In other words, apopemptic to xeric

• apopemptic, adjective. Pertaining to departing; a farewell or valedictory.
• apoplectic, adjective. Of, resembling, or produced by apoplexy (a sudden loss of bodily function due to rupture of a blood vessel; a state of extreme anger); having or inclined to have apoplexy.
• diarrhea, noun. An intestinal disorder characterized by abnormal frequency and fluidity of fecal evacuations.
• grandiloquent, adjective. Language or behavior is very formal, literary, or exaggerated, as used by people when they want to seem important.
• horripilation, noun. A bristling of the hair on the skin or body (as from cold, fright, or excitement).
• incarn, verb. (Rare) To cover or invest with flesh; to cause to heal.
• incarnadine, adjective. Of a fleshy pink color; blood-red.
• incarnation, noun. The union of divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ (and other definitions).
• incondite, adjective. Badly-arranged, ill-composed, crude, rough, or unrefined.
• jejune, adjective. Not interesting; dull; devoid of significance.
• logorrhea, noun. Excessive talkativeness; (Medical) an excessive and often uncontrollable flow of words.
• luxurious, adjective. Characterized by luxury (sumptuous living, delicacy, elegance); ministering or conducive to luxury.
• multiloquent, adjective. Excessively talkative; loquacious.
• nidus, noun. A nest for insects or small animals; an originating point for a phenomenon.
• pauciloquent. adjective. Using few words in speech or conversation.
• peripeteia, noun. A sudden or unexpected reversal of circumstances or situation (especially in a literary work).
• synagogue, noun. A building used for Jewish prayer, study, assembly, and reading of the Torah.
• tachyon, noun. (Physics) A hypothetical particle that travels faster than the speed of light.
• unmissable, adjective. Something so good that it should not be missed.
• usufruct, noun. The right of enjoying the advantages derivable from the use of something that belongs to another (ūsus, use + frūctus, fruit).
• uxorious, adjective. Doting upon, foolishly fond of, or affectionately submissive toward one’s wife.
• whiffler, noun. One who frequently shifts opinion, attitude, course, or interest; an officer or other person who clears the way before a procession by blowing a horn.
• xenagogue, noun. (Archaic). A guide for strangers or foreigners.
• xeric, adjective. Characterized by dry conditions.

Settling of a Minister

Chapter 5. Of Settling a Minister. From A Treatise of Church Discipline, Samuel Jones (1735-1814). Lexington: T. Anderson, 1805.

5. In settling a minister, having appointed a time and place, and invited a council from one or two of the neighbouring churches to assist, and to witness the transaction, one of the ministers, after praying and singing should preach a suitable sermon. Then he, or another of the council, is to put such questions to the minister to be settled, and to the representative of the church appointed for that purpose, as will draw from each of them promises to fulfil their respective parts of the covenant and agreement between them, upon which he pronounces him, in the presence of God and of the whole assembly, to be the pastor and overseer of that church, and said church to be his flock and charge. Then the settled minister and representative of the church give each other the right hand of fellowship, with expressions of mutual joy and congratulation.

6. After this a charge should be delivered to the settled minister, Col. iv. 19. [sic.] and his church; and then, prayer, singing, and a benediction, will close the service.

7. The transactions of the day, and particularly the terms of agreement between the settled minister and the church, should be entered at large on the records of the church.

8. Some may say, that so much formality in the business, with witnesses, is unnecessary, and that a private agreement between the parties is sufficient. But as a public form of marriage is indispensable; so the above is expedient and useful, as might be shewn were it necessary.

Based on my personal observations, black Baptist churches in East Texas follow this practice (at least generally, if not exactly) and white Baptist churches in East Texas do not.

Defining Heretic

Titus 3:10-11 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

In modern times, in modern religious circles, and in modern Bibles, “an heretick” has been downgraded to a divisive person. Mark Ward wants the word to be one of his false friends. An heretic is a schismatic, but particularly so in Christian context due to being divisive in not holding the faith once delivered to the saints. An heretic is not merely someone who is honestly mistaken about some matters concerning the Scriptures, but one who holds heterodox views and separates the saints over them.

Around circa AD 180 Irenaeus of Lyons used the term heretic (in context of Titus 3:10) in reference to those he considered “corrupters of the truth” (Against Heresies, Book III.3.4.). The word would continue in that way, with that understanding.

Rowland Taylor (1510-1555) was a religious reformer in England during the reign of Queen Mary I. He opposed Catholic teachings, including the celibacy of priests, transubstantiation, and concomitation. On March 26, 1554, he was arrested for heresy because he was spreading the word of God in public. He was killed and burned at the stake on February 9, 1555.

Taylor is referenced in John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (1610, p. 1383). Taylor, writing on the brink of execution, spoke of heresy and heretics in this way:

“It is heresie to defend any doctrine against the holy Scripture. Therefore the Lord Chauncellor and Bishops consenting to his sentence against mee, be heretickes. For them have given sentence against the marriage of Priests, knowing that S. Paul to Timothie and Titus writeth plainely, that bishops, priests, and deacons, may be married…

“My second cause why I was condemned an heretick is, that I denied Transubstantiation and Concomitation, two ingling words of the papists, by the which they do beleeve and will compell all other to beleeve that Christs naturall body is made of bread, and the Godhead by and by to bee joined thereunto…”

Definition of Hereticke in a 1622 dictionary

If you think Jesus got it wrong

...you have got it wrong.

A number of years ago I wrote about the following text (see below), because an author on the liberal ABP (now Baptist New Global) ditched the view of Jesus as the sinless Son of God for a view of Jesus the racist sinner who might be gradually learning better.

