So much is alarming about Mr. Talarico (and the mainline denomination/seminary that helped construct his worldview).
Only have time for one issue—his exegesis of Luke 1. In response to the angel’s declaration regarding what will happen to her, Mary acknowledges the work of the Lord as it would be executed by the Holy Spirit.
—•—
“Then Mary said, ‘Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.’ And the angel departed from her.” —Luke 1:38
—•—
“Let it be to me ACCORDING TO YOUR WORD.”
Mary is not granting permission to the Creator, she is indicating submission to God’s will for her.
CINO's trying to make God's Word fit THEIR world-view is one of the reason "mainline" churches have lost their influence on a world that so desperately needs Christ.
“Devout Christian” has no meaning if it describes Talrico. He is religious - no doubt - but his religion is not Christianity.
How about I take on the mantle of LGBT activist - yet I encourage the overturn of Obergefell and seek to make sodomy illegal - because I argue that sodomy is destructive to those who practice it? Would you call me a staunch LBGT activist?
Christian means follower of Jesus and his teachings. Talrico is more Xian than people who endorse a cheating sexual predador, who lies almost everytime he opens his mouth and who was manipulated by the Godless Israeli leader to start an immoral war that has resulted in the dealth of over 200 defenseless children.
As someone who is theologically conservative and disagrees with Talarico’s views on many cultural issues, I can affirm the Bible teaches that salvation is by faith alone. I would even argue it’s heretical and tantamount to works based righteousness to make theological views outside of gospel issues into conditions for salvation. To say someone needs to believe xyz in addition to the gospel is adding onto the gospel, whom Paul says should be accursed.
it is heretical Eliot. You are correct and that's what Talarico is. His theology has been warped by someone or something, because he does does not understand the Bible(and it's sad, because he could do go, if he only understood it properly. )
It seems obvious that endorsing the idea that a woman may rip the unborn child from her womb for any reason (or none at all) is a crime against the smallest and most helpless among us. Also, Jesus told us that the only way to the Father is through Him, Talarico doesn't seem to believe that and his church definitely doesn't.
Talarico believes all religions contain "the same truth" as Christianity, a universalist stance which is unbiblical. His thinking(which is unbiblical) is easily refuted by core doctrines like John 14:6 ("I am the way, the truth, and the life. He also believes in abortion. This is easily refuted. Talarico claims life begins at first breath(even biological this is nuts. To biblical refute his position. Psalm 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:5 affirm God's intimate knowledge and formation of life in the womb, equating the unborn's value to born persons, and Exodus 21:22-25 treats harm to a fetus as equivalent to harm to the mother, supporting the Sixth Commandment's prohibition on murder (Exodus 20:13) applying to abortion. I could go on many more points where Talarico's theology is false and harmful because it is not true and does not adhere to scripture. The guy is a walking charlatan. Those who believe him need to read the Bible to understand how wrong he is. IF you wanna read more go here: https://dallasreese.substack.com/p/the-gospel-according-to-james-talarico?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
“For theologically conservative evangelicals (and especially those in conservative strands of the Reformed tradition), the gospel is fundamentally about the justification of sinners through Christ’s atoning death on the cross.” This is incredibly charitable.
It is so discouraging that you Fundamentalist folk who are mistaken and misdirected are so prevalent and powerful in the US, that folks like yourself and fellow congregants have such narrow theologically unsound and uneducated anti Jesus beliefs but believe you are righteous and that you are subscribing to the teachings of Jesus.
Mam, in polite conversation one typically does not ascribe motives and assume education levels or even political beliefs, when their interlocutor does not provide them.
You are wrong, and you are supposing what you don't understand about the Bible. It is those like Talarico who are wrong, because he is using his own cultural eisegesis of the Bible to make it say what he wants it to say, capitulating to culture rather than doing proper exegesis and getting the proper meaning from the text. Talarico is dangerous because he's gaining influence and he's misusing the Bible to further his agenda, which is not biblical because he is rebelling against God and he is rebelling against the Bible.
If you read my definition - Catholic would fit quite squarely within the Christian definition. “Baptized in the name of Father Son and Spirit” and “Submitted to their ecclesial authorities” would certainly describe non excommunicated Catholics!
I would remind Eliot that Paul wrote more letters than Galatians and thus we must be a touch more descriptive than “justification by faith”. My definition is not perfect - but one who blasphemous uses Luke 1 to encourage the murder if the unborn would not fit within the definition of Christian. They would be a false teacher by Jesus, Paul, John and Peter’s definitions.
Talaricos sins are heresy. He is in denial, doubt, or rejection of a core truths of the Christian faith. He is holding or promoting beliefs contrary to orthodox doctrine.( like his promotion of the God is non-binary, support of abortion etc.) His views are the anthithesis of 2000 years of Christian belief.
Catholic Theology, strictly interpreted, is opposed to tons of what current "MAGA Conservatives" are doing. For example, the Catechisms clearly outline that the death penalty should not be permitted in wealthy societies that can hold prisoners effectively. The idea that you can't be a Christian if you're pro-choice, but CAN be a Christian if you support the death penalty is absurd and self contradictory. You're just arbitrarily picking and choosing which pieces of doctrine are most important based on your worldly political leanings.
