The below responses and comments are not in the order that the topics came up on the podcast, and in the nature of the case they focus on my disagreements with his expressed views, though I would underscore that I found a lot of things commendable about Talarico's tone, seeming good-faith genuineness in seeking public good, and the philosophy he put forward about bipartisanship and political communication.
That said, I wish that seminaries like Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, which Talarico attends, concerned themselves more with what God has actually said in the entirety of his self-revelation on its own terms rather than with accommodating the holistic claims of the kingdom of Christ to a modern, pluralistic, sex-crazed modern culture of "psychological man" (see Carl Trueman's analysis in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self) by picking and choosing from the teachings of the prophets, Jesus, and his apostles; but one might conclude they only do the latter, based on what their student shared on Rogan's show.
Talarico: claimed Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire
A slight historical nitpick in this case, but this is not accurate. Under Constantine, the 313 AD Edict of Milan was issued, which made Christianity legal in the empire. It did not become the official state religion until 380-381 AD under Emperor Theodosius I.
Talarico: claims the Incarnation is equivalent to or identical with all human image-bearing
It is not. While the Incarnation of Christ in a sense dignifies physical creation in a fresh way, it is itself a specific, unrepeatable, miraculous act joining the unique, divine and eternally glorious Son of God with a full human nature in the person of Jesus Christ: God taking on the form and nature of a servant, without relinquishing His ultimate divine nature which is transcendent to creation (see Philippians 2:6-11). The biblical view is that human beings are "images"--finite reflections of the divine, not instantiations of it (I myself haven't created or sustained a universe lately--compare Job 38). Therefore we don't have the right of ultimate self-rule (that's an aspect of what is meant by "sin" at the end of the day ); we are called to submit to and worship the Creator, who is worthy of it and who in any case created us such that that would be our highest joy and fulfillment (see Ps. 37:4).
Talarico: mentions Jesus' death as a martyr but no mention of atonement
Jesus' own understanding of His death, as he taught about it before and after it happened, and as the OT predicted and foreshadowed it in many ways, was not of a mere "martyrdom for being a loving guy who confronted mean religious leaders and got killed for it," although there was a component of that. Rather he taught that it would comprise a ransom for sinners, a sacrificial offering of his life for his sheep, a pouring out of his blood for the forgiveness of his people's sins. But in his opponents' eyes it was for falsely claiming to be the Son of God and a King of the Jews--religious and political blasphemy. His crown of thorns ironically and in a "cruciform" way revealed the truth of the matter, as his nail-pierced hands (cf. Ps. 22:16) created humanity again (Eph. 2:14-16) by his new work on another "sixth" day (a Friday; cf. Gen. 1:26, 31).
Well did J. Gresham Machen write in his masterful book contrasting Christianity with theological liberalism: "'Christ died'--that is history; 'Christ died for our sins'--that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity." The podcast wasn't meant to be a sermon, and Talarico may not personally deny some notion of atonement in Christ's death, but still, this omission, by an aspiring minister of the gospel, during an entire episode of the most popular podcast on earth, was striking.
Talarico: claims the Southern Baptist Convention was pro-choice until the 70's
Not so. The SBC was moderately pro-life earlier on, allowing for common exceptions. After Roe vs. Wade, they eventually became more consistently pro-life (children created as a result of violence are neither non-human, non-living, nor non-individuals who deserve destruction for any reason).
Talarico: insinuates that anti-abortionism is more of a modern Christian concern and that there is not a "set, scriptural orthodoxy" about it...
Other than the clear scriptural warrant (on which, more below), The Didache, an early manual on Christian morality from the 1st or 2nd century A.D., explicitly condemns abortion, just as the rest of the Church consistently did for the centuries following. There is nothing new here.
Talarico: countenances the argument about "breath" as theologically defining the moment of life of an infant
I wrote the subheading this way because he did not explicitly state that this was his own view, but the fact that he even mentioned it and countenanced it as a potentially good argument for the moral acceptability of abortion warrants a strong response:
1) The Genesis picture of the "breath of life" given to Adam dramatizes the beginning of all human life as image bearers--an unrepeatable event that should not be thought of as equivalent to the first breath of subsequent humans conceived and born by ordinary generation. While many passages connect breath (and cognate words like "spirit" and "wind") with "life," this is simply because it is normal for preborn living ones to exit the womb and breathe for most of their lives, unless miscarried or intentionally destroyed.