Pulpit & Pen Discernment Ministries has recently brought this text and issue back to my attention. On their Facebook page on August 19, they posted a “trans preacher” from the Presbyterian Church USA accusing Jesus of wrong-doing in his treatment of the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15). “I want to assure you Jesus can be wrong...He’s wrong, absolutely wrong…” They followed that up on August 20 showing a United Methodist “pastor” accusing Jesus of ethnic prejudice in a “text that has made preachers squirm for ages.” The main reason these liberal preachers must squirm is because they shrink their coverage of Bible “truth” to what Jesus says, but then must subjugate what Jesus says to fit their own predetermined moral codes. When Jesus says something that violates their notions, it is he that they think is wrong rather than they themselves!!

For that reason, I am reposting my earlier writing about this text.

A collated reading of Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30.

Then Jesus arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid; For a certain woman of Canaan [the woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation], whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came out of the same coasts and came and fell at his feet: and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But Jesus answered and said unto her: Let the children first be filled. It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she said, Yes. Truth, Lord: yet the dogs under their masters’ table eat of the children’s crumbs which fall from the table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.

The above is a collated or combined reading of Matthew and Mark from the King James Bible. I hope no one is troubled by it. The intent is to not to create a new version, but just to get the full description from both the historical accounts while saving a little space.

Many people find this story problematic when they first encounter it. To call this woman a dog and refuse to help her? Where else is one so rebuked by Christ for coming to him? For some it is only problematic to their understanding, for they believe God is sovereign and what he does is right regardless of whether they understand it. For some it is problematic to their faith, for they presuppose certain things are right and then judge that God’s actions must fit into their concepts of right and wrong.

Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan his work in vain;
God is his own interpreter,
And he will make it plain. (William Cowper)

Notes on the text.

a woman of Canaan...The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation. Some critics have complained about the tri-fold description, while themselves using such descriptions for others. The three descriptors may be nationality (Syro-Phenician, as opposed to Lybo-Phenician for example), religion (Greek, heathen, of a different religion) and “race” (Canaan; or just that she resided in the regions called Canaan).

would have no man know it: but he could not be hid. Here speaks the language of accommodation; the language of God as man; anthropomorphism, the perception of human qualities in divine beings. This is how it appeared from all human recognition and understanding.

a woman of Canaan...came out of the same coasts. If Jesus went into the land of Tyre and Sidon, this appears to be the only time he went into Gentile territory. In my opinion, it is more consistent with the text and the “limit” of his mission that he only went very near to the border of that land, but was still in the land of Israel. The woman came out of the coasts/borders of Tyre and Sidon and came to Jesus. As Jesus needed to go through Samaria, so he deliberately placed himself in this woman’s vicinity.

his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away. At first Jesus answered not a word (cf. John 8:6). Her continual crying brought the disciples distress. Whether they wished her sent away full or empty it is not clear, but sent away nevertheless! She crieth after us. She bothers us. She annoys us. She brings us too much attention.

I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This first address of Jesus is to the disciples rather than the woman. They were involved in this limited sending (cf. Matthew 10:5) so should be aware of it. Hidden from them was what Simeon saw in the babe in the Temple (cf. Luke 2:3). Jesus’ answer silenced the disciples, but not the woman. We ought always to pray, and not to faint.

Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. Strong in faith, nothing doubting. Instead of being perplexed with doubts, by faith throw yourself at Jesus feet for mercy, “Lord, help me.” So will I go in unto the king, and if I perish, I perish (but I will perish there; cf. Esther 4:16).

It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. To be more offended than the woman is to not have a proper view of the helper, to not have an importunate need, and to be more set on fault-finding than truth-finding. If a 21st century reader is more offended than the “offended party,” then he or she lacks the great faith that resided in that party. Jesus was “Lord” when she asked for help and still “Lord” after he seemed to refuse it. Jesus’ answer was devastating, but not derogatory; trying but yet the truth. Those who deserve nothing will appreciate anything. “Behind a frowning providence, he hides a smiling face.”

And she said, Yes. Truth, Lord. The humble acknowledgement of the importunate. Complain on, O complainer. Deny on, O disbeliever. BUT this woman says “TRUTH!”

the dogs under their masters’ table eat of the children’s crumbs. (These dogs were household pets, not wild scavengers; pets that were near the children under the master’s table (cf Luke 16:21). Something in what Jesus said and how he said it dropped a crumb of hope for the helpless woman. Under the Master’s table a glimmering faith picked up the crumb and cherished it. I shall not be sent away empty for there is enough in the Father’s house and to spare (cf. Luke 15:17).

O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. His purposes will ripen fast, Unfolding every hour. Does the text not reveal why He came to the borders of Tyre and Sidon. The disciples understood a get-away. But the woman who heard He was there got what she wanted.

And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. The bud may have a bitter taste, But sweet will be the flower. The healing was immediately accomplished.

And when she was come to her house, she found... The immediate healing of the daughter was first viewed by the mother on her arrival, though she doubted it not.

Concluding thoughts.

Instead of complaining and condemning, hawing and hemming, and explaining away the Lordship of Christ, realize God moves in mysterious ways; His ways are not our ways (cf. Isaiah 55:8). The Syrophenician woman caught a crumb many theologians have missed!

Jesus commended the woman’s faith. Jesus cured the woman’s daughter. Surely she could not have hoped for more.

Hymn by William Cowper.

God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants his footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never failing skill
He treasures up his bright designs
And works his sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust him for his grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.

Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan his work in vain;
God is his own interpreter,
And he will make it plain.

The wolf cometh

The Apostle Paul did not admonish his readers to focus solely on their ethics. He also admonished them to watch their doctrine, and to understand that the two cannot be disaggregated. Kindness is a genuine Christian virtue. It is not sufficient. A kind heretic is still a heretic. A man who speaks about Jesus with warmth while denying the moral order that Christ himself affirmed is not a Christian statesman. He is a wolf in a very well-pressed suit (Matt. 7:15).

Andrew T. Walker

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

There’ll Be No Sorrow There

I woke up this morning feeling fine. I woke up with heaven on my mind. I wrote that Wednesday morning, July 22nd. It was not a rhetorical flourish, but I literally had this hymn on my mind when I awoke, particularly the chorus, “In heaven above where all is love, there’ll be no sorrow there.”

1. Oh, sing to me of heav’n,
When I am called to die,
Sing songs of holy ecstasy,
To waft my soul on high.

2. When cold and sluggish drops
Roll off my marble brow,
Burst forth in strains of joyfulness,
Let heav’n begin below.

3. When the last moments come,
Oh, watch my dying face,
And catch the bright, seraphic gleam,
Which on each feature plays.

4. Then to my ravished ear
Let one sweet song be giv’n,
Let music charm me last on earth,
And greet me first in heav’n.

5. Then close my sightless eyes,
And lay me down to rest,
And clasp my cold and icy hands
Across my peaceful breast.

6. Then ’round my senseless clay
Assemble those I love,
And sing of heav’n, delightful heav’n,
My glorious home above.

Chorus:
There’ll be no sorrow there,
There’ll be no sorrow there;
In heav’n above, where all is love,
There’ll be no sorrow there.

Additional choruses:

O may we meet in heav’n,
The Christians’ happy home;
In heav’n above where all is love,
There’ll be no parting there.

Amen, amen, amen,
Amen, amen, amen;
Praise God, praise God, praise God, praise God,
Praise God, praise God, Amen!

There’ll be much sorrow there,
There’ll be much sorrow there;
In hell below, where all is woe,
There’ll be much sorrow there.

Mrs. Mary Shindler was a significant 19th century American Christian hymnwriter. She published hymn books, including The Southern Harp in 1840 and The Northern Harp in 1841. One of her hymns still found in popular 20th century hymnals (such as The Broadman Hymnal and The National Baptist Hymnal) has 4 lines inscribed on her tombstone:

     Flee as a bird to your mountain,
     Thou who art sick of sin;
     Go to the clear flowing fountain,
     Where you may wash and be clean

Mary Stanley Bunce Palmer was born in Beaufort, South Carolina, February 15, 1810. She was the daughter of Mary Bunce and Benjamin Morgan Palmer, a Congregational Church pastor at Beaufort. In 1835 Mary married Charles W. Dana of New York, and they moved to Iowa in 1839. After her husband and two year-old son died of cholera that summer, she returned to Beaufort.

In May 1848 Mary married Robert Doyne Shindler, an Episcopal clergyman. Sometime after the Civil War, Robert and Mary moved to Texas. He served as a school teacher in San Augustine and rector of Christ Episcopal Church in Nacogdoches. He died in 1874.

Mary Shindler lived with her son and daughter-in-law R. C. and Anna Mary Shindler until her death on February 8, 1883, in Nacogdoches, Texas. She is buried in the historic Oak Grove Cemetery near downtown Nacogdoches.

Writings include:

• The Southern Harp (Boston, 1840)
• The Northern Harp (New York, 1841)
• The Parted Family, and other Poems (1842)
• The Temperance Lyre (1842)
• Charles Morton, or the Young Patriot (1843)
• The Young Sailor (1844)
• Forecastle Tour (1844)
• Letters to Relatives and Friends on the Trinity (1845)

The above hymn have been set to several tunes. In The Sacred Harp, it is used with the tune Sing To Me Of Heaven (page 312), arranged by John Massengale. In Favorite Songs and Hymns, it is paired with There’ll Be No Sorrow There (No. 219) by C. R. Dunbar.[i] The hymn is also paired with a tune in the oral tradition, composer unknown (See There’ll Be No Sorrow There, sung by Myra Dalton).

---

[i] According to Find-A-Grave, Charles Raymond Dunbar was originally buried at Broderick Cemetery (Union County, Ohio) in 1895, then moved to Oakdale Cemetery in 1928.

In other words, various ologies

• –ology, –logy - A suffix indicating the science of or the study of; from the Greek term “logos” meaning word, saying, principle.

