yet. Likewise, King David’s mother might have chosen to abort the future king even as God was “weaving” him together in his mother’s womb and ensuring that he was fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:13-14).

Talarico also claims that God asked for Mary’s “consent” before conceiving the incarnation in her womb. In other words, God asked for her permission. Again, that is not at all what the Bible says. Yes, Mary gave her joyful consent. No, God did not ask permission. Go read the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. You will not find God asking Mary’s permission to do anything. He simply announces what He is about to do through his sovereign will and power.

Talarico is wrongly inserting modern notions of consent into the text of Scripture in an attempt to justify abortion. His logic goes like this: Mary gave God her permission to carry the Son of God in her womb. Therefore, modern pregnancies can only proceed if the woman gives her consent/permission. Without her permission, there is no moral obligation for her to continue her pregnancy. She can have an abortion if she wants one because her consent alone determines her moral obligations. It’s a pro-choice “bodily autonomy” argument speciously imposed upon the text of Scripture.

Yes, Mary gave her consent to God’s announcement. But if she hadn’t, she would have been sinning! Likewise, pregnant mothers most often give their consent to maintaining their pregnancy. But when they don’t, they would also be sinning to kill the child within them. Why? Because once a child is conceived, mothers have a moral obligation to care for that child. They have a moral obligation to the command, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).

Talarico’s manipulation of Scripture reveals that he is not qualified to hold office, much less to be a pastor. His star may be rising as a politician, but he needs to be seen for what he is. Anyone who cannot grasp the basic goods of life, marriage, and family is in no position to craft policy for the public good. If Talarico’s vision for life, marriage, and family were enacted, it would bring misery to countless Americans—and death to the unborn. Those destructive consequences are not mitigated by the affability of the messenger, and voters need to be clear-eyed about what is at stake.