2) More importantly, the "breath = life" view proves far too much unless someone also accepts the practice of very late-term abortions and even partial-birth abortions--of which I shudder to even think. The reality of growth of an individual with unique DNA points to conception of a valuable human life, but an at least better biblical argument than the terrible "breath" argument could almost be made for when the child has its own blood (cf. Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:11)--which is already by Week 3 of gestation (not that ancients would likely have understood that embryology in detail--a conceived child would have been thought of as immediately sharing the "bloodline/blood" of its parents). Children like Joseph, Samson, and Samuel are named and/or dedicated to God upon conception.
3) Far from Talarico's other claim which mentions the possibility that the Mosaic code may contain a prescription for an abortion ritual (an anachronism probably seeking to leverage Numbers 5:11-31...which is actually about a supernatural fertility curse ritual in a "jealousy test" ordeal, and doesn't even mention the need for a current pregnancy in order for the ritual to be carried out--see v.28 which describes the future fertility of a woman who "passes" the ordeal guiltlessly!), the Mosaic code actually treats gestating children as having life worthy of the protection afforded by civil penalties, as in the case that a mother or her prematurely birthed child is injured because of a careless, nearby brawl (Exodus 21:22-25--a debated and difficult passage in some ways, but in my view clearly applies lex talionis penalties for injury to mother or child, despite the child's underdevelopment). In any case, and perhaps more convincingly, this is in line with the broader OT perspective on preborn life as already valuable life created by God (cf. Ps. 139:13-16, and see again above references to naming and dedicating preborn children in the OT narratives). How much judgment is stored up for the intentional destruction we sanction 1.1+ million times per year in this country? We can discuss the complicated web of reasons why that number exists (economic and otherwise, sure), and what else can be done about it besides abolishing elective procedures; nevertheless, that blood cries out from the ground.
Talarico: rightly highlights the personhood question and notes the self-consistency of the pro-life view, but then fumbles into the "her body" error
I wish that more people would, from a scientific(!) perspective, be able to recognize that a uniquely individual (has its own DNA), living and growing (not dead) human being (not an amoeba or a frog, etc.), despite its unique location and dependency in a womb, is not identical with its mother's body, and is in no principled way different than a one-week-old newborn infant in terms of personhood. A newborn is still small, developing, and dependent--do such newborns, even if born into hard, heartbreaking situations, deserve to die? Why not? What is the principled difference, then?
Talarico mentions at the end of this discussion that he thinks this controversy is simply about "control." I'm not sure what personally advantageous control pro-lifers gain by simply advocating for their preborn neighbors' lives, when actually they would likely gain political capital by moving further left/into the middle on this issue, since as Talarico himself notes, most of the American population is indeed pro-choice to one degree or another. But if he only means "control" over other people's choices, well, I would hope we would all want control over other people's choices if those choices led to the intentional destruction of newborn children's lives--but again, what is the principled difference if the time is re-wound to before the delivery of such newborns? Newborns are utterly dependent on their mothers' bodies, still (or surrogates like wet nurses or equivalents for any other aspect of neonatal parenting). Again, we can discuss economic policy and how best to care for children "womb to tomb" and not leave single mothers in the dust after delivery--legitimate questions there--but that discussion cannot be allowed to overshadow the violent reality of what's going on with suction tips and forceps and vacuums every day.
Talarico: claims Mary was asked "consent" to bear the Son of God
The text does not present it this way in either Matthew or Luke's account. The closest we could come to this idea is Luke's account which records Mary's submission to the message of Gabriel: "Be it done to me according to your word," which could almost be read as implying that if she had not been willing for some reason, God might have agreed to find someone else. But God's plan is originally presented to her in language that is much more like authoritative prophecy than a request or invitation, per se. It seems Talarico is reading modern sensibilities into the text here(!). In any case, it is hardly a parallel with the debate about who should be punished for children conceived in abusive situations (the child?) or whether pregnancy is justly construed as a "punishment" upon the victimized mother in such heart-rending cases, although the subtext here by Talarico was that there is some kind of significant parallel here, somehow buttressing the pro-choice position.
