The Fraud Just Keeps On Coming

 https://x.com/kstp/status/2032329325840658712?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Because we didn't have enough government programs rife with fraud, so we added one more. 

 https://x.com/kstp/status/2032391983159742826?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

The fraud just keeps on coming.

 

For those who are not up on the latest dissemination of news, these links are to the official Twitter account of KSTP TV, the local ABC affiliate.   What this means is that the source of the information is NOT Twitter, but one of our 4 local network affiliates.  In other words, this is a way that local network affiliates expend the distribution of their actual "real journalism" using media beyond the traditional broadcast and cable/satellite channels.   That a local news affiliate chooses to use Twitter, FB, or IG to broadcast their stories does not magically render the stories not "real journalism".   I know that there are those who see "X.com" in the link and automatically dismiss what is linked to as not "real journalism".   Fortunately "real journalism" is not limited by medium or anything else.  As long as the story is accurate and unbiased, the medium is irrelevant.  

Give Us Barabbas

  Like a lot of things I post, I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but it is an interesting take on a character in the Passion narrative that doesn't get a lot of attention.   A quick check confirms that Barabbas does literally mean "Son of the father" in Hebrew.  While there is no evidence that "the father" is YHWH, it is still an interesting piece of information.  The parallel between our salvation and Barabbas (neither deserved their salvation) is interesting to me.  It is entirely possible that this is something that pretty much everyone else in Christendom had already figured out and that I'm late to the party,  Nonetheless, it seemed worth borrowing.  

 

 

"There is something about Barabbas that just refuses to stay in the “nice, tidy Bible story” category, and honestly I think it is because his story hits a little too close to home if you actually let yourself sit in it longer than a Sunday school recap. We like to treat him like the obvious background villain, the rough-looking guy you can safely judge from a distance, the one you mentally label as the wrong choice so you can feel a little better about yourself. He is convenient like that. He makes the crowd look foolish and makes us feel like we would have handled it better, like we would have stepped in and been the one reasonable person saying hey maybe do not release the criminal and execute the innocent man, just a thought.

But then you start looking at his name, and suddenly it gets a whole lot less comfortable. Barabbas literally means son of the father, which is almost offensively on the nose when you realize who he is standing next to. On one side you have Jesus, the Son of the Father, the one who actually belongs in that title in every possible sense. On the other side you have Barabbas, son of the father, the guilty version, the broken version, the one who actually earned the sentence that is about to be carried out. And the crowd, in all their wisdom and emotional stability, looks at both options and goes yeah we will take the guilty one, go ahead and let him walk. You almost want to step into the scene like you are watching someone about to back a trailer into a ditch and say stop, stop, stop, you are about to make a very obvious mistake here.

But nobody stops it, and Barabbas walks out of there still breathing, which means somewhere in the middle of all that chaos you have a man who woke up that morning fully aware that his day was going to end on a cross. He knew how Rome handled people like him. There was no optimism, no backup plan, no last minute legal loophole where he was going to represent himself and win. His story was over, and he knew it. And then suddenly it was not. Suddenly he is being pushed out into the daylight instead of marched up a hill, and I do not care how tough or hardened you are, that is going to mess with your head a little bit. You do not just casually dust yourself off and go grab lunch like wow that was wild, anyway what is for dinner.

Because the problem is not just that he lived. The problem is that he knows why he lived. He watched it happen. He watched the crowd choose him, and he watched Jesus not stop it. That is the part that should bother us more than it does. Jesus could have spoken up. He could have defended Himself. He could have pointed out the obvious flaw in the crowd’s decision making process, which frankly was not their strongest moment. Instead He stands there calm and steady like this is not surprising to Him at all, like He knows exactly how this is going to go and is choosing to let it play out anyway. And now Barabbas is stuck walking around with that in the back of his mind, which is not exactly something you just ignore and move on from like it was a mildly awkward social interaction.

And this is where it stops being a story we can comfortably observe and starts being one that kind of corners us in a way we would rather avoid. Because we like to believe we are not Barabbas. We like categories, and we put him in the “obviously guilty” category while we place ourselves somewhere in the “generally decent human who tries pretty hard” category. We compare ourselves to people who are worse and feel pretty okay about the results, like if life were graded on a curve we are at least passing, maybe even above average on a good day. Meanwhile this story comes along and completely ignores our grading system and replaces it with something a lot less flattering.

