The Difference Between the Theology of James Talarico and Robert Jeffress

There have been multiple social media posts recently featuring Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, openly declaring that the Democratic party candidate for Senate from Texas, James Talarico, is not qualified because his Christian beliefs are too liberal, and therefore wrong.  Since no religious test is the constitutional requirement for any office holder in Congress, Talarico's religious beliefs, including his theology and his doctrinal position within the Christian faith is completely irrelevant to his qualifications for office, but of course, in a state full of right wing conservative Evangelicals, most of whom arrogantly think their interpretation of the Bible, which is a modern invention completely separated from thousands of years of Christian tradition and practice, is the correct one.  

This is a tactic designed to distract voters from the real issues in this election, and focus them on irrelevance so that Paxton's moral bankruptcy and criminal activity will not be noticed.  In any comparison of the character, truthfulness and integrity of the two men, Paxton, a serial adulterer, divorced from his wife due to marital infidelity, and impeached by the state legislature for criminal acts, exhibits none of those qualities while Talarico's character is unblemished and his word is as good as gold.  And it's not being judgmental to declare that any Christian who wants to turn this into a moral competition, and would support Paxton, is apostate, and is guilty of licentiousness (see Jude v 4) because that makes them an intruder in the Christian church, not a faithful member of it. 

Robert Jeffress is in Error in His Theology and Doctrine

Jeffress is a Southern Baptist, a denomination that has actually split over the theological error made by most conservative Evangelicals.  The evangelical Doctrine of Inerrancy claims that the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible were verbally inspired by God, that the words chosen by forty different authors over the thousand or so years during which it was written are without error in their original autographs.  Of course, the original autographs have long since crumbled into dust, so many Evangelicals apply the Doctrine of Preservation, which states that the translations of the Bible, particularly the King James English translation, have "preserved" the inerrant and perfect nature of the scripture.  

There is zero evidence to support this.  The Bible's writers, especially those in the New Testament, make no claim that what they were writing was equal with what they called "The Scriptures."  Any examination of the earliest manuscripts, which date back to about 700 or 800 CE, shows that there are variants in the transmission of the text, many of which are associated with different theological groups that were part of the church during those decades and centuries.  

The primary error of this belief is that it distorts interpretation of the Bible itself.  The New Testament contains the four accounts known as the "gospels," which claim to be eyewitness records of the life and teachings of Jesus.  If Jesus was, as is the claim, the Son of God whose purpose was to reveal the nature of God to humankind, then the record of his words would be the high point of all Biblical literature, both Old and New Testament.  His words, coming from the very mind of God himself, would carry a level of inspiration that is superior to all other scripture, including the prophets, the law, and the Apostolic books of the New Testament.  

The Baptist Faith and Message, the doctrinal guidelines for cooperation within the Southern Baptist denomination, once declared that Jesus was the criterion by which the rest of scripture is to be interpreted.  But the 2000 edition of that document, heavily edited by fundamentalists of Jeffress' ilk, removed Jesus as the criterion for interpreting scripture.  That leads to the errors in Biblical interpretation which constitute the vast majority of Evangelical theology, including everything that Jeffress preaches from the pulpit.  

But there is another aspect to Jeffress' approach to the Christian faith that causes me not to trust his claims to being Christian, or his calling as a pastor, at all.  

Jeffress is one of the highest profile pastors in the country who spends an inordinate amount of time defending a man who is a pathological liar, a serial adulterer who cheated on his third, and pregnant, wife with a prostitute and porn actress, a convicted rapist, and with pending criminal indictments for inciting sedition and pedophilia.  A man who has openly blasphemed the Holy Spirit by declaring that he has not committed sin that requires God's forgiveness.  Jeffress has become one of Trump's favorite pastors.  Well, birds of a feather.  

Trump has, for some reason, decided his spiritual advisor wouldn't be Jeffress, who bobbed and scurried along behind him blowing his nose and wiping is rear end to gain his favor, and chose an even bigger apostate heretic, Paula White, for this job.  That had to be a difficult pill for Jeffress to swallow without comment, as a member of the inner circle of Southern Baptist leaders who think that calling a woman a "pastor," or a "prophetess" as is the case with White, is heresy.  But there is no open criticism from these hypocrites about White, whose doctrine actually makes her church into a cult, according to any Southern Baptist pastor who could be asked.  They hypocritically give him a pass on that issue.  

So Jeffress can be critical of Talarico's theology from his pulpit every single Sunday he preaches, it does not change the fact that he is the one who is promoting doctrinal and theological error, not Talarico. 

James Talarico is Right On Target When it Comes to His Interpretation of Biblical Truth

Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. 

"Teacher," he said, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"

He said to him, "What is written in the Law? What do you read there?" 

He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."  

And he said to him, "You have given the right answer; do this and and you will live."  