• Anthropology, noun. The study of the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind.
• Archaeology, noun. The study of ancient or historic peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, etc.
• Bibliology, noun. The study of the doctrine and nature of the Christian Bible as the word of God; also the study of Biblical literature.
• Biology, noun. The study of of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena.
• Christology, noun. The study of the person, nature, and work of Jesus Christ.
• Cosmology, noun. The branch of study dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe.
• Ecclesiology, noun. The study of the nature and organization of the Christian Church.
• Epistemology, noun. The branch of philosophy that investigates the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge.
• Eschatology, noun. The branch of theology dealing with last things, such as death, immortality, resurrection, judgment, and the end of the world.
• Etymology, noun. The derivation of a word; the study of historical linguistic change, especially as manifested in individual words.
• Geology, noun. The study of the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, etc.
• Hagiology, noun. The branch of literature dealing with the lives and legends of the saints.
• Hamartiology, noun. The study of the nature, origin, and consequences of sin.
• Kinesiology, noun. The study of the mechanics and anatomy of human muscles, especially with respect to movement.
• Martyrology, noun. The branch of knowledge dealing with the study of the lives and history of martyrs; a list of martyrs.
• Missiology, noun. The science or study of missions (especially, the practice of evangelizing across cultures).
• Neology, noun. The study or holding of novel religious views; a new doctrine or new method of theological interpretation.
• Ontology, noun. The study of the human mind and the reasons for people’s behavior.
• Ornithology, noun. The study of birds.
• Pathology, noun. The study of diseases.
• Patriology, noun. The study of God, specifically focusing on the person of the Father within the Trinity.
• Philology, noun. The study of linguistics; or of literary texts and of written records, especially to establish their authenticity and their original form.
• Pneumatology. noun. The study of the person and work of the Holy Spirit.
• Psychology, noun. The study of the mind or of mental states and processes.
• Sacramentology, noun. The systematic study of the sacraments within Christian theology, focusing on their nature, significance, and function.
• Sociology, noun. The study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society
• Soteriology, noun. The study of the divine accomplishment of the salvation of humanity; especially or specifically, in Christian theology, the study of salvation as effected through Jesus Christ.
• Teleology, noun. The study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature; or, of final causes; or, in Christian studies, the study of God’s design and purpose for the world and all that he created in it.
• Thanatology, noun. The study of death and its surrounding circumstances (as in forensic medicine), or the study of the effects of death and dying.
• Theology, noun. The study of the nature of God and of religion and religious beliefs.
• Zoology, noun. The study of animals, including their classification, structure, physiology, and history.

Oceanfront property

2025 Revision Committee: “We used a blind selection process to select songs for a new revision of our book. Coincidentally, we just happened to blindly pick two songs by two composers whose two other songs in the 1991 book we wanted to remove; and so we swapped them out.”

Me: “Yes. And I have some oceanfront property for sale in Arizona.”

Oleaginous Politician, Heretic Extraordinaire

James Talarico.

At the end of June, I wrote briefly about Ken Paxton and James Talarico. I stated that hoped to eventually get around to posting a fuller exposure of his heresies. I found that to be a very extensive subject, in which one can become bogged quickly and deeply.

Who is James Talarico?

James Talarico is a 37-year-old former school teacher, a Texas politician serving in the state House of Representatives, a Presbyterian seminarian (Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary),[i] and apparently a so-called minister (or ministerial candidate) in the Presbyterian Church USA.[ii] He was born May 17, 1989, in Round Rock, Texas, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives from that area (District 50) in 2018.[iii] He is now the Democratic nominee running for the U.S. Senate in the November 2026 election, facing Republican nominee Ken Paxton (and several other “minor” candidates). He defeated U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary.

What does he believe?

James Talarico presents himself to the world, the state, and the electorate as a Christian.[iv] So, what does he believe?

Salvation is not in Christ Alone.

In Christ alone who took on flesh;
Fullness of God in helpless babe.
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones he came to save;
’Til on that cross as Jesus died
The wrath of God was satisfied;
For ev’ry sin on him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live. (Keith Getty and Stuart Townend)

James Talarico’s “Christian” beliefs were formulated under radical social gospel pastor Jim Rigby in the ultra-liberal St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in the liberal PCUSA denomination. He does not believe Jesus is the only way of salvation, but that “other religions of love point to the same truth. I think of different religious traditions as different languages. So, you and I could sit here and debate what to call this cup and you could call it a cup in English. You’d call it something else in Spanish and French. But we are all talking about the same reality. I believe Jesus Christ reveals that reality to us. But I also think that other traditions reveal that reality in their own ways with their own symbol structures. And I’ve learned more about my tradition by learning more about Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and Judaism. And so, I see these beautiful faith traditions as circling the same truth about the universe, about the cosmos.”[v]

His “faith journey.”

Talarico shared his “faith journey” on the “Holy Post Podcast.” In sync with his inclusivist soteriological view, it is a social “faith journey,” with no testimony of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.

“My granddad was a Baptist preacher uh in South Texas in the town of Laredo, which is right on the Texas Mexico border. And you know he very much instilled in me when I was younger that Christianity is a simple religion, not an easy religion. He would always clarify; but a simple religion because Jesus gave us those two commandments to love God and love neighbor. And so that the greatest commandment was kind of my initial understanding of this religion that I grew up in. And I think it’s that commitment to love my neighbors is what moved me toward public service. First, as a public-school teacher on the west side of San Antonio and now as a state legislator. (Moderator, Skye Jethani: was there ever a time growing up where you were, despite your grandfather’s positive influence, no doubt, where you were second-guessing this, contemplating not committing to a Christian faith, moving into a different direction?) [Talarico:] You know, I didn’t. And I’m kind of like the kid in the group who had healthy parents with a good marriage growing up and like I don’t have all the same trauma that a lot of my peers do. Not only was my granddad a positive influence, but I was so blessed to grow up in an incredible church that I actually still belong to today, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. I’ll give them a shout out on here – led by our pastor, Reverend Dr. Jim Rigby. Dr. Jim, as I grew up calling him. And he baptized me when I was two years old. He actually performed the marriage ceremony between my parents with me standing right there next to them. And he was he really took that idea of loving God and loving neighbor to its logical conclusion which is social action and activism. And so, you know, I grew up in a very socially active church. My first protest I ever went to was with my fellow congregants outside the Texas Governor’s Mansion when I was in fourth grade. It was after James Bird and Matthew Shepard had been killed in 1998. And it was a protest for hate crimes legislation in the state of Texas. Later, I joined protests against the Iraq war when I was in middle school again with the members of my church; and you know our church has kind of been known for causing good trouble. We ordained gay and lesbian clergy in the 1990s, which again doesn’t seem like it would be as controversial in 2025 but in the 1990s it was it almost ripped our church apart. In fact, Dr. Jim was put on trial by the Presbyterian Church, by our denomination. And thankfully, we were able to defend ourselves and hold on to our church. But that didn’t stop him from causing more trouble. He allowed an open atheist to join our congregation in the 2000s. He then in the 2010s provided sanctuary to an undocumented mother and son fleeing violence in Guatemala and who were threatened by ICE with deportation. That mom and that son are still living in our church today, almost ten years later. So, I just I was so lucky that I was brought up in a church that really understood what kind of the radical dangerous love of Jesus Christ means, in the United States of America and I feel like that was a gift that not a lot of people are given.”[vi]