Talarico: "Jesus Never Mentions Homosexuality"
0) Talarico alludes to the idea that some people think Christianity means "hating" gay people, then he spends time challenging the traditional Christian sexual ethic's biblical basis. My first point here is that those are two distinct questions. The traditional sexual ethic, construed rightly, does not enjoin "hatred' (wishing ill upon or seeking to harm) gay or queer people, and Christians disagreeing with the morality of an alternative sexual ethic is not charitably conceived of as stemming from fear of it (as the oft-misused word "homophobia" suggests). If the traditional ethic is based on actual divine command then it is in fact (whether believed or not) what is right and good for people, and love (not hate) means wanting others to be on the path of that objective good. "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Prov. 14:12). That is the only self-consistent viewpoint for those who believe there is such a thing as publicly accessible divine revelation that touches on this area.
1) Besides giving positive teaching on normative marriage patterns based on Genesis 2 (in Matthew 19:4-6), Jesus condemns all "sexual immorality," (Matt. 5:32) the underlying NT Greek of which is the word porneia, which is a word understood by faithful Jews at the time as being very broad and inclusive of all the sexual prohibitions of the Mosaic code, including homosexual activity.
2) The language of the prohibitions in the Mosaic code itself is not ambiguous or less than obvious unless one is simply motivated to read it in a way so as to circumvent the prohibition. The absence of explicit mention of female-female sexual activity simply reflects the heightened importance for women at the time to bear children for their own protection and provision during their later years, and therefore a pragmatic reason these relationships were not sought; the equivalent proscription was always taken for granted, anyway, in light of Genesis 1-2.
3) The suddenly-converted-from-killing-Christians Apostle Paul, who served the risen Jesus for decades despite many sufferings by his persecutors, condemns the action in Romans 1 and in 1st Corinthians 6. Common revisionist claims that Romans 1:26-27 is only speaking of temple prostitution or pederasty are untenable upon close reading of the passage itself, be it in English, Greek, or otherwise. And Robert A. J. Gagnon's work on the breadth of the terminology in 1 Cor. 6, contra revisionist takes, is decisive.
4) The typological/symbolic trajectory of Scripture, and marriage's primary purpose of parabolizing Christ's relationship with the Church as Bridegroom and Bride respectively (cf. Ephesians 5:31-32 and Revelation 21:2) make the modern revision of that institution impossible for Christians to practice or approve of. Deeper principles of learning to love one who is radically "other" than oneself in specific designed ways, are likely also at play.
5) The normative teleology of the marital act, anatomically and reproductively, is a clear and obvious point of natural law for anyone who believes in a Designer that claims authority over human sexuality; actually Paul in Romans 1 and 2 makes it clear these truths are all known in the depth of every image bearer, because revealed there with clarity, despite attempts to "suppress" that truth written within.
6) Individuals who are attracted to the same sex but want to deny self and follow Jesus as a disciple in this area as well as every other area should be fully welcomed into membership of the Church and equipped to follow him faithfully and purely, whether or not their particular physical temptations ever end in this life or they ever experience rightly-ordered attractions--a prospect which sounds like a potential death-sentence to a culture that errantly makes sexuality central to personal identity, but which God promises to honor with a "name better than sons and daughters" (see Isaiah 56:5) to those who walk the narrow and difficult path (as all must, whether that path involves sexual temptations of this sort or any other, for a given person).
7) Individuals who are attracted to the same sex but do not want to turn away from those desires should still be respected as image-bearers and loved and served well in basic human kindness as much as any other person, but Christians do not believe that such people's actual good or the definition of truly loving them lies in their being affirmed in their lifestyle, or lied to about what Scripture teaches in this area or whether they can still be considered a committed disciple of Christ while walking in that path.