I've never heard Jeffress quote this scripture or interpreted it as Talarico does frequently.  These are the words of Jesus himself, and he is saying that eternal life depends upon obedience to the two greatest commandments, which Jesus actually equated.  Love God and love your neighbor.  This is an unqualified statement which Talarico interprets correctly.  Jeffress preaches that eternal life depends upon getting doctrine correct, meaning in agreement with what he has been taught to believe.  Talarico preaches that eternal life depends upon loving God and loving one's neighbor, a belief that is demonstrated by actions.  

And loving your neighbor doesn't translate into deporting them or their family members, denying them access to health care, or to food, or taking their money and turning a profit for the rich.  Remember, Jesus told the rich young ruler that his path to eternal life required him to show his love for God by selling all his possessions and giving the money to his neighbors, the poor.  

Talarico's Christian faith is obvious and evident, not just in what he advocates as a member of the Texas legislature, or in his church ministry, but in his politics.  

So Who Should Texas Christians Trust? 

How can Robert Jeffress be trusted to tell the truth when it comes to his political bias?  That's a simple question to answer.  He's not trustworthy.  

If he were, then he would not defend either Trump or Paxton, who have rejected Christianity.  Jude, verse 4 is a very accurate description of how both of these politicians are using Christianity for their own profit and could care less about doctrine or faith.  If he cared, he wouldn't support either man, morally bankrupt and licentious intruders into Evangelicalism.  It's been easy to see how they could do this, since Evangelicalism does not stand on truth, or on love of God and love of neighbors, but on wealth, power and influence.  Immorality is an inconsequential issue, when money and power get in the way.  

So if those who want to make a religious test take that seriously, they cannot cast a ballot for Paxton without labelling themselves as apostate. 

 

What Did We Expect From a Right Wing Personality Cult?

 The Guardian: Grief, Fury, Conspiracy Inside Turning Point USA After Charlie Kirk's Killing

It was a movement built on pushing for what they defined and called "traditional values of womanhood" that turned into a political movement to provide a stage for its founder to debate political liberals.  I use the term "debate" generally, since an actual debate implies that fairness is applied to both sides and facts must be used.  Kirk was a distorter of facts, and most of the debates in which he engaged were conducted under his ground rules, making sure those who disagreed with him were at a distinct disadvantage.  

Turning Point USA had a strong connection to the more extreme right wing side of Evangelicalism, the political element more aligned with its Charismatic/Pentecostal side.  It had a set of values that it claimed, but because Kirk's primary objective was to have Trump's back, and protect him from any kind of criticism as a result of his gross moral bankruptcy and the mounting evidence of his sex and political crimes, Turning Point USA could not actually stand on its values all of the time.  And that made it hypocritical.  

A personality cult is identified as a group which demonstrates excessive public admiration for or devotion to a famous person or a political leader.  The article I posted from The Guardian is lengthy, gives a rundown of the history of Turning Point USA and Kirk's leadership, and then gives examples of how it was nothing more than a personality cult by showing what appears to be a rapid decline in interest and participation since Kirk's death.  His funeral was apparently the high point of the organization's existence.  It's been downhill since then.  

A Very Typical Pattern for Evangelical Para-Church and Political Organizations

American Evangelical Christianity is full of personality cults.  The values and principles that they preach, and claim to be promoting, derived from their own interpretation of the Bible and of what they think defines the "Christian gospel" are basically the same.  It's a very legalistic system of doctrinal conformity based on a literal interpretation of the Biblical text that ignores two thousand years of Christian history, tradition, and especially the cultural and linguistic nuances and influences on the writing of the text itself.  

American Evangelicalism's growth over the past fifty years has depended on a small cluster of personalities who turn themselves into religious celebrities with the following they gather from their media outreach.  That more or less reached a peak with Billy Graham, whose radio and then television preaching made him the single most recognizable American Evangelical in the world. Most of the others who have come along afterward, in the current megachurch movement, are imitators of his success.  

They observed that he built a media empire around his crusade meetings, and that he made a lot of money. They observed that he had the potential to use his influence with politicians, and to move his followers in a direction that potentially gave him political power.  They also observed that when he stepped down, his son used the name Graham to build his own multi-million dollar evangelistic ministry off of his father's reputation, and turned the emphasis on evangelistic ministry into right wing political influence.  Franklin Graham lost the ability to be an evangelistic influence, but he has expanded his wealth and has used his name to become a major Christian nationalist influence in the Republican party. 

Almost all of the large, Evangelical media ministries have para-church organizations they've set up to use their influence in extremist right wing politics.  There's Falwell and the Moral Majority, Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition, along with his "700 Club" that looks like a legitimate news provider.  Turning Point USA was just another one of those same kind of Evangelical religious-political organizations built, not on promoting truth, or even preaching an evangelistic Christian message, but around the personality of its founder.  

