The McNulty Memo (Monthly Musings on Faith and Public Life)
Editor’s note: This is the 10th in a series of articles looking at Christian faith in the public square. This is part of the Institute’s Center for Faith & Public Life initiative.
A Presbyterian seminarian, Methodist minister, and Baptist preacher walk into the U.S. Senate…. This may sound like the start of a joke, but after the Democrats crushing victory in the midterm elections, this will literally be true. For those especially interested in the relationship between religion and politics, we are about to begin a potentially interesting chapter in this long history.
James Talarico, the senator-elect from Texas, earned a Master of Arts in theological studies from Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary and is currently pursuing a Master of Divinity degree from the same institution. He says he wants to be a pastor in addition to his senatorial duties. Senator-elect Adam Hamilton, winner of a stunning victory in ruby-red Kansas, already is a pastor. His church is the largest United Methodist church in the country. And Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, first elected in 2021, continues to serve as the senior pastor of Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
All three men insist that their Christian faith is the foundation of their political life. Talarico regular refers to Christ’s commandment to love God and neighbor as the focus of his public service. Hamilton likes to talk about the Golden Rule as his political north star. He recently said, “I can’t not talk about my faith…. It’s my life. It’s what I eat, sleep, drink and breathe.” Of the three, Warnock is not the new face. His career has followed in the footsteps of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Congressman John Lewis, but his activism has focused more on social welfare policies than civil rights. To date, his service has been in lockstep with the policies of the progressive left.
It remains to be seen where Talarico and Hamilton will land on the issues once the new Senate begins to vote on legislation. Unlike maverick Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, who has courageously broken from his caucus in support for Israel and other major questions, Talarico and Hamilton represent GOP strongholds. Faith aside, politics may steer them in a more independent direction.
And just so there is no misunderstanding, a word about my starting point may be helpful. I have talked to several Christian conservatives who are quick to dismiss the bona fides of these faith-professing politicians. Many of these politicians’ views and comments run counter to my understanding of biblical truth. Yet none of us can judge the human heart. My profound disagreement with these leaders on major public policy issues should not result in the certainty that I won’t one day rub shoulders with them in Heaven. Therefore, I prefer to focus on what—if any—significance should be given to their self-described Christian faith because on that score alone, they are different.
So, given the explicitness of their religious motivations, at least three questions come to mind about the impact of and certain attitudes towards this brand of public faith.
First, will their politics differ in any meaningful way from their Democratic colleagues on the left? Hamilton frequently talks about the importance of decency in our public life, a conviction of diminishing supply in our toxic political climate. And unlike his new colleague from Michigan, Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed, Talarico maintained what can be fairly described as a civil demeanor in response to the overwhelming negativity of his opponent’s campaign.
But beyond personality, one can be forgiven for having low expectations. Both men are strongly aligned with the social progressivism of today’s mainline Protestant denominations. Their campaign rhetoric reveals a selective use of the Bible to support big government social welfare (Talarico praises the Great Society) while ignoring passages addressing abortion, same-sex marriage, or transgenderism, to name a few issues. Talarico even compares his future service in Washington with Jesus’ overturning of tables in the temple courtyard, which, for the record, was not a statement about income inequality.
In addition, they will need to be especially wary of the rising socialist convictions of their Democratic colleagues. Socialism’s intolerance of religion has a long track record. Socialism depends on individual subservience to the state and what the governing elites deem to be in the citizens’ collective interest. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms the rule of law but ultimately emphasized obedience to God above total capitulation to the state.
Second, will they make a sincere effort to find common ground with Christian conservative lawmakers such as Oklahoma Senator James Langford, who is also an ordained minister in the Southern Baptist denomination? As a co-founder and current board member of Faith and Law, a Capitol Hill Christian study group, I can attest to the fact that it is not difficult to identify those seeking to be Christ-centered in their public service. In an age when our Congress has lost almost any ability to find consensus on complex issues, could a rebirth of this essential work begin with people of authentic faith?
Not long ago, two congressmen committed themselves to this type of bipartisan collaboration. Representatives Frank Wolf, a conservative lawmaker from Northern Virginia, and Tony Hall, a liberal from Ohio, realized that what they shared in their devotion to Christ was more foundational than all that divided them politically. They searched for and promoted public policy solutions stemming from their common faith. Hall eventually abandoned his pro-abortion position, and Wolf became a strong supporter of global hunger relief. Both men are now in their 80s, but there may still be time for them to conduct a training session with Christian senators.
Third, will liberal pundits and legacy media personalities, who at this point seem enamored with the religious motivations of these new faces, give equal treatment to GOP Christians? Will the acceptability of faith in the public square cut both ways? At the moment, these voices, as well as the senators-elect themselves, appear quick to condemn every Christian conservative perspective as a form of religious nationalism. These attacks are politically effective. But if they’re in any way sincere, they reveal an alarming inability to distinguish between the historic work of Christians advancing biblical values in public policy and the relatively small number of those pushing for the endorsement of Christian doctrine by the civil government.
Perhaps these questions are a sort of Rorschach test for political optimism. You don’t have to be a cynic to answer all three in the negative. Maybe I’m just hoping I can say, “I gave you a shot,” if we do enjoy a brief chat in eternity.