Because Barabbas does not earn anything in this moment. He does not improve himself. He does not get a second chance because he showed potential or wrote a really convincing apology letter. He is just guilty, completely and inconveniently guilty, and still he is the one who walks free while the innocent man takes his place. Which means the entire story hinges not on what Barabbas did, but on what Jesus chose to do. And if we are honest, that is the part that makes us squirm a little, because it removes our ability to feel like we contributed something meaningful to our own rescue.

And yet that is exactly where the story lands whether we like it or not. Barabbas is not there so we can feel superior to him. He is there so we can recognize ourselves in him, which is a lot less fun but a lot more honest. We are the ones who had a sentence we could not outrun or fix or explain away with better wording. We are the ones who would have been standing there knowing full well we did not deserve to walk out of that situation. And instead, somehow, we are the ones blinking in the sunlight trying to figure out why we are still here while Jesus was led away in our place.

So yes, we can sit there and say we would have chosen Jesus that day, and maybe we like to believe that about ourselves because it sounds better and feels more heroic. But the reality this story keeps pressing on us is not about what we would have chosen, it is about what He chose. And what He chose was to take the place of the guilty so the guilty could walk free. Which means whether we like it or not, we are not the ones standing in the crowd making the right call.

We are Barabbas.

And we are the ones who walked away. "

Beware The Bleating Wolf

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2031518440914075878?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

 

"A Science Teacher's Field Guide to Spotting a False Prophet in Campaign Clothing-Step in James Talarico

There is an old theological warning so obvious that most people have forgotten it matters. Jesus did not say, "Beware of obvious wolves." He said, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves" (Matthew 7:15, LSB). The entire point of the warning is the DISGUISE. If the wolf just walked in as a wolf, you would not need the warning.

I am not in the habit of calling politicians false prophets. Politicians lie, distort, and spin. That is almost a job requirement at this point. But when a politician wraps himself in scripture, claims the mantle of Christian faith as a campaign strategy, and then systematically inverts every foundational teaching of that faith while demanding you APPLAUD him for his Christianity — that crosses into territory the Apostle Peter described in 2 Peter 2:1: "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies."

Meet James Talarico. The Texas Democratic candidate for United States Senate. The man who just defeated Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary. The media's new exhibit A for "authentic Christian in politics." A Presbyterian seminarian, they keep telling us — as though that credential alone settles the matter.

It does not settle the matter. It actually makes it worse.

1 — WHAT A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones spent years dissecting Matthew 7:15-20 in his landmark series on the Sermon on the Mount. His conclusion is worth sitting with: the false prophet is not the person who says obviously wrong things. If he said obviously wrong things, detection would be trivial. No, the false prophet is subtle. He USES the right vocabulary. He mentions God, Jesus, the cross. He speaks of love, community, inclusion. The undiscerning listener nods along because everything SOUNDS like Christianity...right up until you notice what he is not saying and what he is actively contradicting.

The false prophet, Lloyd-Jones observed, does not like to discuss the holiness of God. He does not like to dwell on sin. He absolutely avoids the final judgment. He preaches a Christianity that never makes anyone uncomfortable, never confronts anyone with hard truths, and conveniently aligns with whatever the progressive consensus happens to be that week. And then, critically, he uses Jesus as the endorsement stamp for that agenda.

That is Talarico to a tee.

2 — "GOD IS NON-BINARY" — A SEMINARY STUDENT SAID THIS

Let us start where Talarico himself chose to start — on the floor of the Texas House, no less. He stood before his colleagues and announced, with apparent confidence, that the first two lines of Genesis use different Hebrew words for God: one masculine, one feminine. His conclusion? "God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is non-binary."

I want to give this the full weight of academic scrutiny it deserves from a science teacher who actually assigns primary source reading.

The words Talarico referenced are Elohim (the Hebrew noun for the divine, grammatically plural, used for the God of Israel throughout the Old Testament) and ruach (spirit — yes, a grammatically feminine noun in Hebrew). What Talarico somehow neglected to mention is that grammatical gender in Hebrew, just like in Spanish or French, does not describe biological or ontological gender. The word for "war" in Hebrew is grammatically feminine. Nobody concludes war is a woman. The word for the Holy Spirit (ruach ha-Kodesh) is grammatically feminine in Hebrew, neuter in Greek, and masculine in Latin. The Holy Spirit is still the Holy Spirit across all three languages.

Talarico went to seminary. He studied Hebrew. He knows this. He is counting on his audience NOT knowing it.

Genesis 1:27 — the very chapter he cited — states with absolute clarity: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." The binary is right there in the text he is supposedly interpreting. The distinction between male and female is presented not as a social construct but as the definitive creative act of God.