No, your statement is false Sean. (Sean said: the idea that you can't be a Christian if you're pro-choice, but CAN be a Christian if you support the death penalty is absurd and self-contradictory. This is false Sean, I repeat it is false. The death penalty is for criminals (mostly murderers), and abortion is the murder of an innocent. That's TWO ENTIRELY different things. Genesis 9:6 establishes the foundational principle post-Flood: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." This command comes directly from God to Noah and all humanity (not limited to Israel), which means the biblical defense for capital punishment is based in the imago Dei—human beings bear God's image, making murder an assault on God's likeness itself. The death penalty is the punishment for the gravity of destroying an image-bearer, not mere vengeance. It is the lawful, proportionate justice to uphold life's sacred value period. This precedes Mosaic Law and it applies universally, transcending covenants or cultures. You need to read the entire Bible to understand principles like this. The overarching narrative will explain to you why all life is sacred and their is punishment for those who shed the blood of other humans, period.
Dallas, I was explaining Catholic doctrine on the matter. As a Protestant you are not bound to Catholic teaching - but, as Sean was speaking for Catholics, I accepted their premises.
Once again - I said nothing about support for republicans. I said Talarico - who portends to be a pastor - is not a devout Christian by any reasonable definition.
A Catholic cannot be pro choice. Same as a Catholic cannot support the death penalty in modern contexts. A Catholic could conceivably vote for a pro choice candidate in a binary system where they have determined the vote is a lesser of two evils.
This is not the case with Talarico. He is the candidate who is twisting the scriptures to *support* the murder of the unborn as well as the violation of God’s law (as interpreted by the church mind you - on sexual ethics.
this statement is wrong biblically as well---Zach said, "A Catholic cannot be pro choice. Same as a Catholic cannot support the death penalty in modern contexts" you are incorrect about this Zach, see my response to Sean above.
Except many Catholics do support the death penalty. If Talarico is not a devout Christian, then neither is JD Vance. At least Talarico is more or less in line with Presbyterian theology, whereas JD Vance is very much not in line with Catholic theology.
Talarico is NOT in line with Presbyterian theology. John Knox and John Calvin would puke up the dust that has settled over their respective coffins and roll over in their graves if they heard that from you.
Great question. A Christian is a man or woman baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Who is voluntarily submitted to the Lordship of Christ and his church. That submission is demonstrated by living under the authority of the scriptures and their ecclesial leaders as God has set them.
Talrico’s active support for the murder of the unborn. His denial of God’s good gift of male and female. His promotion of sexual sin and his flagrant blasphemous usages of God’s word demonstrates his utter contempt for Christ. He is the most despicable sort of false teacher - twisting the word of God to his own ends.
Mind you - I have said nothing about the GOP, Trump, or any of the sycophants and charlatan “pastors” in his orbit. I hold them in similar contempt. I simply care a tremendous amount for definitions and calling Talarico a “devout Christian” is nonsense.
A Christian biblically is someone who is “in Christ” by grace through faith. Although what you said are necessary outworkings of being a Christian, they don’t make you a Christian. While I agree his cultural views are problematic, so were Martin Luther’s antisemitism and Jonathan Edwards slavery. One can be in error theologically while still being a true Christian.
To somehow equate Luther's antisemitism with the idea that the murder of innocent children seems to be stretching the point. Abortion, in my humble opinion, is the very epitome of sin.
So essentially you’re saying that God, in his wisdom, decided to leave out explicitly in his revealed word, that which is the “epitome” of sin, a sin that was around even during the days of Jesus?
John 3:16. Faith in Christ, Repent of sin, receive unmerited grace and mercy and eternal life through Christ who died on the cross for our sins. That's the gospel in a nutshell and the definition of a Christian is one who believes this.
It is worth pointing out that Southern Baptists voted approval for Roe v Wade several times in the 1970s. Abortion was considered as a “Catholic” issue. It wasn’t until Paul Weyrich, Falwell, etc., began manipulating evangelicals that this changed. Carter succeeded in taking away their special tax status due to their disobedience of laws forbidding segregation (after Nixon had tried to prior to that). They used abortion as a scapegoat issue, and the rest is history. It served as a rallying call, since segregation didn’t have the support among many evangelicals. In other words, Talarico’s position is not “liberal”, it used to be considered Protestant and evangelical.
The Bible says that life begins at the moment of breath. I don’t like abortion, personally. Certainly not as birth control. But there was abortion in Biblical times. Yet Jesus didn’t mention it. My perspective is a wholistic pro-life, which also includes the life of the mother. The mother’s life - a person who has already been alive for years, has relationships, has had breath for generally 20 years or more - her life, if there must be a choice, is more important to emphasize. But rarely is there such a choice in our medically advanced society. The majority of abortions are done during the first trimester. The second beast, propaganda, says differently of course. This is where discernment comes in.
The whole Body of Christ, worldwide, needs to be in communication. Splitting off because of disagreements of this or that is clearly against Jesus’s commands as stated in the Gospels. The church needs a revival, and it must be centered on the person and commands of Jesus Christ. Never politics, no matter what party or manmade “group” we’re taking about. That just sides into a contest between two masters and becomes idolism and heresy.
