Since at least the 2000s, one of the dominant trends and divides shaping American politics has been the supposed “God-gap” existing between Republicans and Democrats, with Republicans being the party more open to religious voters and the Democrats becoming the party of secularism. This fault line is one of the most decisive and consequential realities of modern politics, with attitudes toward religion becoming one of the most stable predictors of one’s political affiliation. The behemoth in question is Christianity, not “religion” in general. As Democrats have banked to the Left, Christian voters in America have turned hard towards the Right, finding in the Republican Party a coalition that is, for now, less hostile to their convictions than the modern Democratic Party.
The irony of this is that with America growing more secular, one may think that Democrats can finally put the Christianity question behind them, especially if it is assumed that its extinction is inevitable. But Democrats find themselves uneasy in an America that is still overwhelmingly “Christian” in terms of its self-identification. Individuals who identify in one degree or another as “Christian” make for an enormous voting bloc. So the challenge for modern progressivism is to find a form of Christianity whose progressive impulses it can align with.
Enter the 2026 midterms, and there are now two Democratic candidates who talk unabashedly about the centrality of their Christian faith. The seminarian James Talarico of Texas is running for the United States Senate alongside the Rev. Adam Hamilton of Kansas, pastor of the largest United Methodist Church in the United States. Both are outspoken about the relevance of their Christian faith to American politics, and both unhesitatingly brandish the name of Jesus to justify their political persuasions. To boot, both radiate a polished warmth and civility that is, admittedly, an admirable reprieve from the acrimony so typical of political discourse.
This week, Bill McKibben, writing for The New Yorker, published a long-form essay on the role of progressive Christianity this election cycle. McKibben, a liberal Methodist, writes adoringly of Hamilton and Talarico “taking Christianity back” from the likes of MAGA Christianity. In both candidates, McKibben finds a more tolerant, social justice-minded Christianity that exudes the spirit of Jesus defined against a form of Christianity that focuses on “culture war” issues such as homosexuality and transgenderism. Rather than downplay the candidates’ theological progressivism, McKibben helpfully highlights the transgressive, ahistorical Christianity that Talarico and Hamilton espouse. McKibben comfortably admits that Talarico and Hamilton tout a progressive Christianity that denies the exclusivity of Jesus Christ, rejects the infallibility of Scripture, and baptizes lifestyles and identities at odds with historical Christianity and the text of Scripture. What’s left is not a redemptive message of eternal salvation, but a social program with Bible verses attached to it.
The problem with progressive Christianity is that it reasons the same way that progressive jurisprudence reasons; that is, by deciding what results it wants and then using the text of the Bible (or the Constitution) to reach that conclusion. So, the argument goes: Progressives support abortion, so Christianity must support abortion. Progressives want to embrace homosexuality and the whole gamut of the sexual revolution, so the Bible must bend to support that conclusion, too. To justify nationalized healthcare, progressives take liberty with the Bible’s teachings on mercy and healing to justify expansive government (something the text of Scripture does not license). This is progressivism disguised as theological compassion set against a supposedly “MAGA Christianity” concerned with tax cuts and gutting education.
To reach these conclusions, however, requires distorting a faith “which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). While progressives will protest what I am about to say, the verdict of historical Christianity is that Christianity is a repository of fixed, unalterable doctrine not subject to the revisions of contemporary society. To put it bluntly, that’s the central divide. This is hardly new. Nearly a century ago, when theological liberalism was ascendant, J. Gresham Machen wrote a book, “Christianity and Liberalism,” in which he lambasted liberal Christianity as a departure from Christianity itself.
Progressive religion is hardly new. The Religious Left has been a dominant force in American politics for over a century. Yet, it has struggled to reproduce itself with any sustaining force. Why is that? Answers vary, yet the solution I find most satisfying is that Christianity on the Left functions less as a transcendently given faith anchored in an infallible text and more as playdough — moldable and flexible fit to the needs of its users. The irony is that this approach deadens the need to hold onto it. In the end, we should challenge progressive Christianity with a test of its own coherence: Who needs a faith that you’re the judge over? What value is there to a God or a Bible that bends to the will of culture? The reason the Christianity of James Talarico and Adam Hamilton never gains traction is that, over time, its adherents quickly learn they need not hold to a faith that constantly changes. If Christianity never challenges your politics but simply baptizes it, the question remains: Do you really need Christianity at all?
It is more than curious to me that the Democrats become pro-Christianity when the version of that Christianity supports the causes long cherished by Democrats. In a day when howls of “Christian nationalism” come from every organ of progressive media, what results is left-wing Christian nationalism.
It is shocking that in 2026 the resurgence of Christianity among progressives is one of the emerging, if not quixotic, trends unfolding in the midterm elections. But now that the media and progressives have found a politically relevant Christianity, the media is quick to lap up this narrative. The more important question is what version of Christianity the Democrats are extolling and whether it is just a bait-and-switch program for generic progressivism. If your Christianity never produces political inconveniences, it’s worth considering whether you’re dealing with a Christianity of divine revelation or a Christianity stripped down and used for its parts.
***
Andrew T. Walker, Ph.D., is Dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology. He is a Fellow with The Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Managing Editor of WORLD Opinions. You can follow him on X: @AndrewTWalker.