Genesis 2:21-24 continues the thought with the creation of woman from man and the institution of marriage between them. These are not ambiguous passages requiring advanced seminarian decoding. They are foundational.

What Talarico did with the Hebrew gendered nouns is the exegetical equivalent of concluding that because we call a ship "she," naval engineers are confused about the gender binary. The wheel is spinning but the hamster has clearly relocated.

3 — GALATIANS 3:28 AND THE ART OF YANKING VERSES FROM CONTEXT

Talarico also went to Galatians 3:28 — "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" — and summarized it as "pretty woke for the first century."

Let us do what a science teacher does and read the surrounding context.

Galatians chapter 3 is Paul's argument that justification — being made right before God — comes through faith in Christ alone, not through ethnic heritage, legal status, or gender. Paul is making the point that the PATHWAY TO GOD is equally available to all people regardless of those categories. He is NOT saying those categories cease to exist. He is NOT saying biology is irrelevant. He is NOT endorsing gender theory.

Paul addresses gender directly elsewhere and at length. 1 Corinthians 11:3 establishes the headship structure. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 states that woman was made from man and for man. Ephesians 5:22-25 gives husbands and wives distinct complementary roles. These passages exist in the SAME CORPUS as Galatians 3:28. A seminarian who selectively reads one verse while pretending the others do not exist is not doing theology. He is doing opposition research on the text.

The technical term for what Talarico is doing is prooftexting. Quinn's Law Number 6: facts are the enemy of liberalism. The solution, apparently, is to use the same verse over and over while the rest of the canon sits unread.

4 — THE MOST SPECTACULAR ABUSE OF THE ANNUNCIATION IN RECORDED HISTORY

This is where the sheep's clothing really comes off. In multiple interviews — Joe Rogan, Ezra Klein, Stephen Colbert — Talarico argued that the story of Mary's annunciation in Luke 1 constitutes biblical support for abortion.

His logic: the angel came to Mary and asked for her consent. Mary gave consent. Therefore, creation requires consent. Therefore, abortion is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

I teach science. I require my students to actually read the source material. So let us read Luke 1:26-38 as written.

The angel Gabriel comes to Mary and announces that she WILL conceive and bear a son. This is not a proposal. He does not say, "Would you be open to having God's child?" He says, "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus." That is a declarative statement of what is going to happen. Mary's response — "Behold, the slave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word" — is a statement of SUBMISSION TO GOD'S WILL, not a negotiated contract giving her the right to terminate the pregnancy if she changed her mind.

To use Mary's humble submission to God as a proof text for abortion is one of the most theologically inverted readings of scripture I have encountered. It does not merely miss the point. It reverses it entirely. Mary is the model of faithful obedience. Talarico has transformed her into a spokeswoman for reproductive autonomy.

Then there is what the text ACTUALLY says about life in the womb. Luke 1:41-44 records that Elizabeth's unborn son John "leaped in her womb" when Mary (pregnant with Jesus) arrived. The Greek word used for unborn John is brephos — infant — the same word used for the newborn Jesus in Luke 2:12. The Holy Spirit moves through an unborn child to recognize the presence of the unborn Christ. The text makes no distinction in personhood between the born and the unborn.

Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Psalm 139:13-16 uses the most intimate language of divine relationship for the child being woven together in the womb. The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, explicitly condemns abortion. Talarico has read all of this. His silence on it is not ignorance. It is selection.

5 — "ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE AREN'T IN THE BIBLE" — LET ME CORRECT THE RECORD

Talarico has stated repeatedly that abortion and homosexuality "aren't mentioned in the Bible" and are "two issues that Jesus never talked about." He went further in a podcast interview to say consensual same-sex relationships are "never mentioned" in scripture.

First: I just demonstrated that the biblical witness on life in the womb is extensive and explicit.

Second: the claim that homosexuality is not addressed in scripture is not a serious argument from someone who has read it. Leviticus 18:22. Leviticus 20:13. Romans 1:26-27. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. 1 Timothy 1:10. These passages are explicit, consistent, and span both Testaments. Talarico might argue for alternative interpretations — that is a legitimate theological debate. But to stand before audiences and claim the Bible says NOTHING on the subject is a factual error that a first-year seminarian would not make.