You're right that Southern Baptists and evangelicals shifted to the right on abortion, but the Southern Baptist Convention never endorsed Roe v. Wade. Instead, the Southern Baptist Convention affirmed, in their words in 1974, "a middle ground between the extreme of abortion on demand and the opposite extreme of all abortion as murder."
The SBC's first resolution on abortion, which the denomination reaffirmed in 1974, called for "Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."
In other words, the SBC (and many other evangelicals) in the early 1970s argued that abortion should perhaps be allowed for medical or therapeutic reasons, but they stopped short of saying that elective abortions (which Roe v. Wade permitted) were morally acceptable or should be legal.
The SBC eventually repudiated these resolutions and apologized for them, and of course, most evangelicals also moved to the right on abortion. By the 1980s, most evangelicals no longer accepted the moderate stance on abortion that had been mainstream in the early 1970s.
So, there was certainly a shift, but it would be an exaggeration to say that either the SBC or evangelicals in general ever endorsed Roe v. Wade or a took a fully pro-choice stance. A few Southern Baptists and evangelicals did, but most did not. I say more about this in my book Abortion and America's Churches.
Manslaughter is a middle ground between murder and no crime at all.
In general most people against abortion seem to want to make it illegal to provide but stop short of charging the mothers with the criminal charge of murder.
I would suggest that if one sees Christianity in terms of behaviour, they have missed the reason why Christ came. He did not come to be another moral teacher in a long list of moral teachers.
It's not about being "nice" or "healing" some imaginary "theological divide." The Democrat Party is responsible for 70 million American boys and girls MURDERED since January 22, 1973. The Democrats even took MY tax dollars to PAY these brutal butchers to slice up children. The Bible very clearly instructs us to "rescue those being dragged unto death." The Biden Administration bullied this nation's hospitals and threatened to shut down hospitals that would not slice off little boys' dicks. Unless you are criminally insane, you KNOW how monstrously evil the Democrat Party is and has been. They are Satanic, through and through to the core of their beings. The complete and total destruction of the Democrat Party is the most important thing that Christians MUST do in this century.
Daniel I must take biblical issue with your false headline --there's no such thing as pro-choice Christian theology. That is the antithesis of Christianity and it is opposite the teaching of the Bible, so therefore it is not Christian the logic only follows my conclusion I just stated . And that is the empirical truth.
What? Please provide your citation. You are imposing your twisted unChrist like view on the issue.
Christ would tell you to fuck off telling other people how to do their healthcare.
Against abortion? Don't have one.
And.... Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion. It stops SAFE abortion. If you really have a shit, you would be demanding reversable vasectomies for security active men.
At no point in this article did the author make any substantive comment or argument about Palestinians not deserving rights. This article is not about that but rather a neutral analysis about shifts in the mainline Protestant churches.
This was a great review of recent history, thankfully I was not raised in a mainline church. What I can do is assure you that Talarico's views on these issues through Christian lens remain abhorrent to my more orthodox faith. What would make me vote for him is the same thing that made me vote for Biden: A woman or man in a faithful marriage that isn't MAGA is pretty desirable when I think of politics at any level. And that's informed my voting at EVERY level in CO since 2016. Thank you for your insights on this! He had caught my eye a year ago in some articles and I'm surprised he's made it this far.
I think you might fail to see that non-MAGA people and faithful marriage are mutually exclusive categories based on their values. If progressives like Talerico are correct then why not grow wild with hedonism? God will forgive you anyway if you are doing something wrong, and He might actually think you are doing the right thing.
Took me 3 reads to understand what you were saying but I got there! Anecdotally I know many non-MAGA people in faithful marriages. I also wasn't saying 'progressives' are correct. I am saying that as far as I'm concerned, it's a lesser of two evils, and the bar is pretty low to be better than a Trump sycophant. Let me tell you, if you meet that bar baby, take my vote!
Peace to you Mr. McGinley. And take heart, I'm not in TX, so my opinion won't ruin MAGA's chances there.
I’m confused why for you the lesser of two evils would be people who advocate for many things directly condemned by scripture. And why for you, Trump would be the greater of two evils?
Perhaps it’s his immigration policy, but seemingly the great majority of Americans are in support of that, so that likely isn’t going away no matter who you elect.
Maybe rhetoric about him being Hitler 2.0 ?
The Trump Sycophant line confused me as almost always there is a single man who is the focus of politics for a nation, the last decade has been Trump and after it will be someone else.
My statement about marriage was a directional one, just because a car is on Empty doesn’t mean it doesn’t puddle on for a few more miles.
I take your point about Trump followers vs Obama followers etc., but following trump is huge difference after Jan 6th, wouldn't you say?
I think we just have a different understanding of the way politics should work. To suggest that MAGA is the only place a healthy theology of marriage can exist suggests a lot about my marriage, let alone everyone else's. Politics is downstream of culture which is downstream of family, not the other way around.
My opinion is simple, I don't respect any politician who follows a man who unapologetically brags about grabbing any part of a woman's body and tries to steal elections. I also don't insist that my politicians hold the exact same views of marriage that I do, but it's nice if they do. Most of the Christian politicians I've come up against are divorced or fall incredibly short in other ways, so really it's only fair to give 'fake' Christians a chance.
Happy to DM on this more so we don't waste more comments.
As a professor at Austin seminary for twenty years overlapping with Talarico’s tenure there I am sickened by your mischaracterization of both James and the seminary curriculum. While I might agree that mainline seminaries have drifted in an unhelpful direction toward “liberalism or liberationist” (your terms), I disagree that the substance of courses taught are not deeply committed to orthodoxy and the great ancient tradition. For example my research and writing has featured the theological aesthetics of Balthasar, Milbank, and Hart, to name a few. Moreover, I was trained at an evangelical holiness seminary. All to say, there is a deep current of liturgical, sacramental, and contemplative piety. Merely citing course titles does not offer an account of its engagement with the tradition, or its conservative character. So, you are right to be suspicious of the overemphasis on rhetorics of justice you are wrong to imagine you know the substance of what happens in these courses. And if you knew James you would know his theological influences are not only liberal in any reductionistic sense. Seriously, he is a 5th generation Texan. He has drunk from many wells. Finally, I will observe that you are committing precisely the error that makes James, by contrast, so appealing; he refuses to think in mere reductionistic categories. He insists the we are created in Gods image, mysteries that hold far more depth than your binary habit will allow.
Thank you for this informative essay. It will help me understand and relate to my friends and family who are evangelical. I don't think it helps me understand why so many evangelicals seem to revere Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, but I'll think on it. It does help explain the reaction to Talarico who cites to the Bible in the service of a liberal agenda, but who seems very genuine in his convictions. But i struggle with the evangelical embrace of a guy like Mike Johnson who will cite to the Bible to support his own political agenda and seems to be an obvious fake.
As a Christian with a decent grasp of the gospels, it seems odd reading many of these posts. Seems like there are so many carve outs and exceptions to Jesus’s consistent, unrelenting message of love one another. Never read about a ban on abortion, gay marriage or cozying up to those in power. I wonder if people are regurgitating what they hear from others, rather than picking up a bible and reading the gospels.
If you're claiming to be a Christian, then, as Paul would do, I'm admonishing you to read the Bible more thoroughly. Abortion and gay marriage are unbiblical, evil, and against the imago Dei that God laid out for us. No Christian should be doing either. Repent of sin and come to Christ. We all should.
One of the problems with religious folk is you each have your own religious book that you follow. You each believe your book is the One. You will never agree with one another as long as this dependence on a book written by men is your whole world view.
This is so weird to me. Most Reformed Christians I know here in NYC, like the people I bought my apartment from, fall into the Evangelical / Fundamentalist spectrum and he would be rebuked or even brought under church discipline if he talked about abortion while saying “as a Christian”.
Most Christians here will say you’re an atheist if you watch Game of Thrones or listen to Metal. Conservative Christians also oppose rap and r&b music that has sexual content but it’s not as bad as metal which is considered Satanic.
Nobody thinks metal is Satanic. That was pushed by record company PR departments to boost sales. If anything, metal is honest, because it admits that our souls dangle perilously between Heaven and Hell. A lot more honest than the popular SLOP like the Beatles, Springsteen, or Swift. Do you actually know any Christians?
SO WHAT! People who murder babies need to understand that they are the lowest, most heinous kind of criminal. A decent law protecting children would at least teach that.
It's worth noting that Mainline Presbyterianism that Talarico belongs too has absolutely cratered in attendance (as have all the leftist mainlines) while the offshoot Presbyterian Church of America (conservative) is one of the only mainlines successfully growing in parishioners.
If you look at this fellow's theology and the theology of his denomination closely you will see it is no longer Christian. They align mostly with Contemporary Unitarian beliefs.
The Bible warns us that there will be false teachers in the Church - NOT maybe - there will be (e.g. 1Tim. 4:1-3, 2Tim. 4:3-4, 2Pet. 2:1). Even Jesus warns us of false teachers (e.g. Matt. 7:15-20, 24, 11, 24). Mr. Talarico makes it easy for believers to tell who some of the false teachers are.
So much is alarming about Mr. Talarico (and the mainline denomination/seminary that helped construct his worldview).
Only have time for one issue—his exegesis of Luke 1. In response to the angel’s declaration regarding what will happen to her, Mary acknowledges the work of the Lord as it would be executed by the Holy Spirit.
—•—
“Then Mary said, ‘Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.’ And the angel departed from her.” —Luke 1:38
—•—
“Let it be to me ACCORDING TO YOUR WORD.”
Mary is not granting permission to the Creator, she is indicating submission to God’s will for her.
Exactly - Christian I Name Only.
CINO's trying to make God's Word fit THEIR world-view is one of the reason "mainline" churches have lost their influence on a world that so desperately needs Christ.
And he straight up lies about this, saying “God came and asked Mary.”
Except He didn’t. Gabriel announced what would happen. It’s literally called the Annunciation.
And that's relevant to his ability to Represent WtP how?
“Devout Christian” has no meaning if it describes Talrico. He is religious - no doubt - but his religion is not Christianity.
How about I take on the mantle of LGBT activist - yet I encourage the overturn of Obergefell and seek to make sodomy illegal - because I argue that sodomy is destructive to those who practice it? Would you call me a staunch LBGT activist?
Christian means follower of Jesus and his teachings. Talrico is more Xian than people who endorse a cheating sexual predador, who lies almost everytime he opens his mouth and who was manipulated by the Godless Israeli leader to start an immoral war that has resulted in the dealth of over 200 defenseless children.