Salvation through social justice.

“Matthew 25 tells us exactly how we’re going to be judged and how we’re going to be saved. By feeding the hungry, by healing the sick, by welcoming the stranger (which is more timely now than it’s ever been before). There’s nothing in Matthew 25 about reading your Bible. There’s nothing about going to church. There’s nothing about being a good Christian. It is all about how you treat other people. And so I’ve met a lot of people from different faith traditions, people who aren’t religious at all, who embody that teaching better than some of the really loud Christians that we have in public office.”[vii]

Things become clear that Talarico is depending on good works for salvation and not Jesus Christ himself. Good works are salvation, not just the fruit of it, and so people in all faith traditions – or not at all – can be saved by doing good deeds (at least the good deeds Talarico and the progressive left deem correct). Yet the Bible records, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). If every religion leads to God and salvation, then Jesus’s death on the cross was an unnecessary and drastic mistake!

God is “non-binary.”

Texas State Representative James Talarico said the following during debate on transgender legislation in the Texas House in 2021: “God is non-binary.” He made the following remarks during a Texas House Public Education Committee hearing, saying, “modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes; in fact, there are six. …I want us to all be aware of recognize [sic] is that modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes. In fact, there are six. … The point is that biologically speaking, scientifically speaking, sex is a spectrum, and oftentimes can be very ambiguous.[viii] He also said that “The first two lines of the Bible, the first two lines in Genesis, use two different Hebrew words to describe God. One is the masculine Hebrew noun for divinity. The second is the feminine Hebrew noun for spirit. God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is non-binary.”

Realize that Talarico is not merely saying that God is not a human like we are. He is using “non-binary” in a “genderqueer” context discussing people who identify with a mix of genders, no gender, or a fluctuating gender. Bible-believers don’t need James Talarico’s nonsense to tell us what we already knew, that God is not male or female in the human sense. We already knew that, and knew it by actually believing the Bible, unlike James Talarico. Additionally, Talarico is being deceptive about the use of Hebrew words, which – if he actually knows Hebrew – he knows that, unlike English, has “gender” nouns that are part of its grammar, irrespective of actual gender in human terms. Like Spanish (which some of you know) nouns – including people, places, animals, things, even ideas and feelings – have a gender (male or female). For Talarico to use Genesis 1 as he did is deceptive (Revelation 12:9). And none of his blather changes the fact that God made man male and female (Genesis 1:27). To use a deranged image of God as a “mascot” for gender confusion is demonic. Running on a larger stage, Talarico has later tried to clarify that he just meant that God transcends human gender categories.[ix] Again, we knew that before he started (Isaiah 46:9). When he made this “clarification,” he actually contradicted his original use of trying to use God to define human gender categories!! What is most clear is that James Talarico is quite willing to twist Scripture to try to make it “walk on all fours” to support his radical religious and political views.

Transgender men need abortion rights too.

“This summer, more than half our population became second-class citizens. Every one of our neighbors with a uterus became the property of the state. And nothing – nothing – is more unchristian than that. Before we go further, I want to acknowledge that our trans community needs abortion care, too. Defending trans Texans is something we have to do every day at the state capital. And you better believe I’ll be giving sermons on that, too. (Laughter) So, when I use the word woman, it should not be understood as an exhaustive term but rather as a lens through which to understand, examine, and interrogate patriarchy.”[x]

What contradictory nonsense! “Every one of our neighbors with a uterus became the property of the state,” but oh, wait, those who don’t have a uterus are women too!! In summary, James Talarico believes that abortion is a moral right, Genital mutilation (“changing sexes”) is also a moral right, “changing sexes” is possible, “changing sexes” is good, Ttanssexuals need the right kill their babies in the womb – and these views are important to be preached at “church.”

Worst Mariology yet.[xi]

In the James Talarico version of politics and religion, the virgin birth becomes a promo for abortion.