Third: the argument "Jesus never personally mentioned it" is not a hermeneutical principle any credible seminary endorses. Jesus never personally condemned child sacrifice. He never personally addressed Roman gladiatorial combat. The whole canon is scripture, not just the words printed in red ink. Paul wrote Romans under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To say "Jesus never mentioned it" while ignoring Paul is not careful biblical scholarship. It is cherry-picking with a seminary degree attached.

6 — "GOD IS NOT A NOUN. GOD IS A VERB."

Talarico stated in a recorded speech: "God is not a Presbyterian. God is not a Christian. God is not a noun at all. God is a verb. God is not a being. God is being itself."

This is not progressive Christianity. This is not even Christianity. What Talarico is describing is a version of panentheism or process theology — frameworks that have existed on the fringes of academic theological discourse for generations and have been consistently rejected by orthodox Christianity because they contradict the explicit testimony of scripture.

Exodus 3:14: "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.'" The divine name YHWH is a form of the Hebrew verb "to be" — but it describes God's SELF-EXISTENCE as a personal being, not a force or abstract process. The God of the Bible has a name. He speaks. He acts. He makes covenants. He gets angry. He forgives. He loves. Personal beings do these things. Verbs do not.

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That Word became flesh in John 1:14. God incarnated in a specific human body at a specific point in history. A verb cannot become flesh. An abstract cosmic force does not have a resurrection. Christianity's entire historical claim rests on a God who is a PERSONAL BEING who entered His creation.

To say "God is not a being, God is being itself" is to deny the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection simultaneously. These are not peripheral doctrines. They are the load-bearing walls of the entire Christian structure. You can discard them if you want. But you cannot discard them and call the result Christianity.

7 — A HISTORY LESSON FOR THE SEMINARIAN

In his "sermon against Christian nationalism," Talarico stated that "300 years after Jesus was executed by the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official state religion of that very same empire. Constantine was the first Christian nationalist."

This is factually wrong. Not debatable. Wrong.

Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He made it a LEGAL religion. The Edict of Milan in 313 AD ended state persecution of Christians and granted religious tolerance broadly. That is importantly different from establishment. Christianity became the official state religion under Emperor Theodosius I in 380 AD, with the Edict of Thessalonica — approximately 44 years after Constantine's death.

A man studying to be a minister who is delivering sermons about church history to Texas legislators should know this. I teach this in high school. It is in every introductory church history text. This is not an obscure detail. It is a foundational date every seminary curriculum covers in the first semester.

When the foundational historical claim in your argument is incorrect, everything built on top of it collapses. But a man this media-savvy almost certainly knows the claim is wrong. Which means he is counting on his audience not knowing it.

8 — THREE FALSE PREMISES IN ONE OPENING PARAGRAPH — A PERSONAL BEST

Let me quote Talarico's "Christian nationalism is on the rise" speech verbatim, because reading it carefully is the whole assignment: "Three years ago, Christian nationalists stormed the US Capitol, killing police officers while carrying crosses and signs reading 'Jesus Saves.' Two years ago, Christian nationalists on the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states like ours to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest. And as we speak, Christian nationalist billionaires are attempting to dismantle public education in the state of Texas and therefore dismantle democracy."

I count three distinct factual problems in a single opening paragraph. That is actually impressive in a specific way that I am not able to compliment.

FALSE CLAIM ONE: Police officers were killed by Christian nationalists on January 6.

No police officer was killed by rioters on January 6, 2021. Officer Brian Sicknick, whose death was originally reported in connection with that day, died of natural causes — specifically strokes — on January 7, 2021. The Washington, D.C., Medical Examiner officially ruled his death natural. He was not beaten, stabbed, or bludgeoned by rioters. This is documented. It is in the public record. It has been confirmed by the same investigative apparatus that prosecuted hundreds of January 6 participants.

Yet Talarico is standing on a stage — describing himself as a truth-teller, as someone who holds scripture to account — and opening with a statement that medical examiners have already disproven.

FALSE CLAIM TWO: "Christian nationalists on the US Supreme Court" overturned Roe v. Wade.

This is not a description of what happened. The Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization did not overturn Roe v. Wade because the justices were "Christian nationalists." They overturned it because the Court found — correctly, as even many liberal legal scholars have acknowledged — that Roe was constitutionally indefensible. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, not exactly a right-wing ideologue, repeatedly criticized Roe's constitutional reasoning during her lifetime, calling it a decision that "moved too fast" and lacked a proper legal foundation. The Dobbs majority did not impose Christianity on the nation. It returned the question of abortion regulation to the democratic processes of individual states — which is precisely what the Constitution contemplates when a right is not enumerated in its text. You may disagree with the outcome. But "Christian nationalists on the Supreme Court did this" is not a legal analysis. It is a political slogan wearing a robe.

