At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, delegates famously booed when references to God were put back into the party platform after an initial omission. The episode became a political flashpoint and has remained a favorite example for conservatives arguing that Democrats have become increasingly hostile to traditional Christianity.
Now, more than a decade later, several Democratic Senate contenders are prominently talking about Jesus.
That has prompted some conservative pastors to ask a straightforward question: Why now?
A New Message for Christian Voters
Texas Democrat James Talarico has become one of the most prominent examples.
Talarico has embraced theological positions that have generated considerable controversy among traditional Christians. He has argued that God is non-binary and has made comments suggesting that atheists can display qualities associated with Christianity more effectively than some Christians.
He has also faced scrutiny over a podcast appearance in which he reportedly described himself as “a Christian who hates Christianity.”
Despite those controversies, Talarico successfully secured the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Texas.
His campaign rhetoric has also included arguments about what Jesus would supposedly support on modern political issues, including abortion—an approach that has alarmed many Christians who hold traditional views about the Bible and the sanctity of human life.
Talarico is not alone.
Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim Democrat, has also invoked Jesus while speaking to Christian audiences.
During an appearance on “The Progressive Christians Podcast,” El-Sayed said, “was considered radical in his time, too.”
That language is notable because El-Sayed’s political opponents have portrayed him as one of the most progressive candidates seeking a Senate seat.
His campaign has also placed significant emphasis on opposition to Israeli policies, making his appeal to progressive voters particularly pronounced.
Then there is Florida Democrat Angie Nixon, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Nixon appeared at a Jacksonville church and told those gathered, “Jesus was a radical.”
She ultimately defeated Alexander Vindman, the former Trump administration official who became nationally known after serving as a witness during Trump’s first impeachment, in the Democratic primary.
Three candidates.
Three states.
And remarkably similar rhetoric.
A Detroit Pastor Pushes Back
Pastor Lorenzo Sewell of Detroit has watched the Democratic Party’s changing approach to Christian voters and is not convinced.
“They know that they need to appeal to Christians,” Sewell told Fox News. “But the question becomes: What is their agenda for the church?”
That question gets to the heart of the conservative criticism.
Sewell argued that Democrats are attempting to appeal to Christians because religious voters remain an important constituency in American elections.
“They are trying to virtue-signal, placate, and try to propagate to Christians,” Sewell said, “because they represent the largest religious voting bloc in America.”
For Sewell, the issue is not whether politicians are permitted to discuss Jesus. It is whether their political agendas actually correspond with the teachings they are invoking.
“You won’t hear Jesus in the DNC,” Sewell said. “You won’t hear Jesus spoken about through the real Jesus – the God of the Bible.”
That distinction matters enormously to traditional Christian voters.
Political candidates can quote Scripture, mention Jesus and speak about compassion. But Christian voters are ultimately left to decide whether those references reflect genuine faith or simply campaign messaging.
Democrats Have Tried This Before
This is hardly the first time Democratic politicians have attempted to frame progressive policies through Christian teachings.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, Democrat Howard Dean spoke openly about the relationship between Christianity and liberal politics. John Kerry also regularly incorporated religious language into his campaign appearances, particularly when speaking before Black church audiences.
Kerry ultimately lost the presidential election to George W. Bush.
Barack Obama similarly emphasized his connection to Christianity during the 2008 campaign. That strategy became significantly more complicated after controversial sermons by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, attracted national attention.
The political strategy has remained familiar.
Jesus fed the hungry, therefore government should expand social programs.
Jesus welcomed strangers, therefore immigration policy should become more expansive.
Jesus healed the sick, therefore government should take a larger role in health care.
For conservatives, the problem isn’t the underlying Christian principles of compassion or charity. The disagreement concerns what government should do with those principles.
Traditional Christianity teaches individual responsibility, charity, repentance and transformation of the human heart. Progressive politics frequently translates those concepts into demands for larger government programs and broader state intervention.
That distinction is at the center of the current fight.
The Question Christian Voters Must Answer
The growing use of Christian rhetoric by Democratic candidates creates a difficult political question for faith voters.
Should they judge candidates by the religious language they use—or by the policies they pursue?
That question becomes particularly important when candidates invoke Jesus while supporting policies that many traditional Christians believe contradict biblical teachings.
For conservatives, the issue isn’t whether Democrats are allowed to talk about Christianity.
Of course they are.
The issue is whether Christian voters should accept political interpretations of Jesus simply because a candidate invokes His name.
Pastor Sewell clearly does not think they should.
And conservative Christians across the country will ultimately make their own judgment at the ballot box.
Democrats may have recognized that they cannot simply ignore America’s Christian electorate.
But quoting Scripture is one thing.
Convincing Christians that a candidate actually understands and lives by the faith he invokes is something else entirely.
The question now is whether voters will see the new religious messaging as a genuine change—or simply another election-year strategy.