And now that its founder is gone, the organization is fracturing, fragmenting, and falling apart, because there was nothing beyond Charlie Kirk's personality to hold it together.  It's impossible to reconcile any core values claimed to be based on the Christian gospel with unqualified and unquestioned support for Donald Trump.  

And that's the hard reality Turning Point USA must now face.  

If We Do Not Defend Our Right to Vote, Then American Democracy Ends Here and Now

The allegations Trump has made about "massive voter fraud" in American elections have been one of the biggest provably false statements he has ever made.  They have also been some of the most revealing statements he's made about how he plans to rig elections as President.  Every accusation he has made about fraud and "rigging" elections is a direct clue to his plans for rigging the upcoming mid-term election.  

Of course, the claim that there has been massive voter fraud has been proven, multiple times in multiple ways, to be absolutely false.  But if you examine Trump's claims, and take a good look at what Marc Elias has has to say about how Trump is planning on rigging the midterms, you can see how the two things fit together.  Elias keeps things moving by filing lawsuits and getting courts to rule that Trump, as President, has no authority over elections.  That's slowed him down but Trump's getting things into the Supreme Court now, and all bets are off when it comes to what those renegade anti-Constitutionalists will do. 

So we, the people, those of us who know that Trump is a complete and total demagogue, and a fraud, need to support every effort made to make sure this election is neither suppressed nor stolen by Trump and his cronies.  We need to do everything we can, as small as it may seem, to make sure that the results of this election reflect the will of the people.  

What does that look like?  

I talk to my neighbors, a few of whom run now when they see me coming, because they know what I'm going to say and do.  I went to a local drugstore, bought a box with a hundred cards and envelopes, and a roll of stamps, and I send out handwritten notes to everyone on my address list, warning them of what is going on and encouraging them to take every step to make sure their ballots count.  I'm sure there are a few Trumpies on my list, but they get the point.  I know it has had some effect, because I've received notes and emails in  return, most of them thanking me for reminding them, a few of them telling me not to send them anything else.  

I've called my representative, expressed my view and offered my help.  I'll do whatever I can.  

And I will vote.  That's the most important step in this process, voting.  Because when we cast our ballot, we are disrupting the attempt to stop it.  And, knowing what we know, and being reasonably intelligent people, we will cast a ballot for those individuals who we believe will do the most to bring down Trump and his cronies and administration.  

If your state gives you the opportunity, make voting easy by simply marking the straight Democratic box on the ballot.  That makes voting easy and quick.  If you vote by mail, make sure it gets in the mail right away, or take it to the drop box for your precinct.  But make sure that ballot gets cast and counted. 

And yes, here it comes, I've made a financial contribution to the effort to stop Trump and his unconstitutional attempts to steal the election.  That's part of the effort that is also necessary.  It was a sacrifice but I did it anyway.  The corporate wealthy are going to spend whatever they think it takes to protect their own and they can buy election outcomes.  So I consider anything given money well spent. 

If the Republicans manage to maintain control of Congress under this President, we can say goodbye to American Democracy, along with a fairly regulated economy, our social security and Medicare benefits which we earned, and the life that we know now.  The country will become a hostile place for anyone who doesn't bow to the Heritage Foundation and its definition of what it means to be American.  That will be the consequence for every Trump opponent, now approaching 70% of the voters and adults in polling data, for not participating and doing everything possible to stop this demagogue.  

A Democratic Party Victory in This Midterm Will Not Fix Our Long-Term Problems

At this point, in September of 2026, just two months before the midterm elections, the priority for Democrats is to win as many seats in Congress as possible.  In more than forty years of teaching high school civics, and observing election cycles and American politics, I don't think I've ever seen an election where a majority of voters, according to the polls, are more focused on casting a ballot against a sitting President than for the issues represented by individual candidates.  It seems as if the bottom line for a huge number of voters this time around is the total inept incompetence of Trump.  

I'm a lifelong Democrat, the son of a World War 2 Navy veteran and devoted chemical workers union member who can count on one hand the number of times I've not voted straight ticket Democrat.  I get frustrated when it seems that some of our party leadership still thinks that the old school kind of negotiation, deal-making and compromise with the other side of the aisle is still the way American politics works.  But of course, the other party has never really offered anything that I would consider supporting.  

The Attack on American Democracy Didn't Start With Trump

By comparison, the recent Republican presidencies prior to Trump seem reasonable, and lack the kind of extremist populism that Trump uses to excite his mindless base.  But let's not forget that dividing up the government and selling it off piece by piece to corporate billionaires and wealth re-distribution that landed 99% of the nation's assets and money in the hands of 1% of its population started with Ronald Reagan.  So did the Heritage Foundation's agenda to drive America toward white supremacist Christian nationalism.  Reagan, and both George H. W. and George W. Bush were active in promoting policy and carrying out the duties of the executive office to make this become reality. 