FALSE CLAIM THREE: Dismantling public education = dismantling democracy.

I teach in a high-need career tech district. I actually assigned homework last Tuesday. So I want to be precise here. School choice, education savings accounts, and charter schools — whatever one thinks of the policy arguments — are not the same as "dismantling democracy." They are policy disagreements about how best to educate children. The conflation of "a policy I disagree with" and "the destruction of democracy itself" is a rhetorical technique, not an argument. It is designed to make ordinary political opposition sound like an existential threat, which is useful if you need emotional urgency but not useful if you care about accuracy.

Democracy, as even Talarico seems to understand given that he just won a primary, involves voters making decisions. Voters in Texas electing representatives who favor school choice is democracy. Labeling the outcome of that democratic process as "dismantling democracy" is the kind of sentence construction that sounds profound until you read it twice.

Three claims. Three factual problems. And all of this in the setup. Quinn's Law Number 6: facts are the enemy of liberalism. When the facts do not support the conclusion, apparently you state the false version with enough confidence that nobody checks.

A seminarian who cares about truth — who routinely invokes Jesus and honesty and authentic Christianity — should not be comfortable building his signature speech on claims that medical records, legal history, and basic definitional clarity have already dismantled.

9 — "JESUS NEVER ASKED US TO..." — A MASTERCLASS IN WHAT TO LEAVE OUT

In that same speech, Talarico offers a list. "Jesus never asked us to kill police officers. Jesus never asked us to ban books, silence teachers, or defund schools. Jesus never asked us to control women's bodies. Jesus never asked us to establish a Christian theocracy."

These statements are, technically, all true. They are also profoundly unserious as theological arguments, and here is why: I can construct the same kind of list about nearly any position while leaving out everything inconvenient.

Jesus never asked us to perform late-term abortions. Also true. Jesus never asked us to chemically castrate children in the name of gender affirmation. Also true. Jesus never asked us to make the federal government the primary vehicle for wealth redistribution. Also true. Jesus never asked men to marry men. Also true — he actually redefined marriage explicitly in Matthew 19:4-6, quoting Genesis 1 and 2 to define it as one man and one woman.

The "Jesus never explicitly said X" framework is only as useful as the things you choose to put in the X. Talarico fills it with conservative positions he opposes. The exercise is not biblical analysis. It is selective indignation dressed in theological robes.

Here is what makes this particularly interesting: Talarico simultaneously argues that Jesus never talked about abortion or gay marriage (implying silence means permission), AND that Jesus DID take positions on things he never explicitly addressed — like carbon emissions (which Talarico has claimed are un-Christian), billionaire wealth accumulation, and school choice policy. The rule appears to be: Jesus's silence condemns conservative positions and endorses progressive ones. Somehow. Every time.

And then comes the part I will credit him for, because intellectual honesty demands it: "All he asked was that we love thy neighbor — not just our Christian neighbors, not just our straight neighbors, not just our male neighbors, not just our white neighbors, not just our rich neighbors. We are called to love all of our neighbors."

He is right that Jesus commanded love of neighbor without exception. Matthew 22:39 is unambiguous. Luke 10:25-37 — the Good Samaritan — extends neighbor to include even sworn enemies. I have no quarrel with any of that.

The quarrel is that Talarico has defined "love" exclusively as political agreement with Democratic policy positions. He has defined "love of neighbor" as supporting abortion access, comprehensive gender ideology in schools, open borders, and Democratic candidates. But 1 Corinthians 13:6 defines love as something that "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth." Biblical love is not the same thing as affirmation of every preference a person holds. A physician who tells a patient the truth about a dangerous diagnosis loves that patient MORE than the physician who says only what the patient wants to hear. A parent who disciplines a child loves that child MORE than one who never says no.

If you truly love your neighbor, you tell them the truth even when it is uncomfortable. That is precisely what Talarico is NOT doing when he systematically removes everything in the biblical text that might make his target audience feel convicted.

10 — THE UNIVERSALISM PROBLEM

In his interview with Ezra Klein, Talarico stated: "I believe Christianity points to the truth. I also think other religions of love point to the same truth. I think of different religious traditions as different languages...we are all talking about the same reality."

This is a coherent worldview. It is called religious pluralism. It has been advocated by various thinkers throughout history. But it is NOT Christianity, and a seminarian knows the difference.