8) 99% or maybe 100% of "gay conversion therapy" is probably ineffective and often rather harmful; discipleship with ordinary means of grace (Word, sacrament, shepherding, worship, etc.) in a committed community of believers is the primary, divinely ordained path of holiness for penitent sinners of any stripe...the greedy, the angry, the covetous/lustful, the deceitful, (and indeed also the one who used to be careless toward the poor or marginalized), etc. But the blood of Christ is sufficient to atone for any and all who repent of all self-will and trust in Him, and it reconciles them to God and makes them all new creations, with fundamentally new identities centered in Christ. "...such were some of you," Paul also says in 1 Cor. 6:11 (my emphasis)
9) Talarico talks about Jesus "simplifying" the Law to love. It is true that Jesus focuses on love when the religious leaders of the day elevate man-made traditions that were added to God's Law, or twisted right application of it, overshadowing the love commanded by it. And it is true that the NT says that love "fulfills" the Law. But Jesus also says He did not come to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17ff from the Sermon on the Mount shows how the general moral norms of the Law abide, and are clarified and in a sense intensified by Christ). Love summarizes the Law and gives the interpersonal perspective on its moral instruction, but the Law likewise fleshes out what “love” is supposed to look like in particular contexts. In other words, the Law defines love with its particular examples. Modern definitions of love stipulated independently of Scripture (like "affirming all of another person's desires and thoughts, whatever they are") cannot be used to run roughshod over Scripture's many details (including Scripture's own teaching about the transformation of new covenant application of ceremonial laws, e.g. 1 Cor. 5:6-8). Otherwise we have here an example of Talarico or others "trying to read the scripture with modern eyes and apply it to our own modern context" (his own complaint about what he thinks the traditional view does(!)).
10 Commandments in schools, Etc.
Not a specific "error" to mention here; I just want to note that I personally have always found this controversy a bit of a distraction not worthy of the central symbolic place that many Christians have indeed given it in the culture war, although it touches on principles that are important and do need more clarity re: religion and public order (on which, more below). While the 10 Commandments are in some ways close to a summary of the fixed "moral law" given across all time by Yahweh, its specific form is really the covenant treaty for Israel given at a particular time in redemptive history. Contrary to many even in the primary theological tradition I myself operate out of, I don't think "Sabbath" or "blue" laws should exist anymore. The Sabbath day was the primary sign of the old covenant, and while Sunday as the new covenant "Lord's Day" is analogous in ways, I do not think it is equivalent (because of Col. 2:16 and Rom. 14:5-6, despite Reformed attempts at counter-exegesis).
I have mixed feelings in general about public education and what that should and should not involve--the debate about the Bible being taught in public schools, for example, feels like a lose-lose to me either way: the most substantially influential piece of literature in global history is either completely ignored, or it is taught by many who are not willing or able to teach it charitably on its own historic terms instead of through the postmodern lenses of Derrida and Foucault, which still comprise the primary academic air breathed in most higher-ed institutions, unfortunately.
The story of the replacement of professional school counselors with untrained "chaplains" was very unfortunate and while I disagree with some aspects of modern psychology I think hardcore "biblical-counseling-only" types can be extremely biblically reductive in their thinking about those kinds of things, discounting the unity of body/soul/mind and the reality of many legitimate common-grace insights by non-Christian professionals in every field, even if the foundations and categories are different and indeed errant at points (see Calvin's discussion of the usefulness of common-grace insights in his Institutes).
"Imposing beliefs on others", "Christian Nationalism", Etc.: Longer Interaction/Musing--a more complicated topic, for sure--I actually pared this down a lot!
There are certainly wrong ways of "imposing" beliefs on others, however, sometimes this kind of rhetoric is applied uniquely to those who simply vote for and advocate for public policy that reflects values derived from their traditional religious convictions, while it is thought or claimed that people who are atheistic or agnostic or otherwise "secular" or who adhere to non-organized or less-traditional spirituality who also vote for and advocate for public policy that reflects their own ultimate values are not doing an exactly equivalent thing.
The phrase "You cannot/should not legislate morality" is true interpreted one way, and false in another way. True, if meaning that people cannot successfully use law to brow-beat others into living a certain way, because law alone cannot change hearts. False, though, if meaning that morality (as understood through the lens, inevitably, of each person's ultimate ethical values!) does not or cannot inform public legislation or public life in other areas. Law in the nature of the case defines what a society regards as public "right" or "wrong," and in that sense all law "imposes beliefs on others."
The question when it comes to religion, of course, is: when does law-making cross into illegitimately forcing people to live in a way contrary to their specific religious conscience? This raises the question of what degree of latitude there is for religious conscience when it brings into view objective questions that touch on weighty public issues (such as the rights of preborn persons). Can the liberal-plural public order envisioned by modern secular society answer that question coherently, or does it in the nature of the case disintegrate into moral relativism (which is itself incoherent and self-refuting)?
