James Talarico’s idea of Love isn’t what it seems to be
By Easton Martin | May 26, 2026
The theological tug-of-war within Texas politics has found a focal point in State Representative James Talarico, whose brand of progressive Christianity frequently positions him as a vocal opponent of the state’s conservative majority. Central to his rhetoric is a recurring appeal to the biblical command to “love thy neighbor.” On the surface, the message is disarmingly simple and universally appealing. However, a deeper examination reveals that this progressive interpretation often isolates the command from its broader scriptural framework, offering a version of Christian charity that is at odds with historical orthodoxy and, arguably, the text of the Bible itself.
To understand why this viewpoint misses the mark, one must first look at how ancient and modern scholarship defines the concept of biblical love. In the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman contexts, love (agape in the New Testament) was not an uncritical validation of an individual’s lifestyle or choices. Rather, it was an act of the will directed toward the ultimate spiritual and moral good of the other person.
New Testament scholar D.A. Carson has noted that modern Western culture has largely sentimentalized the concept of love, translating it into a demand for total tolerance and affirmation. When Jesus commands his followers to love their neighbors, he is drawing directly from Leviticus 19:18. Notably, just one verse prior, Leviticus 19:17 states that loving one’s neighbor includes reasoning frankly with them so that they do not incur sin. Scripturally, love and moral correction are inextricably linked.
Anglican theologian and scholar N.T. Wright has similarly argued that Jesus’ ministry was not characterized by a vague, definitionless inclusion, but by a radical summons to a new way of living. Wright emphasizes that Jesus’ invitation to outsiders always came with the demand for transformation. By stripping the command of its call to personal holiness, progressive commentators present an ethereal, feel-good concept that reduces Christian ethics to mere social politeness.
This contemporary progressive view did not emerge in a vacuum. Its roots trace back to late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Liberal Theology, particularly the Social Gospel movement championed by figures like Walter Rauschenbusch. This theological shift sought to reframe Christianity away from individual salvation, repentance, and the supernatural, focusing instead on structural reform, social justice, and the eradication of poverty. In this framework, sin became institutional rather than personal, and loving one’s neighbor was redefined as supporting specific political and economic policies.
While caring for the marginalized is undeniably a biblical mandate, the Social Gospel and its modern iterations tend to compromise on objective truth to maintain an uncritical inclusivity. True biblical love does not coddle individuals in actions or lifestyles that Scripture defines as sinful. Instead, it prioritizes their ultimate spiritual well-being by calling them to repentance.
The common progressive narrative often points to the Gospels, highlighting how Jesus ate with sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. Activists imply that Jesus simply hung out with these marginalized groups, accepting them exactly as they were without passing judgment. This reading fundamentally misinterprets the dynamic of those encounters.
Jesus did not look the other way when confronted with sin. When he defended the woman caught in adultery, his final words to her were clear: “Go, and sin no more.” When he dined with Zacchaeus, the notorious tax collector, the encounter immediately led Zacchaeus to repent of his financial corruption and promise restitution. Jesus engaged with sinners not to validate their condition, but to heal them. He explicitly stated that he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Presenting a version of Jesus who affirms everyone without demanding change distorts his character. To affirm someone in a behavior that leads to spiritual ruin is not an act of love. Within the Christian tradition, warning someone of spiritual danger is the duty of a shepherd, while ignoring the danger for the sake of social comfort is the behavior of a wolf.
Love must be properly defined within the context given to it by the text. Scripture asserts that God is love in his very essence, but it also asserts that God is holy and just. Therefore, Christian love cannot exist in opposition to divine truth. For Texas voters who ground their worldview in historic biblical teaching, the progressive version of Christianity promoted by political figures fails because it offers a therapeutic inclusion while discarding the very truth that gives Christian love its meaning.