Your first sentence seems to address what I said - everything after that is a non sequitur so I’ll leave that alone.
While I disagree with your definition (too narrow in scope) even on that definition Talrico fails miserably.
Your selective understanding of human sin is disturbing. You really to read some Romans. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
As someone who is theologically conservative and disagrees with Talarico’s views on many cultural issues, I can affirm the Bible teaches that salvation is by faith alone. I would even argue it’s heretical and tantamount to works based righteousness to make theological views outside of gospel issues into conditions for salvation. To say someone needs to believe xyz in addition to the gospel is adding onto the gospel, whom Paul says should be accursed.
Accept it doesn't. "Sola Fide" is a Reformation era invention and reads Paul completely out of his historical and cultural context.
it is heretical Eliot. You are correct and that's what Talarico is. His theology has been warped by someone or something, because he does does not understand the Bible(and it's sad, because he could do go, if he only understood it properly. )
What, exactly, does Talarico believe in that contradicts the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? Be specific, please.
It seems obvious that endorsing the idea that a woman may rip the unborn child from her womb for any reason (or none at all) is a crime against the smallest and most helpless among us. Also, Jesus told us that the only way to the Father is through Him, Talarico doesn't seem to believe that and his church definitely doesn't.
https://yadontknow.blogspot.com/2022/04/choosing-life.html
spot on Chelsea!!
Talarico believes all religions contain "the same truth" as Christianity, a universalist stance which is unbiblical. His thinking(which is unbiblical) is easily refuted by core doctrines like John 14:6 ("I am the way, the truth, and the life. He also believes in abortion. This is easily refuted. Talarico claims life begins at first breath(even biological this is nuts. To biblical refute his position. Psalm 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:5 affirm God's intimate knowledge and formation of life in the womb, equating the unborn's value to born persons, and Exodus 21:22-25 treats harm to a fetus as equivalent to harm to the mother, supporting the Sixth Commandment's prohibition on murder (Exodus 20:13) applying to abortion. I could go on many more points where Talarico's theology is false and harmful because it is not true and does not adhere to scripture. The guy is a walking charlatan. Those who believe him need to read the Bible to understand how wrong he is. IF you wanna read more go here: https://dallasreese.substack.com/p/the-gospel-according-to-james-talarico?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
“For theologically conservative evangelicals (and especially those in conservative strands of the Reformed tradition), the gospel is fundamentally about the justification of sinners through Christ’s atoning death on the cross.” This is incredibly charitable.
It is so discouraging that you Fundamentalist folk who are mistaken and misdirected are so prevalent and powerful in the US, that folks like yourself and fellow congregants have such narrow theologically unsound and uneducated anti Jesus beliefs but believe you are righteous and that you are subscribing to the teachings of Jesus.
Mam, in polite conversation one typically does not ascribe motives and assume education levels or even political beliefs, when their interlocutor does not provide them.
You are wrong, and you are supposing what you don't understand about the Bible. It is those like Talarico who are wrong, because he is using his own cultural eisegesis of the Bible to make it say what he wants it to say, capitulating to culture rather than doing proper exegesis and getting the proper meaning from the text. Talarico is dangerous because he's gaining influence and he's misusing the Bible to further his agenda, which is not biblical because he is rebelling against God and he is rebelling against the Bible.
I wonder if you're one of those evangelical wackjobs who don't consider Catholicism as Christian.
If you read my definition - Catholic would fit quite squarely within the Christian definition. “Baptized in the name of Father Son and Spirit” and “Submitted to their ecclesial authorities” would certainly describe non excommunicated Catholics!
I would remind Eliot that Paul wrote more letters than Galatians and thus we must be a touch more descriptive than “justification by faith”. My definition is not perfect - but one who blasphemous uses Luke 1 to encourage the murder if the unborn would not fit within the definition of Christian. They would be a false teacher by Jesus, Paul, John and Peter’s definitions.
How do you define blasphemy and heresy? Perhaps it’s best to start there.
Talaricos sins are heresy. He is in denial, doubt, or rejection of a core truths of the Christian faith. He is holding or promoting beliefs contrary to orthodox doctrine.( like his promotion of the God is non-binary, support of abortion etc.) His views are the anthithesis of 2000 years of Christian belief.
Catholic Theology, strictly interpreted, is opposed to tons of what current "MAGA Conservatives" are doing. For example, the Catechisms clearly outline that the death penalty should not be permitted in wealthy societies that can hold prisoners effectively. The idea that you can't be a Christian if you're pro-choice, but CAN be a Christian if you support the death penalty is absurd and self contradictory. You're just arbitrarily picking and choosing which pieces of doctrine are most important based on your worldly political leanings.
No, your statement is false Sean. (Sean said: the idea that you can't be a Christian if you're pro-choice, but CAN be a Christian if you support the death penalty is absurd and self-contradictory. This is false Sean, I repeat it is false. The death penalty is for criminals (mostly murderers), and abortion is the murder of an innocent. That's TWO ENTIRELY different things. Genesis 9:6 establishes the foundational principle post-Flood: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." This command comes directly from God to Noah and all humanity (not limited to Israel), which means the biblical defense for capital punishment is based in the imago Dei—human beings bear God's image, making murder an assault on God's likeness itself. The death penalty is the punishment for the gravity of destroying an image-bearer, not mere vengeance. It is the lawful, proportionate justice to uphold life's sacred value period. This precedes Mosaic Law and it applies universally, transcending covenants or cultures. You need to read the entire Bible to understand principles like this. The overarching narrative will explain to you why all life is sacred and their is punishment for those who shed the blood of other humans, period.