“Jesus didn’t just come from a woman, Jesus came from a revolutionary. Mary’s story is possibly my favorite story in all of scripture. An unwed peasant girl living under an oppressive empire brings God into the world, and when she does she sings a song of revolution. She says her act of creation will scatter the proud, bring rulers down from their Throne, lift up the lowly, feed the hungry, and send the rich away empty. She says her act of creation will bring freedom into the world. But if her act is to bring freedom it has to be done freely. So, in the story we just read together the angel of God tells Mary that she, a powerless woman, will bring the power of the universe into existence. And then Mary in what may be the first recorded verbal consent in human history, says ‘Behold I am the Lord’s servant, let it be done to me as you say.’ Let it be done. Let It Be. ‘And I find myself in times of trouble Mother Mary comes to me speaking words of wisdom Let It Be.’ (49:53) We only have Jesus because a woman consented to creating him.”[xii]

“Mary is probably my favorite figure in the Bible; the mother of Jesus and, you know, she is an oppressed peasant teenage girl living in poverty under an oppressive empire as a Jew. And she has a vision from God that she’s going to give birth to a baby who’s going to bring the powerful down from their thrones, going to scatter the proud, who’s going to send the rich away empty. I mean, this this revolutionary song that she sings, it’s called the Magnificat. It’s actually been banned by certain authoritarian regimes because it is so radical.”[xiii]

 “I say all this in terms of, in context of abortion because before God comes over Mary and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary’s consent – which is remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in Luke. I mean, the angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do, and she says, ‘If it is God’s will, let it be done. Let it be. Let it happen.’ So, to me that is an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent.”

“You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that we engage in as human beings. But that has to be done with consent. It has to be done with freedom. And to me that is absolutely consistent with the ministry and life and death of Jesus. And so that’s why I that’s how I come down on that side of the issue [i.e., abortion, rlv].”[xiv]

Lies, misrepresentations, and more lies. “I mean,” yes, surely, go back and read this in Luke. Please do! Read Luke 1:26-38. The angel Gabriel appears to Mary, a virgin. What you will find: The angel declares, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” What you will not find: He does not ask, “Um, are you willing let God use you to bring forth a son and call his name Jesus?”

There are over sixty English Bible translations on BibleGateway.com. None of them – even the most liberal translations – render this as anything but an announcement to Mary. There is no question. Now consider further, his conclusion, based on a false premise about God, is that “creation has to be done with consent.” In the initial creation, did God get consent from anyone other than himself? No. However, Talarico goes on to morph out of the idea of creation and into the idea of destruction. So, he believes, that if “creation” of a life is not done with consent, then consent to destruction of a life follows. This is demonic theology.

Resurrection or reincarnation, what’s the dif?

“And then the last step is resurrection. that something new and beautiful rises from those ashes. So those three things, incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, that’s the pattern of the universe. Again, just take religion out of it for a second. Let’s just think like a physicist or a biologist. Creation, destruction, recreation. I mean, that is the story of the physical universe. It’s the story of our lives, right? That we are all headed toward a brick wall at the end of this, right? There is birth, death, rebirth. Hindus would say reincarnation. Right? This pattern of reality is something that’s recognized across traditions. I say all this in response to your question because all of us in our faith start off with order, disorder, and then reorder. If we get to the that last step, all of us kind of inherited a faith from our parents. It was usually pretty stable. We didn’t ask any questions. And it was comforting, right? You were childish in the best in the best sense of that word, innocent. You grow up, you have experiences, you meet new people, you’re exposed to new ideas. Suddenly, you start to question all those things that you were taught. And now you have disorder, disillusionment, right? That maybe what I was told wasn’t real. Maybe there’s maybe ‘this isn’t right.’ Maybe I’ve got to question everything. And that’s healthy. and essential. You need that crucifixion to break apart what was there before. That third step of resurrection, reincarnation, rebirth, reorder, however you want to describe it. To me, it feels like that’s what we’re on the precipice of.”[xv]

What confusing subjective mumbo jumbo! However you want to describe it. It’s all relative. If you’re a Christian, call it resurrection. If you’re a Hindu, call it reincarnation. Believe whatever you want to believe (as long as you vote to the left). In this context, Talarico also made the crucifixion not an act of Jesus coming into the world to die to save mankind, but rather Jesus being crucified “because he confronts the powerful is executed on a cross a humiliating death along with other criminals.”[xvi] He says the same kind of thing in an interview with James Carville and Al Hunt: “…when people were hurting his neighbors, he walked into the seat of power and he flipped over the tables of injustice. That was a powerful example of nonviolent direct-action protest and it’s what got him killed.”[xvii] Talarico’s theology of Jesus’s death is not that he died for the sins of the world, but that he was a revolutionary who confronted the wealth and power of the elite, and was killed because of that.

God not really God.

He is just whatever is the ground of your own being, whatever you choose to believe. On Joe Rogan’s podcast, Talarico said, “You can burn out if it’s not sustained by that love of God. And again, I don’t mean God as that word is charged for a lot of people. I don’t mean like a sectarian religious orthodoxy definition. I just mean that ground of your being, whatever that is.”[xviii]

What did he do?

In politics.

In running for statewide office, Talarico especially touts his accomplishments in the areas of education, juvenile justice, and healthcare – particularly emphasizing those most likely to sit well with a wider audience. For example, he sponsored legislation to cap insulin costs at $25 per month.[xix]

James Talarico is one of the signed-on authors of House Bill 1044 (2025) “relating to persons authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony.”[xx] Though an officer authorized by any religious group may already perform marriages in Texas, only Christian ministers and Jewish rabbis are specifically mentioned by name. This bill proposes to add, Buddhist monk or priest; Hindu pundit; Muslim imam; Sikh granthi. This bill is primarily a bill of “political correctness” that does not actually change anything, and sits well with Talarico’s ecumenical views.

He is the author of House Joint Resolution 204 (2025) “proposing a constitutional amendment prohibiting the legislature from restricting an individual’s access to abortion and related health care.”[xxi] This is followed up by House Bill 5310 (2025) “repeal of certain laws regulating abortion and the construction of abortion statutes.”[xxii] These were introduced, but did not pass.

In general, Talarico is known for left-leaning progressive policy positions, supporting them with appeals to “Christian faith,” and progressive positions regarding gender and religion. Any with a mind to do so can spend time on the House web site searching for legislation that James Talarico has written or co-sponsored.

In life.

In life you can say one thing and do another. All of us do this at some time or another. In “Politics War Room with James Carville and Al Hunt,” James Talarico was out front with it as part of his schtick. First, James Carville said, “I mean, you’re supposed to sell everything.” Talarico agreed, “That’s right.” Carville continued, “and go out and live amongst the poor.” And Talarico agreed again, “That’s right.” Finally, Talarico doubles down on Jesus saying this to us (though Jesus didn’t say it to all, us, he said it to one man). He explains, “Jesus told us to sell all our possessions and give the money to the poor. I have a home. I have stuff. I got a car. I got a pickup truck that I like. You know, I got my cell phone. Yeah. I got my Blazer. So, like I said, I’m not living up to the radical teachings of Jesus Christ.”[xxiii]

Like everyone else, what James Talarico does will not always line up with what he says. Nevertheless, he rides high on the condemnation of those to the right of him, often saying such things as “I have met so many Hindus, Buddhists, Sikh, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, who are more Christlike than some of the Christians I serve with in the Texas legislature.”[xxiv] Quite a judgment from the “judge not” crowd – and dripping underneath with “I am holier than thou” contempt, even though he as well does not practice what he preaches!

Where is he now?

Vegan to BBQ in 57.36.

Talarico was a meat eater before he was a vegan, so he says. He now loves Texas BBQ.[xxv] In an earlier House campaign stop, in April 2022 while speaking to the Texas Humane Legislation Network, he talked about animal welfare and climate control (apparently because when cows “break wind” it causes global warming), and then said, “It is now existential that we try to reduce our meat consumption and that we try to respect animals in all aspects of society. I am proud to say our campaign has officially become a non-meat campaign. [Crowd cheers.] So, we are only buying vegan products from our local vegan businesses.”

Rather than bother to explain himself to thinking people in a way that makes sense of this contradiction, Talarico expects us to just laugh and move on. Answering the “vegan charge,” he quipped, “I’ve been eating BBQ since before Ken Paxton’s first indictment.” [Now, everybody, laugh on cue.] I’ve heard him say this a number of times (such as in a campaign stop in Nacogdoches, in the May 2026 interview with the liberal political group MeidasTouch, et al.). The joke does not explain the contradiction. It is a “Wizard of Oz” moment, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The candidate wants to be “non-meat” when speaking to animal rights groups and “all-BBQ” when speaking to the average Texan.

To protect or not protect.

One really weird aspect of the campaign has been discussion of whether or not James Talarico has a girlfriend. Lots of yapping about that, but here is something that stood out to me. In a puff interview with Jamie Kern Lima, Talarico said he had a girlfriend but he was keeping her behind the scenes because “there’s just so many attacks coming at me, coming at my team…what I’m trying to do is protect her.”[xxvi] Within a couple of weeks, he revealed who she was. So much for protection, I suppose. Politics reigns supreme.

Campaign finance reform, or not.

“Here are the megadonors and dark money groups boosting James Talarico’s anti-billionaire Senate bid.” Talarico runs a campaign against billionaires – “I’ve led the fight against the billionaire mega-donors that have rigged the system against working Texas families” – but gladly takes money from those who want to support him.[xxvii] Hypocrisy much?

These are some brief examples of how Talarico seems not to be able to maintain a stable position – but thinks we should not wonder about the contradictions.

Conclusion.

James Talarico cloaks his political beliefs in spiritual rhetoric. He talks a lot about Jesus, but he does not accept the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible that Jesus wrote. The biblical positions he presents are biblical nonsense. So far as I know, James Talarico has not issued any statement on what he believes about the inspiration, accuracy, and inerrancy of the Bible. It is highly unlikely that his belief varies far from that of his pastor, Jim Rigby, who believes that the Bible is a patchwork of fragments that are impossible to reconcile, “a wonderful and horrifying diary of a people trying to figure out the meaning of it all.”[xxviii] This approach leaves folks to pick and choose the parts they like and dismiss the rest. Yet Talarico tries to nuance and parse his words to suggest he yields to the authority of the Bible. He may say that every verse of Scripture should be interpreted through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, or that the Bible points us to Christ and that Christ is our final authority. This may sound Christian or biblical to the uninitiated. It may sound like it makes Jesus the standard. However, it is a form of “Red Letter Christianity” that talks about Jesus Christ as the final authority, but rather makes the one doing talking the final authority! Jesus said Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Oh, no, we can’t have that. Jesus said Jonah was in the belly of a whale? Certainly that can’t be! Jesus only appointed male apostles? Away with such an idea! Wait, Jesus said something about “love” or “judge not” or “social justice.” Yes, that is what we are looking for. We’ll run with that. Talarico’s bizarre claims include: God is non-binary, there are six biological sexes, transgender men need abortion rights, Jesus was a feminist, Mary was a revolutionary and a poster child for “bodily autonomy,” the teachings of Jesus do not cover homosexuality or abortion, the Gospel of Thomas was “later omitted from the Bible,” and salvation is not only through Jesus Christ, but all faith traditions lead to salvation (though believers know that Jesus said, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins”). Over and over again, James Talarico’s views, judged by the Bible that Jesus wrote, are heretical! Oddly, he charges others to the right with being Christian nationalists, but he also wants a “Christian nation” – just so long as it implements his version of what is “Christian.”

