NOTE: As the founder of a non-partisan ministry, I do not endorse candidates or political parties. My focus on the theological issues I will discuss today would be the same if the candidate in question were running as a Republican or an Independent.
James Talarico has become a national figure after winning the Texas Democratic Senate primary last week. His theological worldview has especially garnered attention. For example, today’s New York Times headlines that he “hopes to counter what he sees as a conservative takeover of the American church.” A recent Times headline asked if he can “Reclaim Christianity for the Left.”
Talarico has stated that “Jesus never said anything” about abortion, transgenderism, or gay marriage. In his view, Mary’s agreement to become the mother of the Messiah means that “creation has to be done with consent,” affirming what abortion activists call “reproductive rights” for women. Speaking against a bill restricting transgender student athletes, he stated that “God is nonbinary.”
In an interview with New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, Talarico said he believes “Christianity points to the truth,” but “other religions of love point to the same truth.” He views Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism as “circling the same truth about the universe, about the cosmos. And that truth is inherently a mystery.” Because he is a student at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, the media often characterizes him as a “Bible scholar.”
Talarico’s positions are consistent with a stream of theology often called “liberalism.” Where does it come from? How are we to understand its core beliefs in light of biblical truth?
A brief history of theological liberalism
Liberalism is a freighted word that means different things in different contexts. If you give generously to others, you are “liberal” with your money. If you believe in freedom, equality, human rights, limited government, and democracy, you have historically been considered to be aligned with “liberal” governance.
For our purposes today, however, we will consider liberalism in the context of Christian theology. Let’s begin with a very brief history.
Until the seventeenth century, Christians were united in their belief that the Bible is the objective and authoritative word of God. Catholics believed that biblical truth is authoritatively interpreted through the teachings of the church, while Protestants insisted on sola Scriptura, “Scripture alone.” But both considered truth to be objective and ultimately revealed by God to and through his people.
However, the European Enlightenment (c. 1660–1798) shifted the focus of authority to human reason and/or experience. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) detached reason from religion, arguing that only what can be demonstrated by reason or learned through scientific discovery qualifies as knowledge.
He and those he influenced reinterpreted biblical teachings in line with their rational principles. In this view, theology is progressive and must be developed by each generation; many redefined miracles as myths that teach spiritual truths; some even reinterpreted the resurrection of Jesus as the resurrection of the faith of his disciples.
In nineteenth-century America, the Social Gospel movement became especially prominent, claiming that Christianity is primarily about the transformation of culture in the context of justice and various social problems. In recent years, “culture war” issues have dominated the conversation as many “mainline” denominations have taken positions endorsing abortion, same-sex marriage, LGBTQ advocacy, and euthanasia (as examples) that contradict historic Christian teachings on these subjects.
(For more, see my article Shaking the foundations: The shift in scriptural authority in the postmodern world, my book The Coming Tsunami, and historian Andrew Hoffecker’s excellent summaries here and here.)
A quest for cultural and theological tolerance
In the view of liberal (now sometimes called “progressive”) Christianity, the Bible can (and should) be reinterpreted by each individual and generation in accordance with their views of truth and their cultural and personal needs. The intended original meaning of the biblical text, so we’re told, is either unknown, unknowable, and/or irrelevant.
Consequently, the annunciation of Mary can be a proof text for “consent” in reproduction and thus for abortion rights. Jesus’ affirmation of the worth of women can be used to fuel feminist theologies that far transcend biblical teachings. Biblical calls for social justice (especially dominant in the prophets) can frame the central mission of the church; biblical claims regarding the uniqueness of Jesus and the necessity of faith in him can be reinterpreted or ignored in a quest for cultural and theological tolerance.
Arguments from silence are especially significant here. If Jesus (allegedly) did not specifically address abortion or same-sex marriage (as examples), we’re told that the church should have no decided position on these issues and that we are free to vote and express our personal convictions on them.
As you can see, this is a large and complex subject, one with massive ramifications for the way we view the Bible, our faith, and the role of our faith in the world.
The Bible can never mean what it never meant
My purpose has been to offer a brief explanation and context for the theological worldview James Talarico has brought into the larger cultural conversation. Tomorrow I plan to offer a biblical, theological, and apologetic response.
For today, let’s close with a principle articulated by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart in their marvelous book, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. I used it as a textbook when I taught seminary classes on biblical interpretation and recommend it highly.
They explain that the “first task of the interpreter” is “to discover the original, intended meaning” of the biblical text. This means “to hear the word as the original recipients were to have heard it, to find out what was the original intent of the words of the Bible” (their italics).
The Spirit who inspired the words of Scripture (2 Peter 1:21) will lead us to know and apply their intended, objective meaning. Accordingly, as I often warned my students, the Bible can never mean what it never meant.
We must therefore measure all theological assertions, whether made by James Talarico, myself, or anyone else, by the objective truth of Scripture. In this sense, we need to emulate those in Berea who, when Paul arrived during his second missionary journey, “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11).
As a result, “Many of them therefore believed” (v. 12). When we do what they did, we will experience what they experienced.
Will you be a Berean Christian today?
Quote for the day:
“When you open your Bible, God opens his mouth.” —Mark Batterson
Our latest website resources:
Denison Forum
DAILY DEVOTIONS, NEWS AND INFORMATION 