Dallas, I was explaining Catholic doctrine on the matter. As a Protestant you are not bound to Catholic teaching - but, as Sean was speaking for Catholics, I accepted their premises.
no but I'm just pointing out the biblical errors in the Catholic catechism.
I understand that and the Catechism is wrong because it is not biblical.
I was speaking about Catholic Theology, and the Catechisms very clear.
It may be clear but it's unbiblical
Once again - I said nothing about support for republicans. I said Talarico - who portends to be a pastor - is not a devout Christian by any reasonable definition.
A Catholic cannot be pro choice. Same as a Catholic cannot support the death penalty in modern contexts. A Catholic could conceivably vote for a pro choice candidate in a binary system where they have determined the vote is a lesser of two evils.
This is not the case with Talarico. He is the candidate who is twisting the scriptures to *support* the murder of the unborn as well as the violation of God’s law (as interpreted by the church mind you - on sexual ethics.
this statement is wrong biblically as well---Zach said, "A Catholic cannot be pro choice. Same as a Catholic cannot support the death penalty in modern contexts" you are incorrect about this Zach, see my response to Sean above.
Except many Catholics do support the death penalty. If Talarico is not a devout Christian, then neither is JD Vance. At least Talarico is more or less in line with Presbyterian theology, whereas JD Vance is very much not in line with Catholic theology.
Talarico is NOT in line with Presbyterian theology. John Knox and John Calvin would puke up the dust that has settled over their respective coffins and roll over in their graves if they heard that from you.
and the Catholics who do support the death penalty and oppose abortion are the only right ones, biblical. period.
Zachary, how would you define “Christian” or “Christianity”?
Great question. A Christian is a man or woman baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Who is voluntarily submitted to the Lordship of Christ and his church. That submission is demonstrated by living under the authority of the scriptures and their ecclesial leaders as God has set them.
Talrico’s active support for the murder of the unborn. His denial of God’s good gift of male and female. His promotion of sexual sin and his flagrant blasphemous usages of God’s word demonstrates his utter contempt for Christ. He is the most despicable sort of false teacher - twisting the word of God to his own ends.
Mind you - I have said nothing about the GOP, Trump, or any of the sycophants and charlatan “pastors” in his orbit. I hold them in similar contempt. I simply care a tremendous amount for definitions and calling Talarico a “devout Christian” is nonsense.
A Christian biblically is someone who is “in Christ” by grace through faith. Although what you said are necessary outworkings of being a Christian, they don’t make you a Christian. While I agree his cultural views are problematic, so were Martin Luther’s antisemitism and Jonathan Edwards slavery. One can be in error theologically while still being a true Christian.
exactly, because we are all sinners. Redeemed only by the blood and forgiveness of Christ.
To somehow equate Luther's antisemitism with the idea that the murder of innocent children seems to be stretching the point. Abortion, in my humble opinion, is the very epitome of sin.
So essentially you’re saying that God, in his wisdom, decided to leave out explicitly in his revealed word, that which is the “epitome” of sin, a sin that was around even during the days of Jesus?
you messed the gospel of Zach. Good intention but see my response to Michael Thomas---THAT is the gospel message and the definition of a Christian.
John 3:16. Faith in Christ, Repent of sin, receive unmerited grace and mercy and eternal life through Christ who died on the cross for our sins. That's the gospel in a nutshell and the definition of a Christian is one who believes this.
It is worth pointing out that Southern Baptists voted approval for Roe v Wade several times in the 1970s. Abortion was considered as a “Catholic” issue. It wasn’t until Paul Weyrich, Falwell, etc., began manipulating evangelicals that this changed. Carter succeeded in taking away their special tax status due to their disobedience of laws forbidding segregation (after Nixon had tried to prior to that). They used abortion as a scapegoat issue, and the rest is history. It served as a rallying call, since segregation didn’t have the support among many evangelicals. In other words, Talarico’s position is not “liberal”, it used to be considered Protestant and evangelical.
The Bible says that life begins at the moment of breath. I don’t like abortion, personally. Certainly not as birth control. But there was abortion in Biblical times. Yet Jesus didn’t mention it. My perspective is a wholistic pro-life, which also includes the life of the mother. The mother’s life - a person who has already been alive for years, has relationships, has had breath for generally 20 years or more - her life, if there must be a choice, is more important to emphasize. But rarely is there such a choice in our medically advanced society. The majority of abortions are done during the first trimester. The second beast, propaganda, says differently of course. This is where discernment comes in.
The whole Body of Christ, worldwide, needs to be in communication. Splitting off because of disagreements of this or that is clearly against Jesus’s commands as stated in the Gospels. The church needs a revival, and it must be centered on the person and commands of Jesus Christ. Never politics, no matter what party or manmade “group” we’re taking about. That just sides into a contest between two masters and becomes idolism and heresy.
You're right that Southern Baptists and evangelicals shifted to the right on abortion, but the Southern Baptist Convention never endorsed Roe v. Wade. Instead, the Southern Baptist Convention affirmed, in their words in 1974, "a middle ground between the extreme of abortion on demand and the opposite extreme of all abortion as murder."
The SBC's first resolution on abortion, which the denomination reaffirmed in 1974, called for "Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."
In other words, the SBC (and many other evangelicals) in the early 1970s argued that abortion should perhaps be allowed for medical or therapeutic reasons, but they stopped short of saying that elective abortions (which Roe v. Wade permitted) were morally acceptable or should be legal.
The SBC eventually repudiated these resolutions and apologized for them, and of course, most evangelicals also moved to the right on abortion. By the 1980s, most evangelicals no longer accepted the moderate stance on abortion that had been mainstream in the early 1970s.
So, there was certainly a shift, but it would be an exaggeration to say that either the SBC or evangelicals in general ever endorsed Roe v. Wade or a took a fully pro-choice stance. A few Southern Baptists and evangelicals did, but most did not. I say more about this in my book Abortion and America's Churches.
How in the world can you have a middle ground between “abortion is murder” and “abortion is not murder”?
Manslaughter is a middle ground between murder and no crime at all.
In general most people against abortion seem to want to make it illegal to provide but stop short of charging the mothers with the criminal charge of murder.
One cannot be “progressive” and Christian at the same time. The pathways to salvation are different.
Jesus Christ was the definition of Progressive. DAYUM you are impressively stupid.
What is your definition of “progressive”?
Demanding BEST POLICY PRACTICE
Ending money in the political sphere. Representing the interests of We the People.
PHUKIN crazy that stuff is "radical leftist."
What then is your definition of a "Christian?"
What's your’s?
Someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
I would suggest that if one sees Christianity in terms of behaviour, they have missed the reason why Christ came. He did not come to be another moral teacher in a long list of moral teachers.
Seriously, what makes them mutually exclusive? You are extremely misguided.
It's not about being "nice" or "healing" some imaginary "theological divide." The Democrat Party is responsible for 70 million American boys and girls MURDERED since January 22, 1973. The Democrats even took MY tax dollars to PAY these brutal butchers to slice up children. The Bible very clearly instructs us to "rescue those being dragged unto death." The Biden Administration bullied this nation's hospitals and threatened to shut down hospitals that would not slice off little boys' dicks. Unless you are criminally insane, you KNOW how monstrously evil the Democrat Party is and has been. They are Satanic, through and through to the core of their beings. The complete and total destruction of the Democrat Party is the most important thing that Christians MUST do in this century.
Just how are they mutually exclusive? Again, that's some really ignorant word salad.
Daniel I must take biblical issue with your false headline --there's no such thing as pro-choice Christian theology. That is the antithesis of Christianity and it is opposite the teaching of the Bible, so therefore it is not Christian the logic only follows my conclusion I just stated . And that is the empirical truth.
What? Please provide your citation. You are imposing your twisted unChrist like view on the issue.
Christ would tell you to fuck off telling other people how to do their healthcare.
Against abortion? Don't have one.
And.... Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion. It stops SAFE abortion. If you really have a shit, you would be demanding reversable vasectomies for security active men.
You need to learn how to spesk to others with a modicum of decorum.
If - a big if - you are spewing your venomous screed as a Christian know that eventually, you're gonna have a LOT of 'splainin' to do.
Life begins with breath. According to your scripture.
Wrong
😂😅🤣🖕
That was a lot of paragraphs for sure but did you ever consider that Palestinians are also human beings and they deserve human rights?
At no point in this article did the author make any substantive comment or argument about Palestinians not deserving rights. This article is not about that but rather a neutral analysis about shifts in the mainline Protestant churches.
Your comment is a ridiculous non sequitur.
This was a great review of recent history, thankfully I was not raised in a mainline church. What I can do is assure you that Talarico's views on these issues through Christian lens remain abhorrent to my more orthodox faith. What would make me vote for him is the same thing that made me vote for Biden: A woman or man in a faithful marriage that isn't MAGA is pretty desirable when I think of politics at any level. And that's informed my voting at EVERY level in CO since 2016. Thank you for your insights on this! He had caught my eye a year ago in some articles and I'm surprised he's made it this far.
I think you might fail to see that non-MAGA people and faithful marriage are mutually exclusive categories based on their values. If progressives like Talerico are correct then why not grow wild with hedonism? God will forgive you anyway if you are doing something wrong, and He might actually think you are doing the right thing.
Took me 3 reads to understand what you were saying but I got there! Anecdotally I know many non-MAGA people in faithful marriages. I also wasn't saying 'progressives' are correct. I am saying that as far as I'm concerned, it's a lesser of two evils, and the bar is pretty low to be better than a Trump sycophant. Let me tell you, if you meet that bar baby, take my vote!
Peace to you Mr. McGinley. And take heart, I'm not in TX, so my opinion won't ruin MAGA's chances there.
I’m confused why for you the lesser of two evils would be people who advocate for many things directly condemned by scripture. And why for you, Trump would be the greater of two evils?
Perhaps it’s his immigration policy, but seemingly the great majority of Americans are in support of that, so that likely isn’t going away no matter who you elect.
Maybe rhetoric about him being Hitler 2.0 ?
The Trump Sycophant line confused me as almost always there is a single man who is the focus of politics for a nation, the last decade has been Trump and after it will be someone else.
My statement about marriage was a directional one, just because a car is on Empty doesn’t mean it doesn’t puddle on for a few more miles.
I’d like to get your opinion.
I take your point about Trump followers vs Obama followers etc., but following trump is huge difference after Jan 6th, wouldn't you say?
I think we just have a different understanding of the way politics should work. To suggest that MAGA is the only place a healthy theology of marriage can exist suggests a lot about my marriage, let alone everyone else's. Politics is downstream of culture which is downstream of family, not the other way around.
My opinion is simple, I don't respect any politician who follows a man who unapologetically brags about grabbing any part of a woman's body and tries to steal elections. I also don't insist that my politicians hold the exact same views of marriage that I do, but it's nice if they do. Most of the Christian politicians I've come up against are divorced or fall incredibly short in other ways, so really it's only fair to give 'fake' Christians a chance.
Happy to DM on this more so we don't waste more comments.
As a professor at Austin seminary for twenty years overlapping with Talarico’s tenure there I am sickened by your mischaracterization of both James and the seminary curriculum. While I might agree that mainline seminaries have drifted in an unhelpful direction toward “liberalism or liberationist” (your terms), I disagree that the substance of courses taught are not deeply committed to orthodoxy and the great ancient tradition. For example my research and writing has featured the theological aesthetics of Balthasar, Milbank, and Hart, to name a few. Moreover, I was trained at an evangelical holiness seminary. All to say, there is a deep current of liturgical, sacramental, and contemplative piety. Merely citing course titles does not offer an account of its engagement with the tradition, or its conservative character. So, you are right to be suspicious of the overemphasis on rhetorics of justice you are wrong to imagine you know the substance of what happens in these courses. And if you knew James you would know his theological influences are not only liberal in any reductionistic sense. Seriously, he is a 5th generation Texan. He has drunk from many wells. Finally, I will observe that you are committing precisely the error that makes James, by contrast, so appealing; he refuses to think in mere reductionistic categories. He insists the we are created in Gods image, mysteries that hold far more depth than your binary habit will allow.
It's no mystery. what happens when grown men get paid with tax dollars to slice up little kids.
This thread needs an Inquisition.
Thank you for this informative essay. It will help me understand and relate to my friends and family who are evangelical. I don't think it helps me understand why so many evangelicals seem to revere Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, but I'll think on it. It does help explain the reaction to Talarico who cites to the Bible in the service of a liberal agenda, but who seems very genuine in his convictions. But i struggle with the evangelical embrace of a guy like Mike Johnson who will cite to the Bible to support his own political agenda and seems to be an obvious fake.
As a Christian with a decent grasp of the gospels, it seems odd reading many of these posts. Seems like there are so many carve outs and exceptions to Jesus’s consistent, unrelenting message of love one another. Never read about a ban on abortion, gay marriage or cozying up to those in power. I wonder if people are regurgitating what they hear from others, rather than picking up a bible and reading the gospels.
Thank you. If one is not a Christian, as you define it, are they deserving of love, forgiveness and respect?
If you're claiming to be a Christian, then, as Paul would do, I'm admonishing you to read the Bible more thoroughly. Abortion and gay marriage are unbiblical, evil, and against the imago Dei that God laid out for us. No Christian should be doing either. Repent of sin and come to Christ. We all should.
One of the problems with religious folk is you each have your own religious book that you follow. You each believe your book is the One. You will never agree with one another as long as this dependence on a book written by men is your whole world view.
This is so weird to me. Most Reformed Christians I know here in NYC, like the people I bought my apartment from, fall into the Evangelical / Fundamentalist spectrum and he would be rebuked or even brought under church discipline if he talked about abortion while saying “as a Christian”.
Most Christians here will say you’re an atheist if you watch Game of Thrones or listen to Metal. Conservative Christians also oppose rap and r&b music that has sexual content but it’s not as bad as metal which is considered Satanic.
Nobody thinks metal is Satanic. That was pushed by record company PR departments to boost sales. If anything, metal is honest, because it admits that our souls dangle perilously between Heaven and Hell. A lot more honest than the popular SLOP like the Beatles, Springsteen, or Swift. Do you actually know any Christians?
Yes I do, and they do view metal as Satanic.
A devout satanist, I'd say. Thwarting the teaching to kill babies. From an evil sort, this one.
PROHIBITION does NOT WORK. DUMMY
SO WHAT! People who murder babies need to understand that they are the lowest, most heinous kind of criminal. A decent law protecting children would at least teach that.
It's worth noting that Mainline Presbyterianism that Talarico belongs too has absolutely cratered in attendance (as have all the leftist mainlines) while the offshoot Presbyterian Church of America (conservative) is one of the only mainlines successfully growing in parishioners.
If you look at this fellow's theology and the theology of his denomination closely you will see it is no longer Christian. They align mostly with Contemporary Unitarian beliefs.
The Bible warns us that there will be false teachers in the Church - NOT maybe - there will be (e.g. 1Tim. 4:1-3, 2Tim. 4:3-4, 2Pet. 2:1). Even Jesus warns us of false teachers (e.g. Matt. 7:15-20, 24, 11, 24). Mr. Talarico makes it easy for believers to tell who some of the false teachers are.