James Talarico: Flipping Tables Like Jesus, Not Christian Nationalists

Texas state representative James Talarico makes frequent references to Christianity in his progressive politics. What makes his use of "flipping tables" imagery different from that of Christian Nationalists, who have used it to justify actions like the January 6th insurrection? (Full conversation on Holy Post #684)

Skye: You talked about how Jesus entered into the seat of power and started flipping over tables of injustice. And you said, it's time for us to start flipping tables as well. Your use of that text is different than the way I hear it used on the religious right. How would you say it's different? Because one of the things that caught my attention is, I hear that text being used on the religious right sometimes to weaponize the faith or to justify sometimes flat-out aggression toward political enemies. It came up a lot leading up to January 6th, in 2021. Why is your use of that story different than the way a MAGA Christian Nationalist would use that story?

James: Well, I mean, there's all the moral difference in the world between Jesus's act of civil disobedience and protest in the temple, and the violent insurrection on January 6th. One was nonviolent. The other one certainly wasn't. Jesus wasn't beating law enforcement and storming the Capitol. Jesus was in the tradition of civil rights organizers and labor organizers and protesters throughout the centuries - using direct action to highlight an injustice and move people toward their own direct action. And so, the reason I talked about that story on Sunday is because, as a Christian, I'm always trying to figure out: What does God, or what does love, demand of me in this moment? What is love calling me to do at any particular moment? I think on my side of the aisle, there's been this feeling that love requires us to be polite to everyone. Love requires us to be amicable and gracious and peaceful. And certainly, those are all admirable things to try to pursue.

But sometimes love is forceful. I think about any parent who's listening to this: if your kid’s about to walk out into the middle of a busy street, you grab your child's arm. I mean, sometimes you leave a bruise, right? I mean, love, in that way of a parent, is sometimes very forceful, very aggressive, especially in an emergency situation. And I think we've all got to get comfortable with that kind of love at this particular historical moment. It's going to require an aggressive posture, but that aggression has to be rooted in something a lot deeper.

And I think Jesus's demonstration in the temple is, in my mind, one of the best examples of that—of standing up to bullies, but not becoming a bully yourself. And that is such a difficult line to walk. It's one that I fail to walk all the time. But it is one that we should strive for: standing up for ourselves, and most importantly, standing up for others, while still being true to your values, to your principles, and to that love that binds us all together.

Skye: Your description of a parental sort of tough love - willing to grab the arm of that child before he runs out into the street - is... I mean, as a parent myself, of course we all would affirm that.

Honestly, I hear and have heard similar rhetoric coming from the right. I mean, we all condemn what happened on January 6th, but when you talk to people who were caught up in it, they genuinely believed the big lie. They believed the whole Republic was at stake, and that the stakes were so high it justified the violent reaction that they had.

In their sense, they were grabbing the arm of that child that’s about to walk into the street. They thought they were doing what was right. And they were using Christian, sometimes biblical, rhetoric to justify that sort of thing. How do we make sure - I don't care if it's on the right or on the left - how do we make sure that Christian ideas, scriptural language, even theological views, are not prostituted, are not subjugated, are not twisted and malformed in our imaginations for use in political agendas? Of course, when it's our political agenda, we always think it's okay and justifiable. And when it's the other political agenda, it's wrong and bad.

What guardrails do you have - even, I mean, you've been to seminary - in your own theology around the role of faith in the public square? What guardrails do you have for yourself to go: Okay, this is a good use of this faith or these scriptures, and here’s where it's gone too far?

James: And it's not easy. And it's something not only that public officials have to grapple with, but it's every pastor in every church, every Sunday morning, that has to grapple with it. Because the alternative is that we never apply these stories to our modern world. Right? And we treat it as magical stories about magical people a long time ago, and I really don't know what use that is to any of us. Maybe it's comforting. Maybe. But I don't know if it actually moves us to do anything, and to follow Jesus in 2025.

So I would say this is just sensitive and difficult work for any of us who are engaged in it.

I do try to always try to look to that North Star of love. Again, I think nonviolence has to be the dividing line here. If I were to speak to the folks who did feel that the big lie was real and that they needed to take action, I would suggest that nonviolence, that nonviolent direct action, is always going to be more effective for their movement than any kind of violent action, like beating police officers and leading to the deaths of multiple police officers. You know, I feel like history has shown that it never really achieves the ends that you're trying to go after. I think, always, nonviolence is able to move people's hearts and minds much more effectively than any kind of violent action.

And again, Jesus showed us that path, both with his demonstration in the temple, but obviously on his path to the cross.

And that kind of nonviolence ended up changing the world, and is the reason that you and I both still talk about that crucified teacher 2,000 years ago. So I would urge anyone, regardless of what aisle you're on, regardless of what your position is or what cause you're pursuing, think about how love can always be more creative, and more durable, and more powerful, and more effective than evil.

Evil is easy. Evil is predictable. Evil has been done. it’s done every day around the world. Love is much more creative. It's much more imaginative. It's much more surprising. And I think it is ultimately much more powerful than the forces of destruction and violence.