HOUSTON — On a recent Sunday at Brentwood Baptist Church, James Talarico took the pulpit and immediately set aside his political identity. Speaking to the congregation, he asked to address them not as a candidate but as a fellow Christian, one sharing the same inherited faith as the people in the pews.
That self-introduction is the point. Talarico, a Democratic member of the Texas House and the party's nominee for U.S. Senate, is a former middle school teacher now studying at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He also traces his religious roots to family, telling audiences that his grandfather was a Baptist preacher in South Texas and that the old man taught him, when he was very young, that Christianity is a simple religion.
His sermon that morning was less a policy address than a meditation on sorrow and moral clarity. Talarico told worshippers that people sometimes perceive the world most sharply through their tears, and that anyone whose heart breaks at the sight of what is happening to the country still has a heart left to break. He closed with a blessing for those who weep — a turn of phrase that doubles neatly as a campaign pitch for an electorate in unsettled times.
What he was doing is genuinely unusual for his party. Making religion a centerpiece of a campaign is rare for Democrats, whose politicians have long been wary of foregrounding faith. But this midterm election cycle, a number of candidates for Congress are doing precisely that, and an NPR report this week documents how the strategy is playing out on the campaign trail.
At least a half-dozen of these candidates are ordained clergy themselves, according to the report. Others are still studying to become ministers — people whose religious formation and political ambitions overlap in the same season of life, a pipeline that has no real precedent in recent congressional cycles.
The geographic spread matters as much as the numbers. Those running include a megachurch pastor in Dallas, a Methodist minister in Kansas and two members of the clergy in Iowa, and all of them are in competitive races. A photograph accompanying the story shows four of the candidates: Frederick Haynes, Sarah Trone Garriott, Talarico and Lindsay James.
Their message is not exclusively devotional. On the trail, these candidates have been reaching for biblical teaching to argue for policies touching health care, veterans, immigrants and economic opportunity. The goal is to reach voters in states and districts where religion remains an everyday part of public life — including people who share a common religious vocabulary but may not share the candidate's politics.
The wager is that a candidate who can talk about faith fluently, without sounding rehearsed, will be rewarded with trust rather than punished for it. For a party that has often treated religious language as a third rail, that is a significant reversal. Instead of avoiding faith, these candidates are trying to own it, and to convert the credibility of the pulpit into electoral viability.
Republicans have responded sharply, and have found a ready-made line of attack. Some GOP politicians have labeled the clergy candidates "PINOs" — Pastors In Name Only — a label borrowed, deliberately, from the entertainment industry's stock phrase for performers pretending to be something they are not. One Republican critic quoted in the report said he had never encountered an amount of blasphemy like what he is seeing from people running for office.
The insult is designed to be catchy because it raises a question the campaigns would rather not answer: does a clerical title grant moral authority, and if so, does it carry obligations the candidate is unwilling to meet? It also shifts the frame from voter preference to credibility, suggesting the campaigns are borrowing pulpit standing for political advantage while dodging the accountability that pulpits imply.
The upside for the Democratic candidates is straightforward. Speaking directly to religious voters can energize a base, and it distinguishes them from rivals who appear uncomfortable on the topic. The downside is equally clear: defining a campaign around faith invites scrutiny over whether religious conviction is informing legislation, and whether promises made in a sanctuary will survive contact with a legislature.
Constitutional questions hover over the whole enterprise. The First Amendment bars the government from establishing a religion, and ministers who win office leave their pulpits for the Capitol. These candidates describe their motivation as conviction rather than theocracy; critics hear an argument for carrying religious reasoning directly into lawmaking, where it is traditionally unwelcome.
Why the strategy is being tested in places like Kansas, Iowa and Texas is no accident. Those are the competitive races, and a religious-first Democratic message that works in even one of them would be a useful signal for future campaigns. A version of it that collapses under Republican attack would give the "Pastors In Name Only" line a long life.
The clergy-politician, it should be said, is not a new American type; ministers and preachers have long sought office. What is new is the party label attached to them, and the number of them doing it at once. Whether voters reward the candor or punish it will be settled in the campaign months ahead — and in the pews, the candidates will keep doing what they have always done, standing up and speaking.
(0)