John 14:6: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." This is not a suggestion. This is not one road among many. This is Jesus making the most exclusive truth claim in the history of religion. CS Lewis pointed out that this claim admits of only three rational responses: Jesus was lying, Jesus was a lunatic, or Jesus is Lord. A person cannot rationally accept that Jesus "points to the truth" while simultaneously believing that other traditions point to the same truth through different means. Jesus specifically excluded that possibility with his own words.

Acts 4:12: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." This is Peter, speaking under the Holy Spirit, to Jewish leaders who desperately wanted him to soften that claim. He did not soften it.

Talarico has a right to his universalist beliefs. But he should call it what it is — universalism — rather than presenting it as an expression of authentic Christian faith. The two positions are mutually exclusive, and the man attended seminary. He knows they are mutually exclusive.

11 — THE ITCHING EARS DIAGNOSIS

2 Timothy 4:3-4 describes this phenomenon with accuracy that feels prophetic for our present moment: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

Itching ears theology. Comfort preaching. Christianity with the parts that cost you something carefully excised. Abortion support without engaging Psalm 139. Gender affirmation without engaging Genesis 1. Universalism without engaging John 14. Jesus as a prop for progressive policy goals without engaging the Jesus who said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15).

The mainline Presbyterian tradition Talarico represents has been hemorrhaging members for decades. If you want progressivism, you can get it from MSNBC or the Democratic Party. You do not need a church for it. The pews are emptying precisely because a gospel that tells you nothing you did not already believe and demands nothing you were not already willing to give is not a gospel. It is an affirmation service with communion crackers.

This is not a coincidence. It is the fruit test playing out in real time.

12 — THE TREE AND THE FRUIT

Jesus gave us the diagnostic tool. "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). Not by credentials. Not by a seminary degree. Not by the ability to weave scripture references into a campaign speech on Stephen Colbert's YouTube channel. By FRUITS.

What are the fruits of Talarico's theology?

He defends abortion while remaining conspicuously silent about Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5, and Luke 1:41-44. He opposes posting the Ten Commandments in schools while claiming to be the Christian standard-bearer in Texas. He announces that God is a verb while scripture presents a God who speaks, acts, forgives, and judges. He claims all religions of love lead to the same destination while calling himself a follower of the One who said, "I am THE way." He states that police officers were killed on January 6 in a speech that is supposed to be about truth-telling. He misquotes Hebrew grammar in a room full of people he assumes will not verify it. He misidentifies the emperor who established Christianity as Rome's state religion by 44 years.

And he has the enthusiastic endorsement of the New York Times, the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and Ezra Klein's podcast as the authentic Christian voice for Texas politics.

If the New York Times editorial board is excited about your Christianity, pause and ask yourself whether you are preaching the faith or their preferred editorial positions with a cross attached.

13 — A WORD TO THE DISCERNING

None of this means James Talarico is a bad human being. I will not say so because I do not know his heart. God does. What I am saying is that the FRAMEWORK he is operating in — Christianity as a vehicle for progressive policy, scripture as endorsement for Democratic positions, theological credentials as voter reassurance while the actual content of scripture is systematically inverted — is a framework the New Testament identifies with startling directness as dangerous.

Jude verse 3 instructs believers to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Not the faith as currently updated by seminary graduates aligned with party platforms. The faith DELIVERED. The fixed deposit. The thing that does not change with polling data or electoral calculations.

That faith includes the sanctity of unborn life. It includes the public acknowledgment of God's law. It includes the male and female distinction in creation. It includes a God who is a personal being — not a verb. It includes a Jesus who is the exclusive path to the Father, not one language among many for the same divine reality. It includes a judgment none of us will enjoy if we have spent our years calling His name in vain on campaign materials.

The warning in Matthew 7 is serious, and the fact that someone sounds pleasing and religious and educated is not a defense against it. It is, in fact, exactly the condition under which the warning applies.

The wolf does not announce itself.

Test the fruit. Read the whole book, not just the verses that support what you already believe. Read the context of the verses you do quote. Check the historical claims before using them as rhetorical foundations. And when a politician's version of Christianity looks almost exactly like his party's platform with a few verses attached — while simultaneously contradicting the exclusive truth claims, the sexual ethics, the nature of God, and the basic factual record in that same tradition — ask yourself, very carefully, which one is actually doing the driving.

Because wolves do not bark.

They bleat.

But what do I know. I am only a science teacher who still requires his students to read the PRIMARY SOURCE before presenting their conclusions — not just the parts they find politically convenient."