I must close. James Talarico talks so much that it would take a book to address all he has said. Leading up to the November general election, some folks assert that Talarico has recanted or retracted a number of his past statements. It is true that he has tried to “walk back” some things he has said. Here is my current feeling about his recantation incantations. I do not trust politicians who govern and vote one way and then run for office another way. Until there is some proof otherwise, to me any retractions are just talk, in this case a necessary political device to help in a campaign that has gone statewide and must appeal to a different and wider range of voters that he did not need to connect with in his House races. I don’t trust a man who tries to change horses mid-stream. I will believe and act on what I believe, that his attempt to rehabilitate his views for the statewide race is the very definition of a political liar rather than an honest statesman.

James Talarico redefines God, reforms man, reinterprets Christ, rewrites the Bible, replaces the Gospel, and reveals a mutilated sterilized trans-Christian religion without salvation or a Saviour. He is not a Christian. He has invented a religion or at least accepted a religion invented by others. It is a new and different religion that cannot be called Christianity.

Galatians 1:6-9.

---

[i] The most up-to-date information I can find indicates that James Talarico earned a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in May 2025., but still enrolled at the seminary, working on a Master of Divinity degree. If any has more up-to-date information, please advise.
[ii] I could not find him in the PCUSA Minister Directory. However, he seems to present himself as a ministers, and preaches to the St. Andrews congregation.
[iii] As a representative, he currently sits on the following committees: Public Education, Juvenile Justice and Family Issues, and Calendars.
[iv] At Baptist News Global – no bastion of conservatism and actually on the progressive wing among Baptists – Joe Marlow writes that James Talarico has fallen prey to “The progressive temptation: Scripture as self‑expression… The Bible becomes a mirror for modern intuitions rather than a world that forms our desires…Talarico’s approach, like much of progressive Christianity, reverses this order. It treats Scripture as raw material for self‑expression. It collapses transcendence into sentiment. It offers comfort without conversion.” https://baptistnews.com/article/how-left-and-right-misuse-scripture-in-an-age-of-moral-confusion/
[v] January 23, 2026, interview on “The Ezra Klein Show,” 11:02:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa6fiO2EgJ4
[vi] August 27, 2925, interview on “Holy Post Podcast,” 1:02:55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB5WfvfZsK0
[vii] February 13, 2026, interview on Politics War Room with James Carville & Al Hunt, 13:06:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS51nua9Utc He also talks about Matthew 25 in his Late Show interview with Stephen Colbert (CBS, February 16, 2026, 4:58:00. “They’ve convinced a lot of our fellow Christians that the most important issues were abortion and gay marriage. Two issues that aren’t mentioned in the Bible. Two issues that Jesus never talked about. Jesus in Matthew 25 tells us exactly how you and I and every one of our fellow believers how we’re going to be judged and how we’re going to be saved. By feeding the hungry, by healing the sick, by welcoming the stranger. Nothing about going to church, nothing about voting Republican. It was all about how you treat other people.” But the Bible and Jesus do talk about marriage and sexuality. Matthew 19:4-5, he makes it very obvious what is the definition of marriage, going back to the Genesis account. Man and woman, no homosexuality. No murder, therefore no abortion (cf. Luke 17:1-2). Also notice James Talarico skips over what he does not like in Matthew 25, and focuses on what he can twist into “how we’re going to be judged and how we’re going to be saved.” If I had to guess, I suspect he does not believe in fire or everlasting punishment, mentioned in Matthew 25 (unless possibly on conservatives who vote Republican).
[viii] April 20, 2021, James Talarico these remarks during a Texas House Public Education Committee hearing regarding a bill (SB 29).
[ix] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsgLJk-HpEo
[x] October 2, 2022, message, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Wells Port Drive, Austin, Texas, 36:51:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhHPiWtIs8Q
[xi] Mariology is the branch of Christian theology dedicated to the study of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
[xii] October 2, 2022, message, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Wells Port Drive, Austin, Texas, 48:30:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhHPiWtIs8Q
[xiii] Interview on the Joe Rogan Experience # 2352, 23:11:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jOGPvMftb8
[xiv] Interview on the Joe Rogan Experience # 2352, 23:50:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jOGPvMftb8
[xv] Interview on the Joe Rogan Experience # 2352, 41:20:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jOGPvMftb8
[xvi] Interview on the Joe Rogan Experience # 2352, 41:07:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jOGPvMftb8
[xvii] Interview on Politics War Room with James Carville & Al Hunt, 11:44:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS51nua9Utc
[xviii] Interview on the Joe Rogan Experience # 2352, 46:38:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jOGPvMftb8
[xix] Talarico himself is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.
[xx] https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB1044
[xxi] https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HJR204
[xxii] https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB5310
[xxiii] February 13, 2026, interview on Politics War Room with James Carville & Al Hunt, 9:47:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS51nua9Utc This is not just a lark, but part of his rhetoric. He said the same on January 23, 2026, interview on The Ezra Klein Show: (21:12:00) “…Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor.” Apparently it is okay for Talarico to not live up to the teachings of Christ while railing on others for not living up to the teachings of Christ.
[xxiv] February 13, 2026, interview on Politics War Room with James Carville & Al Hunt, 12:39:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS51nua9Utc
[xxv] May 14, 2026, interview with Jamie Kern Lima, 57:36:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rlr3vA6F5M&t=3724s
[xxvi] May 14, 2026, interview with Jamie Kern Lima, 49:58:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rlr3vA6F5M&t=3724s
[xxvii] https://jamestalarico.com/meet-james-talarico/
[xxviii] https://www.facebook.com/groups/progressivemethodists/posts/714704058633069/; https://www.facebook.com/groups/progressivemethodists/posts/697671860336289/.