Government has become the only institution in American life still capable of stopping the slide into capitalist oligarchy that will rip any semblance of American idealism and American values out of this nation.  But the balance of power is rapidly tipping in favor of the wealthiest of the wealthy and we may very well be on the brink of a point of no return when it comes to saving our democracy.  This midterm election is an essential step in the process of getting America back, but it will only be a small part of the long term work of restoring American democracy to our government and our society. 

Policies and practices going all the way back to the Reagan administration will have to be undone, repealed or abandoned.  Democrats will need leaders who will kick asses and take no prisoners, not those who will back down or compromise to come out with a few small gains, or nothing, as has been the practice.  That's exactly how the GOP got us to the brink of billionaire oligarchy and we can't get back to the democracy we once had by playing compromise and acting like Merrick Garland. 

Hopefully, the message was received during the primary season, when Progressive Democrats defied the odds, and the pollsters, and won in places where they concentrated their money and their efforts.  This is the main benefit that will come from this midterm election and which will lay the groundwork for the pathway that the Democratic party must take if it is to restore American Democracy. 

So Where Do We Start? 

We start with the courts.  

If Democrats get control of both the house and the Senate, then it will be time to shut down every judicial appointment Trump makes.  Nobody gets through.  Hold those spots open for the next Democratic President to fill.  This is something Democrats can do if we control the Senate, which is why that particular aspect of the mid-term elections is so important.  

And I'm not talking about some mamby-pamby negotiation to let some of the judicial appointments through, or some kind of compromise.  I mean that we need to stop any judicial appointments dead in their tracks, and prevent them from getting onto the bench.  In so far as it is possible, shut down any more Trump influence of the court.  We do not need any more Eileen Cannons. 

Then, in preparation for 2028, finding a line-up of some of the most progressive judges in the federal system, in order to expand the Supreme Court and nullify the corrupt conservatives, and also force them to adopt rules of ethics, such as not allowing them to take bribes like Clarence Thomas, and then to go through the long list of court decisions which helped the Republicans, going back to Reagan, sell the federal government off piece by piece to the one percenters, and in as quick a manner as possible, undo everything right up to Citizens United.  Any decision made by the conservative majority should be up for overturning.  

Does that sound like too much?  Not if there's an interest in the genuine restoration of American Democracy, it's not.  

Leadership Changes

If Hakeem Jeffries is willing to acknowledge that the Democratic party needs to embrace its left wing, and openly takes a position discouraging any indication of a move to the right of the moderate wing of the party, then I think he's put in the work and paid the dues, so to speak, to be Speaker of the House.  But he needs to be consistent and he needs to stop letting big money donors, including AIPAC, influence the party agenda.  If he does that, then I'll support his selection as Speaker of the House.  If not, then I'm in favor of letting the Democrats in the House pick someone else.  My personal favorite would be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York. 

Schumer needs to step down.  I'm not opposed to this being a position from which a Democrat openly campaigns for the 2028 nomination for President, so for that reason, I'd endorse someone like Mark Kelly of Arizona, or Corey Booker of New Jersey.  They are a couple of Senators who can kick ass and take no prisoners.  I'd be OK with either of them seeking the Presidency while serving as majority leader of the Senate.  And Tammy Duckworth would also be on that list. 

That's what this kind of effort will take, because there's a lot of legislation that will need to be re-evaluated and either changed completely or repealed for us to get our democracy back. And we need leaders in Congress who will aggressively pursue investigations into the criminal activity and constitutional violations committed by the Trump administration, and everyone involved, and make sure that the next Democratic attorney general has the mountains of evidence needed to hold this demagogue, and every one of his accomplices, accountable.  

Getting all of that started after the mid-term elections is essential.  Instead of the kind of obfuscation, delay and foot dragging that characterized Merrick Garland's half-hearted pursuit of Trump's criminal and seditious activity, we need bold, aggressive leadership that is willing to apply the necessary level of accountability.  Otherwise, there will be no deterrent to any future potential demagogues who will give this same thing a try.  

And keep remembering, Trump didn't start this.  The Republican party has systematically been allowing corporate big money to buy chunks of government since Reagan was in office.  So it won't be something that gets undone overnight.  

Work Toward the Big Priorities

A big part of what the American people want out of this midterm election is for politicians to handle the affordability crisis.  That will almost certainly be resolved by simply ending the Iran war,  on the best terms now possible, which are not great for the United States.  And as always, the resistance to lowering prices inflated artificially by political circumstances will keep going until someone does something about it.  Now I know that's socialism, by its real definition, but capitalist principle combined with tax breaks for the rich are counterproductive to reducing inflation.  Once a gallon of milk costs $5.00, no dairy producer or grocery store chain will drop the price.  It will have to be forced down. 

And I'm going to close with the admonition to Democrats who get elected to Congress this midterm, that the pressing need in this country now is for affordable health care, and our current, corporate-dictated, for-profit health insurance and care system is totally and completely out of control.  I'll say it so it can be understood, we need a single-payer, government controlled health care finance and provider system, "socialized medicine" if you will.  Where will the money come from?  Well, reducing the profit margin on insurance coverage and health care provision will be a good place to start.  Eliminating it altogether, and reducing administrative costs to put the bulk of what people pay into their health care will solve the problem.  

Of course, Trump will veto everything that benefits the people, and fairly evens the playing field with big corporate insurance and medicine, but his efforts to protect their profiteering need to be squelched.  People need a break, now, not down the road, and this would be something that Democrats could ride to victory in a series of elections if they get this right.  

For a party that has always had trouble with staying on the narrative, this is a remarkable opportunity.  Don't blow it.  

  

The Theology of the Texas Senate Race Between Talarico and Paxton

The attacks being levelled against Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico are sending a couple of loud and clear messages from Paxton and his supporters.  One, they know that they cannot campaign on Paxton's record, or on his character.  Those are both losing propositions.  And the other message?  They see the numbers and they know that Talarico is poised to win.  In the past couple of weeks, his polling averages in several of the more reliable national polls with a reputation for accuracy has slipped above the 50% threshold.  He's picking up the lion's share of undecided, independent voters. 

Paxton is desperate.  So instead of campaigning on the issues, none of which go in Paxton's favor, they are attacking Talarico's character, his masculinity, and more specifically, his Christian faith.  None of those are things which have anything to do with what kind of Senator he will be and how he will represent Texas.  But they focus attention away from Paxton's moral bankruptcy and corruption, which led his own fellow Republicans in the state legislature to impeach him and attempt to remove him from office.  He survived the removal attempt because of the partisan makeup of the Texas legislature, though there were Republicans who voted in favor of his removal as Texas Attorney General.  

It's somewhat hypocritical to me for a man with the baggage of corruption that Paxton carries, including having had at least one well publicized affair, which a divorce court labelled adultery and considered as legitimate grounds for his divorce, to be championed by the majority of church members as qualified for any kind of public office.  Men getting away with adulterous affairs, and being warmly welcomed in Evangelical congregations, and sometimes treated as heroes as a result, is common, especially among Southern Baptists, one of whose churches Paxton attends regularly and holds membership. 

[Paxton Lets Sexual Abuser Adam Hoffman Off the Hook]

[Evangelical Church Elder and Youth Leader Arrested on Allegations of Sexual Assault of a Foster Daughter]

So when Talarico is attacked, mostly in social media, for making statements which are reflective of his theology and personal convictions as a clergyman in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA), known as the more liberal branch of Presbyterianism, it reflects a disgraceful and dishonest hypocrisy on the part of conservatives.  Clearly, this is getting a significant amount of backlash as the same polling data that shows Talarico trending toward the 50% threshold also shows that voters disapprove of this particular tactic of Paxton, by more than a 2 to 1 margin.  The criticism of Talarico's theology and faith by the Paxton campaign is hurting his chances with voters.   

The Theological Battle at the Core of This Campaign, Liberal vs. Conservative Christian

For those outside the very confusing tangle of what lies behind the high, thick walls American Protestants have built around a patchwork of unbiblical denominations build on specific doctrines of reformation-era theology, Conservative Evangelicalism is a Johnny-come-lately splattering of doctrine based on faulty theories of the inspiration of the Biblical text, and on a very distorted and falsely skewed literal interpretation and application of the text.  

American Evangelicals are split between the Fundamentalists, who are hard liners when it comes to being anti-education and separatist when it comes to their attitude toward anyone claiming to be Christian who doesn't believe exactly what they believe,  Charismatics and Pentecostals, who have added emotionalist and spiritualist error to the practice of the Christian gospel, and the Restorationists, who focus on "getting back to the original interpretation of the text," and take a literalist interpretation of the Bible to extremes.  

All three of these Evangelical traditions are relatively new on the scene when it comes to the history of the Christian church and they have several things in common.  They emerged from the anti-intellectual, anti-educational bias of the frontier revivals of the Second Great Awakening, when churches did not have access to very many educated pastors and ministers, and developed beliefs influenced by superstition and fear of the unknown.  Their lack of education prevented them from knowing or understanding the whole context of the history of the Christian church, its origins, and the language, history and cultural influences, the understanding of which is absolutely essential to a correct interpretation of the scripture.  

The primary error in interpretation that American Evangelicals make is found in their theories of the inspiration of scripture.  Evangelicals claim to believe that, because of God's presence in inspiring the writing of every word of the scripture, the whole 66 book Protestant Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts, and infallible in practice.  The terms "verbal and plenary," applied to the expression of this belief, mean that every word of the Bible is inspired, and the whole of the text of the 66 books in the Protestant Bible is equally inspired.  

This is false doctrine, and a grievous error leading to all kinds of misinterpretations and faith practice that is essentially meaningless.  And it is diametrically opposed to the core doctrine of the Christian faith, which is the divinity, humanity and supremacy of Jesus the Christ.  

The life examples and teachings of Jesus, recorded in the four gospel accounts in the New Testament, form the criterion by which all other scripture is to be interpreted.  The person of Jesus as the son of God, one of three persons of the trinitarian view of God, is, in Christian doctrine, the only perfect revelation of the Christian gospel.  Any theories of interpreting scripture which lead to stand-alone interpretations of statements without filtering them through the thoughts and ideas of Jesus is contrary to true Christianity and to the gospel message of Jesus Christ. 

Nor can the words of any of the Bible's authors be equated in their inspiration or truth with those of Jesus Christ.  In Christian doctrine, Jesus was God, and the gospel he revealed, perfect.  And while it is legitimate to consider the other authors, such as Paul, John, Peter, and whoever wrote Hebrews, as being inspired by God, their words are subject to interpretation that filters them through the gospel of Jesus Christ before determining what they mean.  They do not stand alone in their interpretation, which produces obvious conflicts when they are incorrectly interpreted in the literal context used by most Evangelicals. 

No Christian denomination or church has a corner on correct doctrine and theology.  However, those who have been labelled as "liberal" for not accepting the literalist premises of conservative Evangelicals actually have a much better handle on the kind of faith practice that the gospel of Jesus Christ establishes.  What Evangelicals practice is salvation by works, which include making wise decision and following the rules, while abstaining and avoiding things that have been judged to be breaking them.  The Christian faith begins with the ten commandments, in their view, obedience is the key to true faith according to their doctrine and theology.  So if you do enough good works and you properly judge and condemn evil, you can add up enough points for God to let you into heaven.  This is exactly what their theology teaches, in spite of protests to the contrary. 

For the so-called "Liberal" Christians, like the PCUSA, to which James Talarico belongs, the Christian gospel begins with the Beatitudes, and it carries through the theme of forgiveness and restoration, according to scripture.  Following the example of Jesus and correct interpretation and practice of the principles he taught and modelled leads to salvation that comes from God's grace, and the serving of his creation, in the "liberal" view. The emphasis on the human end is the receiving of grace and living in gratitude as a result, with judgment and condemnation left up to God.  Jesus focused the core principle of the Christian gospel on loving God with all one's heart, soul, strength and mind, and loving one's neighbor.  The outcome and practice of the Christian gospel is quite different from the Evangelical Fundamentalist perspective. 

 Texas Has a Large Number of Moderate to Liberal Christians

Talarico has an M.A. in theological studies from Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  There's a reason why the Presbyterian Church USA, which is the largest and most liberal branch of the Presbyterian church, has a theological seminary in Austin, Texas.  That's because there are a large number of members of the Presbyterian Church USA in Texas.  The seminary is  known for social justice-oriented curriculum which is drawn directly from the Christian gospel.  The membership of the Synod of the Sun, which includes Texas, dwarfs the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America membership in the state.  

Texas also has the largest number of the very progressive Episcopal Church among its population, as well as the largest number of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is its most progressive branch.  And after the great schism among the Methodists, the more progressive United Methodist Church also has its largest number of adherents in Texas, with more than three times as many members as those who left to form more conservative churches.   

Then there are the Southern Baptists.  Yes, the Southern Baptists. 

Following the Fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, which started in 1979, the majority of its churches and members across the country supported the ultra-conservative domination of the national body.  But the exact opposite happened in Texas.  

The state convention affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention in Texas, known as the Baptist General Convention of Texas, also split with conservatives forming the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBCT) and the more moderate to liberal members retaining control of the BGCT.  The majority of churches and members in the 2.3 million member body have remained in the more progressive group, which has also affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the more progressive group which formed on the national level.  

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and the Baptist General Convention of Texas, are both very active when it comes to social justice, and they both reject the literalist interpretations of the Bible that ignore or downplay the principles of the Christian gospel.  And while that might not mean they will vote for Talarico, it certainly means that they do not disagree with his theology and doctrine, which is being attacked by conservatives.  In spite of the split, the more progressive Baptist General Convention of Texas remains the state's single largest religious group.  

Take These Attacks for What They Are:  Republican Desperation

We wouldn't see these attacks on Christian theology and doctrine happening if Talarico were not a serious threat to the Republican retention of this Texas senate seat.  It's pretty desperate that a morally bankrupt politician, who attends church only when it suits his public image, and whose lifestyle reflects the exact kind of worldliness that conservatives and fundamentalists reject, would attack some of the terminology and concepts of an ordained minister who demonstrates a thorough grasp of biblical theology.  

Paxton hangs around with Evangelicals enough to know that many of them are theologically and doctrinally ignorant of their Christian faith, and he knows the buzz words and superstitions and where the lines are drawn in the sand.  So he's got people who are trying to distract voters from his record, on which he cannot win, so he has to scare voters into thinking that the evil bugaboo that conservative Evangelicals must rely on to set up their straw man arguments has infected Talarico, too.  

But there might just be enough Christians in Texas who have already been through the battle over the hearts and souls of their church members to know that Talarico speaks truth when he talks Christian faith and that it's the Evangelicals and Paxton who are the liars.  That. and the sinking popularity of an incompetent boob of a President are making Talarico's chances at winning this election excellent.

In a Trade War With Canada, Trump Loses His Ever-Loving Mind

He's gone over Niagara Falls in a barrel. 

The President of the United States lost his mind and his composure, and threw a tantrum when the Canadian prime minister, who understands exactly what kind of absolute craziness and insanity he is dealing with in Trump, dared fight back after his senseless, pointless and ridiculous tariffs on Canada exacerbated the growing trade war between the two closest allies in the world.  

--And I'm going to interrupt my own train of thought here to point out to the mindless and stupid conservatives who can't explain or define either socialism or communism, that their inamorata in the White House is trashing US relationships to other free, democratic allies in exchange for friendships with communists like Kim Jong Un or fascists like Vladimir Putin, and therefore are hypocrites--

That being said, this President's gross unfitness for office is on display in his use of an executive order to throw a genuine child's tantrum.  The executive branch of this nation is behaving like a spoiled child, demonstrating his unfitness for this office and his total lack of real leadership ability by issuing an executive order renaming Lake Ontario as Lake America.  

That's going to solve all of our economic problems, isn't it?  It not only fixes the economic problems, but in one fell swoop it has prospered the middle class and made the working class happy.  

There are some benefits to this embarrassing and ridiculously stupid tantrum result.  In any conversation referencing Lake Ontario, when someone refers to it as "Lake America," knowing looks will be exchanged and stupid people can identify other stupid people.  

What's next?  What will we tolerate and how long will we put up with it?  

"Blue Tsunami" is the Correct Term to Describe How the Mid-Term Elections Seem to be Shaping Up

Watching political poll numbers in the United States can be a full time occupation.  There are now a plethora of polls, covering every possible angle and opinion in politics.  It's still true that it takes four or five different polling averages on the same question to get a solid read on public opinion but there is now enough data being recorded to the point where it is possible to determine, down to the precinct level--almost--how an election is going to turn out.  

There is a lot of polling data out there on this coming mid-term election at every level.  Taken as a whole, the predicted result is that the Democratic party is very likely to gain control of the House, and less likely to gain control of the senate.  That's because polls are still based on the outcomes and turnouts of the 2024 election which are used as part of the way raw data is factored.  Predictions take into consideration how voters cast their ballots previously, and then factor in things like the typical lower turnout in a mid-term, and how shifts and swings in previous elections have gone to determine their guess.  

What seems to be happening in the current set of polling data is that information being gathered and sorted isn't always matching up with the level of voter enthusiasm for a particular candidate, or the actual outcome of the election.  The primaries have been particularly difficult to pick with some surprise results going well outside the margin of error of the polling data.  Angie Nixon's win over Alexander Vindman in Florida was, perhaps, the biggest shock.  Not only did he outspend her 20 to 1, she focused on progressive issues normally not a popular position to take in Florida, and had endorsements from the far left wing of the party.  But she focused on the issues that the polling data shows are big in people's minds, namely affordability, health care, housing and food assistance, and she pulled some publicity stunts which got a lot of media attention.  

She won big.  And she is the favorite in the general election.  

Her win mirrors other similar victories for candidates from the left side of the Democratic party who have, for the most part, been at the forefront of the "No Kings!" rallies, marches and protests.  This is a very large and very active and enthusiastic group of potential voters who are committing to turning out at the polls, and following through.  Their presence, which is starting to show up in polling data everywhere, is going to be a major influence in which Democrats get into which office.  And it is a big factor, not only in the fact that Democrats are favored to win control of the House, but in getting enough voters to the polls everywhere to also gain a Senate majority for the party.  

It's Looking More and More Like Democrats Will Take Control of the Senate

As things have turned out, the "most vulnerable Democrat" in the Senate seems to be becoming the most likely Democrat to get re-elected.  Jon Ossoff is running away with his race in Georgia, which Republicans once thought of as the best place to flip a seat.  That possibility has travelled north to Michigan, where Gary Peters is stepping down, but following their late-in-the-season, highly contested primary, as that race shapes up, Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee, is edging out Mike Rogers, the MAGA backed candidate.  It looks to be close, but it is interesting to note that since the primary, El-Sayed's support is inching forward, while Rogers is slowly losing points.  

As far as potential flips go, no one could have predicted that Texas and Iowa would be Senate battlegrounds with Republicans clinging on for dear life to try and hold seats.  James Talarico, the Democratic nominee in Texas, has held a slight one to two percentage point lead ever since he won the nomination, in spite of polling stalwarts like Cook Political not changing their factoring based on previous outcomes.  And as more recent polling data piles up, we are now seeing several polls where Talarico is crossing the 50% threshold, which is a milestone in a race as close, and as ugly, as this one.  

Trump unpopularity is definitely a factor in this one, while Paxton carries baggage of his own, including a highly publicized affair and divorce.  The liberal religious perspective of Talarico, who is a United Presbyterian clergyman, has been used to attack him, even though the religious points have nothing to do with the issues.  But even that seems to favor Talarico, who responds by simply asserting his beliefs, not by backing down.  

In fact, over the past couple of weeks, it is starting to look like the Democrats may actually flip all of the Republican seats where they were considered legitimate challengers, including Maine, Ohio, Iowa, Texas, Alaska, North Carolina and Michigan.  Mary Peltola, the Democratic party nominee in Alaska, won a straight up primary against her Republican opponent a couple of weeks ago, causing many pollsters to name Alaska as the Democratic tipping point.  North Carolina looks like a sure thing for Roy Cooper, and Maine is starting to look that way as well.  Sherrod Brown is pulling ahead in Ohio.  

It might be a bold prediction, but I think Democrats may actually take all seven of those states, and get control of the Senate.  As we get closer to the election, the vast majority of polling data coming in reflects mostly declining numbers, especially for MAGA Republicans, and growing support for Democrats.  

Trump-Instigated Redistricting Has Lost It's Punch

The gains that Republicans hoped to make in states where they redrew district lines last spring have faded and dissipated in the most recent polling data.  Hoping to save up to as many as 17 seats, not enough to stop a Democratic majority from winning, but enough to mute the overall effect of a blue tsunami, the redistricting Republicans tried in several states has fallen kind of flat.  I've seen three recent polls, including an Emerson, which indicate the possibility that Republicans may not actually win any of those seats.  Well, the drop in support and approval of Trump has been staggering and none of the districts they redrew gave them a significant enough majority to overcome a 10 point drop in support.  And the drop for most MAGA candidates across the board has been about 14%.  

So it does indeed look like we are going to see an even more overwhelming blue tsunami than we did in 2018.  History does have a tendency to repeat itself, and it seems that we needed a reminder of just how bad Trump has been as President, and how bad Republican leadership has failed, to get to this point.  All that corporate money has been matched on the Democratic side by individual contributions, in spite of some whining and complaining.  And the advantage Progressive Democrats are giving the party is a clear and concise message that is well delivered.  That goes a lot further than slick advertising does.

This wave will surprise most of the pundits.

Some Bold Speculation About the Coming Blue Tsunami 

240.  

Keep your eyes on that number, because I think that's how many Democrats will find themselves elected to the House after November.  That's ten more than the pollsters are cautiously predicting now, using their 2024 voter data.  But it looks like the progressive side of the Democratic party is going to produce the most enthusiastic voters this time around, along with the almost 70% of independents who are fed up with Trump.  So I think that's going to be bigger than the pundits and pollsters are predicting.  

I am also going out on a limb and saying that the seven current GOP held seats that are considered the challenges--Maine, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Alaska and Iowa, will all fall to the Democratic party.  That's how it's trending now, and I think it will be a close, but firm win for the Democrats come November, when things "tighten up."  And I think there might be a "pick one off" among what the GOP has left.  Darlene Graham was just nominated by the South Carolina GOP, and I think that's not going to turn out too well.  She's even more loony toons than her brother was, and that can be an appeal in a state like South Carolina, but I think there's going to be enough of a fall off in support to allow a Democrat to slip in.  

I also wish the Democrats had taken a closer look at West Virginia, and put some money behind Rachel Fetty Anderson. They might have made their "do nothing for decades" Senator Shelly Moore Capito get out and try and run on a record of having done nothing for the people of West Virginia for 12 years in the Senate.  I'm not sure they could have won the seat, but the Republicans there weren't all that excited about Capito this time around.  No wonder.  The sheet listing her accomplishments and benefits for her state as a senator is blank.  

I'm usually pretty good at this.  I underestimated the Democrats in 2018, and overestimated Trump.  Everything this guy touches eventually rusts and crumbles, including his political support.  And I think the second term, for Republicans, will be a disaster that will be hard from which to recover.