More concretely and less controversially, an extreme to illustrate the principle: there is a difference between laws against stealing and a law that would force people to pray in a particular way in their homes, and while I'm not aware of any religions that think stealing is good or should be publicly permissible or rewarded, there could in principle be one, and it would be wrong on that point; adherents of that (theoretical) religion, therefore, should be legally bound from living out that aspect of their "religious conscience" freely (I say so because Yahweh's universally revealed moral law says stealing is, in fact, criminal, not because it is simply my preference). On the other hand, private prayer lives should never be legally regulated, contrary to some interpretations of Sharia law (and, notably, contrary to no existing versions of "Christian Nationalism" that I am aware of). An extreme example, I know, but again, it is a thought-experiment to make the point--sin vs. crime, public justice vs. "cultic" (in the academic sense) religious freedom, etc.
Summary so far: public order/law is inherently moral; morality is inherently tied to people's ultimate values; ultimate values are often derived from traditional religion but exist also for those who adhere to worldviews other than traditional religion (even if less self-consciously or explicitly at times); and differing value systems also may differ over the extent of the civil magistrate's legitimate authority (it is therefore itself a religious question, in a sense!); many aspects of those differing value systems are mutually opposed/contradictory and cannot all be equally true or good. So we all must debate, discuss, vote, some run for office; and Christians must pray, sing Psalms, evangelize, disciple, and serve.
That brings me to just a few comments on the explosive phrase "Christian Nationalism." If the above principles are true and logically unavoidable, the potential problems I see here are not so much with (peaceful, democratic) advocacy of legislation based on "general equity" principles of biblical civic law (cp. the historic Westminster Confession of Faith Ch. 19 Sec. 4), which are largely concerned with protection of life and property, and do not neatly fit either modern Democrat or Republican platforms. (The Establishment Clause wasn't aimed against that kind of approach to "religion in politics," at all (history shows this--inclusive of abiding state churches for a while even(!), not that I would advocate for that...)).
The potential problems with CN as I see it are, rather, the Church's pursuit of power or wealth for its own sake or through illegitimate means. While biblically and constitutionally we can never have an ecclesiocracy where the institutional Church "picks up the sword" or engages in deceptive, corrupt, or violent methods of political influence, the biblical position is that the state is accountable to the living God, and the Church should be a voice of prophetic critique, persuasion, and instruction in righteousness to the state and to all--a role which conservative Christians have often failed to apply to their own preferred elected leaders, for sure!
Christian individuals publicly advocating, persuading, running for office to seek enactment of biblically-consistent laws that enshrine broad, divine ideals of public righteousness?--sign me up, (with the asterisk that I think the 1970's-80's "Christian Reconstruction" movement got a lot of things majorly wrong in trying to do that--e.g., reviving Mosaic capital punishment laws beyond the actual biblical ideal for all nations). The Church revolting, or picking up the sword, or losing focus on ordinary means of grace and discipleship, or endorsing specific candidates (as a tax-exempt institutional church)?--do not sign me up.
All heaven and earth is the kingdom of Christ de jure (Matt. 28:18-20) though not yet de facto; but America, let alone Right-wing America, is not co-extensive with that kingdom of Christ. I actually don't even know where that puts me in relation to different definitions of "CN" out there--I haven't read Stephen Wolfe's infamous book, and probably won't. I like Dr. Vern Poythress' historic Reformed approach in 'The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses' and its appendices, or a bit bolder view than that, depending on the day. But those are some thoughts on religion, politics, freedom, sphere sovereignty, and Christ thus far.
"For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ"
--2nd Corinthians 10:4-5, (ESV my emphases) “The truth is that the life-purpose of Jesus discovered by modern [theological] liberalism is not the life-purpose of the real Jesus, but merely represents those elements in the teaching of Jesus--isolated and misinterpreted--which happen to agree with the modern program. It is not Jesus, then, who is the real authority, but the modern principle by which the selection within Jesus' recorded teaching has been made. Certain isolated ethical principles of the Sermon on the Mount are accepted, not at all because they are teachings of Jesus, but because they agree with modern ideas.” --J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism
